PM Research Solar Engine #3

Advert

PM Research Solar Engine #3

Home Forums Stationary engines PM Research Solar Engine #3

Viewing 25 posts - 1 through 25 (of 27 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #617654
    Blue Heeler
    Participant
      @blueheeler

      PM Research Solar Engine #3
      Flame Licker
      Flame Gulper

      Whatever you want to call it just a fun engine to run!

      Advert
      #3509
      Blue Heeler
      Participant
        @blueheeler
        #617659
        Michael Gilligan
        Participant
          @michaelgilligan61133

          Another very impressive demonstration

          … but I must admit to being confused by the description

          ’Flame Licker’ and Flame Gulper’ I get … but where does ‘Solar’ fit-in ?

          MichaelG.

          #617671
          Howi
          Participant
            @howi
            Posted by Michael Gilligan on 18/10/2022 07:31:31:

            Another very impressive demonstration

            … but I must admit to being confused by the description

            ’Flame Licker’ and Flame Gulper’ I get … but where does ‘Solar’ fit-in ?

            MichaelG.

            yes! that one confused me too, though thats not difficult………

            #617687
            Circlip
            Participant
              @circlip

              'Solar or Fueless' engine originally posted in PM metalwork mag in 1961. PDF is available. This one is a flame licker.

              Regards Ian.

              #617697
              Michael Gilligan
              Participant
                @michaelgilligan61133
                #617711
                V8Eng
                Participant
                  @v8eng

                  If I remember correctly PM list it as a solar engine on their website although I have not looked on there recently.

                  Puzzling to me but I am easily confused these days (so the Wife tells me).

                  Nice little runner though and interesting sound.

                  Edited By V8Eng on 18/10/2022 13:40:25

                  Edited By V8Eng on 18/10/2022 13:42:50

                  #617724
                  Michael Gilligan
                  Participant
                    @michaelgilligan61133
                    Posted by V8Eng on 18/10/2022 13:25:13:

                    If I remember correctly PM list it as a solar engine on their website although I have not looked on there recently.

                    [….]

                    .

                    Looks like PMR might have rectified that

                    **LINK**

                    https://www.pmmodelengines.com/product-category/solar/solar-engines/

                    MichaelG.

                    .

                    Edit: __ but only in part !!

                    https://www.pmmodelengines.com/?s=flame&post_type=product

                     

                    Edited By Michael Gilligan on 18/10/2022 14:43:57

                    #617802
                    Blue Heeler
                    Participant
                      @blueheeler

                      Yes, it's a misnomer for this engine.

                      The US company who makes these made an engine that ran off a parabolic (or like) reflector and was a 'solar' engine. For some reason they named all their non steam engine line of engines 'solar' engines –

                      **LINK**

                      #617837
                      not done it yet
                      Participant
                        @notdoneityet

                        Pleeese! Use a screw cap on that flam container or pick it up differently! I cringe every time I see you pick it up by its lid!

                        Good little engine – one of the better ones I have seen – just needs the flame to be kept in place to stop it slowly ‘walking’ away.

                        I’ll now go back to my solar – proper solar, more PV going on the roof.

                        #617925
                        Blue Heeler
                        Participant
                          @blueheeler
                          Posted by not done it yet on 19/10/2022 09:33:21:

                          Pleeese! Use a screw cap on that flam container or pick it up differently! I cringe every time I see you pick it up by its lid!

                          Good little engine – one of the better ones I have seen – just needs the flame to be kept in place to stop it slowly ‘walking’ away.

                          I’ll now go back to my solar – proper solar, more PV going on the roof.

                          That aluminium cap isn't going anywhere, it's very tight.

                          #617934
                          Hopper
                          Participant
                            @hopper

                            That's a ripper! Runs so well for such a simple concept.

                            #617937
                            Michael Gilligan
                            Participant
                              @michaelgilligan61133
                              Posted by Hopper on 20/10/2022 08:53:15:

                              That's a ripper! Runs so well for such a simple concept.

                              .

                              +1

                              although I have no idea how [in]efficient it might be … and I suspect the maths would be impossibly difficult.

                              MichaelG.

                              #617945
                              not done it yet
                              Participant
                                @notdoneityet
                                Posted by Michael Gilligan on 20/10/2022 09:07:01

                                .

                                +1

                                although I have no idea how [in]efficient it might be … and I suspect the maths would be impossibly difficult.

                                MichaelG.

                                Not exactly difficult. In its present form/operation the efficiency is zero.

                                #617962
                                Michael Gilligan
                                Participant
                                  @michaelgilligan61133

                                  dont know

                                  #618195
                                  Blue Heeler
                                  Participant
                                    @blueheeler
                                    Posted by Michael Gilligan on 20/10/2022 09:07:01:

                                    Posted by Hopper on 20/10/2022 08:53:15:

                                    That's a ripper! Runs so well for such a simple concept.

                                    .

                                    +1

                                    although I have no idea how [in]efficient it might be … and I suspect the maths would be impossibly difficult.

                                    MichaelG.

                                    Thanks Michael.

                                    #618196
                                    Blue Heeler
                                    Participant
                                      @blueheeler
                                      Posted by not done it yet on 20/10/2022 10:11:51:

                                      Posted by Michael Gilligan on 20/10/2022 09:07:01

                                      .

                                      +1

                                      although I have no idea how [in]efficient it might be … and I suspect the maths would be impossibly difficult.

                                      MichaelG.

                                      Not exactly difficult. In its present form/operation the efficiency is zero.

                                      Well now that you know how utterly crap they are, you can save yourself the pleasure and enjoyment of owning one.

                                      #618199
                                      Michael Gilligan
                                      Participant
                                        @michaelgilligan61133

                                        Posted by Michael Gilligan on 20/10/2022 09:07:01:

                                        […]

                                        I have no idea how [in]efficient it might be … and I suspect the maths would be impossibly difficult.

                                        .

                                        Good old Wikipedia to the rescue: **LINK**

                                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_engine

                                        MichaelG.

                                        .

                                        Edit: __ the information we want is include in this free preview of the referenced book:

                                         https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Exploding_Disk_Cannons_Slimemobiles_and/YWocXk0K8hsC?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover

                                        Edited By Michael Gilligan on 22/10/2022 01:27:54

                                        #618212
                                        not done it yet
                                        Participant
                                          @notdoneityet

                                          Blue Heeler,

                                          You may well soak up the empty coplliments from certain posters, but please be aware that compliments provided for ‘grace and favour’ are actually worthless – some, on the forum, seem to be prolific complimenters, for just that purpose.

                                          However, for these ‘impossibly difficult mathematics’ let me demonstrate the ridiculousness of that statement.

                                          EFFICIENCY = WORK DONE divided by the ENERGY INPUT.

                                          Work done can be measured in several ways. It coould be measured mechanically as FORCE X DISTANCE MOVED or it could be measured electrically as VOLTS X AMPS X TIME. Both would be perfectly acceptable and accurate.

                                          However, as I posted, in the form/operation you presented your engine it was doing no work. It was neither providing any force to move any mass, nor providing any electrical energy output. The energy input was a simple function of mass of fuel used multiplied by the energy content, per unit mass, of that fuel

                                          Any mathematician worth his salt would know that zero divided by any number (other than zero) = zero

                                          To convert to a percentage efficiency vale the above result would need to be multiplied by 100, of course (still zero in this particular form/operation).’

                                          (Zero divided by zero is, of course, an indeterminate value as it could be any value between 1 and infinity).

                                          While I actually have little desire to buy a flame licker engine, I would almost certainly make one – not buy one. I am aware that some designs are very poor examples of the type and some even are difficult to actually get running – let alone to do any work. Novelties for the grandchildren is the most likely reason, I suppose? I was going to purchase one of the chinese stirling engine designs, for my Grandson, which could run for as long as an hour, just sitting above a mug of hot water…

                                          I’ll stick with my previous post – in that the example was a ‘good little engine’ – and also my comments. While tight, that lid and can only need to fall apart once to cause a conflagration (being as the flame was still alight on at least one occasion).

                                          Enjoy your (expensive) toy.

                                          #618214
                                          Blue Heeler
                                          Participant
                                            @blueheeler
                                            Posted by not done it yet on 22/10/2022 09:31:43:

                                            Blue Heeler,

                                            You may well soak up the empty coplliments from certain posters, but please be aware that compliments provided for ‘grace and favour’ are actually worthless – some, on the forum, seem to be prolific complimenters, for just that purpose.

                                            However, for these ‘impossibly difficult mathematics’ let me demonstrate the ridiculousness of that statement.

                                            EFFICIENCY = WORK DONE divided by the ENERGY INPUT.

                                            Work done can be measured in several ways. It coould be measured mechanically as FORCE X DISTANCE MOVED or it could be measured electrically as VOLTS X AMPS X TIME. Both would be perfectly acceptable and accurate.

                                            However, as I posted, in the form/operation you presented your engine it was doing no work. It was neither providing any force to move any mass, nor providing any electrical energy output. The energy input was a simple function of mass of fuel used multiplied by the energy content, per unit mass, of that fuel

                                            Any mathematician worth his salt would know that zero divided by any number (other than zero) = zero

                                            To convert to a percentage efficiency vale the above result would need to be multiplied by 100, of course (still zero in this particular form/operation).’

                                            (Zero divided by zero is, of course, an indeterminate value as it could be any value between 1 and infinity).

                                            While I actually have little desire to buy a flame licker engine, I would almost certainly make one – not buy one. I am aware that some designs are very poor examples of the type and some even are difficult to actually get running – let alone to do any work. Novelties for the grandchildren is the most likely reason, I suppose? I was going to purchase one of the chinese stirling engine designs, for my Grandson, which could run for as long as an hour, just sitting above a mug of hot water…

                                            I’ll stick with my previous post – in that the example was a ‘good little engine’ – and also my comments. While tight, that lid and can only need to fall apart once to cause a conflagration (being as the flame was still alight on at least one occasion).

                                            Enjoy your (expensive) toy.

                                             

                                             

                                            I bet your fun at parties.

                                             

                                             

                                            Edited By Blue Heeler on 22/10/2022 09:39:12

                                            #618238
                                            Michael Gilligan
                                            Participant
                                              @michaelgilligan61133
                                              Posted by not done it yet on 22/10/2022 09:31:43:

                                              Blue Heeler,

                                              You may well soak up the empty coplliments from certain posters, but please be aware that compliments provided for ‘grace and favour’ are actually worthless – some, on the forum, seem to be prolific complimenters, for just that purpose.

                                              However, for these ‘impossibly difficult mathematics’ let me demonstrate the ridiculousness of that statement.

                                              EFFICIENCY = WORK DONE divided by the ENERGY INPUT.

                                              [ et seq. ad nauseam ]

                                              .

                                              Absolute tosh !

                                              Of course it’s doing work, and of course it’s consuming fuel

                                              MichaelG.

                                              #618244
                                              not done it yet
                                              Participant
                                                @notdoneityet
                                                Posted by Michael Gilligan on 22/10/2022 11:38:

                                                Absolute tosh !

                                                Of course it’s doing work, and of course it’s consuming fuel

                                                MichaelG.

                                                Oh yeh? Where? If you think it is efficiently simply only just running itself, it must be – by your calculations – 100% efficient.

                                                Now that is “tosh”.

                                                No doubt as others have tacitly mentioned recently, you will want the last word – rubbish or not – so I’ll leave it here, for you to dig an even deeper hole for yourself.

                                                #618252
                                                SillyOldDuffer
                                                Moderator
                                                  @sillyoldduffer
                                                  Posted by not done it yet on 22/10/2022 12:10:51:

                                                  Posted by Michael Gilligan on 22/10/2022 11:38:

                                                  Absolute tosh !

                                                  Of course it’s doing work, and of course it’s consuming fuel

                                                  MichaelG.

                                                  Oh yeh? Where? If you think it is efficiently simply only just running itself, it must be – by your calculations – 100% efficient.

                                                  Now that is “tosh”.

                                                  No doubt as others have tacitly mentioned recently, you will want the last word – rubbish or not – so I’ll leave it here, for you to dig an even deeper hole for yourself.

                                                  Err, I think is this an misplaced argument about a simplified formula:

                                                  EFFICIENCY = WORK DONE divided by the ENERGY INPUT

                                                  which isn't the same as:

                                                  EFFICIENCY = USEFUL WORK DONE divided by the ENERGY INPUT

                                                  In the second formula the engine's efficiency is zero, but this definition ignores that 'Useful Work' is done operating the engine's valve. The first formula allows all WORK DONE to be taken into account, and that isn't zero as NDIY postulated. The bearings, piston and valves aren't frictionless, and the engine moves the mass of the piston, conrod, valve-rod and flywheel (force x distance). The flame outside the engine also does work by lifting hot air!

                                                  How the formula is applied isn't the only issue. Motors don't have a single 'efficiency', rather they have a range of efficiencies that vary depending on how they are operated: unloaded efficiency is not the same efficiency at overload and peak efficiency occurs somewhere in the middle, at some particular combination of RPM and load. Torque, Power and Efficiency all vary with load over a motor's operating range.

                                                  Dave

                                                  #618255
                                                  Michael Gilligan
                                                  Participant
                                                    @michaelgilligan61133

                                                    Thank you, Dave, for applying some reasoning.

                                                    Now … to avoid me ‘having the last word’ would someone kindly make a post.

                                                    MichaelG.

                                                    #618267
                                                    V8Eng
                                                    Participant
                                                      @v8eng

                                                      Happy to oblige.

                                                      My only experience with flame gulpers was watching one at an exhibition then smelling strongly of paraffin afterwards due to the spitting back effect of the burner.

                                                      Edited By V8Eng on 22/10/2022 14:35:59

                                                    Viewing 25 posts - 1 through 25 (of 27 total)
                                                    • Please log in to reply to this topic. Registering is free and easy using the links on the menu at the top of this page.

                                                    Advert

                                                    Latest Replies

                                                    Home Forums Stationary engines Topics

                                                    Viewing 25 topics - 1 through 25 (of 25 total)
                                                    Viewing 25 topics - 1 through 25 (of 25 total)

                                                    View full reply list.

                                                    Advert

                                                    Newsletter Sign-up