An old ad Daniel -
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
Stoker : you present an excellent amount of thought and research on the Solar #1.
I hope to not offend , but I humbly state that I do not concur with some of your conclusions.
Foremost, may I point out that there is yet no evidence presented that any such company is now known, or has been known, as Thermal Energy Engines of Phoenix Arizona.
The markings on a metal base stating “Thermal Energy Engines Phoenix Arizona” (note absence word ‘of’ ) do not necessarily mean there was an incorporated company by that name.
A USA registered patent , or trademark, or better yet the essential Arizona business incorporation and associated Phoenix business address would go far in proving such a company existed. The people at the US Internal Revenue Service are quite sensitive in getting taxes paid on even such a thing as a mundane toy engine, and therefore the IRS does insist that a company have contact info and addresses where tax money can be squeezed from said such company.
I have done a superficial search of 1970’s Phoenix census records, 1976-77 Phoenix & Maricopa phone books, and 1975-78 Phoenix business directories and have yet to find any Thermal Energy Engines listed. BUT my search results are very limited by scattered internet databases. It once was a good source of data research to simply call a local Phoenix library to see if they could assist, but the current virus plague has severely limited that route. You may have better luck than me, and thus you may yet prove the existence of TEEPA.
For now, at this early research stage , may I suggest the Occam’s Razor research principle “entities should not be multiplied without necessity” ?
All good points Jasper ... but I'll continue to list Thermal Energy Engines, as it seems entirely unreasonable to think that someone would build or alter a mold, and have that name molded into more than some 6,000 of them, if they never existed as some form of an entity, thus adding them as such an entity to the chain is entirely reasonable, while as corollary, it would be unthinkable deleting them from the chain of provenance, given the physical evidence extant!
Now, I am willing to entertain the proposition that they likely never sold a single unit under that name, and became, got bought up by, or otherwise changed names to Solar Engines, before any significant marketing took place, which is not uncommon in the small business world. Similarly, it is likely that they never possessed an actual business address under the Thermal Energy Engines moniker, and quite possibly never took out a business license under that name either.
It is fairly certain that we will never know the whole story behind the who, what or why of Thermal Energy Engines of Phoenix Arizona. However, we do have indisputable evidence that somebody thought that would be THE name to be associated with the updated Solar #1 Stirling Cycle engine in its infancy, and as such they will be included in my thumbnail history.
Please do feel free to create your view of this history, to conform to your own ideas, as we all must.
All good points Jasper ... but I'll continue to list Thermal Energy Engines, as it seems entirely unreasonable to think that someone would build or alter a mold, and have that name molded into more than some 5,000 of them, if they never existed as some form of an entity, thus adding them as such an entity to the chain is entirely reasonable, while as corollary, it would be unthinkable deleting them from the chain of provenance, given the physical evidence extant!
Now, I am willing to entertain the proposition that they likely never sold a single unit under that name, and became, got bought up by, or otherwise changed names to Solar Engines, before any significant marketing took place, which is not uncommon in the small business world. Similarly, it is likely that they never possessed an actual business address under the Thermal Energy Engines moniker, and quite possibly never took out a business license under that name either.
It is fairly certain that we will never know the whole story behind the who, what or why of Thermal Energy Engines of Phoenix Arizona. However, we do have indisputable evidence that somebody thought that would be THE name to be associated with the updated Solar #1 Stirling Cycle engine in its infancy, and as such they will be included in my thumbnail history.
Please do feel free to create your view of this history, to conform to your own ideas, as we all must.
Stoker: As this is , as others in this thread have mentioned, your “Bible” or “doctorate” I understand this is your “view of history”.
I have never written a Bible, but I have done thesis and dissertation, and even I founded a business. I will leave this thread before I get cancelled, or the thread again get’s locked. But as parting thoughts may I proffer the fact that I just acquired a Solar #1 engine, with matching serial numbered Ross book and frame #61** , and a Dec 1977 letter signed by John I. Griffin, with “Thermal Energy Engines Phoenix Arizona” on engine base. To me , 6000+ of these didn't need to be made to number this one as another entity , the simplest conclusion (Occam’s Razor) to me is that it was consecutively numbered with my other 1977 Solar Engine. Two bases and a few differences, one company.
