[invest_in_politics]

The recent paper by Tinker ( http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/er.1312 ) suggests that internal combustion engines may be simply modified to achieve substantial efficiency gains. If the projection of this paper is accurate, then it is possible that petroleum sales could plummet by 30%. What effect would this have on financial markets, oil-rich countries, and geopolitical stability (given Russia's economic dependence on oil sales)?

IIP

[invest_in_politics]

I've posted in a couple of forums on the paper by Tinker ( http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/er.1312 ). This paper suggests that substantial efficiency gains (30%) can be easily realized in internal combustion engines. I was wondering if the patents on such technology would be honored by foreign countries considering the enormous economic, political, and security threat it would pose.

IIP

[invest_in_politics]

A recently published paper by Tinker ( http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/er.1312 ) seems to be a breakthrough in thermodynamics. It suggests that internal combustion engines can achieve substantial gains in efficiency (30%) with simple modifications.

IIP

[jbeckton]

No breakthrough, we have had the ability to improve the efficiency of the ICE for a long time (heat from the block and exhaust are wasted at 74%, friction only accounts for 6%). Its far too late in the game to make a difference now.

[invest_in_politics]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', 'N')o breakthrough, we have had the ability to improve the efficiency of the ICE for a long time (heat from the block and exhaust are wasted at 74%, friction only accounts for 6%). Its far too late in the game to make a difference now.

[jbeckton]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('invest_in_politics', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', 'N')o breakthrough, we have had the ability to improve the efficiency of the ICE for a long time (heat from the block and exhaust are wasted at 74%, friction only accounts for 6%). Its far too late in the game to make a difference now.

[steam_cannon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('clickpress', 'I')f true, such modifications would equate to thermodynamic, or indicated, efficiencies of approximately 50% compared with the 30% efficiencies currently achievable in ICE engines."
http://www.clickpress.com/releases/Deta ... 05cp.shtml

[invest_in_politics]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', '[')b] Most engine manufacturers have done little to harness this wasted energy, though there are various add on devices and systems that are known to greatly improve combustion efficiency and recover wasted energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_combustion_engine

We have already used up too much oil, we don't have time to develop and implement new technology on a large scale. Like I said............too late.

[invest_in_politics]

Hmm...50% instead of 30% is a (50-30)/30 or 2/3 or 67% efficiency gain. Not 10% or 20%.

IIP

[pup55]

I have some experience with this.

A lot of nations with commercial trading relationships with the US have agreed to honor US patents and also copyrights. the EU is pretty good about honoring US intellectual property.

However, a lot of other nations do not get too excited about enforcement, so ripoff stuff is common, hence "pirate" videos in certain really large Asian countries, etc. In fact, counterfeit auto parts are not at all unusual.

Most people that are serious about patenting some invention do it in the US and also in Europe, for good measure.

Getting a patent is really easy. Your ability to enforce the patent is really difficult. If someone rips off your idea and mass produces it, you have to track them down, sue them, and then collect the money they owe you. If the someone is, for example, GM or Toyota, you have to be able to have enough resources behind you to fight against a big team of lawyers, in some far off place, and make it stick. This will cost you loads of money, time, effort, and you still have to convince a jury that they did not change it just enough so that they are not infringing on your idea.

The classic example of this is the guy that invented the "ratcheting" socket wrench, and who Sears summarily ripped off. Eventually, in 1989, he finally was awarded some money.

NY Times

This being the case, people use patents all the time to misdirect their competitors, enhance their position in the marketplace, or do some other mischeif. You can patent anything you want, and do not even have to have a working prototype, so it is not at all uncommon for people to load patents up with spurious claims, or inventions that are just plain non-functional, or so vague that it is questionably enforceable. But it enhances the value of your business if you own a few patents, so this is a pretty common practice for someone who might want to sell a business, for example.

This is probably the case with the character in this case. After reading the abstract, frankly, there is some question in my mind as to whether or not he knows exactly what the hell he is talking about. I am not a physicist, but I do not understand it. Most "real" patents do not have a lot of double talk.

The best way to commercialize some gadget that improves some aspect of product performance is to find some small, aggressive competitor to the monolithic company. The ideal candidate would be big enough to bring the product to market, but small enough so that if you had to sue them you could. You negotiate some licensing/royalty fee, turn the idea over to them for refinement and production. You are happy, they are happy, and you can go up against the giant companies with a little more weight on your side.

[Gazzatrone]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('invest_in_politics', 'A')gain, preposterous. The Wiki author comes up with an energy balance of work, heat, and friction of 100% and then states that one can "greatly improve combustion efficiency". Let's see what portion of the 100% is he not getting now? Sounds like an "over unity" statement to me.

IIP

[ohanian]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', 'M')ost internal combustion engines waste about 36% of the energy in gasoline as heat lost to the cooling system and another 38% through the exhaust. The rest is lost to friction, about 6%. Most engine manufacturers have done little to harness this wasted energy, though there are various add on devices and systems that are known to greatly improve combustion efficiency and recover wasted energy.

[jbeckton]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('invest_in_politics', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', '[')b] Most engine manufacturers have done little to harness this wasted energy, though there are various add on devices and systems that are known to greatly improve combustion efficiency and recover wasted energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_combustion_engine

We have already used up too much oil, we don't have time to develop and implement new technology on a large scale. Like I said............too late.

[invest_in_politics]

Hmm. Let me take these in order:

TOO LATE:

I infer from Dr. Tinker's paper that the modifications necessary to gain substantial increases in ICE efficiency are simple to implement...meaning that they can be realized in exisitng engine designs. I would assume from this that it would not incur an energy cost 30% that of an entire automobile.

If his theory is correct and these engines can be made 30% more efficient, then that efficiency will reduce, or eliminate, the performance issues that arise from the use of alternative fuels. Further, the use of such technology will require less fuel wether it be gasoline, diesel, ethanol, hydrogen, or any other alternative. Therefore, it is never "too late".

If the proposed modification is effective, then it can be applied to hybrid vehicles making them more efficient also. This, of course, includes hybrids powered by alternatives to petroleum-based fuel.

ENGINE WEIGHT:

Again, from the paper, it would appear that any additional engine weight would be negligible.

COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY

Tests dating back to the 50s (Caris, Kerley, etc.) show that the energy of the spent fuel of a properly tuned internal combustion engine is divided between indicated work done (which includes friction losses) and heat lost to the cooling system and heat lost through the exhaust. The energy in the fuel is almost completely released to these sinks. This was the motivation for switching from carburetors to fuel injection systems in the 80s to acheive fuel delivery equivalent to the laboratory engines of these researchers. That means that in todays fuel-injected engines there is very little energy still available in uncombusted fuel.

This is reflected in your referenced Wiki article where it states that 20% is converted to useful work, 6% to frictional losses, 36% is lost to the cooling system, and 38% to exhaust. These last two are lost AS HEAT. This means that the energy has been completely released from the fuel, since 100% of it has appeared as either heat or work. Since these are percentages, they are referenced to the energy content of the fuel, so 100% of the energy content of the fuel has been released. Again, this means that the Wiki author's statement about the existence of devices and systems that can "greatly increase" combustion efficiency are simply wrong. Combustion efficiency is essentially maximized at this point.

Now, I may "sound" unfamiliar with thermodynamics, but I am at least well enough informed on the subject to know that the second law has absolutely nothing to do with conservation of energy which is the domain of the first law. It is interesting that you bring up the subject, nowithstanding your inaccuracy in doing so, since Dr. Tinker's derivation of his theory never resorts to the use of the second law. It is, in fact, quite notable that his theory provides the most accurate reproduction of practical heat engine efficiencies to date, using only the first law. It is notable in that it has long been surmised that entropy production was a reason that attempts to increase ICE efficiency were unsuccessful. Dr. Tinker's theory provides the right answer and, in so doing, apparently eliminates the entropy production argument.

IIP

[whereagles]

An interesting gadget that attempts to get some extra horsepower from the heat in the exaust gases is the BMW turbosteamer. According to the wiki article the outcome is a 15% increase in fuel efficiency.

[dukey]

heat compression/stirling engines are vastly more efficient than any other type of combustion engine

Seen model ones working, they are quite a marvel to watch. They are like steam engines, without the steam ..

The only downside is the engines take a while to warm up before they will start going at full speed, also, it takes a while to vary the speed of them. They are not really suitable for cars, even tho i think in the 80's they tried to build a car using this concept.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n spite of these limitations, Ford, GM, and American Motors Corp. spent millions of dollars developing Stirling engines for cars, back in the 1970's. Ford even built a Stirling that could drive away from the curb (with relatively low power) twenty seconds after you turned the start key! Many prototypes were built and tested. Then oil prices came down in the 1980's, and people started to buy bigger cars. Suddenly there was no compelling reason to build an engine that was substantially more efficient than internal combustion engines, but wouldn't start instantly.

[jbeckton]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('invest_in_politics', 'H')mm. Let me take these in order:

TOO LATE:

I infer from Dr. Tinker's paper that the modifications necessary to gain substantial increases in ICE efficiency are simple to implement...meaning that they can be realized in exisitng engine designs. I would assume from this that it would not incur an energy cost 30% that of an entire automobile.

[jbeckton]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pup55', ' ')You can patent anything you want, and do not even have to have a working prototype, so it is not at all uncommon for people to load patents up with spurious claims, or inventions that are just plain non-functional, or so vague that it is questionably enforceable.

[AirlinePilot]

We have yet to reach the point where the consumer demands such efficient and performance lacking cars. When the circumstances have existed for a long enough period to "change" the consumers desires, I think we could all agree that by then we are past any point of "no return" when it comes to any economy. We will already be enduring shortages, extremely high costs, and collapsing economic activity. Due to this these "efficient engines" will likely never see the light of day, except on a purely research oreinted basis.

This is the main thing which is very very difficult for most to come to grips with. There will be no miraculous economic or scientific change which will reverse the current paradigm related to cheap oil. It just wont happen. We cannot manage our way out of this by waiting for the crisis to engulf us. By then it's defacto too late. Its probably too late at this point now. Ask yourself what are we doing to mitigate anything related to PO?

I find it rather obvious that in order to move towards some new energy paradigm, we must have viable, healthy world economies. Without this we will never bridge any gap created by skyrocketing energy and living costs. We'll enter a death spiral from which we wont be able to recover. Some of us think we are very close to the brink right now. Many do not.

Only history will prove one way or another.

[smiley]

You know the model-T has the same fuel efficiency as the average Ford on the road today.

More efficient engines are possible. Energy storage, waste heat conversion, hybrid engines, low friction bearings, all possible, and they can scrape of a few percent of the consumption.

But all of these efforts are futile if they just lead to heavier cars.

2500 kg's of car to transport a 70 kg person is a preposterous proposition no matter how you trick out the engine,

If you are serious about increasing fuel efficiency you should look at reducing the weight of the cars. It is by far the cheapest, least complex and most effective way of increasing efficiency.

Ask any F1 engineer,