Lister Engine Forum
Lister Engines => Listeroid Engines => Topic started by: fattywagonman on May 30, 2006, 03:05:08 PM
-
Hi folks,
I've been running my Listroid semi closed loop and so far I'm impressed with the results... The "system" consists of 2 5 gal propane tanks to act as accumulators and a tube in shell cooler / heat exchanger for the exhaust.... A small air compressor supplies air to the loop.... 1/4 pipe is the exhaust... water and co2 comes out... I though some folks here might be able to use something like this because this make the Lister virtually smoke free... I also am running on WVO with a heated injector line...
-
Fattywagon---
I'm not running that system because I don't know what it is! Could you explain it on a little more basic level? What are you heating/cooling and how?
'Smoke free..' where does the carbon accumulate?
-
Hi Hoater,
The exhaust goes through a cooler and is returned to the intake... as far as carbon goes so far no problems... combusting is very complete smoke (aka unburned fuel) is returned to the intake for a second chance at combustion... the engine runs an air compressor the air is added at the intake port... I used 2 5 gal propane tanke as accumulators...(http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e136/fattywagonman/listergen.jpg)
-
Holy Crap...what a set up...I'm such a piker... :)
Joe
-
Interesting concept but I'm having trouble seeing the value of it on a working engine.
If the engine produces *any* solids at all they either have to accumulate or be flushed and it looks like your system would be constantly adding carbon to either the exhaust system or the engine until it choked on it.
If it didn't burn the first time why would it burn the second in a dirtier environment?
I've run my 6-1 exhaust into a ten cubic foot concrete pipe for just over a year and I'd bet there's several pounds of soot in the wet gravel bottom. That's running #2 diesel and averaging about 1800 watt/hrs a day.
-
...
The exhaust goes through a cooler and is returned to the intake...
Huh? There's something here that doesn't make sense. How does the engine induct freah air for combustion?
-
This sort of reminds me of how rabbits can't fully digest grass on the first pass, so they eat their first-pass "rabbit raisins" and on the next pass they are further digested. Probably more than you wanted to know, so I'll shut up now.
Halfnuts
-
'Halfnuts' is an understatement.
;D
-
Wabbit Anyone? MMMMM
:P :P :P
The "Semi Closed Loop" If I get it, sounds like a "sledgehamer" EGR system.
How can it not be a "zero sum" situation.
Cold oxygenated air in>Compression>Injection and Combustion> Hot exhaust (with some unburned fuel, particulates, and all the other normal exhaust "stuff") out>
Hot spent "exhaust" (see above) in> ??out??...(???Diesel Equivalent of an Asthma Attack???) Leaky gaskets "might" help?
As Scott (shipchief) put it so eloquently:
Suck>Squeeze>Bang>Blow (I assume oxygen is involved in the "suck" part...)
Is there something I am missing here???
Kevin
-
Yup, It's kind of like the ulitimate EGR... I'm not sure about the carbon build up but I'm sure there will be some over time... right now an air compressor runs of the engine and new air is added right at the intake manifold... the exhaust is at the bottom of the intake accumulator... I've been messing with closed loop ideas for several years... I got the idea as a way to eliminate vacuum in Otto cycle engines. I made some carbs that used cooled EGR instead of reducing air flow. then I realized if I added O2 I could keep the engine running on cooled exhaust... a little side note: combustion is very complete in an O2 rich working fluid but you need to be carefull to make sure the engine is firing before you richen the O2 otherwise the recirculated vapor will explode and lift the head off the cyclinder... I did this and it's really exiting but also potentially dangerous.. I was surprised it didn't bend the crank or rod but so far everything seems fine.. Then I started thinking about the possibilities of increasing the efficiency if the loop pressure could be increased... I reground the cam to more of a Miller Atkinson cycle and have been getting some interesting results which I may share once I have some hard data for backup... I think the Listeroid is an idea test engine... it was cheap engough and seems tough enough to take the abuse I've been dishing out... just in case you are curious... I haven't been kind to my engine...
-
Fascinating stuff!! Thanks for sharing.
Maybe this would be a good place for an exhaust scrubber design.?
-
An exhaust scrubber? Well the idea is comsume any unburned fuel by returning it to the intake... BTW Kevin I'm cooling the exhaust before it goes back in the engine.. and theres a seperator of sorts in the intake accumulator... O2 that doesn't get used also gets retuned to the intake... Another cool thing is the loop pressure can be increased for a turbocharging effect...
-
what this guy is doing is reducing the nitrogen load, so he is quite likely to pass stringent emissions regulations this way, but apart from legislation I don't quite see what else it has going for it.
-
I seem to remember something like this for running diesel engines in subs while submerged. The O2 come from a liquid storage tank and enough of the exhaust gas was recirculated to keep the engine from melting down. They may have also had some kind of CO2 scrubber system so any unused O2 went back to the engine.