Now it is finally time to delve into the origin mystery surrounding the Solar #1 Stirling Cycle engine.
I have long thought that the Solar #1 must somehow be a descendant of the British built Davies Charlton Ltd. Hot Air Engine. Certainly the looks alone, right down to overall layout and even color scheme, scream relationship. And so I have always been on the lookout trying to find one of these rather elusive engines, at a price I could tolerate. It took a very long time, but luck finally smiled, sort of, and eBay provided an example that seemed in unusually good condition .... and on this side of the pond even.
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
It is clearly a very low mileage example, but there is a reason for that, and a reason why it wasn't as expensive as I usually see them selling for either .... it was broken at one of the flywheel shaft bearing ears.
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
I initially did think that a little JB Weld and perhaps a bit of brass tubing would resolve the issue, but upon receipt I found the situation to be irremediable if not wholly irredeemable ... but more on that later. If nothing else, it would provide me with a good example for dimensional examination and comparison purposes, and so it has!
Upon my initial examination, I was immediately taken by the fact that virtually everything about the Davies Charlton engine was notably smaller than the corresponding part on the Solar #1. Often not much smaller, but universally somewhat smaller in essentially every comparable feature that could be measured. This disappointed me to no end, as it was pretty well putting my theory of direct lineage down the drain, and was most certainly devastating to my presumption of the new American company having acquired the tooling from the old British company.
However, after checking comparative dimensioning on most all of the individual parts, I started taking some of the critical dimensions on the general layout of the overall design ... and low and behold, significant correlations were found in all of the key elements of the overall design layout. The length of throw between the power piston and the flywheel shaft, the distance between the flywheels and the distance between the center-lines of the displacer and power piston cylinder bores were exactly the same, as were the throw of the crank-pins on the flywheels. Another pair of dimensions that were critically the same were the screw spacing that mount the engine to the frame, and also that mount the frame to the base. There is no way that these critical design elements could have been created the same on two different units by coincidence, but must of necessity be elements of the same original design!
There is no reason for a new company, that is only generally copying the visual appearance of a pre-existing design (with some changes), would need to adhere to any of the specific layout dimensions, especially when changing the physical size of most all of the individual components in the process. Yet they did just that. Virtually every individual component of the Solar #1 is at least slightly larger than its DC counterpart, yet the key operational dimensions of the design have remained unchanged.
Let me now digress back to the damaged frame of the Davies Charlton Ltd. Hot Air engine, as that frame represents what I believe to be the key element in determining the lineage of the design of the Solar #1.
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
As you can see, the original thought of a little JB Weld was made moot by the actualities of the condition of the frame itself. Clearly possessed of inordinate amounts of "sink and shrink", it is clear that this part was cast/molded out of a wholly inferior alloy, and likely with an inadequate process, for the purposes intended! The term "pot metal" fits what is seen here, though there are wide ranging specifics to various forms depending on alloy composition. The frame has some real weight to it, so I suspect that this particular pot metal is likely based on a lead/zinc alloy, and generally speaking those two metals do not get along with each other all that well. No telling what other metals may be thrown into the pot, either intentionally or as contaminates, but clearly whatever is going on here is very wrong! Interestingly, though the base is larger and thinner, it only shows some heavy flow and a little sink, but no obvious shrinking nor cracking, though it does seem to be made of a different alloy that is less dense, and may in fact be based on aluminum.
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
A point to be noted concerning the base is the hand stamped lettering pressed into the underside reading "Made in Great Britain", as opposed to the Solar #1 iterations having raised lettering cast in.
So to wrap this entry up, let me say that I am now convinced that the Solar #1 is the direct descendant of the Davies Charlton Ltd. Hot Air Engine, and that I do believe the original tooling changed hands as well, and not just rights to the design. Here is my thinking on this:
Because the DC castings/moldings were made from pot metals that were prone to catastrophic failures, the new company would have chosen to rework the molds so that they could be used with pressure injected alloys of greater homogeneity and strength. In the process of having a machinist rework those molds all individual part dimensions would have necessarily increased, but the dimensional layout would have had to be retained, which would not be the case if entirely new tools were built. While clearly not a certainty, this is my surmise, and I now feel fully justified in that as I offer the following photo as proof of concept!
