Forums
Blogs
Articles
File Library
FAQ
Search
FB
Hello everybody, I am new to this site and would like to have some questions answered. I am getting very upset because nobody wants to hear me out and it is discouraging. I was banned from hyperphysics forums because of what we invented.
The prototype turbo video is about a reduction in inertia and friction by using dual ceramic ball bearings and 2 aluminum compressors.
The second video is a test run, we hit 31k, using about 250 watts of energy. Going to higher rpm just requires tweaking of following.
•A better machine that puts out more watts than our 250 watt one (most
important and was optimized via Cosmosfloworks 2007).
•Air bearings over ceramic bearings
•Turbine as an expander instead of a compressor acting as an expander
•Thermoplastic impeller and turbine ( Inertia reduction by a factor of 5 over exhaust turbo version )
•Turbine housing, not a compressor housing
•And constant velocity vaccum system for near zero backpressure in turbine housing. Pending patent
There are alot of videos watch them all turbo video 3 is the best.
Basicly the reason why people do not want to hear me out is because of our turbine inlet temperature. In the video the inlet temperature to one of the compressors which is acting as an expander is at abou 70F. If this turbocharger was at a max speed of 150,000 rpms the turbine inlet temp would be about 15 F icing is eliminated as well so this is out of the question. We have applied for 2 patents concerning this and basic exhaust thermodynamics does not fit the profile for this system. Neither does gear drive or belt drive superchargers.
In summary we can build a turbocharger that can have the fans made of thermoplastics, utilize air bearings and keep turbine inlet temperature at a minimum and still achieve steady state tip speeds of 400-600 m/s. This is what you see in the video of our prototype unit. It is requiring 5-10x less energy for air compression. We had a physic engineer look over this and he replied that because of turbine inlet temp is at a minimum 20F - 70F compressing the air will not take alot of energy.
The question is can I use Power = Torque x angular velocity / compressor efficiency as what is needed for my power requirements?
In other words the compressor in the video flows max 0.19 kg/s at 16074 rad/s and a compressor efficiency of 70%. By pluging all these together I came up with 0.19 x 16074 / 0.70 = 4363 watts
By using the inertia formula for a soild cylinder i figured the total rotational inertia of the rotating assembly should be 4364 / 16074 ^2 = 1.68e-5.
http://www.youtube.c...?user=llmbs&p=r
|
|
Our Patent Pending Centrifugal Compressor
Started by Guest_xa_shall_*, Jul 14 2007 07:42 PM
12 replies to this topic
Share this topic:
#2
AA Mishra
-
- Members
-
- 26 posts
Junior Member
Posted 15 July 2007 - 12:36 PM
You are heard.
You are encouraged.
You come up with power requirement.
Very Good.
Regards
You are encouraged.
You come up with power requirement.
Very Good.
Regards
#3
TroyH
-
- Members
-
- 32 posts
Veteran Member
Posted 15 July 2007 - 08:51 PM
I really am not sure what you are trying to show from that video but looking at it, the "suction" and airflow you were demonstrating looked like less than I get from my vacuum cleaner.
When you put the paper over the inlet, it just about stalled.
From what I can gather, turbochargers spin at much much higher than 30k rpm. More like 150-250k rpm.
What are you hoping to use this for? To provide compressed air to an internal combustion engine?
What is your patent claiming?
What have you invented?
So you have substituted mass flow rate for torque in your power calculation?
Rotational inertia? I assume you mean moment of inertia?
1W = 1 j/s
1 min = 1*60 sec
4363 W / 16074^2 = (j/s)/(rad/s)^2
= (j/s)/(radians^2/s^2)
(j/s)*(s^2)
------
(rad^2)
= j.s/rad^2
SI units for moment of inertia = kg.m^2
I'm not sure what you have there, but as far as I can see, your units are not consistent with the units for the moment of inertia.
When you put the paper over the inlet, it just about stalled.
From what I can gather, turbochargers spin at much much higher than 30k rpm. More like 150-250k rpm.
What are you hoping to use this for? To provide compressed air to an internal combustion engine?
What is your patent claiming?
