Posted on 04/24/2013 4:45:56 PM PDT by TwelveOfTwenty
Thanks to generous support from a foreign backer, there is renewed hope for an American attempt to revolutionize, modernize and sanitize the automobile engine.
The catch? The finished product will be stamped “Made in China.”
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I suspect the US auto industry and the US oil interests have kept the best innovations out of our cars. China has greater motivation for efficiency.
When the market and economy crashed in 08, the new mantra and buzz phrase was all about the “Green Shoots”.
They simply failed to say those shoots are “Bamboo”.
It's called a rickshaw.
Opposed-piston technology is not new. It is decades old.
Maybe opposed-piston, double-acting would be even more efficient.
sign up for driver education at the senñor center.....
I run some two strokes that have a 8 1/2 inch bore, they run 24 hours 7 days a week.
No, as one Engineer on a vaulted high profile project noted to me, we don't give money to these guys to fail, we give it to them to succeed. Ergo look at all the money thrown at Ballard Power Systems Fuel Cells and the Big three have nothing to show for it.
Also, I followed a specific techology for years, I mean like 20 years. I finally got to me some guys that tested it eons ago and I got to ask Why didn't the big three go for it? It was not do it it's performance it was good, but possibly not worth the extra price and their was packaging contraints that killed it.
Other killers are real reliability. So much more to going from a Proto in the Science Magazines to serial rate production with real world Six Sigma ( now ) reliability.
This is the Engine Bill Gates threw a lot of money at.
Horizontally Opposed Engines that are 2 cylinders have to deal with a rocking/coupling motion that can kill power, especially if their is a center bearing between the throws, this one doesn't have it, which is good from that standpoint. However, I am not an engineer, but stayed at a holiday in express last night and from what I know about "Rod Ratio" ( google it in regards to Connecting Rods) with those outer long rods, this engine scares the hell out of me...
This was in the news a couple of years ago. It seems far more revolutionary than the engine in the article you posted. No pistons. No need for a transmission. Dramatically lower fuel consumption and weight for the given output power.
At the time it seemed like it was going to change everything in a few years. But googling, it now, there doesn't seem to be any new information. So hopefully Prof. Müller and/or his engine didn't end up in China as well. (I noticed that his Michigan state website is totally out of date.)
The real clever ones IMHO ( Google them ) ?
* The Erickson Engine, I really like this one...
* Mark Beierle's 2 stroke Rad-Cam.
* The Carlson and Lowe Barrel Type Engine with an internal air slinger and injectors and plugs within the pistons. ( patent applied for in 2011, 2 inventors out of Michigan )
* I don't know why but a little engine that ran in Canada, a 2 stroke called "The James Engine"..
Of course they have. Why, Exhibit A is the 100 mpg carburetor, whisked off to oblivion.
Or was it the 100 mph carburetor?
Ah, small difference anyway.
/sarc and :)
Well, they certainly have put plenty of worthless crap in them, like ABS and TPMS etc.
>> Exhibit A is the 100 mpg carburetor <<
What's a carburetor?
I bet a combined opposed piston engine (ref the Junkers Jumo) modified to six strokes (the 5th is compression and then water injection at TDC and the 6th is a steam power stroke) would beat this wave turbine engine in every respect.
20yrs or so ago, a motor-head friend I knew added water injection to his car.
He swore it increased his mpg dramatically. I saw it. It was real. And these guys were auto mechanics, so they knew engines.
The constant acceleration/deceleration and opposing forces within a piston engine means that a lot of its energy is expended fighting itself.
Plus, the greatest torque applied by the descending piston on the power cycle comes at the very bottom of the stroke, when the piston has nowhere to go but back up the cylinder. At top dead, when it fires, there is almost no offset on the rod, so the torque is nearly zero.
Of course, all that can be adjusted by valve and ignition timing, but in the end, you've still got a machine that has to reverse itself thousands of times a minute.
I suspect the US auto industry and the US oil interests have kept the best innovations out of our cars.
*********************************************
I’ve told this story a few times because it needs to be remembered ... in the early 1970’s when emissions were becoming important to engineers and the EPA we had GM/Ford/MoPar all complain and moan that the 1975 standards would be IMPOSSIBLE to meet... their “solution” was leaned out a/f ratios , and changing cam timing on existing engines ... not a BIT of innovation ...
HONDA , new to automobiles took a 1973 Caprice 350sb/4bbl/turbo350 car and developed a new set of 4v heads for it ... took the power and fuel economy up about 50% (200+hp and 20+mpg) and passed 1975 emissions without a catalyst and with great drivability ,,, they gave it as a gift to GM ,, EXPECTING PRAISE AND A THANK YOU ... you can find references to this in period copies of Car and Driver (or maybe Motor Trend) ,, and maybe a reference or two on the internet (last I checked a few years ago)
The bottom line is that Detroit could have advanced much farther and faster than they did ... they had things like high pressure fuel injection in the 1950’s (which is now used in direct injection systems) ... they STILL don’t build a car with systems integration like the Europeans ,, their only claim to fame is CHEAPNESS and LARGE SIZE...
Found one reference .. Hemmings Motor News ... The data I reported came from an enthusiast magazine ,, doesn’t match what the EPA tested the car at ... http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/tag/small-block-chevy-v-8/
Seems the bad EPA comparison for power was due to a stuck/sunk carb float ... http://www.carsandracingstuff.com/library/reports/402.pdf so the Car and Driver numbers are probably more accurate. Even with a bad carb issue the car made 10% more mpg and passed 1975 emissions... Chrysler licensed the CVCC technology and incorporated it in that bastardization of the concept in their “lean burn” engines. Ford licensed the tech also but did not use it.
My 23 year old NA 1.6L diesel VW with 315k on the OD... still gets 40MPG... and I can still get parts for it... and wrench on it myself... Good luck with your Moo Goo Gai Oil Pan motor, fellas.
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.