Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Claim Major Leap in Engine Design
An anonymous reader writes "Purdue researchers say they have made a major advance in the design of the internal combustion engine, one that could seriously boost fuel efficiency and cut emissions. A key portion involves building intake and exhaust valves that are no longer driven by mechanisms connected to the pistons, a departure from the way car engines have worked since they were commercialized more than a century ago. 'The concept, known as variable valve actuation, would enable significant improvements in conventional gasoline and diesel engines used in cars and trucks and for applications such as generators, he said. The technique also enables the introduction of an advanced method called homogeneous charge compression ignition, or HCCI, which would allow the United States to drastically reduce its dependence on foreign oil and the production of harmful exhaust emissions. The homogeneous charge compression ignition technique would make it possible to improve the efficiency of gasoline engines by 15 percent to 20 percent, making them as efficient as diesel engines while nearly eliminating smog-generating nitrogen oxides, Shaver said.'"
What's the over/under that this technology will be bought by ford / gm and killed in development?
Toyota and Honda have both been leveraging variable valve timing techniques to boost performance and efficiency for over a decade.
The big difference here is that finally someone realizes we can do that independent of crankshaft, pistons, and cams.
It's a simple concept really, monitor your engine and control the valves on solenoids digitally and you can achieve monumental performance, efficiency, and emmission improvements. It's really just a matter of making the concept cost effective to produce.
All the benefits will be squandered on making bigger, heavier vehicles. At least, that's what's been happening with improvements in efficiency since the 80s. Sigh...
Well, the scientists think the companies will use this to boost mileage.
Reminds me of a play we had to read in 1960s grammar school about nuclear war. Big scary Atom Bomb threatens everybody, but he is driven away by Atoms for Peace (the script called for a costume kind of like lady liberty, complete with torch, except white instead of green). You see Science was bringing us limitless power, and that was going to eliminate poverty. Since nobody was poor, nobody had a reason to fight.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
No matter how efficient an internal combustion engine gets, it will still emit carbon dioxide. While this technology might help an engine spew less carbon dioxide, it's still a dead end -- kind of like putting lipstick on a pig.
Put the effort into other forms of energy and we'll be a lot better off a lot more quickly.
FTFA:
"The new method would eliminate the mechanism linking the crankshaft to the camshaft, providing an independent control system for the valves."
Providing precise valve control without using camshafts is a fairly big leap in engine tech for your average car or truck.
The also haven't built anything - just modeled it on a computer.
They may not have solved any of the actual implementation issues, nothing in the article said they had.
I don't wish to belittle their design ideas - but it is usually very difficult to go from a revolutionary engine design to an operational engine. A good example is the Stirling Engine, great design - difficult to realize.
I wish them luck - but not going to hold my breath for this one.
That's pretty much standard stuff in science reporting these days:
1. Scientist develops an improvement in an old but unused technology.
2. Nobody had ever heard of the old technology, so they can't explain the new stuff until they explain the old stuff.
3. The press writes about the old stuff, not realizing that it's not news.
Plus bonus step 4: scientist, trying to ensure that grants continue, points out that eventually there's a major improvement to be made, which the press promptly presents as "imminent".
You see this all the time on Slashdot, especially in conjunction with solar-cell stuff. There's news there, but it's not what the press is talking about, because the actual news is less interesting.
Come on folks. I think we've all come to the conclusion that ICE is on it's way out and additional tweaking doesn't solve the problem, just delays the impact. Rather than sink a bunch of money, time and effort into this, we should be sinking money, time and effort into designs that eliminate burning oil products and eliminate emissions entirely. We have working models and prototypes of these types of systems already, why would we need to build another prototype of an "old" model. Doesn't make any sense. I hope this guys gets his funding cut.
He didn't even bother reading the summary which points out that this might raise the efficiency of gas engines into the range of diesels. (RTFS)
He also didn't bother doing any research on the relative amount of diesel consumed in the USA vs Gasoline.
Like I said a moron.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
For 500 something miles.
It was our litigous society that killed the EV-1. There was a time when you could sell things and let the buyer bear the risk that it breaks. Nowadays, if you don't agree to support a car and pay for damages, you get sued.
"Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
You want an engine that makes peak HP with the lowest RPM level possible for two reasons. 1st, engine wear (think RPM squared). 2nd, fuel efficiency. Even with the best dynamic valve timing, you will achieve maximum burn and emissions the longer the gas has time in the combustion phase. While you can make lots of power in the high RPM band, you'll sacrifice fuel efficiency and emissions. It's always a trade-off which is why we have open and closed loop ECU algorithms in place.
While I like elegant design of the Coates cam for racing, it's not a practical solution for the mass auto market. Keeping a constant seal with oil is a problem without having it sucked into the combustion chamber. This would lead to carbon fouling. Also, the cam is static, not variable like the proposed system (and the previous V-Tec systems) which poses a major problem for reducing emissions while maintaining a beefy power curve.
Life is not for the lazy.
The top-end racing cars use pneumatic valves. There's no float, because all the movement is positive, i.e. no "let the spring push it back to rest", but rather "push in the air to open, suck out the air to close".
And in response to the sibling posts: sure, they only run for 200-500 miles at a time, but they run at very close to the absolute limits of the engine the whole time. Also, many of the top-end racing leagues have a limit on the number of engines a car is allowed to go through per season; to my understanding, most of those numbers are in the very low single digits.
From what I understand, any Common Rail High Pressure Diesel Injection engine do at least some kind of VVT. In those engines, diesel in sent to solenoid valves under high pressure, and the engine ECU injects them into the combustion chamber at the optimum rate and ratio for the current conditions. It seems to me this is some kind of VVT. Those engines have been in use by european cars for several years. In France, the 3 main manufacturers (Renaul, Peugeot and Citroen) have offerings based on this and achieve 40 to 47 mpg without too much problem (granted, I'm not talking about huge SUVs here, more about reasonable cars that allow you to go from A to B and that you can actually park somewhere in a city. But enough with the free rant). Anyway, just my 2 cents.
That's not a nick, that's my NAME.
Yeah, and the scientists who developed silicone breast implants thought they would be used by breast cancer victims who'd had mastectomies and just wanted to look normal again.
Well, I'm sure they had some idea, but that was the intent at least.
Honda has VTECH and BMW has Valvetronic for variable valve timing and has had this for over a decade. How does this differ?
Just a nitpick, But a loop hole is an unintended use of a law. This is no loophole by any means. It is a law that was created and enacted on purpose without regard to some suspect of thinking it was covered differently then it was used.
Now when you consider the law was there for farmers, you have to consider what the law does. It classifies medium duty and heavy duty vehicles a little differently then light duty and so on. But An SUV is definatly necessary for a farmer even in the passenger state. You see, Farmers are more likely to have a family then most small car envirogreen people are. So when they need to load up the kids and goto the feed store, they need room for the kids. When they load up the trailer and haul cattle to market or take the livestock to shows, they need a place for the family to to ride without having to follow in a separate car using twice as much energy, oil, wear and tear on the roads, and maintenance.
Have you ever attempted to fit a 5 year old, A 2 year old in a car-seat, your wife and yourself into the front of a pickup truck? You may be fine riding in the back, but I don't think the kids will be. Especially in 20 degree (f) weather or rain.
The law is intended to allow the vehicles to have power to haul things, tow things, and get things done efficiently. Sometimes people other then farmers need to do this. Sometimes people who will never do this want to be able to if ever neccesary. Sometime people want the room, ground clearence and everything associated with an SUV that makes the cars weigh too much under the light duty standards. If an SUV get half the fuel economy of a car, then the people are paying twice as much in fuel taxes as your small car is. We live in a free society, Why should we stop someone from buying something that isn't anymore dangerous then other cars or doesn't hurt anyone when used properly?
Well sure, the electric actuators create an additional load on the alternator, but the engine doesn't get to spin the 20 pound (times 4, on a DOHC, V style engine) cams and compress the valve springs with free energy, either. I bet electric actuators are more efficient.
If you need to tow something "on occasion" you could borrow/rent a proper towing vehicle for that.
You'll tow better/easier and you won't be driving around in a monster for the rest of the year.
No sig today...
New Design? Well... yes, if you are in 1998! Toyota, Honda and BMW already have this kind of tecnology. Electronicly controled valves through fast acting actuators.
Why not just use diesel....