Should Electric vehicle be banned?

[mgb_phys]

That explains it - I though DISI was the same as the spark-less gasoline in a diesel cycle engines. Those DO have better efficency and lower NOx

 

[jack action]

Let me add my 2¢ and stir the pot a little bit.

First, I'm a big fan of the IC engine in personal vehicle and I don't believe it will be efficiently replaced soon. Although, there is a lot of propaganda to make it the devil's machine. IMHO, the way it is overused is more responsible of the problems we have.

The problem with any engine (no matter the type) in a vehicle is to store the energy efficiently. Mechanically, you can wind up a spring, speed up a flywheel, compress a fluid, etc. Electrically, you need a battery. But no matter how you look at it (volume, mass, safety, cost, power, etc.), storing it in a liquid fuel that you will burn is pretty hard to beat.

Electricity in a vehicle, I see it used appropriately in two ways:

The first one is by coupling an IC engine to an "electric" transmission, i.e. a generator and motor(s). Although, weight could be a factor, the power transmission efficiency is usually better than any mechanical mean and the fact that it is an infinitively variable transmission means that the IC engine can be used at its best BSFC (for the hp needed) all the time. The locomotives use that system and I always wondered why it was never implemented in a personal vehicle (I'm sure there are drawbacks I'm not aware of, but with today's EV, I think it is a pretty similar technology).

The second way is railroad electrical vehicle. Electricity is only an advantage as long as you use the power as you produce it. If you have to store it (thus using a battery), it looses all of its appeal. The only way you can do that with a vehicle is by knowing the path of the vehicle such that it can be followed by a wire, hence some kind of rail system. Of course, this can only be used for mass transportation or merchandise. If society have to invest in electric vehicles, this would be my first choice. Removing all of those trucks crossing the country or building high speed trains replacing gas-guzzling airplanes would be a better use of the billion$ invested in the development of personal car batteries which, in the end, are still no match to a gas tank in so many ways, and nobody knows their environmental impact yet (which may be just as bad as air pollution). It is easier to change a few commercial fleets and the way they do business, than changing millions of individual minds. And the end effects on air pollution will probably be similar without the battery problem.

Now, without endorsing everything he said, I would like to bring some defense to sr241 (He seems lonely in its corner!).

First, I see a lot of people giving excuses for EV concerning their high cost or lack of practicality by saying that development is underway and all problems will be solved in the future. To me that sounds like "magic thinking" where there is a way that exists which has no drawback and only advantages. I've never seen this in any engineering field and if such a way exists, with all the time and money spent on EV, it would have been obvious by now. It is not.

And, if we assume that R&D is the solution to EV, how come we don't assume that it would be the answer to make a better rotary engine? It is easy to say that the only viable rotary engine is the one from the RX-8 and that it is not as good as traditional piston engines, but a lot more R&D went into the last one. A LOT more. Even EV have a lot more R&D than rotary engine. But, when you look at the development of the Wankel engine since its debut, a lot of technical progress has been made (especially in sealing), mostly due to Mazda's effort. And saying that they have high rpm (so what? They need a gearbox anyway) or that they need a turbo because of their low compression ratio (Compressing in a turbo or in a cylinder, what's the difference?) as drawbacks are just ridiculous and non-founded statements.

Finally, although I'm no expert on the subject - and neither a radical opponent - when talking about nuclear energy being safer than anything else, I'm a little skeptical. Never heard of Three mile Island or Tchernobyl? But I'm sure there are good excuses and it will never happen again.

It seems that there is not only sr241 that says stuff based on dreams on this thread. It's not because a theory is popular that it is true. You have to keep an open mind to make a discussion viable.

 

[mgb_phys]

The locomotives use that system and I always wondered why it was never implemented in a personal vehicle (I'm sure there are drawbacks I'm not aware of, but with today's EV, I think it is a pretty similar technology).

It's mainly done in a locomotive because of the difficulty of making a transmission that has enough torque to start a 1000 ton moviong train and also move it at 125mph. Fully electric locos are mainly because of the much higher power density you get with electric motors. An intercity high speed train is 5MW, about twice the power of a diesel loco but the motors fit under body. The maintenance is also a lot lower as well as noise, smoke etc.
My bet is that for small cars (like Smart) a small constant speed diesel + battery + electric motor in wheel hub is likely to be a common solution. Just because of simplcity and space.

