Skip navigation

Please find below the judging results for your proposal.

Finalist Evaluation

Judges'' comments


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.

Semi-Finalist Evaluation

Judges'' ratings


Novelty:
Feasibility:
Impact:
Presentation:

Judges'' comments


Thank you for your submission to the Climate CoLab.

The Judges were intrigued by your proposal, and would felt that increasing the efficiency of vehicle engines could make a significant impact.

They felt the proposal could be better elaborated, including the details of the performance of your prototype. They would like to see more detail on the modifications needed to an existing vehicle, given that your proposal is to retrofit existing vehicles. Additionally they would like to see you address barriers to uptake. They would also like to see the material in the references section at the end moved to the body of the proposal.

4comments
Share conversation: Share via:

Kevin Vonmoses

Jun 7, 2016
04:34

Member


1 |
Share via:
Proposal
creator

The comment  response failed, so I am trying this again...

Thank you for your further consideration of my proposal.I think there might be a couple of misconceptions in your comments that can be addressed immediately allow room for subsequent answers to your concerns.

"They felt the proposal could be better elaborated, including the details of the performance of your prototype..."

The original modified engine(s) were 993cc Geo Metro three cylinder engines recovered from a junk yard.

The only modifications were to:

Remove the lands between the piston rings and 'stack' stock rings, (three) in the widened groove and pin them so they could not rotate and align; The adaptation and installation of a Carlin 201 Natural Gas burner at what was the water pump housing to use the water jackets as a heating chamber. (technical specifications for that burner:  http://carlincombustion.com/gas-oil-burner-products/burners/commercial-burners-gas-fired/201-gas-burner/ ); Replacing the head with one that had a port for each cylinder to return the steam to a radiator to recover steam condensate controlled by a single rotating valve driven by the crankshaft at half crankshaft RPM with apertures that would align on the upstroke of the piston on it's return to Top Dead Center. Water injection was by three peizo-electric Diesel injectors, (also recovered from a junk yard) that by adapting a standard Engine Control Unit controlled the volume of the injected water at Top Dead Center.

The result was that as a two-stroke 'proof of concept', the first block reached equilibrium between the water and heat source at 282hp from a block originally installed at 55hp.

This block is a hybrid with steel bores and an aluminum block, and when stable ran for about ten minutes to verify power production, but I knew that it would destroy itself in continuous use at this power setting, so I reduced the water injection rate to the minimum the injectors could deliver, and the power reduced to approximately 20hp, (too high a power production to 'idle' in a chassis). The burner began to cycle as anticipated, the mass of the block sustaining the power production while the temperature dropped from the preset 400 degrees to 390 degrees as measured at the outlet of the condensate port.

The duty cycle of the burner was approximately 7% of the full power capacity, or 4 seconds 'on' for every 60 seconds running.The 'efficiency' was taken to be the Horsepower as measured on the dynomometer converted to a Btu equivalent versus the Btu's of heat provided by the burner, and regardless of the power delivered was calculated to be 34.6 percent. In the full execution, this would double.

The hybrid nature of the block with differing expansion and contractions of the materials as the heat cycled on and off caused the block to deteriorate after about an hour of running, losing oil pressure. 

The next question in my mind was, "How much power will a 110 pound block at 400 degrees deliver for acceleration?".  The heat source could not possibly deliver heat instantaneously, so what was the 'recovery' rate, how many accelerations could the block provide before there was a decay in performance?As a 'two stroke', I doubled the power available from 55hp to 110hp and the block appeared to have no limit of accelerations at 110hp, (did 20 or more, one right after the other, more than normal city driving).

Before the block could decay, at the end of the acceleration cyclic test, I simply slammed the injectors wide open with the block at a stable 400 degrees, and the dynomometer spiked to 630hp at which time the motor 'grenaded', concluding any further testing.

"...They would like to see more detail on the modifications needed to an existing vehicle, given that your proposal is to retrofit existing vehicles..."

While there may be a limited market for retrofitting existing vehicles, the real thrust is to build and test the proposed version, either on a Dyno or in a chassis and simply auction it off to the highest bidder, meaning the Auto manufacturers.

There was a time when engines were unique and proprietary to a specific manufacturer, but that is no longer true: If you purchase a Toyota FRS, the engine is the same engine found in the Subaru WRX.

That being said, whoever bids successfully for this design will market the rights to it to every other manufacturer and recover whatever they bid for it multiple times over.

Given the recognition and prestige MIT holds, if this were a 'product' of their Engineering School with little promotion, the amount to for successful bid would be 'stellar'.  Given the world wide automotive industry as more than 9 Trillion dollars a year in revenues enjoying a 2.5% growth rate, you can only imagine the 'value' of a successful design tested and made available.

Bear in mind that the 'Reference' material is a copywrited Monograph, the establishment of the intellectual property date is irrefutable with no expiration. The Patent, however was intentionally not applied for, as it is finite and SHOULD belong to the highest bidder, making 'their' product marketable.

"...Additionally they would like to see you address barriers to uptake..."

"...They would also like to see the material in the references section at the end moved to the body of the proposal..."

I think the last two are answered, but I am out of time to provide more of a response at this time, as I have to get ready for work.

I will add a response as to what block to use as a fully executed test 'mule' and why in a subsequent posting. There are many details to be addressed in the 'mule' that I knew of, but didn't bother with in the proof of concept testing.

Once again, Thank you for your further consideration,

Kevin


Kevin Vonmoses

Jun 8, 2016
01:42

Member


2 |
Share via:
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 recirculating 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.Thank You,Kevin


Kevin Vonmoses

Jun 15, 2016
03:11

Member


3 |
Share via:
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
05:51

Member


4 |
Share via:
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.