[4 Jaw Chuck]

The K-cycle engine had a higher efficiency due to its longer power/exhaust stroke. It used a swash plate with cam actuated pistons, didn't work out for the inventor due to the problems sealing the rotating swash plate to the cylinder block.

The exhaust pressure was so low a muffler wasn't required or needed.

K-Cycle Patent PDF

I worked in a machine shop with many of the original machinists that built most of the components of the engine, it ran fine but at high loadings it would blow the seals out at the swash plate interface. The design works fine at smaller scales where materials can handle the rpm of the diameter of the swash plate but scaled up the engine has problems with sealing.

Best part of the design is the extremely high torque at low rpm due to the huge stroke/bore ratio. It met all the current emissions laws of the day too without add-ons.

Mr Kristiansen was the inventor and developed the engine here in my hometown of Winnipeg, he passed away before the design could be perfected. There are a few working prototypes, one resides on display at the University of Manitoba where he was a professor of engineering.

[curtis73]

Originally Posted by Cyberats

How about designing a more efficient gas engine ? I never understood why the V design or the new VW W8, it always seemed the pistons struggle against each other. Do you find Inline or Flat designs to be more efficient ?

The rotary is a pretty efficient design. It lacks the subtleties of cam and compression tuning, and it wears out quickly, but from an engineering standpoint, its simplicity is hard to beat. A good way to increase the efficiency of a gas engine is to take it out and replace it with a diesel

A jet like turbine hooked to the transmission ?

turbines are highly efficient at full throttle. That is why they are so common in jets that run at high rates all the time. They are also a simple design that means most of the energy you put in is available as torque. When I say "most" I mean 50-70%. But at lower throttles they are highly wasteful.

Curtis, what does it cost to convert a diesel engine to use re-fried oils ?

It entirely depends on the vehicle and how much work you can do yourself. Let's assume you have a 70s or 80s Mercedes. The engine requires very little alteration; mainly upgrading the rubber fuel lines. You would add a second tank with a heat exchanger that runs engine coolant through it. You need a switching fuel valve that you can use to switch to the veggie tank when the oil is hot enough, and that's about it. You can probably do it quick and dirty at home for $300, but Lovecraft, Greasecar, and Frybrid all have very comprehensive kits with various options for anywhere from $700-1500 including installation.

Any hopes to combine variable compression with variable cylinders ?

Don't see why not, however variable cylinders doesn't make the ENGINE more efficient, it just uses less fuel. Let's use a V8 for example. When its running on 4 cylinders, it is using half the cylinders, but still trying to overcome the friction of the full V8, so it uses more than 50% of the fuel. You have half the cylinders doing the same work, so it takes more than 50% of the fuel to sustain it.

I think a MUCH better "variable displacement" engine would be to use half the engine with a 15 psi turbo. Instead of a 5.0 V8, use a 2.5L 4-cylinder with 15 psi. Now, at low loads you are running on 4-cylinders, but not trying to spin a whole V8. When you mash the pedal, the turbo is dumping in twice the air, you're dumping in twice the fuel, and you have effectively simulated the output of a 5.0L V8. A turbo is the first "displacement on demand" device, its much simpler, and I think it makes much more sense.

But, who would buy a pickup truck with a 2.5L turbo 4-cylinder? So, instead, manufacturers went overkill, offered the big behemoth 8.1L V8, then tried to show us that they can cut down on fuel by cutting out the cylinders. They're thinking backwards if you ask me.

What different engineering do you all think will make a gas engine more efficient ? (not just engine, transmission, gears, power to the wheel)

First of all you have to separate fuel efficiency from engine efficiency. Engine efficiency is totally different. Gasoline has about 115,000 BTUs of stored energy per gallon. Engine efficiency is measured by how much fuel gets ingested compared to how much power is available at the crankshaft. Theoretically, one gallon of fuel per hour should support 45.16 HP. In truth, it takes more like three or more gallons. Why? First, not all of the fuel is burned. There are unburned HC droplets in the exhaust. Second, of the BTUs that were released during combustion, most of it was absorbed into the coolant and given off to the atmosphere.

