My "inventions"

[Aviator168]

I have been look at this for a while now. Sorry to say this is not go to work well. The contact surface is too small and specific power is going to be very low.

Check out the quasitubine stirling here
http://quasiturbine.promci.qc.ca/QTStirling.html

[Andrzej]

I have been look at this for a while now. Sorry to say this is not go to work well. The contact surface is too small and specific power is going to be very low.

Check out the quasitubine stirling here
http://quasiturbine.promci.qc.ca/QTStirling.html

I saw year ago Quasiturbine - very nice and smart!
What do You mean "contact surface"?

Andrew

[Aviator168]

I have been look at this for a while now. Sorry to say this is not go to work well. The contact surface is too small and specific power is going to be very low.

I saw year ago Quasiturbine - very nice and smart!
What do You mean "contact surface"?
Andrew

I am going repeat my usual. The problem external combustion engines face is injecting and removing a lot of heat into and out of the system. Your engine design has a very small contacting surface on both the hot and the cold side. The working gas cannot be heat up and cool down fast enough for the engine to deliver sufficient power. On top of that, the working gas in the rotor does not seem to have a lot of convection. You can use helium, or even hydrogen to improve the situation; but still, thermal conductivity of those gases is abysmal, around 0.15 for helium, 16 for stainless steel (the worst thermal conducting metal), and about 400 for copper (the best thermal conducting metal).

[Andrzej]

I have been look at this for a while now. Sorry to say this is not go to work well. The contact surface is too small and specific power is going to be very low.

I saw year ago Quasiturbine - very nice and smart!
What do You mean "contact surface"?
Andrew

I am going repeat my usual. The problem external combustion engines face is injecting and removing a lot of heat into and out of the system. Your engine design has a very small contacting surface on both the hot and the cold side. The working gas cannot be heat up and cool down fast enough for the engine to deliver sufficient power. On top of that, the working gas in the rotor does not seem to have a lot of convection. You can use helium, or even hydrogen to improve the situation; but still, thermal conductivity of those gases is abysmal, around 0.15 for helium, 16 for stainless steel (the worst thermal conducting metal), and about 400 for copper (the best thermal conducting metal).

I know that problem. Classic Stirling engines - with displacer "like piston" - are very good, because when the working gas are forced through the slot of the piston, gave very good heat exchange.

In rotary displacer is very poor heat transfer.
I know it!
My video and drawings not show important details - which can give better heat transfer comparable or perhaps better as the classic Stirling engines.

Andrew

PS
Without solving the problem of improving heat transfer in rotating piston engine, I would not patented solutions...

I'm not finished my prototype, but I have next idea to improve heat exchange!!!
:)
After I will "start" prototype - I want to check this idea...

[Ian S C]

If you have not even run a simple prototype, why the heck are you trying to patent it, if you don't know if it will be a more adventagous than other designs, or even if it will work. I imagine that patents in your country cost quite a bit. I would like to see that you get it going well, then do the paper work if you can make it a comercial proposition, you'v got to be able to sell it. Ian S C

[Andrzej]

Hi!
After long time, components to my engine starts coming....
I hope - in next week I'g get all parts and I will start to assemble....
Best regards
Andrew

[Ferraccio]

Most of your movies and your explanation is about what is an engine, and its history, interesting ... up to a certain extent., and why it is necessary to do an exotermic engine: also interesting up to a certain extent.
Sincerely we do not need at first to be convinced that there is an engine which is called Stirling, or exotermic.

Your invention, in short, seem to involve the adoption of a rotary displacer, rather than the alternative, or at least two displacers 180° out of phase to get the double action.
In the second stage there seems to be a valve or a valve system that would transform the movement from to pulse (typical of Stirling) to drive the (unidirectional) flow in a rotary motion directly, without connecting rod and crank systems. Is it right?

