Re-invent the steam engine.?

[1bobwhite]

Yes let's reinvent the steam engine. It is about time to get familiar with the potentials of steam powered equipment.

 

Has anyone considered that the Space Shuttle is a steam powered machine.

Not counting the solid rocket fuel boosters, the Shuttle is launched on a steam powered engine system. Liquid oxygen, plus liquid hydrogen, combined releasing tremendous power levels when ignited and exhausted as steam.

 

But back on the ground, some of the steam engines of yesteryear were quite sophisticated for their day.

 

With the coming together of the petroleum and the auto industries, the momentum and funding money went their direction and not in the steam direction, as a consequence, new designs and engineering were not going into steam things, because steam was being abandoned by nearly every aspect of industry in favor of internal combustion engines of all types.

 

Trying to resurrect these old time engines, even with modern materials does not solve all the engineering problems associated with them. New engineering and thinking is needed to make steam powered vehicles, prime movers, and machines of all types.

More on this later.

Bob.

[Double K]

Isn't the whole point with steam, that water is a non-compressible fluid therefore the pressure it creates is the most efficient of all the liquids?

 

How about focused/magnified sunlight thru a system of magnifying glass lenses, focused onto either a black or copper tube coil (closed) system which runs thru some turbines and then a condenser where it is collected for re-use in the system...

 

This isn't a hell of a lot different to solar power now with solar hot water systems utilising black piping on the roof of a structure to pre-heat the water to a certain temp which is more energy efficient than heating it from ambient temp.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

There are solar power systems that work that way. They use mirrors to focus light on a central steam tower.

[Skye]

Water, the liquid, doesn't compress very much under pressure but steam, the gas, certainly does.

 

There are already solar powered steam turbines produced commercially such as this.

[Mr Skeptic]

Isn't the whole point with steam, that water is a non-compressible fluid therefore the pressure it creates is the most efficient of all the liquids?

 

Nope, water is cheap, non-toxic, non-flammable, and liquid at room temperature. I don't think any special property of it is the reason, its just that water is everywhere. The point is that you can increase the volume/pressure by heating it, which is true of pretty much anything. I bet you could run a turbine on sodium if you wanted to and were crazy enough.

[insane_alien]

steam power didn't get its funding cut.

 

justbecause it's no longer used for transport doesn't mean its not still extensively used.

 

take your average powerstation. it RELIES on a steam cycle. whether it's coal, oil, gas, nuclear, even some solar.

 

to say that progress stopped is just wrong.

[1bobwhite]

It was the internal combustion engines (Henry ford), and the supporting petroleum industry (J.D. Rockefeller) that fiqured out a way to utilize the waste byproduct of refining crude for kerosene. Gasoline was a nuisance byproduct in the beginning. Adolph Diesel had just come out with his engines also. So it was between all of them and their marketing strategies along with the world wars and the demand for new engines of all types, that turned the momentum away from steam and toward internal combustion. Diesel engines replaced the steam engines in the railroads, and industry as the prime movers. Gasoline engines replaced steam engines, in the automotive, and other industrial applications as rapidly as could be economically done. With the result, that nearly every application of steam power for power production was gone within fifty years.

Some areas however never changed because steam is still the best way of converting heat energy to power. The powerplants, nuclear powered ships, and most large processes still use steam because of its excellent properties.

The research monies very early were going toward internal combustion, so that within fifty years we went from the Wright brothers airplane with twelve horsepower, to supersonic aircraft with thousands of horsepower. And yes there were a few steam powered aircraft.

[insane_alien]

again, steam power and research into steam power was still undergoing a boom phase. just because it wasn't being used in vehicles, doesn't mean it was't intensively researched and improved upon. infact, it is STILL being intensively researched and improved upon.

 

at the turn of the century they managed about 70% of theoretical maximum efficiency which was damn good. now we're getting quite close to the maximum theoretical efficiency. looking at these numbers, IC engines are still slightly behind.

 

the only reason IC engines appeared to have a massive increase in funding was because it went from zero.

[Mr Skeptic]

Also, there is little sense in making a special effort to fund an old field that is already actively being researched by various private groups. Special effort needs to be made to fund new things.

 

The internal combustion engine has advantages of being much lighter and more responsive -- hence its use in vehicles.

[1bobwhite]

Does anyone have names, or programs, or sources of funding names for these research and or development projects?

