Posted on 09/12/2013 8:20:16 AM PDT by Red Badger
I looked at it, it’s swing piston, just a minor variant.
Is this a big jump? I thought the average for an internal combustion engine is 18-20%.
But, I'm finding claims that with direct injection, gasoline engines can get as high as 35% and diesel engines as high as 40%.
It’s a pretty good jump only if it can be done cheaply. As he said in the video, it’s uses only off-the-shelf hardware. Getting mfrs to adopt it is another matter entirely.....
My goal is rollin coal.... Black smoke from my cummins irritates the hell out of Prius drivers for some reason.
We do have a TDI Veeeee DubYa Passat that gets great mileage . Actually hit 50mpg once, going down hill in a tail wind but average about 43mpg if we keep our foot easy on the pedal.
Sure wish EPA was never invented (jimmy carter sucks duck eggs) .... Some really nice turbo diesels across the pond that get 50+ mpg all the time and they can scoot to boot. The technology exists... Bring it here yesterday !
Stay safe Red Badger ! Thanks for the ping .
Nixon created the EPA..........
My bad .... Jimmy carter still sucks duck eggs...:o)
It’s about 98 mpg.
I have a new golf diesel. Is it the diesel engine?
Ford had natural gas engines until about 10 years ago.
Big whoop, what the hell difference does that make?
"Anthropogenic global warming" is a hoax, and since there hasn't been any warming for 19 years...the whole thing is a hoax.
I thought it was Nixon.
The pistons in the Angellabs engine are not swinging, nor ae they moving back and forth in any manner, they are moving around continuously in a circular race. Download the Ecel file and watch it.
I watched the video of the mechanism turning in the lab. It has vanes or pistons, whatever we want to call them, and there is still a lot of stopping and starting in that design. From the video, I couldn’t tell if it was complete stops or not, but that is no savior of the design.
Basically, you have to have this type of method to compress the fuel charge and flush the cylinders, and the translate the expanding gas into movement.
It will have sealing issues, longevity issues, oiling issues, and just general energy loss from components which accelerate and decelerate to provide the necessary actions to produce power. Not to mention due to the sealing issues, reduced compression, which also harms thermal efficiency.
There is just no working around that. Computer controls can boost combustion efficiency, optimize spark, etc. but they can’t extract water from rock, as it were.
This engine is much like a Wankel. It can support very high _power density_, but it is inherently inefficient. This is also a major limitation with gas turbines. Very high power density, low thermal efficiency due to low compression and sealing issues (there is no “seal” in a gas turbine).
True alternative power is the electric motor. Even the cheapest blender or golf cart motor is around 40% efficient. Electric is the future, should we ever run out of petrol to burn in our diesels or direct injected gasoline engines. Even if you take system efficiency into account with fuel cells, and take the worst fuel cell and the worst electric motor, the combined thermal efficiency (energy out over energy in), you will get 24%. A typical car engine while cruising at part throttle is around 10 to 15% (a gasoline engine increases in efficiency as the throttle opens, probably nearing 35% nowadays), due to pumping losses.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.