backtop


Print 131 comment(s) - last by Dorkyman.. on Apr 14 at 12:50 PM


An artist's render shows the overall design of the Wave Disc Generator  (Source: MSU/Norbert Mueller)

MSU Professor Norbert Mueller's team has implemented a mini Wave Disc Generator engine that burns gas 3.5 times more efficiently and is lighter than a similar gas engine.  (Source: YouTube/MSU)

Professor Mueller is working to scale the engine up to an auto-sized version within a year, propelled by a $2.5M USD DOE research grant. The resulting engine could offer in excess of 100 mpg.  (Source: YouTube/MSU)
Engine will likely offer in excess of 100 mpg

Michigan State University (MSU) mechanical engineering associate professor Norbert Mueller [profile] has invented an engine quite unlike those that the world is familiar with today.  It has no transmission.  It ditches the piston, valves, and crankshaft.  It doesn't need to use cooling liquids.

Meet the Wave Disc Generator [video], the engine that could be the death of traditional gas and diesel internal combustion engines (ICEs).

When people claim to have a novel alternative to the ICE, they're typically peddling snake oil investments.  But Dr. Mueller has carefully documented his progress and is offering a true ICE replacement.  In short, he's turned what's typically a fantasy into reality.

The Wave Disc Generator starts with a rotor that feeds fuel into channels in the disc.  As the rotor spins, it naturally mixes the fuel with oxygen in the air.  The rotor also blocks the channels as it cycles.  This creates a buildup in pressure within the channel chamber, which creates a shock wave capable of igniting the fuel.

These shock waves cause the rotor to turn vigorously, much as a traditional ICE powers the rotations of the transaxle system. 

The new design is able to apply the combustion energy of 60 percent of its fuel directly towards propulsion.  A normal ICE only applies about 15 percent.  Thus the Wave Disc Generator is about 3.5 times as efficient as existing auto engines.  

The gains largely owe to inherent mechanical efficiency gains, the reduced friction from fewer components, and channel refinements Dr. Mueller's team has worked out.

The efficiency gains become even more impressive when you consider the engine weight.  Typically the engine is one of the heaviest car components.  By adopting this far slimmer engine that eliminates significant portions of the drive train, the weight of a hybrid could be reduced several hundred of pounds.

Between the base efficiency gains and the weight reduction, a Wave Disc Generator-powered car would likely get in excess of 100 miles per gallon.

There's one problem -- the current prototypes are far to small to power an automobile -- they fit in the palm of your hand.  But with a $2.5M USD from the U.S. Department of Energy's Advanced Research Projects Agency•Energy (ARPAe) grant program, Dr. Mueller's team at the MSU Engine Research Laboratory thinks they can come up with a car-sized 25 kilowatt prototype within a year's time.

If they can, they may have found a way for the auto industry to cheaply meet and beat strict upcoming fuel standards.  And they may save consumers millions of dollars and strength national security in the process, by reducing dependence on expensive Middle Eastern oil.

MSU isn't the biggest state university around or the hugest name in research (not as well known as say Harvard or MIT).  But it has been home to some groundbreaking works.  Among those was the first documented observation of evolution in a laboratory setting.  As important as that study was to modern genetics and biology, this engine could be an even more important work, if it meets its objectives.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Sounds great
By MegaHustler on 4/7/2011 4:37:20 PM , Rating: 5
If this holds up, it could be one of the most significant inventions in recent history. A 3.5 times increase in the efficiency of internal combustion engines, with apparently no downsides? Amazing!

I hate to be negative, but when something sounds too good to be true...




RE: Sounds great
By kattanna on 4/7/2011 4:44:33 PM , Rating: 2
yep.

but according to the video, it seems it would be used more to spin a generator to power an electric motor drive train

still very interesting though


RE: Sounds great
By deputc26 on 4/7/2011 9:37:58 PM , Rating: 5
"A normal ICE only applies about 15 percent" this is wrong: modern ICE engines run at ~35-40% thermal efficiency. Even ghetto 1950s aircraft engines like the Lycoming IO-360 beat 15% by a fairly wide margin.


RE: Sounds great
By sleepeeg3 on 4/7/11, Rating: -1
RE: Sounds great
By SPOOFE on 4/7/2011 10:09:03 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
giving this guy 2.5 million taxpayer dollars is not why our founding father's established the federal government.

According to some Founding Fathers, the Founding Fathers didn't establish a federal government.

Whatever; it's way better than giving corn even more subsidies to raise our prices to inefficiently make something that can be used as a fuel.


RE: Sounds great
By atlmann10 on 4/8/2011 1:08:29 AM , Rating: 4
Our current national government was not set up by the founding fathers initially. The system of a unified government for the whole country was set up by Abraham Lincoln and the congressional officials of his presidency.

Study your history it is in there as long as your reading a true accounting of history at the time, and not a current politically correct interpretation thereof.

One thing which many absolutely misunderstand is that the civil war was fought over slavery which is not true. Yes it became a part of it and the emancipation proclamation was also introduced during it, but it was not introduced until the 3rd (Jan. 1, 1863 introduced and it was law in 1865) year of the civil war, and could not be fully enforced as law until the end of the civil war or pretty close to. Following that war we were a unified nation, that is also why it is Union soldiers against Confederate Soldiers.


RE: Sounds great
By SPOOFE on 4/8/2011 1:12:10 AM , Rating: 4
Yer preaching to the choir.

Regardless, our government is what it is now, not what it was then. And now, our government certainly does have the power to dole out cash for things it thinks are worth it. I'm not saying anyone has to like it, but that's what it is.


RE: Sounds great
By FITCamaro on 4/8/11, Rating: 0
RE: Sounds great
By Jeffk464 on 4/8/2011 3:38:53 PM , Rating: 1
You're rights end where they effect other people, I don't think wearing black fits that description.


RE: Sounds great
By Jeffk464 on 4/8/2011 3:42:16 PM , Rating: 5
For example you don't have the right to pollute the water I drink the air I breath. You don't have the right to blast your music in the middle of the night and keep all your neighbors from sleeping. With your selfish attitude I don't think you should live in the city, move to Wyoming 50 miles from your nearest neighbor.


RE: Sounds great
By Kurz on 4/8/2011 4:05:51 PM , Rating: 2
What you are stating is for regulation for the Commons.
Look up "Tradegy of the Commons"


RE: Sounds great
By SPOOFE on 4/8/2011 6:14:36 PM , Rating: 4
Your post is a complete non sequitur and lacks any relevance to anything said by anybody prior.

quote:
If we have to follow the laws that our government passes, they have to follow the rules by which they are bound too.

And what rules prevent the government from passing out subsidies and grants, and why are you just now noticing that our government does this on a regular basis?


RE: Sounds great
By morphologia on 4/8/2011 3:37:41 PM , Rating: 4
You are just trying to minimize the slavery issue, like so many others.

The concern over "state's rights" started boiling over in the 1850's and was primarily centered around which states would or would not allow slavery. There were arguments over having too many slave states or too many free states, usually initiated whenever a new state was declared, and the fact that one faction would have more clout in government due to the numerical superiority. In the decade leading up to the Civil War, the most frequently debated issue was what limits (if any) would be imposed on slavery, and whether such limits violated state's rights.

Saying that the Civil was was fought over slavery is an over-simplification, but saying that slavery was not a main issue contributing to the war is a lie.


RE: Sounds great
By Skywalker123 on 4/9/2011 12:11:39 PM , Rating: 2
There also was no "Civil war".


RE: Sounds great
By BansheeX on 4/8/2011 2:07:08 PM , Rating: 2
I don't care what the technology is, it's not the government's job to force its people to invest in anything. That idea is just asking for rampant corruption and abuse. Politicians don't make decisions on merit. LAWL. It's not their money to fear losing, they'll give it to whoever promises them the biggest kickback. If it's a good idea that shows it can produce more than it destroys, it will have no freaking trouble finding voluntary investment.


RE: Sounds great
By Uncle on 4/8/2011 3:00:10 PM , Rating: 2
If the gov gives you a grant hopefully you get to keep your work, if you get money from outside sources eg. venture funds,you usually give up your ownership and now are in the pockets of who ever you sold your soul to. If that venture fund has the backing of an oil company, you might as well kiss your ideas goodbye.


RE: Sounds great
By BansheeX on 4/9/2011 1:33:03 AM , Rating: 2
How is an oil company giving money to a politician to deny funding or ban the idea any different from them buying it directly? In fact, it would be far cheaper to pay off a few politicians than outbid investors.


RE: Sounds great
By SPOOFE on 4/8/2011 6:17:22 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
it's not the government's job to force its people to invest in anything.

Like roads? Schools? Its own management infrastructure?

It's EXACTLY the government's job to force its people to invest in things. That's what governments have done since the dawn of civilization. In fact, you pretty much CAN'T have a government otherwise! What do you think a government IS?


RE: Sounds great
By BansheeX on 4/9/2011 1:44:37 AM , Rating: 2
Since the DoE was created in the 80s, "investment" in public schools has gone up dramatically with nothing to show for it but stupider and more indebted kids. Call it what it is: spending, not investment. There's no market incentive to improve the product because the exchange of money from consumers to teachers isn't voluntary. When you're guaranteed stolen money, you're as complacent in your performance as any wall street bankster. We allow the government to control roads because laying pavement is a relatively simple task that's hard to screw up and the inconvenience of toll booths everywhere outweighs their superior maintenance.


RE: Sounds great
By SPOOFE on 4/9/2011 2:52:28 AM , Rating: 2
You're merely observing that not all investments are good ideas, or not all investments are handled well. I guarantee we'd be far worse off if there were no expenditures on public schools.

However, the quality of each individual investment, or the handling thereof, does not change the fact that it is commonly recognized that the government sure does have the power to spend revenues on "investments".


RE: Sounds great
By mindless1 on 4/9/2011 8:09:14 PM , Rating: 2
We need to make a distinction here between infrastructure, societal maintenance and economic benefit, and between speculative research.

If we are going to continue pretending to have a free market, then government should not invest in technology that corporations are potentially putting into their products.

If on the other hand government is doing this for the benefit of everyone, what degree of socialism is tolerable in an era where government spending is arguably out of control?


RE: Sounds great
By SPOOFE on 4/9/2011 9:39:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We need to make a distinction here between infrastructure, societal maintenance and economic benefit, and between speculative research.

No we don't; the latter can be an inherent benefit to all three of the former. Why the arbitrary division that, oh by the way, is completely lacking precedent? Government has been investing in speculative research for ages now. Again I ask: Why are you just now noticing?

quote:
If we are going to continue pretending to have a free market, then government should not invest in technology that corporations are potentially putting into their products.

Except government has been doing that for at least twice my lifespan, and I'm guessing thrice yours. Unless you're anal-retentively literal, there's no reason "free market" and "government investment in speculative research" are mutually exclusive.

quote:
If on the other hand government is doing this for the benefit of everyone, what degree of socialism is tolerable in an era where government spending is arguably out of control?

Seeing as how most of our overspending stems from welfare-structured programs, passed once and then set to run automatically in perpetuity, in stark contrast to one-time grants that require some semblance of results to net further grants, it's obvious that this sort of expenditure is NOT what gave us a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit.


RE: Sounds great
By mindless1 on 4/12/2011 6:01:52 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not just noticing, I'm making a distinction that things that are a little alike, aren't enough alike that we can justify it. Just because something has been a certain way can you not accept that doesn't automatically make it ok, or the best way?

If you are half as old as you allude to being, you would have to have seen enough in life to realize our past is what brought us to where we are right now. Besides our information technology the US is in sad shape in major areas such as housing, banking, stock market, manufacturing in general, education... leading to a national debt out of control.

You claim "but government has been doing it". I claim, "yes, and we need to take a hard look at where things have gone wrong." Things can be as inclusive or exclusive as necessary, and the REASONS should be obvious, to effect a desirable outcome.

Your classification of "overspending" stemming from welfare structured programs is mere opinion. It happens to be an opinion I share, but government investing in research that wealthy corporations benefit from is also a form of welfarm, one for those who don't particularly need it.

One-time grants aren't "one time" when it is a perpetual policy to keep pouring money into such programs. While this policy alone is not what is putting us into trillion dollar deficit figures, the mindset behind it is. We are continuing to foot the bill for the rich and ignoring the financial burden of the middle and lower class.

What if this money had been spent on tighter oversight of banking regulations or a dozen other things? Apples and oranges I know, but that's what a budget is, no matter how *insignificant* you feel the money is, it could and should be put to better use elsewhere or cut out of the budget entirely.


RE: Sounds great
By SPOOFE on 4/7/2011 10:07:41 PM , Rating: 2
The exact wording of the claim made me think they're trying to discuss something other than just thermodynamic efficiency; the article stresses that the new design can remove many other elements of traditional car design, and maybe they're trying to take that into account?


RE: Sounds great
By Gungel on 4/7/2011 11:30:22 PM , Rating: 1
It really depends where you measure thermal efficiency. At the drive shaft or the actual output at the wheel.


