"To be as blunt and reductive as possible, everything mechanically driven in the Earth's atmosphere, can AND SHOULD be run by air pressure. Technically, it already is, especially internal combustion. Anyways, when I say 'air pressure,' I'm referring to essentially all manner of mechanics in existence, from the refrigerator compressor power supply, to a car engine, to heater (induction/eddy current) systems, to just about fucking everything, heh." - Brian Harner, E-mail #644, September 25 2022.
~~~
#18
Great questions. The way I picture farming water is utilizing a very small battery operated system that is tied to a hygrometer and an air pressure tank release, Storing excess energy in air pressure tanks from small closed systems of wind and solar inputs. The air tank itself would be the battery, meaning the wind system or solar system could be free of electricity completely. An important distinction to make because there is a loss of energy when mechanical energy is made into electricity, and electrical systems are subject to cataclysmic events like a Carrington event. Anyways, the air pressure stored up would run a pump that would either pump water directly from the source, or separate from it to mitigate loss, to a depth underground where the temperature would stay below the surface. Then condensation would do the rest. You'd put your coil for collection on pontoons so it would stay just above the surface. In winter, this is also possible on the inverse. Since your depth of temperature exchange should be set to a depth that remains constant, you could use your stored air pressure energy to keep a source liquid. This is the same strategy on a geothermal home, but I would use it for condensation collection. I'm in Oklahoma, and they have enormous amounts of wind here, high humidity, but not much rain. My originally planned idea was to use the top of pyramids for wind power collection straight into a pump, and the pool would be at the top slowly trickling downward toward all of the plants I'd like to grow on the slopes. It would collect into a moat that would be on the three northern facing slopes bases. The moat water would be the basis for my aquaponic system and it would help clean runoff water.
From #22
#38 Overall
September 9 6:43PM
"Does your regenerative grazing method reduce the amount of land needed to raise cattle?"
No. What it does it make diversifying the land over several different animal species. Shane is going to implement chickens to clean up the grasshopper problems. Personally, I'd devise a catching system rigged to a simple vacuum and use the bugs for food in an aquaponics system, but that's his plan. For the stuff that the cows, then chickens, wouldn't eat, goats would clean up the material. Imagine the entire field is like a pizza where the three individually pinned species were ever moving around the circle, and all three were fertilizing the land as they cleaned it up of brush and insects. In the middle is the water system. Shane can accomplish this right now, but the time dedication is too intense. That is the main reason why I want to start farming water there. To have it on demand when the sun is plentiful. He's connected to a well system right now. An underground river system from what I understand of it. Not enough to water the land, but enough to keep the cows watered. He does use hay, but the ground he gets it from grows wild. It's not perfect by any means, but is sustainable and efficient as all hell. His land looks wild because it is. Most cattlemen just turn them loose on the entire property. Their land is eaten down to the point of it looking like a lawn. That's a problem for the various other creatures native to the area that handle other problems. . Shane has badgers, coyotes, rabbits, snakes, horny toads, road runners, fox, all kinds of birds (a few he built houses for), deer and all kinds of insects. It's healthy. The cow poop doesn't even make it three or four days above ground there. The dung beetles have returned in huge numbers. Even I was astonished at how fast they work. The entire property could be vacated of farming right now and be designated wild territory. That is true stewardship. Complementing the land as it is naturally, and extracting the "profits." That is when you are doing BETTER... than equilibrium. If/when I am able to start working on my windmills, I'll be able to install some sort of air pressure system, then his entire farm energy can be off grid, sustainable, plentiful, and with a bad motherfucker protecting it. I feel very sorry for the man that tries to fuck with Shane after the collapse. It will not turn out well. I forgot to mention his fencing system (electric) is run on a solar panel. 1 small one connected to a battery. The pumps are also run by it, so his water is already off grid, technically.
#231
July 12 2021 12:14AM
Oh yeah. I forgot to add that there should be no divergence from the construction of the grail blank. That the most efficient way to make one: with a wood lathe, and done in sections. The only upgrade I'd make to that process is to convert the electricity to air pressure on the lathe itself. One of the more worthwhile benefits to that conversion would be the versatility and range of the RPMs. There'd be a simple ball valve controlling the air pressure, so the RPMs would be determined by the amount of CFM allowed by the valve. You could use a fraction of 1 RPM, or several thousand depending on the capability of the engine installed. Far superior to an electric wood lathe, especially the one I had. The lowest setting was about 500 RPM. Kind of became a pain in the ass when trying to center it. Also with the length of the blank itself, without a tail stock, it limited the size. A longer blank means less stable at higher RPMs. Anyways, just throwing that out there. Making a grab blank hasn't changed at all... as of now. I thought I mentioned that very briefly, but maybe I didn't.
Take it easy and I'll talk to you later.
Arian
#243
July 25 2021 5:34PM
Nice. Those were good emails to post. I'm very curious to see if Aleene's works as well as Kelly says it does. Am I correct in assuming you're at the Makerspace this weekend? I hope it lives up to the hype.
