Space Alliance Technology Outreach Program Click Me

I sent an email in...

Otherwise your probably wasting your money for all the effort you putting forth. Anyone can make a 100 MPG car, just make it lighter. The question is whether it's cost effective, environmentally safe, Passes Safety Requirements, etc.

I once read that Porsche AG (I did an internship in Suffenhausen in Motorenbau) was aiming for 230 mpg. I agree with 250, but that torques people off when I say that. On the back of ASME Jan 2006 there is a "car" that got 12,666 mpg. Between 25-12000 mpg there is reality. The question is how and why, and what can be applied to a real world every day utility car/truck. I have 4 patents and 7 years in sensors (worked with the inventor directly) and airbags (first passenger side production bag, Ford Taurus) and am somewhat versed in the subject. I would not use bags under the 502 rule if I were to start over on a new car design (not my goal, now). That is a long story. My engine is long and narrow, like a cigar and would fit between the front axle and rear, allowing 3-4 feet of predictable crush zone, which could be made to due a 33 G decel and perhaps save 50-90% of the lives in head ons. GM did a big study on crashes and put the cost of passenger bags at 3.9 billion/y and a value at 0.9 billion/y, which does not meet the benefit to cost ratio rule...hum. thanks for the comments...

I would read more about funding, grants, and loans. I would also read about small business models and how to develop a business model and plan.

There are hundreds of ways to set up a business and hundreds of resources you can draw on. There are retired business executives that work on a volunteer and commission basis to help you get rolling. They are called Angels. You have impossible odds against you, so start stacking the deck now and get all the muscle you can get.

Another twist is to bring key members on-board and offer a percentage of the business stock in return for their efforts. In other words, they become investors in the business and expect a return on their investment in the form of stock in the company. This can help financially.

It is wisest to draw as much funding from yourself and family before hitting the banks. Last resort is the VC (Venture Capitalists) because they are the most hungry percentage wise. However VCs have their place and are willing to bet money on higher risk startups where banks fear to tread. The bottom line is investors expect a rate of return based on risk.

Your business plan is the most important tool you can generate. The better the plan the better you will succeed in getting capital. It must be air tight!

Advertising for people on the radio is probably the worst way to cultivate talent and investors. It is too much like all of the business-get-rich scams that are everywhere. The people that work with you are your most important resource. Let me repeat. The people you work with are your most important resource. A poor business will succeed with great people, but the best business will collapse with bad people. Do your homework when selecting people, engineers, executives, and capitalists for your business. I can't say enough about harvesting the right people! I am a BIG fan of nepotism. Everyone on the team needs to trust everyone else and you as well!

Lastly, be prepared for the biggest slug–fest of your life. There is no easy way to do this. You will have moments of great joy and moments of incredible frustration. You have to make sure that your vision is correct and when you are assured of that, never let anything or anyone shake it. You may have to sell everything you own to get there, but when you succeed it can be like winning the lottery. 100% commitment to your goals and your people is just the beginning.

Good luck on your journey to the top. They say that balance is no harder on your way there, but you just have further to fall.

I spoke with a guy at DARPA who does the deciding on funding for engines. I currently work for the AF and find it "difficult" to get things done. I have an MBA and have explored to some extent what you say. I am doing real estate to fund it for now. My theory is if it does not work (I admit it is possible, of course) the VC will forclose on my house, and leave me on the street with kids and a wife screaming at me...so I don't want to go there. You are so right...the right people is key, but where are they? All my nepotism sources are professor types that are scared of risk in any form. Trust, yes, without a doubt. I already did 8 years of research on my own in aircraft (1 patent, funded by real estate, again, spent 1 mil), but found it lacked the right engine, hence the engine concept, which would work well in duty cycle terms with a scaled version (50hp peak, instead of 250 hp). I have a cousin who made lots (owns LA band width) in cell phones (took on ATT and Nextel and won), so I have the pitbull genes, and he would love the fight, just for the fun of it. My target is NOT the auto industry. CA CAFE will change the standard if someone actually drives up in a real car and demonstrates a 100 mpg car with better Nox and co emmisions. Serious. Call the head engineer in CA for CAFE standard. The auto companies have 8 years to comply. Contrary to popular lore about conspiracies, nobody has done it, accord to the chief guy I spoke with 2 years ago. He said he would be "my best friend" (you know, "we are from the government, and here to help you"...twilight zone kind of stuff). I have been at this journey since 1997 full time (airplane, then engine after I got a clue the Lycoming ain't got what it takes to do what I wanted). If I succeed I will be hiring a lot of engineers for some funnnnnnn projects. Ever heard of a "thermal stealth" jet engine? Lots of funnnnn. Great comments, thanks for the input!