 

I would really like to know because I have plans to take advantage of them when I find them.

 

One that I had heard of a few years ago was BMW that was toting a steam assisted system for its IC engines, but that project was abandoned recently.

 

Some years ago now Union Pacific was talking of reviving one of their steam turbine locomotives for some trials. That was during the oil embargo days. Nothing has happened yet.

 

Where are all the big guys with their big money for this research?

 

In the power plant area where steam is the big deal, the most recent study for improvements was the Eddystone project to develop a supercritical steam powered generating facility in the 1960s. It is now over 40 years from startup of production, and in its fourth generation of development with over 800 units worldwide. It is to date the most efficient generation system in the world. Thats 40 year old technology. Where are the today improvements? Where are the spinoffs to smaller systems, and applications such as engines? How about home co-generation plants?

 

If any groups would take advantage of steam engines or steam powered prime movers, to reduce their fuel costs it would be the railroads and the trucking industry.

 

Fairly recently a relative of mine was the director of a test facility for the DOT. At this facility, they tested all kinds of concepts for improving the railroad industry. Jet engines, electrics, mag lev, turbine, everything except steam was given trials for testing. Why not steam?

 

Being that it was a government facility, who knows why the lobbists were getting the funding for their companies research, but it wasn't the steam power groups.

 

My overall point is; the powers that be like to keep the status quo, because they're making money, and steam powered things would be a threat to their bottom line.

Bob

[Mr Skeptic]

Where are all the big guys with their big money for this research?

...

My overall point is; the powers that be like to keep the status quo, because they're making money, and steam powered things would be a threat to their bottom line.

 

The big guys with their big money, are all researching steam engines. Mostly privately, since it is a developed technology. The powers that be, are using steam power as their primary source of energy -- just ask any decent sized power plant (coal, oil, nuclear, some solar, geothermal, ...) as are ships including all of the big ships in the US Army. Then there's all the ship manufacturers, some train manufacturers, etc. Just get a job with any of them, you'll be able to research steam power generation.

[1bobwhite]

Mr Skeptic,

 

Saying that the steam industry is a developed technology, is analogous to saying that the computer industry is a developed technology. So why improve it if it is already developed?

 

The Steam industry has basically been stagnate for many years, with nothing new to speak of.

 

Boilers for instance are not very much improved since the turn of the last century. There have been some new innovations is the smaller steam generator units, but even they are too few to say its being a progressive industry.

 

Heat exchangers and radiators have hardly changed at all since they were first made.

Why?

 

We can start a steam engine revolution right here on this forum, that will challenge readers and stimulate new ideas and research into the improvements needed to jump start this return to steam.

Any takers to the challenge?

[Mr Skeptic]

And what would the new technologies accomplish? Steam power is already close to the maximum theoretical efficiency, so it can't get much better. They're about as good as they can get. What more do you want?

[insane_alien]

bob, steam technology HAS progressed in the last century. its even progressed in the last 2 years.

 

just because you have not been following the progress doesn't mean its not happening.

 

heat exchangers have also underwent changes as well.

 

but as skeptic says, any increase in efficiency now is not going to be a large change to the lay man, because hey, 99% to 99.5% efficiency is only a 0.5% improvement right?

 

the areas for practical improvement are getting smaller and smaller. saying your going to start a revolution in steam power is probably going to set it back some as we are already pretty close to perfect thermodynamic efficiency. you cannot exceed perfect thermodynamic efficiency. ever. doesn't matter if you call it a revolution or not.

[1bobwhite]

Mr. Skeptic,

 

 

And what would the new technologies accomplish? Steam power is already close to the maximum theoretical efficiency, so it can't get much better. They're about as good as they can get. What more do you want?

 

Where is a modern (within the last ten years) steam powered automobile in commercial production? Or a modern steam powered railroad locomotive? The ones in China are newly manufactured versions of the old technology. The same as the ones in Poland.

 

Is anyone manufacturing steam powered electric generating systems for the home, installed, ready to run? I've seen Stirling engine designs that are for sale right now for co-generation.

 

Heat pipes are something relatively new and my patent covers a design for that.

 

Mike Browns steam engines are newly made old technology and are build it yourself systems.

 

Where did you get the info on the steam efficiencies? I would also like to quote them if I find them.

 

Still the overall advances in steam are well below the radar of public knowledge.

