Slashdot Mirror
Looking Beyond Detroit For Engine Innovation
waderoush writes "Opposed-piston engines (with two pistons in the same cylinder) have been around since the 1920s, but have been used mainly in submarines and airplanes. Now, several startups are working to make these high-efficiency engines practical for cars, trucks, and light vehicles — but they're under no illusions that Detroit will adopt the idea. Silicon Valley startup Pinnacle Engines, which is backed by the world's largest venture fund, is looking to a scooter manufacturer in India as its first partner. 'This ought to be music to Detroit's ears, but to them I'm just some whacko in California,' says Monty Cleeves, Pinnacle's founder and CTO. 'This is Silicon Valley, and what does Silicon Valley know about making engines? Folks in Asia have almost zero "not-invented-here" issues, whereas it's pretty prevalent all over the U.S.'"
No, boxer engines are opposed pistons, but they use separate cylinders. Boxer engines are a form of a 'Flat' engine.
How does it feel to be a liar with pants constantly on fire?
Opposed-piston_engine for ignorant feckers like myself who have never seen or heard of this engine design before?
“There are 50 opposed piston engine companies out there, and they all haven’t gotten to the point where they’ve figured out what their Achilles’ heel is,” says Byron Shaw, general manager at GM’s Advanced Technology division in Palo Alto. “It’s unlikely that [the engine startups] have discovered something that isn’t known,” he continues. “Let’s say they really improve the ability to run air flow ratios super lean, but then they haven’t solved the NOx problem [nitrogen oxides, a by-product of combustion and the source of smog and acid rain]. There is always a ‘but,’ and most of these companies haven’t gotten to the ‘but’ yet. In India and China they don’t have any idea what the ‘but’ is. They are a pure growth trajectory. But as those markets mature, so will their expectations.”
and the best part:
As if to illustrate Cleeves’ point, Shaw tells a story from his days as a young, just-out-of-college engineer at GM in 1988. “I came up with this change to an internal part of the air conditioning compressor,” he says. It was part of a project to switch over to a new, environmentally safer coolant. “It passed every test. I was rocking and rolling. I was going to change the world. My boss said, ‘Okay, why don’t you get on the plane and go down to the plant and tell them all about it.’ So I go down there and I start to give my spiel. And the plant manager says, ‘Let me give you a tour of the factory.’ “He shows me where the blank aluminum comes in and where it’s machined and processed. And then he takes me down this line of machines. There are 320 steps and each machine does one step and it’s really fast and precise. And at the end of the line this part rolls off. And he says ‘The part you want to change is machined on step number two. And on every machine after step number two, that’s where they grab the part and hold it to do all the subsequent machine steps. So we’d have to retool 320 machines. Is your change that good? How much more are people willing to pay for their cars based on the improved performance from your little part change, versus what it’s going to cost the company?’ That was a really interesting lesson for me.”
An opposed piston engine has two (well, at least two) crankshafts at opposite ends of a cylinder, with a piston on each. The pistons then "meet" in the middle.
The advantage is that you don't need a cylinder head, so the engine can be lighter, and often smaller and go to higher pressures, which makes it ideal for aircraft and submarines and areas where you want to maximise power to weight.
A boxer engine is simply a V engine flattened all the way down, with two banks of cylinders facing away from each other with the crank in the middle.
One of the "classic" opposed piston engines is the Deltic, fitted to the locomotives that were named for it. A hugely complex beast with three crankshafts (one contrarotating), which was very powerful for its size, but very highly strung. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napier_Deltic
More prominent than Pinnacle is the first company mentioned in TFA, Ecomotors. In the past 6 months they have begun test builds on on-highway trucks for one of America's largest truck manufacturers, Navistar. (https://www.ccjdigital.com/navistar-announces-opoc-engine-technology-agreement/) Considering America's position as #1 fuel consumer, hacking into the amount of fuel used by the most fuel-intensive industry is much more significant than increasing efficiency on mopeds in India.
From TFA:
"“I don’t know what it’s going to take to get somebody in the U.S. excited” about fundamental improvements to the venerable internal combustion engine, Cleeves [CEO of Pinnacle] says"
Are you kidding me??!