I can't see 100 mpg being that far off the mark. My 1970 Fiat 850 Spyder got 65 mpg right off the showroom floor. Ok, real imperial gallons, not little US ones but still, they weren't really trying for mileage at all.

Using MPG is not a reference for the efficiency of an engine. You should consider a g/kWh diagramme.
You will find an example on the following link :
http://www.randolph-automotive.com/engine/images/S FC_diagram.GIF
The values from 250 to 500 represent g/kWh iso-specific consumption.

The mileage you can get with an engine depends on the stabilized working point of an engine where the power output is in balance with the vehicle's consumed power. According to the ratio of the transmission, the transmission efficiency, rolling drag and aerodynamic drag you will find a given MPG value.

The very best truck diesel engines of today have efficiencies of 43% and you will be able to find values up to 51% in big ship engines.

This is not in g/kWh but you can calculate it from this.

To set up an engine company at low cost you should do as much as possible with simulation. The reference tools for this in the engine industry are GT-Suite and CD-Adapco. You will be able to model your engine with the help of students at low cost and get so much progress that you will be able to discuss with car and truck companies' advanced engine development groups without spending a dime on a physical model. The software packages are considered sufficient proof for the moment by them.

Get in touch with a university and collaborate with them on this.

Protect your idea with patents during of before the work with the students.

After having found enough simulation results you can get presentations together to find funding or simply go and see your customers. Make sure your powerpoint presentations look very neat and professional. You will need to convince people that you are a professional who understands technology, who knows how to put a development programme together, and how to make customers understand that they need your engine concept. You will have to do some marketing for this and if you are not good at it find someone (student from a business school) to do it. If you have some money to spend rather find professional marketeers than professional engineers. This business is all about appearances up to the point where you have to convince engineers about the concept. A very nice example of good marketing of an engine concept can be found on http://www.scuderigroup.com/

I am working on a new engine concept as well and going this way with our company heat2power.
(www.heat2power.net) It seems to work without having a workshop, without prototypes, without spending too much money.

I wish you best of luck on attaining 160 g/kWh or better for the best operating point. If you get this kind of result let me know. I am curious to see your concept as well.

PS : 160 g/kWh is our reference and that is for all the usable power on the crankshaft. So not considering co-generation.

