From #74
January 27 2021 5:24AM
He (Di Pietro) has a version of the air vane system similar to air powered tooling of that variety. It's a simple system that I recommend researching. Very efficient and difficult to break. Di Pietro made a motor that utilizes the same strategy, but created it in an almost completely backwards fashion to that of the air vane system. It's quite genius. The internal bearing that transfers the air pressurized movement to mechanical advantage barely spins at all while the off center displacement pushes the cam and driveshaft. By doing that, as opposed to utilizing the pressure to push the cam and driveshaft directly (as is the case with air vane systems) the wear and tear is extremely reduced, resulting in a couple of upgrades. The most prominent to me is the efficiency of thrust to output ratio. In simplified terms, the motor is extremely efficient due to the precise tolerances allowed from utilizing a bearing internally. Secondarily, the motor does not require lubrication, but has the capacity to spin at very high revolutions. It's almost as if the bearing itself becomes the lubricant. The Di Pietro motor is the most efficient motor I've ever seen, and I would like to implement it in farm equipment, and power it with my windmill technology that I developed years ago through a pressurized tank system that the windmill and/or solar panels would feed. It's a completely self sustaining system from "cradle to cradle" when one understands machining and casting. The parts are all aluminum, which makes a coal (wood) powered foundry the final stages of contention to the overall system. If the sun is making trees, the entire system from power (the windmill) to output usage (the engine) is accounted for. When the tanks wear out, forge new ones out of the old material. When the engine wears out, cast billets and machine a new one from the old material. Etc etc etc. Cradle to cradle. That's why I explain that a diverse background is essential to completing loops, but I also reiterate that I see things differently than most. There are no breaks in the chain of creation. Most people that fancy themselves as craftsmen or inventors, usually leave out aspects of their creation that is taken up by a finite resource: crude oil, grid tied electricity, NG, etc. Since they've had it their entire lives, the constant implementation of finite resources is taken for granted. I've been on a mission to destroy that dereliction for decades, which is why I always seem to draw out the most inferior people with the largest superiority complexes. It's not just about building Holy Grails and Pyramids, although that too fits the same paradigm. I have many systems within the confines of my experiences that can make humanity self sufficient beyond the usage of finite resources... BUT, nobody seems to be able to see what I see. Thusly, the lake of fire continues to burn uncontrollably. Remorse again for the wasted potential.
...The time I spent on the farm with Shane reinvigorated the technology. Imagine an entire town using them... That's what I envisioned 15ish years ago. The real kicker is in doing research on these motors using steam to power them; not just air pressure. A more recent development (circa 2018) was using the geothermal placement strategy, powering the system with a nitinol engine, connected to a cavitation water heater... and powering several of the Di Pietro engines with the steam. That entire system is also cradle to cradle, except for the manufacture of the nitinol wire itself, which I was extremely close to completing. It requires a vacuum system due to the alloy properties inherent when nickel is exposed to oxygen at those temperatures. I could do it, but it would take a bit of experience. At the end of that system, I would also implement radiolysis for the remainder of steam exiting the MDI motors for hydrogen conversion. Again, I could do it, but I didn't have direct experience. I do have a working knowledge of everything necessary to complete the loop, though. Truly carbon neutral, off grid, sustainable indefinitely... Divine. Sad, though. No monetary profit involved, thus, nobody in hell cares.
#83
February 26 2021 6:07PM
The Di Pietro engine is the transferred version of the power generated from the cavitation water heater (steam). The cavitation water heater gets its energy from the nitinol engine (centrifugal force/inertia) the nitinol engine gets its energy from manipulating heat. The easiest way to manipulate that heat is by utilizing a geothermal perspective. In other words, taking the system out of the atmospheric fluctuations. Within a cavernous structure, at least 8ft down in most latitudes, the ambient air temperature remains a constant 60degrees farenheit. Your cooler water would remain sufficient. To start the process of warming the water above 72degrees farenheit, one could use solar, or some other Satanic energy. Once the cavitation water heater is running, the excess heat could maintain the reaction.
If... you wanted to utilize the wind (solar energy), or direct solar energy to power an Di Pietro engine, you could do that, but the implements are intermittent and dependent on clouds, wind, weather etc. To store energy for powering the Di Pietro engine (air pressure), all you would need is a storage system, or air pressure tank. Then you would power a condenser directly with a wind or solar powered generator, and store the energy in a tank. The tank's pressure would power the Di Pietro engine. You could also power the condenser with hydro power, which would be less intermittent. The idea is to get the least intermittent system from start to finish. That system is a nitinol engine, powering a cavitation water heater, that powers Di Pietro engines. Not only is that the most efficient form of energy transference, but the engines and nitinol itself are the least restrictive on recycling the components. Solar panels break down and are difficult to reproduce. Wind generators have the same stigma. Not impossible, just wasteful. More foundry work and machining over their lifespan than that of nitinol (as long as the cavernous structure is utilized).
If one were to try to make a nitinol system work while dealing with the atmospheric fluctuations of the surface of Earth, the nitinol would stress and break down sooner, which would reduce the energy source viability over the lifespan. Cavitation water heaters reduce drag on the components. Powering a cavitation water heater with a nitinol engine reduces the stress on the nitinol itself. It allows for a much less stressful energy transference. A wind generator powering a condenser directly is a stressful transference. More opportunities to break down. All of these factors played into my equation when deciphering the absolute most optimum performance "cradle to cradle," while maintaining the least intermittent form of function. There's millions of scenarios that could work; wind generator tied to a cavitation water heater, hydro to air tank pressure storage, solar electric to cavitation water heater, etc etc etc. But the intermittent issue is always present, as well as the foundry and machining processes added to the energy consumption equation. Cradle to cradle is often never discussed in depth with any energy platform. THAT... is exactly why the oil economy persists, and why people are dumb enough to assume a gallon of gasoline only costs 2 bucks. When the entire system is seen cradle to cradle, almost every energy system falls short of expectations. A nitinol engine (while utilizing geothermal components), powering a cavitation water heater, and utilizing Di Pietro engines for consumption... is the most efficient form of energy usage THAT IS AVAILABLE RIGHT NOW, while also being completely removed from AND non intrusive to the environment as a whole. Cradle to cradle INCLUDES the environment from which the device operates. Wind generators, hydro, solar, etc, all intrude on the environment in some way during AND after their lifespan. Nitinol, and the components of cavitation water heaters, and the Di Pietro engines themselves intrude on the environment, but only during conception (mining). After that, recycling is almost 100% efficient, both in materials and energy implementations.
Hope this helps...
Brian
From #128
April 12 2021 4:31PM
A long time ago I got into air pressure engines. The company that I first researched was called MDI, and was founded by a Frenchman named Guy Negra. At the time (early 2000s) I wanted to start a company that made deliveries in downtown Portland using his vehicles...
A few years ago, while researching the same technology after purchasing my lathe, I did a search for MDI, and apparently Di Pietro was on the search. Not interested in the financial and company shit, I conflated the two companies, and ever since I've been making a mistake. Di Pietro started an Australian company called Engineair. His engines are the ones I'm interested in due to their performance and efficiency. I just had one of his videos pop up on my YouTube recommendation list and just now realized my mistake in conflating the two. I'm sorry if this made anything I said prior confusing.
This just goes to show that I'm not a writer or journalist by trade. I was thinking about how well you're doing, and your upcoming project. Here is the video (that I had watched some time ago) that popped up.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGiviT-C_oY
I'm not entirely certain of what specific type of engine the MDI company utilized in their vehicles. Whether it was piston, rotary, or air vane, but the Di Pietro motor is an offshoot of a type of rotary design. My assumption is that he got his idea from the workings of an air vane compressor setup, and essentially reversed the technology. Just guessing, but that seems logical to me. The most interesting upgrade was the internal bearing system that's displayed in this video. Cuts down on wear and tear immensely. All air compression systems can be machined from aluminum, and that aluminum can be cast from recycled sources like pop cans, serving trays, foil and scrap from machining. Nothing has changed about any of the procedures I've described, I just conflated two different companies.