 

Even the hightech solar mirror field steam power generating station that was the big deal at the time, where are the many plants they were predicted?

 

Bob

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

insane_alien,

 

I have been intently following steam information for some time now, from its production plants, to heating and cooling, industrial processes, transportation, automobiles, etc. and that is why I am saying the advances you say are there, I haven't seen many of them. If they were a big advance we would be hearing more about them in the news or on the net to check out. I'm not talking about the backyard stuff you see on YOUTUBE, but real commercial grade equipment, engines, and systems.

 

One improvement using steam is the six stroke cycle engine that is making such a hit on the drag race scene, but it is an improvement of the internal combustion engine.

 

Diesel engines can achieve over 50% efficiencies but I have yet to see any efficiency rating for steam engines over 12%, mainly because of boiler design.

Please show me the source if you find one.

 

My patent was for the improvement of heat exchangers as well, because they haven't really changed in their construction since the last century.

 

Power plants have improved some in the handling of the supercritical steam, but they are about the only efficient systems I've read about.

 

But in general we're not even close to achieving the thermodynamic efficiencies you allude to.

 

You guys have the net at your fingertips the same as I do. So check out the topic of steam engines, and steam things and discover for yourselves how relatively scarce the information is on any new steam technology.

 

Regards,

Bob

Edited May 12, 2010 by 1bobwhite
typo

[CaptainPanic]

Mr. Skeptic,

Where is a modern (within the last ten years) steam powered automobile in commercial production? Or a modern steam powered railroad locomotive? The ones in China are newly manufactured versions of the old technology. The same as the ones in Poland.

 

Is anyone manufacturing steam powered electric generating systems for the home, installed, ready to run? I've seen Stirling engine designs that are for sale right now for co-generation.

 

You ask a good question. I think that steam cycles can definitely be more efficient than internal combustion engines. However: They are slow to start up.

Cars however are not always built only for efficiency... they are built for practicality. And then there is the *bling, bling*-factor which is so hard to quantify. Anyway, I think that almost all car manufacturers think that it's hard to pick up girls with a steam powered car.

 

A very practical reason why trains often run on electricity in many countries is that it can be transported through a cable to where it's needed. Electric trains don't refuel at all.

 

Heat pipes are something relatively new and my patent covers a design for that.

 

Mike Browns steam engines are newly made old technology and are build it yourself systems.

 

Where did you get the info on the steam efficiencies? I would also like to quote them if I find them.

 

 

A recent improvement is the combined cycle power plant. This is a combination of a gas turbine (like used in aircraft), and a steam cycle.

 

To do something similar on coal, you need to gasify it first... which is difficult to do cleanly in small scale applications. It's being developed for large scale though. It is called "integrated gasification combined cycle" (IGCC).

 

All these things are being researched right now.

Large companies like "Siemens" do research on the world's largest turbines to get out those few extra percents of power. They indeed approach the theoretical maximum, but they push the overall efficiency by allowing for higher and higher temperatures.

 

Still the overall advances in steam are well below the radar of public knowledge.

 

Even the hightech solar mirror field steam power generating station that was the big deal at the time, where are the many plants they were predicted?

 

Bob

those solar things don't exist because they're simply too expensive to build in most places on earth. They exist in Spain though.

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

insane_alien,

 

I have been intently following steam information for some time now, from its production plants, to heating and cooling, industrial processes, transportation, automobiles, etc. and that is why I am saying the advances you say are there, I haven't seen many of them. If they were a big advance we would be hearing more about them in the news or on the net to check out. I'm not talking about the backyard stuff you see on YOUTUBE, but real commercial grade equipment, engines, and systems.

 

One improvement using steam is the six stroke cycle engine that is making such a hit on the drag race scene, but it is an improvement of the internal combustion engine.

 

Diesel engines can achieve over 50% efficiencies but I have yet to see any efficiency rating for steam engines over 12%, mainly because of boiler design.

Please show me the source if you find one.

 

My patent was for the improvement of heat exchangers as well, because they haven't really changed in their construction since the last century.

 

Power plants have improved some in the handling of the supercritical steam, but they are about the only efficient systems I've read about.

 

But in general we're not even close to achieving the thermodynamic efficiencies you allude to.

 

You guys have the net at your fingertips the same as I do. So check out the topic of steam engines, and steam things and discover for yourselves how relatively scarce the information is on any new steam technology.

