PDA

View Full Version : Dump the camshaft, regenerative recoup, 30% less gas and 50% lower emissions



lakeside53
04-25-2013, 08:59 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bch5B23_pu0

TGTool
04-25-2013, 09:23 PM
Umm. Little light on detail. I gather that he's got oil pressure to run valve opening in response to an electrical signal, a solenoid (essentially) and a small hydraulic piston. He mentions using compressed air as well which must be for valve closing. Or the other way around. He gets variable valve timing and duration which are nice things to have. The scope showed more slope on valve opening than closing and more jitter which might be more characteristic of air. Lots of claims and I'd like to see more detail to support it. I'm not seriously throwing doubt, only to say that a video like that can be made up, showing no more than he actually did.

becksmachine
04-25-2013, 09:29 PM
Didn't Navistar try something like that?

Can't remember if it was hydraulic or electrical?

Dave

GEP
04-25-2013, 09:43 PM
Interesting concept. There is a 4 cly diesel engine in england at 200 Hp getting 60 + miles per gal. I don't have any info but will dig

11 Bravo
04-26-2013, 01:04 AM
Didn't Navistar try something like that?

Can't remember if it was hydraulic or electrical?

Dave

There have been a few engine makers testing this concept for years. When I worked for Caterpillar I did some of the field follow work on the HEUI fuel systems, which replaced the fuel injector lobe on the cam with an electronic solenoid valve and used high pressure oil to inject fuel. Infinitely variable fuel timing. Ford and Cat collaborated on the system somehow. It is a Cat system, but Ford used it on the power stroke engines.

http://www.cat.com/cda/files/87761/7/pehp9526.pdf

That was back in the early 90's and we heard rumors about engines running in test cells that used a HEUI type system to actuate the vales, opening and closing them with oil using computer controlled solenoids. Over the years I have heard rumors of other engine manufactures working with this system as well. The advantages are obvious and would be huge. There must be some technical problems with this since no one has brought an engine like this to market yet.

If I understood the guy in the film correctly, they are making it sound like they developed the idea. I really don't think that is the case. It has been around for a while. I never heard of anyone using air in one of these systems though so that may be their claim. Seems to me like using air to actuate or control a system like this would not work very well, but more power to them. Maybe they will make it commercial.

saltmine
04-26-2013, 02:11 AM
Preston Tucker tried to build a similar engine for his car..."The Tucker" Unfortunately, air bubbles defeated the design to the point that most of the 50 Tuckers that were actually produced were powered by "Air-cooled Motors" six cylinder opposed, air cooled, helicopter engines. The original Tucker engine was a flat eight, air cooled with hydraulically actuated valves.

It always amazes me to what lengths some people will got to, to get better fuel economy or lower emissions. Charles Nelson Pogue designed the supposedly 200 mpg carburetor back in the 1930's It relied on the metal alloys in it's construction to catalyze gasoline to deliver amazing gas mileage....Unfortunately, it took almost a hundred years for somebody to figure out how it worked, and that leaded gasoline completely negated the effects of the catalyzation process. When tested by automotive experts, installed in a 1934 Ford flathead V-8, they said the car barely exceeded 100 mpg, and had terrible throttle response and drivability, with a top speed of 40 mph. Eventually Charles Pogue, like so many others, ran out of money, and faded into the "Failed Inventions" hall of fame.

Allan Waterfall
04-26-2013, 04:07 AM
Why do some video makers just have to put a music track on videos,I always find the dialog less easy to follow and invariably get fed up and stop watching it.

Allan

EVguru
04-26-2013, 04:25 AM
Charles Nelson Pogue designed the supposedly 200 mpg carburetor back in the 1930's It relied on the metal alloys in it's construction to catalyze gasoline to deliver amazing gas mileage....Unfortunately, it took almost a hundred years for somebody to figure out how it worked, and that leaded gasoline completely negated the effects of the catalyzation process. When tested by automotive experts, installed of a 1934 Ford flathead V-8, they said the car barely exceeded 100 mpg, and had terrible throttle response and drivability, with a top speed of 40 mph. Eventually Charles Pogue, like so many others, ran out of money, and faded into the "Failed Inventions" hall of fame.


It's a simple task to measure the power required to move a vehicle along at a given speed. Add in distance and you have the energy requirement.

