Rotary Steam Engines: Page 10.> |
Updated: 18 Dec 2007section added.
| ![]() ![]()
|
ROTARY AIR ENGINES AND COMPRESSORS.
There are such things as rotary air motors: see http://www.engineair.com.au/index.htm. (external link)
As noted in several places above, there are great similarities between rotary compressors (which work and are very common) and rotary steam engines. (which did not work and are vanishingly rare) It is a little puzzling why this should be so. Single stage rotary compressors can deal with significant pressures- typically up to 80 psi, so that's not the problem. Could it be the steam temperature? It seems unlikely, as compressing air releases large amounts of heat, and cooling is often an issue.
I suspect the answer may be that inefficiencies in compressors are more acceptable than in engines; compressing air is inherently an inefficient way of converting energy because of the heat loss mentioned above.
THE DIFFICULTIES OF THE ROTARY STEAM ENGINE.
I am no steam engineer (as will no doubt become apparent) but let's see if we can work out why the problems were so intractable. The fact that today there is virtually no market for such a device will be ignored.
The intriguing thing about this particular technological dead-end is that at first sight there seems to be nothing inherent in the concept that makes it so completely impractical. And yet, literally hundreds of engineers and inventors applied their intelligence to the problem, but none were able to make it work acceptably.
Contemporary comment makes it clear that sealing was a major problem; foreshadowing the later sealing problems with the Wankel. Sealing at both the rotor peripheries and the ends was difficult; anything approaching steam tightness meant excessive friction, and either way the machine was inefficient.
Inevitably the thought arises that given modern seal materials and technology, it ought to be possible to make it work. I am no expert on rotary IC engines either but I understand that the sealing problems of the Wankel IC engine have finally been solved, though the low efficiency due to the long thin combustion volume remains an inherent drawback. Surely keeping a rotary machine steam-tight should be much easier, given that the steam will be both cooler and at a lower pressure?
In many cases the rotary inventors seem to have been relying purely on close tolerances and accurate machining to control steam leakage. This is fine in principle, and when appropriately applied (eg the non-contact labyrinth seals used in steam turbines) but much less effective in the topology of a rotary engine, especially when friction and thermal expansion are considered.
It seems inevitable that the inner rotor will get hotter than the external casing, so a rotor that is a snug fit when the machine has just been started will get tighter and tighter as it warms up. A further complication is that unequal heating and thus expansion of each part will result in changes of shape as well as size that will make attempts at steam-tightness through tight clearances quite hopeless.
Few of the drawings above give any clue as to how the ends of the rotors were to be sealed against the side of the casing; it is not just a matter of making clearances small. The thermal expansion of rotor and casing are unlikely to be the same in all directions, and in any case it is equally unlikely that the various components will reach the same temperature at the same time, especially under varying loads.
Contemporary comment also frequently refers to excessive frictional losses due to packing being over-tightened in attempts to obtain acceptable sealing.
Another problem was that many of the designs seem to make no provision for the expansive use of steam, which would have made them very inefficient compared with normal reciprocating engines, even if the sealing had been frictionless and perfect: expensive rather than expansive. Likewise, many designers seem to have had no notion of getting steam into and out of the working chamber easily- the steam passages were often narrow and convoluted.
Now consider the reciprocating engine and its piston. ("piston" is derived from the French for "pestle"- beautifully descriptive!) There is movement in one direction only, and the whole situation is mechanically far simpler. Thermal expansion is dealt with by piston rings that press against the bore due to their own elasticity. (and valve sealing does not seem to be a problem: cf using a compression tester on an IC engine)
The essence of the situation is that sealing a reciprocating piston is a one-dimensional problem. With a cylindrical piston the sealing situation is the same all the way round, as it were, and the sliding movement does not alter the geometry. In contrast, the rotary engine presents a three-dimensional sealing problem, usually continuously altering in its geometry. This is quite a different matter.
This does does rather beg the question of what might present a two-dimensional sealing problem; I suppose it would be something like a square reciprocating piston. I imagine that would present interesting sealing problems at the corners.
THE MARKET FOR THE ROTARY STEAM ENGINE.
Well, essentially there isn't one. In the relatively few places where a small steam-engine is required, a steam turbine, usually geared down to its load, will be more efficient, more reliable, and easier to maintain. One example is on board a turbine-propelled ship, where there is plently of steam available but electricity is in relatively short supply. Turbines were often used to drive the fans that pressurised the boiler-room, replacing the small reciprocating engines that first took on this role.
On land, no-one today would dream of installing a steam boiler without electrical controls. And if mains electricity is available and already essential for operation, any minor requirements for power, such as driving pumps, might as well be met by an electric motor.
Patent No. TITLENAMEDATETYPEVIEW
25,388 Improvements in Rotary steam EnginesRobert Keats1901
View patent
26,452 An Improved Engine with Rotary PistonThomas Kemp1901
View patent
18,513 Improvements in Rotary steam EnginesBenson1914
194,409 Rotary steam engine Arthur Trotter1923
200,155 An Improved Rotary steam engineAlexander Hall1923
280,267 Rotary steam engine James Bonham1927
877,500 A Rotary piston steam engineFreethy Champion1959 |
Mr Champion's design is particularly noteworthy as it uses a nuclear reactor to raise steam!
Some Canadian patents:
SOME USA ROTARY ENGINE PATENTS
Patent No. TITLENAMEDATETYPEVIEW
24,388Rotary Steam EngineHardy1859.View patent
29,787Rotary EngineHolmes1860.View patent
54,006Rotary EngineW J Norton1866.View patent
66,570Rotary Steam EngineJ Darling1867
69,383Rotary Steam EngineM L Andrew1867
77,373Rotary EngineD D Hardy1868
.
| 453,935Rotary Steam EngineMiessner1891
579,851Rotary EngineVerret & Mooney1897
597,793Rotary steam engineTaylor1898
625,731Rotary steam engineAmes1899Turbine
660,017Rotary engineLambert1900
684,471Rotary steam engineStevens1901
714,425Rotary steam engineWilliams1902
723,436Rotary steam engineBayley1903
730,543Rotary EngineMargaret E Knight1903
751,842Rotary steam engineEricson1904Turbine
756,904Rotary steam engineStefan1904
791,695Rotary steam engineHudson at al1905
791,695Rotary steam engineSchmidt1907
855,028Rotary steam engineWalker1907
882,360Rotary steam engineStanford W Vincent1908
934,830Rotary steam enginePaine1909
.
| 1,880,131Rotary engineGray1932Spherical
2,055,137 |