RE: Sounds great
By karielash on 4/8/11, Rating: 0
RE: Sounds great
By Spuke on 4/8/2011 12:27:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Overall combustion efficiency is in fact between 15 and 20% which is what he was discussing.
He didn't say "combustion efficiency" either. He said,
quote:
The new design is able to apply the combustion energy of 60 percent of its fuel directly towards propulsion. A normal ICE only applies about 15 percent.


RE: Sounds great
By JediJeb on 4/8/2011 3:26:38 PM , Rating: 2
He did mention towards propulsion there so that would mean efficiency calculated from fuel to movement down the road. Is a standard ICE 35-40% efficient in converting its fuel to motion or closer to 15%? I don't remember so I am asking for clarification.


RE: Sounds great
By Calin on 4/8/2011 3:52:56 AM , Rating: 3
But there are losses in water pump, oil pump, hydraulic servo assisted steering (that's why most new cars converted to electric assisted steering), gearbox. And it looks more compact than a normal, low power gasoline engine would be.
The efficiency would be also improved by not having "back-forth" moving parts (like pistons and valves). Even if it would have the same thermal efficiency as a gasoline engine, it would have better efficiency "gas station to wheels"


RE: Sounds great
By myhipsi on 4/8/2011 10:28:30 AM , Rating: 2
My concern would be the lack of rotating mass and displacement which would mean significantly less torque (especially in the low to mid rpm range) than a traditional ICE. The same issue affects the Wankel rotary engine which is why they are commonly coupled with a turbo charger to compensate for this.

It certainly looks promising for small, fuel efficient vehicles. But I'm afraid the lack of torque may be an issue for anything larger. Though, I'm no engineer so I may be completely wrong on this.


RE: Sounds great
By ynot56 on 4/8/2011 11:40:18 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, this will not be a direct drive engine. The inventor specifically talks about a series hybrid. In a series hybrid the motor drives a generator, creating electricity. The electricity either drives electric motors or fills up a battery.

Unless I am quite mistaken, electric motors deliver large amounts of torque.


RE: Sounds great
By niva on 4/8/2011 5:56:15 PM , Rating: 2
If it won't be a direct drive engine then I have to ask the question how effective this engine is when compared to a good old turbine? In my opinion Jaguar already took the automotive industry earlier this year with the release of the C-X 75. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaF9iYw--QI

I doubt this engine will be more efficient than a turbine, I guess we'll see what the future brings. New ideas are always great and I'm sure after this becomes widely adopted it will be optimized.

It's high time something like this made it to motorcycles! I'm curious what the odds are for 2020 motoGP to be hybrid electric powered?


RE: Sounds great
By Dorkyman on 4/14/2011 12:50:50 PM , Rating: 2
Along those lines, does this thing pulse with firing charges, or is it a continuous burn like a turbine? I still don't understand how it works.


RE: Sounds great
By auhim on 4/7/2011 4:45:46 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I hate to be negative, but when something sounds too good to be true...

it probably is.

Key word: probably

When the transistor was invented, what were the downsides compared to the vacuum tube?

While I'm with you in wanting to keep expectations in check, it's not unreasonable to be hopeful.


RE: Sounds great
By rudy on 4/7/2011 7:15:28 PM , Rating: 2
But in this case it probably is.
I think I saw similar types of engines developed in the past the Wankel Rotary Engine. I think mazda even produced them for something but they apparently are not all they were cooked up to be because they are not common. So maybe the real break through is this idea might make more sense for some reason in a hybrid electric design with are now common place.


RE: Sounds great
By GreenEnvt on 4/7/2011 8:46:46 PM , Rating: 3
This is quite different then the wenkel, far more simple.


RE: Sounds great
By Flunk on 4/7/2011 9:53:07 PM , Rating: 2
Mazda still sells a rotary-engined car, the RX-8. Every car in the RX series uses a Wankel engine. I think the issue has something to do with it burning a lot of oil.


RE: Sounds great
By ekv on 4/8/2011 3:21:40 AM , Rating: 2
The extra oil helps the apex seals keep a tight fit to the "combustion chamber". These seals aren't the most efficient things around. So while you do have an excellent power/weight ratio from the Wankel, it's fuel efficiency compared to equal-power (though higher weight) piston engine is not quite there. Cost of Wankel (vs. regular piston) is also an issue.


RE: Sounds great
By JediJeb on 4/8/2011 3:31:49 PM , Rating: 2
Another advantage of the Wankel is the lack of reciprocating parts like pistons and valves. This allows them to reach much higher RPMs. If I remember correctly back in the 80s there was one used on a motorcycle on the Bonneville salt flats that could make 14,000 RPM, and was only limited to that because they could not make an ignition system that could fire the spark plugs any faster.


RE: Sounds great
By johnsonx on 4/9/2011 12:58:41 AM , Rating: 3
yes, I got rather tired of adding oil to my rx-7 all the time. plus it got crap gas mileage.

my frequent enjoyment of the 8100rpm redline might have had something to do with both.

then again I had just as much fun winding out the Integra GS-R that replaced it to it's 8200rpm redline, and it didn't burn any oil and got great gas mileage.

rotary engined cars are great for those who are fans of the particular nature of rotary engines... but largely useless to anyone else. that's why only mazda makes one, and only one model for many, many years.


RE: Sounds great
By JediJeb on 4/7/2011 4:49:24 PM , Rating: 3
Even if they have trouble scaling it up to a car sized engine, imagine if it could be used to replace small engines on power equipment like trimmers and lawn mowers. Cut the weight on a trimmer by 30% or more and you will sell tons of them.

Without the need for cooling water this would also be great for marine applications. An outboard motor for boats uses a lot of gas so the efficiency would help and for salt water applications the ability to not need cooling water would reduce the corrosion from sea water in the cooling systems.


RE: Sounds great
By Duwelon on 4/7/2011 6:52:07 PM , Rating: 3
Exactly what I was thinking. Operating a backup generator would be much cheaper. Assuming it doesn't require unobtainium to build this is some of the best news i've seen in years as far as technology goes.


RE: Sounds great
By torpor on 4/7/11, Rating: -1
RE: Sounds great
By AssBall on 4/7/2011 5:42:55 PM , Rating: 5
Overall, I'd say "You don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about".

This works nothing like the Wankel. Maybe you should watch the video and learn something.


RE: Sounds great
By Iketh on 4/8/2011 3:44:28 AM , Rating: 2
Not even... just a glance at the diagram in the article says it's radically different from a rotary... he should first read up on wankels


RE: Sounds great
By chang3d on 4/7/2011 6:38:24 PM , Rating: 2
Mazda did not invent the rotary engine either...


