Efficiency Improvements for Internal Combustion Engines

[user removed]

Originally Posted by autoteach

Unless you are running it like a two stroke with cylinder ports and crankcase pumping, you would need a supercharger (positive displacement). this would not be difficult to do, but the problem would lie in the energy density, or rather the heat that would build up having 2 times as many firings per X rpm. Not saying impossible, that is for sure.

Actually the situation you describe would be the worst case scenario, like climbing Pikes Peak at maximum speed. In anything approaching a normal state or operation the duty cycle would be well below 15% at full load, without extreme boost or other sustained max load applications.

Under normal situations the problem would be creating enough waste heat to actually keep the engine at operating temperature. The solution would be to put it in a thermally insulated vessel to keep the heat. Quite the opposite of worrying about getting rid of the heat energy.

One of the Insight owners did exactly that, made a thermal blanket that completely surrounded his engine to retain the heat in very cold climates.

I think Robert Smalls stated earlier that the Insight engine in lean burn was up to 47% efficient. That was a decade ago.

regards
Mech

[NeilBlanchard]

47% efficient engine? Really? I thought the Prius gen 3 Atkinson cycle had the highest efficiency at ~38%; which is virtually the same as the Revetec at 38.6%?

The physical geometry of a typical crankshaft engine used in an internal combustion engine had major problems, because of the timing of the fuel burn vs the crankshaft and connecting rod position.

Piston/connecting rod/crankshafts were invented for steam engines, and the work well there, because the pressure in the piston can be maintained from TDC all the way to BDC. If you could burn the fuel outside of the cylinder and build up a reservoir of pressure, then that would be great.

Honda has offset the crankshaft center somewhat (does anybody know the specific dimensions?) but this works against you in the compression stroke, because you lose the mechanical torque on the "other" side of the crankshaft.

The design I am proposing has no compression stroke, so if this works, it would greatly reduce many of the internal losses; while keeping the simplicity of a crankshaft. The Revetec design shows the advantage of the better mechanical torque, but still suffers from the pumping losses, valvetrain friction, etc.

[user removed]

http://www.youtube.com/user/Ride122609

Where are the connecting rods and crankshaft in this engine Neil?
See any reciprocation?

Hint, its sitting there not bolted to anything, running about 2k RPM. Notice the total lack of any vibration.


regards
Mech

[user removed]

The Atkinson cycle was invented to get around Otto's patents on the 4 cycle engine. Been around about 130 years. The Ford flathead V8 had an offset crankshaft in 1932, probably others even earlier.

The auto industry is notorious for waiting for patents to expire so they do not have to pay any royalties. Even Rudolf Diesel realized very little financial gain from his innovation and he drowned mysteriously after "falling" off a ferry at night.

Want some interesting reading.

http://www.aqpl43.dsl.pipex.com/MUSE.../rotaryeng.htm

regards
Mech

[user removed]

Also look at the Hydrid version of a hybrid vehicle. Consider especially the electric Hydrid version.

I have tried many times before to explain that a hydraulic hybrid power train can use any energy source.

HyDrid

Also consider the "Chiron' free piston engine. There is an article today in the Green Car Congress website that shows the Chinese are working on an almost identical design.

DCB, they will get to 60% energy conversion efficiency with this design, especially when they use super critical heated fuel. Contrary to your assumption about my "knowing it is not possible" I know it IS possible. The fuel utilized may be any combustible liquid or gas, but Hydrogen has the benefit of virtually 0 emissions without after treatment.

Fuels can be custom engineered for the specific requirements of the engine. Look at Transonic combustion. Their ultra high pressure preheated fuel delivery can even switch between several different fuels while the engine is running.

The potential also exists (if it is really necessary) to change from 2 to 4 cycle for power and cruising performance, however in my opinion it is not necessary if you can vary the compression ratios from 10-50 to one and run mixture ratios as high as 75 to 1 without any after treatment of the emissions and pass any emission regulations on the planet.

Also DCB, since you made the statement about inefficiency in hydraulic pumps and motors, maybe you missed this information.

regards
Mech

[naturalextraction]

There are great ideas out there that always need proof of concept and getting to that stage is typically a stumbling block for sure. You guys have mentioned a few. Getting others to produce one off parts and such is just expensive and oddly how it's the less financially fortunate who have the ideas and or the push. Through the past years slowly bought my equipment, learned from good people how to machine parts (which the learning part was fun!) and continue today. Still need help where my skills aren't up to par but it gets stuff done!

We decided to bag the typical ICE and stick with what we felt was the most efficient design with keeping the building process completely in mind. That's tuff! We have three main ideas and the first worked and now working to modify that. Electronics was another area where the learning curve was inverted but necessary. Getting rid of as much of the parasitic losses was imperative and capturing as much of the expanding chemical energy as well as the heat energy both internally and as it radiates to ambient. OldMechanic has some good thoughts to the typical ICE's long standing in-efficiency issues.

I have found that a lot of our issues of inefficiencies start at the chemistry of the fuel and dealing with surface tension, evaporative conditions, transfer of chemical energy as it expands (changes of state) and the timing of flame front travel, maximizing the internal energy content through the currently accepted methodologies. Just a few quick variables.

I don't see hydrogen being much of a useful fuel mainly through the large expense involved with extracting it from it's tight molecular base. Areas like Sweden or where geo-thermal energy is available extracting hydrogen is a little more efficient to produce. So it seems.

