Future Energy Sources 2.3 Improved Efficiency Internal Combustion Engines

I think you hit the nail on the head. The IC engine is past its use by date. The only problem is, the big oil companies are not going to allow a different type of power to rob them of the billions they now steal from all of us. Greed is the only thing keeping a better power system from happening.

Careful here 'topper`,

You are talking about what is referred to a s a 'mature technology`.

Before you holler 'greed`, you'd better be ready to suggest a practical replacement.

The IC is mature most of it was discovered by 1935, but the last real innovation came from Australia with the V 120 boxer engine which is a three stroke engine and has weight to power ratios close to a turbine. It also gives you two stroke performance with four stroke fuel and emissions. I see the hybrids being the future of the IC, but not necessarily in the current design gas to electric. Gas to compressed air has both weight, ease of manufacturing and component maintenance (durable). It is also cheaper to design and make, also it's emission is cold air. Not a bad thing in hot cities. All things that make it perfect for the new markets in India, China and South America. Add that most cars are uni-bodies you can make the car the storage tank. Marrying these two mature technologies could re-invent the internal combustion engine. Those markets still need a car that can be worked on by a bag of wrenches and no high tech tools, but gives great milage. the gas to compress air hybrid has these qualities.

Rory,

I agree with the marriage idea. Are you referring to the MDI air car?

A bag of wrenches is my goal too.

There are several people working on "air hybrids" that I have spoken with. They are about 30% of the way to the right idea. You don't need the electricals if you stay in the air domain.

Let's start with the IC V120 engine. The V120 was developed in 1980 by a garage mechanic in his garage. Imagine two revolver cylinders like in a Colt gun set at 120 degrees from each other. Each revolver has 3 to 6 cylinders to it. The V120 8 has 4 cylinders to each revolver half. Each cylinder is connected to a fixed piston rod, which is then attached to the other corresponding piston rod. In a V120 8 the cylinders move not the pistons. Pistons are fixed! Area inside each cylinder changes due to the change in position of the fixed rods. 120 degree angle is a good medium go to 140 degrees not enough expansion too short a cycle. Go to 90 degrees and too much force on the piston joint. It is a boxer design since both sides must fire at the same time for the design to work. This is both a blessing and a curse. Blessing that this IC has 2,4,6,8 drive points to draw power from. Curse is that this IC likes a balanced load. Also, boxer isn't as fuel efficient as sequential, but more torky.

Add mods. I talked about trying to make an IC more and more efficient often pushes the IC cost up without an equal gain in fuel savings cost offsets. I learned that from my time @ Waukesha Motors. The 3W market folks would eventually strip those mods off over time, because they couldn't afford to fix them and they didn't loss much by bypassing them. So FE mods have to be simple and cheap. First, compressors that run off the motor 2-1 off each revolver end (balanced load) would be scrolling turbocharger compressors (maximize the high torc of this motor. 2 low rpm high output compressors during motor run-up would shorten runtime of both compressor and IC. Get it done and shut it off. Knowing this is a three cycle motor m-2( m=top of piston cycle) air intake is normal, but if I used compressed air - run this compressed air through a Vortexer (Vortexer causes a straight line flow of air to spin) inject fuel there and inject this mixture (Air/Fuel injection system) instead at M+1-at the beginning of the down-stroke. Octane is major limiter to IC efficiency and fuel cost. Being able to use lower Octane fuels in a 3W setting is a great advantage. Compressed air hybrids allow you to divert and store start-up air. Last mod is to the piston head two things, one knowing I am injecting vortexing A/F into the cylinder the piston head shouldn't be flat, but look like the top of those 1 way screws you see in Public toilet partitions to take advantage of the spin force. the second is to inset platinum in the wall and piston head to promote complete fuel burn the first time.

Further fuel savings will come from lowering the weight of the chassis. Compressed Air again gives you an advantage there too. The Compressed Air stored in the Uni-body stiffens the Uni-body with little or no weight gain. Real fuel savings is in weight loss and shortening IC/compressor run time.

Rory,

Do you have a link for the V120? I don't quite follow what is happening with this engine and how it all comes together.

Rory

Is this what you're talking about?

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4834032.html

as in 3 stroke?

This is a later modification of the 1980 design. First design has no crank shaft the outside of the revolving cylinders had cooling fins which acted as gears. Add the A/FIS (Air/Fuel Injection System) and this very simple design IC is perfect for this job. Maximise first burn efficiency. Re-burn systems are always diminishing return to expense, because of reduced 0₂ levels. A/FIS reduces drag on up stroke nice and smooth running. Three stroke motor with two stroke qualities have to love it. Outside gearing allows 4 connect points per revolving cylinder to run pumps or gennerators off of. The only thing I've seen close was developed by Lycoming around 1994.You should find a LTD in Australia 1980 and an article Oct or Dec 1980 in Popular Science, if I remember right.

Save fuel:

1. reduce wieght of chassis;

I believe this motor is a rotary like you see in vintage aircaft. If it is the motor I am describing the motor would have two drive shafts, (everthing must mirror for it to work), but the original had non. It is an open (PT Power transfer) source motor. Further mods may use drive shafts, but not in the 1980's version.

Gas to compressed air?????

How do you deal with heat loss due to compression of the air?

Until you do, it must remain woefully inefficient.

A/FIS is the opposite. It makes the first burn highly efficient.

Following reasons:

Vortexing air prior to fuel injection more throughly mixes the 2.

O₂ to fuel ratio is increased under pressure more molecules in same area.

Expansion is based on Temp in to Temp out difference with all other things remaining constant.

A/FIS in this case injects mixture not directly down (If it was you would be right) again the V120-8 has to inject mixture into cylinder also at 120⁰ to shaft creating its own vortex. Think of a VCR tape if segments were placed straight up and down there would not be enough space for the picture information to be put on the tape. Placed at angle there is. Distance creates time, increase the distance you increase the time for a chemical reaction to occur.

Platinum coating on side walls and top of piston. What is the coating used in catalytic converters? Isn't it a Platinum alloy? Why is it chosen? Does it not promote a second burn of unburned or poorly burnt fuel there? Wouldn't unburnt fuel be heavier and being heavier the centrifugal force of the vortex throw it against the side wall where the platinum alloy would promote it to burn? So Greater percentage of burned fuel also equals to greater release of energy and a greater temperature difference at the exhaust point which also occurs on the upstroke. Giving a full down-stroke which is also an increase time for a more complete first burn. Do everything possible to increase the efficiency of the first burn where O₂ is the greatest. Right?

A/FIS is the way to go!

I also should point out most of the tech problems to the IC to gas hybrid is at from the compressor to the wheel motors. This is solved by a 2 or 3 stage lannerial air flow rectifier. All natural flows of fluids have turbulence to them. Rectifiers take out that turbulence. The simplest LAFR is nothing more than a cylinder broken up into three areas. First is the pre-rectifier area and is nothing more than a inch open area. The second stage is the rectifier stage. Think of a chamber filed with a hundred 1/4" straws. Air is force through and made to flow straight over a length which determined by its density - greater density shorter the distance. The last area is the same length as the second, but with only one outlet - a dead flow area - with the only way for air to flow out is an opening in the center. If the compressor motor is a piston you've chosen to drive the wheels that is the design LAFR you use. If the compressor motor uses vanes such as a scrolling turbine then a 3+ stage LAFR should be use. Everything is the same in the first two areas but, third area is a cone, because of the turbulences caused in the cone another set of straws are used. Coning creates less pressure drop. The LAFR basically lasers the air. Recycle heat off the engine to it an you'll have solved the vapor-lock problems. Both the A/FIS and the LAFR should solve your heat loss due to compression of the air question. I should quit goofing off and build the thing, but I am now writing a proposal on the 4 best designs to use to build 1000 year decay generator and policies & procedures to use in its construction. The Gleenan/Webb report we have'nt build a new nuclear generator in like 40 years it is a blank slate got to make sure quality control is in place.

Having spent time at Waukesha Motors I know that before a new engine can even go into production. It had to have at least 5 to 10 years of clean data sets. This may have been reduced, but when we see or hear 26 mph city and 32 mph highway these claims have to be substantiated with data sets. Such mundane items such as the oil you put in the IC is covered by a data set. Seaplaneguy can substantiate this claim. Did putting Mobile 1 oil in instead of 30W void the warrante on the lycoming engine? Why the clean data sets were only conducted with 30W. There wasn't an excepted data set for Mobile 1. There is an AD (After Deaths) Aircraft Directive on using non tested oils, fuel, and additives during the break-in period of the aircraft powerplant these AD's can continue since when aircraft power-plants fail planes crash. When I was at WM I saw five engines running day and night 24/7 just to test for different blends of fuel. We forget that Governments are us, insurance companies protect us and consumer groups represent us. We are risk adverse, failure to conform to this can be a quick death sentence for any company, so they reflect us. I have to agree that there is only one conspirancy. It is us!

Rory

The diesel engine was used in experimental aircraft in Germany during WWII. They are now being certified for use in light aircraft in other countries. One of the things that is important to consider about the Internal Combustion Engine is it's ability to produce the most bang for the buck. They produce high horsepower with proven design for the cheapest price. I think it is going to take a back yard inventor to come up with the next great idea. The only problem that he will have to face is getting his idea out into the public sector. There is a lot of money in the oil companies' deep pockets and they do not want any one upsetting the apple cart.

Most of the US Head Engineers still remember the AMC Pacer fiasco. AMC bet the company on the Wankel Rotary engine. Their new line-up of cars were designed to house the Wankel engine. The Wankel had a higher power to weight than the slant 6 and 4's they were using. Because of the higher power to weight it was also significantly smaller. One problem - the Wankel couldn't be made to hit the mileage standards set by Jimmy Carter (Great idea by Jimmy, but disastrous for AMC.) So AMC had to do a quick round-a-bout and put back in the slants which were bigger and heavier. Shoe horned in on the 6, tried a 5- motor balance problems. put in a 4 poor performance. Add in funky windows and tweed seat covers, the two gals in interior design loved tweed! but the Dork factor hit big time with all this. The gals were the salt of the earth mind you, but their tastes had something to say. The Pacer was a big time failure, since then it is a hard sell on new engine designs. Most top auto engineers have had some time with Auto racing. The best focus the entire season on perfecting just one maybe two aspects of the car to increase its performance. Most of the time it isn't the motor which is their main concern. It is the chassy or platform. Nascar puts real limits on their ability to modify the motor to increase performance, with this background they are a bit sceptical, but you are right the Germans have had lots of innovations in AC design I'm thinking Hansau Jet for it's forward swept wing as an example.

I wouldn't call the HFB-320 Hansa Jet that innovative. Aircraft with forward swept wings are a nightmare to fly and are highly unstable. Having a highly unstable aircraft is ok in something like a fighter where you need the maneuverability but you also need a whole swag of computers to make the thing flyable.

Aircraft with forward swept wings also have some really nasty habits like going into inverted spins if they stall. I remember doing an annual flight review in a glider with wings that had about a 5° forward sweep. Part of the flight review was to demonstrate that you can safely recover from a spin, but the spin entry was so violent that the aircraft flipped over on its back and then started spinning with us hanging by our harness straps. It scared the living daylights out of me and we came so close to bailing out that the instructor couldn't talk for the rest of the flight. We were within 100 feet of the bail out altitude when I managed to get the thing flying again and we pulled over 4 g during the recovery. It's not an experience I wish to repeat.

By the way the recovery procedure for fly by wire aircraft that have experienced a computer system failure is to reach for the nearest yellow and black handle an pull firmly.

Willingness to fail is the beginning to a successful design, Hansa Jet like the V tail Bonanza was a fighter design to be used in GA were a stable design is often a better idea, but why does it do this nasty trick? How do we prevent it or limit it? The answer is computers? Or is it poor position of of control surfaces. Standard placement of control surfaces in a forward swept is deadly. Would back swept canard and tail solve it? Tri-winged? The point is willingness to try and then willingness to do the dull, but important follow-up to bring a good product that will succeed. With a new IC it is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration, dull, boring, but essential in the US and EU markets. We can point fingers @ the oil companies or @ big government, but it is the slow and time consuming data sets that need to be done and that is why companies evolve their IC's then innovate them.

And developing a new kind of combustion engine is very costly, you need to take several iterations on design choices. Moder management just does not want to pay this anymore. the actual system have a quite high level of functionality and the knobs to turn are well known.

But the hybrid wave that is going through the automotive design world today might open some doors and bring some money to product development.

Hi Gwen.Stouthuysen,

• Modern (sic) management just does not want to pay this anymore. the actual system have a quite high level of functionality and the knobs to turn are well known.

I have just posted something very much along the lines of this in another thread so rather than repeating myself here is a link to my post in the other thread.

I see the hybrid as a stepping stone in GM's mind. They are actually looking a bit further ahead. With the creation of a solid form of gas storage. They are looking at fuel-cell to electric. What is the most scary for them is that they are now dependent on the research and development from 2 outside companies for 2 key components. First is from Eveready/Rayovac on the Li storage batteries. The other is from the solid to gas H₂ and O₂ storage system. It is the first time in their history that they are using outside companies to develop their key components. I see their plan is to take a bit of a beating from Toyota for three years and expedite the H₂ FC platform. The Li battery is key also the the gas to electric hybrid. Hitachi is giving the Japanese an early lead there with their Li cells. As I said earlier as far as the 3W and 2W markets IC to compressed gas is the best way for their market and I gave a good and do-able design with proven components. Remember in the you come out with a good design and use the income from that to add perfections, you have a road plan to developer your car and your market. Weight to output is key for the IC to survive. Just as weight to storage is key for electric to compete a-la Li battery. That's my answer I'm sticking to it.

"they are now dependent on the research and development from 2 outside companies for 2 key components."

This is nothing new - I would be most surprised if every component in their cars was developed in-house. All companies buy product from outside, as they cannot possibly design and produce all they need in the way of componentry within the company.

Batteries and fuel have traditionally been bought in: the only difference here is that outside forces are driving faster development of battery technology, and the tie-up with their current supplier may be holding them back or they would just buy from the company which produces the batteries they need. (Apple uses/d Sony batteries)

Traditional fuels simply need a vented container - easy to produce, but the newer alternatives need pressure vessels or whatever and automotive companies tend to have little experience in designing these, so out-of-house makes complete sense.

All systems are stepping stones, even the actual world organisation is a stepping stone.

Everything is in constant evolution, even the human genome. Some processes are evolving fast and some are so slow evolving that one will not see it in a man's life.

The battery driven car is older than the ICE driven. Fuel cells are also old technology that is already used for decades in some technical niche area's.

What is interesting is the fact that one of these techniques gets the opportunity to prove it's value. In software evolutions tend to go fast. But it is only evolving fast as a little mistake does not kill someone. Look into techniques used in life supporting tasks. They are so old fashioned but so deeply known to be functional.

Fly-by-wire is a widespread technique, nearly all new aircrafts have it now. But you only see it where it is accepted by all users that maintenance is crucial. Imagine that from tomorrow all cars are drive-by-wire. With the actual maintenance level of 50% of the cars it is a perfect prescription for disaster. That is why this technique is still not tolerated.

This is valid for all new things that are on tables and in minds: they might by fantastic but one has to prove it, I have in this a daily job: prove that evolutions are an improvement, both financial and technical.

Dear Sirs,

Just as you point out that internal combustion engines waste as much as 60 % of the energy which is poured into their respective tanks, the reality is : that for decades now the solution has excaped engineering brains world wide.

When one looks at the jump of efficiency that is obtained from gas turbines (wherein the heat is generally recovered and re-used or re-injected to obtain a far higher efficiency )ratio this has completely been avoided in the gasoline engine. It seems that its fuel is wrongly used . Instead of giving it higher octane ( at sometime abusive petrol pump prices ) would it not be more logical to modify it as a gaz for instance and then build an engine specifically for that type of energy .

For instance during the last war on the rear of many cars there were furnaces that were added on . These would burn the coal and its gazes were used to blend with ordinary gasoline. Because of my youth I was never shown the mechanical methods that were used , but I do recall that it was either such an installation or with your car in the garage you simply had to walk .

Having been involved, as a Technical Consultant, with at least two prototypes of " new concept " diesel engines both of which held high promises (but which turned into dismal financial failures ) I am more than ever convinced that too much brain power is being used on trying to improve the existing design for infinitesimal gains. The new departure must be of a revolutionary nature . Not, any longer , an evolutionary one.

Let us encourage the chemical engineer who may see the merit of transforming, modifying the energy source into a manageable one . Such energy form to be specifically designed for a mechanical engine or turbine which can power the car in a different way to what it is at present. This equally applies to truckst etc of this world In a way the present hybrid vehicles tend towards the above goal. Yet the use of an electric car which is far more efficient in its use of the power that is transmitted to it still relies on a four cycle engine which as pointed out in the lead article above is only thirty per cent efficient.

If one imagines that the world cars are throwing into the air 60 % of the energy bought (increasingly more expensive at the fuel pump) then one can see the world shattering effect of this unforgiveable waste. Where in the world will there be a Leader with the guts and forethought to inspire the commencement of an energy saving NASA to be implemented. Who will take that first step ?

Sir,

The high efficacy of gas turbine driven systems has nothing to do with heat re-injected. The heat is not re-injected.

The turbine itself has an efficacy of 30 to 36%, just a bit better than a nuclear power station.

But as the turbine is small and easy to install, it can be added to a place where heat and electricity are needed: petrochemical plants, large buildings,...

The heat is reused as heat by the customer and the electricity is made on the spot of consumption. (or sold to the power company)

Sometimes (in case of really big installations) the heat is used to boil water in a traditional boiler and the steam is used to generate electricity in the traditional way. At way lower efficacy but the first 36% are already there, so the next 15% are a pure gainer. The next condensing step brings heat at 30 to 50°C. Ideal to use in underfloor heating.

The idea of reusing the heat is also used with ICE's: turbo chargers enable to drive the compression higher and improve the power ration of the engine. It can run slower or be smaller to give the same power. This is a big gainer. The price of the engine goes down, nice for the accountants.

But if you want to reuse the waste heat of the automotive engine you have a little problem: your car is driving and your house is not following. Carry a water tank with you, heat it up while you drive and use the heat to shower in the evening. If you live in flatland and not have to stop that much in city traffic the extra fuel consumption by the 200kg water tank is negligible. (hey can I patent this?)

The "waste" heat is there because the cycle is wasteful. If you compress a gas, heat it, and then expand it back to ambient, you have residual heat. The cycle must allow for the this and make use of it. Useing the heat in a secondary "rankine" cycle (like BMW's steamer) is very wasteful and very heavy. Again, the cycle is the problem, and the Otto, Diesel, Brayton or otherwise will not work. No large power plants of any good efficiency uses these simple cycle. How that is done...read my patents when they are out.

When you can do that you can get efficiencies well above 60% and perhaps even 75%. Each and every point in a cycle needs to be "respected" for the physical needs and conditions. A piston crank is a totally disrespectful and inefficiency way to do it, and moreover I believe when you respect the physics you will have a much lighter engine, in part because you have a predictable load. A predictable load can help removes "safety" factor margin requirements and the weight can drop by half or more.

The piston crank is indeed a very stupid way to create the cycle.

It is like democratie: it is not perfect, even bad in some cases but all the alternatives are way worse.

What are the alternatives to generate a Diesel style cycle?

At one moment you have to go over from a hot high pressure gas to a mechanical movement; A piston results in a linear displacement and a turbine results in a circular movement.

What I can imagine is that you try to generate a swing style system with a piston-spring that contains enough energy to compress a gas to enable ignition.

the resulting power stroke could be much longer, until all power is out of the expanding gas, the return pushes out the waste and the piston will be enabled to drag in new air and to compress it again.

As the expansion will be longer to a way lower temperature the resulting NO_x content will also be lower. And the combustion will also be better.

A linear generator can be used to get the energy out and to start the unit.

The frequency will be depending on the amount of air that you allow to drag inside (and the power that it delivers)

Has this been tried?

I'm just thinking out of the box, If someone has tried it before let me know the results and the failure modes. If not send me money and I will try to build it.

Gwen

Are you envisioning:

2cylinders opposed, w/a common connecting rod

linear generator, being driven by the connecting rod

probably electric valves

possibly use it as a air compressor @ braking, to capture some start up boost energy.

??

Two opposed cilinders drive me again in the fixed displacement volume regime.

I wanted to get rid of it but still have the same minimal volume at TDP.

Gwen,

Alternatives? There are lots of ways to get it wrong, and just a few to get it right. I have come up with one that I think will work, but I will be patenting it so....

Linear or circular makes little difference because momentum is conserved.

Enthalopy is Ts + PV. Both T and P are a source, but remember it is the delta Work, not just the power stroke work.

Tried? I don't see improvement in that area, but I don't follow exactly what you are saying.

As far as I know what you are describing hadn't been adapted for IC power but there is plenty of Roman and Moorish designs the best illustrated is from a Moore with some 400 inventions (can't remember his name) if you can read Persian or can get an English translation (British Museum) they're use of water power is quite remarkable. I like old designs ever since I got a tool from Edison's lab in Florida. I find a lot of the old design tools are better then what we buy today. Tools have a golden age to them, which is at their middle to the end of their patten period. After that the cheapest wins. Think there was a Science Channel mention of it in "What the Ancients Knew." Better get drawing! Good idea! Have fun! Pendulum, spring and push arm add counterweight rotary gear to push arm and stack by 4.

???Diesel Engines have a higher compression ratio and burn the fuel rather than causing an explosion as in a petrol engine???

Who wrote this??? Not any engineer that knows engines.

While in both a petrol and diesel engine the fuel ultimately burns or in other words chemically combines with oxygen there is a fundamental difference in the combustion process.

In a petrol engine the compressed mixture is ignited by a spark and the reaction takes place extremely rapidly. In other words the spark causes explosive detonation of the compressed fuel air mixture in the cylinder. The result is that the combustion takes place in a very short period of time.

In a diesel engine the fuel burns as it comes in contact with the hot compressed air in the cylinder and rather than explosive combustion you get a more prolonged burning that takes place over the entire period that the fuel is being injected into the cylinder.

Yes it is a technical point and the difference is small but there is a difference in the combustion and in a diesel engine the fuel burns rather than explodes.

Yes it burns extremely rapidly but does not detonate if it did then you would get detonation aka ping etc which destroys pistons, The diesel does detonate when the fuel is injected on the compression stroke that is why they are built heavyer. you have it mixed up.

Explosion (Gas, Alcohol, LP, Propane, Hydrogen) Vs Burn (Jet A, JP *, diesel, cooking oil) a significant difference if you ever flown a plane. Put the wrong fuel in and you've killed the guy. For this reason there is very few practical cross over engines. IC engines are typed by this difference. Don't say turbines. You don't want to be on a jet plane fueled with 100 gas. Turbines are built to the fuel they use. Their combustion chambers are different. Also I bring up the rule of double. It pertains here extremely well. Go from 25% to 50% you've doubled the cost. Go from 50% to 75% you've double the cost. Go from 75% to 87(90)% you doubled the cost again. Go from 90% to 95% you've doubled the cost. There is an economic good enough here. What is significant to this discussion is weight control. Weight to power ratios. Less weight of the chassis smaller the IC needed to give it the same performance. More compact the IC the lighter the chassis. IC's works best two ways low RPM on a continuous use or high rpm sudden burst. Increase period between bursts you'll get the same fuel mileage with a cheaper IC (hybrid) as to a more expensive bell and whistle IC. For this reason performance and fuel conservation are inversely related. Weight to power ratio is what matters here. Lighter-Cheaper to operate-more durable. Fuel savings comes from this view.

Rory,

I can make Gas NOT explode by putting a nozzle on it. My stove does not explode on me and it is gas and could be Alcohol, LP, Propane or hdrogen and it would not explode. If I put it in a container all at once and sparked it, yes it would explode. If you put the wrong frequency in a computer you will kill it too. What is your point?

An engine is designed (usually) to run with a particular fuel. Time of the burn is considered to "optimize" for the design fuel. You can, if you wanted to, design for many fuels such that none will explode.

Most all engines have a certain fixed volume per cycle. If you vary the volume then you have a variable volume engine that with run at different power settings and potentially be "efficiency" at each power setting. This is a matter of design, not physics. The design dictates the limits of the physics. Physics does not ditate a piston-crank/jet/Diesel/whatever engine. Separate the physics from the current know technologies. Build a theory of what needs to happen, and then build hardware to meet that need. Neither a piston/crank or a jet engine will get you where you need to be--70%+

Your rule of thumb is perhaps ok with current engines, but I do not see the design space as you do. Think of the design space in terms of nonlinear optimization of multiple variable. In other words, as a range of mountains and valleys. Height (H) is cost, latitude is power to weight ("performance"), and longitude is efficiency. You can change the variable, and in fact take the "gradient" of 10-100 variables with repect to any other variable. 3D is usually the limit of our minds, but 100 demensional space is also done.

In the limited 3D example, cost (H), Performance (p), and efficiency (e) create a topographical map similar to earth terrain (an example all are familiar with). As I move in space I change performance or efficiency and I will get a new cost. Now, performace is a function of many variables by itself, and so is efficiency. So, such perameters may or may not be helpful in seeing what is going on. This is where "beliefs" get in the way of progress. You "believe" that your rule of thumb is true, and it may be from your experience, but you have not experienced what you don't know. By going to the root equations and not your experience, you can then check you experience to yield truth "principals" that we call the physics, and then explore the design space as it is, and not as we believe it to be.

Each technology will yield a design space topographical map and that "technique" limits and defines the design space. If you compare a Diesel to a brayton jet, you find that a diesel can maintain efficiency down to 35% of power before it drops off, whereas a turbojet drops off below 65%, depending on design. That topographical map is driven by the technology AND by the thermodynamics.

In order to get a technology hardware that gets 70% and does so from 1-100% of power you must first find the design space topography or ways to negotiate (control) your way "through the mountains" as power changes. If your thermo theory map cannot get you there, then the hardware surely will not. There may be a narrow canyon that will "do it all" but your beliefs and design block your vision of the real space.

If you look at the mapping of an Otto, Diesel, or Brayton cycle you can see that you cannot get there. Putting more money after a bad theory is insanity. Finding the theory that will get you there is the thing that needs to be done, and we call it research. It is obviously much more complicated than this simple example. You may have have a changing cycle as power needs change (this is what I do).

Keep in mind that there is a massive divide between zero speed and .1 mph. Most of the advances will come in solving such issues that drive the design.

As for airplanes, me being a seaplaneguy, the reason airplanes are the way they are is because of the technology, not because of the limits of the physics. For example, to fly a sport plane, you can have 500hp on takeoff (for 10 seconds, near vertical 25 ft roll), yet you only need 50-70 hp to cruise at 135 mph (limit of SL cruise "full power"). If you made an airplane with a 500 hp lycoming engine and then flew it at 50 hp, your BSFC would be around 1.5-2 times the minimum. A Diesel, Otto, or jet, would not work, or at least give poor fuel economy. Ironically, the duty cycle for a good sport airplane is very close to a ground vehicle due to the speed limit. Both need high short duration acceleration and economy cruise.

enough said...

If you want I will write it again.

The big difference between Diesel and Otto Cycle is how the fuel is combusted:

The Otto cycle uses fuel vapors which explode (ignited by a spark)

The Diesel cycle burns droplets of fuel, injected to start burning at the right moment. The higher the vaporisation ratio, the easier this burning reaction will occur. This is used in direct injection engines: very high pressure is used to create very tiny droplets that will start to burn in the main compression chamber. In the early day's, with traditional injection pumps the droplets were to big to start burning at the temperature occurring in the main chamber. A special formed chamber was added, mostly in the form of a snail house, to generate high temperature and velocity gasses which will ignite the fuel more easy.

I see a lot of comments by people who do not know the real functionality of ICE's but they know that the pope resides in Rome so they can comment.

Check the PV cycle of both ICE types and you will see the difference.

The Otto cycle needs high octane fuels to reach high compression ratio's.

The Diesel cycle needs high cetane fuels, to be able to start in cold conditions.

Gwen,

You mention the temperature issue. I believe it is NOT possible to make an Otto/Diesel/brayton engine that will go from ambient to running temperature and do so with a clean burn at all times. This requirement will soon be a requirement when someone, like me, can do it. The big lie is that the catalytic converter will clean it up, but the converter must be up to temperature to work. In the mean time most of the pollution occurs.

The only way to make such a cycle "work" (meaning to have a "clean" engine that makes only co2, which is not a pollutant and is very beneficial to the environment, and H2o) is to preheat the hardware before start, which would take a long time (5-15 minutes?) and waste a lot of fuel. The problem is in the very design itself. There is a temperature/combustion/RPM relationship that cannot be overcome because of the zero time at TDC and the pressures. When you actually take the time to ask the quality questions, you know for a fact that a piston/crank will never work regardless of what you do, or amount of money you throw at it.

And I am only talking about emissions, and not better fuel economy. The future will require clean combustion (only co2 and H2o) in order to play the game. You will then compete on efficiency alone and not a compromise.

Since combustion time is a function of the temperature, and spark/injection-rate is a function of rpm, temperature and pressure, you have a no win situation. If you start ignition early in order to get the cold fuel burned, you will likely get a backfire or destroy the engine when the driver revs the engine. The transients are where most of the pollution comes from and is where all the difficulty in design is...control. If you retard ignition you will have a bunch of unburned fuel. Increasing control via electronics is a no win situation with strong diminishing returns.

