YOU!: Fix the US Energy Crisis

Buckleymanor

I disagree also.
I realise there is an optimum level at which the temperature should be kept and that the temperature should not rise too much above this or damage will happen to the engine.
Insulation of different types and placed at different locations could enable the operating temperature to be reached faster and the heat generated could be retained for longer.
An engine that can retain heat will get up to operating temperature quicker.
A cab that is better insulated requires less heat from the engine in winter to keep warm than one which is not which results in the uninsulated one requireing more fuel.
The same applies to air con in the summer months.
More cab insulation the less work the air con unit has to do.

OCR

It was, and still is... with respect to improved engine efficiency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourke_engine
http://www.rogerrichard.com/4436.html ← Just has to be a Labor of Love...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-stroke_engine
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dl...THISWEEKSISSUE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EcoMotors
http://www.ecomotors.com/
http://www.pattakon.com/pattakonPatOP.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Ef...y_Hybrid_Cycle
http://www.liquidpiston.com/technologycycle/tid/2.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scuderi_Engine
http://www.engineerlive.com/Design-E...iciency/22066/

The engine folks were already working on this, when I got my A&P certificate back in 1973.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camless

The camshaft is probably the biggest technological stumbling block left, that prevents an almost totally 'tunable' piston engine.




OCR

AlephZero

It's easy enough to mandate a simple standard, and the current one is even on track to be met: average CO2 emissions for cars in the EU, of 130 g/km by 2015.

The next target after that one is 95 g/km for cars and 147 g/km for vans, by 2020.

http://www.transportenvironment.org/...standards-2020

In the UK the "carrot" for car owners is a graduated annual vehicle license fee, e.g.
£30 for 110 - 120 g/km
£100 for 120 - 130
and rising in increments to
£475 for worse than 255.

OmCheeto

Don't mean to roll on the floor, but, 1920, vaporware?

(If it takes more that 90 years to bring an idea to market, even once, then there might be something wrong with the idea.)

-----------------------
ps. I said vehicle, not engine. They are not the same.

OCR

Lol... yes, Russell Bourke probably should have received the Golden Vaporware award, and I shouldn't have linked to it as an example of possible evolving engine technology.

Bourke's design is however, very similar to that of EcoMotors....

http://www.ecomotors.com/technology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EcoMotors

And... Uncle Bill does seem to have a slight involvement there....
Maybe it's time for his next... Golden Vaporware award? ...

This was in reference to the post date of your first thread, not Bourke.
Also, to your image link: http://home.europa.com/~garry/energy%20split.JPG



OCR...



-----------------------
ps. I said vehicle, not engine. They are not the same.
I know... ↑ ...as well...↑...but of course...↑

Buckleymanor

I like money, being a billionaire sounds very attractive but the downside would be the attention of politicians I don't think I would like to encourage them.
On the other hand.

johnbbahm

Several years ago, I had lunch with a friend who works at a university in Germany.
One of the things they were working on was an voltage activated valve stem for
Diesel engines. At the time he said they were getting close to Carnot efficiencies.

Low-Q

This is a very good idea. The bigger difference between hot and cold, the better the engine runs. Very important to harness waste heat, but primarily from the hot exhaust.
However, with the wrong fuel at the wrong temperature, it might detonate before the piston reach the top.


You might increase efficiency further with a pistonless engine - not the Wankel engine, but a design more like a gerotor design which is 100% rotary, which is 100% vibration free. I believe it is just a matter of fairly simple engineering to make this work well. See picture of a gerotor. This type of pistonless motor can suck in air and gas, compress it, ignite it. It needs valves as a piston engine does.

.

It can be made as several rotary "discs" so the exhaust is efficiently cooled before it leaves the engine. The best of this design is that the exhaust side can be cooled separately with coolant flowing between them (separate from the combustion side) for as long the volume inside decrease, but at the same time the combustion side keeps hot for as long as the volume expands during combustion. This is exactly what we want with a heat engine like this.
A normal cylinder have very little cooling surface compared to the volume inside it, so the exhaust is still pretty hot when it leaves the cylinder - > poor efficiency.

