Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New engine's a family affair
Detroit Free Press/Boston Globe ^ | 4/23/2006 | Justin Hyde

Posted on 04/25/2006 12:50:28 PM PDT by Neville72

DETROIT -- In the back aisles of the Society of Automotive Engineers recent convention, past the displays hawking springs and sprockets, one family's dream began to take shape. Scuderi Group of West Springfield, Mass., didn't have to look far to fill its offices. Salvatore Scuderi, company president, has engineering and law degrees. So does Stephen, his brother, the company's patent attorney. Another brother, Nick, runs marketing; sister Deborah handles accounting. Six of the eight Scuderi siblings made the trip to Detroit's Cobo Center, in service of their late father Carmelo Scuderi's invention.

The results of the years of work on his ideas were shown on screens above the company's stand: a computer image of an odd-looking engine, its pistons moving in an old-timey stutter step, with an air tank on the side.

It's the model for the Scuderi air-hybrid engine, an invention the Scuderis say breaks longstanding barriers to generating more power with less fuel. By their reckoning, a Scuderi engine could power a hybrid vehicle that doubles the fuel economy of a typical vehicle for a fraction of the cost of today's gasoline-electric systems.

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


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: airhybridengine; automotive; energy; engines; petroleum; scuderi
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-28 next last
Scuderi Group's Air Hybrid Blog

http://www.airhybridblog.com/

1 posted on 04/25/2006 12:50:30 PM PDT by Neville72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Neville72

If it's that wonderful, they should build it, market it, and let it win or lose in the competetive marketplace. If they're not willing to do that, they should take their little models and pretty pictures and go sit over on the "Group W" bench with all the other tinkerers and dreamers who never amounted to much.


2 posted on 04/25/2006 12:55:58 PM PDT by bondjamesbond (RICE 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Neville72
Animation showing how the engine works here (Macromedia FlashPlayer, you may have to allow plugins to view.)
3 posted on 04/25/2006 1:02:38 PM PDT by Yo-Yo (USAF, TAC, 12th AF, 366 TFW, 366 MG, 366 CRS, Mtn Home AFB, 1978-81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Neville72

Here's the company website. There's some interesting info and animations.

http://www.scuderigroup.com/technology/the_technology.html


4 posted on 04/25/2006 1:03:35 PM PDT by Neville72 (uist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

This infor is interesting.


Summary of Predicted Gains

Two computer studies predicted that the Scuderi Engine could potentially approach efficiency levels of 42.6% brake thermal efficiency (BTE), as compared to a baseline standard engine having an optimized efficiency of 33.2% BTE. The potential predicted gains of the Scuderi Engine are summarized as follows:

Major Parameter Involved In Effecting BTE Potential Increase In Points of BTE (Percentage Increase Over 33.2 Point Baseline)
1) Increased burn rates 5 points BTE (15% increase)

2) Use of ceramics to insulate the power piston and cylinder from heat losses due to the faster burn rates. 2 points BTE (6% increase)

3) Being able to run lean without the need for a three-way catalytic converter (TWC) 1 point BTE (3% increase)

4) Advanced piston motion features resulting from the second computer study, which allows more time for the power piston to build pressure during combustion. 1.4 points BTE (4% increase)

Total potential gains identified 9.4 points BTE (28% increase) (BTE from 33.2% to 42.6%)

The final report of the Southwest Research Institutes' computerized study is available upon request, provided the requesting party signs a non-disclosure agreement with the Scuderi Group, LLC.

Previous Main Menu Next


5 posted on 04/25/2006 1:06:52 PM PDT by Neville72 (uist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Neville72

Yeah, this actually looks like a viable technology and not another in a long, long line of snake-oil variants.


6 posted on 04/25/2006 1:10:12 PM PDT by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

Do I understand how this works?

It basically dedicates a single piston/cylinder as a compression source that feeds into another piston/cylinder just before ignition.

All the combustion takes place in the second cylinder, which alternates with combustion and exhaust.

Seems interesting, but I don't understand why just splitting combustion process is able to give these gains in power or efficiency.


7 posted on 04/25/2006 1:13:23 PM PDT by CertainInalienableRights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Neville72

Amazingly, no one has yet said it's another in a long line of brilliant inventions destined to be destroyed by "big oil."


8 posted on 04/25/2006 1:16:28 PM PDT by newgeezer (Just my opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bondjamesbond

"If it's that wonderful, they should build it, market it, and let it win or lose in the competetive marketplace."