RE: Sounds great
By bigboxes on 4/7/2011 6:47:51 PM , Rating: 2
LOL. You obviously don't know wtf you are talking about. Maybe you'll actually rtfa next time.


RE: Sounds great
By EricMartello on 4/7/2011 6:45:19 PM , Rating: 2
Glad to see a Mick post that doesn't look like an 8th grade book report full of roman numerals.

About the disc engine...I didn't really glean the detail of how it works from this article but it seems to be a twist on the gas turbine engine - technology that was around in the 60s and was actively being R&D'd by the major automakers. It was later ditched largely due to it being deemed "too risky" for the feds who were guaranteeing the loans to said auto companies.

Anyway, I think that this engine is going to suffer from some of the same issues that gas turbine engines had:

- Lots of lag in power delivery - turbine engines work better at a steady RPM and do not handle RPM fluctuations like piston engines do.

- Quality Control: The rotor will no doubt be spinning at high RPMs around 15-30K so there is a much lower tolerance for material defects.

- Reliability: The vanes of the rotor are fragile and subject to deformations from dust and other junk being sucked into the engine via the air intake.

On that note, I do believe there were some recent hybrid cars that made use of a gas turbine, and we do use them in other vehicles. Our military is using gas turbines to power M1A1 tanks. Many helicopters use them and so do some boats. They have a great power-to-weight ratio and they can operate on just about anything that is combustible and will flow through a pipe.


RE: Sounds great
By shiftypy on 4/8/2011 5:50:32 AM , Rating: 2
The moment I saw the description, instantly I thought "this is a perfect engine for series hybrid electricity generation".

Compact, steady rpm. Needn't to be powerful, I'd say 2x10kW would be enough for a midsize car.

Not sure if it has to be very high rpm. The compression/combustion stage takes about 1/8th of rotation

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/28...

Isn't it comparable with diesel piston cycle?


RE: Sounds great
By 91TTZ on 4/8/2011 11:47:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
About the disc engine...I didn't really glean the detail of how it works from this article but it seems to be a twist on the gas turbine engine - technology that was around in the 60s and was actively being R&D'd by the major automakers. It was later ditched largely due to it being deemed "too risky" for the feds who were guaranteeing the loans to said auto companies.


No, gas turbines never made it in cars because they have horrible fuel economy and have slow response. They just weren't practical for the application.


RE: Sounds great
By EricMartello on 4/9/2011 12:31:30 AM , Rating: 2
In the 50s and 60s several turbine powered cars were made by Chrysler and road tested. They were able to boost fuel economy by using exhaust to heat the intake air...whether or not they could be made practical for cars was uncharted territory. Their program was cut because the company was having money problems and they were also having trouble meeting exhaust emissions standards.

Turbo cars used to have major lag and were not comparable to a larger displacement NA engine or a supercharged engine in terms of responsiveness. Due to the innovations in turbo technology, it's possible to minimize lag to a point where it's barely noticeable in normal driving situations while also boosting the power added by the turbo itself.

Who's to say automotive gas turbines couldn't have been made into something more practical if they had another 50 years of R&D behind them?


RE: Sounds great
By 91TTZ on 4/11/2011 2:41:01 PM , Rating: 2
Only very large gas turbines are efficient. At the scale that you're going to use in a car, they're not efficient at all.


RE: Sounds great
By Shadowmaster625 on 4/8/2011 8:54:37 AM , Rating: 2
The MYT engine has been around for years and gets around 50% efficiency. This is only marginally better, and still years behind. These things have a way of simply not ever making it into mass production.


it is really simple, the answer
By tharik on 4/7/2011 7:52:49 PM , Rating: 2
have 6 of the handheld motors power 6 small generators

why try making something that works, bigger




RE: it is really simple, the answer
By SPOOFE on 4/7/2011 11:23:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
why try making something that works, bigger

Economies of scale and reduction of fail points. What good is a simpler design if you then go and give it six times as many opportunities to screw up?


RE: it is really simple, the answer
By ekv on 4/8/2011 3:36:29 AM , Rating: 4
There's another way to think of it. On triple-parity RAID-Z3 (which ZFS has) you can have, say 11 drives, drop 3 of them at any given time, and the entire array won't skip a beat.

Somebody else suggested using these as generators, perhaps like what locomotives do, e.g. CW44AC

http://www.trainweb.org/csxphotos/photos/CW60AC/50...

6000 hp haha 8)

... so if you lose an engine, sure, a reduction in power, but plenty of others still delivering.


RE: it is really simple, the answer
By FaaR on 4/8/2011 7:42:26 AM , Rating: 2
An 11-drive array however is completely, on the verge of obnoxiously, impractical for almost 100% of all single computer users. From any point of view; noise and vibration, heat, power consumption, to the physical space required... Virtually nobody needs that. So it's a ridiculous comparison bringing it up.

Regular cars don't have 4 ICEs with 4 transmissions to drive each wheel so that the car can limp back home in case one or even two engines drop out for whatever reason. Large-scale redundancy is great in many situations (and absolutely vital in quite a few), but in most it's just hugely overkill.


RE: it is really simple, the answer
By Shadowmaster625 on 4/8/2011 8:58:58 AM , Rating: 2
You can buy 20-40 gig hard drives in bulk on ebay for 5 bucks apiece.


By SPOOFE on 4/8/2011 6:53:56 PM , Rating: 2
Of all the problems he listed with huge-redundancy arrays for most people, "price" wasn't one of 'em. :)


RE: it is really simple, the answer
By ekv on 4/8/2011 3:06:10 PM , Rating: 3
BS.

Noise? Vibration? Heat? Power Consumption? Ever think of using notebook HDD's?

It is obviously an extreme example, since ZFS does not yet enjoy wide use (i.e. on par with Apple or such). Though let me add it is designed for data integrity. This latter point has a parallel here in the form of, perhaps we can call it, power integrity.

Furthermore RAID 0,1,5,10 are absolutely common. Try to find a mobo made in the last couple years WITHOUT raid. RAID-Z3 is obviously the one of the higher (if not the highest) redundancies available, but works quite nicely.

And to use your simple example, regular cars don't have ICE's that can fit in the palm of your hand. As for transmissions? how quaint, you still use transmissions. Horribly inefficient.

The redundancy does not have to be large-scale, since the article does state they are trying to scale-up the engine. My point was that even something small still has utility, if you think about it.


RE: it is really simple, the answer
By JediJeb on 4/8/2011 3:42:48 PM , Rating: 2
You could also power a Nissan Leaf with 10,000 AA batteries, if one fails you still have 9,999 more to get home on. Though I imagine it is better to use one large battery pack for convenience as pulling the little ribbon and removing 4,235 AA batteries to get to the one failed one would be a major pain in the rear.


RE: it is really simple, the answer
By ekv on 4/8/2011 4:05:44 PM , Rating: 2
Point taken 8)

Not to be out-done though, you could use this for your battery

http://www.fraunhofer.de/en/press/research-news/20...

and an upscale version of this for your "car"

http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/2011-04/video-n...

[and here I thought popsci was defunct. My DailyTech 'education' has failed me].


RE: it is really simple, the answer
By mindless1 on 4/9/2011 8:30:33 PM , Rating: 2
You can't have redundancy and not add substantial weight and complexity these avoid by adding... get ready for it... transmission to couple and decouple all these little engines as needed.


RE: it is really simple, the answer
By ekv on 4/10/2011 5:59:27 AM , Rating: 2
I'd agree that's the mechanical solution. I was thinking in terms of the AC6000CW. As you know, diesel engine drives generator (/alternator) drives electric motor. I thought, mistakenly, they had multiple engines in the AC6000CW, but no.

I believe I've read that CVT's and PST's are more efficient at lower power levels.


By mindless1 on 4/9/2011 8:25:47 PM , Rating: 2
Not at all. Get a full tower case, a decent one not the tin foil specials, and you have no vibration issues, and heat level is easily managed because it is not total wattage that matters it is heat density which is very low.

Noise isn't a factor because this is your storage server not your windows do everything PC, it need not be a mere 16" away from your ears.

Physical space? Not much different actually because most people don't stack enough on top of a computer case to reach the ceiling. It would matter more in rackmounts where space is at a premium.

Who needs it? Anyone who likes to rip their DVDs/BR discs, record live TV, make home movies in HD, etc. You can never have too much storage space or redundancy, consider 1/3rd of those HDDs might just be the offline backup for the online array.


Video from 2009?
By EBH on 4/7/2011 5:29:10 PM , Rating: 5
So where is he now with this project?




RE: Video from 2009?
By rpierce on 4/7/2011 7:55:34 PM , Rating: 3
Right, I don't understand why we have a new article based on a video from 2009. In the video he says he wants to see us driving cars with his new engine in 3 years. Well, its been 3 years. I don't see anything that has come from this new design.


RE: Video from 2009?
By Gzus666 on 4/7/2011 8:13:23 PM , Rating: 5
2011-2009=2, maths are hard.


RE: Video from 2009?
By rvd2008 on 4/7/2011 10:42:19 PM , Rating: 4
Well, what has been done in 2 years? I would really love to see how grant money were spent. For the last several years there was a bunch of new green car blogs with silver bullet promise every other day. And we are still driving old ICE designs. Why? And if this is a lie, could we hold liers accountable? At least if they are "scientists" in a public university consuming public money?


RE: Video from 2009?
By SPOOFE on 4/7/2011 11:12:19 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
And we are still driving old ICE designs. Why?

Why not? There's over a century of engineering experience behind internal combustion engines, and for most of that time they were perfectly fine for the conditions and times they were used.

How long do you think a paradigm shift should take? Ten minutes? Fifteen, tops?


RE: Video from 2009?
By rvd2008 on 4/8/2011 10:19:11 AM , Rating: 2
The guy in the video promised miracle in 3 years, watch it.
Back in 2009. So... 2009, 2010, now 2011. Where is it?


RE: Video from 2009?
By Xaussie on 4/8/2011 12:29:05 PM , Rating: 2
I'll let you know in a year (said in 2011). Okay ... 2011 ... oops time's up, sorry didn't make it. Seriously it's going to be tough to offer competent analysis of a complex thermodynamic device when you can't do simple math.


RE: Video from 2009?
By SPOOFE on 4/8/2011 6:22:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The guy in the video promised miracle in 3 years, watch it.

He "promised"? Or he "wants to see it"? Maybe English isn't your first language, but those are two very different things.

I want to see a billion dollars appear in my bank account. Doesn't mean it'll happen, eh?

I think you're just being pedantic and anal.


By Communism on 4/7/2011 5:12:11 PM , Rating: 4
And you really should be comparing these to Gas Turbines, as thats what they compete with / are going to be replacing if is as good as billed.

But of course then the comparison wouldn't have been as awesome skewed :P.

The best gas turbines have a thermal efficiency (which is the only way to get over 50% as a number anyways) of 60%, which is exactly the same as the one stated here.




By Azethoth on 4/7/2011 5:49:44 PM , Rating: 2
Where's my gas turbine car at?


By AssBall on 4/7/2011 7:24:07 PM , Rating: 2
Here you go, the C-X75

http://www.jaguar.com/gl/en/#/about_jaguar/75th_An...

Bit ahead of it's time, a pure concept, and not targeted at a mass produced consumer vehicle, but cool nonetheless.


By ekv on 4/8/2011 4:03:46 AM , Rating: 2
Love the car. Traction motor at each wheel for independent power delivery. Beautiful.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2010/09/cx75-20100...

80,000 rpm micro-turbines. Not so beautiful. Apparently, despite the best of efforts, the whine in the cabin is a bit uncomfortable. [pip-pip, cheerio, stiff upper lip lad, and all that rot]

I bet it'd sell well as is.


By Azethoth on 4/11/2011 9:37:49 PM , Rating: 2
Oh man, my gas turbine car is way more awesome than I imagined. "bespoke hand-cut Pirelli rubber" tires indeed.


By JediJeb on 4/8/2011 3:48:21 PM , Rating: 2
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Turbine_Car

Right here, Chrysler made it in 1963.


Ouch
By Keeir on 4/7/2011 5:31:25 PM , Rating: 5
quote:

The new design is able to apply the combustion energy of 60 percent of its fuel directly towards propulsion. A normal ICE only applies about 15 percent.


I am sorry Jason. This is simply not true.

When all is said and done, today's Otto Cycle based cars are between 15-20% efficient on EPA driving cycles. (18-25% on EU driving cycles).

That is -cars- running though a testing cycle.

Likely this engine has a peak engine efficieny of 60%. Which is pretty good. (Although it would be good to know at what percentage of load this occurs)

There are Otto cycle based engines in production cars whoose peak efficieny is ~40%+. Research Otto Cycle engines have been produced above 50% efficient.

Likely this wave generator would be only slightly more efficient than an Otto Cycle engine when developed into a car that can complete the EPA cycles and measured at the car level.

