yesitdid
11th April 2006 - 04:55 AM
QUOTE (Clamchop+Apr 7 2006, 12:50 PM)
The problem with steam engines of the past is the size and weight of the boiler used to generate the steam. Microwave technology seems like a solution to the bulky boiler problem. If a high power microwave beam is focused on a small quantity of water I would expect rapid transfer to vapor.
Could a small magnetron replace a spark plug and water replace gas in an combustion engine?
Would a separate pressure vessel with water microwave heated be a better solution?
If it was a motor in a vehicle, the intensity and duration of the microwave could be controlled by an acceleration foot pedal everyone is familiar with.
If anyone has a steam engine or pneumatic engine 100 HP or greater, I have several ways it could be immediately applied to money generating applications that would be generously funded. Send me an email at dandc72@yahoo.com.
Would work but now you need another power source to operate the magnetron.
There will be conversion losses so it would be more efficient to simply use your electric power source to drive a motor.
Where it would have use would be in the case of requiring greater torgue since you can IIRC more easily build a steam engine to supply greater torgue at a given power O/P than you can an electric motor.
Lots of trade off's.
ubavontuba
11th April 2006 - 05:59 AM
Actually, it isn't as bad an idea as it first seems.
Steam is inherently inefficient technically, due to energy conversion concerns, but it has the advantages of being able to provide excellent torque charateristics under most running conditions, while requiring a relatively smoothe (less variable) energy input than purely electric vehicles. That is, you don't need a sudden surge of input energy to drive it hard for short distances, like electric vehicles require.
This can actually increase battery efficiency by allowing the battery drain to be relatively steady and controlled, rather than sudden and extreme (which causes significant battery damage).
Also, Electric/steam/heat engines can take advantage of "found" energy sources that specific fueled vehicles cannot. For instance, a solar recharging panel mounted on the upper surfaces of the vehicle would be a source of "found" energy. Heck, you can even use a solar collector to apply heat directly to the boiler. Also modern steam engines never need water refilling since the water can be passed through a condenser and reinjected into the boiler in liquid form (similar to refridgeration cycles). In fact efficiency can be greatly increased by utilizing other expansion propellents instead of water. The heat thrown away at the condenser could be used to heat the passenger compartment.
A microwave generator used for quick startups is also an excellent suggestion (steam normally requires an annoyingly long warm-up cycle).
Radar Freak
11th April 2006 - 10:44 AM
I too like the idea. One needs to look at the energy conversion efficiency of electricity to microwaves to power vs. direct electromagnetic drives.
You are on to something. Even nuclear powered satellites and submarines use either or both steam generated by heat of fission, or the peltier junction effect of electricity from heat differentials.
Sorry to get off topic, but while I posting about power sources I always wondered why we haven't drilled into a Earth's core to harness the unlimited heat differential there using similar technologies.
MachineHead
4th May 2006 - 05:39 PM
I like this idea. This is the best fuel alternative idea I've heard so far. All of the stuff to make it run can't be much bigger than a gasoline engine, and you don't have to pay for fuel(as much). Furthermore, you could put a windmill on top of the vehicle to generate electricity. Thus, you pay even less for fuel. That's what I call a great idea!
To reply to Radar Freak's earlier comment, one reason could be that we don't have the technology to prevent the magma from coming to the surface.
Ron
4th May 2006 - 07:50 PM
Hi all,
My first impression is that the input power to drive the magnetron would far exceed the energy produced.
Radar Freak touched upon the nuclear applications, which is basically a glorified steam engine. Even though the ability to use radioactive material to heat water is a way around continual fuel addition, the drawbacks are widespread. Some of the same dangers with nuclear power would apply to microwave heating (after all radioactivity is just a combination of damaging high frequency RF and high energy particles.
I personally would like to see a revolutionary approach to energy conversion that does not rely on heating (an inherently inefficient transfer of energy).
Not that I have any answers, but why not start with exploiting the nature of entropy. The universe tends towards the dissipation of energy. Can we somehow capture this naturally by assisting this natural trend?
Naive and foolish as usual,
Ron
yesitdid
5th May 2006 - 05:39 PM
As I said, the main reason to use steam would be to have a better way of applying torque under load than by electric motor.
One other aspect in this is the increases in electric storage ability that is coming. The next step is eliminating batteries and developing high storage, low leak capacitors. This tech is coming out in the next 5 years and would reduce weight ratios and increase life of electric storage components.(not to mention that a capacitor contains fewer nasty chemicals.