And, if we assume that R&D is the solution to EV, how come we don't assume that it would be the answer to make a better rotary engine? It is easy to say that the only viable rotary engine is the one from the RX-8 and that it is not as good as traditional piston engines,

Even with perfect sealing a Wankel engine is fundementally limited in the compression ratio it can achieve just form geometry. A piston engine is only limited by the strength of the metal so you can make small economical diesels with 20:1 compression getting half that in a Wankel is real feat of engineering.

Yes piston engines have had a lot longer R&D, but all that R&D has also benefited rotary engines. Mazda weren't exactly workign with stone age tools to design their engine.

 

[mheslep]

With all of its thousands and thousands of ingenious improvements over the past century, all working together and made inexpensively, the internal combustion engine in its current form is an absolute marvel to behold in my view. Today's engine is a marvel because of all of that colossal ingenuity and effort required to make it workable. I say required because setting all of the century's improvements aside for moment and looking only at the problem of individual transportation from A to B, and seen only as a self-contained engineering project, the internal combustion engine is a mistake, a disaster. No I'm not talking about all the environmental issues. I refer only to the engine itself and what's required on an auto-mobile.

So from the engineering design from scratch, let's say one starts from some horsepower goal that provides some tractive power, derived from a vehicle size and speed. Ok, from there via considerable effort we work out how much hot gas needs to do how much work on some pistons and so on, how to convert that to rotary motion via crank shaft, etc, and we end up with the basic engine block and its several hundred parts, many of them moveable. That in and of itself is no small achievement.

Am I nearly done? Hardly. Because the thing has an inevitable low efficiency as compelled by thermodynamics, I have to add a substantial heat removal system. Liquid cooling is required, and an extensive and large heat transfer radiator. As the engine's power and torque output are so dependent on operating point (RPM), in fact with zero power at zero RPM, I have to design a complicated power transmission device, a complicated fuel - air mixing system (along with the fuel pump), and an auxillary starting system with a temporary torque within in an order of magnitude of the primary engine itself. The exhaust gasses containing much of that unavoidably wasted energy are also toxic requiring an exhaust system. The entire thing is a very difficult mechanical noise vibration problem due inherently to the piston displacement fundamentals (that will take decades to master).

As it turns out all of this is worth the trouble because of the great utility of the automobile over horses, and because all of the combustion engine's waste and snowballing patches on top of patches are made possible by the high specific energy of petroleum. I grant all that. Still doesn't change my view that the combustion engine is twisted joke of an engineering solution to the problem of moving things around, as compared to elegance of the electric motor.

Just saying.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

First, I see a lot of people giving excuses for EV concerning their high cost or lack of practicality by saying that development is underway and all problems will be solved in the future. To me that sounds like "magic thinking" where there is a way that exists which has no drawback and only advantages. I've never seen this in any engineering field and if such a way exists, with all the time and money spent on EV, it would have been obvious by now. It is not.

The only thing holding electric vehicles back is energy storage. Batteries aren't a very good solution because the take a long time to charge, are heavy, and don't have particuraly good power density compared to gasoline or diesel. People are hopeful that supercapacitors will help some of that, but I don't think they will be able to reach the energy density of gasoline any time soon.

Of course right now the hydrogen economy isn't much better because you have to carry a large high pressure tank of hydrogen, also not close to the energy storage capacity of a gas tank. Liquid storage mediums for hydrogen are an interesting concept, we'll see how they turn out.

And, if we assume that R&D is the solution to EV, how come we don't assume that it would be the answer to make a better rotary engine?

I'm not understanding this obsession with rotary engines? They are in the end an internal combustion engine, nothing special. If they were capable of higher compression ratios they might have a chance, but they just aren't (9:1 compression is a real challenge, diesels hit 20+ without trouble).

What "R&D" are you hoping to do on a rotary engine that wouldn't benefit any number of standard piston engines?

Finally, although I'm no expert on the subject - and neither a radical opponent - when talking about nuclear energy being safer than anything else, I'm a little skeptical. Never heard of Three mile Island or Tchernobyl? But I'm sure there are good excuses and it will never happen again.

You quote three mile island as a "terrible" disaster, so tell me- how many people died as a result of the Three Mile Island accident? Chenobyl is known to many as the worst civilian nuclear accident ever, do you know how many people died as a direct result of it? Perhaps you are expecting hudreds of thousands of people, even millions? Would you believe only 30 people died as a direct result of the original Chernobyl accient, and perhaps 4000 total due to long-term radiation effects? No civilians have died in the United States due to exposure to a nuclear plant. NOT ONE!

Now compare those numbers to the number of people die mining coal (the United States averages about 30 deaths/year), or the number of people that die in the oil industry each year... The safety record of nuclear power is impeccable compared to these values, you've just never bothered to ask because you have been subject to anti-nuclear propganda which is not based in FACT.

 

[mheslep]

The problem with any engine (no matter the type) in a vehicle is to store the energy efficiently. Mechanically, you can wind up a spring, speed up a flywheel, compress a fluid, etc. Electrically, you need a battery. But no matter how you look at it (volume, mass, safety, cost, power, etc.), storing it in a liquid fuel that you will burn is pretty hard to beat.

If we recall the goal is transportation, not just to store energy, then we see that other issues like the efficiency of the motor are also important.

At the moment, the energy specific density comparison is about

• 60:1 energy density ratio, gasoline to rechargeable battery specific energy. Twenty years ago it was 50% worse.

The electric drive train is roughly 3X more efficient than the combustion engine so we have about

• 20:1 'transportation' specific density ratio, gasoline fuel + combustion engine to e-motor + battery per unit mass

Now the average plastic/aluminum fuel tank on a light duty vehicle is not very big, say, 15 gallons, because such vehicles don't need to travel 1500 miles on one fuel load. In the case of an electric vehicle when the fuel pump, radiator, exhaust, starter motor, transmission largely disappear there's ample room for the energy storage device (battery) to get 5X heavier (which it does in the new EVs), which gives us

• 4:1 vehicle range ratio, gasoline + combustion engine vehicle to electric vehicle

which is about where we are today - average car can do nearly 400 miles, average EV 100 miles. Start adding to that story the ability to charge over night in your driveway/garage/parking lot so that regular trips to a fuel station disappear, and the EV begins to look like an attractive way get off oil imports and reduce pollution.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Let me add my 2¢ and stir the pot a little bit.

First, I'm a big fan of the IC engine in personal vehicle and I don't believe it will be efficiently replaced soon. Although, there is a lot of propaganda to make it the devil's machine. IMHO, the way it is overused is more responsible of the problems we have.

Frankly for general use we should get to electric vehichles as soon as possible. It's likely to be viable in about 10years or so.

Just like the car replaced the work horse. And horses were used for pleasure. The EV will be the work horse of tomorrow, leaving petrol engines for pleasure. It can't come quick enough so there will be more petrol for me to cane around the country roads with.

I am a petrolhead, I love motorsports and everything car related. I think a well designed engine is a thing of beauty.

I am also a realist, we can't continue to burn oil at the rate we are. I also understand the concept of diminishing returns. The IC is 120 years old, it's coming to the end of it's development life, there is only so much you can get out of a concept.

Now, without endorsing everything he said, I would like to bring some defense to sr241 (He seems lonely in its corner!).

First, I see a lot of people giving excuses for EV concerning their high cost or lack of practicality by saying that development is underway and all problems will be solved in the future. To me that sounds like "magic thinking" where there is a way that exists which has no drawback and only advantages. I've never seen this in any engineering field and if such a way exists, with all the time and money spent on EV, it would have been obvious by now. It is not.

Currently there simply are no drawbacks for electric vehicles apart from:
infrastructure.
energy storage.
cost.

Thats it's, the power generation, and delivery systems are both more efficienct for moving you along the road. Not only that but the characteristics of an electric motor make it acutally better than an IC engine for general driving. They have 100% torque from 0 RPM up to about 80% max 'revs'.

Oh and everyone will have to relearn the green cross code, as you can't hear them coming.

And, if we assume that R&D is the solution to EV, how come we don't assume that it would be the answer to make a better rotary engine? It is easy to say that the only viable rotary engine is the one from the RX-8 and that it is not as good as traditional piston engines, but a lot more R&D went into the last one. A LOT more.

Rotaries have their inherent flaws (I didn't say it was the only viable one, I said it was the only pistonless one he mentioned). They will NEVER compress as well as a piston engine and they will NEVER seal as well. They are clearly superior in specific power though.

So it depends what you want. If you want a massivly powerful engine from a very small light package, go rotary. If you want fuel economy and efficiency, dont.

Conversely EV will have their flaws too. Suc has hot battery packs, and the stuff listed above. But the ir potential outweighs that of the drawbacks.

Finally, although I'm no expert on the subject - and neither a radical opponent - when talking about nuclear energy being safer than anything else, I'm a little skeptical. Never heard of Three mile Island or Tchernobyl? But I'm sure there are good excuses and it will never happen again.

Ever heard of France. 80% nuclear generation to the tune of 425TWh. They have been operating mostly on nuclear for about 30 years now with only 1 or 2 incidents of note. No fatalities directly caused by it.

It's this kind of knee jerk reaction to the word nuclear tha thas set the world back.

It seems that there is not only sr241 that says stuff based on dreams on this thread. It's not because a theory is popular that it is true. You have to keep an open mind to make a discussion viable.

No it's not becuase its popular that it's true. It's true becuase it's true. End of.

Saying you should 'ban the electric car' becuase you should be developing something else it's utterly stupid. It's product lifecycle 101. To be good and sucessful you need a product or technology on each strange of the cycle. To try to artificially extend one at the expense of a new product with more potential it's simply stupid.
There is a racing idiom: the last of the old will always beat the first of the new, at first.

 

[russ_watters]

for sealing Anyoon uses flourosilicone rubber ( can withstand above 400c) which is used in space shuttle nozzle bushes. and typical piston ring temp in engine is 220C refer "Engineering Fundamentalsof the Internal Combustion Engine byWillard W. Pulkrabek chapter ten page315"
So there is no question of lasting of seals

The "question" exists unitl it is proven with a demonstration that it works as claimed because as other similar engines have demonstrated, it doesn't work as claimed. Really, it is incorrect to say "Anyoon uses" since until it is sucessfully demonstrated it doesn't "use" anything.

what is wrong with calculating Carnot efficiency between 2000k and 300k it is said 85% if you have new method for calculating Carnot efficiency please give me I will send it to laughter therapists (they will use it for those having difficulty in laughing).

There are two obvious problems:
1. The high temp of a combustion engine isn't anywhere close to 2,000 K. The maximum flame temperature (in air) of gasoline is about 1,300k. That gives a maximum Carnot efficiency of 77%, assuming the Th would really be equal to the maximum flame temperature (which it wouldn't).
2. This engine isn't a Carnot engine: Carnot efficiency assumes no losses anywhere, ideal gases, etc., and isn't possible.

 

[russ_watters]

Finally, although I'm no expert on the subject - and neither a radical opponent - when talking about nuclear energy being safer than anything else, I'm a little skeptical. Never heard of Three mile Island or Tchernobyl? But I'm sure there are good excuses and it will never happen again.

No one was injured by TMI. It is a good example of just how safe the nuclear power industry is in the West that despite massive failures, virtually no release of radioactive material happened.

Chernobyl was overblown, but still, it isn't possible in the West: it used a designed banned by the West because it didn't include a safety containment vessel.

 

[xxChrisxx]

what is wrong with calculating Carnot efficiency between 2000k and 300k it is said 85% if you have new method for calculating Carnot efficiency please give me I will send it to laughter therapists (they will use it for those having difficulty in laughing).

Also I've got to say something here. You do realize that the Carnot efficiency can never be reached, right?

The closest 'real' cycle you can get is a brayton cycle for gas engines and rankine for steam cycle. The ideal cylces for these have efficiences way below the Carnot efficiency. When you start adding in real components with isentropic efficiencies <1 it becomes clear that claims of efficiency remotely close to a Carnot efficiency are an utter joke.

This is why people like Siemens and Rolls Royce are spending phenomenal amounts of money chasing tenths (if not hundredths) of percent gains in turbine and compresser efficiency.

As Russ pointed out, 2000k is optimistic for combustion temperatures. Not only that but this is a rotary, so the surface to volume ratio means you are going to be transferring a fair bit of that to the block.

 

[jack action]

I say required because setting all of the century's improvements aside for moment and looking only at the problem of individual transportation from A to B, and seen only as a self-contained engineering project, the internal combustion engine is a mistake, a disaster. No I'm not talking about all the environmental issues. I refer only to the engine itself and what's required on an auto-mobile.

(...)

Still doesn't change my view that the combustion engine is twisted joke of an engineering solution to the problem of moving things around, as compared to elegance of the electric motor.

Just like the car replaced the work horse. And horses were used for pleasure. The EV will be the work horse of tomorrow, leaving petrol engines for pleasure.

I am also a realist, we can't continue to burn oil at the rate we are. I also understand the concept of diminishing returns. The IC is 120 years old, it's coming to the end of it's development life, there is only so much you can get out of a concept.

(...)

the power generation, and delivery systems are both more efficienct for moving you along the road. Not only that but the characteristics of an electric motor make it acutally better than an IC engine for general driving. They have 100% torque from 0 RPM up to about 80% max 'revs'.

Just a little history note from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_vehicles#History":

Between 1832 and 1839 (the exact year is uncertain), Robert Anderson of Scotland invented the first crude electric carriage, powered by non-rechargeable primary cells.

Electric vehicles were among the earliest automobiles, and before the preeminence of light, powerful internal combustion engines, electric automobiles held many vehicle land speed and distance records in the early 1900s. (...) and at one point in history out-sold gasoline-powered vehicles.

So EV are 175 years old. They were 'replaced' by the 'new and improved' ICE technology about 75 years later, even if they already had all the advantages of low RPM torque and better efficiency over the ICE. A good thing that, back then, nobody said "The EV is 75 years old, it's coming to the end of it's development life, there is only so much you can get out of a concept." or we wouldn't be here having this discussion about your 'new' concept.

People did not choose ICE over EV for personal use just for the fun of it, there were major advantages.

The only thing holding electric vehicles back is energy storage.

which is about where we are today - average car can do nearly 400 miles, average EV 100 miles. Start adding to that story the ability to charge over night

Currently there simply are no drawbacks for electric vehicles apart from:
infrastructure.
energy storage.
cost.

Thats it's,

(...)

Conversely EV will have their flaws too. Suc has hot battery packs, and the stuff listed above.

energy storage, infrastructure, hot battery packs, limited range, 'filling up' measured in hours instead of minutes, cost. Oh yah, and you forgot battery performance variation with outside temp (I live in Canada, what can I say).

That's it? These are the ONLY problems to solve? After 175 years of development? You're kidding right? Cost! ... Cost! Whether right or wrong, in today's world, that's the only concern that people have on their mind, and this is a minor drawback? A 100 miles range where you have to plug-in for 1-2 hours to charge @ 80% capacity is a salable concept for an everyday car for the average family? Come on, get serious, you don't truly believe what you are all saying?

No it's not becuase its popular that it's true. It's true becuase it's true. End of.

With an argumentation like that, I guess the Earth would still be flat.

Saying you should 'ban the electric car' becuase you should be developing something else it's utterly stupid. It's product lifecycle 101. To be good and sucessful you need a product or technology on each strange of the cycle. To try to artificially extend one at the expense of a new product with more potential it's simply stupid.

If I didn't make myself clear, let me correct that: I'm not against EV and I certainly do not want to ban them. Good for us if something good came out of this. Like I said, I think the future of EV lies in railroad development and cleaner air by removing ICE long range carrier (either for people or merchandise), but not for vehicle needed for personal use. Except for some urban people that never get out of the city, I don't think EV will reach the practicality needed (for a fair price) by the average family.

It's like everyone has a 5-seater even if most of the time there is just 1 or 2 people in the car. But, once in a while, you need the 5-seater, so that's what you have. Same thing with mileage range, most of the time, you have enough of 100 miles, but once in a while you need 200 miles (and even more) and that's what your vehicle must be able to do.

IMHO, thinking that ICE is a thing of the past is pure dreaming at this point that can only lead to disappointment.

I'm not understanding this obsession with rotary engines? They are in the end an internal combustion engine, nothing special. If they were capable of higher compression ratios they might have a chance, but they just aren't (9:1 compression is a real challenge, diesels hit 20+ without trouble).

What "R&D" are you hoping to do on a rotary engine that wouldn't benefit any number of standard piston engines?

Even with perfect sealing a Wankel engine is fundementally limited in the compression ratio it can achieve just form geometry. A piston engine is only limited by the strength of the metal so you can make small economical diesels with 20:1 compression getting half that in a Wankel is real feat of engineering.

Yes piston engines have had a lot longer R&D, but all that R&D has also benefited rotary engines. Mazda weren't exactly workign with stone age tools to design their engine.

No so long ago, I was like everybody else: I looked at the numbers for the Mazda engine and concluded that they were no match for traditional engine. Since then, I had to study them a little bit more, and I found them more and more attractive (I didn't say perfect). Even if they achieve the same goal, the challenges with a rotary engine versus piston engine are world apart. So, no, you can't use R&D from one to apply blindly on the other. It's a whole other way of thinking.

Everybody seems to be stuck with the CR. Yes, it is a limited factor on the WANKEL engine. But this is not the only form of rotary engine, and some designs can achieve higher CR (I'm currently studying one model that can go up to 50:1). Even so, like I said earlier, you can pre-compress the air. For example, a two-stroke diesel engine has no compression stroke and air is compress by an external compressor before entering the cylinder. And please, don't try to figure all the flaws and saying that it will never work, this is why I'm saying R&D is important in that domain also. Again, not instead of EV R&D, but with it, concurrently. It shouldn't be as easily discarded as you're trying to do in this thread.

Whether ICE or EV, at this point in history, there will be no easy answers and a lot of R&D needed.

 

[sr241]

There are two obvious problems:
1. The high temp of a combustion engine isn't anywhere close to 2,000 K. The maximum flame temperature (in air) of gasoline is about 1,300k. That gives a maximum Carnot efficiency of 77%, assuming the Th would really be equal to the maximum flame temperature (which it wouldn't).
2. This engine isn't a Carnot engine: Carnot efficiency assumes no losses anywhere, ideal gases, etc., and isn't possible.

flame temperature is not a limit for temperature achievable. even without any flame compressing gas(or increasing pressure without changing volume) will increase its temperature. In Anyoon engine combustion is done at constant volume so maximum temperature can achieved with minimum fuel. in constant volume heat addition pressure is increasing hugely and volume is not increasing this will lead to higher temperature than flame temp. this is a basic thermodynamic fact please refer Ideal gas equation.

where he mentioned this Carnot efficiency in his site he is saying it as a limit and his engines is efficiency is within that limit that's what's his claim.

In my point of view Carnot efficiency is not a limit if we were able to recover all heat that's given we could get a 100% efficient engine. for this heat recovery Anyoon engine uses water injection in expansion stroke and also high expansion ratio.

Constant volume heat addition has least surface to volume ratio ever possible during combustion since volume is not changing ( in piston engine volume as well as surface area increase during combustion) and geometry of combustion chamber in Anyoon engine is cylindrical for swirl. Anyoon engine is entirely different from Wankel engine

 

[mheslep]

So EV are 175 years old. They were 'replaced' by the 'new and improved' ICE technology about 75 years later, even if they already had all the advantages of low RPM torque and better efficiency over the ICE. A good thing that, back then, nobody said "The EV is 75 years old, it's coming to the end of it's development life, there is only so much you can get out of a concept." or we wouldn't be here having this discussion about your 'new' concept.

People did not choose ICE over EV for personal use just for the fun of it, there were major advantages.

At that time there was only one advantage: range.

energy storage, infrastructure, hot battery packs, limited range, 'filling up' measured in hours instead of minutes,

Battery swaps require 60 seconds currently in http://www.betterplace.com/company/video-detail/tokyo-electric-taxi-project-opening/" .

cost.

Cost per mile including vehicle depreciation is about the same as a combustion vehicle with a leased battery.

Oh yah, and you forgot battery performance variation with outside temp (I live in Canada, what can I say).

Battery heater.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Can I just point to something that proves that is guy is an idiot.

http://www.cfd-online.com/Forums/blogs/dijinj/153-anyoon-rotary-engine.html

Theoretical limit of Carnote efficiency for IC engines can be overcame by injecting water for cooling by using this method even 100% efficiency is possible.

It's hard to come back from a statement like that.

 

[sr241]

just tell me if recover all heat given to system does that gives 100% efficiency. here Carnot efficiency does not hold. for 100% Carnot efficiency you either need T_hot to be infinity or T-cold to be 0 kelvin. if you have theoretical support against the above said then I will appreciate you.
In Anyoon engine he used water injection in expansion stroke for waste energy recovery. He also implemented higher expansion ratio (Atkinson cycle) simply and brilliantly.

 

[xxChrisxx]

just tell me if recover all heat given to system does that gives 100% efficiency. here Carnot efficiency does not hold. for 100% Carnot efficiency you either need T_hot to be infinity or T-cold to be 0 kelvin. if you have theoretical support against the above said then I will appreciate you.

What... if you recover all heat from a system. How the hell ae you going to build that? A 100% efficiency means the cycle is reversible.

You seem to be a slighty educated person. Are you seriously saying that a reversible thermodynamic system is possible in reality.

EDIT: I'm not sure if I am just misunderstanding you or something. I cartinly hope I am.

 

[sr241]

not all the heat of system heat that is given to it. An isentropic system is reversible

 

[xxChrisxx]

not all the heat of system heat that is given to it. An isentropic system is reversible

Could you please type in full sentences, that actually make sense.

You cannot physically build a reversible system, as it violates the 2nd law. You MUST know this.

 

[sr241]

in water injection a new working medium(water) is introduced in 3rd stage of cycle. when hot gas and water become in equilibrium inside engine, temperature will be lower than hot gases and pressure will be higher due to phase change of water. so there will be huge reduction in cooling losses . Due to higher expansion ratio these steam and gases can do more work so exhaust losses too will be greatly lower.

 

[xxChrisxx]

in water injection a new working medium(water) is introduced in 3rd stage of cycle. when hot gas and water become in equilibrium inside engine, temperature will be lower than hot gases and pressure will be higher due to phase change of water. so there will be huge reduction in cooling losses . Due to higher expansion ratio these steam and gases can do more work so exhaust losses too will be greatly lower.

It doesn't matter if you introduce a 3rd stage into the cycle or not. There are 6 strokes that use the waste heat to power a steam cycle. That is still not getting a reversible system, meaning that it's not going to get 100% efficiency. There are also water injection engines that spray water into the fuel air mix. This has all been done before.

It's just like the Rankine cycle, you can add superheaters and reheaters, and multipass turbines. But the effective increase on efficiency ISNT LINEAR. You add a second pass, you don't double the efficiency.

You can add all this crap to the engine that you want, you will not get anywhere close to the carnot efficiency. In practical t4erms you are adding maxxive amounts of complexity at increasing cost, chasing rapidly decreasing gains.

This is frankly getting bloody ridiculous now. You have clearly glossed over the fact that the inventor made the claim that it would be possible with work to make it 100% efficienct, which goes against a fundamental law of the universe. Now I don't know if that was just a language barrier thing on the inventors part, or he truly believes it. I hope it's the former, as the latter option is very worrying indeed.

 

[sr241]

second law states that "It is impossible for any system to operate in such a way that the sole result would be an energy transfer by heat from a cooler to a hotter body." So more than 100% efficiency is impossible, however it does not states near 100% efficiency is impossible.

 

[xxChrisxx]

second law states that "It is impossible for any system to operate in such a way that the sole result would be an energy transfer by heat from a cooler to a hotter body." So more than 100% efficiency is impossible, however it does not states near 100% efficiency is impossible.

Near 100% is NOT 100%.

The inventor didn't say he could get NEAR 100%. He stated flat out that it could achieve 100% efficiency. He acutally insinuates that his heat engine can exceed the carnot efficiency.

Theoretical limit of Carnote efficiency for IC engines can be overcame by injecting water for cooling by using this method even 100% efficiency is possible.

 

[Redbelly98]

for 100% Carnot efficiency you either need T_hot to be infinity or T-cold to be 0 kelvin. if you have theoretical support against the above said then I will appreciate you.

Both of these conditions are impossible to achieve. Th cannot be infinity; Tc cannot be 0 K. So 100% efficiency is impossible, as others have been saying.

Moderator's note: I am locking this thread as it has gone off topic, it was originally a discussion of electric vehicles. The current discussion is going nowhere.