The Chinese Solar Machine Layer by Layer Fire in the Library The Mystery Behind Anesthesia
Test engine: Researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison used this Caterpillar heavy-duty diesel engine to test a new high-efficiency combustion concept.
Derek Splitter
Precise combustion control cuts fuel consumption by more than 30 percent.
A new engine concept developed by researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison could cut fuel consumption by about 30 percent in cars and by almost 20 percent in heavy trucks. In gas-powered cars, the new design would add little to the cost of the engine. In heavy-duty trucks, it would substantially reduce costs by eliminating the need for expensive after-treatment systems to reduce emissions.
The concept, which has been demonstrated in test engines, involves precisely mixing two different fuels in the combustion chamber, which gives greater control over both the timing and duration of combustion. It could provide a way to meet fuel economy regulations without the more expensive electric motors and batteries found in hybrid vehicles (although for still greater efficiency, the new design could be incorporated into a hybrid vehicle). The new engine concept is made possible by precise electronic fuel injection and advances in computer simulations. "We discovered this process using advanced computer modeling, which allowed us to identify the recipe for optimal mixing of the fuels," says Rolf Reitz, a professor of mechanical engineering at UW-Madison.
The design has two versions, one for replacing heavy-duty diesel engines and another, to be unveiled this fall, that would replace conventional gasoline engines. Both use the same combustion process that makes diesel engines significantly more efficient than gasoline engines--compressing fuel and air until it reaches pressures and temperatures that cause it to ignite, rather than using a spark to ignite the fuel. The new design improves engine efficiency beyond that of diesel engines by reducing the amount of energy wasted as heat and by improving control over the timing of combustion. It also greatly reduces the emissions associated with diesel engines, particularly important now that new emissions regulations require automakers to employ expensive after-treatment systems.
In the version designed to replace heavy-duty diesel engines, gasoline from one fuel tank is injected into the intake port near the combustion chamber, where it mixes with air before moving into the chamber (this is the conventional form of fuel injection in gasoline vehicles). Then diesel fuel from another tank is injected directly into the chamber using a low-pressure fuel injector. As this mixture is compressed, the diesel ignites first, followed shortly by the gasoline, which is more resistant to combustion. Controlling the ratio of the two fuels determines both the timing of the combustion and how long it lasts. The design requires precise control over the fuel injection, as the ratio and distribution of the two fuels in the chamber needs to change depending on the load placed on the engine. With light loads, the mix is about 50-50, while heavier loads might need as little as 5 percent diesel. The resulting engine is about 55 percent efficient, compared to 40 to 45 percent efficient for conventional heavy-duty diesel engines. Emissions are low enough to eliminate the need for after-treatment systems for exhaust--systems that, in a heavy-duty truck, can cost as much as the engine itself.
I can't see how a 10% improvement in efficiency suddenly reduces emissions to the point where that much gear could be eliminated. sounds a little shaky. adding fuel tanks and controls and manufacturing complexity is hardly cheap as well. I'm guessing this is much closer to a push than the article suggests, and would result in higher or the same costs with little to show for it.
The emissions improvement is not a result of the efficiency improvement. NOx and particulates, etc, formation is reduced because of the difference in combustion--for example, lower temperatures and pressures.
Also, it's much more than a 10 percent relative improvement. Going from 30 to 45 is a big deal--cutting fuel consumption by over 30 percent.
at least somewhat from
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/24701/?a=f
transonic which heats and pressurizes gas to wring out 50% improvement.
Hmmmnnnhh.. if not the same maybe the methods could be combined for even more efficiency?
Looks like the transonic method wrings out more and doesn't need additive.
I'm guessing both need improved cylinder materials to be used due to increased heat or pressure during combustion.
And I wonder what happens if one part fails such as fuel heat or pressurizer, is there a degraded mode that is similar to today's engines?
Guest (DennisB)
The additive is Urea. Explained here:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-11/i-uto111008.php
Technology review is getting slow, I beat them to the punch on this one by posting it last August:
http://prometheusgonewild.wordpress.com/2009/08/23/boost-to-engine-fuel-efficiency/
:)
Gasoline is made up of over a 100 different components w/differing flash points etc. This two tank stuff is just silly; change the mixture at the refinery.
Maybe that's future plan?
I've never been happy with recipe of combustion fuels. Seems too easy to adjust. I'm missing something.
^
What you are missing is the ability to change mixtures on the fly to satisfy different combustion conditions. What these researchers have achieved is essentially variable compression ratio without mechanically altering the engine and without needing overly precise control of a turbocharger/boost.
The technology they used is already commercially available and might only add $200 to the cost of a DI engine, $1000 to the cost of a PFI engine.
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.
fixerdave
28 Comments
if my Dad was alive to see this...
My Dad did this back in the 50's, before I was born. He used to salvage contaminated jet fuel, diesel, whatever he could get, from the airbase he worked at as a heavy-duty mechanic. He had two tanks in his car, two carbs, and a big valve control that ran into the cab so that he could adjust the mixture between the two. High compression but not quite to diesel spec, and no direct injection, but he's be jumping up and down right now saying "I told you so." Of course, he wasn't going for efficiency, just a way to burn free fuel, and I suspect his grey-powered analog control left more rather than less emissions in his wake. But, he'd still be yelling "I told you so."
I suppose next year I'll be reading about how someone is using the exhaust gasses of 1/2 a V8 to generate steam power in the other 4 cylinders. He never got that one going... but I still remember him welding up and hand-grinding his custom dual-lobed cam. Don't ask me how it was suppose to work, but I bet it would have if he had access to the tools I have now.
Thanks for the memories :)
Reply
Guest (DennisB)
Re: if my Dad was alive to see this...
The steam engine idea has been tried in a couple different variations (look up Six Stroke Engine).
The main problem I see with using one engine (A six Stroke or what your father tried),is it is hard to keep the water out of the oil. And the issue of making piston rings that will work for those situations.
An idea I have been toying with would be to attach a two cylinder engine to the back of a four cylinder. In this respect the four cylinder would work as normal, but all the exhaust would be run through the two cylinder which would act like a steam engine. By separating the systems it is easier to get a handle on the moisture issues...
A problem that all of these ideas run into with cars is the one of a catalytic converter. They are mandated by law, but do not work unless very hot....So they would be regulated to diesels.
I would have loved to have hung out with your dad in the garage. He sounds like my type of guy.
Reply