I looked into these about 15 years ago and they were constantly battling sealing and wear issues. The water was completely inadequate for the lubrication needs and pretty much every time they ran one on the dyno or if it was in a show it would be a freshly built unit. Longevity/durability is the reason these things never took off.
Didn't steam locomotives and a bit of oil to the steam to lubricate the cylinders and valves? Not environmentally friendly in a total loss system but if you're re-condensing the steam and re-using it that's less of an issue.
@@Surestick88 You cannot reuse the oil though. it must be filtered out of the condensing water with an oil diaper before the water can be recycled back into the boiler, so it is still a total loss oil system.
Agreed. I'm an engineer and I know there's a kit from hemmingwway (UK) called the Cygnet that's a 3 cylinder radial steam engine from the 1960s. The web page includes a basic cut away drawing and a short video of one operating. Plus the producer of this vid clearly doesn't understand basic combustion chemistry. If you're burning organics you're producing combustion products. Its a chemical reaction not a nuclear reaction.
@@MagnusFeirenbacher there are closed crankcase steam engines that have a closed sump full of oil like a modern car engine. the stuart sirius is one example
I worked on the project, no test run over 5 minutes was ever made. Vibration was a huge problem, and anything but deionized water would cause corrosion issues in the engine.
Boys, we got a minor setback, looks like we have to shelve this one cuz I don't feel like wording numbers n stuff. Everything has a learning curve. Most curves hinge on current available materials. If your on the cutting edge of something, then explore other fields to propagate better models. After all, the vast majority of current tech, is based off old tech that received new information.
@@thesleeperofrlyeh9015 The design is purely nonsense -- it can only be fixed by throwing everything out and starting over. Even if you did that, it is limited by the loss of the latent heat of vaporization -- which is a limitation of physics and not engineering.
I wonder if you could heat the water with an electrical coil, and power that with an alternator? With enough left over to use? You’d think that’s impossible, but those torque numbers are insane!
A steam engine will always be more efficient and make less pollution. I've been saying this for years.. all the inefficiency in an ice is because gasoline doesn't burn fast enough for the rpms required to drive it.
@@thesimpletroll2769 A 1906 Stanly steamer car went 121.6 MPH on it's first try, the second try, it reached 127.7 MPH. That record stood till 1910. Gasoline powered cars took many years before they reached those speeds. But the gas engine evolved quickly, while the steam engine was ignored, and made the gas engine the main engine the world over.
Only if the outside pressure was extremely high........which can be achieved with a flash stem boiler.....all of the problems of piston type steam engines can be overcome with a steam turbine.
@@gangleweed There is no problem with piston steam engine itself, but steam turbine with small scale has problems like low efficiency. It should spin very fast, so reducer will take a lot of power. Flash steam boiler is something different. I prefer to call it monotube boiler (because flash steam is converting pressureated water to steam+water mixture)
Interesting concept, it looks like it would be more suited for a home combined heat and power (CHP) system rather than trying to shoehorn it into a car, what with all the crash safety requirements and maintenance complexity and everything. Presumably you could run it off wood pellets and garden waste, and both fuel streams are already widely used for home heating systems, and the bonus being that you'd get electrical power from it too.
For automotive use the first thing I thought of is keeping the water in the system from freezing overnight in the winter. Durable water lubricated bearings are already in use but quite expensive to make and need to be kept well below the water boiling temperature in use. The many real world engineering challenges keep building up in my mind that need solutions for affordable, reliable and durable consumer automotive use.
steam is used in nuclear power plants to drive the turbines. its a good way to move energy around a thermodynamic system. i think the real advancement is more the combustion end (the boiler in traditional steam systems) as you can probibly hook the engine to any steam source and get power out of it. steam engines are pretty straight forward and a lot simpler than ices. you can also push the piston both ways so you can have fairly consistent forces on the crank shaft rather than intermittent like a 4-stroke. its pretty much steampunk evolved.
These were very similar units to those used in DoD/USAF courier trucks in the late 70s/early 80s. They could literally run on anything, and were used as everything from couriers to tuggers at several air fields. Cyclone's claim-to-fame wasn't the steam engine, but the cyclonic combustor. The centrifugal force of the high velocity cyclone, was a captive cycle for most of the particulate emissions the EPA was currently focusing on. They were working on a closed-loop Sterling model, which was even less maintenance. In the end, they lost out for lack of marketability and a restrictive investment contracts. The slow start-up time, low power density by volume, preferred vertical orientation, inflated goals, and low duty cycle, saw the project fall off the radar. In order to achieve their peak efficiency, the engine used a vertical orientation to take advantage of natural convection. Last I heard, a slightly different version of the combustor could be found in a waste oil heater... but I'm unsure if it has any relation to Cyclone. I reached out to them several years ago, in hopes to connect them with a pneumatic motor supplier from Australia... but it didn't work out, as the Aussie supplier was adamant about both NOT using his motors in combustion engines, but also not letting the tech leave Australia (although it's now used in some forklifts).
its a steam engine steam engines are external combustion engines if you look at the "engine" they look fantastic on paper but the boiler and condenser are MUCH larger than the carburetor and exhaust pipe (carburetor~= boiler, aka where fuel is added)(exhaust pipe ~= condenser aka where heat is rejected) so internal combustion is WAY more power/smaller/cheaper, it never stood a chance
Some of the downsides of an engine like this (slow response, warm-up time) wouldn't be an issue if it was used to drive a generator for a range-extender in an electric powered vehicle. Given that there's no reason this couldn't burn renewable fuels... That said there's probably more compact, lighter options that would work better.
If the fluid was super critical steam it would take minimal heat input to cause change from liquid to gas but the visible plumbing on that machine would not contain those pressures.
I knew an old lady who swallowed a fly.... E-vehicles suck big time. We need better engines, not inefficient range extenders for already very inefficient power trains.
The tech has been around for decades if not centuries, but because of political winds, commercial interests, progress to alternatives from traditional combustion engines are always held back, or shelved. Glad the Internet is exposing these options
the dobel steam cars used closed loop steam systems with a water tube boiler kindof like what they are showing, but the dobel steam cars were actually sold and could reach over 100 mph. Jay leno has several of them with at least one running, the problem with them is up keep on such a system.
For those interested, look after "Serpollet" and "Doble". The former is from France and the Doble brothers built steam cars in the thirties that were ready to run un less than a minute after staying outside at freezing temperatures.
On top of seal problems and such the other big problem is the peripheral components like the boiler and all the other junk that makes it actually a larger more complex unit vs just an internal combustion engine.
Honestly, the "No engines delivered to customers" part is the big clue as to why you haven't heard from them. I don't know if they didn't sell it, couldn't sell it, whatever. It would be such a big change form internal combustion that I can imagine it's problematic to get a manufacturer of, say, riding mowers to adopt them. They would have had to not only develop the engine, get it in a configuration that could be used in a vehicle (i.e. how do you hook it up to a transmission?), and then develop some sort of useful vehicle all on their own.
I was on there facebook page, they are having funding issues to bring it to production, plus they had an legal battle they where dealing with. I was wondering what happened to them as well, me being fascinated about steam power.
@@TugIronChief Perhaps. People lose money investing all of the time. Sadly, engineering acumen doesn't equal business acumen. Assuming that they DID develop this motor, that's an awful lot of work for a scam.
From what I've read, the inventor had very little understanding of how to actually make a viable engine. Besides the water lubrication issue others have mentioned, the original design linked the pistons to a freely rotating plate rather than a plate aligned with one of the pistons for radial engines as is common practice. This added extra vibration and mechanical loss. Overall, my impression of the Cyclone engine is that it's either a scam or made by a well intentioned person who really didn't do their research. What especially disappoints me is that there are several modern steam groups that are much more reputable (I.E. actual research and, in the case of DLM, actual prototypes and production machines) but seem to have little notice.
The questions that need answers: What is it's efficiency?, What is it's readiness (my term), that is how quickly can it be turned on and brought up to performance operation? How often will it need make up water? If it is a completely sealed system will a different working fluid be better? Now in my perspective, it may make a great engine for a hybrid system car where it is basically an EV but when the batteries get low, the engine ( generator) cranks up and recharges batteries and also provides travel power.
Yeah hybrid steam/ev sounds promising even if it can just extend the milage in an ev per it's weight and space more than the space the battery space it takes up, could be worth it.
After ignoring the enormous lubrication problems for a moment, a question comes to my mind: would not a steam-powered turbine much more efficient for stationary use?
I agree, a stationary generator would be incredibly awesome considering it’s torque. Automate 2-3 different sources of fuel depending on availability locally and abilities to keep it running.
Giant steam powered turbines are currently in service all over the planet, providing electricity for the masses. The super heated steam is created by coal, natural gas, nuclear plants, and probably some heat sources I haven’t included. All USN submarines and aircraft carriers are powered by electricity created by steam turbine generators. The steam is created by the nuclear reactors. Steam power never died, folks. It just found new employment. 110 years ago a steam powered car was much faster than gasoline, but many factors like road conditions made speed a moot point. In 1938 a British steam locomotive named Mallard went 126 mph. A record never broken (for steam) to this day. More than a few comments made in this video made it clear that an informed awareness of the history of steam power, and the current use globally, was sadly lacking.
It's not been 10 years, it's been 200. Supercritical boilers are used to generate power. You have to have temperatures above 374c and pressures above 220 bar. This is the first reason they are not used in cars. Old steam cars used flash boilers. Usually a coiled pipe is heated and water pumped in where it flashes to steam. It's light, quick to start and if it fails there is little steam volume to explode. So a lot safer. Supercritical boilers are the worst possible case for safety in a vehicle. Worse than a normal boiler. As all the water in the system if ruptured will flash instantly to steam as its pressure drops. Meaning all the water in the system will blow it up. And it's at at 3 time the pressure of normal boilers. Meaning you got to have some serous seals and very well made parts. Amd any failure could very bad. The video is also wrong saying it's ar 1100c. Steel would give way and the thing would be glowing white hot at that temp. It's only theorised running at hose temps and nobody has made a boiler thay does because of the material requirements. The engine is not anything special. Just a radials steam engine. Alow me to doubt how long it will last with water as lube. There are good reasons engines use hydrostatic bearing. It's performance is expected for an engine like that running at high pressure. It's probably very inefficient for a reciprocating steam engine. Only having one expansion of the steam. Triple expansion engines were not built for the fin of it. There needs no conspiracy why this has never been a success. It's inefficient, dangerous in a vehicle and would be difficult to fuel with solid materials.
@Edward Elizabeth Hitler Outgassing H2...Hydrogen embrittlement will kill the stainless steel way before you reach 1100 operating temp. Water in the crankcase is a bad idea too. They built a bomb.