I do not remember if it was a system that had actually been used or just some proposed idea. Memory could also be from a SF book were they run diesel bulldozers on the moon.:)
_________________
Andre' B.
-
While I havn't tested them yet I'm sure the emissions are low... HC's and NOX should be almost non existent... as I mentioned I've discovered other possibilities of potential efficiency increases by implementing the Miller cycle while using the semi closed loop design... I think this may be the real benefit but I'm still working on getting some real data (fuel burned vs enegy out) for comparison to the standard cycle...
-
This sort of reminds me of how rabbits can't fully digest grass on the first pass, so they eat their first-pass "rabbit raisins" and on the next pass they are further digested. Probably more than you wanted to know, so I'll shut up now.
Halfnuts
I think you're right. Chickens are the most efficient food-user known, because they eat their own crap about 12 times..... There is nothing useful left.
Maybe engines and chickens are different, but 'unburnt fuel' blowing out the exhaust is exactly that no matter how you slice it.
-
Today I discovered some information on improving diesel combustion by mixing a lean homoginous diesel vapor charge with the incoming air ... Smoke is unburned fuel and also vaporized really well.. so if the exhaust is cooled and then retuned to the intake with some air or O2 for combustion I guess I could see how it might actually improve the combustion and reduce the smoke which would reduce the carbon build up...
-
FW,
I'm still confused. I uderstand it is semi closed loop, but when and how do you stop recirculating the exhaust? At some point the exhaust has to leave the system, doesn't it?
Thanks,
Steve
-
Steve--
I'm glad I'm not the only one that's wondering how long it's going to take to choke the whole system with waste that won't burn and eventually prevent *anything* from burning.
-
Yeah, even rabbits can't eat all of their droppings . . .
Halfnuts
-
I'm of two minds on this;
1) It sounds like an over-unity scheme, and Fattywagon is laughing his ass off while writting this.
2) At least he is REALLY trying to accompish something, even if his plan goes nowhere. Listeroids make great basic test engines.
I don't get it. Fatty, you haven't described what you are doing well enough for us to get our minds around it yet. What is the goal? higher efficiency? Lower emmisions? Greater Cogeneration efficiency? Just doing it because you want to? (and that's OK too, we all do that)
What kind of instrumentation are you using to verify your presumptions? Temperatures, pressures, gas analysis, and KW output? What are your test points; exhaust port, intake port, heat exchanger inlets & outlets? Are you just getting 'up and running' or are you logging some run time and getting some efficiency numbers?
At some point the exhaust must leave the system, and at the lowest possible pressure on the piston during the exhaust cycle, or you get no power for performing work.
The air compressor is a parasitic load on available work.
The exhaust recirculated to the intake limits the O2 available to burn the next fuel injection charge, so maximum power output for performing work is limited. The exhaust would then become fuel rich with unburned hydrocarbons and as you said you had blown the head off (and I see in the picture that it is off) it sound dangerous at the point O2 enters, and difficult to control. The injection timing requirements would logically be different. when you find out what it will need to be, you will need to find a way to control it.
You may find that exhaust recirc is an effective pollution control at low power setting where fuel injection rates are low and less O2 is required, but will need to be tapered back as load increases, so you can get rated power.
Exhaust leaks would be extra poisonous.
These are just some preliminary observations, based on what I could glean from the posts. I mean no disrespect, but I just don't get it yet.
Scott E
-
Hi All,
I searched "Atkinson" and "Miller" cycle.
Apparently, there is some current use of these concepts on the gasoline engines in "Hybrid" autos.
One of the "caveats" is a "signifiant" reduction" of "output".
I'm all eyes and ears on this, and respect the heck out of the effort you have put into this.
Help me understand the goal and/or uselfulness and/or utility of this system.
Kevin
-
I know the Atkinson cycle as an engine that uses a toggle linkage to get all four strokes into a single turn of the crank but it seems to have been redefined at some point.
http://www.keveney.com/Atkinson.html
Now it seems to have something to do with holding the intake valve open longer pass BDC to get a longer expansion (power) stroke then the compression stoke.