It's also quite simple to determine how much energy is contained in a given fuel.

From these facts it's easy to show that many fuel consumption claims would require an unrealistic Carnot efficiency let alone mechanical efficiency. The results are either deliberate lies or testing errors.

Vaporising carburetors could indeed produce very lean mixtures that would not have been in combustible form if produced in crude aerosol form by a crude conventional carburettor.

Back to the original post, check out Fiat's Multi Air technology;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MultiAir

big job
04-26-2013, 07:08 AM
Then as Saltmine said, then version #2 an 85hp v8 36 Ford that did achive
100 mpg I read that in late 1940s. end result inventer and car gone?
Then my father told me when he was a teen early 1920s this guy poured
5 gals of water added a pill and drove it up the white house steps. He said the pill was 7 common elements found roadside by anyone. My father said this was
big news in every news paper in the country. guess what another car and
inventor never found. cement shoes right by you know who

Weston Bye
04-26-2013, 07:52 AM
Haven't viewed the OP video, but here are some thoughts from my limited exposure from within the industry, having been involved in some concept development for customer requests for quotes.

Compressing a valve spring with a cam requires some horespower, but much of that horsepower is returned to the crank when the spring returns. A solenoid operated valve still compresses the spring, using electrical power, but then when the solenoid is de-energized, the stored power in the spring and the stored magnetic field in the solenoid is usually lost unless some sort of electrical power recovery circuit is used. The same may hold true for a hydraulically actuated valve.

The benefits of the variable valve timing must first overcome these actuating system losses before going on to deliver inproved fuel economy.

Then, there is the cost and reliability of an increasingly complex system to consider.

At one time, fuel injection was a novelty...

saltmine
04-26-2013, 09:46 AM
That's true, Weston. Of course, along that same line.....The engine the Wright Brothers used to power their historic Wright Flyer didn't even have a carburetor. Not only did it not have a carburetor, but the whole engine was made out of <gasp!> aluminum. In order to deliver a usable fuel & air mixture to the cylinders, there was a pan under the intake port of the engine. Gasoline was fed through a calibrated drip system to keep enough gas in the pan to cover the bottom. As it evaporated, the engine sucked the mixture into the cylinders past a set of valves and weak valve springs, which engine vacuum pulled open, during the intake stroke. The engine was said to produce 25 horsepower and it only ran at one RPM. Interestingly enough, the exhaust valves were timed and opened by a camshaft.

Having been in the automotive business going on 50 years, that's one of the hardest things to get through today's kids. There is only so much energy in a pound of gasoline. And efficiency is based on how well it's mixed with air and delivered to the combustion chambers. I think some of the car manufacturers, in their rush to build engines with multiple overhead camshafts and as many valves per cylinder as they can stuff in there, are overlooking the power it takes to turn all of those camshafts and open & close all of those valves.
And then you have the added complexity of variable cam timing and tons of moving parts thrashing around on these engines. They would have to fall into the realm of overunity to justify all of the clockwork, in my opinion. The other thing several manufacturers are doing wrong is using the wrong tools for the job.. If you want to run 250 mph at Indianapolis on methanol, you need an engine with lots of cams, cam phasers, and valves whirring and chattering away at 15,000 rpm's. BUT, if you intend to run an economy car down the road, to the grocery store and to & from work, seldom turning the engine more than 3000 rpm's.....You only need one camshaft, two valves per cylinder, and fixed cam timing. Not only will it get the job done, but fewer moving parts means fewer things to wear out and break. And then there's friction losses....

A.K. Boomer
04-26-2013, 09:49 AM
The guys getting a little carried away with his specs, there are gains to be had but not the type of numbers he's crunching... esp. in comparison to today's VVT's and such.

I almost did not watch it due to his description of a broom pushing all the valves in a typical engine simultaneously - you know there are ways of getting the general public to understand things they don't know much about without being incorrect about it and making a fool of yourself...


anyways, like many stated the system has been around for many decades and in all types of forms and I believe an electronic solenoid version has even been used in formula 1 although that might have been just solenoid over spring...


Wes I hear what your saying about power recovery with a conventional engines Cams although there are losses due to friction and also just plain bending and heating metal (the valve spring) not to mention the closer you get to shift point and the valves "floating" the more this effect diminishes due to it then having to deal with the valves inertia...

Also - the guy in the Vid said the system could be used up against springing OR the same system bringing the valve back to it's seat in which case the latter would eliminate the type of waste in non-recovery due to the opening not having to go up against anything but inertia....


Now - he did state another great advantage and that is the "square" profile of the opening and closing of the valve - this does equate to huge flow gains and therefore HP gains along with it, but if just doing this with a valve still "in the way" has this kind of results then imagine what a port would be like, and with no HP robbing inertia's to worry about - unlimited RPM's and copious amounts of flow... and variable port timing could be handled with just a simply hydraulic chain tensioner...

it's been about 30 years since I built my P.A.C. or Port Aspiration Concept... Just a stupid kid with some great idea's...

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r249/AK_Boomer/P.jpg (http://s146.photobucket.com/user/AK_Boomer/media/P.jpg.html)

Lew Hartswick
04-26-2013, 09:49 AM
Why do some video makers just have to put a music track on videos,I always find the dialog less easy to follow and invariably get fed up and stop watching it.

Allan
It isn't only "inventors" it's the entire society. :-( The stupid TV stations do
it to interviews and even some news programs to the point I can't understand what
the whole talk is about. :-(
...lew...

browne92
04-26-2013, 10:13 AM
As others have pointed out, there is only so much energy in a gallon of gas. When that energy is released, it is turned into two forms of energy: mechanical and heat. The heat is thrown away through the tailpipe and radiator, the mechanical moves the car. I think that the technology has gotten about as far as it can go using the mechanical part of it. Next step is to either reclaim the heat energy and turn it into mechanical energy somehow, or invent a cold burning gas :confused:

From what I understand, the guys in F1 use a cam to open the valves and compressed air to close them. Springs just aren't fast enough. I don't know if they've tried any electrical or hydraulicly actuated valves, or if the rule book even allows it.

mrriggs
04-26-2013, 10:20 AM
I remember reading about a valve train system like this in Popular Mechanics 20 years ago. Engine developers were using it to simulate various cam profiles for dyno testing. Being able to change cam profiles on-the-fly sped up the R&D process. The author mentioned the theoretical benefits of using it on a road car but said that the durability and power requirements of the system made it impractical.

Jaakko Fagerlund
04-26-2013, 05:29 PM
Then as Saltmine said, then version #2 an 85hp v8 36 Ford that did achive
100 mpg I read that in late 1940s. end result inventer and car gone?
Then my father told me when he was a teen early 1920s this guy poured
5 gals of water added a pill and drove it up the white house steps. He said the pill was 7 common elements found roadside by anyone. My father said this was
big news in every news paper in the country. guess what another car and
inventor never found. cement shoes right by you know who
F***ing bullsh*t, hoaxes have ben as long as there has been gullible investors.

A.K. Boomer
04-26-2013, 07:09 PM
hah agree'd the reason they were never found again is because they melted a hole in one of their pistons on the bad side of town...

saltmine
04-26-2013, 08:13 PM
On the subject of people putting a musical sound track to their videos.....I probably wouldn't mind the music, but most of them have lousy taste in music and inevitably, they play it too loud, and it drowns out the sound and speech. More than once, I've canceled a video when the music gets too loud, and usually has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the video.

Reminds me of an old cartoon character making a video of the fragile beauty of our National Parks, and backing the vid with march music by John Phillip Sousa.

http://i643.photobucket.com/albums/uu155/saltmine_album/knucklehead_zps1a4cbb60.jpg (http://s643.photobucket.com/user/saltmine_album/media/knucklehead_zps1a4cbb60.jpg.html)

http://i643.photobucket.com/albums/uu155/saltmine_album/DSCN0893_zpscf64f7b4.jpg (http://s643.photobucket.com/user/saltmine_album/media/DSCN0893_zpscf64f7b4.jpg.html) One from my collection of unusual engines.

TGTool
04-26-2013, 08:27 PM
it's been about 30 years since I built my P.A.C. or Port Aspiration Concept... Just a stupid kid with some great idea's...



Too bad you were just too far ahead of the curve. With Youtube, a video and some nice music you could have comepted with these guys and had investors climbing all over you. :)