Analysis of a new engine design is complete! Here are some facts about it:
1. Utilizes a new thermodynamic cycle
2. Will run on most fuels interchangeably with very low emissions
3. Initial design is a compact engine, 130 hp
4. Over 60% efficient over most of its operating range
5. Which means it can help to stop global warming!
We are now looking at ways to fund construction of the small prototype engine. Any suggestions or offers of assistance are welcome. I may be reached at Ernsdesk@aol.com
The engine design is built around a new "thermodynamic cycle." This is a simplified model of how the engine works, which ignores all the messy details of a real engine such as friction, heat loss, and inertia. The cycle is described as a sequence of operations on a captive ideal gas. The new engine cycle is a combination of two old cycles, the Atkinson (or Miller) cycle and the Diesel cycle: the Atkinson-Diesel cycle.
Oh, no, you can't use this ideal cycle formula to design the exact engine and determine its efficiency, but it gives direction to the analysis. A separate program is used for the actual engine design.
I wanted to post the complete description of the cycle and derivation of the cycle efficiency here, but the equations didn't come over in the document. Send me an email if you would like a copy of the complete Atkinson-Diesel cycle description.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Thursday, April 21, 2005
LATEST MILEAGE NEWS
LATEST MILEAGE NEWS
Mileage of the Beetle and drag reducer have been significantly increased by lowering rolling resistance of the car's tires. Currently, mileage is close to 65 miles per gallon at 65 miles per hour.
This car is now about as good as it gets. Further steps available to reach even higher fuel economy are:
1. Adding an electric drive (e.g., hybrid conversion)
2. Redesign the car body for lowest drag
3. Incorporate an improved engine.
I am beginning to work on all of these. These steps are much harder than the past modifications to the Beetle. I hope to be able to report on progress later this year.
Ernie Rogers
Mileage of the Beetle and drag reducer have been significantly increased by lowering rolling resistance of the car's tires. Currently, mileage is close to 65 miles per gallon at 65 miles per hour.
This car is now about as good as it gets. Further steps available to reach even higher fuel economy are:
1. Adding an electric drive (e.g., hybrid conversion)
2. Redesign the car body for lowest drag
3. Incorporate an improved engine.
I am beginning to work on all of these. These steps are much harder than the past modifications to the Beetle. I hope to be able to report on progress later this year.
Ernie Rogers
Monday, November 8, 2004
CAN WE BUILD MORE EFFICIENT ENGINES?
Stop global warming
Yes, I think we can. The present internal combustion engine was mostly developed in a time when fuel cost and efficiency were not imperatives. We need to go back to the early days of engine devleopment and reassess the way designers handled branches in the design road. We may have overlooked some better choices way back when the discovery of oil in Oklahoma and Texas seemed to say that there would be cheap gasoline forever.
One of these early branches in the road was a choice between four-stroke cycle engines and two-stroke cycle engines for automobiles. At the time, we used carburetors to feed fuel to the cylinders. In this context, the four-stroke engine is a far better choice. (More efficient and less polluting.)
But, the trend today is toward injection of fuel directly into the cylinders. With this modern option, the two-stroke cycle actually provides a far more efficient engine. Here are some other choices that need to be reviewed:
1. Engines are only designed for either gasoline or diesel, and nothing else.
2. Compression ratios are lower than one would choose for best efficiency.
3. Engine design principles are not based on a need to reduce weight.
Some people are looking at the exciting possibilities still left to be explored. A possible outcome may be radically new engine types in the near future.
Ernie Rogers
Yes, I think we can. The present internal combustion engine was mostly developed in a time when fuel cost and efficiency were not imperatives. We need to go back to the early days of engine devleopment and reassess the way designers handled branches in the design road. We may have overlooked some better choices way back when the discovery of oil in Oklahoma and Texas seemed to say that there would be cheap gasoline forever.
One of these early branches in the road was a choice between four-stroke cycle engines and two-stroke cycle engines for automobiles. At the time, we used carburetors to feed fuel to the cylinders. In this context, the four-stroke engine is a far better choice. (More efficient and less polluting.)
But, the trend today is toward injection of fuel directly into the cylinders. With this modern option, the two-stroke cycle actually provides a far more efficient engine. Here are some other choices that need to be reviewed:
1. Engines are only designed for either gasoline or diesel, and nothing else.
2. Compression ratios are lower than one would choose for best efficiency.
3. Engine design principles are not based on a need to reduce weight.
Some people are looking at the exciting possibilities still left to be explored. A possible outcome may be radically new engine types in the near future.
Ernie Rogers
Saturday, September 11, 2004
MPG Update
I changed fuel in the last few weeks. Currently, I am using Philips diesel from the North Salt Lake Refinery, used in this intermountain region. I seem to have better mileage with this fuel, now getting 62 mpg.
This is a point for reflection-- what further change in driving or car properties should I make to increase my mileage a little more? Any suggestions?
Ernie Rogers
This is a point for reflection-- what further change in driving or car properties should I make to increase my mileage a little more? Any suggestions?
Ernie Rogers
Sunday, August 22, 2004
Ernie's Alaskan Adventure
This summer, my grandson, Kai Rogers, and I drove to Alaska--Salt Lake City to Anchorage, 3,000 miles. Of course, we went in the thrifty, fuel-sipping Beetle TDI diesel.
Total fuel for the trip to Alaska, 3,000 miles, was 52 gallons. Not bad --- about 57 miles per gallon. On the return trip we did a little better, getting 58 miles per gallon.
I had hoped to do better. Here in the western states, my summer mileage is consistently about 60 miles per gallon. We surmise that the reason is the difference in climate. It would be necessary to use a little different diesel fuel blend in northern Canada and Alaska to insure that the fuel doesn't solidify if the weather were to suddenly turn cold. Cold-weather fuel contains a little less energy than what we use down around Utah in the summer time.
You can follow the link to my car's web page to see some pictures and hear more about the trip.
Ernie
Total fuel for the trip to Alaska, 3,000 miles, was 52 gallons. Not bad --- about 57 miles per gallon. On the return trip we did a little better, getting 58 miles per gallon.
I had hoped to do better. Here in the western states, my summer mileage is consistently about 60 miles per gallon. We surmise that the reason is the difference in climate. It would be necessary to use a little different diesel fuel blend in northern Canada and Alaska to insure that the fuel doesn't solidify if the weather were to suddenly turn cold. Cold-weather fuel contains a little less energy than what we use down around Utah in the summer time.
You can follow the link to my car's web page to see some pictures and hear more about the trip.
Ernie
Thursday, May 20, 2004
Facts on global warming
Global warming has so many implications for industries and government, besides being an environmental issue, that there are powerful forces on all sides trying to convince us of one reality or another. You can only know the truth by digging it up for yourself. Here are some helps in that direction.
1. I just finished reading "The discovery of Global Warming" by Spencer Weart. (Harvard Univ. Press, 2003) This is an account of the history of the subject, written from an expert viewpoint, but fairly balanced. Weart is the director of the Center for History of Physics at the American Institute of Physics--great credentials. This is a great book, but won't tell you details of the science, just how various evidence has fit together over time. It's quite an eye-opener. Only a year old, it is already out of date on technical grounds. You can probably check out this book in a college library, I did.
2. A big sticking point among some "professionals" has been the publications of John Christy (U. of Alabama, Huntsville) which have shown no warming trends in satellite measurements of atmospheric temperature. His measurements have been a great comfort to the present Republican administration, which abandoned the Kyoto agreements that the U.S. had helped to forge. Christy's work is now being seriously challenged by two recent publications that show large warming trends based on satellite data. (If interested, I think you can get a recent Christy paper on-line: John R. Christy et al. "Update on Microwave-based Atmospheric Temperatures from UAH" 15th Symposium on Global Change and Climate Variations. 2003) Christy has a web site: john.christy@nsstc.uah.edu. Following are the challenging references.
3. Qiang Fu et el., "Contribution of Stratospheric Cooling to Satellite-inferred Tropospheric Temperature Trends" Nature 429, 55-58 (6 May 2004). Fu says that Christy overlooked the influence of tropospheric cooling in his calculations. He makes the correction, and finds a large warming trend. This appears to be a hot topic right now. Hard copies of this issue may not have reached library shelves yet, but a helpful librarian can download the paper for you.
4. Menglin Jin, "Analysis of Land Skin Temperature Using AVHRR Observations" Bul. of the American Meteorological Soc. (BAMS) April, 2004, p. 587-600. Jin analyzes satellite data to obtain earth surface temperature. He also shows a large warming trend. This is a major paper, lots of references. Most of the figures are in color, good luck getting it copied.
Final word: It can be shown logically that a warming earth does not necessary cause the upper troposphere to get warmer, as Christy would argue. I will provide this in a future post.
Ernie Rogers
1. I just finished reading "The discovery of Global Warming" by Spencer Weart. (Harvard Univ. Press, 2003) This is an account of the history of the subject, written from an expert viewpoint, but fairly balanced. Weart is the director of the Center for History of Physics at the American Institute of Physics--great credentials. This is a great book, but won't tell you details of the science, just how various evidence has fit together over time. It's quite an eye-opener. Only a year old, it is already out of date on technical grounds. You can probably check out this book in a college library, I did.
2. A big sticking point among some "professionals" has been the publications of John Christy (U. of Alabama, Huntsville) which have shown no warming trends in satellite measurements of atmospheric temperature. His measurements have been a great comfort to the present Republican administration, which abandoned the Kyoto agreements that the U.S. had helped to forge. Christy's work is now being seriously challenged by two recent publications that show large warming trends based on satellite data. (If interested, I think you can get a recent Christy paper on-line: John R. Christy et al. "Update on Microwave-based Atmospheric Temperatures from UAH" 15th Symposium on Global Change and Climate Variations. 2003) Christy has a web site: john.christy@nsstc.uah.edu. Following are the challenging references.
3. Qiang Fu et el., "Contribution of Stratospheric Cooling to Satellite-inferred Tropospheric Temperature Trends" Nature 429, 55-58 (6 May 2004). Fu says that Christy overlooked the influence of tropospheric cooling in his calculations. He makes the correction, and finds a large warming trend. This appears to be a hot topic right now. Hard copies of this issue may not have reached library shelves yet, but a helpful librarian can download the paper for you.
4. Menglin Jin, "Analysis of Land Skin Temperature Using AVHRR Observations" Bul. of the American Meteorological Soc. (BAMS) April, 2004, p. 587-600. Jin analyzes satellite data to obtain earth surface temperature. He also shows a large warming trend. This is a major paper, lots of references. Most of the figures are in color, good luck getting it copied.
Final word: It can be shown logically that a warming earth does not necessary cause the upper troposphere to get warmer, as Christy would argue. I will provide this in a future post.
Ernie Rogers
Mad about fuel cost? -- Save 10% right now
Are you mad about the present cost of fuel? You can save about 10% or more on fuel cost right now, and help to stop global warming at the same time.
I am working on ways to reduce fuel consumption in transportation, such as reducing aerodynamic drag. So, I experiment with my car-- I measure my fuel economy all the time. Here are some facts about highway driving:
* Reducing highway speed from 70 mph to 65 mph saves about 8% of fuel.
* Reducting speed from 75 mph to 70 mph saves about 10% on fuel.
* At 80 mph, you are throwing fuel away. If you drive over 80 mph and push the pedal any time you feel the need, then you have the potential to save as much as 30% of fuel usage.
Hey, if you are seriously angry about the price of fuel, you can bring it down, if you can just relax a little when you drive. Give it a try. Let me know your results.
Good luck
I am working on ways to reduce fuel consumption in transportation, such as reducing aerodynamic drag. So, I experiment with my car-- I measure my fuel economy all the time. Here are some facts about highway driving:
* Reducing highway speed from 70 mph to 65 mph saves about 8% of fuel.
* Reducting speed from 75 mph to 70 mph saves about 10% on fuel.
* At 80 mph, you are throwing fuel away. If you drive over 80 mph and push the pedal any time you feel the need, then you have the potential to save as much as 30% of fuel usage.
Hey, if you are seriously angry about the price of fuel, you can bring it down, if you can just relax a little when you drive. Give it a try. Let me know your results.
Good luck
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)