Interesting new engine Design

[charrison]

linkage

Supposed to be much more effecient than an normal internal combustion engine, but it is also designed by aggies

 

[Brutuskend]

Did you see this engine/car G.M. is working on?

 

[HokieESM]

yeah.... things like this have been "sought after" for quite awhile--a different thermal cycle to produce power. And this one is very possible... there have been others like the Sterling Cycle and Rankine... anything to get closer to the ideal Carnot cycle. Most of them (including this one, from what I can tell) have one BIG detractor: the power potential versus practicality. Because of the heat exchanger, I think the engine would have to operate VERY slowly (heat transfer is QUITE slow)... or your heat exchanger would have to be enormous. Which would be fine for a stationary generator, but not so good if you have to cram it in a car.

But it DOES seem to be a neat idea. If you're interested, look in a good thermodynamics book--you can learn some of the neat attempts to improve on the Otto and Diesel cycles.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Brutuskend
Did you see this engine/car G.M. is working on?

Fuel cells are not real close to be affordable or practical yet.

 

[HokieESM]

Brutuskend: the hydrogen car thing, while very very interesting, is FREQUENTLY based on the good old otto cycle. In that it will be a conventional engine (in some ways), just using hydrogen as a fuel (its more "powerful" and produces less waste in a pure form than gasoline). Some other ideas--like turbines--have surfaced... but most are conventional cycles. But they should still be explored.

I personally feel that attacking automobiles, while important, is relatively silly right now. Modern cars (see the Honda Civics and Accords) put out little waste.... especially considering that cars put out a relatively small fraction of air pollution as is. Fossil fuel power plants put out MUCH MUCH more... and most states use fossil (NC and SC and AZ are the only three states I know of that use something else for most of their power--nuclear). Which is also a reason that electric cars are kinda silly--their power is coming from the same electric grid. Personally, I think more money needs to be invested in power alternatives--I'm a big nuclear proponent--THEN we'll attack cars. Of course, continual development (as GM is doing) is very important as well.

<steps off soapbox>

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: HokieESM
Brutuskend: the hydrogen car thing, while very very interesting, is FREQUENTLY based on the good old otto cycle. In that it will be a conventional engine (in some ways), just using hydrogen as a fuel (its more "powerful" and produces less waste in a pure form than gasoline). Some other ideas--like turbines--have surfaced... but most are conventional cycles. But they should still be explored.

I personally feel that attacking automobiles, while important, is relatively silly right now. Modern cars (see the Honda Civics and Accords) put out little waste.... especially considering that cars put out a relatively small fraction of air pollution as is. Fossil fuel power plants put out MUCH MUCH more... and most states use fossil (NC and SC and AZ are the only three states I know of that use something else for most of their power--nuclear). Which is also a reason that electric cars are kinda silly--their power is coming from the same electric grid. Personally, I think more money needs to be invested in power alternatives--I'm a big nuclear proponent--THEN we'll attack cars. Of course, continual development (as GM is doing) is very important as well.

<steps off soapbox>

Actually all modern cars are very clean, even the expeditition was rated as a low emission.

Also power plants have much better air scrubbers than what cars have.

 

[HokieESM]

Originally posted by: charrison<br
Actually all modern cars are very clean, even the expeditition was rated as a low emission.

Also power plants have much better air scrubbers than what cars have.

They are, I agree. But the VOLUME of air they put out, per day, is close to 50 times what all the cars in America put out. I worked for a power company in NC for two years.... its staggering. The air (per pound) is cleaner--but there is a LOT more of it. A WHOLE lot more. So a small increase in their efficiency and a reduction in output of SOX or NOX reduces the OVERALL pollution level MUCH more than improving cars the same amount (and we have to work VERY hard to do so with modern cars being so clean).

And I know even the Expedition and Excursion are clean. But its still VERY little compared to what a power plant puts out (look at mass flow rates). I'm just saying, if we went to complete nuclear (or alternative power), we would reduce SOX, NOX, and some of the carbon emissions by as much as 80%. While if we went complete "alternative" car methods, the BEST we could do is a roughly 20% reduction in air pollution--and thats not counting things like power production for electric cars.

EDIT: this is why there are continual reductions from the EPA on fossil fuel plants.... but there are exemptions for old plants. I personally think that deregulation was a BAD idea--I think there SHOULD be a heavily regulated monopoly. For policing issues. We could FORCE the companies to reinvest their money in new technologies. That's why we aren't seeing any new nuclear plants--VERY high startup costs. But once up and running, they produce quite a bit of money (I used to work at a nuclear plant outside of Charlotte, NC).

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

Originally posted by: HokieESM
Brutuskend: the hydrogen car thing, while very very interesting, is FREQUENTLY based on the good old otto cycle. In that it will be a conventional engine (in some ways), just using hydrogen as a fuel (its more "powerful" and produces less waste in a pure form than gasoline). Some other ideas--like turbines--have surfaced... but most are conventional cycles. But they should still be explored.

True, there are some vehicles that use hydrogen as combustion, but the GM Hy-wire uses hydrogen fuel-cells. There's no "combustion" involved.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: HokieESM

Originally posted by: charrison<br
Actually all modern cars are very clean, even the expeditition was rated as a low emission.

Also power plants have much better air scrubbers than what cars have.

They are, I agree. But the VOLUME of air they put out, per day, is close to 50 times what all the cars in America put out. I worked for a power company in NC for two years.... its staggering. The air (per pound) is cleaner--but there is a LOT more of it. A WHOLE lot more. So a small increase in their efficiency and a reduction in output of SOX or NOX reduces the OVERALL pollution level MUCH more than improving cars the same amount (and we have to work VERY hard to do so with modern cars being so clean).

And I know even the Expedition and Excursion are clean. But its still VERY little compared to what a power plant puts out (look at mass flow rates). I'm just saying, if we went to complete nuclear (or alternative power), we would reduce SOX, NOX, and some of the carbon emissions by as much as 80%. While if we went complete "alternative" car methods, the BEST we could do is a roughly 20% reduction in air pollution--and thats not counting things like power production for electric cars.

I dont disagree, we can do better there too.

 

[HokieESM]

Knightbreed--absolutely. GM has been on a fuel cell kick for awhile now. They're neat inventions--but with very limited ranges... and sometimes they depend on outside-produced electricity--which is far from perfect. Its definitely an avenue that needs to be explored--all i'm saying is that i seriously doubt you'll be buying a fuel-cell powered car anytime soon.... but hydrogen combustion might be in the near future (BMW made some 740Hs powered by hydrogen combustion).