Efficient exotic: Transonic Combustion put its new fuel-injection technology into this sports car, which weighs about as much as a Toyota Prius hybrid and has similar aerodynamics. It’s not a hybrid, but it gets better gas mileage than a Prius.
Transonic Combustion
A novel fuel-injection system achieves 64 miles per gallon.
Transonic Combustion, a startup based in Camarillo, CA, has developed a fuel-injection system it says can improve the efficiency of gasoline engines by more than 50 percent. A test vehicle equipped with the technology gets 64 miles per gallon in highway driving, which is far better than more costly gas-electric hybrids, such as the Prius, which gets 48 miles per gallon on the highway.
The key is heating and pressurizing gasoline before injecting it into the combustion chamber, says Mike Rocke, Transonic's vice president of business development. This puts it into a supercritical state that allows for very fast and clean combustion, which in turn decreases the amount of fuel needed to propel a vehicle. The company also treats the gasoline with a catalyst that "activates" it, partially oxidizing it to enhance combustion.
The technology is one of many being developed to squeeze more efficiency out of existing engines to meet new fuel economy standards and other regulations--without making vehicles more expensive. "It's a time of renaissance for internal combustion engines," says William Green, a professor of chemical engineering at MIT. Improvements include smaller engines boosted with turbocharging, improved valve timing, and direct injection, in which fuel is injected directly into the combustion chamber rather than into an adjacent port. He says Transonic's approach "may be a promising way to improve on conventional direct injection. Several companies and university research groups are currently pursuing a variety of non-conventional direct-injection engine concepts, and some have published engine data which look very promising."
If it works as promised, the new technology would improve fuel economy by far more than these other options, some of which can improve efficiency on the order of 20 percent. It is expected to cost about as much as high-end fuel injection systems currently on the market, Rocke says.
Transonic's injection system varies from direct injection in two ways: it uses supercritical fluids and doesn't require a spark to ignite the fuel. The supercritical fluid mixes quickly with air when it's injected into the cylinder.
Once the fuel is injected into the piston, the heat and pressure are enough to cause the fuel to combust without a spark (similar to what happens in diesel engines), which also helps provide fast, uniform combustion. Ignition can be timed to happen just when the piston is reaching the optimal point, so it can convert as much of the energy in the gasoline into mechanical movement as possible, without wasting energy by heating up the combustion chamber walls, as happens in conventional technologies. The company has developed proprietary software that lets the system adjust the injection precisely depending on the load put on the engine.
The system can also reduce something called "throttling losses." Ordinarily, the air intake to an engine is partially closed during cruising, and this makes the engine work harder. Transonic's system can operate with the air intake open, creating a lean mixture in the combustion chamber (with a lot of air, but just a little gasoline). Rocke says that at a steady cruising speed of 50 miles per hour, the test car gets 98 miles per gallon.
The company has demonstrated the technology in its own test engine, and says it is currently testing it with three automakers. One key question is the impact the high pressures and temperatures will have on how long the engine lasts, Rocke says. The company, which is supported by venture-capital investments from Venrock and Khosla Ventures, plans to manufacture its system itself, rather than licensing the technology. It plans to build its first factory in 2013, and to introduce the technology into production cars by 2014.
A new Mazda model debuting in Japan gets its high fuel economy from an improved gas engine and a lightweight design.
Precise combustion control cuts fuel consumption by more than 30 percent.
Storing energy with compressed air, rather than batteries, could cut the cost of hybrid vehicles.
Does not compete with hybrids.
The article gives the impression that this gasoline engine competes with hybrid technology. Why?...
Nothing stops you from combining an efficient gasoline engine with hybrid technology. Put this engine into a Prius, or other hybrid.
Re: Does not compete with hybrids.
because the comparisons are always based on industry best... and even that makes it look very promising..
Re: Does not compete with hybrids.
"The article gives the impression that this gasoline engine competes with hybrid technology. Why?...
Nothing stops you from combining an efficient gasoline engine with hybrid technology. Put this engine into a Prius, or other hybrid."
True you can combine this advanced fuel injector with hybrid technology, the only limit will be the price tag.
To understand some of the economics, consider that hybrid technology tends to cost more up front and is offset with savings over time with an increase in fuel economy. If you drive 15k miles with an engine getting 10mpg, hybrid technology increasing fuel economy 15% would save 196 gallons, compared to driving the same with an engines getting 20mpg, and hybrid technology increasing fuel economy 15% would save only 98 gallons.
