New engine can double fuel efficiency of cars

[amish]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Dean

Originally posted by: spidey07
Aren't modern combustion engines incredibly efficient as it is?

Combustion Engines are only about 30% efficient. 70% of all gasoline never gets converted into energy.

Wrong.

100% (essentially) is converted into energy. Just that only about 30-35% is used for propulsion. The rest is largely lost as heat (either through the cooling system or out the exhaust) with a tiny bit lost to friction.

Just because we aren't using the energy doesn't mean it's not being generated.

ZV

Thanks for the gut check Zenmervolt. That makes a lot more sense. When I read 30% that just didn't compute.

I don't see how exploding stuff can not lose a ton of energy to heat. Now use that heat to boil water to make water vapor expand via a steam engine and now we're talking. 😉

crower six stroke.

might be a little interesting if some of the obstacles were taken care of.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: antillean

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Dean

Originally posted by: spidey07
Aren't modern combustion engines incredibly efficient as it is?

Combustion Engines are only about 30% efficient. 70% of all gasoline never gets converted into energy.

Wrong.

100% (essentially) is converted into energy. Just that only about 30-35% is used for propulsion. The rest is largely lost as heat (either through the cooling system or out the exhaust) with a tiny bit lost to friction.

Just because we aren't using the energy doesn't mean it's not being generated.

ZV

Way to miss the point Mr. "I just took high school physics"!

what an idiot :roll:

Zenmervolt didn't just take high school physics. I was going to post the exact same thing until I saw that he did it. The statement is profoundly incorrect because he said:

70% of all gasoline never gets converted into energy.

which is flat out wrong, and no, I did not know what he meant. I took it to mean he literally thought that 70% of the gasoline is never converted to energy. Try picking a fight with high schoolers as they seem to be more on your level.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Originally posted by: Eli
Very skeptical, but I welcome all new Internal Combustion Engine technology with open arms.

The very design itself is fundamentally flawed, though. Unless you can figure out a way to turn the waste heat generated into usable energy.

Ceramic engine parts, novel alloys, advances in lubrication technology and perhaps most importantly, infinitely variable valve timing will see the greatest increases in fuel economy in the years to come, IMO.

But like I said.. they've got my attention. Show me a reliable production engine my ears will perk up and my eyes will widen.

Until then, meh.

We already have the bolded feature in many engine designs AFAIK.

You wish. 😉

As do engine manufacturers.

No. It is not infinitely, it is just variable. There is a huge difference. 🙂

VTEC, for example, allows for two different valve timing configurations. Two.

And look at the huge increase in performance it has given us? If we could infinitely vary the valve timing throughout the whole RPM range, a very large increase in efficiency would be immediately seen.

This will probably be accomplished through electromagnetically actuated valvetrains, completely eliminating the camshaft and other components.

I believe prototype systems have been developed, but they use exuberant ammounts of energy. It takes a large electromagnetic coil to accelerate and decelerate a valve open and closed thousands of times per minute.

It's very hard to mimic the actions of a camshaft electromagnetically. For example, a camshaft doesn't just let the valve slam closed. It sets it down gently, or else the valve would pound its seat to death and the engine wouldn't be reliable.

 

[overst33r]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Originally posted by: Eli
Very skeptical, but I welcome all new Internal Combustion Engine technology with open arms.

The very design itself is fundamentally flawed, though. Unless you can figure out a way to turn the waste heat generated into usable energy.

Ceramic engine parts, novel alloys, advances in lubrication technology and perhaps most importantly, infinitely variable valve timing will see the greatest increases in fuel economy in the years to come, IMO.

But like I said.. they've got my attention. Show me a reliable production engine my ears will perk up and my eyes will widen.

Until then, meh.

We already have the bolded feature in many engine designs AFAIK.

You wish. 😉

As do engine manufacturers.

No. It is not infinitely, it is just variable. There is a huge difference. 🙂

VTEC, for example, allows for two different valve timing configurations. Two.