-
Hi Guys,
I'll try to answer some of your questions... The Miller / Atkinson cycle uses a shortend compression stroke and the standard length expansion stroke... Atkinson thought of the idea in the 1800's to get arround the Otto patent... miller adapted it to a standard engine for racing purposes... he did this by using the cam to keep the intake valve open for part of the compression stroke.. so the piston just pushed some of the air out before the valve closed... Mazda has used the cycle and the Toyota Prius uses it... Some folks in the know are starting to apply it to diesels.. possibly a variable compression version.. I like to close the valve early instead of late...
as for the semi closed loop... What I'm doing is not overunity in any way shape or form.. ... I'm not a fan of OU discussions and generally will discredit folks who bring up the idea.. All I'm doing is cooling off the exhaust adding some air with a compressor driven off the crank and then sending it back to the engine intake .. ... very simple.. not rocket science.. the engine will run as long as a sufficient supply of air is entering the system to keep the fuel burning... too much fuel and no air and eventually it quits... there is an exhaust port...at the bottom of the intake accumulator which is also a centrifugal separator of sorts.. water and CO2 are what comes out... The exhaust can be held back to pressurize the system and increase the density of the working fluid.. ... kind of like turbocharging without the turbo.. .. The usefullness of this is that it is quiet and nearly pollution free.. there may be possible efficiency benefits... but that has yet to be proven..
-
BTW that link to the Atkinson cycle doesn't represent it properly... the piston should have a short intake / comp stroke and a long expansion / exhaust stroke.. I was nice of the guy to create the animation but it would have been even nicer if he'd have done it correctly.. It's the only animation I can find on the web...
Here's what Maxda has to say about the miller cycle..
http://www.mazda.com.au/articleZone.asp?articleZoneID=92
-
Dang IT.
Get to the POINT.
What Are You Trying To Achieve Here ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
Miller Cycle is WHY Sprint Cars typically run <14:1 STATIC C.R., AND they more or less operate at more than 8000 RPM CONTINUALLY, AND they IDLE at ~1500RPM, AND If you "try" to run "their" cam with substantially less C.R, It "almost" won't run at all.
MILLIONS of $ have been spent researching "Dynamic" (Motion Induced High Pressure Induction by Military And Racers) Free Lunch. NO JOY!
This sounds like the same thing.
If You are right, then My Congratulations are sent in advance.
Of course, you can always "supercharge"...
In deference to the "Columbia University" project, I encourage you to PLEASE DEFINE YOUR OBJECTIVE.
Kevin
-
Easy now, Kevin-- ;)
*MY* experiments are usually just to 'look over the hill'. If there's something good, maybe I'll recognize it and figure it out. ;D ;D
-
I still don't get it. Please help me.
All I'm doing is cooling off the exhaust adding some air with a compressor driven off the crank and then sending it back to the engine intake .. ... very simple.. not rocket science..
Are you shutting off the diesel so the engine is just running on exhaust and added O2?
the engine will run as long as a sufficient supply of air is entering the system to keep the fuel burning... too much fuel and no air and eventually it quits...
The exhaust has limited fuel in it, once it is cycled twice is there enough fuel to keep the engine running? Or are you adding diesel too?
there is an exhaust port...at the bottom of the intake accumulator which is also a centrifugal separator of sorts.. water and CO2 are what comes out...
Here's where you totally lose me. Why does only water and CO2 come out? Why not unburned fuel?
The exhaust can be held back to pressurize the system and increase the density of the working fluid..
What is the working "fluid"? Why do you call it working fluid? Is this diesel?
... kind of like turbocharging without the turbo...
Why does increasing the density of this "fluid" create a turbocharging affect?
The usefullness of this is that it is quiet and nearly pollution free.. there may be possible efficiency benefits... but that has yet to be proven..
Why is this quiet? Are you implying that it is quieter than a muffled lister that is not running on recirculated exhaust?
Maybe pictures would tell the story better.
Could you provide close up pics of your entire set up? Specifically I'd like to see how the exhaust is connected to the intake and how the exhaust port releases water and CO2 but not unburned diesel.
Finally, what are you trying to accomplish? At first blush, "reburning" exhaust seems like an efficiency play with less pollution as a side result. Is this what you're trying to do?
Thanks,
Steve
-
Get to the point? Hey guys... I'm just being a good guy and telling you what I've been up to... I thought some folks might find it interesting.. maybe even tried it themselves... heck I posted a picture and everything... Now I didn't make the post to get beat up over it... And I'm not holding anything back... You guys all have listers... Right? and some of you are handy farbicators... If you are curious about my setup cobble up some stuff and give it a try... do it just like in the picture... I'll tell you iy works... BTW Kevin you are misinformed about miller cycle... lots low RPM engines that use it... not just race engines... the Prius uses it... and so does the mitubishi My DI listeroid runs fine with a 50% compression stroke... here's a link if.... why don't you read up before you get all stresed about it... better yet, lets save the miller cycle discussion for later and concentrate on the semi closed loop for now...
-
I forgot the link
http://www.mhi.co.jp/tech/pdf/e383/p146.pdf
-
Here's another link I'd suggest reading... it's a patent that describes the closed loop operation..
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7043920.html?highlight=7043920
The idea originated in the 50"s as a way to run diesel engines underground or underwater in a submarine...
-
I still don't get it. Please help me.
Hi Steve,
I've inserted some answers below...
All I'm doing is cooling off the exhaust adding some air with a compressor driven off the crank and then sending it back to the engine intake .. ... very simple.. not rocket science..
Are you shutting off the diesel so the engine is just running on exhaust and added O2?
NO I'm not shutting off the fuel.. the engine needs fuel to keep running
the engine will run as long as a sufficient supply of air is entering the system to keep the fuel burning... too much fuel and no air and eventually it quits...
The exhaust has limited fuel in it, once it is cycled twice is there enough fuel to keep the engine running? Or are you adding diesel too?
Just adding fuel with the injector...
there is an exhaust port...at the bottom of the intake accumulator which is also a centrifugal separator of sorts.. water and CO2 are what comes out...
Here's where you totally lose me. Why does only water and CO2 come out?
Because water and CO2 is heavier than the other gasses
Why not unburned fuel?
well after the engine is running the exhaust is very clean... I think the smoke actually improves combustion...
Some smoke comes out when the engine is cold but this clears up quickly... after the engine is warmed up a bit no smoke comes out...
The exhaust can be held back to pressurize the system and increase the density of the working fluid..
What is the working "fluid"? Why do you call it working fluid? Is this diesel?
Here are some terms to read up on
http://www.wipo.int/classifications/fulltext/new_ipc/ipc7/ef.htm
... kind of like turbocharging without the turbo...
Why does increasing the density of this "fluid" create a turbocharging affect?
All a turbo does is pack more air into the engine... more air ='s more density... more density='s more possible fuel consumption and IMO a potential for increased efficiency
The usefullness of this is that it is quiet and nearly pollution free.. there may be possible efficiency benefits... but that has yet to be proven..
Why is this quiet? Are you implying that it is quieter than a muffled lister that is not running on recirculated exhaust?
Yes
Maybe pictures would tell the story better.
I posted a picture
Could you provide close up pics of your entire set up? Specifically I'd like to see how the exhaust is connected to the intake and how the exhaust port releases water and CO2 but not unburned diesel.
The picture I posted shows it all pretty well..
Finally, what are you trying to accomplish? At first blush, "reburning" exhaust seems like an efficiency play with less pollution as a side result. Is this what you're trying to do?
Yes sort of... In CA where I live the EPA frowns on self generators ..
mainly because of pollution... I'd like to eliminate this problem..
Thanks,
Steve
No problem... I like discussing this stuff with folks who are nice about it...
-
I'm having some trouble with the separation of CO2 from the exhaust. Gas Laws state that the pressure of a gas is exerted equally on the surfaces of the container, and mixed gases tend to, well, mix. To separate CO2 from Oxygen and nitrogen, in industry, air is cooled until the gasses condense and are captured as a liquid, each at it's specific temperature. I don't see that separation is possible in your exhaust accumulator? Although the water vapor (read gas) does condense and flows out the bottom. Also, the exhaust volume is greater that the inlet air and fuel volumes, so some exhaust would always have to be released? This would be fuel rich due to the reduced inlet oxygen, and a terrible loss as well as a hyrdocarbon pollutant.
As for miller cycle, the article cited refers to OTTO cycle engines, where a reduced compression ratio is required because of the fuel. Reduced throttle operation also reduces real compression ratios, but of course limits the power output too. The altering of inlet valve timing to reduce real compression ratios does not seem to reduce pumping losses significantly, the engineer in the article was not satisfied with the result, and went on to investigate specialized turbochargers. In a diesel, we would just keep increasing ther compression ratio for more efficiency, until the engine wears too fast.......or the EPA steps in and demands a reduction in NOX. Exhaust gas recirc has been used to reduce NOX, and more recently UREA injection. Dr. Diesel intended some very high compression ratios initially. He broke some parts too, so your in good company.
The second link was interesting; a wish list for the removal of nitrogen from the inlet air supply to the engine. That would be some expensive intake air, and possibly negate any increases in fuel economy...because you would have to buy the air and the fuel both.
The other way to extract power beyond the limits of the expansion ratio is to add a power recovery device, like an exhaust turbine that returns the work to the output shaft. An example would be the wright 3360 radial engine with exhaust power recovery turbine used in the Douglas DC7 airliner just before the jet age. I supose one could use the exhaust side of a turbocharger and run a flat belt pulley from the turboshaft to the crankshaft.... ;) The other way is to simply turbocharge the engine so the inlet air pressure pushes the piston down on the intake stroke, converting pumping losses into pumping gains. (and also increasing the real compression ratio and firing pressure)
Well, don't take my questions as disaproval, I like that you are trying this and brave enough to share....Still, didn't Solomon say something about there being nothing new under the sun?