 

Regards,

Bob

 

I believe you have a point that the heat exchangers required for small scale steam power are not up the the task. Large boilers are the way they are because combustion gas (including soot, and a lot of other stuff) passes through it... so it must be easy to clean.

A modern boiler is indeed a very large piece of equipment, and seems very bulky (although it's very efficicient, it has few losses...).

The field of heat transfer is a well established field of research, and I wonder how you want to make a giant leap forward. Trying new geometries is not a new concept...

 

I am aware of your patent which shows a heat exchanger with a significanty increased heat exchanging surface area. But that larger surface area makes it difficult to clean, and therefore it's inconvenient for dirty gases.

 

The increased heat exchange surface would perhaps be able to reduce the start-up time of a steam cycle, if you simply allow more power (more heat) to be transferred to the water by using more fuel... But you can also simply reduce the water reservoir.

 

Frankly, I don't see how you can make any large improvements at all...

[1bobwhite]

CaptainPanic,

Thank you for your careful considerations of my points.

First I'll start with the steam cars of yesteryear. There were many many steam car manufacturers at the turn of last century. The whole industry was nearly dead by the 1930's, but two of them stood out, and lasted the longest because of their improvements. The Stanley, and the Dobel.

Arguably the most advanced was the Dobel Car company.

Its cars could be started up from frosty cold to drivable within 40 seconds with its flash boilers. The entire car had only 25 moving parts. Some of these cars had over 600,000 miles on them. The Model E, could go from 0 to 75 mph in 10 seconds, and 100 mph top speed.

Check out http://www.damninteresting.com/the-last-great-steam-car

If they don't think you could pick up chicks in one of these cars, they must be living on the moon.

 

Another car to check out if you can find it is the Gvang steam car from Australia in the 1970's. I heard that it was bought up by Shell Oil Co. and promptly destroyed. What ever happened to Bill Lear's steam engine?

 

My point here is a newly engineered and manufactured steam engine that could be dropped in as a replacement for a 350 chevy engine, and designed to be invisible to the operator is not only possible but doable. Problem being it would have to be aftermarket, as no OEM is going to touch it. No only that but other "factors" would present themselves to try to prevent your success.

 

Because heat exchangers are a vital part of the engines system, their improved design would also contribute to the overall efficiency.

Nearly all automotive and most industrial radiators, evaporators, and condensers, still use the same tube and fin designs with the serpentine fins that were designed in the 1900's.

 

Most of the current thinking is, the thinner the fins and the more surface area, the faster the heat dissipation to the air. Also making more fins per inch along the tube will help.

 

Several problems show up with this approach.

 

First, The fin contact area on the tube has not been sufficiently increased.

 

Second, Air is poorer than metal as a conductor of heat, so going thinner with the metal actually goes contrary to extracting heat from the tube to out along the fin.

 

Third, While increasing the number of fins per inch along the tube does increase surface area, it also causes the air flow to be further restricted in its rate of flow across the exchanger, and is easier to clog up with debris.

 

My heat exchanger design does greatly increase the surface contact area on the "tube" but at the same time its configuration also allows for a much easier cleaning because of much greater spacing to take advantage of increased turbulence, and a reduction of the back pressure in forcing air through.

 

Boilers are still made the old fashion way, either fire tube, or water tube.

 

Some small specialty boilers I've seen do greatly improve upon the water tube design and hold great promise, but by and large most everything else has not changed at all in how the water is brought to steam.

 

Many companies are getting rid of their boiler systems because of the insurance, regulation problems and bureaucratic red tape and are going to steam generators instead.

 

One liter of water will produce 1600 approx. liters of steam at atmosphere.

 

With a steam engine of the Newcomen design, a single cylinder engine with a one liter displacement could have potentially 1600 power strokes, or 800 revolutions of a wheel. A one liter cylinder displacement is approx a 4 in. bore x 4in. stroke. ( I don't do metric conversion well) A 4 in bore has approx. 12 square inches area, times 15 psi atmosphere equals a 180 pound push on a crank with a 2 in throw, giving approx. 30 foot pounds of torque.

This is roughly the equivalent of a 30 hp gas engine, and is done with an atmospheric steam engine that is not using pressure much above atmospheric pressure at sea level.

 

Improvements are happening in different areas of steam like you say, but at a disappointing pace.

Bob.