MPGs are what happens after the crankshaft. Friction and heat losses in the tranny and drivetrain, gearing, etc, all effect how the engine is able to get that power to the ground.

It does make sense that if you increase the operational efficiency of the engine that you would get better MPGs, but not always. Its also incorrect to assume that increasing MPGs will automatically mean the engine is running more efficiently.

[Cyberats]

Assuming rear wheel drive, how about a turbine with drive shaft in the center and air intake ported 90deg. forwards. 4x4 implemented via drive shaft or if successful, smaller "mini" turbines at each wheel ? Eliminate transmission, cranks and shafts, direct drive.

Like you mentioned, as good as alternative fuels for diesel engines are, I think that kind of inefficient engine & system is out the window.

Turbos do wear out the engine faster and have proven to waste more gas than a diesel. Take the Subaru WRX engine and put it in a 3500 pickup, you get maybe half the listed mpg. Performance maybe the same as V8 but gas usage will be the same also, you'll need a new engine every 5 years to replace the ricebox fried.

[curtis73]

Turbines in an automotive application would suck much more fuel. They get their efficiency at 90% throttle and higher. In a car which spends 90% of its time between 0-50% throttle, a turbine isn't a very wise efficiency choice.

A turbo diesel is right now our most efficient design. Reliability well into the half-million mile range, more power than we need, and more torque than a freight train. The biofuels are simple to make with little to no environmental impact.

If we can focus our attention on getting greater efficiency out of that, we're in business.... until someone comes along and finds something better than the IC engine and otto cycle.

[ChevyThunder]

4 jaw that looks an awful lot like a piston hydraulic motor converted to internal combustion if ya ask me.

[4 Jaw Chuck]

Originally Posted by ChevyThunder

4 jaw that looks an awful lot like a piston hydraulic motor converted to internal combustion if ya ask me.

Essentially thats what it is, it is very similar to a variable displacement piston hydraulic pump. The swash plate has a fixed cam though with an extremely long stroke, exhaust gases left the chamber at about 15 psi hence no need for a muffler.

If you could figure out some way of sealing that swash/cam plate you would have one sweet engine, all the intake runners run down the center of the engine so its a natural for high breathing. Lots of potential in the design and if you figure it is 3 times more efficient, imagine a 350ci version putting out 900hp and 1500 ft/pds at 3500 rpm on pump gas and streetable...or a 100ci motor that puts out 300hp and 500 ft/pds at 3500 rpm and gets 90mpg.

Woooweeee!

Now if only someone would come up with a high tensile strength ceramic high temp material that needs little lubrication for the seals we could build one!

We can always dream...

BTW the patent rights are still up for sale, the family has all the drawings and prototypes stored away waiting...

[Cyberats]

Why don't we go with solving those problems. I know thanks to you, what other options are available. Fix the problem with this engine or the turbine problem. As for high tensile ceramic steel we do have it, however no lubrication is a problem, can't we include a lube cycle into the plates ? Since it's only a couple of plates, the cost of that material should not bump the cost of engine sky high. If you never try, you'll never have it. BTW, I cannot afford to buy or pay for the patents for that, but thanks for offering.

Curtis, I know Diesel is now, it's here, I drove a tractor trailer for one year, I am well aware of the torque. But the inefficient system design remains, my best mileage on a medium load tractor was 7.3. Diesel is much better in small cars, doesn't get too many mpgs in pickups. Have you tried bio-oils in pickups ? The very idea that your daily driver should perform like a race car is absurd and torque vs. hp come into play on that. People need re-educating as far as driving first, before we swap their engine to bio-diesel.

Here's a thought that came to me as I was walking to the corner store (not driving) - As global consumers of energy and in such large numbers, as the populace and number of vehicles will always increase, even burning HHO can lead to a shortage of water in the very long run. (fail to plan you plan to fail)
Diesel although can be made of chemicals entirely, we could run out of those.
If we stop using petroleum as fuel today, we still need it to manufacture bi-products like Plastic and others. We need renewable fuel, something we can manufacture in near endless capacity overtime. The only two that I see are electricity (from clean sources like sun, wind, water) and ethanol which you mentioned is corn and can regrow every year to produce more. These pollute a lot less than anything today.

[ChevyThunder]

First of all you can't have a ceramic steel unless you mixed ceramic particles with steel.

Secondly this would make it very brittle.

Third its not the tensile strenght of ceramics that is the problem. ITS THE TOUGHNESS.

THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE.

Go take some materials courses and some thermodynamics courses and come back when you can prove us all wrong sound good?



Now 4 jaw. I'm not saying such a thing needs to last we just need it to last a 9 second pass down the dragstrip.

How will we make money you ask?

PINKS ALL OUT!!!

On second thought...... I'll stick with my 434 when its finally built. Quiet is nice on the ears but a low deep rumble from an oversized smallbock, soo much better on the spirit.

[curtis73]

Originally Posted by Cyberats

Why don't we go with solving those problems.

One of the problems is the fact that heat is so difficult to efficiently capture. In the past I had ideas like using a thermal barrier coating on the outside of the engine to keep heat in the coolant, and then using some heat exchanger to use that heat for something else. But currently, so much heat gets deposited in coolant that engineers have a tough enough time getting radiators to get rid of enough heat to be effective at cooling the engine. You would have to have a pretty big heat capturing device, and find a way that efficiently converted the heat to something else.

The problem is that any time you change states of energy you lose a significant amount to other forms of energy. That is the reason why as an engineer I HATE hybrids. Compare a Prius with a VW TDI. Prius gets high 30s-low 40s mpg in real world driving. The TDI gets low to mid 50s and puts more torque and HP to the ground. The hybrid not only wastes 75% of its energy as heat in the IC engine, it wastes another significant amount by converting most of the remaining 25% into electricity. Add to that the negative financial AND environmental impact of those expensive batteries with caustic ingredients and the simple idea of a diesel is a win-win for me. Too many times people look solely at MPG and what comes out of the tailpipe. They fail to look at the environmental impact of the whole car from concept to junkyard. Sure, plastic body panels mean a lighter car and less fuel consumption, but the process of making plastic has a higher environmental impact than good old fashioned steel. Its cheaper for the manufacturer, and therefore cheaper for you, but at what ecological impact?

I look forward to finding a viable way of converting heat to electricity. Then we can draw off a significant amount of heat as electricity, remove the alternator, and reduce the size of radiators.

Curtis, I know Diesel is now, it's here, I drove a tractor trailer for one year, I am well aware of the torque. But the inefficient system design remains, my best mileage on a medium load tractor was 7.3. Diesel is much better in small cars, doesn't get too many mpgs in pickups. Have you tried bio-oils in pickups ? The very idea that your daily driver should perform like a race car is absurd and torque vs. hp come into play on that. People need re-educating as far as driving first, before we swap their engine to bio-diesel.

MPG is a function of the vehicle and driver more than the engine. You got 7mpg because you were driving an 80,000 lb brick up a mountain. Think about how terrible your mileage would be with a gas engine in that behemoth.

Diesel engines can typically get 30% more mpg in whatever vehicle they're in. A VW Jetta with the 1.8T engine can usually get 30 mpg or better, but the 1.9 TDI can easily top 50 mpg. In a pickup the gas version struggles to get 18 mpg, but the diesels can often times easily top 20-25 mpg. If you also compare the fact that you've almost doubled your torque and engine life along with resale value, the diesel makes a lot more sense than gas.

Back to the Hybrid/diesel debate... imagine if everyone switched from a Prius to a TDI. Instead of 38 mpg burning gasoline, you get 55 mpg burning diesel. Alone that is significant. Then consider the fact that diesel is cheaper to produce, transport, store, and dispense, plus its far safer, its vapor pressure is next to zero meaning that it doesn't pollute the atmosphere by evaporation like gasoline does... the list continues for a long time. The benefits of diesel are numerous. By 2010, the emissions of diesel engines will not only surpass gasoline, the exhaust put out by diesels will actually be cleaner than the air they suck in. Until it goes through the air filter, cats, particulate filters, and scrubbers, it will be cleaner than the air it ingests.

As far as race vs. street, that is something I leave to the gasoline guys. They have to worry about that. If you want to see real power, go to a diesel shootout. There are people there who show up in a Dodge Dually with a 1993 Cummins that puts down 1500 hp and 2500 lb-ft of torque to the wheels, then they go home, hitch up their 15,000 lb fifth wheel to it and drive across country. Compare that to my Impala SS that puts down 210 hp, 280 lb-ft, and gets the same MPG that those trucks do and I can't tow more than 3000 lbs.

Gas engines are all about VE, valve timing, RPM ranges, ignition timing, fuel distribution, and are very sensitive to matching parts that compliment the RPM range. If you want big power, you have to put up with the finnicky tuning, the lack of vacuum, and the lack of low end torque. Diesels don't have a throttle. They make their power by injecting fuel and sucking air. If you extend the amount of both air and fuel you can cram in there at the peak, you add gobs of power. But since you haven't changed the cam, heads, or have a throttle to worry about, you haven't changed how it ingests fuel in the lower RPMs. With a gas engine, you have a range of RPMs that you move around. A stock engine makes power from idle to 5000 rpms and if you want more power you have to settle for only making it between 2000-6500 rpms. Diesels go from 500-3000 rpms. Cram more fuel in, you make more power. Period. That's why its super easy to make 4-digit HP and torque and still drive it every day and get 25 mpg.

I've done a few WVO and SVO diesel pickups. I consulted on a fleet of school buses and they ended up doing boidiesel instead of WVO. Biodiesel typically has a tiny bit fewer BTUs than diesel, but you'll never notice a difference. WVO and SVO have slightly lower BTUs and you'll probably notice a difference. It usually shows up as about 4-5% less power and a drop of about 1-2 mpg. But, considering your fuel source already comes from the biosphere, I would much rather burn a couple more gallons knowing that I'm reducing the amount of carbon impact by 90%.

If we stop using petroleum as fuel today, we still need it to manufacture bi-products like Plastic and others.

We don't even need it for that... we've already produced hundreds of times more plastics than we need, but instead of recycling it, we just toss it in a landfill. If we could reclaim a tiny percentage of that wasted plastic we wouldn't need any new plastics for decades. About all we would need are small amounts of crude for the research and development of new plastics, then enough to produce those new plastics, but we have enough Polystyrene, Polyethylene, and Polyvinyl to last us until oblivion.

We need renewable fuel, something we can manufacture in near endless capacity overtime. The only two that I see are electricity (from clean sources like sun, wind, water) and ethanol which you mentioned is corn and can regrow every year to produce more. These pollute a lot less than anything today.

Agreed. Ethanol is a viable entity, but not infinitely renewable. It takes energy input from agriculture to make the corn, and the fermentation/distillation process has a relatively high impact. The net ethanol fuel has a decidedly lower BTU content than fossil fuels also. It makes more sense (ecologically) to find a very high-oil-yield crop and exploit it for its oil, then burn the oil in diesel engines which are able to capture more of the energy (since they are more efficient engines). Promising crops are popping up every day it seems. Corn is an effective crop. It only produces about 15-20 gallons of oil per acre per year, but the other uses for corn make it a viable crop for more than just oil production. Contrast that with Jatropha (a very hardy plant that will grow on a rock) can produce over 200 gallons per acre, but the plant is pretty useless otherwise. About all you can do with the remaining biomass is burn it to produce electricity. As of early in 2008, one of the most promising crops was an algae that effectively can produce 5000 gallons of oil per acre per year. Its also highly effective at scrubbing CO2 from the atmosphere, and more recent news has shown certain strains of algae in certain climates producing 20,000 gallons per acre. That's 1000 times more oil than corn per acre. Even taking into consideration the impact to the local water sources, that is serious oil production. (source: "Do It Yourself Guide to Biodiesel," Purcella, Ulysses Press)

Right now, though, the name of the game is political correctness. It doesn't matter that industries like vehicle production, livestock farming, and urbanization are killing the environment, its the fact that they are the cornerstones of our economy. They have therefore become morally defensible positions. Imagine if human society evolved to be vegetarian. If an avant-garde farmer stepped forward and wanted to raise cattle to be eaten we would find a way to squash his or her efforts. After all, it wouldn't be morally or ecologically defensible to pollute the atmosphere with cow farts to support a small faction of oddball humans who eat flesh. But, since it is how we have socially evolved, the thought of subverting those efforts in the race to save the planet is taboo. Right now we are subsidizing farming and thinking about bailing out the auto industry because they have been so commonplace that their existence is perceived as vital to our survival.

Maybe it will take an economic meltdown for us to change our ways.... which is a good thing, because we're headed for one

I'm not providing political commentary, but it is a well-known phenomenon that advancing democracy has elements that resemble socialism. It happened to some degree in the Roman empire. The only thing that really saved it from socialism was the fact that its "democracy" was based on the historical paradigms of Imperialism, Dictatorship, and Monarchy. The Roman empire was more like an Imperial Oligarchy in practice.

We are getting to that point. Our Democracy has grown to a point where its so large that a government of the people, by the people, yadda yadda... can no longer fit the bill. America used to be like a big Moose Lodge meeting. They got together, drank a beer, and decided by vote what would be best for the colonies. Now its so huge that we vote for someone to vote for us, and even the lowest members of government are so far "above" the common man that the idea of a government "of the people" is no longer a viable analogy. It is at that point where the evolved democratic member of the union begins to see the benefits of the larger government. It then becomes the responsibility of the government to provide benefits like retirement money, health care, unemployment, FDIC insurance, and road maintenance. It expects bailouts and government support. That is a clear step toward socialism. Not that its a bad thing. Like I said, I'm not providing political commentary. The word socialism gets such a negative connotation given our history with Russia, but I believe it can be a viable governing body for an unevolved society. I wouldn't choose to live here if we became socialist, but that's a different story. Australia looks nice

But, we're at that point. The question is, what happens after that point? We have the paradigm of Russia that was Socialist and is now struggling through the early stages of Democracy. In 50 years we will see how the forced Democracy fits in Iraq after a violent coup of the dictatorship. But America itself started out as part of an Imperialist Monarchy, so the Democracy thing is still pretty new. America has just changed so fast in the last 200 years that its a little wobbly yet. America also right now has a very large demographic that is highly resistant to change and rightfully so. In particular, the Korean War vets and Baby Boomers represent a very conservative demographic and I think more pragmatic, modern change will happen after they... uh, well let's say "stop voting." That's a euphamism for "die." That is not to say the change will be good or bad, just more progressive. I don't mean to cast aspersions toward any demographic because their opinion is just as valid and just as vital to any political model, but if you step away from politics and look down on the whole picture, the large effect they have on the current politics is pretty pervasive. Whether we like it or not, things will change more rapidly when those generations are no longer affecting things. Let me put it this way. They are a speed bump in the road to change. If you view change as a bad thing, then they are a great thing to have in the voting booth. If you see change as a good thing, then their passing will be good in your opinion.

Anyway... that is a long way of saying, change is going to happen. I'm a fan of changing for the better before we need to. I want to be that guy that everyone laughs at today with my windmills and photovoltaic cells, and then be the guy who everyone respects for being the prepared citizen. I will be the guy who can sit back with a home-brewed beer and watch the rest of the world enter an energy meltdown while I enjoy my self-reliance. Waiting for an economic meltdown or energy crisis is not the time to scramble for new solutions. Sure we have plenty of fossil fuels left, but that doesn't mean we should sit around in our SUVs waiting for it. Like you said, failing to plan is planning to fail.

I enjoy topics like this because its a chance for people to become educated. I watch people rush out and buy their Hybrids with the plastic panels and wasteful generators, then I sit back and know that I can always power my diesel with used restaurant oil, or recharge an electric vehicle from power that I generated from the river.

Sometime when you have a little while to read, do a search for the myth about the Prius being responsible for more pollution than a Hummer. It ended up being a myth, but not by much. The batteries are produced using very caustic and polluting processes, and then shipped on boats from Europe and Asia. That repeated cross-ocean trip almost offsets the lifetime pollution put out by Hummers.

[ChevyThunder]

I agree with the whole hybrid thing. I mean if a hybrid generated electricity soley on braking force or other wasted energy it makes sense but the current ones no way.

One thing I don't get is people going and throwing away their current vehicals as an excuse that its "better for the environment" I mean ya alot of the newer ones get sold to other people. However anyone who owns an older car that still runs good and sends it off to the crushers to buy a hybrid is kinda fooling themselves.

How is it wasting energy crushing and recycling an old car and then using more energry to produce a new car is going to be less then the little more fuel you would have burned to drive that car until it was time to be crushed.

I dunno maybe I am just missing something. Or not accounting for the fact that haybrids have nothing to do with efficiancy and everything to do with image.

[Cyberats]

Seems we do agree on many issues including politics, our country is not what it's supposed to be.

Sneaky but did you notice all small diesel imports like the VW have disappeared gradually since was it 2005-06. Promised 2009 VW Rabbit TDI, not on the market. I would've wanted the new beetle TDI, drove with a friend in a rental, front room is good, like a medium sized car. Guess why ? None of the Asian imports, even usa tri-car, with all the newfound hybrids, cannot achieve 55mpg.

About new cars, I said it before and I'll say it again, prices of new cars have risen by 50% in the last 20yrs. against a decline in jobs and salaries. Recession started in the 70s, not yesterday, not with party 1 or party 2. I bought my used car in 2002, invested including original price about $10-11K in 6 years. Expect another $4K by 2012. A $18K 4-banger in 5 years needs repairs, 10 yrs. even more, while my V8 will be nearly new. If Kia or Hyundai, expect to visit dealer every year, thus plastic everything and 10yrs. warranty.

Texas is the only self reliant state in the nation, it's one of the reasons I want to move there, besides death penalty and self defense laws. Took a long trip in a rental car going from san antonio, austin, abilene, amarillo and back to san antonio, best I liked was Ennis south of Dallas & a small german named town about 20mi. north of san antonio. Been in the biggest cities, hate them, not a place to live life. Trust me all farm boys and girls out there, enjoy what you have, clean air, clean food, piece of mind and real friends. Far as technology is concerned, it makes us strangers, growing apart, staying away from each other, all in the name of "ooh I am such an individual, I cannot be friends with someone using smileys", just an example.

[Cyberats]

Originally Posted by ChevyThunder

First of all you can't have a ceramic steel unless you mixed ceramic particles with steel. Secondly this would make it very brittle.
Third its not the tensile strenght of ceramics that is the problem. ITS THE TOUGHNESS. THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE.
Go take some materials courses and some thermodynamics courses and come back when you can prove us all wrong sound good?

I said TITANIUM/CERAMIC ALLOY. Stop Pounding Old Rhetoric from 30yrs. ago !!! Here you go, Pick the Strength you Need, Educate Yourself, then come back & insult people, ignoramus know it all, just cause you don't want to know or deal with it does not mean it's impossible or doesn't exist:
http://www.tifab.com/subpages/tech_spec_grades.htm?tsid=googleppc&gclid=CKDc5qHO _ZcCFQkzawod1VvT1Q
http://iadr.confex.com/iadr/2004Hawaii/techprogram/session_10541.htm
http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?WO=1994020644&IA=IB1994000027&DISPLAY=DESC
Granted it will be more expensive until mass marketing or exporting factory to china, but everything has to start somewhere.
I DON"T NEED COURSES TO REVEAL THE TRUTH !!!

[Cyberats]

SALTWATER !!!

[5_speed]

When you smash things you other things.

Pump water into a diesel engine, the high compression ought to run the engine if it's powerful enough to smash water into 2 gasses they will ignite and there you have it.

If the diesel needs a lubricant, pour liquid crystal into the tank as well, instead of an exhaust pipe have a return line that just keeps feeding the system in a full circle since the byproduct is exactly what went in, you win.

When this idea takes off, I expect full royalties for sharing this information with you.

[moontanker]

LasttimeIanswered your post some one jumped on me and wanted to slap me and so I didnt want problems and just watched .Your interest in this is in my opinion worth while and also very feasable If you reply private message I will answer you question.thank you and good luck in a well worthwhile project.