Assuming the same cost of hybrid technology, saving only 98 gallons has a lower return on investment (initial increased cost) then if you were saving 196 gallons. In other words, the higher the initial mpg before you add hybrid technology, the harder it will be to do it economically.
Re: Does not compete with hybrids.
A) - most hybrids rely on heavy battery packs that last only 5-7 years. This is dead weight because as the charge drops the weight doesn't, unlike gas tanks [although Dr. Cui's new nanowire battery tech might help this soon]
B) - People right now are still shying away from hybrids because of higher cost, but also because of lower performance versus cost versus MPG [those with high mpg have crap performance, those with decent performance have a higher cost without significant increases in mileage]
C) - It will be way easier to get this technology sold to the public, because it won't actually sound or look odd or unfamiliar. It is just a twist on a fuel injector, which they are used to.
D) - Plug-in hybrids add an extra step that many people just don't want to bother with [we are curiously lazy creatures]
E) - People usually prefer to hear 'rumble,' not 'whine'
F) - Any moving of technology into a new sector is driven by desire and convenience, not logic. If they aren't made hungry for it it will go like the EV1. [also not the purchasing of largely useless huge hybrid SUVs; the savings are little, but their status remains and the inconvenience is negligible---as are the environmental gains.]
G) - This tech will be matched with regenerative braking, alternator/generators (which drive when needed or charge when needed), stop light auto off functions, compact turbos, and possibly solar cells. But you have to prove concept before you get kissy and prove market before you add stuff. Too many layers of unfamiliarity and see the EV1 again.
Having drawn a similar concept injector during the gas crunch after 9/11, I now wish I'd gone engineering instead of theatre. Though I love theatre, it pays much less.
Re: Does not compete with hybrids.
"E) - People usually prefer to hear 'rumble,' not 'whine'"
I agree with everything you said except the "whine" part. I don't know anyone who doesn't like the whine of 'timing gears', 'super chargers' and or 'turbo chargers'. We must accurate. Rumble and whine together, good. Whine without rumble, bad.
Re: Does not compete with hybrids.
The whine is from the power electronics. Very annoying, unless you imagine you're in The Jetsons.
Guest (LovesTechnology)
Re: Does not compete with hybrids.
This appears to be a possible break through engine technology. This component efficiency (engine) will naturally be added to other design efficiencies such as the hybrids. No reason not to expect stand alone engine or hybrid designs.
FYI- Here are the facts on my own Prius driving with a new 2010 car: 50-51 mpg around town; 46-48 running 75-80 mph on the interstates. There are no performance loses over other 4-cylinder cars which I also own.
Re: Does not compete with hybrids.
I think you misinterpreted the GP's post. His question was not, "why would people prefer a more efficient IC engine to a Hybrid." His question was, "why would we prefer one over the other at all?"
The two technologies are not mutually exclusive. Hybrids most of their efficiency from recapturing energy while breaking, and turning off motors when stopped, instead of idling. Such technologies could conceivably still be used with the technology in this article to increase fuel efficiency even further.
Re: Does not compete with hybrids.
With a Gasoline engine this efficient, why even worry about Hybrid technology? Hybrid's require batteries, and these batteries are often not very green. The hybrid is nothing more than a stop-gap technology, designed to get a little extra efficiency out of our gas powered vehicles until a better source of energy is found. This technology seems to do a better job of increasing efficiency than all the fancy gadgetry of a Hybrid.
NOTE: they treat the gasoline with a catalyst that helps oxidize it. That's like adding a chemical supercharger to the engine.. more commonly referred to at the drag strip as Nitrous Oxide!
Now lets have that MPG data again running on STANDARD UNLEADED!
Just add a small deposit with the catalyzer to the car, similar way as with the True Blue system from Mercedes.
If efficient gains are enough, it will pay for itself.
On the other hand, they seem to have some issues with the temperature and pressure.
Could the technology be applied to diesel engines?
No, a catalyst is something that speeds up or initiates a reaction without being consumed. NO2 just an oxidization agent, and is consumed during combustion, so it is not a catalyst.
That's an interesting observation tsport100!!
If this catalyst-oxidizer stuff is cheap, then its a non issue. On the otherhand, maybe this stuff is like a toner cartridge for a "inexpensive" printer. The hardware is a loss leader, but they kill you everytime you need a refill.
