KeelyNet Post (December 26, 1992): The Richard Clem Engine
KeelyNet Post: The Clem Over-Unity Motor
KeelyNet Post (May 1996)
KeelyNet Post: New Info on the Richard Clem Engine
KeelyNet Email (David Hall)
Tyler Courier-Times (Sunday July 9, 1972)
Clem Engine Photo
Robert Koontz: The Clem Motor and the Conical Pump — An Investigation of the Clem Motor (KeelyNet ~ 03/21/02)
Walter Haentjens: US Patent # 3,697,190 ~ Truncated Conical Drag Pump
KeelyNet (12-26-1992 / 7-5-1996)
The Richard Clem Engine
A few months back, we got a call from a friend who had heard of this incredible motor that was said to run itself and generate excess useable power. The details were unclear at the time and our friend gathered more details and we met for lunch to discuss what he had found out. This file with diagram is listed on KeelyNet as CLEM2.ZIP.As we understand it, inventor Richard Clem died of a heart attack soon after the deal was signed with the coal company. His workshop was raided by law enforcement officials and all his notes and drawings were removed. The story as I was told by our unnamed friend. A local man (Dallas) developed a closed system engine that was purported to generate 350 HP and run itself. The engine weighed about 200 pounds and ran on cooking oil at temperatures of 300° F. It consisted of a cone mounted on a horizontal axis. The shaft which supported the cone was hollow and the cone had spiralling channels cut into it. These spiralling pathways wound around the cone terminating at the cone base in the form of nozzles (rimjets). When fluid was pumped into the hollow shaft at pressures ranging from 300-500 PSI (pounds per square inch), it moved into the closed spiralling channels of the cone and exited from the nozzles. This action caused the cone to spin. As the velocity of the fluid increased, so did the rotational speed of the cone.As the speed continued to increase, the fluid heated up, requiring a heat exchange and filtering process. At a certain velocity, the rotating cone became independent of the drive system and began to operate of itself. The engine ran at speeds of 1800 to 2300 RPM. Immediately after the inventor had the heart attack and the papers were removed, the son of the inventor took the only working model of the machine to a farm near Dallas. There it was buried under 10 feet of concrete and has been running at that depth for several years. In later conversations, our contact says the engine had been tested by Bendix Corporation. The test involved attaching the engine to a dynamometer to measure the amount of horsepower generated by the engine in its self-running mode. It generated a consistent 350 HP for 9 consecutive days which astounded the engineers at Bendix. They concluded the only source of energy which could generate this much power in a CLOSED SYSTEM over an extended period must be of an atomic nature. Construction of the engine was from off the shelf components except for the hollow shaft and the custom cone with the enclosed spiral channels. Richard Clem worked with heavy machinery for the city of Dallas and had noticed that certain kinds of high pressure pumps continued to run for short periods after the power was removed. His curiosity into this phenomenon led to the development of the Clem Engine.
The Clem Over-Unity Motor
The following is from a newspaper clipping that has no name or date. In 1972, Richard Clem announced the invention of a way to operate automobile engines on cooking oil. He’s still making that claim today, even though his first prototype motor fell apart and he had been “strung along” by at least 15 companies before he found financial backing. Clem, 48, a heavy equipment operator for the city of Dallas and part-time inventor, says if the automobile industry adopts his invention, motorists could change the eight gallons of vegetable oil only every 150,000 miles and never buy any gas. Clem said he uses vegetable oil because his motor runs at 300 degrees — a temperature where water has boiled away and conventional motor oil breaks down. Though he won’t divulge many details of the engine, a 12-volt battery apparently is the only other source of power. When Clem finished his first vegetable oil engine in 1972, he mapped a 600- mile test trip to El Paso for the first engine model he had financed through his earnings. But he only made it as far as Abilene before the ‘shafts and everything bent in it. ‘He blamed the failure on poor construction, too small a shaft and the use of chains instead of gears. Undaunted, he decided to try again, but said, ‘I needed money to build this thing better.’ Neither the automobile industry nor the 15 other companies he wrote — some as far away as Taiwan — were interested in financing a prototype and then manufacturing it. Then last year, he said, a large coal company offered to back him. Clem refused to disclose the name of his benefactor, but did say the coal company had signed contracts to sell the engines to power companies for use in pulling turbines. Clem said he expects to finish work on the motor by the end of this year. (1972)
The above article was reported as being generated from Flower Mound, Texas (northwest of Dallas and slightly beyond Carrollton). I called the only Clem listed in the book as of 11/20/92 and they knew of no other Clem in that area, nor did they know of any Richard Clem or his family. Two separate visits to the patent section of the Dallas Library have not yielded any patents by a Richard Clem involving any type of engine. We are still pursuing for more details.
As of 12/26/92, I drew up a .GIF file called CLEM1.GIF that is bundled with this file under the name CLEM2.ZIP. It gives a better understanding of how the machine was constructed, at least as it was described to us.
For those who study such matters, one immediately sees the tie-ins with Boundary Layer Drag principles as evinced in much of Tesla’s work as well as Victor Schauberger’s Impansion and Implosion discoveries. We have noted something odd about spinning masses in that at specific velocities, strange things occur. The velocities at which phenomena occur are dependent on the resonant frequencies of the mass as an aggregate, exactly as Keely said.The Clem system was said to be built with off-the-shelf components. The most complicated piece of the entire machine was the cone. And based on boundary layer drag, it would seem that the cone was unnecessary. The question with the Clem device is, ‘Does the extended surface area of the cone add to the additional velocity of the cone, yielding greater pressures through centrifugal force or would flat plates as in the TESLA turbine be sufficient to generate the same effect?’ We continue to look for more information on this device and appreciate your comments or supporting material.
KeelyNet Update (May 1996)
A company called Creative Sciences is selling plans ($60) for what they claim is a machine that generates 1500hp and runs by itself. They call this a CEACU and claim it was released by a 70 year old retired scientist.
The truth of the matter is it was designed and built by the late Richard Clem of Flower Mound, Texas as documented by this paper.It is wonderful that someone has taken this information and done something with it (or so claimed) and we will have more details later if you might like to build one. However, be aware a few years ago, some of our Roundtable group chipped in for about $150 worth of ‘plans’ from Creative Sciences. The plans were bogus and were not free energy unless you are simple enough to think compressed air (as used in some of Dennis Lees ‘demonstrations’) is free energy.In the last part of June 2001, Rick Harrison, president of Creative Sciences sent an email to KeelyNet saying he was prepared to sue if we did not stop ‘bad-mouthing’ his company. The website is http://www.fuellesspower.com and I told him go ahead, since I and many others would love to see them prove their overunity claims in court. Since then he has not responded back and the website is not responding, so I think they are changing their claims. We also have several emails from others who say Creative ripped them off and one from Brazil saying its been 60 days after he sent about $115.00 and received nothing.With regard to differences between the CEACU design and Clem the CEACU does not require the cone, but instead uses a thick disk with nozzles on the outer edge. A hollow shaft feeds water into this disk at a high velocity. As the water exits from the nozzles, the disk spins giving an ever higher velocity. A 3200 psi air tank is used to get the disk spinning to 1000 rpm when it is claimed to begin to run on its own. There are other ways to achieve this velocity beyond 3200 psi as you can well imagine.If you write them, please let them know that Richard Clem is the true inventor (as I will). Thanks!… Jerry W. Decker Sysop / KeelyNet
New Info on the Richard Clem Engine
This past week, a new contact from the Roundtable meetings went out with some of us for dessert after the meeting. We discussed a wide range of topics and somehow Richard Clem was mentioned. This fellow said he actually KNEW Clem, had met him personally a couple of times and had some additional information about him which he would gladly contribute to the pool. Clem had a daughter and son, who our contact says meet often at a restaurant/bar in a suburb of Dallas. So we will be pursuing a contact with them, even though they were VERY spooked by the events leading up to and after their fathers death, which might make some bridge building necessary. When the FBI comes in and takes all your fathers papers and work, I think I’d be paranoid too. Our contact said Clem often drove the test car up and down Central Expressway in Dallas, back when there was NOTHING but open fields in the 70’s. In seeking details or verifications of what we already had collected and which is listed in the file CLEM1, our contact said Clem worked for the city of Dallas and operated heavy equipment. This we knew, however, he said Clem used asphalt spraying equipment, which used melted asphalt that was pumped through the machine. Clem noticed THIS MACHINE would continue to run for up to an hour even after the power was turned off! The reason Clem never applied for a patent was because his design was basically the same as the asphalt sprayer and so he felt he could not infringe on an existing patent. That is the first key difference, it was a hot asphalt sprayer rather than a fire engine pump. The second key difference from our original information was that the axis of the cone was VERTICAL, with a horizontal spin plane. This had been suggested by many but we presented the information as it was given. Now, it makes even more sense because the gravity gradient would be slightly greater and amplified by the expanding centrifugal rotation. Clems’ machine used Mazola cooking oil and ran at about +300° Fahrenheit. He also used a heat exchanger to keep it cool. So we have a temperature differential plus the centrifugal thrust. We will post any additional information when it comes in, hopefully by next month.
KeelyNet Email (David Hall)
I have read your pages on the Clem engine and thought you might like to have this. I discussed this article with my brother in law and he said he knew Richard from work. Richard was a dozer operator at the Dallas city landfill and my brother in law was a sanitation truck driver.
He said he had seen the engine and had rode in the car, however the engine was in a Ford Falcon body at that time. He said Richard later built the pictured body because of pressure from Ford.
This engine is for real and works as stated; please donï¿½t give up on this one! If the scanned image is not good enough quality let me know and I will send you a photocopy by snail mail.