F not C. Single stage can be efficient, just not under full torque. See uniflow steam engine. This is Rankine cycle and is only efficient in super critical configuration with high expansion ratios. It is the condensing and vacuum raising equipemnt that takes up volume. 1/3 the power is below atmospheric to get the efficiency. Super critical CO2 enclosed Brayton cycle might be a better choice, simple will get to internal combustion like efficiency, dual will be a little better but needs more support equipment. All this steam engine takes up more space than an internal combustion engine by about three times. Supercritical CO2 is in modern use for bottom cycles on internal combustion engines right now and gaining popularity as it is half the size of the steam plant. But we are looking at the 15MW range. Supercritical CO2 scales down better than steam.
It sounds like most Cyclone engine problems come from the mindset that it was "not invented here." I have first-hand knowledge of Cyclone's business problems. At the moment, they are working with interested parties to take advantage of the clean burn characteristics of the engine to turn a foreign nation's colossal waste disposal problem into a microgrid electric power solution that addresses both sanitary waste disposal and municipal power reliability with dual use infrastructure funds. Modern waste streams with large amounts of plastics burn clean in the external burn chamber. That is because of the filtering effect of the cyclonic flow within the burn. Cyclonic filters efficiently separate solids (even very tiny ones) from gasses. The Cyclone engine utilizes a cyclonic filter as a burner to provide supercritical steam for its engine. As the burn progresses, burning masses heavier than air are not allowed to escape the burn until consumed by the burning process. Similarly, burn by-products such as ash and metals in the burn become consolidated in a molten pool that drips out of the cyclonic burner/filter as an easily manageable byproduct of the waste disposal process flow. External combustion that is clean enough to meet CARB air purity standards (from municipal waste!!) is only the beginning of the good news. The engine converts 40+ percent of the heat produced in the burner to usable shaft horsepower. I can imagine that with only a subtle design modification that the burner/engine I have just described could burn powdered coal, sequester any unburned burn-by-products as raw material for industry and enable the creation of microgrid power infrastructure to ease the strain on the power grid crunch that is sure to arise from the rapid roll-out of battery-powered transportation. Cyclone has proposed a system capable of harvesting solar heat and storing it using a working fluid that resists freeze-up of the system when it is offline and keeps energy as 1500 degree F heat in insulated underground containers. They suggest designing heat storage with enough capacity to provide 5 days of off-line power. Of course, a solar system of this kind can have a cyclone burner.
I was studying this engine many years ago and had high hopes. This new 'first hand information' clarifies a lot. But the change of approach and product goal, makes me wonder that their original idea is basically abandoned. I am sad that they could not get the engineering worked out.
Uh... If you're going to power an electrical grid with steam, maybe a turbine would be a better approach for heat-to-mechanical energy transformation than a 5-piston radial engine. No new fancy developments required in the steam cycle, it's all been done before, and I'm sure machines are available "off the shelf". But you know what? I think you've put too much faith in what sounds like the voodoo-science of a "cyclone burner", and I'll continue to believe that unless you can provide some substantive information about the actual design and functionality of "cyclonic filters" and "cyclonic burners". 99% chance you're missing something very important, something that makes the system your speaking of nearly impossible to sell when all the facts are known.
Steam will never work in a car. It's just too dangerous. People today are quite unaware of the horrible accidents that occurred in the heyday of steam engines. Also steam turbines are clearly better, more practical and are very well established and mature technology at this point. Very interesting comment. I have been wondering for a while if it's possible to cleanly burn waste. We could theoretically do it with human waste too, by filtering it out, removing the water and burning it in a superheated furnace. Given enough air being blasted in, anything becomes a fuel just about. Check out the mad Aussies with their turbocharged burn barrel lol. You wouldn't think wood could behave like jet fuel, but a couple of bogans in a shed proved that wrong.
In the 80's, my father was sent to Georgia to wire the electricity for a new ethenol plant which would make and sell a mixture of corn-alcohol and gasoline. Before they could finish and open the plant, government agents cut a deal with the owners and bought it. The plant never did open. You will find, with minimum effort, the same people always harping about alternative energy sources, NEED something to complain about so they are allowed to screw you legally. The last thing they want is for any actual problem to be fixed. Whatever solutions they "allow", will be under their control and limited for price-fixing.
Forget running your car, with that kind of torque, a gearbox and a generator, this seems like a perfect solution for off grid energy production, powered from trash biomass.
Awesome video! Thanks for the info! Would you be able to do a video on Nikola Tesla’s improved combustion + steam turbine patent GB 186,083 ?!? He patented it 10 years after the original Tesla turbine patent and a decade of R&D. It’s essentially a combustion rocket aimed into a steam pipe that then uses the steam to cool the hot combustion exhaust gases for admitting into the turbine. 🤤🤤🤤 It’s soooo good!!
From what I understand from the video, sounds a great idea. I mean it uses steam, bio-fuels, and oil based fuels...too good of an idea. I think big auto got to the person/ people behind this engine, and that was the end of it.
It sounds like a great idea the combustion is done in a controled and contineuos was so it can be made cleaner that an ICE. Then using the resultant steam sounds like the way to go.
Except for the very poor efficiency, and the extremely dangerous boiler, and the vast size and weight of the machine compared to an ICE, and very high expense, it's great.
To those who think steam power was slow, steam powered cars were the first ones hitting a hundred miles an hour. Steam powered locomotives did well over a hundred miles an hour. Steam wasn't slow. The people that own steam cars today. Drive them slowly because they don't want to destroy them.
When I heard "water lubricated" I figured something wasn't right, and indeed - on the Wikipedia article this problem is noted as a "Critical path issue" by the people contracted by Cyclone Power to help work on it. Durability of the bearings will be a big sticking point.
@@terrafirma9328 Magnetic bearings can only handle a certain load capacity before the forces experienced by the magnets exceeds their field strength. I suspect this design would not allow for them. Additionally, the strength of a permanent magnet is reduced with temperature, and demands more expensive rare earth magnets that are weaker than standard neodymium magnets, which will drive up your cost even further.
@@bort6414 Maybe so. I'd still try it out with the largest strongest cobalt magnet they make and build it with a secondary ball bearing to take up the slack😉
I always wonder if a hybrid combustion engine system could be built to improve the efficiency of internal combustion engines by utilizing the waste heat to power an external combustion setup. Definitely adds cost/complexity/wheight but should be able to increase efficiency.
Could this engine be ran on thorium? A low radioactive heat source that heats to super high temperatures water that water could then be used to run the engine? Of course this vehicle concept would never see the light of day because The energy industry would lose billions if people change to using
As far as the POC goes it is very interesting. Iron out a few issues and it could well be the way of the future. Seems like a good candidate for burning hydrogen perhaps.
Why do modern car companies developing hydrogen-powered cars focus on using hydrogen within fuel cells rather than within an internal combustion engine? Why don't modern automobiles use steam? Why didn't the engine in this video go anywhere? How is the engine in this video superior to older steam engine designs? A real analysis would go a long way toward explaining these things. What you've offered so far isn't analysis so much as wishful thinking.
@@warpedweirdo _"using hydrogen within fuel cells rather than within an internal combustion engine?"_ Hydrogen burns with oxygen in the air at a rate of 2H to 1 O.. What is 2HO? That's right it's H₂O.. Water. Water mixing with oils, hydrogenates the oil, making margarine if it's food type oil, and a similar nasty mess with other types. Add heat and pressure and it hydrogenates faster. The "oil" then basically has the lubricating properties of mud. You'd be lucky to get to the grocery store once..
It is a Racine Cycle Engine, similar to a Stirling Engine. It's not new. It gets its "modern" power levels by using deionized water. For the science-challenged, deionized water is water with all the minerals removed. Removing the minerals allows the steam to be super critical with a lower energy input. Deionized water, however, is a very powerful base. It will absorb the minerals from anything it touches. This means it will dissolve almost anything you put it in. Cyclone sold their waste heat engines to a number of power generation companies. However, TPTB do not want flexible fueled engines. They want no engines for anyone but themselves. On the engineering side, the material science to allow the engine to cost-effectively circulate deionized water without being dissolved simply does not exist. All the technologies that can do it are too expensive to scale.
I can see the potential for this engine for anything but cars. At home using a prism to heat a tank to steam and generate power for batteries. Fuel it by wood pellets, scrap lumber, saw dust, food waste. Seems like a great option for off grid or tiny homes.
Those torque numbers seem high. I love radial engines, but I think they would have done better with a two bank wobble plate radial engine. More power narrower profile.
A few bullet points: - to operate this type of engine requires a certain level of consciousness, which is a rare commodity these days. - Gathering all the fuel would probably constitute hard work, not fashionable these days. -Huge marketing would be required which may exceed R and D at first. - The oil firms will offer pushback
"Fuel" is anything you can burn to heat up a teapot. Even gasoline or wood, but not "biomass" unless it was as dry as seasoned firewood. Firewood is exactly "biomass." Where will you store a cord of wood in your car?
There used to be a yearly all-comers race/rally across a long part of the Australian desert - it may have perished in relation to the new forms of dictatorship. But anyhow I think an annual race/rally to achieve the best result for the Carnot-cycle would be great and would be outside corporation hands (unless they wished to submit an entry). Be good in a desert too.
Burning biomass fuel is a dirty process at best. The reason we haven't heard about this concept is that it wasn't practical for a whole host of reasons, not only dirty combustion. The bottom line, as several have noted below, is that its a steam engine, nothing more, and if you want a steam powered vehicle there are a large number of engine designs that are equivalent. This is someone's concept that they pursued because it was their own idea.
A search for: Stress corrosion cracking supercritical water Will give a pretty good idea of why no one pursued the idea of flashing supercritical water into steam inside the cylinder of a car's engine. Carbon steel and cast iron rust much faster than in salt water. Stainless steel acts like carbon steel near salt water, and seals and gadgets need to be made of silicone or Teflon or be eaten away in short order. Using high-temperature water as a lubricant won't work well for any materials I ever encountered. I can't think of any that wouldn't be better off running dry than in 1,000 F water.
Valid point... and Teflon wouldn't work (as least, not for long). Even Viton seals wouldn't work. When you get supercritical steam in/around moving parts at those pressures, it will eat nearly anything. Teflon, in it's microscopic form, is made of tiny flakes, and uses water in itself. Even after curing... at those pressures with steam, the shock waves create microfissures and it simply flakes off in short order. Furthermore, the various stresses that occur inside rotary piston type layouts, necessitates a high degree of lubrication. I'm with you... even dry WSO² in dry powder form, with all it's high maintenance, would be a better solution. Even if they didn't use salt water... the cavitation alone, would cause significant issues.
I am a member of the Steam Automobile Club. These guys have been claiming a bunch of wondrous things for two decades. They came to the Society of Automotive Engineers annual meeting about a decade ago. One really good possibility was small motors for chain saws and lawn mowers, since steam engines are much quieter than ICEs. I even bought stock in them. Never had a running engine. After a few years they issued preferred stock, then changed the ownership so that the common stock was worthless. It's a con.