So increasing the efficiency of 20 - 25% for a normal engine, to maybe 40 - 50% for a gerotary engine, would not only reduce pollution and cost due to efficiency, but also save weight - which result in even lower fuel consumption.

If this doesn't save the world alone, I hope my contribution would be helpful - at least triggering some ideas

Vidar

Felchi

Well, doesn't the act of running coolant through the discs use energy?

If you add the energy needed to run the coolant system to the efficiency equation, is it still 40-50%?

Low-Q

A piston engine haven't poor efficiency because of the coolant flow.
The coolant isn't flowing through the rotating parts. Only through the housing mass between somewhat like coolant in a piston engine flows though the block and not through the piston and cylinder

Low-Q

Gerotor engine explained as I imagine this will work. It would probably be possible to do more than one operation at the time. For example start the intake again at the bottom while it is combustion. And start combustion while there is compression - it right order, somewhat similar to a 5 cylinder radial engine.

Remember this is just an idea I have, that hopefully will reduce pollution and costs.

OmCheeto

I can't seem to find a working model of a gerotor motor.
I found a Forum where the President of Star Rotor talked about it's development. Dated 2004.
9 years later, the Star Rotor engine is apparently still under development.

hmmm... Wiki claims the gerotor dates back to 1787.
2013-1787 = 226 years.

I think I'll call this one vaporware also.

And I think I'll stick with a water cooled diesel engine as my prime mover, as I'm still a big fan of Algae derived fuels.

zanes

I read your thread, and agree that nuclear electricity generation should be the ultimate answer. Good luck with that politically. I would like to offer a painless and inexpensive way for us to reduce significantly our use of fossil fuels for vehicles...eliminate unnecessary stop signs, and where necessary install yield signs.

In my small condo complex (200 units) there are 8 unnecessary stop signs. Most of the units have 2 cars. If each car leaves the complex twice daily and has to stop at at least 2 of these signs, this is 800 unnecessary decelerations from 20mph to 0, and then accelerations to 20mph. I have no idea how much gas is wasted, but suspect it must be thousands of gallons (low thousands) annually. How many stop signs could be eliminated nationwide? Don't know that either...probably millions.

Whatcha think?

AlephZero

If you look at the drawings in this thread, it's not hard to see why IMO.

Assuming the working gas is a uniform pressure at each instant in time, figure out the directions of the resultant forces on the two rotors. Then convert those force directions to torques about the central axis.

Compare with a Wankel engine, or a conventional piston engine, and see which design wins in converting the same gas pressure into useful work.

Of course that reasoning why a gerotor would make a poor engine is the exact same reasoning why it makes a good fluid pump.

OmCheeto

Well, I was going to say all that*, but not being able to turn an oil pump, into an engine, struck me as a deficiency, in my own brain.

As usual, thank you Aleph, for getting me out of the mud.

----------------------------
*Ok. I lied. I would have never said that. But if I were as smart as you were, I would have.

Crazymechanic

Hello there

Ok even with out the gero engines and all other interesting but useless crap we can make a oil consumption reduction and also the reduction in the green house gasses.
What I'm about to say , well if russ wants to ban my post for that fine as not being too scientific but we should remember that the way we live and our energy demand , usage goes hand to hand not only with what science can offer us, but also with our thinking and in what we believe in.For example we have to end the childish thing about those huge v8 v10 or whatnot, those times are over now we have to grow up and start to think rationally.
For a everyday car , a car that is used as a means of transportation from point A to B there is no need for unnecessary bling blings , chromes , huge loud engines and so on , I'm not pushing anybody to buy a german product and I am not german myself but we have to admit they make quite nice and advanced cars and you can have a 1,9 tdi (turbodiesel) or like I had 1,6 gasoline and use like maximum 6/7 liters per 100km. and that is 5 people in a car driving at speed up to 120 km/h. Also LPG is worth consideing, my friend drives and LPG car and he gets like only half the money he was putting in while on gasoline.
So firstly we need to put our big toys in the garage for hobby hours and weekends and in everyday traffic use only as much fuel and capacity as we need not bigger.
I think it is a huge waste of resources and the car itself if one guy is driving around in a dodge ram without any stuff to bring with him and yet I have seen guys like these even here in europe.
So firstly we have to stop our selfish thinking and use the resources we have right now as careful as possible.

