New Gasoline Engine Prototype Claims 3X Current Engine Efficiency 377
erfnet writes "A cool new high-efficiency gasoline engine prototype has no radiator, no pistons, no valves, no transmission, and no fluids (except for the fuel). At first glance it has a few similarities with the Wankel engine, but is more advanced. The engine is only suited for hybrid-electric vehicles, but that's okay. The efficiency they are claiming: is over 3x what today's gasoline engines produce. The developers, a team at Michigan State University, hope to have this engine on the market in the next two/three years."
Re:First Post ? (Score:3, Insightful)
German tech is alive again for the next generation of US scientists. Back to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Turbine_Car [wikipedia.org] soon
The efficiency seems too high for a heat engine (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:skeptical ... (Score:2, Insightful)
And what's this thing about "the engine is only suited for hybrid-electric vehicles, but that's okay. " ... what does THAT mean?
I think it means the engine can only go at a single speed, unlike a standard engine that can change speed as you accelerate. So instead of driving the wheels from this single-speed motor, you charge a battery, and use the battery to drive the wheels at different speeds.
Re:skeptical ... (Score:5, Insightful)
And what's this thing about "the engine is only suited for hybrid-electric vehicles, but that's okay. " ... what does THAT mean?
Most likely it means that the engine has terrible spin up/down times and/or is inefficient at doing them. Its best operated at constant speed, generating electricity for an electric motor which actually pushes you forward.
Fuel engines and taxation (Score:5, Insightful)
Although I'm more hoping for huge leaps in renewable fuel technology. The more efficient petrol based fuel engines become, the less funding for other techs.
One problem is the tax structure.
As for petrol: Production of renewable fuel for petrol vehicles (that is, ethanol fuel) isn't exactly efficient outside of perhaps Brazil. As I understand it, producing ethanol from sugarcane is more efficient than producing it from corn. But most countries that demand petrol and ethanol are , and they've enacted import tariffs and farm price supports to make the corn method artificially more attractive. This could change if researchers perfect production of ethanol from switchgrass.
As for diesel: Soy biodiesel already has a positive EROEI, and production of biodiesel from microalgae looked promising last time I checked. But diesel is more commonly used on trucks and buses than on cars. A lot of U.S. cities lack good bus transit, and apart from Volkswagen's TDI vehicles, few automakers want to try marketing diesel cars in the United States, even after the nationwide switch to ultra-low-sulfur diesel a few years ago.
Re:Fuel engines and taxation (Score:4, Insightful)
few automakers want to try marketing diesel cars in the United States, even after the nationwide switch to ultra-low-sulfur diesel a few years ago.
Easy solution: Throw out US regulations that artificially create an isolated market for vehicles and allow people to import vehicles from overseas. I've done it before they tightened up the rules protecting US dealerships. Several vehicles that I've purchased (Toyota Landcruiser, for example) are available overseas in diesel versions. I would have bought one (much better mileage than the gasoline version) had it been legal to import.
Re:Get ready to read another.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you ever noticed that *everyone* has a grandfather who invented a miracle engine that was repressed by Big Auto? This is at least the tenth time I've heard a story along these lines.
I'm sure your grandpa was an amazing engineer, but the "200 MPG engine" was the cold fusion / room-temperature superconductor of the mid-20th century. Maybe somebody's grandpa really had the answer, and maybe somebody's grandpa did get hushed up by GM ... but maybe a lot of peoples' grandpas like telling stories to their grandkids.
As for the specific engine in this story: I don't see an engine. I see a nicely machined chunk of steel and a piece of lucite on a bearing, some heavy handwaving, and an efficiency claim which can only be achieved [wikipedia.org] if the engine operates at a temperature high enough that steel is as useful a construction material as pudding.
I call bull (Score:5, Insightful)
As someone consulting in the auto industry at the time, I can tell you that the auto company engineering departments at the time - including the upper executives - were DESPERATE for ANYTHING that would give them another MPG within the emission and performance constraints. The federal regulations were draconian and tightening while the Japanese competition was whipping their butts - especially on the west coast and among they new generation which was setting its lifetime car-buying preferences.
If your granddad had something that would give it to them - even if it meant redesigning the power train and retiring an engine production line - they'd have been on it like a shot. It would have been in the labs and undergoing testing. If it proved even marginal it would have been in a "concept car" prototype at auto shows. And if it had performed well enough to be a significant improvement, manufacturable at reasonable cost, and causing a car to perform well enough that it would sell, they'd have put it on the market to see if the public would accept it.
The problem is that there are a HOST of constraints, besides raw efficiency, on what ends up in cars. You can't have a car that accelerates so poorly that it gets rear-ended by road-raged drivers. You can't have one that only gets good MPG at some particular speed range. You can't have one that stalls about a car length after a stop sign. You can't have one that doesn't run when the temperature is below 10 degrees farenheit. you can't have one that needs an engine replacement every 20,000 miles. And I could go on for pages. There was a BUNCH of stuff they knew at the time would be fantastic - like hybrids for instance. Batteries weren't up to it but flywheels were. But it couldn't be done reliably until control and extreme power electronics was good enough to do the job - and were just getting there now.
And it has to be buildable, reliably, for an affordable price. Have you ANY IDEA what a tiny cost difference means when you are making millions of units? Figuring out how to eliminate a single screw that costs five cents to buy and install, at the cost of living at the time, would pay for TWO FULL TIME ENGINEERS to figure out how to do it. A big-three company spent many millions developing a flash-boiler steam engine during that period. If they could have gotten the construction cost down to $75 per unit it would have been their new power plant. They could only get it down to about twice that, so it only saw a racing car and a handful of prototypes.
So I call bull.
If it's real, the patent has expired by now. Give us the patent number. If it's still enough of an improvement over modern engines, and the patent attorneys didn't totally obfuscate some "secret sauce", a power plant like that could still be worth pursuing and could be engineered from the patent description. And there are a lot of applications BESIDES the US big-three ... two ... one car companies who could use it.
Re:Link quite skimpy on details, but basically (Score:4, Insightful)
What is going to make or break this technology would be the weight of the battery pack needed to store all that extra energy to provide surge and low end torque. Prius has a very tiny battery, relatively, just enough to propel the car for about 2 miles. We might need a battery midway between Prius and Chevy Volt/Nissan Leaf for this technology to work. Of course, the fine tolerance manufacturing, durability of the engine and seals (the bugaboo of Wankel) and other issues might crop up.
But the basic idea is plausible. Giving it one and half (guarded) thumbs up.
The article also mentioned shedding 1000lbs by using this motor.
That's a free half-ton for more batteries which should cover the surge and low-end torque problems you mentioned.
This is why patent reform must outlaw suppression (Score:4, Insightful)
This is why suppression must be outlawed in any real patent reform.
Charging too much to license the patent is defacto suppression also. If you take out a patent, you must be willing to submit to regulatory action on your pricing scheme.
If you don't like regulation from the government, then don't seek monopolies from the government.