And look at the huge increase in performance it has given us? If we could infinitely vary the valve timing throughout the whole RPM range, a very large increase in efficiency would be immediately seen.

This will probably be accomplished through electromagnetically actuated valvetrains, completely eliminating the camshaft and other components.

I believe prototype systems have been developed, but they use exuberant ammounts of energy. It takes a large electromagnetic coil to accelerate and decelerate a valve open and closed thousands of times per minute.

It's very hard to mimic the actions of a camshaft electromagnetically. For example, a camshaft doesn't just let the valve slam closed. It sets it down gently, or else the valve would pound its seat to death and the engine wouldn't be reliable.

I believe either Nissan or GM, and I'm sure many others, such as Ferrari, Porsche, etc., are experimenting with infinitely variability in valve timing. Something along the lines of each valve having a solenoid that could open and close using computer control rather than the camshaft...

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: mariok2006
I believe either Nissan or GM, and I'm sure many others, such as Ferrari, Porsche, etc., are experimenting with infinitely variability in valve timing. Something along the lines of each valve having a solenoid that could open and close using computer control rather than the camshaft...

Yep..

I'm sure all the R&D labs have at least some budget set aside for the prospect.

It's the Holy Grail of the Internal Combustion Engine. It would be pretty amazing.

We will probably have to move to higher voltage electronics systems for it to be feasible though... Just need too many amps at 12V.

 

[nugglife4me]

This looks like the "round engine" I was reading about awhile back.
Seems similar although the other design had an external combustion chamber, which should make it easy to extract excess heat plus increase life on teh piston and valves as they are not subjected to intense heat constantly.

http://www.roundengine.com/

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Originally posted by: Eli
Very skeptical, but I welcome all new Internal Combustion Engine technology with open arms.

The very design itself is fundamentally flawed, though. Unless you can figure out a way to turn the waste heat generated into usable energy.

Ceramic engine parts, novel alloys, advances in lubrication technology and perhaps most importantly, infinitely variable valve timing will see the greatest increases in fuel economy in the years to come, IMO.

But like I said.. they've got my attention. Show me a reliable production engine my ears will perk up and my eyes will widen.

Until then, meh.

We already have the bolded feature in many engine designs AFAIK.

You wish. 😉

As do engine manufacturers.

No. It is not infinitely, it is just variable. There is a huge difference. 🙂

VTEC, for example, allows for two different valve timing configurations. Two.

And look at the huge increase in performance it has given us? If we could infinitely vary the valve timing throughout the whole RPM range, a very large increase in efficiency would be immediately seen.

This will probably be accomplished through electromagnetically actuated valve trains, completely eliminating the camshaft and other components.

I believe prototype systems have been developed, but they use exuberant amounts of energy. It takes a large electromagnetic coil to accelerate and decelerate a valve open and closed thousands of times per minute.

It's very hard to mimic the actions of a camshaft electromagnetically. For example, a camshaft doesn't just let the valve slam closed. It sets it down gently, or else the valve would pound its seat to death and the engine wouldn't be reliable.

VTEC is used to increase efficiency and economy, not to increase performance.

You can stick a big performance cam in any 4 cyl engine and get the same performance but it will idle like crap and give poor economy when you are just cruising.

 

[RU482]

http://www.nevisengine.com/technical.htm
Technical overview page

If it's so great, you'd think they'd have a better website

And it's an Italian company, not UK.

 

[Evadman]

On the surface it looks like a modified Wankel. I need to do some research.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: exdeath

VTEC is used to increase efficiency and economy, not to increase performance.

You can stick a big performance cam in any 4 cyl engine and get the same performance but it will idle like crap and give poor economy when you are just cruising.

What?

VTEC is used to increase performance, not increase economy. It does increase efficiency, obviously.

If it were for economy, VTEC would be "engaged" at low RPM and "disengage" at higher RPM, but that is not the case. 🙂

 

[Ronstang]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: mariok2006
I believe either Nissan or GM, and I'm sure many others, such as Ferrari, Porsche, etc., are experimenting with infinitely variability in valve timing. Something along the lines of each valve having a solenoid that could open and close using computer control rather than the camshaft...

