A proposed engine design approaches the efficiency of gas-electric hybrids, but could be far cheaper.
Consumers hoping to cut gasoline spending, with average gas prices nearing $3 a gallon, could opt for hybrids. But even with gas prices high, the added cost of hybrid cars can cancel money saved at the pump, suggesting the need for lower-cost alternatives.
A new type of ethanol-boosted, turbocharged gasoline engine could be the answer. The engine would be almost as efficient as gas-electric hybrids, but cost much less, according to its MIT inventors -- Leslie Bromberg and Daniel Cohn, plasma science and fusion center researchers, and John Heywood, professor of mechanical engineering.
The new engine would improve efficiency in two ways. The first is to decrease the size of the engine, which reduces friction, thus saving fuel at light engine loads, such as during city driving. When more power is needed, a turbocharger kicks in. It uses exhaust flow to compress air, making it possible to combust more air and fuel in a smaller space.
The second approach is to engineer the engine to have a higher compression ratio -- the ratio of the volume of air and fuel before and after it is compressed in an engine. A higher compression ratio "makes the engine more efficient, because you expand the burned gases more and extract more energy out of them," Heywood says.
Neither of these are new ideas. But in the past, such efforts have been limited by a phenomenon called knock: high compression ratios and extreme turbocharging cause gasoline to spontaneously combust when the engine is under heavy loads, such as during acceleration or at high speeds, potentially causing serious damage. The MIT researchers have found a way to prevent knock, allowing them to crank up the turbocharger and increase the compression ratio -- and thereby increase the power of an engine by 250 percent.
If this increase in power is taken advantage of to reduce the size of the engine -- which would go against long-time trends emphasizing performance over fuel economy -- it could save gas. "This allows very large pressure turbocharging, very large downsizing of the engine, and makes it possible to have a small engine with much higher efficiency," Cohn says.
The researchers solved the knocking problem by injecting into combustion chambers precisely controlled amounts of ethanol at moments when the engine is working hard enough to cause knock. Compared with gasoline, ethanol has higher octane, a rating of how much a fuel can be compressed before it combusts spontaneously, that is, before it causes knocking. The injected ethanol also cools the mixture, so it effectively increases the octane rating of the fuel mix to about 130 -- as good as high-performance racing fuels, Cohn says.
Cars with advanced batteries get 100 mpg and boast far greater range than all-electric vehicles.
Guest (How does ethanol )
Guest (jim)
Ethanol is more resistant to detonation than gasoline- the definition of 'higher octane'
Guest (Don)
Octane refers to the chemical octane (like methane or propane) that makes up gasoline. Gasoline contains various compounds including octane, septane, nonane, etc. Octane is resistant to detonation and thus a gas with a "higher octane" value can be used in a higher compression engine without knocking (Thus the correct definition of higher octane would be a larger percentage of octane in the blend).
As Methanol is an alcohol it does not contain octane. Methanol, however, mimicks a high octane value by preventing detonation- much in the same way toluene does. IT has the added benefit of cooling combustion chamber temperatures and thus allowing even higher compression.
Guest (Greg)
I think Jim is right. "Higher octane" in this context means that it gives knocking characteristics in a test engine as though it actually contained octane; it does not have to have any in the blend to have a higher "octane" rating. For example, lead added to gasoline raises the "octane" rating, but no octane has been added to the fuel.
Guest (John)
It not literally the percentage of octane in the gasoline blend that gives the octane rating. The "octane rating" is a number that describes how a given gasoline blend burns, measured on a scale where pure straight-chain heptane (7 carbons) has a rating of zero and pure iso-octane (8 carbons, highly branched) has a rating of 100. So, 87 octane gasoline burns as if it was a blend of 87% iso-octane and 13% heptane. But what causes 87 octane to burn with that rating could be a blend of all sorts of alkanes, alkenes, alcohols, MTBE and other additives.
Guest (Shuiva)
Anyway hybrids harness the energy that would be wasted to get a 30-40 % gain which is good. Its just needed to make it more cost effective.
Guest (Don)
An internal combustion engine wastes so much energy in terms of waste heat that that is where we should start. A hybrid tries to improve efficiency by keeping the engine in its power band and by recouping energy that would normally be lost to brake heating. Hybrid technology does nothing to stop your engine from throwing out tons of energy in the form of heat from the exhaust.
BWM was developing a system to generate steam from that waste heat and to use a small steam engine to provide copious low end torque. It's a great idea but adds a LOT of complexity.
Guest (Richard)
Isn't there a scandanavian company, maybe Volvo that has a new innovation using injected hydrogen (produced from electrolysis of water), into a high compression engine that get substantially better gas mileage. And they are already selling these vehicles.
Guest (Richard)
Hydrogen injected with gasoline
I meant to say a small amount of hydrogen is injected with the gasoline into a high compression engine as a means to retard ignition, and knocking.
Guest (ColinK)
Various groups working on hydrogen injection.
Gasoline hydrogen injection:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/11/hydrogenenhance.html
Diesel hydrogen injection: http://www.hydrogen-boost.com/Diesel.html
Guest (Ted)
Check www.eagle-research.com.
He claims 80 MPG W/standard IC
engine.
Guest (Valmiki)
Electrolysis of water is the most expensive way of producing hydrogen. It also takes more energy to produce the hydrogen than one would obtain from burning the hydrogen - a net loss in energy. Hydrogen is viable only in countries that have a net surplus of cheap electricity (red hydropower).
Guest (Gary Filice)
Yes, there is a company that does what you have stated. It is not Volvo but Innovative Hydrogen Solutions in Canada. There you will see a unit that does the electrolysis of water in the vehicle and injects the hydrogen into the combustion cycle. Passanger cars and trucks are currently testing the system with positive results.
Guest (Jamelle)
The Mircoplasmatron was another MIT Plasma Science & Fusion Center brianchild project that would superheat water to seperate the hydrogen then eject the hydrogen into whatever fuel stream they needed to add it to. It was out since 1999.
Guest (MTilley)
Hydrogen from Water = Solution
Why do these people continue to depend on fossil fuels? Why not extract hydrogen from water and use that as fuel? It's possible to do and it would deliver an order of magnitude in productivity and removal the need for fossil fuels. If they can build $50K fire sculptures that can remove (and burn) H2 from ordinary tap water, they can build H2 extraction stations at American shores along with desalination stations like the Arab countries have done. What is Bush and the rest of his idiots in Washington waiting for? Of course, he is not serious about stopping oil dependency. That would make him and all of his oil buddies poor. It's time for a new president that has brain cells and one that cares more about the environment than his bank account!
Guest (greg)
The Navy has been working on this for decades, it so far has not proven feasible. The MIT guys might be able to educate you on the strength of the bond hydrogen produces with other atoms. As for the Bush obligatory slander, get a life.
Guest (DaveinMn)
Come on, didn't you realize that during the Clinton administration, they were just about to announce a fix for all these problems like immigration, oil dependency, North Korean nukes, health care costs. Then, Bush took over an put a stop to everything. Actually, every problem in this country has materialized in the last 6 years. Oh Bill, won't you come back and save us?
Guest (Bubba)
Dont Worry Bout Hydrogen - Bush is On It!
Hey, I'm with Greg. Have faith in Bush and don't worry. He has God talking to him and helping him solve our problems. And if that doesn't work, he can always funnel faith-based money to the Discovery Institute Creation Scientists to work on the problem.
Problem Solved!
Slobber...slobber...
Guest (steve)
Its a simple matter of covservation of energy. You need to put in as much energy to break the bonds in water as you get back out when you burn hydrogen, recombining with oxygen to form water. Hydrogen is only an energy storage medium not a source of fuel, unless you use wind/solar powered hydrogen production plants, it still requires fossil fuels to generate the hydrogen.
Guest (David)
The last time I checked, hydrogen can be obtained from two sources -- hydrocarbons and electrolysis of water. And where does the electricity for electrolysis come from -- combustion of hydrocarbons (fossil fuels). UNTIL the day that we are generating ALL our electricity from non-hydrocarbon sources (e.g. nuclear, solar, wind, ocean currents, fusion(?), etc.), then Hydrogen is NO replacement for fossil fuels. This is old news, but some folks have a hard time accepting it!
Guest (Herman)
Guest (B Tharp)
Seperating Hydrogen from Oxygen to manufacture fuel is an energy intensive operation that takes more energy to do than it can produce. The only effective way is with electricity and electric plants either burn coal, gas, or oil to manufacture electricity. Solar power would be clean but not sufficient for our current needs let alone a future expansion. Nuclear power would work but opens up a different can of snakes. <sigh> most answers are the lesser of evils and not medically or economically feasible.
Guest (jhance11)
Not so quickly MT The infrastructer we have now was not built overnight. Hydrogen requires almost completely differant Equip. It is still very dangerous to store much more so then gas or diesel. it requires A lot of energy still to remove Hydrogen from water or whatever the source. I'm not A spokesman for the oil company's but I know reality when I see it. Hydrogen will slowly racheded up but will not reach A stage anyone would call important for another 20 years. The correction of many of the problems I spoke of earlier and mark you they will be fixed American's are pretty good at that. Patience.
Guest (Don)
Hydrogen isn't any more dangerous to store than Gasoline is- just harder to store as liquid hydrogen is cryogenic.