However, its light wieght and scaliblity make it a good choice for EREV genetors (for example, 3-4 20kW units that only ever run at 60% efficient would be better than a single 70kW Otto Cycle engine that does RPM changes)




RE: Ouch
By SPOOFE on 4/7/2011 11:19:42 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Likely this wave generator would be only slightly more efficient than an Otto Cycle engine when developed into a car that can complete the EPA cycles and measured at the car level.

But you're only looking at a single assertion in the article: Efficiency. But they also assert that they can remove much of the heavy machinery that now regularly goes into a vehicle. Even if "fuel efficiency" were the "same", what savings are there to be had with far fewer parts to break? What gains are made by having energy go into moving a smaller number of parts? What advantages are there with a car that has less actual car to move around?


RE: Ouch
By Keeir on 4/9/2011 3:39:04 PM , Rating: 2
Sigh... your making the same mistake.

Read the article carefully and you will see the technology can not replace a standard Otto Cycle Ice in a car. They haven't even build a prototype capable of delievering the -average- power required at the wheels during the UDDS or HWFET cycles. But in general, this type of technology does not seem to have a wide range of effective RPMs. This has always been the case with turbine type technology.

Therefore, at a minimum you will need a Prius type hybrid setup. Since the Prius engine is capable of >25kW, your probably looking at more like a Volt setup.

When your contrainted to such an enviroment, there are many engine choices that become feasible over the standard Otto Cycle ICE. For example, Lotus Omnivore engine or a gas turbine.

I feel like the article doesn't really address this fact... it isn't like in the future you can buy a car just propelled by this wave generator.


RE: Ouch
By SPOOFE on 4/10/2011 8:06:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Therefore, at a minimum you will need a Prius type hybrid setup.

Yup, that's the stated intention, according to the article.


Middle East oil MYTH
By saganhill on 4/8/2011 8:45:09 AM , Rating: 2
"by reducing dependence on expensive Middle Eastern oil"

People, we get 75% of our oil from Canada. So unless we go to war with Canada we should not be spreading myths like getting our oil from the Middle East oil fields. Its not true. But the speculators are making a killing on this myth.




RE: Middle East oil MYTH
By Kurz on 4/8/2011 10:12:05 AM , Rating: 2
Oil is sold on a Global Exhange we get our oil from all over.


RE: Middle East oil MYTH
By wiz220 on 4/8/2011 1:27:55 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly right. A shortage in one place even if we aren't buying oil directly from that one place causes a spike in prices everywhere, including Canada.


RE: Middle East oil MYTH
By Spuke on 4/8/2011 3:03:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oil is sold on a Global Exhange we get our oil from all over.
We indeed get most of our oil from Canada and Mexico.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_...


RE: Middle East oil MYTH
By Kurz on 4/8/2011 4:04:49 PM , Rating: 2
Not disagreeing, just being more accurate.


For now
By YashBudini on 4/7/2011 4:59:05 PM , Rating: 3
Can they build one big enough to keep a hybrid running a decent range? How about one to run a small generator at home?

Economies of scale can kick in later.




RE: For now
By Smartless on 4/7/2011 5:51:58 PM , Rating: 2
That's an excellent use but I think by the time this sees mass production, the rage might be plug-in types instead of hybrids.

What I'm wondering is how the wear-and-tear on this thing is? Wankel rotary engines have seal problems because the rotors wear as the engines spin but this design looks like it won't have these issues.


RE: For now
By SPOOFE on 4/7/2011 10:22:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the rage might be plug-in types instead of hybrids.

The best plug-ins can hope for is to be a significant percentage of what is to become a very fractured market. The fact is that there are plenty enough people that do make 500+ mile drives in a day or two, and plug-ins just plain won't be able to suffice (outside of ridiculous improvements to battery tech).

An ~8 hour downtime to "recharge" your car is fine for those that have a predictable daily usage, and even they will feel nervous about this major transport limitation. Too many people will think "What if an emergency comes up and my car still has six hours of recharging to go?"


Disappear
By Raiders12 on 4/8/2011 12:11:12 PM , Rating: 2
Articles like this interest me as an upcoming engineer, yet its a shame it will never be read again. Why? Uhhh because billions of $$ in profit will disappear (Big Oil and Loyal Politicians, I mean terrorists).
60% efficiency is a great improvement, I hope work like this continues. This is what needs to be done, rethinking the wheel, and making it more simple, using the laws of physics and thermodynamics as your friend.




RE: Disappear
By 91TTZ on 4/8/2011 2:04:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Articles like this interest me as an upcoming engineer, yet its a shame it will never be read again. Why? Uhhh because billions of $$ in profit will disappear (Big Oil and Loyal Politicians, I mean terrorists). 60% efficiency is a great improvement, I hope work like this continues. This is what needs to be done, rethinking the wheel, and making it more simple, using the laws of physics and thermodynamics as your friend.


If you're not able to see the obvious errors in your way of thinking you'll never be a good engineer. These things should be completely obvious to those with an engineer's mind.


RE: Disappear
By Spuke on 4/8/2011 3:19:59 PM , Rating: 3
Doubt he's an engineer just like I doubt some people that claim to be "Europeans" here are such. Been to Europe many times, had plenty of social-political discussions and never once did I meet an a$$hole.


Sorry but
By FITCamaro on 4/8/2011 8:57:46 AM , Rating: 2
The gas engine in a hybrid does not weigh several hundred pounds. Even the 2.2L Ecotec weighs about 350 pounds for the whole engine. Some hybrids use even smaller engines than this.

So unless you're talking a hybrid Tahoe that still has a 6.0L V8 in it, and you're completely removing the engine, it isn't getting that much lighter.

Yeah even 200 pounds is a lot for Tahoe but it still ain't light.




RE: Sorry but
By drewsup on 4/8/2011 1:15:40 PM , Rating: 1
Wow, 200 LBS, that's almost 1/2 an an American!


RE: Sorry but
By Spuke on 4/8/2011 3:13:42 PM , Rating: 2
You Europeans aren't too far behind. Look it up. LOL!


too small
By AssBall on 4/7/2011 4:49:24 PM , Rating: 2
Mick, that diagram thing is too small. Can you make it so it blows up or something so we can read it?




RE: too small
By AssBall on 4/7/2011 4:51:44 PM , Rating: 2
Or I could just stop being lazy...

http://i.zdnet.com/blogs/wave-disk.jpg?tag=content...

It's a pretty interesting design


just holding it
By rika13 on 4/8/2011 6:50:05 AM , Rating: 2
notice how he never shows the engine running under it's own power, instead he holds it like a big silver club




RE: just holding it
By FaaR on 4/8/2011 7:37:14 AM , Rating: 2
What exactly is your point?