Yep..

I'm sure all the R&D labs have at least some budget set aside for the prospect.

It's the Holy Grail of the Internal Combustion Engine. It would be pretty amazing.

We will probably have to move to higher voltage electronics systems for it to be feasible though... Just need too many amps at 12V.

This technology was available 10 years ago. The problem is the electrical system needed to operate the solenoids. At the time the talk was that a 48 volt electrical system would be required to make it a reality.

 

[overst33r]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: exdeath

VTEC is used to increase efficiency and economy, not to increase performance.

You can stick a big performance cam in any 4 cyl engine and get the same performance but it will idle like crap and give poor economy when you are just cruising.

What?

VTEC is used to increase performance, not increase economy. It does increase efficiency, obviously.

If it were for economy, VTEC would be "engaged" at low RPM and "disengage" at higher RPM, but that is not the case. 🙂

It is used for both performance AND economy with i-VTEC, Honda's most widely used implementation of VTEC.

ranging from fully retarded at idle to maximum advance at full throttle and low rpm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VTEC

Read: i-VTEC

 

[Killrose]

This thing looks like it may need a three plug combustion chamber. I can't see it having a very efficient flame front with a single plug and the center shaft in the way.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: exdeath

VTEC is used to increase efficiency and economy, not to increase performance.

You can stick a big performance cam in any 4 cyl engine and get the same performance but it will idle like crap and give poor economy when you are just cruising.

What?

VTEC is used to increase performance, not increase economy. It does increase efficiency, obviously.

If it were for economy, VTEC would be "engaged" at low RPM and "disengage" at higher RPM, but that is not the case. 🙂

If it's not for economy and efficiency, why does the high performance cam only engage after about 5,000 RPM?

In other words 95% of the time you are using the low speed economy cam.

All VTEC does is allow you to have both profiles instead of a compromised single profile.

If they wanted top end performance, they could have just stuffed a huge cam in there. But street drivability and fuel economy would tank, thus VTEC also retains the low speed cam for normal sub 5,000 RPM conditions.

In other words you could build a non VTEC engine that has just as much power, all else held constant, just by using a big cam. But what you can't do is take that big cammed engine and get good idle, emissions, or fuel economy out of it. Hence VTEC is more for improving efficiency and fuel economy when using a performance cam up top.

Not much more to it than that...

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: exdeath

VTEC is used to increase efficiency and economy, not to increase performance.

You can stick a big performance cam in any 4 cyl engine and get the same performance but it will idle like crap and give poor economy when you are just cruising.

What?

VTEC is used to increase performance, not increase economy. It does increase efficiency, obviously.

If it were for economy, VTEC would be "engaged" at low RPM and "disengage" at higher RPM, but that is not the case. 🙂

If it's not for economy and efficiency, why does the high performance cam only engage after about 5,000 RPM?

In other words 95% of the time you are using the low speed economy cam.

All VTEC does is allow you to have both profiles instead of a compromised single profile.

If they wanted top end performance, they could have just stuffed a huge cam in there. But street drivability and fuel economy would tank, thus VTEC also retains the low speed cam for normal sub 5,000 RPM conditions.

In other words you could build a non VTEC engine that has just as much power, all else held constant, just by using a big cam. But what you can't do is take that big cammed engine and get good idle, emissions, or fuel economy out of it. Hence VTEC is more for improving efficiency and fuel economy when using a performance cam up top.

Not much more to it than that...

I understand this, and it is an interesting point of view, but my view of it is a little different.

In non i-VTEC, the "normal" cam is on all of the time and the VTEC or performance cam engages at 5,000RPM or whatever.

That's what the original version of VTEC did. Engines without VTEC were "normal" engines, but with the addition of VTEC, you get a big performance increase at the top of the RPM range.

In your scenario, a non-VTEC engine would have the high performance cam already, and the addition of VTEC technology would give you the economy cam.