Only way this would make sense in my opinion is if they used the superheated water state to drive a steam turbine. Reciprocal pistons are just too inefficient, and you're never going to get sufficient lubrication with water vapor. If it had it's own pressurised lubrication system, that wouldn't work either as you would inevitably see condensate making it's way past the the piston rings and contaminating the engine oil.
perfect for stationary power generation applications, by means of burning fuel, but unfortunately not enough for automobility, because external combustion engines have a lot slower response to accelleration commands than normal internal combustion engines, also solar can not produce enough of the demands of such an engine, although it is an amazing feat of engineering...maybe they did not receive enough demands from customers to make it a pheasable business... Chris, have you done videos on the Robert Bourke Engine, broer?
Something you don't know about steam engines if you think theyre not responsive. Or maybe you think they all operate and respond like the copper and brass toy steam engines that weren't built to actually power anything.
I think the main thing is that it is using the same technology as cars a century ago that was originally displaced by internal combustion. The act of getting the heat to run it is much less efficient and more fiddly than the drop-the-fuel-in-and-light-it simple internal combustion engines we use today.Sure, the act of extracting work from the steam may be much more efficient than extracting it from fuel under pressure, but getting the heat to create the steam is much less efficient, and is not nearly as responsive as going directly from fuel to crank.
The main problem from what you discussed in your video is that they never fixed the power density problem of the condenser. If you really want to make progress in steam automotives you need to make a radiator that outright breaks physics. That's it. If you ignore that and focus on a fancy combustion chamber or pump you are doomed from the start. Also, high temperature steam is fantastically corrosive to anything except maybe the most exotic materials and that would nuke your value proposition to the average customer.
A couple of things jump out immediately to explain why this design may not fly very far. The heat/steam source has to withstand 1200psi and 568 degree F. That requires serious thermal and mechanical components to contain and control it. That means that the total package is going to be massive, with respect to an IC motor. Once through use of superheated steam is inefficient, as the cycle can only extract some of the energy from the steam. You would have to use some sort of stepped low pressure piston set(s) to get the most efficient use of the steam energy (the OD of the LP pistons would increase from set to set to allow the HP exhaust steam from the first to act on greater surface areas as the pressure degrades. Even then, to maintain a closed cycle, the unit has to have an efficient condenser/heat sink design to return the exhaust steam to liquid, potentially throwing way a big chunk of the latent heat of vaporization, and again increasing the mass and complexity of the engine and its power source. Maintaining a leak free closed system is going to require that the seals and bearings of the engine must be of materials that don't wear and are not affected by extreme temperatures. Steam/water lubrication of rotating or reciprocating equipment to date has never been able to achieve that.
The cool thing about engines that work from a pressured flow like steam is that they are constant-pressure, this gets rid of just about every issue with normal IC engines and the torque is truly incredible (especially low-end torque compared to IC engine which literally come to a hault at same speed these guys still push crazy numbers..) Though even I was surprised at the torque figueres here! Also 150hp / 150kg?? Daaaayum!
Add this concept to a solar steam generator and you have totally clean energy. Mirrors to concentrate the sun onto a boiler unit that feeds one or more of these types of engines or even to power the steam turbines we use today.
Many industrial applications such as steam turbine operated generators, ships engines etc. run on super heated steam these days with no major or uncontrollable issues. Modern materials science has come a long way with hydro-based lubricants, ceramic and composite bearing materials(ceramics and others), high temp resistant corrosion resistant metals like Stainless steels, Inconel, Molybdenum, Titanium, Nickel Alloys, etc.. Making one of these engines run reliably shouldn't be a big problem these days with proper engineering. I think other forces at work have prevented their proliferation - patents, profitability, public mindset, competition with powers that be, etc.
They should make a hybrid where traditional engine makes energy from normal combustion and steam generator use the heat to make electricity but adding turbos that spin magnets on the exhaust can probably create much heat and so should be able to create a reasonable amount of electricity from traditional engine What people have to realise is that combining things is key ie burn fuel to make light like in a lamp create light but heat not being used. Explode fuel to make movement but heat and light not being used. I’m serious that you could potentially make a glass engine, fused silica or quartz , fused silica have a melting point of 1900 degrees C and can be cut very accurately and doesn’t expand or contract much at different temps and you could use a high rpm engine in the right circumstance to create useful light and energy from movement And use the heat too . I’ve seen engines with glass on the side and you can see the explosions so glass sided engines already exist and work
The engine bit is not much of a problem, it's the boiler and plumbing that holds back further development of the steam engine. Super heating steam under the high pressures needed is really only suitable for a stationary or stable application, like marine engines. Only real advantage is using poor quality fuels, but then you're producing a lot of pollution.
any steam engine that is in an accident would be deadly as heck, one of the reasons steam had a bad rep and certified individuals were needed to run them was implemented.
Ok, this looks all fine and dandy, but there are several massive safety issues. 1) how do you heat the water to 1000C safely? 2) once heated, how do you make certain that this very high pressure gas doesn't violent escape? Pretty sure that steam at 1000C is at a very high pressure, and that any engine failure would be on a scale resembling the Challenger disaster. And 3) even if you somehow prevented a catastrophic failure in any of the lines/engine parts, the pressure might be strong enough to cut steel, and the sheer temperature is definitely lethal.
I paid 25K for an engine and 15k for distributor rights and these guys never delivered an engine to me. I worked with them for two years to get my money back and even threatened to sue them and there was never any effort made to make good on their commitment to me. I would run from these guys - they have not honored any of the commitment they made to me.
I was on there facebook page, they are having funding issues to bring it to production, plus they had an legal battle they where dealing with. I was wondering what happened to them as well, me being fascinated about steam power.
100 Hp at 3600 RPM is 195 Nm. 3600 rpm and 1355 Nm is 695,5 Hp. Which is it? It can't be both at the same time. No mention of efficiency/fuel consumption. It's just a new arrangement of the steam engine.
A win-win scenario would be to mate this system to a solar furnace and an electrical generator. With very large vacuum bottle storage tanks, it's possible to generate power 24 hrs. a day. This system could be daisy-chained up to mega-watt power out put.
Aside from the fuel, it looks like a radial airplane engine. Biomass derived ethanol produces a higher amount of greenhouse gas than gasoline, as does biomass derived diesel fuel. Producing ethanol to mix with gasoline uses more energy than just producing gasoline.
As an advocate researcher for advanced steam The cyclone engine is interesting but its designer had little understanding of steam technology so the likelihood of it taking off is slim. Poor lubrication and other problems. If you're really interested in external combustion technology for the future then I'd recommend Mackwell Locomotive Company here on TH-cam and the Steam Automobile Club of America on the web. Mackwell is working to sell modern steam locomotives and traction engines down in new Zealand and the SACA has an active forum with people that have built their own and worked on steam cars. I could go on and on but all I can say is it's technology that needs to be brought back.
Harry Schoell was nothing but a crook, a con man... Cyclone was never a legitimate company and all of his prototypes were fake, merely props to scam investors. Unfortunately the limits of the Rankine Cycle and the Laws of Thermodynamics will prevent steam from ever making a comeback... it offers no advantages over ICEs and several major disadvantages that prevent them from ever being commercially viable again. Chheers!
What would be the advantage of this engine over a steam-driven turbine, which every nuclear plant uses? Nuclear power is the future, not burning things. If we get small, efficient, safe nuclear power plants where every community can have its own nuclear power plant, both our energy needs and the environment will be assured.
I wouldn't want nuclear power in my cities board members hands. We'd be dead within the week it was voted in. Many cities would probably feel the same about their towns😳
Steam turbines are more efficient on a large scale, piston engines are more efficient on a small scale. Different things have their optimal size to function best- animals included.
@@rossbrumby1957 I don't care about efficency on my individual scale. All that concerns me is long term costs. If efficency turns out to be part of the equasion that saves me, I'm all for it. If it cost me more than I need to spend for the same or better result the financial efficency is my goal. 🤑
It's a steam engine. No amount of word play can change that fact. Yes, fuel is burned to heat water and convert it to steam. And this is done outside the pistons. By that measure, all steam engines are external combustion engines - aside from nuclear powered steam production. Weight and complexity are significant factors. One must transport the fuel and the mechanism for burning that fuel as well as the mechanism for transferring the energy to water, turning it into steam - let's not forget the water tank. Then that energy must be extracted from the steam and converted into mechanical energy. The internal combustion engine is simply much more efficient, converting liquid hydrocarbons directly into mechanical energy (and heat). This eliminates all the machinery needed for steam production and the weight associated with it.
Uh, no, that's not the real question. The real question is, are you one of those people who believe over-unity machines are possible? If so, you need to realize that your brain isn't well-suited to evaluation of complex systems. There's ALWAYS a gotcha, something you've missed, something that's eating up an unexpected amount of the energy put into the system. Better minds than yours over the millennia have tried and failed to come up with a way of manipulating various forces to produce energy from nothing. They have all failed - every last one. If over-unity is possible, you'll know it by the end of the first simple experiment. If you have to look for points of inefficiency, things to tweak, adjustments to make to try to push a system over the break-even point, you've already failed. A successful system won't try to "bend" the rules or find loopholes in the laws of physics. No, a successful system will completely trash the laws of physics, and will be able to summon massive quantities of energy from nothing by manipulating / changing the underpinnings of reality. Losses from friction, heat, or whatever won't be an issues because the sheer volume of free energy on tap will render these meaningless. A successful gravity-based system will manipulate gravity at will with zero effort. You'll essentially be turning gravity on and off as needed. Do this, you'll also have invented an anti-gravity device that will revolutionize EVERYTHING. But wait, there's more! Gravity isn't really a "force" so much as a warping of space. You'll have figured out how to warp space on demand with zero energy input. Hm.... Imagine all those scifi stories made reality. Imagine being able to create a wormhole without any of the adverse effects normal physics predicts would arise from more conventional methods... You could travel ANYWHERE in the universe, near instantly! Imagine a new super weapon - a mini-wormhole that siphons energy direct from the sun to a point on the planet of your choosing. SCORCHED EARTH! Want to make the whole earth blow up? Twist gravity enough that the core of the earth becomes extremely heavy. Earth will implode. Tune that implosion correctly, maybe the earth will go "supernova" through fusion. Or maybe just suddenly return gravity to normal, and all that highly-compressed material will spring back, tearing the world apart. A successful magnetism-based system will turn the magnetic force on and off for electrons and protons, at will and without the addition of any external energy to the system. The energy such a system could unleash would be... INSANE. Who needs heat and pressure for fusion when you can simply tell protons to ignore magnetic forces? Your first experiment would likely produce a massive KABOOM. Or a micro black hole? Hmmm..... You get the idea, right? The universe becomes your plaything when the laws of physics can be twisted, amplified, or shut off at will. Better be careful though; it may be that you're achieving this through manipulation of universal constants in a local region. What happens if there's a slip-up, and the local change becomes universal? Goodby universe as we know it! More likely though, you'll simply die on your first experiment as normal matter encounters incompatible altered reality.
