Friction Steam Boiler

[theremart]

More info on the caviation heating..

I found the patent for this device. Thought we might consider some of the ideas of the patent.. for the friction heater.

Patent number: 5188090
Filing date: Apr 8, 1991
Issue date: Feb 23, 1993
Inventor: James L. Griggs
Assignees: Hydro Dynamics, Inc.

Apparatus for heating fluids - Google Patents

Also a VERY nice thread over on overunity.com some one replicated this pump successfully.

Hydrosonic Pump

[gotoluc]

Hi Rick & all,

thanks for bringing my attention to this topic Rick.

I have many projects at this time and will keep an eye on this as it does interest me but I have to complete other thing before starting something new.

I my opinion, I don't think the device needs to be so big. What I have to offer is video's that I have posted before.

All one need to do is study the effect and mechanism of the pistol shrimp (video's below). I believe it is a natural occurrence and it give out more heat energy then needed to create the effect. Once you find the way to make the effect, you make a steam turbine by using the aluminum side of a ICE Turbo Charger $10. used on eBay: eBay Motors: Eclipse TD05 Turbocharger Turbo Charger Parts/Rebuild (item 400001745123 end time Oct-16-08 17:56:03 PDT) and cut open the steel side to attach a crankshaft to drive the cavitation plunger.

Pistol Shrimp Video's:

YouTube - Pistol Shrimp

YouTube - Snapping Shrimp

Luc

[Burned_NE2]

Re: Wood as friction material vs other?

@ All

Was just having a random thought and thought I'd share it with you all.

What if instead of wood we used another available resource? Is there a soft enough stone out there that could replace the wood used and not wear down the friction rotor? I myself wonder if slate would not be a good alternative?

BTW: Still having a tough time the steam pressure chamber on the rotor and the trough, how are they separated or are they?

Regards,
Paul

[rickoff]

Reply to Mart

I found the patent for this device. Thought we might consider some of the ideas of the patent.. for the friction heater.

Hi Mart,

What ideas of the Griggs/Hydro Dynamics patent do you feel would be applicable to Lloyd's friction heater? Basically, the "Hydrosonic Pump," which is the generic label used most often to identify the Griggs cavitation heater, has to be driven to rotation by an external device, such as an electric motor, engine, or turbine. Are you thinking of driving the hydrosonic pump with an electric motor to build up an initial head of steam to get a steam engine started? If so, it seems that you could just as well use an electric motor to directly start the friction hub rotating, as Lloyd does in the video. You may, however, be thinking of an entirely different use for the pump. Could you expand on those thoughts, please? All ideas are welcome.

Thanks, and best wishes to you,

Rick

[rickoff]

Reply to Gotoluc:

Hi Luc,

I have been following your ideas, and watched the pistol shrimp video that you linked to in the Water Sparkplug thread. While that is very interesting, and certainly deserves study, I think it is going to be quite some time before the secret of that natural phenomenon's mechanism can be revealed and put to practical usage. Lloyd Tanner's friction boiler, on the other hand, is a device that could be replicated and used for heating this winter.

The idea of using the radial turbine of a discarded turbocharger unit as a steam turbine is a good one, but the turbine rotor would be rather small, and not develop much torque. Great for a miniaturized replication, though, of the type I have suggested that people start with. It would require some pretty good torque to drive a hydrosonic pump with the turbine shaft, as you suggest. And where would the steam, that is needed to run the turbine, come from? The hydrosonic pump is capable of making steam, but not in an amount and pressure that would allow the pump/turbine unit to be a self-runner. Lloyd's device, coupled to a steam engine rated between 1 and 3 hp, would allow for self-running once an initial head of steam is supplied to start the steam engine, and will continue running as long as wood is loaded and water is supplied. Yes, Lloyd's device is somewhat large in scale, but so are the results that it produces, and I think most homeowners would be happy to accomodate the unit in their cellar, garage, or outbuilding. I know that I will be.

Don't get me wrong, Luc. I have always liked the hydrosonic pump idea for cavitation heating of water, and several months ago suggested using a 12 coil Bedini machine's shaft power to drive one for the purpose of heating household water (in addition to providing household electric power). Ren's window motor would probably also be a good candidate for that application. Likewise, an ICE, capable of running on water as fuel, would also be excellent for driving a hydrosonic pump, but I don't think we will get that far before winter sets in. The greatest problem in all such applications, though, is the pump itself. Fabricating a well made and highly efficient hydrosonic pump requires a well equipped machine shop. If you don't have one, then you would have to pay someone else to machine the parts to your design. And either way it is an expensive endeavor. If I had one (hydrosonic pump) available, I would hook it up to an electric motor tomorrow and put it to good use making hot water to circulate through my boiler's heat exchanger loop. My oil fired boiler uses an electric motor to run the burner blower unit anyways, so using that motor to drive a hydrosonic pump instead would be nice.

Lloyd's basic device, as shown in the video, could be constructed at modest cost with readily available materials, and I can think of several ways to use it efficiently to heat water at very low expense. I just think it is a timely solution to staying warm this winter, and rolling back home energy costs while we continue working on other technologies.

Thanks for your input Luc, it is always welcomed and appreciated. Best wishes to you,

Rick

[rickoff]

What if instead of wood we used another available resource? Is there a soft enough stone out there that could replace the wood used and not wear down the friction rotor? I myself wonder if slate would not be a good alternative?

Hi Paul,

You can certainly experiment with different materials, and I would encourage that just to see what results will be realized. Green (unseasoned) hardwood does appear to work quite well, though. Are you thinking in terms of saving a tree, or just exploring what may possibly work better than wood? Right now it is anybody's guess, and something that really hasn't been determined. I would tend to think that a stone of sufficient thickness to make use of full frictional hub height contact might be rather difficult to lift, load, and secure, whereas the wood 4 x 4's make loading quite simple. Also, even a fairly soft stone would tend to wear down the metal hub by grinding action. If you do some experimenting with differing materials, please record and report your results in this thread.

BTW: Still having a tough time the steam pressure chamber on the rotor and the trough, how are they separated or are they?

See "About the steam vessel box" section of post #32.

Thanks for your interest,

Rick

[Burned_NE2]

Hi rickoff,

I guess I was just trying to think of a more durable material that would last longer in the trough than using wood but you're probably correct as far as wearing down the rotor and would be heavy but slate is a fairly soft material compared to metal and is really abundant in my neck of the woods, I guess only experimenting (on a small scale) will tell on that one

I've re-read the posts and looked at the diagrams and video on the construction but still fail to see how the trough is isolated from the rotor, seems like the whole trough assembly would need to be sealed tight as it is part of the steam chamber and rotor assembly. Somehow my mind is being stubborn and can't seem to visualize how to separate both of these as well as the steam pressure on the rotor bearing

Regards,
Paul

[theremart]

Hi Mart,

What ideas of the Griggs/Hydro Dynamics patent do you feel would be applicable to Lloyd's friction heater? Basically, the "Hydrosonic Pump," which is the generic label used most often to identify the Griggs cavitation heater, has to be driven to rotation by an external device, such as an electric motor, engine, or turbine. Are you thinking of driving the hydrosonic pump with an electric motor to build up an initial head of steam to get a steam engine started? If so, it seems that you could just as well use an electric motor to directly start the friction hub rotating, as Lloyd does in the video. You may, however, be thinking of an entirely different use for the pump. Could you expand on those thoughts, please? All ideas are welcome.

Thanks, and best wishes to you,

Rick

The objective of the objective of the Friction heater is to produce steam, perhaps if we use cavitation to produce the steam instead of the wood we could eliminate the wood altogether, the Briggs pump is rated with a Cop of 1.5 per the patent.

Since someone over at overunity.com has been successful at duplicating the Briggs pump, perhaps one could loop the steam engine with the Briggs pump using the propane the jump start the process.

