Condensation-Induced Water Hammer

[byjoveoldchap]

Thoughts on generating Steam

Vortex said,
"I was thinking there was some psi behind that steam."

No pressure really, unless you restrict the outlet. The pressure cap I seem to remember was about 5 or 7lbs.

I know that by putting the steam outlet under water, there is a cracking sound and the bucket or whatever, vibrates with the shock waves. Exactly the same occurs with the 'pop-pop' boats, hence the reason they got their name

Do you have an old electric kettle? If the element is okay, you could build a steamer from that, or a washing machine heater. The wallpaper strippers are usually about 2kw and some washing machines use a 3kw heater.

Providing you have reliable pressure relief valves, steam isn't a problem. If it were they wouldn't make steam wallpaper strippers for householders, or the old Mamod model steam engine/boilers for children to play with.

An old paraffin blowlamp would work well to provide instant, or 'flash' steam, simply by coiling some 1/4" copper tube. Anneal it first to soften and re-do as it work-hardens. That way, there is no storage or boiler reqd.. Look at a paraffin blowlamp and that is exactly how the liquid paraffin is instantly heated into a gas!

A little side step here - I made a model boat years ago, using 1/8th welding rod and soldering it together into the design I wanted. This was then covered with tape and car body-filler and sanded to shape. I borrowed the owners lathe at dinner time where I worked and built my first and only single cylinder, oscillating steam engine, crankshaft and flywheel.

I made a boiler form steel sheet metal and brazed cross-tubes running down the centre of the horizontal boiler with a vertical stack at the end. All this had to fit inside the boat which was about 20" long. I now had to think of a way to heat the boiler and provide storage for the fuel.

I finally hit on an idea and hence the reason for digressing. "I'll make a miniature blowlamp out of copper tubing and make a purpose designed fuel tank to sit right at the front in a triangular shape", I thought. But how can I pressurize the tank to force the fuel to the blowlamp-coil at the rear? I used a cycle inner tube valve and soldered it into the tank. It was quite an achievement to see it running when steamed up and we were all surprised to see it in action.

Just to prove the point that making a blowlamp to generate steam if reqd., is not difficult.

There is no problem in getting the steam to condense, the difficulty will be directing the steam in one direction only. Yes, I know the venturi can help here, but some thought needs to be given to this as it is the most critical part of the whole idea. It is indeed identical in many ways to a jet engine and the people who chose the name for their device knew exactly what they had to achieve.

I'm thinking of the model/toy pulse-jet motors that were built as a reasonably simple ways to duplicate the real thing and I keep coming back to the Ram pump idea...

To maximise the power potential, we need more than a simple condensating tube. It's not difficult at all, I feel certain that it will work best as a pulsing action to maximise the potential. Of course if we get it right, it will only be heard as a high pitched oscillating action.

hmmm... I wonder if I ought to build a model Steam-Powered Jet Boat first,
or stick with the Steam-Powered Rocket idea... ?
.

[Vortex]

[INDENT]Vortex said,
"I was thinking there was some psi behind that steam."

No pressure really, unless you restrict the outlet. The pressure cap I seem to remember was about 5 or 7lbs.

There is no trigger right and the steam flows continuously?
Fold the hose in half and crimp it off and see if that cause the
release cap to release, now you have 5-7 psi happening.
Put a nozzle on the end of the tube. Make one, plug it up with a small
pin hole in it, to start with, small hole.
Then uncrimp the hose with your 5-7 psi built up in the water.
See if you can view anything barely trying to exit the pin hole or does
it totally collapse before trying to exit the hole.

Do you have an old electric kettle? If the element is okay, you could build a steamer from that, or a washing machine heater. The wallpaper strippers are usually about 2kw and some washing machines use a 3kw heater.

Providing you have reliable pressure relief valves, steam isn't a problem. If it were they wouldn't make steam wallpaper strippers for householders, or the old Mamod model steam engine/boilers for children to play with.

All good, I'll wait to hear back from you about the crimped hose test first to
see if the target steam is 5-7 psi, a little more or a lot more.
I'll start looking at the old coffee maker I have.

There is no problem in getting the steam to condense, the difficulty will be directing the steam in one direction only.

First question is size of hole and psi to get the steam to exit into the water. No water tubing required yet, whoops.

To maximise the power potential, we need more than a simple condensating tube. It's not difficult at all, I feel certain that it will work best as a pulsing action to maximise the potential. Of course if we get it right, it will only be heard as a high pitched oscillating action.

We have no potential power
We do not have any potential power until the steam enters the water.
baby steps, this child isn't born yet. The birth of this child will be when the steam enters the water.
We don't know what psi we need.

The original 30 HP device .. they said it could be scaled up.
They didn't say .. just use higher psi steam .
They used the psi they did because higher psi wouldn't improve
performance? The question is what's the lower limit psi?

grrr Randy

[ashtweth]

Isnt' this ?
Cavitation Heaters

[byjoveoldchap]

The potential power is in my head

ashtweth asked "Isnt' this Cavitation Heaters?"
Yes, Ash it is a similar principal but without the mechanical work, we hope.

Vortex said - There is no trigger right and the steam flows continuously?
Yes, Correct.

Sealing or restricting the end, will obviously allow the pressure to build up until either the safety valve opens, or you hear a rather loud bang!

A tiny hole will result in the relief valve opening at its designed pressure and remaining open. Enlarging the hole will lead to a situation where the steam pressure cannot open the valve, and the size of the exit hole will maintain a pressure between zero and say 5lbs, or whatever the relief valve is designed to open at.

You seem to have a desire for pressure Randy? I don't think pressure is required for this to work.

"We have no potential power
We do not have any potential power until the steam enters the water."


The potential power is in my head Vortex! I can visualise it, I can see it working, I am thinking of ways to maximise that power now.

Have you ever seen a pop-pop boat working? The first one I ever saw was when I was about 6 years old, boy... thats a long, long, long time ago! I have seen and played with them since and built my own steam boilers using a coil. They are very simple in construction, but actually building and getting them to work well, is not as easy as it seems. But to actually watch them working is fascinating.

pop-pop boat video ~ Note: no visible steam released just pulses of water.

grrr...

did you let the dog in Randy?
.

[Tijean1961]

Google "underwater jet engine" and look for Gizmag article. I do not know (did not try i may say) how to put a link here. Look at the photo galery in the center of the page, someone made it realy simple.

Jean.

[Allcanadian]

I see many misconceptions have already been formed, I have been down this road many years ago so maybe I can help to clarify some things. If you want to understand implosion you should go to the source, that is Victor Schauberger who mastered the principal of implosion over 90 years ago. Victor Schauberger said a pressure force will always be opposed and this opposion is a dual opposition, a good example is an airplane propeller which is opposed by the pressure behind it and opposed by the suction ahead of it. The pressure creates a drag force to the forward motion of the propeller and the suction creates another drag force--dual forces opposing the forward motion of the propeller thus the propeller and airplane wing are inefficient un-natural drag devices. But an implosion does not have this dual opposition, if you consider a single steam bubble and this bubble implodes in water then all forces are acting inwards from all directions. The surrounding space(water) will oppose this motion because the water has inertia---but the water must move and transforms the implosion energy into velocity. In turn this velocity will act inward to the center producing a high pressure zone in the center which will then act outward in an oscillating manner. Here we can see the motion is oscillitory(vacuum--pressure--vacuum etc....) but little of what we concieve as work has been done because the motion has no net motion in one direction. Victor Shauberger understood this and formed special geometries to ensure the implosion forces acted in one direction as did the pressure in which case there was no net opposition to motion.
In the first post in this thread, the picture of the underwater jet engine is a clever design but we should understand it is inside out and is based on one of Victor Schauberger's designs. I have posted a picture of a much better design below, which is Victor Schaubergers design. The steam leaves through nozzles and is forced to hug the outer body through external pressure and coanda forces ---- this is very important. Next the steam implodes pulling water inward and backward, this implosion accelerates the water inward against the outer body. In this case the body itself acts as a boundary ensuring the inward pull can only act from outward to the body--the body acts as a fulcrum centering the forces inward.This implosion induced velocity imparted to the water will then compress itself against the body and move rearward. In this case there are many gains 1) steam pressure acts rearward 2)implosion acts inward and rearward 3)compression acts rearward --- all forces act unidirectionally.
The next picture below is another technology Victor Schauberger invented which utilizes centrifugal force to ensure the implosion acts unidirectionally, Richard Clem understood this technology as well. The inner workings of this device get a little more complicated. First a centrifugal pump is started in motion this gives the water inside it motion but more important imparts to the water inertial forces--things in motion tend to remain in motion---momentum. Next a small amount of steam it intermittently forced into the water filled tube extending from the impeller. This can be considered as a steam bubble, this bubble implodes but it implodes under unequal forces. That is the upstream water side is applying a centrifugal pressure against the bubble pushing it while the downstream side is pulling it, this ensures the implosive force acts in the direction of flow outward with the water,the upstream water accelerates with the implosion and slams into the water downstream of the implosion. This accelerates the water outward faster than the centrifugal forces imparted by the pump and a large pressure wave evolves at the exit nozzle. In this case the exit velocity/pressure is greater than what could be provided by the impeller alone which makes the pump a turbine---a self powered turbine. Victor Schauberger also understood that the implosion will accelerate the media in the tube and this change in inertia is acting in a direction which can accelerate the pump. The key is that the implosion must be intermittent, it must be cyclical in nature as everything is cyclical in nature. The dual opposition to motion must be countered to produce forces that will always act in one singular direction without opposition and in this respect we are dealing with forces and time. Victor Schauberger was a man of genius and his work has been continually taken out of context and misunderstood, In any case what you are proposing has been done in the past. If you want to understand where implosion can go as a technology you need to understand Victor Schaubergers technologies.
Best regards
AC

[byjoveoldchap]

Invented by Australian engineer Alan Burns

Google "underwater jet engine" and look for Gizmag article. I do not know (did not try i may say) how to put a link here. Look at the photo galery in the center of the page, someone made it realy simple.

Jean.

Thankyou Tijean1961 It is the internal design which is important to understand so that is a very helpful article and good photos plus diagram.

Invented by Australian engineer Alan Burns ~ These Ozzies have produced some great ideas! I am surprised to learn how old this invention is as one of the articles I read was dated 19:00 29 January 2003

Randy, you stated something earlier, which is not agreeing with my present understanding.

"The "hammering" is not wanted. Hammering means to strike something. Do not wish to hammer anything. It's the sudden condensation of the steam which sucks the water in to replace the vacuum created. This is the effect wanted, to move the water using the 1600:1 vacuum.(volume of steam to volume of water)."

In all these descriptions of the underwater jet-engine, reference is made to the 'hammer effect' and the shockwaves. This is where the energy is focused and performs the real work. I am certain that condensation collapse in a straight tube will not perform anywhere near as well, though I do appreciate that it could be some useful work.

The hammer is only a reference to the noise made and not implied as a physical description of the action.

woof, woof ?
.

[Vortex]

Hi Ash,

Isnt' this ?
Cavitation Heaters

The topic is about using the vacuum created when steam condenses.
1:1600 .. 1 part steam condenses to 1600 times smaller volume.
There is next to zero heat loss .. all heat is conveyed into the water.
The proven concept puts water into motion.
See image of device.
The idea is to extract work from the water in motion.
The current need is for a steam source to test prototype devices.

Issue is getting the steam into the water *before* it condenses.
I'm under the believe that higher pressure steam is required, which equals
higher temperature steam.
If the steam isn't of higher temperature, it will condense long before it gets
to the end of the steam tube and before it enters the water. The vacuum
is then created inside the steam tube and not inside the water tube.

Randy

[byjoveoldchap]

Victor Schauberger's discoveries of implosion technology

I see many misconceptions have already been formed, I have been down this road many years ago so maybe I can help to clarify some things. If you want to understand implosion you should go to the source, that is Victor Schauberger who mastered the principal of implosion over 90 years ago.

Victor Schauberger was a man of genius and his work has been continually taken out of context and misunderstood, In any case what you are proposing has been done in the past. If you want to understand where implosion can go as a technology you need to understand Victor Schaubergers technologies.
Best regards
AC

Thankyou Allcanadian for a very detailed explanation of Victor Schauberger's discoveries of implosion technology.

I totally agree that he was an astounding genius, who understood nature and especially the complexities of water better than anyone on the Planet. I love the guy and never cease to be amazed how he learned everything he knew simply by living in and observing nature on a daily basis throughout his life. His description of observing pools, or lakes of water that would suddenly burst upwards in a huge spiral will always stick in my mind as one of the most profound NATURAL events I can imagine!

I found it very difficult understanding his teachings about vortices etc., plus the fact that so little was translated into English didn't help either. Years ago, I did see a video of him when the Nazi's had forced him to work for them [designing Flying Saucers] and he was in front of a blackboard explaining how wrong it was to use ANY explosive force for power, as it was totally the OPPOSITE of how Nature worked. He described how Implosion was far more useful and it worked in HARMONY with Nature.


Vortex made reference to a website earlier in these posts which I immediately recognised as being the original discovery of Victor Schauberger

"Simplest of all, if found to work, would be a circular
tank with a horizontal water wheel in the middle, no water pumps. The configuration of the system is like this, but without the gravity force"
Gravitational Vortex Power Plant is Safe for Fish : TreeHugger

You have studied his work well and I appreciate the time you took to reply to our thoughts and ideas with a better understanding and very helpful comments. I will read through your post more and try to grasp a better knowledge of the real mechanics behind Victor's teachings.

You said
"In any case what you are proposing has been done in the past."

To say it has all been done before, is I consider, a totally negative supposition. This implies that it cannot be done, as others have tried and failed and that statement really means that YOU think it can't work.

~~~
Allcanadian, you were kind enough to reply to these posts with helpful comments, suggestions and your time. Please allow me to try and do the same for you.

Some years ago I read a book called, 'Rich Dad, Poor Dad'. It is a true story of Robert Kiyosaki ? explaining the fact that he was given advice by two different 'dads' through most of his earlier life.

He realised in later life that the way his two dads thought, had actually shaped their lives!

His real dad was a very educated man and had a very good and well-payed job, but he was always poor.

His best friends dad, [who he considered his second dad], who had little education, was very wealthy indeed.

The book is really about the different advice that he was given by his 'two dads', a rich dad and a poor dad.

A simple illustration is this: His poor dad would often say "I can't afford it".

His rich dad forbade him to ever say those words!
"Never think that way, as it gives the mind an excuse to shut down!"

"What you should be thinking to yourself is HOW can I afford it?"
"This makes the brain work and find solutions to your problems!"

~~~
With your extensive knowledge and understanding of Victor Schauberger's work Allcanadian, don't you think that YOU should be thinking... HOW can it be made to work?

with my sincere and best wishes,
By Jove!

[Allcanadian]

@byjoveoldchap

"In any case what you are proposing has been done in the past."
To say it has all been done before, is I consider, a totally negative supposition. This implies that it cannot be done, as others have tried and failed and that statement really means that YOU think it can't work.

LOL, what I meant was you are beginning to understand what Victor Schauberger knew 90 years ago, not only can this be done but it is simple once you understand the principals involved. As I stated in my last post the main problem is the misconception of force and motion, that is all motion produced by pressure is "dually" opposed, two forces are acting against it. Implosion does not have this opposition and when applied cyclically can produce a magnifying effect. This is the same effect Nicola Tesla used and in fact are nearly one and the same, Tesla's implosion is what we refer to as an inductive discharge and his magnifying effect utilizes the same principals as Victor Schauberger. Once you start connecting the dots you will understand the wonderful symmetry in how so many inventors could achieve such unbelievable results. Schauberger-Tesla-Moray-Keely when you see the common ground each shared with the other you will find many answers which in retrospect should have been obvious, but never are at the time.

P.S.---I read rich dad/poor dad as well, a very good book on many levels
Best regards
AC

[Vortex]

"We have no potential power
We do not have any potential power until the steam enters the water."


The potential power is in my head Vortex! I can visualise it, I can see it working

I know.. I know .. I can see it also, but are we seeing the same thing?

pop-pop boat video ~ Note: no visible steam released just pulses of water.

The pulses are from the sudden steam expansion, pushing the water
out of the tube. Condensed steam sucks water back up the tube but
not into the boiler. The boiler runs out of water.
Do not the boats run out of steam/water?
To extract work using this method, other than boat propulsion, would
require pistons, would it not? A cooling system or a means to push
water back into the boiler to keep it going.
The water is moving in and out, back and forth in the tubes in both
directions.

In all these descriptions of the underwater jet-engine, reference is made to the 'hammer effect' and the shockwaves. This is where the energy is focused and performs the real work. I am certain that condensation collapse in a straight tube will not perform anywhere near as well, though I do appreciate that it could be some useful work.

My reasoning was, why create a non-straight tube if nothing happens in a straight tube. Less effort.
Yes, a non-straight tube will perform better than a straight tube.
At this point in time both would perform equally well with a zero performance factor.

About the confussion introduced by the articles speaking about
the original device and the TOPIC of these posting.
The topic "Condensation-Induced Water Hammer" is the event that has
been researched and documented. Had some science behind it with
large psi events recorded. That's the reason I used it.
I should have used the topic "Condensation-Induced water jet"

Condensation of steam is an implosive event, inward.

When a shockwave is stopped, this causes the hammer event.
In an open pipe, like this device, the wave is not stopped,
it is diverted out the end of the pipe and thus no hammer event?
The wave does hit the inside of the pipe but isn't stopped.
Gosh, I hope this isn't going to be really loud .. that will never do.

The shockwave is from the water rushing it to fill the void and
since water does not compress it comes to a sudden stop after
filling the void. This sudden stop causes a shockwave to ripple outward.
This shockwave is an energy wave, a pulse, like that of a tsunami,
except a tsunami can be directional or not.
It doesn't make the water move from point A to point B.
The wave moves from point A to point B, but the water does not move.
The shockwave does NOTHING to move the water through
the tube.

IMO both of these phases, "hammer effect" and shockwave,
confuse the conversation because neither
has anything to do with putting the water into motion in this device.
Both have meaning in the context of a closed steam pipe system, but
not in the context of moving water.

Am I totally off base here?
It seems to me to be valid conclusions.

Randy

[Vortex]

Google "underwater jet engine" and look for Gizmag article. I do not know (did not try i may say) how to put a link here. Look at the photo galery in the center of the page, someone made it realy simple.

Jean.

Thank you Very much for finding this article and images.

[esaruoho]

hi. theres quite a lot of viktor schauberger around, actually. especially nowadays. the eco-technology series (four books, "the water wizard" "nature as teacher" "the fertile earth" "energy evolution"), the good introductions by jane cobbald (viktor schauberger: a life of learning from nature), alick bartholomew (hidden nature: the startling insights of viktor schauberger), olof alexandersson (living water).. and the callum coats book "living energies". a few have been translated into german and french, but not all.
there's even a couple of documentaries on him, but i'm yet to see the 2008 one. i found the documentaries online:

Sacred Living Geometry -Enlightened Environmental Theories of Viktor Schauberger
Nature Was My Teacher - The Vision of Viktor Schauberger
The Extraordinary Nature of Water - Based on the theories of Viktor Schauberger

thers a couple of more, like die wassermeister dvd and die wasserheiler dvd but they dont have english subtitles. theres also quite a few lectures in the german language on viktor schauberger.

if anyone here has seen the 2008 documentary on schauberger "comprehend and copy nature", then please let me know, id really like to hear what you thought of it and how well made it was.

theres a reason why erfinder2's site forgotten genius links moray,tesla,stubblefield,schappeller,keely,russell ,schauberger,wilhelm reich.. and as allcanadian and the rest have pointed out, it becomes more evident the more you muck around with it.

-a ****ing pothed-

[Vortex]

Hi Allcanadian and All,

Yes Allcanadian knows what is going on.
And yes we need to remember, review and understand what Allcanadian speaks about in post #21.
I forgot or didn't know Schauberger had a device that used steam.
Schauberger's work has always kept my attention, but his devices I can
not reproduce and have been educational only.

Thank you Allcanadian for bringing this information forward.

I had only remembered the water only ones.
I wish it were easy to create the device you have given an image of
in post #21.
Whatever is developed must be duplicated by "joe six-pack" (someone
like me).. otherwise it isn't of much use to the general public.

That's why I was so excited about the this simple tube steam device.
Once a duplication has been archived, in use and producing power,
then "joe six-pack" might be willing to go the extra mile and expense and
effort to create this device

One that might be duplicated is a simple nozzle pointing at the screw thingie
of Schauberger, the Jet Turbine, once we have something that puts the water in motion.
But again is comes down to the duplication of the device issue.

Please set me straight if I bear false witness in my postings.
I'm trying to keep it easy to understand... But I don't understand it all.

I intend to research deeper into the information you have spoken about
in post #21 . As I've said I've studied some of what Schauberger has done
but without a way to apply it in the real world, one tends to skim over details.

Again thanks
Randy

[byjoveoldchap]

Implosion does not have this opposition

@byjoveoldchap

LOL, what I meant was you are beginning to understand what Victor Schauberger knew 90 years ago, not only can this be done but it is simple once you understand the principals involved.

...all motion produced by pressure is "dually" opposed, two forces are acting against it. Implosion does not have this opposition and when applied cyclically can produce a magnifying effect.

Tesla's implosion is what we refer to as an inductive discharge and his magnifying effect utilizes the same principals as Victor Schauberger. Once you start connecting the dots you will understand the wonderful symmetry in how so many inventors could achieve such unbelievable results.

Best regards
AC

My apologies if I misunderstood you Allcanadian.

I find it can be so difficult to explain one's ideas and thoughts clearly in written text form and think it can easily be interpreted the wrong way.

Thankyou for replying and clarifyting your message and also for taking no offence with my replies.

I hope you will continue to share your ideas and thoughts and maybe we can raise more awareness on Victors outstanding contributions to humanity.

Your connections to Tesla and other great pioneers is recognised and noted for the similarities in so many different fields of discovery. It really is quite amazing, isn't it?

Thankyou again for your input.