Imagine a car fire involving gasoline- we've all seen how horrifice those can be. But what about hydrogen? The fact is that leaking hydrogen would immediately rise and be blown away from the scene of an accident- unlike gasoline- thus reducing the risk of a fire in the first place.
The issue most people have with Hydrogen is images of the Hindenburg burning. The problem there is the Hinderburg (and R101 for that matter) were both built using highly flammable materials to begin with. On top of that the Hindeburg was painted with the same chemical used a fuel oxidizer by the German rocketry program!
Stored correctly Hydrogen is no more dangerous than Gasoline. Stored incorrectly both Gasoline and Hydrogen as extremely dangerous.
Guest (Corvidae)
It's not more dangerous to store
It's amazing how many people believe hydrogen is dangerous to store. Yes, it's explosive and easy to leak. Here's the kicker though, take a look around your local gas station and notice the big honkin propane tank sitting there?!?! That's usually 2-5000 gallons of propane that leaks just as easily, burns just as easily and even WORSE propane is heavier than air. That means it stays near the ground waiting for some idiot to flick a cigerette on a calm day.
And yet Hydrogen is dangerous...Hydrogen doesn't flow and stick like gasoline, it doesn't sink and pool like propane. The only common fuel that's safer is diesel, and I can safely say Hydrogen is far better on the breathing than diesel fumes.
Guest (Chris)
If anyone thinks that all this is one man's fault, namely the president, you need to think a little deeper. This is not just about one man. This is not just about a small group of people with big interests. Think big. This is about a very large infracstructure. This is a lot bigger than you think. Can it and should it change, sure!! Need to stop blaming the government and do something yourself. If you want to live in a society where the government fixes all your problems, I hear Cuba is looking for a few good people. (or just vote for H.Clinton)(same effect) It is called communism, look into it. Besides, higher than "normal" gas prices is not all a bad thing. Keeps driving the economy, stocks increase (and if you had money in oil, you'd be making out) Keeps real thinkers busy by thinking of alternative ways. So don't worry so much about who is in the White House, and take real action.
Guest (Jim)
Someone should wisper in these boys ears that a much better idea is out there and working. We need good technology where it can really reap some rewards. Orgone power can answer our needs. We know it works, now it needs perfecting.
Guest (Tony)
Why inject ethanol seperatly, why not just burn e-85 gasahol
Guest (jg)
Because it is too easy
Guest (J.D. Giel)
Problems with just burning e-85 gasahol
Burning e-85 gasohol present a number of problems especially in a country with cold weather such as the US has.
1) e-85 gasohol attracts moisture so that the so that the octane rating can fluctuate widely from day to day even using the same tank of fuel.
2) e-85 gasohol is hard on most fuel injectors if they are not built to cope with the higher corrosive property. Just try adding 'dry gas' to every tank of gas you use for a year and see what the repair bill is.
3) By injecting the ethanol in separately a much more precise and continuous monitoring of, as well as continuous adjustment for the octane rating can be achieved.
Guest (Paul)
so were does this ethanol come from
Getting ethanol from corn is ridiculous. It costs more energy than its worth in petroleum based chemical fertilizer, harvesting and processing. Its pointless via current farming methods.
Guest (Mark Shapiro)
Any combustioon technology can join hybrid
This sounds like an improved internal combustion technology, and thus, like diesel, could be combined with hybrid technology for further mileage improvement.
It still makes sense to make vehicles lighter and more aerodynamic, and to use them first on taxis and buses, where the return on investment is higher.
Guest (odograph)
Yes, it is important to remember that hybrid technologies supplement other power sources. They are really about regenerative braking, and using power stored during breaking later on. That can be done with gasoline, diesel, ethanol, ...
Unfortunately the "versus hybrid" meme is propagated widely. GM pushed it in their "ethanol versus hybrid" arguments, because that is their marketing battle. For them it is Yellow Gas Caps versus the Prius.
Guest (John)
Progress from SOME auto co's
BMW plans to have direct gasoline injection in its 2011 7 series (10-15% saving), and is working on closed loop dual stage steam power to recover waist heat (20% saving). Target date 2116. DK on the costs.
Guest (mike)
hydrogen is a dead end technology. you all would be better off working on cold fusion and "replicators" just like we know exist on the enterprise.
Guest (Schwee)
As I'm sure you know. Hydrogen is a bad joke--a pie-in-the sky fairy tale non-solution that lets us pretend we can keep up our profligate consumption of fossil uels without facing the hard facts that there are zero viable alternatives to fossil fuels, probably ever, and the best thing we can do is drive less (and, finally, not at all) and wear sweaters (and, finally, live in "zero"-energy houses). That's not tongue-in-cheek. Carter was, and is, right.
Guest (bigrobhollins)
six cylinder turbocharged engines could be the standard with improved exhaust control utilizing a refinement in fuel so as to produce natural elements as exhaust like water as steam or even co2. i mention exhaust control because we are not grasping the power evident passing out of the engine as propulsion system, which is in part polluting our collective ecology. i dont have the solution yet an active exhaust could provide a pressure to the botom end in an effect to complete or package the engine as complete in itself- which might do to eleviate frictions while allowing room to improve overall function and efficiency. maybe one of yall could work out the details cuz i wanna go fast and far and not have to drop a note twice a week just goin to work and the grocery store.
Guest (Horton)
I think what you're suggesting here is generally called "turbocompounding" -- basically, sticking a big old turbine in the exhaust of a piston engine and using this to add power to the drivetrain itself rather than simply to provide forced induction to the engine. People do this--the most famous example is the unbelievably complex "Napier Nomad" of very long ago (1950s? 1920s?). I think BMW has come up recently with a turbocompounding prototype. Works; but again the gain has so far not been worth the added complexity, weight, and cost.
Guest (Jiro Yamamoto)
Mobile turbocompound engines have only been commercialized in the R3350, an 18 cylinder radial gasoline aircraft engine first produced in the early 1950's and used thru the 70's. The Constellation was powered by this engine. The turbo compounding boosted power by about 30%. The Napier Nomad was never sold. Turbines eliminated the market for piston aircraft engines.Automobile engines are selected based on power and cost primarily. If turbocompounding were to be commercialized in mobile power plants I expect that large diesel engines would be the first market
Guest (odograph)
consumer reports correct itself
When you reference consumer reports, I hope you refer to their corrected numbers, which show savings for the efficient Honda Civic and Toyota Prius hybrids:
"Including fuel savings and tax credits, Consumer Reports said, the Toyota Prius hybrid would save about $400 over five years and the Honda Civic hybrid would save about $300 compared with conventionally powered models."
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-briefs8.4mar08,1,4067793.story?coll=la-headlines-business
There are still some questionable assumptions there, about depreciation, and their choice of the smaller Corolla as a Prius "equivalent."
Guest (nerfer)
Another assumption they made is that gas "rises to $3 then $4 over 5 years". What they didn't tell you was that they assume years 1-3 are $2/gal, then a year at $3/gal and finally a year at $4/gal. I think we know how accurate that assumption is going to be!
Guest (odograph)
That's a pretty strange, and specific, assumption for them to make.
They should have done a few passes and let people see the effect of $2, $3, $4 as the 5 year average.
Guest (Greg)
Why look at five-year payback? These cars will likely last 20. How about a life-cycle cost comparison? This would make the hybrids look better than even the corrected CR numbers.
Guest (Justin)
True that they may last 20 years, but many of the yuppies buying these things will sell them in 3, or turn in at the end of the lease. The lead-acid batteries only last 7 years, and would require an investment of another few thousand dollars at that point- like having to replace a transmission: and that is above and beyond any other mechanical problems that any car starts to have at that point.
Guest (Chris)
Silly title, interesting idea. It potentially complements hybridization, not competes with it. And it should also save fuel on the freeway, despite the implication of the article. However, it will be more expensive (two fuel tanks, extra set of injectors, pump, etc) than the conceptually similar Saab BioPower approach. The only 'advantage' over a well-implemented flexible fuel engine is that it achieves similar performance and economy using less ethanol (i.e. more gasoline) than E85. But a policy of 'more ethanol, less gasoline' now enjoys general support, from the White house down.....
Guest
Nothing new since SAAB has worked the same conceptual thinking with gasoline in their present cars and now also with ethanol in their labs and showcars.
Guest (Sid Kelly)
This is new? I did it in 1952......on a 52 Lincoln V8!
With a commercial product which injected a mixture of alcohol and water into the intake manifold, just below the carburetor using manifold vacuum & did boost power when you advanced the timing .. it worked by cooling the mixture or increased the octane rating (the mfg claimed) -- it did as promised, but only held a gallon of liquid and was not practical for that reason..
Guest (Pedals in cars)
If the Flintstones teaches us anything, it's that foot power is undervalued. WHy can't we add pedals to the passenger spots in cars to boost mileage? They could also be used to charge batteries and cut the need for overdrive on hills. Pedals make sense to me.
Guest (Schwee)
Lance Armstrong is able to output about 1/3 of a horsepower--perhaps 1/2 when he's going up L'Alpe D'Huez. Unfortunately, the power a human can contribute to a car as presently configured is not as valuable as, say, marginally upgrading the efficiency of your alternator, or perhaps altering the belt tension slightly.
Guest (Bart friedman)
I would love to know what the experts think about increasing the oxygen % of the air in the combustion chamber. Say from the present 21% to 30 or 35% O2 would that also improve power, prformance, & efficiency. it could even be done in conjunction with other technology.
