Possible new engine that could replace the piston engine

[RJDM3]

http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/2011-03/shockwa...

[anonymous-user]

Not a bad idea that, but it misses one of the fundamental goals of the electric car and the like. It's still reliant on fuel, which i assume they mean is petrol, so we are back to fossil fuels again. Now if they could get it to run on something renewable, like say cooking oil, then brilliant, but as it stands, i'd give it 6/10, needs to improve

[ZOLLAR]

Interesting, as said still reliant on fuel however considering its alot lighter it would mean cars more efficient meaning petrol would last longer (There's plenty left in the ground anyway).

[ludicrous speed]

The new scientist article says it's much more flexible in terms of fuel, suggesting that it doesn't need to be petrol but could be any number of different fuels used.

[anonymous-user]

If it can run on biofuels, then it could very well be one possible solution to what to replace petrol with, but then that's reliant on the oil companies converting their petrol stations to supply biofuel

[The Wookie]

60% efficiency sounds ambitious. Even if you took out all of the friction of a piston engine I doubt you'd get particularly near that.

[glazbagun]

And making sufficient quantities of biofuel without fking up our agriculture and fresh water supply. Sounds good, though- I wonder what it sounds like?

ETA: it might sound like this, I want a car with an exhaust like the last 30 seconds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbJgOk2rDbI

I think the efficiency claim is due to there being no need for a seperate exhaust cycle. I agree that it sounds pretty high, though.

Edited by glazbagun on Monday 28th March 14:05

[Pistachio]

snowy slopes said:

If it can run on biofuels, then it could very well be one possible solution to what to replace petrol with, but then that's reliant on the oil companies converting their petrol stations to supply biofuel

Bio fuels whilst reducing emissions are not environmental at all due to the use of agricultural land to grow fuel rather than food.
So this device is a good idea to gently move from fossil fuels to electric or unknown fuel yet to be discovered.
But alas I think the oil companies will buy this up and put it in the interesting ideas cupboard (read we don't want this yet technology cupboard)

[anonymous-user]

Pistachio said:

snowy slopes said:

If it can run on biofuels, then it could very well be one possible solution to what to replace petrol with, but then that's reliant on the oil companies converting their petrol stations to supply biofuel

Bio fuels whilst reducing emissions are not environmental at all due to the use of agricultural land to grow fuel rather than food.
So this device is a good idea to gently move from fossil fuels to electric or unknown fuel yet to be discovered.
But alas I think the oil companies will buy this up and put it in the interesting ideas cupboard (read we don't want this yet technology cupboard)

You are of course correct about the oil companies/cartels, but as to biofuels not being environmental, i disagree with you there. Surely, its far more environmental to plant crops to get product to convert to biofuel, than to carry tens of thousands of gallons of crude oil around the world in shops,just so we can run something that's a bit interesting. Ahhh it wont matter anyway, for the reasons you stated, the oil companies wont let this make it to production

[Pistachio]

snowy slopes said:

You are of course correct about the oil companies/cartels, but as to biofuels not being environmental, i disagree with you there. Surely, its far more environmental to plant crops to get product to convert to biofuel, than to carry tens of thousands of gallons of crude oil around the world in shops,just so we can run something that's a bit interesting. Ahhh it wont matter anyway, for the reasons you stated, the oil companies wont let this make it to production

So you don't want to eat food anymore? Because that is what is happening now as grain crops for bread and rice fields are changing over to biofuel production crops.
the price of grain has increased hugely in the last year.

[The Wookie]

doogz said:

The Wookie said:

60% efficiency sounds ambitious. Even if you took out all of the friction of a piston engine I doubt you'd get particularly near that.

Ambitious, maybe, but not impossible. Even if you took the friction out a piston engine, the piston is still changing direction 4 times each cycle.

I'm not sure what you mean, but it doesn't really matter how many times the piston changes direction, no energy is 'lost' purely in the process of accelerating the piston. It's just inertia in the same way the flywheel is inertia, albeit reciprocating rather than rotational. I'm sure this device will also have its own inertia to deal with.

For that device to be 60% efficient it means that it has to be converting significantly more chemical energy into mechanical energy, rather than heat to coolant or exhaust gas, than a piston engine

[anonymous-user]

Pistachio said:

snowy slopes said:

You are of course correct about the oil companies/cartels, but as to biofuels not being environmental, i disagree with you there. Surely, its far more environmental to plant crops to get product to convert to biofuel, than to carry tens of thousands of gallons of crude oil around the world in shops,just so we can run something that's a bit interesting. Ahhh it wont matter anyway, for the reasons you stated, the oil companies wont let this make it to production

So you don't want to eat food anymore? Because that is what is happening now as grain crops for bread and rice fields are changing over to biofuel production crops.
the price of grain has increased hugely in the last year.

I hardly think it's going to make that much of a difference to be honest. If you look on google earth, just around here, there are fields just sowed with grass seeds, as the farmer isnt growing anything in it, so why not use that for growing biofuel?

[FranKinFezza]

Interesting idea but 60% efficient + yes and i can knit quantum strings.

Sorry but i will eat my own testicles if i live long enough to see that device
involved anywhere in the drivetrain of a production car.

[maffski]

Petrol is just a battery - the energy is solar.

It's possible to make petrol (or any hydro-carbon fuel) directly from solar energy. You crack carbon-dioxide and water to obtain the carbon and hydrogen, release the oxygen into the atmosphere. When the fuel is burnt the hydrocarbons are split and recombined with oxygen to release then energy.

It was shown on James May's power to the people but I haven't heard much since, so maybe it's just too inefficent.

Still, liquid hydrocarbons are easier to handle than hydrogen gas. I wonder how much of the UK's vehicle fuel could be made with a nuclear reactor.

[The Wookie]

doogz said:

Fair enough. You know diesel engines are getting up past 40% these days? And gas turbines are making 60%?

That 60% figure includes waste heat recovery

[julian64]

The Wookie said:

doogz said:

The Wookie said:

60% efficiency sounds ambitious. Even if you took out all of the friction of a piston engine I doubt you'd get particularly near that.

Ambitious, maybe, but not impossible. Even if you took the friction out a piston engine, the piston is still changing direction 4 times each cycle.

I'm not sure what you mean, but it doesn't really matter how many times the piston changes direction, no energy is 'lost' purely in the process of accelerating the piston. It's just inertia in the same way the flywheel is inertia, albeit reciprocating rather than rotational. I'm sure this device will also have its own inertia to deal with.

For that device to be 60% efficient it means that it has to be converting significantly more chemical energy into mechanical energy, rather than heat to coolant or exhaust gas, than a piston engine

Okay, I'll bite. F=MA, so in my world quite a lot of energy is lost accelerating pistons

[kambites]

The Wookie said:

That 60% figure includes waste heat recovery

It would have to. A simple steel primary heat engine can't exceed about 41%, can it? So that's damned impressive waste heat recovery.

Edited by kambites on Monday 28th March 15:07

[ManOpener]

doogz said:

FranKinFezza said:

Interesting idea but 60% efficient + yes and i can knit quantum strings.

Sorry but i will eat my own testicles if i live long enough to see that device
involved anywhere in the drivetrain of a production car.

Fair enough. You know diesel engines are getting up past 40% these days? And gas turbines are making 60%?

Aren't turbochargers more than 60% energy efficient technically, as they spool using a waste product of combustion?

[kambites]

As I understand it, diesel engines can't get close to 40% efficiency under a typical usage cycle in a car. I'm not sure they can even beat 20%, in practice?

I think with typical modern aerodynamics, drive-train losses and weight, 40% efficiency would give you something like 200mpg on the combined cycle in a small hatchback.

[The Wookie]

julian64 said:

Okay, I'll bite. F=MA, so in my world quite a lot of energy is lost accelerating pistons

So where's the F going when the A is in the other direction?