Alvin M Marks' Electrohydrodynamic Generators
Enceladus, Wed Apr 12 2017, 03:02AMI randomly came across this list of EHD generator and other device patents by a man called Alvin M Marks from the 1960's. Wiki has virtually nothing on the guy except for a short article about one of the devices. These devices are subtle, simple and ingenious. I have very good reason to believe these ideas are fully legitimate and have real potential to solve energy problems but unsurprisingly, these patents seem to have been quietly buried. Maybe they just didn't work as well as he had hoped or maybe his work has really been supressed. I have no idea what his story is because there's so little info out there. What do you guys think of the feasibility of this stuff? Have you ever heard of the guy?
Wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaneless_ion_wind_generator
Magazine articles:
http://www.rexresearch.com/marks/marks.htm
Detailed patents:
https://www.google.com/patents/US4206396
https://www.google.com/patents/US4433248
Re: Alvin M Marks' Electrohydrodynamic Generators
DerAlbi, Wed Apr 12 2017, 05:57AM
According to the Wiki-Page its based on blown/falling water droplets.
Think again about why this principal might have been dropped.
The water must come from somewhere - pumping it in place is not a cheap thing to do. Only and only if the energy from this machine exceeds the initial potential energy of the water involved where is something gained. If not, use the falling water to power generators and you are way better off.
DerAlbi, Wed Apr 12 2017, 05:57AM
According to the Wiki-Page its based on blown/falling water droplets.
Think again about why this principal might have been dropped.
The water must come from somewhere - pumping it in place is not a cheap thing to do. Only and only if the energy from this machine exceeds the initial potential energy of the water involved where is something gained. If not, use the falling water to power generators and you are way better off.
Re: Alvin M Marks' Electrohydrodynamic Generators
Dr. Slack, Wed Apr 12 2017, 07:22AM
The links are broken, at least for me, on chromebook and chromium/Mint18. However, cut'n'pasting the text of them into the browser address line works OK.
His heat to electricity engine appears basically sound, and doesn't claim performance above Carnot. The basic principle appears to be heat to mechanical work by expansion, like in a conventional turbine, then mechanical work to DC electricity in much the same way as a Van de Graff does. But it's messy, with gasses and liquids and all, and I don't see any reason it should scale as well as conventional machines, let alone better. But the last thing the world needs now is yet another way of converting heat into electricity.
The problem with moving material generators is the electrode interface. To get good Carnot efficiency, you need high temperatures, which quickly rules out water as a working fluid. A lot of research has gone on into electrode systems for MHD, and corrosion is always the bugbear, especially as current densities rise and material velocities rise to useful levels.
His wind to energy engine is, like the heat to energy engine, yet another way to do it, but more messily. It also has all of the availability and storage issues of harvested energy. I see no reason the aerodynamic coupling of wind to pressure work, over the expected range of wind speeds, should be any better than for a turbine, and plenty why they should be worse.
I can fully understand the underwhelming response from investors.
Dr. Slack, Wed Apr 12 2017, 07:22AM
The links are broken, at least for me, on chromebook and chromium/Mint18. However, cut'n'pasting the text of them into the browser address line works OK.
His heat to electricity engine appears basically sound, and doesn't claim performance above Carnot. The basic principle appears to be heat to mechanical work by expansion, like in a conventional turbine, then mechanical work to DC electricity in much the same way as a Van de Graff does. But it's messy, with gasses and liquids and all, and I don't see any reason it should scale as well as conventional machines, let alone better. But the last thing the world needs now is yet another way of converting heat into electricity.
The problem with moving material generators is the electrode interface. To get good Carnot efficiency, you need high temperatures, which quickly rules out water as a working fluid. A lot of research has gone on into electrode systems for MHD, and corrosion is always the bugbear, especially as current densities rise and material velocities rise to useful levels.
His wind to energy engine is, like the heat to energy engine, yet another way to do it, but more messily. It also has all of the availability and storage issues of harvested energy. I see no reason the aerodynamic coupling of wind to pressure work, over the expected range of wind speeds, should be any better than for a turbine, and plenty why they should be worse.
I can fully understand the underwhelming response from investors.
Re: Alvin M Marks' Electrohydrodynamic Generators
Enceladus, Wed Apr 12 2017, 10:20AM
Looking at the diagrams, graphs and charts, and the very matter-of-factly way he talks about the efficiency of these devices makes it seem like achievements rather than estimates. There's a lot of information there and I haven't exactly examined it at length. It's probably the case that there's a good reason that these inventions didn't fly, but sometimes it's more fun to imagine that unseen forces hid all these visionary easter eggs deep in the annals of history, and that they're just waiting to resurface.
It's clear that a great deal of work went into the designs, but what's not clear is if any of them were built and tested.
I don't really understand what's so difficult about arranging a continuous supply of water. Del, you said if you already have water at an elevated potential you might as well pass it though a conventional turbine, but why couldn't you do both?
I must admit it's pretty hard to believe that a low temperature wind driven EHD generator could be such a slam dunk when the best high temperature plasma MHD systems struggle to break 20% efficiency.
Maybe the devices wouldn't be replacing any large scale high output systems outright, but they do seem like they could be built alongside the most wasteful types of conventional generators such as coal fired plants. Even more well known waste heat reclamators such as stirling engines and Seebeck piles are rarely used, although they do seem to be gaining more attention.
There's actually a patent in there for a manufacturing method for nanenna (nano-rectenna) array metamaterial type deal. The wiki article on Nanennas makes them sound like they could potentially outperform even the best photovoltaics, but where the hell are they? I'm so sick of hearing about all these great prospects that are on the horizon when that's where they stay.
Enceladus, Wed Apr 12 2017, 10:20AM
Looking at the diagrams, graphs and charts, and the very matter-of-factly way he talks about the efficiency of these devices makes it seem like achievements rather than estimates. There's a lot of information there and I haven't exactly examined it at length. It's probably the case that there's a good reason that these inventions didn't fly, but sometimes it's more fun to imagine that unseen forces hid all these visionary easter eggs deep in the annals of history, and that they're just waiting to resurface.
It's clear that a great deal of work went into the designs, but what's not clear is if any of them were built and tested.
I don't really understand what's so difficult about arranging a continuous supply of water. Del, you said if you already have water at an elevated potential you might as well pass it though a conventional turbine, but why couldn't you do both?
I must admit it's pretty hard to believe that a low temperature wind driven EHD generator could be such a slam dunk when the best high temperature plasma MHD systems struggle to break 20% efficiency.
Maybe the devices wouldn't be replacing any large scale high output systems outright, but they do seem like they could be built alongside the most wasteful types of conventional generators such as coal fired plants. Even more well known waste heat reclamators such as stirling engines and Seebeck piles are rarely used, although they do seem to be gaining more attention.
There's actually a patent in there for a manufacturing method for nanenna (nano-rectenna) array metamaterial type deal. The wiki article on Nanennas makes them sound like they could potentially outperform even the best photovoltaics, but where the hell are they? I'm so sick of hearing about all these great prospects that are on the horizon when that's where they stay.
Print this page