I'm sorry for any confusion this might have brought. Just to clarify, I was always referring to the Engineair engines for water, steam, and air pressure energy usage. MDI was where the idea began, and that was a long time ago. It just stuck with me all these years.
From #141
May 2 2021 6:23PM
I was in my late 20s when I started experimenting with masonry, and that was before I started implementing air pressure engine technology into the equation. Even transport equipment (forklifts, hoists, etc) could be powered using Di Pietro engines, and if the goal is rapid manufacturing, and (most importantly) the society around you hasn't collapsed yet, these are also possibilities to consider. I'll link a few videos to get your creative juices flowing. Just remember that the machines being used (all of them) do not have to be powered with electricity. If this is a venue you might consider pursuing, you also have the ability to create your own machines, meaning you can also create their energy source. And that, my extremely hard working friend, is exactly why I wanted you to get a base education in machining. This is an advanced-advanced course, and as far as I know, I'm the only "1" who has these thoughts. Now you do too...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ThBJbotH_jQ
This would be an easy project to try in the makerspace. Think cups, dishes, possibly cookware, lamps, etc. Small, easily manageable, and all the equipment is cheap... as well as convertible to air pressure engines... THAT YOU COULD MAKE! (So cool that I can say that, heh!)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=46sMbPZadPo
This is a larger version. This would be good for columns, wall pillars for your domicile, entry gates, or even just artistic flare for aesthetic elements. Again, imagine this machine off grid and powered by air pressure alone.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=11B96n_iwIc
This shows the larger version of making a sphere, and a beautiful one at that. This would be an amazing kugel ball ornament.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9GK5eFOgOWs
Here's the smaller more in depth version of making stone spheres. And it's from start to finish. Every time I see these machines in action I think about how easy it would be to convert all of this stuff to off grid Di Pietro powered machining...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-FN_ss2KsSc
Here's a version of Satanic stone sculpting strictly by hand. Do you think your parents would be impressed if you made them one of these? And remember, the material for creating things like this is free and just laying on the ground... everywhere. Beautiful isn't it? It'll last for thousands of years, too. Really makes you wonder why anyone ever did anything other than this... until you understand economics, planned obsolescence, and greed. Then all this literal garbage everywhere makes sense (if you want to call it "sense" [more like NONSENSE])
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uN-7UNZ4MvA
This is a kugel ball. I didn't want to confuse you so I linked a video showing one. This is the biggest in the world. Weighs 59,000 lbs.
All of these kinds of projects can be made using Harmonic resonant micro cavitation. In the time when giants and Yews were alive, using these Divine strategies were much easier than they would be today. It's not impossible, but the number of humans necessary to match the strength of Yews has to be multiplied by a factor of anywhere from 10-100. That's the basic ratio. It takes 10-100 humans (depending on their lung capacity and depth of frequency range) to equal 1 Yew. There were hundreds of Yews. The ratio between giants and humans is closer to 1:1000, and that's just to match their output strength. The tonal frequency range of a giant could not be matched, even by Yews. So, as you might imagine, in order to create the same types of objects as we did in ancient times, Satanic energy machinery is necessary for taking up the slack left by eradicating giants and Yews. As we've gone over many times, internal combustion (using sequestered hydrocarbons), and electricity (which is usually made from a hydrocarbon source) to completely revamp Earth's degenerate societal building strategies will not work. There's just not enough crude oil, natural gas, and coal left to complete that type of a retrofitting. Hydrogen, ethanol (a carbon neutral source for internal combustion), and air pressure sources from solar heat, wind, and hydro can complete that type of a project, but the most sustainable and most efficient usage of Satanic energy (coupled with Divine energy) is nitinol powered cavitation water heaters. The steam produced can power any number of applications, but for these types of projects, powering Di Pietro engines is the most efficient method conceivable at this time. Until that type of system is feasible to the budget available however, air pressure is the most economical way. Completely Satanic, yes, but also sustainable and non impactful to the environment. And... until that type of system is feasible to the budget available, you should not be afraid of using the available means to create that type of system, or the objects that can be produced using the degenerative Satanic systems.
From #214
June 25 2021 1:07AM
Let's shift to something more technical in nature: your project. I'm going to get nuanced here, so I hope that this doesn't confuse you. The reason why the Di Pietro engine is so beneficial is because of the efficiency. Specifically at low PSI. One can have a fraction of 1 PSI and still gain measurable torque. That's why the efficiency is so great; very little friction taking away from the engine's performance. A good example of this is how easy it is to turn the flywheel on the engine itself. Very little effort is required to make the engine spin, even without air pressure attached. Now, if you were to try spinning a flywheel attached to an internal combustion engine, it would require a ratchet or breaker bar just to move the engine. There's no way that a human hand can simply cycle the engine by rotating the flywheel. The friction of the rings on the piston wall, the compression within the cylinder, the camshaft pushing valves, the tolerances of the bearings on the camshaft, flywheel, transmission, the viscosity of the engine oil, even the air filter resistance to the intake; all of it takes away from the efficiency of the motor as a whole. Even when fuel is added to the equation, the fuel must overcome the inherent inefficiencies just described before there is measurable torque. In addition, the engine must continue injecting fuel while stopped, or restart the engine from a dead stop. Additionally to the other additions, there's no way to convert the energy wasted during braking/stopping, back into the fuel system easily. A K.E.R.S. (kinetic energy recovery system) apparatus can be applied by means of a flywheel, but the weight of said flywheel will detract from the efficiency of the engine itself by needing to transport more weight during operation. That said, the ability to utilize the stored kinetic energy from a dead stop is negligible at best. The K.E.R.S. will have to overcome the weight of the vehicle itself, as well as the inefficiencies of the internal combustion engine just to create measurable torque that can be distributed to movement. The Di Pietro engine makes up for all of these dilemmas. In addition to having extremely low resistance to the engine itself, there's no need to use fuel (compressed air) during a stop. Braking can be a simple K.E.R.S. reversed air piston system or air vane system. The actual braking mechanism can be used to resupply air pressure back into the air tank. Imagine that. At every wheel hub, an air vane system that takes the pressure from braking and resupplies it back into the tank. Hybrids do this in a similar way now. The electric motor changes polarity from drive to brake and the energy is resupplied to the battery. This is how they recharge themselves. On a Prius, there's a selection on the transmission stick that says "B." If used properly, this "B" mode can add significantly to the overall performance of the vehicle, as well as fuel economy. And yes, I mastered the art of this "game" when I had my Prius. Most people go their whole ownership of their Prius and never even select "B" mode. Anyways, that's an example of a K.E.R.S. apparatus wasted by laziness by most, but in a Di Pietro powered vehicle, the recovery would be automatic, and a lot more intrinsic to the functionality of the overall system: better more applicable braking, a direct fuel to fuel efficiency model with no need for conversion, and very little loss of efficiency to heat/friction, as is the case with "B" mode on a Prius and a flywheel conversion to internal combustion sequence. When added up, all K.E.R.S. and friction components considered, the efficiency is multitudes higher than any other system I'm aware of currently. Hopefully this helps you better understand the components that have created this ideology I've spoken about so frequently, and you'll be better equipped to handle conversations about it to others in the future. Efficiency is everything...
