New Engine Design

I really appreciate your effort to help me.but I'm pretty sure that the engine will perform in good manner as I expected.i hv discussed this with my lectures in the university.so I didn't find any clear error in the theories I applied to design this.actually I need to discuss the about the technology with a manufacturer.then I can finally concluded whether the design is actually a successful one or not.

manufacturering of new type of engine would be extremely difficult for an individual person.is there any support community for such innovations.

what kind of international contest are kept relevant to this field.can u please explain me !!

http://www.homemodelenginemachinist.com/

thank you

I would go crowd funding. But you will have to come forward with a list of feasible improvements that you say exist in the new design compared to the current designs.

Thanks you for ur post...i hv got ur idea n im thinking about it.
I'll briefly explain my design. I hv studied about hundreds of engines present n hv compared each of them according to their performances.i really needed to built an n engine perform like 2 stroke engine.it means engine should be simple in design should be compact light in weight n the power generated like 2 stroke engine.at the same time it should avoid emission of unburned hydrogen carbons no usage of 2T as an oil.so efficiency of this engine should be like normal 4stroke engine.I needed to add both favorable features of 2stroke n 4 stroke engines.also avoid there unsatisfied features.
This doesn't wear engine like in wankel engine n no burning of engine oil inside the combustion chamber.pistons are arranged in circular manner so it is so compact
.2pistons will give power like 4 pistons traditional engines.n in the same engine 2 piston can be increased up to 4pistons without increasing its space n performance like 8 pistons traditional engine.
Designed doesn't have a of complex valve mechanism just a simple disc.n also another lots of advantages are there.
the production cost also may be less than other engines.any how I'm further studying about all of these.sometimes i may not able to challenge those present technologies but I believe that there is also a certain possibility to do that.
Thank you all

You mention having the local patent for your design. How local? What jurisdiction?

Where I am, patents are not decentralized. There is no patent authority for my neighborhood distinct from the nation as a whole...the USPTO. The reason I am bringing up the USPTO is not just to be a Richard, it also segues a legitimate point of discussion:

I think your idea would not meet the requirement of novelty for a patent under USPTO rules. Rotary valves are not novel. Radial cylinder layout is not novel. Direct injection 2 stroke diesel is not novel. The combination of these features is not something the average professional familiar with these systems would not have arrived at naturally themselves.

.

There needs to be something innovative/novel that adds value to warrant addition development expense.

when u r having a local patent for ur novel invention then it is protected in ur country only.not globally.

I just needed to clarify a path to expose the invention n improve it.you may hv doubt of the design it's ok because I didn't explain the working principles.

If your country signed on the agreement, you may have been able to apply for a PCT to provide you with an 18 months extension to apply to hundreds of other countries using your original application date.

Ask your patent agent.

Could you please tell us the name of your university and the date and time of your next lecture.

I'm sure one or more of the members here could find the time to attend.

Then they, along with all others in attendance, could evaluate your design.

Just remember Andy Granatelli...

Not to sound like a wet blanket, but unless you can supply theoretical proof that your I.C. engine idea offers a significant improvement over current designs, then you will essentially be wasting your time. Not to say it won't be fun or instructive, but just don't invest your money or life into it.

Some years back, before the internet, I spent many hours pouring through hundreds of I.C. patents on microfiche at the University of Florida. There were clever ones, silly ones, complex ones, ingenious ones, but at the end I sat back and thought "how come none of these succeeded?" The answer was of course that none offered a significant advantage over existing and ever-improving designs.

You will be up against a gigantic industry with massive tooling costs. If you could think up a modification to existing designs, you might get somewhere.

Thanks you for ur post...i hv got ur idea n im thinking about it.
I'll briefly explain my design. I hv studied about hundreds of engines present n hv compared each of them according to their performances.i really needed to built an n engine perform like 2 stroke engine.it means engine should be simple in design should be compact light in weight n the power generated like 2 stroke engine.at the same time it should avoid emission of unburned hydrogen carbons no usage of 2T as an oil.so efficiency of this engine should be like normal 4stroke engine.I needed to add both favorable features of 2stroke n 4 stroke engines.also avoid there unsatisfied features.
This doesn't wear engine like in wankel engine n no burning of engine oil inside the combustion chamber.pistons are arranged in circular manner so it is so compact
.2pistons will give power like 4 pistons traditional engines.n in the same engine 2 piston can be increased up to 4pistons without increasing its space n performance like 8 pistons traditional engine.
Designed doesn't have a of complex valve mechanism just a simple disc.n also another lots of advantages are there.
the production cost also may be less than other engines.any how I'm further studying about all of these.sometimes i may not able to challenge those present technologies but I believe that there is also a certain possibility to do that.
Thank you all

My personal experience with coming up with designs for things that go counter to the most common methods was to simply make them public domain as in post them to internet forums as 'How to' and "DIY' designs along with all the relevant and pertinent information required for most anyone with basic technical skills in those areas to follow and understand.

