OT new engine idea

[scooter01]

http://news.discovery.com/autos/new-car-engine-sends-shockwaves-through-auto-industry-110405.html

is this for real? if it is what a great idea.
so few moving parts, no wiring, nothing. I hope it is a viable option for our future.

[ergott]

I'm a big fan of working prototypes. It's way too early to get excited.

[dekindy]

Now this is the kind of off-topic stuff I like to see!

[Chance]

Chances are very high claims are too exaggerated to stand up to technical scrutiny.

How can you save 1000 pounds from drive train when many cars’ total powertrain weigh far less? Seems like you lose credibility right off the bat when making such claims. A 25 KW piston engine can weigh under 100 pounds.

And when compared on equal basis there is absolutely no way this engine can be 3.5 times more efficient than equal size piston engine. Absolutely no way because laws of thermodynamics apply to all engines equally. It’s impossible to circumvent these physical limits.

Every so often someone comes up with a new idea like the rotary engine and it just doesn’t deliver because of unexpected complications that originally seemed like minor details that needed to be solved. And as they say the devil is in the details.

[oldpotatoe]

http://news.discovery.com/autos/new-car-engine-sends-shockwaves-through-auto-industry-110405.html

is this for real? if it is what a great idea.
so few moving parts, no wiring, nothing. I hope it is a viable option for our future.

One of the automotive big boys will buy the design and put it in the warehouse that looks like the warehouse in the last scene of Indiana Jones...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6-rQ6Jay6w

[Chance]

One of the automotive big boys will buy the design and put it in the warehouse that looks like the warehouse in the last scene of Indiana Jones...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6-rQ6Jay6w
Right next to the 100 MPG carburetors and cow magnets. :rolleyes:

[dekindy]

Chances are very high claims are too exaggerated to stand up to technical scrutiny.

How can you save 1000 pounds from drive train when many cars’ total powertrain weigh far less? Seems like you lose credibility right off the bat when making such claims. A 25 KW piston engine can weigh under 100 pounds.

And when compared on equal basis there is absolutely no way this engine can be 3.5 times more efficient than equal size piston engine. Absolutely no way because laws of thermodynamics apply to all engines equally. It’s impossible to circumvent these physical limits.

Every so often someone comes up with a new idea like the rotary engine and it just doesn’t deliver because of unexpected complications that originally seemed like minor details that needed to be solved. And as they say the devil is in the details.

Maybe an engineer can tell us how much structural weight could be saved since it will not have to support the heavy drivetrain plus the additional protection required to keep the engine from coming into the passenger department during an accident. Lighter frame, wheels, etc.

Also, if you can go 3.5 times farther on a tank of gas you could lose at least 10 gallons of gasoline weight which would be 62 pounds and still maintain the same driving range. Of course, more batteries may be required or less, we don't know.

So I would anticipate more changes than just the engine and drivetrain.

[Mark McM]

It's ironic that the byline for the author is "analysis by ...", since it's obvious the author had done no analsys.

As mentioned, it is unlikely that the device will reduce a typical car's weight by 1000 lb, since the only thing this device can replace is the engine, which in a typical car weighs less than half that amount.

As also mentioned, while this is not reciprocating (piston) engine, it is still an internal combustion heat engine. It still needs a transmission and a cooling system. And like other heat engines, its efficiency is limited by operating temperature difference, and the highest efficiencies attained by heat engines today is about 60% - but that's for (external combustion) combined cycle turbines. The maximum efficiency today for internal combusion engines is about 45% and I seriously doubt that this design can reach the maximum potential of 60%.

Also, the article incorrectly states that modern automobile gasoline engine efficiency is only 15% - actual effiencies are about 25-30% (which means that many automobile engines have higher efficiency than the "human engine" powering our bicycles, which is in the range of 20-25%).

[Chance]

Maybe an engineer can tell us how much structural weight could be saved since it will not have to support the heavy drivetrain plus the additional protection required to keep the engine from coming into the passenger department during an accident. Lighter frame, wheels, etc.

Also, if you can go 3.5 times farther on a tank of gas you could lose at least 10 gallons of gasoline weight which would be 62 pounds and still maintain the same driving range. Of course, more batteries may be required or less, we don't know.

So I would anticipate more changes than just the engine and drivetrain.
It doesn't take an engineer to tell that if the proposed use is to produce 25 KW to power a small generator for a hybrid car then there is no way to save anything near 1000 pounds. A single cylinder piston engine can easily do 25 KW right? And if closed coupled to the generator like mentioned on video then weight and space savings must be minimal at best.

Most of this is wishful thinking. There is NO way to increase fuel economy to 350 percent. Perhaps an engineer can comment on that but it's a good bet it won't happen. If we could sell this technology short you could count me in. :)

[R2D2]

Chances are very high claims are too exaggerated to stand up to technical scrutiny.

How can you save 1000 pounds from drive train when many cars’ total powertrain weigh far less? Seems like you lose credibility right off the bat when making such claims. A 25 KW piston engine can weigh under 100 pounds.

And when compared on equal basis there is absolutely no way this engine can be 3.5 times more efficient than equal size piston engine. Absolutely no way because laws of thermodynamics apply to all engines equally. It’s impossible to circumvent these physical limits.

Every so often someone comes up with a new idea like the rotary engine and it just doesn’t deliver because of unexpected complications that originally seemed like minor details that needed to be solved. And as they say the devil is in the details.
I'm in your school of thought.
Like get one that drives an actual car and then let's see how efficient it is.
Things usually don't scale up so well.

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . and I guarantee if it really does work you will see considerable resistance from all the people who have an economic interest if the industries that make all the transmissions, crankshafts, pistons, valves, cooling systems and fluids that won't be needed anymore. You will also hear huge squawking about how this will throw thousands of people out of work who make those things.

Yes, it's "Cynical Night" at BBDave's place! :rolleyes:

BBD

[cmg]

it will be stored in the same warehouse along fabian cancellara's motorized bicycle. It's the stuff dreams are made of.

[CaptStash]

The research is funded by a grant from the DOE which means it won't wind-up in tHe mythical warehouse. The concept is for powering a yet to be developed high rpm generator (that's he catch) for use in a serial hybrid (think Chevy Volt). You therefore wouldn't need a transmission. They also say there is no need for cooling. It's a pretty interesting concept with near future uses. It will be interesting to see if they are able to come through with a 25kw (33.5 hp) prototype. So far, they have done this on a $2.5 million dollar grant which is pretty cheap considering the possibilities.

CaptStash....

PS: cow magnets? I have one!

[Louis]

Just for the record:

If the "if it's an improvement, then surely entrenched interests will conspire to kill it" theory were correct, we'd still be living in caves, wearing animal skins, and hanging out with Raquel Welch.

[PaulE]

..... And like other heat engines, its efficiency is limited by operating temperature difference, and the highest efficiencies attained by heat engines today is about 60% - but that's for (external combustion) combined cycle turbines. ......

Isn't a combined cycle gas turbine still internal combustion? The exhaust gas heats steam in a boiler, but the combustion turbine itself is an internal combustion engine. I always thought of an external combustion engine as a steam engine in a locomotive, a tradtional steam boiler driving a steam turbine, or even duct burners in a CCGT.

[Chance]

FWIW, the "wave" concept may not be that new, perhaps dating back as far as the 50s according to Wikipedia. Other parts of the engine are probably much newer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_disk_engine#Current_status

A little more info on how it works including some references for those interested in reading more about it.

[pjm]

Maybe they can put this chap to work on designing a decent microphone. :cool:

[Climb01742]

Just for the record:

If the "if it's an improvement, then surely entrenched interests will conspire to kill it" theory were correct, we'd still be living in caves, wearing animal skins, and hanging out with Raquel Welch.

please consider what detroit did to kill public transportation in los angelos before absolutely ruling out the vested interests theory. it's happened at least once. and i bet a pretty good case can be made that oil, gas and coal interests are lobbying pretty hard against a carbon tax. i'm not saying there is a warehouse somewhere but economic interests don't go gently into the good night.

[Louis]

economic interests don't go gently into the good night.

Agreed. There is plenty of above and below board lobbying by all sides.

I was thinking more along the lines of the "engine that runs on seawater" reputedly developed by German engineers during WWII, and deep-sixed by the oil companies.

[Mark McM]

Isn't a combined cycle gas turbine still internal combustion? The exhaust gas heats steam in a boiler, but the combustion turbine itself is an internal combustion engine. I always thought of an external combustion engine as a steam engine in a locomotive, a tradtional steam boiler driving a steam turbine, or even duct burners in a CCGT.

Oops! Yes, you're right of course. As you say, the combustion is internal to the first (primary) stage turbine, so even though the secondary stages use the (waste) heat from the primary stage, as a whole the combustion for the combined cycle turbine must be considered internal.

[MadRocketSci]

Agreed. There is plenty of above and below board lobbying by all sides.

I was thinking more along the lines of the "engine that runs on seawater" reputedly developed by German engineers during WWII, and deep-sixed by the oil companies.

yeah and unless someone invents a cure for cancer such that the patient gets up from his/her death bed and starts irish step dancing, the "chemo cartel" will try to squish it like a bug....