SpudFiles

I recently came across this interesting piece on the internet: The Green Steam Engine.

It is a small steam powered engine that operates by having multiple pistons spin a wheel, as opposed to conventional steam engines that used a linear motion to drive a wheel. Apparently this engine boasts a low cost, little mechanical movement, light weight, can be assembled easily, etc.

I wanted to open up this project to discussion. Whether or not people think this is what it lives up to, if it is reliable, and whether or not somebody has constructed a model of this before. There are plans for people interested, but for $50 a pop, I think it would be good to put up for review.

Judging by how it works, t doesn't seem to be any less complex than a conventional steam engine to be honest:

I had a very similar thought, though it looks almost unstable to me.

there are still two reciprocating pistons involved, the only difference as far as I can tell is a flexible "crank" as opposed to a typical steam engine:



Have a look here for other possible configurations.

A unique crank setup for sure...sort of the same setup you see in a swash plateon a helicopter...sort of anyway.... 8)

However, claims of "green/less pollution" are bogus. Heat energy is heat energy. You've got to put X amount in to get Y amount of work out.

starman wrote:However, claims of "green/less pollution" are bogus.

I don't think that's where the name stems from:

The properties of the patented crank mechanism (called a "flexible rod transmission") invented by Robert Green, provides this engine with the advantage of eliminating the typical crankshaft and cam that requires lubrication and precision machining.

jackssmirkingrevenge wrote:

starman wrote:However, claims of "green/less pollution" are bogus.

I don't think that's where the name stems from:

The properties of the patented crank mechanism (called a "flexible rod transmission") invented by Robert Green, provides this engine with the advantage of eliminating the typical crankshaft and cam that requires lubrication and precision machining.

Well true, but there's still a claim of "less pollution". So I believe they are happy to subliminally suggest it to be a "green" device....

Jack is right. The Green in the name is not related to being green but his name. All his patents are filed under the name Green.

Also, it is very similar to the Swashplate, as seen in his three stroke:


and four stroke engines


Thanks for the link Jack, that is a good find. There's also a video of the motor in action:
[youtube][/youtube]

mega_swordman wrote:Jack is right. The Green in the name is not related to being green but his name. All his patents are filed under the name Green.

Yes I'm aware...see my comment above.

In watching those things actually running, there seemed to be an awful lot of mechanical flailing and depending on the flexibility of the hosing. I can't believe this would be anywhere close to being durable enough to compete with a standard piston/rod/crank setup.

Is it just me, or was the propeller spinning the wrong way? BTW very cool engines. I could see the possibility of them being useful if they were powered by compressed gasses, but not steam due to the burden of water.

ammosmoke wrote:Is it just me, or was the propeller spinning the wrong way? BTW very cool engines. I could see the possibility of them being useful if they were powered by compressed gasses, but not steam due to the burden of water.

You're seeing the strobe effect of the movie frames.

...and carrying significant amounts of compressed gases wouldn't be a burden?

Not as much as carrying fuel, water, a burner, AND a boiler... They all need tanks or casings of some sort.

Stobe effect? Oh...

starman wrote:

mega_swordman wrote:Jack is right. The Green in the name is not related to being green but his name. All his patents are filed under the name Green.

Yes I'm aware...see my comment above.

In watching those things actually running, there seemed to be an awful lot of mechanical flailing and depending on the flexibility of the hosing. I can't believe this would be anywhere close to being durable enough to compete with a standard piston/rod/crank setup.

That's why I think it is pretty unstable. I'm guessing that the four stroke engine probably reduces the problem a slight bit. The two stroke would be interesting though for hobby applications. There is a picture on the sight showing a person using it to power a small row boat.

Also, I am sorry for restating the obvious, you responded while I was typing the message.

The torpedos (mk48) currently used by the USN are 6cyl "swashplate" engines that work 100% identically to these, combustion engines of course, to be specific, external combustion using OTTO fuel, a self oxidizing fuel.... a 6cyl less than 20" in diameter produces over 700 horsepower, but only has a single run lifetime, how fast they go I wont say, but for a water-borne craft, its extremely fast...

Sounds like torpedo usage may be the ideal application for this. Small space requirement, powerful but durability not a requirement. Are you a torpedo tech dax?