idk whether it’s actually called that way. i was researching what is the simplest possible combustion engine, i.e. something that turns heat energy into mechanical energy. i stumbled across the newcomen engine which is said to be even simpler than the watt steam engine. however, even then, there were even simpler historical precedents. and one of them is depicted in the graphic that i made above. it’s also described in the newcomen engine wikipedia article (section “Precursors”).

next i’m gonna calculate the efficiency. it’s somewhere around 5% actually, assuming operational pressure of 2 bar, which means 1 kWh of heat energy turns into 0.05 kWh of mechanical work. not thaat bad. i did a rough calculation already, now i’m gonna refine the formula.

  • gandalf_der_13te@feddit.orgOPEnglish
    612·
    18 days ago
    1. nope
    2. sry
    3. thanks but mine is simpler as it doesn’t rely so much on moving parts. the aeolipile inherently needs to connect two parts that rotate against each other, while theoretically my engine can be operated without a turbine to create thrust directly through the recoil principle to drive a vehicle forward.
    • infeeeee@lemmy.zipEnglish
      2·
      17 days ago

      You drew a turbine on the top, how it’s simpler. If you just boil the water you can’t use its power, you need some mechanism to convert it to mechanical force.

      Interestingly airplane engines had a similar evolution. Early airplanes, before WW1 had rotary engines, where the full engine rotated with the propeller, similar to the Aeolipile. It was later developed to radial engine, where there is a drivetrain between the propeller and the engine.

      • gandalf_der_13te@feddit.orgOPEnglish
        1·
        17 days ago

        technically one doesn’t even need a turbine to make the power useful. you could just use it like a rocket engine to exhaust backwards, to propel yourself forward through recoil.