What have you invented?
QUOTE
The question is can I use Power = Torque x angular velocity / compressor efficiency as what is needed for my power requirements?
In other words the compressor in the video flows max 0.19 kg/s at 16074 rad/s and a compressor efficiency of 70%. By pluging all these together I came up with 0.19 x 16074 / 0.70 = 4363 watts
By using the inertia formula for a soild cylinder i figured the total rotational inertia of the rotating assembly should be 4364 / 16074 ^2 = 1.68e-5.
In other words the compressor in the video flows max 0.19 kg/s at 16074 rad/s and a compressor efficiency of 70%. By pluging all these together I came up with 0.19 x 16074 / 0.70 = 4363 watts
By using the inertia formula for a soild cylinder i figured the total rotational inertia of the rotating assembly should be 4364 / 16074 ^2 = 1.68e-5.
So you have substituted mass flow rate for torque in your power calculation?
Rotational inertia? I assume you mean moment of inertia?
1W = 1 j/s
1 min = 1*60 sec
4363 W / 16074^2 = (j/s)/(rad/s)^2
= (j/s)/(radians^2/s^2)
(j/s)*(s^2)
------
(rad^2)
= j.s/rad^2
SI units for moment of inertia = kg.m^2
I'm not sure what you have there, but as far as I can see, your units are not consistent with the units for the moment of inertia.
#4
Guest_xa_shall_*
Guest_xa_shall_*
-
- guestGuests
Posted 15 July 2007 - 09:21 PM
Actually When Putting the paper over the inlet the rpms increase because now the compressor turns into a flywheel because there is no air to work on, no where near stalling, and of course the airflow is low its around 50 cfm at 1psi cant expect much at 30k. Now we can get this this to 150k however it will be expensive. This is the same fan as a Garrett t3 50 trim. ALl the fan cares about is rpm which we got using minimal power. An exhaust version would require about 1500-2500 watts.
The patent claims a system to reduce power requirements to compress air. This unit can be used to turbocharge cars or used as an air compressor for pnuematics.
Whats really killing me is how an exhaust version can require 44 hp at 150k pushing 25 lbs/min at 2.8 pressure ratio, however most of that energy is dumped via intercooler so we can say an exhaust version is using too much power to do little work. According to the DOE nearly 85% of the energy used to compress air is lost as heat, so we can conclude that 15% is the actual requirement. 44 x .15 = 6.6 hp. So we can get 25 lbs/ min at 2.8 pressure ratio while requiring only 6.6 hp but you have to eliminate friction and control T2-T1 temperatures, this is why we have thermoplastics, air bearings, and a cold turbine.
The patent claims a system to reduce power requirements to compress air. This unit can be used to turbocharge cars or used as an air compressor for pnuematics.
Whats really killing me is how an exhaust version can require 44 hp at 150k pushing 25 lbs/min at 2.8 pressure ratio, however most of that energy is dumped via intercooler so we can say an exhaust version is using too much power to do little work. According to the DOE nearly 85% of the energy used to compress air is lost as heat, so we can conclude that 15% is the actual requirement. 44 x .15 = 6.6 hp. So we can get 25 lbs/ min at 2.8 pressure ratio while requiring only 6.6 hp but you have to eliminate friction and control T2-T1 temperatures, this is why we have thermoplastics, air bearings, and a cold turbine.
#5
TroyH
-
- Members
-
- 32 posts
Veteran Member
Posted 15 July 2007 - 09:51 PM
I've looked at the video again. It most certainly sounds as if the rpm drops.
What do you mean it "turns into a flywheel"? It still acts as a turbine, trying to push air out of the outlet, however there is no longer airflow at the inlet, so the pressure will likely drop (without which, your paper would not "stick" to the inlet.). You're turbine will require more power in these conditions, so assuming constant torque (from your electric motor) it would need to increase rpm. However I would suggest that if the motor isn't able to increase in rpm fast enough, it would stall.