I've been looking into other things for a few weeks now, too. Somewhere while watching recycling videos, MBMMLLC posted a video on YouTube that came up in my suggestions that I clicked on. It was about one of their jaw crushers linked in with a hammer mill and shaker table that was being used to pulverize e-waste (computers, printers, transformers, electric motor stators, etc). It was a complete system for liberating the precious metals from the trash, and refining them for reuse. The system is very efficient and apparently the entire manufacturing process to make a complete system is located in Washington. The constant narrator of the dozens/hundreds of videos on that channel, who I assume is the owner of the company, does a great job of explaining the intricacies of his machines, as well as how to build them and use them for many applications, from scratch. I have some working knowledge with rock crushers from working in a mining outfit before, so I'm not just flying blind into this industry. The stuff we worked on was much larger than anything MBMMLLC produces, but it's the same basic concept. This is a great system for recycling or rock crushing on a smaller scale, though. It's not designed to build highway gravel like the outfit I worked for, but as far as the idea of using trash to fix the world's issues, these machines are superior.
Anyways, two things struck me as beneficial about this application. The first one is seeming more and more like a broken record at this point, but the motors used on this scale of crusher are interchangeable between gasoline powered and electric. Some of the uses need to be mobile, as is the case for filling in potholes or remote mining operations. I figured this was very useful for venturing out to collect e-waste for processing. Additionally, the motors could be swapped with Di Pietro engines, and the entire system could be run off grid on air pressure alone. This might be a good application to run tandem engines, but that really depends on scale. Nevertheless, this is a great system for processing recyclables, and it's definitely applicable to the Di Pietro engine.
The other piece of this that caught my eye was the alloy he uses to make the hammers in the crusher. He takes pieces of scrap steel from manufacturing his machines and blends them with ferrochrome. It's basically stainless steel, but easier to cast. Given the application of crushing, these hammers have to be durable and rigid. I'm still not convinced that the Di Pietro engine idea is well suited for hydro energy production, so I'm still thinking the Tesla turbine is the best bet for converting hydro power to air pressure, especially on a smaller scale lake/dam generation unit. Again... IF... there's a destination during this mission where monetary woes fade, I'd like to try that alloy in the blades of a Tesla turbine. From what I understand about the system, its bane is that the wafers of the turbine warp and distort under the strain of the extremely high RPM loads. Remember, to achieve maximum efficiency, the Tesla turbine has to function in the tens of thousands. Mild steel and aluminum will not work, and even if they did, they won't last much further beyond the testing stage. Apparently Tesla halted research due to elementary materials available to him in his era. I'm guessing, and it is just a guess at this point, albeit an educated one, this low carbon ferrochrome steel alloy might be the alloy necessary for making the Tesla turbine useful, and durable. Here's the video where I saw the manufacturing process of the hammerheads in his hammer mill...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TSVc32Bmal8
Like I said, there's lots of applications for this type of machine, but here's why I'm most interested in it. Particularly with the scale applicable to hobbyist level production, converted to run on an air motor setup.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kbi2RDjslLI
From #253
August 7 2021 8:20PM
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NNMUU0VeRR0
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MTPlkd8FLvY
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nSDDCiPhz3s
My initial conception of this machine was filled with upgrades. I wanted to make it as versatile as the CNC router table I was wishing for at that time. A few tweaks of the base, and a couple new insert tables and you could transform this into a copy-plasma cutter for steel and aluminum. Heavier duty router, and machining aluminum is possible. I was also going to design a gear and bearing system to give a fifth axis to the router. It's fairly simple and I always wondered why he didn't incorporate the idea. Technically he does have a fifth axis, but it rotates lengthwise and doesn't pass 90 degrees. I wanted a width rotation that could carve overhangs at an upward angle and drill holes on the bottom going upward. Anyways, this was also going to incorporate a Di Pietro engine as the router spindle. Besides a vehicle, this exact copy carver was the first inception I had of machining with air pressure, that's comparable to CNC machining. Plus it's very durable, meaning high level manufacturing is a realistic possibility. Making many identical parts quickly, completely off grid. CNC router tables can make many identical parts, but not quickly, and to buy one robust enough to handle excessive usage will be extremely expensive... as was the case when I was shopping around for one.
Another additional Di Pietro engine, and better designed counterweight apparatus for even distribution, along with a lead screw... and incorporating this type of design into the Clone 4D will essentially make it a hands off process, at least regarding the fourth axis rotary system...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2UX9w0mAdvY
#254
August 9 2021 1:11AM
Oh yes... before the implementation of electronic components in semi trucks, everything was air powered. Even the window actuators. I drove trucks for a while, then became a mechanic on them and various other heavy equipment while learning how to weld. The owner of that company was a real tightwad, so he had a bunch of way past their lifespan "fraken-trucks," that were pieced together from several older "carcasses." Several of them were almost entirely air powered as far as options were concerned. The PTO (power take off), the axle lock (2 wheel to 4 wheel drive), even the cruise control mechanism were all air actuated. Much more simplified system, and a lot easier to troubleshoot and work on than electronic wire spaghetti systems. A lot more reliable and durable too. Air brakes are also much more effective, especially when trucks are concerned. Many don't realize this, but air powered truck breaks essentially work exactly the opposite of hydraulic brakes. The air governor is a valve that allows a certain amount of air pressure into the various tanks scattered throughout the truck frame and trailers. There's a high and low setting that either triggers the clutch on the belt to engage or disengage from the air governor settings. If a truck is parked, and the air tanks are empty or bled out, the brakes are fully engaged. The air pressure releases the brakes. While driving and using brakes, what drivers are actually doing is releasing the air pressure that keeps the brakes disengaged. With hydraulic brakes, the system is entirely disengaged at all times, until the brake pedal is pushed. Air brakes are definitely a lot more foolproof. If there's a problem with the system, the brakes fully engage regardless of what the driver does. If hydraulic brake systems spring a leak or otherwise fail, no more stopping power. I'm well versed in both systems. I've done hundreds of brake jobs over the years on all kinds of shit. It's always interesting to me how little people know about those systems, especially since brakes are the most important piece of equipment on any vehicle. But yeah, air powered systems are all over the place in plain sight... and now you have the ability to see them. Awesome.
The rotary piston engines (or Wankel engines) are several decades old. In some ways they're more efficient, and in others they're more trouble than they're worth. BMW was also into that technology, along with a few other car manufacturers, but Mazda is where they really got their beginning. Now you know what the "R" in RX-7 stands for, heh. It's a fairly simple concept, and has less internal moving parts than a conventional piston engine. Before immigrating to Australia, Di Pietro worked on rotary piston engines for many years. And yes indeed, that's where he conceived the idea of the Di Pietro engine. Here's a video of a rotary piston "internal combustion" engine in action with a see through encasement...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pCteBhr4dGY
There's several high speed camera angles of the process, and this guy does a good job of explaining how it works. The only thing that's confusing for most to understand about rotary piston engines is where the compression occurs before ignition. That's all about the shape of the piston chamber, and how the piston/shaft interact with that shape. It looks kind of like an 8 with a triangle in the center. The eccentric shaft is how this combustion system transfers thrust into rotational mechanical energy. Sound familiar? That's exactly the same principle of the Di Pietro engine you're building right now, but instead of internal combustion doing the pushing, there's chambers that fill with air, then push the "pistons" against the internal bearing. Rotary piston engines are more efficient technically, but their life span (in an internal combustion system) is shorter than a conventional piston engine. There's just a lot more that can go wrong in a rotary piston engine, and when it does, it usually means the entire engine block is fucked. But yeah... that's where Di Pietro got his idea from.
That's good to know that the older system belt driven machine shops are still functioning. I wonder if it's considered more of a novelty, or museum like setup, or if they're actually doing manufacturing stuff in real time. That's definitely an efficient usage of hydro power. A lot more efficient than hydro power making electricity, then powering machining equipment, even though that's what the majority of humanity does currently. The exact opposite of efficient: hell. Nevertheless, it's good to know that type of system is still in use... whatever the capacity of the use may be. The biggest issue with using direct hydro power is the proximity to the water source. Steam is a better alternative, like the belt driven steam powered machine shop I told you about very early on. However, nothing comes close to the versatility, accessibility, and energy storage capabilities of air power. There's an almost 100% convergence of any power generating system directly to air pressure. Once the Di Pietro engines are ubiquitous, large tanks are abundant, and the inception of equilibrium sustainability is understood, there is no better system for energy usage and storage... no matter what the application. As long as humans are alive and breathing, that type of system will be applicable. I'm glad to see you're getting a much more transparent overview of everything as a whole. Even with kickstarting. There's still many uses for kickstarters all across the Earth now, especially in remote areas. It's definitely a less troublesome way of starting engines than battery powered starters. Most of those systems still use magnetos, as opposed to alternators, distributors, and batteries. Once the vacuum is pulling on the fuel system and the magneto can spark the combustion chamber, the engine will maintain its own ability to run. Now, with electronics and computers managing the timing system of engines, one seemingly insignificant component shorting the computer will shut the entire engine down... and techy morons call this "technology" and "progress." In reality, the majority of advancement in that industry has made things more complicated, less reliable, and extremely cumbersome for anyone to work on that isn't a computer programmer. Dumb. Anyways, here's a kickstarter that is used even to this day. Most of them are started with human power, but every so often you see one started with a pull cord or hand drill. On on even rarer occasions, the kinetic spring steel windup is used.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=D6pLp4tlIw0
There's lots of much more simplified systems being converted to electricity, and almost none of them are better off in the long run for it. It's always been strange to me how this happened over time in so many areas. I guess people are motivated by laziness, though. Sounds like an oxymoron, but it's accurate and true.
…
Always good to hear about people TRYING... to go off grid, but honestly, it's disheartening to hear that electricity production is the main concern. Batteries are always an issue, no matter how sophisticated the system is, which means they are the Achilles heel of the entire system. Air pressure systems have the same basic dilemma, but the "battery" in an air system is a simple tank, and even without the storage problem, direct drive energy from air pressure is always superior. It's troubling because people addicted to electricity are by far the most difficult ones to enlighten... even if they are off grid. Nevertheless, I'm always happy to hear that people are trying to take control of their own lives.
From #256
August 11 2021 1:27AM
Mechanical rotational force is what creates air pressure. Specifically, in the way in which I envision a proper off grid system, an ensemble of inputs will create that mechanical rotation. Firstly, using a Tesla turbine from hydro power. Water is essential to survival. Building a dam for an above ground reservoir that sits elevated from the crops the reservoir will water, will create the pressure that spins the turbine. The turbine will be powering an air vane pump, very similar to one of these industrial models...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b93GSe-xgqI
This is the exact same technology that runs air tools like die grinders, but instead of a pump in that application, it would behave as an engine. The biggest advantage to a rotary vane pump over a piston pump is that the inlet air doesn't require a complex filter system to prevent damage to the piston chamber. "Electricity creating the air pressure" is an admission of not understanding how mechanical energy can be transferred into rotational force.
