Efficiency Improvements for Internal Combustion Engines
 

There are a lot of improvements possible for internal combustion engines (aka ICE's). It helps to list the areas that are causing losses, to start:

-- The geometry of the physical layout of the piston, connecting rod and the crankshaft is less than ideal. The connecting rod needs to be ~60 degrees past top dead center to get the best leverage on the crankpin; but the pressure from the fuel ignition occurs much earlier than this; when the connecting rod is essentially trying to bend the crankshaft sideways. The motion of the piston is necessarily sinusoidal.

- The power stroke is only 25% of the full cycle, and there is a lot of mass that has to be accelerated, stopped and accelerated again.

- The valvetrain has to physically resist being moved, and it has to work against the air flows.

- The piston tends to scrape the sides of the cylinder, because it would "rather" twist that stay straight. The rings must exert friction on the cylinder.

- The oil must be pumped through little tiny passageways.

- Electricity must be generated.

- An ICE is a self-powered air pump, in essence. Air flow and the pressures generated, and the cyclical nature of them cause resonances, and backpressures, and the gasses become spring-like.

- Small volumes, like the space above the top ring and the top edge of the piston, trap unburned fuel because the flame cannot reach it.

- Everything flexes and springs -- the crankshaft and the camshaft flex torsionally and longitudinally, the piston vibrates and distorts, as do the cylinders. Valves bounce and stretch and distort into potato chip shapes.

The list goes on... The net result is an engine that uses ~20% of the energy in the fuel for output motion at best, and requires a transmission to keep the torque of the engine relatively close to the speed of the vehicle.

So, knowing all this, how can we make incremental or wholesale improvements?

+ Offsetting the crankshaft center away from the power downstroke gives the connecting rod some better mechanical leverage -- but is the compression stroke adversely affected?

+ Variable valve timing allows the torque to be available over a broader range of RPM's.

+ Valves can be electrically/hydraulically moved in both directions (opened and closed) to avoid fighting the springs. This also makes it easier to use subtle or more abrupt adjustments to the valve timing.

+ Use cams rather than the crankshaft, to gain a lot more mechanical leverage, and to allow the piston motion to be controlled by the designer; like the Revetec:

http://www.revetec.com/images/revani.gif

This particular design also reduces piston scrape (but it introduces some tendency to spin the piston within the cylinder). It also avoid big changes in crankcase pressures (in configurations with even numbers of pistons). This design effectively doubles the efficiency.

+ Use the Atkinson valve timing, like the Prius does, which has a lot of overlap of the exhaust valve with the beginning of the intake downstroke (I think?) so that there is built in exhaust gas recirculation (aka EGR). This also effectively doubles the efficiency.

Hmmm, how well would a 2-cylinder Revetec with Atkinson cycle and electrically activated valves work?

+ Use a rotary design that reduces the reciprocal motion.

+ Use a 2-stroke design to cut the parasitic losses in half.

++ Use a continuous burn design to further reduce the cyclical nature of the engine; or at least reduce the time between power cycles.

+ Figure out how to reduce waste heat from being produced, and then try to use the remaining excess heat to produce output.

What are other ideas to improve ICE's?

Big Dave wrote:

Yes, a more efficient transmission would help. Maybe we should have a system like racing motorcycles or F1 has? The dual clutch transmissions from VW and others could also work.

You have probably seen this before Neil.

It was originally conceived as an IC engine.

This video is running on 120 PSI shop air, but could easily be configured as an engine.

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

With variable stroke (not configured on the demo model) it could change compression and go to a no stroke position and use it's own spinning mass as short term storage.

Combined with a conventional CVT transmission it could P&G automatically without any additional driver input.

Notice the elimination of connecting rods, which are a major source of side loads on the pistons and most of the reason they need skirts to spread out the loads on the cylinder walls. Piston rods are the main reason why IV piston engines cylinders wear in a oval pattern on the sides 90 degrees in respect to the center line of the crankshaft.

regards
Mech

working principle

I like this engine for a HH, using the low pressure circuit for compression, and the combustion pressure to create high pressure hydraulic fluid for the accumulator.

I have seen efficiency quotes for this basic configuration as high as 58% in DOE hydraulic hybrid research dating back to 2005.

regards
Mech

dude, you gotta get that thing running on gas or some kind of fuel first. And CVTs are not in the "most efficient transmission" column.

Dude!

I went through all the blarney and preconceived notions with the DOE 4 years ago when they made a blank statement about efficiency of rotary engines. Maybe they were referring to a Wankel, who knows?

I decided to pursue the transmission configuration. Back then Infinitely Variable Transmissions were practically unknown.