Dealing with patents is very time consuming, critical to content outlay and plain not fun. Dealing with grants, the DOE or DOD is even more time consuming, a paperwork nightmare. Unless your a university or national lab, almost impossible to get any results. Most grants listed at DOE are 90% targeted to universities, government established institutions, or labs. Larger corporations have some chance. We've associated our self with one University to find they take 70% of the granted funds for the association! No thanks. Typically, only if the funding possibility is over 65% possible.

As Old Mech has mentioned, there is a lot that can be done with fuels and even with what is available in the established infrastructure currently. Chemical and thermal energy to mechanical energy conversions, I also feel, will soon to reach a 60% conversion efficiency rate for a multitude of reasons.

Just a few quick responses to an interesting thread. You can read a bit about us here: www.energyextraction.blogspot.com

[dcb]

Originally Posted by Old Mechanic

...
The fuel utilized may be any combustible liquid or gas, but Hydrogen has the benefit of virtually 0 emissions without after treatment.

My point in comparing hydrogen it to electricity is that you are ignoring all the losses in making the hydrogen in the first place.
...

Originally Posted by Old Mechanic

Also DCB, since you made the statement about inefficiency in hydraulic pumps and motors, maybe you missed this information.

No, what I missed is the practical application of your ideas. The piston flinger is massive for it's power output, and the variable stroke is in lock step with dramatic changes in compression ratio, and an unproven valving/manifold/ignition/lubrication system. I give you credit for thinking out of the box, but I must stop giving you credit when you talk in absolutes where no validation step has occurred.

[user removed]

Let me repeat, the concept started as an engine, which I still believe is a valid option to any reciprocating engine. I also used a historical comparison to the state of the art in a comparison of an original rotary aircraft engine and a Mercedes grand prix engine of the same era (1913).

The realization that the cost to develop a practical and reliable version of an IC engine met with much resistance and the eventual cost would be into the many millions of dollars. After a 4 year battle with the patent office and their refusal to accept the concept as being "novel and not a combination of existing technologies", I decided to change course and focus on an Infinitely Variable in Wheel Drive, with the whole assembly contained in a sealed vessel with the only seal needed in the low pressure circuit.

Even after almost 3 years I found a design that was so close to my own I thought it would be the source of another rejection by the Patent Office, and by law I was required to disclose the long forgotten water engine of the late 1800's developed by a gentleman in England named Arthur Rigg who was once the head of the Royal Society of Engineers.

This is after the working model in the utube video was built, with the total cost of the whole effort exceeding $40,000 of my personal funds.

The design was investigated by a group of Engineering students at Virginia Tech who confirmed its practicality as a design that could provide efficiency competitive with any current hybrid configuration.

The linked Innas design was also thoroughly researched by qualified experts. You refer to claims of absolute figures, which I have never made. If you can reference them I would like to see the links provided. Projections are based on the current state of the art as quoted to me by an individual at Next Energy in Detroit Michigan as being 78% efficient. The used bent axis pumps running at prop shaft speed while I used in wheel drives at about 1/3 the RPM which eliminates the high speed inefficiency of bent axis pumps.

This design addresses the issues pointed out in the earlier EPA documents and prototypes they built including a 3800 pounds test mule that averaged 80 MPG, using the much less efficient bent axis pump at better than 3 times the RPM of any in wheel drive.

UPS has operational vehicles, and the head of the EPA's cooperative research and development stated that the hydraulic hybrid would be as revolutionary as the assembly line when it comes to the effect on the auto industry.

Why should I spend any more time trying to convince anyone who wishes to reject any potential path to the end result of the reduction of fuel consumption by 50% initially and possible much more with future development.

The next step for those who are involved in the process for my design is to find a corporation that will carry this to the next level of development. The confirmation of any claims will require a functional vehicle which would involve considerable expense.

Considering the INNAS design as very similar, but requiring transformers to control the pressures to fixed stroke in wheel drives the efficiency calculations should be very similar.

Moving in that direction today I see the Chinese are working on a similar design to the Innas Chiron free piston engine. You can bet they will look ahead and finance the development of any system that saves them the cost of oil importation, without worrying about me or my patent or any financial benefit to me.

If they do this the US will once again fall behind the R&D of other countries that consider better efficiency as their goal instead of trying to force development in any particular pathway.

Oh and by the way, if you are idling at all, or operating any engine with a throttle restriction of any kind, you are doing it wrong. Look at the Innas link that shows the area of BSFC operation of the engine using their system.

regards
Mech

[naturalextraction]

Ref: Old Mechanic: "if you are idling at all, or operating any engine with a throttle restriction of any kind, you are doing it wrong."
Totally agree! Even in the ICE, as with the bike, I initially took it off. Now it's optional (signaled on or off) for engine breaking on our mountain roads, which of course looses efficiency. On the turbine/hybrid, of course, none exists. Both systems are now fly by wire.

Don't get so frustrated in your ideas that you quit all together. (seemingly noted) There is a huge population base interested in these alternative means to efficiency but you have to make yourself known and with lots of networking, searching and making contacts. It takes lots of time just for that. You have real ideas that requires continued perseverance. Find other means to stay motivated, small steps in any progress helps. Don't be hesitant to approach political people, scientists and engineers, etc. It all can lead to the right contact.

[autoteach]

Originally Posted by Old Mechanic

Actually the situation you describe would be the worst case scenario, like climbing Pikes Peak at maximum speed. In anything approaching a normal state or operation the duty cycle would be well below 15% at full load, without extreme boost or other sustained max load applications.

Mech

I am not sure to what you are saying this would be worst case scenario. Not argumentative, just have no clue what you meant.