16  comments

add a commentJump to comment form

Neil Lizotte

Mar 26, 2016
01:09

Member


1 |

I think what you are talking about has already been invented, it's called the Cyclone Waste Heat Engine great idea

Video : https://youtu.be/Ksg-J7IhxUM


Francois Allard

Apr 6, 2016
11:08

Member


2 |

At the end of the cyclone video, they claim the lawnmower engine will be "somewhere between gas and diesel efficiency".  That's not a large reduction in CO2 emissions if it works as hoped.  Plus, the cyclone engine was purpose built, not a refit.

 


Kevin Vonmoses

Apr 9, 2016
06:44

Member


3 |
Proposal
creator

My proposal is based on a history of evolutions from design to design...

I began trying to improve chassis performance by creating a interface between the power and the load, and it occurred to me that the vehicle can only be as efficient as the conversion from the fuel stock to the actual work ...

If the cyclone is no more efficient, (fuel flow vs work done) what is in it for a manufacturer?

I have to tell you I built a running, but not chassis worthy prototype to prove the idea using a one liter block and diesel injectors. I heated the block and used the stock Pistons so it would be a two stroke rather than the proposed one stroke, but it proved the concept and the math at just under 35% efficiency, or almost 5 times as efficient as an ICE.

THAT is what separates my design from the Cyclone. The other is that it has a flat torque curve from any RPM, which means the manufacturer can go from five to eleven speed transmissions to a two speed and save a ton of money...

In the end, it is all about the bucks...

Let me tell you how I came to the offered proposal:

I was a private pilot and noticed the pall that rose up to about 3,500 around most cities in the mid 70's, and by 1985 that pall extended from Tulsa to Dallas.

About that same time GM came out with their first electric car...  I had a friend at GM, (now retired) that got me into see the Volt design before it had a body on it, and by that time I had gotten involved in the math/physics of drive trains.

I was Blessed to have no particular dog in the hunt, and so I looked at the impact of millions of tons of batteries from cradle to grave and the shifting of pollution from tailpipes to smokestacks with no real change in the sheer VOLUME of pollution.

That lead me to examine the EFFICIENCY of power Production vs power Consumption and concluded that the best car available was only 6% Efficient...

Two things should be obvious about my proposal: The first is that it took 33 years of evolutionary development to come up with the design.

The second is that whoever jumps in and spends the $100k is going to rule the world for the first year of production, the license it to everyone else, making it a money maker for the owner rather than a Public dollar parasite.00k is going to rule the world for the first year of production, the license it to everyone else, making it a money maker for the owner rather than a Public dollar parasite.

Unless a technology can stand on it's own merits, the Environmentalist Community needs to get their hands out of the Public's pockets...

Support my proposal and find someone who is serious about having global impact, not rave and protest...Be sure to 'login' by FaceBook link to register you vote...

 


Jeff Harti

Apr 14, 2016
12:11

Fellow


4 |

Hi Kevin, 

Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed proposal. 

Regards, 

Jeff


Kevin Vonmoses

Apr 18, 2016
01:46

Member


5 |
Proposal
creator

'Out Numbered' on Fox is talking with Utah Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R) about American energy independence, and I have been saying all along that taking away the Middle East's financial ability to wage war is vital to regional and global stability.

My approach is to reduce the demand and therefore the 'value' of oil by improving the efficiency of cars and trucks rather than 'negotiating' the value of oil.

If you agree, support my proposal at Massachusetts Institute of Technology competition and don't forget to validate your 'vote'...

http://climatecolab.org/contests/2016/transportation/c/proposal/1328901


Kevin Vonmoses

May 5, 2016
01:16

Member


6 |
Proposal
creator

No matter what ICE they install, the best they could do is MAYBE 8% true efficiency.Look at fuel flow, (Btu/minute) and Work in HP, (41.42 Btu/hp) and get the real picture...  Brute hp is just ramming in more fuel and air, not an improvement in efficiency.

Think on this:One stroke in four is a power stroke, (25%) only half of that power stroke is at a crank angle that has the crankshaft throw where the piston is pushing down more than sideways, (half of 25% or 12 1/2%) and the piston in an ICE is only present at a single RPM that allows complete combustion of the charge, either not having enough time or having too much time...  Given multiple gears to get this close, I'll give them 65% of the time being at near the correct RPM, we are talking 8.1% efficiency...

