Plastic combustion engines and why aren't they used

[Vinni]

The link is to an article that describes the history of plastic combustion engines! The reason they are not in your automobile is that those who are experts don't like the idea. There are incentives in the U.S. to make cars more fuel efficient by some 5 years from now but the plastic combustal engine was made practical in 1980 or so! Literally making cars far lighter and given that they were practical since 1980, if those that had the power to shift the pardigm did so, we would be 30 years ahead in the development of plastic combustable engines!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/automobiles/25PLASTIC.html?pagewanted=all


We, the common people of the earth, need to wake up to what is happening. This technology has implications that stretch from common transportation to space travel! Why are we not benefiting from something that has been practical since 1980? Something that at least our government spending in new tech and R&D should have explored.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Your question is basically answered in the article:

“While half of the aluminum car wheels now come from China, the foundries supplying major aluminum power train castings are captive,” said Richard A. Schultz, a consultant at Ducker Worldwide, using the industry term for operations owned by the automakers. “Energy consumption is not an issue, their aluminum scrap is readily recycled, and the cycle time with plastic would surely be longer.”

Jay Baron, president and chief executive of the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Mich., pointed out that the auto industry is staunchly risk-averse. “They’re not about to manufacture thousands of vehicles with engines that could fail in service,” he said. “Since plastic engine castings are outside any car company’s mainstream business, all the cost, processing and durability issues would have to be resolved in the supply base.”

 

[Vinni]

Jay Baron, president and chief executive of the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Mich., pointed out that the auto industry is staunchly risk-averse. “They’re not about to manufacture thousands of vehicles with engines that could fail in service,” he said. “Since plastic engine castings are outside any car company’s mainstream business, all the cost, processing and durability issues would have to be resolved in the supply base.:

My point being is since they are risk adverse and considering companies like GM and Chrysler that have been bailed out because of the inability to adpat and exploit new technology, why has my tax dollars gone to such lost causes as maintaining bad ideas? Shouldn't this plastic technology be pursued rather than bail out these companies? Wouldn't society be better off by funding the development of a proven technology than funding poorly run companies that just don't get it?

 

[zoobyshoe]

My point being is since they are risk adverse and considering companies like GM and Chrysler that have been bailed out because of the inability to adpat and exploit new technology, why has my tax dollars gone to such lost causes as maintaining bad ideas? Shouldn't this plastic technology be pursued rather than bail out these companies? Wouldn't society be better off by funding the development of a proven technology than funding poorly run companies that just don't get it?

The plastic engines are only proven in the sense that "proof of concept" has been achieved. They aren't at all vetted in practical terms and that is what makes the car companies skittish. They want someone else to solve all the potential problems.

 

[Vinni]

The plastic engines are only proven in the sense that "proof of concept" has been achieved. They aren't at all vetted in practical terms and that is what makes the car companies skittish. They want someone else to solve all the potential problems.

Agreed, but the question still stands why should the U.S. tax payer bailout badly run companies instead of developing a potential technology that can revolutionize an industry?

 

[wuliheron]

My point being is since they are risk adverse and considering companies like GM and Chrysler that have been bailed out because of the inability to adpat and exploit new technology, why has my tax dollars gone to such lost causes as maintaining bad ideas? Shouldn't this plastic technology be pursued rather than bail out these companies? Wouldn't society be better off by funding the development of a proven technology than funding poorly run companies that just don't get it?

Are you seriously asking why your tax dollars are being used to support major contributors to political campaigns?

 

[Vinni]

Are you seriously asking why your tax dollars are being used to support major contributors to political campaigns?

By that implication then what good is a democracy when its being controlled and exploited by groups whose objectives aren't about what's good for society? What good is it to vote?
Once politicians are in office there is little to nothing those that voted for them can do about preventing against abusing the system.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Vinni don't take this the wrong way but you're taking a very Amerocentric view on this (and other) topic. There are many other countries in the world and many other companies. If this technology was so old yet brilliant why do you think that it hasn't taken off somewhere?

 

[wuliheron]

By that implication then what good is a democracy when its being controlled and exploited by groups whose objectives aren't about what's good for society? What good is it to vote?
Once politicians are in office there is little to nothing those that voted for them can do about preventing against abusing the system.

That is democracy. Its a tradition dating back to the first Athenian democracy where every person's vote was for sale. The American people voted for a system that allowed the wealthy, corporations, and special interest groups to influence their political system. At any time the American people can vote to change that system but, instead, they appear to prefer just complaining whenever it costs them money.

And, of course, insisting anyone who doesn't vote shouldn't have the right to complain...

 

[Vinni]

Vinni don't take this the wrong way but you're taking a very Amerocentric view on this (and other) topic. There are many other countries in the world and many other companies. If this technology was so old yet brilliant why do you think that it hasn't taken off somewhere?

For the same reasons that it didn't take off in the U.S. However the technology was developed in the U.S. and tested in high performance environments. The automotive industry in general tends to use gimicky ad campaigns that try to sell a life style or status symbol. So it would appear those companies are just as risk adverse as U.S. companies and stick to tried and tested business models to sell cars.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

For the same reasons that it didn't take off in the U.S. However the technology was developed in the U.S. and tested in high performance environments. The automotive industry in general tends to use gimicky ad campaigns that try to sell a life style or status symbol. So it would appear those companies are just as risk adverse as U.S. companies and stick to tried and tested business models to sell cars.

I realize that this is a post in GD but PF rules still apply. Claims must be backed up by evidence. Handwaving legitimate questions or statements away with a vague personal opinion is not good enough.

Why don't you look into what research has taken place worldwide over this technology, what the problems with implementation are and what, if anything, is being done about it rather than posting one article before repeatably stating your opinion.

 

[Vinni]

At any time the American people can vote to change that system but, instead, they appear to prefer just complaining whenever it costs them money.

And exactly how would the American people make that change that would prevent the abuses that are infact illegal?

What politicians do is rationalize a legal basis that allows them, through the law, to favor big business. But if they said outright they're going to favor big business it would be against the law!

Socialism doesn't work, capitalist unregulated and regulated economies don't work, what's left? A social cultural attitude adjustment? Something like the renaissance of the middle ages, only favoring small to mid size businesses by implementing ant-trust laws to keep markets open and competitive?

 

[russ_watters]

Agreed, but the question still stands why should the U.S. tax payer bailout badly run companies instead of developing a potential technology that can revolutionize an industry?

Even in a bailout, the government's ability to dictate terms to the car companies is not absolute. The US is still capitalist.

Also, I love how the article compares composites used in the Dreamliner to a plastic car engine...as if the Dreamliner has plastic jet engines.

 

[Vinni]

Also, I love how the article compares composites used in the Dreamliner to a plastic car engine...as if the Dreamliner has plastic jet engines.

It does so in a comparison to the stresses of its wings traveling at 600 mph. It doesn't make any innuendo that the Dreamliner is using plastic jet engines. But then again is it possible to make plastic jet engines? After all plastic internal combustion engines were used in high performance race cars.

 

[AlephZero]

Even in a bailout, the government's ability to dictate terms to the car companies is not absolute. The US is still capitalist.

Also, I love how the article compares composites used in the Dreamliner to a plastic car engine...as if the Dreamliner has plastic jet engines.

And they don't mention the fact that the Dreamliner project is 3 years late and goodness knows how much over budget. Sure, Boeing have finally managed to deliver one aircraft to a customer, but it's not at all clear if they can ramp up the production lines to match the size of the order book.

 

[AlephZero]

But then again is it possible to make plastic jet engines? After all plastic internal combustion engines were used in high performance race cars.

Given the fairly loose definition of "plastic" that seems to be used here, then many parts of jet engines are made of "plastic" already. But car engines don't operate at anywhere near the temperatures and pressures in a jet engine core. Compare a water-cooled car engine using coolant at say 90C, with an air-cooled jet engine using "cooling air" at more like 900C for example.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Out of interest what 'plastic' did they use to make these engines?

 

[wuliheron]

And exactly how would the American people make that change that would prevent the abuses that are infact illegal?

What politicians do is rationalize a legal basis that allows them, through the law, to favor big business. But if they said outright they're going to favor big business it would be against the law!

Socialism doesn't work, capitalist unregulated and regulated economies don't work, what's left? A social cultural attitude adjustment? Something like the renaissance of the middle ages, only favoring small to mid size businesses by implementing ant-trust laws to keep markets open and competitive?

The state of Maryland outlawed voting for Mickey Mouse when he came close to winning, but there is certainly no law forcing anyone to vote for people taking large campaign contributions from anyone. That's neither socialism or capitalism, just a fact of life.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Out of interest what 'plastic' did they use to make these engines?

I believe it's called Torlon.

 

[xxChrisxx]

I believe it's called Torlon.

They are colossally expensive aren't they? I know PEEK and polyimides are. No wonder they've not been adopted.

 

[Astronuc]

It does so in a comparison to the stresses of its wings traveling at 600 mph. It doesn't make any innuendo that the Dreamliner is using plastic jet engines. But then again is it possible to make plastic jet engines? After all plastic internal combustion engines were used in high performance race cars.

I believe Russ is referring to this statement: "This raises a logical question: if modern plastics are sturdy enough for 600 mile-per-hour airplanes, why are car engines still made by pouring molten metal into molds, a 6,000-year-old process?" That statement is not a logical question. There is considerable omission, notably the different operating conditions of the plastic composites (as used in the aircraft) vs automobile combustion engines.

Here's an article on the use of composites by Airbus. I haven't verified it though.
http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sciencetech/airbus-composites-trial-part-one/13300

 

[russ_watters]

It does so in a comparison to the stresses of its wings traveling at 600 mph. It doesn't make any innuendo that the Dreamliner is using plastic jet engines.

I know, but citing the example implies a relevant comparison where none actually exists.

 

[Vinni]

They are colossally expensive aren't they? I know PEEK and polyimides are. No wonder they've not been adopted.

They're about $18 to $26 per pound when sold in volumes of 2000 to 4000 pound orders.

Torlon: Polyamide/imide

http://www.plasticsnews.com/resin-pricing/high-temp-tps.html

For a 50 pound engine capable of +200 hp that's only $1300, of course that's not including the forming costs but with mass production and higher volumes the cost would come down dramatically. Also they are about half the costs of PEEK!

I know, but citing the example implies a relevant comparison where none actually exists.

Well if the guy didn't make one for a race car, that worked I may add, maybe you'd be right.

I believe Russ is referring to this statement: "This raises a logical question: if modern plastics are sturdy enough for 600 mile-per-hour airplanes, why are car engines still made by pouring molten metal into molds, a 6,000-year-old process?" That statement is not a logical question. There is considerable omission, notably the different operating conditions of the plastic composites (as used in the aircraft) vs automobile combustion engines.

But as posted before a proof of concept was demonstrated that a combustion engine that was used in a race car was developed and operated in competition!

Given the fairly loose definition of "plastic" that seems to be used here, then many parts of jet engines are made of "plastic" already. But car engines don't operate at anywhere near the temperatures and pressures in a jet engine core. Compare a water-cooled car engine using coolant at say 90C, with an air-cooled jet engine using "cooling air" at more like 900C for example.

As noted in the article just using plastic did not work, he lined the combustion chambers with aluminum or iron. The temperature of the explosive gas in a cyclinder is comparable to pressures and temperatures of a Jet engine. Using similar techniques used in the combustion chamber of the plastic engine could be used in the jet engine core.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

But as posted before a proof of concept was demonstrated that a combustion engine that was used in a race car was developed and operated in competition!

Proof of concept is literally just that. It doesn't get over the realities of how practical it is to pursue, one of the biggest criticisms of this technology is that it is untested (i.e. it doesn't have decades and millions of miles behind it), it would require a paradigm shift in training for the whole industry and the infrastructure of the industry is not built around it. Therefore there is no economic benefit to switch over to it.

Another example to this is the http://www.joeharmondesign.com/", a car made literally from wood. It too has had proof of concept but the industry isn't leaping to adopt it. Why? Because everything works the way it is now and retooling the entire industry would be a massive economic undertaking for minimal gain which ultimately would end up costing the consumer more. New technologies are taken on slowly and incrementally once they have past a series of tests and have a very good track record plus good evidence for a route to market, not when they have proof of principle.

EDIT: Vinni please learn to use the "multi quote" button when responding to multiple posters. Simple click the button for every poster you want to reply to and then click the normal "quote" button for the last as well.

 

[Studiot]

Good evening Vinni,

Do you have any more references to back your ideas or or are they solely based on one ill informed NYtimes article?

For your information plastic and other non metallic engine main components have been attempted several times in Europe, particularly in rotary engines.

As I understand the main problem, which has yet to be overcome, is that these materials have not yet been developed to be as dimensionally stable as metal, particularly over time.
This is a particularly serious drawback for engines, which could not tolerate the dimensional changes suffered by for instance glass fibre reinforced plastics body shells. For body parts the problem has been partly overcome and more and more parts are now of plastic.

go well

 

[Vinni]

Proof of concept is literally just that. It doesn't get over the realities of how practical it is to pursue, one of the biggest criticisms of this technology is that it is untested (i.e. it doesn't have decades and millions of miles behind it), it would require a paradigm shift in training for the whole industry and the infrastructure of the industry is not built around it. Therefore there is no economic benefit to switch over to it.

Another example to this is the http://www.joeharmondesign.com/", a car made literally from wood. It too has had proof of concept but the industry isn't leaping to adopt it. Why? Because everything works the way it is now and retooling the entire industry would be a massive economic undertaking for minimal gain which ultimately would end up costing the consumer more. New technologies are taken on slowly and incrementally once they have past a series of tests and have a very good track record plus good evidence for a route to market, not when they have proof of principle.

EDIT: Vinni please learn to use the "multi quote" button when responding to multiple posters. Simple click the button for every poster you want to reply to and then click the normal "quote" button for the last as well.

One could have argued the same for the CRT which was replaced by the LCD. All of which happened, in comparison to how the auto industry operates, in a blink of an eye, 10 years!

 

[Ryan_m_b]

One could have argued the same for the CRT which was replaced by the LCD. All of which happened, in comparison to how the auto industry operates, in a blink of an eye, 10 years!

Do you have any specific references for why that was the case? Sometimes things get adopted quickly i.e only a few years after their invention. Some things get adopted slowly e.g. the MP3 player that was invented decades before it came out. I'm sure you can appreciate that such things are multifactorial and it is very simplistic and fallacious to just compare the time between invention and introduction.

 

[Studiot]

I'm sure you can appreciate that such things are multifactorial and it is very simplistic and fallacious to just compare the time between invention and introduction.

It's worse than that in some cases as for instance the sufferers from Thalidomide can testify.
This was certainly a technology introduced far too quickly.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

It's worse than that in some cases as for instance the sufferers from Thalidomide can testify.
This was certainly a technology introduced far too quickly.

Thalidomide did indeed highlight the need for far more testing of drugs. It past all the tests at the time fine but it was never tested in developing foetuses (a huge oversight considering its intended anti-nausea use). IIRC only one chirality of thalidomide is dangerous and so it's making a bit of a comeback.

 

[pantaz]

... After all plastic internal combustion engines were used in high performance race cars.

Wikipedia mentions two "plastic engines" (without citations). I am very familiar with the first one. I worked for the engineer that was hired for independent analysis of its failure to function. (I was just an apprentice machinist, but the design flaws were obvious even to me.)

No citations are provided for the second engine mentioned, "based upon the Cosworth BDA".

 

[Vinni]

Wikipedia mentions two "plastic engines" (without citations). I am very familiar with the first one. I worked for the engineer that was hired for independent analysis of its failure to function. (I was just an apprentice machinist, but the design flaws were obvious even to me.)

No citations are provided for the second engine mentioned, "based upon the Cosworth BDA".

From the article:

Shortly after Mr. Holtzberg’s first engine successfully ran, an article in Automotive Industries, a trade magazine, inquired, “What...a Plastic Engine?” Two years later, Popular Science featured a Polimotor on its cover. By then, Mr. Holtzberg had progressed to a second-generation 300-horsepower design weighing 152 pounds; a stock Pinto engine made 88 horsepower and weighed 415 pounds.

To prove that his plastic powerplant was durable, Mr. Holtzberg campaigned a Lola racecar in the International Motor Sports Association’s Camel Lights series. Amoco Chemical provided financial backing to promote its Torlon plastic resin. The only mishap during half-a-dozen 1984 and 1985 races was the failure of a connecting rod, a part purchased from an outside supplier.

 

[pantaz]

From the article:

That newspaper article appears to be based solely on an interview with Holtzberg. I tried a couple of Google searches and the only additional sources seem to be old forum posts.

 

[Vinni]

That newspaper article appears to be based solely on an interview with Holtzberg. I tried a couple of Google searches and the only additional sources seem to be old forum posts.

Hardly just Mr. Holtzberg;

Ed Graham, engineering manager at ProtoCam in Northampton, Pa was cited.

James Huntsman, vice president of the advanced materials division at Huntsman Corporation, was cited.

Richard A. Schultz, a consultant at Ducker Worldwide, was cited.

Jay Baron, president and chief executive of the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Mich, was cited.

And Popular Science wrote an article about it and made it the cover story and Automotive Industries wrote about the engine.

 

[pantaz]

Hardly just Mr. Holtzberg;

Ed Graham, engineering manager at ProtoCam in Northampton, Pa was cited.

The article's quote from Ed Graham is about "using Mr. Holtzberg’s approach to manufacture rapid-prototyping components". He's made parts for "experimental engines and transmissions."

James Huntsman, vice president of the advanced materials division at Huntsman Corporation, was cited.

Huntsman only says, "We’re convinced that the time is right for a composite engine." That's a long way from demonstrating a functional engine.

Richard A. Schultz, a consultant at Ducker Worldwide, was cited.

Mr. Schultz talks only about a potential problem with manufacturing wheels from plastic instead of aluminum.

Jay Baron, president and chief executive of the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Mich, was cited.

Mr. Baron was the most on-point with our discussion here: "They’re not about to manufacture thousands of vehicles with engines that could fail in service," he said. "Since plastic engine castings are outside any car company's mainstream business, all the cost, processing and durability issues would have to be resolved in the supply base."

And Popular Science wrote an article about it and made it the cover story and Automotive Industries wrote about the engine.

Do you have links to those articles? I tried a couple of searches but didn't find anything relevant.

I'm not claiming that an internal combustion engine can't be constructed from composite materials. I just have not seen evidence of a functioning, all-composite* engine.

* "All composite" within reason -- I would expect metal fasteners, and likely a metal crankshaft. Also, the combustion chamber (cylinder liner, piston top, cylinder head) would likely require metal surfaces.

 

[Allenman]

I have to say, when I first looked at the thread title, I was expecting to see ICE's that used plastic as fuel. Haha

ICE's made out of plastic are equally impressive though. Though I don't know how long they would last. As a mechanic, I usually hate plastics in the engine bay. They almost always become brittle in the dry heat over time. Also they usually give you nice scratches all over your arms when you work in proximity to them.

There are a couple things that would be needed to take into account for this to be feasible in my eyes. One, if the cylinder heads are also made out of plastic I would try to opt for a springless valvetrain. The immense tension put on the springs from the cam would easily pop a cam bearing cap over time or possibly even crack the head... If an aluminum head is used with the plastic block, you'd have to watch the heat expansion of the head to make sure you don't pull the threads out of the block.

Not to mention, novice mechanics tend to over tighten everything. I would expect a lot of parts to crack just from the mechanic tightening the bolts.

It's a good idea and it will work. But, the question is how long will it work before you encounter problems.