What do you mean it "turns into a flywheel"? It still acts as a turbine, trying to push air out of the outlet, however there is no longer airflow at the inlet, so the pressure will likely drop (without which, your paper would not "stick" to the inlet.). You're turbine will require more power in these conditions, so assuming constant torque (from your electric motor) it would need to increase rpm. However I would suggest that if the motor isn't able to increase in rpm fast enough, it would stall.
#6
Guest_xa_shall_*
Guest_xa_shall_*
-
- guestGuests
Posted 15 July 2007 - 10:10 PM
This is not an electric motor. Electric motor is too much drag. The rpms actually increase I have done the test. The rpms increase because the compressor is now in a near frictionless environment because the inlet is blocked and there is no more air to work on so rpms increase from 31k to 35k but there is no video
#7
TroyH
-
- Members
-
- 32 posts
Veteran Member
Posted 15 July 2007 - 10:37 PM
What is spinning the unit then? I can't see clearly in the video what is attatched to the back, and it looked as though there was some electrical cables running up the frame.
#8
Guest_xa_shall_*
Guest_xa_shall_*
-
- guestGuests
Posted 15 July 2007 - 10:46 PM
I cant tell you the powering method, however I will tell you this, its a unique set of fluids, that when combined together makes power than can tear anything up, while being able to keep its tempature at ambient or below ambient tempature.
A turbine has no choice but to spool up. If I had thermoplastic, a turbine and an air bearing, using the same power input it should reach 50k or more.
I have it up on ebay and nobody wants it, but once the actual model comes out, they going to bid like mad dogs.
http://cgi.ebay.com/...P...9607&rd=1,1
A turbine has no choice but to spool up. If I had thermoplastic, a turbine and an air bearing, using the same power input it should reach 50k or more.
I have it up on ebay and nobody wants it, but once the actual model comes out, they going to bid like mad dogs.
http://cgi.ebay.com/...P...9607&rd=1,1
#9
TroyH
-
- Members
-
- 32 posts
Veteran Member
Posted 15 July 2007 - 10:57 PM
ok....
So you have a fuel being burned in one side of the turbo?
How are you working out your power consumption?
I've read your ebay advert already. Do you already have a patent filed? If so, why can't you tell us any more details?
The turbo you have for sale on ebay, appears to be constructed entirely of off the shelf parts.
So what novel idea have you introduced to warrant a patent, and for people to be bidding like mad dogs?
So you have a fuel being burned in one side of the turbo?
How are you working out your power consumption?
I've read your ebay advert already. Do you already have a patent filed? If so, why can't you tell us any more details?
The turbo you have for sale on ebay, appears to be constructed entirely of off the shelf parts.
QUOTE
This turbocharger has gone from 302 grams using the stock turbine and compressor to 110.5 grams and has the following attributes:
1. Dual Garrett T3 0.48 A/R compressor housings
2. Dual Abec 5 hybrid ceramic ball bearings
3. Dual Garrett T3 50 trim aluminum compressors
4. Precision Shaft with thrust loading collar
5. Oil hole for bearing lubrication (Carburetor choke cleaner has proved the best bearing lubrication yet)
1. Dual Garrett T3 0.48 A/R compressor housings
2. Dual Abec 5 hybrid ceramic ball bearings
3. Dual Garrett T3 50 trim aluminum compressors
4. Precision Shaft with thrust loading collar
5. Oil hole for bearing lubrication (Carburetor choke cleaner has proved the best bearing lubrication yet)
So what novel idea have you introduced to warrant a patent, and for people to be bidding like mad dogs?
#10
Guest_xa_shall_*
Guest_xa_shall_*
-
- guestGuests
Posted 15 July 2007 - 11:57 PM
The Idea was looked over by a physics professor at a college I cannot remember but the guy is bright. He approved the idea. IF you can use a product for a different use than it was intended you can get a patent LOL this is the law. For example if you found out that the ingredients in asprin can make pigs fatter you can patent it lol. As far as explaining more details we cannot do this because we have not filed for the paris convention for foreign filing. We want to cover some foriegn countries. Paris covention filing is about $3,000+. If we gave all the details we would lose foreign rights and some rich ----- would start making this unit asap. If Garrett knew all the ingredients to make this they could make a superior model in a matter of 1 month, but why should I hook them up? THey havent hooked me up.
