da Pie in da Sky

[wdyasq]

I visit http://www.gizmag.com pretty often.  I have not seen the magical solar cells they claim are in the pipeline and am skeptical of a ballistic fabric that stops artillery shells (OK, it just slows them down).

This article http://www.gizmag.com/diesel-spark-plug-gasoline/12484/ claims a diesel with 53% efficiency. This is supposedly an attainable number, not a mere calculation. This compares to the 'normal' efficiency of ~40% for a diesel. (gasoline/petrol engines get about 25% efficiency). This is a CHUNK of improvement. Of course, it will require the 'build' of a diesel engine, which is a bit more than an Otto (gas/petrol/alcohol/H2 engine). It will also require a more sophisticated computer, and a second set of injectors as I read it.

I won't wait for an engine like this .....  and I doubt Americans will even get the more efficient diesel engines offered in hundreds of models of vehicles in Europe and Asia. I've been waiting for those for years.

And folks wonder why congress has a low approval rating ... but only IF they are in government.

Ron

[Ungrounded Lightning Rod]

While I don't know if the improvement was anywhere near this good, I do know that there is a significant improvement in fuel efficiency by injecting water into an internal combustion engine (appropriately retuned).

There was also a marvelous design for a carburator using this technique:  It emitted a coaxial jet of water surrounded by gasoline, splitting it into a fine mist by ultrasonic sound.  This produced gasoline droplets with a core of water, which ignited like ordinary gasoline, then exploded when the heat boiled the water, resulting in very clean and complete combustion and high efficiency.

But it was never deployed.  Reason:  You had to have TWO tanks of consumable liquid to run the engine (along with two fuel pumps, etc.).  Running out of gas OR water stops the engine.  (Like an oil-injected two-cycle.)  They didn't want to deploy a vehicle that required double-filling, even if it had a drastic mileage improvement.

This one requires a similar double-tankage, double-fillup, double-points-of-failure.  So even if it's a big improvement I'm not holding my breath waiting for deployment.  (And it's only about a 25% improvement on an ordinary diesel, while complicating the injection system.  So it will be a hard sell.)

[gotwind2]

Ron.

I also visit gizmag.com occasionally.

They are hungry for anything new, whatever it is - even if it is B/S well packaged.

That's what they do..

Ben.

[electrondady1]

i've seen a film documenting the use of an emulsion of water and gasoline using a detergent as a surfactant.

this 50 /50 mixture was port injected into the intake stream .

it claimed a 50% decrease in fuel consumption.

[spinningmagnets]

I recall some European experiments at dual-fuel to reduce smog in the cities. The problem with burning propane or methane (CNG) is the fuel is not very power-dense. Leads to very poor mileage. The Volvo test mule 18-wheeler ran on diesel out in the country, and as it entered the cities it switched to the cleaner-burning gas.

With the new computer-controlled pressure-rail diesels, they didn't need to add a sparking system, the computer injected "just enough" diesel to start burning, and the burning diesel ignited the gas. I believe it was called "pilot diesel". Of course there is a big drop in power running on gas, and I haven't heard of them going into production.

Heard of the Crower 6-cycle? Bruce Crower (famous for racing cams) took a one-cylinder diesel and he drilled/threaded the head to accept a spark plug. He added a crank sensor, coil and carb to run it on gasoline. The odd part was that after two revolutions, he added an extra cycle where he injected some water. So cycles 5 and 6 are a two-stroke flash steam engine.

Obviously required a custom cam and a 3:1 timing belt. He claimed about a 30% improvement in fuel consumption per hour, and as a side note, the exhaust ran warm instead of hot. Said he was working on securing international patents.

I was thinking it would work best on a constant-speed generator, perhaps a 3-cyl with a heavy flywheel?

[spinningmagnets]

Oooops! I meant using gas (propane/methane) in an 18-wheeler leads to poor RANGE.