Or one could extend the shaft so one could have both processes going on at once. One side using friction heat... or ... have a PTO from a tractor on the steam engine, so you could switch to either process on the fly... by connecting to either setup you had.

The main problem I see with this whole setup is you could not walk away from it. Steam is too dangerous to leave running itself.

I also looked at Jetijs setup and thought what if you were to introduce cavitation to that setup, would that not make the oil heat up faster?

[FuzzyTomCat]

Rick - Design Clarification ?

Hi Rick,

In the tradition of "R & D" I have made some sketches of the "Rotor Assembly" and a idea for a "Stuffing Box" to limit possible debris from exiting the Trough Assembly.

As always this is for evaluation and possible changes but this is the conception I have came up with so far in the Lloyd Tanner Friction Steam Boiler.

Any suggestions or comments ..... anyone.

Thanks,
Glen

[rickoff]

Reply to Glen:

Hi Glen,

Thanks for the drawings. The first one is a good cutaway view of Lloyd's friction hub design, showing attachment of the hub to the 1" hub shaft, and the location of the steam vessel in relation to the hub.

The second drawing shows your concept for handling the underside of the trough in the area where the hub shaft passes through the trough bed. The only problem I see in this concept is that the upper hub shaft bearing should really be mounted as close to the hub as possible in order to provide for best support of the shaft and rotor, and to reduce vibrational chatter. The hub shaft will tend to accumulate and transfer heat to the bearing, so this is something to consider. Bearings less prone to heat damage would be preferred, and employing methods for cooling the bearing may be wise.

There is a small amount of ash created in the trough as the wood chars and wears down, but Lloyd says that the ash is easily cleaned out. There would be no other debris created. When the wood 4 x 4's are worn to their limit, all you have left is a wood block 4" x 4" x 1/4" thickness, which can be tossed into a wood stove or otherwise discarded.

Thanks again for the drawings,

Rick

[Kingman]

Over-Unity Possibility

Rickoff & All, I see the possibility for an over-unity system with the friction boiler design. It might be possible to build this sytem to generate your steam needed to run a steam turbin that in turn would drive an electrical gernerator to in turn run your electric motor that drives the friction hub. You could in turn use the exhaust steam from the turbine to heat your home or make hot water for household needs. You would need, of course a starter system to get things running. I could see a battery bank for storage of the needed electricity to get the system up and running. You could also incorporate solar to keep the battery bank topped off, so to speak. Is there any indication from the inventor what the COP might be? I just don't think it is to much of a streach to believe a system like this could do all of the things described.
I think in a way you are extracting the BTU's inherent in the oak wood yet you are not causing it to combust. I wonder if soaking the wood in water for some time before putting it into the system would add to the efficency of the system or possibly slow the consumption of the wood. Friction is the number one enemy of mechanical devices. Why not put that enemy to work for our good and I see that is what the inventor has done here. So clever with so much potential. Why not also use some of that extra turbine output shaft energy to drive a SSG to charge the batteries with a good cold charge instead of a hot charge. Wow, so many possibilities as to what you can do once you have generated the steam! it is just a matter of putting that steam to work.

Stephen

[rickoff]

Hi rickoff,
I've re-read the posts and looked at the diagrams and video on the construction but still fail to see how the trough is isolated from the rotor, seems like the whole trough assembly would need to be sealed tight as it is part of the steam chamber and rotor assembly. Somehow my mind is being stubborn and can't seem to visualize how to separate both of these as well as the steam pressure on the rotor bearing.

Hi Paul,

The trough is not isolated from the rotor, as the rotor (or hub, as I call it) is in the center of the trough. There is no steam pressure inside the trough. Heat is developed in the trough by friction of the wood 4 x 4's being pressed against the rotating hub, and that heat then rises to meet the underside of the steam vessel box. The steam vessel box is fully enclosed, and is only attached to the trough at the opening between the two trough covers. The trough covers should fit well, so as not to allow heated air to escape, but they do not need to be absolutely airtight. The steam vessel box should fit snugly over the trough covers and opening to maximize heat transfer to the steam vessel. If you click on the first drawing thumbnail at the bottom of post 54 I think this cutaway view will help you to understand the trough/rotor/steam vessel relationship better.

Please note that it is not necessary to create steam unless you plan to use a steam engine. Lloyd's friction boiler can optionally be utilized to heat air or to heat water to any specific temperature below the boiling point. I have described some suggested adaptations for these options in previous posts, and as soon as I have a little time on my hands I will post drawings that should help you to visualize these methods.

Best regards,

Rick

[rickoff]

Reply to Kingman:

Hi Kingman,

Yes, I can see your mind is now whirling with ideas.

This device has so many possible adaptations that would work well. And you are right - there has been a lot of R&D work done in reducing friction, and in reducing heat of friction in adaptations where friction is employed (brakes, for example) but little has been done in developing the utilization of direct frictional heat production. Friction has generally been an engineering problem where rotating parts are concerned, but Lloyd's device turns that problem into a solution.

If the device is used to power a steam engine, then the engine's output shaft can power both the friction hub and an electric generator. If you already have a Bedini machine, battery storage bank, and an inverter, then you could certainly use that to run the 1 hp induction motor that would spin the hub during the start-up phase. If you don't already have all that gear, then you can simply plug the induction motor into the nearest 110 volt AC outlet. During a power outage, you could start up by using a propane burner to heat the friction hub or roller, and the steam vessel, as Lloyd plans to do in his newer build. It is good to have that option for a worst-case scenario. In all likelihood, you would probably already be running before a power outage occurs, and wouldn't be affected by it if using the steam engine - or a Bedini machine - to have a self-runner.

Yes, you could soak dry wood in water to give it the desired moisture content, but any unseasoned hardwood will do just fine and normally costs considerably less than seasoned, dry wood. Not that you have to worry about the cost, though, when a cord of wood will last you 5 years. This is so much more efficient than the traditional method of burning wood, coal, or other fuels, to produce heat and steam. If you burn anything then you need a chimney, and a huge amount of your heat production goes up the chimey as wasted hot air which is necessary to carry away the smoke and other exhaust gasses. Lloyds device contains and uses nearly all the heat that is produced, and that is what makes it so amazingly efficient.

Thanks for your participation in this thread, Stephen. If you should do some experimenting with Lloyd's friction machine, and I think you probably will, I hope that you will post some photos and operational data in this thread. Every time you do that, it is like stretching an arm out to help lift someone else up. Many people will read this thread, but most will probably not elect to experiment with this concept, or go on to build a full scale adaptation, unless some pioneers show the way and make things easy to understand and replicate. Lloyd's device, in its crudest form, is really a simple machine. I think that the key to developing this technology is to keep replications as simplified as is possible, while perhaps experimenting with small design changes. And as I have said before, design variations are so much easier (and less costly) to construct and test on a hobby sized replication. So keep that mind of yours whirling, and see what you can accomplish.

Good luck to you,

Rick

[Burned_NE2]

Thanks FuzzyTomCat for the drawings and rickoff for the explanations and patience

I was away yesterday and today and ran it across a good friend of mine (who loved the video) and we kept coming to the conclusion that the bottom of the steam vessel had to be closed so that the steam vessel only generated the pressure and the trough and bearing was isolated but couldn't see it in the previous posts or pictures until FuzzyTomCat's #1 drawings so thanks to you both

Regards,
Paul

[rickoff]

Reply to Mart:

The objective of the Friction heater is to produce steam, perhaps if we use cavitation to produce the steam instead of the wood we could eliminate the wood altogether, the Briggs pump is rated with a Cop of 1.5 per the patent.?

Hi Mart,

Although Lloyd's objective involves producing and utilizing steam, that is not a necessity if one merely wants to use the device for home heating purposes, by producing either hot air and/or hot water. If we do away with the wood, then we are no longer talking about Lloyd Tanner's friction device, and we would be assuming that a cavitation device is going to be more efficient. I think that assumption would be incorrect, for the following reasons:
1. Lloyd's device employs direct contact solid-against-solid friction, which is a far more efficient and powerful form of friction than solid-against-air or solid-against-liquid frictional methods. Lets say, for example, that you want to raise the temperature on the exterior surface of a 6 inch long piece of 3/8 inch steel pipe. For this experiment, let's use three separate pieces of steel pipe, threaded at each end, to which we have already tightened on an end cap, using thread sealant or teflon tape. For the direct friction experiment, go ahead and tighten another end cap on the open end of one pipe. For the air friction experiment, drop a steel ball or two (slightly less in diameter than the inside diameter of the pipe) inside one of the remaining pipes and then tighten an end cap over the open end. The third pipe should have a steel ball or two dropped inside, and then the remaining space nearly filled with water. Leave just enough air space to allow for some good turbulence to be produced by the steel balls, and then tighten on an end cap. Let each of the assembled units stand for several hours to ensure that all internal and external elements are at room temperature (let's assume 68 degrees F). Wearing a thick glove, to prevent any heat from your hand from influencing any of the pipes, first pick up the air friction test pipe. Holding it horizontally, begin moving your hand rapidly from side to side in a 6 inch span of movement. Do this for 1 minute, and then record the temperature of the pipe's exterior surface. Do the same experiment with the water filled pipe, and record that temperature measurement. For the direct friction experiment, use the same time period, hand motion, and exertion as used in the previous experiments, but use your gloved hand to rub the pipe surface with a piece of medium grit sandpaper, and record the temperature in the center of the area that was sanded. Compare your results, and you will see that the direct friction method produced far better results. Obviously this isn't a perfect experiment, but it will demonstrate that direct friction works better than cavitation.
2. Griggs formed a company, called Hydro Dynamics Inc, to develop and market his patent for the hydrosonic pump. The company did have plans to build and sell units for home heating installations, and in fact some units were so employed in the area surrounding the manufacturing facility and results were observed. The company has since abandoned their plans to sell home heating units, and have issued the following explanation concerning their hydrosonic pump, which is also called a Shockwave Power Reactor, or SPR:
"Thank you for your inquiry in regard to heating water and/or making steam. Our company no longer markets the device for these applications. Although the device is efficient, in most all water heating applications it is difficult to economically justify a device from a capital or operating point of view. The SPR is about 98% efficient from a shaft point of view and about 90% overall when coupled with a standard 92% efficiency motor, while standard boiler is about 87%, but gas or oil are generally 50% cheaper on a btu basis when compared to electricity, as electricity is an expensive and highly refined fuel when compared to gas, coal or oil. While electricity is competitive there are electrical resistance heaters that are much cheaper and approach 99% efficiency. When we heat fluids there generally has to be some mitigating factor to justify the premium in capital and operating cost. The system can heat water, but there are numerous competing technologies that can heat water and make steam that are much less capital intensive and often cheaper to operate. Because of this we ceased marketing home/residential heating systems and generic steam systems.

Douglas G. Mancosky, Ph.D
Director of Application Development
Hydro Dynamics, Inc"

Since someone over at overunity.com has been successful at duplicating the Briggs pump, perhaps one could loop the steam engine with the Briggs pump using the propane the jump start the process.

That's the Griggs pump, actually, not Briggs. If I said Briggs in an earlier post then that was an error. The greatest problem with the hydrosonic pump is that Griggs holds the patent but does not manufacture a unit of the size you would want. To build one, you would need access to a well equipped machine shop and should be a skilled precision machinist. Even still, it is unlikely that you will achieve the same degree of efficiency as in a Griggs build, as this relies on factors related to the size, depth, angle, and spacing of the bores in the rotor - all of which are not disclosed. Even if you can achieve the same efficiency rate, after much experimentation and expense, it will still not be capable of producing enough steam to allow for a self-sustaining steam engine.

Or one could extend the shaft so one could have both processes going on at once. One side using friction heat... or ... have a PTO from a tractor on the steam engine, so you could switch to either process on the fly... by connecting to either setup you had.

In view of what I have already stated above, it doesn't seem practical to couple a hydrosonic pump to the drive shaft of Lloyd's device. The overall efficiency would only be reduced by the additional drag caused by the pump, and the additional torque required to drive the shaft.

The main problem I see with this whole setup is you could not walk away from it. Steam is too dangerous to leave running itself.

Yes, steam can be very dangerous, as I have previously pointed out, but needn't be dangerous if adequate safety precautions are utilized. Proper and adequate controls must be employed, just as they are required when using an oil fired boiler for home heating. The techiques involved are nearly identical. Both require thermostatic controls and a thermocouple device to maintain the on and off cycles in order to provide a consistent pressure and temperature within the boiler, and such controls are very reliable. In a worst case scenario, if the controls should fail to stop the boiler action when the desired water or steam temperature is reached, an overpressure relief valve (or, better yet, 2 or 3 of them) will engage to dump water and steam until pressure is normalized. Then too, if an air temperature thermostat is utilized, as is normally the case in a home heating system, it can be wired to prevent the device from running at all while the air temperature is at or above a set level. No one worries about their oil fired boiler exploding, and it would not be a concern with Lloyd's device either if adequate control and safety devices are employed. Incidentally, I recently purchased a Honeywell burner control unit on Ebay for just 99 cents - I was the only bidder! Honeywell R8182H Hydronic Heating Control - eBay (item 190253923574 end time Sep-26-08 19:35:27 PDT)
This unit was previously used, but works just fine. A new unit has a suggested retail price of more than 400 dollars!

I also looked at Jetijs setup and thought what if you were to introduce cavitation to that setup, would that not make the oil heat up faster?

See Jetijs experiment at: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...html#post31564

It already uses cavitation as the method for heating the oil. If you stir some liquid in a cup, you are using cavitation, which is really just disturbing the liquid by creating a turbulence. For heating the liquid, the more turbulence you create, the greater the effect. The Griggs device uses cavitation, but also employs the borings on the rotor surface to create bubbles which are said to have a shockwave effect, upon collapse, that aids in heating the liquid. So yes, if Jetijs used such bores on the inner cylinder of his experimental device, that should make the oil heat up faster. It would be rather difficult to accomplish with the thin walled inner cylinder he is currently using. Keep in mind, too, that when shockwave processing is used, the liquid temperature is somewhat higher than the temperature of the rotor. That's good for heating the liquid, but the aim of that type of friction heater is to produce as much heat as possible by heating the air exposed surfaces of the two cylinders. Therefore, the method Jetijs is currently using, and having a relatively thin walled hollow rotor, is probably a better method for heating anything other than the liquid.

Thanks for your questions, Mart. I think that the answers will help many others to understand what is different about Lloyd's technique of creating heat, and why it is such an efficient process when compared to other methods. At first glance, Lloyd's device appears rather crude, and so we naturally tend to begin to think in terms of what can be done to improve upon it. My own feeling about that, though, is that we probably won't make it better by changing the methods, and that we should concentrate on relatively small changes that better contain and focus the derived heat. For example, a heat containment box could be constructed with walls that extend from the steam vessel box to the base of the trough, and would fully enclose the rotating metal hub. Cutouts, just slightly larger than the wood 4 x 4 dimensions, would be made in two sides of the containment box, allowing the wood to feed through the openings, and employing very light pressured scraping blades to restrict nearly all flow of heat into the troughs. With all heat development contained and focused in the center section of the trough, this would seem to produce even more amazing results than has already been demonstrated. I think that most readers will be able to visualize what I am suggesting, but to make things clearer I will soon post a diagram showing this adaptation. See the diagram at post #93

Best wishes to everyone,

Rick