http://autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic...FREE/302270007&SearchID=73237677872210
found the possibilities of this interesting.
wonder what the downside is
found the possibilities of this interesting.
wonder what the downside is
Six stoke engine
- Thread starter RU482
- Start date
Zenmervolt
Elite member
- Oct 22, 2000
- 24,514
- 44
- 91
The downside is having to carry the water around with you. And, in many cases, having the water frozen 6 months out of the year. Not to mention the fact that Diesel engines are significantly heavier than their gasoline counterparts and this engine seems like it would be at least as heavy as a diesel, probably even heavier.
It's an interesting idea, but it's not the future. The fuel cell is. From a pure technology standpoint I'm in love with the design, it's pure genius, but it's too late.
ZV
It's an interesting idea, but it's not the future. The fuel cell is. From a pure technology standpoint I'm in love with the design, it's pure genius, but it's too late.
ZV
Crower was one of the original socal hotrodders along with vic edelbrock and handful of others who started the whole aftermarket automotive modding industry in the late 50's, an offshoot of the laker belly-tank racers and "jalopies" raced by every farmboy wanting to make dads flathead faster...and thats a pretty good utilization of an otto cycle IC engine. Smokey Yunick of daytona fame was also tinkering with similar adiabatic engines requiring no cooling, mainly because efficiency high enough that little energy was lost to thermal exchange....and were he still alive, might have actually got one into production. Pretty cool stuff, and has a broad potential for production and utilization.
Thats the real shame with present state of IC design, it goes back near a hundred years, and no one has yet developed a real advancement. yeah, tuned intakes, squish combustion turbulence, variable valve timing, FI among some of the modern improvements, but those are not along the lines of such a generational development this could represent. Those are somewhat "peripheral" tunimg, but this design itself is watershed engineering feat, and could rewrite the book.
Applications for something this efficient run the gamut from small utility and industrial engines to power production and more. People domt realize how much energy wasted by transmission losses, thermal inefficiency, etc. Imagine every home having a methane-burning small efficient electric generator powered by sewage, biomass, hydrocarbons, thereby reducing the enormous losses from centralized powerplants shipping power thousands of miles along the grid. Large scale adoption of localized production with these advancements could reduce our "addiction" to hydrocarbon fuels by a magnitude within a decade. not to mention emmission reduction, performance, all the other benefits of efficiency.
Thats the real shame with present state of IC design, it goes back near a hundred years, and no one has yet developed a real advancement. yeah, tuned intakes, squish combustion turbulence, variable valve timing, FI among some of the modern improvements, but those are not along the lines of such a generational development this could represent. Those are somewhat "peripheral" tunimg, but this design itself is watershed engineering feat, and could rewrite the book.
Applications for something this efficient run the gamut from small utility and industrial engines to power production and more. People domt realize how much energy wasted by transmission losses, thermal inefficiency, etc. Imagine every home having a methane-burning small efficient electric generator powered by sewage, biomass, hydrocarbons, thereby reducing the enormous losses from centralized powerplants shipping power thousands of miles along the grid. Large scale adoption of localized production with these advancements could reduce our "addiction" to hydrocarbon fuels by a magnitude within a decade. not to mention emmission reduction, performance, all the other benefits of efficiency.
Negative work is done when you recompress burnt gases, right?
And water injection is nothing new. It also doesn't increase power, AFAIK. But, if you're running boost, you can up the pressure if you're injecting water.
And water injection is nothing new. It also doesn't increase power, AFAIK. But, if you're running boost, you can up the pressure if you're injecting water.
Water weights a lot and freezes. It also has to be purified.
I still don't believe the fuel cell has a very bright future. It sounds good, but so does cold fusion.
This is an interesting little "invention". It seems that a 6 stroke cycle would be a lot of work for an engine, significantly reducing its useful life.
Zenmervolt
Elite member
- Oct 22, 2000
- 24,514
- 44
- 91
He's not injecting water with the fuel. He's adding an extra 2 cycles where steam (not water) from a boiler is injected into the combustion chamber to drive the piston.
The 6 cycles:
Fuel/air intake.
Fuel/air compression.
Fuel/air power.
Fuel/air exhaust.
Steam injection/power.
Steam exhaust.
ZV
Zenmervolt
Elite member
- Oct 22, 2000
- 24,514
- 44
- 91
Actually, now that I think about it, I can imagine it being very useful in industrial stationary engines or for diesel locomotives and ocean liners. I don't think the engine's useful life would be reduced any assuming that it was built to handle it. There are 100+ year old steam engines running just fine today, you just have to take the forces into consideration when designing the engine.
The thing about the fuel cell though is that it has already been demonstrated as a working technology. The "cold fusion" jab just isn't accurate since we have working (verifiably working) fuel cells being produced. It's in the infancy of design, but it is essentially proven possible and reasonably practical by companies like Mercedes and BMW in their test vehicles. Honda has had an experimental fleet fuel cell vehicle out for a couple of years now.
ZV
Yea I know there are prototype cars out there. But as you said the entire concept is in it's infancy. They won't be mainstream for a good decade, seeing as how the overhaul of an entire delivery system must be made. I was under the impression fuel cells currently provide a current net loss of energy, throughout the entire process. Or mabey that was E85 fuel, or both.
OrganizedChaos
Diamond Member
- Apr 21, 2002
- 4,524
- 0
- 0
how does he keep the steam blowby from contaminating the crankcase and washing the oil off the cylinder walls?
History is replete with inventors who have either faced failure many times, or been told accepted wisdom dictates success impossible, yet they continue to advance human inventions. Armchair quarterbacks seem to never make any positive predictions....even in hindsight.
Edison failed 199 times trying to create an electric light...and got it on the 200th.
The water is no heavier than fuel, keeping it liquid is not an insurmounatble problem,
having an engine revolve 50% more certainly is not the premature deathknell of design anymore,
nor is lubrication going to be a concern.
(2 stroke mc engines last twice as long as 4 stroke?)
Furthermore fuelcells are already proven for more than 2 decades at nasa, will be just a matter of time before it gets perfected..
I think being told it wont work is the fuel on inventors...I for one redouble my personal effort when told its not possible. OK, so sometimes I prove that...but then theres that OTHER outcome...! You know, eventual success!
Edison failed 199 times trying to create an electric light...and got it on the 200th.
The water is no heavier than fuel, keeping it liquid is not an insurmounatble problem,
having an engine revolve 50% more certainly is not the premature deathknell of design anymore,
nor is lubrication going to be a concern.
(2 stroke mc engines last twice as long as 4 stroke?)
Furthermore fuelcells are already proven for more than 2 decades at nasa, will be just a matter of time before it gets perfected..
I think being told it wont work is the fuel on inventors...I for one redouble my personal effort when told its not possible. OK, so sometimes I prove that...but then theres that OTHER outcome...! You know, eventual success!
Steam is not injected. Water is.
The latent heat in the combustion chamber is used to vaporize the water.
The engine uses no boiler and external fuel source. That would be pointless.
Evadman
Administrator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
- Feb 18, 2001
- 30,990
- 5
- 81
Crower is a God.
the weight savings that he speaks of will not really exist, as you need to carry around the water as well. However this would be excellent for stationary engines such as generators. If it even has 1/2 the benefits of what he says it does, and it scales well (maybe using diesel blocks as he suggests) this would rock.
the weight savings that he speaks of will not really exist, as you need to carry around the water as well. However this would be excellent for stationary engines such as generators. If it even has 1/2 the benefits of what he says it does, and it scales well (maybe using diesel blocks as he suggests) this would rock.
Zenmervolt
Elite member
- Oct 22, 2000
- 24,514
- 44
- 91
Interesting. I was under the impression that the water fed into a small boiler chamber that was heated by the engine's residual heat. A sort of intentional boiling-over of a radiator kind of thing.Originally posted by: Eli
Steam is not injected. Water is.
The latent heat in the combustion chamber is used to vaporize the water.
The engine uses no boiler and external fuel source. That would be pointless.
ZV
That's what I thought. I don't believe you get any work done by injecting water into a hot combustion chamber. Sure, it'll change to steam, but a lot of energy you could get from the expansion (might I say all?) is "used" just in converting the water to a gaseous state.Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Interesting. I was under the impression that the water fed into a small boiler chamber that was heated by the engine's residual heat. A sort of intentional boiling-over of a radiator kind of thing.Originally posted by: Eli
Steam is not injected. Water is.
The latent heat in the combustion chamber is used to vaporize the water.
The engine uses no boiler and external fuel source. That would be pointless.
ZV
Crower is the best cam manufacture out there, and this design is really cool.
You can eliminate coolant because the water to steam cycle will cool it enough, and keep the engine clean via the steam cycle. If the control is designed right you can even do water/fuel combined injection at high compression cycles.