Guest (Chris)
Thats basically what nitrous oxide does (http://www.holley.com/index.asp?division=NOS).
Guest (Don)
This is exactly what NO injection does. The problem is that Nitrous is expensive and pure oxygen has to be crogenically cooled. Not to mention imagine the fire that would result should this car with a tank of Pure O2 catch fire. It would become a blast furnace.
Guest (BART FRIEDMAN)
We use a device called a Oxygen concentrator to provide continuous 0xygen without any need for storage. if this technology were to be adapted to the automoble it could improve power and efficiency continuously unlike NO without any storage tank.
Guest (Sam Golbuff)
02 = more fuel, more heat, more knock.
Enriching the mixture with oxygen is exactly the opposite of what you want to do when trying to make an engine more efficient. It allows for more fuel to be input in the same volume of intake charge, resulting in more fuel burnt, more power, and more heat. Added O2 will make the engine knock sooner, resulting in lower compression ratios and lower efficiency.
Guest (bart friedman)
By increasing oxygen % on a continuous basis were as NO is used for just a short boost. By useing a devise know in the medical community as an oxygen concentrator. This devise takes in air compressing it and passing it though filters the nitrogen and most other gases are removed and the O2 passes though. It can provide about 5-6 LMP of additional O2. All this can be done with out any need for Oxygen storage.
Guest (Herman)
one of the first hybrids (if not the first one)
The GALT was bult in 1909 and it had a 2 cylinder - 2 stroke egine driving a 40 amp Westinghouse generator. The milage was 70 + , having direct drive no clutch 5 speeds forward and 3 in reverse. The GALT was built in Ontario and running until it ended up 1941 in the Oshawa auto museum. The GALT monot company is now being revived wit anew H2 plasma type on-board gas generation. Let e have you input at condor@sentex.net
Guest (Paul von Beck)
The main problem of this engine is oxides of nitrogen which combined with water vapor produces nitric acid. If the inventors can take care of this problem, it will be a major step forward.
Guest (Firedewd)
Here is a good article on future diesel engines.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars_trucks/1266891.html
Guest (Don)
In 2002 Volkswagen built a small two seat car that got 240 miles per gallon and could do 75 MPH all using an 8 HP diesel engine.
Another company recent announced a car that would do over 100 MPH and get 157MPG using a 20 HP diesel.
Guest (ScottZ.)
And you could use a NON FOSSIL FUEL DIESEL.
non fossil diesel has been created for awhile. its cheap and easy. problem solved. Goverment still wont allow it to happen though. they need the tax money
Guest (MattH)
The economic concept behind your comments on the government suppressing new energy technology because they "need the tax revenue" from fossil fuels is amusing. The tax revenue that would be generated from a huge influx of cheap energy would dwarf the tax revenues generated by fossil fuel usage within just a couple of years. If hydrogen were the nearly limitless source of "free" energy you claim it is, the economic boom it could fuel would be unprecedented.
Like most conspiracy theories it is just full of holes. What, the US is the only place that has this technology, even though it is so simple and obvious? Or is it some "world shadow governement" that is suppressing these technologies? The government doesn't OWN technology, and if this could be done so easily some big enterprise would have jumped all over it by now.
Guest (Dana)
The super-high mileage cars were all cruise, no starting and stopping, which is where hybrids pay-off. We need both technologies for practical cars.
Guest (Paul McLachlan)
Hybrids and in particular series hybrids are the obvious choice for stop start high usage vehicles- commuter buses, delivery trucks, taxis etc. But the lesson is that it is the accelloration of mass that is using much of the energy. So power density needs to be improved in all vehicles hybrids and conventional ICE. The light weight Pivotal engine will lead to high power density vehicles and this will make the difference. See www.pivotalengine.com
Guest (Osman)
Ask any import tuner and they do this already
Import tuners have been using high compression, forged pistons along with turbochargers and alcohol injection for decades now. What's the big deal...
Guest (Don)
Import tuners (and domestic tuners for that matter) have been using water/alcohol injection but the purpose was simply to cool the fuel air charge (To soak up excess heat in the cylinder).
Straight Methanol injection (into the air intake or throttle body as in current systems) would be expensive (methanol is very expensive in any sort of pure form) and the alcohol would evaporate before it made it into the cylinders.
What these people have proposed is using direct injection of methanol and delaying injection until the methanol can do the most good.
Guest (offset)
I would disagree and say that all methods have been put into practice by import tuners (as well as some domestics). I don't consider Methanol overly expensive, just difficult to source sometimes in large quantities. And at the throttle body Meth or water or a mix wouldn't evaporate, merely atomize nicely. It has all been done before. What I don't understand is why not just use straight water instead to simplify things. Cheap and easy with virtually the same results.
Guest (Chris)
Water has over twice the heat of vaporization of ethanol (by mass). Granted, it won’t burn like ethanol would, but the goal is knock suppression, not enrichment (although this will help cool things down as well). I would think a simple (and cheap) throttle body injection system using water would be more than adequate to prevent knock. These systems are already for sale, and have worked fine in many highly boosted import engines for a number of years. The stated 30% improvement in efficiency seems extremely high. Won’t there be higher pumping losses during compression?
Guest (Del)
Is there one commercial vehicle you can buy with this thechnology?
Guest (Scott Z.)
Hydrogen is FREE, ethanol isnt
You stick a negative feed and positive feed in water and it seperates the hydrogren and oxygen molocules. Thats how easy it is to make hydrogen. The reason that we havent seen anything is there is no money in hydrogen. It's been created for some time, but the goverement would lose billions in tax dollars and therefor can't give it the general public.
Hydrogen can be done, but the problem is the long term effects. I could see possibly injecting ethonal into hydrogen(gas form, not frozen liquid form) to help knock. Dont think for a second that hydrogen hasnt been done already. You have to think of the economical impact it would have on the world.
Guest (RayC)
Bzzzz! Hate to break your paradigm, but the electricity to crack water costs money. After losses in transmission, generation and storage, the energy required to create hydrogen is significantly greater than the energy that hydrogen delivers.
Guest (Jeff W)
Yes it is cheaper than gasoline.
To crack water the cost is like running a 100 watt bulb for 3 days to generate enough fuel to produce enough to go 300 to 400 miles.
it is a few linden vs 30 to 40 linden
Just my observation.
Guest (Scott W)
A 100 watt bulb running for 3 days (72 hours) uses 7.2 kilowatt-hours of electricity or converting units 9.648 horsepower-hours. The hydrogen produced from splitting water delivers no more energy when recombined with oxygen (what happens when hydrogen is burned) than what was used to split it apart (law of conservation of energy) so for your effort you have 9.648 horsepower for 1 hour or 1 horsepower for 9.648 hours. Hardly enough to get out of the drive considering the average auto runs at 150 to 200 horsepower. All of this is easily verifiable in any good university library. Beware the specious information available on websites promoting 'secret' or 'suppressed' information. Hydrogen fuels from water have been around for decades and are not used simply because they are not commercially viable.
Guest (Sam G.)
But the good news... H2 has a very good octane rating
and the bad news... its overly expensive to the point where it will never be economically viable and current almost economical methods of producing it produce more lifecycle GHGs than gasoline. But it burns good.
Guest (Cliff R)
RE Hydrogen is FREE, ethanol isn't
Hydrogen might be easy to produce, but it certainly isn't free. For the negative and positive feeds to have any effect on the water and you need electricity. If you use grid power there is a good chance that you're burning coal. Burning coal (or gas, or whatever) to produce hydrogen doesn't get us much furthen environmentally.
Guest (CRySyS)
As free as the electricity used to make it.
Where are you getting that electricity to break water? Also, hydrogen requires very strong pressure vessels to hold it, and the molecules are so small it can seep through metal storage tanks over time. Hydrogen is not a viable fuel at this time.
Propane is much easier to store, is safer and is already available throughout much of the US. Wet jet propane systems can enhance gasoline engines and straight propane powered conversions work well too. It still has less power than gas, but it's viable now.
I think any next gen vehicle that gets great efficiency is going to have to use the new diesels and/or a combination of two or three fuels to take advantage of multiple efficiency 'tricks' in the heat cycle.
Guest (Brandon H)
It takes a lot of energy to separate hydrogen from the very stable water molecule. Hydrogen is free only when electricity is free.
Guest (habman)
Couldn't water be used just as easily as ethanol? I played with water injection back in the early 80's and it showed great promise in improving fuel economy, on average 20-40%.
Guest (Schwee)
Yes, water also has the effect of knock suppression, I believe. I think the main problem is that it doesn't burn, and also that energy is required to produce the change in state from liquid to gas (water vapor). The water injection systems I've heard about have a problem with the water quenching the flame front. I think. All I really am fairly sure of is that it was used in P-51 Mustangs to get huge power out, with resultant horrible fuel consumption and brutalizing of the engine so badly that it would need to be rebuilt if the pilot were lucky enough to limp back home. What was your experience?
Guest (Dr.A)
There is obviously no conspiracy here. But that does not mean there is no conspiracy elsewhere. E.g. Why are we in Iraq? The shadow government, which ordered 9/11, thereby prepared the population to back a war for which the "intelligence" was, as everyone now knows, fabricated. How is it Osama bin Laden issues releases just when the president needs a pre-election day or ratings boost? The untold millions who are blind to conspiracies are the reason why conspiracies are so blatant and successful. Please let us use our analytical minds more critically on everyday issues.