@@michaelmeenaghan8559 Give me a frickin' break, Mike. Look up the definition of over-unity, then tell me how a wind turbine qualifies. A wind turbine doesn't make energy from nothing, and doesn't violate any laws of physics. You aren't one of those brain-dead morons who believe that compressing air somehow unleashes massive amounts of free energy, are you? That airliner turbofan engines don't actually need fuel to power the plane? Uh oh.... What is the shape of the earth, Mike?
IC engines are about as efficient as it gets, because you're dealing with only one energy conversion. Electric cars represent insane energy losses by comparison, and that's in spite of the frankly unbelievable efficiency of modern electric motors and batteries.
@@Patrick-857 if you have a straight up solar powered car, like an aptera, it's more efficient than any IC. Stirling cycles are more efficient than IC for running generators and what-not. ICs are _convenient_.
Can this be used as stationary energy? Like a dam for MW Power production to Grid. Writing off solutions just because it not used in cars to me sounds silly. The company went that route probably cause it was easier to raise funds for that, but I see a better use in energy generation to grid, which could then charge EVs or Heat
The problem isn't the engine. It's the steam plant needed to power it. It needs at least a boiler and a condenser. And neither of those are very compact or very light. When measuring the power to weight ratio, all must be taken into account, except perhaps the fuel. Internal combustion engines rule not so much because they are all that thermo-dynamacly efficient, but because they offer the best power per weight ratios.
No updates since 2016 🤨 you might want to find out if they're still alive. One engine running on many different fuels is a very big problem for the oil companies
All steam engines are like trying to herd cats, you have to control a lot of variables, I would like to see a computer do this, I sure it can be done it just will not be easy. all steam engines us oil injection to lube the engine so that not a problem, I'm sure all his problems are fixable, they make seals for steam turbines so that is an easy fix, balancing an engine is not all that difficult a good race engine builder could fix that problem easy. I think this guy did a good start but just needs some experts to find tune it.
There is a reason why we stopped using steam engines and moved on to petrol power. And no, it was not because of some kind of conspiracy. It is because the petrol powered internal combustion engine supplies more power, is easier to use, is more compact, and more reliable. And steam powered pistons is just not very efficient. There is a reason why they are not used in large scale power production, like electrical power plants. Turbines are more efficient, gaining the most power out of the steam, and less prone to the mechanical stresses that pistons suffer, therefore more reliable.
Heating water to make steam for the purpose of turning it into mechanical energy is incredibly inefficient on any scale and at any temperature. More than likely the reason for it's disappeared is they realized that your typical modern diesel engine cost's much less than what they could make the cyclone for and it also makes much more power on much less fuel, and is more reliable. Same thing with the Stirling engine
Should use a heat pump with the radiater systems in the ev. That way it can charge at times when ac is on. Also when the electric engines or battery is cooled.
If it is a monotube boiler, like most of the evolved steam cars of the early automotive era had, there is very little volume of water to cause a boiler explosion. Unlike the epic detonations the firetube boilers in steam locomotives were known for.
I believe this thing is an impressive feat of engineering but the biomass stuff is just too good to be true. If bio fuel can work of external combustion it would worked for internal combustion a long time ago. Heat water up to 1000 degrees require a lot of energy, biomass need to be processed to become extremely energy dense kind like petroleum, and that process require a lot power to do.
Lol you bought into the propaganda thinking this is impressive engineering. It's just 6 cylinders in a star configuration. A boiler and probably a condenser. Pretty basic.
It's a radial engine, like biplanes used even pre WW I. Firewood is 'biomass' but still needs a year to dry or the smoke gets all gummy. They can't use onions and orange peels by shoveling their soppy kitchen composting into their car.. LoL you're exactly right.
literally just heat up the biomass in a closed container, cool it, and you get gas and gasoline-like liquids. Not that hard and doesn't use much power. This is disconsidering the fact that you could just use the wood directly instead.
to make biofuel viable, you must produce it from biomass waste, and not from fuel crops. The corn biofuel bubble has bursted more than 10 years ago. The steam engine can be integrated into a hybrid-electric powertrain system for better efficiency. It does not need to be so powerful to run the car as it is powerful enough to recharge the batteries. Being an external combustion engine, it can run on a wide range of liquid or gas biofuels.
A Lubrication system like the internal combustion engines and a lubricant in the water like soluble oil add a micro reactor (nuclear) and we might be getting somewhere fast
Your statement at 2:48, "not the fuel that powers the engine, but the steam" is incorrect. The steam is just a carrier of the power. The power is coming from the combustion of the fuel. As others have stated, there is nothing special here. It's just a radial steam engine with steam recovery just like a 1925 Doble car. See Jay Leno's episode on the Doble for a better understanding. It may be that with some development, this could reach pretty good levels of thermodynamic efficiency, but at the end of the day, you're still just burning combustible fuel and exhausting that.
If this was legitimate the car companies would have bought this up in the first week it was released so something isn't passing the smell test here not to mention I really want to see the full schematic for this engine and the data that goes along with the dyno testing not to mention the longevity the wear rates in this motor like I said I would have to see all the paperwork but something isn't adding up
Is it the reason that this works theoretically better than a typical Sterling engine the fact that it uses a supercritical liquid? If so what about super critical CO2 or some other perhaps refrigerant gas that would be easier to seal and get around any of the issues associated with proper sealing and wear and tear.
Is the Cyclone external combustion engine the future? NO! This engine focuses on all the juicy features and none of the inconvenient truths. There is no reason this would ever succeed though there are some innovative aspects to it. The engine might succeed but an application must be found where it could and nothing else would do - that's the tricky part. On steam, it might provide stationary power generation fed with wood but it's up against Diesel generators which are cheap and reliable and someone has to cut, collect and chop the wood. In a dystopian Mad Max future this engine may succeed in forested areas LOL. It could provide supplemental grid power at a city dump also but someone has to be paid to fill the boiler making the net benefit marginal. For widespread adoption think pragmatically. Work is work. Fit this external combustion engine to a car and drive 100km and measure the fuel consumption on gasoline, then compare the fuel consumption of a 100hp 4 cylinder engine over the same distance. The car might use 8 or 10 liters possibly half that. Boiled down it is simple: A piston engine burns air compressed to ~10x hence 10:1 compression by adding in 10x the amount of fuel (in the correct ratio of course) for the same weight as it would if it were 1:1 compression. How is an external combustion engine with a 1:1 compression ratio in the boiler ever going to deal the efficiency of 10:1 compression ratio ICE with all the added machinery required to pump the boiler pressure up? This then requires more and more fuel which has its own weight and storage requirements. The piston engine makes 10x the power in the same space than if it had 1:1 compression. That's only part of it - it gets worse. Generally, pumping air to increase combustion pressure to increase efficiency creates what is termed pumping losses decreasing from the efficiency gain by a high order of magnitude. The pumping losses are something that can never ever be eliminated only improved upon. The compressor pumping losses for turbine engines are very high even with the most efficient jet engine for example - perhaps higher than a piston engine. This all has to be paid for in fuel (and air in the correct ratio). Gas turbines improve on 1:1 steam boilers but don't use steam as the medium. In steam turbines the amount of heat recovery machinery and infrastructure required in the installation is utterly amazing because of the intrinsic inefficiency of heating the water to superheated steam has to be minimized. It is getting complex fast this post but gas turbines (not steam turbines) improve on steam turbines because the compactness of them as they can generate their own compression ratio increase like an ICE. External combustion engines can't compete against internal combustion for most applications. Steam can and does make huge power but those applications are specific. Typically economies of scale and military operations make high fuel consumption less important than fuel consumption does for the average person. Also coal mines where the fuel tank is an enormous hole in the ground makes external combustion steam viable, ships are another but even there the trend is away from external combustion steam. Piston engines aren't successful for no reason. Gas turbines aren't successful for no reason.
Well, as to the failure to continue development, who knows, could have been a lot of things. As to the technology itself, it's nothing new, except perhaps the configuration of the power cylinders formatted into a pancake radial form. My best guess is that because they are using supercritical steam, the boiler has to be so heavy for safety's sake that the power to weight ratio sucks as far as transportation applications go. This would limit it to stationary applications for power generation, and other options for that are currently cheaper, so it would be limited to niche applications. Of course most of this is speculation on my part and I could be wrong about some or all of this but this is my current take. P.S. I should have read the Boring Old White Guy first, that pretty much explains it, but I'm leaving my two cents worth in as additional problems.
I looked into these about 15 years ago and they were constantly battling sealing and wear issues. The water was completely inadequate for the lubrication needs and pretty much every time they ran one on the dyno or if it was in a show it would be a freshly built unit. Longevity/durability is the reason these things never took off.
Didn't steam locomotives and a bit of oil to the steam to lubricate the cylinders and valves? Not environmentally friendly in a total loss system but if you're re-condensing the steam and re-using it that's less of an issue.
@@Surestick88 You cannot reuse the oil though. it must be filtered out of the condensing water with an oil diaper before the water can be recycled back into the boiler, so it is still a total loss oil system.
Agreed.
I'm an engineer and I know there's a kit from hemmingwway (UK) called the Cygnet that's a 3 cylinder radial steam engine from the 1960s. The web page includes a basic cut away drawing and a short video of one operating.
Plus the producer of this vid clearly doesn't understand basic combustion chemistry. If you're burning organics you're producing combustion products. Its a chemical reaction not a nuclear reaction.
@@MagnusFeirenbacher there are closed crankcase steam engines that have a closed sump full of oil like a modern car engine. the stuart sirius is one example
@@Surestick88 yes, they used a tallow based oil that mixes with steam rather than being washed off like mineral oils.
I worked on the project, no test run over 5 minutes was ever made. Vibration was a huge problem, and anything but deionized water would cause corrosion issues in the engine.
Boys, we got a minor setback, looks like we have to shelve this one cuz I don't feel like wording numbers n stuff. Everything has a learning curve. Most curves hinge on current available materials. If your on the cutting edge of something, then explore other fields to propagate better models. After all, the vast majority of current tech, is based off old tech that received new information.
Perhaps using a different fluid may help.
@@codetech5598 perhaps just using a better engine design that isn't a poorly built steam engine.
"I worked on the project"
Didn't we all...
@@thesleeperofrlyeh9015 The design is purely nonsense -- it can only be fixed by throwing everything out and starting over. Even if you did that, it is limited by the loss of the latent heat of vaporization -- which is a limitation of physics and not engineering.
Nah, it's still a Steam Engine. Modernized mechanically and with an efficient boiler section similar to the 1925 Doble, but a steam engine.
Nuclear power plants are steam engines. Same with coal plants.
I wonder if you could heat the water with an electrical coil, and power that with an alternator? With enough left over to use? You’d think that’s impossible, but those torque numbers are insane!
A steam engine will always be more efficient and make less pollution. I've been saying this for years.. all the inefficiency in an ice is because gasoline doesn't burn fast enough for the rpms required to drive it.
@@alphagt62 the torque is insane because the expansion ration of 213 degree steam to h20 is 1:1600 supercritical steam is way beyond that
Engineer: It's a steam engine!
Marketing: It's an external cyclone combustion water powered radial engine!
Those old steam engine powered cars were anything BUT slow, they were far faster than any of the ICE powered cars of the time.
200km per hour is not something slow..
@@FadeToEvil I think he may be talking about the old ones that they would of been competing with at the time
@@thesimpletroll2769 A 1906 Stanly steamer car went 121.6 MPH on it's first try, the second try, it reached 127.7 MPH. That record stood till 1910.
Gasoline powered cars took many years before they reached those speeds. But the gas engine evolved quickly, while the steam engine was ignored, and made the gas engine the main engine the world over.
Only if the outside pressure was extremely high........which can be achieved with a flash stem boiler.....all of the problems of piston type steam engines can be overcome with a steam turbine.
@@gangleweed There is no problem with piston steam engine itself, but steam turbine with small scale has problems like low efficiency. It should spin very fast, so reducer will take a lot of power. Flash steam boiler is something different. I prefer to call it monotube boiler (because flash steam is converting pressureated water to steam+water mixture)
Interesting concept, it looks like it would be more suited for a home combined heat and power (CHP) system rather than trying to shoehorn it into a car, what with all the crash safety requirements and maintenance complexity and everything. Presumably you could run it off wood pellets and garden waste, and both fuel streams are already widely used for home heating systems, and the bonus being that you'd get electrical power from it too.
For automotive use the first thing I thought of is keeping the water in the system from freezing overnight in the winter. Durable water lubricated bearings are already in use but quite expensive to make and need to be kept well below the water boiling temperature in use. The many real world engineering challenges keep building up in my mind that need solutions for affordable, reliable and durable consumer automotive use.
Cyclone is a defunct investment scam, the engines in the videos are all props built to fool gullible investors.
steam is used in nuclear power plants to drive the turbines. its a good way to move energy around a thermodynamic system. i think the real advancement is more the combustion end (the boiler in traditional steam systems) as you can probibly hook the engine to any steam source and get power out of it. steam engines are pretty straight forward and a lot simpler than ices. you can also push the piston both ways so you can have fairly consistent forces on the crank shaft rather than intermittent like a 4-stroke. its pretty much steampunk evolved.
These were very similar units to those used in DoD/USAF courier trucks in the late 70s/early 80s. They could literally run on anything, and were used as everything from couriers to tuggers at several air fields. Cyclone's claim-to-fame wasn't the steam engine, but the cyclonic combustor. The centrifugal force of the high velocity cyclone, was a captive cycle for most of the particulate emissions the EPA was currently focusing on. They were working on a closed-loop Sterling model, which was even less maintenance. In the end, they lost out for lack of marketability and a restrictive investment contracts. The slow start-up time, low power density by volume, preferred vertical orientation, inflated goals, and low duty cycle, saw the project fall off the radar. In order to achieve their peak efficiency, the engine used a vertical orientation to take advantage of natural convection.
Last I heard, a slightly different version of the combustor could be found in a waste oil heater... but I'm unsure if it has any relation to Cyclone. I reached out to them several years ago, in hopes to connect them with a pneumatic motor supplier from Australia... but it didn't work out, as the Aussie supplier was adamant about both NOT using his motors in combustion engines, but also not letting the tech leave Australia (although it's now used in some forklifts).
its a steam engine steam engines are external combustion engines if you look at the "engine" they look fantastic on paper but the boiler and condenser are MUCH larger than the carburetor and exhaust pipe (carburetor~= boiler, aka where fuel is added)(exhaust pipe ~= condenser aka where heat is rejected) so internal combustion is WAY more power/smaller/cheaper, it never stood a chance
Some of the downsides of an engine like this (slow response, warm-up time) wouldn't be an issue if it was used to drive a generator for a range-extender in an electric powered vehicle.
Given that there's no reason this couldn't burn renewable fuels... That said there's probably more compact, lighter options that would work better.
If the fluid was super critical steam it would take minimal heat input to cause change from liquid to gas but the visible plumbing on that machine would not contain those pressures.
In a perfect world.. not.
Yeah true, slow to warm up but how long does it take to charge up your EV Vic UK
Thats the thing about flash boilers- theyre called flash boilers for a reason, they're very fast to warm up.
I knew an old lady who swallowed a fly.... E-vehicles suck big time. We need better engines, not inefficient range extenders for already very inefficient power trains.
The tech has been around for decades if not centuries, but because of political winds, commercial interests, progress to alternatives from traditional combustion engines are always held back, or shelved. Glad the Internet is exposing these options
the dobel steam cars used closed loop steam systems with a water tube boiler kindof like what they are showing, but the dobel steam cars were actually sold and could reach over 100 mph. Jay leno has several of them with at least one running, the problem with them is up keep on such a system.
Check it out. .Great Segment...
For those interested, look after "Serpollet" and "Doble". The former is from France and the Doble brothers built steam cars in the thirties that were ready to run un less than a minute after staying outside at freezing temperatures.
On top of seal problems and such the other big problem is the peripheral components like the boiler and all the other junk that makes it actually a larger more complex unit vs just an internal combustion engine.
Honestly, the "No engines delivered to customers" part is the big clue as to why you haven't heard from them. I don't know if they didn't sell it, couldn't sell it, whatever. It would be such a big change form internal combustion that I can imagine it's problematic to get a manufacturer of, say, riding mowers to adopt them. They would have had to not only develop the engine, get it in a configuration that could be used in a vehicle (i.e. how do you hook it up to a transmission?), and then develop some sort of useful vehicle all on their own.
I was on there facebook page, they are having funding issues to bring it to production, plus they had an legal battle they where dealing with. I was wondering what happened to them as well, me being fascinated about steam power.
Coz its stupid thats why
Ill look into it😱
@@TugIronChief Perhaps. People lose money investing all of the time. Sadly, engineering acumen doesn't equal business acumen. Assuming that they DID develop this motor, that's an awful lot of work for a scam.
It is a radial steam engine. It would have massive torque and probably would not need a trans.
From what I've read, the inventor had very little understanding of how to actually make a viable engine. Besides the water lubrication issue others have mentioned, the original design linked the pistons to a freely rotating plate rather than a plate aligned with one of the pistons for radial engines as is common practice. This added extra vibration and mechanical loss.
Overall, my impression of the Cyclone engine is that it's either a scam or made by a well intentioned person who really didn't do their research. What especially disappoints me is that there are several modern steam groups that are much more reputable (I.E. actual research and, in the case of DLM, actual prototypes and production machines) but seem to have little notice.
One would think that if they used supercritical steam.. they would also use the multiple expansion making it worth it
Would burning orange peel raise the temperature to 1200 Deg F, or 649 Deg C, to produce the superheated steam?
@@NorfolkSceptic possibly. Orange peal actuslly contain a very potent oil... not much... but if you have a ton of it.
@@NorfolkSceptic it would need to be very well dehydrated to be worthwhile. Otherwise you are wasting a lot of energy boiling off the water content.
Harry Schoel is a con man and crook, Cyclone was a hoax, a big investment scam.
The same reason loads of other cleaner running engines never made it to production and people dying or going missing.
The questions that need answers: What is it's efficiency?, What is it's readiness (my term), that is how quickly can it be turned on and brought up to performance operation? How often will it need make up water? If it is a completely sealed system will a different working fluid be better? Now in my perspective, it may make a great engine for a hybrid system car where it is basically an EV but when the batteries get low, the engine ( generator) cranks up and recharges batteries and also provides travel power.
Yeah hybrid steam/ev sounds promising even if it can just extend the milage in an ev per it's weight and space more than the space the battery space it takes up, could be worth it.
After ignoring the enormous lubrication problems for a moment, a question comes to my mind: would not a steam-powered turbine much more efficient for stationary use?
I agree, a stationary generator would be incredibly awesome considering it’s torque. Automate 2-3 different sources of fuel depending on availability locally and abilities to keep it running.
Giant steam powered turbines are currently in service all over the planet, providing electricity for the masses. The super heated steam is created by coal, natural gas, nuclear plants, and probably some heat sources I haven’t included. All USN submarines and aircraft carriers are powered by electricity created by steam turbine generators. The steam is created by the nuclear reactors.
Steam power never died, folks.
It just found new employment.
110 years ago a steam powered car was much faster than gasoline, but many factors like road conditions made speed a moot point. In 1938 a British steam locomotive named Mallard went 126 mph. A record never broken (for steam) to this day.
More than a few comments made in this video made it clear that an informed awareness of the history of steam power, and the current use globally, was sadly lacking.
It's not been 10 years, it's been 200.
Supercritical boilers are used to generate power. You have to have temperatures above 374c and pressures above 220 bar.
This is the first reason they are not used in cars. Old steam cars used flash boilers. Usually a coiled pipe is heated and water pumped in where it flashes to steam. It's light, quick to start and if it fails there is little steam volume to explode. So a lot safer.
Supercritical boilers are the worst possible case for safety in a vehicle. Worse than a normal boiler. As all the water in the system if ruptured will flash instantly to steam as its pressure drops. Meaning all the water in the system will blow it up. And it's at at 3 time the pressure of normal boilers. Meaning you got to have some serous seals and very well made parts. Amd any failure could very bad.
The video is also wrong saying it's ar 1100c. Steel would give way and the thing would be glowing white hot at that temp. It's only theorised running at hose temps and nobody has made a boiler thay does because of the material requirements.
The engine is not anything special. Just a radials steam engine. Alow me to doubt how long it will last with water as lube. There are good reasons engines use hydrostatic bearing.
It's performance is expected for an engine like that running at high pressure. It's probably very inefficient for a reciprocating steam engine. Only having one expansion of the steam. Triple expansion engines were not built for the fin of it.
There needs no conspiracy why this has never been a success. It's inefficient, dangerous in a vehicle and would be difficult to fuel with solid materials.
@Edward Elizabeth Hitler Outgassing H2...Hydrogen embrittlement will kill the stainless steel way before you reach 1100 operating temp. Water in the crankcase is a bad idea too. They built a bomb.
F not C. Single stage can be efficient, just not under full torque. See uniflow steam engine. This is Rankine cycle and is only efficient in super critical configuration with high expansion ratios. It is the condensing and vacuum raising equipemnt that takes up volume. 1/3 the power is below atmospheric to get the efficiency. Super critical CO2 enclosed Brayton cycle might be a better choice, simple will get to internal combustion like efficiency, dual will be a little better but needs more support equipment. All this steam engine takes up more space than an internal combustion engine by about three times. Supercritical CO2 is in modern use for bottom cycles on internal combustion engines right now and gaining popularity as it is half the size of the steam plant. But we are looking at the 15MW range. Supercritical CO2 scales down better than steam.
It sounds like most Cyclone engine problems come from the mindset that it was "not invented here." I have first-hand knowledge of Cyclone's business problems. At the moment, they are working with interested parties to take advantage of the clean burn characteristics of the engine to turn a foreign nation's colossal waste disposal problem into a microgrid electric power solution that addresses both sanitary waste disposal and municipal power reliability with dual use infrastructure funds.
