Is there a Future for the ICE?

[Mark Parsons]

I'm not shy, and since I asked for this forum, I might as well start it off.;)

Provided we can perfect the technology to create a 100,000 Farad capacitor that is light in weight and small in size, is there any reason to keep clunky, smoky, too many moving parts, low efficiency internal combustion engines that are our current transportation propulsion paradigm?

Any applications that should or must remain ICE?

What say you?

Mark

[Mark Parsons]

Further proof that oil and gasoline are completely disconnected markets. Price of gas these past few days has shot up due to refinery issues. It is a good time to own a refinery. Just turn the switch off for a few days and cry all the way to the bank....:rolleyes:

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/185711


Chepaest gas in Ontario today is in Kenora at $0.88 per liter....:eek:

http://www.ontariogasprices.com/

[Joe Blake]

In Perth Western Australia the average price of premium (RON 98) petrol was $AUS1.25 per litre.

Roughly $CAN1.15 at present exchange rate.

Joe

[Rob Beckers]

It's pretty amazing, isn't it, when one looks at it: We developed this mechanical contraption where a bunch of metal pieces accelerate to incredible speeds, then come to a complete stop, reverse direction, and repeat that over and over, around a 100 or so times every second. Rube would be proud!

Actually, I think the ICE is going to be around for a looong time to come. It's pretty refined these days, fairly efficient (if we want it to be), and uses a fuel with a high energy content per unit volume that is easily stored and transported. Even if alternatives become available, such as the supercap and electrical car, and even if fossil fuel prices go up considerably, I believe there are going to be applications where the ICE will remain king. Think for example of remote locations where electricity is hard to get. We'd have to come up with a way to store as much energy as a drum of diesel fuel in that same volume before the ICE gets replaced.

As I said before, and hinted at above, the real problem I believe is not in engine technology. The real problem, and real solution, is in finding a way to store energy. The better battery. The supercap is a possible solution, though there's a lot of skepticism by the experts in the field that it'll live up to its rather lofty goals. If you want to get really filthy rich, develop a better way to store energy (preferably electricity since it's so easily and efficiently converted to other forms of energy). If you've read Heinlein, his "shipstone" batteries is the holy grail. That is also the reason why I believe hydrogen is a red herring. Just a convenient excuse for oil and car companies to continue doing what they are doing, under the pretense that they're "fully supporting" the development of something to replace gasoline. Hydrogen is just not a good energy storage medium, in fact, it's piss-poor in that respect.

-Rob-

[Brian Bruns]

I think it's going to be hard to make the ICE go down. The fuel used in them is going to have to change, and is already heading that way. The use of ethanol is rising like crazy, and there are far more alternatives being researched. Take the sprint car for example. Here is a very high horsepower race car that burns methanol exclusively. The sanctioning bodies that regulate the sport prohibit use of gasoline. The methanol is safer than gasoline. There are ways around using oil to keep the ICE ticking, and I think the possibilities of alternative fuels is going to be the big push of the near future.
As all the new ethanol plants are being built around this area, I'm sure they will be getting more efficient at their production procedures thus cutting costs to help stimulate its use. There are bound to be other methods to produce a fuel that will work fine in ICE that will be popping up. IMHO.

Brian

[Wilco Vercoelen]

Engine Efficiency
The efficiency of various types of internal combustion engines vary. It is generally accepted that most gasoline fueled internal combustion engines, even when aided with turbochargers and stock efficiency aids, have a mechanical efficiency of about 20%. Most internal combustion engines waste about 36% of the energy in gasoline as heat lost to the cooling system and another 38% through the exhaust. The rest is lost to friction, about 6%. Most engine manufacturers have done little to harness this wasted energy, though there are various add on devices and systems that are known to greatly improve combustion efficiency and recover wasted energy.

So 20%, that's $10 to fill up your car at the pump and actually using it, and $40 for the CEO's and the Sheik and his cottage. That's a great business, so as long as there is oil, we will drive the ICE.:rolleyes:

[Joe Blake]

Yes,

I can only agree with the argument about "waste heat" from the ICE. Perhaps there should be a contest (funded maybe by Richard Branson, to name but one) to design an "aftermarket" heating scavenging and application system to put this resource to use. Even something so simple as using thermocouple devices to charge the battery instead of (or as well as) the generator that runs off the ICE.

http://www.gizmag.com/go/4936/

This is only retrofittable to [current] BMW vehicles, but gives the idea.


Another idea for converting a gasoline engine to run on diesel and vice versa.

http://www.gizmag.com/go/4695/

An alternative to the ICE (The quasi-turbine)

http://www.gizmag.com/go/3501/

And a proposal for 330 MPG hybrid.

http://www.gizmag.com/go/5060/

Perhaps someone could create a "Stirling Alternator" with a Stirling engine attached to the vehicle radiator, that drives an alternator.

Joe

[Mark Parsons]

To promote efficient use of our resources be they fossil or renewable fuels, we need a prime mover technology that far surpasses the ICE. 20% best case thermal to mechanical motion energy transfer is not attractive for sustainability.

Many technolgies exist today that surpass the ICE in efficiency. Reasons why they aren't applied widespread is mainly economic. We have a large economic engine producing ICE technology. Why not siphon a small fraction of the hundreds of millions of $ spent on R&D to add another 1/8% efficiency to the ICE into developing better production economics for a - conventional gas turbine?, stirling engine?, quasi-turbine?, other?...

ICE were long ago dropped as prime movers for aircraft - power to weight ratio way too poor. A significant production economy already exists in gas turbine design and construction for aircraft. It seems to me to be the closest technology to apply in a larger audience of personal land transportation vehicles. The last prototype production attempt was by Chrysler back in the late 1950's. Excess heat was the main failure mode of this attempt. Further attempts have only been to produce a drag vehicle that can execute a 1/4 mile strip in under 3 seconds.

I've integrated 300HP gas turbines for back up power systems that would almost fit into a large briefcase. The 250kW electric generator attached took a larger volume than the turbine.

[George Craft]

Here's my thought on why the ICE will remain around for a long time. There are millions and millions of them everywhere and no place to park them.

Besides, when the cost of fuel gets so high that nobody can afford to drive their vehicles, the roads will be clear for my gasogen powered car to roam around unobstructed. ;)

Reference: http://www.gengas.nu/byggbes/3.shtml

PS: I have the plans from 'Mother Earth News' on how to build your own gasogen as well as several books on the subject. It is the least efficient method of transportation but in desperate times, it might become a necessity. Its nice to have options... I also have the plans for a high volume reflux still for making my own fuel alcohol.

[Mark Parsons]

I agree George that the ICE will be around for a long time. Heck, I saw one from a turn of the century (1900) tractor just the other day running (well, coughing anyway).

There would be some good recycle value in all that old iron.;)

I think that Butanol would provide a much better fuel to ferment and distill from your surplus biomass.

From http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Butanol
Butanol can also be produced by fermentation of biomass with the bacterium Clostridium acetobutylicum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clostridium_acetobutylicum), which produces a low yield. David Ramey of Ohio and his company, Environmental Energy, Inc. have developed a two stage fermentation process. In this process, biomass feedstock is first fed to the bacteria Clostridium tyrobutyricum, where a large percentage is converted into butyric acid and hydrogen. In the second process, the butyric acid is fed to the bacteria Clostridium acetobutylicum, where it is converted into butanol. Ramey has claimed a 42% butanol yield from this process.

Regards,
Mark

[Peter Mckinlay]

It's pretty amazing, isn't it, when one looks at it: We developed this mechanical contraption where a bunch of metal pieces accelerate to incredible speeds, then come to a complete stop, reverse direction, and repeat that over and over, around a 100 or so times every second. Rube would be proud!

Actually, I think the ICE is going to be around for a looong time to come. It's pretty refined these days, fairly efficient (if we want it to be), and uses a fuel with a high energy content per unit volume that is easily stored and transported. Even if alternatives become available, such as the supercap and electrical car, and even if fossil fuel prices go up considerably, I believe there are going to be applications where the ICE will remain king. Think for example of remote locations where electricity is hard to get. We'd have to come up with a way to store as much energy as a drum of diesel fuel in that same volume before the ICE gets replaced.

As I said before, and hinted at above, the real problem I believe is not in engine technology. The real problem, and real solution, is in finding a way to store energy. The better battery. The supercap is a possible solution, though there's a lot of skepticism by the experts in the field that it'll live up to its rather lofty goals. If you want to get really filthy rich, develop a better way to store energy (preferably electricity since it's so easily and efficiently converted to other forms of energy). If you've read Heinlein, his "shipstone" batteries is the holy grail. That is also the reason why I believe hydrogen is a red herring. Just a convenient excuse for oil and car companies to continue doing what they are doing, under the pretense that they're "fully supporting" the development of something to replace gasoline. Hydrogen is just not a good energy storage medium, in fact, it's piss-poor in that respect.

-Rob-

The DaS Diesel engine has on moving part, a hydro turbine and is banned from Australia due to defence applications.

However the engine in same configuration fuelled by Ethanol stays with defence limits.

Whilst all other ICE engines can muster a maximum of 20% efficiency the DaS Combustion has 82% efficiency from a hydro turbine. It having no other moving part that efficiency remains stable.

The impact the engine has on all piston engines is such it not produced in any country trading with Australia.

However Volkswagen is trading on the name by now branding itself Das Auto.

[Rob Beckers]

Peter, so this is a Volkswagen diesel turbine engine used in cars? I'm not quite following what you're talking about. Maybe a link to the subject in question would help.

82% efficiency is quite phenomenal for an engine...

-RoB-

[Peter Mckinlay]

Peter, so this is a Volkswagen diesel turbine engine used in cars? I'm not quite following what you're talking about. Maybe a link to the subject in question would help.

82% efficiency is quite phenomenal for an engine...

-RoB-

Hello Rob, the diesel engine is not for civilian use!

Civilian use of the engine physics can only be had using low calorie fuels such as ethanol.
Steam beyond +600* is Defence classified.

DaS Diesel has only on moving part a hydro turbine, excluding free floats and the water they sit in!

It operates by having Steam forced water propel a hydro turbine, the same turbine is propelled a second time by the equal opposite force of the steam, the steam then still 100% at its original pressure and volume goes on to provide the air and compression for combustion inside the held water.

The 60% efficiency is not its true efficiency of energy conversion to shaft, that put for readership. The true efficiency is 82% first stroke, and again 82% in the second stroke, a total efficiency of 164%.

The same construction using external heat source has two 82% efficient hydro turbine and one 60% efficient Steam turbine, total efficiency in conversion of energy is 224%.

Blueprint postings are available, however I not find how to post files into this forum.

Should that be corrected they be posted across.

[Peter Mckinlay]

Hello Rob, the diesel engine is not for civilian use!

Civilian use of the engine physics can only be had using low calorie fuels such as ethanol.
Steam beyond +600* is Defence classified.

DaS Diesel has only on moving part a hydro turbine, excluding free floats and the water they sit in!

It operates by having Steam forced water propel a hydro turbine, the same turbine is propelled a second time by the equal opposite force of the steam, the steam then still 100% at its original pressure and volume goes on to provide the air and compression for combustion inside the held water.

The 60% efficiency is not its true efficiency of energy conversion to shaft, that put for readership. The true efficiency is 82% first stroke, and again 82% in the second stroke, a total efficiency of 164%.

The same construction using external heat source has two 82% efficient hydro turbine and one 60% efficient Steam turbine, total efficiency in conversion of energy is 224%.

Blueprint postings are available, however I not find how to post files into this forum.

Should that be corrected they be posted across.

Hello Rob,

I have now found means of posting across files was right under my nose. Post now included.

[Laurie Forbes]

Hello Rob, the diesel engine is not for civilian use!

Civilian use of the engine physics can only be had using low calorie fuels such as ethanol.
Steam beyond +600* is Defence classified.

DaS Diesel has only on moving part a hydro turbine, excluding free floats and the water they sit in!

It operates by having Steam forced water propel a hydro turbine, the same turbine is propelled a second time by the equal opposite force of the steam, the steam then still 100% at its original pressure and volume goes on to provide the air and compression for combustion inside the held water.

The 60% efficiency is not its true efficiency of energy conversion to shaft, that put for readership. The true efficiency is 82% first stroke, and again 82% in the second stroke, a total efficiency of 164%.

The same construction using external heat source has two 82% efficient hydro turbine and one 60% efficient Steam turbine, total efficiency in conversion of energy is 224%.



224% energy efficiency! Not only phenomenal but impossible (unless you believe in over-unity machines).

[Peter Mckinlay]

224% energy efficiency! Not only phenomenal but impossible (unless you believe in over-unity machines).

A bloke once saw an elephant then spent the rest of his life denying there was any such animal.

You may have an interest in a lesser efficient model of 164% efficiency caused by the equal opposite force rotating the Francis (82% efficient) turbine a second time.

Can be Web found under DaS Valve.

If your interested in overunity the blueprint for that is in mechanical engineering, though it not be ICE but a heat engine. It requires 456KW for heating and produces 720KW using the Refrigerant CO2.

[Rob Beckers]

Are there other energy inputs? I.e. a heat-pump will also list over-unity efficiency (300% being common), because in addition to the electrical input (which is used as the energy input number for efficiency), there is also the heat input from the cold side of the heat-pump (which forms part of the output heat for efficiency calculations).

Of course, if all energy inputs are taken together a heat-pump is not over-unity. It's only in the way it's calculated that we get numbers over 100% (because we get the earth's energy "for free").

If your device claims over-unity even when all energy inputs are taken into account then you've been smoking too much of the good stuff! This is not a denial of the existence of the elephant; an over-unity claim means you're throwing all existing physics out the window. Now, the laws we use in physics are only an approximation to explain/calculate the reality around us, they have proven their worth for a pretty long time now and are the result of centuries of fine-tuning. Unless you have a detailed replacement not only worked out but backed by a century+ of proof there is no point engaging in a discussion about it.

-RoB-

[Peter Mckinlay]

Are there other energy inputs? I.e. a heat-pump will also list over-unity efficiency (300% being common), because in addition to the electrical input (which is used as the energy input number for efficiency), there is also the heat input from the cold side of the heat-pump (which forms part of the output heat for efficiency calculations).

Of course, if all energy inputs are taken together a heat-pump is not over-unity. It's only in the way it's calculated that we get numbers over 100% (because we get the earth's energy "for free").

If your device claims over-unity even when all energy inputs are taken into account then you've been smoking too much of the good stuff! This is not a denial of the existence of the elephant; an over-unity claim means you're throwing all existing physics out the window. Now, the laws we use in physics are only an approximation to explain/calculate the reality around us, they have proven their worth for a pretty long time now and are the result of centuries of fine-tuning. Unless you have a detailed replacement not only worked out but backed by a century+ of proof there is no point engaging in a discussion about it.

-RoB-

Turbine one litre per second 9 bar pressure 720 watts.

CO2 100*C 10,000 bar.

0.076 KW heats one litre water 1*C in one minute.

All the sciences are web available.

[Laurie Forbes]

A bloke once saw an elephant then spent the rest of his life denying there was any such animal.

I saw a unicorn.

You may have an interest in a lesser efficient model of 164% efficiency caused by the equal opposite force rotating the Francis (82% efficient) turbine a second time.

Not really - still over-unity (unless the second law (of thermodynamics) has been repealed (which it hasn't)).

Can be Web found under DaS Valve.

If your interested in overunity the blueprint for that is in mechanical engineering, though it not be ICE but a heat engine. It requires 456KW for heating and produces 720KW using the Refrigerant CO2.

Uh-huh.

[Peter Mckinlay]

CO2 replaces fosil fuels

[Joe Blake]

Interesting to see this thread come back. I've just this week been looking at an alternative to my ICE driven motorcycle and have seen some very interesting electric m/cycles. I've already got two e-trikes (250 watt motors) with their own solar panels on the back to recharge the (lead acid) batteries as I ride. When the price of other, lighter batteries, comes down, I'll consider upgrading, but the lead acids do the job. The only problem with my trikes is the lack of top speed (about 30 km/h without me pedaling). Otherwise they are quiet, comfortable, pollution free, cheap, flexible (I can fit a mono-track trailer with a carrying capacity of about 30 kg) and fun to ride.

I'd suggest that whilst the ICE has not yet had its day, the bells of doom are tolling, if for no other reason than pollution. It'll be interesting when the next big oil shock occurs. Up until now, there were very few options when oil became scarce or expensive. It was just a case of sit down, hold on, and hope the rough patch is gone soon. However, we now have e-vehicles available to replace the ICE'ers. So I wonder what will happen to the econom(ies) when the market is flooded with millions of second hand ICE cars that nobody wants to buy, especially in China, where the pollution levels are already causing older cars to be forced off the roads. Be a very good exercise in recycling methinks.