I thought that was what they're trying to do.


9 posted on 04/25/2006 1:16:39 PM PDT by dljordan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Spktyr

I gahter the gains are essentially based on not cooling the combustion cylinder between every burn.

Is that the point?

If so, its hard to imagine this being the silver bullet for engine efficiency.

I think their projections basically bear that out too. They cite 33% efficiency for a "normal" engine, but I think that's a tad low. I know diesels (particularly larger ones) already get as high as 40% efficient.


10 posted on 04/25/2006 1:17:22 PM PDT by Pessimist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: CertainInalienableRights

I think the goal is thermal efficiency.

You don't inject cold air into the combustion cylinder with every charge.

The compressed air from the 1st cylinder would be somewhat heated by compression before it goes into the 2nd cylinder.


11 posted on 04/25/2006 1:18:55 PM PDT by Pessimist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Pessimist

Seems to be similar to turbocharging or supercharging. It also seems like it would have more mechanical drag than turbo/supercharging.


12 posted on 04/25/2006 1:26:06 PM PDT by keithtoo (It's STILL not safe to vote Democrat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Pessimist
You don't inject cold air into the combustion cylinder with every charge

That's what I had thought, but I remembered that forced induction engines often cool the intake charge to make it more dense so even more oxygen is forced into the cylinder.

Of course, I'm just a gearhead, so maybe I'm not thinking about it correctly. Maybe intercooling is only to negate the affects of the heated charge and isn't a useful process for normally-aspirated engines.
13 posted on 04/25/2006 1:26:28 PM PDT by CertainInalienableRights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: dljordan
I thought that was what they're trying to do.

They have had that design for some time. So where are the prototype cars, with working engines and real-world experience? Where are the engines to be installed in other cars?

They are saying they want to build it. They are raising tons of money to build it. They are trying to get somebody else to build it. They are doing everything in the World besides pouring steel into molds and building the darn thing.

14 posted on 04/25/2006 1:27:57 PM PDT by bondjamesbond (RICE 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: All
I found ONe !
15 posted on 04/25/2006 1:29:45 PM PDT by Kewlhand`tek (Those that can't , Teach. Those that can't teach , Report)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Neville72
It's a two stroke engine with four strokes.

Interesting design. I would like to see some preformance numbers since you're using half the number of cylinders for power, but they fire every revolution.

16 posted on 04/25/2006 1:29:56 PM PDT by AFreeBird (your mileage may vary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pessimist

Eh, 33% is about right for something in the small-displacement gasoline engine arena. I suspect this is going to turn out like the Mays head design idea - not univerally applicable, but highly useful for some applications.


17 posted on 04/25/2006 1:30:46 PM PDT by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: CertainInalienableRights
"but I don't understand why just splitting combustion process is able to give these gains in power or efficiency."

It allows for optimization of the compression/power strokes independently. For instance you could have a longer stroke for the power piston and a larger bore for compression.
18 posted on 04/25/2006 1:33:12 PM PDT by KEVLAR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Spktyr
In their "how it works" section, they talk about the advantages of separating the combustion and compression tasks into separate cylinders. There are some theoretical advantages to being able to optimize the design of each cylinder, rather than having to design to a compromise between the combustion and compression strokes within a single cylinder. So that side of the story seems about right.

The downside to this engine, of course, is that you've got a LOT more moving parts, which would affect reliability.

19 posted on 04/25/2006 1:39:51 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: CertainInalienableRights
Seems interesting, but I don't understand why just splitting combustion process is able to give these gains in power or efficiency.

The only thing I can think of is this is sort of a modified two cycle, so since there is a power stroke for every revolution of the crank, you have more efficiency.

A traditional two stroke is much more efficient than an Otto cycle four stroke, but because of the need for running the fresh air/fuel charge through the crank you also pollute more by burning your lubricant.

This engine would eliminate that drawback. Plus, remember the original posting said something about adding an air tank to make a hybrid engine. I can see diverting the compressed air to a tank during "regenerative braking" and using that compressed air for the first few power strokes instead of using the compression piston.

20 posted on 04/25/2006 1:48:13 PM PDT by Yo-Yo (USAF, TAC, 12th AF, 366 TFW, 366 MG, 366 CRS, Mtn Home AFB, 1978-81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-28 next last

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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