I don't see how you can 'bloat up' the power stroke curve as the pressure increased it moves the piston and the volume increases. If you have a very short stroke you can maintain a higher pressure but you won't be moving the piston as far... you can't have both relatively constant high pressure and a nice increase in volume.
Playing with the bore/stroke ratio and torque/power spread has all been done before and is pretty well optimised I'd have thought.
Drawing pretty lines on paper doesn't effect reality.
Del

I respect you a lot for your experience. I still stick to my stand that PV curve can be altered.

Kindly see my another blog http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/66304.

You are absolutely right that as long we believe that there is a simple piston moving in out of a simple chamber. As long as the world sticks to this belief- we cannot come out and experiment. Pl see I have drawn a curve of change of volume with displacement in this blog. One must put in special effort to change rate of volume with displacement. Then P= constant for the gas. Thus as rate of change of volume is by designed tampered, one can get a intended rate of change of pressure and get work done too.

The chamber design and piston design I have given in this thread is quite complex and people did complain that there are too many piston rings to contain pressure. Hence- I floated that new blog http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/66304. I still think this is very practical. I really look forward to someone from industry seriously takes a look at this. Hence I have been suggesting - just dump existing piston engine. Look at my suggestion for piston (for intake and compression- it is the best) and rotary engine for combustion / exhaust). Separating out the two chambers gives many more advantages - it may be a modified Sterling cycle. Add to it digitization- the way I have referred- not putting electronics. So kindly see the other thread as continuation of this.

I suggested to have your computations and look at them if there are flaws or not. You NEVER answered this proposal. So that I maintain my opinion you have to go further to the basics.

There are some very smart people in and around the racing circuits that have been working to get more HP out of smaller Cubic Inches for years. HP=Fuel burn, more efficient burn = less fuel. There is not much more of a line that can be made from this. Go either side of the line and you produce more HP more fuel and vis versa. Your comment about making 720 deg 4 stroke into a 360 deg 4 stroke leaves me with the distinct opinion you don't know engines and how they work. Lets try to figure a way not to use fossil fuels. Better place to spend time.

You may want to start over with valid assumptions. I'd suggest the Bosch Automotive Handbook. Also read articles and look at the BSFC charts for the Prius (about 220 g/kWh or 37-38% efficient, depending upon source) and the VW TDI (42%).

Engines are named for the number of strokes (180 degrees of rotation) between power strokes, so a 2-stroke engine has one power stroke in 360 degrees and a 4-stroke engine has one power stroke in 720 degrees. So you need to change this: "One power stroke for 360 degrees of rotation of 4 stroke engine" into something that makes sense.

In spite of your history here, I think your suggestions might be worth considerating, and I will attempt to read through whatever you come up with.

http://www.google.co.uk/images?q=4+stroke+cycle+animation&rls=com.microsoft:en-gb:IE-SearchBox&oe=&rlz=1I7GGLT_en&redir_esc=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=6TTsTKOZIpK0hAeMmbnMDA&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4&ved=0CDsQsAQwAw&biw=1259&bih=647

http://www.howstuffworks.com/engine1.htm

A 4-stroke engine is called so, because there is one power stroke every four strokes. Also, each stroke involves a 180 deg rotation. So please check what you have stated.

The next thing is, according to your "bloated up" diagram of the Rankine Cycle, Your exhaust stroke shows a reduction in volume. Is that possible?

P.S.: A couple of years back I'd seen some speculation in an auto-magazine that a 3-stroke engine is in the making, and it combines the power of a 4s with the efficiency of a 2s. Any serious info on that?

Your exhaust stroke shows a reduction in volume. Is that possible?

Cylinder volume does reduce during the exhaust stroke, but his diagram for the current design does not correctly show that.

His diagram is remarkably wrong. It shows pressure increasing instantly during the compression stroke, with no change in volume. (There is a sudden increase in pressure just after ignition, but most of the compression stroke involves an increase in pressure and a decrease in volume -- which is so obvious that it should not require explanation, but our OP is evidently completely unfamiliar with engines.) His conception of the compression stroke is, of course, completely wrong. Perhaps he would benefit from actually taking the head off an engine to see what goes on inside.

The Exhaust stroke is shown as a large decrease in pressure with no change in volume. This is also completely wrong. During the exhaust stroke, the volume changes from large to small, as would be glaringly obvious to anyone who has even the vaguest idea of how engines work.

A conventional PV diagram looks like this:

The intake and exhaust strokes are shown as the two essentially parallel lines near the bottom of the chart, with intake pressure lower than exhaust pressure.

P.S.: A couple of years back I'd seen some speculation in an auto-magazine that a 3-stroke engine is in the making, and it combines the power of a 4s with the efficiency of a 2s.

Ordinarily, 2 strokes are considered powerful for their weight and displacement but not fuel efficient. So it would be desirable to have the reverse of your statement: in other words, the power of a 2-stroke with the efficiency of a 4 stroke.

I wonder if the OP is planning to join this healthy discussion.

It is an elastic cylinder (fu-metal) while both volume and pressure increase in parallel...

Bagpipe...

Everyone who have commented is right. My conceptual design - NO MISTAKES IN IT I stand by all the statements made there. Obviously the approach to implementation is different.

It will generate power stroke for 180 degrees every 360 degrees, but is a 4 STROKE engine.

The PV curve looking inverted giving a bloating shape is possible. One must put in efforts and Definitely NOT POSSIBLE with current design approach.

Volume seems to decrease at the end - yes possible!! Now if you accept that a conceptual engine with this kind of a curve P vs V) can generate higher power - with specifications laid down here - then IMPLEMENTATION is possible. Thank you all.

"It will generate power stroke for 180 degrees every 360 degrees, but is a 4 STROKE engine."

By definition, that is a "2-stroke". 

Perhaps you are confusing the terminology. I have a feeling you are thinking about  poppet valve engine (typical 4-stroke) versus piston-port engine (typical 2-stroke). There is nothing inherent in poppet-valve engines requiring four separate 180 degree cycles. With the right camshaft profile, there's no reason one couldn't function as a 2-stroke. (You would have to be careful not to let the valves smack into the piston.) Of course, with electro-mechanical valve actuation in place of a camshaft, you could even change things on the fly.

Kindly let em develop a new engine. I perfectly agree with your comment based on knowledge of existing engine design. May be my engine is a 2 stroke in appearance and 4 stroke in performance - we will go into hardware implementation later.

I am trying to look at boundary conditions and target parameters to be achieved before investing in implementation - to improve power out put, reduce carbon emission, improve efficiency etc.

If you look up some of my posts, I clearly state that 90% of the fuel loads can be eliminated from the average "American's" life, namely house heating/cooling, house electrical, and car fuel.

It took me years to realize a simple fact: You cannot get to 90% with a piston crank system. Ask "what does the thermodynamics want the piston to do?" A sine wave is not what is needed...hint...

The nature of an expansion leads to the typical PV shape. You can add and subtract heat during the expansion to get the PV curve to change shape. To make a "bubble" PV curve you add heat. This is what most cycles do in the first part of the cycle and they hit the thermal limits of metal and stop. The motion of the piston also drives the PV shape...

To maintain pressure as you show, calculate the temperature of the gas (air assumed) to maintain pressure out to near ambient pressure as you show. What is that temperature?

Notice as you add heat later in the cycle, you are "throwing" good heat after bad and efficiency drops. What does the T-s diagram look like?

An Erickson cycle is very close to the Carnot cycle. Actually, being able to do any cycle is where you should look because the real solution includes Internal AND External heat sources depending on energy availability, such as NG, gasoline, coal, wood, and solar thermal heat. This is key to any progress...

What heating/cooling process will you be doing to get your desired curve?

Is the bubble curve more efficient?

What is the basis of the efficiency calculation?

You make an assumption and that assumption may not be correct.

Please explain... You don't need to disclose hardware to explain the heating processes.

You can talk to me off line at seaplaneguy@msn.com

Seaplaneguy

I fully appreciate everyone of your statements - which are based on past know knowledge base. I am not going to disprove any of that knowledge base (in mathematical terms) either- except I am planning to tweak in mechanical engineering terms and target the curve I intend to achieve. How I am going to achieve it is immaterial.

My fundamental question to all experts is -

1. will such a conceptual curve result in higher power?
2. Will it lead to better burning?
3. Will it lead to reduced carbon emissions? etc
4. Will controlled air-to fuel mixture- irrespective of engine temperature give better power?
5. I also welcome points from experts which are likely causing lower power or poor burning in present design.
6. I fully agree that billions of cars and other applications have been developed for 4 stroke IC engines based on this PV= constant curve and I am keen to alter its shape - without disrupting PV= constant.

So far many have added dual spark plugs, added microprocessor based fuel injection system etc without attempting to alter the shape of this curve- which is the heart of the system. Hence improvements are marginal. Peopel working in teh same field for over 30 years have mastered old technology and as an outsider - hopefully I promise to inject a fresh look at it.

I tried convincing many on new approach - now I am taking this new route (from academic side) - to put down a P vs V curve and target it

The curve (PV = constant) is a hyperbola. If the shape is altered, that will of necessity disrupt the (PV = constant) feature. Thus your point 6 seems to be a difficult obstacle.

Thank you for your observations.

That is one of the main ingenuity I am looking for - against everybody's statement. Kindly do see remarks column in my very first table. The whole world will say it is not possible- I have already accepted that - to improve power.

Second-I also invite you to comment on keeping air to fuel ratio constant - whether it help to improve power out put of engine. - I have read somewhere - ever since development of first IC engine - technological advances have taken place. The first IC engine power would go down within minutes of operation as mixture turns leaner. Hence my ambition is to keep this mixture controlled closely.

Certainly this will be a kind of 4 stroke engine in performance - definitely not matching physically the existing design.

the mixture is already controlled in all of the latest engines

the purpose of keeping control of mixture is to ensure correct burning of fuel.

May i also suggest you learn English, as you statements lack grammatical correctness and there fore are difficult to understand

you are trying to achieve the impossible,if could be done it would have been done already,

You have a child like way of thinking and you are completely missing the point of understanding how IC engines work.

Thank you for your observations. I am rewriting - as you mentioned readability issues.

That is one of the main ingenious ways to tackle the problem I wish to suggest. Kindly do see remarks column in my very first table. The whole world will say it is not possible- I have already accepted that.

Second-I also invite you to kindly comment on keeping air to fuel ratio constant over the range of operating temperature of the engine - whether it will help to improve power output of the engine. - I have read somewhere that the output of the first engine dropped a lot within minutes. Now technological advances have taken place to overcome that problem. But it still appears that the mixture turns leaner under certain conditions. Hence my ambition is to keep this mixture controlled closely.

It will be a new 4 stroke engine- but may not meet your imagination based on existing technology.

I did not get involved in this discussion since I consider it as sterile. But I want to correct some aspects you are not aware of:

-the curve is NOT pv=constant , both curves are polytropic transformations - pv^k= cons with VARIABLE exponents since there is a heat exchange between the wall and enclosed gas.

- as a comment underlined the curvature can be changed by adding energy ,but adding energy means adding fuel, but the amount of air is limited and if you want to have still oxygen available during expansion you should reduce input of fuel at end of compression so that you work under even worse conditions at lower temperatures and lower efficiency.

I appreciate your efforts but you should build up a more serious knowledge basis which you have not now. You trust in your capability to solve problems better than any body else is to be admired but it is not enough to want and it is much more difficult to make it.

Is you question about PM related with this problem or are you a allround inventor dealing as well with engines as with magnetics and every thing else ?

Thank you for your response and explanation about polytropic transformations - pv^k= cons with VARIABLE exponents You have also explained some way you would try to tweak the curve in some way. I am trying to see how to do it in other ways. I will not question well accepted gas laws. I became curious about IC engines when I learnt that its efficiency is as poor as 20 to 23 % and that the whole world is looking for solution to improve its efficiency. I cannot believe that Trillions of IC engines are in use all over the world with such poor efficiency.

I am basically an electronic engineer working with magnets. You can also say I a humble inventor in my own field. But this poser on IC engine is not related to PM. I am aware that Curie point of magnets is far below working temperature of engines. I do enjoy working in different fields.

Every inventor is asked the same question – do you think you are the only guy to have come up with a solution? Now-a-days internet is there and with click of a button you have access to tones of knowledge!!! I certainly am aware of all such questions. But I also welcome you to think over along with me and do not get entangled in old known knowledge base and beliefs. There is scope for improving IC engine. If experts will not do it- someone will take up the challenge.

"Second-I also invite you to kindly comment on keeping air to fuel ratio constant over the range of operating temperature of the engine - whether it will help to improve power output of the engine. - I have read somewhere that the output of the first engine dropped a lot within minutes. Now technological advances have taken place to overcome that problem. But it still appears that the mixture turns leaner under certain conditions. Hence my ambition is to keep this mixture controlled closely."

Current automotive engine designs are already monitoring coolant temperature, as well as inlet air temperature. Some heavy duty engines are also monitoring oil temperature. What will you be able to do to vary fuel mixture according to temperature, that is not currently being done?

Thank you very much for giving me inputs on air to fuel ratio issue. I will take note of it.

Just a comment about current design practices - you have stated that so many parameters are being monitored. But monitoring does not mean controlling - right!!!

Let me give you a very simple example of how an electronic engineer would be asked to solve the problem of - getting a water at constant temperature for bathing by mixing hot & cold water. Have you really imagined finding a solution to this problem? It is very complex. Temperature of both hot & cold water to be monitored, rate of flow and pressure and stock level of cold and hot water to be monitored and then you put solenoid valves and put PID control lops etc etc. Who will design this and who will pay for this solution?

So as a very practical engineer - monitoring does NOT mean controlling and I have taken note of your comment about current practices and my suggestion will be surprising simple.

I hope you know the joke about American trying to find solution to writing notes in space using an ink pen, while the Russian suggested - use a pencil !!!

As mentioned I did not want to get involved but you have SUCH a wrong idea about IC monitoring that I have to give my opinion.

First an engine when ready as material prototypes (several not only one piece) is put on a test bench where it is tortured as load, speed, intake temperature, environmental conditions and many other parameters and with help of complex measurements it is defined how it behaves and how the parameters changes affect the result which power and torque. This leads to the definition of a working fields whose values are recorded.

When the comment was "monitored" which you did misunderstand because of you lack of knowledge (as I mentioned from the start) this means that a lot of parameters are measured and as function of results the parameters which can be influenced are MODIFIED in order to obtain a situation as near as possible to an optimal function.

You know too little to discover America again since Columbus did it already.

And with respect to magnetics if you are an engineer working in this field then you knowledge level is very low if you put the question you did in the other thread.

Before being an inventor and discover new things which I do no doubt you could try to learn enough to understand what other did already and go further from a solid basis.

Now you float in the air and risk any moment to fall down.

Anyway your behaviour is quite often met one becomes an "inventor" in the field he knows and understands the less.

Do not take this as an aggressive attempt only as a warning to save your time and efforts.

Some links to help you study

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=engine+management+system&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-gb:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGLT_en&redir_esc=&ei=SvDwTNa5JpOxhQei9biyDA

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ic+fuel+control&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-gb:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGLT_en&redir_esc=&ei=nvDwTLXpOM61hAeqmNynDA

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=bosch+fuel+control&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-gb:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGLT_en&redir_esc=&ei=yPDwTLnOI4SwhQf5oryZDA

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=diesel+injection+control&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-gb:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGLT_en&redir_esc=&ei=7PDwTNiCC8q5hAe-s6SnDA

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=f1+engine+control&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-gb:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGLT_en&redir_esc=&ei=B_HwTKWEGpGJhQfy_p2DDA

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=turbo+charging+dynamics&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-gb:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGLT_en&redir_esc=&ei=LPHwTJGvFZeShAeA8fXIDA

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=supercharging+vs+turbocharging&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-gb:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGLT_en&redir_esc=&ei=SfHwTNqhE4aphAfguvW5DA

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=fuelm+injection+control&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-gb:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGLT_en&redir_esc=&ei=c_HwTI6QGdGahQeL8o2WDA

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=fuel+control+system&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-gb:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGLT_en&redir_esc=&ei=lvHwTM7dHs61hAeqmNynDA

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=heat+to+electricity+conversion&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-gb:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGLT_en&redir_esc=&ei=xvHwTK6bCMG1hAf05qXIDA

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=how+to+convert+heat+to+electricity&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-gb:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGLT_en&redir_esc=&ei=4fHwTLS0JNSAhQeN5P2RCg

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=improving+4+stroke+efficencey&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-gb:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGLT_en&redir_esc=&ei=DfLwTOz1MoS3hAfDqaX1Cw

"So as a very practical engineer - monitoring does NOT mean controlling and I have taken note of your comment about current practices and my suggestion will be surprising simple."

Again we are exposed to your limited knowledge in the automotive field. For example, The first series of feedback fuel injection systems used by Ford, not only monitored the coolant temperature, but also used that information to adjust the fuel mixture. And how can we know this? Because the temperature sensor was mounted near the water pump, in a easily damaged location. And if that sensor was hit, and lost internal contact inside itself, it would signal the ECM that the temperature was extremely cold, and enriches the fuel ratio so much that the black smoke would pour out until the spark plugs would foul, then the engine would quit.Mechanics that worked on these vehicles KNOW that Ford did more than just monitor temperatures. They also adjusted for it.

Why don't you stop embarrassing yourself, and go and build a working model. Show some results, then come here and do your boasting.

my suggestion will be surprising simple.

And why are you beating around the bush? What is your suggestion?

I hope this is not going to be a repeat of the earlier thread in which you calulated the engine efficiency of your Maruti to be first .08% and then .8%, in both cases using grossly faulty logic.

Perhaps, in this thread, you can start making some sense before the thread gets shut down.

My personnel feeling on your last post is that you, of all the posters so far, have no right to bemoan another poster's use of the written English language. English may not be the OP's native language.

You, on the other hand, have lost more credibility than most posters, by the fact that you are one of the following.

1) Too lazy to register.

2) Too stupid to make up a fake name.

3) Just do not care enough.

Any way why should anyone care about your opinion.

Child like? Get a clue.

IC engine...somehow sacred... IC...EC...reality is you need to do both. Read my posts. Working on getting 90% of the fuel out...very possible. Yes I am an expert...

Ask why freighters get 58% and combined cycles get 60%, yet a GM car averages 13%, 0-10%city and 15-22% highway. Wake up. A piston crank engine is not "true" or so crazy notion. There are MANY other ways to do it.

At least this guy is trying...90% of the battle is getting off your butt...

Ask why freighters get 58% and combined cycles get 60%, yet a GM car averages 13%, 0-10%

A better question might be ask why some freighters get 54% and a VW gets 42%. The part-load comparisons are apple/oranges: a freighter gets 0% when idling too.

90% of the battle is getting off your butt... Perhaps... although in this case, I have seen nothing to indicate that the OP has gotten off his butt in any meaningful way. While on his butt at his computer earlier this year, he was trying to convince us that his Maruti engine was .08% efficient at peak power.

Ok, he is on his butt...

Part load poor performance is a key, but not the only key.