I have been in sales for many years (30+) and there are only two motivating factors: The desire for gain and The fear of loss. The daughter fears loss of control of her father’s invention (and the possible profits), his approval (his instructions), and her life.
These are not frivolous fears but the only way to overcome these is to get the information out there and the patent (and the courts) will protect the profits. Time will destroy the protection of the patent and people die, but is living in constant fear any better than death?
In a recent meeting with Richard Clems’ daughter and her two children, she showed me a brochure which her father had been distributing. This brochure had a rough description of the engine, a list of components and the photo below pointing to various parts.
However, due to a prior arrangement with her lawyer, they removed the list identifying the various parts of the engine which you see below. If anyone has this brochure, I would appreciate a scan or photocopy of it so we can append the engine details to this photo.
Tyler Courier-Times (Sunday July 9, 1972) ~
Fueled by Vegetable Oil — Spare time inventor Richard Clem, heavy equipment operator for Dallas, stands beside his auto which he states runs on vegetable oil. If auto industry adopted his new invention, he said, the American motorist would change oil in his car only every 150,000 miles and would not have to buy gasoline in between. The claim probably comes as a shock to the auto and petroleum industries, but Clem, 43, seems to have discovered what french fries and hashbrowns have known for years — that vegetable oil is a hot product.
Flower Mound, Texas — Richard Clem claims that if the automobile industry would adopt his new invention, the American motorist would change the oil in his car only every 115,000 miles and in between not buy any gas.
That might come as a shock to Detroit and the petroleum industry, but Clem, a heavy equipment operator for the city of Dallas and a spare time inventor, said he has discovered what french fries and hashbrowns have know for years — that vegetable oil is a hot product.
He said his motor — much of which he won’t divulge — uses eight gallons of vegetable oil for fuel.
“Engineers have told me this can’t work,” Clem said, laughing. “I only know it does. It will do someone some good and will help keep the air clean.”
His motor is mounted in a bright red car but he said if it is made large enough, “this type of engine could power ships, aircraft, even provide enough power to produce enough energy for large cities.
Vegetable Oil Best ~
“I use vegetable oil because right now the engine is running at 300 degrees,” said Clem, 43. “Water would boil and evaporate and conventional motor oil would break down.”
The only apparent outside source of power in his car is a 12 volt battery, which Clem said “is used only to start the engine. Once started you can throw the battery away.” He said, however, the battery is also used to power the car’s lights and horn.
His power plant and car, both financed through his regular earnings, are not the picture of Detroit designing.
“I’m not an engineer, I’m an inventor,” he said. “When I get this done I’ll turn it over to the engineers and they can develop the finished product.”
He said he once attempted to get financial backing, but “is now playing the waiting game.”
“I’ve had offers recently” he said. “But I don’t know, I don’t want to be obligated to anyone.”
Seven Stage Pump ~
Outside the meager electrical portion of the system used to start the motor and run the lights and horn, the power plant consists of a seven stage pump and a “converter.”
The pump, as he described it, is used to move the oil, under pressure, from a storage area to the converter from where the energy is converted into enough power to turn the motor, move the oil back to the storage area and power the pump, which in turn continues the cycle.
One hint as to the contents of the converter is “it acts like a turbine but isn’t a turbine” in the normal sense of the word, Clem said.
He said his car has “some bugs in it,” but said it has been driven as fast as 103 miles per hour. And when he gets the bugs worked out, he plans to take it on a test trip 600 miles to El Paso, Texas.
The success or failure of that trip might decide if vegetable oil is good for more than frying potatoes.
The Richard Clem Motor and the Conical Pump: An Investigation of the Clem Motor
In December of 1992 Jerry Decker posted an article on the KeelyNet BBS, about a self-running motor that developed excess useable power. The information, gathered from newspaper and individual sources, gave an anecdotal account of the motor invented in 1972 by Richard Clem of Flower Mound, Texas. New information has since been added and can be found on KeelyNet.com at CLEM1.HTM.
Richard Clem worked with heavy machinery for the city of Dallas. He used asphalt-spraying equipment, which pumped liquid asphalt. He noticed the asphalt pump would continue to run for up to 30 minutes after the power was turned off. It was this discovery that led to the development of the motor. Modifications he made eventually resulted in a substantial 350 horsepower output from a 200-pound motor. Clem is said to have often driven a car, powered by this motor, up and down Central Expressway in Dallas. He claimed it didn’t use any fuel, and only needed a change of oil every 150,000 miles.
The motor had only one moving part, a cone shaped rotor mounted vertically on a hollow shaft. Spiral channels cut into the cone wound around its length and feed into peripheral nozzles at its large end. When fluid flowed through the spiral channels it was ejected out the nozzles and caused the cone to spin. At a certain velocity, the rotating cone became independent of the starter pump and began to operate by itself. At an operating speed of 1800 to 2300 RPM the fluid heated up to 300° F, requiring a heat exchanger. Vegetable oil was used because at 300° F water boils and conventional engine oil breaks down. A 12-volt battery was the only other power source.
Clem never applied for a patent because his motor design was derived from the asphalt pump that was already patented. Fifteen companies turned him down before a large coal company offered to back him and signed contracts to sell the motor. Soon after the deal was signed, Richard Clem died of a heart attack
The above account contains only what I considered to be relevant for analysis of the Clem motor. The gear pumps, typically used for asphalt spaying, do not match the description of the pump used by the city of Dallas back in 1972. There should be public records showing what equipment manufacture the asphalt sprayer was purchased from. Since the asphalt pump was patented, I searched for a pump patent that met the following criteria:
1) Patent issued on or before 1972
2) Delivered pressure equivalent to a positive displacement gear pump.
3) Cone shaped rotor with spiral channels.
4) Self-propelling action.
5) Capable of pumping a viscous fluid like asphalt.
6) Large heat transfer to pumped fluids.
The following illustration is from US Patent 3,697,190 (Truncated Conical Drag Pump). The patent was issued October 10, 1972 (criteria 1) and appears to match the description of the asphalt pump that Clem converted into his motor.
Housing 11, Conical interior wall 12, Conical rotor 13, Inlet chamber 14, Inlet pipe 15, Outlet chamber 16, Outlet pipe 17, Support feet 19, Detachable end cap 20, Rotor shaft 21, End cap wall 22, Boss 23, Packing 24, Adjustable gland nut 25, Bracket arms 27, Bearing boss 29, Bearing 30, Snap ring 31, Inner race 32, Sleeve 33, Shoulder 34, Retainer nut 35, Reduced diameter outer end 36, Coupling 37, Packing 39, Retainer 40, Gland nut 41, Bearing boss 43, Integrally formed bracket 44, Shaft reduced diameter 45, Bearing sleeve 46, Bearing 47, Snap ring 48, Inner flanged 49, Inner race 50, Nut 51,Shaft reduced diameter 53, Lock nut 55, Flat faces 56, Snap ring 57, Washer 59, Nut 60, Helical channel 61, Channel base 63, Channel sidewalls 64
This is a high-pressure, low volume drag pump that can be used in place of conventional positive displacement pumps (criteria 2). It has a conical rotor that has a close fit clearance with the stationary housing wall. Delivered pressure is limited by back flow across the radial clearance and is inversely proportional to the square of the clearance. As a result, even a small increase in radial clearance would rapidly reduce pressure. The rotor is cone shaped so that the clearance can be controlled by axial adjustment of the rotor relative to the housing wall.
The conical rotor has two helical channels (criteria 3), in the form of square threads, spaced 180° apart for balance. The channel depth decreases as the rotor diameter increases. Fluid enters the channels at the small end of the rotor. The fluid is induced to rotate with the channel by boundary layer drag. The boundary layer is the thin layer of fluid adhering to the channel surface. Molecular cohesion tends to drag the adjacent fluid with the boundary layer. The fluid is also in contact with the housing wall. The boundary layer drag against this stationary wall slows the rotation of the fluid in the channels. Because the fluid rotates slower than the rotor, it is forced through the channels towards the large end of the rotor. In addition the fluid is forced towards the large end by centrifugal force.
The above drawing illustrates the proportional decrease in channel depth as the rotor diameter increases. Why was this done? Note that as the diameter doubles so does the circumference. This means the fluid has to travel twice as far in the same time to maintain a constant slip velocity. By reducing the channel depth in half (cross-section area = depth x width) the fluid velocity is doubled thereby keeping the slip constant.
The spiral channels could be thought of as very long convergent nozzles. The increase in fluid velocity is in the opposite direction of the rotor spin. We should expect a reaction force from the acceleration of the fluid. This thrust would be directed tangent to the circumference and would increase the spin torque on the rotor. Even without the peripheral nozzles, that Clem later added, the pump rotor experiences a thrust force in a direction that would self-propel it (criteria 4).
Because fluid drag is the primary pumping force, it is well suited for viscous fluids like asphalt (criteria 5). The long channels also represent a large sliding surface area with frictional losses that would transfer heat to the pumped fluid (criteria 6).
All six of the patent search criteria have now been met. Of course this doesnï¿½t prove that it is the asphalt pump Richard Clem worked with.
A peculiar condition indicated by the patent is that as the velocity increases in the channels the pressure also increases. Bernoulliï¿½s Law requires the pressure to drop proportionally as the velocity increases. Assuming an ideal fluid without losses, when the channel depth is reduced in half, the cross section area is also half and this doubles the fluid velocity and the fluid pressure should drop in half. So what is going on here? There is a centrifugal component that would add to the fluid pressure.
My guess is it’s too small to overcome the predicted pressure drop. Here is what I think may be going on. As the diameter and velocity increases the drag force propelling the fluid through the channel is proportionally greater. Energy is being added all along the length of the channel. Whatever the reason, if this high-velocity, high-pressure fluid is feed into tangent peripheral nozzles at the rotor large end, the energy will be converted to shaft horsepower.
