Chris,

I am a proponent of scientific method.

Hi Chris et al,

As am I. My experiment was a sucessful 'proof of concept/theory' regardless of the fact that I didn't and don't have all of the specific data to quantify it

I didn't need to in order to prove that it was valid.

Which the experiment did.

Hi Blink,

I don't need to 'quantify' it in order to know that it is valid. I already knew that it is valid prior to my rudimentary experiment that confirmed it and I have much more immediate higher priority matters that I'm focusing on.

The point that I was making is that you are familiar and knowledgeable enough to do the same with a 'thought experiment'. The 'results' of significantly improved efficiency is readily apparent to anyone that has an understanding of the principals and the physics that govern such ICEs.

I didn't quantify the results of my experiment. It was to confirm my hypothesis was valid and worked as opposed to the Physics professors at university level were absolutely 100% sure that my hypothesis was not valid and would not work at all. My experiment was a 'proof of concept/theory' and achieved what it was designed to do: that my theory and idea were correct and would produce the outcome I predicted, which it did.

The elderly gentleman that converted an existing 1 cylinder engine to incorporate this into an existing engine was a segment of 'The Daily Planet': a Canadian TV show about science. This converted ICE produced significantly higher efficiency and thus was further 'proof of concept'.

I don't remember what the values that he stated were, but they were quite significant and greater that just a single digit in improved efficiency, thus when I originally posted this on here I 'hedged my bet' and stayed on the conservative side.

There is no additional fuel added into this as a result of these modifications.

The modification results in significantly higher power output and improved efficiencies with the same fuel consumption.

These are 'significant clues' added to this puzzle.

I don't need to 'quantify' it in order to know that it is valid.

You are certainly entitled to your belief system.

These are 'significant clues' added to this puzzle.

Perhaps someone who is interested in such puzzles will find your post in this thread, and make a guess.

HI Blink,

I certainly agree with you that we have gone well past the point of being constructive in this matter. The horse (power) has long since been flogged to death.

As to discounting and dismissing me as being irrelevant and meaningless because I 'only saw it on TV' being interviewed by some reporter &/or his production team including researchers that is completely of ignorant of any such things.

Neither of these are true.
I conceived of, designed and constructed the apparatus to carry out this experiment and did the experiment MYSELF which proved conclusively the validity of my theory. This is not some 'unsupported, unproven, exaggerated 'urban myth' that was hearsay evidence that I had no idea of that the origin was or was unable to verify the experiment and the results.

The TV show that interviewed the person that conceived of the exact same thing as myself and converted an existing 4 stroke petrol with substantial increase in efficiency is strictly based on sciences and technology and deals with qualified technologists and scientists that like most such people have their work is scrutinized and reproducible by peers.

As to your list of the usually run of hoaxes that keep getting flogged as 'miracle mileage makers' but as you quite validly point out, in most cases the only one that benefits from these is the persons revenue for things that have no, or VERY little affect on increased efficiency &/or decreases in pollution. One point on this, that unless something that is being introduced by the 'miracle mileage maker' that ends up either causing an increase in pollution or introduces even more pollutants; if the mileage and efficiency is significantly improved, then obviously it is going to put out less pollution if it is using 25% ~ 35% if it improving the fuel efficiency by similar amount of reduction in fuel, then that all other factors being equal it is also going to a similar proportion of reduction in pollutants equivalent to the reduced fuel being consumed that is creating a similar decrease in the volume of pollutants in the exhaust.

FYI: NONE of the items that you refer to that are commonly purported to dramatically produce increases in efficiency that at best do have any valid relationship such as magnets, the addition of minor amounts of HHO from electrolysis or any such flimsy, 'stretched 'wish fulfillment'' principals that are based on either questionable or even proven outright principals that are valid but in no way applicable to this application. The method is based on well established, tested, tried and true and readily repeatable proven scientific principals, and are routinely used in calculations of such things in this same field of endeavor. The same ones that you routinely utilize yourself in drawing such conclusions or conducting experiments and calculations to quantify these results.

I guess if I am able to eventually get to the point of 'quantifying' it as such, attitudes as your own in such matters that will ONLY accept quantified proof as opposed to applying readily sound, established scientific principles that they already know and use themselves already in this application and can see and understand that they will have the effects predicted and supported by them then perhaps it will happen.

In this matter, there is no mysterious 'black magic box' or applying speculative techniques nor principals that are not already backed and supported by proven readily accepted and scientific principles and are routinely used in the calculations in this area already.

Enough said!

I haven't read far back enough in the thread to find your experiment, with a report giving description, results, principles involved, etc. You keep insisting that it conforms to accepted scientific principles and routine calculations, but so far I haven't seen any. If this experiment has been suitably detailed somewhere in the thread, can you please tell me which post(s)?

& you won't find any thing more than hints at a vague notion.

He's playing with Blink [the rest of us too]

He [Doug] believes, so by extension the rest of us should also

Whatever the intent

the effect has been waste everyone's time, with a guessing game lacking the necessary hints to reach a conclusion

other than the obvious

Bullshine talks [once again the spellchecker encourages me to cuss contrary to stated CR4 policy]

Data allows conclusions

more data better conclusions

Garth:

you won't find any thing more than hints at a vague notion. He's playing with Blink [the rest of us too]

He [Doug] believes, so by extension the rest of us should also.

Whatever the intent the effect has been waste everyone's time, with a guessing game lacking the necessary hints to reach a conclusion other than the obvious

Bullshine talks [once again the spellchecker encourages me to cuss contrary to stated CR4 policy] Data allows conclusions more data better conclusions

Sour grapes Garth and completely missing the point of the approach.

As I said, it was intended to stimulate some lively discussion and insight into the efficiency of Heat engines

Considering that Chris, who stated in his response to this that he was no 'engine efficiency' expert but was right on target with his pointing to the 'Carnot Cycle' of heat engines. I responded, he was 'VERY hot' with his answer being very relative and a significant indication of the topic and the correct answer.

PapaDoc got it in # 435: with his first 'educated' guess as it was inline exactly with the ''significant' improvement in efficiency' that he very readily identified as the approach and method of achieving it.

So how hard was it really? It only took a couple of responses to those that thought about it as it was meant to stimulate and came up with valid, significant insight and relatively easy modifications with existing technology that can dramatically increase the efficiency of heat engines and thus decrease net output of pollutants as well. All things that I indicated.

It was yours and Blinks ''locked in' ego confrontation based rigid positions' by which you stifled and limited yourselves with your attitudes of this just being 'complete nonsense and waste of time and energy' that limited yourselves from actually thinking about it and setting about exploring it and getting any insight or creativity that this opportunity to do so prevented you from any possibility of any such significant opportunities to any such person insight and creative thinking and insight that this was meant to stimulate that others approached it from and surprisingly solved the puzzle very quickly and easily based on the into that I initially provided! This should be cause for some introspection on how you very significantly limited yourselves and as such made it impossible for you to actually think about this that would of stimulated significant and creative thought about this puzzle that would of resulted in including yourselves from forwarding you own knowledge of such things. The relative ease with which it was solved shows that it was anything but 'impossible BS' and that It wasn't an 'impossible' task . As for you and Blink because you LIMITED yourselves to the degree that made it impossible for you to gain any insight or understand other significant possibilities in the field in general and my idea and technique specifically.

If you 'think you can't,' it's a self fulfilling prophecy by which you significantly limit and block out any possibility of advancing.

Nuf said

Hi Garth, Blink et al,

These postings came out of re-reading and reviewing some past postings here.

I guess what I am really saying is that it was an opportunity to do some 'brain storming' on the topic.

After all, what DO Scientists, Technologist and Engineers do when faced with a new and different problem that they are faced with that has never been encountered or undertaken before and there is a lack of concrete knowledge of it and thus no precedents, ready solutions to it, mathematically or otherwise.

Again: the beginning of all knowledge is 'I do NOT know' and when in this creative mode, it can and quiet often does bring about significant new insights, understanding and hopefully eventually confirmed applicable knowledge.

A while back I said here that I was becoming more mindful and cautious about postings here as it is an (applied) engineering site. But this was an 'incomplete statement' and description of this forum and it's usefulness. Upon further reflection I was able to clarify my thoughts on this and want to include that in fact that this is also a place that (significant) R&D, knowledge exchange and creative insights that can, do and should happen that bring about newer (and better) solutions to real world problems.

'Thought experiments' based on current knowledge and solid foundations have the potential to produce very significant gains and quite often originate int the subconscious. If encouraged, dwelt upon and slowly drawn out of the dark and brought into 'the light of awareness and consciousness' until they can become fully incarnated and manifested in our physical realm of time, space and energy. Such journeys can likewise benefit significantly by the inclusions of others in the process. CR4 IS such a place!

A significant aspect of this forum is that its sum total can and should be greater than all the individual parts and aspects of the whole.

I'm not trying to 'open old wounds here' and 'come out on top' as it wasn't a 'competition' or a 'test'.

In retrospect I'm doing some 'debriefing' on it and 'learning' from the experience and am encouraging you and others to do so as well.

Historically the best Engineers were not necessarily those that were able to create the best solutions based solely on the knowledge that they posses, though there are NUMEROUS examples of creative solutions based on existing knowledge. The truly significant ones such as Leonardo Da Vinci utilize their knowledge as a base and a foundation from which to make further insights and gain more knowledge that forwards such fields; not just solutions limited to applying what they already do know.

PS: I posted some 'electric bikes' here with you in mind Garth. The one about the 'fast' electric bike has the scantiest info and no pics in the posting but has links to them and is much more inline with your 'specs' for such transportation and is a realistic, serious 'personal transportation' vehicle rather then being limited to a sport or a pleasant leisurely past time.

Alas in everything EXCEPT except the price tag! )< 8(

Given both it's performance and it's price tag, I'm thinking that it must have a micro nuclear power plant in it! Perhaps 'Browns gas' AND 'COLD FUSION!!!' LoL (< 8)

All the best,

Doug

Hi Blink et al,

The topic was not about '6 stroke' engines as you repeatedly refer to.

It was about harnessing work from the large quantity of heat energy that is exhausted and wasted. Far more than gets harnessed in (SI) ICEs as you are well aware of.

A 6 stroke engine is one of the possible means of achieving this, but by no means the only one..

It seems to me that as one who decided not to participate, you made quite a few postings about it doing everything put addressing it. Until I finally called for a 'truce' as it had become a completely off topic and unproductive ego confrontation.

About that point in time, the solution had been ascertained: after only 2 genuine attempts to do so. A very difficult challenge indeed!

Other efficiency improvements for ICE:

One by a firm with the initials of BSST has a device that goes into the exhaust system and utilizing ThermoElectric materials to generate electricity, cuts fuel costs by up to 8%. Scheduled to be tested in the BMW-5 series and Ford Focus.

PopSci, Jan/'10 p49

Right below it on the same page is another interesting development utilizing alternatives for producing fuels. Something which I believe you and others have had an interest in:

Company called 'LiveFuels':

'Six fish can filter the same amount of algae-fill water as a $250,000 centrifuge. Oil extraction is simple: cook and press the fish to get algae oil for diesel fuel. Afterward, the fish can be fed to farm animals. The herbivorous fish also take carbon from the atmosphere and can eat algae blooms.'

.

p51:

Craig Venter, the controversial biologist who utilized the 'open' website set up to publish data to for decoding the human genome and added it to his commercial venture, but did not reciprocate; is working at creating the first synthetic biological organisms to make pharmaceuticals and carbon neutral fuels with synthetic algae based BioFuels.

Maybe he's refering to the 6 stroke engine. It can be seen at this site:

http://www.popsci.com/node/9649

Have some fun today,

PAPADOC

PapaDoc got it: good one Papdoc!

I wish we had a VERY BIG cash EfficiencyX prize for you (and for me too)!

Though I was hoping others would get into it more and it spark some enjoyable, interesting and fruitful creative discussions! You spoiled the 'fun' before it even got started. But no one was taking it that sense but only as ????

Take PapaDoc's advice and 'Have some fun today!'

Geeze, lighten up a little and enjoy life more!

That's not the case Garth, this was meant to be an intriguing, joyful multi-faceted journey of creativity. I thought perhaps it might simulate some innovative and creative thinking and come up with some interesting solutions, perhaps in a number of different areas. But it seems that many of us technical sorts don't have much of a sense of humor, levity or sense of adventure. I know that Engineering is about applying knowledge to real world problems, but the best Engineers are the creative ones that can 'think outside the box' and come up with creative, innovative solutions that forge new pathways in applied science, technology and Engineering.

A heat engines overall efficiency is Delta T = Difference in Temperature from the time that it starts 'doing work' when the fuel ignites until the point where it 'stops doing work'.

In positive displacement engines, this is when either the exhaust valve or port opens and exhausts the gas at a very high temperature, carrying away far more than was harnessed to do work. The majority of it is ejected and wasted. It still is so hot that it is very close to the melting point of steel. This can be seen at night when the engine is up to proper operating temperatures and opening the hood and if it is dark enough one can see the exhaust manifold glowing a dull red from the temperature of the exhaust. For you skeptics that need more concrete, scientific and mathematical proof than this, reach down and grab hold of it and squeeze real hard and see how long you can hang onto it and then make a 'guestimate' relative to the ambient temperature.

My insight was to get more work out of the exhaust by injecting liquid water into it. The liquid changes into its gaseous state which occupies a volume of ~ 1,000 more than it is as a liquid, absorbing heat as it does so. Hence a wider Delta T range and an improved efficiency without any further expenditure of fuel or additional injection of energy.

The physics professor's disagreement with my theory was that this could be done by injecting the liquid water under high pressure (and already preheated) directly into the cylinder with the still very hot exhaust gas as opposed to needing an external boiler. I knew this was not the case and did the crude but effective experiment that proved this was the case.

The exhaust gas what would get even hotter than when it underwent another compression stroke before the liquid water is injected into it just like a diesel, only with water and not fuel.

The same can be simpler accomplished in existing engines readily achieved by converting half of the cylinders to 'steam engines' from the exhaust of the other cylinders burning the fuel. The injectors will screw right into the exhausting spark plug or fuel injector ports.

Imperial Oil Resources, a subsidiary of Exxon did some R&D in the '70s and came up with a lubricating oil that is suitable for both an ICE and a steam engine

The H2O (/AntiFreeze) is then extracted with a continuous centrifuge (turbo?) that also extracts any particulate matter at the same time, treated for PH, preheated under high pressure with a heat exchanger from any/all other heat radiating sources in the engine such as the exhaust/transfer manifolds, coolant etc thus maximizing the efficiency even more.

This would appreciably boost the efficiency, reduce fuel consumption, lower pollutants significantly with very little changes required. This could very readily be done at the manufacturing stage utilizing the 6 stroke principal fro maximum efficiency where the fifth stroke compresses the hot exhaust gas heating it further and more heat being converted to work on the sixth stroke/ secondary power stroke.

This significant improvement in efficiency would result in a smaller engine that is thus light, leveraging the efficiency slightly more.

Retrofits 4 stroke ICE could be accomplished by converting half of the exhausting cylinders into 'steam cylinders'. Even multi cylinder 2 stroke ICE would be possible and feasible.

What to use for an antifreeze? Ethanol? Could be both the heat source and antifreeze when the latter is required for cold temperatures. But evaporates more readily than water. Something that is a closer to match to the phase change of water would be better.

As I said: all sound thermodynamic and engineering principals with more power, greater efficiency, less fuel consumption and fewer pollutants (less fuel consumed = less hydrocarbon exhaust gas byproducts).

Some commercial passenger jets were retrofitted with a water injection to boost their power at take off. Same principal, same effect.

It doesn't increase the efficiency as much in a Diesel which is already more efficient than an SIE but it still improves it enough to make it worthwhile.

Personally I'd be interested in what the figures are.

IF I was in a position to do something with this, then I would of done the math myself and know it. But as I'm not, I already had proof of the validity of it. I had it prior to my experiment of 'proof of principal' through a valid 'thought experiment' based on proven principals, knowledge , experience and the ability to think correctly without delusions or 'wish fulfillment' jeopardizing that accuracy or validity of it. As I stated the theory and proven principals verify it without having to 'know the numbers and the math'

If you want to do the math Blink: there it is, just as I stated. Go for it!

Doug,

75% of this thread has become about your project. I object now.

Please keep your points on topic of Modular Vehicles, and hopefully just one screenful of information. After that my eyes roll back in my head and I stop reading, especially if it is off topic. Also, we are now losing valuable contributors. I have a problem with that.

Respectfully,

Chris

75% of this thread has become about your project. I object now.

It seems that any suggestion to take this elsewhere falls on deaf ears. I've suggested the same thing several times, but he clearly does not give a hoot.

One might have hoped that your suggestion in post 390 would be taken.

I would however appreciate at least some commentary on Modular systems...

I felt that a significantly more efficient engine was very relevant to a modular vehicle. I've always got the sense that one of Chris' goals with modular vehicles as for them to be more efficient. Am I wrong in this?

I really don't know anything about engine efficiency... I turn the key.. it goes or it doesn't.

the only engines I've built were 383 and 440 magnum mopar.. hardly for efficiency.

(and helped out with 302 boss ford.)

I like big power and eco friendly so I'm rather torn.

but for this thread, the focus is really on "Feasibility Discussion on Modular Vehicles" and everything else I put in my original blurb. I don't think I used the word efficiency, but if I did, just slap me. I'm more interested at this point in framing and construction.. I don't care IC or electric or solar or sterling..whatever.

Chris

HI Chris, Understood. The 'Energy Egg hunt' is over anyway: BTW other than PapaDoc, you were the only one that got a 'your 'Hot'' answer

If he were referring to the Crower's six stroke engine, then he seems to be implying that he is trying to steal Crower's IP.

In post 389 Doug wrote this:

Auto manufacturers can have this into mass market vehicles available for sale within a year IF they really want to.

This does not apply to the Crower engine, or any of the other 6 stroke engines. There is a very long road between single cylinder proof of concept, and single cylinder feasible working model with oil separation, water reclamation, etc. Then there is the long path to multi-cylinder engines, full prototypes, preproduction prototypes certifications, etc, etc. Even revamped styling has a 2-3 year cycle. Even the Prius engine, based on an existing engine (and not requiring brand new external hardware such as a condenser and oil separater) took much longer than one year to get into production.

Do we patent? and license it and use the revenue it to further some of our projects and inventions in here that are far enough along to help to get them into the commercial marketplace ?

The Crower engine is similar to the Dyer engine, patented in the early 1900's. I couldn't find a patent for the Crower engine but have read that the patent is applied for. There are many other six stroke engines that have been underdevelopment (the Wikipedia article lists several, but procvides links to patents for even more) and the development cycle has been very long. Certainly Doug cannot be thinking of patenting Crower's idea?

Also, it would be a rare PhD physics prof who would consider the six stroke engine impossible. But perhaps Doug was unlucky, and found a couple of duds.

As you know patents lapse after 17 years and then are considered to be part of the 'public domain' readily accessible to everyone.

Re: Automotive IC Engines 'Energy Efficiency' 'egg hunt''

Physic's professors in pressure cookers!

When the Physic's professors that told me that it wasn't possible to have a 'steam engine' without an external boiler separate from the working cylinders; I wondered how many of them were subsequently sitting at home at the dinner table drifting off in their thoughts about this while 'looking right through' the 'pressure cooker' that there supper was being made in! (< 8)

An excellent demonstration of 'being bound' by knowledge as opposed to utilizing it as a jumping off point setting creativity free and expanding (applied) knowledge.

The "boiler" in this case is the burner, which is external to the "cylinder," which is the pressure cooker. So your crazy analogy proves the exact opposite of your claim. Good grief.

Hardly:

In a traditional steam engine the liquid H2O is turned into a vapor in a separate vessel: the Boiler and THEN released into the Cylinder to harness the energy.

In my example of the pressure cooker, the water is turned from a liquid into a gas in the same vessel. Just like the liquid water injected into a hot vessel to expand in the same place that it changes from a liquid to a vapor, unlike traditional steam engines.

The issue of WHERE the heat is created is a moot point, it's where it is harnessed that is the distinction.

Hi Doug

RE: (Automotive IC Engines 'Energy Efficiency' 'egg hunt'' ) hatches new egg.

Reflecting some highlights, to cast light on combined shadows. This brief is to share my confusion in understanding the marriage of steam used directly into a combustion engine. The recovery of waste heat energy is plausible. The six stroke engine may not be the best implementation of concept.

Proposed Premises for influential concerns

The mechanics producing best leveraged action, will determine output efficiency best.

The water expansion (slow) is suited for larger crank to provide high torque at lower RPM. The fuel burn expansion (quick) is suited for short crank to benefit higher RPM range. The reduction in RPM range is likely, with the introduction of steam.

Higher engine loading is required to achieve good fuel burn and steam generations. The six stroke engine design can not optimally cater to both processes at the same time. Light engine loading is likely to have a reduction in efficiency.

Propose to tailor mechanics

Dependent fixed mechanical designs for the advantage of each system would yield a constant RPM peak efficiency. System dependency lags will hinder throttle response. Responsive combustion power would mediate lag responses of secondary steam generation. A good reciprocal of the constant force is best served for generation of electrical power. The electrical platform could provide the variations in torque and RPM relationship needed for varying speeds of passenger vehicles.

Ray

Re: Proposed Premises for Influential concerns

Hi Ray et al,

I basically came to all the same conclusions that you did. However I am quite confident that the utilization of significant amount of heat energy, the vast majority of which is basically just 'thrown away' in most ICEs; especially in SIE as opposed to CIE would more than compensate for minor compromises and would achieve significant 'net gains'.

As with most mass marketed items where they have significant resources to optimize both the design and the implementation that allows for a very wide latitude in both. One could basically build 2 separate engines, with both being optimized for their specific aspects and connect them in series. The crankshafts can be geared to each other to allow for optimal Revs/minute for each 'stage.' I know if I was in the position as described above, I would. They might very well still end up being in one cylinder block.

In the engine design I have in mind, if I'm ever able to prototype it, my first implementation will be a 2 stroke, which would not allow for a '6 stroke'. But I could make half or 2/3 of the cylinders as IC, and then utilize the remaining cylinders for steam cylinders, likely with larger bores for the latter. If there was an even 50/50 split of IC & steam cylinders it is likely that the exhaust pipe from the IC cylinders would flow directly into a steam cylinder. If there was something like a 2/3 split: 4 IC and 2 steam, then there would be a 'common manifold/chamber' between the IC and steam cylinders.

In the very rudimentary 'proof of concept' experiment I did, I used a 1" diameter mild steel bar. I drilled the center out with the ID on one end being larger to allow for a seat for the 'injector valve' I got two small ball bearings: 1/8" ~ 3/16" diameter and put the first one at the bottom of the large bore against the smaller ID and stuck a chisel against it and gave it a light but firm smack with a hammer. Threw that bearing away and put the second one in. I literally used a spring from a pen to lightly load the bearing check valve and then screwed in and plug with a hole drilled in the middle to hold the spring in place. Then put a pipe plug in the larger ID. Then put a liquid filled industrial pressure gauge that went up to 5,000 PSI into a pipe thread into the side of the 'pressure chamber' to gauge it. I made an adaptor for the small ID/ water injection end and literally hooked it up to my garden hose with ¼" ID copper tubing. I was doing this at home and the only thing I had to heat it with at the time was one of those small blue hand held propane plumbers torches that just utilize the oxygen in the air. Thus I couldn't get much heat into it at all. Only just enough that it only just started to change the color of the steel bar very slightly: so likely ~ 450 Fahrenheit if that. Very low in comparison to hot exhaust gases exiting right from the cylinder head.

Then I would crack the water valve open. There were 3 different types of responses that I got and repeated it often enough that I got a significant # of each type of response.

1 – The water would completely flood the cylinder and thus basically got 'no results.'

2 – I would crack the water valve open and a very small amount of water would get into the 'pressure vessel/cylinder' and it would VERY quickly pressurize it and force the check valve shut and I would get a small amount of pressure. Typically a couple of hundred PSI.

3 – This was the one that was 'just right' that I got less frequently due to the extremely rudimentary and crude injector apparatus: and I got between 850 ~ 1250 PSI! I didn't have a gauge that had a 'maximum level' hand on it, but I didn't need it as it would hold the pressure for a few minutes.

I wish that I would have had an Oxy-Acetylene torch at the time so that I could of gotten the temperature up to what it is coming out of the exhaust port of an IC engine and logged the pressure there.

So you can see even with this VERY rudimentary apparatus that had nowhere near the temperature that they would be from hot exhaust directly out of a ICE would be significantly higher. 2,000 ~ 3,000 PSI is a fairly conservative estimate. This represents a very significant amount of work that normally just goes to waste.

The ''Delta' Temp' would be significantly higher than just an ICE itself: ~25% efficiency is being generous for current SI engines.

Add in such things as Garth has found with the American company developing a very high pressure and temperature direct cylinder injection that they are claiming a 65% increase for their 'Trans-Sonic' injectors. I wonder what this term refers to specifically? They also mention doing away with the intake throttle, &/or reducing the extent of it. Likewise even spark ignition. Thus ultimately they are basically going to end up with a multi fuel Diesel engine if they want to.

The engine I have developed will be a ported 2 stroke with no crankcase 'supercharger' and will use fuel injectors for direct cylinder injection and won't have any spark plugs. It will have 'glow plugs. Like a Diesel in when it is very cold, they will initially be heated by electrical resistance, but once the engine is running and warmed up, the combustion will keep them hot. Again like a Diesel it is the timing and the volume of the fuel injector that controls it's torque, power and Revs/Min.

With a 2 stroke configured in this manner, it will do away with most of the shortcomings of a 2 stroke. These inherently have twice the power of a 4 stroke of the same size/volume because it has a 'power stroke' that fires 2 times for every single ignition event of a 4 stroke. The term 'power' is what brings 'time' into the 'power equation.'

This of course allows for a smaller, lighter engine which allows for a lighter vehicle overall.

There is no oil mixed in with the fuel to burn and cause smoky exhaust as it does not have to lubricate the crankshaft and it's attached ConRods.

It won't have the problem of raw fuel flowing through to the exhaust because no fuel will be injected into the cylinders while the ports are still open. This factor is one of the reasons that 2 strokes as they are configured in motorcycles is are so 'peaky' and have such a narrow power band. They literally use the Engineering theory and math of acoustics/sonics and sound that is based on 'wind' musical instrument design and 'tune' the resonator with different sections being different diameters for different lengths' so that a back pressure wave propagates and forces the exhaust that still has unburned fuel and oil in it is forced back into the cylinder just before the exhaust port closes ONLY WHEN IN IT IS IN ITS POWER BAND. This is why they term them 'expansion chambers' or 'resonators' and not 'mufflers' in two strokes. The more highly tuned and higher power/volume that it produces, the narrower the power band is in it. It also falls off VERY quickly outside of this narrow. Thus they are demons within their power band, but complete 'lazy dogs' outside of it. Direct cylinder fuel injection will do a LOT to offset this and give them a much broader, flatter torque and power curve vs Revs/minutes.

Likewise a 2 stroke with such a configuration will significantly increase their efficiency and reduce their pollution.

There is an Engineering professor in England that has put a lot of R&D into and has developed very specifically designed domed pistons that have a couple of tiny round 'pathways' into and through the dome of the pistons. These likewise acts as a 'glow plug' to ignite the fuel.

There is SO much energy going to waste that could VERY readily be utilized with very little modifications. Even if the ICE was a hybrid and powering an electrical energy within a very narrow Rev/minute in comparison to a ICE 'directly' coupled to the driving wheels. These relatively minor modifications would still result in a significant increase in efficiency with reduced fuel consumption and thus less pollution.

What 'down sides' in these configurations and scenarios are there?

You refer to 'secondary steam. But as there is no separate 'boiler,' there is not any 'secondary steam' per say. There will still be a condenser though to increase efficiency. But I think that you are referring to this as being a secondary power stage that is powered by steam and the primary as being the IC.

Regards,

DougRH

Dear Steam power inventors;
06-02-2010
I found an idea about a "Hybrid Steam Six Cycle Engine" by Bruce Crower in "The Best Inventions Of 2007" on the Internet. The present "Gulf Oil Spill" has set me off again to try to get a proto-type engine built of a hybrid steam engine.
I have been writing in my journals for 30 years about a conversion I wanted to make to the gas guzzling V-8 engines. My idea has been to use two outside cylinders on one side as gas cylinders without modification. The other side inside cylinders would also be used as gas cylinders without modification. These four cylinders would be modern fuel injected with all normal computer controls. The engine must be run on these four cylinders until proper block and head temperatures are achieved. Then the four remaining cylinders would be run as two stroke units being powered by "flashsteam" injection at top dead center of the steam cylinders. The exhaust from each gas cylinder would go out of its normal exhaust port and loop around to its adjacent steam cylinder old exhaust port. The old exhaust valve and seat in the steam cylinder will be replaced with a "heat sink" which extends into the old combustion chamber and thereby replacing it. The other side of the "heat sink" will have fins on it extending up through a hole milled in the head which replaced the old exhaust valve. A stainless steel tube will be press fitted in that hole which holds that "heat sink" essentially blocking any flow into the steam cylinder. But the exhaust gas from the adjacent gas cylinder will flow through a side hole in that SS tube with the fins of the "heat sink" protruding upward. This new exhaust tube will have to come out of a hole cut in the old valve cover. There will be two such holes in the old valve covers directly in line with the replaced old exhaust valves. The original intake valves of the converted cylinders will become the new exhaust valves for the new steam cylinders. They must be controlled by a special cam shaft which has a double lobe for each of the new steam exhaust valves. This control will be to open the steam exhaust valve at bottom dead center and close it on top dead center using two new lobes on that cam position. There will be four such new double lobe cam positions. The original exhaust lobes for those cylinders will not be used. A new simplified intake manifold must be fabricated to provide normal injector placement and connection to the throttle body for the gas cylinders. A new manifold from the original intake holes on the steam cylinders which are now steam exhaust holes will be joined to the new SS gas exhaust tubes coming out of the valve covers which will mix the spent steam with the gas exhaust to be outputted to the atmosphere through normal modern exhaust systems. A computer control of the "flashsteam" injectors must be provided. The idea of using a "Corn Burner" as a heat source has been modified by using the waste heat from the standard internal combustion engine. I am not mixing water or steam into the gas cylinders. The gas cylinders will be unchanged physically or in their normal operation; just their exhaust will be diverted a bit. Limiting some of the water cooling around the new steam cylinder and head should be done to retain their heat. The "flashsteam" injector may be the proper way to run the steam cylinder. I have wanted to make what I call my "Hybrid Steam Engine" for years. Every time the price of fuel goes up, I get more interested in its development. Now the fuel price has pushed me to accomplish my goal. But I do not feel the idea or which could be an invention needs to be held in private for financial gain. I have told many people about the idea without any action. Now with the Internet, maybe this idea will catch the eye of people of the World and not be squashed by the oil companies.
Attention: V-8 Engines, it is time to change your eating habits. You are going to have your gut detoured to scavenge some of your waste heat. You are not going to have to use four of your gas cylinders on your eight cylinders engines to run any more. You can have four cylinders with gas; but the other four cylinders will provide power without you expelling hot air. The four converted cylinders will not be letting out your energy just to raise the air temperature around you.
Attention: Drivers of V-8 Engines, do your part to encourage the development of a more efficient internal combustion engine. Be at least interested in ideas to ultimately save your cash and our energy supplies. Enthusiasm is the spice of life; and it will provide rewards. That is better than complaining over a cup of coffee. Positive feedback with constructive criticism is what we inventors need to put our ideas into a working prototype. At least, you can see from my contributions that I am attempting to help our energy situation with positive suggestions.
Attention: Inventors, car buffs, steam engine masters, and others with positive feedback, make your contribution to an energy efficient internal combustion engine. Remember, it doesn't have to be something that needs new castings. Electronic control is common place now. Rust resistant injectors are available. Bring up your problems with the idea in a positive way with alternative approaches. Let us all work toward a common goal which is to finally keep more of our hard earned cash in our pocket instead of paying through to nose for our fuel to propel our vehicles.
Attention: Big SUV and pickup drivers, wouldn't it be wonderful to take your gas guzzler vehicles into a modification shop to have it converted to a hybrid steam engine. There is enough carrying capacity for this energy modification of your gas guzzler vehicle which is upside down in value of typically $10,000 because no dealer will give you jack poo for it toward a new small energy efficient vehicle. Talk about this hybrid steam engine idea that I have proposed. There must be engine builders to help make a prototype.
Attention: As the writer of this hybrid steam engine, I will continue to make a prototype. In my following contribution letters, I will be more specific on the necessary modifications and my progress in making a prototype. I even am thinking about making my own camshaft by wilding and regrinding four of the lobes by following the contour of other lobes which will give me necessary lobe with two high sections. I am not worrying about things like angles just as long as the valve opens at bottom dead center and closes at top dead center. The four remaining gas cylinders are 4 cycle gas engine design. The four steam cylinders are now 2 cycles with a power stroke on every downward movement of the piston. No gas is mixed with water. No worry about heat losses because that is exactly what the hybrid steam engine does to the block heat as well as the exhaust heat. As far as heat rejection, and condensers in steam engines, that will be something to consider for better efficiency and water consumption. But if all I need to do is to add distilled water to my tank and drive the hybrid steam engine to work with its normal fuel supply, I can do that. I can even collect rain water to use a water supply. As far as freezing in cold climates, that will have to be addressed in a positive way. Water getting into the crankcase from the steam cylinders must be addressed; but has anybody tried water soluble oil in their crankcase? The automatic machining industry use soluble oil in all of their high speed cutting machines to cool and lubricate their cutters. My contribution to this forum will be positive with as much help to others to keep their enthusiasm.
As I mentioned in the beginning of this letter, my thoughts of inventions has be on going for years. I do have other ideas which I would be glad to share with you. I am 71 in fair health with a strong background in electronics and CAD drawing education. My best aptitude was measured in beginning college to be mechanics and science.
There is a "Six Stroke" engine designed by Bruce Crower that has unique principles. The main important principle is providing a fifth and sixth stroke in each cylinder. I am unsure of the need of a second exhaust valve in each cylinder. The sequence of operation as I understand is to have a (1) intake gas stroke, (2) compression gas stroke, (3) power gas stroke, (4) exhaust gas stroke, (5) power steam stroke, and (6) exhaust steam stroke.
Would it be possible to make the exhaust gas valve to double for the exhaust steam valve? They are both in the same cylinder positioned probably side by side. With that design, the old gas guzzler V-8 could be easier modified. The cam shaft would have to be modified in your design to make it turn at 1/3 of the crank shaft and make the lob positioned in a 1/3 portion of the cam shaft. The gas exhaust lobe would have high spots that would open the valve on stroke (4) and stroke (6) if the same valve were used for the gas exhaust stroke and steam exhaust stroke; otherwise each cylinder must be provided with a third valve system.
If you used the common exhaust valve idea on the six stroke hybrid steam engine but add the idea of using alternative cylinders for only steam power, can the result be a big winner?
The cam shaft would need proper lobes for each cylinder based on the 1/3 cam speed. I think the cam should provide six strokes as follows:
(A) An intake gas stroke, a steam power stroke, and a steam exhaust stroke.
(B) A gas compression stroke, a steam power stroke and a steam exhaust stroke.
(C) Gas power stroke, a steam power stroke, and a steam exhaust stroke.
(D) Gas exhaust stroke, a steam power stroke, and a steam exhaust stroke.
(E) Gas (steam) power stroke, a steam power stroke, and a steam exhaust stroke.
(F) Gas (steam) exhaust stroke, a steam power stroke, and a steam exhaust stroke.
Does the combination of the "Six Cycle Hybrid Steam Engine" and my hybrid steam engine have merit? Bear in mind that this engine should be able to be made from a modified standard V-8 engine. Only the cam shaft needs to be made. The heads could be just modified heads. The exhaust manifold as well as the intake manifold is also special welded pipes. Fuel injection is standard for the gas cylinders. Water injection must be provided out of rust free material for the steam application. Gears and chains must be provided for the 1/3 ratio of cam to crank. Don't worry about water recovery; and don't worry about distilled water because the use of rain water or snow-melt is good enough. The emergency use of distilled water is always the possibility.
I hope my suggestions are more than hot steam. I need to put my retirement to good use to possibly help the bad economy and energy problems of our Country and World. Keep in touch because I have some other good ideas such as fine gold recovery and owner builder home construction.
Sincerely,
George J. Birds Jr.
601 Canyon Dr.
Lebec, CA 93243
Phone: (661) 248-5152
E-mail: birdsgyjk@wmconnect.com