Modern waste streams with large amounts of plastics burn clean in the external burn chamber. That is because of the filtering effect of the cyclonic flow within the burn. Cyclonic filters efficiently separate solids (even very tiny ones) from gasses. The Cyclone engine utilizes a cyclonic filter as a burner to provide supercritical steam for its engine. As the burn progresses, burning masses heavier than air are not allowed to escape the burn until consumed by the burning process. Similarly, burn by-products such as ash and metals in the burn become consolidated in a molten pool that drips out of the cyclonic burner/filter as an easily manageable byproduct of the waste disposal process flow.
External combustion that is clean enough to meet CARB air purity standards (from municipal waste!!) is only the beginning of the good news. The engine converts 40+ percent of the heat produced in the burner to usable shaft horsepower.
I can imagine that with only a subtle design modification that the burner/engine I have just described could burn powdered coal, sequester any unburned burn-by-products as raw material for industry and enable the creation of microgrid power infrastructure to ease the strain on the power grid crunch that is sure to arise from the rapid roll-out of battery-powered transportation.
Cyclone has proposed a system capable of harvesting solar heat and storing it using a working fluid that resists freeze-up of the system when it is offline and keeps energy as 1500 degree F heat in insulated underground containers. They suggest designing heat storage with enough capacity to provide 5 days of off-line power. Of course, a solar system of this kind can have a cyclone burner.
I was studying this engine many years ago and had high hopes.
This new 'first hand information' clarifies a lot. But the change of approach and product goal, makes me wonder that their original idea is basically abandoned. I am sad that they could not get the engineering worked out.
Uh...
If you're going to power an electrical grid with steam, maybe a turbine would be a better approach for heat-to-mechanical energy transformation than a 5-piston radial engine. No new fancy developments required in the steam cycle, it's all been done before, and I'm sure machines are available "off the shelf". But you know what? I think you've put too much faith in what sounds like the voodoo-science of a "cyclone burner", and I'll continue to believe that unless you can provide some substantive information about the actual design and functionality of "cyclonic filters" and "cyclonic burners". 99% chance you're missing something very important, something that makes the system your speaking of nearly impossible to sell when all the facts are known.
@@warpedweirdo Thanks for commenting.
Steam will never work in a car. It's just too dangerous. People today are quite unaware of the horrible accidents that occurred in the heyday of steam engines. Also steam turbines are clearly better, more practical and are very well established and mature technology at this point. Very interesting comment. I have been wondering for a while if it's possible to cleanly burn waste. We could theoretically do it with human waste too, by filtering it out, removing the water and burning it in a superheated furnace. Given enough air being blasted in, anything becomes a fuel just about. Check out the mad Aussies with their turbocharged burn barrel lol. You wouldn't think wood could behave like jet fuel, but a couple of bogans in a shed proved that wrong.
In the 80's, my father was sent to Georgia to wire the electricity for a new ethenol plant which would make and sell a mixture of corn-alcohol and gasoline. Before they could finish and open the plant, government agents cut a deal with the owners and bought it. The plant never did open. You will find, with minimum effort, the same people always harping about alternative energy sources, NEED something to complain about so they are allowed to screw you legally. The last thing they want is for any actual problem to be fixed. Whatever solutions they "allow", will be under their control and limited for price-fixing.
Forget running your car, with that kind of torque, a gearbox and a generator, this seems like a perfect solution for off grid energy production, powered from trash biomass.
Awesome video! Thanks for the info! Would you be able to do a video on Nikola Tesla’s improved combustion + steam turbine patent GB 186,083 ?!? He patented it 10 years after the original Tesla turbine patent and a decade of R&D.
It’s essentially a combustion rocket aimed into a steam pipe that then uses the steam to cool the hot combustion exhaust gases for admitting into the turbine. 🤤🤤🤤
It’s soooo good!!
From what I understand from the video, sounds a great idea. I mean it uses steam, bio-fuels, and oil based fuels...too good of an idea. I think big auto got to the person/ people behind this engine, and that was the end of it.
It sounds like a great idea the combustion is done in a controled and contineuos was so it can be made cleaner that an ICE. Then using the resultant steam sounds like the way to go.
Except for the very poor efficiency, and the extremely dangerous boiler, and the vast size and weight of the machine compared to an ICE, and very high expense, it's great.
To those who think steam power was slow, steam powered cars were the first ones hitting a hundred miles an hour. Steam powered locomotives did well over a hundred miles an hour. Steam wasn't slow. The people that own steam cars today. Drive them slowly because they don't want to destroy them.
When I heard "water lubricated" I figured something wasn't right, and indeed - on the Wikipedia article this problem is noted as a "Critical path issue" by the people contracted by Cyclone Power to help work on it. Durability of the bearings will be a big sticking point.
Ikr water is not a good bearing lubricator
@@Sausketo What about the possibility of perfect bearings foraged in zero gravity?
Magnetic bearings
@@terrafirma9328 Magnetic bearings can only handle a certain load capacity before the forces experienced by the magnets exceeds their field strength. I suspect this design would not allow for them.
Additionally, the strength of a permanent magnet is reduced with temperature, and demands more expensive rare earth magnets that are weaker than standard neodymium magnets, which will drive up your cost even further.
@@bort6414 Maybe so. I'd still try it out with the largest strongest cobalt magnet they make and build it with a secondary ball bearing to take up the slack😉
Thank you 🙏 great 👍🎥and great 👍 engine 👏👏👏👏💡improvements comes after! ☝️
They need to look into "Jay Lenos ~ 1925 Doble Series E Steam Car" .. On how to coat their engine for those 1000+ degree environments .. :)
I always wonder if a hybrid combustion engine system could be built to improve the efficiency of internal combustion engines by utilizing the waste heat to power an external combustion setup. Definitely adds cost/complexity/wheight but should be able to increase efficiency.
Could this engine be ran on thorium? A low radioactive heat source that heats to super high temperatures water that water could then be used to run the engine? Of course this vehicle concept would never see the light of day because The energy industry would lose billions if people change to using
We follow the rules of thermodynamics in this house!!!!
As far as the POC goes it is very interesting. Iron out a few issues and it could well be the way of the future. Seems like a good candidate for burning hydrogen perhaps.
Why do modern car companies developing hydrogen-powered cars focus on using hydrogen within fuel cells rather than within an internal combustion engine?
Why don't modern automobiles use steam?
Why didn't the engine in this video go anywhere?
How is the engine in this video superior to older steam engine designs?
A real analysis would go a long way toward explaining these things.
What you've offered so far isn't analysis so much as wishful thinking.
@@warpedweirdo I have wondered some of those exact same things , combining old and new technologies might make for some great cars and power plants.
@@warpedweirdo _"using hydrogen within fuel cells rather than within an internal combustion engine?"_
Hydrogen burns with oxygen in the air at a rate of 2H to 1 O..
What is 2HO? That's right it's H₂O.. Water.
Water mixing with oils, hydrogenates the oil, making margarine if it's food type oil, and a similar nasty mess with other types.
Add heat and pressure and it hydrogenates faster.
The "oil" then basically has the lubricating properties of mud.
You'd be lucky to get to the grocery store once..
@@Dr_Wrong Excellent reply.
It is a Racine Cycle Engine, similar to a Stirling Engine. It's not new. It gets its "modern" power levels by using deionized water. For the science-challenged, deionized water is water with all the minerals removed. Removing the minerals allows the steam to be super critical with a lower energy input. Deionized water, however, is a very powerful base. It will absorb the minerals from anything it touches. This means it will dissolve almost anything you put it in.
Cyclone sold their waste heat engines to a number of power generation companies. However, TPTB do not want flexible fueled engines. They want no engines for anyone but themselves. On the engineering side, the material science to allow the engine to cost-effectively circulate deionized water without being dissolved simply does not exist. All the technologies that can do it are too expensive to scale.
I can see the potential for this engine for anything but cars. At home using a prism to heat a tank to steam and generate power for batteries. Fuel it by wood pellets, scrap lumber, saw dust, food waste. Seems like a great option for off grid or tiny homes.
Or powering a flux capcitor in a delorian 🚗 vrrrrrrooooooom
Those torque numbers seem high. I love radial engines, but I think they would have done better with a two bank wobble plate radial engine. More power narrower profile.
A few bullet points:
- to operate this type of engine requires a certain level of consciousness, which is a rare commodity these days.
- Gathering all the fuel would probably constitute hard work, not fashionable these days.
-Huge marketing would be required which may exceed R and D at first.
- The oil firms will offer pushback
"Fuel" is anything you can burn to heat up a teapot.
Even gasoline or wood, but not "biomass" unless it was as dry as seasoned firewood.
Firewood is exactly "biomass."
Where will you store a cord of wood in your car?
DARPA EATR BOT GENERATOR w/ report on DARPAS WEBSITE dude it's pretty wild.
Been following this for some years to me it’s a steam powered radial engine last I heard it was successful used as a generator
There used to be a yearly all-comers race/rally across a long part of the Australian desert - it may have perished in relation to the new forms of dictatorship. But anyhow I think an annual race/rally to achieve the best result for the Carnot-cycle would be great and would be outside corporation hands (unless they wished to submit an entry). Be good in a desert too.
Burning biomass fuel is a dirty process at best. The reason we haven't heard about this concept is that it wasn't practical for a whole host of reasons, not only dirty combustion. The bottom line, as several have noted below, is that its a steam engine, nothing more, and if you want a steam powered vehicle there are a large number of engine designs that are equivalent. This is someone's concept that they pursued because it was their own idea.
It's just a modernized steam engine... Which is awesome. The on-demand torque and fuel flexibility are something we've needed for a while as a society
ThanThank you fork this. Like many things are kept hidden from us
A search for:
Stress corrosion cracking supercritical water
Will give a pretty good idea of why no one pursued the idea of flashing supercritical water into steam inside the cylinder of a car's engine. Carbon steel and cast iron rust much faster than in salt water. Stainless steel acts like carbon steel near salt water, and seals and gadgets need to be made of silicone or Teflon or be eaten away in short order.
Using high-temperature water as a lubricant won't work well for any materials I ever encountered. I can't think of any that wouldn't be better off running dry than in 1,000 F water.
Valid point... and Teflon wouldn't work (as least, not for long). Even Viton seals wouldn't work. When you get supercritical steam in/around moving parts at those pressures, it will eat nearly anything. Teflon, in it's microscopic form, is made of tiny flakes, and uses water in itself. Even after curing... at those pressures with steam, the shock waves create microfissures and it simply flakes off in short order. Furthermore, the various stresses that occur inside rotary piston type layouts, necessitates a high degree of lubrication. I'm with you... even dry WSO² in dry powder form, with all it's high maintenance, would be a better solution. Even if they didn't use salt water... the cavitation alone, would cause significant issues.
Use this type of tech for stationary electrical power generation. For homes, as an example.
I am a member of the Steam Automobile Club. These guys have been claiming a bunch of wondrous things for two decades. They came to the Society of Automotive Engineers annual meeting about a decade ago. One really good possibility was small motors for chain saws and lawn mowers, since steam engines are much quieter than ICEs. I even bought stock in them.
Never had a running engine. After a few years they issued preferred stock, then changed the ownership so that the common stock was worthless. It's a con.
Only way this would make sense in my opinion is if they used the superheated water state to drive a steam turbine.
Reciprocal pistons are just too inefficient, and you're never going to get sufficient lubrication with water vapor.
If it had it's own pressurised lubrication system, that wouldn't work either as you would inevitably see condensate making it's way past the the piston rings and contaminating the engine oil.
perfect for stationary power generation applications, by means of burning fuel, but unfortunately not enough for automobility, because external combustion engines have a lot slower response to accelleration commands than normal internal combustion engines, also solar can not produce enough of the demands of such an engine, although it is an amazing feat of engineering...maybe they did not receive enough demands from customers to make it a pheasable business...
Chris, have you done videos on the Robert Bourke Engine, broer?
Something you don't know about steam engines if you think theyre not responsive. Or maybe you think they all operate and respond like the copper and brass toy steam engines that weren't built to actually power anything.
I think the main thing is that it is using the same technology as cars a century ago that was originally displaced by internal combustion. The act of getting the heat to run it is much less efficient and more fiddly than the drop-the-fuel-in-and-light-it simple internal combustion engines we use today.Sure, the act of extracting work from the steam may be much more efficient than extracting it from fuel under pressure, but getting the heat to create the steam is much less efficient, and is not nearly as responsive as going directly from fuel to crank.
The main problem from what you discussed in your video is that they never fixed the power density problem of the condenser. If you really want to make progress in steam automotives you need to make a radiator that outright breaks physics. That's it. If you ignore that and focus on a fancy combustion chamber or pump you are doomed from the start. Also, high temperature steam is fantastically corrosive to anything except maybe the most exotic materials and that would nuke your value proposition to the average customer.
A couple of things jump out immediately to explain why this design may not fly very far.
The heat/steam source has to withstand 1200psi and 568 degree F. That requires serious thermal and mechanical components to contain and control it. That means that the total package is going to be massive, with respect to an IC motor.
Once through use of superheated steam is inefficient, as the cycle can only extract some of the energy from the steam. You would have to use some sort of stepped low pressure piston set(s) to get the most efficient use of the steam energy (the OD of the LP pistons would increase from set to set to allow the HP exhaust steam from the first to act on greater surface areas as the pressure degrades. Even then, to maintain a closed cycle, the unit has to have an efficient condenser/heat sink design to return the exhaust steam to liquid, potentially throwing way a big chunk of the latent heat of vaporization, and again increasing the mass and complexity of the engine and its power source.
Maintaining a leak free closed system is going to require that the seals and bearings of the engine must be of materials that don't wear and are not affected by extreme temperatures. Steam/water lubrication of rotating or reciprocating equipment to date has never been able to achieve that.
I would like to make a drag racing submarine with a couple of those engines.
WOULDN,T THE WATER FREEZE IN THE WINTER ?
The cool thing about engines that work from a pressured flow like steam is that they are constant-pressure, this gets rid of just about every issue with normal IC engines and the torque is truly incredible (especially low-end torque compared to IC engine which literally come to a hault at same speed these guys still push crazy numbers..)
Though even I was surprised at the torque figueres here! Also 150hp / 150kg?? Daaaayum!
Unfortunately the engine, it's performance and the entire company was fake...
Add this concept to a solar steam generator and you have totally clean energy. Mirrors to concentrate the sun onto a boiler unit that feeds one or more of these types of engines or even to power the steam turbines we use today.
Great job!😃👍💛
Many industrial applications such as steam turbine operated generators, ships engines etc. run on super heated steam these days with no major or uncontrollable issues. Modern materials science has come a long way with hydro-based lubricants, ceramic and composite bearing materials(ceramics and others), high temp resistant corrosion resistant metals like Stainless steels,
Inconel, Molybdenum, Titanium, Nickel Alloys, etc.. Making one of these engines run reliably shouldn't be a big problem these days with proper engineering. I think other forces at work have prevented their proliferation - patents, profitability, public mindset, competition with powers that be, etc.
They should make a hybrid where traditional engine makes energy from normal combustion and steam generator use the heat to make electricity but adding turbos that spin magnets on the exhaust can probably create much heat and so should be able to create a reasonable amount of electricity from traditional engine
What people have to realise is that combining things is key ie burn fuel to make light like in a lamp create light but heat not being used. Explode fuel to make movement but heat and light not being used. I’m serious that you could potentially make a glass engine, fused silica or quartz , fused silica have a melting point of 1900 degrees C and can be cut very accurately and doesn’t expand or contract much at different temps and you could use a high rpm engine in the right circumstance to create useful light and energy from movement And use the heat too .
I’ve seen engines with glass on the side and you can see the explosions so glass sided engines already exist and work
The engine bit is not much of a problem, it's the boiler and plumbing that holds back further development of the steam engine. Super heating steam under the high pressures needed is really only suitable for a stationary or stable application, like marine engines. Only real advantage is using poor quality fuels, but then you're producing a lot of pollution.
any steam engine that is in an accident would be deadly as heck, one of the reasons steam had a bad rep and certified individuals were needed to run them was implemented.
Rocket motor steam turbine, could use rockets heat to increase thrust through rotation
Ok, this looks all fine and dandy, but there are several massive safety issues.
1) how do you heat the water to 1000C safely?
2) once heated, how do you make certain that this very high pressure gas doesn't violent escape? Pretty sure that steam at 1000C is at a very high pressure, and that any engine failure would be on a scale resembling the Challenger disaster.
And 3) even if you somehow prevented a catastrophic failure in any of the lines/engine parts, the pressure might be strong enough to cut steel, and the sheer temperature is definitely lethal.
Home Generator leaps to mind for energy independence.
I paid 25K for an engine and 15k for distributor rights and these guys never delivered an engine to me. I worked with them for two years to get my money back and even threatened to sue them and there was never any effort made to make good on their commitment to me. I would run from these guys - they have not honored any of the commitment they made to me.
You are not the first I know of others with the same story ,, I was involved with a company that had same problem,,
Would you please give me more info? I would love to make a video on you experience.
If you have proof please email me
Get ready for super fluid engines, runs on sound waves
Last forever, because it's perpetual motion! Fluids, the only thing you can perpetuate.
I was on there facebook page, they are having funding issues to bring it to production, plus they had an legal battle they where dealing with. I was wondering what happened to them as well, me being fascinated about steam power.
You should look into the Scudari engine
100 Hp at 3600 RPM is 195 Nm.
3600 rpm and 1355 Nm is 695,5 Hp.
Which is it? It can't be both at the same time. No mention of efficiency/fuel consumption. It's just a new arrangement of the steam engine.
A win-win scenario would be to mate this system to a solar furnace and an electrical generator. With very large vacuum bottle storage tanks, it's possible to generate power 24 hrs. a day. This system could be daisy-chained up to mega-watt power out put.
Aside from the fuel, it looks like a radial airplane engine.
Biomass derived ethanol produces a higher amount of greenhouse gas than gasoline, as does biomass derived diesel fuel. Producing ethanol to mix with gasoline uses more energy than just producing gasoline.
4:20 "... the engine only weights around 150 kilograms."
Does that include the boiler and it's water supply?
I think that I read somewhere that they were going to use them as the Auxiliary Power Unit on the Abrahams Tank.
As an advocate researcher for advanced steam The cyclone engine is interesting but its designer had little understanding of steam technology so the likelihood of it taking off is slim. Poor lubrication and other problems.
If you're really interested in external combustion technology for the future then I'd recommend Mackwell Locomotive Company here on TH-cam and the Steam Automobile Club of America on the web.
Mackwell is working to sell modern steam locomotives and traction engines down in new Zealand and the SACA has an active forum with people that have built their own and worked on steam cars.
I could go on and on but all I can say is it's technology that needs to be brought back.
Harry Schoell was nothing but a crook, a con man... Cyclone was never a legitimate company and all of his prototypes were fake, merely props to scam investors.
Unfortunately the limits of the Rankine Cycle and the Laws of Thermodynamics will prevent steam from ever making a comeback... it offers no advantages over ICEs and several major disadvantages that prevent them from ever being commercially viable again.
Chheers!
If the engine runs on it, it is Fuel. Fuel is acted upon to receive energy.
What would be the advantage of this engine over a steam-driven turbine, which every nuclear plant uses?
Nuclear power is the future, not burning things.
If we get small, efficient, safe nuclear power plants where every community can have its own nuclear power plant, both our energy needs and the environment will be assured.
I wouldn't want nuclear power in my cities board members hands. We'd be dead within the week it was voted in. Many cities would probably feel the same about their towns😳
Steam turbines are more efficient on a large scale, piston engines are more efficient on a small scale. Different things have their optimal size to function best- animals included.
@@rossbrumby1957 I don't care about efficency on my individual scale. All that concerns me is long term costs. If efficency turns out to be part of the equasion that saves me, I'm all for it. If it cost me more than I need to spend for the same or better result the financial efficency is my goal. 🤑
It's a steam engine. No amount of word play can change that fact. Yes, fuel is burned to heat water and convert it to steam. And this is done outside the pistons. By that measure, all steam engines are external combustion engines - aside from nuclear powered steam production.
Weight and complexity are significant factors. One must transport the fuel and the mechanism for burning that fuel as well as the mechanism for transferring the energy to water, turning it into steam - let's not forget the water tank. Then that energy must be extracted from the steam and converted into mechanical energy.
The internal combustion engine is simply much more efficient, converting liquid hydrocarbons directly into mechanical energy (and heat). This eliminates all the machinery needed for steam production and the weight associated with it.
The real question is, does the engine's output exceed the energy required to heat the water to the required temperature?
uh.. wouldn't that be over-unity? You can't get more power out of a system than you put into it.
Uh, no, that's not the real question. The real question is, are you one of those people who believe over-unity machines are possible? If so, you need to realize that your brain isn't well-suited to evaluation of complex systems. There's ALWAYS a gotcha, something you've missed, something that's eating up an unexpected amount of the energy put into the system. Better minds than yours over the millennia have tried and failed to come up with a way of manipulating various forces to produce energy from nothing. They have all failed - every last one.
If over-unity is possible, you'll know it by the end of the first simple experiment. If you have to look for points of inefficiency, things to tweak, adjustments to make to try to push a system over the break-even point, you've already failed. A successful system won't try to "bend" the rules or find loopholes in the laws of physics. No, a successful system will completely trash the laws of physics, and will be able to summon massive quantities of energy from nothing by manipulating / changing the underpinnings of reality. Losses from friction, heat, or whatever won't be an issues because the sheer volume of free energy on tap will render these meaningless.