After confirmation of the design by Va Tech as well as many other Engineers who looked at the design objectively and found multiple benefits, including a ridiculous simplicity compared to any conventional power train, I was informed by a group of PHD students (all veterans) at George Mason University, west of DC, as to how to progress effectively.

1. Patent-done

2. A Virginia Corporation with a Dunn % Bradstreet number, for applications for Gov't grants-done

3. Functional prototype that passes stage 6 of operation for Military consideration.

#3 should be done by my 60th birthday in November, with a street legal functional vehicle to demonstrate wheel to wheel regenerative efficiencies, that we hope exceed 80%, could reach 90%, which beats electric regeneration by at the very least 100%.

Got any constructive suggestions I am all ears ;)?

regards
Mech

Test your theories on a working model? Opinion != fact.

The quote for a working IC model was $70,000.

Got some spare change?

Va Tech calculated the in wheel hydraulic drives at 35 HP per wheel and 380 LB feet of torque. Sufficient for a Dodge Sprinter van. The torque was available at the first revolution of the wheel. They thought efficiency would be in the range of 93-95%.
Higher power levels are accomplished by increasing the piston diameter and reserve capacity.

The facts will be available soon enough, especially considering the process has taken 7 years so far.

In the mean time we are pursuing several avenues of cooperation. The suggestion was to partner with an existing manufacturer, and that is our current focus.

The necessary due diligence has been covered and the prototype is in the works as of this post.

I have learned to be patient, and seen many skeptical responses from folks.

That's fine, it's my baby anyway, and the finish line is getting close.

regards
Mech

The OP requested suggestions?

Do you have any?

regards
Mech

a flywheel and a piston cost 70k? I just wouldn't present theory as fact without testing. While I get the benefits of your proposal, I think you all might have missed a few considerations that could put this engine in the realm of seriously impractical for improving the efficiency of vehicles, i.e.: reliance on an inefficient cvt, large amounts of rotating mass , lots of extra weight, unproven delicacies in the crank area, unknown volumetric efficiency, rotating exhaust seal, articulated stroke has exponentially worse compression ratio in response to changes in displacement (unless the cylinders are made to be moveable too).

If you are going to present CVT as an efficiency improvement, you gotta back it up with real data. Number of patents and PHDs and a flow diagram doesn't mean squat. The real data I've seen has CVTs sucking air.

"The lightest, most efficient & powerful hybrid engine in the modern world.
This is a ceramic rotary engine with much tighter area-contact seals, with its perfectly utilized rotor the only major moving assembly, with much greater percentage of working volume to the total engine volume partially due to double-acting wall configuration, with far greater horsepower per pound (surpassing the gas guzzling jet engine even if it has full-throttled afterburners), yet far more efficient than diesel engine due to its hybrid thermodynamic cycle (two-stage intake stroke similar to miller cycle due to supercharging effect of centrifugal action of the ported compressor rotor; realized ideal constant volume combustion process by using pre-chamber formed by the concave cavity of the expander rotor on which the accumulated pressure is stored temporarily throughout complete combustion and instantaneously released at TDC when the unique rotor position instantaneously make the immovable rotor pre-chamber wall into being movable, assuring transfer of torque from absolute zero to 100% at TDC, unlike the common engine wherein the combustion advance have negative torque before TDC; complete expansion adiabatic process due to longer expansion ceramic rotor segment with no cooling system; no valve/port overlap that would compromise the thermodynamic cycle, due to dedicated compression and expansion rotor segments; very minimal fluid turbulence in suction and exhaust strokes due to moving porting configuration located in the rotor, unlike the conventional engines which have stationary ports located in housing wall; very minimal energy-depleting formation of Nitrogen Oxides due to exhaust-gas recirculation provided by the pre-chamber wall cavity in the expander rotor mentioned above) and higher compression ratio attainable due to more surface area sealing at TDC, yet simplest by far than Wankel engine as shown by the simplicity of the components and its kinematics. This unique hybrid propulsion uses a newer hydraulic drive system configuration without the use of any propeller shaft and conventional hydraulic pump, instead utilizing the middle segment of the rotor as rotary hydraulic pump. Due to its compact design than engines in equivalent horsepower, it can achieve even higher rpm, thus achieving an even more attainable power. It has a neat utilitarian rectangular package with air filters and catalytic converters tucked-in with their respective opposing inner-rotor chambers. This unique hydraulic drive system has matching hydraulic wheel motors designed after the effective basic configuration of the rotary engine.
Thus, the car would be very efficient as the compactness of the drive-train without flywheel, transmission and propeller shaft, and instead with powerful engine and hydraulic system, translate or have a snowball effect to its overall structure with much lighter, robust and more responsive structural-frame components, and drive and suspension systems. Then, the car can accelerate fast and have smaller regenerative hydraulic braking components that are required to capture the lower kinetic energy of lighter inertial mass—this tends to lessen also any energy loss of the propulsion and brake systems. The next logical step would be, when the necessity arises to save fuel, flying the car straightforwardly with its ducted lifting fans, avoiding the more energy-consuming winding road ahead."

