Post Combustion injection of water

[JohnA]

Originally Posted by tawnybill

..simple eh? :?

eeermm, if you say so :smile:
So that's converting the internal combustion engine into a hybrid steam engine, isn't it?

Very interesting ---- you've got a working prototype then?
Very X-Files man, do you realise what an impact such a breakthrough would have in the international balance of power?
Next best thing to cold fusion

Surely there must be some 'gotchas' in reality, right?
If not, it's stunning how it hasn't been patented :!:

[tawnybill]

Since we needed a radical change of direction on hydrocarbon fuel use, 'well this is radical alright no?

The oil industry won't be replaced (or go broke) by this, your motor will still require fuel, only (about 25%?) less (by the way, since this system relies on HEAT it would be applicable to hydrogen/biodiesel/?/? or any fuel, since the heat is also wasted in a hydrogen/propane/LPG/Diesel converted engine)

My simple explanation of this is; Weather I buy a gallon of diesel fuel for my car or for home heating, either gallon could drive the car or heat the home right?

WHY are we then dumping the heat from the motor without useing it, while in the furnace we defeat/waste the explosive aspect and save the heat?

Both gallons of fuel are capeable of explosion as well as contain the same amount of heat! :roll: Ludicrus! we should be ashamed of such waste.....

?n researching efficiency, it shocked me to find out that apparently 60% of the "total" energy in motor fuel is attributed to "engine loss and the majority is down the exhaust as HEAT!

And yes it will convert the engine to an "Internal combustion Steam Engine" essentialy eliminateing the heat loss from an external boiler (that caused the virtual extinction of the steam engine). Allowing for 100% heat transfer to the water.

Cool eh?

Wil

[JohnA]

Originally Posted by tawnybill

?n researching efficiency, it shocked me to find out that apparently 60% of the "total" energy in motor fuel is attributed to "engine loss and the majority is down the exhaust as HEAT!..

That's easy, every engineer knows that we only extract 30% of the chemical energy from petrol. Very inefficient. The mere existence of the cooling system is testament to that. (30% of engergy is dissipated through it alone)

[tawnybill]

Thanks for enlightning me...
(the following was coped from; http://www.eng-tips.com/faqs.cfm?fid=1147 )

Taking a scale of the amount of heat that is produced during combustion, and where it is used shows some interesting things:
In a diesel engine (not spark ignited), about 35% of the combustion energy actually goes to the rear wheels. The rest is consumed in the following ways, within reason, and with some flexibility due to engine and vehicle differences. This is further broken down in three separate areas:
Actual brake engine power
Thermal losses from radiation
Thermal losses from the exhaust
From these numbers, we then extrapolate these figures:
12% is radiated from the engine radiator;
10% from thermal losses through the block through heat radiation;
45% is lost through the exhaust waste heat (a little less if the engine is turbocharged);
About 5% of the energy is consumed by the process of combustion, the physical conversion of chemicals into gasses;
About 10% is lost due to engine motoring friction losses, piston drag, camshaft bearings, lifters, crank drag, oil pump, water pump, valve and rocker arm friction, etc.
Unless a magical means of eliminating these values is discovered, you will NEVER see an engine produce much more than about 40% efficiency, from BTU's of raw heat from burning the fuel, to usable power at the wheels.

This is another ?engineers? claimed understanding of these common known facts also ....

Accounting for 100% of the energy;

Adding it up........ 35+12+10+45+5+10 = 117% on my paper too ..... really? well that is a 17% increase in fuel efficiency just through math!

Fantastic! Since (some other engineer claims that) a 15% increase in efficiency is the threshold of viability, we can all go home now?? Right?

My opinion in this regard is that our universities turn out thousands of engineering graduates every year that have learnt a reasonable percentage (a 70% passing mark/understanding maybe?) of the regurgitated knowledge that they were taught, they have no application for it, constructively. (that?s why the Big Mac I just had was prepared by a PhD?. kind of a waste of tuition eh?)

In my view, ?creativity? is exercising imagination beyond known knowledge and you either have it or not, and although creative thought can be explained, ?it? (creativity) can?t be taught, being dependent on the individuals imagination (or lack of it).

However, by me applying the useful information that I have learnt, pays me 4-5 times what an 'applied PhD.' (my friend the engineer flipping burgers) gets paid.. (Coincidently I am a grade 10 dropout from 1967)

When I give my explanation on the waste of fuel (on a previous post) to my engineering friend, he asked me where I read that......excuse me... this is an analysis... I'm writeing 'The Book' on it for future 'Engineers' (like him) to learn this fundamental reasoning from and hopefully grasp the understanding of.

Makes me wonder though, by the 'magical means' refered to above could he mean my system? (The one I'm writeing the book on here and now)

In conclusion may I include a couple of quotes;

Engineering
A good scientist is a person with original ideas. A good engineer is a person who makes a design that works with as few original ideas as possible. There are no prima donnas in engineering.
Freeman Dyson (b. 1923), British-born U.S. physicist, author. Disturbing the Universe, pt. 1, ch. 10 (1979).13

Errors
"Concepts which have proved useful for ordering things easily assume so great an authority over us, that we forget their terrestrial origin and accept them as unalterable facts. They then become labeled as 'conceptual necessities,' etc. The road of scientific progress is frequently blocked for long periods by such errors." - Einstein

.

[JohnA]

So did you post your ideas over there or not?

As far as I know it's the most relevant forum for such questions.

You need what is called a 'peer review' and it's a good place to start.

[tawnybill]

Cool, I hope this stirred the imagination .... :shock:

Imagination is more important than knowledge, for knowledge is limited while imagination embraces the entire world.

Albert Einstein

.

[JohnA]

Bruce Crower of Crower Cams has designed and patented a new six stroke gasoline engine that uses steam to produce a second power stroke that is produced from water injection.

This engine design is supposed to produce equal horsepower, but a 40% decrease in fuel consumption and a significant decrease in emissions.
Not sure if it has a cooling system at all.

suck, squeeze, bang, blow, spray-flash, blow


http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dl.../60222004/1024

Relevant link:
http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=E...=US3964263&F=0

[maxc]

1/6 steam engine.

[tawnybill]

I think that steam is one of the better answers to recovering/utilizing the heat of combustion in the motor for torque.

And after it has been used in that way, to utilzie the heat in end consumption for home heat as I explain on my website.

and/or;

Has anyone else considered the possability of useing (ever improving) thermocouples for turning the ( combustion exhaust) heat into electricity? especially on a vehicle where the heat is hard to store and must in the final analisys be dumped to the atmosphere?

Oh No! That may just cause a re-write of fuel conservation thinking! How about that? :shock:

Hmmmmm..... Food for thought?

Willy.

[maxc]

I think Smokey Yunick made the first icse.