-rest of this e-mail generally
From #260
August 14 2021 1:57AM
Additionally, it's also probable that every encounter he has ever had with an air pressure system has been of the electrically integrated compression system. I'm sure someone of his age and experience has had experience with piston driven air compressors, as well as rotary vane pump systems. It's not a difficult leap to make. That said, he, as well as the "commentors on YouTube Di Pietro engine videos" had the confidence to ass-ume that ALL air compression is done by utilizing electricity. The way you made it sound, that confidence had turned to arrogance when the comment was introduced as a statement. Instead of commenting with curiosity, or outright asking a question like "but... I thought electricity is responsible for air compression?" From the sounds of it, the statement was "Electricity makes air pressure." Whether the statement was cordial or demeaning and inflammatory is irrelevant. "Being nice" does not alleviate one from arrogance, nor does it imply humility.
…
It's similar to the "electricity makes air pressure" thing we just talked about. No it doesn't. Mechanical rotational force creates air pressure. Electricity is just the laziest way to achieve that goal.
From #262
August 17 2021 3:06AM
It's systems like this that really shine a light on the advantages of air pressure over electricity. One would need a lot of pure copper for wiring that would then need to be vinyl'd, buried, and protected. Critters of all sorts love the chew on vinyl, and on a land preservation based farm, there's lots of critters. Stripping the wire, recycling it, and reinstalling it would be a regular occurrence, plus you would be poisoning the local critter population. Not to mention the loss of energy pushing the electricity from generator to source of usage. Then you have to consider storage, but first, charge controllers. This is a steadily producing system, but it is pulsed gradually. There would be times where the energy would be dense, and times where it would be nonexistent. That means fuses or breakers, charge controllers, and transformers before the batteries even get charged. Then, the conversion equipment to take it from DC to AC. Not entirely necessary, but if modern appliances are the goal, AC will be required, but power generation of that sort is DC. Next you have to consider wiring from the converter to the usage points. Every step of that process is subjected to the laws of thermodynamics, or the conservation of energy, rather. The wiring from the generator, charge controllers, batteries, converter, and wiring are all "resistors." There is a loss of energy at every step. And that's before we even start discussing inductance, and all the nasty health concerns that brings to the mix, as I've gone into quite some depth with you in the past. In an air pressure system, I recommend iron pipe to the tanks. Very stout iron pipe that is. Capable of handling significant air pressure... in the thousands of PSI range. This pipe will eventually corrode and need to be replaced, but recycling iron pipe back into iron pipe is easy. And try as they might, I know of no critters capable of chewing through iron pipe... just saying. And that's about all the sophistication needed to design a proper functioning air pressure system. Beyond the tanks, anything is possible, even electricity production, but I recommend maximizing air pressure potential first. That's up to the person in question, though. Regardless, this is the type of situation where electricity seems stupid to someone like me.
…
What I mean by that is Shane's sized farm is applicable to harvesting and feeding hay to his herd using Di Pietro powered equipment, but that's about the limit. Your friend's farm might be too large to accommodate that type of integration of purely air pressure powered equipment, I don't know. The point is that the "megafarm" ideology of profit over sustainability, where one guy owns, works, and profits from 2000 acres, is dependent on crude oil. A truly sustainable operation would turn that 2000 acre farm into 10, 200 acre farms ran by 10 families. Then, no matter what they grew, air pressure systems would be applicable for all. The thing about hay is that it really only grows in the summer. This means a direct correlation between solar energy powered systems supplying the air pressure, as we've discussed before, and the usage of that air pressure to provide adequate sustenance for the livestock during the winter. This was something Shane and I talked about several times. He had a "side by side" vehicle that he did everything on his farm with. Very easy to integrate a Di Pietro system to it. Then, just use trailers with their own integrated Di Pietro systems for whatever application is required. Shane had what's referred to as "marshmallows." That's where the hay is rolled up tightly and covered in plastic. Looks just like a marshmallow. The trailer attachment to unroll them for his cows was very simple. Just a simple wench, two spikes, and a couple tires. The weight of the marshmallow kept it in contact with the ground, the spikes kept it steady, and we would just unroll it for the cows. Making a marshmallow would just be the opposite of that process. Cutting the grass/hay would just be a simple lawnmower like trailer. I was also planning on (and still am if the monetary situation improves) adding an element of solar panels to the skin of the "side by side." Just a direct drive system from the solar panels to a small air compressor that would be recharging the tank throughout the daily use. In Oklahoma, there's a lot of sunlight, so using solar panels for things like that, where the workload is more mobile than stationary, and the seldom usage of the land (hay production) doesn't necessitate an integrated tank system, solar panels make sense. Still, though, trying to integrate this type of system into a "megafarm" operation is foolish. Di Pietro engines powering massive combines working 10,000 acre plots is a gross misuse of the technology, and the philosophy of sustainable practices. Just imagine how large the air tanks would have to be. Not only goofy looking, but extremely impractical. So, essentially, anything is possible... but downsizing is the mantra here. Oh, and labor, don't forget labor. Have I mentioned that? Heh
From #272
September 3 2021 4:49AM
Air pressure provides the least amount of energy input cradle to cradle, and is extremely easy to understand. Least moving parts, least manufacturing requirements, least energy input, and no electricity required (if the machine shop that made it is steam, water, or air powered).
