Slashdot Mirror
Hydrogen-based Rotary Engine?
Seabird99 writes: "I came across this article at one of my car related forums and thought that I'd pass it on here. I have always been intrigued by "alternative" technologies where they relate to artificial locomotion." For some reason Slashdot gets a lot of submissions of wacko energy concepts - power from nothing, power from sand, power from a black box, engines that get 500 miles to the gallon... Perhaps this is more of the same, but at least it's an interesting write-up.
And now . . . someone has to come up with a way to generate hydrogen en masse and deliver it to your nearest filling station. Not to mention store it and dispense it there.
So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
Here's a little more info if you weant to do some research.
Tom.
Oh arse
This would be a boon to consumers, since fewer moving parts (no transmission are driveshaft) would likely mean fewer repairs.
Would automakers be for it? Most likely not. They make a substantial amount of money from repairs and maintenance. And to think of the outrage from auto-repair shops, cutting their business as well.
It's an excellent idea - less weight, much better fuel, fewer moving parts, etc. But there's a lot of opposition ahead.
there was an interesting site with something that truely looked interesting (ffrom the grainy RM streaming video hehe), but apparently he has been arrested (according to some yahoo! news article i cant find right now) for fraud or something like that :P
"I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
Storage and transport of hydrogen isn't really the problem anymore. Years ago, there were already test with hydrogen tanks that contained alluminium particles, which bind the hydrogen, making it a lot safer to transport and store hydrogen. Safer actually then a tank of gasoline.
(I wouldn't be surprised if these tanks are already widely in use now)
The problem is ofcourse to generate large amounts of hydrogen.
Given the succes of recent tests with fusion reactors, who knows.. we might be using hydrogen to create hydrogen from water.
quite a big if, but who knows.
Clearly a number of posters so far didn't.
Sounds like a quack to me. I wouldn't give much credit to the whole concept just because of the stupidity of carrying around bottles of oxygen in the car to burn with the hydrogen. Where is this guy from, outer space?
Mazda and General Motors have been testing rotory engines on pure hydrogen since the late 1960's. I certainly remember reading about this in "Popular Science" in the very early '70's. Real cutting edge, wacko stuff...
sPh
Yes, my stock 1996 Jeep Cherokee Sport runs on hydrogen. The special fuel has a little carbon bonded with it and some other stuff.
Been purchasing at Exxon and several other outlets that specialize in this revolutionary fuel. They are trying so hard to get the word out that if you purchase more than $5.00 of the stuff you get a discount on a car wash!
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
I would love to see Hydrogen become the next consumable resource. Though maybe it's the oil corporations, maybe it's the fact that Hydrogen is inherantly dangerous to store. But we've seen so many new vehicules and technologies that use Hydrogen, and none of these have ever made it to the consumer market. It's fun to dream, but I can't help but be sceptical.
If it happens, and at a reasonable cost, I'll be the first to jump on board. But more likely, this and other related technologies will just fall into obsurity.
Delrin
"For some reason Slashdot gets a lot of submissions of wacko energy concepts"
Well maybe if you stopped posting them, these so-called "wacko" concepts wouldn't be submitted. Though I personally disagree, I would call these "desperate attempts at alternative energy"... and while it becomes tiresome to hear we should have 500mpg engines in 5 years, every year, for the last 5 years... as long as this research continues they may just live up to their promise someday.
Whatever happened to "Ginger" and "IT"?
For some reason Slashdot gets a lot of submissions of wacko energy concepts - power from nothing, power from sand, power from a black box, engines that get 500 miles to the gallon...
./ gets these submissions. They fit right in with the 'News for Nerds' theme.
I don't think it's so odd the
Personally I've always associated the term 'Nerd' with all things mathematical and scientific. I think 'Geek' for all things computer and electrical (You can't even spell 'Geek' without EE.)
Sounds like there's a need for a specific category/icon.
Mazda uses the Rotary engine desinged by Fellix Wankel, this is a nutation engine , it dosent have on single part in common, the Wankel (the Engine Mazda liscencded from NSU) is based on simple sealing techniques the nutation type engine couldnt be more different , I saw a live demo of a nutation transmission in the early 80's , eccentic shafts, cones, very similar to what they describe here , it was impressive to say the least, weighed about 70 lbs and was variable form something like a ratio of 1 to 100 and 100 to 1 varible under load and would handle supposedly 1000+ horsepower, it was on a diesel at about 200 HP and 400 + ft lbs torque and wasnt even getting warm, so I tend to belive those figures were possible, how you would utilize the same principals in a combustion engine eludes me.
Clinton made me a Republican. Bush made me a Libertarian. Trump is making me question reality.
this guy seems to have made a lot more money patenting strange and unique ways to work with a lot of different materials. (At least, it's a lot more than the people who waste their time posting to SlashDot make)..
Revolutions in design have rarely come out of corporations... considering this site is supposed to be Linux based, I thought I would see more support for anyone trying to solve the energy crisis outside of the regular channels, since it's highly unlikely it will come from the gas companies anytime soon.
ChuckyG
I have a rotary engine invention too. I have discussed it with people from several likely manufacturers = the verdict is - "We don't want any new technology, even if its better than what we've got - we've spent a lot of money on cenventional engines, and we are happy with them."
Ideas like twice the power to weight ratio and 10% of the moving parts are not of any interest to the likes of Ford, even if (as with my engine) you could stick with the existing fuels, and servicing skills.
Another interesting transmission system, loosely based on similar principles can be found here
You would have found that problem already solved..
Solarpanel on your garage and an electrolysis machine the size of a dishwasher, would be, according to the article, enough to power a car driving 200 miles (320 km) per day.
Start with sun and water, get Hydrogen and Oxygene, end up with power and water..
"After graduating from Ohio State with a combined master's degree in physics, mathematics, astronomy..." "In 1948 he started his own company, Permaglass, and perfected the process of bending and tempering glass." "In 1969, McMaster merged Permaglass with Detroit-based Guardian Industries, forming what is today the third-largest glass company in the world. Two years later he started another company, Glasstech, which in the next 20 years would garner more than 700 glass-bending and -tempering patents. Today 80 percent of the world's automotive glass runs through Glasstech machines. In 1989, McMaster sold the company for $227 million." I think this guy knows a little more about what he is talking about than you give him credit for. Although his ideas may be radical and new on the horizon, he is more than a "quack" as you so eloquently put it. Looks as though he has been around the block just a FEW times, give what he says some more thought kiddo. Many other informed people may not necessarily agree with his ideas, but at least they have some thought to prove their opinion on.
Years ago, there was all this hoopla about the "Gill Carb." and the supposed conspiricy to keep it out of production. This was supposed to give a normal car over 400 mpg. Eventually, it was finally shut down when it was demonstrated that there simply is not that much thermal energy in a gallon of gas. I've been fortunate enough to see a lot of these alternative engine designs. Many of them are pretty innovative and downright ingenious. So far, though, you always seem to run into something that doesn't work as planned. Bottom line is that the 4-cycle piston engine is hard to beat in terms of practicality and Carnot efficiency. So, this guy is telling me that his motor will not require a drive train. That tells me the engine is high torque with a really flat curve, already I'm skeptical. Add in no lubrication and I must assume his rpm's are low. I won't dismiss his engine out of hand, but I'd need to see the design.
A goal is a dream with a deadline
It seems that everyone is completely missing the point of this new (and unproven as of yet) engine. The thing that makes it unique is NOT that the guy can theoretically run it on hydrogen and oxygen produced by electrolysing water. What makes it unique is the sheer simplicity of the engine.
As geeks and programmers, we all love to see someone come up with a truly elegant solution to a programming problem. When someone takes years of kludges and condenses them down into a few lines of clear, concise code, it is not only a thing of beauty and mastery, it is something to be desired.
What should strike people about this engine is that this somewhat eccentric but proven inventor has come up with a replacement module for that hideously kludgey block of code called the internal combustion engine. If pistons and rods and camshafts and all can be replaced with such a simple construct, isn't that a good idea? Now, of course, I'll stay in the "show me the code" mode until I actually see a working prototype, but if these guys think they can hash it out, I say more power to them.