Scott E
-
as far as emssions are concerned, the big problem is and always will be nitrogen.
nitrogen is the commonest part or air, but it is the part that produces the emissions that will fail an emissions test.
you can limit oxygen to just sufficient to consume the fuel easy enough, and that will take care of the other emissions, but you are still left with nitrogen
nitrogen and oxygen are close enough in size you can't practically filter them to separate.
the bottom line here is
1/ nitrogen by products of combustion inside an engine are harmful
2/ governments have put limits on allowable output
3/ all methods of addressing this problem are high tech and high energy
4/ all high tech and high energy solutions simply move the problem away from the regulated zone, they do not eliminate it.
so emissions regulations are essentially no more than a disincentive tax on internal combustion, allegedly purely on health grounds, with no studies of any kind made on the wider implications of such a regulation.
matey's experiments are interesting, and may lead to some interesting results one way or another, perhaps a really good way of getting thermal energy out of a CHP system, but at a cost, and that cost will inevitably be overall surplus power produced available to do work. eg generate electricity.
the sensible route would be to exempt small stationary engines from the regs, but that won't happen.
the alternative route is the one matey is going down, workshop space heaters do not have emissions regulations, he is modifying his engine such that he will be able to argue it is no longer internal combustion
-
Hi Guys,
As far as the separation thing goes... there are 2 byproducts of complete combustion... water and CO2... now if you get things hot enough the O2 and N get mixed together and can make NOx... lowering the peak combustion temps with EGR... especially cooled EGR is a good way to reduce and possibley come close to eliminating NOx... loweing the compression also lowers NOX.. I've done both... I think my NOX emission will be nearly non existent...
Here's a link to some NOx informayion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_oxide#Thermal_NOx
Most diesel have a NOx problem because of 2 reaons... too much O2 in the incomming air and high compression which ='s higher peak combustion temps.. they system I'm using returns the exhaust to the intake.. after the engine runs for a while I believe that the inlet is composed of a mixture of CO2 (byproduct of combusting the C part of HC's), H2O vapor (vapor that didn't condense in the cooler) O2 (from the air being pushed in and some that didn't get used in combustion) N (from the air being pushed in) and some unburned HC's (that didn't get used in the combustion process).. The engine can be made nearly pollution free if O2 is the only thing added... as Scott said the inlet air becomes more expensive or harder to make.... O2 separators are common in the medical industry.. they are nothing more than an air comp pusing the air through a separator that keeps the nitrogen out... there are 2 filters and every minute or 2 it switches from one filter to the other... so one cold be outfitted to the engine... in this case O2 and CO2 become the working fluid... nearly zero emission are possible...
-
Thank you for the fantastic, thought provoking post!
I have plenty of experience with bizzare engines. Smokey Yunik's shop was right down the street from my house in the 80's. I used to visit from time to time. Always liked what he was up to. He was able to achieve some incredible things. Yes there were some problems and issues. These could be worked out with today's computer controls.
I like your setup, better pics would be really nice. I agree that things do not have to be good looking to be effective!
Have you thought about a spring loaded exhaust port to keep the system pressure up? How about using the crankcase compression to provide the pressurized air. 2 piston strokes are available in the crankcase for every intake event.
Chris
-
Hi FW,
I apologize for my ignorance on semi closed loop systems. Your responses were very helpful, they really clear things up for me.
Your post has been very thought provoking.
Thanks,
Steve
-
Hi Chris,
That's neat that you got to see Smokey Yunick in action... I've heard that Smokey did achieve some really impressive efficiencies from the IC engine... I was told by a friend that he ran one engine without a cooling system... that he found a way to scavenge the heat from the cylinder and head and return it to the cycle... I'd imagine that most of his modifications were cam / compression related... Any ideas?
-
Smokey Yunnick and Dale Inman and other old time NASCAR guys could get horsepower and speed out of nearly anything!!
My Dad and I went to the Daytona races on the beach from '53 to '58 then at the new track until '62. I was within splatter distance when Gene Curtis hit the seagull with his 1955 Keafauver Olds Super 88....JUST like the one we drove down there!!
Fireball Roberts was *my* guy.
-
Here's a link to another interesting patent relating to low emission using semi closed loop... it's own by the EPA!
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7047933.html?highlight=7047933
-
That was an interesting link.
It requires that the O2 supplied for combustion be known, by calculation or by measurement. (We usually think of O2 sensors operating in the hot exhaust instead of the cool intake), variable injection timing, Special fuel, a charge air compressor (supercharger) with a controlled throttle, exhaust gas recirculation with a controlled throttle, with the combination pressureizing the intake manifold to some desired value. That alone sounds like it needs microprocessor control. In this case the recirculated exhaust is intended to be devoid of unburned fuel, so the explosion hazzard is not there. The bulk of the exhaust is released to the atmosphere, supposedly clean.
Then the quality of the exhaust must be monitored and feedback given to the processor to continually adjust for load control, and emission control.
And that's just skimming the info from the link...
I am no expert, but the dillution of the intake oxygen, and the low combustion temperature equate to low power density and poor economy. Both are totally unacceptable in transportation where bulky machinery takes away payload, and higher fuel costs increase operating costs.
Scott E
-
Personally I like the idea of an O2 rich mixture with a closed loop... This only works with diesel since the fuel is injected at the time of combustion... It also lso results in a nearly zero emission engine... unused O2 is returned to the intake... with any uncombusted HC's for another shot at combustion...
-
...Because water and CO2 is heavier than the other gasses ...
What? You're saying that water vapor and CO2 will 'fall out' of a mixture of unburned gasses because they have a higher density? No way. A mixture of gasses can not separated that way.
-
Fattywagonman.
I think you will learn something by posting on this forum. There are a few really smart people who have all the great ideas, and the rest of us they make look foolish. Einstein once said " GREAT IDEAS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN COUNTERED BY MEDIOCORE MINDS ". That is true on this forum. You can spot the smart ones by looking at the number of posts.
-
You're saying that water vapor and CO2 will 'fall out' of a mixture of unburned gasses because they have a higher density? No way. A mixture of gasses can not separated that way.
I don't mind being corrected.. as long as it's constructive.. and I realize that some folks are just nicer about it than others... Jim, You're right... Gases don't seperate into layers... once they are mixed they stay mixed..... but water vapor can be condensed and CO2 is a heavy gas... I think part of the sucess with my system has to do with the design of the intake accumulator / propane tank and the way that the recycled gas enters and leaves the container.. ... The cooled exhaust is being returned in such a way that is spins the gasses.. like a cyclonic separator for sawdust that mills use... the intake is in the center of the top.. where the clean air would come out.. the exhaust exits in the center of the bottom.. where the sawdust would leave..
Yes some folks have a hard time with new thoughts... and sometimes you take some heat for having them... but I've learned that recieving some criticism is just part of the price you pay for unconventional thinking...
-
...but water vapor can be condensed and CO2 is a heavy gas... I think part of the sucess with my system has to do with the design of the intake accumulator / propane tank and the way that the recycled gas enters and leaves the container.. ... The cooled exhaust is being returned in such a way that is spins the gasses.. like a cyclonic separator for sawdust that mills use...
Yes, water vapor can be condensed and removed with relative ease. And yes, cyclonic separators work well for separating particles of dust from air. But the big leap you propose - that a cyclonic separator can separate CO2 from an exhaust stream needs some substantiation from you.
Yes, I am being critical. Feel free to come up with 'new' ideas. And feel free to ignore what chemists and physisists have learned about solutions in the last 500 years or so. Please just seperate your theories from generally established facts. I'm certainly not saying that there is nothing new to be discovered in this area, rather that it's been pretty well established about how solutiuons work. What evidence do you have that your cyclonic separator is even remotely effective at concentrating CO2 at the bottom port?
As I read your described system, it's obvious to me that the CO2 content in the recirculated gases is very high - and you don't say what load you're putting on the engine - If it's a small load, you don't need much O2 in the mixture for the engine to run. Try putting a full load on the engine and see what happens.
Please read up a bit on solutions. Think on this for a second. Go to your kitchen. Pull out a bottle of Maple Syrup. It's basically a solution of sugar dissolved in water. Guess what - the suger molecules are much heavier than the water molecules - but you won't find a significantly increased concentration of sugar at the bottom of the bottle - no matter how long it's been sitting in your kitchen.
If you really do have a solution for separating gases of similar molecular weight, you better rush to a patent attorney. It may already be too late, as you've already put it the public domain here. Shame, too because it would be of huge value. Bottled gas companies spend huge sums of money to separate air into its constituent gases, and the main way they do it is through liquification/fractional distallation, which is a very expensive and energy consuming process.
-
I never ment to imply that the CO2 was being seperated from other gases.. It's just that where the outlet is located I think most of the gas is CO2... I'm sure some small vollume of unburned HC's are there along with some N and some NOX... it's just that I think the steps I've taken to reduce NOX (like lowering the compression, recirulating the cooled exhaust, and having a higher moisture content than normal at the intake) and the other steps I've taken to improve combustion (like heating the injector line) will make for a low percentage of NOX and HC's..
The really cool thing is that I can give this engine a burst of fuel... one that would result in a big clowd of smoke if the exhaust was not reciculated... and there is no noticable smoke comming out of the reliefe / exhaust port ...