My motor from the same block, I make a power stroke with every Stroke and the simple math says I get 70.1% efficiency and the fuel burn is not dependent on timing...

A hybrid is only as efficient as the engine burning the fuel, so while allowing the engine to run ONLY at the ideal RPM, the BEST it can achieve is 12 1/2% again with RMS applied, or 8.8% efficient... Call that 1/8th of my efficiency.So 36mpg SHOULD be 288mpg.

A 5 cylinder would have more overlapping degrees of power stroke, using less fuel...  However the L3 is cheaper to produce.  I can jack up the temperature to get STELLAR cylinder pressures, call that a maximum of 800hp on 1 liter if the components could stand the loads imposed...

Bear in mind my motor uses a single moving part for all the cylinders in a bank, so it is cheaper to produce that the intricate multivalve ICE engines.

Couple that with the same torque at any RPM and the transmission is cut from 8 speeds to perhaps 2, saving a ton of money on the most expensive component in the chassis.

http://climatecolab.org/contests/2016/transportation/c/proposal/1328901


Parag Gupta

May 19, 2016
11:24

Fellow


7 |

Hello!  I'm Parag Gupta, an MIT Climate CoLab Catalyst.  I very much enjoyed reading your proposal and think that you have addressed the novelty element questioned by the first commenter.  I encourage you to succinctly summarize your counter argument, including your quantitative analysis and experimental results, and put those back in the proposal somehow.  Perhaps you could say that something related has been considered but then add in the details in these comments to the main body of the text immediately after summarizing the current state of the field in that sub-area.  Good luck!


Kevin Vonmoses

May 23, 2016
12:58

Member


8 |
Proposal
creator

Parag Gupta,

There is no room for further editing, so I have tried to add notes here....  Quite frankly I do not see any of the other offerings as practical or functional without exorbitant infrastructure investment, no value added to make them attractive to the public without extraordinary social behavioral change and no application to commercial goods transportation or rural environments.

Most of the other proposals aren't even complete.

Give me a stage, a white board and an audience that has the facility to build the engine, and in an hour I can explain the features and differences it will make in the average person's life, here in the US and abroad.


Hugh Loebner

May 26, 2016
12:07

Member


9 |

You wrote "Whoa, y'all" in the comments to my roller coaster proposal .

Ok, let's consider "whoa," ie  braking. What happens to the kinetic energy of the moving car when someone needs to stop it? Were does the energy go? Is it captured? How have you factored this into your proposal?

 


Kevin Vonmoses

May 27, 2016
01:03

Member


10 |
Proposal
creator

People think that the energy to drive something can magically be re-captured without losses or expense... At each 'addition' pricing a car out of the range the average person can afford. a chassis with all this crap in it cost four times what a comparable chassis does and only appeals to the elitist snobs: Compare the Chevy Volt and the Chevy Cruize...  What about the rest of us poor mokes?

Throw in the less than 20% possible recovery and the weight and complexity of the tecnology required for 'recovering' the energy and it isn't worth attempting.  If a technology needs a subsidy, it is someone's wet dream.

My persistent question remains for all you 'the government has deep pockets' types is, "who pays for it?". Bear in mind that for the government to have it, they had to steal it from you first...


Hugh Loebner

May 28, 2016
08:27

Member


11 |

Roll uphill and you "magically" capture ~99% of the kinetic energy as potential gravitational energy with no cost or any mechanism.

Gravity - it's not just a good idea it's the law

 

 


Kevin Vonmoses

Jun 13, 2016
01:28

Member


12 |
Proposal
creator

Okay, what are '...barriers to uptake...'?  You mean Who might oppose it?

Easy one: The Saudi's who would lose a significant price lever, (brute consumption) of their only product, the Utilities, who see and support the nearly religious fanaticism and fervor for electric cars, themselves being in a position to become a sole source provider to a $9 TRILLION dollar market.

Bear in mind that I got into this 'business' in 1985 because of the Chevy EV-1...  I knew then that the power density of batteries is not high enough to provide more than an urban solution, AND the environmental damage of producing and disposing of the batteries, regardless of type, would would be monumental. Consider that only two States have mandated a 2% fleet for manufacturers, look at the present disposal impact and multiply that by whatever factor your imagination can carry you to. 

The Manufacturers have sidestepped this by producing 'hybrid' cars, a platform my design could satisfy as well. The 'proof in the pudding' comes from the people that make a living on the road: Truckers.

The Diesel/Electric locomotive replaced the Steam Engined locomotive because the technology to close the steam cycle didn't exist requiring water stops and the tremendous expense of maintaining a boiler simply became cost prohibitive. So why isn't that same Diesel/Electric and traction motor technology used in Class 'A' trucks on the open road?

My design has no boiler, condensing and re-circulating the water to the cylinder injectors. The power of steam without the consumption of water and the risks of a boiler.

Everyone has a 'favorite' fuel...  Mine is Alcohol.  Not the potable type. When you consider that it can be made from ANY biomass that can ferment, from grass clipping to water reclamation plant sludge and can be produced with sunlight, it is truly 'renewable'.  The difficulty comes back to power density of the fuel: Commonly used Gasoline has 123,000 Btu's per gallon where Alcohol has 85,000 Btu's per gallon. In the same engine, to get the same work done, (Miles per gallon) it would take nearly twice as much Alcohol.  At present day demand, the production of Alcohol cannot keep up. Alcohol becomes a viable fuel stock when the demand is cut by 90%.

A farmer in Zimbabwe can make fuel using a solar still, (Mother Earth News circa 1960's) and the silage from his crops.  My personal opinion is that it was the Model 'T' Ford that got farmer's produce to market and expanded to every industry in the 1910' and 1920's, ALL fueled on 'moonshine',  (because there were no 'gas stations') that powered the economic growth in America.

My design is NOT fuel specific. It can use any fuel stock available, without the combustion mechanics having to obey a timed cycle as in an Internal Combustion Engine. The combustion is complete, producing much less of total combustion products and NONE of the byproducts of incomplete combustion found in ICE's.


Parag Gupta

Jun 15, 2016
08:00

Fellow


13 |

Hello!  It's Parag Gupta again, an MIT Climate CoLab Catalyst.  I have reviewed your materials again and am glad that you addressed some of the points I made in my comments.  Good luck moving forward!


Kevin Vonmoses

Jun 15, 2016
03:54

Member


14 |
Proposal
creator

Beginning with a known short block, build a head that has the double acting pistons, valve as described and burner to heat the head.  Using available direct injection injectors from a gasoline engine and a reprogrammed Engine Control Module from a vehicle using these injectors.

Injectors are available that have the capacity to meter the injection of water at the minimum volume from .003 grams to 12.7 grams allowing the pressure applied to the pistons to be controlled from idle to full power as indicated by the a Steam Pressure table.

The burner is estimated to be capable of maintaining the head at 400 degrees using 150,000Btus of heat for a 5,000 pound vehicle.  The burner is simply regulated by thermostatic control and cycles proportionally to add heat as the volume of water is applied to provide the demanded power.

A mathematical model indicates that the average duty cycle of the burner would be approximately 4% of a 530 CFM maximum fuel/air flow at 150,000 Btu.

The burner output maximum Btu delivery is determined by the maximum speed and weight of the vehicle and changes as the demand changes...  The larger the vehicle the higher the Btu demand is.

Testing could be on a dynomometer, but to verify it's function and make it attractive to bidders, I would recommend a chassis to be selected and powered as final proof of function.

I would suggest selling the developed engine to the highest bidder. The concept in terms of it's Intellectual Property protection is copyrighted, and the ultimate execution as a Patent would be the property of the winning bidder.


Kevin Vonmoses

Jul 6, 2016
05:41

Member


15 |
Proposal
creator

It is incorrect to state that efficiency of ICE is 6.5%. Diesel and Atkinson cycle gasoline engines exceed 40% efficiency at the drive train. Electric vehicles exceed 70% when powered by RE. While the idea is interesting, even if it marginally improves on these values, it would require additional weight to carry the water and the heat exchangers for energy recovery at the exhaust. Most importantly, it still relies on energy-dense liquid fuels.

Actually, your statement that an ICE is 40% efficient is wrong,,,  You do the 'math': My 2006 Nissan pick-up gets 20mpg on an average chassis demand horsepower of 7.02hp. Per the DOT the average speed of a chassis is 32 MPH that both defines the duration of the fuel consumption and the chassis Horsepower Work. That would be 37.5 minutes at 41.42 Btu/HP or 10910.82 Btu's of work while consuming 123253 Btu's of fuel. That is 8.85% Efficiency.

If you had said from the onset that this Proposal was limited to Electric Vehicles or Public Transportation your prejudice against portable fuels would have been out in the open.

As it turns out, this 'contest' was bereft of qualified evaluation as you obviously can't evaluate efficiency by common Common Denominator work/source calculation and as stated, the prejudice limiting what would be considered is simply intellectually dishonest.


Annalyn Bachmann

Jul 8, 2016
02:28

Staff


16 |

Comments from proposal author posted to discussion board: 

Your response demonstrates that you had a predisposition averse to liquid/portable fuels and that you failed to either read or understand the responses I provided. I would like to think you were simply lazy, but in your capacity this was nothing short of intellectual dishonesty. Shame on all of you. -- original message begin -- Proposal: External Combustion, Closed loop Steam Engine Contest: Transportation 2016 Thank you for your contest entry. We appreciate your willingness to share your ideas and also the time and effort you put into developing a proposal and submitting it to the contest. We, the Judges, have strongly considered your proposal and found that it contained intriguing elements; however, have chosen to not advance it to the next round of competition. The results of our ratings and additional feedback, if any, will be posted to the “Evaluation Results” section of your proposal. We encourage you to keep developing your proposal. Transfer it to a Workspace to re-open it, make edits, add collaborators, and even submit it into a future contest. You can do so by logging into your account, opening your proposal, selecting the Admin tab, and clicking “Move proposal." We welcome you to stay involved in the Climate CoLab community: support and comment on proposals that have been named Finalists, and vote during the public voting period to help select the contest’s Popular Choice Winner. Climate CoLab will be opening more contests throughout the year and you are welcome to submit your proposal to those contests as well. Keep up the great work. We hope that by working together, we all can create solutions that wouldn’t otherwise be possible. Sincerely, Contest Judges Note: The decisions of the Judges are final. If you have questions, please contact the Climate CoLab staff admin@climatecolab.org. If there are additional comments from the Judges, they will be included below. It is incorrect to state that efficiency of ICE is 6.5%. Diesel and Atkinson cycle gasoline engines exceed 40% efficiency at the drive train. Electric vehicles exceed 70% when powered by RE. While the idea is interesting, even if it marginally improves on these values, it would require additional weight to carry the water and the heat exchangers for energy recovery at the exhaust. Most importantly, it still relies on energy-dense liquid fuels. -- original message end --

It is incorrect to state that efficiency of ICE is 6.5%. Diesel and Atkinson cycle gasoline engines exceed 40% efficiency at the drive train. Electric vehicles exceed 70% when powered by RE. While the idea is interesting, even if it marginally improves on these values, it would require additional weight to carry the water and the heat exchangers for energy recovery at the exhaust. Most importantly, it still relies on energy-dense liquid fuels. Actually, your statement that an ICE is 40% efficient is wrong,,, You do the 'math': My 2006 Nissan pick-up gets 20mpg on an average chassis demand horsepower of 7.02hp. Per the DOT the average speed of a chassis is 32 MPH that both defines the duration of the fuel consumption and the chassis Horsepower Work. That would be 37.5 minutes at 41.42 Btu/HP or 10910.82 Btu's of work while consuming 123253 Btu's of fuel. That is 8.85% Efficiency. If you had said from the onset that this Proposal was limited to Electric Vehicles or Public Transportation your prejudice against portable fuels would have been out in the open. As it turns out, this 'contest' was bereft of qualified evaluation as you obviously can't evaluate efficiency by common Common Denominator work/source calculation and as stated, the prejudice limiting what would be considered is simply intellectually dishonest.

ADD YOUR COMMENT
You must be logged into your account to post a comment.

Add Comment