I would also like to know if this thing works on Flex Fuel vehicles
Comments from the company or writer would be appreciated.
http://www.angellabsllc.com/
And now for something truly revolutionary! You want 20 times better power to weight ratio? Check out the MYT engine.
Is this really a "renaissance for internal combustion engines"? Or is it a manifestation of the "sailing ship effect"? (See http://www.thecis.ca/index.php?catID=32&itemID=52) We won't know for years.
Ultra-Efficient Gas Engine Passes Test
What is the weight of the vehicle compared to a prius or other vehicles? MPG without this info is not meaningful. What materials are being used in the catalyst and what effect does it have on air quality? With any material added to the fuel that has a negative health effect we are back to square one. The basic idea seems possible since gasoline ic engines are not that efficient at partial load. Also need to check out effect over long term on engine components. Hope it is not just another 100 mpg carburetor.
Riff
Re: Ultra-Efficient Gas Engine Passes Test
Says in the caption... "which weighs about as much as a Toyota Prius hybrid and has similar aerodynamics."
what's the prius got to do here?
The Prius is not really at its best on motorways: Its electric motor thrives in cities, where you normally lose a lot of energy while braking, accelerating and being idle at the red light.
On motorways, the prius is using its classic gas engine.
Also, the picture of the car seems to show it has a lower drag coefficient so not all saving would be linked to the engine difference.
It seems to me an unfair comparison used to gain attention.
Re: what's the prius got to do here?
I agree the Prius is at its best in the city. But your claim
"Also, the picture of the car seems to show it has a lower drag coefficient so not all saving would be linked to the engine difference."
Has no support. In the caption, they say the weight and aerodynamics of their car is similar to a Prius. The only reason they compare it to the Prius is it is considered the state of the industry for commercially available hybrids, which is what this tech will compete with.
first time reader of tr and will be back because the responses seemed resonable, unusual it seems to me. thanks
It appears to have a much lower frontal area and be more aerodynamic than Prius. The real key will be the cost/reliability of the vehicle components,and perhaps more importantly, the costssto treat the fuel. TANSTAAFL.
I can't see why this technology couldn't be rolled out with current engine construction and materials - provided the starting point is a diesel engine. Forged block instead of cast, stronger pistons, wrist pins and connecting rods, more piston rings, bigger oil pump - it's all there already. Granted, this adds about $1k to the cost, but it won't be long before fuel is up over $5/gal again. People who can do basic math will pay the extra $1k if it saves them $500/yr. I paid the extra money for a VW diesel. I'd much rather have a CI (that's compression ignition) gasser.
So put one of these in a Prius.
Apparently the system gets its best mileage on the freeway at a constant speed which is not surprising. Hybrids improve mileage in part because the engine operates at a single speed and the motors provide varying power to the wheels. Using this technology on a hybrid gas engine should provide the maximum benefit - providing the technology is real and economical.
Unfortunately the Prius transmission is inherently inefficient at highway speeds cause it's a one mode and relies on inefficient use of the electronics. It gets good highway because it's atkinson cycle and aerodynamic. A direct drive transmission would be far more efficient in the Prius, but then you'd trade off your superior city driving.
I have to wonder what else is wrong in this article when they mistakenly place the company in Texas instead of its actual location in Ventura County California. They also have an office in Detroit.
Whoops...
Thanks for pointing this out. It's been changed in the article.
GROSS U.S. PATENT / INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY VIOLATION
THIS CONCEPT IS NOT NEW AND IS A WELL KNOWN METHOD THAT WAS PATENTED BY FAMED U.S. RACE CAR ENGINEER SMOKY YUNICK ON MARCH, 12, 1985.
LOOK IT UP. U.S. PATENT NUMBER 4,503,833. PATENT ABSTRACT QUOTE:
"A method and apparatus for operating an electric ignition internal combustion engine that substantially improves the fuel efficiency by utilizing heat... to condition and prepare the fuel mixture prior to entry into the combustion chamber.
...Homogenizer is operative to compress the mixture."
UNQUOTE.
You can Google it, and it is on You Tube.
Google "Smoky Yunick Hot Vapor Engine".
This engineering concept was even the front page article in the automotive magazine "Hot Rod"
A good colleague told me (a Ford engineer with GM buddies), that L. Bunker Hunt the Texas oil manipulator offered Yunick a huge sum of money for the time ($50 million USD) to kill his invention.