The Clem motor is producing 350 shaft-horsepower and a large heat energy component. Where is this huge amount of energy coming from? Resent quantum mechanics zero-point field (ZPF) theories may point to the answer. From an article available at “BEYOND E=mc2” (Bernhard Haisch, Alfonso Rueda & H.E. Puthoff published in THE SCIENCES, Vol. 34, No. 6, November / December 1994, pp. 26-31 copyright 1994, New York Academy of Sciences):
“Our work suggests inertia is a property arising out of the vast, all-pervasive electromagnetic field we mentioned earlier, which is called the zero-point field (ZPF). The name comes from the fact that the field is held to exist in a vacuum-what is commonly thought of as “empty” space-even at the temperature of absolute zero, at which all thermal radiation is absent.”
ZPF researchers theorize that mass, inertia and gravity are not intrinsic properties of matter but the interaction of matter with the zero-point field. By “all pervasive” is meant that the ZPF exists not only in “empty space” but it is passing through your body right now and everywhere else. When you throw a stone you are interacting with this field since the ZPF resists change in motion. In essence the ZPF is the modern day aether.
The amount of energy making up the ZPF is thought to be enormous. Is the fluid acceleration in the Clem motor interacting with the ZPF in such a way as to rectify it and draw energy from it? Is it a hydraulic aether-diode? The fluid, in the Conical Drag Pump, flows through long convergent channels. Disregarding the boundary layer, is this accelerated flow laminar? Would such a long orderly flow entrain the aether energy?
From the perspective of the rotating channels the fluid appears as the discharge from a long nozzle. To exaggerate, if the fluid was held fast to the housing wall, the rotating channel would travel through the stationary fluid. This would be equivalent to achieving 100% efficiency. In reality the fluid is slipping against the stationary housing wall so that the rotating channel (“nozzle”) is moving faster than the fluid discharge velocity. Assuming the reaction thrust as the only propelling force, this would give efficiency greater than 100%. So, as the slip increases the reaction thrust decreases, but the efficiency increases.
Assuming the Conical Drag Pump is the pump Clem used, can it answer the following?
1) Why was a hollow shaft used?
2) Why was the cone mounted vertically?
3) Why was a starter pump needed?
4) How were the peripheral nozzles added?
5) How was the motor RPM regulated?
6) How did a large coal company get involved?
7) Was this kind of pump ever used in asphalt sprayers?
(Red arrows show oil flow)
The above drawing shows a hypothetical Clem motor based on the Conical Drag Pump. The motor is mounted vertically so that the check valve on the hollow shaft is submerged down in the oil tank. The hollow shaft (shown in blue) extends from the oil tank through the rotor into the inlet chamber. The start pump draws oil from the tank and forces it up the external feed line connected to the inlet chamber at the small end of the rotor. This fills the hollow shaft and forces the check valve closed. The oil flows into the spiral channels and out the peripheral nozzles. The reaction thrust of the nozzles spins the rotor. The oil flows through the return line, through the valve, filter, and heat exchanger and back into the tank. The start pump is most likely a standard hydraulic gear pump. It continues to pump until the rotor spins up to its operating speed. The combinations of a start pump and check valve would be a simple way to both prime the motor and spin up the rotor.
Once the start pump is shut off the check valve is free to open. Oil is drawn up into the hollow shaft (shown in blue) to the inlet chamber at the small end of the rotor. The spiral channels pump the oil down towards the large end of the rotor. A plate is attached to the large end of the rotor and fits with a close clearance with the housing wall. Nozzles attached to the outer edge receive high-pressure oil from the spiral channels. The jet reaction thrust from the nozzles delivers shaft horsepower to the power takeoff at the shaft top. Adjusting the valve to create hydraulic backpressure regulates the motor RPM. Closing the valve stops the motor.
When I first read about the Clem Motor I found it odd that a deal had been made with a coal company. Was there a connection with the pump? After finding the Conical Drag Pump patent, I wanted to contact the inventor Walter D. Haentjens of Barrett, Haentjens & Co., Hazleton, Pennsylvania. Otto Haentjens founded Barrett Haentjens & Co., in 1916. The business began in the coalmines of Pennsylvania with Otto Haentjens original patent on the balanced opposed impeller multi-stage volute pump. The company still supplies pumps to the coal industry. They have expanded to other markets and their pumps are installed in many industries worldwide. It’s now known as Hazleton Pumps Inc., after its acquisition by The Weir Group.
I contacted Peter Haentjens, the VP/General Manager of Hazleton Pumps, by e-mail to find out if this pump had ever been put into production. He replied that they had not done anything with the patent:
Email to: Peter Haentjens, VP/General Manager Hazleton Pumps (11/18/2001)
I’m interested in a pump developed by Barrett Haentjens & Co. (now Hazleton Pumps Inc.?). During a patent search I found a 1972 patent (# 3,697,190) for a “Truncated Conical Drag Pump” invented by Walter D. Haentjens of Sugarloaf, PA. The attached image is the front page from this patent. Did your company ever manufacture this pump? If so, is it still available?
I appreciate any information you can provide.
E-mail from: Peter Haentjens, VP/General Manager Hazleton Pumps (01/19/2002)
Sorry for the late reply to your email. We have not done anything with this patent. I would be interested to know the nature and extent of your interest in this design.
An unusual pump design would have a tough time competing in the market with an industry standard like gear pumps. The Dallas asphalt sprayer may have been a one of a kind field test of the pump design. Or the pump manufacturer offered it for testing to an asphalt equipment company in the hopes of generating interest in it.
US Patent # 3,697,190
Truncated Conical Drag Pump
US Cl. 415/73 (October 10, 1972)
Walter D. Haentjens
Abstract — High pressure low volume rate drag pump having a frusto-conical rotor cooperating with a frusto-conical stator wall and having close clearance with the stator wall. The rotor has a helical channel extending therealong, in which the base o root of the channel is formed along a different angle than the cone angle of the rotor. The high pressure is attained by the maximum drag surface along the relatively small passageways together with the centrifugal force of the fluid sue to increasing linear velocity of the rotor from its inlet to its discharge end. The rotor is axially adjustable to maintain a close clearance and a high pressure capability of the pump.
The Field of the Invention
This invention relates generally to low capacity high pressure rotary pumps.
Background, Summary and Objects of Invention
The pump of the present invention operates on the principles of a dynamic shaft seal in which a shaft is provided with square threads on its ends to be seals, which threaded end rotates within a closed chamber. The effectiveness of the seal is directly dependent upon the radial clearance and the pressure delivered is inversely proportional to the square of the radial clearance. While such seals generate high pressure and are in effect a pump operating against a shut-off condition, it has not been possible to provide a means for compensating for wear or for reducing the clearance between the rotor and stator to maintain the efficiency required by a high pressure pump. As is evident from the above relationship, an increase in radial clearance, as would occur with wear, rapidly reduces the pressure available.
The present invention utilizes but improves upon the features of the dynamic seal, in that it places the channels or threads at an angle, which matches a corresponding stator angle. The rotor may thus be a cone or the frustrum of a cone. Axial adjustment means are provided to axially adjust the rotor relative to the conical wall of the stator, to enable the clearance between the rotor and stator to be controlled. The rotor may thus be operated with very close clearances between the rotor and stator wall and the centrifugal force created by the increasing diameter of the rotor from its inlet adds a pressure component to the pressure attained by the drag of the fluid along the walls of the channel.
The pump, therefore, operates on the principle of maintaining a constant slip velocity between channel walls of the rotor and the fluid, in which the channel depth varies, so that the velocity of the fluid changes in accordance with the peripheral velocity of the channel walls of the rotor.
A principal object of the present invention is to provide a more efficient and practical high pressure low capacity pump by the use of a conical channeled rotor having close clearance with the conical wall of a stator.
A further object of the invention is to provide a novel and improved form of low volume high pressure rotary pump of the truncated conical variety, in which the pressure available is a combination of that produced by the hydraulic drag and the centrifugal action on the fluid resulting from the increase in peripheral speed of the rotor due to the change in radius of the truncated conical rotor of the pump.
A further object of the invention is to provide a simplified form of pump having a conical rotor cooperating with a frusto-conical stator with helical channels extending along the rotor, in which the bases or roots of the channels are formed along a different angle than the angle of the rotor, to provide a constant volume of fluid in the passageways from the inlet to the discharge end of the pump with a substantially constant hydraulic drag as the fluid progresses from the inlet to the outlet end of the rotor.
A still further object of the invention is to utilize a conical drag pump in place of the conventional positive displacement reciprocating pump for attaining a high pressure, by providing a frusto-conical rotor having at least one helical channel extending therealong from the inlet to the outlet end of the rotor, in which the efficiency of the pump is maintained by the reduction in clearance between the rotor and stator wall, and the clearance may be controlled within fine limits by axially adjusting the rotor relative to the stator wall.
A further improvement is the use of two or more helical channels, arranged so that radial hydraulic balance exists, thus permitting an extremely close operating clearance between the rotor and stator.
Other objects, features and advantages of the invention will be readily apparent from the following description of a preferred embodiment thereof, taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings, although variations and modifications may be effected without departing from the spirit and scope of the novel concepts of the disclosure.
Description of the Drawings
Figure 1 is a longitudinal sectional view taken through a pump constructed in accordance with the principles of the present invention, with the rotor shown in solid;
Figure 2 is a sectional view taken substantially along line II-II of Figure 1;
Figure 3 is a sectional view taken substantially along line III-III of Figure 1; and
Figure 4 is a diagrammatic view illustrating the difference between the cone angle and thread angle at the base of the channels, compensating for increased drag velocity and increased diameters and peripheral speed from the inlet to the outlet end of the rotor.
Description of a Preferred Embodiment of Invention
In the embodiment of the invention illustrated in the drawings, I have shown in Figure 1, a conical drag pump 10 including a housing 11 having a frusto-conical interior wall portion 12 forming a pumping chamber and cooperating with a frusto-conical rotor 13 to produce a high pressure of the fluid as discharged through the outlet of the pump. An inlet chamber 14 is provided at the small diameter end of the frusto-conical wall portion 12 and is shown as having an outlet pipe 17 leading therefrom. The housing 11 is supported on feet 19, which may be bolted or otherwise secured to a conventional foundation or base (not shown).
The outlet chamber 16 is closed by a detachable end cap 20, suitably sealed thereto and removable to afford access to the frusto-conical wall 12, to accommodate machining thereof and assembly of the rotor 13 and a rotor shaft 21 within said housing with the wall of said rotor in close clearance with the internal frusto-conical wall 12.
The end cap 20 has a wall portion 22, closing the outlet end of the housing, and having a cup-like boss 23 extending outwardly therefrom. The cup-like boss 23 contains packing 24, contained to said cup-like boss as by an adjustable gland nut 25 threaded in said boss. The end cap 20 also has a pair of bracket arms 27 extending axially outwardly therefrom. The bracket arms 27 may be formed integrally with the end cap 20 and are spaced apart to afford access to the gland nut 25, to take up on the packing 24. The bracket members 27 form a support at their outer edges for a bearing boss 29 for an anti-friction bearing 30. The bearing 30 is shown as retained against a shouldered position of said bearing boss as by a snap ring 31.
The bearing 30 may be a conventional form of ball bearing and has an inner race 32 mounted on a sleeve 33 and retained against a shouldered portion 34 of said sleeve as by a retainer nut 35 threaded on the outer end of said sleeve and suitable locked thereto. The shaft 21 has a reduced diameter outer end portion 36 extending through the sleeve 33, with a close sliding fit extending outwardly therefrom. The sleeve 33 may be feather keyed on the reduced diameter end of the shaft 36 and sufficient clearance may be provided between the shaft and the sleeve 33 to accommodate axial movement of said shaft relative to said sleeve when taking up on clearance between the frusto-conical wall 12 and frusto-conical face of the rotor 13. The reduced diameter end portion 36 of the shaft 21 is shown as having a coupling 37 mounted thereon, coupling said shaft to a suitable motor (not shown) for driving said shaft and the rotor 13. The coupling 37 may be of a conventional form, of a type which will permit some axial movement of the shaft 21 relative to the motor shaft upon adjustment of clearance between the rotor and the frusto-conical wall 12, and which will also compensate for temperature changes. It should be understood that the coupling 37 may be at either end of the shaft, although the present location of said coupling is preferred to facilitate axial adjustment of said shaft and the rotor 13 relative to the frusto-conical wall 12.
The opposite end of the shaft 21 from the coupling 37 extends through the inlet chamber 14 and is sealed by packing 39 contained within a cup-like retainer 40 extending outwardly of the inlet end wall portion of the housing 11. The packing 39 may be taken up by a gland nut 41 threaded within the interior wall portion of said cup-like retainer 40.
A bearing boss 43 is spaced outwardly of the packing nut 41 and is supported by integrally formed bracket arms 44, extending axially outwardly of the inlet end of the housing 11 and shown as being formed integrally with said housing. The spaced bracket arms 44, like the bracket arms 27, afford access to the gland nut 41, to accommodate adjustment of the packing 39.
The end of the shaft 21 extending outwardly of the gland nut 41 has a reduced diameter portion 45 having sliding fit with a bearing sleeve 46, for a bearing 47 mounted in the bearing boss 43. The bearing 47 may be a suitable form of anti-friction bearing, such as a ball bearing and is shown as retained against an inner shouldered position of the bearing boss 43, as by a snap ring 48.
The sleeve 46 has an inner flanged portion 49 forming a shoulder abutted by an inner race 50 of the bearing 47. A nut 51 threaded on said sleeve is provided to lock said inner race to said sleeve and against the shoulder formed by the flange 49.
The outer end portion of the sleeve 46 is internally threaded, and is threaded on a reduced diameter outer end portion 53 of the shaft 21. A lock nut 55 locks said sleeve to said shaft to effect rotation of said sleeve upon rotation f said shaft. The threaded end portion 53 of the shaft 21 may have opposite flat faces, one of which is indicated by reference numeral 56, to accommodate axial adjustment of said shaft relative to the sleeve 46 by loosening the lock nut 55 and holding the shaft from rotation by a wrench engaging the flat portions 56 thereof, and then turning the sleeve 46 along said shaft, to achieve the desired radial clearance between the face of the rotor 13 and the interior cylindrical wall 12.
The rotor 13 may be keyed or otherwise secured to the shaft 21 and is held on said shaft by a split or snap ring 57 snapped on said shaft and engaging the small diameter end of the rotor 13, and by a washer 59 abutting the large diameter end of said rotor, and held thereto as by a nut 60 threaded on said shaft and suitably locked thereto.
The rotor 13 has at least one helical channel 61 cut or otherwise formed therein and leading from the inlet to the outlet end of said rotor. As shown in Figures 1 and 3, two diametrically opposed channels are shown as being in the form of double square threads, each of which threads or channels have a root or base 63 and parallel side walls 64. The channels, however, need not necessarily be formed like square threads but may have rounded bases or may be of various other forms.
While I have shown two helical channels herein, it should be understood that the pump is not restricted to one or two helical channels but that the rotor may have three or more helical channels, provided they are spaced equal distances apart to effect a balance of the changes in pressure as fluid progresses along the channels to the discharge end of the pump.
In order to compensate for the increasing diameter of the rotor from the inlet to the outlet thereof, the channels 61 are cit at a different angle from that of the rotor. As for example, in Figure 4, this angle is diagrammatically illustrated by reference character A and the angle of the frusto-conical face of the rotor is designated by reference character B. The difference in cone angle from the thread angle thus adjusts the geometry of the threads according to the radius of the cone and the channels or threads 61 are of the same width throughout the length of the cone. The depth, however, decreases as the radius increases, to maintain a substantially constant slip velocity between the passage walls of the rotor and the fluid.
As previously mentioned, the pressure obtainable by the pump is basically due to the drag of the fluid along the walls of the channel, and the decreasing depth of the channel as it approaches its discharge end adjusts the geometry according to the radius to provide a constant hydraulic drag, as the fluid progresses from the inlet to the outlet end of the rotor.
The pressure generated from the present truncated conical drag pump, therefore, is a combination of that produced by a dynamic seal and the centrifugal force resulting from the increase in peripheral speed due to the increasing radius of the truncated conical rotor from its inlet to its discharge end.
The pressure produced by the unit is, therefore, controllable by the rotative speed of the rotor, the thread diameter and the thread length and the pressure obtainable is exponentially dependent upon close radial clearance between the periphery of the rotor and internal frusto-conical wall of the stator, which can be adjusted and maintained by holdig the shaft 21 stationary and turning the sleeve 46along the threaded end portion of the shaft and then locking the sleeve to the shaft by the lock nut 55.
It should be understood that while I herein show the channels cut at a different angle from that of the face of the cone, and show what are in effect square threads, that the channel may be cut in the same angle as the cone angle and the desired thread geometry may be attained by varying the width or shape of the channels from the inlet to the outlet end of the rotor.
I claim as my invention: [Claims not included here]
Your Support Maintains This Service —
The Rex Research Civilization Kit
… It’s Your Best Bet & Investment in Sustainable Humanity on Earth …
Ensure & Enhance Your Survival & Genome Transmission …
Everything @ rexresearch.com on a Data DVD !
The steam tables are wrong,
From: email@example.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Subject: Another theory for Griggs device
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 1994 12:14 -0500 (EST)
In a previous post I hinted at another possibility of what may be
happening in the Griggs device when I mentioned “non-linearities in the
steam table” as one of several things that should be looked at. Since I
did not get any bites on that, let me outline a discussion I had with a
scientist from Oak Ridge National Labs about the Griggs device several
months ago. This dicsussion is off the record, and most likely will not
be collaborated, just as some of the results of their CF cell experiments
I had an occasion to meet with this person and begun describing the Griggs
device to him. After telling him how it worked I ended it with, “and it
is reported to produce more steam or hot water than then the input power
should produce”. His response was “that’s not surprising”. I was almost
He then told me that is is a fairly well known fact among some researchers
that the published steam tables are wrong. The original team which made
up the steam tables found that toward the extremes (high pressure high
temperature and low pressure and temperature) there are unexplained
non-linearities. Since these non-linearities could not be explained, and
were shown to not obey the conservation of energy, they fudged the tables
to get rid of the non-linearities. They had assumed that there must be an
error in their measurements or equipment since it did not jive with
theory. Since then others have found the same thing, but none of them
will stick their neck out to declare that steam tables which have been in
use for decades are wrong, especially since there seems to be no theory to
explain these non-linearities. Anyway, he said that if you go through a
cycle of vaporization at one pressure and condensation at a higher
pressure and temperature, when you get back to the original temperature
and pressure the “corrected” steam table does not close. That is to say
accoring to the measurements there is steam left over which should not be
there, and by conservation of energy cannot be there. Anyway, he said
that it seems that such a device such as Griggs would enhance this
non-linearity effect and therefore produce more energy than is supplied.
He does not have the foggiest idea where the excess energy could come
from, but simply that given what he knows about the non-linearities in the
(corrected) steam tables, that seems like a good place to start looking.
I find the idea intriguing, but as with so many other theories, it leaves
one with as many questions as it gives answers.
See also the work of Viktor Schauberger implosion energy.