It will probably take 10-20 years before it is mature for production, on locomotive or long haul truck, not passanger cars.
You can eliminate coolant because the water to steam cycle will cool it enough, and keep the engine clean via the steam cycle. If the control is designed right you can even do water/fuel combined injection at high compression cycles.
It will probably take 10-20 years before it is mature for production, on locomotive or long haul truck, not passanger cars.
You are wrong if his claims are true. If you get to drop all the cooling related items and the need for a jacketed block to hold water the weight savings will be real. He claims the engine reduces the need for fuel by 40% so if the normal gas tank is 16 gallons it now only needs to be about ten gallons with another 10 gallons in water for the same range. Considering that water is about 2 pounds more per gallon than gas you will only add about 45 pounds. The average automobile's cooling system holds between 12 and 16 quarts olf water which is ~19 to ~34 lbs of water that would not be necessary to carry around anymore. Plus the water you will be carrying is continually diminishing in weight as you drive. At worst the weight issue would pretty much be a push.
That's fine, though. The energy source for changing the water to steam is the latent (wasted) heat from fuel combustion.Originally posted by: Howard
That's what I thought. I don't believe you get any work done by injecting water into a hot combustion chamber. Sure, it'll change to steam, but a lot of energy you could get from the expansion (might I say all?) is "used" just in converting the water to a gaseous state.Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Interesting. I was under the impression that the water fed into a small boiler chamber that was heated by the engine's residual heat. A sort of intentional boiling-over of a radiator kind of thing.Originally posted by: Eli
Steam is not injected. Water is.
The latent heat in the combustion chamber is used to vaporize the water.
The engine uses no boiler and external fuel source. That would be pointless.
ZV
If you can extract more energy out of the heat, you've gained. As a side effect, you cool the engine at the same time.. since you're using that wasted energy.
Originally posted by: Eli
That's fine, though. The energy source for changing the water to steam is the latent (wasted) heat from fuel combustion.Originally posted by: Howard
That's what I thought. I don't believe you get any work done by injecting water into a hot combustion chamber. Sure, it'll change to steam, but a lot of energy you could get from the expansion (might I say all?) is "used" just in converting the water to a gaseous state.Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Interesting. I was under the impression that the water fed into a small boiler chamber that was heated by the engine's residual heat. A sort of intentional boiling-over of a radiator kind of thing.Originally posted by: Eli
Steam is not injected. Water is.
The latent heat in the combustion chamber is used to vaporize the water.
The engine uses no boiler and external fuel source. That would be pointless.
ZV
If you can extract more energy out of the heat, you've gained. As a side effect, you cool the engine at the same time.. since you're using that wasted energy.
i still don't get what Howard said.
it seems to me injecting water into a hot chamber and having that water expand to steam is EXACTLY work produced. isn't it? or am i missing something?
so, 4 strokes with gas produces 1 piston movement up and down, 2 strokes with water produces 1 piston movement up and down.
so every other piston stroke is produced by water expanding to steam, right?
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Originally posted by: Eli
That's fine, though. The energy source for changing the water to steam is the latent (wasted) heat from fuel combustion.Originally posted by: Howard
That's what I thought. I don't believe you get any work done by injecting water into a hot combustion chamber. Sure, it'll change to steam, but a lot of energy you could get from the expansion (might I say all?) is "used" just in converting the water to a gaseous state.Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Interesting. I was under the impression that the water fed into a small boiler chamber that was heated by the engine's residual heat. A sort of intentional boiling-over of a radiator kind of thing.Originally posted by: Eli
Steam is not injected. Water is.
The latent heat in the combustion chamber is used to vaporize the water.
The engine uses no boiler and external fuel source. That would be pointless.
ZV
If you can extract more energy out of the heat, you've gained. As a side effect, you cool the engine at the same time.. since you're using that wasted energy.
i still don't get what Howard said.
it seems to me injecting water into a hot chamber and having that water expand to steam is EXACTLY work produced. isn't it? or am i missing something?
so, 4 strokes with gas produces 1 piston movement up and down, 2 strokes with water produces 1 piston movement up and down.
so every other piston stroke is produced by water expanding to steam, right?
Each "stroke" is 1/2 turn of the crankshaft, or one movement up or down.
1: Intake
2: Compression
3: Power
4: Exhaust
That's the normal 4-stroke cycle. This design adds:
5: Water Injection/Power
6: Steam exhaust
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter