Re: [Vo]:Tooo obvious for Detroit?
I corresponded with an inventor who had a patent on an engine design that sounded similar to this. R C Macaulay wrote: Interesting thinking Jones. A proposed valveless, pistonless engine/motor concept is being studied whereas the engine is ring shaped and drives a cluster of embedded cavity discs positioned with the ring. The design approach Jones wrote, The following suggestion, or a version of it, will be implemented by some perceptive auto manufacturer in the coming years. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: [Vo]:Tooo obvious for Detroit?
Howdy Thomas, There is a far step from an inventor and an engineer- design team. Mention the word inventor and we run. Mention the inventors' work is patented and we duck our head waiting for the noise sure to follow. All engine designs that perform useful work are similar. The difference between them are people. Some engines like Cummins diesel have what it takes, Detroit diesel don't have it. It will take some real work to get Cummins to change. THe Wankel rotary is an example of designers that love to play smartypants. They finally got a perfectly useless engine to work. Down the road aways comes the battery operated jalopy made of bicycle components... try applying this technology to high speed diesel motor trucks and discover why we need new motor fuels that fuel 500-800 HP truck engines and Cat dozers. Hoss power is horse manure.. torque is what a mule's got in his rear. This world needs a whole new stable of advanced radical engine designs for work engines just like we need energy efficent autos. Richard I corresponded with an inventor who had a patent on an engine design that sounded similar to this. R C Macaulay wrote: Interesting thinking Jones. A proposed valveless, pistonless engine/motor concept is being studied whereas the engine is ring shaped and drives a cluster of embedded cavity discs positioned with the ring. The design approach Jones wrote, The following suggestion, or a version of it, will be implemented by some perceptive auto manufacturer in the coming years.
Re: [Vo]:Tooo obvious for Detroit?
I don't know if you guys have ever seriously encountered the realities of mass production and the mind-set that it *imposes*. For years I was involved in mechanization-robotics projects at RCA, principally with the manufacture of TV picture tubes. This a complex chemical/mechanical process that at first appearance is nearly impossible, but they are made by the million. The guys that manage the factory are not stupid and are in daily hand-to-hand combat with Mother Nature. If the yield at final inspection falls below 95%, the entire enterprise is just an elaborate way to lose money. I visited two plants in different parts of the country. A particular processing step was done differently in each plant, and the management, while aware of the alternative, swore that their way was best. Any novelty may reduce yield in unforeseen ways. The Wankle engine has many appealing virtues, but I understand the seals are a potential problem, requiring engine teardowns at 50,000 miles. Mazda used it in a sports car, and Yamaha in some motorcycles. People have been inventing clever IC engine configurations for many years and complaining about stupid management all the time. The ability to manufacture economically in quantity is a formidable requirement. There are others -- microelectronics, LCD/plasma displays, VCR recorders -- which required years to evolved the manufacturing techniques to become reliable and economical. It is all too easy for clueless theoreticians and developers to dismiss the skills of manufacturing engineering. I have lived in both worlds and acquired deep respect for the latter. Mike Carrell - Original Message - From: R C Macaulay [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 8:39 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Tooo obvious for Detroit? Interesting thinking Jones. A proposed valveless, pistonless engine/motor concept is being studied whereas the engine is ring shaped and drives a cluster of embedded cavity discs positioned with the ring. The design approach is to build a planetary transmission with an engine inside . The transmission functions both for mechanical drive output assisted by the huge torque output with the large diameter ring primary mover and also output electric power from the electric generating features. Designers have been stuck in the 18th century steam engine rut too long. Their approach has been to build an engine and connect it to a transmission. Radical new thinking suggests that we should be building a transmission and fit an engine/electric generator inside. This thinking would allow for the engine exhaust to serve a secondary turbine scavenging purpose. The unit assembly shape could be an inclined pancake shaped configuration and ... not use gears but slip discs within the planetary reduction system. These radical new engine/motor concepts fit the theme of your post. New engines must be designed for new fuels and not attempt to make new fuels fit present engine technology. Richard Jones wrote, The following suggestion, or a version of it, will be implemented by some perceptive auto manufacturer in the coming years. This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
RE: [Vo]:Tooo obvious for Detroit?
Mike, many thanks for this first-hand account of the practical environments in which manufacturing takes place. One of my 'hats' is that of an organizational performance specialist and I can say that your description rings absolutely true. When embedded in complex systems, especially ones that have severe cost constraints, the product of even the brightest brains can look pretty dumb to those at one or two removes. My sense is that everyone does the best they can -- all the time. It is perhaps the greatest tragedy of mankind that we can see better ways of doing things, but are stopped from pursuing them by the tired 'realities' of money, competing priorities, and disagreements among ourselves. Cheers, Lawrence -Original Message- From: Mike Carrell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 9:27 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Tooo obvious for Detroit? I don't know if you guys have ever seriously encountered the realities of mass production and the mind-set that it *imposes*. For years I was involved in mechanization-robotics projects at RCA, principally with the manufacture of TV picture tubes. This a complex chemical/mechanical process that at first appearance is nearly impossible, but they are made by the million. The guys that manage the factory are not stupid and are in daily hand-to-hand combat with Mother Nature. If the yield at final inspection falls below 95%, the entire enterprise is just an elaborate way to lose money. I visited two plants in different parts of the country. A particular processing step was done differently in each plant, and the management, while aware of the alternative, swore that their way was best. Any novelty may reduce yield in unforeseen ways. The Wankle engine has many appealing virtues, but I understand the seals are a potential problem, requiring engine teardowns at 50,000 miles. Mazda used it in a sports car, and Yamaha in some motorcycles. People have been inventing clever IC engine configurations for many years and complaining about stupid management all the time. The ability to manufacture economically in quantity is a formidable requirement. There are others -- microelectronics, LCD/plasma displays, VCR recorders -- which required years to evolved the manufacturing techniques to become reliable and economical. It is all too easy for clueless theoreticians and developers to dismiss the skills of manufacturing engineering. I have lived in both worlds and acquired deep respect for the latter. Mike Carrell - Original Message - From: R C Macaulay [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 8:39 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Tooo obvious for Detroit? Interesting thinking Jones. A proposed valveless, pistonless engine/motor concept is being studied whereas the engine is ring shaped and drives a cluster of embedded cavity discs positioned with the ring. The design approach is to build a planetary transmission with an engine inside . The transmission functions both for mechanical drive output assisted by the huge torque output with the large diameter ring primary mover and also output electric power from the electric generating features. Designers have been stuck in the 18th century steam engine rut too long. Their approach has been to build an engine and connect it to a transmission. Radical new thinking suggests that we should be building a transmission and fit an engine/electric generator inside. This thinking would allow for the engine exhaust to serve a secondary turbine scavenging purpose. The unit assembly shape could be an inclined pancake shaped configuration and ... not use gears but slip discs within the planetary reduction system. These radical new engine/motor concepts fit the theme of your post. New engines must be designed for new fuels and not attempt to make new fuels fit present engine technology. Richard Jones wrote, The following suggestion, or a version of it, will be implemented by some perceptive auto manufacturer in the coming years. This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
[Vo]:Tooo obvious for Detroit?
