International Companies Embrace Innovative Ideas, U.S. Companies Not So Much

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the reception of an innovative engine concept by international and U.S. companies, focusing on its potential efficiency and practicality. Participants explore theoretical and practical aspects of the engine's design, its components, and the implications for hybrid technology.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism about the engine's viability, questioning the lack of independent testing and theoretical support for its efficiency compared to existing hybrid technologies.
  • Concerns are raised regarding the components of the engine, particularly the effectiveness of a turbocharger, compressed-air hybrid systems, and the proposed firing mechanism.
  • One participant argues that the thermodynamics of compressed air energy storage are unfavorable, suggesting that electric hybrids are more efficient.
  • Another participant highlights potential manufacturing and maintenance costs associated with the proposed design, particularly regarding the turbo and air storage systems.
  • There is a discussion about the efficiency of energy conversion during braking, with some participants clarifying the differences between regenerative braking in hybrids and the proposed air hybrid system.
  • Some participants speculate that the air hybrid may only be beneficial in specific driving conditions, such as city driving, if it functions as intended.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the feasibility and efficiency of the proposed engine concept, with multiple competing views on its design and potential performance compared to existing technologies. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the engine's practicality and efficiency.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in the theoretical framework supporting the engine's design, as well as uncertainties regarding its operational efficiency compared to established hybrid systems. There are also unresolved questions about the specifics of how the proposed system would function in practice.

Kenneth Mann
Messages
424
Reaction score
3
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20061822-54.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20" seems like an interesting idea. I don't know how well it will pan out, but I find it interesting that U.S. companies rejected it out-of-hand, whereas companies elsewhere were more receptive. This I have noticed of American companies.

KM
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Engineering news on Phys.org
What companies have been receptive to the idea? From the description, it sounds like nonsense and it doesn't sound like they've gotten independent testing of it.

I'm skeptical.
 
russ_watters said:
What companies have been receptive to the idea? From the description, it sounds like nonsense and it doesn't sound like they've gotten independent testing of it.

I'm skeptical.

There's not even any theoretical evidence that would suggest that this engine would provide greater efficiency than your typical hybrid. If this engine came around sometime in the 70's they have been onto something, but these days I don't think you can get a whole lot better than a DISI Atkinson cycle engine with a turbo for the price.
 
From the link
The company today announced results from a simulation
(My emphasis)

Yeah, right.
 
Topher925 said:
There's not even any theoretical evidence that would suggest that this engine would provide greater efficiency than your typical hybrid.
Agreed. Theory would strongly suggest this is a load of crap. They mention 3 components to this revolutionary (no pun intended) engine:

1. A turbocharger. Yawn.
2. Compressed-air hybrid. Electric hybrid is extremely efficient and the thermodynamics of compressed air energy storage are not generally very favorable. A substantial fraction of your energy is immediately lost as heat, the storage density/capacity is low and converting the energy back to mechanical again costs you more heat. I'd be shocked if they could do at 50% efficiency what an electric can do at 80%.
3. Firing the combustion on the downstroke for better compression and leverage on the crankshaft. This one just sounds like utter nonsense and a misunderstanding of how the otto cycle works.

What scares me most is that they were able to generate $80 million in venture capital for this! :bugeye:
 
Nice concept...Packing the secondary cylinder full of turbo compressed air and emitting it into the main cylinder would mean cooler air mixture, then squirting gasoline via injectors and lighting it off just after TDC would make the most dense fuel air mix...
Russ..you got a good point..retarded spark timing? hmmm??

From manufacturing point of view..turbos add cost as does required maintenance and service cost. So does cost to design in and make associated plumbing for air storage tank.
 
Russ, are you saying that #2 is more efficient when you convert the energy of the car during braking to electric power instead of compressed air, and then back to mechanical power? Just wanting to make sure I understand it right.
 
Drakkith said:
Russ, are you saying that #2 is more efficient when you convert the energy of the car during braking to electric power instead of compressed air, and then back to mechanical power? Just wanting to make sure I understand it right.
No, I'm not talking about regenerative braking that hybrids include as an added feature, I'm talking about the electric energy storage part of the gas-electric hybrid itself. The generator, battery and motor.
 
russ_watters said:
No, I'm not talking about regenerative braking that hybrids include as an added feature, I'm talking about the electric energy storage part of the gas-electric hybrid itself. The generator, battery and motor.

Oh. How does that relate to the regnerative braking system which #2 is about then?
 
  • #10
Er, maybe I misread what they intend from #2 or they didn't explain it well. It is my understanding that on a regular hybrid, regenerative braking doesn't gain you much and I would expect the same is true for this system. If regenerative braking is the only thing this "air hybrid" concept does, it would be just horrible compared to a gas-electric hybrid: the primary benefit of a gas-electric hybrid is in the extra horsepower and efficiency available at cruising speed vs the all-electric operation in acceleration.
 
  • #11
From what I read I believe it isn't a Hybrid, but simply an efficient ICE which the addition of a regenerative braking system that compresses air during braking and feeds this air into the engine during acceleration.
 
  • #12
Ok, well if that's the only thing it does, it's quite a bit worse than I realized. All I was trying to convey is that the efficiency of the storage and use of the energy is a lot better electrically:

generator->battery->motor

is much more efficient than:

compressor->air tank->air motor

If the "air hybrid" doesn't even "recharge" at the same times (and the best times) as a standard electric hybrid, then the benefit over a regular gas engine becomes virtually nonexistent. If they only do "recharging" while braking, I'd expect under most conditions this "air hybrid" would perform worse than a regular gas engine due to the fact that it is always moving the mass of the mostly non-functional air compressor pistons.
 
  • #13
I could see that. Since it seems like the air is only used during acceleration, then It looks like you would only get a lot of use out of this in city driving. And that's only if it worked in the first place.