My sincere observations:
1) I have some doubt about to publify a considered patentable project without to have completely clearified (himself) the full functioning of the system, here the unclarified matters are a lot: frictions, dead spaces, heat insulations, of the rotating parts in comparison to alternatives, operation of valves etc. Or simply if it (engine) turns with efficience.
2) I've some doubt about (your) efficience in prepare a Patent in Poland, it is not so important to present a Patent, simply, (the patent office at last accept every thing); the force of a Patent is that have BEFORE the reasonable assurance to present items that are not already presented by others, that are not already part of common culture, and also do not give start to other patentable idea by others. Therefore, there are rock-solid professionists, to you do intervene, to reduce the risk of subsequent disputes (although there is always the possibility of disputes). In summary, the presentation of a patent is not only the recording of ideas. If you do not have an hard approach to Patent-trade, but you register only for your personal satisfation is another thing...
3) While the registration of the patent concerns a well-defined and limited matter, the discussion (as-you-doing generously), may lead, and either to understand, other elements that are not strictly in the potential patented, and that can experimented, and patented by others. Of course no problem if you do not have a closed approach, and if you admit a condivision of results.
If the first experience is your, and you register patents about , most will give you some satisfaction than see others register they.
4) The way to patent, or condivide the idea is only an your choice. Anyone who thinks to have patentable idea, may be they do not have; may be that (instead) who thinks of to have a common idea sometimes may be has one to be patented.
Often the desire to patent is only to assert their own intellectual creation, rather than enter the the world jungle of sharks in business.

In syntesis: wait, and to work! and to built before!
Ciao, Sergio

[Ferraccio]

About parts represented in pictures.
Seems used aluminium, this means medium low temperature, (as i see in these last pictures).
Hot and cold part aren't finned, (also if insuled toghether, good!) and not jacketed, for so heat exchange to the external is limited.
No trace about regenerator, between hot and cold (stirling is regenerative cycle!).
The argument of Stirling patent 1816 is based on the regenerator, not the air engine.
The efficient, and well designed regenerator is fundamental.

[Andrzej]

Most of your movies and your explanation is about what is an engine, and its history, interesting ... up to a certain extent., and why it is necessary to do an exotermic engine: also interesting up to a certain extent.
Sincerely we do not need at first to be convinced that there is an engine which is called Stirling, or exotermic.

Your invention, in short, seem to involve the adoption of a rotary displacer, rather than the alternative, or at least two displacers 180° out of phase to get the double action.
In the second stage there seems to be a valve or a valve system that would transform the movement from to pulse (typical of Stirling) to drive the (unidirectional) flow in a rotary motion directly, without connecting rod and crank systems. Is it right?

My sincere observations:
1) I have some doubt about to publify a considered patentable project without to have completely clearified (himself) the full functioning of the system, here the unclarified matters are a lot: frictions, dead spaces, heat insulations, of the rotating parts in comparison to alternatives, operation of valves etc. Or simply if it (engine) turns with efficience.
2) I've some doubt about (your) efficience in prepare a Patent in Poland, it is not so important to present a Patent, simply, (the patent office at last accept every thing); the force of a Patent is that have BEFORE the reasonable assurance to present items that are not already presented by others, that are not already part of common culture, and also do not give start to other patentable idea by others. Therefore, there are rock-solid professionists, to you do intervene, to reduce the risk of subsequent disputes (although there is always the possibility of disputes). In summary, the presentation of a patent is not only the recording of ideas. If you do not have an hard approach to Patent-trade, but you register only for your personal satisfation is another thing...
3) While the registration of the patent concerns a well-defined and limited matter, the discussion (as-you-doing generously), may lead, and either to understand, other elements that are not strictly in the potential patented, and that can experimented, and patented by others. Of course no problem if you do not have a closed approach, and if you admit a condivision of results.
If the first experience is your, and you register patents about , most will give you some satisfaction than see others register they.
4) The way to patent, or condivide the idea is only an your choice. Anyone who thinks to have patentable idea, may be they do not have; may be that (instead) who thinks of to have a common idea sometimes may be has one to be patented.
Often the desire to patent is only to assert their own intellectual creation, rather than enter the the world jungle of sharks in business.

In syntesis: wait, and to work! and to built before!
Ciao, Sergio

Dear Sergio!
Thank you for the sincere and heartfelt comments.
Collectively answer:
My idea for this type of Stirling engine was made somewhere in 1977 or 1978. About two years ago I came across on the internet on the Stirling engine. I started to look for "my " idea, convinced that for sure someone already produces. I was amazed at not finding a similar solution. Over a year ago - I started corresponding with several people, practitioners and theoreticians Stirling engine. Assumptions showed the idea and asked if this is something new? Is it worth to take care of it? Can it be patented?
I got an answer!
Yes - it is something new! It should take care of it. Claimed the patent application and simultaneously begin to build a prototype.

I did as I advised the authorities.

I was starts to invent application.

At the same time drove the experimental work on such an engine. The resulting two versions. Version of the "second", which is working for several months, unfortunately, not "turn on. " The cause turned out to be problems with the seal chamber. But thanks to this work, I managed to solve some significant problems.

I designed and performed its own type of seals for the engine.

I tried many types of rotary seals, bearings and lubricants. Empirically chose the size of ventricular dimensions. Methods of execution the displacer and its balance. Drew after many attempts pneumatic valves. Drew diameters and tried many different air motor. I designed "your" type air motor.

I moved the sample temperature.

Based on this experience - I designed with the typical, industrial components - currently built version of the engine.

The details of this version I will write later.

Best and warm regards
Andrew

PS
Do you know - because I learned quite recently - that the first
The prototype engine was built by Robert Stirling, which had a 16% efficiency. A
at that time had the best efficiency of steam engines ONLY 4 %!!!!!
Surprising that these engines "lost" with other engines!

[Andrzej]

About parts represented in pictures.
Seems used aluminium, this means medium low temperature, (as i see in these last pictures).
Hot and cold part aren't finned, (also if insuled toghether, good!) and not jacketed, for so heat exchange to the external is limited.
No trace about regenerator, between hot and cold (stirling is regenerative cycle!).
The argument of Stirling patent 1816 is based on the regenerator, not the air engine.
The efficient, and well designed regenerator is fundamental.

About parts represented in pictures.
Yes! I used elements of the pneumatic cylinders with an internal diameter = 100 mm (~ 4 inches).
As you can see the actuator sleeve is cut lengthwise. The inner surface is made ​​of suitable fins / heat sink - radiator.
Both parts are connected by a seal designed by me, fulfilling two functions: thermal insulation and pressure resistant seal.
In the picture is only a few elements. No external heat sinks, air motor, pulleys, etc.
All parts are made ​​of materials resistant to temperatures up to 300 st C.

As for the regenerator - because everyone asks me that ...
Displacer is also a regenerator. I can not describe right now, because my idea adopted a type of heat exchanger for patents filed / not yet patented / by a professor from the "my " University
I do kind of a "panel" consisting of three motors in parallel. Each of the engines will be a little different. Differences lie in the different types of Displacer - regenerator.

The practical operation of the engine will show you which solution is best and should be improved.

Andrew

PSI will be grateful for your any assistance and even criticism - because it will allow me to improve my design.

I was looking for a long time work on rotating displacers, I found only one - include a photo below.

Maybe someone has any information on this subject?
Or similar?

[Ferraccio]

Hello Andrzei,
As always try to do a summary.
You had just the idea of ​​a rotary air motor, (not necessarily a Stirling engine), ....then you have met the Stirling engine.
You then noticed that the Stirling cycle could perhaps be adapted to rotary.
Have you noticed that nobody had ever made a rotary Stirling engine, and you asked for a confirmation, and they you confirmed that it was.
You've never built a working Stirling rotary engine.
It seems like you have never followed the settlement of binding conditions for the operation, apart from the obvious ones that you're having now (friction, seals).
So you never addressed the problems of maintaining (effectively) of a pulsation cycle, with very low dead space, with an effective regeneration, with a drastic reduction of friction of the fluid.
But at first you've patented the pattern of operation.

(I did not understand what is "rationalized").

What I think:
You've followed a backward, along a lonely road that has had little contact with the work being done by others, and perhaps also with the theory of the engine, and its problems.
This leads to two possible solutions.
An incredible unexpected success
or a head-on collision with the first major problem encountered.
I have to say that historically the unexpected incredible success has already occurred for some projects, although very, very rarely, and often has been the unexpected was to invent something else, which was just ... unexpected.
The lack of knowledge and therefore no preconception can proceed in the direction you may be lucky.

Unfortunately, the second solution is much, much, much more likely.
(The solution has already been yet considered, and then discarded).

Of course I wish you the first, although it is much more unlikely.
If your course of action allows it, from my analysis you can find spots where you (maybe) have pain.
Sorry if i say you non-positive things
Ciao,
Ferraccio (bad iron), Sergio

[Andrzej]

The rest info:
below

[Andrzej]

last part

[Andrzej]

Hello Andrzei,
As always try to do a summary.
You had just the idea of ​​a rotary air motor, (not necessarily a Stirling engine), ....then you have met the Stirling engine.
You then noticed that the Stirling cycle could perhaps be adapted to rotary.
Have you noticed that nobody had ever made a rotary Stirling engine, and you asked for a confirmation, and they you confirmed that it was.
You've never built a working Stirling rotary engine.
It seems like you have never followed the settlement of binding conditions for the operation, apart from the obvious ones that you're having now (friction, seals).
So you never addressed the problems of maintaining (effectively) of a pulsation cycle, with very low dead space, with an effective regeneration, with a drastic reduction of friction of the fluid.
But at first you've patented the pattern of operation.

(I did not understand what is "rationalized").

What I think:
You've followed a backward, along a lonely road that has had little contact with the work being done by others, and perhaps also with the theory of the engine, and its problems.
This leads to two possible solutions.
An incredible unexpected success
or a head-on collision with the first major problem encountered.
I have to say that historically the unexpected incredible success has already occurred for some projects, although very, very rarely, and often has been the unexpected was to invent something else, which was just ... unexpected.
The lack of knowledge and therefore no preconception can proceed in the direction you may be lucky.

Unfortunately, the second solution is much, much, much more likely.
(The solution has already been yet considered, and then discarded).

Of course I wish you the first, although it is much more unlikely.
If your course of action allows it, from my analysis you can find spots where you (maybe) have pain.
Sorry if i say you non-positive things
Ciao,
Ferraccio (bad iron), Sergio

I agree with you!
My knowledge about Stirling engines is only theoretical!
But ...
I have extensive knowledge, theoretical and practical techniques in various fields, including - construction machinery and equipment.
So maybe with your help managed to achieve my project?
Best and warm regards
Andrew

PS
My mistake - must be:
"Claimed the patent application and simultaneously begin to build a prototype."

PS2

Hello Andrzei,
You had just the idea of ​​a rotary air motor, (not necessarily a Stirling engine), ....then you have met the Stirling engine.

Why is my pneumatic engine is not a Stirling engine?
A few of my previous posts are freehand drawings - which date to the Stirling engine is a point from which it ceases to be?
If instead we use the air motor pneumatic actuator is already have a Stirling engine?
:) :) :)

[Ian S C]

Andrzei, I think Koichi Hirata has plans for the rotary displacer engine for sale on his site, have a look o google, most of his stuff is in both English and Japanese. His motor looks very much like yours, maybe you should get in touch with him, he has a Q &A section in his web site, but I think you might be able to contact him.
Build a conventional engine and get that working well, then you can start experimenting. If you design the first engine well, you will be able to change the displacer for a rotary one, do'nt worry about pressurization on the first one, get that going and then see what happens. Ian S C