The purpose of my post was to find out if anyone else had tried doing this... I also thought others might benefit from doing something similar.. I don't really want to get into a big debate about how or why it works untill some other folks give it a try.. I guess I could just keep the idea to myself then I wouldn't need to field the questions.... But that's not the spirit of a forum.. the idea is to share not keep secrets.. no sharing ='s no forum... so I decided to share.. So far other than a couple of patents I can't find out much information on this type of a system....
-
Most but not all of the new epa compliant diesels do use cooled egr to recirculate gases. This ends up costing horsepower, decreases durability, and increases fuel consumption but that is because of the higher heat load that has to be rejected and thus larger water pump/fan. Your system shouldnt have that problem and is interesting that it could possibly meter the air coming in. The only real problem I see with the system is that it probly wouldnt be able to be tuned fine enough without computer controls on the air and a computer for the injection system.
-
and increases fuel consumption but that is because of the higher heat load that has to be rejected and thus larger water pump/fan
Hi Firebrick,
You are correct... most newer diesels do use cooled or uncooled EGR to reduce NOX... But I'm not so sure your comment about why there are efficiency losses is correct.. Actually I'd bet that the slightly larger water pump and fan have little to no effect on the engines efficiency.. I think the efficiency losses are more related to heating of the intake charge and possibly lowered O2 concentration.. I'm not sure about this.. If you have some information that I don't I'm all ears... as far as decreasing the life and or durability... I have a friend with close to 400K miles on his 97 Dodge... These engines use large vollumes of uncooled EGR... and seem to last almost indefinately..
-
Did I miss something? Would it be feasible to strip the incoming air of nitrogen???---Guess if it was that simple,somebody would of done it already. Shows how much I know huh?
-
Fatty,
I am talking large trucks 10-15 liters, that actually go about a million miles on the engine before rebuild. When cummins and detroit put their egr systems on it reduced their reliability 100000-250000 miles. Mainly from the heat in the valves/heads causing cut valve seats and faces. The fans and pumps on these motors can draw a significant amount of power, 30 to 40 horse or more. The fuel economy penalty would be around .6 - 1 percent. I belive the hot air does effect it some but probly just the horsepower as the computer only injects what can be used. Doesnt sound like much but over the span of a million miles on a large fleet it can make a significant difference, and more so as gas prices rise. They also weigh more causing less payload to be carried.
This shouldnt be a problem with you since the listers are siphon circulated as long as you had the space to put in a larger system to also cool the exhaust. How cool is the exhaust going into the intake in your engine?
More I thought about it the more I agree with others that you are not really getting rid of just the co2 but I still think you are reducing nox because the mixture is taking the place of excess o2 and nitrogen that would be neccessary to make more nox.
I think that your aircompressor would use up as much power as it was saved by burning any leftover hydrocarbons from the low pressure injectors the listers use. Maybe a small electronically controlled varible vane turbo would work without power losses but I am sure if such beast exsist that it would be more than the engine itself cost.
-
Hi Firebrick,
Thanks for the reply...
OK I agree... I see you have your bases covered on the efficiency losses and reduction in life from EGR.. .6 - 1% seems to be a reasonable number... I was using a shop type air compressor but am switching to an oiless vane compressor... the type for air injection on smog equiment... I think it will move the air with even less HP loss... maybe .25 to run it at most.. I have very little vollume of air going through the system... maybe 5 CFM @ 2-5 PSI.. If I starv it for air the engine will start making less power.... To calculate the air required I ran the engine near open rack and kept taking away air untill it started to slow... then added some air back.. that way I know I'm adding enough air for combustion at full power... eventually the air compressor could somehow be tied to the rack to increase and decrease to output... As far as a variable vane turbo.. I have little interest in doing anything that high tech.. This is intended to be a low tech solution to reducing emissions.. The exhaust cooler is a natural for CHP applications... The recirculated exhaust is cooled to about 140F or less when it returns to the intake...
-
How are you measuring your exhaust emissions? You may have decreased the NOx, but without measuring, how do you know? Meanwhile it seems the particulate matter would increase, along with CO due to incomplete combustion. Because the exhaust volume is always greater that the inlet volume, some exhaust is released with each cycle, and it seem to me a very polluting mixture of CO and unburned hydrocarbons.
Measurements and record keeping are required for research.
You are recirculating alot of nitrogen, and taking in more with each intake stroke. The oxygen gets used with the fuel, and some water drops out, but the CO2 and Nitrogen keep going back into the intake.?
Scott E
-
Did I miss something? Would it be feasible to strip the incoming air of nitrogen???---Guess if it was that simple,somebody would of done it already. Shows how much I know huh?
Hi Dale,
Yes it works... I posted a link to the patent for doing exactly this earlier in the post..... I did it by using O2 from a bottle... but now after adding the air I'm not sure it's worth the trouble.. i don't know what my emissions are yet but I can assure you it's not much at all...
