| Author | Message | ||
     Stealthxb |
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060227/FREE/302270007&Searc hID=73237044791540 | ||
| Voltage_vector |
Travis, I could not get your link to work...also there is a thread on this a little down... | ||
| Voltage_vector |
now it's working!! | ||
| M202 |
new sheriff in town. six cylinders are gonna take over.  | ||
| Cataract2 |
Interesting. So now when we fill up the tank getting gouged on the price of gas we can also get gouged on the price of water. This last part is sarcasim. | ||
| Sparky |
Maybe not if Mr. Crower can work a type of accumulator into his development, one that contains the steam on the steam exhaust stroke so that the steam condenses into recycled water. I'm betting on the hot-rodder to make it work. | ||
| Jandj_davis |
This is another really neat idea, but unfortunately, new ideas for the standard internal combustion engine have been around for a VERY long time. For some dang reason, none of them ever seem to stick. Things like alcohol rather than gasoline, ways to reduce emissions to zero, ways to make power at super-low revs (something like 60 revs). They have all been either to novel for motor companies to accept, or vaporware. One of these days the tech in our bikes is going to show the US auto manufacturers that old-tech is good for a very long time. I love the fact that the motor in the Buells is a re-make of some really old technology. Hopefully this 6-stroke idea makes it into the auto market, but my guess is it never will. | ||
| Natexlh1000 |
I'm thinking that this type of engine would be really great for stationary applications. Like a generator or something. Plumb it for diesel, air and water. I really don't think that a water tank will ever be welcome in a car. At least not here where it would freeze overnight. Still, it's a really neat idea. Imagine an engine with no fins or radiator at all. | ||
| Fullpower |
the lower cylinder temperature will proportionally lower combustion efficiency. the extra crankshaft revolution per each power stroke will create 50 % higher frictional and pumping losses. the (minimum ) flywheel mass will have to be 50 percent greater for a 6 stroke than an equivalent sized 4 stroke. the engine has not been run on a dyno yet, so essentially the engine is "running itself" at this point. interesting concept, not practical automotive technology. | ||
| Fullpower |
now for a really efficient engine, one would use a ceramic cylinder block, run aircooled, high compression, direct injection, supercharged piston port induction, overhead valve exhaust, 2 stroke-cycle. the engine would be multifuel capable, as it would run a high enough cylinder pressure to be in detonation all the time. the higher cylinder temperature and raised compression would lead to around 45 % thermal efficiency, partially offset by the supercharger pumping losses. the net result should net around 40 % thermal efficiency. you could expect somewhere around .34 Pounds of fuel usage per horsepower hour. this is on par with a modern high speed turbo-diesel, which is the most efficient heat engine yet devised. | ||
| Dragon_slayer |
Been done before with simpler equipment!  |