Yes, I use BSFC (lbs/hp-hr), but most people relate to MPG. The central issue on the BSFC curve where 100 mpg is possible can be seen on the curve shape. See http://www.deltahawkengines.com/perfor01.shtml as an example. My engine should be around .22-.25 lbs/hp-hr. .25 vs .45-51 for a gas engine is a 2:1 advantage at 75% power and there is around 1.5-3 times more over that in the 10% power range where the old technology turns up in consumption rates. The key is to make the curve flat. Fuel cells have somewhat the right curve shape to some extent, but of course, hydrogen is not the solution. My design basically will make the curve flat. How to do that is part of the puzzle. I spoke with congressman Jon Olver's assistant who got Scuderigroup their $1.2 million of tax money. I asked how I can get my 1.2 mill for my pet project and he said I had to "be his friend." (There are law against such coruption, but nobody cares. I wrote it up to the Air Force "fraud, waste, and abue" "hotline" and they did nothing) The DARPA engineer could see through the claims of Scuderigroup and tried to stop the funding. The DARPA guy (I can give you his name offline) was not happy having the Scuderigroup get the funding, espcially in light of the leverage created by an official DOD contract (read blessing) of a bogus concept. Read the fine print, and don't forget to read the claims in the patent. Any first year Mech engineer student should know the central claim is bogus. I offered to go to c. Olver's office and sit down and explain some physiscs to him, but they don't care. The 13.8 million in investor money is at risk. I looked into the simulation stuff. My engine does not fit into their canned program. The question is whether I can adapt it, or a new one is needed. I just use Excel and piece wise step it out. I don't do well with the super egos who run auto companies. The CEO is naked. They have failed to see reality, and I don't do hype Detroit style. As to cars, I just want to go to CA with the engine in an old Buick or pickup truck, even a Hummer, and have CAFE test it out. The auto guys will find me. They will have 8 years to comply with 100+ mpg. Simple. No presentation needed, no con games. I read your web page. Nice. 2000 years ago a well known "out of the box" guy said: "You can't put new wine in old bottles." After pulling the weeds out of the IC engine for 3 years, I realized that little could be reused, not even the spark plug. I tried every which way to use a v-8, lycoming, Jabiru, rotax, Hirth, radial, or some part of it, and came to the conclusion that I just wasted a lot of time. I am starting with a new bottle. Besides, the engine in a car is in the wrong place. The crash pulse (I did airbag sensors) with the block in the nose is all wrong. The engine should be in the back, like a Porsche 911, or down the middle, not in the front. There is a lot more to it than just a low BSFC. Brake recovery is very important. As the brake recovery approaches 100%, the weight of the vehicle becomes less important. If the engine can do 90+% recovery, then the car weight is not important and cheap (heavier) materials can be used. In other words, putting the effort into the engine instead of light weight structures, which in the battle of the bumpers low weight is a huge negative, the customer has the best of all worlds. Then the issue becomes drag, rolling resistance, drive trian, stationary losses, etc. That vehicle then evolves into a PAV (personal air vehicle), and my engine is designed for that mission, and the mission of power generation in a house or office. The entire auto industry is like the typewriter industry was in the 1960's. Think of hybrid-electrics as the IBM selectric. Get it? What's next. It ain't on the road. Roads have become parking lots. Time is money and people don't have time to watch the road. Mass transit is a zero when your time is worth more than $1/hr. I look forward to seeing your concept in Sept 2006. Is is similary to what BMW is doing with post processing of exhaust gases using a heat transfer system/steam engine? Thanks for the great comments.

I am a Scuderi Group investor. I feel obligated to object to your reply, seaplaneguy. I find your statements down right blasphemous. I did an enormous amount of homework before I finally decided to invest and therefore have a good deal of knowledge on this subject.

Regarding the federal funding, the Scuderi Group had to meet with numerous technical experts over the course of a few years and convince each and every one of them that the concept had enormous potential in order to receive the funding. You say that you offered to go "teach some physics" to John Olver. John Olver has a Ph.d MIT. He is not a fool and he sincerely believes that this investment is worth the risk. The person you talked to at Olver's office probably just tried to get you off the phone because they thought you were just some crackpot, and it appears that they were right. The Air Force will take no action because there is quite simply nothing to find.

If you or your DARPA engineer looked into the "simulation stuff", then where is there a flaw in the Scuderi design? Hundreds of engineers, myself included, have thoroughly analyzed it. SwRI spent 3+ man-years modeling it. Not one of these people can give a legitimate reason why the Scuderi Group's theories are wrong. You have not done so either. The Scuderi's council was exceedingly meticulous in searching for prior patents. You have not stated why the patent claims are invalid and you can't. The patent claims are clearly not obvious because of the unexpected results obtained by firing after TDC in a split-cycle engine. For example, see the prosecution history of US Patent No. 7017536, pages 11-12, filed on 11/15/2005.

You are a pessimist and you present no objective evidence. Your statements amount to nothing but slander, and, frankly they make you sound stupid.

I went back and noticed a comment made to my post. I would suggest we open a separate topic on the Scuderigroup's engine concept and get the facts out. Interested? Otherwise… As for slander, slander is verbal, libel is written.

Using unaccountable Defense Civilians engineers to bilk the USA taxpayer out of $1.2 million in order to leverage $13.8 million from private investors is what is wrong with the USA government. There are laws against it, but nobody enforces them. Having worked for the AF, I know perfectly well how corrupt it is. Being Jon Oliver's "friend" should not play any part in any funding, but was central, according to my DARPA source, and Oliver's aid, in getting funding. In fact, the USA Government has NO BUSINESS funding any such research, let alone using the reputation of the USA Defense Department as a support for a pet project. The engine, if it were valid, would stand on it's own.

The fact is, the modeling you mention only claimed a 5% increase in performance and any good "engineer" can make a model get 5% easy. Talk to global warming "scientists" about their models that are completely wrong on predicting known past data.

Your "technical experts" are being paid to say what they say, which is hardly unbiased. You obviously did not read their report. I did. The engine has no potential because it fundamentally does not address the critical questions involved in power generation and the duty cycle, not to mention thermodynamics. Saab's engine research work they did far outdoes what you hope for, for example, and it is not in a car (yet). Why?

Clearly, a mechanical linkage does not increase or create power. Linkage energy is conserved. Increasing spike torque loads is exactly what you DON't want to do. The main thrust of the patent claims completely do not understand 1st year engineering principles. The DARPA engineer laughed when I mentioned this. He "got it." He is a "career" engineer (those inside know what I am talking about), and the system is designed more as a welfare agency than as a R&D works. I read the patent and other patents like it and none have the right goal that will lead to nirvana, or at least what is claimed. I read it while picking my butt at an AF engineer "job" doing nothing but sucking off the big juicy tit of Uncle Sam. What an eye opener. Wake up, dude. The system is designed to waste money. Turf. Hiarchy. Pensions...but whatever you do, don't disturb their "peace" and make them do some real work...

The groups inventors are heavily loaded with lawyers and everything about the gig smells of lawyers. Get it? The congressmen and other law makers talk the same talk as the lawyers, hence they get the money. It is a clever spin on ripping off the USA government, the best sugar-daddy in town.

Crackpot? You just libeled me! As you know truth is 100% defense of libel. Opinions about thermodynamic models have no facts or merit in a libel case. I don't make a claim that the group is a bunch of crackpots. I claim that the patent has no advantage of merit and is worthless and will not do what they claim based on physics. These people are clearly very clever people who know how to raise money from unknowing investors, and they know how to bilk the USA taxpayer and leverage the credibility of the US military to fund their pockets. I assume they are self-deceived and I do not imply they are conmen. You seem to imply by your comments that you deep down suspect they are conmen. I assume they are honest, and state so. Either way the investor will be out his money. Physics…

As for taking no action by the AF…hmm…you don't understand how the system works. I presented a plan to save the AF $1 million/year on a very small system and I was told by the engineering supervisor over the system that saving money would cut their budget and the local congressman would not like it. Think of all defense money as a waste of money and more like welfare for the congressman's district, and the actual materials that war-fighters use are a by-product of the process. The more expensive the better. Remember, 70-80% of costs are in "sustainment" and that means long term "jobs" for a district and welfare for the middle class.

The trick is to make the object of funding (the group's engine) look good enough to have "plausible deniability" and to leverage it with private money so that when it hits the fan the idea of "partnership" seems to have saved the government's butt. Making a "mistake" in government is a career killer. Sorry investors just have to chock it up to "free enterprise."

Fact is, in the long run, the market (physics) will decide, not the congressman. Are you saying that Jon Oliver is willing to refund the $1.2 million if it does not work? Why not? Maybe he should propose legislation that requires congressmen to refund taxpayers from their own estates when bad ideas don't work. He seems to be so sure that it will work, and his Phd assures him success. I have four Phds in my wife's family and most are totally risk adverse and therefore unqualified to make spending decisions.

A bunch of Caltech people with Phds I know, who are also not "fools," spent lots ($10++ million) of money on electric car R&D, only to have overlooked passenger thermal loads that ate up 50% of the cars range. They were "experts" and highly trained…but missed the 800 lb gorilla sitting on their face. By the way I do have a Mechanical engineering Masters degree and I am an "expert" on the subject, whatever that means.

The reason the USA government is $40 trillion in debt is because congressman do not have to pay the bill when their pet projects do not work. Risk…the government does not understand it, accept it, or is accountable for it with their own pocket. They spend and decide on which projects get funding without the natural feedback loop that burns the entrepreneur if he makes a mistake. It is called "reality."

I will debate it in open forum or otherwise about the engine. I will not, however, accept (rip off) taxpayer's money to fund my pet project that will "save the world" as it were. The Scuderi group will (have). That is the big difference between me and the morals of the group and the congressman. Anybody who knows the AF regulation knows they have violated the spirit of the rules. Game the system and the cash is large and deep…and nobody cares, in fact, they are jelious they don't have the money...

As for me being "pessimistic," I don't know about you but I have put more than the $1.2 million in time, money and effort into my pet projects without government funding. Have you? I put my money where my mouth is, and I have not presented myself for any investor funding. To me that says volumes and is the substance of an optimistic person. I don't use USA taxpayers to fund my work. Using other people's money is perhaps the most pessimistic thing a person can say about a project. Whenever I hear of grant money, I know the people are pessimistic and are looking to transfer risk to taxpayers or duped investors.

When you go to DARPA for money, they own you. Why would you want the government involved if you were truly optimistic about it? This is what I was told by DARPA. You clearly don't know the beast (system)…"we are from the government and are here to help you"…run for you lives!

Finally, I do know what it will take to get 100+mpg on a Humvee (which is what the group got their funding in part from). The thermodynamic requirements are quite different than what Scuderigroup has in mind. Their idea is a dead end in many respects when you know the end game. Since you did not ask me in your search in doing your "homework" you did not have my opinion, and therefore your research was limited. As Rumsfeld likes to say inpart, "you don't know what you don't know." There in is the risk...

Good luck on your "investment." Piece of advice...get out while you can...

If you would like to discuss this offline, great, but don't libel me as you have. It makes you sound like a crackpot…hey you invested in the idea…says a lot about you…

Please tell me this isn't a serious comment.

Even the slightest amount of due diligence would reveal that the prototype does not even utilize the technology in the patent you are referring to. Moreover, everything thinking human being realizes that patent drawings do not have to be perfect in every way.

You are either an utter fool or have a personal grudge. Do some actual homework and think for a few minutes before you go spreading defamatory comments that laymen may actually take to heart. It will help you stop embarrasing yourself.

I am an engine designer with many of my own issued patents (many of which are products that are being used) and I have a basic problem with the Scuderi Patents and the computer models which predict extremely optimistic BSFC (fuel economy) and emmision level achievements. When he was alive the original inventor of this latest version of the split cycle concept esatblished that it would operate in the area of 8.5 to 10.0 to 1 compression ratio. And, that compression ratio is what is reflected in his first two patents. Then, after his death the referenced compression ratio is raised to levels as high as 100 to 1. Admitidly, at that high of a compression ratio you could see effeciency improvements as high as about 35% (which I believe the Scuderi Group claims), and that compression ratio would be a major input in the computer model which woulod defeintely screw the result to a very high efficiency result. However, with all that we know about the thermal reactive characteristics of carbon based fuels (gasoline, diesel, propane/cng, etc), and realizing the high surface metal temperatures of the constantly firing Scuderi power cylinder, it will not be possible to operate the engine's cylinders at the 100 to 1 compression ratio. In fact, specifically referencing gasoline, the highest practicle compression ratio I have ever seen operate (without detonating through the top land area of the piston) is 16.5 to 1, without damage. And, that was accomplished by using the most advanced combustion chamber cooling technology known (a state of the art unique new cooling technology) in order to avoid detonation. Therefore, I think it is totally irrational, and unrealistic, to use any compression ratio beyond the 12.0 to 1 ratio in South West computer model of the Scuderi engine, even with the spark ignition point being moved to fire the cylinder charge "after top dead center" (another feature I have a lot of problems with, but that would be a seperate discussion). I would like to see Scuderi, and Southwest Research, produce their Thermal Dynamic studys which quantatively establish the metal temperatures would be maintained at a level which would not cause detonation, or uncontroled dieseling of the cylinder. I am not saying that the engine will not operate, after they finally get a prototype working, I just firmly believe that when the engine design finally winds up with a usable compression ratio of no more than 12.0 to 1, then the effeciency levels seen will be no more than the engine we presently have operating. That is my educated opinion.

I think you will have trouble getting competent engineering people to work for you on the promise of something you say will work but will only divulge incomplete pieces to any given person presumably in order to maintain control of the yet un patented design. If I can't see it and asses it to be a workable scheme then I would not be willing to invest my time even with some immediate compensation and a promise of a piece of the pie later. There are so many ways there may never be a later. I would be more inclined to work on my own hair brained scheme if it were to have an equally unlikelihood of paying off.

I agree. A friend of mine (mech engineer) took many hours of one on one casual conversations before he saw what I was up to. He "got it" last weekend. He will work with me on it now. Me thinks the consultant thing would not work like you say. That is why I posed the question. What would work though? Is a formal company with a formal job the ONLY way to do it? Thanks for the comments

When you invest in something, you expect to acquire a commensurate degree of ownership. Since the whole idea of an investment is the hope of an eventual payoff, it is generally understood that there are going to be associated risks. Without a legal arrangement and structure you not only assume the risk that it might not work or will work but no one cares but that if it does become successful you may not get your share. So you probably need the legal structure of a corporation or an LLC that I can say I own a percentage of and that increases my faith that I will be involved to a degree that I will get what is promised. Otherwise, I need to be unemployed and you have a job for me and I am willing to risk that it may have a finite term or you have to pay me enough to lure me away from current occupations knowing again that it may not last. In either of the these two cases of course the promise of a share of the success can be extra motivation but not unless it is assured by some legal instrument. Any time one invests, the smart investor wants to know the details of what he is getting into. You can use nondisclosures to provide some protection but you must assume some risk. If you have been diligent in your documentation (crucial if you understand patents) then there isn't much risk someone will steal it out from under you. There are endless examples of inventors who won't let anyone look in their "black box" and it usually turns out they are deluded or outright dishonest. Disclosure is essential to the people you need and everyone needs to be protected. Good luck!

What an opportunity! I'd like to know more about what you're up to.

Yeah, sounds interesting. I would like to know more also or at least start a journal here and keep us updated. I am a chemical engineer but was an auto mechanic for 13 years before going to college, and always interested in new developing technology. I wish you great sucess and you can always post questions here for help.

I wonder if you can get your 10-20 engineers out of Sologig.com. I've never used it, but I get plenty of e-mails from them. I'm an ME, but have no experience with IC engine design. I liked heat transfer stuff in college, but have ended up doing trailer products at the moment. I wish you luck in your enterprise.

"..that I know will work."
"It ain't what you 'know` that will hurt you,
it's what you 'know` that ain't so." - W. Rodgers
Nobody's going to buy a statement such as you make
without some back-up.

I would make a working scale model I followed a guy that was working on a new concept engine for burning methain gasses from landfills .Send me an email and I'll tell you about it .I'm in Massachusetts if your in my area I'd help .

I am a PhD student at the university of Michigan working in the realm of simulation of combustion in diesels.

I saw your post while I was on Google searching some topic. What is the status of your idea. Hope you have had luck to get funding and people working on it. Are you still looking for people?

If yes, then ill be interested if i am convinced about your idea. I take it that you must have patented the idea. If yes, can you send the patents documents/ patents numbers so that i can take a look at it myself

vishnu

vrn@umich.edua