Improving Thermodynamics - Not the Fuel

I am not an expert in motors, but it seems that we do have two cylinders with two active states out of four. Two cylinders in a classic configuration have the same!. What I see is that the right hand cylinder is more stressed that the left hand one (works at much higher temperature). It is for a specialist to discuss advantages/disadvantages of such a configuration.

If it wasn't for electronics, nothing changed in motors in more than 100 years.

By the way, 235 Kcal/g of burnt gasoline was the maximum that one can obtain with an internal combustion motor (this is from memory, from 30 years ago - so don't shoot, comrade Kommissar). How close are we to use it?

Are you saying that we get useful work out of 235kcal /g of gasoline? or that that is the total heat released by same?

milo

My ambiguous phrase. I meant that's maximum one can get, before efficiency of different gears or loses involved. And I wonder what is the useful percentage. I knew it but ....it slips my mind.

Your mind has a clutch?

milo

Now, that you have mentioned it, I know its name. In fact, works like a three way switch, when disconnecting the mind, it doesn't let it idle, it puts it to imagining young, well shaped, non-masculine bodies, in Bikini (must it be a capital letter?)

Don't we already have a pre-compressed and then burned type system already used by millions of IC engines already? Turbo chargers, superchargers and what not?

What is the difference between using a piston type compressor and a screw type or centrifugal type? These already have the capacities to build up tremendous intake side pressures and with inter coolers they still have a cold inlet charge going into the combustion chamber.

I have read about a way they can cheat the appearance of engine emission's just by changing the cam profiles so that the intake and exhaust valve are both open for a longer duration while using a higher pressure intake charging system. This in effect blows clean air through the cylinder and dilutes the exhaust gasses and give the appearance that the pollutants are much lower simply by dilution of them.

The over all principle takes more energy and thus more fuel and equates to a lower engine efficiency. More fuel is actually burned in order to make a fake appearance of less emitted pollutants. (basically how our emissions systems work right now.)

If a person takes the intake pressurization system and and uses it to pump a large volume of clean air directly into the exhaust manifold after the engine that too can give super low emissions numbers as well and still have the engine running at peak efficiencies!

Nothing is actually gained but the false appearances that the exhaust is cleaner despite the same total mass of fuel is burned and the same mass of byproducts are produced.

It still all looks like just a game of misdirection and slight of hand to me!

This appears to be yet another version of the Bourke engine, except with computer controls. I know a team out of Israel that has a crankshaft modifying device that increases engine performance by cutting back on the friction and moving parts.

I expect them to do very well, since we will be buying their patent rights when the time comes. Bourke is a whole different scenario and while their engine design is older, it is proven and oddly, not in use today.

http://www.bourke-engine.com/

JL Mealer
Mealer Companies LLC
America's Next Major Automaker
http://mealercompanies.com

Cute, but I don't like the idea of having a timing belt connection between the cylinders, but for a prototype and proof of concept, it's O. K.

I'm also a little skeptical about the thermodynamic claims. Although I don't doubt that the "cold" cylinder is colder than the "hot" cylinder, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. It still takes energy to produce compressed gas, and as anyone who has ever put his hand on an air compressor knows, they suck in cold air and by compressing it make it hot compressed air, and the cylinders get hot too. And, heat transfer is more efficient at higher temperature differences.

I have learned to be patient ever since I bought a calculator which only added, subtracted, multiplied and divided for $100, even though my sage old father advised me to wait for a year. (The original HP calculator sold for $450 or so, and it only had the four functions.) A year later, prices dropped to $20, and square roots were added, and you could walk around with it as opposed to my plug-in model.

Or a slide rule! Remember them? The cases used to come with belt loops.

Yep; I still have one that I used in college, and I've found several more at flea markets. I guess most young people don't know what they are, much less how to use them.

As diagrammed, it can't have good breathing for inlet or exhaust. Two cranks and connections between them adds weight and complexity.

Could do the same thing with parallel cylinders. A single crank would be lighter and stronger, and give much more room for valves.

Lots of variations have been tried in how you compress the mix, ignite it, and expand it.

This approach might be ok, but probably a waste of time unless it really reduces the heat loss or permits much higher compression ratios. (to approach Diesel efficiency)

The claims are absurd. It will not halve CO2 production for same fuel and work. That would mean a doubling of efficiency, which is most unlikely.

Hi. Welcome to CR4.

It does seem to be complicated, with a lot of mechanical drag. But interesting.

Amazing... Yet another inventor who has saved time by not actually understanding the theoretical and practical aspect of engines.

I always wonder how these clowns go about calculating the expected efficiency & emission levels or are they so deluded they just make them up.

...well, I think this is not going to help then...

Any link for more pictures like that?.-

Nope, but I can mail it to you. Please forward me your address. Mine is hannes.barnard@andtc.com

There are several split cycle engines in development, or shelved. This one has been prototyped, but there is no test data. Instead, the company is looking for $2.5M to move forward. Nice work if you can get it, but I would hope that investors would want test data, especially when there is a working prototype.

All that remains to be installed would be a hydraulic pump to serve as a dynamometer, but they have not done that. Their drawing shows such an installation, but we have no test data. Why not? There may be a reasonable explanation, but having a physical prototype but talking only about simulated efficiencies, seems odd.

It seems as if there could be the theoretical possibility of greater efficiency than in a typical normally-aspirated engine, (not remotely close to double) but the frictional losses in additional mixture transfer, the heating of the "cold" cylinder from compression, the transfer of heat to the cold cylinder from the hot one (via conduction), the poor combustion chamber shape (in terms of area to volume) the need for two cooling systems (forced air for the cool cylinder perhaps, and water cooling for the hot cylinder) the increased cost of two crankshafts, etc. all seem like real challenges. But if their prototype can show test results in the 30-35% efficiency range, then they may have something worth pursuing, because some refinement could perhaps get them up to 40%, a couple points higher than a Prius Atkinson cycle engine.

I'd be surprised if anything comes of this, but it will be interesting to see the data. Perhaps I'll email them... my X Prize effort requires only a small engine.

Thanks Everybody.

I knew that the talent available here would reveal the real issues.

This is yet another example of "The greater the claims, the fewer the data provided."

milo

I doubt that the thermal efficiency improvement will even be measurable, but the real opportunity lies in using innovative fuel. For example, between the compression cylinder and the expansion cylinder, insert a container of burning camel dung. ;-)

All the wise people demonstrated conclusively that the engine could not compete with steam. They never thought that it might carve out a career for itself. That is the way with wise people--they are so wise and practical that they always know to a dot just why something cannot be done; they always know the limitations. That is why I never employ an expert in full bloom.
If ever I wanted to kill opposition by unfair means I would endow the opposition with experts. They would have so much good advice that I could be sure they would do little work.

H. Ford