It is 5 times more efficient than conventional automobile internal combustion engines, and 3.5 times more efficient than hybrid automobile engines. It reduces auto emissions up to 90 percent, because the engine uses 60 percent of its fuel for propulsion, compared to a typical car engine that uses only 15 percent of fuel for propulsion. It does not have pistons, crankshafts, valves, or a transmission system, cooling system, emissions regulation or fluids reducing costs of the engine system 30% and maintenance costs. And, it can operate on natural gas, gasoline, hydrogen and other fuels.
… or just a lot about nothing?
Update: A little bit more info …
Let’s hope. The traditional piston engine always struck me as an inherently inefficient configuration vs for instance turbines. But I’m no engineer and would be keen to hear the comments of those who are.
If the usual suspects attack this with the zeal they reserve for Sarah Palin….we will know there is something to it.
Neat idea.
He VERY CAREFULLY neglected to mention HP equivilent. 25Kw output sounds fine, until you realize it is a CRANKING 33 HP……
So a conservative estimate on commercial viability would be… 25 years? Lots and lots of bugs to be worked out no doubt.
But at least it hasa better chance of replacing IC than batteries and Gen sets.
DrD
[……The traditional piston engine always struck me as an inherently inefficient configuration vs for instance turbines…..]
It took a helluva time to get gas turbines efficient enough to challenge pistons….still a problem. The turbine powered M1 Adrams chief failing is it’s fuel consumption…even considering it’s power to weight ratio….diesels have more range.
Steam still rules for Marine use…..despite it’s high maintainence and poor response for emergency power. Steam remained the motive force for railway use…for good reason..not a lack of imagination.
Okay…..33hp ain’t large but multiples???
5-6 units should smoke the tires…..
Turbine engines are extremely inefficient DrD. Aviation turbo shaft engines have a specific fuel consumption of around .6-.7 lb/hp/hr. Air cooled piston engines are around .45, liquid cooled car engines are around .39, and diesels are in the mid .3s.
Turbines are used in aircraft for their extremely high power to weight efficiency, but hp for hp they are extremely thirsty, worse even than two-stroke piston engines.
I remember taking Auto in highschool back in the early 70’s and my teacher was telling us that most of what we were learning was going to be useless in a couple years because of the introduction of the rotary engine. I take all major automotive announcements now with a grain of salt.
I agree with AtlanticJim.
If it’s 4 times more efficient, why does it only offer a 500-mile plus driving range? And why does it need a high-rpm generator? Why can’t it gear down first?
I would change one sentence in the ARPA-E proposal:
“Why ARPA-E Funding and Not Private Capital:
– This is cutting-edge research with ambiguous claims that private capital won’t accept.”
If you need to run 5 or 6 then any fuel and construction savings are shot. A decently maintained 2 litre 4 cyl will cost less for the same fuel consumption. And it will do it without a need for batteries for over taking.
And steam hasn’t been used in shipping since the 70’s sasquatch. Commercial hulls use diesels, either in a direct drive to the prop or to run a generator to turn the screw. Warships use almost exclusively gas turbines with diesels for cruising.
Not saying there is no promise or use for this tech, but like any brand new tech, you need to delete hype and see performance over the long term. If it pumps out 25Kw, I would gladly put a generator using it in for my 6Kw unit at much lower fuel costs!
Could this be the Wankel redux? I’ll wait before passing judgement.
Is this another one of those things that will be surpressed by, oh, let me see… a) Big oil, b) N. American car manufacturers, c) Republicans on the take, d) Mike Harris (gone but not forgotten), e) The Christian Right.
Forget anyone? Oh, ‘scusez moi…the Freemasons and the Jews…sorry ’bout that.
Had a friend that owned a Wankel. Seals were shot so they replaced the engine gratis. Not a bad deal for an auction vehicle. This sounds a lot like that. If I remember correctly it was a thirsty beast.
The comments at the second link pretty well sum it up. And it’s not an alternative to internal combustion; it’s just a different configuration of internal combustion engine.
I doubt this will ever see the light of day, and it won’t be because of “conspiracies”.
I was thinking Wankel rotary myself when I saw the diagram. Just a souped up version of the same principles. I think pistons have some uniquely spectacular power making properties that are difficult to beat.
This is terrible. My slot on the waiting list for a super flywheel powered 200mph sports car has finally
reached production slot 2013-450 after me patiently waiting for 40 years. Now it’s old hat.
“Then you put this little pill in the tank full of water under here and you have free fuel.”
It sure is quiet for a shock wave combustion unit.
Every gas shortage crisis in the old days someone would come out of the woodwork with a “secret” carburetor
needing only the sale of a few million dollars of stock to get the ball rolling. The ones they even bothered to throw
together were basically vapourizers. Engines require ignited aerosol mixtures to smoothly push down on pistons not
unstable vapour mixtures to explode within the confined space of a cylinder. It doesn’t help much to get 100 miles to
the gallon if the engine is a wreck by 500 miles.
I, too, was thinking Wankel rotary when I looked at the details. I suspect the same problems, as well. The Wankel’s reputation as a fuel-hog was slightly undeserved. It ran reasonably efficiently, as I recall, until you started adding on all the emissions control equipment to allow it to meet EPA requirements. The end result was rather poor fuel efficiency. Ever tightening emissions limits have kept the engine as almost a novelty for use in specialty high-performance vehicles where weight/power is important and fuel economy isn’t.
Did I miss something or does the good professor do nothing but but talk. In fact the only wave I saw shock or otherwise was the prof waving his machine in the air. I would like to see the machine in operation.
I do not believe we will see this little thingy running our cars and trucks.
Even if it did turn out to be an authentic and useful device as it is stated to be, do you think the auto industry is going to can it’s current multi billion dollar traditional combustion engine factories with all the jobs involved around producing the various parts and thingamajigs needed to complete the current power train?
The Unions will never allow it for one thing. And the oil companies won’t allow it for another thing.
I’ve written articles on alternative energy sources and my recommendation for such claims is this:
Believe it when someone places a working prototype on your desk.
Extraordinary claims are a dime a dozen. If all you’ve got is talk, then that’s all you’ve got, no matter how impressive that rhetoric is.
At least this claim keeps the efficiency below 100%, a big step up from many others.
Saw this a couple of weeks back and it seems more conventional, and if the US Army is backing part of the funding then it may be closer to immediate production than a “shock”.
http://www.engineeringtv.com/video/Opposed-Piston-Opposed-Cylinder
Froman:
I seriously doubt the validity of these claims.
But if it were true it would be impossible to suppress it. The auto industry would be delighted with such an invention. They would likely sell far more cars with far more horse power, as the cost of running the cars would be reduced.
The petroleum industry wouldn’t like it much, but rumours of the industry suppressing technology it doesn’t like is just that – rumours. I’ve never seen any credible evidence that they’ve ever done so, and I don’t see how they could if they wanted to.
At any rate, how could Exxon prevent countries like India, China, or Brazil from exploiting this technology? Exxon is powerful but not that powerful.
But it’s all moot, as I doubt this claim will ever come to anything.
AtlanticJim
Steam is not used for marine because of fuel efficiency….it’s lack of flexibility and high maintaince (triple expansion)….steam turbines are more flex….but I remind that nuclear powered warships…submarines/aircraft carriers are basically steam ships……..
CODAG—combined diesel and gas is perhaps the most popular.
COSAG—combined steam and gas give the best range.
COGAG—combined gas and gas…is lightest and most compact….except for the intake and exhaust ducting.
Everything is a compromise….
This shock wave engine needs a high rpm generator because gear reduction would probably kill it…no torque.
And then it’s still a stupid hybred with a heavy battery….don’t expect it in the Indy….
Oil companies are indifferent….they have diversafied into many other enterprises such as chemicals.
never show this to an engineer, if you dont want to be laughed at
I bought a Ford truck in 1980, and on my first road trip, I noticed the gas gauge wasn’t moving. When I came to the first town, I decided to fill up, just to be sure i wasn’t empty. To my surprise, it only took about $2 to fill it. I was on the road for a couple of weeks, and calculated the gas mileage to be about 40 MPG. When I got back home I had a call about a safety recall on the truck, and the dealer had to have it for a full day. When I got it back, it was only getting about 15 MPG. I wish I’d ignored that recall, because no one at the dealership, or factory would admit there was anything done to the engine. Pretty suspicious, eh?
Modern diesels even with all the EPA garbage (DPF, EGR, SCR) are around 38-42% efficient. If you built a non-epa compliant engine you could get up around 48% efficient with all of the latest gadgetry.
I doubt this engine would even hit 60% efficiency. It just looks like a weird wankel.
Thanks for the comments. The great advantage of SDA — immediate feedback from true experts vs the bimbos in the MSM.
Another hare brained scheme to rid the public of hard earned dollars. Every ten years or so, another new engine pops up. The company sucks millions of investment dollars from an unsuspecting public. Then one day you open the Financial Post only to discover your shares are worthless, and the guys who promised the 100 MPG engine are in the Caymen Islands.
Been there, lost the investment. Trust me, Ford would have had the engine running years ago, and it would have saved them having to engineer another failed electric car. But they do have to appease the greenies.
Coach: My Dad and my Bro were Ford dealers. That’s an urban myth and you know it! I sold Ford for many years. No Ford pickup ever got 40 MPG save a few Rangers that had diesel engines.
Rabbit,
There hasn’t been anything to suppress as yet … just a lot of rumors.
If this thing turns out to be the real thing, we will find out how the oil and auto industry react.
Should be interesting at least. I maintain, if this device is real it will kill thousands of jobs … mostly union jobs.
Carnot Cycle.
I am sure some one here can explain it better than I – it has been awhile.
When ever you hear of fantastic fuel efficiency claims, always ask how the Carnot Cycle fits in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot_cycle
Froman:
In modern times, newer technologies are constantly replacing older technologies, almost always at the expense of someone’s entrenched interests.
In the unlikely event this claim turns out to be valid, unions and oil companies won’t mean spit. Let’s leave The Men In Black to the movies.
Here’s an interesting and workable design:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crower_six_stroke
Looks fishy. That fuel-air mixture isn’t going to combust with any magical “shockwaves” – at least not with that design.
Yeah, it looks like a cross between a wankel and a jet-turbine. The biggest problem with jet turbines is that they use about half of their power output just to spin the compressors. If they’ve found some way to merge the compressors with the combustion chamber and turbine, and significantly reduced the power used for the compression phase, then they might theoretically hit the efficiencies they’re talking about … but it seems extremely unlikely. They need to go into more detail about how they’re achieving compression before I’d grant their claims even provisional acceptance.
I recall that Teledyne-Continental had running prototypes of adiabatic diesels. Adiabatic meaning no cooling system….a major saving of power and weight. The only materials capable of withstanding the temps were special ceramics…literally a china motor.
Fuel efficiancy and reliability were confirmed….but….the exhaust heat signature made these suicidally useless for the military and the Nitrogen emissions from the incredibly high cylinder temperatures made them incapable of meeting EPA standards for civilian use…..
I’ll take this seriously when countless factories in energy starved nations like China (where copyright and patent laws mean squat) and India are cranking out these things by the millions for local consumption, never mind for export.
Just like those miraculous 100MPG carburetors, turning water to fuel gimmicks, etc, they simply do not appear where they are needed the very most. I won’t hold my breath this time either.
SsssssssssNAKE Oil!
You want outrageous efficiency, diesel is it. Volks TDI currently beats all comers for fuel mileage, the new Ford truck diesel hauls a crew cab 4×4 around at 20mpg highway, 17mpg city. They can do better if you tweak them with water/alcohol injection, propane injection, nitrous, etc.