He seems to have a good grasp of the issues, and makes a lot of sense. He also has quite a few things going for him, such as:
I think this needs watching.
"...At the end of the day"..."when everyone goes home, you're stuck with yourself." RIP Layne Staley
...in a tiny rotary engine. AFAIR there was a story about an engine with a few mm in diameter. Power it with hydrogen and drive e. g. a harddisk or a CPU cooling system with it. Even a bit larget it could act as a pocket-size mini-powerplant.
(from http://staff.norman.k12.ok.us/~lkramer/image%20gra mmar/teachers/strats/strats9/strat91.html)
.Occupational Level
Strategy 1: Administer the Grammar Income Test
The Grammar Income Test is one of those ideas teachers wish scholars had invented. It is a test that measures a student's grammatical knowledge and then uses that measurement to predict the student's potential income. To motivate interest in conventions, give your students this test.
University of Mottsburgh Occupational
Inventory of Grammatical Knowledge
As demonstrated in the research of Dr. Edward McCormick, an individual's habits of grammar correlate with her or his income. Test results indicate that one can predict with 80% accuracy the income of an individual based on his answers to the questions below. Use this quiz to see what income level your grammatical patterns place you.
Instructions: Mark each sentence as "C" if it is grammatically correct, "I" if it is incorrect, or "?" if you are uncertain. Wrong answers count as a minus two. A question mark, indicating you are uncertain, only counts as a minus one. Keep in mind that errors may be of any variety: spelling, punctuation, capitalization, or usage.
1. Her choice will strongly effect the outcome.
2. We have alot of work to do.
3. Mottsburgh is a busy industrial city, thousands of cars and trucks move through it every day.
4. "I suppose", she remarked "that success comes only with time."
5. The company should receive the package tomorrow.
6. Its impressive to hear what she has done.
7. She was late, however, she did make the presentation.
8. Give the book to whom?
9. When the ship arrives we can begin the journey.
10. We rafted down the grand mountain river.
11. The name of the book was "Outbreak."
12. There were four in the group: Ann, Jim, Theo, and Amanda.
13. He sings good.
14. You shouldn't lie on the wet grass.
15. He paid all the interest on the principle.
16. I wish to go irregardless of his decision.
17. He doesn't know history very well. As you can see from his answers in class.
18. He imagined that Hawking would have all the answers but Hawking just posed more questions.
19. Spiraling in the Andromeda Galaxy, Dr. Vilhelm insists that there is alien life on the Andromeda planet called Lanulos.
20. We packed all of our luggage, then we were on our way to the airport.
Scoring Answer Key: 1. I, 2. I, 3. I, 4. I, 5. C, 6. I, 7. I, 8. C, 9. I, 10. I, 11. I, 12. C, 13. I, 14. C, 15. C, 16. I, 17. I, 18. I, 19. I, 20. I. (Click here for corrected sentences.)
Number Wrong Projected Salary
0 to -4 $150,000 and above top executive
-5 to -6 $90,000 to $150,000 upper management
-7 to -8 $60,000 to $ 90,000 key personnel
-9 to -12 $25,000 to $ 60,000 semi-skilled
-13 to -18 $10,000 to $ 25,000 unskilled
-19 or more $0 to $ 10,000 unemployable
After students have taken and scored this test, explain that over the next few days you are going to increase their incomes by at least $30,000 each. Later, after you have worked with some of the grammatical concepts in this test, reveal that the test was fabricated. However, explain that the concept of the test is very real.
Every day individuals who make grammatical errors are victims of a pervasive but seldom discussed prejudice. People assume that those who make frequent grammatical errors are unintelligent, not very knowledgeable, and incompetent. None of this may be true. Language habits are more indicative of social background than education and ability. However, any business executive will support the notion that grammatical skill directly affects promotion. So, the idea behind the Grammar Income Test is valid, although the scored income level may not be.
Like the idea on paper; sounds a little far fetched. Ford and those guys have lots of smart people thinking about this for the last 100 years...
I didn't see any diagrams or anything. I would have loved to see some pictures and such. I dislike the fact that non of our goverments are pushing research into working solutions that doesn't pollute, and doesn't give money to the big oil companies (then the US can stop care about the middle east as well;)). Let those giants die, as there surely will step up new giants to take their place.
But I am rambling... I am just interested if there is anything you can read that would be more scientific and had more proofs. If the design is so simple, I can't see how it couldn't be hard to explain. Take an electrical engine for instance, that is a way easy aparatus to explain.
But it should be noted this isn't anything new. The internal combustion engine is innefficient by nature. It takes a spherical force (an explosion), redirects that into a vector force (up and down in a straight line), redirects that into a circular force, which is redirected into another circular force, finally driving the car. Each of those redirections wastes energy. Moreover, the fact that you have carbon monoxide and other hydrocarbon emissions is a sign of innefficient combustion: complete combustion of a carbon molecule goes all the way to carbon dioxide. There are plenty of legitimate projects to find a better way. Ben Rosen, chairman of Compaq, has envisioned the automotive powertrain market becoming like microprocessors, with independent companies competing to supply the most efficient engine. His Rosen Motors produced a working prototype of a hybrid-electric motor; they've since been taken over but I forget by whom.
Of course, a serious problem is the huge combustion engine and gasoline infrastructure. Even a much better product is not going to take over overnight. The internal combustion infrastructure would keep the economics of conventional motors attractive for decades, barring a serious kink in the gasoline supply.
It is a myth, though, that the automotive manufacturers are blocking this kind of thing. They're all doing research of their own. There is nothing a manufacturer wants more than to obsolete their own product and give everyone a reason to buy the next big thing.
The other technology discussed here is photovoltaic (solar-electric) conversion of water to hydrogen for combustion. I think this is far more theoretical. Not that you can't very simply and reliably bang an electric current through water and get combustible hydrogen and oxygen. But from what I know (and I do have some knowledge on this subject) I seriously doubt whether existing photovoltaic cells are efficient enough to supply the power for even a very efficient automotive engine by splitting water. It should be noted that like anything else, this conversion of electrical power into chemical power represents a loss of efficiency, so the purpose for doing this is to get the benefit of a combustible fuel.
Direct solar cleavage of water to H and O is one of the holy grails of both hydrogen power and solar research; this photochemical process is at the heart of how plants utilize the energy of the sun and hence the source of most energy on earth including all fossil fuels. We aren't there yet. It can be done but it isn't sufficiently efficient to be practical. There are tons of novel catalytic techniques being experimented with, where rather than go through a photovoltaic cell (the conversion of sunlight to electricity of course represents another inefficiency), sunlight is used as the power source to directly, catalytically cleave water. I think within a few decades this kind of thing will start to make significant inroads, provided countries like Iceland and companies like Daimler Chrysler continue to pursue hydrogen research and a hydrogen energy economy.
I don't see anything in the article, however, that suggest this motor could only run on hydrogen. So it may be a valid concept that it much closer to commercial reality.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
Looking at it helps me understand the way it works. I don't know if this will ever come to fruition, but I sure hope it does. Even if it doesn't, he's a revolutionary thinker with a significant record of success, and deserves our praise and respect for that.
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
Okay, so nobody's bothered to check up on google, yet. His web site includes a lot of more detailed information. Check it out, then let's discuss what's there, not just what's in the article.
Yes, the guy's a little, er, fringey -- one of his other projects is an antigravity machine. I'm not saying such a machine is impossible, just that I'd not expect anyone who's not, say, Stephen Hawking, to come up with one.
That bit of weirdness aside, what do people think about the engine itself?
First, the fuel. The article implies that it uses Hydrogen. We've discussed to death the problems with using straight hydrogen as a fuel, which ultimately (putting aside safety and infrastructure issues) comes down to energy density -- pound for pound (or liter for liter), Hydrogen gas just doesn't pack as much punch, specatcular disasters caught on tape notwithstanding, as gasoline. However, the page talks about using a mixture of Nitrous Oxide and Ammonia, ignited with a glowplug, not straight hydrogen. It does speak of a catalyzed reaction being researched to derive the fuels from solar power, air, and water.
Questions: Is it likely that such a catalytic reaction exists? If not, will it take more fossil- or nuclear-fuel energy to create, using other reactons, the needed amounts of nitrous and ammonia? Would that added cost be worth it to reduce fossil-fuel emissions from cars? (let's ignore issues of infrastructure for now...)
Next, there's the design of the engine itself. Basically, it appears that it's an angled plate in a cylinder, with the reactive explosion happening first on one side (causing the plate to rotate around the axis it's mounted on), then on the other. Nifty idea, simpler looking than the Wankel rotary engine, and MUCH simpler than the internal combustion engine.
Questions: Can such an engine really operate, with any fuel? Could you really run it at many different speeds, and if so, how would you manage that? (I'm not personally convinced that you could do without a transmission). Would the "chambers" formed by the rotating plate provide any compression for the fuel (a major requirement for traditional engines)?
Let's not dismiss this entirely, out of hand, as a wacko idea. Look at the web pages in detail, ignore his strong claims and "past performance", and just focus on the ideas presented. I'm intrigued, but don't know enough about chemistry or mechanical engineering to pass any kind of judgement (and I suspect most of the people here don't qualify, either.) Those who do qualify...what do you think?
david.
I came across this web site from randomly searching on Google. I have always been intrigued by "alternative" technologies where they relate to artificial locomotion, especially when they're developed by 85-year-old insane geriatric patients in Ohio. For some reason Slashdot gets a lot of submissions of wacko energy concepts - Perhaps this is more of the same, but rather than try to get independent confirmation of it before putting it front and center on Slashdot, I thought I'd moderate it up. After all, it's not my responsibility to fact-check this stuff. I'm just a moderator here.
If/when this idea pans out and a working prototype is produced, all the companies that profit from the "noisy, dirty, inefficient contraption" that the internal combustion engine is will buy up all the rights to it and shelve the idea for all eternity. It seems utterly absurd that no truly novel engine advancements have reached us in the recent past. Many of them certainly are impractical. But with all the people doing research all over the world, some must have come up with something. And then enter in the companies who make the poor grad student inventor rich as long as (s)he keeps it quiet. Voila! No innovation.
So, is the guy a real inventor, or a hopeless crackpot dreamer, or somewhere inbetween?
Your Servant, B. Baggins
Most cars have lengthy warranty periods (up to 100,000 miles) for the enginge, so maybe a car with a simpler enginge would actually save auto manufacturers money on covered repairs.
My other sig is extremely clever...
Going solar in a big way will surely be a boon to the legal profession.
I can imagine all the court cases when a neighbor's tree or a new large building blocks someone's access to sunlight.
The power companies will get ansy over free power, and governments will burn the midnight hydrogen trying to figure out how to tax it.
P.S. Electronics surplus stores usually have those "Solar car charger" panels fairly cheap. A few of those, some parts for the charger curcuit and an old but not dead car battery make a dandy emergency power supply.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Have a look at this engine called Quasi-Turbine. www.quasiturbine.com, site's in french but has few pics and flics of the engine.
Hydrogen, on the other hand, has a boiling point of 20 K at atmospheric pressure (a bone chilling -423 degrees F)! So tanks would need some serious insulation in addition to handling high pressure. Due to its smaller molecules, it also leaks easier than LNG.
The best way to store hydrogen is probably in a hydrogen-rich compound like methanol, which is liquid at ambient conditions. My research group, among many others, is studying ways to efficiently convert methanol to hydrogen + carbon dioxide + water at the point of use. This would allow us to fuel our cars, RV's, or cell phones with convenient methanol and then run hydrogen fuel cells.
Don't worry about the carbon dioxide from that reaction. The methanol would presumably come from biomass or nuclear/solar-powered synthesis that consumes carbon dioxide. The carbon is just a carrier for the hydrogen, and there is no net CO2 pollution.
AlpineR
One poster mentioned aluminum particles..wrong, it is stored ny binding it to hydrides.Problem is simply this;a car would use such large amounts of H2 that it would be difficult to store that quantity in a car and still have reasonable power to weight ratios. In the case of hydrides I worked at Texas Instruments on Project Illinois which was a HBr-H2 fuel cell stack, which used photelectric polysilicon to drive the reaction. We used H2 bound to hydrides; but then it was a fixed installation. I'm not really sure I'd be keen on having to have a 1000lbs of h2-hydride under my feet,and if I ddid that the it would get me any substantial distance, as I beleive the efficency is lower than that for gas. Nice try,but it won't work. BTW Project Illinois was killed by some oil companies, (Gulf was one) which didn't like the idea of a HBR fuel cell. The idea there was to have a large stack shared between 4 houses,and the consumers would sell electricity back tothe power companies. Sadly, the photoelectric section never exceeded 12-14%, effectively relegating the project to the bone heap of great ideas that were not efficient enough to be realized. We were able to get to the 10KW stack size however.
If you were to read the article you would find that this is a totally different design.
For some reason Slashdot gets a lot of submissions of wacko energy concepts
Let's think about this:
I have atleast 6 computers with 300 watt power supplies running continuously in my appartment.
Why would I be interested in new forms of power? Well, energy from nothing sounds like it should be cheap.... Not to mention that a few bucks saved on gas is a few bucks for more hardware, which takes more power.... I sense a race condition coming on. If only I could stop spending money on hardware.
Sometimes I think life would be better if I weren't such a geek. Then I try and sleep at someone elses house, and I can't because there is no comforting hum of all the hardware singing me to sleep.
It's a good life, and I'd go down fighting if it meant that a few more people could live with this kind of freedom. Damn terrorists make me so ANGRY. Every time I try and do anything these days, WHAM, those mfer's pop into my head. Screw basic training, get me a gun tell me who to shoot. Wow, this got off topic fast. Sorry....
Hey, if you guys get so many submissions on "crackpot energy technologies" (like that "crackpot scheme about a free unix operating system for the desktop", hey?), maybe creating a category for crackpot energy stuff might be a good idea? That article on fusion last week was pretty crackpot; these guys have been dumping around 40 billion per year for over 30 years into fusion, and the best they can say is "maybe in another 10 years". If that's not crackpot, hell. Give this McMaster guy 40 bill and see what he gives you in 10 years. Or 10 months.
For those interested here (english ver) is an interesting engine I saw on tv a year or two ago. Unlike the story above they have working protypes, most that I've seen (on the site and tv) are just the engine but they also have tried using it in things (chainsaw for one).
-Torawk
My main fear with such a design is that the very high rotation speed of the engine (I should look that up) would create a substantial angular momentum. Anyone who has tried to turn a gyro will tell you how strongly the gyro resists.
This has been a problem with "flywheel energy storage" vehicles as well. Even if you make the flywheel's angular momentum vector straight up and down, it's a problem when you try to go up and down hills, as changing the inclination of the car would also count as trying to change the angular momentum.
The solution is make two engines, smaller, each wobble plate rotating in the opposite direction, so that the angular momentums cancel and you can move the whole thing easily. Of course, you would need very high-stress reinforcements around the engines, otherwise they would twist themselves right out of your as you tried to turn.
They can be more efficient than piston engines, and unfortunately research on rotary diesels seems to have stalled years ago, but there's many advantages over pistons for engines that aren't required to change RPM often, such as generators.
I used to have an Arctic Cat snowmobile with a Wankel engine when I was much younger. We couldn't find anybody to service it when it started to die, but it was fun to take it apart, it's extremely different from the tiny chainsaw two-strokes and four-stroke lawnmower engines I had torn down before.
AC's cheerfully ignored
So basically, all the energy which is powering the engine is solar energy. Since the end product is the same as the starting material, he is not getting energy from anywhere else but the sun. Which is a fine idea, but we already have solar cells. You may as well use a battery.
Okay, at some time in the past, someone said to himself, "hey, if we can electrolize water to get hydrogen and oxygen, we can then take the hydrogen and use it as a fuel! infinite energy from water." The problem is that when you burn (combustion) hydrogen, you end up with water, which is what you started with. So to say you had a net positive gain, that you got more energy back then you put into it, violates the laws of thermodynamics. It's like claiming you have a perpetual motion machine, because all you need is a cup of water to power it, a cup of water which will never run out since it's also the byproduct. It's like trying to build a water pump that is operated by a water mill. Have it pump water up ten feet, let it fall and spin the mill, which will then operate the pump to pump it back up.
