OPUS engine - heard of it?

[xssve]

OPUS is a closed cycle mono-tube steam-driven, true rotary-piston positive displacement steam engine, having only seven moving parts and multiple power strokes per RPM. This unique engine system can be completely disassembled or re-assembled with one single Alan Wrench by one man! Production prototypes have been built and tested, requiring no internal or external lubrication requirement for life - and after over 10,000+ hours of contiguous operation, there has been no measurable wear of any part. From turning the key for startup, to a full head of operational steam, requires only seven seconds!

Steam Makes a Comeback - Saving Detroit November 06, 2008 by Walter Reed


I haven't, what's more, I got all of two Google hits off of it, both PDF's - Here's the inventors press release. Apparently it's for real, and yet no media coverage whatsoever.

 

[DesertPirate]

I thought is was going to be about penguin power

 

[neonlyte]

Ronnie Whitehouse is going to be surprised to find his engine discussed on a pron site. It would be fantastic if he'd contribute and explain the process.

I remember a 'thrill' when I read about the Opus engine... it sounded too good to be true, like the compressed air engine, the water engine. Whitehouse's concept is so radically different from the conception of 'engine' it's little surprise there so many sceptics. All power to him, it takes guts to post your address and phone number on the Internet. He reminds me of me

 

[JackLuis]

He makes claims of wonderful advantages, yet he doesn't describe the engin's operation. BOre Stroke, working pressure, boiler design, all these are the key to his claims.

Pie in the sky until he shows us the working prototype.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I wish he had a website . . .

 

[xssve]

It's simple enough in principle, a closed cycle steam engine, using steam expansion to drive the pistons - the main difference is that runs off of heat differentials, i.e., whatever fuel it uses only has to generate heat, not expansion, similar in principle to a nuclear reactor.

In internal combustion, heat actually represents a loss of efficiency, thus fuel injectors, etc., that are employed to increase combustion efficiency, and generate greater expansion with less fuel and lower heat losses.

 

[Handley_Page]

It's simple enough in principle, a closed cycle steam engine, using steam expansion to drive the pistons - the main difference is that runs off of heat differentials, i.e., whatever fuel it uses only has to generate heat, not expansion, similar in principle to a nuclear reactor.

In internal combustion, heat actually represents a loss of efficiency, thus fuel injectors, etc., that are employed to increase combustion efficiency, and generate greater expansion with less fuel and lower heat losses.

A Sterling engine work in a similar, don't it ?

 

[voluptuary_manque]

A Sterling engine work in a similar, don't it ?

That was my thought. He's shrunk a Sterling into practical size?

 

[Handley_Page]

Found this one:-

http://everything2.com/index.pl?like_id=563657&node_id=563580&op=ilikeit

Not very illuminating, but. . . . .
(I cannot find his details)

 

[Boxlicker101]

What do you mean by "contiguous operation?" Does that mean you have a whole string of these engines helping each other run?

 

[YoursSINSerely]

God, I love guy talk!

 

[YoursSINSerely]

I thought is was going to be about penguin power

LOL ! !

 

[Handley_Page]

What do you mean by "contiguous operation?" Does that mean you have a whole string of these engines helping each other run?

I suspect a malapropism or typo.
"Continuous" operation ?

 

[TxRad]

A Wankel Engine on steam I can see with multi rotors, but no lube internal or external makes no sense. Moving parts must be lubed if any kind of RPM are involved. The lube is what keeps metals apart inside any engine.

What fires the steam is one question. How heavy is the shielding to keep the heat inside is another. Closed steam systems are nothing new. I read about then back in the 60's.

Lots of information need to make any kind of judgment.

 

[TE999]

How big would this engine have to be to have any practical application? Stanley and White steamers were quite efficient compared to internal combustion engines of the day...however IC engines continued to improve and steam languished as IC engines were cheaper to manufacture and started quickly.

I'll be interested to see how this engine fares in independent testing.

 

[Boxlicker101]

A Wankel Engine on steam I can see with multi rotors, but no lube internal or external makes no sense. Moving parts must be lubed if any kind of RPM are involved. The lube is what keeps metals apart inside any engine.

What fires the steam is one question. How heavy is the shielding to keep the heat inside is another. Closed steam systems are nothing new. I read about then back in the 60's.

Lots of information need to make any kind of judgment.

Much longer ago than that. There were steam driven autos a century ago. They had so many problems that they stopped being used, but modern technology might be able to give them a comeback. I don't know what it would taKE, but it would not be impossible.

 

[DesertPirate]

A Wankel Engine on steam I can see with multi rotors, but no lube internal or external makes no sense. Moving parts must be lubed if any kind of RPM are involved. The lube is what keeps metals apart inside any engine.

What fires the steam is one question. How heavy is the shielding to keep the heat inside is another. Closed steam systems are nothing new. I read about then back in the 60's.

Lots of information need to make any kind of judgment.

Friction loss was the first thing I thought of too. There has to be something to kill friction or you loose much energy to heat. Besides the destruction of the metal.

 

[xssve]

My initial thoughts are that compression may be less of a factor here, i.e., you're using high pressure, and the tolerances don't need to be as tight for the pistons - if it works more like a turbine, compression isn't really even a factor - i.e., pressure rather than compression, thus most of the friction will be on the bearings.

Combustion creates pressure of course, and it's the pressure that drives the piston - what we have here is pressure without combustion, combustion in a steam engine doesn't drive the pistons directly, it heats the steam which creates the pressure. i.e., no moving parts on the combustion end.

Second, you can't heat water much past the boiling point anyway so 100 C is the the most heat you'll generate with the steam, well below the breakdown point of most ferrous metals, and in fact the steam would act as a coolant at those temperatures. In internal combustion, the combustion itself creates heat, and it also tends to break down metals and lubricants, which increases friction, etc.

I'm guessing that steam engines don't break down as often as internal combustion for that reason, most of your wear and tear is going to be on the drive train portion.

As for the size, I have no idea, it may be that the lower compression efficiency requires a larger piston, or smaller steam engines may have been impractical because the materials technologies didn't exist to create a genuinely closed system - most hydraulic systems leak, period, it's just a fact of life, it's very difficult to contain fluids under pressure, and the higher the pressure the harder it gets.

It's the reason robotics technology is based largely on electric servos; hydraulics are confined to large, industrial robotics where heavy lifting is an issue, they're very messy and they require constant maintenance. Steam is used to penetrate where nothing else will, it has very low surface tension, and escape losses are going to lower efficiency exponentially as you go down in scale and up in pressure I'm guessing.

i.e., a small steam engine is going to necessarily work at very high pressures, whereas you could maintain the momentum of a larger piston at lower pressures, once you get it going.

I really don't know a lot about trains or large ships - he seems to be talking more about automobiles and smaller boats in the press release.

 

[Weird Harold]

My initial thoughts are that compression may be less of a factor here, i.e., you're using high pressure, and the tolerances don't need to be as tight for the pistons ....
...
Second, you can't heat water much past the boiling point anyway so 100 C is the the most heat you'll generate with the steam,

If we're talking about high pressure steam, then you've got two glarring errors in you analysis:

The higher the pressure, the tighter the tolerance on everything have to be to prevent leaks.

When you increase the pressure, you increase the boiling temperature -- and vice versa. A thousand feet in elevation decreases atmospheric pressure by about one PSIA which decreases the boiling point of water from 212F to around 200F and the convrse is true -- decreasing altitude/increasing pressure back to sea level standard raises the boiling point back to 212F.

A car's radiator cap is rated in PSIA and a 15lb cap raises the pressure in the radiator about one PSIA above one standrad atmosphere and raises the boiling point of your radiator coolant from around 225F to 250F. (anti-freeze/coolanat raises pure water's boiling point and the radiator cap's pressure rating raises it more.)

From:http://afu.com/steam/
Because the boiler is a sealed vessel under pressure, the water boiling point is much higher than 212 degrees (everything is in Fahrenheit). Remember that mountaineers have to brew tea with luke-warm water, because water boils at a lower temperature at altitude where the air pressure is lower. In mile-high Denver, water boils 9 degrees lower than at sea level. Similarly, water under high pressure has to be heated more to boil. A steam locomotive boiler operates at a pressure of about 200 pounds/square inch, with the water boiling at 386 degrees.

Note a boiler pressure of 200 PSID isn't considered "high pressure steam" that's anything over 350 PSID. very high pressure steam can reach 1000F or more, depending on the pressure.

From turning the key for startup, to a full head of operational steam, requires only seven seconds!

This claim along with the no lubrication necessary claim raise a big bullshit flag for me.

You might be able to raise working steam pressure for a G-guage live Steam model locomotive that quickly with an electric flash heater, but enough steam to drive anything bigger takes a LOT of heat energy and a significant volume of steam. Going from zero pressure to "high pressure" with enough volume to do any useful work would seem to defy the laws of thermodynamics -- not to mention putting an incredible strain on the pressure vessel (boiler) and piping.