Speaking about nuclear , I am totally with Russ on this.There is nothing bad about it , again it's not the things that are bad or good it's us.Things are just things.Nuclear reactions happen everywhere in space, we are alive because of them in the sun, and if we act like grown ups with responsibility and extreme care we can have them here on earth with no problem.
I think nothing much will change unless there will be huge campaigns to educate the general public about all the myths and stupidity they believe in.They should be told that mcdonalds is doing a lot more harm to their health than an average nuke plant somewhere there in the world. Also I think the general public skepticism about the nuclear thing is also due to the fact that when something happens with a nuclear power station it makes the national news around the world big time.Everybody's counting the injured and spreading fear with no scientific backing on the facts.
Yet the bad stuff that comes from burning coal and fossil fuels it is happening over long long periods of time and there is no such sudden blast and maybe that's why people are not aware of the dangers.
Someone should make a study even though it would not be an easy one if possible at all about the impact on nuclear power vs the impact on coal and fossil , I think speaking of dollars that went to clean up the places were something went wrong the fossil fuels wins.

To summarize we have to change our way of thinking mostly and then the energy things will come after that.And no offense to russ or anyone else but the days are over when someone could just say that well this is an americam problem or thing, no it's the thing of the world it's not like we would live galaxies apart.
At the start of this thread you threw some billion numbers around for the plans needed to come.Well if we could stop the wars for a while both the muslim side the american side and all other imagine how many billions of dollars could be used for fusion research and development.Firstly it's all in the head.As long as crazy little people will run around with waving guns and some other not so crazy people will try to stop them it will be like playing hide and seek , huge money is being spent , news , media are wasting tons of paper on it , people are wasting their time watching this whole thing while he lonely deuterium atom sits and is being bored because nobody is ready to give him the money and resources needed for him to reveal his "magic" as soon as possible.and those are billions of dollars spent on weapons , war and all the fuel and resources needed for that.Atleast the cold war was more useful in this way as it tried to deliver better and better newer technologies from both sides.And it somehow took us to the space (USSR) and later to the moon (USA) also the russians developed the tokamak fusion device , I'm not sure if it was meant for military purposes in the first place but now it is the base for ITER and what is going on right there.
Right now were just fighting over some guys with a strong belief in the middle of the desert and with lots of oil beneath them that yet is no an answer to our problems in the long term more like a bandage for the already dead body.

Speaking about solar and wind , well I personally think wind power could be used on farm and countryside were the visual impact and space is much more affordable things.Also solar panels on farms roofs why not.That would put the electric grid power more to the populated areas like cities and factories where the power is really needed and lots of it and where a solar panel or a wind turbine would not be an option.

Low-Q

Thanks for wise words Crazymechanic. I'm afraid money is controlling where we're heading.

One of the problems with converting to fuel efficient engines, is the cost of conversion, cost of a new car with this technology. Not expencive because of difficult technology, but because manufacturers know the price of the alternative, and turns up the cost till the break even point.

Maybe I'm a bit paranoid, but let me range the top three major economical interests on the planet:
1. Weapons
2. Drugs
3. Oil

What WE can control (For a while) is, as you say, don't use big engines on big heavy cars.
Acceleration of mass is consuming gasoline we cannot get back by retardation - like electric cars mostly does. Stramlined cars is also a good thing. But again expensive design (Even if it does not cost more to make a good looking car vs. an ugly car).

If you don't NEED to use the car, then use a bicycle, take a walk. Get your clothes on and keep the indoor temperature as low as possible if its cold outside. Take your clothes of if it is too hot in the summer, and stop the air conditioning for a while or two. Take the neccessary time in the shower. If you use the bath tub, don't poor out the water before it has reached room temperature. Keep non-living rooms cool, turn of the lights. Air dry the laundry.
Everyone already knows this ofcourse, but do it more often if you want to see results.

Vidar