Here is my Davies Charlton Ltd. Hot Air Engine reassembled on a Solar #1's frame, and all I did to accomplish this was to drill out the screw holes in the engine web and base to the next larger size (approx. .020"), from the DC self tapping 5-48 to accommodate the Solar #1's frame drilled and tapped 6-32 holes ... locations were an exact match!!!
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
It appears that the Red Frame portion of the Solar 1 engine may offer the best easy visual guide to which era an engine truly represents, in the early years of production.
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
Type 1 frame; If you will note that in the photo above, the engine frame farthest away is the Davies Charlton Hot Air Engine Frame.
Type 2 frame; The frame in the middle is numbered in the 56xx range, and is from an engine with a Thermal Energy Engines - Phoenix Arizona, and also found with Phoenix Arizona - Solar Engines without an R (in circle), marked bases.
Type 3 frame; While the bottom frame is representative of everything produced more recently than that, including Phoenix Arizona - Solar Engines with an R (in circle) and Made In USA - Solar Engines with an R (in circle)= PM Research, Wellsville, NY.
Notable similarities and differences:
1.) The DC frame is cast in a mold showing very little if any pressure injection, is rife with flaws commonly associated with low grade pot metals, such as sink, shrink and fractures to the point of crumbling. It is made of a rather heavy alloy that likely has some fair percentage of Lead and Zinc, but is probably lacking much in the way of Tin, as that would have tended to allow for better performance. Just guesses as to composition really, but somewhat educated guess for all that. Likely, this one's frame flaws is an anomaly, and not representative of overall production, but the process and materials are clearly marginal, even when they more typically produce better parts. There are no ejector pin marks evident on this frame, which again speaks to a low pressure, likely gravity feed, molding process, that may better be described as enclosed casting. While the flywheel bearing "ears" are prominently buttressed on the outside surface, the inside is just a straight wall. The engine mount surface is 1.00" above the base and has two small holes, possibly molded in that accepted self-tapping 5-48 screws about 1/2" long, and just 1" apart. The holes for the flywheel axle bearings are .312" diameter located 1.110 above the frames base. The holes in the bottom of the frame for mounting to the base plate are also sized for self-tapping 5-48 screws, spaced along the center-line of the frame 2.5" apart starting about 5/16th of an inch from the axle end of the frame.
2.) The TEE frame shows marked evidence of superior materials and process, showing a perfectly filled surface without any signs of sink, shrink or structural flaws. There are now apparent, four pronounced ejector pin marks on the reinforcement ribs which form an "X" in the inside bottom of the frame, strongly suggesting transition to an actual closed pressure injection process, using superior alloys that are much stronger, lighter in weight and more cohesively packed out, better filling the mold. Oddly, while the engine mount surface remains 1.00" above the base, with the same mount hole spacing, the "ears" are now a bit lower, with the center-line of the flywheel axle just 1.070" above the base, probably caused by a determination that with the new materials and process the base of the frame didn't need to be so thick anymore, which turned out to be a mistake requiring shims be placed under the frame to lift it off the base far enough to clear the flywheels, whose diameters had been increased as well, but more on that later. The screw holes in the bottom of the frame for mounting to the base plate are also still at 2.5" spacing, but start about 1/8" further from the axle end of the frame, though some variance is noted, suggesting that these holes or pilots for them are not molded in, but rather drilled and tapped (6-32) in a second operation, likely fixture controlled, but often those fixtures allow for some deviation in set-up.
3.) The final frame configuration offers all of the upgrades featured in the previous listing, and the same mount hole sizes and spacing's, but corrected the too low height of the flywheel axle bearing holes so that shims would no longer be required for flywheel clearance on the base. A feature that was added at this time was an inner buttress to the ears, thus slightly thickening the ears, the draft of which suggests that the cavity in the mold was deepened using an EDM process. This inner buttress is a key diagnostic for this latest generation of frames.
Note:
There are some exceptions to these observations so far noted, that will be dealt with in a follow up post.