Yunick being 'old school' ethical (in the legendary sense), and believing this discovery could help mankind, refused outright and was subsequently blackballed by GM and his engineering consultancy firm quickly forced into near bankruptcy.
Hope his heirs get a penny out of the gross piracy of his years of engineering development in this area.
I think I will try and contact his heirs so they can start legal proceedings, after all, his legacy is patented and protected, even though he passed away 9 years ago.
If they want to use someone else's patent, they should pay the heirs of the actual inventor, in this case the Yunick family and or the Yunick Foundation which supports engineering students.
Remember, Tesla actually got paid for conceiving and developing A/C current apparatus, even though he did not develop the vast majority of devices created afterwards.
Re: U.S. PATENT AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY VIOLATION
Check that date. Is that more than 20 years? OOPS, that one got away.
Re: GROSS U.S. PATENT / INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY VIOLATION
Sadly, the patent has expired.
Re: GROSS U.S. PATENT / INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY VIOLATION
Why is this sad? The inventor got his part of the patent bargain: a limited-time monopoly. Now the public gets their part of the bargain: full access to the patented technology. Everyone wins.
Effect of gasoline formulation
It would be interesting to know what, if any, influence the type of gasoline has on this technology. Formulations with high octane ratings are designed to not ignite prematurely due to heat-generated compression. For example, gasoline produced via direct liquefaction of coal has a high aromatic content, giving it a high octane rating. It seems like that would be counterproductive for this type of engine, but maybe the catalyst/supercritical conditions in the engine would make this a non-issue.
The article states that the company treats the gasoline with a catalyst that "activates" it, partially oxidizing it to enhance combustion. At what stage does this occur - in the engine, or would this car need a separate grade of gasoline?
Re: Effect of gasoline formulation
The catalyst is currently incorporated into the fuel injector.
The history of mileage improvement has been evolutionary rather thant revolutionary, and Transonic innovation follows this trend.
However, the promotors muddy the waters and actually do themselves a disservice by using mileage enhancing tricks such as streamlining and fuel modification - measures that will work equally well on any vehicle.
In order for the comparison to be genuine, you have to wonder why they wouldn't they have simply outfit a Prius with their new engine?
After reading everything, I feel it holds true that Hydrogen on-Demand is the cheapest, most environmentally safe, most effective way to get up to 40% more mpg while reducing emissions dramatically. Anybody disagree?
Guest (LovesTechnology)
Don't disagree, but you have to be able to efficiently make hydrogen in substantial quantities of course - which is the problem.
HHO is a long time fraud-- see Wikipedia on HHO (including Brown's gas from eagle-research) and Hydrogen Fuel Enhancement.
If it were true, the perpetual motion engine would exist. The idea is to split hydrogen with electrolysis (50% efficient) using the engines alternator (electrical generator) then burn the H2 in the conventional engine (25% efficient). For one listed product it only needs one liter of water every few months, but the H2 in a liter of water is comparable to a gallon of gasoline.
It's incredible that it gets such publicity.It's also amazing that the general public doesn't seem to intuitively get some of the basic thermodynamic principles, e.g. conservation of energy.
You made the mistake of only looking at the energy of hydrogen combustion, and not the increased economy to be had from a more complete burn of the primary fuel (gasoline or diesel) during the power stroke of an ICE. At same electrical load Using HHO gas at idle speeds I've seen substantial decreases in exhaust temperatures over systems without, indicating more energy being used drive the load and not waisted as heat down the tail pipe.
A plain old engine could get 64 mpg
There are lots of questions this article fails to answer. A very small normal gasoline engine just sized large enough to propel a normal car at 60mph on the highway - say a 15hp engine - could easily achieve 64 mpg or better. So how big was this engine? What car was used? A very aerodynamic car could go 60mph with as little as a few hp engine, and get much higher mileage.
Could the engine they use also power the car up a hill? Could it accelerate the car quickly to keep it from being a doorstop in real world traffic?
Without quite a bit more information there's absolutely no way to tell if this is any kind of achievement at all.
Re: A plain old engine could get 64 mpg
Yes, lots of questions. Besides these, what kind of test was run, e.g. standard EPA driving conditions, or just some test?
Where is the reference to the press release or other document? I could find no publication of actual test numbers on the Transonic web site. While the company seem legitimate, it seems like a bad idea to repeat hearsay without reference. I see this SAE article which mentions the 98mpg was a steady 50mph dynamometer test. (No mention of the load.)
[BTW, it's easy to get >65mpg highway on a Prius driving on a flat road at 50mph.]
As mentioned, it doesn't make sense to present this as an either or alternative to hybrid-electric. The Transonic injector savings could combine with hybrid savings.
Direct injection allows fuel metering the same as deisels, with actual fuel mixtures much leaner than required when fuel is mixed with air outside the combustion chamber. That allows much higher compression ratios, and, eventually, a true flex fuel engine that could use a variety of fuels and would not require high test gas, basically a deisel engine. That is why they don't need to limit the air intake. Sounds like they are moving toward the perfect marriage between gas and deisel engines and the MPG numbers will go higher. Limiting the combustion temperatures and the sulfer dioxide and nitrous oxides will be a challenge, but the major deisel engine companies have already figured that out.
I think hydrogen would give most punch for the buck and help the environment at the same time with the added production of water.
In Hammond Innes' 1951 Novel "Air Bridge", a fanatical engineer works to build an ulta-efficent airplane engine based on a stolen German design. While short on technical detail, the gist of it seemed to me to be a compression-ignition gasoline engine not too unlike the design proposed in this article.
I read the book in Jr. High and as I recall, the engines were built and installed in a converted British bomber and used to fly the Berlin airlift. The enormous fuel savings (cruising on 2 engines rather then 4) gave a big cost advantage and resulting profit.
Things didn't end well however (comuppance for hubris and greed). Better luck to this team.
How well does the engine work with ethanol in the fuel?
Ethanol concentrations vary by the season, by the delivery, and by the location, and thus the vapor pressure would change.
Check out George Forman at www.eagle-research.com
He's been doing this sort of thing for years now.
I should have said George Wiseman at www.eagle-research.com
Can I buy one to retro fit my car?
Seriously, If they strapped this on a Ford Mustang as a after market kit, people would buy it.
Thanks
Dr. Brian Glassman
That rumor was around in the first fuel crisis in 1974 - and the rest of the rumor was the oil companies bought the rights and killed it to preserve their business.
Ah, history may be repeating itself....<g>
You can put a nuke powered fuel converter on a donkey and get better gas mileage, Imagine what you can do with a horse? The super carb on a standard engine is still lame. If you put this rig on a low friction and low vibration engine delivering the same horsepower.........Now here's the Rube, shrink the engine to where it cuts gas use and emissions to a quarter but turns a generator to drive a motor, has exceptional freeway power and range. Then put it in a Chevy Impala for the price of a Malibu. That is newsworthy.
I want to invest in this but I am not an Angel or VC. Why is there not an open source VC service.
You'd think startups would love access to the funds without some of the interference.
Improving volumetric efficiency will yield some MPG gain but throwing in a "secret sauce" catalyst makes it sound a bit funny. Install these injectors on some Indy race cars and see if they can run 500 miles on one tank of fuel. Whats that old saying: if it sounds to good to be true....
Improving the fuel efficiency of piston engine airplanes might be the most important application. Gas stations are a lot more numerous than airports, and better located compared to flying over bodies of water, and stopping for a fill-up involves a lot more for an airplane than a car.
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
enantiomer2000
66 Comments
Woot!
Sounds promising. Combined with a form of fusion, it will give us all the energy we ever need..
Reply
erbium
337 Comments
Re: Fusion
Fusion is a pipedream in your lifetime.
we'll be lucky if we have commercial fusion by 2070 at the earliest. And it will never be too cheap to meter.
Fusion is perenially 'just a few hundred billion short of a sixpack', and will be for next 60 years.
So we are ALREADY RUNNING THE METER for fusion energy due to research grants. The cost currently is INFINITE as we are GETTING NO ENERGY OUT! and we are in the hole for hundreds of billions globally between all the research effort. - a good start for 'too cheap to meter' </end sarcasm>
Reply
rocket7777
124 Comments
Re: Fusion
Couple things you forgot are...
Computer etc. are improving rapidly and probably can somewhat be self-replication in next 10-20 years and perhaps smarter than human ones with in next 10-50 years.
Secondly, outside of earth fusion is safe. Perhaps on one of moon of outer planet, comet, or asteroid.
Reply