Now you won't get rich going that route but you will find out if you designs are viable and something that the public who work with things of such will find worth tinkering with or not and will thusly vindicate your design or show it to not be worth what you claim it to be.

It will twice powerful than a normal 4 stroke engine.

Did you re-invent the 2 stroke engine?

If you just gave some basic physical principals it would help.

no I totally modified 4stroke engine that's gives POWER as 2stroke engine.remember here power strokes happen after 3stroke but the way is totally different from other 4strokes engines

You don't seem to be able to even explain how it works...You provide no drawings even, or patent number....You might just as well be telling us you've discovered you can fly by flapping your arms a certain way....

I don't think that the situation much worst like u explained.there may be failures.but I think I'm better than dukes n wankel engines.

You have it patented, so its protected,...

1 of 2 things here,

either you shared nothing.

or

I can't see through the smoke.

when u r having a local patent for ur novel invention then it is protected in ur country only.not globally.

Then you should consult within the country you have the patent in with non-disclosure contracts.

If you want to dwell into other country's for consultation (like your doing now), like the United States for instance, here you can also do a temporary provisional patent to secure your idea.

How to file a provisional patent? Here are the steps for filing provisional patent at the USPTO website:

1. Go to the USPTO website uspto.gov.
2. Click on the link called "patents file online"
3. Click on the link for "unregistered" filer - or try this link for direct access.
4. Fill in your name (last and first) and your email address.

Not true.

When you have a patent no one else can get a patent. They can built it ok and sell it except in your country. However with no patent no one will build it anyway, so you are mostly protected as far as others stealing your idea is concerned. It sound to me that your are in India. If so you have already a very large market, enough to make you rich.

BTW, no oil in the combustion chambers mean no gas sealing. From your writing, abbreviating words, you must be a very young person which would imply little or no experience in the engine field.

An engine needs only a few things, these are good sealing, a good power transfer to the output shaft, high speed capacity - meaning low inertia loads, flexibility in layout, in compression ratio and in ratio of stroke to bore diameter or piston area. Can it ran as Diesel engine? How efficient will it be? How large is the combustion surface area relative to combustion volume for a 1 liter engine, A) in your 2 piston version and B) in your 4 piston version? It should also be smaller and lighter then the RPE and be less complicated which is hardly possible. Has it fewer parts then a 1 cylinder 2-stroke?

Look at these points and report back if it passes these tests. As I said, no oil means no gas sealing. That statement alone points to inexperience as does your writing.

I think you r a good source for me to discuss n keep contact.actually I'm new to this field.I'll answer some of ur question.n msg u some few things.the engine has good transmission system.not a rotary type engine.so less speed high torque n high efficiency as 4 strokes engine.both petrol n diesel can be used.this is not a single piston 2 stroke engine.it is actually a 4 stroke engine.so the energy generated values are closer to normal 4 stroke engine.bit complex than 2stroke engine but not as 4stroke engine.engine need at least 2pistons.

I suspect that there may be higher heat generation in engine.so better cooling system should be provided.n the vibration will be high increasing the number of pistons will help to solve this.the scavenging efficiency may also reduce.so few actions should be taken to correct these.

I know that u r really doubt whether this can be happen or not.anyway if it is possible r u recommended this as good engine?...i think I need assist from I'll contact u in future n discuss about the machine.

I have a petrol engine that is 10 times more efficient than all the designs in the world. I will swap my illusion with yours.

Yes I got ur point it's not worth of telling things here n there.the most important thing is preparing a working module.I'm trying.but i acually need was to know a path to present this if I got succeed.. thanks colin

Look, you don't know what you are talking about when you compare the efficiencies and output power of 2-stroke and 4-stroke.
Look at Ralph Sarich and his orbital engine. It cleans up the air in Mexico and burns the pollutants.
You have to be much more educated to even start a discussion at this level.
I know nothing about designing a new type of motor but you know even less.
Go back to school for a 10 year course in engineering and then start to discuss these things.
I talk at the Inventors Meetings each month and I get dozens of people like you, with wild dreams that have absolutely no possibility of getting on to the market.
And the next month they say they have spent $15,000 on a patent attorney and provisional patents and designs and their money is all used up. One man actually got conned into spending $34,000 on a design that I could have provided for $1,500 on an alarm to turn off a tractor if it rolled over.
We have also had a con-artist with a motor, just like yours, and fooled to of the members into backing his invention. That was 8 years ago and nothing eventuated. And he had an engineering workshop that produced all the components - and yet his idea did not come to fruition.

Ko

the power to weight ratio of 2stroke engine is higher than 4stroke engines.but efficiency of 4stroke of the 4 stroke engine is higher.thats why it became popular n the effect to the environment is less.

what happens If I hv done some modifications to 4stroke engine to increase its power.imagine dukes engine.its is quite similar to my engine design.but to get my own specific performance I hv modified it in a new way.thats what I hv patented.yes I hv lot to learn in this industry.im continuing it.but theoreticaly I'm okay

I read Ralph Sarich's book years ago. It was full of promise - but nothing long term eventuated. He made millions from selling the rights to his clever rotary & scavenged 2-stroke engines to most of the world's great engine manufacturers - none of whom put them in production. I think Mercury Marine may have adopted his 2-stroke design. So what happened to Mr. Sarich? He became a property tycoon! What a waste of talent.

This is a difficult path, auto suppliers are fairly entrenched & will protect their own interests. As has been mentioned, there have been many novel engine designs that promised much, some with considerable investment. I would have thought that your best route would be to approach an engine manufacturing company or a development company like Ricardo who have the expertise to evaluate your design & the industrial credibility and contacts to be able to offer it to car companies.

No-body wants a new engine-design. The petrol companies don't want anything more efficient, The road-side service vans don't want anything new and the repair garages don't want to learn anything new.
Look at how long it took to get the Wankel engine accepted.

If the only cars made were the '60s era Ford Falcons,and the Chevy II's the repair

shops would have gone out of business years ago.

The Falcon won a mileage contest in the '60's.

Put over 100,000 miles on a '62 Chevy II on a mail route,stop-and go the whole

way,then gave it to my nephew,who put another 100,00 on it and sold it to a local car

parts shop to do deliveries.Don't know where it is now, but I would buy it back in an

instant.

I am sure the newer cars now are more efficient that those,but reliability was hard to beat.

The Wankel has not been accepted and for good reason. It has low efficiency and poor sealing and you can't change that. Heck, at present you can't even buy a car with a Wankel in it.

As far as your other comments go, if that were true there would be no progress whatsoever and we would still live in the stone age.

I will build your working model. I will sign a non disclosure agreement. (NDA) I will negotiate with you to build an ownership model for the product, most likely by creating an LLC to own the patent and associated value. PM me.

Can it ran as Diesel engine?

This shows complete lack of understanding of good engine design. And you cannot spell.
Diesel is the most polluting system in the world as it produces microscopic particles that get into the human brain and damage it.

'...Diesel is the most polluting system in the world....'

.

Hyperbolize much?

Uhg. Really? Do you really believe this?

Along time ago I read story about a new rotary engine. It was like a three rotor gear motor. One side of the main rotor was intake and exhaust, the other side was compression and ignition. It didn't have seals but close tolerances and a pressurized crankcase. The rotors were oil cooled. It seemed incredibly simple and it achieved incredible RPMs, like 12,000. I've heard nothing of it since.

Sounds a little familiar. I think the problem was difficulty with manufactured tolerances and wear, and reliability. That generally kills many of the more fuel or power efficient engine designs - real world conditions.

Do you, or do you not, have a working prototype or only a(n animated) drawing?...

Let me tell you how patents work.
Many companies pay a yearly fee to patent offices to get all recent patents emailed or delivered each day.
They sift through the patents to copy.
If a patent is changed by as little as 15% it is a completely different product.
If they copy it in its entirety, you have to sue them in an international court.
This costs $50,000 or more to initiate.
On top of this you have to show a working prototype of your design.
They will simply say your product does not work and it will cost tens of thousands to start a case. On top of this it will take years to get to trial.
All my projects were copied by a man in Hong Kong Peter Crowcroft of Kits R US and he simply said: We do not recognise patents in Hong Kong.
I belong to the Inventors Association and they are run by Patent Attorneys and they will bleed you dry before you get a sample to the test bench.
Creating a patent simply gives all your competition 2 weeks head-start and if the concept is unique, it will be copied and you will never find the actual manufacturer.
This is exactly what has happened in the past.
Look up "portable saw" and "jack-knife trailer" to see what I mean.

look up "portable saw" and "jack-knife trailer" where?

Did you know that Internal Combustion Engine is a dead corpse waiting its funeral. If what you have patented (to really be competitive) does not improve efficiency above 85%, you are just beating around the same old bush. Nothing sort of of another petroleum burner has a long term chance of surviving the up-coming mid-century electric engine technology boom. In other words, what you are trying to market (if and when you get to market it) is already, no matter how different or improved, dead on arrival technology. Why don't you put your inventive efforts in magnetic technology.

The "mid-century electric engine technology boom" will never happen. Perhaps it is forced on us by governments for passenger cars. But it cannot happen for trucking, shipping, off-road earth moving machinery and any large, heavy power equipment.

You cannot wait half of the time for recharging in business. Besides, where would the electrical power come from? Read some of Alex Epsteins' teachings.

Also, 85% efficiency is a ridiculous number. it shows your innocence on the matter. If you can improve form 32 to 40% you are way ahead and will replace the RPE. The efficiency depends to a large degree on the respective power generated. Ships diesels run over 50% nowadays, road diesel in cars some 34% get that up to 40 would be a big deal and worthwhile pursuing.

You must be a believer in Al Gore and his bloodletting nonsense to save the planet. Nothing happens when you charge for CO2. All you do is provide another income for the bloated governments and world banksters who live off society.

yes I agree with u.it is very wrong if I said u that I have increased the efficiency in the 4stroke engine.if the maximum efficiency of 4 stroke engine is 40% i can keep the efficiency around it but didn't exceed.then what i have done?..

consider 4 pistons 4 stroke engine n a 2 pistons engine that i have designed.the efficiency of both engines Will be equal.both engines are reliable.but novel design give these performance 2 pistons.not costly as 4stroke.no complex valve mechanism.more than half of weight and space can be reduced.when increasing the no of pistons this could be reduced up to 75%.

It's hard to beat a turbocharged hybrid....even an old one....

The link didn't work so I did a general search.

Theres more to engine design than just efficiency.

To be honest there are already many engine designs that greatly surpass the common standards and expectations we have of them today.

The problem is either they are very complex and difficult to make and maintain or they have some other perceived negative effect that that not a design or technical limitation but a political or socially perceived one.

My personal favorite for high efficiency engine designs were the old ultra high compression (30 - 50+:1 compression ratios) diesels they developed or were developing decades ago.

Back then there inherent downside was that they were massively heavy for the power output they had which made them less than ideal for mobile applications.

But by today's standards and improvements in metallurgy and overall diesel engine design for power to weight ratio improvements and fuel management (ultra high pressure direct injection systems) they would be viable except for the fact that they would never pass an emissions test which is what is more important than any measurable gains in fuel efficiency.

Hell, to be honest the blight of being 'environmentally friendly' is costing us more in engine an overall energy efficiency in too many areas of life and social advancement than it has ever brought us than most of us who know the reality behind it care to ever want to admit.

Well, an engine to succeed and to be 'better' than existing technology needs to be more efficient, smaller, lighter and simpler. That is about it. Less polluting is synonymous with higher efficiency. Simpler is generally synonymous with fewer parts or less manufacturing cost and time.

The RPE can be made more efficient but then it is larger and heavier, example: the large ships diesel of over 50% efficiency. At a given engine principle more efficiency demands more weight and size as efficiency is simply achieved by lower heat losses that in turn is achieved by a smaller combustion chamber surface area relative to combustion chamber volume. It is as simple as that. No one has a magic wand.

The conclusion is that another engine principle is needed to better the RPE that is coming close to its limit. Only another principle can supersede its results.

In the finer points, above 4 characteristics or at least the first three should be available at relatively low power levels required for everyday use vehicles and power equipment. The large ships diesel scaled down will not work. The engines would be too large and heavy.

