New engine could make cars hyperefficient

Formular 1 racing cars use hydraulics to allow for engines that can rev to 20,000 rpm. They can get 850 to 1000 HP from a 2.4 Ltr engine. They don't last for long but the technology can be scaled to give a longer lasting design.

engine valves run off the crank for a good reason

so the engine dont go boom

you only need to be slightly out at those revs

and youd be lookin for a new engine

what safe guards are going to be in place to keep

the engine valve timing correct...

The valve systems on an F1 engine are the reliable bit!

I'm sure that these things already work for years, in labs at Bosch and other specialized engine manufacturers. (Scania, Mercedes,..)

But

Is it reliable?

Will it never miss one timing?

There is no sorry for failiure when valves are opened at the wrong moment.

It is like the electronic injection: it worked already for years on marine and truck engines and when speed could go up it is transferred to small engines. The same evolution will be seen with the valves.

Twenty cars going at an average of 140mph for nearly two hours. Most failures happen due to collision damage or because of electrical faults, gear box failure, hydraulic failure, cooling failure....................................................valve failure? The pistons mixing it up, happens more frequently than valve failure. These engines are over 40% efficient.

Independent control of valves has been incorporated in large blue water marine engines also for several years. The no camshaft engine has been around for a while. As for reliability and durability, there is no safer regime required than on marine engines, there is no breakdown service out at sea. It would pay everyone to study the development of large marine and industrial engines where changes are more easily adopted due to the smaller numbers involved, but can be translated to smaller engines as the technology evolves and hardens up. It may also be incorporated in a new engine cycle for large base load engines researched in Britain and being developed in Japan which initially offers thermal efficiencies as high as 60 to 65%.

Do these marine and other no-camshaft engines achieve these enhanced efficiency figures, do you happen to know? If not, why not?

Cheers...Codey

If you refer to the thermal efficiencies of 60 to 65% mentioned, no, not on state of the art marine and industrial engines, which are more likely to be around 40 to 45% at continuous full load, ie low fuel consumption together with low emissions and no smoke (some ports will not allow ships to enter if they show smoke), difficult to achieve altogether at best of times. Large marine engines are different animals to automotive engines, they run at lower mean piston speeds of around 9m/sec continuously, lower gas velocities through valves of around 60/70m/sec and much higher turbocharger boost pressures peaking up to 5:1 with no wastegate and max. firing pressures of about 200 bar.

The higher thermal efficiency of 60 to 65% referred to is associated with a completely new type of engine intended originally for base load power generation. Basically the engine has separate isothermal compressor (with water injection) and power cylinder units, albeit on the same crankshaft. The original concept, about 15 years ago, was based on an eight stroke cycle, offering a theoretical 80% thermal efficiency, but simplification and practical rounding of the cycle diagram corners made a four stroke cycle viable with the initial demonstrator engine of around 400mm cylinder bore pulling about 60/65% thermal efficiency. The original concept involved camshaft driven valves but design and testing was completed with pneumatic actuation due to the rapid development of these systems. The design and performance parameters were recently reported in the technical press so I'm not now giving secrets away.

Hope this helps.

OK thanks. Interesting.

Piston engines are the wrong approach. High temperature, low rotating mass, mini, gas turbine-electric is the way to go. Batteries carry the load till the turbine reaches steady state.

Here is the motor that Intrigues me!! check it out.

http://www.starrotor.com/

More pipe dreams. A turbine works by compressing the intake air through 10 to 16 stages to about 15 bar, injecting this high pressure air into the combusters (can) through a small inlet port. The can has a much larger diameter than the inlet port, and the fuel spray is ignited in the cans. The pressure of the result is still 15 bar, but at about 5 times the area of the inlet port. (270 to 1400 degrees C), The still-burning mix is exhausted into a slot ring angling the gas through a LARGE diameter turbine bucket rear rotor. The diameter is about twice that of the intake sections, and the length of the driven buckets is such that the 15 bar pressure (any higher and gases would regurgitate into the inlet port) drop to a large exhaust cone directing the gases away creating thrust. This rear rotor drives the front compressor sections, and the pressure in the cone is 2 to 3 bar at far supersonic speed.

The key here is that the inlet pressure ( 6 bar or atm) has to match or exceed any pressure anywhere else in the system or reverse flow will start. That means that the power rotor can't have higher pressure than the compressor section. That woould mean, based on their claim of 80 % energy efficiency (20 % loss) for the compressor, plus the same efficiency for the power rotor, 64% tops. Power section needs to be 1.5 times the compressor just to drive itself. Pressure can't be higher than inlet.

The 6 bar inlet is against the minimum exposed vane. (10%) To drive the inlet will require the full vane, with no back pressure against the vane at 6 bar. The drive pressure needs to be applied, prior to expansion, nearly the full power cycle of the rotor. 6 bar to 1 bar would only match the compressor draw.

Cooling of the engine (heat of rejection) would have to be non-existant to get high efficiency. heat disposal is a total waste of the fuel to get to that temperature. With or without expansion, 1 BTU or Calorie out the flue is a wasted BTU. Just the water vapor out the pipe is probably 5% loss. That means the power extractor section would have to operate at 1300 C or more. Great for volumetric eff , but tough on materials, like case, rotors.

Their claim of no need for oil would have a hard time keeping that large bearing of the outer rotor running around witm a net of 90 PSI or more pushing it down into the case.

Funny but their generator section doesn't spec the size of their "prime" mover, nor do I see air temps, in and out, Volumetric efficiency would be easy to claim if there is no temperature correction. Exhaust could be as high a 550 C, or 3 times the spt volume.

Where do these people find investors? I want to sell some Florida shoreline. Just don't tell them that it is the other side of the low tide line.

RichH