Efficiency Improvements for Internal Combustion Engines

[user removed]

More information.

[dcb]

Dude, prey tell what is 93% * 92%? Do you know why I am asking that specific question?

[user removed]

I don't care.

Dude

[NeilBlanchard]

Q: how is a hydraulic hybrid powered?

Q: Isn't this thread about improvements to internal combustion engines?

[user removed]

Already answered that question Neil, pick your power source. The HH is a method of optimizing the peak power capabilities of any power source. Restricting the operating range of IC engines to only their peak BSFC is possible using a HH powertrain, which is why the efficiency of the INNAS design was doubled.

If you use a powertrain desgin that is not optimized for application of only best BSFC operation then you sacrifice efficiency.

High efficiency regeneration is effective with BEVs or IC powered vehicles since it consitutes a load leveler. P&G while vehicle speed remains constant is only possible with a HH powertrain with improved mileage.

It also allows elimination of throttle control and manifold vacuum altogether.

regards
Mech

[dcb]

Originally Posted by Old Mechanic

...Restricting the operating range of IC engines to only their peak BSFC is possible using a HH powertrain, which is why the efficiency of the INNAS design was doubled.

The hydraulic system in this case lists losses of %95 and %96 and %91 for the pump, hydraulic transformer and the in-wheel motors(~%83 efficient transmission from the engine) plus something for the accumulators. The hiway milage would be much better with a direct coupling (and the right engine).

Hydraulic is an excellent regen system.

an 83% efficient transmission? not so much, I would rather take my chances with a stick shift there, and hold in the hydro-boost button accordingly.

[NeilBlanchard]

As the original poster, can I ask that this thread stay on topic, please?

[user removed]

After all this BS you admit that DCB.

It goes way beyond that.

The energy lost in one 60-0 stop is enough to maintain 60 MPH for .7 mile.
The smaller engine will not allow you to climb any significant grade with a full payload.
A HH can use a larger engine with a lower duty cycle percentage and automatically P&G without speed variations at any speed unless you are climbing a max grade at max speed.

A HH system allows only 3 vehicle operation variations.
Accelerate
Coast
Regenerate all the way down to 0 wheel speed. Think your electric system can do that?

Acceleration can be either all accumulator or a combination of engine and accumulator. At 80% you get back 48 MPH from a 60-0 stop from the system. Your engine only has to supply the additional 12 MPH to get back to 60. (other energy losses are equal regardless of the system)

At 60 MPH you can cycle the engine at precisely its best BSFC to maintain accumulator pressure while the IVT can apply the power available from both sources in exactly the amount required to maintain a constant speed.

No known gas electric hybrid currently produced can do that because the conversions wipe out the benefit of the higher BSFC engine operation.

It would be the same in your manual diesel car DCB if you could make the road elevation changes match your Pulse and Glide in the exact amounts that would allow P&G without speed changes, which will never be practical since we will never re engineer our highways to work with our cars. You alos can not change your engine for different terrain demands to retain a high theoretical efficiency, just as you can not change your electric motor.

They explained that in the INNAS link.

They also explained that the system would work with a BEV.

The original Insight, still the best mileage car on the planet, had a very limited battery capacity, for the exact same reason.

Consider the tactics of hypermiling and just for a moment, imagine them incorporated into the vehicles systems and artificial intelligence.

Hypermiling is not magic, any driving technique could be recorded with a computer and automated without any driver imput.

When you consider this without us having to wade through all this crap in this thread, you may actually understand the real point, which is it's not about the fuel source, be it gas, diesel, or electric. It's about the efficient utilization of every BTU of that fuel source.

The relevance of that makes it relevant to any diuscussion of engine efficiency.

Once you understand it as a systematic approach, then you are one of the few who really understand the future of transportation.

In the last graph in the thread before there is a step by step calculation of the mileage improvements of a HH class 2 truck. It goes through the systematic phases of improvements in all the relevant systems. It includes frontal area, aero CD, rolling resistance, engine efficiency and claculates overall mileage improvements.

The final mileage estimate is 66 city and 58 highway, for a 7400 pound truck with a 3.7 square meter frontal area, rolling resistance of .006, CD of .31 and engine efficiency of 42%. Powertrain efficiency of 85% and regeneration efficiency of 80%.

The beginning estimate was 10.3 city and 18.0 highway.

Change the engine to a diesel took it to 15 and 21 MPG.

That's the potential I am trying to describe, and those calculations were done by highly credible people from EPA, Eaton, Ford and the University of Michigan, not me.
DCB, my design had nothing to do with their calculations, but knowing that potential had everything to do with my design.

Bottom line is you don't need my design to do what they have estimated, but I believe my design is the best one suited to accomplsih that goal. If a better one comes along, which happens to be very typical on any new innovation than the projected mileages would only go higher.

While some may think I have an agenda of personal profit from my design, for the sake of stopping the argument lets assume that is correct. When you consider that it is in its infancy relatively and there is a real possibility that it could be rendered obsolete before it is ever utilized then I wasted thousands of hours and thousands of dollars on the effort.

Is that really relevant to the end means of changing the way transportation actually functions and utilizes every BTU efficiently.

I don't think so, and I have gambled a lot in hope of succeeding.

Whatever you wish to believe about me will not change, and you have the right to believe anything you want.

Does not make it a fact.

regards
Mech

[NeilBlanchard]

Please see my post #117.

[autoteach]

OK, keep it on topic. Respond to my last post about your two stroke design. there are significant problems with a low compression two stroke design. How does your open source design attempt to overcome those downfalls? Can different materials be incorporated into an ICE to achieve higher efficiencies? If we were to be stuck with ICE engines for the next ten years, what could we do immediately to make that better.

could this do it?
Welcome to Coates International Ltd.
or
HCCI
Stratified charge (why didnt this happen earlier-honda dropped)
turbo
3,4,5 valve engines (some manufaturers are still not doing this on large displacement)
dry sump
DOD
ceramic metal matrix
miller cycle
six-stroke (referring to the engine design that reburns in another cylinder from two supplying cylinders)

Just going electric and obsoleting the ICE (not possible, yet that is)

I am not sure what all the answers are, but lets keep it on topic.