Steam Engine Correspondence/SolarAndThermal.com

The following correspondence was made with Paul Passarelli of SolarAndTermal.com:

=Paul Passerelli, July 8, 2011=

Gentlemen,

I see you're looking for a low-cost steam engine technology. The S&T hot gas engine may be a superior solution than the Cyclone derived expander you're trying to achieve via open-source efforts.

The S&T engine as currently executed is a hermetically sealed machine intended to contain anhydrous ammonia. A water-steam powered cycle is possible an could potentially be build with lower cost bronze bushings instead of the anti-friction bearings we currently specify. (Yes, I'm much more of an engineer than a sales / corporate type)

Of course, since S&T is a commercial venture, our interest would be in the manufacturing of these engines in quantity for your intended distribution targets. We would also consider the licensing of the technology to other manufacturers. (But, without some business there would be no progress and civilization would collapse.)

I too have a background in the software world. Back in the 80's-90's we developed tools and provided full commented source code. I just thought you might appreciate that tidbit. The S&T engine has a rather simple design, that's o say it's been called a "flat-forehead" idea... i.e. you'll knock your open palm against your forehead once you see the design and say: "I should have thought of that!".

Perhaps our mutual interests are set to intersect at this moment in time...

Regards,

--Paul

Solar & Thermal Paul Passarelli President Paul@SolarAndThermal.com (203)846-2500 The Light is Green!

=Mark Norton, July 20, 2011=

Mr.Passarelli:

Thank you for bringing your Ammonia Generator Engine to our attention. I had a look at your web site and the price list at http://solarandthermal.com/511_price_list.htm. Your price per Watt figures do seem to be quite competitive at $5.00/W up to 125kW and less after that. Your designs are quite innovative, which I assume are protected by patents.

That said, I do not believe that Open Source Ecology is interested in licensing or re-selling your products at this time (or any time, for that matter). The "Open Source" in OSE refers to our belief that technology like steam engines should be free and open to anyone capable of operating the equipment necessary to fabricate the parts. Our eventual goal is to be able to generate power in the pennies/Watt range - indeed - virtually free after the initial investment (maintenance costs aside).

We are in the process of developing a design that we believe will be very inexpensive to build (a few hundred dollars), easy to repair, modular in nature, and capable of being scaled up to what ever horsepower requirements are needed. Likely it will be targeted at smaller installations like homes, neighborhoods, and small villages.

OSE wishes you and your products success in the market. Everyone needs cheaper power drawn from renewable, non-polluting sources and you are clearly trying to do your part to fulfill that need.

- Mark Norton - OSE Steam Engine Project

=Paul Passarelli, July 11, 2011=

Hi Mark,

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I interpreted your goal as planting the seeds of civilization. I implied that there would be a certain level on specialization rather that complete independence/anarchy. While at some level I want every household to be equipped with a solar powered genset, I do not aspire to living in a "civilization" where everyone faces the necessity of generating their own power.

Having reviewed your "village building kit" list I can't imagine a more wasteful situation than every household being fully equipped. Open Source is a wonderful concept, but so is Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS). If your goal is pennies per watt, then I can almost guarantee that the solutions you will obtain are going to be less than optimal. The opportunity cost of deploying a sub-optimal system, will if solved for, demonstrate the fallacy of "free energy".

A system that costs $1.00/Watt that yields energy worth $100/day is in the long run worth far more than a system that costs $0.05/Watt and only yields energy worth $10/day even though the the capital outlay is 1/20th as much. The latter system wastes $90/day when compared to the 1st.

The S&T products optimize the ROI when the goal is maximum value and a reasonable time to break-even are sought. Our systems produce 'prompt' power when the sun shines. I interpreted your requirements as needing 'on demand' power i.e. fuel derived. That is why the proposal I sent hinted at a modified design. I also noted that you have explored the Cyclone Power concept into your 'requirements'. While certain aspects of Cyclone are innovative, their basic "steam engine" design contains many shortcomings and even a few flaws (IMHO).

Perhaps at some point in the future, if you should choose to re-evaluate the requirements for your kit's steam engine and weigh the value of the solution instead of the altruism of the proposal you might recontact Solar & Thermal. History shows that steam is a power source that can be harnessed even with primitive technology. The S&T system relies on high precision manufacturing to maximize the value it returns. It simultaneously allows rather loose tolerances which is our 'secret sauce' that allows the company to produce an affordable product.

I can also appreciate your desire for a repairable system. But I believe you'll discover that the ultimate incentive to keeping a genset up and running isn't making it easy (or cheap) to repair, but rather the desire to have the machine producing revenue for it's owners. Again math proves useful. A $10 repair that takes the $10/day system down for 2 days appears to cost $30 but wastes $200 worth of energy. A $200 repair that takes 20 min wastes $30 of energy, but keeps the customers powered up and mitigates losses.

In the beginning, my goal was homes. I quickly discovered the advantages of larger installations; the mathematics tell the whole story.

Steam engines are in the public domain, but that doesn't mean that there are sufficient entities out there capable, and willing, to manufacture them... S&T is one of those entities, but as I indicated we are a business that needs to cover expenses and make a profit.

Regards,

--Paul

=Mark Norton, July 11, 2011=

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I interpreted your goal as planting the seeds of civilization.

While there is some of that, the goals are more flexible. It includes improving the standard of living of existing communities, building intentional communities, etc.

I implied that there would be a certain level on specialization rather that complete independence/anarchy.

Even if we wanted to escape our global civilization - it is neither possible nor especially desirable. Anarchy is not the intent. We do intend to pursue an "economy of abundance" rather than one that is based on the existing "economy of scarcity". Your approach to developing solar gensets falls into that later category: you have certain intellectual assets that you control via patents, "secret sauces", etc. OSE believes that access to information empowers us all to improve our lives. > While at some level I want every household to be equipped with a solar powered genset, I do not aspire to living in a "civilization" where everyone faces the necessity of generating their own power.

Nor to I. OSE envisions processes occurring at different levels of scale. Likely, power generation will be shared by clusters of families or the whole village.

Having reviewed your "village building kit" list I can't imagine a more wasteful situation than every household being fully equipped. Open Source is a wonderful concept, but so is Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS). If your goal is pennies per watt, then I can almost guarantee that the solutions you will obtain are going to be less than optimal. The opportunity cost of deploying a sub-optimal system, will if solved for, demonstrate the fallacy of "free energy".

While I see your point, my response is: optimal for whom? Our solutions are aimed at individuals, small groups, and small communities. Optimization requires an understanding of the trade-offs, as well. I think we are willing to trade some efficiency for the ability to easily maintain and repair the system - without going back to the manufacturer for expensive parts or services.

A system that costs $1.00/Watt that yields energy worth $100/day is in the long run worth far more than a system that costs $0.05/Watt and only yields energy worth $10/day even though the the capital outlay is 1/20th as much. The latter system wastes $90/day when compared to the 1st.

Quite true - if the math goes that way. What if the system costs $0.05 and generates energy worth $80/day? Not as powerful as the commercial system - which might be considered a waste, unless the larger picture is considered.

The S&T products optimize the ROI when the goal is maximum value and a reasonable time to break-even are sought.

As I explain above, our goals go beyond maximum value and ROI.

Our systems produce 'prompt' power when the sun shines. I interpreted your requirements as needing 'on demand' power i.e. fuel derived. That is why the proposal I sent hinted at a modified design.

While power on demand would be useful, we are also exploring energy storage systems that will allow time-shifting of production vs. consumption.

I also noted that you have explored the Cyclone Power concept into your 'requirements'. While certain aspects of Cyclone are innovative, their basic "steam engine" design contains many shortcomings and even a few flaws (IMHO).

You are implying that we are interested in using the Cycline Power engines. Not the case. We've been in contact with Harry Schoell and he's given us a bit of help and a few pointers. The other reason to study engines like the Cyclone and S&T's is to avoid legal complications by accidental infringements of patents. Patents are part of the foundation of the Scarcity Based Economy, but are also legally enforceable. We have no desire to be the target of a lawsuit. As such, it would be of use to us to know if your technology is patented (or pending) and the numbers so that we might avoid infringement.

Perhaps at some point in the future, if you should choose to re-evaluate the requirements for your kit's steam engine and weigh the value of the solution instead of the altruism of the proposal you might recontact Solar & Thermal. History shows that steam is a power source that can be harnessed even with primitive technology. The S&T system relies on high precision manufacturing to maximize the value it returns. It simultaneously allows rather loose tolerances which is our 'secret sauce' that allows the company to produce an affordable product.

All things are possible and I'll keep your kind offer in mind as we progress.

I can also appreciate your desire for a repairable system. But I believe you'll discover that the ultimate incentive to keeping a genset up and running isn't making it easy (or cheap) to repair, but rather the desire to have the machine producing revenue for it's owners.

Heck, no one said it would be easy. It's a goal we think worth striving for.

Again math proves useful. A $10 repair that takes the $10/day system down for 2 days appears to cost $30 but wastes $200 worth of energy. A $200 repair that takes 20 min wastes $30 of energy, but keeps the customers powered up and mitigates losses.

Perhaps so, but the same logic applies to waiting for 3 day for a part to arrive from S&T.

In the beginning, my goal was homes. I quickly discovered the advantages of larger installations; the mathematics tell the whole story.

There are other organizations that are exploring concepts similar to ours applied to larger scales - such as whole cities.

Steam engines are in the public domain, but that doesn't mean that there are sufficient entities out there capable, and willing, to manufacture them...

True. Eventually, OSE will offer a range of solutions: make it yourself, built it from a kit, or buy it off the shelf. However, it is very important to have the choice.

S&T is one of those entities, but as I indicated we are a business that needs to cover expenses and make a profit.

We wish you success and profit. Truly.

- Mark

=Paul Passarelli, July 11, 2011=

Hi Mark,

There is only one issue that I couldn't resist commenting on. You said:

Quite true - if the math goes that way. What if the system costs $0.05 and generates energy worth $80/day? Not as powerful as the commercial system - which might be considered a waste, unless the larger picture is considered.

While the comparison is correct, the likelihood, the chance, the possibility of a system costing 5% of the commercial price and yielding 80% of the net isn't even between 'slim' and 'none'... it is truly non-existent. At least in the real world. I noted on my website that one of the risks that S&T faced as a business entity was if ET landed and presented us with Mr. Fusion or other such technological miracles.

I see this as a strong parallel. Only if a technology is developed that let's folks "will into existence" parts, and assemblies for an engine can the cost be driven as low as you're hoping for. The concrete pad that a generator has to sit on adds perhaps 1/2 cent / Watt to the installed cost of the machine. For my $1.00/Watt machine it's a pittance, for your $0.05/Watt machine it becomes 10% of the cost.

Additionally, the difference in reliability between a factory made machine is profound. A village forge & foundry could make the parts, but without sophisticated testing those parts *will* break, wear, and fail, pretty regularly (100 hrs was common into the 30's & 40's for some steel parts). A NDT and inspected part from a S&T machine will reliably last 100,000 hours (that's 50 years of sunshine)

There is one major consideration. S&T systems are intended to operate into a mature infrastructure, US, Europe, Japan, Australia, etc... While a S&T system would function perfectly in a third world environment, the portion of the value proposition that deals with capital ROI is far less clear. Would some remote village benefit from having "nearly free" electricity for 8-10 hours per day? Well, yes, but would they be able to maximize the value? If they install refrigeration to preserve medicine & food, then the answer is probably yes. If they use it to air-condition the local warlords C+C than the answer is probably no. Again, reality is somewhere in between.

Just out of curiosity, who is funding your efforts? And who are the beneficiaries of your work products? If you backers came from the commercial world, I'd ask you to discuss our exchange with them, as I believe they will appreciate the points I've made. 1% of a $1 billion goes much further than any % of $50k. In other words, we can do far more to assist your project by meeting our commercial goals 1st and then redirecting than by redirecting and hoping someone else will carry the water.

Have a better one,

--Paul

=Mark Norton, July 11, 2011=

Paul:

the possibility of a system costing 5% of the commercial price and yielding 80% of the net isn't even between 'slim' and 'none'...it is truly non-existent.

That might be true, I hope it's not. I believe your assessment is based on the degree of precision that needs to be applied to power devices like a steam engine. Seals require very smooth and tight fitting connections, moving parts require tight tolerances, etc. OSE is aware of these requirements and is working to address them.

if ET landed and presented us with Mr. Fusion

We have our own version of such an event: nano-technology assemblers. No one is counting on that any time soon, however.

Only if a technology is developed that let's folks "will into existence" parts, and assemblies for an engine can the cost be driven as low as you're hoping for.

Suppose it were possible to download the model of a part from the internet (free of charge), loaded into a special 3D printer, and a couple of hours later, the part was done - ready to use? Such printers exist at this time for printing parts in plastic. More advanced versions of these printers are being developed to print in glass, ceramics, and even metal. Not available at this time, but we are talking a few years, not decades.

Just out of curiosity, who is funding your efforts?

OSE derives its funding from individual and institutional contributions and grants. Our funding is sufficient to meet our near term goals.

- Mark Norton