In perusing a few diesel truck mags, I’ve seen some -very- interesting ideas to do with coupling an exhaust driven turbo to the crankshaft like a supercharger, giving you a combination turbo/supercharger to pump the air, AND using waste heat from the exhaust to actually move the car. Kewl stuff.
Rotary engines are great if you want to produce huge power at shriekingly high RPMs from a very small package, and you don’t care about gas mileage. Awesome in a sand car, for example.
Turbines, again huge, huge power in a small package, terrible gas mileage but they can burn -anything-, including finely crushed coal dust. Hard on the compressor blades, but it works.
That’s why they went with the turbine in the M1 Abrams, fuel flexibility. It will run on anything from gasoline to jet fuel, diesel, even mineral oil, french fry oil, natural gas, propane, whatever.
Come on Plainzryder, admit it, you guys covered up the technology, because of pressure from oil companies haha. BTW, do you know anything about the 84 SVO? I have one, and can’t find a mechanic who can figure it out. I wish the 4 cylinder turbo would make a comeback. Now that turbocharging has been perfected in trucks, I think a 4 banger turbo would be a big seller, in something like a mustang.
Today’s diesels burn more fuel than the early ones, because of complicated electronics, too much power, and inferior fuel. I switched from diesel to gas trucks a couple of years ago. Not that I’m saving money, but I got tired of the noise, smell, etc.
Why its nothing more than a waffle iron with a phone attached
/grampa simpson
This item makes more sense … perhaps it could work to help the problems with oil and obesity at the same time.
HERE
This is vaguely reminiscent of something called the K-Miller cycle design, ALSO a rotary design, operating against a stator.
Very clever, theoretically powerful and efficient. Big problem: SEALS
Like the Wankel, currently found on the Mazda Rx-8 (Nice car), the technology has to rely on seals ( equivalent to Piston rings) that unfortunately can seal less pressure and suffer more from sliding wear (because they are more exposed to higher speeds and higher engine temps.
I had materials guy tell me that the sealing problem was more one of cost than technological feasibility, with seals that cost mega $$$ he could make motor work fine, but the price wasn’t worth it. The efficiency wasn’t much greater than piston, and the sunk cost of the vehicle was silly.
It’s kind of like Silicon computer chips vs. Every other technology for chips, Gallium Arsenide for instance.
Si chips have an installed base in billions and billions ( hell: _one_ chip fab is 4-5 billion this days) and are supported by a vast array of research and manufacturing. Until now all the theoretical advantages of exotic materials are usually BLOWN AWAY by the constant advances of practical ( but wildly advanced) Silicon engineering. In order for those “Other” technologies to work you’d have to spend trillions and the advantages aren’t extreme.
coach said: “Today’s diesels burn more fuel than the early ones, because of complicated electronics, too much power, and inferior fuel.”
Coach, buddy. 2011 Ford F-250 diesel. Crew cab, long box, 4×4, four adults and 300lbs of sand ballast on board, twenty miles per gallon highway.
The Ford 6.0 and 6.4, totally another story. Both these engines were crippled by exhaust gas recirculation and soot capture devices that use fuel to burn up the soot. Pollution controls basically rob these two engines of both power and mileage. If you take all that off and reprogram the computer you can get 25 MPG and 450 HP out of either one, no sweat.
Volkswagen Jetta TDI, 45-50 MPG, that’s five zero, right out the showroom door. If you fiddle with it by adding water/alcohol injection you can get 60 MPG with zero other modifications.
Snow Performance built one. You can see it in this month’s Diesel World or you can see it here:
http://www.snowperformance.net/
I want one.
Not enough details shown anywhere, but the rotor part seems to be rotating in a constant volume chamber, thus no opportunity for compression and no diesel type ignition. And then, what is the high pressure spent charge expanding against?
If it is using a “shock” wave, ie detonation, I wonder how long until the thing tears itself apart.
the exhaust is leaving as the fresh charge is entering…. same thing makes 2 stroke engines horribly inefficient, fuel consumption wise.
what is forming the seal between each chamber?
The thing in his hand has to be a desktop mock up, not a real engine….size is all wrong.
Snake oil here I think.
Phantom, My switch to gas engines sort of coincided with a downsizing trend. If I were to need a heavy hauler, I’d buy a diesel, for sure. I was hoping the rumors of a small diesel for the 1/2 tons were true, but apparently not.
Theoretically, with an ignition combustion engine (gasoline), the best you can expect is about 25% efficiency. The rest of the heat energy is dissipated by the rad and blown out the tailpipe. The best a compression ignition (diesel engine) will give you is about 33% efficiency. The only way around this is to have some kind of combined cycle that could utilize some of the waste heat for motive purposes. Or perhaps you could tweak the gear ratios?
I believe Rockwell are onto something – see the following video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sn4WF7z8__4
I much prefer the HHO engine
Dodge 1500 With An HHO Install
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjqkHhWUKOU
Real meat and potatoes environmentalism, not the Madison avenue version.
LOL
Yeah, you’re running your truck on water. Sure. And I’m Kris Kringle.
Not enough details shown anywhere, but the rotor part seems to be rotating in a constant volume chamber, thus no opportunity for compression and no diesel type ignition.
Exactly. The compression is solely from the “shock wave”? Good luck.
You know for what it is worth , IMHO i THINK gas engines are pretty efficent maybe not consumption burn ration type stuff but think of what your engine does right ?
radio,headlight’s,wiper’s, tail light’s, heater, power seat’s, window’s, t.v.’s, power stearing,air conditioning,de frost, power sun roof,inerior light’s, so on and so forth , all while cruising at 100kph. I like IC gas/diesel engines i like the way they smell lol….i like the way they sound with the low rumble comming from the exhaust to the chest splitting ear exploding sounds they make at the nhra drag strip with five foot flames comming out of the pipes …all of this efficentcy stuff is great it really is but i never want oto see the end of the ICengine especially on a say 72 427 big block corvette or even the old classic and rare L88 what a beauty ….and i will be buying a diesel can anyone give me tips on what to buy i really like fords alway’s been a chevy guy but still hung up on the bail out so will go with ford …but i am looking at a used one a truck f-250 or f-350 from 1970 -to say 2005 …can nayone give me any tips or help on a good reliable ford truck year?
The future is electric
There are new lithium Ion batteries that can be charged in seconds not hours.
Electricity can be made from any source, and the best is nuclear. I’m not talking about the one in japan burning, but a Thorium Reactor. They refuse to build them, as its incomparable with the nuke weapon industry, so they will have to get over that. Why are they better you ask; well, they are almost completely safe.They use such an extremely weak, low grade fuel and there are almost endless supply’s of that.Can even use the old, used up fuel. 90 percent of the radiation is gone in less then 100 years.Very manageable compared to the stuff today that lasts millions of years. The refining process creates almost no pollution unlike the nuke reactors of today.
The fact that it is sponsored by the gov’t means it is almost certainly a dead-end
Gord: That IS internal combustion. Fuel is being burnt inside of it.
Peter: Electricity is great, but as you point out (while trying to minimize), there’s the slight problem of storage for vehicles.
Point me to these LiIon batteries that charge in seconds. (And no, someone announcing that they’re working on it doesn’t count. Actual functional prototypes or better, yes.)
And even then, frankly, the weight and cost are just not compelling; all that oil and gas in the world is good cheap energy, and we ought to use it until it’s not cheaper.
(Which it will continue to be for some time.)
Terry: A video means nothing. Those are purest %$&#$ bullshit. (Notice the “%$&#$”? That’s because this is infuriatingly stupid.)
If that worked, every car in America would be sold with one.
Know why? Because every automaker would be rushing them to market.
Know why? CAFE, and fuel costs. Consumers would pay thousands more for such a car, happily.
And yet nobody will sell one.
Know why? Because they’re a giant &%#*% scam that doesn’t and can’t work.
You can’t split water into hydrogen and oxygen, and then recombine it via combustion and gain energy. In fact, you can only lose energy in the process.
Thermodynamics will not be trifled with.