The central focus of billions in R&D is in the transition from cold to "operating" temperature, and this money is spent just to make it pass very lax emission standards. The fact is that it cannot be solved. You can see this in the Nox and co2 curves of the design space even at operating temperature. You must abandon the cycle, and look elsewhere to get a true "fertilizer" machine (co2 producer) without the "smog."

Once you address the emissions, you then look for the 70% efficiency and you again realize that an Otto/Diesel/Brayton cycle bumps up to some limit well below 40%. More important is that these cycles also seldom run at their peak efficiency levels. At idle, the efficiency is zero, and at 1-5% of peak power most, especially the Brayton cycle, are 2-6 times the burn rate (BSFC) from the best point.

The design comes down to duty cycle, or time spent at a given power relative to peak power, in burst or continuous. The hybrid takes advantage of this by running the engine at the min BSFC as much as possible, but that BSFC (typically at .5 lbs/hp-hr) is not good or even near what can be achieved. You should be below .25 lbs/hp-hr or about half, AND do so all the way down to 1% of power.

Typically a hybrid engine will be some fraction of peak combined power of the gas and electric engine. In the GM volt, for example, the electric motor is 120 hp and the gas is (around) 50 hp. When the car is at low power rate, such as in a city, where power is say 2-5% of 50 hp, that engine will produce power at much higher BSFC rates than at the optimum. In other words, the central problem is smaller, but still exists, and then the electrical conversion/storage losses take back the gains, leaving you with engine off and brake recovery modes.

Structural, combustion, and heat transfers have conflicting needs that must be respected, just like a man and women have different inherent needs and must be repected to optimize their combined (marriage) performance to eliminate pollution (sink generation of drug and porn addicts, for example). The piston/crank is like a Stalinistic despot government that disrespects everybody, including themselves ironically, and leaves environmental waste everywhere. Socialist are reformed Stalinists, and many corporations are more socialistic than anything. Both are environmental outlaws who respect only their "power" which is an illusion.

Men and women are NOT equal, just as the hand is not equal to the eye or nose, nor do they have equal needs. Each part is needed. One without the other is of less value or much less "joyful", just as compression (women) and expansion (men) have very different cycle needs (one slow, one fast). The classic piston/crank is disrespectful to the needs of the cycle. Man and women are partners walking side by side working together. One can and should be to help out when need be, but not necessarily optimized to the temporary task. Not allowing a women to work outside the home (Taliban) when the temporary needs arises is not an optimum.

A good marriage and a good engine have a lot of common design issues. An axial flow Brayton turbine has a compressor section, burn section, and a turbine section. (Read Woman, God, Man) This at least is a step in the right direction.

I wonder if a diaphragm can be driven electrically and ultrasonically in resonance with a combustion cycle on a small scale.

Yes you can drive a diaphragm with an external heat source. This is called thermo-acoustics. An example can be seen on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjjkj-UGboM

For Thermo-acoustics you can also check US patent 5901556 to get an impression. It is not a combustion cycle because there is no cycling...

And if you happen to be on youtube you can also see this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTNlZw3P7vA

Showing that some engines are not made for economical driving...

We only focus on exhaust for the moment because of the high temperature potential. Low temperature potential (cooling system) can also be used but requires bigger equipement and in vehicle applications this is a problem.

Best regards

Randolph Toom, director of heat2power, www.heat2power.net

I'm not exactly sure how different that design is from what I had in mind since my computer is not configured to watch videos. I was thinking in terms of a hybrid engine combining a diaphragm with an electrical drive unit. The electrical portion gets the engine started by driving the diaphragm and then gooses the diaphragm at the right moment during each cycle to keep the engine running. The combustion may be self-igniting to eliminate spark problems at such high frequencies.

The resonance aspect that I mentioned would probably mean the engine is either on at a single speed or off. It would work in conjunction with a battery. When the battery gets low, the engine charges it up again.

Masu,

What can be done? Government funding is not the answer. We call it "research" and "development." Welcome to the first step of the engineering process, Masu.

1) Research: That means to keep searching for an answer until you find one. If a piston crank Otto/Diesel/Bryaton cycle does not work and locks you into a 25%-40% limit, as you lament, then maybe you should "search" and find another way to do it. If you are invested in the piston crank, you either realize that there is a massive opportunity and do something about it (like work on it), or you complain to the government to have them give you money (put a gun to tax payers heads for the benefit of you). So, after about a 1000 ideas and lots of computer modeling you will quickly see that a 60-70% efficiency is very possible and doable. You then keep the research going until you create a cycle theory that will work. This is your top level plan at the end of your "search" for the right direction to go.

2) Development: You now take your theory of how an engine should be and go through 10,000 ideas on ways to make it work. You toss the piston crank in the trash heap of history and realize that change is needed and good (just like co2 is a good thing). You iterate back into your research as needed until you know how to MAKE the theory work in hardware. You then do the loads, thermo, dynamics, controls and all the many other things needed and "develop" it into a working prototype. Keep iterating until you can get what you want. Stick it in a car, drive to California, talk to the emmisions guys and let them put into law your new 100 mpg highway/ 200 city standard. Find a place to hide out when auto industry puts a "fatwa" out for you...(fun part).

Now comes the hard part. Selling it... Frankly, people like to complain, but will never lift a finger to solve a problem like this, unless of course if they own all rights and you sell your sole to them for a peso on the dollar. You must have the cash flow, and business to boot strap it.

If you cannot see that all the links that Masu gave are totally worthless, you also ain't got a prayer in a million years. Adding electronics ain't going to do jack either. You must go back to the equations, physics, thermo, and relearn what you were taught and throw out the religion on IC engines and get to the facts. Fact: an IC engine does not need a crank. You must go back to your belief system pull the weed out by the root and actually design a NEW IC engine, and stop playing around with a 100 year old design. Hmmm.

Every seen the movie "the Astronaut Farmer" Masu? That is me, but without the cash flow problems. My "rocket" is an an engine. If you noticed in the show, not one person, except his wife and son, believed it was possible. AF's best "friends" even tried to get him shut down. My point being is that you must have the determination of the astronaut farmer or you will never get there. It must be your dream, and something you focus on. You have to set up your finances to allow you to work FULL time on the engine. It is an (ad) venture, and it must be your passion. You will soon realize that 1 in 1 million are like you. Most just envy you. None will take even 5 minutes out of their precious day to help, yet will complain about $4 gas for hours on end.

What can you do, Masu? Lots. It is up to you.

seaplaneguy- I could not have said it any better!! Einstein used to say " If an idea at first does not sound ridiculous than it is bound to fail"

Hi Seaplaneguy,

Nice to have you back.

You are so right on the cash problem but you also can feel the heat of reality in your back.

I would love to be able to work just on my idea's, nothing Else. But only few people can do this.

For others with idea's they look to wrong way. "Oil company's are bad, big companies suck, everyone who has a bit of success is bad" those kind of guy's. If their idea would not work, provable by simple mathematics, the models are wrong and those using them are short sighted.

I've seen so many of these guy's passing by, not able to explain a PV diagram, but having the solution for world energy in their mind.

Strangely,

I also would like to work on my idea's, but I have a house to pay and kid's to feed. Every day. So I bake the bread and lawn the grass instead of building an engine in the shed.

We need honest research institutes that can take the idea's of honest people, study and combine them and in the end when something functional comes out, credits the inventors. But here the model is failing: or you throw the idea for the masses and it is gone or you keep it for yourself and nothing happens.

I hope you can solve the cash for you project and keep us informed on the results.

Gwen

Increasing engine efficiency is possible with waste heat regeneration (WHR)

The losses from an engine are mainly going to exhaust, cooling system radiation and driving the auxiliaries. The losses in the exhaust are of high temperature and offer the best regeneration possibilities. But there are 4 types of energy in the exhaust, Thermal, Kinetic, Chemical and Latent heat.

The chemical flow is converted in the catalyst into heat. So WHR should be applied just after the catalyst. That is what we build our business on.

The heat can be regenerated with thermo-dynamics (Ericsson, Brayton, Stirling, ProeAfterburning and others) thermo-electrics (seebeck, peltier, thermo-ionic, thermo-channeling, thermo-photo-voltaic and others) thermo-chemical (phase change materials, endothermic vapocracking and others) and thermo-acoustics.

We are currently developing a system that matches the requirements in a vehicle application (lightweight, compact, powerful, clean, simple, cost effective etc).

Engine efficiencies still have good potential for improvement especially on part load operation with VCR for example (Go-engine from Gomecsys to name one of them). Much depends on what amount of money an engine is allowed to cost.

Learn more about WHR on http://www.heat2power.net and look at the benchmark (which is far from exhaustive).

As for the petroleum lobby: I do not believe they want to keep us using fossil fuel on and on and on. I do not believe they block fuel efficiency progress. And nobody ever offered me money to stop my efficient engine development.

Best regards,

Randolph Toom

Randolph,

Thank you for your comments. Could you please expand on your use of "thermo-electrics (seebeck, peltier, thermo-ionic, thermo-channeling, thermo-photo-voltaic and others) thermo-chemical (phase change materials, endothermic vapocracking and others) and thermo-acoustics?" Are you applying them to the exhaust AND radiator?

Seaplaneguy

Gwen,

Yes, most have family, house payment, and such. I designed it and work for it from the get go out of college. It took me 5 years to go from zero to replacing my income. Have you ever read "rich dad, poor dad" series by Kiyosaki? A few years ago I bought one of his books and it turns out I was very close to his route/method to within a few hundred dollars. He went on to make lots of money, and I have use my free time to educate myself, and do engineering research and development.

I have looked for years for a few guys to work on this after hours, part time. None will take the time. I then offered to get one guy to financial independence so that he could work full time with me. After working with him for a year on investments he then would not sign a confidentiality agreement and decided that all my intellectual property was somehow his. hmmm. It will take him 10-15 years to get to where I could have gotten him in 2-3 years with my help. Truly amazing. Imagine what would have happened if I actually did work on the engine with this guy? Some people will freek out at $50, some at $10,000, and some at a concept and a clear vision to freedom.

I have interviewed people, and they just will not "turn their brain on" and think. I do it for fun, most just don't like to think, and want "peace" by vegging.

People want a guarantee of payment. We have lost the courage to work and set up our lives to live how we want to live. Forget the fancy car, big house, trips. Get freedom, then all will come. Your brain will turn on and the fear will be gone. People fear change, and they will kill for a few bucks. Kiyosaki is right, and free.

I know what a Pv t-s diagram is. I have a Masters degree in engineering and management, for whatever it is worth (not much, just an entrance ticket). The key is being able to think. The answers have to be created and discovered. Text books won't get you there, and neither will experience. There are a lot of experienced and unwise engineers with Phds who don't have a clue. I have four in my family... :(

I must say that I could not have gotten to where I am in Europe with the insane socialism and near "cast" system like that found in Germany (I speak German and worked with German auto car companies).

I stopped commenting because they sensored my comments. Maybe cr4 had a change of policy.

You have an attitude I like. I would work with you on my retirement income and wouldn't care about financial enrichment. Doing great work on important things is worth way more than money.

Got the book "Rich Dad/ Poor Dad" from Audible, not bad, remember Ben Franklin, retired from printing @ 42. What he did with his free time made our nation and our science. so financial freedom ain't a bad thing, Now back to Gwen's great idea Pendulum motion IC. I can see a straight four design with a semi-open architecture. Simple lever design Top fulcrum, push or catch rod @ 2/3 up attached to cam 5% variable there on travel yet enough travel to transfer enough power.

I also see a three pendulum design, but pendulums aer set at 120 degrees to each other and using a catch arm @ 1/3 from bottom to a plate flywheel where swing arm motion would be transfered. Around and around the flywheel would go as pendulums swing back and forth, Exhaust gas from the pendulum once its swing reached 100 degrees travel would power the back motion no springs needed. IC would be flat small profile 3 cycle Otto. Weight to output would be better than any slants. Nice non linear thinking. Good Job Gwen! Did I get your concept right?

Rory

Here is something interesting - a 6 stroke cycle engine using water injection to convert waste heat into work and increase efficiency.

http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060227/FREE/302270007/1023/THISWEEKSISSUE

Has anyone. requires being old, thought of reviving the idea of the Abner Doble steam engine. It burns any fuel, can drive at normal speed in 30 to 40 seconds and would be loved by the kids because you could burn rubber from a stand still. With today's manufacturing and electronic skills a viable design could be made. At the time it had a problem of the water freezing in cold weather so you had to provide heat to prevent that, but todays chemists, I am sure can solve that one.

I am ready to work on it if someone with deep pockets is ready, I am retired so I don't need a salary. Get a bunch like me together and just pay for the hardware. Call me at 252-726-2368 or e-mail me at www.billstravels07@yahoo.com

A vehicle that was part of the St. Louis fair which made Ford the dominant car company. You know there was a 120 different car companies there? What killed that engine wasn't the engine, but the chassis it was on. It was designed for city streets. The car fell a part on the muddy mess roads of rural America which was the growth market in the US then. Given new materials not a bad idea, but CO2 is CO2, but third world markets it wouldn't be a bad engine for. I am still for the hybrid. Use the V120-8 engine, size of a cat. Power output close to a gas turbine. Mount two turbine compressors on it. Compressor air to 200+ PSI into the frame of a uni-body. Put four Australian zero friction air turbines on each wheel. The only high tech gadget would be the air flow valve to the wheel turbines. Your idea would be great for 3W for the ease of available burning material. Mine would be because of fuel savings and ease of maintenance. Remember the chassis killed the engine the first time around.

Masu

a couple of small corrections

As usual great topic

Diesel aircraft engine

http://www.deltahawkengines.com/

Also what is jet fuel, but winter formulation Diesel?

Seaplaneguy.

how bout a small hint as what a crank less ICE would be

Good to have you back, someone needs to wield the big pointy stick to pick @ the underlying incongruities

Gents, Just as an aside, in a forum a few months ago I picked up a lead on used cooking oil to replace deisel and explained it to some farmers near Tabanan here in Bali. I went back last Sunday at their request and sure enough, they forgot everything I said about letting it stand, filtering it etc. Instead they just use it straight out of the warung (food stall) and into the 8 HP China engines on the rice huskers. So there you go. What a wonderful world....

Hi guys!

Let me offer some new stuff to discuss. That is a rotary vane engine with compressed air recovery. It has an externalized combustion chamber and works by the Brayton cycle.

http://isa.standardwebservices.com/index_eng.htm

Their expectations for flow rates of gasses appear to be extremely optomistic to me.

* It would take careful tuning to get any scavenging at all in that 3 valve
'exhaust to mixer - intake - exhaust` part of the cycle.

* I think they've got a major problem in the idea of maintaining those high
pressure/temperature combustion chambers.

* I don't think it will work at any usable rpm. if it can be made to work at all.

Masu and ya'all,

I spoke with a guy who made a piston engine that gets .22 lbs/hp-hr at peak efficiency at around 75% of peak power. That is a world record I believe for such an engine. It weighs 60 lbs and maxs out at 65 hp. The engine (www.rad-cam.com) uses a cam and holds the piston at TDC for a complete burn or in other words a "constant volume" heat addition cycle. It is very simple. That translates to 55% efficiency (.122/.22=.55). (.122 lbs/hp-hr is about 100% efficiency at 6 lbs per gallon and 125,000 BTU/gallon)

Now if it could do that at 1-100% of power, a car would get around 3.5-4 times the mileage based on a typical 15% efficiency in the cruise. He also does it with a weight of around 1/2 a typical IC engine. Hmmm. Sounds like someone has their "brain on" and is having success.

This is one of many things that can be done, and I do not advocate his solution, but it does show that the "experts" are asleep and have been so for 70+ years. Like I have been saying here many times, an engine should get 60-70% efficiency. The constant volume idea is only one of several things needed to bring an IC engine to it's carnot efficiency. Stated again Carnot is 1-Tlow/Thigh, and if combustion stays below 2000k to eliminate Nox and dumps at 500k, the efficiency should be 75%. Throw in 5-10% friction loss and you have 65-70% efficient engine. Hmmm.

Somehow I can see a gallon of gasoline dropping to $1.5 in the next ten years. A gallon of Natural Gas is $0.75, so if you add in road tax of $0.40-0.60, you can see gasoline going to $1.15-1.35 / gallon plus 10% for tankers, or about $1.5/gallon. It was at $2.00 just a while ago.

This is a nice design, a pity that we are not shown a view from the inside.

Combine this engine to a generator, and power a hybrid car. the milage will shoot up.

Is this based on old patents?

Gwen,

It is patented. Number is: US 6,691,648

You can read it and check the references. I am reading it and will comment later if I find something interesting about it.

This is a great idea.

Do they need someone in the development team?

Gwen,

It is a "great idea" (constant volume heat addition...old idea though) but there is much more to it than what he is doing. In ten steps to nirvana, this is about 2. He may get .22 at one small range of throttle, but the reason a car gets bad mileage is because of part throttle, regenerative brake needs, idling, heating and cooling and more. Heating and cooling can be 50% of loads in a low weight aerodynamic car. It will NOT get good fuel economy at a typical car duty cycle. It will likely do better than a hybrid though. It all depends on the low power efficiency.

In an airplane application he is playing on 100% power on takeoff (poor fuel economy for a short duration), and running at 55-65% in the cruise constantly, not 10-15% of peak with 30% idle (slowing down or stopped). His airplane runs on 28 hp (nice airplane I might add) and with 60 hp peak, he would likely cruise a little faster and be at 60% typically. I suspect it is "tuned" for one range just like most two strokes.

Development team? Call him up or email him. THUNDERGUL@aol.com. My concept and his are driven by different goals. You cannot get to where I want to be with his engine. Let me know what he says.

"it does show that the "experts" are asleep and have been so for 70+ years"

I am in total agreement with you on that!

The automotive industry love to spend hundred of millions of dollars each year on what is nothing but cosmetic changes. If for just one year they spent the money they do on cosmetic changes developing engine technology I am sure we would see dramatic improvements in both performance and efficiency.