I've been out of town, so am a few days behind
I see only one post from you on CR4, so I answered over here, just to make sure.
do have a look around the site, there have been some other steam discussions

I understand your basic , but am getting a little lost past that.
more paragraphs please

the soluble oil I've used is cutting oil.
I believe that since the cylinders in question are not going to be containing explosions, more normal chevron seals could be used
pressing in a chrome sleeve or other material...
valving with electric actuators, maybe pneumatic

I'm not sure about the numbers on the amount of heat that can be extracted, water use, all that good stuff...

I have seen the name Bruce Crower, and his six cycle engine a few times here. Foe those that do not recognise the name, let me share this history on the man. Bruce Crower is the man and the driving force behind Crower Cams. The company has been manufacturing and regrinding custom camshafts for many years. I remember his company from the sixties. He was behind at least one attack on the Indy 500 by old fashioned hot rodders. If you contact Crower Cams, you might still be able to get in touch with him.

As for your V8 conversion, I would like to offer two suggestions. One is stainless steel cylinder sleeves. That will make the steam cylinders corrosion proof. The second is a suggestion to start with the Ford 4.6 liter engine. It is an overhead camshaft design, and readily available at cheap prices. The OHC design will allow you to use the existing camshafts. you would only have to design a sprocket for the conversion head that has half the normal number of teeth. Or exactly the same number and pitch as the crank sprocket. That should make some of your project easier. Good luck.

Hi, George,

Quick questions if I may.

What pressure steam do you intend?

Saturated or superheated?

Consider cylinder bore material more carefully. Its co-efficient of expansion needs to be close to that of the parent block material so as to not cause long-term problems.

As also you do valve seat materials. Exotic metals can get 'expensive' in more ways than one.

Have you read any of Bill Lear's steam research history? Yes, the Lear Jet guy.

Very interesting.

Am a keen live steam 'buff' myself.

Cheers for now,

Stu.

Two words - Latent Heat

Or in 5 words - making steam is wasted energy.

You've got the right words and terms, but have the usage of them reversed and your notions of this concept and REALITY are reversed. Making steam pressure to provide power out of heat energy that is currently mostly wasted results in significant increase of energy efficiency.

The overall efficiency of any heat engine is 'Delta T': The difference or differential of Temperatures: IE: What is the temperature of the working medium at the beginning of the power cycle and how low is it and what is the difference in the temperature of the working gases when they cease to provide power?

The temperature of the Exhaust gases released at the exhaust valves in most IC engines are VERY high: close to the melting point of steel. Open your hood some night in a dark place with your engine at normal operating temperatures and you will see that the cast iron exhaust manifold has a dull red glow to it because of the temperature that it is at. Taking this same VERY hot exhaust gas that is now just being ejected and wasting MOST OF THE LATENT HEAT of the fuel and making steam with it which harnesses a considerable amount of waste heat in the phase change of water from a liquid to a vapor and then expands the gaseous mixture further from the heat that remains just as it does when it is initially ignited and causes significant pressure rise from the expansion of the heated vaporous medium that forces the pistons down to perform work. 'Evaporation is a cooling process' It takes this otherwise wasted heat and forces the water into a phase change. Water in the liquid form is approximately 1000 times denser than it is in it's gaseous state. What is going to be the result on the piston of this happening in an enclosed cylinder? Exactly the same thing as when the air and fuel mixture is first ignited and heated and expands considerably, just as the water does when transforms from a liquid to a vapor.

The result of this is that the temperature of the exhaust will be significantly lower when it stops being harnessed thus Delta T is significantly increased in a SI engine and produces very substantial gain in efficiency without any further increase of fuel consumption.

On the contrary, with the substantially increase in efficiency the amount of fuel consumed to produce the same output as the SI alone will be substantially decreased. The decreased fuel consumption produces less pollutants of all types. When the water is 'rung out' of the final exhaust by a continuous centrifuge that will also remove all particulate matter, which is also acts as a turbo which in turn enhances efficiency as well, it subsequently releases the same latent heat of the phase change when it condenses back to a liquid that it did when it absorbed it turning it into a vapor. As in traditional steam engines this 'condenser' improves overall thermal efficiency by regaining some of the latent heat of evaporation. The resultant water now in the liquid form once more will be preheated above it's normal point of evaporation or boiling point at normal atmospheric pressure by being kept under significant pressure: a couple of hundred PSI, and re-injected into the working cylinders once more thus improving the overall thermal efficiency of the 'steam stages' just as it does in steam engines with external boilers and condensers. Thus once the hot liquid water that is injected and released into the working cylinder at considerably lower pressures than it was under, it will naturally covert into vapor once more even without the heat of the very hot exhaust gases coming off of the SI IC cylinders.

Likewise for CI engines, though no where near what it is for current SI infernal combustion engines as the Diesel cycle is already considerably more efficient than most SI IC engines. It also produces a considerably flatter torque curve at a lower RPM that is already much closer to the speeds required for the power wheels and thus has a higher mechanical efficiency than a SI IC engine of a comparable displacement.

FYI: Traditional steam engines with boilers have the maximum torque at the lowest speeds: IE: zero Revs/minute. Thus they require no clutches or gear boxes and adjustable ratios to harness and utilize this power other than an idler gear to provide for reverse. Thus train locomotives can as readily provide the same power and torque in reverse as they can to go forward. VERY scary and dangerous in a car that would now have rear wheel steering!

"Power,

Correctly generated,

Correctly controlled,

Correctly applied to the rear axle."

In the early part of the twentieth century the 'Stanley Steamer' achieved speeds many TIMES faster than other automobiles of the era. Due to the fact that torque characteristics of traditional steam engines It could also climb much steeper and longer hills with no transmission (ratios) than its SI Infernal Combustion engine counterparts with numerous gear ratios: "A Stanley car set a land speed record of 127 MPH in 1906 and the following year one was clocked at nearly 150 MPH before it crashed near Daytona Beach." > Stanlley Steamer Technical Specifications

"You've got the right words and terms, but have the usage of them reversed and your notions of this concept and REALITY are reversed"

Oooooh Caps lock - and from the guy who didn't recognize "CI" or what "otto cycle" applied to a few months ago.

Or driven a forklift - apparently.

But; you do say the most amusing things.

E.g."I think that a McPherson strut with torsion bar springs would be optimal as far as weight and compactness go"

Then again - a coil spring is technically a torsion bar..... Ironically;

"It is possible the MacPherson was inspired by the suspension on the French Cottin-Desgouttes that used the same design, but with leaf springs. Cottin-Desgouttes front suspension was in turn inspired by J. Walter Chrisie's 1904 design and he was inspired by plants."

Not that I was talking to you - but the reason the 5 and 6 cycle engines are not producing "expected results" is; the proper understanding of those 2 words is quite rare.

And do look up those temperatures and the melting point of steel.

(and maybe advance your timing) (on your glow in the dark engine)

Hey I thought you were

Slack Jawed Not Much to Say

53.3

Errata addendum:

Most large (locomotive) steam engines don't utilize an idler gear to provide reverse. They alter the valves sequencing and timing for reverse.

Hi George,

I need to go back and re-read your posting again and review all of the details more, but please read this in response to your posting.

Like myself you are one of undoubtedly many that have realized the value of these relatively minor changes that will result in greatly improved efficiencies, including the possibilities of retrofits of some (1/2) of the cylinders generating power from the waste heat as steam expansion chambers and power strokes with significant efficiency gains.

Did you happen to see the piece about the elderly American gentleman that converted a small single cylinder IC engine from a lawn mower by the looks of the size of it. He made a 6 stroke out of it with the addition of a steam stage. He had a relatively short: 1.5' ~ 2' long exhaust pipe pointing up at an angle and he said that it blasted the paint right off of the ceiling. From the info with it he had checked the output on dynos and got quite spectacular increase in efficiency and output. He did it likewise on a diesel and gained some with it as well but as I posted got nowhere near the improvement as with the SI engines.

You may have read about my posting earlier in this thread of my very rudimentary 'proof of concept' experiment that confirmed the validity of power producing pressure with direct cylinder water injection.

At one point, I bore holes in the heads of a 4 cylinder and shrunk sleeves into it for the water injectors to be installed into it and had a cam roughed out to convert it to a 6 stroke as well. Unfortunately I was not able to take it past this point. I don't know what I would of used as water injectors though as water in diesel injectors blows the tips out of them. Like yourself this was 30 years or so ago.

Personally I want to partner up with (a) manufacturer of a common rail system with electronically controlled and activated, high pressure direct cylinder injectors for both the fuel and the water injectors. In retrofits utilizing the spark plug ports for the steam injectors would be the easiest route to take.

In retrofits of existing blocks, if the exhaust from the fuel cylinders do not match the dynamic and the timing of the hot exhaust gases from the fuel cylinders directly into the intake of a steam cylinder across the wide range of speeds and loads of vehicle engines, which is very likely; utilizing a common 'exhaust manifold chamber' where all of the hot exhaust gases from the fuel cylinders flow into it, and then taking inlet manifolds to the steam cylinders from this common chamber would make it significantly easier and quiet likely more efficient arrangement across a wider power and torque band as well, especially in a R&D &/or a 'one off' conversion of your own vehicle etc.

Renault's F1 engine in recent years has utilized pneumatically actuated valves. Because of their independence from the crankshaft, these would be ideal for programmable R&D environment/ small scale conversions that we speak of. I expect that such items and systems would be quite expensive…. But still, with the advantages that they offer in eh environments that we speak of…..again, corporate collaborations and partnering would be very beneficial.

In retrofits an alternating, firing sequence of every second fuel > steam > fuel > steam would be the way to go.

I'm a bit confused about your speaking of doing away with the exhaust valves (in retrofits) though. I realize that you are speaking of a 2 stroke, but trying to convert a automotive engine with water jacket cooling into a (uniflow) ported cylinder arrangement would be a nightmare. However in an air cooled engine. . . (< 8)

In regards to lubrication and your reference to utilizing soluble cutting fluid; this would be the opposite of what one would need for lubricant of a IC & steam engine combo. They put soaps, detergents and emulsifiers into the oil so that it readily mixes with the water and loses most of its lubricating qualities. However Imperial Oil resources in the US, a subsidiary of Exxon, developed a lubricant for combined hydrocarbon fuel and steam engines in the 1970's though. Another obstacle taken care of (< 8)

I have designed a very high power density, low part count, simple elegant positive displacement engine that utilizes existing components and manufacturing processes with very low production costs that would be a natural for this combined cycle. My initial implementation will be a 2 stroke which lends itself very nicely to alternating fuel > steam >fuel > steam configuration with the new high pressure direct cylinder fuel injectors being available would work quite well. Garth has info here on CR4 about an American company I believe it is that is developing quite high pressure direct cylinder fule injectors and there information states that because of this high pressure, the enhanced degree in very fine atomization of the fuel significantly increases combustion efficiencies. If they keep to their published time line, these should be in production within the next year or so.