The reason for this particular rant is leading to the nuanced discussion here. I'd like to explain why I've been so adamant about talking to Di Pietro about other fuel sources like steam and water pressure in his engines. There are other options that have high efficiency ratings, but there's caveats. The best option for power generation other than the Di Pietro engine is the Tesla Turbine. It's biggest hurdle to pass is the efficiency related to instant torque conversion. There are several different ways to construct this type of turbine, but for the reasons I'd like to use it, if the efficiency and/or fuel source (water/steam) for the Di Pietro engine is not comparable to the air pressure efficiency, is for water pressure. Specifically in a dam scenario. They run well with air pressure, and in a two stage setup, steam is highly efficient, but water's viscosity is superior for this type of application, especially when the pressure is significant. The Tesla Turbine's biggest inefficiency conundrum is that in order to achieve maximum efficiency, the turbine must spin at a very high RPM. 30,000 in most cases. This has to do with a phenomenon called "the boundary level." The actual driving force of the turbine changes the higher the RPM. Until maximum efficiency is reached at roughly 30,000 RPM, the efficiency is not great. Usable and applicable for power generation, but in an application like a vehicle, the torque specs do not really compare, especially in an air pressure system. The molecular structure of air is much less dense than water, obviously. A more controlled and direct application is superior for air pressure, as is the case with Di Pietro engines. However, water, when used in the Tesla Turbine system is a superior method, as far as I know right now. This was going to be a primary discussion topic with Di Pietro, as we discussed some months back. As it stands now though, if I was unable to make that discussion a reality, a Tesla Turbine would be used as a primary power generation device for harnessing high pressure water. I've discussed with you the application of different variants for water power generation, but this is what I would use if I had access to a large, deep reservoir that would supply high pressure. This is not the best turbine system for low head or low flow systems, even if a reservoir was created by a dam. This is essentially the best application for the pyramid area in Oklahoma, if I'm able to build a lake the way I want. I'm putting these caveats onto this topic because it is indeed a very nuanced and specific application. The Tesla Turbine is a very intriguing concept, but creating the right environment for the maximum efficiency to make the system worth the effort, is complex. Nevertheless, it's one of those things that helps understand a broader range of applications for everything else you're trying to learn about right now. Plus, it's very easy to make. Creating one with superior balance, good to great bearings, and discs that can handle the centrifugal force to the point of achieving 99+% efficiency is difficult and intricate. However, making one to study the phenomenon and do interesting and fun research is very easy and cheap.
I say this because making a Di Pietro engine will be difficult at best, at least in the case of the valve chamber. It seems like an intricate part all on its own, and if I had to make a guess, it's probably what gives the most headache to make. Everything else seems fairly straightforward to a CNC application, but the tolerances of the valve chamber do seem REEE! inducing. It's something to consider is all I'm saying. I don't want you to get yourself into a position where you see yourself or your projects as failures. The Di Pietro engine is legit, very much so. Taking on the task of making one as your first real mechanical engineer project has the potential to create severe doubt in your ability, and I don't want you to put yourself in a position of doubt this early on. There's many projects that are applicable to the equilibrium ideology we've discussed. You're taking on the two most difficult right off the bat. Kudos to you for having the courage to do so. It's admirable and extremely rare. If... and I stress if, you want to take on a technical application that has a little bit less chance of failure, I suggest the Tesla Turbine.
From #227
July 7 2021 9:47PM
I'm almost positive that the shape differences are for weight distribution and material efficiency. It doesn't seem to have any effect on the way the engine functions. If I'm guessing correctly, the reason why that variance is there had to do with the stock they had available for the engine housing at the time, and what machines they had available to do the machining. From the looks of it, the hexagonal design was an attempt to eliminate dead spaces where large chunks of aluminum serving no purpose were machined out to alleviate weight to the design. In the earlier years of his design, I'm also guessing that the machinery he was working with, as well as his budget did not allow for the more intricate complex shapes, nor did he care that it did. From what I can tell, the engine components themselves are identical and there's no real change in functionality for how the mechanism works.
The valve mechanism is more than likely the same also, but it's more difficult to conceptualize how it works and the tolerances that are necessary for an airtight system from it. At 1:16 of this video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7SPs7TImIic there's a cutaway of the valve mechanism and it has an animation showing the path of the air pressure through the valve into the pistons/chambers. Just by looking at it, the complexity doesn't really do my concerns justice, though. From the visual it seems fairly straightforward and easy, but that valve mechanism is what distributes the pressure. Which means of all the places in that motor where tolerance can be less critical, the valve mechanism has to maintain precise timing and an airtight structure. Otherwise the efficiency will suffer, the the torque will suffer, and the timing could cause misalignment where the piston chambers are receiving pressure at times when they should be exhausting, and/or vise versa. The strategy of functionality within the engine's components is entirely dependent on that valve mechanism.
Now that I've gotten you all worried about it, let me now ease your stress a bit. The engine you're trying to make is not going to be used for launching astronauts into space, nor is it going to be doing any critical farmwork, or even vehicle propulsion. This is your very first attempt at making one, and no matter how well it functions, if it even functions at all, you will learn extremely valuable information that will help you the next time you build one, and before you know it, these conversations we're having about the more complex issues will be laughed at by the both of us... hopefully. There's no reason to be afraid of failure at all. Even if the engine doesn't function at all, you can always just melt it down to stock again, and machine a new one from the old material. It's just not worth it at the very early stage of development to worry yourself about about this type of shit. I understand the desire to want absolute perfection on your very first attempt. As a matter of fact, I'm the same way with the holy grail... or was, rather. Keep in mind that I failed making the blank 5 times before I completed the process and made the videos. I learned a lot during those failures, and every new failure taught me extremely valuable information about the process. People who are afraid of failure never really accomplish anything. Expect it. Desire it. Why? Because those mistakes will ensure you never make them again. That's the only real path to expertise. Every expert, in anything, got to that podium by fucking up repeatedly. That's the only real way to understand how not to fuck up, heh. That's not to say that striving for perfection, or overanalyzing technical applications is not a good idea. It is, and the information from other people's fuckups should always be considered, but you should never stress about making mistakes. They're inevitable... at least they are in hell, inundated with type 0 civilization personalities all trying to profiteer and leech from one another parasiticly. These types of conversations don't even happen in a type 1 civilization. In a world where money is not the means of information exchange, a man like Di Pietro would just send you the specs, and all of this would be moot. We don't live in that world however, and in order to reach that precipice and further, people like us must suffer through their arrogance and selfishness. In all seriousness, that's what you and I are both doing: suffering through everyone else's selfishness. You'll do great no matter what happens because you're already fighting through that idiocy. Some people just say "fuck boomers," but you're actually doing something about it. Keep throwing those punches! (Metaphorically, heh)
From #228
July 11 2021 12:28AM
That makes sense about the chambers. I would assume that 4 chambers is the minimum because of the design. The 4 chamber engine is essentially functioning like an air vane motor. The valve mechanism should be more straightforward and harder to make a mistake on with so few chambers. That's a good idea to start there. I've conceptualized running these engines in tandem before for larger operations. I wonder if there's a threshold of efficiency loss to chamber number and size ratio. In other words, let's imagine not running them in tandem, but rather making a 4' wide diameter motor. In theory one could just scale up, but without a significant increase in air pressure, the very much larger internal components would require more force just to make the actuation process occur. That said, if one were to make a 4' wide motor, scale down and up the internal components respectively, and add more chambers, would that be detrimental to the efficiency? These are questions I'm not thinking Di Pietro has the necessary experience to answer, but I could be wrong. From every video I've seen, it seems as though the scale he's most familiar with is the size to incorporate into personal vehicles, or to run individual level generation units. There are always thresholds to these types of things. Imagine a V8 engine for a Ford. Then imagine you want to upscale that V8 to generate electricity for a town. It's just not as efficient to upscale, make 1 very large V8, and incorporate it into the system. It becomes more efficient and effective from a manufacturing standpoint to make several original sized V8s and run them in tandem. See what I mean? These are questions I don't think Di Pietro really has the ability to answer, but I have thought about them. Specifically when used downstream of a Nitinol powered cavitation water heater. I've always just assumed that several Di Pietro engines would be used, as opposed to designing one very large one, then attaching component assignments with a flywheel gearing or belt setup... as is the case with car engine setups; where the 1 engine has several different components running from the forces transferred from the serpentine belt. After all, you wouldn't want a separate engine for the alternator, water pump, etc. That's impractical and inefficient, but in the case with Di Pietro engines running from steam in the system I envision, running several engines in tandem might be a more practical solution to the conundrum. Nevertheless, this is one of those conversations I was planning on talking to him about, but even so, I didn't think he has direct experience with this type of setup. Might just end up being a research project someone like us would have to study through trial and error. Fun... but it could get expensive. Not to worry, though. Our feedstocks are in the garbage, heh.
#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
#399
December 27 2021 12:33AM
Di Pietro himself made one. He also made a luggage carrier for an airport, a forklift, and a go cart that's in his videos. There's no guesswork on if the technology is viable. There's also a few news stories about him licensing a fleet of forklifts to a produce distribution facility somewhere in Sydney? I don't recall the exact city where this happened, but he did have that contract. The issue has always been Di Pietro's greed. He's in it for the payoff, so the technology is suffering from a literal paywall that the majority of potential buyers aren't willing to pay for, quite simply.
There's also the MDI company from France. Their cars are similar to the "Cube." Very small and lightweight. They look kind of funny, but they were designed for transporting goods. Before I knew about Di Pietro engines, those were my go to. The actual vehicles I pitched a company of taxis to to Kristin and my friend Nathan that died shortly thereafter. Importing them was an issue, and reinforcements to comply with American safety standards was also a problem. They both thought it was a good idea, but we were only working with about $20k at that time, and I was the only one with any skills to retrofit a system like that. Too risky for their blood, and the idea simmered out quickly. That said, the MDI engines were similar to what an internal combustion system resembles: pistons, valves, crankshaft, intake, exhaust, etc. It works, but it's not efficient enough to justify the additional weight necessary for retrofitting to American standards. Too much friction and resistance, and many more points of failure possible. It'd be like converting an internal combustion system on a vehicle now to air pressure. Possible, but a very large tank would be necessary, and the same types of mechanical issues would still be present. I'll link some videos to show you the vehicles.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uRpxhlX4Ga0
I think this might be the actual show I originally watched to get the idea to pitch the taxi company to Kristin and Nathan. I think that was in 2007ish.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sBF5EnK9MPs
I saw this linked beneath the MDI video. This is the exact same process of storage for compressed air I've explained already. Only difference is the compression system itself. I'd use many different inputs; Tesla turbines, direct air vane compressor systems for wind, solar, etc, ethanol engines, biodiesel engines, and of course, nitinol engines that utilize geothermal for placement, ethanol, biodiesel and pyrolysis from making charcoal for input heat (which very little is necessary), all powering cavitation water heaters that would supply the pressure directly, or indirectly by actuation of Di Pietro engines. The engines would be completely automated with transmissions to supply the air pressure for the bulk storage tanks that would exceed several thousand PSI. I'm going to look through this company's videos to see if there's more in depth examples than just this video, but this was a good example for showing what I've already explained prior. Only difference is the actual inputs for creating the pressure.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2PCVPoe47xg
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGiviT-C_oY
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eziyzmEXeqU
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Dq8aZVLpf-c
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PiMEykfuk8M
Here's the clips showing Di Pietro engines in several applications. They're spread throughout the interviews and news segments. Like I said, Di Pietro is his own worst enemy, though. He's greedy, plain and simple. That creates a problem for mass production in an already long established industry; crude oil. Large producers are not going to use his systems. Small retrofits are the way to go. Unfortunately, he's created a problem for those of us with smaller budgets. Similar to what happened with Novazymes cellulosic ethanol production. Novazymes was government mandated to only sign large contracts, though. Di Pietro is mandating himself through greed alone to only accept large contracts. There's never been any doubt about the viability, which means Di Pietro himself is the problem. He's either wanting extreme royalties for the licensing agreements, or he's putting clauses in that force producers to make many more engines than they feel they can sell. It's truly a disgusting situation, but extremely common.
Anyways, there's quite a few examples of retrofitting several different engines that are air powered. A couple different examples of manufacturing. The problem is always the ability to fully comprehend the nuances inherent to the various "green" systems touted by the media. Air powered vehicles are the most efficient (by far) in energy production itself, even if that air pressure is created by crude oil engine systems making the air pressure because the storage systems degrade extremely slowly. We're talking decades here before replacement, and there's literally zero toxicity or waste in the degradation. Cradle to cradle, the components never lose mass, and can be remanufactured from their own components indefinitely. No crude oil system can say that, and neither can any methane, electric, or even hydrogen system can say that. There will always be a loss, cradle to cradle, or a toxicity drain that severely hampers the overall EROEI effect.
Although for you specifically, I've explained this all before. Did you get into a debate about this stuff with someone recently who wanted examples?
Arian
From #435
February 3 2022 5:16PM
As for the ball mill setup, that's another great usage for a Di Pietro engine. Ball mills don't (or shouldn't) run quickly, so they'd be very efficient with a Di Pietro engine. You wouldn't even necessarily have to run the system in a constant state. Since it is a long duration type thing, might be a good system designed to run when excess energy (air pressure) is being released due to maximum capacity in the storage tanks being reached. It could be a passive system in other words. Normally for a hobbyist, ball mills are pretty small, but in the case of recycling mortar, specifically anhydrous plaster, AND for the volume of that type of mortar investment in holy grail manufacturing, a much larger ball mill would be optimal. There's other options, yes, but mortar is ground up into a fine powder, even in the hemihydrate state, so maintaining an enclosure capable of centralizing that powder is important.
From #494
April 5 2022 10:47PM
Very interesting stuff here. The order of operations as I see it is to do the cylinder boring first, then the internal "bearing" (the ring that contacts the the rotary pistons to actually turn the crankshaft journal) after the cylinders are bored. At least that's my take on it. However... and this is important... to maintain concentricity and perfect perpendicular orientation to the plate stack surfaces, the first operation with the casting should probably be to face at least one side first. That should give you a good reference for all other operations. Otherwise, you might end up boring cylinders, and the faces of the casting will be difficult to get perfectly perpendicular. That's how I've envisioned the order of operations at least in my head. Face (at least one side of the casting [which might require shims depending on the roughness of the opposing side]) it, turn it over, bore the cylinders (but leave some material thickness for finishing in a later operation), then bore the internal bearing bushing surface... which will then give you the exact center of the part. From here, I'd make a mandrel that would fit that internal bearing bushing. Mount the casting on the mandrel and chuck it in a 4 jaw chuck on the lathe. Dial the mandrel in, then face both sides. This would be a turning between centers operation (not sure if you've done that yet). The goal here is to get perfectly parallel faces, that are perfectly perpendicular to the bearing bushing surface. This is important for crankshaft operations during the engine running. If those surfaces are not perfectly perpendicular to the faces, the bearings for the crankshaft that will be mounted to the subsequent plates will not run true, might bind up, or at minimum will create uneven drag on the crankshaft during operation of the engine. I'm stressing perpendicularity for this reason, hence, the "extra" mandrel step on the lathe. The reason why I think you should leave a little extra meat in the cylinder walls is because until that perfect center, and perpendicularly true faces are precise, the parallelism of the center bearing bushing surface to the cylinder walls will not be perfect. At least not "engine running at thousands of RPM perfect." Assuming the mill head has been perfectly trammed in, and now that absolute center and face perpendicularity are established, the last operation would be a finish the cylinder walls to final spec. This is the order I've envisioned from a casting. Of course a billet would be different, though. I wouldn't even make my first cylinder hole until the bearing bushing hole was complete, the faces were perfectly perpendicular to the bearing bushing surface, and the workpiece was remounted on the mill. Why? Because the idea is to keep the part as balanced as possible for facing so there's no wobble or run out while facing. That's why I say it's probably best to remove some material from the cylinders first, especially if they're all different. That might create imbalance during facing. That's if... you do things this way. Like I said, there's lots of different ways to do something during machining. I'm assuming this particular engine will have at least the capability to run at thousands of RPMs. That's why it's pertinent, but not critical, to have some idea of what this engine will be used for. If it's never going to see RPM ranges above a thousand, these operations during machining are kind of overkill, although beneficial to possible later uses.
One method is to make your own baseless vise for hold down. This Old Tony made one that's fairly similar to the style I wanted to make for my shop. The one I wanted to make was going to have fractal jaws for gripping awkward shapes, but without a base. A hybrid of these two styles...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QBeOgGt_oWU
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9UGY8iJH_aY
Even if you go with the conventional jaws, I realize this is just going to give you a lot more machining, but if you do make this for yourself, you'll always have it to use. I'm not sure if we've established that you are or aren't going to use a rotary table, as well. I'm assuming you're not going to use a rotary table, which is why I'm giving you this option. Vertical hold downs always add awkwardness to an operation sequence where perpendicularity is essential. If you're not going to establish absolute center and perpendicularity with the mandrel and lathe option, I strongly suggest making this type of vise, if one isn't available to you. This will at least give you the ability to establish a flat face and perpendicularity (provided the mill head is perfectly trammed) with the bearing bushing surface and cylinders. Plus there'll be less need to reconfigure vertical hold downs for the facing operation. Of course you can establish a flat face with vertical hold downs, but it will be an interrupted order of operations establishing new hold down points as you machine the areas of the face available where hold downs aren't obstructing tool paths. All of this is kind of tricky to figure out from my perspective because I don't know what tools you have access to. I'm just trying to give you options that might not seem very apparent from your perspective. The "best" way to do everything, from my experience, would be to use a rotary table mounted to the cross slide on an engine lathe. Unironically, this is the exact type of project that gave "engine lathes" their nomenclature. In this type of setup, the boring bar/boring head is mounted in the lathe chuck itself. Then the cross slide and carriage do everything, along with the (vertically oriented) rotary table. Most people don't even consider this as an option given access to a milling machine, but in reality all you're doing by doing this is turning the lathe into a horizontal mill. It offers the most rigid setup by far. The lathe saddle is is power fed in both directions from the lead screws (or keyed shaft depending on the model) which gives a much stronger and accurate feed rate. The lathe chuck is a lot more powerful and rigid than a mill spindle, too. Boring and facing create much better finishes on a lathe because of this, but again, considering what material you're working with (aluminum) and the size of this particular engine (6" in diameter if memory serves), this type of setup is overkill. I'm assuming it's purely academic even suggesting this as a possibility. One thing I will say about this method is that for very large engines in the future, this is the way. Imagine you're trying to make a 4 foot wide engine that has a depth of 1 foot... and you're planning on making it out of stainless steel. Imagine how far the overhang will be mounting this up on a Bridgeport. You might not even be able to reach the dials, heh. However, vertically oriented on a lathe cross slide, this isn't an issue at all. Might be impossible to find a 4 foot wide rotary table, heh, which means you'd have to reposition for cylinders, but the setup rigidity can definitely handle that type of thing. That's literally what "engine" lathes are made for. Anyways, just trying to give you options here. Based on what you said (assuming there's no rotary table in your setup), I'd make a "This Old Tony vise" for holding the casting down. Otherwise you're going to encounter a lot of frustrating situations that have the possibility of fucking up the perpendicularity with the boring operations. And doing that creates a serious concern about the crankshaft functioning properly during engine operations. Perpendicularity and the center bearing bushing surface are critical for this engine. That has everything to do with the fact that the crankshaft bearings are on different plates than this stator casting you've made. Those bearing races have to be perfectly concentric with the bearing bushing surface bore. Absolutely critical. That's why those faces of the stator are so important. The cylinders themselves are less of a concern than the concentricity of those bearing bores. Still important, but less so than the crankshaft. Without the crankshaft being absolutely perfect, binding is almost guaranteed. I hope this is all making sense and I'm not confusing you. In reality I'm just trying to broaden your options. I think I have a good idea of what you're trying to do, and in what sequence. It's not "wrong," but there seems to be easier ways to accomplish what I think you're trying to do, and simultaneously, I'm hoping to give you a better understanding of complications that might arise from finishing cylinders before establishing perpendicularity with the center bearing bushing bore.
...
I'll wait for a response. However, if there's any kind of machining operation advice you want, or to just bounce your own ideas off of, don't hesitate to ask. Also, I considered drawing some pictures to better explain what I was trying to convey about the Di Pietro engine operations. Do you want those? Do you think they'd help? Sometimes these technical machining conversations get a little too intricate and confusing. I do that (giving many possible machining configurations) because I'm not entirely certain of what you're exactly working with and what your options are. I'm here to help...
Arian
From #498
April 8 2022 2:47AM
Yeah, the perpendicularity issue is paramount for that specific engine. Not many others because bore holes are made in blocks in one pass for crankshafts. The problem with the Di Pietro motor (which isn't really a problem if properly engineered beforehand) is that at minimum, the crankshaft journals and shaft have to be aligned with concentricity across three different individual pieces. I'm sorry, but explaining this issue wasn't a top priority of mine in our earlier conversations. You could say I took for granted that I assumed you knew everything I know. There's workarounds to help combat this issue I've considered before, but with the methodology of the order of operations that I was planning on using, they're not really necessary. The cylinder boring as the first process isn't exactly crucial, but it does help balance stator for the facing. This is how I would go about it.
1) hold down the casting to a mill table. Shim the casting to locate the bore holes as accurately as possible in a vertical orientation. None of them will be perfect because it's a casting, so absolute precision is not necessary. This is just to establish a reference for future operations.
2) when the piece is secured, and vertical orientation of the casting bores is satisfactory, bore the holes true. You'll want to leave as much "meat" on those holes as possible, while also machining the bore holes to a finished surface. None of the bore holes at this point should have a casting finish. They also should not be machined to final dimension. It's possible to skip machining the cylinder bore holes all together at this point, and just focus on machining the bearing bushing surface bore hole in the center of the engine. It depends on how large the engine is, how much swing the lathe has for the next operation, and what happened to the casting. For example, the cylinder bore holes on one side of the casting might have had a blow out internally, essentially making the casting extremely unbalanced. If this is the case, you definitely want to machine the cylinder bore holes before the next operation. Otherwise there will be an excessive imbalance that will create vibrations. If all the cylinder bore holes are relatively similar and the engine seems to be balanced (as in all the cylinders look similar), the bearing bushing surface bore hole is all that's necessary to establish this first reference surface.
3) after the bearing bushing surface bore hole is complete, mic' it for diameter. Take that measurement and make a mandrel. Just a simple cylinder of solid stock. Face it, center drill it, and turn it to size. The diameter of the mandrel should be the exact same size as the bearing bushing surface bore hole. A perfect fit with no play.
4) mount the casting onto the mandrel so that both sides can be faced. This is the turning between centers operation, although it's not critical to do this. It's possible to chuck one end of the mandrel if turning between centers is not something you're comfortable with. If you're going to chuck one end of the mandrel, dial in the mandrel. This should probably be done with a 4 jaw chuck. Secure the casting to the mandrel using super glue or light-medium duty lock tight between the mandrel and bearing bushing surface bore hole. Whichever substance you use to secure the casting to the mandrel, make sure you give it enough time to fully cure.
5) face both sides of the casting to a mirror finish. Make sure the thickness is precise to your specifications. This is a finishing operation, so after the faces have been machined, they will not be machined again. This is the operation that also will establish perpendicularity with all operations there following. I'm stressing this because even after the vertical orientation of the first step is established, these two surfaces will become the new reference surfaces for everything. It's critical that these two surfaces are protected moving forward. No marring the surfaces, no scratching, etc. If possible, just to be safe during later procedures, stone these surfaces to debur the cylinder boring later. No filing, no sand paper, and only chamfer will machine tools. In other words, no hand held deburring tools. You don't want to risk it slipping out, gouging the surface, and creating a situation where filing these surfaces is necessary.
6) use heat (without creating more heat than necessary) to break the seal of the super glue or lock tight. This is a common procedure, but again, to protect the surfaces you've just machined, approach this procedure with caution. My suggestion (what I would do) is use super glue. Then I would allow the super glue to dissolve in acetone so that no heat is required. This is a patience thing, though. Heating the part to release the glue is much faster, so the following operations can be done immediately after releasing the casting from the mandrel. It's up to you and your schedule as to what choice you make. If you use heat, do so cautiously. There's an opportunity to warp the surfaces you've just machined, or otherwise create defects through expansion, especially when you're working with aluminum. That shit is finicky with heat. Be careful. Most lock tight releases at about 200 degrees Celsius. I've seen people use those temperature crayon things so they don't go too hot. I've also seen people just wing it with a torch. You could also use a heating gun. Lots of options, with the heating sticks being the most expensive. Here's a link if you've never seen them.
https://www.mscdirect.com/browse/tnpla/06832505?cid=ppc-google-Smart+Shopping+-MCO+Marking+%26+Labeling&mkwid=%7cdm&pcrid=547676462129&rd=k&product_id=06832505&gclid=Cj0KCQjwl7qSBhD-ARIsACvV1X3Jxqvnqjp72yqOzji44OAy_CJduZV32nvUGflClbfIaFv5CsdmBYwaAk2SEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds
They're also used for welding when preheating parts or maintaining heat during welding. Very expensive, though, but more accurate than other methods like trying to use a thermometer. It all depends on what you're using them for and how critical the temperature needs to be. I'm saying this not because of what I would do, but what I think you're going to have to do for your situation as to not have to waste hours waiting for the glue to slowly dissolve. Just giving options...
After this point you would have a part with precise reference surfaces that can be mounted to a mill bed, rotary table, or vise. Just as a word of caution, again, protect those faces. If you're using hold downs, make sure you shim under the connection area to not mar the surface. If you're using a vise with parallels, only tap it down with a plastic hammer, or lay a piece of rubber across the surface while tapping it down, if you only have a metal hammer. Basic stuff from here on out. I'm assuming you'll probably use a DRO to locate the cylinder holes... well because that's how you were taught (I think) and it's easier. If that's the case, just make sure the surface is dialed in absolutely flat, and the mill is trammed in perfectly. Then you'll have perfectly oriented perpendicular bores, and they can all be made without breaking everything down. The mandrel thing might seem like overkill, but it will save you a lot of time in everything you do after it, and sets you up for precision without a lot of dialing in, remounting, dialing in, remounting, etc etc etc. Hopefully this all makes sense why I'd take this route. My guess is most machinists wouldn't. There is a method to this madness, though, and it'll be apparent in all the operations following these steps.
From #499
April 9 2022 6:21PM
There is several different mechanical locks for an operation like that (facing two parallel surfaces during the same operation), but it's tricky, and you'll almost certainly ruin the mandrel in the process. The issue is that you are facing the entire surface, so there's no real clean way to do it without using a complex system in the mandrel itself, or using a chemical bond like super glue or locktite. Considering you have cylinder holes already, you could use an internal dog that gets screwed into the mandrel, but that's going to require breaching the wall between the bearing bushing surface and a cylinder. Another possibility is using a simple key way. In order to pull this off you'll have to leave enough meat around the wall thickness of the bearing bushing surface to be able to machine out the key way broach. It wouldn't have to be a big key way, but even so you'll have to be able to bore out enough material after the mandrel operation to completely remove the broach. This is a much more feasible idea than the internal dog, but it's going to require another operation; 2 operations if you're counting the key way milling of the mandrel. Of note with this method, you'll still have to use a chemical bond of some sort to keep the stator from walking down the mandrel. It will be secure from breaking the bond and spinning freely on the mandrel, but making stops is really not an option... unless you're willing to make the mandrel a one and done piece. Let's say for argument's sake that you tried to use a system that screwed the mandrel together with the threaded stop. Since you're facing the entire face on both sides, you would machine into the mandrel itself. In the operation I'm describing (all of them for that matter) you are still machining into the mandrel, albeit slightly. That will still leave you with a usable mandrel for further use later. If you were screwing two halfs of a mandrel together for a friction fit on the faces, it would only work for a one time operation, then the friction fittings would be machined away. Let's also say that you tried a friction fit with a large live center for a mechanical bond. You would machine a groove into the cone of the center itself. The danger in both of these options (particularly with the live center option) is as soon as you machine into either mandrel, your bearing bushing surface will be matched up to the grooves made into the mandrel. That will immediately eliminate the friction fit, and the stator would be free to spin and walk freely. My assumption is this is what's frightening to you about this type of operation. Just keep in mind that using super glue, especially for softer metals is very common. I wouldn't suggest doing something like this for stainless steel, heh, but aluminum, brass, bronze, etc won't break that bond. I'm also not suggesting that you hog off 1/4" passes at a time. I'm also not suggesting using carbide where you have to rev it up to 1000 RPM and feed rate it so your chips are 1/4" thick. This is not really a parting tool operation either, so you're not plunging a full tool gouge. This is a HSS tooling thing. Your tool should be ground, stoned, and if possible, diamond plate honed. Rigid compound angle aligned with the cross slide, and the tool holder just slightly angled to access the entire face in one pass. Neutral or positive rake, but if you do go positive rake for relief, only go a couple of degrees. Also, give the tool some radius to minimize gouging. Medium speed (300-400 RPM should be fine) with a very slow feed rate. Remember, you're aiming for a glass finish. Doing things this way will save you lots of time later. This is a "go slow to go fast" type of thing. Don't try to take face cuts any larger than .020" at a time. If you do that, there's no reason to fear the stator breaking loose from the mandrel when it's held by super glue. Plus, just for nothing more than safety's sake, even if it does break the super glue bond, it won't come flying off or otherwise pose an immediate risk... unless the mandrel breaks in half... so don't use a cardboard mandrel, lol. There's another option, but pain in the ass it is... very (said in a Yoda voice). That's trying to use an arbor. In other words tapering the internal bearing bushing surface, and mandrel into a makeshift tapered arbor. Think of it like a tail stock center or chuck. You just taper them both and slam it home like mounting a tail stock Jacob's chuck. That's a very strong friction fit, but it'll be a bitch to separate without risking damaging the machined faces. The point I'm trying to make is yes, there are mechanical bonds if you're willing to go through those extra steps. If you are willing, my suggestion is to make a key way. There's no need for a sophisticated broach either. You can broach the internal bearing bushing surface on the lathe or mill. Remember the my mechanics video where he made the scooter handle molds? Like that. Then just make the key way in the mandrel on a mill. I'll link the video again and time stamp it for you. And I'll include a couple Clickspring videos where he machines brass on a "super glue arbor..." in case you're overly nervous.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EVShbpzeh0E
He broaches the mold on the lathe at 26:16. And here's the Clickspring version of the same operation.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8FafBDB0fUk
And here's some super glue arbor stuff. Keep in mind... he's not even secured to a mandrel. These are just face glued.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8q8wN7ph3VE
This one is faced...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mPZsORgJtzU
...and this one is faced, turned down, drilled AND gear teeth cut... in mild steel... with one face super glued.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_Iu2sYW4a3Q
I understand the hesitancy, but it's a safer operation than it sounds. Really, I wouldn't suggest it otherwise. But... if you're bothered by it, my suggestion is to go with the key way idea for a mechanical bond. Totally your call. Whatever you're comfortable with.
Turning between centers is pretty simple. Especially if you're using a mandrel. Shit can get a bit more complex if you're machining the actual piece that's being turned between centers, but that's not really a concern for you in this project. Yes, there's a dead center mounted in the chuck, and a live center in the tail stock. On the chuck side you use a "drive dog" for torque. It's a simple device that slips over the shaft (mandrel in your case), is screwed in to the shaft, and the extended portion is the actual driver. Some are straight in appearance. In this case a bolt is sticking out of the chuck, the drive dog contacts the bolt, and that's how you get your mechanical rotational force. Another style is where the drive dog is in the shape of an L. The L shape's extension points toward the chuck, and contacts the jaws of the chuck, or faceplate (if available) which is what gives this style the mechanical rotational force. Although, most machinists don't recommend using the chuck jaws directly, because it could gouge, warp, or otherwise damage the chuck in some way. That's why face plates (or "drive plates") are recommended over driving with chuck jaws as the anchor for the dogs. You're machining aluminum, and you're taking light cuts, so if you're going to use drive dogs, it should be okay to use the dog on the jaw. It would probably be a good idea to ask the owner of the lathe if it's okay, or if he wants you to use a mandrel clamp, face plate, drive plate, etc. If it was your lathe, or even mine, I'd say "fuck it, just use the chuck," but it's not mine so be careful you don't piss the owner off. It's just a time saver not having to swap chucks. But don't get yourself in trouble... Here's a couple of examples.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hyN7s0iMOQQ
Drive dog and mandrel/shaft clamp. This also shows both styles of drive dog, and subsequently, the safer and more conventional way to turn between centers. This was one of the first videos in the "turning between centers" search I did. I haven't seen this video. I watch/have watched his clock making stuff, and the Antikythera device playlist. I also read his pdf museum quality article written (that's peer reviewed) for a magazine. He's an impressive machinist, but also a clock maker. That's some serious dedication and patience type stuff that I'm not really into, but it's interesting to watch. He also has rose engine and straight engine skills (ornamental decorative machining for watch faces and jewelry). Very cool stuff, just not really my thing. Anyways, watching this video, I noticed the sheen difference in materials he's using for making this pulley. Ya know what? This is exactly what I'm suggesting to you, hahaha. I guess it's meant to be. I looked at the description for the original video this clip was taken from, and he explains the process well. I do really like the quality of this guy's videos, but talk about a coincidence! Loool. Here's the original video. It's one of his first ever made.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=e4apNy_2AB8
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ww-Z0xQQPv4
This is a pretty annoying video, but the first example I could find of someone using a dog against the chuck jaws. It's just a long CNC video of him modifying the dog to fit a certain piece of stock. Interesting part is he's using this setup in a CNC lathe... which I wouldn't do even on my equipment. Highly not recommended, heh, but I thought you might find it interesting. Just goes to show that people take chances I guess...
Okay... I tried, but I couldn't find a video where the chuck had been drilled and tapped to accept a drive dog bolt, but I have seen it in person before. This is probably the rarest version of turning between centers because you do have to modify the actual chuck itself. I doubt the makerspace has a drilled and tapped chuck, but if they do, this is the recommended method, at least in my opinion. You keep the jaws safe, and are able to turn the dog towards the chuck, which allows for more room to machine, and a smaller mandrel. Again, this (at least for this project) is really just academic. You're not doing this on tool steel with carbide tooling running 1000 RPM. For this project, you should be totally fine using the jaws if that's your choice. While looking through the search I saw a couple of videos that showed guys turning between centers using tension from the tailstock to make a friction fit on the dead center in the chuck for the rotational force, and altogether not using a dog. Please, do not ever do this. It's lazy, inaccurate, and dangerous for several reasons. You never want to put pressure on anything being machined in that way. Not only does this make the shaft want to bend, and thusly might banana your shaft when you release the tension, making the part out of spec, it wants to break. If the part breaks while you're machining it between centers, that's flying shrapnel time. Very dangerous. If you're going to machine between centers, ever, use drive dogs, and only use enough tension between centers to hold the shaft snugly. Another word of caution, never part a shaft with a parting tool operation while turning between centers. Very dangerous, and I hope this is somewhat obvious as to why.
Now that we've covered turning between centers, you don't have to turn between centers, hahaha. It's possible to use the shaft chucked up in a three or four jaw chuck with a live center in the tail stock. The problem with doing an engine this way is if you have to turn the part around for tool clearance. It'll be next to impossible to find exact zero again flipping the shaft around. This will (unless you're very lucky) make the two faces not perfectly parallel, and that's bad. To help minimize this risk, you could turn down both sides of the mandrel, face them, and center drill the ends so they interchangeably fit a live center, and collet. That'd require using a collet chuck at the head and a live center in the tailstock. Collets are not exactly perfect, but they're more accurate than trying to get a chuck to run true. Not recommended for an engine project, but if you're dead set on not turning between centers, this setup is probably your best bet. One way to minimize the possibility of not facing both sides parallel is to glue (or key) to stator far enough away from the chuck that you can reach both sides of the stator without having to remount the shaft again. That's where turning between centers is a good insurance policy. If, for whatever reason, you find yourself only capable of facing the outside, then having to turn the mandrel around to face the opposing side, turning between centers offers the most accurate means of doing this. In reality I'm suggesting facing both sides during the same operation, while also turning between centers. That's what I would do because this method offers the most accurate method, and adds insurance if something happens where you have to stop machining and finish the part later (power goes out, work day ends, somebody needs the lathe for an emergency, lathe breaks and you need to switch lathes, whatever). I've seen all kinds of shit that can interrupt you while machining. In my experience, it was always getting called away in the middle of doing something for other work. It never seemed to fail that when I returned, something had changed or the workpiece was dismounted for someone else's project. I've also had people try to dismount my workpiece, work on theirs, then remount mine to THEIR standards. It happens. Things come up that are unexpected. The goal is to minimize intrusion, but if intrusion is inevitable, the goal shifts to repeatability, and interchangability. Turning between centers is the best policy for those operations, and that's why I'm recommending it. However, if that's not an option, for whatever reason, I'd suggest a collet chuck over a three or four jaw chuck. Either way you'll be using a live center for tail support, and if you have to reverse the mandrel to access both faces, make sure you face, turn down, and center drill both ends of the shaft. The shaft should have these operations completed before you mount the stator to it no matter which option of facing you decide upon. There's always the option of chucking the entire stator into the chuck itself, facing one side, flipping it around and facing the other side, and just not using a mandrel altogether. However, this is an engine. That's not good practice for something requiring such perfection. If this is your only option, and the mandrel idea is kaput, after facing one side and turning it around in the chuck, use a "tenths" (.0001") indicator for indicating the internal surface against the chuck jaws. Again, this is not recommended, and for this procedure, something I would not do, but if this is your only option, get that machined face absolutely perfect against the chuck jaws before facing the opposing side. After all of that, hopefully I've done a good job explaining why I suggested this course of action, and why I'm suggesting it. This is all about getting the stator perfectly perpendicular AND making both faces (which will be the actual mating surfaces for the plates holding bearings for the crankshaft) perfectly parallel. Very important, especially in an engine project. If they're not perpendicular and parallel, at best the bearings will be very noisy and there'll be uneven wear on the bearing bushing surface internally and externally. At worst, the crankshaft will bind against the obliquity from the not perfect surfaces and simply not run at all. That's the basic gestalt on the "why" portion of me suggesting this method. Engines require a measure of precision more so than anything else. This particular engine requires this extra step because the block itself, isn't really a block at all, but three (at least) different plates that all need to be as precise as a solid machined block.
#517
April 24 2022 10:40PM
Those folders are pretty cool. You have a great collection of Di Pietro engine pictures and applications. The lawnmower idea is neat, but in that configuration it requires a hose. That's like a corded electric mower... kinda dangerous. But still neat. Looking at your stator pictures again, I'm not totally convinced about the mandrel idea. I thought that inner bushing bearing surface (which I have to find a new name for) was more constricted. It would still work to turn between centers the way I described, but the mandrel is going to be huge. It might be best to just face it conventionally in a lathe, flip it around and face it again. It really all depends on what you're using the engine for, though. Have you discussed this situation with Dan? I'm curious to see what he thinks because he's actually seen this casting in person. I don't know if he's contemplated the the concentricity issue I'm talking about, which is the reason for the turning between centers operation, but he also has access to the tooling and gauging equipment you do, so he has a better idea of possible limitations. The larger mandrel thing is not a deal breaker, just so you know. You could even use a bushing internally, bore it out, then use a smaller mandrel. This issue is about having dogs large enough to fit a mandrel that size. There's always workarounds in machining, but I'm simultaneously trying to keep this thing budget friendly, WHILE being precise.
From #519
April 29 2022 6:02PM
So... what does "it's too heavy" mean? As in, the lathe is too small to handle the stator? The lathe doesn't go to a low enough RPM? Is he referring to a balancing issue that can't be compensated by adding counterweight or removing opposing material like I originally said? "It's too heavy" is a very strange way to explain why turning between centers is not a good idea. I'm confused why he would even say that. It's totally okay if you don't want to do it that way, I just don't understand that answer. Seems contradictory just for the point of being contrarian. I'd like to know what he thinks is a viable alternative for creating parallel faces without an excessive amount of dial indicating and complex fixturing. Keep in mind this is an engine that will be running upwards of thousands of RPMs, so the variance for error is beyond the metric of just thousandths. Anyways, I'm going to keep on moving forward with this thing. Let me know if you have any questions. Talk to you later.
#521
May 2 2022 4:07PM
Specifically with regards to lapping, there's a lot about what's been said so far that for your personal projects, it's excessive overkill. However, you never know when you might be in a tight spot, where you need certain information about correcting an issue, probably caused by someone else (at least that's how it usually goes, heh), and having the full repertoire of expertise will help. In regards to the Di Pietro engine exclusively? It really depends on how you go about machining it, as to how much of this information is useful to the process. It's conceivable that not turning between centers, will lead to having to refine those parallel surfaces. It's aluminum... so surface grinding is basically not an option. Additionally, you'll need a reference surface to gauge parallelism, and that's almost certainly going to be a granite surface plate. Just for argument's sake, let's say you lap the surfaces, and use the granite plate as the parallelism gauge to the other side of the stator... but your engine seizes bearings at speed, and you're at a loss as to why that happened. The granite plate itself might be the problem. What do you do to fix the plate if you're not familiar with that process? And more importantly, what if the engine is critical to some sustenance aspect of stability in your life? You've essentially just arrived at destination fucked, heh. On the other hand, if you started with the granite plate itself (gauging, lapping, certifying, etc), and it caused an issue in something you're trying to fix/build, no biggie; just fix the plate, correct the engine, and Bob's your uncle. All of this is to give you a reliance on external inputs at a level of zilch. It takes a lot of knowledge to be comfortable with that ideal; real sustainability. In my experience, it's easier to teach the hardest stuff to learn first, so that's what I do. On a side note... are you familiar with the term "Bob's your uncle?" I've been hearing it a lot going through these videos and was wondering if you're familiar with it. It has an interesting meaning... mainly because Bob/Robert, really is my uncle, or was. He recently died, but I did have an uncle named Bob. Weird, right? Apologies for the tangent there and the analogy using ethanol. Hopefully I've answered your question as to the "why" about this subject. The actual steps of "how" to use these things for a particular purpose with a specific project, well, I'd need more information about the chosen process and order of operations before I could answer that. Hopefully that makes sense.
From #534
May 16 2022 5:24PM
Her project is a steam engine, so the piston is traveling along the length of the cylinder. It's that type of travel where you don't want a lapped surface. In your case with the Di Pietro engine, lapping the cylinders wouldn't be a concern in the same way. You could definitely lap the cylinders, and probably should since it's an air powered system. Then you could get away with using seals made of plastic and friction heat wouldn't be an issue. Her steam engine will have oil retention problems, at least in the cylinder itself. As long as she's not revving the thing at thousands of RPMs, it probably won't be too much of a concern, but still, it's not a recommended procedure for her purpose. Honing is just better for this type of thing. Hydraulic cylinders are all honed, for example, and they're constantly filled with oil. They also have a different spec as far as tolerance is concerned. The honing needs to be done so that there's a specific type of cross hatching pattern, which is similar to engine cylinders. Finer finish, but same basic strategy: the oil does the sealing, not the cylinder walls. This is better shown than explained...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q8uEfQYDy54
The honing begins at 20:25.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cjPEC0aHoXA
Right in the beginning of this video there's a great shot of the inside of the barrel with the crosshatch pattern. Plus it's an interesting video explaining the machine itself in detail. Highly recommended machinist porn, heh.
Basically, lapping in this way is acceptable, but WITH THIS PARTICULAR STYLE OF ENGINE TRAVEL, deglazing is required. Again, your Di Pietro engine has different cylinder actuation travel, plus it's not a combustion engine. It could be configured for internal combustion with several porting and plugging steps added, but that's not what I assume you're even considering. I don't know if you know that or not, but yes, the Di Pietro engine can run on gasoline or ethanol, propane, natural gas, syngas, biogas, hydrogen, etc, it's just not what we're aiming for. Anyways, your engine's piston travel is rotating instead of a linear travel. It's feasible that you don't even have to deglaze, especially since the primary fuel is compressed air. You also don't really have to go through anything more than boring to a decent finish. I'm actually hoping that understanding these finite parameters of engine building is adding to your overall recognition of the efficiency and longevity of the Di Pietro engine. Not only does the fuel itself (compressed air) have zero detrimental effect on the environment, the actual building of the engine takes far less effort, and that's before you even consider the longevity issue. I'm glad that we're able to discuss this, like this. I can't break down these complexities with most people because they simply don't get it. Even those that do "get it" are often clouded by their experience. Thank you once again for giving me a platform to explain these things in depth. So, to answer your question, you specifically, for the Di Pietro engine, honing or lapping and deglazing is not really a concern. You CAN do it, if you're feeling like it, and you might even get some nominal returns for increasing efficiency, but totally not required for your project. Internal combustion? Required. Di Pietro engine configured for internal combustion? Required. Di Pietro engine not ported, and configured for air pressure fuel and steam? Not required. Hopefully that makes sense. I didn't think linking that video would take us in this direction, but I'm glad it did. Bore lapping in most cases is overkill, and when it comes to engines, doing that requires another operation in most cases: deglazing. I was just trying to show an example of bore lapping... not a "how to" on anything you're actually doing, heh. In regards to the "optimal finish" for any lap, it really just depends on what you're using it for. Laps that use compounds are also lapping themselves in the process of lapping. It also depends on how coarse of a grit is used, as to how fine a finish a lap requires. 400 grit is pretty coarse. You can find a piece of sandpaper that's close to that and rub it for reference. Technically, the finish on the lap just needs to be better than the grit it's using, as long as the shape of the lap is accurate. For example, a granite surface plate lap requires hand scraping in the millionths range, because the grit being used is so fine. Even so, the more you lap with it, as long as the technique is correct, the lap itself will improve flatness over time because it's lapping itself in the process. In the blondihacks video, making a lap with a "better than 400 grit" finish is/was definitely feasible by just finishing on a lathe. You could improve it by using Emory paper, but considering the grit, that's kind of overkill. Does that make sense?
From #592
August 13 2022 6:12PM
Here's a manual oil extraction machine. Simple construction, hand operated, and used for small batches. These folks are extracting peanut oil, but this is the same system for making any kind of oil: rapeseed, flaxseed, sunflower, whatever. I didn't mention this in the rant above, but many types of oil extractions can use the solids as direct animal feed. Peanuts for almost anything, sunflowers for probably chickens, and so on and so forth. Extremely dense in protein with very little fat... because you've just extracted it (the oil). This is just a simple compression auger on a hand crank. Note the candle heating element under the die. Oil extraction is an art form that is specific to each crop. Different types of genetics, areas the crops are grown, etc all play into the specific process for any given specific crop to maximize efficiency. Hotter, cold pressing, roasting the seeds, mulling or grinding the material, boiling it before extraction, and any other factors need to be determined by you, for your specific crop, and genetic strains of that crop. That said, it's not too complicated to just produce oil. This mini-rant is dedicated to efficiency parameters more than anything. Don't try to overthink it...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4bfkb_FOn3w
I watched this some time ago. It's definitely relevant to you considering the close proximity of where it was made: Vermont. This is a collaborate of different farmers who did studies for the university to test the effectiveness and efficiency of several different types of oil extractors. These are industrial level machines that are very expensive upfront, however, the reason they're expensive is because of the variability in speed, variability in die shapes and sizes, and the compression auger. At this point you should know that you personally have the knowledge and skills to make everything. Running one of these with a Di Pietro motor is a very simple retrofit: variability of speed is no problem, especially with a dividing head for making gears. Die making and machining the solids section is entry level machining stuff: variability of dies is no problem. You can make these compression augers/screws yourself: with a dividing head the most expensive part of the entire system is no problem.
From #676
November 1 2022 10:05AM
I was suspecting that was the grade of titanium you were getting. It's definitely the most common. Not going to be great for making nitinol. Probably close to impossible based on what you've told me, but maybe it is possible. You could machine it into something... maybe a Di Pietro engine? That'd be badass! A titanium Di Pietro engine would, in theory, last for many lifetimes. However, you'll go through a lot of carbide inserts trying to machine it, so initially it's an expensive proposition, but it'd undoubtedly be above and beyond anything else as far as quality and longevity. Maybe also lapped surface plates as master 90s and squares? There's lots of possibilities.