Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

Better than Hybrids

A proposed engine design approaches the efficiency of gas-electric hybrids, but could be far cheaper.

By Kevin Bullis

Monday, April 24, 2006

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

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.

Comments

  • 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.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (Robert)
    04/24/2006
    Posts:1
    • 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.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (DickC)
      04/24/2006
      Posts:1
      • 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.
        Rate this comment: 12345
        Guest (ChrisM)
        04/25/2006
        Posts:1
    • 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.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (DickC)
      04/24/2006
      Posts:1
      • 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.
        Rate this comment: 12345
        Guest
        04/25/2006
        Posts:1
        • 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).
          Rate this comment: 12345
          Guest (Curious)
          04/25/2006
          Posts:1
        • 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.
          Rate this comment: 12345
          Guest (Buck)
          04/27/2006
          Posts:1
          • 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.
            Rate this comment: 12345
            Guest (Horton)
            04/28/2006
            Posts:1
  • Guest (How does ethanol )
    04/24/2006
    Posts:1
    • [no subject]
      Ethanol is more  resistant to detonation than gasoline- the definition of 'higher octane'
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (jim)
      04/24/2006
      Posts:1
      • Erm- no
        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.
        Rate this comment: 12345
        Guest (Don)
        04/25/2006
        Posts:1
        • octane
          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.
          Rate this comment: 12345
          Guest (Greg)
          04/25/2006
          Posts:1
        • More octane details...
          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.
          Rate this comment: 12345
          Guest (John)
          04/25/2006
          Posts:1
    • ethanol
      It's octane # is related to it's volatality and compresability
      Higher octane fuels do not nessesarily have a higher energy content, but can be compressed to a greater degree that will compensate for it's energy rating.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (g hogarth)
      06/08/2006
      Posts:1
  • Need to harness waster energy
    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.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (Shuiva)
    04/24/2006
    Posts:1
    • Barely effective
      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.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (Don)
      04/25/2006
      Posts:1
  • Hydrogen Injection
    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.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (Richard)
    04/24/2006
    Posts:1
    • 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.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (Richard)
      04/24/2006
      Posts:1
      • Hydrogen Boost
        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
        Rate this comment: 12345
        Guest (ColinK)
        04/24/2006
        Posts:1
      • Hydrogen injection
        Check www.eagle-research.com.
        He claims 80 MPG W/standard IC
        engine.
        Rate this comment: 12345
        Guest (Ted)
        04/24/2006
        Posts:1
    • Hydrogen Injection
      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).
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (Valmiki)
      04/24/2006
      Posts:1
    • Hydrogen injection
      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. 
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (Gary Filice)
      04/24/2006
      Posts:1
    • Microplasmatron
      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.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (Jamelle)
      04/25/2006
      Posts:1
  • 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!
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (MTilley)
    04/24/2006
    Posts:1
    • hydrogen
      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.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (greg)
      04/24/2006
      Posts:1
      • hydrogen stopped by Bush
        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?
        Rate this comment: 12345
        Guest (DaveinMn)
        04/25/2006
        Posts:1
      • 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...
        Rate this comment: 12345
        Guest (Bubba)
        04/25/2006
        Posts:1
    • hydrogen bonds
      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.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (steve)
      04/24/2006
      Posts:1
    • Hydrogen from Water -- How?
      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!
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (David)
      04/24/2006
      Posts:1
    • H2 power
      darn tooten right pleae write to me condor at sentex.net
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (Herman)
      04/24/2006
      Posts:1
    • Hydrogen from where?
      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.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (B Tharp)
      04/24/2006
      Posts:1
    • Hydrogen magic
      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.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (jhance11)
      04/24/2006
      Posts:1
      • Sort of
        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.
        Rate this comment: 12345
        Guest (Don)
        04/25/2006
        Posts:1
      • 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.
        Rate this comment: 12345
        Guest (Corvidae)
        04/25/2006
        Posts:1
    • shallow thinking
      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.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (Chris)
      04/27/2006
      Posts:1
  • Ethanol vs Joe Cell
    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.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (Jim)
    04/24/2006
    Posts:1
  • why inject ethanol
    Why inject ethanol seperatly, why not just burn e-85 gasahol
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (Tony)
    04/24/2006
    Posts:1
    • [no subject]
      Because it is too easy
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (jg)
      04/25/2006
      Posts:1
    • 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.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (J.D. Giel)
      04/25/2006
      Posts:1
    • 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.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (Paul)
      04/25/2006
      Posts:1
  • 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.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (Mark Shapiro)
    04/24/2006
    Posts:1
    • agreed
      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.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (odograph)
      04/24/2006
      Posts:1
  • Progress from &nbsp;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.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (John)
    04/24/2006
    Posts:1
  • hydrogen, waste of time
    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.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (mike)
    04/24/2006
    Posts:1
    • you're exactly right
      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.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (Schwee)
      04/28/2006
      Posts:1
  • i have an idea
    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.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (bigrobhollins)
    04/24/2006
    Posts:1
    • H2 power
      please get back via <condor at sentex.net>
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (Herman)
      04/24/2006
      Posts:1
    • turbocompounding
      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.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (Horton)
      04/28/2006
      Posts:1
      • Turbocompounding
        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
        Rate this comment: 12345
        Guest (Jiro Yamamoto)
        05/03/2006
        Posts:1
  • 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."
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (odograph)
    04/24/2006
    Posts:1
    • consumer reports assumptions
      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!
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (nerfer)
      04/24/2006
      Posts:1
      • gas prices
        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.
        Rate this comment: 12345
        Guest (odograph)
        04/24/2006
        Posts:1
        • Consumer Reports
          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.
          Rate this comment: 12345
          Guest (Greg)
          04/25/2006
          Posts:1
          • 20 Years
            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.
            Rate this comment: 12345
            Guest (Justin)
            04/25/2006
            Posts:1
  • BioPower got there first...
    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.....
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (Chris)
    04/24/2006
    Posts:1
  • SAAB
    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.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest
    04/24/2006
    Posts:1
  • 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..
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (Sid Kelly)
    04/24/2006
    Posts:1
  • Why not?
    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.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (Pedals in cars)
    04/24/2006
    Posts:1
    • pedals in cars
      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.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (Schwee)
      04/28/2006
      Posts:1
  • Add O2
    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.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (Bart friedman)
    04/24/2006
    Posts:1
    • nitrous oxide
      Thats basically what nitrous oxide does (http://www.holley.com/index.asp?division=NOS).
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (Chris)
      04/24/2006
      Posts:1
      • Exactly
        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.
        Rate this comment: 12345
        Guest (Don)
        04/25/2006
        Posts:1
        • NO NEED TO STORE O2
          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.
          Rate this comment: 12345
          Guest (BART FRIEDMAN)
          04/25/2006
          Posts:1
          • 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.
            Rate this comment: 12345
            Guest (Sam Golbuff)
            04/26/2006
            Posts:1
      • unlike NO
        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.
        Rate this comment: 12345
        Guest (bart friedman)
        04/25/2006
        Posts:1
  • 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
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (Herman)
    04/24/2006
    Posts:1
  • Better than Hybrids
    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.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (Paul &nbsp;von Beck)
    04/24/2006
    Posts:1
  • 92 mpg diesel tested
    Here is a good article on future diesel engines.
    http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars_trucks/1266891.html
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (Firedewd)
    04/24/2006
    Posts:1
    • VW Diesel achieved 240 MPG
      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.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (Don)
      04/25/2006
      Posts:1
      • 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
        Rate this comment: 12345
        Guest (ScottZ.)
        04/25/2006
        Posts:1
        • laughable
          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.
          Rate this comment: 12345
          Guest (MattH)
          04/25/2006
          Posts:1
      • mpg
        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.
        Rate this comment: 12345
        Guest (Dana)
        04/25/2006
        Posts:1
        • Stop start energy /mass
          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
          Rate this comment: 12345
          Guest (Paul McLachlan)
          04/25/2006
          Posts:1
  • 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...
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (Osman)
    04/25/2006
    Posts:1
    • It's different
      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.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (Don)
      04/25/2006
      Posts:1
      • Already been done
        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.
        Rate this comment: 12345
        Guest (offset)
        04/25/2006
        Posts:1
        • agreed
          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?
          Rate this comment: 12345
          Guest (Chris)
          04/25/2006
          Posts:1
    • Ask any import tuner
      Is there one commercial vehicle you can buy with this thechnology?
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (Del)
      06/08/2006
      Posts:1
  • 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.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (Scott Z.)
    04/25/2006
    Posts:1
    • Hydrogen isn't free
      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.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (RayC)
      04/25/2006
      Posts:1
      • 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.
        Rate this comment: 12345
        Guest (Jeff W)
        04/25/2006
        Posts:1
        • Bad Science
          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.
          Rate this comment: 12345
          Guest (Scott W)
          04/25/2006
          Posts:1
        • 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.
          Rate this comment: 12345
          Guest (Sam G.)
          04/26/2006
          Posts:1
    • 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.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (Cliff R)
      04/25/2006
      Posts:1
    • 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.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (CRySyS)
      04/25/2006
      Posts:1
    • Hydrogen is not that free
      It takes a lot of energy to separate hydrogen from the very stable water molecule. Hydrogen is free only when electricity is free.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (Brandon H)
      06/08/2006
      Posts:1
  • Knock Supression
    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%.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (habman)
    04/25/2006
    Posts:1
    • knock suppression
      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?
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (Schwee)
      04/28/2006
      Posts:1
  • Conspiracy Theories
    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.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (Dr.A)
    04/25/2006
    Posts:1
  • ultimate hydrogen ICE
    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
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (Paul McLachlan)
    04/25/2006
    Posts:1
  • back to this engine
    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.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (VN)
    04/25/2006
    Posts:1
    • compression, weight, cost
      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.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (Horton)
      04/28/2006
      Posts:1
  • Fusion
    Fusion Reactors are the answer.  Fusion produces electricity... electricity charges battery... battery runs car. Simple! The GRID is already there.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (James-Brunswick Ga)
    04/25/2006
    Posts:1
    • Good Point
      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.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (John Hardy)
      05/25/2006
      Posts:1
  • 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
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (Ismirth)
    04/26/2006
    Posts:1
    • MYT engine
      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.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (Joe)
      05/03/2006
      Posts:1
  • 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
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (Will)
    04/26/2006
    Posts:1
    • no methanol though
      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.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (Buck)
      04/27/2006
      Posts:1
      • no methanol though
        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).
        Rate this comment: 12345
        Guest (Schwee)
        04/28/2006
        Posts:1
        • Hot engine
          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 !
          Rate this comment: 12345
          Guest (g hogarth)
          06/08/2006
          Posts:1
  • fusion
    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!
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (charlie)
    04/27/2006
    Posts:1
  • Heat
    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. 
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (Bernie)
    04/28/2006
    Posts:1
  • Variable Capacity Engines
    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.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (Joe)
    05/03/2006
    Posts:1
    • Variable Capacity engines
      Joe --

      I can't get to this file. Do you have download instructions, or is there a URL?
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (Schwee)
      05/10/2006
      Posts:1
      • Variable capacity engines
        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.
        Rate this comment: 12345
        Guest (Joe)
        05/11/2006
        Posts:1
    • small engine with a capacitor
      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.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (Doc)
      05/16/2006
      Posts:1
      • Small engine with capacitor
        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?
        Rate this comment: 12345
        Guest (Joe)
        05/16/2006
        Posts:1
        • small engine with a capacitor
          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.
          Rate this comment: 12345
          Guest (Doc)
          05/17/2006
          Posts:1
  • Peak shaving auto engine
    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.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (Doc (Dae Sik Kim))
    05/15/2006
    Posts:1
  • 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.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (Alan)
    06/02/2006
    Posts:1
  • 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
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (Santiago Gillies)
    06/09/2006
    Posts:1
  • Alcohol Injection
    Compare your engine operation to the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine in a P-51 in World War 2.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (Ronald Noland)
    07/15/2006
    Posts:1
  • 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
    Rate this comment: 12345

    Guest(yont)
    02/05/2007
    Posts:2
  • 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.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    manallc.com
    02/16/2007
    Posts:1

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement

Videos

Malleable Maps, Artistic Robots and Bubble Interfaces
Technology Review January/February 2010

Current Issue

Security in the Ether
Information technology's next grand challenge will be to secure the cloud--and prove we can trust it.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Subscribe to Technology Review's daily e-mail update. Enter your e-mail address

TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2010 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.