Guest (Paul McLachlan)
Hydrogen is a very different fuel and a new engine design is needed. The thermal control and high power density of the Pivotal engine will mkae the difference for hydrogen powered mobility. See www.pivotalengine.com
Guest (VN)
An IC engine that could use fuel of 130 octane rating is a realy high compression engine. some of the import sports cars use compression ratios of 12:1 and require a minimum of 100 octane rating fuel. I don't have a number for what compression ratio you could safely use on a 13o octane fuel but I would suspect somewhere close to 20:1. that is diesel engine compresion and therefore all the engineering aspects assosciated with it and probably some new ones. on the market diesel engines of similar size to gasoline engines cost $2,000 more on the average, and are heavier.
Guest (Horton)
Agreed that increased compression ratios and turbocharging require a heavier, more expensive engine to handle the increased loads. Also, while this design increases the efficiency of a spark-ignited throttled engine by increasing compression, reducing pumping losses, and reducing friction, it still can't replicate a diesel's ability to run high compression regardless of load, and it can't run lean. A gasoline engine's traditional advantages over a diesel are reduced weight, reduced cost, and a faster burn rate leading to a better approximation of constant volume combustion. This solution preserves the rapid burn rate, so it can probably equal a diesel on efficiency, but it will likely end up at about the same weight and cost. A wash.
Guest (James-Brunswick Ga)
Fusion Reactors are the answer. Fusion produces electricity... electricity charges battery... battery runs car. Simple! The GRID is already there.
Guest (John Hardy)
Why is fusion so little discussed? We can't do it currently without burning more than we get, once mastered it is a magic bullet. Oceans of energy and little or no environmental impact.
Guest (Ismirth)
Or... you could just invest in the MYT engine...
It weighs 25 pounds and gives 150mpg. It was just shown at the LA auto show:
http://www.angellabsllc.com/mytengine.html
Guest (Joe)
I have seen your site. You claim high torque output, but you have an inbuilt 4:1 reduction within the engine. Torque is proportional to Power divided by Speed. If you have a conventional engine coupled to a 4:1 gearbox, the torque output would be the same as your "MYT" engine.
Guest (Will)
Subaru Tuners have been doing it for years
nothing new, allows higher boost levels in turbo motors without knocking :) works very well with high hp applications
Guest (Buck)
To my knowledge, subaru has never used metered amounts of alcohol to cool the air charge or prevent knock. The only way that standard engines will prevent/reduce knock is retarding the timing so to not have such a high compression while a spark-induced near-immediate combustion will rapidly change the pressure in the chamber.
Guest (Schwee)
Uh? Retarding the timing will ensure that the charge doesn't ignite before TDC due to the spark initiating ignition, but it won't prevent unwanted autoignition that can occur from excessive compression alone. My understanding is that octane is good for preventing autoignition at high effective compression ratios, but that if you have too high a compression at WOT in a hot engine, no amount of retarding the spark will prevent knock (autoignition prior to TDC).
Guest (g hogarth)
Remember WW 2 aircraft, that upon
sighting enemy could activate a methonal-water mixture that increased fuel consumed, thus an increase in power and the mixture reduced pre-ignition problems !
Guest (charlie)
tires are made from oil. When the oil
is gone, can we make tires straight out of the reactor? Back to wooden cleats?
How about this -- stay home!
Guest (Bernie)
Heat is no doubt an issue, but to my mind this is why we burn gasoline in the first place. Gasoline contains roughly 125,000 BTU/US. The heat that above message mentions is directly related to the energy it can produce. A lot of people think we burn gasoline because it was in abundance, but while there may be some truth to that claim our use of gasoline is connected to its energy output.
Guest (Joe)
Better use can be made of existing engine technologies by changing the capacity of the engine to suit load or road conditions. I have developed a number of engines that vary capacity and compression ratios while running and currently building a few prototypes. These engines can be viewed by downloading file ftp://ftp.fpni.net/pub/Engine. I would welcome comments.
Guest (Schwee)
Joe --
I can't get to this file. Do you have download instructions, or is there a URL?
Guest (Joe)
This is an exe file and if you have a security on your computer it may block the download. Try switching off your security. Let me know if you are successful. If not I could try another method.
Guest (Doc)
Your engines are mechanically complex, have limited max. power, give no improvement in emission and heavy. A peak shaving auto engine provide a better solution.
Guest (Joe)
My engines are more complex but use pin jointed technology, which makes them easy to manufacture. In an in-line engine of 2 litre capacity it adds about 16 lbs to the weight as the additional items are mostly made of Al alloy. In V-type engines the additional weight is very small. The reduction of fuel usage will also reduce pollution. Torque is increased byb the use of the machanisms and max power occurs at lower speeds.
Are you suggesting that your system is not heavy, bulky, expensive, complex as most hybrid systems are?
Guest (Doc)
all direct-drive engines, including yours, must be larger than peak demand. A small engine (35 -40 hp) with capacitive storage of 15 hp-min between the wheel drive and the engine is provides many advantages, like in a human locomotion. For more info, go to my web-site, www.kimat.com.
Guest (Doc (Dae Sik Kim))
We look into peak-shaving with secondary oxyginated fuel injection and other forms of energy storage at Esso Research in late 60's. The best way is themo-pneumatic capacitive storage of hot exhaust gas under pressure to decouple a small engine from a wheel demand. Visit www.kimat.com for detail.
Guest (Alan)
Turbo Bio-Diesel/Hybrid is the answer.
With the high compression ratio of diesel engines (200:1+), a bio-diesel connected to electric drive - powering both, batteries and motors would give the best results, minus BIG OIL! I have a diesel engine in my truck and also a Totoya Prius. If only I could put a smaller diesel in the Prius, what a combination that would be.
Guest (Del)
Diesel engin compression ratios are of the order of 20/1 not 200/1
Guest (Santiago Gillies)
Decrese the temperature of chamber with water injection
In the past time exist many experiment try to decrese the engines temperature chamber. What´s happend with this think
Guest (Ronald Noland)
Compare your engine operation to the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine in a P-51 in World War 2.
Guest (Guest(yont))
Couldn't you use sterling engines?
The sterling engines would use the temperture difference between the outside air(especially in USA where its mostly cold) and the hot engine. Couldn't you also use methanol that could be made from aneorbic digestion
Latest Greatist Invention for automobles.
There is no need to change the reciprocating engine and it's forms of operation!
In Hawaii a PERSON HAS INVENTED an apparatus that can fit into any reciprocating automoble engine diesel or gas and have it preform over a hundred miles (MPG) per Any Combustible gallon of fuel. And dose not admit toxic fowl exhaust into the atmosphere.
At the moment the person and automoble is under trial. and it is "successful it works". we should hear of this invention sometime this year.2007
first to act we believe will be the EPA.
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
Guest (Robert)
Not really better...
...If you incorporate the "new" engine as part of a Plug-in Hybrid Set-up. You can't beat the savings you can get from cheap evening rates.
Reply
Guest (DickC)
More on the right track
Today's hybrids are more expensive than pure gasoline driven autos because the ADD the electric generator and motors to a standard combustion drive train. In the 1990s I proposed an all-electric drive train to simplify and lower the cost of the automobile. The combustion engine would only re-charge batteries. Battery recharge would also use utility sources when available, but low-rate electricity is not currently available to non-business users, even at night. It should be.
Reply
Guest (ChrisM)
all-electric drive train
In the 1980s the old Kit Car magazines featured some kits that had all-electric drive train with the smallish gasoline engine driving 4 heavy duty alternators.
Reply
Guest (DickC)
More on the right track
Today's hybrids are more expensive than pure gasoline driven autos because the ADD the electric generator and motors to a standard combustion drive train. In the 1990s I proposed an all-electric drive train to simplify and lower the cost of the automobile. The combustion engine would only re-charge batteries. Battery recharge would also use utility sources when available, but low-rate electricity is not currently available to non-business users, even at night. It should be.
Reply
Guest
Huh?
How can using a combustion engine to drive a generator to charge a battery to power an electric motor to turn the wheels possibly be more efficient than just using the combustion engine to turn the wheels? Granted, the combustion engine only needs to be about half as large, but there are still huge losses converting energy from kinetic electrical to chemical to electrical to kinetic.
Reply
Guest (Curious)
All-electric
Good point. I think that's why Toyota build their hybrid train the way they did. However, there is also energy lost through a regular transmission, and the ICE is much larger than needs to be. While a direct eletric drive may have a torque advantage for the power input. I don't know the maths, but I suspect that an all-electric drive with an on-board charger and battery could be more efficient - except that it may not perform as well on the highway, and it could be very expensive (with today's technology).
Reply
Guest (Buck)
RPM-range
mechanically coupled engines have the disadvantage of running under wide load and rpm ranges. electric drivetrains can run at constant rpm and almost steady state loads to maximize efficiency.
Reply
Guest (Horton)
RPM range
Hmmm? The wide load and rpm range are functions of driving conditions, not the power input. Electric drivetrains allow higher torque at low rpms, and are probably more efficient than IC engines, although electric motors also drop off in efficiency as load and speed needs move away from their optimal range.
Reply