Yet Another Great Invention ?

In this video, Mueller says that in two years they will have the 25 kW engine running and driving a generator, and that he would like to see people driving a hybrid SUV powered by it in three years -- in other words today.

Given that the Jetta diesel engine peaks at 42% efficiency, even if 60% efficiency were possible with this engine (which seems completely unlikely, given Carnot efficiency limits) the gains he talks about (90% reduction in emissions) seem far- fetched (especially because the pressure peaks from a shock wave would tend to increase, not decrease NOx emissions, and because CO2 emission are tied to engine efficiency -- which if one its to believe the hype, would be less than 50% better.)

It seems so incredible that such a simple engine can take so long to build. I don't have millions to spend, but can still build a complicated recip engine from scratch in a few months, even when it requires outsourcing cam grinding, piston casting, etc. Any competent cnc machinist can make this turbine in a couple afternoons.

Garage inventors are often held up by funding (just ask me). But this is fully-funded project with nothing to show.

I'd be really impressed if he could show a real engine running at a real 30% efficiency. It that too much to ask? Instead of the hype, it would be great to see an animation of flow and pressure through one turbine chamber, showing how this shock wave is supposed to work, etc. At a university you could have a grad student do this for free.

The outlandish claims and bad math make this hard to believe, as does the fact that a real demo engine doing something real seems to be always just around the corner. The 25 kW version was to have been running a year ago. When did this first show up in CR4 -- 2009? (Yes -- I checked. He was talking about his 25 kW version in 2009. How can you burn through millions of Darpa money and not have an engine to show for it? How can you claim that it is incredibly simple to build, but impossible to build at the same time?)

A 30% reduction in weight of the 309 lb engine in (for example) a Honda Civic is a 93 lb reduction. The Civic weighs 2400 lb. 93 lb is 4.6%, not the 20% that the article claims.

Further, the actual weight of the car should be expected to increase, not decrease, because it is proposed as a hybrid. The Civic is 2400 lb and the slightly smaller first generation Prius was 2800lb. Hybridization has advantages (I am, after all, the designer of a hybrid) but weight saving is not one of them.

The article (and many articles promoting non-reciprocating engines) also incorrectly states that stopping and starting (or accelerating and decelerating) reciprocating parts uses a lot of energy. Remove the piston rings and heads from an engine and it can be motored over quite fast with a very small motor. The losses (in a complete engine) are from friction, heat losses from compression, combustion heat losses, etc.

It is equally incorrect to say, about a rotary engine: "Imagine how much energy is used in constantly changing the direction of each piece of the turbine! Any turbine blade is traveling east in one instant, and then travelling west in the next!"

Or, about a pendulum: "This can never work! The pendulum accelerates to a high speed and then comes to a complete stop! Imagine the energy loss with every single cycle!"

Also there is no obvious way to measure the efficiency of this combustion outside the turbine so how can they make credible claims about CO² emissions?

An optimist might say: "Well they are trying to maintain secrecy, and that is why they are saying nothing other than unsupportable claims." But they seem to be all about getting the word (hype) out -- they are anything but secret. "We'll give you outlandish claims, but no real data." they seem to say.

I am developing an engine-generator unit (which happens to be for the same purpose -- but for a smaller vehicle). It too runs at essentially constant speed, and is optimized to do so. Getting real numbers from this is incredibly easy even in a small, one-man-show, underfunded shop.) I know my generator efficiency curve. I measure fuel in, electrical power out, loading the generator with a bunch of water heater elements. Unbelievably easy. $2.5 million not needed.

If you were really interested in making something of this (and not just hyping it for grant money) would you not at least provide real numbers that someone like me can make sense of. I'm a near-perfect candidate, with a small plug-in hybrid proof-of-concept already on the road. A small. light, simple, efficient engine would have real value for me in production. (And would not require the complete $1,000,000,000 reengineering of an SUV to support serial hybrid operation. The $1,000,000,000 spent on the Prius design should be small potatoes in comparison.) Give me an 6kW version, and I can test it in my "lab" and on the road.

But no. There is nothing they say that leads me to think that the thing should work as advertised. Nothing they have said gives an actual efficiency number of the engine itself -- it is always conflated with the fuel-to-wheels efficiency of the whole vehicle, which has no utility for someone engineering a vehicle -- who presumably would be the market for this.

Programs like SBIR and ARPA can do some good. If only...

Dear EC and all,

I am always intrigued by "new" ideas, but also most cautious of them.
First, not being aware of what ARPA-E was, I did some checking ... below is an excerpt from Wikipedia ...

Legislative history

The concept of ARPA-E was initially conceived by a report by the National Academies entitled Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future. The report recognized a U.S. need to stimulate innovation and develop clean, affordable, and reliable energy.^[1] ARPA-E was officially created by the America COMPETES Act within the United States Department of Energy (DOE) in 2007, though without a budget. The initial budget of about $400 million was a part of the economic stimulus bill of February 2009.^[2] ARPA-E was authorized but without an initial budget until it received $400 million of funding in February 2009 through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act). Then in early January 2011, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 made additional changes to ARPA-E's structure; this structure is codified in Title 42, Chapter 149, Subchapter XVII, § 16538 of the United States Code.

Among its main provisions, Section 16538 provides that ARPA-E shall achieve its goals through energy technology projects by doing the following:

1. Identifying and promoting revolutionary advances in fundamental and applied sciences;
2. Translating scientific discoveries and cutting-edge inventions into technological innovations; and
3. Accelerating transformational technological advances in areas that industry by itself is not likely to undertake because of technical and financial uncertainty.

[edit]Mission

Like DARPA does for military technology, ARPA-E is intended to fund high-risk, high-reward research that might not otherwise be pursued because there is a relatively high risk of failure.^[3] Like DARPA, it is intended to fund projects involving government labs, private industry, and universities. ARPA-E has four objectives:

1. To bring a freshness, excitement, and sense of mission to energy research that will attract the U.S.'s best and brightest minds;
2. To focus on creative, transformation energy research that the industry cannot, or will not. support due to its high risk, but that has high reward potential;
3. To utilize an ARPA-like organization that is flat, nimble, and sparse, capable of sustaining for long periods of time those projects whose promise remains real, while phasing out programs that do not prove to be as promising as anticipated; and
4. To create a new tool to bridge the gap between basic energy research and development/industrial innovation.^[3]

[edit]Launch

President Barack Obama announced the launch of the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) on April 27, 2009 as part of an announcement about federal investment in research and development and science education. The firstFunding Opportunity Announcement for the new agency offered $151 million, with individual awards ranging from $500,000 to $9 million. Applicants submitted only eight-page "concept papers" that outlined the technical concept; some were invited to submit full applications.^[4]

Arun Majumdar, former deputy director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, was appointed the first director of ARPA-E in September 2009, over six months after the organization was first funded.^[5] U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chupresided over the inaugural "ARPA-E Energy Innovation Summit" on March 1-3, 2010 in Washington, D.C..^[6]

Interesting how the entire plan states, "ARPA-E is intended to fund high-risk, high-reward research that might not otherwise be pursued because there is a relatively high risk of failure." While I don't know all the rules of the 'game', I wonder where is the accountability after receiving the funds?

I have been aware of several such instances, not involving government grants, but solicited investment funds whose sole impetus was to grow funds NOT for the original prospectus, but for future corporate growth in other areas. It wouldn't be appropriate to state names or specifics, but one corporation I am aware of whet through these steps ...

1) Found an invention of value ... not necessarily value as a viable product, but value in its ability to be promoted without the immediate promise of success (that's the important part, because immediate provability would too soon 'burst the bubble')

2) Made dazzling proposals to investors based on this invention, and collected millions in investment funds (its all about salesmanship ... statistics can always be juggled to prove anything)

3) Hired high-profile persons (with these funds) to further add credibility to the scheme (no longer just an invention, but a solid organization of believable folks)

4) Built prototypes, conducted experiments, created hype in order to collect more investment monies (just to prove that something is happening)

5) Expanded their business platform into other associated areas with viable and proven products (buying other dysfuntional companies for pennies on the dollar to gain some income, and add perceived value to the overall company)

6) Gained even more investors

7) Let go their high-profile staff, because they were no longer needed to add value to the company

8) Ceased all promotion of the original invention (not an announcement, but just let it die gradually)

9) Continued the business with the gained assets, but continuing to lose money (dysfunctional companies, once acquired, often remain dysfunctional because the new owners have no more ability to 'save' them that did the original owners)

10) Sold the business for pennies on the dollar

10) Investors LOST, Originators WON

Unfortunately, I don't see this in a very different light. Possibly, the good Doctor was not quite as unscrupulous as others, maybe he believe in his invention, but at the end of the day the money will probably be gone, and there will probably be little to show for it.

One trait I have seen in business is, once you make a claim and gain some notoriety for that claim, you have a huge problem if you ever state later, "sorry, I was mistaken", then the only means of survival is to perpetuate the lie until it can no longer be convincing. I see this in business every day.

One thing is sure ... there will always be greed, and those clever enough to play on the imagined success of others. The only defense is to be informed as one takes those risks. Did anyone do any research into the feasibility (technical or manufacturing) of these inventions? I doubt it.

Kind regards ...