My design utilizes a dry sump ported 2 stroke with direct cylinder injection which overcomes some of the inherent designs of both the exhaust and intake ports being open at the same time in fully ported 2 strokes with the inevitable flow of the fuel, oil and fresh air mixture directly into the exhaust with its inherent loss of efficiency and the exhausting of unburnt hydrocarbons Its dry sump with 4 stroke style bottom end lubrication of high flow rates to assist in the cooling of the pistons. It does not use crankcase pressure pumping for fuel & air intake transfer ports which eliminates the oil content that results in worse polluting exhaust. I am realizing that especially in a 2 stroke design which is all that is required for alternating fuel > steam cycles, it could quite readily be modified to utilize a short, small stroke piston at the top of the engine for ports at both the top and bottom of the cylinders for uniflow operation. It's not likely that this would be my first operational design, but it would be a natural implementation to check it out to see if the added complexity was (cost) effective.

As I said to Blink: so much energy being completely wasted of which a great deal of it could be readily harnessed relatively easily.

Hi Doug,

Any idea if this is an actual Diesel engine Stu or is a petrol engine running on diesel.

Of course, it is an actual diesel. Petrol engines do not run on diesel fuel. As Stu suggests, read the Bosch Automotive handbook to get a grip on the differences in engine type.

Search for production diesel motorcycle. Also look at the many motorcycles that have been converted to diesel by replacing the engines with Hatz, Yanmar, etc, etc.

Would diesel fuel work in an unmodified petrol engine?

No. Nor would wood chips.

If not, what changes ...

In short, almost everything. Research the development of the VW Rabbit Diesel. Also research development of the early GM passenger car diesels. Return with questions when you fully understand those development processes.

What about a non computerized controlled ...

No.

If this could be made to work...

If we pile if upon if upon if... then yes, an engine that runs on woods chips and recycled aluminum filings and ground up old tires and petrol and diesel fuel would be a potentially good thing, for reasons that should be obvious.

If you are seriously thinking of getting funding together for your super-efficient engine and your CVT transmission, you might first want to become acquainted with the operating principals of existing engines. Having done so, and having read the Bosch handbook and perhaps a textbook or two on combustion engines, you will see, among other things, that HHO (Browns gas, etc.) "boosting" is a hoax, that Turbinators and fuel line magnets do not work, and that real science explains how stuff works.

Given alcohols affinity...

Search ethanol shelf life.

I have a very clear understanding and knowledge of the differences of the operating cycles and parameters in these two types of heat engines already thanks

You are instruction to go away and study these until I understand these 'basic differences' is before I am deigned to be worthy of postings in here is outright patronizing. You have quite likely encountered enough of my posting to make it readily apparent that I am knowledgeable of the differences in the CI & SI IC engines and the principals that they operate on

If not, then read my reply to Ray Cox that were valid from the apparent level of his knowledge of Diesels that his questions were indicative of on the lack of knowledge and understanding of the differences and relative advantages between diesels and petrol engines. Thus I only went into for him as his questions being indicative about his level of knowledge of Diesels differences and advantages over petrol SI engines. And the pros and cons in comparing the two. Something obviously not needed for neither you or Stu.

I hadn't heard about using diesel in petrol engines until I encountered it here. Except for the odd hearsay statements of adding a little Diesel fuel to the petrol to the gas tank in winter as it apparently floats to the top in a thin layer and helps seal and deter condensation of water into the petrol. Personally, I utilize the products that are specifically designated after testing and verification of ther usage for this purpose: Methyl Hydrate.

I am and was skeptical of these claims, but both petrol and diesel fuel ARE readily combustible in gaseous forms and as I have clearly stated that while I have enough significant knowledge to understand the workings of a Diesel engine. But I personally have never tried out any such thing.

Blanket assertions of my ignorance of even inquiring and queering the feasibility of it is not so far farfetched. Both readily combust, though one significantly easier than the other. Your blanket assertions otherwise suggest ascribing to the notion is that diesel fuel can only be 'magically' be ignited and utilized in a CI engine. Thus my specific queries as the 'facts' in such matters as opposed to conjecture.

In spite of the differences in operating cycles and basis, if a Otto cycle engine was calibrated for diesel, then there is really no reason why it shouldn't work with a different 'ignition source'. That it would not be optimized for it as an actual Diesel engine is. Have you ever encountered a 2 stroke SI engine with no spark plugs that work just fine? I have.

Then there was the posting in here about a motorcycle with a 2 stroke bottom ends with a 4 stroke top end and valves that utilized the crankcase as a supercharge. Hardly conventional. Defying conventional (wisdom). Which does not mean that it wasn't a valid improvement and beneficial.

Diesel fuel does have a higher energy content by volume than petrol

Thus my question to those that perhaps had more specific knowledge, hopefully based on some experience.

If you don't want to answer such questions, then DON'T; but don't make patronizing belittling put downs.

In regards to the 'brown's' gas debate/fiasco depending on one's point of view of it. There have been simple H2O electrolysis units developed and installed into both CI and SI IC engines. Your well ingrained and indoctrinated data set that stems from information that originated about a century ago likewise the addition of fairly minor notions of hydrogen and oxygen form basic simple electrolysis units is a hoax with no basis is a reflection of your lack of knowledge and ignorance on (relatively) recent R&D in this area. If one looks at it from a purely theoretical standpoint and calculates the quite insignificant additional energy added by the hydrogen along with the introduction of likewise quite small portions of oxygen do NOT in fact jive with the practical 'real world 'testing and results obtained in practice on such units that have been corroborated by a number if independent testing laboratories. As well as by numerous vehicles operating with commercially available units developed by a guy in the US specifically for this application that show consistent and sometimes VERY significant improvements in the vehicles operating with them. I obtained the ~ 100 page report of independent confirmations by a number of different of different independents with the required equipment to tests, document and successfully verify both the increased fuel efficiency and reduced pollutants that resulted from fairly small portions of the additional hydrogen and oxygen is over and above with the 'purely theoretical calculations' of the energy added into the mix do not bear up in application.

While you may feel quite justified in rejecting these number of independently verified results, this has also been tested and verified by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories, perhaps in conjunction with the Sandi national laboratories as well , though I am uncertain of the latter's enrolment in this testing and analysis LLNL HAVE confirmed that the inclusion of fairly small portions of hydrogen and oxygen added into the mixture of both CI and SI engines increased their performance well over and above the quantity of thermal energy added by the addition of these fairly minor portions of the 'chemical energy.' LLNL( Sandia?) lab's conclusion was that that the addition of fairly small portions of the hydrogen and oxygen was that it assisted in and resulted in more efficient utilization of the primary fuel sources that increased there efficiencies and decreased pollutants, sometimes VERY significantly: as high as a 65% improvement in some cases!

Thus I suggest that to the contrary it is YOU that needs to study and update your out of date wrote dogmas that were established ~ a century ago with this new information and knowledge confirmed by a number of different independent and credible scientific institutions.

I am NOT about to become this threads 'whipping' boy after completely ignoring Kyzine's constant insults numerous times at EVERTHING that I posted in here regardless of its content I did not respond initially to them in the least in hopes that he would either hopefully get bored with them, run out of steam or just plain act mature enough. When it became very apparent that none of these things were taking place and showed no signs of the becoming less frequent or desisting in them I finally confronted Kyzine on his childish constant derision and insulting put downs EVERY TIME I posted in here regardless of the content for the unforgivable and horrendous mistake of getting his nickname wrong and parroting others insults at me that were not based even based in fact.

Kyzine may be one of you 'good old boys' here but by virtue of being the 'new kid on the block' I am not going to be the 'bleeding chicken in the overcrowded hen house' that gets 'marked' as the 'sacrificial lamb' and gets 'pecked to death.'

Doug,

I won't react to the abrasive tone of your post.

I didn't read your post until just now, and therefore did not realize that, in it, you "came out of the closet" re your belief in Brown's gas as a fuel efficiency booster.

I am not a fan of pseudo science, nor am I a fan of frauds. For those reasons, I have written (here at CR4) a great deal about various perpetual motion scams and also about HHO (Brown's gas, etc).

I've already spent too much time clearing up your misunderstandings and misconceptions in this thread, and have said several times that your egg hunt belongs elsewhere. But I cannot, in good conscience, let your claim that their is valid science behind the claims of HHO scammers stand.

Dennis Lee (and much earlier, Stanley Meyer) were prosecuted for fraud, not because of some Big Oil, Big Government conspriracy exists to discredit these "heros". They are (were) frauds, pure and simple.

It appears to me that either you have not read the Livermore study, or you have misinterpreted it. We can discuss that in another thread if you'd like. I have established one: "Studies supporting HHO Boosting."

But here, in this modular vehicle thread, is not the place.

Have you ever encountered a 2 stroke SI engine with no spark plugs that work just fine?

Again, I enjoy riddles, to some extent, but you seem to switch in and out of "riddle mode" and "indignant mode". It's hard to know how to react.

No, I have not encountered a spark ignition engine that runs "just fine" without spark plugs. I have experienced spark ignition engines that run on without the spark plugs firing, but in every case in my experience spark ignition engines are equipped with sparks plugs (or early equivalents thereof -- i.e. something that makes a spark). I have no personal experience with laser ignition.

But in any event, I can't see that whether I have or not has any bearing on the current discussion, modular vehicles.

Hope to see your links at the other thread.

I have no interest in fighting or arguing with you Blink.

Couldn't prove it by me. See if you can see an inconsistency here:

You wrote on one line "I have no interest in fighting or arguing with you Blink"

A couple lines further down, you write:

I guess that unlike you apparently, I still have things left to learn and readily admit and acknowledge it.

It goes without saying that we all have many things to learn. You are suggesting that I do not admit and acknowledge that fact. Most people in my situation would find that insulting. Are you saying I am too dim-witted to realize that I know some small fraction of a percent of the things that are available to know?

You write (excerpt below) that I am a century behind the times, lack knowledge, and am ignorant regarding relatively recent R&D in fuel efficiency gadgets. But you have no possible way of knowing if that is the case or not. Given that I have quite possibly written more than anyone in history on HHO scams, with hundreds of posts on the subject on CR4 alone, your assessment is insulting at best and unsupportable.

Your well ingrained and indoctrinated data set that stems from information that originated about a century ago likewise the addition of fairly minor notions of hydrogen and oxygen form basic simple electrolysis units is a hoax with no basis is a reflection of your lack of knowledge and ignorance on (relatively) recent R&D in this area.

So you can see how you cannot reasonably claim to 1. not want to argue, but then 2. throw insults. I am not going to simply roll over while you propagate lies. If you want to bully and run, that's OK, but I can assure you that such behavior will not enrich your life, nor will it improve your reputation here. You have already succeeded in ticking off a lot of people in just this thread. What's the point?

If you can not produce a link to your Lawrence Livermore test that shows 65% efficiency increase from an onboard electrolysis unit, I'll assume you are bullying just for the sake of bullying. Remember, here is not the place to post that link and summary -- I put up a thread for you to be able to easily prove your point.

That's all from me to you in this thread.

Please see post 393:

...LLNL( Sandia?) lab's conclusion was that that the addition of fairly small portions of the hydrogen and oxygen was that it assisted in and resulted in more efficient utilization of the primary fuel sources that increased there efficiencies and decreased pollutants, sometimes VERY significantly: as high as a 65% improvement in some cases!

I stand corrected on the 65%

A link to the "and also about HHO (Brown's gas, etc)." thread by itself is all that was necessary for me to see that HHO does not belong on this thread in anyway.

The last post there was 11/17/09. Is interest lost? I will go there later to see.

Thanks

Hi Blink,

'.... for your super-efficient engine ....'

I have NEVER stated that my Engine design is 'super efficient'

Re: Engine / Motor / Fuel for a hybrid.

Hi Ray,

I would like to use diesel fuel because the tank is not regulated for vapor containment like Gasoline tanks (makes for flexible tank planning). Also diesel does not turn to varnish over time like gasoline (My goal is to leave the fuel in the tank as long as possible).

First of all I want to say outright that most of my knowledge of Diesels is theoretical.

In too many years of being a mechanic, I almost exclusively worked on petrol engines. So please take this under advisement.

There are numerous other factors in heavily in favor of Diesels as well.

I was unaware of the fact that Diesels fuel tanks are not 'sealed' and don't utilize vapor containment. As a 'heavier, 'cooler'' fuel with a lower vapor point, it certainly doesn't evaporate anywhere near as fast or as readily as petrol does. Note that if you are using a 'flexible, collapsible' fuel tank similar to the clear collapsible water containers commonly used for camping these days; this would pretty well handle the task of vapor containment and prevent 'vapor lock' with gasoline as well. Please do everything you can to ensure that the liquid fuel tank stays in the tank, including in a collision. There is a LOT of energy there! A gallon of gasoline has the same amount of energy that 88 pounds of TNT does! Not something to be taken lightly. Diesel fuel being a heavier, 'cooler' fuel with a lower vapor point does not tend to be anywhere near as 'explosive' as gasoline does. So there is a significant of safety factor here to take into consideration as well.

Many teenagers/ young men are obsessed with cars and are quite knowledgeable about the different makes and models, or at least the ones they are interested in. So again, while I may be able to make some generalized suggestions of appropriate engines, but I most definitely am not a comprehensive walking encyclopedia or a definitive source in this area. My recommendations are more along the line of relative advantages, operating parameters and conditions.

As regulars in this channel are likely well aware of I am NOT a formally educated, qualified licensed engineer. My knowledge comes from being self taught and from the 'school of hard knocks' and from my inherent curiosity which covers a broad range of being 'purely theoretical' for ME, to the very practical applied side of things. When I need to 'know the numbers' on something, I research it until I find out the method needed and then apply it.

With these provisos in place:

Here is what I do know about why Diesels are more efficient than Otto cycle spark ignition (SI) engines.

Compression Ignition (CI) Diesels ignite the fuel by the air temperature being primarily increased from the (extreme) pressure increase to the point where it rises above the temperature of spontaneous combustion when the fuel in injected into it when all the valves are closed. Thus the minimum requirement of a 16 to 1 compression ratio. A 25 to 1 compression ratio is considered a 'heavy duty' Diesel and as far as I know, that is about as high as it gets in 'normal' Diesels as opposed to one more highly tuned for high performance, racing etc. Once the Diesel is up to normal operating temperature this also contributes to heating the air as well. Thus the need for 'glow plugs' to assist the CI in starting when the ambient and engine temperatures are very cold.

The higher the compression ratio, the higher the efficiency. The first Ford engines by today's standards had huge pistons with very long strokes and very low compression ratios.

Generally speaking in the mode that most internal combustion (IC) engines operate at the higher the operating temperature, the higher the efficiency.

Though throttles valves are sometimes added to Diesels, they do not require one and in most cases don't have one and the speed and power output is strictly controlled by the amount of fuel that is injected into the cylinder and I would imagine that like Otto SI engines they timing of the fuel injection is varied to meet the requirements at any given moment. Thus unlike an Otto cycle except when it is at wide open throttle, which is very rarely; the Diesel has no restrictions on the intake and thus has does not have to work against the vacuum created when the piston goes down on the intake stroke in order to draw air into the cylinder. This IS a very significant factor and introduces significant loss of power, torque and overall efficiency in an Otto engine.

Diesel fuels have more inherent energy in it than the same amount of gasoline does. If my memory of this is correct, I believe that a gallon of Diesel fuel contains something like 185,000 BTU's of energy in it while gasoline only has ~ 138,000.

This is because of the higher amount of 'heavier, oiler' content in the Diesel. While this is NOT a recommended practice (IE: 'don't 'try this at home' kiddies!' (< 8) if you have ever added either of these fuels to a wood fire to help getting it going, the gasoline ignites quite readily in comparison to the gasoline, but the gasoline very quickly burns off and if you have wet wood, after a very short period of time you have the same thing that you started with: a pile on wet wood that is not burning. Diesels oils don't burn as fast and 'flash off' the way gasoline does and continue to burn longer.

Ambient temperature is a significant factor in how readily these fuels will ignite. If you have some gasoline on concrete on a very hot day, you better not be bending over it to light it, but use the 'pitch and run' technique with the match. At 30 or 40 below, the gasoline makes a very small, subdued flame and is even hard to ignite.

These are the primary factors for a Diesels higher efficiency than a gasoline Otto engine.

Both of these are affected significantly by the very wide speed and load range required to operate in a moving vehicle. Industrial applications generally operate within a very narrow speed and load range which is optimal for their efficiency. This IS the reason that hybrids are significantly more efficient and are thus constructed this way in spite of the considerable added complexity and expense to accommodate this. The combustion engine only operates within a very narrow range and it and the power generation unit are matched and both optimized to work together at maximum efficiencies.

As to the size and power requirements and the electrical generator requirements, this is where a knowledgeable engineer with experience and knowledge relative to your application to calculate everything out to obtain the optimum configuration. You can 'climb this learning curve' yourself if you are willing to. Any such information that you find can only aid you in ending up with a better outcome.

I don't know how much cost is a factor for you, but given the application, industrial diesels are also an option. Unless the automotive diesel is configured to be utilized only as an electrical generator as in most hybrids, &/or has a transmission with a lot of very closely space transmission ratio that allows the engine to stay in this tight optimum operating range. Most industrial diesels are configured and optimized to stay within a narrower more efficient speed/power/torque band/ range.

I would definitely be looking for a 'clean Diesel' that doesn't have the diesels infamous exhaust smell and higher particulates that older ones do. I don't know if you saw my earlier posting about having a large garden tractor with a 750 pound roto-tiller on it to thoroughly chew up my lawn to renew it. I worked in very close proximity to this for hours and had no clue that it was a Diesels until I was helping the guy get loaded up and he started talking about it. The difference was VERY significant.

I have been told that the 'smart car' has a 3 cylinder 'clean' diesel in it.

As to what to use as an electrical generator, I really don't have enough knowledge in this area to make any valid suggestions.

A final word of 'Octane ratings': most people are aware of and are correct that the octane rating is an indication of the 'anti knock' (detonation) of the fuel, but it is also an indication of energy density. A higher octane rated gasoline has a slightly higher energy content available for power output. Note that when a petrol Otto engine gets into the point of 'detonation' it is starting to act as a compression ignition engine and with the cylinder being already filled with a hot air AND fuel mixture, rather than it being a 'flame front' expanding out from the spark plug, it is now all spontaneously igniting at once and is a genuine explosion, rather than a 'controlled burn' albeit a very fast one. Heavy detonation WILL destroy an engine very quickly. The pinging in petrol/Otto engines that modern technology has now pretty well entirely eliminated, and is a mild form of, and the beginning of detonation. Sever detonation would be like you having the head off of the engine and striking a very hard blow with a sledge hammer to one of the pistons at top dead center as hard as you could. Not likely it is going to stand up to this for long.

I hope this helps you somewhat. I'm interested to know more about your homebuilt (/commercial prototype?) hybrid configuration and what you have in mind if you care to share it. You definitely are on the right track by keeping the weight down as much as possible.

In either case, I wish you luck with it and hope that it turns out well for you and is successful, efficient, clean and SAFE!

Regards,

Doug

A final word of 'Octane ratings': most people are aware of and are correct that the octane rating is an indication of the 'anti knock' (detonation) of the fuel, but it is also an indication of energy density. A higher octane rated gasoline has a slightly higher energy content available for power output.

Octane is not an indication of the energy density of the fuel. The more ethical of the gasoline companies make a point of this on their websites, just as the more ethical also state that the detergent loads are comparable from regular to high octane. The only reason for using high octane fuel is to gain its anti-knock properties, meaning that for most cars, its use is a waste of money (as compared to using regular grade).

Re: The meaning of Octane ratings.

Hi Blinky,

I was also under the same impression until I found information that indicated that it was also an indication of minor difference in energy densities of the fuel as well.

It was ages ago and I have no idea of the source.

Though a boosted octane ratings in gasoline does give the fuels the capacity to get more power out of the fuel without destructive pre-ignition and detonation. This viewpoint makes more sense and is in line with the established and accepted meaning of octane ratings.

I agree that by and large the octane rating is now primarily just a rip off of a factor held over and perpetuated by the petrol manufacturers from the days before the advent of modern sensor and logic processing power technology. Both which serve to effectively eliminate pinging.

The petrol companies having the public at large well conditioned to the 'need' for paying more for higher octane rated gasoline's that for the most part is now a moot point. Except of course to the gasoline producers, distributors and retailers 'bottom line.'

I like that diesel has more power energy per weight of fuel, self lubricates, and burns cooler.

Diesel fuel and gasoline are essentially identical in energy density by weight. Diesel has slightly higher energy density by volume. (These two statements taken together mean that a gallon of diesel weights more than a gallon of gas.)

Does a clean burning diesel motor put exhaust higher up into the atmosphere similar to gasoline with longer term effects?

"Clean" diesels are after-treated -- they are not inherently clean. It is more costly to make a diesel clean (i.e., able to meet current EPA standards) than to do so with a gasoline engine. (A catalytic converter alone is not sufficient.) (Read up on Mercedes Blue TEC. The overall environmental effects of gasoline engines and diesel engines in automotive use (now that the new standards have been implemented) are pretty comparable in terms of criteria emissions (the stuff we have measured for decades) but diesel engines reduce CO2 emissions slightly, because they are more efficient (you burn less fuel and therefore generate less CO2).

Ray,

www.whispergen.com

Not sure how current that is tho'. It' definitely clean burning. I've used one briefly.

Stu.

Good one,

not the exact design, same idea, the topend cranks were on the top, I think with a bevel drive, could use chain, toothed belt, straight cut gears. I was imagining a triangle shaped 3 cylinder, with the tranny contained in the center, a variation on the english navy's opposed piston design.

there was the al baker baja bike,

2 stroke bottom end

4 stroke top end

making the crankcase in effect a blower

a couple of reed valves & a small accumulator to store the charge after the carb, jetting was kind of weird, needed to be fuel injected

same old issue of lubing the top end having to premix. the design also need better than crank seals

The triangular layout is most definitely on the weird side. As Kyzine observed, there must be like 3,000,00 patents on them at least. There are SO many variations on the theme of 'infernal combustion engines', and still more coming!

The two stroke bottom and the 4 stroke top is novel. I'm wondering about that as the crankcase is almost always used for the compression anyway. I wonder what the advantage was supposed to be? By the top end being a four stroke, did it have an intake vale as most 4 strokes do as opposed the regular transfer port in crankcase compression 2 strokes? If so I guess the idea was to use the crankcase as a supercharger? Kinda sounds like the taking the worst points form a 2 & 4 stroke and putting them together to get ??? Was it a sucessful improvement? It's a wonder that they allowed it under the rules and regulations. But maybe they figure that anyone that wants to and does ride a motor bike across a 1,000 miles of desert with no rider changes (non stop I believe?); that if they are willing to do it, then they deserve the chance and go for it! Perhpas it was allowed to run, but was 'unclassified'? If the guy completed it, it could of been quite likley that he came in both first... AND last LoL (< 8)

I must confess that I've never quite been able to completely figure multi cylinder crankcase compression out in 2 strokes because in most of them when one piston is going up, another is coming down in a common crankcase basically keeping the volume constant inside of it. I know that they tend to put baffles into the crankcase on some to improve the efficiency. I can readily see it and understand it in a single piston jobby. But .. .

I saw a short blurb in Popular Science a while ago in their annual 'best of what's new' edition. (I think that that must be the time when most of the staff takes there holidays (< 8) Also a much more apt title for it now would be 'Popular Technology' The blurb was about a design improvement to help overcome the inherent problems with 2 strokes. The example they used was a diagram and didn't show or state clearly how it worked, but basically they had a large transfer pipe coming out of the crankcase going up and joining the intake manifold just before it entered into the cylinder. The way they had it drawn it appeared to be a 'one way valve' so that the flow could only go up from the crankcase and into the intake manifold. Pretty fuzzy, but so was the documentation and info on it. They gave it kudos though as an easy and effective improvement.

I saw a neat one on TV about a young (design engineer?) that after returning from the Orient and surviving all of the exhaust that was very prevalent, concentrated and intense with lots of fumes and unburned petrol from the multitudes of low end, cheap 2 stroke motor bikes in use everywhere. He designed a retrofit kit that converted them to direct cylinder fuel injection after the ports were closed. Made a HUGE difference and significant improvements in a number of factors. He was selling the entire retro fit kit for only $50 ~ $75 USD. Nice!

Baker at the time late 80's was a hot shiest tuner of 4 stroke hondas. 650cc 4 valve head, 500 2stroke lower end

& yes using it like a super charger, not having a $ 50 fuel injection kit was running a carb before the accumulator the accumulator had a check on the in side

he was fairly old at the time & finished as a test, I don't think he was even officially entered

he died before anything came of it

Ray, Garth, I'm finding this OPOC engine fascinating. (yes I have been watching it for hours - thanks Ray )

It certainly solves the compression speed side of things. But equally, it's limited on rpm by the burn rate of diesel.

I think the most difficult part of gaining then maintaining the performance targets is the injection side of things. Keeping the pattern even central and suspended from the opposed jets (and no swirl) may be the big 'slower' in this development.

But one also assumes this is and earlier model and they've cracked that by now.

Nice bit of electric turbo/super thinking - but also if the porting has been improved they may not be quite so dependent on that and "starting by stages".

I'm quite looking forward to the option of designing OPOC into something

---------------------------

To those just learning CI - some of what is being said is a bit 'relative'.

I was seeing some talk last year about enriching diesel with 15% ethanol to improve emissions. which then led us to consider not removing the ethanol or methanol from our biodiesel, certainly reducing the cost of production. drying the fuel was one of the more energy intensive parts of the process as we were doing it...

increasing the speed of the burn possibly

[ oh thanks chris the pics blew up the screen causing everyone to scroll back & forth for the entire next page]

ya but those pictures are worth it... I figured out Kyzine's trick.. but still haven't figured out how to do with my own. just copy and paste for one's from the web, and they come in large.. but not if pasting from my own apps.

personally I like the pictures large.

Chris

Not exactly Chris - that pic just happened to be large on the web (and you also C/P the browser and other imbedded link data - which is why it stretched the CR4 format)

So to not annoy Garthh again (by posting "wall papers"):

For CAD stuff - export into a Photo App (like Adobe Photo Shop or SW Photo Works) and set output .jpg, set the size. Then C/P that - or use the camera button and browse.

oh not annoyed just wish the touch pad would scroll side to side too

Each cylinder has it's own sealed crankcase. S.

Each cylinder has it's own sealed crankcase.

The only way I could see it working.

I've logged the Robert Bosche 'Automotive Handbook'

http://books.sae.org/book-bosch7 recommended to me and will add it to my extensive non-fiction library as money and priorities dictate and will obtain it accordingly.

It comes to me highly recommended by those whose knowledge in such matters is demonstrable and I respect them as such.

Thanks for the info and the 'education'! (< 8)

Finland's All-Electric Race Car Charges in Just 10 Minutes

Another One for you Garth:

This one is a bit of a cluge, but has many noteworthy features and its specs are more inline with yours.

A Robot Buddy for Your Bicycle-Built-For-Two

One rider and one robot to do all the work.

The project began as a challenge. Carl Morgan's son Justin, recalling how he used to have to crank up a nasty hill outside their Bainbridge Island, Washington, home every day, asked his dad, a retired electrical engineer, if he could build something that would take care of the pedaling for a lazy biker. The "yes" arrived about a year later—an electric-motor-powered tandem bicycle featuring a gleaming robot named Joules.

Morgan spent months modeling how to transform a motor's spin into pedal-pushing legs. The motor inside Joules's torso turns a series of linked belts and chains that transfer power from one area of the robot to the next. Each upper leg pivots at the hip, raising and lowering its knee and forcing the lower legs to turn the pedals. He also added "bones" (rods on the outside) for needed stiffness.

Morgan was nervous when he climbed in front for the final test, but Joules easily cruised to the top of the hill. The bike could probably do more, even hit 30 mph, but Morgan says he doesn't plan to find out: "Abject cowardice on my part means we'll never know for sure."

STABLE AND SAFE
Morgan added large custom-made training wheels to the rear of the bike, guaranteeing that Joules won't topple when Morgan climbs on or off. Wiring the motor to the controls in front was easy for the electrical engineer. He added a key ignition and emergency toggle switch to the left side that cuts the power to the motor, and a motorcycle-style throttle in the right handlebar grip to crank up the speed.

CURB APPEAL
The robot's sleek aluminum design and racing-helmet-shaped head add eye-catching flash, something Morgan believes is an important part of any project. "It's cool to make a paper airplane that flies," he says, "but it's just as cool to draw dragon wings on it."

PEDAL-FREE
Morgan trimmed down the tandem bike's pedals and machined a pair of cylindrical aluminum links between Joules's feet and the end of the crank arm (the part that's attached to the pedals). If the angles of rotation of Joules's legs were off by even a millimeter, the robot would not be able to pedal smoothly, so he added a circle of deformable urethane foam inside the cylinder, creating a little bit of extra leeway. As for Morgan himself, he keeps his feet on the pedals but doesn't have to do any work. "Why build a helper whose only purpose is to pedal—and then get in the way of his sole means of expression?" he says. "Besides, I put months of effort into this chance for a few minutes of sloth."

Turning Trick: Morgan had to position the knees at the correct angle relative to the pedals to transfer enough force. Courtesy Carl Morgan

Time: One year

Cost: $3,000

Robo-lance: Courtesy Carl Morgan

POWERED-DOWN

With its 14-horsepower electric motor, Joules "is so powerful, it could probably climb a tree," Morgan jokes. In fact, the motor would push too hard had he not added an electronic speed and current controller that limits it to 28 percent of its total horsepower. (It maxes out at 2,400 rpm, which is far too fast for a bike—pro cyclists usually crank at 100 to 110 rpm.) Morgan also managed to slow the rotation of the pedals to a more manageable maximum of 90 rpm, or an estimated top speed of 30 mph, by adding several rotating belts and chains to Joules's torso. That increased the torque as well, giving the robot enough power to carry the rider up the hill and beyond.

Video of 'Joules' The Electric BiCycle man!

A 'serious contender' for you Garth:

Now this one looks more like your 'Speed!' The current price is very prohibitive. But hopefully it will catch on big time and when sales rocket, the prices drop considerably as productions goes up.

NTDTech — January 28, 2009 — STORY: It's certainly a head-turner. Whizzing around the streets of Berlin - this is the "ErockIT". Half-bicycle, half-motorbike, Stefan Gulas has been working on his invention for the past four years: [Stefan Gulas, ErockIT Inventor]: "It's a motorbike and in a certain sense it's also a bicycle, because the motorbike works as a bicycle. So you have to pedal in order to travel forwards. The pedals act as a type of accelerator. So you don't have an accelerator on the handlebars but you have to pedal. And the quicker you pedal the faster the motor goes." And this pedaling also charges up the bike's battery. Gulas is convinced the ErockIT - which can travel up to 80 kilometers, or almost 50 miles an hour, is a transport revolution. [Stefan Gulas, ErockIT Inventor]: "The thing I'm most proud of is that we've managed to make a cool electric vehicle. There are lots of vehicles with petrol engines that are cool - you just need to go and take a look at them, Ducatis or cars like Porsches and Ferraris. They're cool vehicles, but they all have petrol engines." The bike may have the looks. But it seems people don't quite know what to make of it. [Martin Alridge, Likes ErockIT]: "From the speed, I'd say it's a motorbike, but he pedals it, so it's a push bike. So it's a bicycle. But an amazing thing, absolutely amazing. I want one." The others who want one should be prepared to dig deep into their pockets. An "ErockIT" costs 30-thousand euros - or around 44-thousand U.S. dollars - and customers have to put down 25 000 euros when they place an order. For his part - Gulas says he expects the bike will appeal to creative, successful, people.

Super fast bike could revolutionize transportation!

I have to agree with you totally.

Something like this makes it a realistic contender for serious transportation as opposed to a 'novelty' for a relaxing, leisurely Sunday recreational ride.

Except for the price )< 8(

As I said, hopefully it will prove to be successful enough for well to do folks in Europe that are much more pro active about personal 'low pollution' technology than in North America that it will result in very high volume sales that will bring it down in price to get them in use by the millions and preferably the billions!

Discuss Drivetrain issues.

Discuss Fuel Systems issues.

Discuss Controls & Instrumentation issues.

Great stuff Ed!

What do you think of something like a front-engine module, complete with struts and tie-rods and wheels? the transmission of power and steering is all handled by this one unit, or conversely, the 'power unit' could be modular in the rear, and have steering handled by the wheel(s) up front?

Kyzine is right... it is driven by the framing technology. so what do you get if you cross stressed-skin monocoque with bolt-on frame components? I think that frame-only designs didn't have roll cages for operator safety, but i could be wrong. Perhaps a comprehensive design for the rollcage as the basis of the frame can answer the operator safety. I feel that the monocoque plan limits body construction options.. but that is tbd.

As for air control, while not necessarily efficient, if the engine component is also generating electricity or other energies, there is no reason why the air conditioning/heating can't be completely electrical and contained within the passenger compartment. (not a great idea, but still an idea) then all you need to do is connect some wires together, when bolting the car modules together.

GA again for insights into problems and solutions

Chris

Discuss Interior & Ergonomics issues.

Discuss Signals & Lights issues.

Discuss Governing Bodies & Overall Safety Considerations issues

Discuss Insurability issues.

a dated (1997) document on licensing and insuring home-built vehicles in the US.

Discuss Registration (VIN) issues.

Our electronics and computer technology advances make this a lot simpler. Each major component has a serial number, a value derived from initial cost and age and an electronic signature readable via transponder by external highway sensors. These combine to determine a fee for use on public highways. Payment of the fee, perhaps on a sliding scale based on other use factors like the road used, the load carried, time of day, etc. could be by drawing on a users account subject to "refilling" according to the means preferred by the owner/user.

We don't have the electronics systems and infrastructure today; but that shouldn't take any longer than widespread implementation of modular vehicle technology. In the meantime a single serial number assigned by DMV for any combination of component serial numbers becomes a temporary expedient and should be an easy task done remotely by the internet by any licensed repair shop or car dealer.

At this point I'll leave the discussion of important minutia in the mechanics of preventing registration and use of stolen or condemned modules to a future discussion.

Ed Weldon

very innovative thinking here...

paypal for auto tolls... I think this is a very serious consideration, as it can pay for the maintenance of the road infrastructure. (taxed this way, and maybe not taxed for it other traditional ways)

GA

Chris

Discuss Used Vehicle and Component Market issues.

Discuss Auto Economics

Discuss Auto Quality issues.

Here is an interesting document that discusses the Toyota Production System (TPS) and Modular components..

http://www.bizresearchpapers.com/8.Hamid-.pdf

chris

A very interesting development in JIT (Just in Time) manufacturing and inventory control.

Including the manufacturing and supply of significant sized modules.

Towards the end of it they do note that the current UniBody design and construction is an obstacle of this, but make no suggestions or propose no solutions to the problem. It will be interesting to watch and see how the development progresses and see if they are (able to) shift away from this design practice and come up with utilizing 'major modules' in the mass production environment.

It seems that you are ahead of your time Chris and 'riding the wave of innovation'

I'm still here Chis

A new entry level for small business

I'm bringing up the topic of proprietary because it dominates this Auto market. Centralize manufacturing has its efficiency factor, but unfortunately it distributes unemployment. Proprietary practices inhibit smaller manufactures from participating in an open way. The modular concept would be a small market at best. The modular market would plant a seed that could put small business to work. An open market could spark positive influence on the larger manufacturing base. The auto industry needs a bridge of technology the way a circuit board bridge component in the electronic industry.

The new VIN # should identify system Bridges.

The modular vehicle is different than a conventional vehicle in one very important way. The modular vehicle is not intended to support the proprietary concept. The modular pieces are intended to bridge parts together. Starting with a smaller off the shelf parts, a subsystem adapter would bridge parts to a specified connection, to fit a certain module. The modules can change and the adapters can change but the connections will be specified. A market will be created to identify connect ability of modules and sub assemblies. Parts that can fit with the least amount of sub assembly would be desirable. Anybody can own and produce the parts to fit the most suitable open market. Who ever produces the most bridgeable adaptors or sub assemblies, will influence the openness of the market. The market will be determined by consumer's ability to bridge parts and establish connectivity. Connection specifications can change to meet market needs. The adaptability of the changing specifications to bridge existing parts will determine open acceptance. The market could naturally evolve away from proprietary ownership, an open market is better for business and consumers.

This is Metaphorically an abstract correlation:

Modules that connect with matching identification are like electrical component, and the internet is like wires that connect them. To organize this information and create the path for connection is like designing and selling circuit boards.

The VIN# is the circuit board # to show relationships, the part makers is not important.

I hope there is enough potential to encourage a market, to develop presentable information, even in an open market.

_______________________________________________________________

The ground is fertile, the seed is planted, will it get sunlight and water?

http://cr4.globalspec.com/comment/509360/FRAME
http://cr4.globalspec.com/comment/509361/BODY-WINDOWS
http://cr4.globalspec.com/comment/509362/SUSPENSION
http://cr4.globalspec.com/comment/509364/BRAKES
http://cr4.globalspec.com/comment/509365/WHEELS-TIRES
http://cr4.globalspec.com/comment/509366/Engine-Motor
http://cr4.globalspec.com/comment/509368/DRIVETRAIN
http://cr4.globalspec.com/comment/509369/FUEL-SYSTEMS
http://cr4.globalspec.com/comment/509370/CONTROLS-INSTRUMENTATION
http://cr4.globalspec.com/comment/509371/INTERIOR-ERGONOMICS
http://cr4.globalspec.com/comment/509374/SIGNALS-LIGHTS
http://cr4.globalspec.com/comment/509375/GOVERNING-BODIES-OVERALL-SAFETY-CONSIDERATIONS
http://cr4.globalspec.com/comment/509376/INSURABILITY
http://cr4.globalspec.com/comment/509377/REGISTRATION-VIN
http://cr4.globalspec.com/comment/509379/AUTO-ECONOMICS
http://cr4.globalspec.com/comment/509380/AUTO-QUALITY

Hi Chris, Transcendian et al,

I'm posting this duplicate from Chassis design into Feasibility/Economics and Quality as well because it is also relevant to these threads.

First I want to respond to Transcendian's posting that there is 'one optimal design' and thus that is what exists. While I agree with the theory that you put forth in principal but in fact there are numerous different applications and needs and thus different basic designs criteria that gives different imperatives and requirements as a 'starting point' and secondly like most 'consumer based' products now a days, there has to be a 'new model, or at least readily recognizable differences to have a 'new model' each and every year strictly for consumer marketing purposes.

Perhaps like yourself, I am a fan of 'modular' in many things. It makes a lot of sense in many applications.

But not in everything. On large volumes of mass produced things as complex and as sophisticated and subtle as modern day vehicles are produced at MUCH lower costs than small numbers of 'hand built' vehicles. Though explorations such as thus can and does evolve different approaches that may make smaller volumes cost effective as well. Especially if it is built to last as long as possible while balancing and keeping them affordable rather than the 'built in obsolesce' that exists in all mass produced vehicles today Though frankly we NEED to get back maximizing our resources and minimizing our negative impact of our environment and our world which is the only home we have. We have to get back to a 'need' based economy and not a 'want' based consumer society so that things that don't need it are constantly being changed just so they appear a little, or a lot different because they have to have a new 'this year's model' purely for marketing reasons. I made my living as a mechanic for many years. I remember working under the dash, which is most definitely no designed for convenience of service, on some electrical component. When I went to the dealership there were three different parts used of that little switch or electrical component in that model year alone.

One of the reasons that Volkswagens were so cheap for decades in the early era of there existence as they didn't keep changing things every year that worked and did its job just fine and didn't need to be changed

By virtue of the fact that you have started such a forum it is obvious that you have the interest and quite likely the aptitude for such things as well.

I don't know what kind of experience that you have, but have you ever tried to fabricate and build something like your frame drawing at the start of this multifaceted forum?

It is almost impossible to build something like that by hand that has anywhere near the accuracy, rigidity and safety that it has to have in order for the vehicle to handle and drive consistently and safely.

It is almost impossible to fabricate such things accurately enough by hand to start with. To assemble them without jigs it is very unlikely that they could even be laid out with the necessary consistency.

As soon as the frame starts to get welded together the heat distorts and pulls everything all over the place and out of alignment especially with no proper jugs that hold everything very rigidly in the exact position and they would have to remain in it until it was completely stress relieved so that it kept its dimensional accuracy.

Such fabrication tend to lend itself to construction where everything is in straight lines without all of the very complex subtle curves that modern vehicles have though out the entire vehicle in many different aspects: frame, body, interior etc, etc.

In recent years of the huge, massive and heavy SUV phase; I don't know if you have ever seen one but Mercedes finally came out with one that made it to north America. It looked more like it was a UPS commercial vehicle, or a 'CashMobile' armored car which frankly looked better than the Mercedes SUV did and looked like it was made in a local sheet metal and fabricating shop. Everything was square, straight and flat. No aerodynamics of any sort. All of this for probably about $150,000!

That being said I to have interests in such things. I don't have any experience with carbon fiber and have some knowledge of it but I am very interested in its usage. I've seen some Styrofoam moulds being made at very high cutting speed on a machining center for such things. With a proper vacuum system to suck up the Styrofoam chips and shavings, the cuttings speed would be great compared to (a very tough) steel! Clamping it down consistently and rigidly so that it didn't move during this phase would be a challenge though. Even without the very high costs of the carbon fiber material itself, such very time consuming intensive low quantity production of all the moulds needed and hand layup adds VERY significantly to production costs.

What I conceive is utilizing prefabricated, mass produced sheets of carbon fiber. Very similar to sheet metal. Different thicknesses, material composition for different purposes and sizes of sheets. With today's modern computer based and aided technology that is applicable at some many different levels and tasks. I am thinking the chassis starting off as very accurately designed and quickly made on computer driven 2 axis cutting tables which are quiet common now. A wide variety of the actual cutting mechanism and technology can be used to suite the material being cut. In the case of carbon fire I would think a very nigh pressure water jets to which various different abrasives can be added to suit the material that can improve production significantly or a laser, which likely would produce very stinky and hazardous toxic fumes so this would be a less desirable alternative. It would in essence be a very large, precision notched to ensure accurate assembly, origami type of construction. As stated, using a wide variety of very accurate interlocking notches and tabs etc would ensure that it was very accurate and repeatable. Once the entire frame was assembled in this manner, utilizing temporary wrappings where needed to hold everything securely in place and assembled utilizing various things like elastic 'tensor bandages' with heavy duty Velcro and /or a variety of clamps or any other means that was needed to do the job at this stage. Then the entire thing would be hand wrapped and laid up just like making a huge complex cast. It would have precision metal plates also laser or water jet cut and locating holes drilled threaded and machined as necessary on a computer CNC machining center to assure accuracy and repeatability to be place and built into the chassis during assembly for mounting all of the various things such as suspension mounts etc. It could also include various openings for running wiring etc through if desired.

Utilizing these techniques would also allow for some '3 dimensional' shaping and bending, including the possibilities adding additional strength by 'pre-stressing' the interlocked components before they are wrapped and finished with carbon fiber cloth.

This would also lend itself to very rapid, low cost different designs for different purposes. Though like the major auto companies that start with a number of the same basic 'functional' platforms and build several different models out of each 'platform'

There is also the possibility of utilizing other materials such as Kevlar both for the cut out pieces and finish wrapping and blended resins to give it some controlled flexibility where desirable so that it can give a little and not shatter like very strong but very brittle 100% carbon fiber is.

It goes without saying that such an approach would be significantly lighter and stronger with the possibility of being longer lasting (won't rust out). The easiest way to improve the performance and efficiency is to decrease weight.

While I very much prefer very aerodynamic sculpted designs over the 'boxy look' we have seen in the last couple of years; aerodynamics becomes more critical for higher speed vehicles. The higher the speed, the more crucial aerodynamics are as the power required to 'go faster at higher' speeds is not a linear one. It takes a LOT more power to go from 120 to 125 MpH than it does to go from 20 to 25 MpH. Thus for highway vehicles the importance of aerodynamics are vital.

FYI: The optimal and most aerodynamically efficient angle for the 'frontal area' of a motor vehicle is 37 degree.

Take a look at some of my postings please. Perhaps we should be getting a consortium together and get onboard with the project that is just starting and in its formative stages with the Canadian based large auto parts manufacturing company Magna International (Stronach & co.) that is working with the Canadian federal government and likely with numerous other interested parties such as ourselves to conceive, design and build mass produced 'next generation' personal transportation vehicles including light duty commercial and industrial trucks etc.

There is one optimum shape for a car body, aerodynamically, which is why so many cars pretty much look the same these days.

Chtank has pointed out that wheel motored electric vehicles make sense.

Elimination of the drivetrain etc, is a good idea.

AH is an expert when it comes to cars.

The Buckminster Fuller Dymaxion design was hobbled by tires of the day, which tended to blow out.

Of vehicles existing, I do consider the Volkswagon Bus one of the greats of all time.

Seems to me that most of what all want from an SUV, they could have gotten, or could get from that if they were willing to go a little slower.

There is a difference between the Motor, and the Engine, as an Engine gets its power from what it makes inside itself, and a motor gets a feed from outside itself.

In order, where I to build a car, first, I'd not build a car, but either a van, or a truck.

Second, I'd build a van.

First I'd start with the motive power available, either ICE, or ECE, or Electric motor.

The shape and frame of the vehicle would have to work practically to carry passengers and cargo, so there are compromises to any design dictated by its utility in a real world.

At any rate I do much admire the old Volkswagen Bus, and feel that its shape and power compartment provides lessons to be adapted to modular designs, feeling as well that electric wheel motors offer power to the pavement that may well be granted by the power compartment over a 20 year span of life, depending on the salt on the roads or in the air necessary for North American operations.

Hi Russell,

I think that if the market has more input to vehicle design, that we will see more offerings, not less.. and even a lot more custom work by homebuilders. I think this should be encouraged. so whether or not there is an ideal design, figured out by NASA in the '70's or not, if that appeals to you, then you can have that, or if you like the look of a WWII era jeep, (and who doesn't?) you can have that too hopefully!

Chris