Guest_guest
5th May 2006 - 06:18 PM
ron, radioactivity is not composed of 'high frequency RF'. RF (radio frequency) lies in the long wavelength part of the spectrum. radioactivity is composed of 3 things: Alpha particles (ionized helium nuclei, irrelevant to this discussion because of their low penetrating power), beta radiation(electrons), and gamma rays: high energy photons (and thus correspondingly high frequency, from the equation E = h*f)
The Advanced Listener Netwerk
11th September 2006 - 12:15 AM
M.S.E Drive, use a capacitor and a bank of rechargeable batteries to fire up the microwave that heats an enclosed vessel, the energy from the microwave produces a high power jet of steam that spins an electric turbine engine similar to a turbo charger that can produce enough power to power the microwave and the 4 electric motors at the wheels of the vehicle, the technology all ready is in electric vehicles to control the speed when the accelerator is depressed. you would also need a switch to change from the battery power source to the turbine engines electrical out put ,hears the kicker you put a lining in the turbine that will detect the use of regular water and would shut the engine of rendering it inoperable ,that would force people to get the water fuel from vendors ie. gas stations ,the stations would only charge 50 cents per gallon making a few cents per dollar them selves and the rest of the money would go to the health care system and education or other programs in need revenues produced would make it possible for every American to get a college education for free health care for free, not to mention the m.s.e. Drive would have zero emissions only the steam from the engine would be discharged
Nessus
11th September 2006 - 03:27 AM
QUOTE (yesitdid+May 5 2006, 05:39 PM)
As I said, the main reason to use steam would be to have a better way of applying torque under load than by electric motor.
Why not use a simple device, such as gears?
The extra step of using electricity to heat water to power a steam engine is just silly! directly powering an electrical engine is no doubt more efficient than first turning it into microwaves, then into heat energy in water, which in turn drives a turbine.
Also having not only the microwave generator, but an entire steam engine is a large waste of resources, to build and maintain, when compared to a simple electric motor!
QUOTE
M.S.E Drive, use a capacitor and a bank of rechargeable batteries to fire up the microwave that heats an enclosed vessel, the energy from the microwave produces a high power jet of steam that spins an electric turbine engine similar to a turbo charger that can produce enough power to power the microwave and the 4 electric motors at the wheels of the vehicle,
If the power is in the capacitors already, why are they using extra steps to turn the energy from electricity to heat then back to electricity? This does not make any sense. You mention the batteries provide the power for the microwave which produces a high power jet of steam that is turned back into electricity, enough of which to power the microwave AND 4 electric motors?
Is the microwave powering the microwave + some electric motors, or are the batteries powering the microwave?
the advanced listener netwerk
11th September 2006 - 04:48 AM
the reason is the capacitor battery bank would not be a substantial power source to maintain the power needed to go great distances you would have to first charge the capacitor and batteries to start the microwave then a switch would change the source from batteries to the electricity producing turbine generator making a sustainable power supply needed to power the electric motors and charging the capacitor /battery packs for the next start, a capacitor and batt pack cannot produce the power a turbine generator can or electric cars would already dominate the market with batteries alone
the advanced listener netwerk
11th September 2006 - 05:05 AM
batteries/capacitor come from factory precharged they power the microwave or induction core which produces steam steam exits at very high velocity from nosselsi nto the turbo like constructed steam powered turbine that could produce enough electricity to power electric engines and recharge batteries but may not have enough torque to actually lay horsepower to the pavement like a well powered electric motor
the advanced listener netwerk
11th September 2006 - 05:19 AM
you would be replacing the hydrogen fuel cell in the new electric cars with a steam powered generator as long as you had water in the the tank it would be able to drive without using gas products the outside force needed to start to perpetual motion engine would be the batteries/capacitor
Nessus
11th September 2006 - 06:59 AM
There is no other source of power other than the batteries, your suggesting its a perpetual motion machine which is just absurd. The microwave generator cannot power itself completly due to energy losses, let alone itself AND 4 electric motors.
If you mean that power comes only from the batteries, and the elaborate heat/steam system is just to provide more torque, then simply powering electric motors from the batteries and having gears will do the job easily.
the advanced listener netwerk
11th September 2006 - 07:23 PM
first of all smart guy its not a microwave generator powering any thing its a microwave like you warm your coffee with modified to heat water till it turns to steam the batteries are to start the microwave for a long enough period of time to make steam and to reach the pressure needed to start a steam turbine making electricity once the turbine starts producing the power required to run the microwave and the electric motors and the alternator for the batteries then a switch would allow for a transference of the power to run the machine microwave ,alternate,electric motors etc. making a continuous loop of energy as long as water was in the machine
Nessus
12th September 2006 - 04:40 AM
Microwave generator, something that produces microwaves. Or in other words a magnetron if you want to be technical, the same thing in your microwave.
You still havent explained how this amazing system can get work out of nothing. Obviously you dont understand the law of conservation of energy, or your not good at explaining things.
Possibly you missed out "and the magentron runs off mains power"?
joe schmoe engineer
14th September 2006 - 11:06 PM
This idea is great ideally but realistically absurd. Sorry to break it to everyone but the efficiency of the microwave itself is only about 70% or a little more. Then we try to use this energy to transfer it into heat and lose some more. After this happens we try to transfer the heat into an engine/turbine and lose more. This makes absolutely no sense at all except for the fact that it doesn't pollute. Not realistic and not ideal. Certainly not perpetual.
greg
19th September 2006 - 09:30 PM
instead of using steam, you could try puting dry ice to make pressure
jon
1st December 2006 - 03:04 AM
[SIZE=7]i like the idea of poking a hole in to the earths inter core to use the magma as a fuel only if i had a drill bit long enough.
for the microwave steam engine idea buy a small steam engine off ebay then get a boiler preferable metal to stick in your microwave if it powers the motor then start thinking about the efficiency compared to gas engines you may have a small chance of being a rich person.
if you tried the metal boiler in the micro wave then try drilling a hole in the earths core.
Genymene
1st December 2006 - 05:05 AM
Or we could just do like that guy in France and make a car that runs off of Compressed Air.
riondluz
15th June 2008 - 06:11 PM
Is anyone still persuing this thread? It seems hung on the laws of conservation of energy and the inability to get something for nothing (and 'newbie's intractibility:).
That said, I remember talking to a friend
engineer 10yrs ago about building a hydraulic bicycle; we thought it was a great idea
until he held up a pencil to simulate the chain - petal at eraser and axle at point.
"You cannot beat simplicity for efficiency" . So we scrapped the idea and lo, there are
now hydraulic bikes out there! And maybe easier to ride - who knows.
My point being that maybe the thread is too narrowly focused. Cars, 4 electric motors
at the wheels, etc. How about rail? Or boating? More tapping into 'found' sources?
And, not being a physicist or materials engineer, my knowledge is lacking:
but electric power-->steam-->electric motor : OK i get the losses here;
but what about MuWave-steam_generator directly to a steam turbine?
Are the losses minimized any with this approach? Cannot a steam turbine be
connected to a universal axle? Meaning re-thinking 4wheels/2axles - how about
3 wheels with 1 being the primary driver?
This thread is the only one I've yet to discover that is actually discussing the merits
of something that may have real potential beyond ethanol fuels, or fuelcell hydrogen
'gas', or even lasing a generation source.
Since tho i'm registered on this board - if anyone reads this, please cc reply to riondluz_at_removethis_gmail.com
2judge
26th June 2008 - 04:56 AM
2judge
now I like to think we could do this cause the kitchen microwave focus been will do a a thermal-runaway effect making 1500 degrees or melt just about anything accept ruby. thus making a very rip id hot spot up to 2000 degrees a metal hot spot of high pressure steam, steam at 1200 degrees works more like lingual
so it could be a spark plug of like super preheated stream of water hitting that spot of exposed
check out
what a microwave drill does www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE
VOL. 298 18 OCTOBER 2002
riondluz
26th June 2008 - 01:16 PM
2judge:
It's still about conversion and efficiency regardless of the technology. I've seen the laser cutters before (can you provide a URL for the www.sciencemag.org link?)
Where is the power coming from to drive the laser? LiOn batteries? Solar? Ethanol+generator?
What are the requirements for the laser device?
Making your post more informative and detailed would help.
just my .o2
Rion
iseason
9th July 2008 - 08:55 AM
QUOTE (Clamchop+Apr 8 2006, 01:50 AM)
The problem with steam engines of the past is the size and weight of the boiler used to generate the steam. Microwave technology seems like a solution to the bulky boiler problem. If a high power microwave beam is focused on a small quantity of water I would expect rapid transfer to vapor.
Could a small magnetron replace a spark plug and water replace gas in an combustion engine?
Would a separate pressure vessel with water microwave heated be a better solution?
If it was a motor in a vehicle, the intensity and duration of the microwave could be controlled by an acceleration foot pedal everyone is familiar with.
If anyone has a steam engine or pneumatic engine 100 HP or greater, I have several ways it could be immediately applied to money generating applications that would be generously funded. Send me an email at dandc72@yahoo.com.
Why not convert the heat transferred from an ordinary combustion engine . The Heat given off can be controlled and Pistons are already there. Run two side by side. One to create work and heat and the other to add work based on the waste heat.
Cheers
Iseason
iseason
16th July 2008 - 07:54 AM
QUOTE (iseason+Jul 9 2008, 09:55 PM)
Why not convert the heat transferred from an ordinary combustion engine . The Heat given off can be controlled and Pistons are already there. Run two side by side. One to create work and heat and the other to add work based on the waste heat.
Cheers
Iseason
No responses?
Why couldn't you use a normal pertol engine alongside a steam engine that re-used the heat?
Cheers
Iseason
cjameshuff
16th July 2008 - 08:11 PM
QUOTE (iseason+Jul 16 2008, 03:54 AM)
Why couldn't you use a normal pertol engine alongside a steam engine that re-used the heat?
You could, and would achieve a little more efficiency in conversion of fuel to useful energy. However, the efficiency of a heat engine is proportional to the temperature difference, and even a running car engine is not that hot, so the steam engine would not be able to put out much power. Plus you then need tanks, piping, more radiators, valves, etc...it is possible, but it takes room and equipment. You're likely to lose more by dragging the extra equipment around than you gain by making any attempt to reuse much of the waste heat. (it could still potentially be used on a small scale, with thermoelectric junctions for example, to power devices like small sensors in places where wiring for power is inconvenient)
However, if you're not doing an engine for a vehicle, and have something that produces particularly large amounts of waste heat, it becomes possible, and is in fact often done in power plants and heavy industries that produce lots of waste heat. And engine running off waste heat would itself produce waste heat...closer to ambient temperature, more spread out, but it could be harvested with yet another stage, wasting even less energy. However, beyond a point, it's just not worth it to add another stage, even for large stationary plants.
iseason
17th July 2008 - 06:33 AM
QUOTE (cjameshuff+Jul 17 2008, 09:11 AM)
You could, and would achieve a little more efficiency in conversion of fuel to useful energy. However, the efficiency of a heat engine is proportional to the temperature difference, and even a running car engine is not that hot, so the steam engine would not be able to put out much power. Plus you then need tanks, piping, more radiators, valves, etc...it is possible, but it takes room and equipment. You're likely to lose more by dragging the extra equipment around than you gain by making any attempt to reuse much of the waste heat. (it could still potentially be used on a small scale, with thermoelectric junctions for example, to power devices like small sensors in places where wiring for power is inconvenient)
However, if you're not doing an engine for a vehicle, and have something that produces particularly large amounts of waste heat, it becomes possible, and is in fact often done in power plants and heavy industries that produce lots of waste heat. And engine running off waste heat would itself produce waste heat...closer to ambient temperature, more spread out, but it could be harvested with yet another stage, wasting even less energy. However, beyond a point, it's just not worth it to add another stage, even for large stationary plants.
Thanks for your response cjameshuff
I have given this more thought and wondered about the arrangement of the pistons and redesigning the block to take the variance in work output into account via piston size and gearing. There are two different possibilities.
1. straight ratio variance
2. staggering the feeding of water vapor into all cylinders.
The first allows the block to run one or more pistons on steam alone taking into account what the variance of work would be.
The second introduces water vapor around the edges of what will affect the burning of petrol. Say each cycle of an 8 cylinder block introduced water vapor instead of petrol to two cylinders(for balance) at the optimum temperature and quantity to turn hot water from the jacket to steam. .... here's why.....A steam engine runs at the temperature of steam. So a car engine can AT LEAST be run at the same temperature. As long as the injection of water doesn't leave too much residue for the next petrol firing to contend with, it won't impact on performance.
It actually makes sense to set the engine up as a steam engine that uses petrol as well , rather than the other way around.
Thoughts.
Cheers
Iseason
magpies
17th July 2008 - 06:41 AM
The anti petual motion laws would say it must explode in a violent fireball.
iseason
20th July 2008 - 07:11 AM
QUOTE (magpies+Jul 17 2008, 07:41 PM)
The anti petual motion laws would say it must explode in a violent fireball.
This is not perpetual motion. Just a different look at harvesting energy.
Cheers
Iseason
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click
here.