 

[TE999]

Methinks we have another 100MPG carburator or water/gas tablets scam looking for sucker investors.

 

[Weird Harold]

Methinks we have another 100MPG carburator or water/gas tablets scam looking for sucker investors.

That's my feeling, too.

The idea of a Wankel rotary "piston" driven by steam is probably a good one, but the big problem with early Mazdas/Wankels was seal wear on the rotor -- I don't think replacing explosions with high-pressure steam is going to change the wear problem significantly.

 

[DesertPirate]

Second, you can't heat water much past the boiling point anyway so 100 C is the the most heat you'll generate with the steam, well below the breakdown point of most ferrous metals, and in fact the steam would act as a coolant at those temperatures. In internal combustion, the combustion itself creates heat, and it also tends to break down metals and lubricants, which increases friction, etc.

I'm guessing that steam engines don't break down as often as internal combustion for that reason, most of your wear and tear is going to be on the drive train portion.

USS Mullinix DD944 before I went to Subs. I was in this engine room. 1200 PSI superheated steam system, we are talking more than 600 degrees. A leak would remove an arm!
On the Sub it was a 600 PSI system.
Both were turbine systems. These supposedly closed systems still lost water. They didn't break very often but had great lube systems.

 

[TxRad]

That's my feeling, too.

The idea of a Wankel rotary "piston" driven by steam is probably a good one, but the big problem with early Mazdas/Wankels was seal wear on the rotor -- I don't think replacing explosions with high-pressure steam is going to change the wear problem significantly.

The seal problem was the center seal on the double lobe engine. It was fixed with a ceramic coated seal. I raced the hell out of one on the road courses and oval tracks in California back in the 70's. never had a seal problem after the factory came out with their fix.
The wankel would work with live steam but the valving to accelerate and change speeds would have to be so precise. most live steam engines are turbines and constant speed motors.

 

[xssve]

That's my feeling, too.

The idea of a Wankel rotary "piston" driven by steam is probably a good one, but the big problem with early Mazdas/Wankels was seal wear on the rotor -- I don't think replacing explosions with high-pressure steam is going to change the wear problem significantly.

Apparently true:

Rotary steam engines

It is possible to use a mechanism based on a pistonless rotary engine such as the Wankel engine in place of the cylinders and valve gear of a conventional reciprocating steam engine. Many such engines have been designed, from the time of James Watt to the present day, but relatively few were actually built and even fewer went into quantity production; see link at bottom of article for more details. The major problem is the difficulty of sealing the rotors to make them steam-tight in the face of wear and thermal expansion; the resulting leakage made them very inefficient. Lack of expansive working, or any means of control of the cutoff is also a serious problem with many such designs. By the 1840s it was clear that the concept had inherent problems and rotary engines were treated with some derision in the technical press. However, the arrival of electricity on the scene, and the obvious advantages of driving a dynamo directly from a high-speed engine, led to something of a revival in interest in the 1880s and 1890s, and a few designs had some limited success.

Of the few designs that were manufactured in quantity, those of the Hult Brothers Rotary Steam Engine Company of Stockholm, Sweden, and the spherical engine of Beauchamp Tower are notable. Tower's engines were used by the Great Eastern Railway to drive lighting dynamos on their locomotives, and by the Admiralty for driving dynamos on board the ships of the Royal Navy. They were eventually replaced in these niche applications by steam turbines.

Wikipedia: Steam Engine (Rotary)

Apparently it's something like the grail of steam engines, there have been quite a number of rotary engines produced, the Henry hybrid as recently as 2000, presumably technical problems remain.

 

[Weird Harold]

Apparently true:

Wikipedia: Steam Engine (Rotary)

Apparently it's something like the grail of steam engines, there have been quite a number of rotary engines produced, the Henry hybrid as recently as 2000, presumably technical problems remain.

If you get right down to it, most internal combustion engines can be adapted to function with high-pressure steam with not much more than new intake and exhaust manifolds, but the devil is in the details. Such adaptations are generally less efficient than the fuel they were originally designed for.

The problem of high-pressure seals for Wankel type rotors has been solved by Mazda's persistance in producing their Rotary Engined models. Those solutions weren't available in the 19th century when the idea was last explored extensively because, IIRC, the solution to the main rotor seals was a high-tech ceramic composite.

Somebody is going to solve the problem someday, but I don't think the inventor and engine in the orignal article is going to be it. It's probably not getting much press because thepress has gotten pretty cynical about this kind of non-specific "breakthrough" because the "inventor" tends to disappear with the investments and nothing ever gets developed.