The following suggestion, or a version of it, will be implemented by some perceptive auto manufacturer in the coming years. Unfortunately, due to entrenched lethargy and inertia and the not-invented-here syndrome, it is doubtful that US auto makers will be the first. But on the off-chance that there is some glimmer of intelligence up there in Michigan, and being a patriotic citizen, the following is offered to Detroit, free of charge (unless they want to sign on a reasonably-paid consultant ;-) It is a rather complicated argument, and this is a first draft, but here is the line of reasoning. Technically, oxygen is not very reactive; at least not untill it is converted into ROS (reactive oxygen species). This usually happens so fast that few of us are aware that it is a two-step process, nor that the oxygen molecule itself (as opposed to ROS) is rather inert without the prior conversion. This conversion takes away from the net energy which is available from any combustion process. And it is not just the energy of converting O2 into ROS which is the problem, it is also the short timing window. At 3000 RPM, say, a proportion of air for the entire displacement of the engine must be converted into ROS before the O2 will burn. There is simply too little time, at the 50 times per second allotted (or 25 with a 4-cycle engine), to do this thoroughly enough to avoid the dreaded and lossy unburned hydrocarbons. In the 360 degrees of rotation only a few degrees have enough available energy content with which to convert O2 into ROS. This is one reason why you have, in the typical ICE, what is known as the spark advance. In effect, this is a form of very tightly timed *pre-combustion,* and it is surprisingly lossy. SIDE NOTE: One of the lesser-appreciated reasons why diesels are more efficient is due to this very angle, although it is usually stated another way. IOW the high compression ratio of a diesel, which should be even lossier, since you can never get a complete return on the energy of compression, turns out to be more efficient, and that is because (and mostly ONLY because) the compression provides heat-energy but most importantly the GEOMETRY (spatial) advantage with which to convert more O2 into ROS in a given amount of time. In a sense the geometry (lack of space) helps in this application because O2--ROS has aspects of a chain reaction. That is to say: O3 is so very reactive that it reacts even with O2 ... but without the need for precombustion as in a sparked engine. And once again, a spark advance can best be described as a lossy form of precombustion, which would NOT be necessary if there enough ROS was provide in the intake mix to begin with. The 'obvious' part of the situation, then, for real-world application in automotive design, would be to covert some O2 to ROS slightly ahead of intake. Apparently this is either too obvious, or else has been deemed too difficult or expensive for implementation before now. That misperception changes at $100/barrel. One difficulty, of course, is that you cannot use regular carburettion, nor even direct manifold fuel injection. Once you have ROS available - the air becomes way too reactive, and there is instantaneous combustion when it touches any fuel. This drawback can be converted into a feature however. It should be noted that diesel-style (in-cylinder) fuel injection is being planned or prototyped for gasoline ICE usage already, but for other reasons than precharging air with ROS (less loss from unburned fuel due to surface-effect cooling on the cylinder walls). HUGE synergy: Adding diesel-style (in-cylinder) fuel injection, but along with a precharge of ROS will then offer a double benefit due to synergy. And eliminate the need for an ignition system (unless testing shows that it adds to the fianl efficiency of a complete fuel burn). Before regular fuel hit $ 3.75 (my local Chevron today), the extra cost of in-cylinder fuel injection and ROS (or as an alternative hydrogen boosters) would have been too much to consdier as dedicated subsytems. With fuel at this price, however, and if combustion can be made substantially - say 25% more-efficient with a subsystem, even without going to full-hybrid, then things change and many moderately more costly concpets become affordable. Onboard hydrogen generation is another. Either would be offset by eliminating the catalytic converter, by the way. The bottom line is that in a low compression engine, the net energy from combustion should be higher if the oxygen in air did not need to be converted into ROS by a pre-combustion advance. Only actual testing will show this to be valid however, as there are too many variables to model; but it is my contention that if ROS is provided by precharging, the engine will not need the spark-advance (nor possibly the arc discharge itself) nor need high compression when burning a lean mix, nor need the catalystic converter - that is an unbeatable trifecta. There is
Re: [Vo]:Tooo obvious for Detroit?
Interesting thinking Jones. A proposed valveless, pistonless engine/motor concept is being studied whereas the engine is ring shaped and drives a cluster of embedded cavity discs positioned with the ring. The design approach is to build a planetary transmission with an engine inside . The transmission functions both for mechanical drive output assisted by the huge torque output with the large diameter ring primary mover and also output electric power from the electric generating features. Designers have been stuck in the 18th century steam engine rut too long. Their approach has been to build an engine and connect it to a transmission. Radical new thinking suggests that we should be building a transmission and fit an engine/electric generator inside. This thinking would allow for the engine exhaust to serve a secondary turbine scavenging purpose. The unit assembly shape could be an inclined pancake shaped configuration and ... not use gears but slip discs within the planetary reduction system. These radical new engine/motor concepts fit the theme of your post. New engines must be designed for new fuels and not attempt to make new fuels fit present engine technology. Richard Jones wrote, The following suggestion, or a version of it, will be implemented by some perceptive auto manufacturer in the coming years.