From #359
#810 Overall
November 23 2021 12:11AM
As for the particular cases I was linking through those videos, it really depends on how individual communities decide to integrate their systems. I personally would not use the majority of methods those videos illustrated, but that's because I wouldn't implement electricity so intricately, nor would I rely on internal combustion systems outside of ethanol and biodiesel usage. Air pressure for everything possible first and foremost, with air tanks as the storage medium. Ethanol production for as many uses as possible following that, with integrated biodiesel for mechanized farming procedures. Biogas and syngas for on demand heating. All of which could and should be used to constantly produce air pressure when abundant. Electricity production is relied upon too much, and almost every example I can find to explain one of these processes leads to the reliance on electricity as the energy of choice. Not because it's efficient, effective, and reliable, but because it's seen as the easiest way to remain lazy. It's frustrating, and I always seem to be in the position of reiterating my intentions as a sort of "this is good, but not the way "they're" doing it" kind of thing.
From #562
July 4 2022 3:16AM
This does bring me to the question of how feasible it is to convert machine tools with electric motors over to a compressed air motor. I've been giving this more serious thought the more that buying machines becomes realistic for me. Would it be easier to buy a normal machine and then change out its motor, or build a new machine that's powered by compressed air from the start?
This is a fairly complex question. There's lots of different types of applications that require varying degrees of torque, so it's not really a one size fits all kind of answer. The general quick type of answer is that it would be easiest to retrofit, or convert an existing electric motor to an air pressure system, rather than starting from scratch. That's more because of the wide variety of electric powered machines sold today. Now for the nuance, as usual. There's a definitive line between efficiency standards when it comes to this kind of conversion. Jeweler's lathes, hobby lathes, and most DC motors with variable speed potentiometer dials that control the speed of the lathe, can all be direct swaps for air motors. These types of applications are fairly small, so the efficiency standards are pretty much identical to direct swaps with something like a Di Pietro engine. Even swapping the control panel would be very straightforward and simple. A potentiometer varies resistance with a simple wiper. It's offers an increase or decrease in resistance from the power supply, directly to the motor, which tells the motor to spin slowly or fast. This was the controller for my Smithy 3 in 1. It was just a dial and a power button. Power on, then spin the dial to the RPM. The power feed and half nut were geared in internally to work off of whatever speed the dial was set at. Beyond that, it was a system of swapping gears to thread, or change the feed ratios to whatever speed the dial was set at. This is the standard for everything that size or smaller. It's not a very powerful system, but it's very compact and versatile. A direct swap would consist of swapping the motor directly, and removing the potentiometer/speed dial. In the speed dial's place, you would install a needle valve. So the air pressure would come into the machine and the first control mechanism would be the needle valve. Fully closed, no movement. Just like the potentiometer dial on a DC motor, open the needle valve to increase the airflow going to the motor, and the motor would spin faster. Everything beyond that control is mechanical, so literally nothing would change. Same types of gear changes for feeds, speeds, and threading would be identical to the same functionality as the electric motor. Very simple and straightforward.
Stepping up in size, it's possible to do a straight swap over electric to air pressure, but it's not very efficient. Same kind of thing as gasoline to diesel. There's a definite size where diesel is just more efficient than gasoline. It's around the midsize pickup truck. Sure, gasoline CAN be used. There's many very large trucks that have gasoline engines, that can still haul and drive with large loads. In theory, one could actually put a diesel engine in a semi truck. However, it's going to burn a lot more fuel than a diesel engine would, given an equal metric of weight to hauling ability. The inverse is also true, however, given the ability to downscale with diesel, which is much easier than upscaling gasoline engines, the inverse is not very accurate. In essence, putting a diesel engine in a small vehicle will always be more efficient. That said, there's a significant amount of power that will be wasted in doing so. Additionally, there's more maintenance on a diesel engine, although in the long run they do last longer. This is a good analogy for a lathe system using hydraulics. Yes, a direct swap to air pressure is possible, but the inclusion of a hydraulic pump powered by an air motor, that's then powering a hydraulic motor that powers the drive train, will ultimately be the most efficient method, especially for larger applications. So... could someone use an air powered hydraulic pump and motor to drive a Smithy 3 in 1? Definitely. However, there will be a lot of extra equipment in a hydraulic system: tank, pump, gears, motor, hoses, and that's all being done for a 6 inch chuck, a 4' lathe bed, and a 9" swing? It's kind of overkill for such a small system. The reality is that no matter how much power and torque you put into that size of lathe, the lathe is always a slave to its own size parameters. Are you following?