[CaptainPanic]

CaptainPanic,

Thank you for your careful considerations of my points.

First I'll start with the steam cars of yesteryear. There were many many steam car manufacturers at the turn of last century. The whole industry was nearly dead by the 1930's, but two of them stood out, and lasted the longest because of their improvements. The Stanley, and the Dobel.

Arguably the most advanced was the Dobel Car company.

Its cars could be started up from frosty cold to drivable within 40 seconds with its flash boilers. The entire car had only 25 moving parts. Some of these cars had over 600,000 miles on them. The Model E, could go from 0 to 75 mph in 10 seconds, and 100 mph top speed.

Check out http://www.damninteresting.com/the-last-great-steam-car

If they don't think you could pick up chicks in one of these cars, they must be living on the moon.

Cool link. Thanks for that.

The numbers you give make it sound like a very viable option for a car engine.

However, the article also explains why steam power lost it against the internal combustion engine:

The electric starter in combination with the internal combustion engine were entering the market around 1912 (introduced by GM). The efficient steam engine cars by Dobel entered the market only in 1924, at a price that was too high. They had something ready in 1917 / 1918 (model C - an unreliable car).

 

Also interesting is the fuel consumption (not relevant at the time, but quite relevant now). It achieved 15 miles/ gallon.

 

Another car to check out if you can find it is the Gvang steam car from Australia in the 1970's. I heard that it was bought up by Shell Oil Co. and promptly destroyed. What ever happened to Bill Lear's steam engine?

Oil companies have huge financial means (they literally have the same revenues as the governments of countries like the Netherlands)... and it can be expected that they protect their interests.

However, for the sake of the discussion, I would propose that we don't accept the financial power of the oil companies as the only excuse for the disappearance of steam engines from small scale applications in the automotive and train industry.

 

My point here is a newly engineered and manufactured steam engine that could be dropped in as a replacement for a 350 chevy engine, and designed to be invisible to the operator is not only possible but doable. Problem being it would have to be aftermarket, as no OEM is going to touch it. No only that but other "factors" would present themselves to try to prevent your success.

By now, I would indeed advise to find another application for steam engines. The car companies are very conservative. The least conservative ones look into new engine types: electric. I very much doubt that steam will be applied in the near future... although it's a possibility.

Because heat exchangers are a vital part of the engines system, their improved design would also contribute to the overall efficiency.

Nearly all automotive and most industrial radiators, evaporators, and condensers, still use the same tube and fin designs with the serpentine fins that were designed in the 1900's.

 

Most of the current thinking is, the thinner the fins and the more surface area, the faster the heat dissipation to the air. Also making more fins per inch along the tube will help.

 

Several problems show up with this approach.

 

First, The fin contact area on the tube has not been sufficiently increased.

 

Second, Air is poorer than metal as a conductor of heat, so going thinner with the metal actually goes contrary to extracting heat from the tube to out along the fin.

 

Third, While increasing the number of fins per inch along the tube does increase surface area, it also causes the air flow to be further restricted in its rate of flow across the exchanger, and is easier to clog up with debris.

You must be aware of the way heat exchangers are tested. It's relativelt straight forward to test the heat transfer coefficient of a heat exchanger. I very much doubt that the entire world of heat exchanging simply got it wrong. The new designs you mention probably don't appeal to you because they have used different design criteria.

 

My heat exchanger design does greatly increase the surface contact area on the "tube" but at the same time its configuration also allows for a much easier cleaning because of much greater spacing to take advantage of increased turbulence, and a reduction of the back pressure in forcing air through.

You may be on to something. Did you publish the results somewhere other than the patent? Did you seek cooperation?

You're in a tough market where many manufacturers are trying to kill each other.

Most existing applications for an engine are already established markets (meaning it's tough to get in - you'll meet opposition with bigger financial means than you). But if you can find an upcoming market, then you may be able to squeeze steam power in.

 

Boilers are still made the old fashion way, either fire tube, or water tube.

 

Some small specialty boilers I've seen do greatly improve upon the water tube design and hold great promise, but by and large most everything else has not changed at all in how the water is brought to steam.

 

Many companies are getting rid of their boiler systems because of the insurance, regulation problems and bureaucratic red tape and are going to steam generators instead.

Not entirely true...

Steam power isn't used anymore... but steam itself it used a lot - for heating in chemical factories. Almost the entire chemical industry has steam systems - and those are powered by boilers. Those can be in the hundreds of megawatts, depending on the heat requirements of the factory.

Fuel for these boilers is generally speaking a waste product from the factory itself, or often natural gas.

 

One liter of water will produce 1600 approx. liters of steam at atmosphere.

 

With a steam engine of the Newcomen design, a single cylinder engine with a one liter displacement could have potentially 1600 power strokes, or 800 revolutions of a wheel. A one liter cylinder displacement is approx a 4 in. bore x 4in. stroke. ( I don't do metric conversion well) A 4 in bore has approx. 12 square inches area, times 15 psi atmosphere equals a 180 pound push on a crank with a 2 in throw, giving approx. 30 foot pounds of torque.

This is roughly the equivalent of a 30 hp gas engine, and is done with an atmospheric steam engine that is not using pressure much above atmospheric pressure at sea level.

 

Improvements are happening in different areas of steam like you say, but at a disappointing pace.

Bob.

I have little to add... you convinced me that steam power can actually be applied in cars. Technically, that is.

But it's not... and there are huge financial interests to keep it out. And in the future, steam power may be overtaken by electric cars.

Still, a start-up time of 40 seconds is a drawback. Even if this can be reduced to 20... people will grumble. Remember that most cars are only used to drive around the block.

I wonder what the fuel efficiency of modern steam powered cars would be. The fuel efficiency mentioned earlier (15 miles / gallon) is rubbish... it's about the same as a Hummer. The whole point of the steam engine discussion here is that it should be so much more efficient... of course, the only data I have here is from 1924.

Finally, the need to fill up cars with water and fuel may also be considered inconvenient (it's not really a problem - but it's tough in marketing terms).

Edited May 26, 2010 by CaptainPanic

[1bobwhite]

CaptainPanic,

 

I believe the major factor for the disappearance of steam engine derived power in industry and the home started in the early 1900's with the electric power generation industry, and the electric motor. The electrification of the U.S. was still ongoing in the 1960's.

 

There were still steam engines being used in the remote and rural areas to power the electric generators. Saw mills, grist mills, manufacturing shops, were switching from steam power to electric motors as fast as they could afford to.

 

The steam processes were still used and in place, but the motive power within the plants was switched to electric motors.

 

Petroleum powered engines, together with electricity finally spelled doom for the steam engine in general.

 

The improvements to the commercially available steam engines essentially ended in the auto industry in the 1930's, and as you say fuel economy was not a real concern. The highway system was still primitive and rural, and road trips were generally short compared to today.

 

 

The whole point of the steam engine discussion here is that it should be so much more efficient... of course, the only data I have here is from 1924.

My point exactly, the information is scarce. If you can find something, I'd appreciate it.

 

I believe the efficiency for engines can be greatly improved by both the application of steam power techniques, and the heat exchanger improvements. I'll go into more detail next post.

Bob.

[lazygamer]

I think someone should revive this thread.

 

So, to summarize, a gas is basically a number of molecules that all bump into eachother, when you send that gas through a valve and drop the pressure (more volume in this case), the molecules bump into molecules that are all moving away from eachother, and so they bump slower (ever played pool?). This is the drop in temperature known as where the "waste heat" goes.

 

any objections?

[CaptainPanic]

I think someone should revive this thread.

 

So, to summarize, a gas is basically a number of molecules that all bump into eachother, when you send that gas through a valve and drop the pressure (more volume in this case), the molecules bump into molecules that are all moving away from eachother, and so they bump slower (ever played pool?). This is the drop in temperature known as where the "waste heat" goes.

 

any objections?

 

Correct me if I overlook something very fundamental, but to me, this does not seem like a summary of the thread, actually.

It started off as a discussion to improve steam engines by replacing water for something else. Then it got sidetracked by the ridiculous Kender engine, which is a scam, and then we went back to steam engines and why steam engines aren't used in the automotive industry.

 

Fundamental thermodynamics (what is gas expansion) were never a part of the discussion (although they were important throughout the thread).

 

Maybe you should write a new post, in a new thread, to discuss the thermodynamics of a change in pressure... or post something in engineering regarding a practical use of waste heat. But please don't start about that kender thing again, like you did earlier in the thread. It's just silly, as I have already explained more than a year ago. Also, in this thread other people - experts in physics and engineering - already told you that it just won't work.