Look at the duty cycle of a vehicle....30% idle...only rarely does it use peak power.

Take the IC (Otto, Diesel) engine BSFC curve...

How do you make it work well at 1-10% of peak power where it spends most of its life? If you could make a car get 20% efficiency in the city (25-35 mph) just like it does on the highway (better part of the BSFC curve), you would typically get twice the mileage city as highway. No car that I know of does this.

Ever driven a Nissan Cube? They have the Continually Variable Transmission (CVT). Why does the stick version get worse than the CVT? Because the CVT forces the engine to run slower and to work harder at the slower RPM where the BSFC if better. You can do this with a stick, but it takes a good driver.

So to answer the original post real question: you must change the fundamental architecture. A piston crank WILL NOT (!) work.

That said, getting it to perform where you use it (ie at 1-10% of peak power) is only the tip of the iceberg to getting the "problem" solved.

You MUST be able to use external heat sources to truly solve the problem. IC AND EC. This allows for low grade solar.

Not one, no, not one single car companies realizes this. None of the comments to this thread mention the need for IC, EC and solar.

Seaplaneguy

Your questions:

1. will such a conceptual curve result in higher power?
2. Will it lead to better burning?
3. Will it lead to reduced carbon emissions? etc
4. Will controlled air-to fuel mixture- irrespective of engine temperature give better power?
5. I also welcome points from experts which are likely causing lower power or poor burning in present design.
6. I fully agree that billions of cars and other applications have been developed for 4 stroke IC engines based on this PV= constant curve and I am keen to alter its shape - without disrupting PV= constant.

1. No, it will not result in higher power. "Higher Power" is meaningless in this context. Big engines produce higher power than small engines. Small, powerful engines (such as a 50 cc racing motorcycle engine of 20 hp) consume more fuel than small weak engines (such as a 50 cc, 4 hp motor scooter engine). (In fact, the high power engine in this case will not only consume the expected 5 times more fuel, but may consume 6 or even 7 times more fuel. We have no shortage of high power engines: most used in cars in the US are too powerful for the application if fuel efficiency is the measure: they are powerful for marketing reasons. There is no way to predict power output from a fictional PV curve. If your question is only "all else being equal, will prolonging cylinder high pressure yield more power?" then the answer is yes -- just read about BMEP. However, we cannot say that the fuel efficiency of the engine with prolonged high cylinder pressure will be greater.

2. No, it will not lead to better burning. First, there is no way to qualify the "goodness" of the "burn" from a fictional PV chart. Second, if all else were equal (which it is not) greater time at greater pressure would result in larger amounts of NOx.

3. No, there would be no expectation of lower carbon emissions, etc. Carbon emissions are dependent upon the amount of fuel burned. Lower specific fuel consumption (higher fuel efficiency) would lead to lower carbon emissions per mile (in otherwise identical engines and cars), but your PV chart does not indicate that efficiency would be higher. Your "etc." represents an entirely separate issue about which we can say nothing at all, other than to say that probably NOx emissions would increase. Under "etc" there are particulate emissions, HC emissions, CO emissions and total organic emissions -- none of which have any relationship at all to the basics of engine operation that can be seen in a your PV chart. Naked engines emit these pollutants in amounts about 100 times higher than allowed by law, and their control relies on precise closed-loop mixture control, peak temperature and pressure control (via, for example, charge dilution) and catalytic processing of the exhaust stream. Nothing in your PV chart addresses any of this.

4. No, controlled air-fuel mixture irrespective of engine temperature will not give "better" power. First there is no "better" power and "worse" power. Power is power, with differences only in magnitude. In the cars sold in most countries, air fuel ratio is precisely controlled to the best ratio for the engine operating temperature, with the mixture control being based both on predictive calculations (by the car's engine management computer) of what the air fuel ratio should be to achieve optimum efficiency and emissions (under a given load, air temperature, and engine temperature) as well as constant monitoring of the exhaust oxygen content to adjust that predicted mixture to precise values, such that essentially no fuel leaves enters the exhaust system prior to the catalytic converter unburned. Years ago, there was a relatively long warm up period (a minute or more) before closed loop operation was possible, but now, the time before a car enters into closed loop operation is less than one minute, due in part to O2 sensor preheating elements.

5. Re "lower power or poor burning in present designs", you would need to specify what you mean by "lower power" and "poor burning." Engines can range from low power to high power: in current production cars alone, from about 40hp to 1000hp. Likely causes of low power are small displacement, low compression, valve timing favoring low power and relatively long life, and inexpensive construction. Engines can be designed to have such high power that they wear themselves out over the course of a moderately long race of say 500 miles. Neither low power not high power are "problems" to overcome -- they are designed-in features. Your intended meaning for "poor burning" would have to be further explained to get meaningful comments. In a modern engine, all the fuel that is injected into an engine burns while in the cylinder. Would you like to burn the fuel more quickly? More slowly? Either can be arranged.

6. This does not appear to be a question. It is just a misstatement. PV is not a constant in an engine. You would do well to first attempt to understand the basics of engine operation and control, and then to see where improvements might be made. The areas of pressure, volume, and temperature control are the areas of basic engine research. Every combustion engineer, for example, has thought "wouldn't it be nice" to have greater pressure later in the stroke, when the leverage is better.

You write: So far many have added dual spark plugs, added microprocessor based fuel injection system etc without attempting to alter the shape of this curve- which is the heart of the system.

Dual plugs are, in fact, very rarely used -- they are an oddity in the production automotive world, and used as much for redundancy as for performance in piston aircraft engines. A central research and development area in engines has always been in optimizing the relationships between pressure, volume, temperature and time. The "heart of the system" is where most of the research has taken place. The incorporation of electronics has been something of a no-brainer, with systems becoming more precise (and more areas of control being "electrified" as processing power has increased.)

Given that there are many brilliant combustion control people at work throughout the world, I wonder if it would not make sense for you to work in areas with which you are familiar rather than in those areas in which you seem to have no knowledge whatsoever? I write this not to be discouraging, but to encourage you to undertake studies to become familiar with the basics of engine technology first, and then to focus on an area in which you could make a contribution.

http://www.theengineer.co.uk/news/air-hybrid-system-will-allow-buses-to-recharge-by-braking/1006189.article

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=combineing+4stroke+and+2+strokes&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-gb:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGLT_en&redir_esc=&ei=jfLwTNv2CcmbhQeCoOGuDA

http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20090048756

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=how+to+improve+the+4+stroke+engine&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-gb:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGLT_en&redir_esc=&ei=8_LwTILIO8LNhAfTnsWRDA

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=using+ic+engines+exhaust+&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-gb:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGLT_en&redir_esc=&ei=P_PwTK7qDoSmhAf-gYn2Cw

Thanks to the forum. Response at 36 by MoronicBumble is truly professional and addressed every point. I also have appreciated efforts by peterg7lyq by bombarding with tones of references. Let me study these and revert.