Trucks here are doing everything they can to improve fuel efficiency, from installing flaps underneath their trailers to controlling and monitoring the speed of trucks. If the OPOC engine does prove to be a large increase in efficiency on these large, constantly running trucks, while at the same time eliminating components, you better believe the trucking industry will hop on board with a second.
Come on, practice a little vetting for once, or maybe try googling for more than one source on an article here!
Glad I could help.
This design allow the engine to have a power stroke for every revolution, it is called 2-cycle but its not like what people think as 2-cycle. The engine has a compression stroke as the piston come together, a power stoke and then a "vent" at the end of the power stroke. One of the pistons that is called the power piston will open up ports along the cylinder wall to let out the exhaust, a few degrees of rotation later the other piston called the slave will open ports in the cylinder wall to allow forces air to purge out the remaining exhaust. The exhaust ports will then be closed off as the power piston starts to move back up the cylinder and then the slave will close its ports a few degrees of rotation later allowing a pressurizing charge to build up. The use of a super charger or blower is required on this type of engine. No valve or valve train - minimalist type of engine.
The crank shaft for the power side is about 10 degree ahead of the slave end. Oon the power stroke, this results in the power piston to be past TDC and moving down the cylinder while the slave is going through its TDC and have little cylinder movement.
The reason 'Detroit' haven't done anything with the startups is because they have their own R&D factories. Why partner when they can do it themselves better and cheaper?
Because when technology is purchased, it is considered an asset, and appears so on the balance sheet. Internal research and development organizations, however, are viewed as liabilities, since they have payroll and other continuing expenses. It's an accounting advantage when outside technology, either in the form of entire companies or just their IP, is purchased.
Said another way, the external technology has a value that is explicitly recorded on the balance sheet. The value of technology created by the internal R & D organization, OTOH, is not explicitly realized. One reason for this is that its valuation is quite difficult to determine (unless it's sold outside the company, of course, when it becomes worth what someone is willing to pay for it). Case in point: Your company's R & D organization develops a new opposed-piston engine technology. How much is it worth, in a dollar figure justifiable to an external auditor? Could someone make an equally reasonable argument for a figure one-tenth that of yours?
That's the troll part. You seem to have missed it.
You could turn the tables and say that Americans are fat and lazy and don't want to innovate anymore while Asia (India and China in particular) is merely taking advantage of the western world's recent lack of blue-collar ambition.
The two crankshafts have to be connected together - the pistons need to stay in phase, so you only need one output since what one crank does, the other must match it.
Like the Deltic engine I linked above, you can get awesome power to weight ratio and power to size ratio out of them (although the Deltic was an opposed 2 stroke diesel), but they are somewhat temperamental - something that would likely be less of an issue in the modern era with finer machining tolerances etc.
Have you ever worked with Detroit? I own an auto industry startup who's dealt with top-level Detroit execs on a number of occasions. The auto industry is an extremely conservative industry with a very backwards business model and an exceedingly slow cycle time, hamstrung by regulations, supply agreements and partnerships that perpetuate the status quo. And they know all of this stuff, and it drives them crazy, because every exec has about a dozen big ideas for what they want to do but can't for some reason or another. At the same time, they have a formula that works, keeping them competing in an industry that tends to eat new know-it-all manufacturers for breakfast.
I wish the new startup well, and I wish I could say it's just a case of "may the best tech win". But it's not really. First off, Detroit is an "Old Boys Club", so a lot of their success will have to do with how well their team can infiltrate the culture, winning over power-brokers and former power-brokers who still have lots of buddies in the company, one rung of the ladder at the time. Secondly, you have to play by their rules. That means meeting over obscenely expensive dinners and drinks (and, from what I've been told, although I've thankfully been spared this for obvious reasons, strip clubs). And third, even when you do things right, it's slllllllllooooooooowwww. Assuming you do things right, have a good product, and properly cover your arse legally, and nobody scopes you to the field first, whether with independent development or ripping you off.
That said, startups *can* and *do* regularly make it in the industry, at least as suppliers. Although going from nothing to being a whole engine supplier is a pretty huge step, and they really should start out smaller. Honestly, given their situation, I'd strongly advise trying to work their way into some of the Tier 1 suppliers. It should be a lot easier than approaching the Big 3 directly (I really wouldn't expect them to give this startup the time of day).
Next to my desk we have an Ire Extinguisher. Our boss is really assertive, so we like the idea of having it.
Sometimes a radical idea takes a lot of time to percolate in the minds of those who hear it, or even hear of it, before it starts to make sense to them. It's fine to go seeking more open minds to get the concept ironed out and start making money, but maybe he should also drop the scorned prophet act while he does it. Come back with his billion dollars and his 3 million Indian customers as the best damn proof of concept he could possibly have and negotiate with Detroit from a position of strength rather than badmouth the very people he wishes would do business with him.
Also, take a look at Mr. Cleeves Linkedin profile. His industry appears to be Semiconductors and his summary says "Leadership roles in technology development".
Nothing about engineering or materials or chemistry or any other field I'd imagine central to massively repurposing a large engine. But hey, a semiconductors guy with specialty in "Process management" should have doors flying open for him in Detroit.
I can't imagine a guy with that skill set could have an easy time convincing a heavy industry to listen to him, no matter what his idea. It doesn't mean the industry is a closed-minded bunch of trolls, as he seems to think; it just means that he's got no reputation and no credentials, just like the other thousand outsiders who try to send them ideas or schedule pitch meetings every year.
25 to 50 percent less gas in a scooter isn't really that impressive. Most decent scooters are at the point of diminishing returns, the increased cost of maintenance is almost certainly going to be more than the savings on fuel. It's relatively trivial to get a scooter to get 60-70mpg, an extra 25% to 50% isn't that significant, unless that extra mileage comes maintenance free.
Didn't they say that 30mpg was impossible and would put them out of business, despite foreign car makers doing it for years?
No they didn't say that. Nor have the foreign car makers been "doing it for years". If you make a big heavy vehicle it is going to get crappy fuel efficiency. US consumers, for better or worse, love big heavy cars. All automakers know how to make more fuel efficient cars but those are not the ones most people buy. Designing more fuel efficient cars without regressing on other features customers demonstrably want is seriously difficult and possibly without much prospect of payback for the engineering cost. Relatively few people buy a car with fuel efficiency as their primary concern. That might change if gasoline were suddenly $7/gallon but that simply is not going to happen.
The reason the automakers fought against increasing CAFE standards was simply cost. The government is imposing an engineering cost on their business without any certainty of additional revenue from their customers to offset the cost. Furthermore when your most profitable vehicles are the least fuel efficient (true for every auto manufacturer) and best selling, that is a major problem.
Toyota and other foreign car manufacturers were just as against raising CAFE standards as the US auto makers. The Toyota Tundra simply cannot achieve 30mpg without some combination of horsepower reduction, weight reduction, better aerodynamics and possibly hybridization. That's physics and has nothing to do with being a foreign or domestic car maker. The engineering challenges are just as difficult for Toyota as they are for GM. I've worked with both companies directly and I promise you Toyota does not have better engineers.
That's part of the formula.
Indeed. A good example was Samuel Slater. In 1789 the technology for spinning cotton was a British state secret. Stealing the technology, Samuel Slater kickstarted the cotton mill industry in New England and arguably the entire US part of the Industrial Revolution.
Worried about the possibility of losing her technological lead to other nations, and aware of the growing threat posed by American patriots as their battle for independence developed, Britain had passed a statute in 1774 making it illegal for cotton workers to leave the country, or for cotton-machine technology to be exported.
Disguised as a farmer, Samuel took ship from London on September 1st, 1789, telling no-one of his intentions and only informing his immediate family in a letter he posted just before going aboard.
Stitched into the lining of his clothing were his indenture papers, which would prove to any prospective employer that he knew his job. More importantly, in his head he carried all the secrets of the water frame and the continuous spinning process that Arkwright and Strutt had perfected.
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
You're a girl scout too??? ;)