OT: Internal Combustion Breakthrough?

on 2/10/2009 6:24 PM (ET) KIMOSABE wrote the following:

My thoughts exactly. If he can design a complex motor, why can't he design a motor mount for a standard vehicle and put it to the test?

:)

Yeah, I think I do... :)

--

That's a very good question. Given what he says about the dimensions it would certainly fit in most of them. Given what he says about the power it could certainly propel most of them.

Only just guessing, but there aren't very many good reasons. Maybe, just maybe, it hasn't progressed beyond the air pump proof of concept stage yet. Even if it is, a usable drivetrain is more than just a functioning short block, although I find it hard to believe the 10 engineers on his payroll can't get an engine controller and fuel injection system to work, if that's the issue. You just know Bubba would've strapped it onto a gokart frame even before the exhaust had cooled from its first test run. It does make one wonder, doesn't it?

"willshak" wrote in

I feel an episode of sarcasm comin' on.

Cuz designing the motor mounts would be too difficult of an engineering feat??

Well if I recall correctly, burning fuel produces heat not just energy. so theoretical efficiency of 100% is hooey.

sandpounder wrote: ...

Well, heat _is_ energy, but that's not the point... :)

While undoubtedly it's inflated, the claim isn't that the overall process is nearly 100% efficient, only that the mechanical losses are low so the output is nearly the theoretical limit. As noted, a couple of times, this is probably also not going to work out to be so, either...

--

The actual claim I saw was 60 percent. IIRC the best diesels achieve around 50 percent when running on their design condition. Saw no claim on his site that he was going to achieve 100 percent. I'd be very surprised if he hits a real-world 60 with a brand new design.

J. Clarke wrote: ...

Here's the quote from the site in the OP's link...

What else can I say...it's what I said it was--he claims the mechanical efficiency is going to be very high; I simply said I doubt that and that the claim based purely on component count is specious.

What else you want?

--

What part of "theoretical efficiency" didn't you guys understand?

The only one of the Big Three not standing on the corner with a tin cup.

This guy must be claiming exhaust temperatures at room temperature? Regardless of how much of the explosion gets transferred to the drive- shaft, you're still dealing with thermal absorption at the piston and cylinder walls, not to mention what blows out the exhaust.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

He's not claiming 100% efficient USE of the fuel. He's claiming a better burn - less unburned fuel going out the pipe.

The car manufacturers, particularly in the US, are victims of NIH Syndrome.

Which part would you like to better explain?

I interpreted that to mean that he thought he was going to come close to the theoretical ideal efficiency, not that the theoretical efficiency was going to be 100 percent. Note the the person giving the interview was identified as "Jin K. Kim" and his title "Managing member". The guy who designed the thing is named Morgado. "Managing member" sounds like a bean counter from the venture capitalist, in which case he is parroting his own misunderstanding of something that he has been told.

I think you're reading far, far too much into that statement.

You really think that if Ford could reduce the size of their engines by a factor of ten while doubling the efficiency in these days of CAFE they'd ignore it because of "NIH"?

I hate to burst your bubble, but, ---

When CAFE was adopted there was a big hole in it for trucks - they were = excepted.

The big 3 thought, and rightly so, that they could carry on as before as = long as the cars they produced were on a truck platform. =20

Do you remember SUV, Crossover, AWD, Hummer??

All of these are produced on a "truck" platform and, as a result, did = not get counted in CAFE.

Think about which vehicles have been touted the most and which ones sold = as "safest".

This has come back to bite us with 10 or less mpg in a lot of the really = big vehicles.

I think the greed of the "bean counters" prevailed and any effort to = garner efficiency was castigated.

P D Q

Too early at this point.

as the cars they produced were on a truck platform.

counted in CAFE.

efficiency was castigated.

Some of the "really big" vehicles do pretty well. My '04 Silverado 2500 Duramax diesel (6500 lbs) gets 21 mpg highway at 75mph and 14.5 mpg towing a 10,000 lb 5th wheel at 65 mph.