Halfbakery: Perfect Engine for Automotive X PRIZE

Sorry, I found this and couldn't resist posting it here. :D

From the halfbakery comments:

Thanks, [xenzag]. Well, that configuration has no half-baked features, friend, but probably half-baked illustrations, descriptions, renderings, accounts, etc. (maybe mostly attributed to me). Perhaps, that is why I employ the superlative terminologies (It is just simply superior). No offence here. Don’t worry, I like (to tease) the likes of [MisterQED]. I might pop my eyes out laughing, figuring how they mess or miss the yeasts and ruined the whole batch of dough, leaving our party here with bones and cartilages from dried fish to nibble, forcing each individual intuition to a more contemplative fasting. :-)
— rotary, Mar 31 2008


wordy fellow.

btw rotary, have you applied for a patent on this thing?
— dentworth, Mar 31 2008


You lost me at hydraulics. Way too lossy. A quantum leap has to happen in hydraulics efficiencies before they will be invited to play at X-prize games.
— elhigh, Mar 31 2008

OPOC Engine
 

Look at the size of those connecting rods!

Bill Gates Backs EcoMotors’ New OPOC Engine With .5 Million Investment - Green Car Reports

...the "Opposed Pistion/Cylinder" was developed a l-o-n-g time ago, and proven infeasable.

...wonder what's "new" about this design?

I don't know, other than Bill Gates supposedly dumped a bunch of money into it. It seems like an overly-complicated two-stroke engine to me. They say it "cuts the number of parts in half," but they have twice as many pistons, con rods, pins, and crank lobes as a conventional two-stroke.

But Bill has money to burn (some of it mine).

Three main bearings.

Here are some other rotary engines:

Green Car Congress: UK LowCVP Launches ?Technology Challenge? to Accelerate Low Carbon Vehicle Innovation; Libralato Engines First Registrant

Green Car Congress: Concept Engines

Wow that Garric engine looks absolutely magical. The compressed gas suddenly moves from one side of the piston to the other before it's ignited. And what are they using to control the gates? The forces on those must be incredible since the gasses are compressed against them. And how are they sealing it? It's a cool animation, though. GARRIC Engines - The future of internal combustion engine design

Here's a PDF on the Garric engine:

http://garric-engines.com/Inside_the_GARRIC_Engine.pdf

I think I understand the basics, but I'm unclear on some of the details. I have the same sorts of questions and Patrick.

I have a couple of questions about piston ICE's:

How much pressure could be developed in the combustion chamber *just* from fuel burning? If there was no compression of the intake air (with only a turbocharger in place) would the resulting pressure from the burning fuel be enough to get decent torque? Particularly, if you did not have to "do the work" of compressing the air with the piston -- which uses the momentum of the flywheel, then would the net pressure gain be the same?

Do diesels get all their additional efficiency from the higher compression? Or, are other factors contributing?

That's a kinda tricky question to attempt to answer, since the fuel needs to be mixed with the air to ignite--especially with a compression ignition (diesel) engine.

However, the atkinson cycle engines do attempt to address this with overlapping of valve openings. IE some of the intake charge comes from spent exhaust gases.

Diesel efficiency compared to Otto cycle efficiency (gas engine) is due to higher compression ratio mainly, but also the ability to use extremely lean air:fuel ratios. IIRC, when given full power, the air:fuel ratio is still leaner than 18:1. At idle, it can drop even more to the neighborhood of 50:1.

There is also no throttle plate, which reduces the pumping losses drastically, and makes better use of a turbo. There is essentially no vacuum in the intake manifold while running.

Something else that comes into play is the use of a higher energy content fuel (diesel) that is sprayed at extremely high pressures, so the fuel is atomized much MUCH better.

More torque at low rpms also allows better highway gearing; I've heard of people putting the bumper of their diesel truck against an immovable object, putting the truck into gear, and slowly letting the clutch out, which instead of stalling the engine causes the drive wheels to break loose and start spinning in place. So for an efficient drivetrain you have lower rpms at cruise.

For the direct injected variety (which is nearly all modern diesels) they also enjoy more power and better efficiency. And the technology for the diesel is improving much quicker than for the gas engines, which have stayed nearly the same for years. The fuel efficiencies for particular models through the years have stayed good or gotten better, while the power available has continued to climb.

Generally speaking, a diesel powered vehicle will get nearly double the economy of a similarily powered gasser even if the same gearing is used.

HP = making TORQUE faster and faster.
TORQUE = making FORCE more efficiently.

...that's why the "TORQUE KINGS" (farm tractors) have low engine RPMS, typically; while the "HP KINGS" Formula One race cars (and fuel dragsters) commonly rev up to 10,000+ RPMS or more to obtain their numbers.

Open source engine design -- will it work well?
 

FYI, Formula 1 V8 have been slowed down to 18,000RPM...

Okay, I have been thinking about an engine design that uses just two stokes with disc valves that would have a power cycle every 180 degrees, that is turbocharged, with no compression stroke -- the main advantage would be the power stroke starts at 45 degrees past top dead center and the cylinder is offset to the side, so the connecting rod is straight at the beginning of the power stroke.

It would have less than a 1/3 of the pumping losses of a 4 stroke, and very low valve train friction losses, and the aforementioned mechanical torque. Here's a drawing of the cycle:

http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/8...01128at421.png

It could have very low RPM's and almost be self-starting.

The disk valve would be in the head just above the piston (I have not drawn it yet, sorry), and the 2 fuel injectors and 2 spark plugs would be in the sides of the top of the cylinder (also not shown).

There could be 2 intake ports (180 degrees apart) and 2 exhaust ports (also 180 degrees apart), and the heat could be transferred from the exhaust to the intake.

Some other possible advantages:

Good swirl when the fuel is injected.
Good flame spread.
Only 225 degrees of "coasting" (instead of 540 in a 4 stroke)

The Revetec engine just about doubles the efficiency by gaining mechanical torque; up to 38.6%. This design also gains by having very low pumping losses, low RPM because of frequent power strokes, very low valvetrain friction -- could it be over 50%?

So -- what do you think? Will it work? Will it be uber-efficient? Will not having a compression stroke doom it? Am I crazy?

...since, typically, low-speed torque is the holy grail of fuel economy, I'd assume an opposed, simultaneously-firing, two-stroke, two-cylinder, turbo-charged engine with direct injection would be best for fuel economy.

Been thinking about engines for forty years but no one wants to listen.
No valves or valve train.
No connecting rods.
No supercharging or turbocharging necessary with compression ratios as high as 50 to 1.
Variable compression and displacement
No reciprocating parts
Stores energy in it's own mass as a flywheel.
One injector for 3 cylinders, one intake port and exhaust port.
Spark or compression ignition, could even vary between two and 4 cycle operation.

regards
Mech

Vehicle Technologies Program: Retooling Today's Engines for the Hydrogen Economy

How about 60% efficiency about the same as a fuel cell.

regards
Mech

Yeah, 60% efficiency would be very good!

The disk valve, by the way, could have a plain bearing set up for both thrust and radial forces.

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.

I listened :) It's well past time to stop thinking and start verifying though.

and 60%?!? you know that's too good to be true, like electricity, hydrogen is not a "primary fuel", and the books have been cooked in the 60% example certainly.

LOL I agree it's well past time, could have been done 50 years ago ;).

What I know is you may have read the information but you, like the opponents of the first flying machines, have adopted the "doubting Thomas" attitude, in that you will believe it when the evidence is overwhelming and you can no longer doubt the evidence.

I would be wary of making statements like "you know that's too good to be true" because when it becomes fact, your attitude will be in the majority of those who promoted failure. It's a safe majority position when it's convenient and when the time comes when the combination of developments show your position to be mistaken this conversation will be long forgotten.

Is it really necessary to have an agenda that includes statements that basically allude to me being a purveyor of things false, when the same time could be better spent trying to understand that it is possible.

But then I guess we should keep spending billions on the dream battery that will replace the iC engine and predicting the valhalla of batteries is just around the next corner in development. Been listening to that for many decades as well.

In any pursuit with the goal of energy independence, the effort should never be confined to a single pathway to success. In the Manhattan project they built two different bombs, and even on the day before the first successful test, there were those who believed we would ignite the atmosphere itself and incinerate the whole planet.

So try to remember this in another decade, when the 60% level is no longer unattainable.

Like the conversation between Abraham and God, are you still going to be saying "I told you so and you are a charlatan" if the efficiency is 47% (already done) or 53%. Maybe 57% or even 59%. Will you still be convinced it is not possible? I guess your safe position will only be shown to be short sighted when it actulaly surpasses 60%, but of course then you could argue the method of testing or the integrity of the testing institution.

And while you are nah nahing into irrelevance, please refrain from trying to tell me how to get the job done, since you are not even trying.

regards
Mech

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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