Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Transonic Supercritical Fuel Injection Could Improve Gasoline Engines by 50-75 Percent
Next Big Future ^ | Mar 3, 2010 | Brian Wang

Posted on 03/04/2010 3:48:04 PM PST by decimon

Transonic Combustion, based in Camarillo, CA, has developed a gasoline fuel injection system that can improve the efficiency of gasoline engines by 50 to 75 percent, beating the fuel economy of hybrid vehicles. A test vehicle the size and weight of a Toyota Prius (but without hybrid propulsion) showed 64 miles per gallon for highway driving. The company says the system can work with existing engines, and costs about as much as existing high-end fuel injection.

(Excerpt) Read more at nextbigfuture.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy
KEYWORDS: california; fueleconomy; fuelinjection; gasmileage; hybrid; michigan

1 posted on 03/04/2010 3:48:05 PM PST by decimon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: decimon

BS BS BS BS. repeat 1000 times


2 posted on 03/04/2010 3:49:43 PM PST by chooseascreennamepat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: decimon

“Supercritical” sounds like a synonym for cranky.


3 posted on 03/04/2010 3:50:04 PM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chooseascreennamepat

My car runs on water 100mpg.


4 posted on 03/04/2010 3:50:26 PM PST by omega4179 (jdforsenate.com hunt some rinos 2010)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: decimon

Fascinating. BTT.


5 posted on 03/04/2010 3:51:35 PM PST by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: decimon

So! If we combine the two technologies (hybrid and transonic fuel injection) the car will get 100 mpg.


6 posted on 03/04/2010 3:52:57 PM PST by reg45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chooseascreennamepat

I know, I smell snake oil.

But the idea of an ultrasonic transducer carb. makes sense to me. Have thought about that one for years. But even with a super design it is very doubtful it would be that efficient.


7 posted on 03/04/2010 3:53:56 PM PST by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: decimon

I have one on the shelf next to the super-carb I bought at in the 1950’s at an estate sale for a GM exec.


8 posted on 03/04/2010 3:55:17 PM PST by WOBBLY BOB (ACORN:American Corruption for Obama Right Now)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil

Still remember the “100 mpg carburator” the auto companies were supposed to have buried years ago.


9 posted on 03/04/2010 3:55:25 PM PST by JayVee (Joseph)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: decimon

It appears to be s system for putting the fuel near the spark at the time of firing. sounds promising.


10 posted on 03/04/2010 3:58:28 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: decimon
Transonic Combustion, based in Camarillo, CA, has developed a gasoline fuel injection system that can improve the efficiency of gasoline engines by 50 to 75 percent...

And if they put some of those tornado thingies in the intake, they can get like 100% or more!

11 posted on 03/04/2010 3:59:24 PM PST by Onelifetogive (Flame away...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: decimon
that can improve the efficiency of gasoline engines by 50 to 75 percent, beating the fuel economy of hybrid vehicles.

Do we actually trust auto news from someone who does not know that a hybrid has a gasoline engine?

12 posted on 03/04/2010 4:01:01 PM PST by Onelifetogive (Flame away...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: decimon
TSCi Fuel Injection achieves lean combustion and super efficiency by running gasoline, diesel, and advanced bio-renewable fuels on modern diesel engine architectures

I read this as they're running gasoline in a diesel engine, but maybe I misunderstand.
13 posted on 03/04/2010 4:04:04 PM PST by chrisser (Starve the Monkeys!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: decimon

Impossible.

This scheme’s only intent is to extract money from morons (read: Congressmen) who don’t have the faintest idea of Physics, Thermodynamics, Heat Transfer, Engine Cycles, Carnot Cycles, etc.


14 posted on 03/04/2010 4:04:49 PM PST by HighWheeler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: decimon

Physics probably controls the fuel air mixture which is a constant for combustion as I understand it. No amount of buzzwords can change physics.

PS I will willingly retract my statement in relation to the discovery if it proves viable.


15 posted on 03/04/2010 4:04:51 PM PST by wita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chooseascreennamepat

A while back I new a guy who took an old ford pickup and replacing the air filter, rigged up some kind of a gas drip thing where the motor ran just on fumes. He had it going and doing like 60mpg. A few days later I got a phone call asking me to pick him up. It blew the hood off the truck and caught his pants on fire. I don’t think I stopped laughing for two days.


16 posted on 03/04/2010 4:04:57 PM PST by Track9 (Oh never mind)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: decimon

A 50 or 75 percent improvement would probably put a gas engine beyond its theoretical max efficiency.


17 posted on 03/04/2010 4:06:25 PM PST by Yardstick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WOBBLY BOB

Maybe the old spark plugs job not finished after all.


18 posted on 03/04/2010 4:21:51 PM PST by Orange1998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: chooseascreennamepat

Have you looked at the website. Patents and pictures explain it all.


19 posted on 03/04/2010 4:23:17 PM PST by Orange1998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: decimon

I think what they are doing is making the fuel explode instead of burn. In a normal IC engine the fuel burns. If it explodes, or detonates, it produces the pinging sound and can destroy the engine.


20 posted on 03/04/2010 4:45:19 PM PST by kik5150
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chrisser

It seems they really don't want folks to understand too much. In one place, it appeared they were talking "blend". In others, they claim to have the run the engines on a variety of fuels.

The "diesel architecture" to me, read 'high compression'.

The last line;

In the old days, when the hot-rodders custom built small-block V-8's, going much past 12.5 to 1 made it difficult to keep from blowing head gaskets.

Diesels are more like in the neighborhood of 14 to 1 and more, with modern ones perhaps always more? (I'm not really that up-to-date).

For another comparison;
An 50's era, Chevy straight 6 used 7.5 to 1 compression ratio, and had a head bolt torque of a bit less than one hundred ft. lbs. 85-90 lbs? That sounds about right...
A diesel Caterpillar straight 6 would have head bolt torques of around 350 ft. lbs. I think I remember 345, or was it 365 lbs(?) for a 70's era 343 Cat.

It's much more expensive to make engines that utilize higher compression ratios, particularly if you want them to be durable. Everything needs to be stronger --- blocks, heads, pistons, rods. That's why the diesel "architecture".

Even if this new tech would actually work in the real world, they won't be converting 350 Chevy blocks, to use it. That had been tried in the past, (using lower compression, gasoline "architecture" simply converted to diesel) and it failed. Rather famously.

21 posted on 03/04/2010 4:45:55 PM PST by BlueDragon (there is no such thing as a "true" compass, all are subject to both variation & deviation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: decimon
The real solution
22 posted on 03/04/2010 4:51:38 PM PST by Waverunner ( "Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: decimon

But I have the same thing that I built in my garage, and it burns water...

Seriously, where do these stories come from. If this were true, they wouldn’t be peddling stories, they would be gearing up for mass production.

The follow up to this story will be that these guys in black suits showed up and confiscated the only prototype, which can’t be recreated.


23 posted on 03/04/2010 4:57:01 PM PST by SampleMan (No one should die on a gov. waiting list., or go broke because the gov. has dictated their salary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yardstick
A 50 or 75 percent improvement would probably put a gas engine beyond its theoretical max efficiency.

No, the theoretical limit is the energy in the fuel, which is about 275 mpg. The problem is that most of the energy is wasted producting heat.

24 posted on 03/04/2010 5:00:37 PM PST by SampleMan (No one should die on a gov. waiting list., or go broke because the gov. has dictated their salary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan; Yardstick
No, the theoretical limit is the energy in the fuel, which is about 275 mpg. The problem is that most of the energy is wasted producting heat

Thats why he referred to the theoretical max efficiency of the ic gas engine. The fuel has to combust so how will it get around the problem that most of the energy is wasted in heat?

25 posted on 03/04/2010 5:08:08 PM PST by valkyry1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: decimon

BTTT!


26 posted on 03/04/2010 5:34:15 PM PST by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: valkyry1; SampleMan

Exactly. We studied this in thermodynamics class years ago. I can’t remember what the name of the ideally efficient engine was — Carnot Cycle or something. But even it was something like only 70% efficient. And I think it assumed no heat loss or friction. The only losses were due to entropy (IIRC, and it’s been a while!).


27 posted on 03/04/2010 5:37:46 PM PST by Yardstick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: decimon; grellis; AdmSmith; Berosus; bigheadfred; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; ...

Thanks decimon. With anything like this it is necessary to A) prove reliability, B) prove it can be built reliably on an assembly line, and C) retain vicious attorneys. Nearly thirty years ago, Yunick’s adiabatic system used a combo of patented and proprietary things to build a 60 mpg three cylinder that had satisfactory performance; Ray Gorte prototyped a hydrocarbon-direct fuel cell; what do we have instead? Basically bupkis.


28 posted on 03/04/2010 7:25:46 PM PST by SunkenCiv (Freedom is Priceless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: decimon

The claims remain to be proven but my understanding that the major problem keeping super lean burning engines off the road is emmisions. Specifically NOs.

What they are claiming does not break the rules of thermodynamics but may break the rules of the EPA.


29 posted on 03/05/2010 7:51:37 AM PST by dangerdoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JayVee

“Still remember the “100 mpg carburator” the auto companies were supposed to have buried years ago.”

Yes. They televised the ceremony hosted by John Cameron “give it a licking and it keeps on ticking” Swayze.

Ah, I remember it well. (sung to the tune of the Col. Bogie March)


30 posted on 03/05/2010 8:34:54 AM PST by chooseascreennamepat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson