New Frontiers in Digitized IC Engine Design

And another Ig Nobel Prize waits in the wings.

(Featuring the little girl who, when a speaker exceeds the allotted time, chants, "I'm bored; please stop. I'm bored; please stop. I'm bored; please stop. ...")

On the one hand President Obama calls for innovation and the world keeps running on cars which are just 10 to 20 % efficient and you make such uncalled for comments. If you do not have anything positive to contribute - do not participate in the blog. There will be others.

When? We are still waiting.... And while you're at it, please explain how your post moved the discussion forward in a positive way.

GA

Aside from agreeing with the little girl - I'm kinda speechless on the "just draw an extra line explanation" of concept.

Your quote, "perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" is true, but unfortunately science is now far in advance of what was once the beginning, but where your knowledge seems to start.

There are fundamental laws that will probably never fail and will most certainly not be broken by any simple sort of contraption such as you seem to envisage.

You first need to understand the laws of thermodynamics and when you do you will know about Carnot and realise that something like 70% efficiency is about as good as you can do with air having no flow friction, mechanical devices having no friction, and if you are still hopefull, if could take forever to quickly complete a process to get real power !!!!

Innovation is great and we should all strive to do better but if we want to use our time wisely and be productive this has to be with a proper regard to what is known.

There was a blind person who went to a doctor. The doctor told I can give you eyes , but not VISION !! Hope you understand it.

I agree with your statements that - I have to move froward from what is known, proven and accepted scientifically. I do not think I have erred on that count at all.

You do not think you have erred yet your objective is:

"Objective is to improve efficiency of engine from current 20 % to over 70% or more over wide operating range"

If everything was perfect outside of your Carnot cycle, which in itself is unachievable, you might get to 70% BUT everything is not perfect outside and never will be so your objective is unrealistic FULL STOP......and you say you've not erred !!!!

Yes. The maximum possible efficiency would be 1, but real efficiencies depend on (T2 -T1)/T2, which may be considerably less. If you don't know thermodynamics, please refrain from contributing.

They actually already did so many years ago. It has even a higher granularity of combustion than your mechanically impractical concept. It is called a jet engine. Continuous combustion. You've already been one upped but you were too blind to see.

Welcome back

I always get a warm fuzzy feeling when I see your avatar wirring in the back ground, knowing reality will soon commence... As you may have noticed the merry little band that frequent these threads is alive & well, the faces may change, the result is the same

MS is getting better at posting graphs, but clings tenaciously to his notions as any of the other overunity hobbits

Mr. Divekar, You ARE on the right track. In fact, you are very close. Stay on it. You may even find that mankind has other comparable projects that are getting close as well. One such in California. PS:340 of each 360 should do it, even with cheap green fuels. Keep it simple, uncomplicated, and inexpensive to massively MASS produce. Takoma

Thank you so much. I have verified my approach mathematically- and I am right - in-spite of all previous commentators. I will be glad if someone can really take froward the digitization as well as rotary engine (not like Wankel engine) of the type I have proposed.

Further I liked the idea- as this can be used in CARNOT cycle or STERLING cycle (with a huge buffer tank in between - not as explained in Wikipedia) mode.

" I have verified my approach mathematically-"

I see no shred of anything that can be remotely considered as a verification of your ramblings.

Please prove me wrong. I'll eagerly devour any real evidence that your unsubstantiated opinion has merit.

All that mathematical approach has been put in the form of graph- if you cared to see. Rest is for face to face discussion- not like this in open forum- only for those who come with open mind. That is why I wrote people need vision, not just eyes.

"Talent does what it can; genius does what it must." -- Edward George Bulwer-Lytton

Sorry, the graph is meaningless. I can draw a graph that "proves" your opinion is bogus.

Good luck with your dream.

Oh please

if you have proof post it!

A pretty picture doesn't show anything without the underlying math [& detailed technical explanations[ which you claim to have.

you keep posting the same unsubstantiated notions on thread after thread & expecting the members here to praise your genius

We have yet to see talent, certainly not so much as a glimmer of genius...

Could you show the "mathematics" with which you verified on paper your idea ? I am ready to have a look at them. If you are right then I want to be the first to congratulate. You may use the PM channel since not all participants would be interested in such an arid stuff. I guarantee you a full confidentiality if there is any thing new in them and if I consider that you are right as you claim. It is the MOST honest proposal with the goal to help you if it can be done.

I wonder just what is "digitized" about this dream, and how and why "digitizing" it would be meaningful. It sounds like another sales buzzword among so many others to date.

What!? aren't they all "digital"

Now that that's all fingered out...!