Here is my response. I have used response 36 and referrred point by point.

The link given is worth looking at. It will show hwo you can get 2 power strokes in a 4 stroke engine.

peterg7lyq at 32

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V2P-4G1WXX1-3&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1558427271&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=aa083d1a310fb4d593cc3816efe9b7c6&searchtype=a

MoronicBumble response 36

1. As per CARNOT himself the area covered by the curve represents energy = power in the time cycle the cycle is completed. So considering the number times the cycle is completed in 1 second is power. So, if the conceptual engine has a kind of bloated shape, power must increase undoubtedly.

2. CARNOT also never said anything about better burning. Hence additional steps have been taken by technological improvements and these must be applied here also.

3. Efficiency is partly dependent on mixing of exhaust and inflow too. This has been addressed and no mixing will take place. Prolonged burning should reduce carbon emission. Bloating or inflating the curve alone may not solve all problems – related to burning- especially issues related to fuel content, pollutants. It certainly cannot be a panacea for removing all fuel contaminants.

4. Catalytic converter is down stream. At present microprocessor based closed loop system has been employed to control the air-to fuel ratio. Here I found reference to Split cylinder Engine in one of the references mentioned by peterg7lyq. This has been just unveiled in 2003 (follow up on an attempt in 1914. I was conceptualizing a split cylinder engine – in which one cylinder is for intake and compression and second for burning and exhaust. My attempt is to take advantage of this split cycle and keep volumes of first cylinder smaller and second larger. Stroke lengths can be different and also the PV curve can be modified by new design of second cylinder. The first cylinder can be at lower temperature – unaffected by burning etc and hence air – to fuel ratio will remain more easily controlled.

5. Of course by dampening you can slow down, but the real purpose is to extract more power and get more work done.

6. I do agree that for the cylinder PV is not constant. It is more a complex PV^K or so – as explained by someone else. Here as the piston displaces – however the pressure drops. Force= Pressure * Area of piston. Work done = Force * displacement – which is energy. So if the pressure does not drop with displacement-(By some technique) then the work done will be more. Longer the displacement, greater will be the work done. Hence energy is higher and power will be higher- no doubt about it. These are unquestionable statements from physics. You can further superpose electronics or give more power during ignition to the spark plugs for better burning.

I do enjoy working on my own in areas which I am familiar. But do enjoy dabbling in other areas as some flash came on IC engines and wanted to explore. Of course in every field including combustion control there are lots of brilliant people.- and look forward to interacting with such people on a professional way.

Extract pasted below

Alternatives to four-stroke engines promise an increase in efficiency

Split-cycle engine

What, then, are the innovations in internal combustion engine design that will carry us through the next decade or so, meeting the need to increase efficiency and reduce emissions? For one, earlier this year the Scuderi Group unveiled a proof-of-concept prototype split-cycle engine. The new engine, which its designers claim has the ability to revolutionise the long-term viability of the internal combustion engine, was unveiled as a naturally aspirated one-litre petrol unit (Fig.1). Scuderi Group expects it to produce up to 80 per cent fewer toxins than a typical internal combustion engine and, when fully developed with turbocharged and air-hybrid components, to achieve significant gains in fuel efficiency.

Scuderi's technology divides the four strokes of a conventional combustion cycle over two paired cylinders: one intake/compression cylinder and one power/exhaust cylinder. Unlike conventional engines that require two crankshaft revolutions to complete a single combustion cycle, the Scuderi engine requires just one. Alongside the improvements in efficiency and emissions, studies show that the Scuderi engine is capable of producing more torque than conventional petrol and diesel engines.

Split-cycle engines have been around since 1914 and, over the years, many split-cycle configurations have been developed. However, none has matched the efficiency or performance of conventional engines. In particular, previous split-cycle engines have had problems relating to poor breathing (volumetric efficiency) and low thermal efficiency.

The breathing problem is caused by the high-pressure gas trapped in the compression cylinder. This trapped high-pressure gas needs to expand before another charge of air can be drawn into the compression cylinder, which effectively reduces the engine's capacity to pump air and results in poor volumetric efficiency. Scuderi's engine solves the breathing problem by reducing the clearance between the piston and the cylinder head to less than 1mm. This design requires the use of valves that open outwards, enabling the piston to move very close to the cylinder head without interference with the valves. Almost 100 per cent of the compressed air from the compression cylinder is therefore pushed into the crossover passage.

With regard to thermal efficiency, this has to date been significantly worse than in a conventional Otto cycle engine because previous split-cycle designs have all tried to fire before top-dead-centre (BTDC) - like a conventional engine. In order to fire BTDC in a split-cycle engine, the compressed air trapped in the crossover passage is allowed to expand into the power cylinder as the power piston travels upwards. But, by releasing the pressure of the compressed air, the work done on the air in the compression cylinder is lost. The power piston then has to recompress the air in order to fire BTDC. In a conventional engine, the work of compression is done only once, leading to much better thermal efficiency.

In Scuderi's design, the thermal efficiency problem has been solved by breaking from conventional design best practice and instead firing after top-dead-centre (ATDC). Firing ATDC in a split-cycle arrangement eliminates the losses resulting from recompressing the gas.

Consequently, the technology provides a simple but elegant solution to the problem of how to meet modern demands for increased engine efficiency, improved power, downsizing and lower emissions. Early projections indicate that drivers of standard vehicles could see a 50 per cent gain in fuel efficiency over conventional engine designs when the engine is implemented with all of its turbocharging and air-hybrid features, and performance should be as good as or better than a conventional hybrid electric vehicle - but with even less environmental impact. And, of course, the Scuderi engine would work in electric hybrid vehicles too.

The Scuderi engine does nothing to improve anything. I looked at it in 2005 and read the research papers...don't waste you time. It will fail...

That said, Scuderi does think out of the box a little, which is good. In the end, it is a dead end. why?

Read my old posts...

Seaplaneguy

Thank you for this input about failure of SCUDD split cylinder design. I am not surprised.

Splitting alone - is like going half way to what I am proposing. It is a half hearted attempt and failed. So it is essential to take the advantage of splitting the IC engine, to try to inflate the curve and also see to it that more power is extracted from cylinder 2. Displacement of both cylinders need not be equal too. Failure is one step closer to new discovery.

I was of the firm understanding that failure only gets a person one step closer to being less creditable. Multiple failures are what walks a person down that that path to the status of village idiot.

Playing with the lines on a graph serves no purpose if it represents something that can not be physically built. That is to say theory says theory and reality are the same however reality rarely agrees. I looked at you proposed graphs and as someone who has hands on mechanical skills relating to internal combustion engines I see the simple problem of how do you physically build the mechanical device that does what you propose? Its the same question and point several others have made as well.Iif its not physically possible to build that means the pretty lines on the paper are just a lines on paper and nothing more.

So do you have a actual blueprint for a manufacturable design that actually does this or do we need MC Escher's help drawing this one up?

I have responded to you separately - with detailed sketches.

You mean this?

I will let someone else explain all the problems entailed within its design let alone practicality of manufacture.

Now let me go down to what I had in mind. I am attaching new CARNOT cycle diagram in 3 D. What Seaplane guy says also may be true- that the SCUDD engine failed. Just splitting a 4 stroke engine will not improve anything. Do look at my proposal for complex second chamber. It is aimed at extracting more power over longer stroke length. The piston head is hollow to keep constant area (pressure * area must remain constant for computing force, but should not be constant for computing volume. So this complex design solves this problem.

Now see how the piston movement & inside chamber is designed to give complex bloating effect. Mechanical engineers will have to work with tight tolerances. I did not want all this in public domain.

I hope nobody steals that idea--then we would have to hear all about it from two sources, which might be confusing.

Maybe Cavalieri's Principle would help in calculating the enclosed volume.

Were there any details on exactly how that set of 12 piston rings was going to seal and then unseal each revolution?

My personal belief is that when the results don't agree with the theory, just invent a new theory.

It would be interesting to hear from MS to see what he has in mind for sealing this stepped piston, and how he plans to deal with the very large surface area extracting heat from the process.

Some standard terminology would help in presentation. Combustion chamber would be a better term than ignition chamber, unless the fire is started in one chamber but burns in another.

A concise, complete, and straightforward description of the operating cycle would clarify issues. The projected temperatures and pressures at discrete points in the cycle would be useful for comprehension, as would the torque produced at discrete points.

Perhaps a set of specs for a proof-of-concept prototype would be useful. Displacement, compression ratio, bore/stroke, etc. One might be able to piece something together from a couple lawnmower engines.

Thank you. I have been thinking over for over 2 years on this and trying to talk to many people. India is the last place on earth to try anything new. All Indian manufacturers run to Europe to get their engine designed. Worse - it is - when they hear I am an electronic engineer- suggesting something in automotive field. You have seen comments in this thread itself.

I am happy that I have just set the ball rolling and I believe that where there is WILL there is way. All the points raised by you are relevant- once the basic concept is worth looking at. I have thought of answers to some with my limited exposure. I will be keen to work with any team to take this forward.

I seem to recall that one of the ways to limit emissions back in the 60s and 70s was to reduce piston diameter, and lengthen the stroke. The large surface area of your piston may have emission disadvantages.

Kindly note you have said "that one of the ways to limit emissions back in the 60s and 70s was to reduce piston diameter, and lengthen the stroke".

Hence lengthening the stroke is important. But the pressure drops continuously from the top end of the piston as it moves towards lower end. That is why PV= constant but becomes PV^K= constant - as you pointed out.

Hence to overcome this problem- I have suggested that complex piston and chamber wall construction so that pressure does not drop- which is the BASIC OBJECTIVE.

Then Pressure *Area = Fore. Force * Displacement = work done in joules. Work done in one cycle* number of times the cycle is repeated (rpm) in one second = engine power.In the present design pressure drops and work done drops. In the proposed design pressure should remain nearly constant and hence work done goes up and automatically power out put of engine should go up dramatically- without any doubt. Longer the piston stroke length (displacement) - higher will be power output.

So there is no conflict between your statement and my proposition. Need has come to quit talking and start acting- as one of the sayings in CR4 said.

I was not trying to disagree with you, Just saying that if you are able to work out the piston sealing issues, you may still find that you have an unfriendly emissions design.

I have worked on many projects since 1990 - from pure concept to final product. I have tremendous energy, self confidence. If I work on it (being an electronic engineer, turning mechanical)- I can do it. Sometimes - I have believed that ignorance is bliss and also where there is will there is way. Challenge and joy of working- is in overcoming hurdles and not keep complaining & doing nothing. Let us not express negative thoughts - somebody has started working on it.

It is the educated people who get lots of doubts and don't even start working. I even know that people would find it difficult to inject air- fuel mixture into that complex cavity. I am aware that exhaust will not be easy- I have already thought of problems which may be encountered. But you know - I am happy in one way- AtLeast I gave an idea for people to seriously and implement, than keep harping that millions of scientists and experts are working all over the world ever since Carnot/ Sterling Wankel, Scudd engines etc were developed.

Surprised - see thoughts which came to me at random on CR4 website

"Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people always do that, but the really great make you feel that you, too, can become great." -- Mark Twain

"March on. Do not tarry. To go forward is to move toward perfection. March on, and fear not the thorns, or the sharp stones on life's path." -- Kahlil Gibran

square pv curve

Take a look at this link. This is the max of an "expanded" curve you desire, just like you want.

Read it then we can discuss it...

Seaplaneguy

I meant to say that the theory showed about a 3% increase, which is not worth the trouble...hence it would be a market failure.

A GM car is 13% on average. If you can get at least 60% all the time, you can improve the average mileage by 460% (60/13=4..6). Improving 100% would be 26%, and so on.

Then if you can add in low grade heat from the skin of the car/truck and add in at 10+% efficiency, say 1 kw, on a typical sedan car, you can add in about 8 kw-hrs while at work, or about what a Chevy Volt has total in the bat. You then can drive home and bridge the remaining 21% of the fuel, depending on solar capture, and get about 90% of the fuel load gone. Understand?

So when I say "fail" I mean it does not improve things in any way that warrants investments.

That said, there is some hybrid compressed air energy storage ability that a Scuderi engine could obtain, but again, THERE IS A MUCH BETTER WAY... I have looked into this for over 10,000++ hrs, plus 20 years mech eng., Master etc.

90% is doable folks...hate to burst ya'all's bubbles...

Industry will change with a 460% improvement with no solar (which I can get), but they will not change for the 3% hoped for by Scuderi that may not materialize.

I like the Scuderi in part because they got me thinking out of the box, and am grateful for that. I am way beyond their concepts...

Even Bill Gates is into this. He is spending $23.5 million on a "ecomotors.com" project.

Nice, but is there really something new here and does it address the basic issues?

Ok, they claim 15-50%. OK, but what about solar? Nope... what about water harvest? thermal loads...and on and on. And what about torsional resonances? transmission issues? Look at the total car, from airbag (I have four patents on airbags), crash ability, towing, thermal comfort in cold/hot extremes and on and on. Then, there is gaseous fuels, liquid, and solid... What about houses? My solution covers them all because the right solution addresses all the main issues. The same engine you put in your house goes in your car...and seaplane...one in every garage...

Seaplaneguy

http://news.softpedia.com/news/How-Does-the-World-039-s-Most-Efficient-Internal-Combustion-Engine-Work-60423.shtml

http://www.nevisengine.com/

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=New+Exhaust+Valve+%26+Intake+System&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-gb:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGLT_en&redir_esc=&ei=wY7yTK_dIYK7hAfP96mfDA

http://www.nevisengine.com/technical.htm

http://library.thinkquest.org/C006011/english/sites/thermo3.php3?v=2

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=carnot+cycle&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-gb:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGLT_en&redir_esc=&ei=UIzyTPCoOofJhAf78M23DA

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=diesel+engines&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-gb:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGLT_en&redir_esc=&ei=no3yTNaOAZSZhQeC-fjDDA

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=most+efficent+ic+engines&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-gb:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGLT_en&redir_esc=&ei=vY3yTOroIMyxhAfV48iFDA

I say be bold--don't just inflate part of the Carnot curve. For maximum area, make it be a circle.

This theoretical innovation can be called the "Tornado" cycle for patenting and marketing purposes. Now that the hard work of theoretical conception has been done, I need only some "implementers" to carry out the mere mechanical details; i.e., some Orcs from the weapons factory.

Theory theory theory and pretty lines on paper blah blah blah.

I have yet to ever see that solve any problems faced by the daily reality that if no one builds it/ has tried to build it/ has built it no one will know if it actually works or not. This issue relating to how to make an engine more efficient or how can we make it whatever comes down to some apparently poor overall understandings of how form follows the intended function.

There are a few basic criteria that need to be addressed before anything can be designed and so far they rarely ever come up in these topics or debates which means these need to be solidly answered before any realistic design can be made.

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

1. Why do you want it more efficient? To save fuel/money or some other reason?

2. What standards do you want it to meet? Peak energy conversion efficiency or peak cleanliness of combustion byproducts?

3. What is the intended application and operating conditions? Steady fixed load rate or highly variable operating conditions?

4. Who or what is the target market or intended application? Do you want to pull a 20,000 pound trailer up a 6% slope into a 40 MPH head wind with a with a 600 HP F550 super duty truck or do you want to get 100MPG on gasoline with a 500 pound 15 HP econocar?

5. Who's standards or specifications will dictate the design? Is it going to meet the maximum efficiency levels possible with practical design or meet some clueless halfwit requirements placed on it by uneducated politicians or similar parties?

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

Here is the problem of the first part. Internal combustion engines can be made far more efficient at turning fuel energy into usable mechanical energy but at some point the design, manufacturing, and operational costs start to outweigh the financial savings gained by using less fuel. So do you make the system less efficient but save over the long term on operating costs or do you find a cheaper/more cost effective alternative for one or more components related to this problem?

Here is the problem for the second part. Do you save money and fuel by making the energy conversion operate at its peak efficiency or do you make it work at its "cleanest burn rate"? Peak engine energy conversion efficiency and peak theoretical combustion cleanliness are not the same thing. Thats why GM vehicles have crappy efficiency numbers, they are that way because of emissions standards numbers not fuel efficiency numbers.

Here is the problem of the third part. What application or working conditions are you targeting? Freight hauling is a steady continuous load that does not require large changes in speed or overall working conditions so those engines can be designed to work at a optimum efficiency level simply do to having a very narrow range of intended working conditions. They only run at one narrow output range and do very little stopping between destinations. Commuter vehicles however are in a constantly varying working environment. They have to work with continually changing loads and conditions.

Here is the problem with the fourth part. What is the application? That is it nothing else. There is no single design that can ever meet all the variables and working conditions needed by everyone and everything.

Here is the problem with the fifth part. Internal combustion engine efficiency for vehicles can and at one time did run at higher fuel to mechanical conversion efficiency numbers than they do now. Clueless twits in politics and environmental organizations placed rules and demands on how clean is the exhaust over how little fuel is used to do useful work. That is what comes out the tail pipe became more important than the money in your pocket going out.

As someone who has gotten of his butt, or at least I raised a cheek and grunted a little, relating to more realistic issues of this topic I see these are what need addressing first!

According to the Program Manager of the Chevy Volt, the average GM engine is now (2010) 13%. From what you say, the average efficiency would have to have been less than 8-10% in the "good old days" before electronic controls and emissions. We have come a long way baby...NOT...

By the way, if you do a model of the Prius at 6.25 sq ft flat plate drag and 4000 lbs, the efficiency at the wheel is 29% highway and 16 %city. Peak is claimed to be 38% at the min BSFC, but by the time it goes through the hybrid system it drops down to 16%, which means the electric motor is likely only about 50% efficient city. It would get about 91 mpg city instead of 52 if it had 29%.

If it were able to get 38% without the electrical junk, it would get 60 vs 45 highway, and 120 vs 52 city (approximately). This shows a major flaw in the design...namely that electric motor suffer from the same "BSFC" curve issues as does any IC motor...just less so.

If the engine were 60% efficient it would get 188 city and 94 highway, or about twice highway and 3.6 times city over the current hybrid system of 45 and 52 mpg.

Seaplaneguy

Hi.

I read all the pro and cons about the IC Engines and find out they don't make them anymore like my 1966 El Camino. Yes piston , rod and crankshaft are the same and that brings me to my question.

First I describe the components. the crankshaft is replaced by a strait shaft.

The piston rod is replaced by a shaft equal to the length of the piston rod and permanently attached to the shaft.At the end is a plate attached equal in sq. in as the area of the piston. The rest is up to your imagination.

How much more force or torque would be transfered to the now driveshaft.

start off headed down hill with a good tail wind

I don't want to discourage you but I have a suggestion. Look up the new diesel engine made by a Japanese ship builder. It produces 16% more HP than any diesel engine on the market now. All they did put a link between the connecting rod and the crankshaft.

