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."
Unlike copyrights, patents expire (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:skeptical ... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
That would be my guess too.
But that could be handled with a CV transmission too.
Perhaps it can't be throttled down easily, so it's always putting out full power, so it either needs to be charging a battery or powering the car or shut off if neither is needed?
But even so, if it's 60% efficient, that's huge -- more efficient than our large turbines that power power plants, ships, etc. -- these things would easily tolerate an engine that takes a long time to spin up or down, or could only be run at full power or speed. It's not just hybrids.
Re:skeptical ... (Score:4, Interesting)
The only concrete spec I could find that could be tied to this was the 25 kw (33 hp) power max. That might be enough to have somewhat more-than-required power at unambitious cruising speeds, but would absolutely not be able to deliver sufficient acceleration and therefore need to save up excess capacity (when available) in a battery and delivered via an electric motor.
Also, hypothetically, if the spin-up time was ludicrously slow, a CV would not help a car go from a stopped position up to highway speed.
Re:Get ready to read another.... (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not really a new invention... and the car companies really don't care. My grandfather spent the last 30 years of his life developping what's essentially a combustion-powered hydraulic motor... his plan was to use the hydraulic pressure in large industrial applications (think power generation), but the math showed that it would still be far more efficient than traditional ICE's in cars and trucks. He had a working model in 1982, and a car on the road driven by it in 1984. GM offered him $1million for it, with the explicit promise that they'd sweep it under the rug and never develop it further... being ethical, my grandfather told them to stuff it, and ended up never selling the design.
Car companies won't make him disappear, they just won't care and won't buy his product. If they do buy his product it'll be with the expressed promise that they won't do anything with it. That's not going to change until the car companies are forced to sell off their interests in the oil companies.
Not New, Nor Even Newish (Score:5, Interesting)
The same video shown in the linked article is from UTube, uploaded Oct. 29, 2009.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uf_-IMgla34 [youtube.com]
The concept of a detonation-wave engine is not new either. I remember reading about one in Popular Mechanics or one of its clones in the fifties or early sixties of the past century.
Seems like PR fluff to me. And that's not new, either.
Link quite skimpy on details, but basically (Score:5, Interesting)
So despite the prof looking like Indiana Jones, what he is saying and showing is plausible. 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.
Re:Get ready to read another.... (Score:4, Interesting)
And if you actually read the post in question, you would have noticed two very important things:
1. nowhere in my post did I make any claims as to actual mileage in a car. in fact, the device was never designed with auto in mind, it was just a side note to the original industrial design for it
2. it wasn't suppressed by big auto, it was never bought by them in the first place, specifically because of the promise of it being suppressed. In the early 1980's.
It would not have been a miraculous invention or a 200mpg engine. It wasn't even a traditional ICE design... again, if you'd actually *read* the post, you would have noticed that I didn't talk about mechanical power being generated, but about hydraulic power being generated. There's also no argument that a lot has changed since the early 1980s, and such an engine wouldn't be more efficient than a modern hybrid, but compared against a 1970's or 1980's car? Absolutely more efficient.
Again, though, had you actually *read* what was said, you would have realized that the initial design had nothing to do with automobiles, and was chiefly intended for industrial use. And as far as my grandfather's credentials... he worked for Rolls Royce during WWII on both the Merlin and the Griffon engines, and then went on to work for Pratt & Whitney Canada after emmigrating in 1954... among his credentials there, he worked on the GG4 engine which is still in use in marine settings today. So unlike the kooks you're so fond of mocking, he actually did have the experience and background to know what the hell he was doing.
Re:Not New, Nor Even Newish (Score:5, Interesting)
I have a bit of experience with Wankel rotary motors, having been a crew chief for a racing team that ran one, a 13B Mazda peripheral port which reportedly developed more than 300 bhp at 8700 rpm. I dunno 'bout that, but it was geared for 173 mph at that rpm and it got there right quick. It got 1 lpg (lap per gallon -- about 2.5 miles).
The efficiency problem in ICEs is thermal loss. The rotaries had, of course, a rotating combustion chamber, meaning the much of the heat of combustion was lost heating the cases instead of driving the wheels. Otherwise, rotaries would be perfect for diesel-cycle use.
Which brings me to the motor in question. It seems to use shock waves to start combustion instead of spark or, in a diesel, compression itself. But it seems to have the same heat-loss problems the Wankel design has. To me anyway. And without "lubricant", what will keep it from packing up after a few minutes like steam engines did before Watt's improvements?
Color me skeptical, At best.
Re:Fuel engines and taxation (Score:4, Interesting)