Although, I honestly don't know how the low-RPM cam compares with a non-VTEC engine's cam. I assume they're fairly similar, since AFAIK VTEC and non-VTEC engines are similar until the performance cam kicks in, disregarding generational power improvements.

 

[NoShangriLa]

Six stroke engine -- "Bajulaz six stroke engine", "Six-stroke engine (Trivandrum)", "Crower's six stroke engine", and "Beare Head".

After read up on six-stroke engine I search for 2-stroke engine with water injection (4-stroke engine: 1 power stroke gasoline or diesel, 1 power stroke water/steam, and 2 exhaust), and didn't find much info on it.

However I ran across a post from halfbake.com that explain things quite nicely. But, it lack the mechanic details of steam injection.

I would love to see a prototype of 2+2 stroke engine that use a condenser to recapture the water for reuse, and engine exhaust is use to preheat the water to near flash point.

:thumbsup: to engineers.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: potato28

Most engines that we have(even the human body) aren't very efficient. But this 30% provides more than an alternate fuel source(electricity) at a higher efficiency rate.

Well...large scale power plants using heat engines (steam turbines) can get very high efficiencies compared to small scale...like 60% or so. Transmission losses obviously take a lot out of that, but the real barrier to electric cars is onboard energy storage, not efficiency.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: potato28

Most engines that we have(even the human body) aren't very efficient. But this 30% provides more than an alternate fuel source(electricity) at a higher efficiency rate.

Well...large scale power plants using heat engines (steam turbines) can get very high efficiencies compared to small scale...like 60% or so. Transmission losses obviously take a lot out of that, but the real barrier to electric cars is onboard energy storage, not efficiency.

Yep... our batteries suck.

 

[j00fek]

would be nice if we could actually buy a car with this in it in the future, instead of just reading about it...

 

[Zenmervolt]

EDIT: Damn, I'm getting old. I completely forgot I'd posted in this thread weeks ago and I posted almost the exact same response again. 😱

ZV

 

[natto fire]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
EDIT: Damn, I'm getting old. I completely forgot I'd posted in this thread weeks ago and I posted almost the exact same response again. 😱

ZV

Ha, it is too easy to get caught up in the excitement of the law of Conservation of Energy. 😉

I personally can't see anything great about these six-stroke engine designs.

 

[Mojoed]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
I'm very leery of any such claims. After all, it seems to be every couple of weeks that we're promised "something big around the corner" they always turn out to be vaporware.

Yup. Reminds me of this.

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: exdeath
<blockquote>quote:
Originally posted by: Eli
<blockquote>quote:
Originally posted by: exdeath

VTEC is used to increase efficiency and economy, not to increase performance.

You can stick a big performance cam in any 4 cyl engine and get the same performance but it will idle like crap and give poor economy when you are just cruising.</blockquote>What?

VTEC is used to increase performance, not increase economy. It does increase efficiency, obviously.

If it were for economy, VTEC would be "engaged" at low RPM and "disengage" at higher RPM, but that is not the case. 🙂
</blockquote>

If it's not for economy and efficiency, why does the high performance cam only engage after about 5,000 RPM?

In other words 95% of the time you are using the low speed economy cam.

All VTEC does is allow you to have both profiles instead of a compromised single profile.

If they wanted top end performance, they could have just stuffed a huge cam in there. But street drivability and fuel economy would tank, thus VTEC also retains the low speed cam for normal sub 5,000 RPM conditions.

In other words you could build a non VTEC engine that has just as much power, all else held constant, just by using a big cam. But what you can't do is take that big cammed engine and get good idle, emissions, or fuel economy out of it. Hence VTEC is more for improving efficiency and fuel economy when using a performance cam up top.

Not much more to it than that...

It depends on how you look at it. If the engine is designed for maximum output, then having VTEC would allow for better mileage. If the engine is a gas sipper, adding VTEC could open up the top end.

Your point about the high performance cams working after 5K is due to the fact that you need more lift and more advanced timing as speeds increase. You wouldn't need more lift at 3K.