A successful gravity-based system will manipulate gravity at will with zero effort. You'll essentially be turning gravity on and off as needed. Do this, you'll also have invented an anti-gravity device that will revolutionize EVERYTHING. But wait, there's more! Gravity isn't really a "force" so much as a warping of space. You'll have figured out how to warp space on demand with zero energy input. Hm.... Imagine all those scifi stories made reality. Imagine being able to create a wormhole without any of the adverse effects normal physics predicts would arise from more conventional methods... You could travel ANYWHERE in the universe, near instantly! Imagine a new super weapon - a mini-wormhole that siphons energy direct from the sun to a point on the planet of your choosing. SCORCHED EARTH! Want to make the whole earth blow up? Twist gravity enough that the core of the earth becomes extremely heavy. Earth will implode. Tune that implosion correctly, maybe the earth will go "supernova" through fusion. Or maybe just suddenly return gravity to normal, and all that highly-compressed material will spring back, tearing the world apart.
A successful magnetism-based system will turn the magnetic force on and off for electrons and protons, at will and without the addition of any external energy to the system. The energy such a system could unleash would be... INSANE. Who needs heat and pressure for fusion when you can simply tell protons to ignore magnetic forces? Your first experiment would likely produce a massive KABOOM. Or a micro black hole? Hmmm.....
You get the idea, right?
The universe becomes your plaything when the laws of physics can be twisted, amplified, or shut off at will. Better be careful though; it may be that you're achieving this through manipulation of universal constants in a local region. What happens if there's a slip-up, and the local change becomes universal? Goodby universe as we know it! More likely though, you'll simply die on your first experiment as normal matter encounters incompatible altered reality.
@@renicgunderson441 How much power are you putting into a wind turbine?
You being a bit overdramatic @warpedweirdo 🥴
@@michaelmeenaghan8559 Give me a frickin' break, Mike. Look up the definition of over-unity, then tell me how a wind turbine qualifies. A wind turbine doesn't make energy from nothing, and doesn't violate any laws of physics.
You aren't one of those brain-dead morons who believe that compressing air somehow unleashes massive amounts of free energy, are you? That airliner turbofan engines don't actually need fuel to power the plane?
Uh oh....
What is the shape of the earth, Mike?
Maybe someone figured out that all engines are heat engines, and that regular old IC engines can run on biomass too.
IC engines are about as efficient as it gets, because you're dealing with only one energy conversion. Electric cars represent insane energy losses by comparison, and that's in spite of the frankly unbelievable efficiency of modern electric motors and batteries.
@@Patrick-857 if you have a straight up solar powered car, like an aptera, it's more efficient than any IC.
Stirling cycles are more efficient than IC for running generators and what-not.
ICs are _convenient_.
Can this be used as stationary energy? Like a dam for MW Power production to Grid. Writing off solutions just because it not used in cars to me sounds silly. The company went that route probably cause it was easier to raise funds for that, but I see a better use in energy generation to grid, which could then charge EVs or Heat
The problem isn't the engine. It's the steam plant needed to power it. It needs at least a boiler and a condenser. And neither of those are very compact or very light. When measuring the power to weight ratio, all must be taken into account, except perhaps the fuel.
Internal combustion engines rule not so much because they are all that thermo-dynamacly efficient, but because they offer the best power per weight ratios.
I don't know why it isn't on the market. Why not ask the company that developed it?
No updates since 2016 🤨 you might want to find out if they're still alive. One engine running on many different fuels is a very big problem for the oil companies
All steam engines are like trying to herd cats, you have to control a lot of variables, I would like to see a computer do this, I sure it can be done it just will not be easy. all steam engines us oil injection to lube the engine so that not a problem, I'm sure all his problems are fixable, they make seals for steam turbines so that is an easy fix, balancing an engine is not all that difficult a good race engine builder could fix that problem easy. I think this guy did a good start but just needs some experts to find tune it.
It's awesome👍👍👍
There is a reason why we stopped using steam engines and moved on to petrol power. And no, it was not because of some kind of conspiracy. It is because the petrol powered internal combustion engine supplies more power, is easier to use, is more compact, and more reliable.
And steam powered pistons is just not very efficient. There is a reason why they are not used in large scale power production, like electrical power plants. Turbines are more efficient, gaining the most power out of the steam, and less prone to the mechanical stresses that pistons suffer, therefore more reliable.
Heating water to make steam for the purpose of turning it into mechanical energy is incredibly inefficient on any scale and at any temperature. More than likely the reason for it's disappeared is they realized that your typical modern diesel engine cost's much less than what they could make the cyclone for and it also makes much more power on much less fuel, and is more reliable. Same thing with the Stirling engine
As far as i know almost all power plants run on steam turbines with over 50% thermal efficiency.
Should use a heat pump with the radiater systems in the ev. That way it can charge at times when ac is on. Also when the electric engines or battery is cooled.
Perfect engine gas and oil companies will never let it become main stream
0:33 the funny part is some of those vehicles could easily get to highway speeds.
I'd be very nervous of steam at those sort of temperatures! Potentially good as a static engine, or maybe in a battery hybrid vehicle?
If it is a monotube boiler, like most of the evolved steam cars of the early automotive era had, there is very little volume of water to cause a boiler explosion.
Unlike the epic detonations the firetube boilers in steam locomotives were known for.
@@NullHand U still dont wanna be anywhere near a leak at 1200C.
For now, with its size could be used as powerplant for a factory or a highrise?
I believe this thing is an impressive feat of engineering but the biomass stuff is just too good to be true. If bio fuel can work of external combustion it would worked for internal combustion a long time ago. Heat water up to 1000 degrees require a lot of energy, biomass need to be processed to become extremely energy dense kind like petroleum, and that process require a lot power to do.
Lol you bought into the propaganda thinking this is impressive engineering.
It's just 6 cylinders in a star configuration. A boiler and probably a condenser.
Pretty basic.
It's a radial engine, like biplanes used even pre WW I.
Firewood is 'biomass' but still needs a year to dry or the smoke gets all gummy.
They can't use onions and orange peels by shoveling their soppy kitchen composting into their car..
LoL you're exactly right.
literally just heat up the biomass in a closed container, cool it, and you get gas and gasoline-like liquids. Not that hard and doesn't use much power. This is disconsidering the fact that you could just use the wood directly instead.
to make biofuel viable, you must produce it from biomass waste, and not from fuel crops. The corn biofuel bubble has bursted more than 10 years ago. The steam engine can be integrated into a hybrid-electric powertrain system for better efficiency. It does not need to be so powerful to run the car as it is powerful enough to recharge the batteries. Being an external combustion engine, it can run on a wide range of liquid or gas biofuels.
Gmo corn is poison, might as well use it for fuel.
Gmo corn is poison, might as well use it for fuel.
A Lubrication system like the internal combustion engines and a lubricant in the water like soluble oil add a micro reactor (nuclear) and we might be getting somewhere fast
Your statement at 2:48, "not the fuel that powers the engine, but the steam" is incorrect. The steam is just a carrier of the power. The power is coming from the combustion of the fuel.
As others have stated, there is nothing special here. It's just a radial steam engine with steam recovery just like a 1925 Doble car. See Jay Leno's episode on the Doble for a better understanding. It may be that with some development, this could reach pretty good levels of thermodynamic efficiency, but at the end of the day, you're still just burning combustible fuel and exhausting that.
If this was legitimate the car companies would have bought this up in the first week it was released so something isn't passing the smell test here not to mention I really want to see the full schematic for this engine and the data that goes along with the dyno testing not to mention the longevity the wear rates in this motor like I said I would have to see all the paperwork but something isn't adding up
looks like a Sterling engine and a Green Steam Engine had a baby
Is it the reason that this works theoretically better than a typical Sterling engine the fact that it uses a supercritical liquid?
If so what about super critical CO2 or some other perhaps refrigerant gas that would be easier to seal and get around any of the issues associated with proper sealing and wear and tear.
Is the Cyclone external combustion engine the future? NO!
This engine focuses on all the juicy features and none of the inconvenient truths. There is no reason this would ever succeed though there are some innovative aspects to it. The engine might succeed but an application must be found where it could and nothing else would do - that's the tricky part.
On steam, it might provide stationary power generation fed with wood but it's up against Diesel generators which are cheap and reliable and someone has to cut, collect and chop the wood. In a dystopian Mad Max future this engine may succeed in forested areas LOL. It could provide supplemental grid power at a city dump also but someone has to be paid to fill the boiler making the net benefit marginal.
For widespread adoption think pragmatically. Work is work.
Fit this external combustion engine to a car and drive 100km and measure the fuel consumption on gasoline, then compare the fuel consumption of a 100hp 4 cylinder engine over the same distance. The car might use 8 or 10 liters possibly half that.
Boiled down it is simple:
A piston engine burns air compressed to ~10x hence 10:1 compression by adding in 10x the amount of fuel (in the correct ratio of course) for the same weight as it would if it were 1:1 compression. How is an external combustion engine with a 1:1 compression ratio in the boiler ever going to deal the efficiency of 10:1 compression ratio ICE with all the added machinery required to pump the boiler pressure up? This then requires more and more fuel which has its own weight and storage requirements.
The piston engine makes 10x the power in the same space than if it had 1:1 compression.
That's only part of it - it gets worse.
Generally, pumping air to increase combustion pressure to increase efficiency creates what is termed pumping losses decreasing from the efficiency gain by a high order of magnitude.
The pumping losses are something that can never ever be eliminated only improved upon. The compressor pumping losses for turbine engines are very high even with the most efficient jet engine for example - perhaps higher than a piston engine.
This all has to be paid for in fuel (and air in the correct ratio). Gas turbines improve on 1:1 steam boilers but don't use steam as the medium.
In steam turbines the amount of heat recovery machinery and infrastructure required in the installation is utterly amazing because of the intrinsic inefficiency of heating the water to superheated steam has to be minimized.
It is getting complex fast this post but gas turbines (not steam turbines) improve on steam turbines because the compactness of them as they can generate their own compression ratio increase like an ICE.
External combustion engines can't compete against internal combustion for most applications.
Steam can and does make huge power but those applications are specific. Typically economies of scale and military operations make high fuel consumption less important than fuel consumption does for the average person. Also coal mines where the fuel tank is an enormous hole in the ground makes external combustion steam viable, ships are another but even there the trend is away from external combustion steam.
Piston engines aren't successful for no reason. Gas turbines aren't successful for no reason.
Yep when you look at biomass power generation they are chipping whole trees to burn by the acre not waste products another scam
Usually steam is used with nuclear fuel, a tad more spendy than most soccer moms can get their ex-husbands to buy.
Thus military use.
Well, as to the failure to continue development, who knows, could have been a lot of things. As to the technology itself, it's nothing new, except perhaps the configuration of the power cylinders
formatted into a pancake radial form. My best guess is that because they are using supercritical steam, the boiler has to be so heavy for safety's sake that the power to weight ratio sucks as far as transportation applications go. This would limit it to stationary applications for power generation, and other options for that are currently cheaper, so it would be limited to niche applications.
Of course most of this is speculation on my part and I could be wrong about some or all of this but this is my current take. P.S. I should have read the Boring Old White Guy first, that pretty much explains it, but I'm leaving my two cents worth in as additional problems.