But he's not claiming that. He seems to admit and understand that the energy is coming from the sun. However, under perfect efficiency you will still only get the enerdy that the panels were exposed to. And like I said, you may as well use a battery.
It would be unfeasible to make a self-contained system and put it in the car, why don't people read the article then you will see how simple his idea is, you don't need a self-contained sytem, it's a good enough plan without complicating it. Besides, he said it would take a washing machine size machine to do that, where do you plan on putting that machine? In the back seat? And why now? Is it that hard to hook up your car when you're parked in your garage?
I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
Many have posted comments with regards to the need for Hydrogen making this unusable. However, keep in mind that this engine will still run on gasoline, however, probably about as efficient as my Cadillac, if I forget to put in the 91 Octane stuff. Dang GM Engineers, why did I ever become one of them? But seriously, with a washing machine size device able to "insert" the energy into the water, this device is ultimately powered by electricity, just in a very small and lightweight battery design. The only flaw I can see is having all of that wonderful explosive gas sitting in the car.
I apparently forgot that sig != uptime...
The main reason that none of the big makers are running the rotary engine is that it is very unreliable. That is what the big hub-bub is about at Mazda - they keep saying that they've improved reliability when in actuality they've just reduced combustion pressure and increased speed (thus maintaining power at the sacrifice of torque). So they haven't improved reliability - just reduced stress on the unreliable bits.
If the rotary engine *could* become reliable under the context of "American driving styles", then it would be an amazing technology. There are just a few moving parts in the entire damn engine - its VERY cheap to make them.
On the reliability note, the "apex seals" are the problem in the engine. For more info, see Rotary Engine Illustrated.
Darren
Life is the leading cause of death in America.
I agree that there is a lot of bunk out there. I did some research on it myself, and I came across a website talking about gasoline vapor carburetion and trying to get the mileage up on a 1993 Geo Metro:
http://www.phact.org/e/dennis27.htm
Basically, the owner of the car gave up and went back to the stock fuel injection system with more efficient intake and exhaust.
The way I figure it, if Honda didn't put it in the Insight, it probably isn't a good technology at reducing fuel consumption.
- Freed
"Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love." -Turkish Proverb
Ammonia and Nitrous Oxide as fuel + oxidizer?
Will never happen since nitrous oxide is too obvious as an abusable intoxicating substance... the current method (in N2O systems for car engine power-boosting systems) of rendering it unsuitable for drug abusers is to mix in a little hydrogen sulfide gas, but this will not be allowed if large quantities are used as fuel/oxidizer in cars because of the air pollution problem with sulfates in exhaust emissions. Pure ammonia is also tightly regulated since it is used in the illegal manufacture of methamphetamines, in the so-called "nazi meth" labs.
Hydrogen being used as fuel is not a new concept. It was originally used in the Zepellen's back during the Nazi regime. The reason the Zepellen's blew up into flames was because of the paint on the outside of it, along with the combo of Hydrogen.
have one of these puppies running in your garage charging up a battery rack, come home at night swap out battery packs in your electric car, charge up the other pack and the leftover juice can power your TV in the living room ... the hydrogen and oxygen is stored at home.
In the Zeppelin, hydrogen was used for sustentation, because this gas is lighter than air. I think propulsion was from "classical" (it was the 1930's) combustion engines.y .h tml
History of Zepellins
http://www.access.ch/private-users/argon/histor
Maybe both. ;^)
If you can't dream, you will achieve nothing
Ciao
----
FB
Dont forget the tentacle pr0n
He revolutionized glass. Why couldn't he apply the same non-linear thinking to his first project, add modern materials, and make it work?
Woot w00t w007.
... I always felt that a closed-cycle gas turbine (Rover experimented with one in the 50s) combined with CVT (Continuously Variable transmission - eg DAF variomatic, Uno Selecta) would be a good way forward.
Gas turbines are effecient (insert something clever to do with thermodynamics here)and can run on anything from coal-dust to hydrogen. The problem is - IIRC - that they only really work well within a narrow range of speed so coupling them to either conventional (stick-shift) or auto transmissions never really worked. Coupling to CVT should allow the engine to always spin at an efficient speed. Piston engined cars with CVT get good gas mileage - but people don't like the fact that the engine note stays the same as they accelerate.
It would run good on hydrogen (should be very little H2O2 in the exhaust burning like that), but I still don't have a solution to producing and storing H2.
This sig made only from recycled ASCII
Even after reading the article, is that we'll never hear anything about this again. Dude does have impressive credentials though. Time will tell...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
It's the ultimate intersection between conspiracy theories and nerd-dom. OF COURSE they come pouring in. ;-)
In case anyone's not familiar with CVT.
It does look a bit fragile (rubber band drive anyone?) but I'm assured that they work well up to several hundred HP.
This sig made only from recycled ASCII
Using methanol sounds great to me, generate it from biomass, even from side products of crops - the inedible bits from corn for example. It can be made to burn _relatively_ cleanly already - although I'm sure this can be approved over time.
However, a lot of articles have been popping up in New Scientist essentially calling Methanol a demon fuel. It takes more energy to produce than it generates. By the time you use fertilizers, transport the stuff to the processing plant, run the plant, transport it to the pumps you've used more of the stuff than you can produce!
This sounds like Oil industry propoganda, but its getting a lot of column inches! anyone know anything?????
And a hydrogen engine is hardly novel; converting a gasoline engine to hydrogen is fairly trivial. Maybe he has a better design than other hydrogen engines; maybe not.,
The problem that has plagued hydrogen engines for a very long time is the issue of carrying the hydrogen around in the car in a matter that can survive a collision. It' nasty stuff. It goes *BOOM* very easily. Solve *this* problem and there's a whole row of hydrogen engines already ready to produce . . .
hawk
The math for fuel economy is as follows: other than pure hydrogen, methane (CH4)(you know, natural gas -- most qty's derived from "dead dino dinner" aka antediluvian vegetation) at around 22,000 btu lb. LHV ["low heating value"], gasolines come in at about 20,500 btu/lb, diesel and jet fuels about 18,800 or so. [IIRC without the book in front of me.]
Using gasoline as the example fuel, you get about 6-1/2 lbs per gallon, or about 130K BTU. 1 HP = 2547 btu, so 135K/2547 equals about 50hp per gallon used per hour. Now then, my little subcompact gets about 35 mpg at that speed on the freeway, at around 12 hp in cruise gear. This particualr engine was rated about 25% thermally efficient under lab conditions. So even if my little car could get a 100% efficient engine (not possible in the real world), the max would be about 140 mpg.
Now then, pure hyrogen is pound for pound about three times more powerful as a fuel, but by the time you get the storage problems resolved, so far you've either added so much weight or drag, you've negated the fuel advantage.
Of course, if we were all flying around in low-drag H2 powered and lifted personal airships -- the weight component would go away. ;-)
Finally, as has been noted in comments posted to other threads, H2 isn't an easy commodity to come by -- don't forget that 2000 sq. ft of solar panels will cost about the same as a medium size new car, or enough to buy fuel for my little car and a 35 mile round trip for somewhere around the next 20 years...
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
Uhh, hyrdrogen is dangerous? Like a huge tank of extremely flammable liquid isnt even more dangerous? Hyrodgen dissipates quicly and wouldnt sustain a fire very long.
They have a web site with some neat animations. http://www.mcmastermotor.com/technical.htm
Aviation types (of which I, as a pilot, am one) have an unreasoning, almost supersticious fear of hydrogen dating back to the Hindenberg disaster. Unreasoning because it is uncritical ... the hindenberg was painted with a metallic grey/silver compound which, it turns out, was basically rocket fuel. Yes, the derigable was painted with rocket fuel, which was ignited by a spark (probably a result of a static electrical discharg). The rocket fuel "exploded", while the hydrogen burned more slowly.
Indeed, your statement:
Hydrogen gas just doesn't pack as much punch, specatcular disasters caught on tape notwithstanding, as gasoline
catches a part of this truth, though more in passing, namely that a tank of hydrogen is less explosive than a tank of gasoline. Meaning, as you say, that there is less energy / volume in hydrogen gas than there is in petroleum liquid (gasoline). Two approaches to this problem are, as implied in this article and the designer's web page, a more effecient engine or, alternatively, an innovative use of chemistry to allow a hydrogen-rich compound to exist as a more dense liquid/solid at room temperature without binding the hydrogen so tightly as to make it useless as a source of energy.
Hydrogen is safer to store, transport, and use than gasoline, by virtue of the very fact that it packs less energy per unit than gasoline. Safety fears are really just that, fears, based on a widely debunked perception that dramatic explosions such as the hindenberg were a result of hydrogen, when in fact it was a result of painting the damn ship with a compound now used as rocket fuel, a compound much more combustible than hydrogen by orders of magnitude. That debunking aside, there remains the perception that hydrogen is this dangerously explosive gas, when in fact it burns too slowly to even explode with the same intensity that a 1972 Ford Pinto's gas tank would when rear-ended.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
There's got to be an easy way to mass-produce hydrogen. That's what the Hindenburg used for lift, right? That's 7,062,100 cubic feet of Hydrogen gas right there.
On the reliability note, the "apex seals" are the problem in the engine. For more info, see Rotary Engine Illustrated.
You didn't read the article, did you?
The McMaster rotary engine is NOT a Wankel rotary engine.
The Wankel rotary engine used by Mazda is only one of many different designs of rotary engines.
Since you've taken apart your Mazda, you're familiar with the Wankel engine. Now go to McMasterMotor and you'll see something completely different.
Yep, very true. I don't know if the design of something as delicate as a new car engine can be really entrusted to someone who thinks he has invented anti-gravity. Let's get real here: If he has anto-grav, then he needs to mount a jet engine on a floating car, not something to apply a torque on wheels.
Also, what I don't like is the mention of solar panel on the car's roof as the source of energy. Excuse me for doing some arithmetics here, but let's assume a 40 percent efficiency in solar panels (hah! 20 is more like it) and an 800W/m2 solar power.
Then a perfectly-exposed (90-degree incident angle), 6-sq. meter (about 60 sq. feet) solar panel would only supply 1920 W. That's less than 3 HP. And a 60 sq. ft panel is already very bulky.
So I am afraid the whole concept is based on very shaky fundations. I'd rather put my money and my hopes on the people who are working on fuel cell for car (nice summary at RMI here).
--
Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/
As you said? you're taking credit for conservation of energy? This is what your teachers mean when they tell you you need to cite sources. When you get to university, the standards are tougher.
Even if we were to come up with an emission free, noiseless, non-fossil fuel powered engine there are still plenty of other negatives of car culture which we must consider, namely:
1. They create urban sprawl. Urban sprawl is pushing housing and farms further out, encroaching on ever more natural bushland. Urban sprawl fosters social isolation and makes other more benign transport options less feasible.
2. The car culture necessitates the need for ever more and wider roads and parking facilities. Roads are ugly, parking lots are ugly, they consume valuable public space. Ultimately car culture results in dull cities that are designed for cars and not people.
3. Even with a fandangled engine, to manufacture, maintain and run a car will consume vast amounts of resources. The engine described in this article will require a relatively large solar array complemented of course by a large battery bank.
4. Cars, whether using the latest in engine technology or not, create traffic problems resulting often in no-one going anywhere fast. These traffic problems restrict the free flow of bicycles, buses and other more benign forms of transport.
5. Cars kill around 1 million people every year worldwide.
6. Our obsession with cars in the developed world is setting an example for the developing world to follow. Unfortunately many in the third world aspire to our model of 'development'. We need to provide examples of sustainable alternatives to car culture for other countries to follow.
We must realise that the car culture is an environmental and social disaster even if the McMaster engine was to enter into mass production.
seems simple on paper, let's see a working model
also "...the other an "antigravity machine" that he believes will prove some of Newton's and Einstein's theories wrong."
sniff-sniff, sorry but I smell crackpot, just becasue he's smart in business (glass for auto industry at right time) doesn't automatically make him a good inventor.
On the flip side, I've known a number of excellent inventors, who were/are lousy businessmen.
-- www.globaltics.net
Political discussion for a new world
I agree, lets get a new catagory and maybe they would post more of the submissions they get.
"better ways of doing things eventually just replace the inferior things" - Linus Torvalds 09-08-07
"Slashdot gets a lot of ... wacko energy concepts..."
That's certainly true, though I'm not sure that it isn't overspecific having "energy" in there. However, even as stated, it leads to a truly horrifying thought.
Imagine what it would have been like had there been Slashdot, as we know it, at the moment that Cold Fusion was first announced.
I really like the quote from an engineer at one of the big 3
"but it's a long ways from production." The internal combustion engine has been around for more than a century, he notes, allowing it to be gradually refined "to its current state of high reliability and efficiency."
What state of high efficiency is that? Anyone who has studied the Carnot cycle in physics class know that in most ICEs (Internal combustion engines) we are barely over the 50% efficiency mark.
see http://ecen.com/content/eee7/motoref.htm
The very nature of a 4 stroke engine makes it inefficient. While my furnace at home is 98% effecient my car is less than 50% and generates a lot more byproducts. Rotary engines are inherently simpler and more efficient but we are too entrenched in our thinking, our product base and our cash flow to seriously consider alternatives.
And as for reliabilty..... I've worked as a professional mechanic so don't get me started...
Fly Fish? Participate in our forum
The edge of the rotating "wobble plate" has to form a tight seal against the cylindrical, outer casing. Without an effective seal, combustion products leak across the plate, reducing power and (being hot) eroding the surface of the casing and the edge of the wobble plate.
Any point on the edge of the wobble plate is describing a long, looping path on the surface of the casing. If any pinpoint on that edge erodes it creates a path for hot gases which would quickly erode a wider and wider path.
Gas sealing was the downfall of the Wankel rotary and it is an even worse difficulty here. This engine is just not practical on that basis alone.
As far as I can see, nothing in the demos of this unit actually compress the fuel. Without compression, whatever fuel you use will only burn as fast as it does in the open. The wobble plate merely moves the air in the chambers around. I suppose that you could Change the shape of the plate so that as it spun it actually reduced the size of the combustion chamber. The problem is that this still would require a valve train to control intake and exhaust *outside* the motor. That throws the whole "simplicity" thing right out the window. The Wankle rotary used the peanut shape of the combustion chamber to compress the fuel/air mix. After staring at the gif demos for a hour and doing my own highly scientific experiments with paperclips and a keyring, I just can't see how this thing can make compression. In fact, as the plate slides past the combustion chamber, the compression is going to drop as far as I can tell. I'd love for someone to explain to me how this thing produces power. I just can't see it.
Why is it so hot? Where am I going? What am I doing in this handbasket?
As a correction most ICEs in today production cars have an efficiency of around 35% not the 50% that I stated above... some of the better diesels, turbines and others approach the 50% range.
Fly Fish? Participate in our forum
This test is taken from a copyrighted book, "Image Grammar" by one Harry Noden. See http://www.uakron.edu/noden/.
But, where did Noden get it? The only Google hits on "University of Mottsburgh" are various copies of this same test... suspect it is an academic spoof...
The problem is ofcourse to generate large amounts of hydrogen.
Given the succes of recent tests with fusion reactors, who knows.
Why wait for fusion?
Hydrogen is just a way of transporting energy that you've generated elsewhere. Use a fission plant or a fossil fuel power plant or a solar array or a hydroelectric dam or any other conventional power plant to generate the power you produce the hydrogen with. This lets you handle pollution and energy-source switchover at a handful of power plants instead of having to re-tool a hundred million cars when you discover the Miracle Fuel (tm).
Pictures:From the first of these pages:Without having read this quote from McMaster, you would think that eitherThe McMasters quote seems to imply the latter. Isn't this friction going to generate an enormous amount of heat, and won't the parts wear out rather quickly?
Pictures:From the first of these pages:Without having read this quote from McMaster, you would think that eitherThe McMasters quote seems to imply the latter. Isn't this friction going to generate an enormous amount of heat, and won't the parts wear out rather quickly?
Thats like the fox carb supposed to get 200mph and was "supprssed" by the big oil companies. Well now you can get them mail order, they don't get no 200 MPH either. They are popular with racers, who don't want to get into fuel injection which is still more effiecent.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
If McMaster's engine is all that he claims, he'd be making a grave mistake by targeting the automobile industry whose entrenched practices will almost certainly stop any progress.
What McMaster must do is form a small engine company for more innocuous things like remote controlled planes and lawnmowers. There is not a huge infrastructure that will block progress in these industries. If he can show his concept will work on a small scale, only then will people begin to even consider it for more large scale uses.
If you want to see another strange explosion engine, but one that is currently a working prototype go there:
http://www.quasiturbine.com/
Try it! Library of Babel
Except like all 'advances' it's actually a balance advantages and disadvantages, for example rotary engines rev higher, have higher wear and higher fuel consumption.
http://www.monito.com/wankel/advantages.html
Ahh! Good to hear! I'm glad there are people out there listening to and interested in this stuff! I find most Slashdotters to be frighteningly conservative and closed-minded, it's good to know that among their number there are those willing to consider that science in reality may not necessarily be as it is taught to the public through media, government and corporate information sources, (like high school text books, for a start.)
Funny how if you get the kids young enough, only rarely through the course of their adult lives do they ever question the content of their grade nine text books. --Was Tesla taught in your highschool? Did they tell you how his invention of radio came about as a result of one of those experiences where a family member died half a world away and he knew about it the same instant? Hmm. . . And just how far did he go with that thinking? Look into this; it's fascinating and very revealing. Cuz you see, (and try not to scream like a little girl when you read this), but Science and Spirituality are the same animal. However, with that understanding comes the real possibility of numerous very liberating powers availing themselves to mankind as a whole, and as such, certain interests like to keep a choke rope on knowledge.)
And no, Marconi did not invent the radio. He was retroactively awarded the patent after Tesla yawned at the simplicity of radio and failed to develop the technology in time for the war effort. Look it up. As propagandic as television generally is, PBS actually managed to do a really good documentary on the guy.
While a great deal of the, 'alternative energy' material out there is, (I am sad to say), utter insanity, it's important to remember that some of it is not, and that little bit which isn't is certainly not going to be trumpeted by the existing power elite. Really basic logic here.
In any case. . .
I remember watching hydrogen driven prototype cars running just fine in test opperations as far back as '85. Ceramic engine parts in Japanese designs, and all that. The technology is already proven. The difficulty lies in selling the tech to a highly resistant market dominated by oil interests. Anybody who claims this is wrong, please, provide me with some convincing links. (Not that I'm putting the burden of proof on your shoulders, it's simply that I've been unable to find anything out there which makes this claim that isn't also directly funded by the Oil/Auto industry.)
-Fantastic Lad
Remember the Hindenburg?
Why talk about converting water to hydrogen and oxygen, then taking and storing it in cars and stations, etc. Why not create an efficient method of converting water, on-the-fly into the gases, then put one of those devices in the car, with the hydrogen engine, and you would never need to store anything. We constantly talk about making things easier, more effiecient, renewable, etc., yet we take the concept of making water into gas and using it as fuel and seperate them rather then putting it all into one package. I would much more prefer stopping by the grocery buying a gallon of water and pouring it into my tank then going to a gas station and paying them much more just to pump my car full of gas I could've easily produced myself.
Question everything.
the quasiturbine:
http://quasiturbine.promci.qc.ca/QTIndex.html
M0571y H@rml355.
Why are we still talking about these new inventions that will save the world? A company in germany called elsbett can convert your car to accept any vegetable oil.
It's clean, much cheaper (considering normal european ecotaxes) and not dangerous at all.
The way I figure it, if Honda didn't put it in the Insight [honda2001.com], it probably isn't a good technology at reducing fuel consumption.
Yep, if Honda didn't figure it out then it is probably not worth checking into. They already thought of EVERYTHING.
Would manufacturing the engines out of some kind of ceramic material fix the H embrittlement thingy?
Nice things are nicer than nasty ones.
Announcer: (Eric Idle) Are you embarrassed easily? I am. But it's nothing to worry about, it's all part of growing up and being British. This course is designed to eliminate embarrassment, to enable you to talk freely about rude objects, to look at awkward and embarrassing things and to point at people's privates. The course has been designed by Dr. Carl Gruber of the 'Institute of Going a Bit Red' in Helsinki. Here he himself introduces the course.
Dr Gruber: (Michael Palin) Hello my name is Carl Gruber. Thank you for inviting me into your home. My method is the result of six years work here at the institute in which subjects were exposed to simulated embarrassment predicaments over a prolonged fart, period, time (sound of him farting). Sorry. Lesson one, Words. Do any of these words (farts) embarrass you?
Assistant: (John Cleese) Shoe, megaphone, grunties.
Dr Gruber: Now lets go on to something ruder.
Assistant: Wankle rotary engine.
...
My apologies to Monty Python
But, do oil wells really work as a perpeetum mobile? How much energy does it take to recreate the oil? The term "oil production" is IMHO bogus.
...
The only production of oil is done by small organisms in the sea, with geological speed. How many cars would this yearly production rate fuel?
In fact, the reserves we are emptying in a few decades now have taken millions of years to fill. We can't consume more than the produced amount. It is like a bank account. See also http://www.foe.org/
This isn't a particulary impressive total unless you use your car to commute 5 miles into work, and then go shopping at the local store.
:-) ?
When we talk about commuting and shopping, which even SUVs and other gas guzzlers are mostly used for, there is a extremly elegant vehicle design that uses a kind of engergy that is instantly availible almost otherwhere, and when not used instead can be harmful, even fatal for the owner of it.
Post-WW2 America, and many cities in Europe too are often hostile to this in many cases economically, ecologically and space-usage superior vehicle.
Can you guess it's name
The McMaster motor is a unique, two-cycle, rotary power plant with the same displacement volume as a 200 horsepower engine. It is equivalent to the six-cylinder engines found in many U.S. luxury cars, yet with only one-tenth the weight.
The motor's two-cycle version is powered by a previously unused fuel system comprised of ammonia and nitrous oxide. Both chemicals are safe to handle, but mix them together at the right temperature and pressure and explosive power erupts. In order to produce ammonia and nitrous oxide in the quantities needed, an efficient and inexpensive approach to generating electrical power from solar energy has been developed. http://www.firstsolar.com
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do. --Benjamin Franklin
Actually, one of the complaints about standard metal-belt CVT's was they couldn't handle more than the output of the Honda Civic HX coupe (I drive one myself and believe me, the acceleration feel is very different than that of regular automatic transmissions because you don't feel the engine changing RPM's as the car accelerates).
However, Audi has overcome this problem with their Multitronic system, which uses a heavy-duty drive-chain belt instead of a metal-link belt. This means the Audi CVT can withstand up to 230 bhp easily; in fact, Multitronic is standard on front-wheel drive US-market Audi A4's fitted with the 1.8-liter L4 turbocharged engine and the 3.0-liter V6 engine.
17 year ago, after observing a demonstration in chemistry class of the electrical seperation of hydrogen and oxygen using electrical discharge and having discussion in class about it, I was fascinated with the idea of running an internal combustion engine on hydrogen. I went so far as to get a 4-cycle lawn mower engine and began to attempt to engineer (if such a term applies to a high-schooler) a fuel system for it for use in the science fair. This idea was promptly squelched by the science teacher as "too dangerous".
Well, I'm glad someone is taking my pioneering efforts towards some fruition! LOL.
I have read a lot of posts here regarding this engine, and I am not absolutely certain that everybody understands how this engine is supposed to work. To be honest, I am not completely certain on how it works, but from looking at the animations and descriptions, I want to attempt to explain it, in the interest of furthering discussion.
I have to admit, the fascinating thing is the fact that it is so simple - so simple that it looks like it could almost be homebrewed in a garage, provided the builder has sufficient machining skills and tools (ie, a metal lathe and mill would be an absolute necessity, as well as a wire-feed welder, among other tools).
Anyway, here is my explanation:
1. The engine is composed primarily of 6 parts: A shaft (1) which is fitted through a sphere (2) and two opposing, on either sides of the sphere, conical ends (3,4), a metal vane (5) which is slotted between the cones, and thus doesn't move - parallel to the shaft/sphere assembly, and perpendicular to the metal vane. Finally, there is the wobbly plate (6), which is fitted around the sphere, and has flattened ends that are up against the metal vane. This plate bisects the sphere, forming two independent combustion chambers. However, it is not attached to the sphere, it does not rotate, and it is not attached to the vane. It merely "slides" against these parts.
2. Now, imagine the metal vane lying at an angle. At the point where one end is touching the cone, and the vane, there is a fuel inlet and a glow plug. Fuel is admitted, and the glow-plug ignites the fuel.
3. As the fuel combusts, it expands, pushing against the plate and the vane, as it races around the chamber, which looks like a expanding wrapped wedge around the sphere. This expansion causes the plate the nutate (wobble) - but not rotate - around ("around" is not a good word, as it implies that the plate is rotating - I must stress that it does not rotate) the sphere. This opens up the chamber, and as the plate slides around the sphere (*), it rotates the sphere 180 degrees, which is connected to the shaft, which turns the shaft 180 degrees.
4. Once the combustion is started, of course the fuel inlet is closed. When the combustion is completed, the plate is now lying at the opposite angle. An exhaust port is opened (I would imagine the opening and closing of exhaust and inlet ports to be accomplished by solenoid valves of some sort), and the inlet port on the other side is opened to cause the other side to fire, to rotate the shaft 180 degrees more, while simultaneously pushing the exhaust out (by action of the plate) on the opposite side.
5. The cycle repeats.
(*) - Notice how many parts are sliding against each other? I can't understand how this thing is supposed to run dry - ie, no lubricant - unless the fuel is to provide the lubrication of some sort. All that friction will get it damn hot if it isn't lubricated and cooled in some manner.
Furthermore, I am not certain how the plate, rubbing up and acting on the sphere (nutating "around") spins the sphere, unless is it by some strange vector motions being imparted by friction.
The interesting thing about this, though - is if that is the case, if the motor shaft is somehow stalled for whatever reason, the engine shouldn't die - it should only become hotter than normal, which may or may not be a good feature.
---
I hope this explanation helps - I hope it is right, I am pretty certain it is. Please discuss below, and comment on it - I would be pleased to know what others think...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
But I think the chances of something like this ever making it past the Auto makers, and "big oil" is very slight, even if they come up with a working model.
Engine designers keep trying to use various pump geometries as engines, but the problems are different. Modern engine design is about combustion management, not just fluid flow.
The ring passes through a vane on the top of the animation that seals the combustion chamber. Because the ring rotates, the location it passes through the vane moves, so the vane has to oscillate back and forth. Furthermore, because the ring is tilted, the angle where it meets the vane changes throughout the rotation. You could match it by giving the vane a circular rotation, but the angle at which the ring meets the vane will constantly be changing. The vane will either have to be very thin, or the seal won't be tight.
The ring's rotation axis isn't a minimum or maximum moment of inertia. This thing is going to wobble.
I'm not convinced ring will hold up under load. You have to remember that if this engine is producing 200 horsepower, the force to produce all that torque is going to be pushing with equal pressure on the entire internal surface area of the combustion chamber. Conventional internal combustion engines and Wankel rotary engines get around this by using nice, thick chunks of metal (engine block, piston) to contain the combustion chamber. This engine is going to try to contain the combustion with thin plates which look like they comprise at least half the internal surface area. They're going to bend out of shape if you try to generate too much torque with this engine.
As I was reading this item, I remembered something about alcohol run engines. Heres a link about this technology being used in Brazil ever since the 1920s. In India theyre running experiments right now. Overall this seams a feasible technology. If you want te know more just google a bit and youll find lots of information.
Ya', if you push a rotary into detonation then you do indeed run into reliablity "issues". However if you do not abuse it and stay within it's design it runs just fine for MANY miles. How many 1st gen RX7 do you see on the road? How about on the track? SCCA has an entire racing series dedicated to the little buggers! They're not perfect, they lack torque, but kripes they spin to 8K easily and if correctly geared make for a really wild ride. I worry that mine will blow but it just keeps going and I AM outside it's original design parameters :-) I worry that my other vehicles will blow too for that matter (lol). A shame they didn't turbo this new one - 10K redline is cool and all but imagine the difference it was forced induction!
Perhaps a little experience is in order for the original poster or he's abused one - been bitten - and is just upset about it? At least they don't cost a mint to replace, I could build two rotaries for what one decently built V8 runs...
Heh, and if you look at the animations of this new guy's engine it's obviously not a Wankel. I DO wonder where the heck the exhaust goes though. He claims no exhaust but I find that a bit hard to believe. In addition, if it's got anywhere near the temps that a Wankel has, due to the way it dumps damn near straight out of the cylinder, then the exhaust is going to be pretty hot. I'd like to see\hear one of those running. Wankels are pretty darned LOUD (exhaust) too!
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
Moller International spun off their rotary engine business a few years back (called Freedom Motors). They still use their proprietary rotary engine design to deliver the awesome HP:weight ratio needed for their flying car that is currently undergoing ground tests. Absolutely serious. Check it out at www.moller.com.
Why not use hybrid? Hybrids use electric and batteries and a generic heat engine. For this all you have to do is replace the typical infernal cumbustion section of the hybrid and replace it with his Rotery Engine.
Hybrid type systems are equivilent to programming language wrappers: You have a base system that you can recharge and power the vehicles motion, -- Your basic functionality. Then you wrap the actual code/engine that with an abstract class, electricity in wires is pretty generic.
You then power the system with your engine of coice:
Infernal cumbustion, Wankel rotary, McMaster rotary, nuclear fission, fuel cell, biomass, propane, methane,
So why would the article say that he tries to surpass it? Hybrid would be very complimentry.
I think that hybrid types are the way of the future. Even though they have increased complexities they do have higher efficiencies, and they are easier to experiment with.
some hybrid urls pulled up quickly with google.
http://www.howstuffworks.com/hybrid-car.htm
http://www.ott.doe.gov/hev/
Mr. McMaster could have saved himself some time and money by checking the ol' internet. A search for "nutating disk engine" on Google turns up this web page:
m
http://www.me.wustl.edu/ME/faculty/tk/nutating.ht
Which claims a patent exists on the device (in 1993!). Since the article says McMaster came up with his "revolutionary" new design in 2000, you can see we have a little problem.
The web page also has a video of a (non-working) prototype.
-AC (who's not so much a coward as too lazy to register -- you should have an "Anonymous Lazy Bastard" option)
My movement isn't real; it's artificial. Synthetic. My movement is like nylon, only it moves more.
Mike Greenberg
http://www.yourmothernaked.com
Following your example to its logical conclusion, the solution would be to make methanol production more fun.
Makin' babies has got to be one of the least efficient things that people do, but it sure does set those pleasure centers a'jangling.
If electricity is produced by electrons is morality produced by morons?
The McMaster Motor website, describes the engine running on nitrous oxide and ammonia (essentially hydrogen and oxygen, with a bit of nitrogen thrown in to make things easier and safer to handle = 3 N20 + 2 NH3 = 3 H20 + 4 N2 + kaboom ).
Added bonus: Nice little animations to show how the combustion system works.
Studies like this are fairly artificial since they often simplify the situation and make some questionable basic assumptions. For example, in the late 80s I remember reading a study that proved that a farm which relied on sunlight, the labor of the farmer and his animals and no other external energy input was not self sustainable. Which leads one to wonder, how did we manage to not only survive, but proliferate in the days before fossil fuel?
In any case, the best answer may be a hybrid coal/methanol system as reported in this recent paper. They claim to be able to reduce coal usage by 2.6 million tons and reduce CO2 emmissions by 2.15 million tons while producing 15.4 billion kWh of electricity.
If electricity is produced by electrons is morality produced by morons?
I assume you've all seen the animation of the motor...
why does it need a sphere around the shaft? Couldn't the wobbly disc do the same if it were directly attached to the shaft?
Sorry to shout, but I'll bet everybody reading this has one already!
No kidding! This is the same "revolutionary principle" that your water meter is based on. And it's been working reliably for the last hundred or so years.
As to how well the McMaster Motor works, I'm really dubious; you need some sort of gas generator to begin with, and there are sealing problems, thermal expansion problems, etc.
But, if somebody out there really believes, I'll be glad to take their money and develop this into a viable commercial product, and shower him with mo' money, mo' money, mo' money!
For those of you who are into paper stuff, there was a very complete article on this in Business 2.0 last week. Well written, and also talks a lot about McMaster's history.
How do they control which way this thing spins? A car is no good if it can't go in reverse. Also, it seems that it would be hard to get this engine to work at low speeds. Perhaps some regenerative brakeing system could be used to start the thing spinning in the right direction and move it at low speeds.
JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
As was pointed out in Part 3, Mr. Fusion only powered the 'flux capacitor'. It had nothing to do with making the wheels turn.
Duct tape, XML, democracy: Not doing the job? Use more.
Hell yeah... I read an artical anout someone who made an 'eletric motor', they claimed that it was 80% effecient, was smaller, contained only 1 movinbg part, quieter, more torque and also didn't produce any edmissions.
He went on to say that these 'eletric motors' would power the fastest trains in the world, and one day cars to.
Yeah right... Nothing will be a pratical as a pistion engine for ages.
------
Really, the only thing that holds back electric cars, is the energy storage, that is, batteries are heavy because they only hold 1% the amount of energy that petrol holds.
This new engine runs on hydrogen and oxygen. Probably not as much energy as petrol, but more than batteries. With the fact that this engine will be more effiecient than a pistion engine. The claims he makes seem reasonable.
Interesting link http://www.storesonline.com/site/252450/page/40107
If this isn't working, an explanation is required of the process.
The site sells welding equipment powered by, what appears to be a similar idea.
The inventor is an Australian, who was born in Bulgaria during the comunist era and escaped in a manner that would shame 007.
He is an electrical engineer by trade, called Yull Brown (his adopted name, Yull after Yul Bryner, Brown after the US major who helped him escape). He developed ( can't say invented as this other man seems to have done the same thing) a process for splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen and storing the two in a stable state. What you do with it after is up to the imagination.
The link is to a site selling (thats right they are real) gas welding/cutting equipment powered by this gas (he terms it Brown's Gas). It is capable of welding almost any metal (aluminium to tungston, yes I know the melt temperatures are vastly different, read the scientists report on the site). It can also burn holes on refactory tiles and fire bricks with ease.
The use of it as a fuel in engines is beautifuly simple. Normal engines run and a confined explosion, feed in liquid and gas, burn, forms larger volume of gas. This works on confined vacum, for want of a better phrase. Introduce two gasses, burn, forms liquid at hugely reduced volume (ratio is about 1800:1). Instead of pushing the rotor round as normal, it is sucked round.
Gasoline vapor is explosive, but it's fairly tough to get enough vapor in one place to cause a big explosion. Liquid gasoline is merely very, very flammable. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want to be exposed to large quantities of either in the presence of an ignition source, but it would be harder than it sounds to make a building-buster "bomb" out of gasoline.
I think it really depends on if the government wants to encourage or discourage this engine from succeeding. If they want it to fail, they'll say "the fuel's too dangerous for all you potential TERRORISTS," and conveniently ignore the fact that about ten dollars worth of readily available over-the-counter consumer products in use today could provide a building-levelling bomb with just the smallest amount of imagination (and an incredibly large amount of evil.) And no, I don't want to encourage a "how-to" in this thread, so I'm not describing these products or methods.
John
John
it was doped with ferrous oxide, then coated with aluminum powder to reflect heat. And thermite, in turn, is the reaction of Fe2O3 with elemental Al. The O's are transferred to the Al forming Al2O3 and elemental iron. Since it's essentially the combustion of aluminum, it gives off a LOT of energy.
Yeah, like if they'd fit a huge blimp-sized gas envelope to the top of the thing and fill it with hydrogen, then they'd have some hydrogen to fuel the motors, plus the hydrogen would give enough lift that the stupid thing might actually stand a chance of flying in a stable mode --- for a while until the H2 runs out past a cetain point. No way in hell will it ever fly 300-400MPH though, unless the hydrogen in the blimp catches fire then the aircraft will likely travel very fast --- for a short distance anyway. :-) This is sarcastic humor, in case you couldn't tell.
But how do you walk or bike places when it's the middle of winter, dumbass?
200 miles per day is 73,000 miles per year. Almost no one in this country needs to drive more than that. I think I put like 10,000 miles on my car last year. If you need to be driving your car 5+ hours a day, then get a fucking gas-guzzler. The other 99.9% of humans on this planet can use this cheap/clean technology.
the point is it takes *us* more energy to produce than we'd get from burning it. sure more energy went into gasoline than we get out of it, but if most of that energy came from the sun, why should we give a fuck?
Oh lordy.. could it be? You're a penis bird!!!!
The sphere is probably used to get more torque rather than pure RPMs that they would have if the disc was connected directly to a thin shaft.
My next question though, is why is the disk, sphere, and shaft not a single unified (welded?) part?
Take a look at this: "...equivalent to an eight-cylinder engine..." then on this page they quote: "...equivalent to the six-cylinder engines..." then, on the same page they say, "Also planned is a four-cycle, gasoline-powered version, which will burn substantially cleaner than a traditional gasoline-powered engine." Four cycle? What? How can there be four cycles involved in a "wabble" plate. I can see multiple "wabble" plates, but would that then not be equivlent to multiple cylinders?
/RANT
I will believe it when I see it. For the time being, looks like a nicely put together practical joke to me. People have been claiming for years that they have invented a perpetual motion machines. Once again I say, "show me your code."
Sorry, but there is no such thing as a free lunch, and if something looks too good to be true, it probably is.
It is just sad that many computer geeks see information like this and want to tell everyone else about it in the same way as some of my clueless friends will pass around emails warning you to check phone booths for needles in the coin return slot with a note stating that you now have aids. They are very sincere in the fact that they beleive they are helping and feel this is true. I want a review of this technology from someone whos focus of study is specifically such technology.
Sig Return: 204 No Content
At least from the animations.
Look at it this way. A normal combustion engine has three phases. Compression, explosion, expansion. Essentialy the expanding gasses force the piston down. You go from log volume+high density to high volume+low density. This is even true of a Wankel or "rotary" engine. It that case, a triangular shaped piston revolves inside an oval shaped piston. Essentially a lobe-type pump. Each face of the piston rotates to the long end of the cylinder with the greater area to the narrow end of the piston with the smaller area.
If the Volume of the "cylinder" remains constant, what will force exhaust gasses out? If the area remains constant the piston will endure enormous force with each explosion instead of a gradual pressure increase.
Now, if you forced the disc areas to either side of the "nutator" piston in on each stroke you might have somthing. Of course you would then have three moving parts. Albeit still fewer parts(rings, cams, pushrods,etc.
I get the feeling that someone got stuck on a particular design concept. To use a coding analogiy, it looks like someone is trying to patch some bad code with a kludge.
Food for thought though.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
I was at an import drag race about 3 weeks ago, and they had these sweet old mazdas theres. They were about 2 feet long, 1 foot high ;). But the little bastards revved like there was no tomarrow. Theres nothing weirder than seeing a little micro-compact car with "La Bomba" sloppily painted on it, rev up to about 13,000 RPM. Add a little bit of hydrogen to that, and wallah! The world most portable bomb!
To keep it short, experiments with carbon nanotubes show promising improvements in storage safety and ease of handling liquid hydrogen, as well as substancial improvements in mileage when used as fuel. The trick is to actually fill the LH2 tank with graphites constisting of cnt's in various formats before adding the hydrogen.
It's funny how these tubes that are made of C60 (or fullerene, or "buckyballs") are showing up as very useful in a wide range of sectors like medicine, microchips etc and now transportation..
-- Mike