The easiest way to make a quick assessment of the tool requiring a hydraulic system to compliment the air pressure motor, is how the control panel looks. That's a general statement, so there are going to be exceptions, but generally speaking, the size metric explained above should also be indicative of what SHOULD BE required. On my old Smithy, there was a quick change gearbox. It included power feed in both directions, threading capabilities, and rapid traverse. However, the levers also controlled the mill head. I'm saying this because there were more levers than a standard DC lathe of that size. Most smaller DC lathes have a power feed gearbox, possibly a spindle head directional change lever, and that's it. On larger lathes, I'm guessing the ones you're used to working with, the potentiometer function of controlling spindle speeds is replaced by another set of levers that control the main gear train. There's selector positions for aligning the gears within the spindle for higher/lower RPMs, respectively. Again, generally speaking, it's this set of gear train levers that are a good (not perfect, but good) indicator of whether the lathe SHOULD have a hydraulic system powering the lathe, as opposed to just direct air pressure drive. In reality, after research, a much better system of using the horsepower of the motor to determine whether hydraulics is necessary is vastly superior. I do not know what that metric is, due to not having done adequate research firsthand into the matter. 1, 3, 5, 10 horsepower electric motors in a lathe, and you're trying to determine if hydraulics is necessary? I'm sorry, but I don't have that information. The standard I was starting out with to make this system viable for direct electric to air pressure swaps, was the potentiometer to spindle gear train levers metric. To be honest here, when I first conceptualized this idea, my Smithy was what I considered the maximum size capable, AND EFFICIENT, to make this type of direct swap. None of the functionality of the lathe or mill would have changed by making this swap, other than the aforementioned needle valve replacing the potentiometer. It's probably a good idea for you to see the functionality of the Smithy I had. Keep in mind that I had the Granite 1340 Industrial Max, or IMAX. This is the 1324 version. Mine was bigger, had metal gears, and was generally more robust, although the controls were identical. Here's one of the training videos...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JHoRBY0SCSk
A smaller DC motor lathe with similar controls, but without the inclusion of the mill control levers, would also be useful to show here. Here's blondihacks' lathe. It's also a DC powered motor with a potentiometer to control speed. A direct electric to air pressure swap would work here, in my limited opinion on the matter.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=znZgT3Zmf5Y
Just beyond this level is kind of the gray area. Is a hydraulic system necessary? Not quite sure. The more powerful lathes, like the ones I'm guessing you're used to, SHOULD have them, but again, it's not absolutely required. It's more of an efficiency problem than an actual "is this possible" problem. Here's Abom79's new lathe, complete with the spindle speed gear train levers I mentioned. This is a brand new, very nice lathe, but still fully capable of a swap over to air pressure. I'd recommend a hydraulic system, to compliment the air pressure system, increase efficiency and torque, along with reducing maintenance, though.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=85HPiY62mpg
So, there's a definitive line where an AC motor running at constant speed, controlled by a gear train to the headstock/spindle, for spindle speed selection is definitively more efficient than a potentiometer to a DC motor controlling speed. My assumption is that it's this line of reasoning where an air pressure system, or a hydraulic system powered by air pressure resides as well, but there's research necessary before making that type of assessment. It's also noteworthy to mention the type of work that will be done with said system. If the lathe is dedicated to machining plastics, aluminum, wood, etc, a larger lathe with just an air pressure system is all that's necessary. Think of it like putting a semi truck diesel engine in a Honda Civic. Yes it's possible, but extremely unnecessary given the circumstances. As with everything we discuss, there's an element of nuance required here. Certain decisions must be considered before taking action and dedicating service ability. You wouldn't want to go through an excessive workload if it's not required. The ole "work smarter, not harder" adage is definitely applicable here, and it's in no way, shape, or form a "one size fits all" type of thing. It's funny, because you generally ask me questions in that context, and my replies turn into a novel, heh.
Okay, hopefully that covers that, but now it's necessary to discuss hydraulic systems. I'll use an excavator as the basis for this type of nuance. An excavator has a similar functionality to the type of system for the lathe I've been describing. They're built with a semi powerful diesel engine that runs at a constant speed. That diesel engine then powers a hydraulic pump that actuates everything else on the machine. The cylinders on the boom, cab rotation, and final drive motors that power the tracks. All of them have hydraulics. Technically speaking, the diesel engine powers nothing other than an alternator that energizes the electronics directly. Therefore, an entire excavator can also be powered by an air pressure system, again, something that I was planning on doing (with my Toro TX 1000). Obviously, there's no need for a hydraulic cylinder on a lathe. However, as with an excavator, there's a final drive motor that creates the mechanical rotational force necessary for movement. As you might have noticed, excavators aren't doing drag races. Those types of hydraulic motors are designed for low speed, and very high torque. Not exactly applicable to a lathe. It's possible with an extreme gear reduction drive train from the spindle, but again, that's a lot of unnecessary equipment which leads to less efficiency. Those types of motors (final drive track actuators) might be, somewhere in the neighborhood of 50-100 RPMs. But, that 50 RPM can drive 10 tons up a wall. One could put a very large gear on that type of shaft output, and a very small gear on the spindle so the speed meshes with the desired RPM output of the spindle, but that's wasteful, unnecessary, and there's a "better" or "more efficient" system. Where this fits into the excavator analogy is in attachments. There's heads that can be used in place of a bucket for various purposes. The few that I've personally worked on use a lower torque, high speed motor for control. They're generally used (at least the ones I'm familiar with) for brush clearing, tree cutting, stump removal, etc. So, there's many different types of hydraulic motors that power applications for different reasons. This too is not a "one size fits all" type of thing.
The type of hydraulic motor most applicable to an air powered lathe system, is known as (ironically) rotary vane motors. Sound familiar? That's because it's almost identical in conception to the highly regarded by me, rotary vane air pump and motors, as used for charging an air system from wind, solar, and sustainable combustion systems. The hydraulic version is more robust due to the forces involved, but identical otherwise. Extremely easy to machine, very few moving parts, and simple to understand, diagnose malfunctions, and fix very rapidly. That's the best application for a lathe, in my limited opinion. For reference, the type of motor used in a final drive is called a "gerotor" (spelling?). High torque, but lower speeds. Next there's a piston motor. I've seen these used in several different types of higher speed applications on excavator attachments. They're very powerful, and could be used for a lathe application, but when they fail, they fail very badly. Lots of different types of failures are possible internally. Lots of moving parts with extremely tight tolerance- fluid tight tolerances at that. Possible, and in some cases more applicable than rotary vane motors, but there's a risk of failure that creates a problem for replacement. Something to consider. It's these types of motors that create the need for excessive cleanliness around hydraulic equipment. A fucking speck of dust could implode one of these systems... not kidding.
Hydraulic pumps to spin the motor are essentially the same concept as the motors themselves, just in an inverse fashion. The shaft from the air motor powers the shaft for the pump, and the hydraulic system is pressurized from that. So why are hydraulic motors superior in strength? Density. Everything that a hydraulic system can accomplish, can also be accomplished by an air powered system. The difference is in size ratio to actuation. Think of it like the human body. In 33 degree air, the body can last a fairly long time. In 33 degree water, though, the body cannot last longer than a couple of minutes. That's due to pressure and density. Same thing here. To accomplish what a hydraulic system can accomplish with a 1 inch hose, and 6 inch motor, an air pressure system would need an order of magnitude larger overall system of hoses, tanks, and motors to accomplish the same standard of pressure, or PSI. That means more air, larger everything from hoses to pumps, motors and tanks, and that's an extreme loss of efficiency, all the way around. More air used, more materials that will eventually breakdown and require more materials than an applicable hydraulic system, etc. One could conceivably make a direct swap from electric to air pressure in any given situation, but the issue is efficiency, not capability. In your particular situation, to conclude this drastic preface to the original question (heh), it would be more work, but relatively simple work at that. Remember, having just bought a lathe, the entire swap over system could be manufactured using electricity supplying the lathe itself, then a complete swap over done afterwards. That's the beauty of being a machinist with vision, skills, and purpose. You can literally engineer your way out of ANY technical predicament, as long as you understand the concept. One last thing to note before moving on from this, a lathe powered by hydraulics is a very different application than an excavator. Excavators need to have flexible hoses due to the movements of linkage pins. A lathe doesn't need flexible hoses because there's fixated mounting for everything. Therefore, all hoses could be hard lines, that also could be made on the lathe, along with all fittings (preferably conical fittings so no rubber o rings or seals are necessary). It's an easy concept to employ if the mystery of these types of conditions are removed. Involved? Yes. Complex? Yes. Are you capable of accomplishing a complete swap over from electricity to air power on any and all applications, including those requiring a slave hydraulic system to compliment the air pressure system to drastically improve efficiency? No doubt in my mind. It just takes a little more experience in areas you're not too familiar with at this point. Of anyone alive right now, it's my opinion that you have the drive, desire, and capability of doing this, more so than anyone. Hopefully that answers your question.
From #583
August 3 2022 8:57AM
It would be quite amazing to have a job at an actual nitinol production company. Especially an American one. I do know that there's a lot of nitinol made in China, and it seems to be like everything else from there; bad quality. Most of the hobbyist materials come from Chinese producers, at least the really cheap stuff on Amazon and whatnot. If/when you get into building one of those engines, and you find yourself having to buy materials instead of making them yourself, my guess is that company will provide the best quality, worldwide for that matter.
That's why it was so interesting to me when you first mentioned it. I skipped several elementary steps up the off grid system mechanics: wood gas, biogas, electricity production, and went directly into ethanol production. Then skipped a few other possibilities and went into cavitation, followed by nitinol engines powering a cavitation system. I was still planning on supplementing the system (or bolstering it rather) with wind, solar, and micro hydro, but the strategy for an uninterrupted supply was nitinol and cavitation. Sounds like if you were to work there, and had a cheap, and reliable quality supply, you could skip everything and go straight to what I consider to be the pinnacle of energy production, entirely carbon absent. Then, lots of possibilities open up. After retrofitting lathes, mills, and an ensemble of pantographs, including copy carvers (like the Clone 4D) with water jets (abrasive and/or just water based), routers, hypersonic blades, all powered with air pressure and/or hydraulic-air pressure hybrids, you'd also be electricity free, with the ability to produce anything from that energy source, essentially indefinitely. Indeed, you'd still need to use electricity to produce nitinol in a vacuum chamber, but that's really the only use you'd have for it, beyond entertainment stuff like TVs and phones. The possibility is incredibly simple from that perspective. The workload in between now and fully integrated into an air pressure only system would be immense; I'm well aware of that, as that was exactly what I was doing, but I was never in the position to have access to good quality nitinol from the inside of a place of employment. Who knows how much workload would be converted doing such a thing. Plus everyone I ever tried talking to about this stuff was either extremely incapable of understanding the significance, didn't or couldn't understand the technical knowledge, and thusly just ridiculed at the notion of REAL off grid technology, with zero loss in capability. I'm almost positive that someone working inside of SAES would be more than capable and willing to include their expertise in that type of project. And that is something else that I have never had. It was always an extremely steep uphill climb for me... and that was just explaining shit, heh, much less doing it. I thought of all this when you first brought it up to me, and I was envious to say the least. Pretty amazing...
From #643
September 20 2022 10:58PM
That's your call. During my earlier forays into explaining nitinol, I always began with cavitation. During this mission, I hold off on explaining nitinol until I gauge the person's ability. I briefly mention it, but only as a sort of teaser. What I try to put emphasis on are hydrocarbons first: saccharides, cellulose, pyrolysis, ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, essential oils and fatty oil extraction, titration, biodiesel, and all the processes that go into those processes: sodium and potassium hydroxide production, hydrometers, refractometers, yeast, methanol, zeolite (sieves), as well as consumables like beer, wine and spirits. Hydrocarbons are complex, and are the predominant methods for consuming energy. If someone argues with me, that's where it ends usually. From hydrocarbons I'll sometimes touch on hydrogen production, which is a good platform to launch into cavitation. Almost everyone understands electrolysis, but not many understand radiolysis. Radiolysis, if done correctly, is based on resonance, which is a good way to introduce the founding principles of cavitation, as was explained to me during my realization. Resonance and cavitation working in unison: the essence of the holy grail... if you will. Next comes the spiel about cavitation in depth, again, usually. It really depends on the person; how argumentative, how receptive, how enthusiastic/passionate they are, and in what direction that passion migrates to. Then, significant explanations about air pressure. Generally speaking however, online, or with someone like you, someone I trust, etc, I'll start with air pressure. That's for a few reasons. Online, one only has a brief window of opportunity to make an impact. Otherwise, as was the case with someone like you, I can (did) jump right into the equilibrium aspects of true sustainability without a bunch of argumentative junk coming at me from past learned dogmas. Very soon there following I can go straight to nitinol, and backfill with hydrocarbons, hydrogen, etc. It's been very difficult to judge when and how to jump into any given subject within the realm of energy. I've felt repeatedly though, if I don't give proper context to air pressure first and foremost, to the vast majority of self righteous techy morons that have more enthusiasm than intelligence or experience, and absolutely zero knowledge of electromagnetic radiation, Georges Lakhovsky, Nikola Tesla, the ionosphere, etc, a direct leap into electricity production ubiquitously occurs. Then I have to try reeling them back into reality. It's quite frustrating and annoying; probably more so than anything else I try to explain in the proper context. That's generally why I hold off on nitinol, at least in depth, until I explain everything else pertinent to the technology application first.
From #644
September 25 2022 1:26AM
Yes, when referring to "air pressure," though, that's extremely complex. Di Pietro engines are, from my knowledge of the subject, the pinnacle of efficiency as far as air driven mechanics is concerned. That's not the only way, however. Air powered tools are almost ubiquitously powered by air vane engines, which are also very effective and efficient... just not as efficient as a Di Pietro engine. They are so effective because they can be designed to be extremely small comparatively. Beyond air vane engines, the categories kind of branch outwards. "Most" hobbyist level air compression systems use a simplified piston system. Very similar to how an internal combustion 4 stroke motor functions. Not "2 stroke" ported systems (more on this later). The 4 stroke, or "valve engine" sucks air in on the piston down stroke, and compresses it on the up stroke. It's relatively cheap by hobbyist standards, and easy to fix. In an industrial environment, that's not the case due to the extreme volume differences. In industrial settings, where extreme volume is necessary, air vane systems are more applicable. The other side of the branching off from air vane systems, which only a small handful of people have tried to find industrial usage for, are "boundary layer" air pressure systems. The most notable being Nikola Tesla, and his "Tesla turbine." These systems are essentially free flowing. One could simply blow into an intake and there would be no resistance on the exhaust. However, when high volume air (or other substances like gases and water) is pressurized into the intake, the molecules bunch up on the surface. This creates a friction point where molecules bind up on the surface, creating what's known as a "boundary layer," thusly, giving the necessary damming effect to produce mechanical rotational force. This type of application is useful for excessively high RPM, that can then be used in a gearbox/transmission to power anything. Air pressure is effective for a Tesla turbine, but there are more efficient strategies, like an air vane or rotary vane (Di Pietro) engine. Acoustic propulsion is effective for industrial applications, but I utilized the technology for explaining the reasoning behind how a holy grail functions. Beyond that, and in that context, I've never really used "air pressure" mechanics as a common link for acoustic propulsion. Is it possible? Most definitely. Practical? That's debatable. For quarrying stones using the holy grail? It's essential. There's many different applications for air pressure driven systems, and the application should determine the most efficient method therein. Some applications use multiple methods as an example. A planishing hammer would use a Di Pietro engine, and a piston engine at the hammer anvils (properly referred to as dies). That system could be run by an air compressor that uses an air vane compressor, Tesla turbine, or piston compressor, all powered by an ethanol engine, wind turbine, or... wait for it... a nitinol engine. To be as blunt an reductive as possible, everything mechanically driven in the Earth's atmosphere, can AND SHOULD be run by air pressure. Technically, it already is, especially internal combustion. Anyways, when I say "air pressure" I'm referring to essentially all manner of mechanics in existence, from the refrigerator compressor power supply, to a car engine, to heaters (induction/eddy current) systems, to just about fucking everything, heh.