By Arsynic on 4/8/2011 8:53:24 AM , Rating: 2
The ICE is long in the tooth...I'm surprised it's taken so long for another design to succeed it. There's no way the ICE in it's current form is the most efficient design.

See folks, this is what we mean by an "all of the above" approach to energy independence. Imagine this engine in a hybrid??? LOLOL! Enough said. Good old American ingenuity. Now please keep this guy safe from OPEC and Oil Company hit men.




By 91TTZ on 4/8/2011 12:03:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The ICE is long in the tooth...I'm surprised it's taken so long for another design to succeed it. There's no way the ICE in it's current form is the most efficient design.


All you have to do is introduce a better design and everyone will use it inside of the traditional internal combustion engine. The problem is that nobody has been able to do that yet.


Too small?
By mattclary on 4/7/2011 4:47:40 PM , Rating: 3
But is it big enough to power a generator so you can use an electric drive train?




By spamreader1 on 4/7/2011 5:05:08 PM , Rating: 3
Smaller engine applications like
Lawn Mowers, Weed eaters, edgers, chain saws, etc. Perhaps even mopeds, and other smaller motorcycles.




Old video
By Kakao on 4/8/2011 12:21:50 PM , Rating: 3
A video from October 2009. And still nothing? *** S C A M ***




Doubtful
By DBissett on 4/7/11, Rating: 0
RE: Doubtful
By 91TTZ on 4/8/2011 12:10:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Assuming the development continues positively, I am extremely pessimistic about 1)the major auto/gas companies ever allowing this to get to market, and/or 2)consumers ever seeing any significant savings from the efficiency boost.


That's ridiculous. Why would an auto company want to hold back a technology that would give them a tremendous lead? If you were Chrysler and you were able to build a car with a simpler new type of engine that got 100 mpg, you could make tons of money. It would blow the Prius out of the water and your car would be the new king of fuel efficient cars. To compete with you the other automakers would rush to introduce similar cars, much the same way that manufacturers are currently doing with hybrids.

The fact is that this design probably has severe limitations that would make it undesirable and uncompetitive.


catch a sound wave
By randyc on 4/7/2011 7:11:59 PM , Rating: 2
Wikipedia has a short article on the wave disc engine. Rather than hot gas pushing against a piston or turbine blade, it appears the approach is to pull energy directly out of the pressure wavefront. I'll bet someone who understands how an acoustic refrigerator works could help explain how this engine might work.




WWFD?
By christojojo on 4/7/2011 8:05:28 PM , Rating: 2
What would flubber do?




patent
By Murloc on 4/8/2011 11:05:51 AM , Rating: 2
the patent will be bought by an oil company that will let it rot.




So, how long before...
By Kanazozo on 4/8/2011 11:19:12 AM , Rating: 2
one of two things happens:

A) The research team realizes this is a gravy train and decides to perptually "research" this engine with no actual commercial applications coming from it, or

B) Someone (engine manufacturer, competitor, oil companies, forgeign nations) spends a lot of money to make sure this thing becomes a novelty, and nothing more. A few million bucks to make this paradigm-shifting invention disappear? Good investment if your in the oil business




Sounds too good.
By drycrust3 on 4/8/2011 12:49:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The new design is able to apply the combustion energy of 60 percent of its fuel directly towards propulsion. A normal ICE only applies about 15 percent. Thus the Wave Disc Generator is about 3.5 times as efficient as existing auto engines.

I looked at the video and I didn't see a prototype running. Sure, that doesn't mean it doesn't run, but if one existed then it would have been easy enough to included it in the video.
The problem I have with this engine is that in the normal engine the thermal expansion is within a sealed container, thus the hot gases push the piston to provide motive power. Sure, there are power train losses, but essentially around 100% of the pressure of the gas is what turns the engine.
In this disc engine the hot gases aren't within a sealed container, thus, and this is just at a casual glance, it would appear to be less efficient to me rather than more efficient.




Cool concept but...
By wiz220 on 4/8/2011 1:22:18 PM , Rating: 2
I think that this:

http://www.ecomotors.com/

will beat him to market by a wide margin and might be the next big innovation in ICE technology. It has heavy hitters like Bill Gates behind it and, like this disk engine, was also started as a DARPA project.




By Norseman4 on 4/8/2011 9:31:24 PM , Rating: 2
When they make a demonstrable version of this mock-up, then I'll be enthused. Right now it's just above vaporware, but seemingly all theoretical.

The Humming Bird motor and Sundance Generator by the International Tesla Electric Company had a good video associated with it as well for 'Free Electricity'.

Make something that works and show the working prototype or proof-of-concept. Then ask for money.




still good..
By zodiacfml on 4/11/2011 3:14:19 AM , Rating: 2
still good...if we can use it to drive a generator.




The problem is always the same
By Beenthere on 4/7/2011 9:27:07 PM , Rating: 1
Even the best people in R & D underestimate what it takes to go from concept to reality as in a production vehicle that will meet all emissions and other requirements.

I've worked with numerous advanced engine concepts and if it were easy to get there from here people would have done it decades ago. While this tech is interesting, until we see a real working vehicle that meets all the requirements, I'll reserve my enthusiasm.

The whole point of publishing this report is to obtain additional government funding to continue the research project.




vaporware
By semo on 4/8/11, Rating: -1
RE: vaporware
By Kurz on 4/8/2011 10:10:14 AM , Rating: 3
>.> I guess the fact there is limited range, long recharge times, expensive batteries have nothing to do with it?


RE: vaporware
By semo on 4/8/2011 4:53:50 PM , Rating: 2
ICE cars 100 years ago were also expensive and had limited range. Billions of man hours and $ invested in R&D have taken care of that.

If the infrastructure existed, then charge times would be much shorter as well. With electric cars, you can top up your range at your parking spot but the infrastructure isn't there yet.

At one point there were as many electric cars as there were ICE cars. When starters were invented, ICE cars gained more popularity as cranking was no longer necessary. Ironically, the electric motor killed electric cars.


RE: vaporware
By SPOOFE on 4/8/2011 7:02:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
ICE cars 100 years ago were also expensive and had limited range.

ICE cars 100 years ago could be refueled in a few minutes.

quote:
If the infrastructure existed, then charge times would be much shorter as well. With electric cars, you can top up your range at your parking spot but the infrastructure isn't there yet.

So electric cars require a much larger, complex, and expensive infrastructure. Hardly something to brag about.

quote:
At one point there were as many electric cars as there were ICE cars.

At that same point, there were orders of magnitude more horse-drawn carriages than ICE and electric cars put together; clearly this means horse-drawn carriages are superior, except, of course, that the infrastructure isn't there yet.

quote:
Ironically, the electric motor killed electric cars.

I think the laws of physics had something to do with it. 100 years of development and ICE's have improved dramatically. 100 years of development has also seen remarkable improvements in batteries and electric motors. And ICE's are still superior in many crucial respects.


RE: vaporware
By semo on 4/8/2011 7:51:08 PM , Rating: 2
You seem to think that it is cheap to extract, refine and distribute oil. You have electricity at your home and car park already. It would be very dangerous to have a fuel pump everywhere but a charging station can be put on a street parking spot.

You can not compare the amount of R&D time/money has gone into ICEs and oil compared to batteries and electricity generation. When offshore wind mills and wave power is mentioned, everyone screams expensive, dangerous and cost ineffective. Off shore oil drilling if fine though!
100 years ago it was much easier to refine oil than make extremely efficient batteries. Even today’s nano-technology is struggling to advance battery development but companies like A123 systems are making solid progress.

You can not deny the fact that electric cars would produce much lower street-level pollution (not talking about “mother earth” killing pollution nonsense). You will still get some pollution but it won't be as dense and harmful as from ICE driven cars.


RE: vaporware
By SPOOFE on 4/9/2011 3:00:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You seem to think that it is cheap to extract, refine and distribute oil

There is no rational reason for you to suspect that.

quote:
You can not compare the amount of R&D time/money has gone into ICEs and oil compared to batteries and electricity generation

Sure I can; cars aren't the only machines humanity uses.

quote:
hen offshore wind mills and wave power is mentioned, everyone screams expensive, dangerous and cost ineffective.

No, they scream "Pie in the sky!" and "Waste of money!"

quote:
You can not deny the fact that electric cars would produce much lower street-level pollution

And you can not deny that there are many facets of commerce that just plain can't function using electric cars as they are now or in the foreseeable future.


RE: vaporware
By semo on 4/9/2011 5:12:13 AM , Rating: 2
I suspect that you think that oil cheap because you said:
quote:
So electric cars require a much larger, complex, and expensive infrastructure
Filling your car up is easy today because there exists a large, complex and expansive infrastructure.

I think you are looking at electric vehicles as impossible because ICE cars have been around for such a long time.

There is definitely a market for passenger electric vehicles. It would be much more difficult for goods vehicles to go full electric but it is possible (e.g. change the battery on the go and let someone else charge it).

Street level pollution is not acceptable in my opinion and causes all sorts of health issues.


RE: vaporware
By SPOOFE on 4/9/2011 5:45:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Filling your car up is easy today because there exists a large, complex and expansive infrastructure.

And in order to achieve what is necessary for electric cars to be viable replacements, you need an even larger, more complex, and expensive infrastructure. Whereas gas stations, refineries, oil wells, and supertankers are expensive, it would be far more expensive to put charging stations in every parking space in the country, in the roads, at intersections, on freeways, highways, interstates....

It's either that, or you have an unreliable platform that will always deter a significant number of otherwise potential buyers.

quote:
I think you are looking at electric vehicles as impossible because ICE cars have been around for such a long time.

I think you should stop caring about what I think and start concerning yourself with what you think, because what you think doesn't make any sense.

Electric cars aren't viable replacements for ICE cars. I explained why quite clearly above. If you can't find where I said it, either due to selective illiteracy or just simple stubbornness, lemme know and I'll be happy to quote it.

quote:
There is definitely a market for passenger electric vehicles.

Yup, I see plenty of electric vehicles any time I'm down at Fox studios.

quote:
Street level pollution is not acceptable in my opinion and causes all sorts of health issues.

I grew up in Los Angeles in the '80s. I dislike lousy air. But no matter how mad I get at it, I can't change reality.


RE: vaporware
By semo on 4/9/2011 7:45:13 AM , Rating: 1
Well we agree that air pollution is a bitch. I know what I'm talking about is not financially viable. All I'm saying is that it is possible.

I'm waiting for a decent electric city car to come out and I'll buy it (40 mile range with the AC on and non fugly looks will do for me). I don't need to convince myself... just need the cash :).


Wait for it
By borismkv on 4/7/11, Rating: -1
RE: Wait for it
By Azethoth on 4/7/2011 5:46:55 PM , Rating: 2
Lol. Hey do you also believe that the earth is flat and there were no moon landings?

Bonus tard points if: You do not believe there were moon landings but also believe we didn't go back because of what happened during the 18th landing.


RE: Wait for it
By SPOOFE on 4/7/2011 11:24:19 PM , Rating: 2
Psst, you're one of THEM. There's a pill you can put in your gas tank that will give you 1.21 jiggaMPG.


RE: Wait for it
By ekv on 4/8/2011 3:53:07 AM , Rating: 2
Been hearing for years how Big Oil has bought up designs for 100mpg carburetors. Popular Science seemed to run an article like that every couple months, probably to spice up readership [hey, come on, you have to consider their readership 8]

Naptha-based carb. was supposed to be a furious success.

I somehow don't think it'll work if an entire engine (technology) gets put on the shelf however. Especially with <ahem> $4+ per gal. If you're a conspiracist [ha! just coined a word], you might rather think that Big Oil is bringing this tech off the shelf in order to sustain their market. String the junkies along. Btw, where did our prof get his research money? [cue theme from The Twilight Zone].


RE: Wait for it
By Hulk on 4/8/2011 2:08:59 PM , Rating: 2
This will be the last we ever hear of this new IC engine. So this guy developed an engine that uses principles of a wankel and a turbine and actually got it to run. Good for him that is noteworthy. His 3.5 times greater efficiency than piston IC is crap. I guarantee it. I'm a ME myself and if it were true we have some hard testing info and data.

Why not just slap on of those 200mpg carbs on it and call it day?

If this has any real world merit, which I seriously doubt, then I could see it's use in a serial hybrid like the Volt to keep generator/engine weight and space requirements down.

Before Dailytech publishes these "Pie in the Sky" puff pieces I wish they'd gather a little more evidence and then decide if there is enough science behind it to publish.

How was the engine tested? What load was applied and for how long? What was the fuel used and how much was consumed? Was any additional energy used to run the engine? For example a compressor for air or fuel injection. Without that data this goes into the "cool but useless category" in my opinion as an actual mechanical engineer.


"We shipped it on Saturday. Then on Sunday, we rested." -- Steve Jobs on the iPad launch














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki