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.'"
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.
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.
None. Why would GM or Ford kill anything that would give them an advantage over Honda or Toyota?
Your Tinfoil hat is on too tight again.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
For 500 something miles.
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.