Just leaves "How many ears has Davy Crockett?"

Thank you for this reference and thank you for your interest. I did look up various refernces you have given. But do go through my suggestion and what I mean by digitization. What I am suggesting is TOTALLY different from what has been implemented.

Just in case you were wondering, If you renumbered the Ford Windsor engine to the same pattern as the Chevrolet small block, it would be the same firing order as the Small Block Chevy.

BTW, why did you omit the DKW 3 cylinder?

Was its firing order different from the two given possibilities?

What I am saying, is if you had a Windsor engine, and numbered the cylinders the same way as a SBC, the firing order that Ford used would now be the same as the SBC. In other words, the camshafts are ground in the same sequential order on both engines. It is just the naming of the cylinders that causes the two different firing orders.

What!

Wiki left one out?

Oh the horror!

Oh the perils of c/p when one can't be bothered to invest more than 30 seconds

If you actually want to discuss this concept, why not clear up some areas of ambiguity?

Please explain how these 2 statements work together:

Power can be generated over nearly 350 degrees rotation in rotary chamber in every 360 degrees rotation unlike for only 180 degrees in every 720 degrees as at present. There will be no separate exhaust stroke.

Gases leak out in a controlled manner. Into atmosphere – continuously over 350 degrees rotation – unlike in a single exhaust stoke in the case of 4 strokes IC engine. Resulting in less noise. Can we do away with muffler??? More power output over 350 degrees rotation. Less carbon emission per kilometer of travel.

How can the gases be contained & released at the same time?

Re: How can the gases be contained & released at the same time?

I have no basis to judge the entire thread (I haven't tried to follow this entire thread / discussion and judge it), but as to that particular point, that could be a fair description of a (relatively small) orifice.

Ideally You have to change out the entire volume in order to have a fresh charge & efficient combustion, the temperature of combustion also has to be held within a fairly small range to minimize emissions

I'm just pretending this design has any merit what so ever & trying to clarify what would seem to be basic flaws....

Well, like I tried to imply, I don't know how that little bit fits into the whole of the design--possibly a small orifice would get most of the exhaust gases out, and another means (a valve) opens to recharge the cylinder with unburnt gases?

Sounds to me like DIVEKAR and possibly also you, fail to grasp the dynamic part of thermodynamics. If it leaks out slowly, how is this a good thing? We call it back-pressure in an IC engine and it is a bad thing.

I could be wrong, but that sounds like what GM did to their diesel engine design during the 40s. Have you ever looked into the design of a 6-71 Detroit?

"Gases leak out in a controlled manner. Into atmosphere continuously over 350 degrees rotation; unlike in a single exhaust stoke in the case of 4 strokes IC engine. Resulting in less noise. Can we do away with muffler???"

I assume by "Gases leak out in a controlled manner" and "Can we do away with muffler???" you are implying that the gases leak out slowly. I will tell you that this is not compatible with the notion of it producing "more power". If you argue this point you are showing your ignorance of thermodynamics.

Secondly, as far as not needing a muffler, if this mechanical nightmare did actually run, I am guessing it would sound sort of like a JET ENGINE which it would be a crude and less efficient emulation of. If it would work at all, it is likely that a muffler would prevent it from working because of the additional back-pressure.

Also, it would not be feasible for automotive applications for the same two reasons that a jet engine isn't, too noisy and to expensive to produce and operate as a consumer product.

You can do all the math you want but you have yet to respond to any practical problems I have pointed out. Have you actually thought about how one would go about casting the tiny chamber arrangement you describe? Do you have any working knowledge about how IC engines are actually manufactured? I am guessing not.

Thank you all. I am happy after that entire attempt to downgrade, pull legs etc- people have settled down to seriously brain storm.

Referring specifically to response at 25 by Mr Garthh. I wish to state that –

1. Mr Garthh. Is right is saying that controlled exhaust and exposing burnt gas chamber to atmosphere is not possible at the same time. The tow statements do not go together. I wish you see diagrams drawn by me carefully.
2. You are right that we should NOT have hot high pressure gases one side and release that to atmospheric pressure through a nozzle etc. Let me also draw attention to everyone to another thread by John which went to about 360 or more responses- and he had said let has have something like a rotating jet etc.
3. Mr rcapper is right at 30 saying that jet engine like construction is not acceptable. I had suggested controlled expandion of combustible gasses in my earlier blog http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/65078/New-Frontiers-In-4-Stroke-Ic-Engine-Design?frmtrk=CR4digest. Here the difficulty was the number of piston rings and difficulty in manufacturing complex piston/ combustion chamber design.
4. So let us set aside my IC engine for sometime.
1. Look at a team rowing a boat.
2. As the oar is pushed behind, the boat moves forward. The are of the oar, number of oars used etc, action and reaction are equal and opposite of Newton's law apply.
3. Now let us look at gas laws. PV= nRT. When gases are in a volume V and we add another volume V1 , the gas law can now be recomputed where Volume has gone up from V to V1, Change of pressure, redistribution of gases and number of molecules rearranging in V & V1..
4. Now take away V1 and recomputed PV= nRT where Volume is original, but n1 molecules have been taken away. Obviously there is a drop in pressure and we have P1, instead of P as before. P1<P.
5. The gases in controlled V1 can now get exposed to the atmosphere. Thus we have controlled loss of pressure and controlled & continuous exhaust.
6. Will this help gases getting released slowly and how will it impact muffler design?
7. Now bring in another volume V2 and go through steps 4 c to 4 d.
8. These steps can be repeated until the pressure drops down to where it is not useful to generate torque. A suitable decision can be taken about residual gases – before letting fresh air-fuel mixture.
9. The pressure is allowed to drop continuously over nearly 350 degrees rotation, allowing about 10 degrees fro injection of air+ fuel.
10. Note that in the same combustion chamber one could inject just 25 CC or 50 CC or 25+50 or 100 or 100+25 or 100+25+50 or 100 +25+50 CC of air + fuel etc. Thus we introduce concept of digitization. Obviously power generated will depend on volume of A+F.

Can we eliminate gear box and have direct drive?

I have looked at this from different points - gas laws, physics etc etc.

No No No

repeating the same things is not an explanation, the 2 statements are in complete opposition

on a positive note there is no need for gears or transmissions, as no power will be produced

Magical Thinking

DIVEKAR, one very serious problem with your proposition is that you are primarily using Rationalism as a basis for your assertions.The fact that you can string words together into sentences that claim this and then that and so on and so on does not in any way establish a basis in reality for what you say.

Many "alternative" world saving technologies, especially ones that involve over or near unity efficiency, are birthed out of a philosophy of Malietics. The believers all express the same absolute certainty that they have discovered the truth that the poor dim-whitted thousands who passed before them have missed.

If only it were that easy!

"Try and fail, but don't fail to try." — Stephen Kaggwa

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." -- Mark Twain

If you ask a question, you may appear like a fool for a moment, but if you don't, you may remain a fool for ever.

"You measure the size of the accomplishment by the obstacles you had to overcome to reach your goals" -- Booker T. Washington

"As for the future, your task is not to forsee it, but to enable it." -- Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

"Just as our eyes need light in order to see, our minds need ideas in order to create." -- Nicolas Malebranche

"Let your imagination drive your vision." -- Susan Clampitt

If only - someone had responded equally technically. Gurus need to be real masters / experts!!!!!

Those may be pretty platitudes, but I can't find a single technical concept anywhere within them. And now you have used them so many times they are mere cliches.

Hey, you left one out.

"There is a sucker born very minuite" P.T.Barnum

"Let your imagination drive your vision." -- Susan Clampitt

She also said

"And remember, "If you build what they want, they will come"."

Wiki contributes;

In 2003, Ladner fired Susan Clampitt as the head of university-owned WAMU, due to donor and staff outrage^[4] at fiscal mismanagement of the NPR affiliate.^[5] Clampitt later sued both Ladner and the University,^[6] claiming that Ladner had approved all of her financial decisions, which depleted a $4 million endowment for the station. The Court of Appeals subsequently denied Clampitt's employment-related claims.

One difference between a 'Dream' and a 'Concept' is the latter is the former described in terms of technology.

The other difference is; you can't have a technical discussion on a nondescript, or un-conveyed dream.

When Samuel Langhorne Clemens 'dreamed' a novel, he still had to construct the telling so the reader could imagine the setting, characters and follow the plot.

Learn more about what you are 'quoting' and the people who said it, and you may well learn that 'dreaming' was the small part compared to the technicalities of making it 'achievable'.

"There was a boy, and a raft, and a river, and a guy, and some other people, and stuff happened" - would not have made him 'publishable', never mind an icon.

"I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world." -- Albert Einstein

But the forum discussion was the best example of killing an idea - without serious technical discussion using solid maths / physics. Just blah-blah.

You are not right I asked for the maths but nothing came. I doubt that any computation (serious) was made. In the 1st thread already description was such that the feeling about a true understanding of the problem was NOT present. I maintain my proposal to analyse the computations made by the OP