Efficiency Improvements for Internal Combustion Engines

[dcb]

Look, I don't really care about patent/money problems or how many VA tech students looked at it. I've given some specific items and you chose to not address them directly and gave me the "I need a grant" spiel again. I think the whole patent system is screwed up to begin with, and is simultaneously self-serving and a mechanism of technology obstructionism (along with an unhealthy dose of bureaucracy). So I'm only focusing on the design, to no monetary gain of my own, the rest is just noise.

re hydraulic cvt: I think there is a serious over-estimation of the efficiency in cruise mode, same thinking that is currently plaguing the series hybrid crowd. While the "positive displacement" aspect is ideal, it does come at a cost and limits peak efficiency. If you are on the hiway, you don't have that nice big blue arrow jacking you up to 94% efficient transmission.

This is also going to be a constant power drain on your flywheel assembly, no?

[dcb]

Also, the efficiency gains assume a completely unskilled/uneducated driver. Nobody with half a clue is going to operate their engine like the graph on the left. Of course this is a problem with all hybrids, that assume technology should save us from ourselves rather than education.

[user removed]

Keep making statements you can not back up with any factual evidence.

Accusation by you. I know IC engines will never reach 60% so my statement of my belief that it will happen is disingenuous.

When given factual evidence to support my belief you choose to attack the Hydrogen fuel portion of the evidence and also choose to disregard the credibility of a nationally recognized institution that is pursuing such an engine.

Accusation by you. Hydraulic pumps are inefficient.

When presented factual evidence you choose to ignore that same evidence. Moving the drive directly to the wheel and reducing the RPM from and inefficient 3000 to a much more efficient 800 is the solution to that issue. You choose to ignore or refute such factual evidence without any factual support of your position.

In fact hydraulic drives produce maximum torque at .1 RPM wheel speed, within 5%. That's about the same as electric motors, and the life expectancy of hydraulic pumps rivals or exceeds electric motors. The Va Tech calculations were 35 horsepower and 395 foot pounds of torque at the first revolution of each wheel, using a piston of 1 inch diameter. If you want more just increase the diameter.

You state that any knowledgeable driver knows how to keep their engine in the range of 37% efficiency, but again the facts do not support your position. The average driver knows little to nothing about how to drive their car efficiently. By placing the priority on the vehicle being efficient without any specific driver input you have eliminated the driver as the weak link in efficiency.

Pray tell what percentage of drivers in your direct observations are knowledgeable. Do you honestly think we will ever reeducate the worlds population of drivers?

Dream on.

Make the car idiot proof and even the idiots will get good mileage.

The Innas document also demonstrates a significant improvement in highway mileage, something you also choose to ignore, because the vehicle's power train is not connected to the engine. I guess you think every driver in the US should P&G their way to great mileage. Good luck waiting for that to happen. My belief is that the Innas system which is almost identical to my design allows automated constant speed P&G, something that is simply not possible in a gas electric hybrid because the multiple energy conversions necessary and the cumulative effects in total losses of multiple conversions negate any increase in average engine efficiency. Combine that with the low percentage of wheel to wheel energy recovery in regenerative braking using electric systems and you have some improvement in a Prius type vehicle but it does not compare to the Innas improvement of 100% overall and an significant improvement even in highway driving.

Almost a decade ago Charles Gray one of the EPA heads of the hydraulic hybrid development project, stated that they were looking for designs for drives to break the 80% barrier in regeneration. 5 years ago they were at 78%. The program included major well know US corporations who were also involved in the development of hydraulic power trains. The projected an 80% improvement through better power train design and configurations, and the Innas document shows 100%. That makes perfect sense to me when you consider the Innas fixed displacement in wheel drive was not a part of the original EPA calculation.

As far as your statement about the flywheel and losses involved, I don't think you are considering the capacitive effect of flywheel energy storage on acceleration, or that you have looked at the Innas document and their explanation of the real reason for the improvements in mileage which is the capacitive storage and application of energy independent of the engines input alone.

A very small engine can spin a flywheel up to store a lot of energy and provide a dramatic rate of acceleration to a vehicle that would never perform decently with that same size engine alone. I guess that is something else you will arbitrarily choose to ignore, but most of the rest who read this have no trouble understanding.

Inevitably your concerns present the opinions of a percentage of people who, for what ever reason, choose to not accept a different option which will at some point in the future be the core of a vehicle that is inexpensive, more reliable than anything else on the road, and does not have the issues that keep the aftermarket repair industry busy repairing vehicles.

regards
Mech

[dcb]

You handle criticism so well Mech

Anyway, yah it looks like there is a continual friction drain in a hydraulic system. Especially if you have to rely on regen/bsfc to make it look good. Sorry you missed that. And throwing hydrogen in the mix is kinda cheating. You are setting the stage for all number of errant claims by not isolating the variables. And my other critiques have gone unaddresed. Here is another problem, that I don't expect you to be able to take objectively.

Premise(not agreeing, just saying): folks should be driving at constant speeds, this makes that possible to do efficiently.

Problem: If you are operating at a constant speed, you can achieve peak bsfc with a correctly sized/geared engine. If you make a series hybrid out of it then you lose efficiency at constant cruise, perhaps a lot of efficiency. There is no evidence that your hydraulic transmission is anywhere near 94% efficient at turning engine and flywheel power into wheel power under extended constant load conditions.

[naturalextraction]

You guys ought to try discussing this in a forum with 100's of engineers from many parts of the country and world who do or deal with what you guys are talking about on a daily basis. Go to CR4, you'll find yourself in good company and talk with people who can provide even more sufficient data related to your subject matter. It helps in validating ideas and thoughts through a social technical communal meme. Just a though.

[ShadeTreeMech]

As much as I respect the knowledge of those technical enough to argue on such a higher plane of thought, I would have liked to have seen this stay at a more laymans level, which I believe most of us are.

Knowing this argument was likely ongoing nearly made me decide to delete this thread from my subscriptions list.

I wonder what improvements in efficiency a variably tuned intake manifold could show? Basically, the length of the runners from the boxy part of the intake manifold to the valves helps dictate the power band. When an intake valve shuts there is a reflection of energy back into the intake which, when it bounces off the boxier part of the manifold, reflects back to the valves. If the timing is correct, and the reflection hits the valves when they are opened, more air is forced into the valves and gives a boost in power. Suppose the intake runners were longer, and there was a movable blockage that would adjust to take the best advantage of tuned ports by lengthening the runners at low rpms and shorter at higher rpms.

Is such a thing possible? I know there are some variable manifolds that adjust according to engine demands, but could something like this help with economy?

This is better. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variabl...ntake_manifold

Could something like this be adapted to cars that don't already have it?

[cfg83]

Old Mech -

Originally Posted by Old Mechanic

...

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

Sounds like the Fiat 500 agrees :

Fiat 500: Tiny Car Packed with Technical Wizardry - Technology & science - Tech and gadgets - TechNewsDaily - msnbc.com

Technical wizardry
This stylish little Fiat will bring with it some innovations virtually unknown on American roads. One of them seems at first impossible: It has no throttle. It has a gas pedal, but no true throttle per se.
In a gasoline engine the " throttle " is well-named: It's a valve that progressively opens or closes the air intake to the engine, thereby "throttling" (choking down) the flow of air so the engine produces only the amount of power the driver requires. Whether the engine has an old-fashioned carburetor or modern fuel injection, opening or closing this valve (via the gas pedal) is how the driver "opens up" the engine for more power or "throttles down" for less power. But the Fiat 500 has no throttle valve at all. The air intake is always wide open and unobstructed.

CarloSW2

[autoteach]

Originally Posted by ShadeTreeMech

As much as I respect the knowledge of those technical enough to argue on such a higher plane of thought, I would have liked to have seen this stay at a more laymans level, which I believe most of us are.

Knowing this argument was likely ongoing nearly made me decide to delete this thread from my subscriptions list.

I wonder what improvements in efficiency a variably tuned intake manifold could show? Basically, the length of the runners from the boxy part of the intake manifold to the valves helps dictate the power band. When an intake valve shuts there is a reflection of energy back into the intake which, when it bounces off the boxier part of the manifold, reflects back to the valves. If the timing is correct, and the reflection hits the valves when they are opened, more air is forced into the valves and gives a boost in power. Suppose the intake runners were longer, and there was a movable blockage that would adjust to take the best advantage of tuned ports by lengthening the runners at low rpms and shorter at higher rpms.

Is such a thing possible? I know there are some variable manifolds that adjust according to engine demands, but could something like this help with economy?

This is better. Variable length intake manifold - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Could something like this be adapted to cars that don't already have it?

pretty sure that your wife is sitting on it. 4DSC.com : Articles

[some_other_dave]

Originally Posted by ShadeTreeMech

This is better. Variable length intake manifold - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Could something like this be adapted to cars that don't already have it?

It would be challenging to do so, I think. The resonance depends on how much air is being drawn in by the engine, and at what speeds. Getting the right sizes would be a matter of a whole boat-load of computation and then (likely) a bunch of trial and error.

It should be doable, but would likely take any of us (or at least those of us without sizeable amounts of disposable income and/or our own machine shops and plenty of time) quite a long while. And my guess is that the improvements will be relatively small. But that's an almost completely uneducated guess...

-soD

[NeilBlanchard]

I like open source design -- let the money be earned by actual production. Patents take too long, stifle innovation, and add needless bureaucracy.

No takers on the 2-stroke design I proposed a few pages back? Could it be 2-3X more efficient that current internal combustion designs?

How can fuel best be used to spin a shaft? Does the Revetec engine or the Garric have any merit? What about the other rotary designs mentioned in this thread, so far?

What can we learn from steam and from electric motors?