If the invention is based on the conventional RPE, it will not succeed. Attempts of opposing piston arrangements may have advantages.

Turbines are good but only at large power settings, its application is a bit akin to the ships diesel.

"Less polluting is synonymous with higher efficiency. "

Commonly associated with but sadly falsely so.

Most complete combustion of fuel is no more a representation of an engine's efficiency in converting its fuel energy into mechanical power than an engine's peak torque point is associated with its peak power output point.

To be honest an engine designed to produce the most complete fuel combustion tends to be quite far from one designed to best convert its fuel energy into mechanical power with the least losses.

Granted emission complaint engines have gotten considerably more efficient since their first introductions near 40 years ago (it was a pretty low standard they set at that point) but compared to what an equivalent modern engine built to be the most fuel efficient they still don't have much for bragging rights for efficient fuel use.

I quite agree as long as you are referring to the conventional RPE family of engines and its various versions of layout and supplementary machinery.

For example, how does the jet engine used in airliners compare in NOx and CO to the RPE? To be honest, I am personally not quite sure of the emission levels relative to the RPE. Also, the Jet runs essentially continuously at max power setting while the RPE in cars does not that makes comparisons skewed. I am looking at other engine systems to compare with the RPE.

What do you know about the opposing piston engine that is being developed by Achates, OPOC and Pinnacle.

They claim some 30+ % higher efficiency which means the same amount of lower CO2. One could surely deduct that the amount of NOx, particulates, etc. are also lower by the same ratio. The higher efficiency is achieved by a lower combustion chamber surface area relative to volume that results in lower heat losses. Lower contact surface area means lower formation levels of all by-products.

If you think that is incorrect please let me know.

Remember, the subject discussed here is a new engine concept different to the RPE which is the background of my statements. I trust that a different engine principle is needed to notably surpass the RPE in efficiency and lower the emission. Improving the RPE is of course good, but sooner or later it will reach is limits.

The so far little information on the present proposal provided does not imply merit.

Yes, Standard vehicle engines.

"For example, how does the jet engine used in airliners compare in NOx and CO to the RPE? To be honest, I am personally not quite sure of the emission levels relative to the RPE. "

Turbine engine emissions.

Not really the huge issue its claimed to be.

"What do you know about the opposing piston engine that is being developed by Achates, OPOC and Pinnacle.

They claim some 30+ % higher efficiency which means the same amount of lower CO2. One could surely deduct that the amount of NOx, particulates, etc. are also lower by the same ratio. The higher efficiency is achieved by a lower combustion chamber surface area relative to volume that results in lower heat losses. Lower contact surface area means lower formation levels of all by-products.

If you think that is incorrect please let me know."

I have no real information but I do know that when it comes to engine efficiency and emissions related be very careful about the weighting of the numbers. Going from 10% to 13% is a 30% increase in efficiency when using 10% as the baseline but if properly compared to the reality of the whole its only 3% which aint much when your paying for the whole gallon of fuel burned and not just the part that made you move down the road.

Gaming the numbers to make small thing look far bigger than they are in order to justify highly questionable goals or agendas is the primary operating method of environmental causes.

Fore example. Back itne 1970's when the first fuel reformulations and subsequent engine emissions reduction systems came out they were responsible for a good 80% reduction in pollutants. A very justified gain for what was involved that became known and Tier 1.

Next came Tier 2 with a goal of another 80% reduction. Fair enough but watch the numbers being 80% + 80% exceeds 100% and that second 80% reduction was just aiming at reducing the remaining 20% left over from Tier 1 or a roughly 16% gross reduction form pre emissions days baseline zero values. Still largely justified being it did take us down to a ~ 96% reduction in pollutants from baseline zero reduction levels.

Now after that when Tier 3 came out that's where the blatant scam based on the general public's overall ignorance and lack of understanding of basic science and math played out. Another 80% reduction sounded great on paper and in the eye of the ignorant public and totally doable 'since we did it twice already'.

80% reduction of of 20% of 20% for the cost of both previous reductions combined or a total gain of ~3% (putting us at an actual ~96 - 99% overall reduction from baseline zero ) for the same cost that the first two justifiable Tiers that took ~96% of the pollutants out hit us for. Total BS money grabbing scam.

But it got worse. Being the blindingly gullible schmucks we are they figured we would fall for the scam a second time and they went for another 80% reduction (hey, we did pull of three of them already so why not one more?) and let's make it a all encompassing one at that that even cripples the venerable old highly efficient diesel to the point even they will become damn near too expensive and useless to justifiably own.

80% reduction of 20% of 20% of 20% or a whopping ~.8% net gain for the cost of what all three previous Tiers combined cost.

I have a brand new 2016 penny. You want you to buy it -you have to buy it - I will force you to buy it and it will only cost you $1 because you're saving the environment when you do! (the inverse of 80% of 20% of 20% of 20%.)

That's how gullible/stupid too much of our nation has become over environmental issues.

Thanks tcmtech, your answer is right on and much appreciated.

When it is said '30+% improvement' one would of course assume from the present state of the art.

Your outline of playing with percentages is quite true and just about humerus as it shows how the general public can be fooled and anything can be manipulated to look as you want it to look applying percentages.

The efficiency should really be given in absolute number not in percentages. Since the efficiency of engines is wide spread and not a fixed number as every engine is different, citing percentages are essentially meaningless. Agreed.

But nevertheless, opposing pistons achieve a long stroke ratio that is very favourable in reducing combustion chamber surface area and to reduce heat losses. See the large ships diesel, while at the same time allow high speed and high specific engine power. In other words, opposing pistons combine high efficiency with high specific power that is not possible with a single acting piston layout. It is a good thing but the RPE is not the best to use that principle as two outside and geared together crankshafts are needed and most designs, except for Pinnacle, run as two stroke.

Thanks also for the comprehensive link on the airline industry. Based on that, we should not really be concerned about flying and the aircraft industry.

'.... They claim some 30+ % higher efficiency which means the same amount of lower CO2. One could surely deduct that the amount of NOx, particulates, etc. are also lower by the same ratio. The higher efficiency is achieved by a lower combustion chamber surface area relative to volume that results in lower heat losses. Lower contact surface area means lower formation levels of all by-products. ...'

.

That is a specious argument. That's not really the way it works, particularly when it comes to NOx emissions. Increased NOx emissions typically have a strong positive correlation with increased temperature. More complete burning and lower heat losses to chamber surface area, ceteris paribus, will lead to higher temperatures....and therefore typically not to lower NOx.

.

On a second note; I find the argument that having two opposing pistons (vice a single piston moving twice as fast) somehow reduces the ratio of surface area to combustion chamber volume unconvincing. A cylinder of particular dimensions is a cylinder is a cylinder. It does not matter to the ratio whether one end or two is move to change the volume. There may be advantages to moving both ends related to piston speed, but not area/volume ratios.

.

Opposing piston engines are not novel, by the way. Backup generator diesel engines on many US NAVY boats are of the opposed piston variety.

"That is a specious argument. That's not really the way it works, particularly when it comes to NOx emissions. Increased NOx emissions typically have a strong positive correlation with increased temperature. More complete burning and lower heat losses to chamber surface area, ceteris paribus, will lead to higher temperatures....and therefore typically not to lower NOx.

That high NOx production was one of the biggest issue with the old ultra high compression diesel systems and even with the modern standard to now bringing on too low to work well emission compliant ones too.

The thing is the false weighting on what is relevant to what political cause or public misconception is what gets me.

When engine emissions levels are reduced to their simplest GWP values regardless of what is done to the engine the gross GWP value has very little overall variance despite a very wide actual fuel usage to mechanical energy conversion variance from one spectrum to the other.

Basically the push is to trade NOx GWP numbers (~310 per mass unit) for CO2 GWP numbers (1 per mass unit) which sounds like a good trade given the 310:1 ratio but in reality in typical normal internal combustion engine running conditions the ratios of NOx to CO2 are well under the 310:1 ratio.

A gallon of diesel fuel weighs ~7.1 pounds and produces ~ 22.4 pounds of CO2 when burned and NOX is produced at rates of several hundred PPM or less (micrograms) or about 1:10,000 - 100,000 th as much as CO2.

For 1 gallon of fuel burned @ 25% efficiency (~14 HP hours per gallon)

22.4 units of CO2 @ a GWP of 1 = 22.4

.001 units of NOx @ a GWP of 310 = .31

for a total of ~22.7 units of greenhouse gasses produced per 14 Horsepower hours of mechanical power produced.

Now the thing is if going purely by the numbers a ultra high compression diesel engine may have had NOx production numbers in the 10,000+ PPM range they also had a CO2 production of 30 - 50% less than those of a conventional equivalent for the same mass of fuel burned simply due to their substantially better conversion of fuel energy into mechanical power.

Or for the same ~14 HP/Hrs mechanical output at 50% efficiency

CO2 @ 1 x 22.4 x .5 = 11.2

NOX @ 310 x .06 (60,000 PPM!)* x .5 = 9.3

* (crazy unrealistically high NOx value.)

for a total of 20.5 units of greenhouse gasses produced per 14 Horsepower hours of mechanical power produced and half the fuel was used on top of it.

That's the dirty little numbers acam behind the fuss over NOx production and trading it off for more CO2.

Far more fuel is burned to edo the same mechanical work while no additional honest combustion byproduct GWP numbers are gained but the ignorant public gets to claim they reduce that terrible NOx GWP value by a factor of 100+ even though it's costing them twice as much fuel to do it and making the gross bulk GWP per unit of mechanical power produced higher not lower.

BTW. The big oil industry would love to sell us half the fuel we use now at twice the price but the government and their fuel tax revenue per gallon is what drives the system to be as grossly inefficient and dishonest as it is over what is really behind the push for emissions and pollution limits.

It's not about saving the planet or saving fuel or anything so noble. It purely to keep funding government greed and tax generation from a source we can't live without by keeping a very big lie alive by playing the gullibility, ignorance and pride of the common person who will happily scream it's true because they just don't know any better.

Lots of truth in what you write. I agree strongly with almost all of it.

One minor detail....

'.... they also had a CO2 production of 30 - 50% less than those of a conventional equivalent for the same mass of fuel burned simply due to their substantially better conversion of fuel energy into mechanical power.....'

I think on a fuel mass basis the CO2 production difference doesn't afford much insight. On an equivalent output basis...mechanical power, the CO2 production difference would be much as you describe.

Sorry mathematical oversight I didn't catch on the proofread on my part.

It was half being they burned half as much fuel. Total CO2 output was still proportional to the fuel used but the NOx was way higher but still the total weighted exhaust gas GWP values were still less than any standard engine.

I can't seem to find much online info on the early ultra high compression diesel research though. Years ago (mid 90's) when I went to tech college in NDSCS Wahpeton they had a trade magazine at the library that detailed all sorts of things like that and that's where I first heard of it. Since then I have seen talk of it pop up now and then as new diesel engine tech ad came along.

Early 2000's when full drive by wire electronic engine management tech became industry standard was the last major talk I heard of it.

I don't recall what major engine manufacturers were playing around with the concepts but it was toyed with by most of them through the 70's and 80's and likely 90's but at the time the need for extremely robustly built engine blocks and reciprocating components was the big hurdle.

It was cost and manufacturing prohibitive to make a 3000 pound 170 - 200 HP engine for a 3/4 ton pickup at the time even if it would have got 30 - 40 MPG in return! Mostly just having diesel fuel at ~ 70 - 80 cents a gallon didn't help push the development either.

Presently Clark-Brayton cycle Diesel engines are the closest up to date related engine development work I can find which has a ~45% efficiency with a ~60% theoretically possible efficiency level which when using typical number fudging equivalents that's a 70 - 120+ % fuel efficiency gain potential.

Clark- Brayton cycle ultra high compression diesel engine. 50+:1 Compression Ratio.

Unfortunately to meet emission standards regarding NOx production ultra low compression diesel is being looked at.

Low Compression diesel for the future. ~14:1 CR or about what early 1930's diesels had on a bad day.

Lots of fuel management improvements to help bring their efficiency up but overall not a major gain being they are rather taking the diesel process out of the diesel engine.

How does that compare to an electric vehicle taking into account the efficiency of electric generation & losses in storing and retrieving energy in the car & the electric motor efficiency?

Largely irrelevant.

They are two completely different operating systems and designs governed by two completely different sets of working processes and related efficiency parameters and limits.

Part of the problem is that NOx emissions can cause problems other than as a GWG. Acid rain and smog are two concerns.

It turns out lightning is also a significant producer of NOx emissions. Perhaps in something reminiscent of a cap-and-trade system, ultra-high efficiency diesels that met other emissions standards except NOx could be allowed so long as tall charge dissipating poles were constructed to reduce enough NOx production of lightning to offset the engines expected production in excess of limits.