I did pursue my line of thought through new blog. Kindly this new blog- which overcome many difficulties in chamber and piston design suggested here.

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/66304

I do believe that a quantum change in IC design is needed. 10 to 16% improvement is insufficient by minor tinkering. As I expressed - as an electronic engineer- when world changed from liner power supply (similar to existing IC engines) to switched mode power supplies, based on totally new aa approach - efficiencies jumped from 20 to 30% to near 90 % or more. But experst in thsi automotive field seemed to me so much emotionally attached to their beliefs- taht I am todl - look here, look there- which are all minor modifications. I thought I had made mistake in posting to a group of peopel with extermely rigid positions on old ideas.

Kindly comment on http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/66304

Like this?

Let me explain where I am having problem with experts.

"Begin with the end in mind." -- Stephen Covey

Can we set a target of say 90 to 95% efficiency compared to current 20% on same yardstick?

Can we have a new terminology grams of fuel per (Kw *kilometer * h) - which will then take into consideration carbon or NOx emissions per km traveled with certain horse power.

My suggestion is to do away with gears and go for direct coupling.

Go for digitized IC engine technology - so that for variation in speed from idling to full speed- you have same efficiency.

Can we almost do away with muffler too?

Why follow Carnot Cycle or Sterling cycle? Can we have a combination of both?

After we set a new focus, let us start with a design.

Underlying all this assumption is - we still do not have a good alternative to current fossil fuel.

World needs an alternative solution to current IC engine- almost immediately.

Why is America attacking Libya and supporting the rebels?- only because of Oil. Why did America attack Saddam Hussain and eliminated him- only because of oil.

Why no research will ever be done to find alternative solutions- only because oil companies will loose their business.

See message from White house in my mail box!!!

Good afternoon,

Surprised at how much it cost last time you filled up your gas tank? You're not alone. Millions of families and businesses across the country are feeling the pinch of rising gas prices.

Here's the thing: as long as our economy relies on oil and as demand in countries like China and India continues to grow, we'll be subject to these kinds of spikes in gas prices.

We've been down this road before -- just three years ago, gas prices rose to their highest level ever. There was no quick fix to lower prices then, just as there isn't one now.

Sincerely,

David Plouffe
Senior Advisor to the President

P.S. Check out our new Advise the Advisor video featuring Secretary of Energy Steven Chu and give us your feedback on how we can meet the President's goal of reducing imports of oil by one-third in a little over a decade:

http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/Advise

What is the efficiency or the mpg resulting from your computations? If you do not show how you come to such thoughts then it is not worth while to continue. I wrote that I am ready to have a look at your mathematical proofs I expect them asap. Latins had a word:" words fly writings remain" so show your writings and then may be we will believe your words.

That's pure garbage, with a bunch of irrelevant political nonsense.

I have sent the specifications on what is supposed to be the most sophisticated propulsion unit for large cargo ships. How does this engine fit into the formula you have suggested? How does it compare to a current offering from Honda, Ford, or any other current state of the art engine being mass produced?

What about comparing the current engine used in the Airbus 380? How will that fit in your formula?

We don't need a new terminology of grams of fuel...we already have it...it is BSFC. lbs/hp-hr. kg/kw-hr.

My engine has no need of mufflers, nor does it need to idle, and yes, the efficiency is above 60% down to 1/2% of peak power... It can do many different cycles, has no gears, and runs on many types of fuels, liquid or gaseous, including compressed air, hot water, electricity...

I have talked to my State Rep (former speaker of house), and all the State agencies. They don't want to help, they want control. My governor's VC (venture capital) rep told me that the gov does not want my technology because oil / coal interests would be hurt, from which he gets his funding...

You have to fund it yourself. The banks own GM and most of the DOW 100 and they are not interested in "disruptive" technology, especially if they don't control it. Patents will not help either, as the banks can hire up armies to squash you.

First off, stop thinking that the government gives a crap. They want control. Nuclear power is the ultimate insider deal where "special" people have "contacts" that give special rights to make nuclear power plants. The average joe cannot do a nuke plant in his garage. This is why Margret Thatcher started the Glowball Warming hoax, to spook us into a cartel of Nuclear energy dependency. It does not get any better. Zero independence...plug your car in...what a joke.

The problem is mostly a thermal problem, NOT an electrical problem. Most electricity is used to turn motors, not lights. In the end, only about 5-10% of the energy needs to be electricity, and 90-95% is about keeping things hot and cold. Solve that problem (which my engine does) and you can solve the energy problem with about 1/4 of the houses.

YOU CANNOT DO IT IN THE ELECTRICAL DOMAIN. Not physically possible. Put a PV on every home in the USA and you only get about 1/3 of the needed energy at current 10%, and you have to back it all up with carbon systems as we have no know viable electric storage system. A GM Volt costs 12.5 cent/kw-hr to put the electricity in and out of the battery...see a big problem here? Houston...we have a big problem...ain't going to work... When storing the electricity costs more than it does to produce it,,, you need to rethink things..

Last, nobody cares about you, me or saving the planet. If you build it, they will rip you off and copy it. The name of the game it to make it expensive for you to live so you stop having kids. $10/gallon gas in Norway...how's that innovation mecca doing? NOT...

Clearly, I have posted several posts here and you have not engaged me on this IC engine issue. I know how to get 90% of the fuel out of this world. I am the expert. Nobody in the discussion group has any idea how to get 90% out of the average person's life. Nobody...

If you wanted to solve the problem you would drop me a line. But that is not your desire. YOU want to invent it yourself. People are not interested in helping YOU invent anything. They want to invent it. Human nature.

Thanks,

Seaplaneguy

I did post another blog " Digitized IC engine" (I am unable to locate link to that. I have given lot of ideas of practical implementation there. We need to keep our focus for brain storming on application to common man's vehicle- car/ 2 wheelers. We should not digress- and say it is in trains or ships or aircrafts etc etc. It is the huge number of common man's transportation which is one of the main reasons for carbon & NOx emissions

"You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today" -- Abraham Lincoln

Yes, but most seem to think the huge automotive market is being held ransom by the oil companies. In the world of mega ship propulsion, even small improvements will yield great dividends when used on ships that are circling the globe almost non stop. And changes that are made would not have to be done hundreds of thousands at a time. If a design shows promise, it could be implemented on a smaller number of engines and with world wide travel, results should show up soon enough.