[Graeme]

Gun Engine Explodes Fuel Efficiency

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')y gun-engine has many things in common with a traditional engine, (induction and exhaust evacuation valves, crankshaft, etc.) yet it is different since it explodes fuel; traditional engines cannot withstand the explosions. The key point of difference is that the explosions of fuel vapor pre-mixed with air (homogeneous fuel) do not act on the primary piston that produces work, but rather on an additional piston that floats on a compressible air pocket. This arrangement introduces certain delaying of pressure building over the primary piston that produces work. This provides the important opportunity to improve torque up to 70 to 90 times without fuel consumption increase.

Also, the arrangement changed torque vs. Speed, and power vs. speed characteristics. The torque is independent of speed, and power is in proportion to speed, which eliminates the need to use transmission or reduction gears. In addition, this new arrangement eliminates the need for advancing the ignition, which is responsible for related parasitic torque in every traditional engine. Therefore the arrangement also allows development of transmission-free gadgetry such as cars and trucks.

[Curmudgicus]

Trying to use detonation instead of deflagration is something that jet engine manufacturers are working on right now. I hadn't heard that anyone was doing the same for automotive engines.

I can't really find much on it by googling. Do you have a web address that discusses the prototype?

[EnergyHog]

Sounds like the only way we'll know if this thing works is if this inventor "mysteriously" disappears.

[Frank]

Why hasn't he built one?

[Aimrehtopyh]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Frank', 'W')hy hasn't he built one?

[pilferage]

Ditto. Heck, there are plenty of able machinists who'd love to put together a prototype.

[MyOtherID]

"Hydrogen generation from water that uses solar panel for electrolysis enhances the mileage above 400 miles/gallon during sunny periods, since the vehicle fuels itself with hydrogen and that costs nothing" (Kazimierz Holubowicz, 2006)

So beautiful if true. Dear Beelzebub, let it be true.

[gg3]

This is one of the few Wild Ideas I've seen recently that actually seems promising. And it's all straight-up Newtonian physics, so it should be possible to build a prototype to the designer's specs.

This guy has apparently been talking with big companies that want exclusive worldwide rights, which he's not willing to give away. The best approach would be to get smaller companies into the picture, companies that will only gain if they have licenses for the technology, even if not exclusive. One way to do this might be to segment it by market and by geography. This is where a good attorney can make all the difference: negotiations, terms, etc.

Something to keep an eye on...

[DR_STU]

The inventor wrote a short paper that explains some of the calculations related to the theoretical gain in efficiency. Although not a principle component to use of his engine, he suggests that a transmission is not necessary because torque is less dependent on speed. This may be true, but the need for a transmission would also depend on the operating rpm range for the engine relative to the range you need at the wheels.

An interesting concept though.

[willjones4]

If this is true (and it appears it may be), and if the corps will let him maintain control some sort of way and they can get this going within say 5 years, how much would it help?

[gg3]

Anything that helps, helps. Nothing less than everything is truly sufficient.

[Frank]

Sorry folks, his "paper" is loaded with errors, everything from transmission efficiency to diesel compression ratio to his understanding of conventional spark-ignition engines. Just how does he intend to make gasoline or any other fuel burn quicker than it does already??? He makes assumptions about things then uses those assumptions to "prove" that traditional engines are lousy by design and that his design is superior.

My earlier comment about building one didn't mean that he had to personally construct an engine - just that it might improve his bargaining power if he could somehow demonstrate the effectiveness of his design.

I've been wrong before ( ) - and wouldn't mind being proven wrong again. But I doubt we'll ever see anything develop from this idea.

[OilsNotWell]

I was intrigued by this, so I did a little research.

Apparently, he states that he HAS built a prototype, but that it was destroyed due to the tremendous torque.

And, in reading through some statements by him, I noticed one GLARING misunderstanding by him:

That he is worried we will 'use up' all the hydrogen in the world like we are doing for fossil fuels, of course failing to understand the basic tenet that hydrogen exists in many states, natural and otherwise, and we could not ever conceivably ever 'run out' of hydrogen in the known universe. Also, he fails to understand that hydrogen is an energy carrier, not an energy source.

It looks like he maintains a 'wiki' page, and has contact info in case anyone is interested...

See these links:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')
PESN Gun Engine Interview

Gun Engine Explodes Fuel Efficiency
Bon Kulman interviews Kazimierz Holubowicz, inventor of the gun engine, which was designed with the objective of increasing engine efficiency from 20% to much more than that.

by Bon Kulman
for Pure Energy Systems News

[Daculling]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilsNotWell', '
')For those who think this is a 'detonation' engine, it really isn't in the sense I think some mean it. A more accurate analogy would be a 'gun barrel' engine in which the fuel explodes and the heat energy is allowed more fully to transfer to mechanical energy by the use of an alternative 'cylinder'

[truecougarblue]

FWIW I think Frank is right. Unless this thing is running on hydrogen in liquid or slush state or maybe nitroglycerin you are not going to be able to create additional explosive force.

There is only a certain amount of energy available in any fuel by the pound, anyone who claims greater efficiency can only prove said claims on a dynamometer, anyone who claims more work/gallon than the said fuel contains in BTU is fooling himself.

[eric_b]

After skimming this article I find myself agreeing with the skeptics.

How is this 'gun' engine any different than an normal IC engine -
which is essentially a gun design to explode a piston in a cyclinder.