New Energy Conversion Principle May Double Efficiency of Today's Engines

http://www.scienceda...31127125824.htm

OK, I know.  Funny smell coming off this. But. The university hosting this research is a genuinely prestigious Japanese school. This isn't one of those deals with an "investors link" honeypot attached.

Maybe, just maybe?

It looks like something that I might produce. The large cog in the top right looks like a cam or head shaft drive. there seems to be rudimentory finning and something that looks like an intake with wiring attatched.  

Sounds like the handiwork of our friend Feliks...

I can't see any spoons.

Given the probability--maybe 99%?--that the claims made are false or overblown, how does respectable academia presumably populated with a subset people who grasp thermodynamic principles get dragged into providing their imprimatur to a project appears to sneer at those principles?

Or am I wrong and it is in fact theoretically possible to significantly improve the efficiencies of heat engines? 

Given the probability--maybe 99%?--that the claims made are false or overblown, how does respectable academia presumably populated with a subset people who grasp thermodynamic principles get dragged into providing their imprimatur to a project appears to sneer at those principles?

 

Or am I wrong and it is in fact theoretically possible to significantly improve the efficiencies of heat engines? 

I would think at the most optermistic level about 5% improovment . maybe direct injection with an ignition somehow in the center of a spherical combustion chamber.

The claim about "doubling efficiency" was based on a current IC engine with a 15% BTE.  There are already numerous production IC engines that can easily exceed 30% BTE.

http://www.scienceda...31127125824.htm

 

OK, I know.  Funny smell coming off this. But. The university hosting this research is a genuinely prestigious Japanese school. This isn't one of those deals with an "investors link" honeypot attached.

 

Maybe, just maybe?

I suspect some kind of student stunt run amok. The writing is really, really bad, which suggests a lack of vetting and supervision in general. 

For best effect, the phrase "new energy conversion principle" should always be accompanied by calliope music. 

It looks as though it is something to do with ignition, the efficiency of the engine is still controlled by carnot, the upper temperature is set by metallurgy of the exhaust valve, the lower by the ambient air temp and whatever size of radiator is acceptable. They are claiming 60% might be possible, which is better than any production engine of /any/ size or configuration.

"Prof. Ken Naitoh
Waseda University, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Applied mechanics and Aerospace engineering, Professor, Dr. Eng.
Naitoh proposes original fusion researches of engine and life: Ultimate efficiency engine learned from biological DNA structure (Fugine), Application of extremophile for engine, Onto-biology, Morpho-psychological economics, and elementary particle theories."

..and wears a hat with a propeller on it. As Desmo says Waseda is a good engineering university.

.

 

..and wears a hat with a propeller on it.

 

 

 . . . . which generates electricity . . . . which helps his electric bike go faster . . . whoops, wrong thread.

Suppose the upper temp of a 2 stroke is the expansion box size ?

There are stationary combined cycle turbine engines that can achieve a BTE slightly higher than 60%.  But the BTE benchmark for recip piston engines is currently the massive 2-stroke CI engines used on container ships, which is somewhere around 50% to 52% BTE.

For best effect, the phrase "new energy conversion principle" should always be accompanied by calliope music. 

A couple of years ago I was working for a guy that had another business that was remaking the internal combustion engine, but then he would bust our chops about the day to day costs of a race team. I was like, "Buddy, you're throwing tens of millions of dollars down the toilet trying to re-invent the wheel, but busting my chops about using good brake fluid."

In his defence, 1% improvement = billions of dollars.

It was never going to happen. First, they weren't going to find 1%. Second, whatever they did find they had to sell to a manufacturer, which was going to limit the upside potential. He would have had a better chance of success buying a lottery ticket.

My grandmother used to say, "There's no fool like an old fool." Indeed.

Sure - I certainly wasn't suggesting he was any chance of finding that 1%. There must be ten million "inventors" out there who think their idea will produce that 1% (or more) and probably 1 in a million who actually have any chance at all.

There are numerous known methods that can be used to improve the BTE of production auto engines 1% or more.  But the benefit of these improvements must be considered in terms of their cost.  Would you be willing to pay an additional $10K for a car that gets an additional 2mpg in fuel economy?

What source do you have for 1% on bsfc=2mpg on fuel econmy=$10000 ? Those numbers seem all over the place.

As an example, fitting a diesel engine gets you say 5mpg on fuel economy and costs about $3000-5000.

What source do you have for 1% on bsfc=2mpg on fuel econmy=$10000 ? Those numbers seem all over the place.

As an example, fitting a diesel engine gets you say 5mpg on fuel economy(at least) and costs about $3000-5000. Or for that matter on a Falcon you pay extra for the 4 litre engine, same power, worse fuel consumption.

What source do you have for 1% on bsfc=2mpg on fuel econmy=$10000 ? Those numbers seem all over the place.

 

As an example, fitting a diesel engine gets you say 5mpg on fuel economy and costs about $3000-5000.

My government doesn't allow that.

What source do you have for 1% on bsfc=2mpg on fuel econmy=$10000 ? Those numbers seem all over the place.

 

As an example, fitting a diesel engine gets you say 5mpg on fuel economy and costs about $3000-5000.

I did not state that a 1% improvement in BTE (or BSFC) of an auto engine directly equates to an increase of 2mpg in vehicle fuel economy. Nor did I claim that a 2mpg increase in vehicle fuel economy will always result in a $10K increase in purchase price.  My intention was to point out that all of these variables (engine efficiency, vehicle mileage, purchase price, etc.) must be considered on a cost/benefit basis for each particular application.

I can actually point to a couple examples of where a 1% improvement in SFC of an engine or an increase of 2mpg would be worth far more than $10K to the vehicle buyer.  A 1% drop in fuel burn of a commercial jet aircraft engine would be worth $millions to an airline.  An increase of 2mpg for an engine costing an additional $10K would be considered a bargain by commercial truckers.

As an example, fitting a diesel engine gets you say 5mpg on fuel economy(at least) and costs about $3000-5000. Or for that matter on a Falcon you pay extra for the 4 litre engine, same power, worse fuel consumption.

Have there been many diesel Falcon prototypes? In a wagon form factor it'd be brilliant

Not that I know of. you can of course get a territory (SUV) that replaces the wagon, with the 3.2 diesel, that gets around 9 or 10 l/100km compared with 12 from the petrol 4.0 (my current car).

Here's my various recent cars and their fuel consumption

Mondeo wagon 120 kW diesel 6.5 l/100

Falcon sedan 170 kw 2 litre petrol 9 l/100

Falcon sedan 180 kW 4 litre petrol 11 l/100

Territory SUV 180 kw 4 litre Petrol 12 l/100

Territory SUV ? kW 3.2 litre diesel 9-10 l/100 (included for comparison but I haven't had one)

Fiesta 80? kW petrol manual 6.5 l/100km

I tow with the Territory not the others so that probably hurts it. To my mind the Mondeo diesel is the best compromise for performance and economy and room, but the falcon ecoboost is nicer to drive, faster, more comfortable (better seats) heaps better a/c. As Lee says the boot is a bit of a mess, sadly. The diesel Territory is something that would have been a great idea when we launched the car, we didn't have access to that engine then I think.

Territory SUV ? kW 3.2 litre diesel 9-10 l/100 (included for comparison but I haven't had one)

 

I tow with the Territory not the others so that probably hurts it. To my mind the Mondeo diesel is the best compromise for performance and economy and room, but the falcon ecoboost is nicer to drive, faster, more comfortable (better seats) heaps better a/c. As Lee says the boot is a bit of a mess, sadly. The diesel Territory is something that would have been a great idea when we launched the car, we didn't have access to that engine then I think.

Impressive for towing! What's it like towing a car?

I had to tow a car (about 1350kg inc. trailer) recently. Used my friend's turbo-4BD1 Defender that I posted a pic of here recently. 12L/100km, about 20% more than unloaded. Colour me surprised, I thought it'd be higher. Aside from the extra fuel the only major difference seemed to be EGTs about 100C higher than unloaded. Was a good shakedown test of the turbo installation (and the upgraded brakes!)