[Stoves] Bisschop part 2

[GuyW]

Thank you.

-Guy-

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeff Davis" <jeff0124 at velocity.net>
To: <stoves at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 10:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Bisschop part 2


> Dear Guy,
>
>
> Guy wrote,
>> I apparently missed part 1.  Is there an archive?
>
> I did not call it part 1. The subject name was, "Bisschop engine - rough &
> ready".
>
> I pasted it below:
>
> ******************************************
>
> Dear List,
>
>
> This will be a multi-part e-mail regarding the Bisschop prime move.
>
> Andrew wrote:
>>I've allowed myself a little crosspost
>
> Me to.
>
> On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 18:48:22 -0600, Tom Reed wrote:
>>We are coming to the conclusion that producer gas has a very wide
>>flamability limit. This would be due to the ~20% H2 in it (like
>>Synthane). This would explain how a million non technical people could
>>operate converted cars during WWII.
>
> ~20% is great. Roy McAlister states ~10% min. when using hydrogen as a 
> pilot
> fuel.
>
>
> Andrew wrote:
>>Jeff Davis has mentioned running an "atmospheric" Bisschop engine on
>>producer gas,
>
> The Bisschop engine is not a “atmospheric” prime mover it is a
> “non-compression”. At least that is my understanding.
>
> Andrew wrote:
> >I've looked around and a chap I know, who builds model
>>engines, says that these early gas engines will not run on lpg or
>>natural gas because the mixture strength is so critical.
>
> Or is it the missing lubrication hence tar.
>
>
> Andrew wrote:
> >He posted
>>that he had to resort to acetylene to get a similar engine to run. We
>>know acetylene has both high energy and a very wide flammability
>>range.
>
> Acetylene is sooty and soot is a lubrication.
>
>
> Andrew wrote:
>>This all points to producer gas being far more tolerant of
>>varying air:fuel mixtures than natural gas.
>
> Only if it has a good amount of H2?
>
>
>
> Andrew wrote:
>>BTW the Bisschop cycle seems very unlikely to be a good choice because
>>of its poor thermodynamic performance. It appears it imbibes its
>>fuel:air mix on the downward stroke,
>
> It's my understanding that it is on the up stroke thus intake stroke.
>
>
> Andrew wrote:
>>there simply is not
>>enough temperature drop available to extract work from.
>
> My understanding is that they where made up to two HP. One-third was the 
> most
> popular. Do we really need more HP? One can do a lot with one-third HP.
>
>
>
>
>
> This prime mover is a non-compression engine with poor gas consumption per
> horsepower. I see prime movers/engine as energy conversion devices so they
> take in fuel and output two species of energy. One form being power
> (macro-motion) and the other is heat (micro-motion). We talk a lot about 
> fuel
> efficiency's and our prime movers just don't understand what our problem 
> is.
> They do their job much better than we do ours. True, the Bisschop engine
> doesn't belong in a car. But, it's interesting how we want VERY efficient
> car/engines (etc.) so that we can drive all around whenever we feel like,
> sometimes just to unwind! In other words, we criticize our engines but our
> methods are ten times less efficient than our engines. So lets spend 
> $50,000
> for a new fangled engine to somewhat make up for our inefficient methods.
>
> Tool for every job and a job for every tool:
> Yes, I am all for a highly efficient engine (macro-motion) for our cars! 
> BUT
> lets always look at our problems in a systems way. We pay good money for a
> furnace to heat our homes and most of the fuel is converted to heat and 
> zero
> to macro-motion and we think that is great. It would be possible to heat 
> your
> home with a Bisschop engine and get some macro-motion for generating 
> electric
> or it could be used to power (macro-motion) an agglomerator to make 
> fireballs
> and the micro-motion (heat) would be used to dry them. Of course this 
> would
> all be on producer-gas.
>
> Of all the engines to try to build, that will produce a usable amount of
> power, the Bisschop looks like the easiest. Even the simple Tesla turbine
> gets complicated, fast!
>
>
> I plan on building a vertical Bisschop cycle engine --- some day:
>
> -- No piston rings.
>
> -- No tight piston to cylinder tolerance. Primitive machine shop.
>
> -- No conventional governor (bag of gas & bag of air?).
>
> -- 110 rpm
>
> -- Sticky intake valves should not be the chillies heel.
>
> -- Lots of heat for cogen (that's where I plan to increase my efficiency).
>
> -- Maybe hard maple wood bearings (bio-bearings). Hey, it worked for 
> Mercedes
> Benz. The bearings are at the top of the engine not at the bottom like the
> engine in your car. So, one could think of this engine as an inverted IC
> engine. Kind of like Tom's inverted downdraft gasifier.
>
> -- The biggie, it needs NO crank case oil. It can not have oil in the
> cylinder. So how does it get cylinder oil? Answer: tar in the producer 
> gas.
> Think of it as a two-cycle engine where the gasoline is mixed with oil.
> Although, I would not think that it would be prudent to feed it too much 
> tar.
> I still feel that it would need a down draft gasifier. Someone built one 
> and
> it would not run on propane, it needs producer-gas. Well, I hope that it
> would run on producer gas. It was reported to run on town-gas and
> illumination-gas. These gases are at least twice the Btu's as our
> producer-gas and have a good percentage of hydrogen.
>
> -- No spark plugs or distributor junk.
>
> -- No fuel injection junk.
>
> -- It faced the efficient Otto-cycle engine and still was vary popular 
> because
> of it's simplicity and reliability. It was always a small engine. The 
> 1/3rd
> HP was the most popular. They may have made a two HP. So Peter has me out
> powered and he doesn't need the extra by-product (heat) like I do so this
> engine is not for everybody.
>
> Hint: It would make a great engine to turn an agglomerator and the off 
> heat
> for drying the fireballs.
>
>
> Jeff
>
>
> -- 
> Jeff Davis
> Somewhere 20 miles south of Lake Erie, USA
> http://www.velocity.net/~jeff0124
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_listserv.repp.org
>
>
>
> -- 
> Jeff Davis
> Somewhere 20 miles south of Lake Erie, USA
> http://www.velocity.net/~jeff0124
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_listserv.repp.org