#11
Art Montemayor
-
- Admin
-
- 5,782 posts
Gold Member
Posted 16 July 2007 - 02:20 PM
xa_shall:
I keep reading what you are writing - but I (like everyone else, I think) still can't make out:
1. What exactly it is that you are patenting;
2. Why you are patenting it;
3. What is the application you propose and what are the advantages over other turboblowers;
4. What is your purpose in telling us the above;
5. What is your personal profile - or are you keeping that a secret also, like your driver?
Although you may not hear it, I'm applauding your work ethic in putting together a conventional dynamic machine. It turns and it seems to flow air. But we still don't know HOW MUCH air nor at what discharge pressure - and these are the basic, essential figures anyone would require (not blowing up a ballon or sucking a paper bag).
It's nice to see someone put together a centrifugal device, but this is an Engineering Forum and not a chat room, and we probably won't know what the purpose of your post is, except maybe just good old-fashioned "showing off" - which is OK. We basically would be interested only in:
- How much gas capacity can your device compress?
- What heads of compression will it generate?
- What is consumption of power per unit gas volume?
- What is the polytropic efficiency?
- What are its advantages over other existing turbocompressors? and
- how much will it cost?
#12
Guest_xa_shall_*
Guest_xa_shall_*
-
- guestGuests
Posted 16 July 2007 - 04:53 PM
Hello Art. Im glad you proposed some question. I have been busy lately and only have been able to so little work. Some of these questions are very diffucult to answer because we barely finsihed the model and the dynamics of the machine are unconventional. I had contact with a professor who was helping me get this data but the man is extremely busy and it sucks. I will try my best.
1. The amount of gas the device can compress is exactly the same capacity as current turbocompressor. In fact using our techinque it will compress more gas because no matter how big the turbocompressor gets the compressor inlet temperature will always be bettween 15F to -20F if not lower, which allows more airflow and significant reduction in power requirements to compress air because of the low temp.
2. The heads of compression. Well from what I know the head of compression has to deal with compressor diameter and tip speed. This model has a diameter of 2.367 inches and its rotating at 31k. The head developed is 97.38 meters. If this model was upgraded it would develop a head of about 200 meters. Remember in ths model one compressor is serving as an expander while the other one compresses air.
This was the cheapest way to reduce start-up load. The compressor serving as an expander has major backpressure which is robbing potential tip speed. If it were an aerodynamic turbine rpms will be around 45k. If we had air bearings the rpm will jump significantly, also we have a Constant velocity vaccum system turbine backpressure will be nearly eliminated. This is just a prototype and the model is crap but it was the best we could do with $2500. We should be able develop head ranges of 0 - 1000 meters.
3. Gas power consumption. This one is hard, but from what I learned it should take about 4000 watts per 0.19 kg/s worth of airflow.
4.What is the polytropic efficiency? This is probably the most difficult of all of them. The reason is because our turbine inlet temperature especially in this model is at a constant 50F, unlike an exhaust turbocompressor which is 1000F. So I dont even know where to start with this. An advanced model will have turbine inlet temps of 15 F at max speed it does not radiate heat. People dont even work equations for such low temps because everything is usually real hot. The only thing I know is we did a simulation via CFD and determined that our energy usage was about 80-90% efficient.
5. What are its advantages over other existing turbocompressors? and
how much will it cost. The advantages over existing turbocompressors is that friction is at an all time minimum. For example we can use porous media air bearings in or system. Which has about 100x less coefficient of friction than ceramic ball bearing systems. Another thing is the compressor and turbine can be constructed of thermoplastics e.g., carbon fiber filled peek. This reduces start-up load by a significant factor. For example a garrett t3 50 trim turbo's compressor and turbine wiegh 302 grams. With this model it will only wieght 65 grams.
Another advantage is that blade tip clearance can be super tight because of the air bearings. This improves the fans efficiency. Another advantage is compressor inlet temp will be at 15 F or lower at all rpm ranges. Lastly T2-T1 temperature difference on the turbine side is kept at a minimum which reduces compression work.
The cost will be high because it is a startup product. However nothing new needs to be made just retrofitting. We will develop a final model using all the aforementioned advantages. It will cost about $25,000 to make and once its down to a science it will be cheaper, which Is ok because a formula 1 turbocharger system can run $10,000 dollars and nobody complains about it.
1. The amount of gas the device can compress is exactly the same capacity as current turbocompressor. In fact using our techinque it will compress more gas because no matter how big the turbocompressor gets the compressor inlet temperature will always be bettween 15F to -20F if not lower, which allows more airflow and significant reduction in power requirements to compress air because of the low temp.
2. The heads of compression. Well from what I know the head of compression has to deal with compressor diameter and tip speed. This model has a diameter of 2.367 inches and its rotating at 31k. The head developed is 97.38 meters. If this model was upgraded it would develop a head of about 200 meters. Remember in ths model one compressor is serving as an expander while the other one compresses air.
This was the cheapest way to reduce start-up load. The compressor serving as an expander has major backpressure which is robbing potential tip speed. If it were an aerodynamic turbine rpms will be around 45k. If we had air bearings the rpm will jump significantly, also we have a Constant velocity vaccum system turbine backpressure will be nearly eliminated. This is just a prototype and the model is crap but it was the best we could do with $2500. We should be able develop head ranges of 0 - 1000 meters.
3. Gas power consumption. This one is hard, but from what I learned it should take about 4000 watts per 0.19 kg/s worth of airflow.
4.What is the polytropic efficiency? This is probably the most difficult of all of them. The reason is because our turbine inlet temperature especially in this model is at a constant 50F, unlike an exhaust turbocompressor which is 1000F. So I dont even know where to start with this. An advanced model will have turbine inlet temps of 15 F at max speed it does not radiate heat. People dont even work equations for such low temps because everything is usually real hot. The only thing I know is we did a simulation via CFD and determined that our energy usage was about 80-90% efficient.
5. What are its advantages over other existing turbocompressors? and
how much will it cost. The advantages over existing turbocompressors is that friction is at an all time minimum. For example we can use porous media air bearings in or system. Which has about 100x less coefficient of friction than ceramic ball bearing systems. Another thing is the compressor and turbine can be constructed of thermoplastics e.g., carbon fiber filled peek. This reduces start-up load by a significant factor. For example a garrett t3 50 trim turbo's compressor and turbine wiegh 302 grams. With this model it will only wieght 65 grams.
Another advantage is that blade tip clearance can be super tight because of the air bearings. This improves the fans efficiency. Another advantage is compressor inlet temp will be at 15 F or lower at all rpm ranges. Lastly T2-T1 temperature difference on the turbine side is kept at a minimum which reduces compression work.
The cost will be high because it is a startup product. However nothing new needs to be made just retrofitting. We will develop a final model using all the aforementioned advantages. It will cost about $25,000 to make and once its down to a science it will be cheaper, which Is ok because a formula 1 turbocharger system can run $10,000 dollars and nobody complains about it.
#13
Guest_xa_shall_*
Guest_xa_shall_*
-
- guestGuests
Posted 16 July 2007 - 05:03 PM
To explain one detail about the powering system. Ill I can say is that it uses high adabatic energy and converts it to a more useful format. The new energy format allows the turbocompressor to be made of thermoplastic and not melt, air bearings, and the ability to control t2-t1 temperature difference which determines the overall power consumption of the machine
Similar Topics
Psv On Centrifugal Compressor DischargeStarted by Guest_Lyne_* , 10 Jun 2025 |
|
|
||
Lng Boil Off Gas Compressor Suction DrumStarted by Guest_Lyne_* , 04 Jun 2025 |
|
|
||
Parallel Compressor Setup With Uneven CapacitiesStarted by Guest_sinrem_* , 13 May 2025 |
|
|
||
Hysys Expander/compressor Input Using Dimensionless CurveStarted by Guest_Alfreedo_* , 21 Apr 2025 |
|
|
||
Centriugal CompressorStarted by Guest_Rahimzadeh_* , 02 Mar 2025 |
|
|