Scott the combustion is very complete... No visible smoke... none nada zip... I believe paticulates are nearly non existent... the main stuff comming out the reliefe is water... and I believe some unused O2, and some CO2... and N... but I doubt there is much NOX... or HC's...
I'll do some proper testing when I get the system more or less perfected... my buddy has a 5 gas.. untill then I'll just trust my gut.. nose... and eyes...
-
I'm not sure what your main aims are here.
Are you trying to modify a lister so it can pass some arbitrary emissions test such as EPA?
If so, clearly it can be done, at a cost, there is ALWAYS a downside.
Let me explain my skepticism.
Some people in the states want to play with alternative fuels, and that is great. Now there were lots of "fuel analysis" engines made in the states, Caterpillar for one made vast numbers of them, because the best way to test an engine fuel is in an actual engine.
BTW the Cat engines were beauties, havent seen a 20/1 but I'd guess that's a similar size and weight, and lots of ancilliaries of course.
I would also assume that anyone doing this would acquaint themselves with the basics of combustion principles and thermodynamics, cos how else will you understand your results?
What we seem to get is people trying to make their feet fit the boots they happen to have, experimenting with multifuels in engines that weren't designed for it, and with no data acquisition ancilliaries whatsoever, seat of the pants stuff.
Fattywagon seems to be going this route from what I can gather, playing with EGR and suchlike.
To fattywagon, I am not trying to be insulting or flame you, but from what I have read it sounds to me as though you are exprimenting on how far you can de-tune a diesel by feeding it it's own waste products and still get it to run smoothish, with no attention paid to mechanical longevity or reliability.
I'm not knocking you, I think it is great that you're playing, but if you object is not mere play and learning, I wonder what you think you will achieve.
Say you get an "eureka" set of results. Just for the sake of argument (you won't, but for the sake of argument)
Where do we go from there?
Do I have to built an identical to the last detail system from scratch, and I mean identical to the thou EGR plumbing system etc, in order to duplicate your results?
Because it appears to me you don't have any data acquisition going on, none at all, so even when you get your "seat of your ass" results you are going to have to retrofit a bunch of DA hardware, and that is going to change everything.
If your goal is EPA emissions, you have two possible approaches.
1/ add a shit load of ancilliaries, microprocessor controlled, costing more than the listeroid, and absorbing at least 20% of the power output, and if you're going to do that you just threw away the only reason to run a lister, simplicity and longevity.
2/ reduce the effective swept volume to actual swept volume ratio and "fool" the EPA test that way
The above incidentally screwed norton when they built the rotary, because it was 2 stroke and not 4 stroke they rated it at 1500cc and not 750cc, so it couldn't compete in its design engine capacity class. This is as silly and arbitrary as EPA regs
There are two ways to screw with effective swept volume ratios
a/ screw with valve duration, which you are doing, and EGR is a wrinkle on that same theme, screwing with effective swept volume... it is a limited ploy and not something I'd consider with a lister, which is all about simple, so no point doing anything that makes it complex.
b/ screw with the camshafts, nobody says it has to be a 4 stroke, make it 6 stroke or 8 stroke and you'll beat those emissions regs, especially if you use those idle strokes to do something else, like injecting water.
----------------------------
The lister is like a good knife, it is elegant because of its simplicity, purity of form, minimalism, form following function, the only techie thing about the lister, and even by todays standards it is techie, is harry ricardos comet precombustion chamber, if you have a listeroid that doesn't have this then you are more screwed than ever when it comes to EPA
I must at some point put my lister through a vehicle emission test, it's a 6/1 relatively lightly loaded with a standard 2.5 kw head, and I'm betting it runs as clean as my indirect injection non turbo all mechanical 1900 cc 4 pot renault car diesel, which is really very very clean indeed, especially on european diesel.
Just because the design is 60 / 70 / 80 years old, doesn't mean it is bad, just because it was from before transistors and microelectronics and plastics, doesn't mean it is bad, some of the best knives are 100 year old designs.
The poppet valve is over a century old, it has its issues, but nobody has invented anything better, and this follows all the way through the lister, there aren't superior modern alternatives to any component, just cheaper ones.
And this brings us back to proper ricardo test engines and their clones
picture below
(http://www.prestonservices.co.uk/Ricardo_Diesel_GenSet.jpg)
The fact is, this is the minimum level of kit you need to do these experiments and end up with results that are worth more than the paper they are printed on.
You can go out and buy one of these engines for big bucks, or build one up, for big bucks, that's it.
If it is all about a dream, fine, but SAY SO, don't tell other people your dream is reality, because they have different dreams.
======================
I have an old litmus test for this sort of thing.
I say to myself (about my latest greatest world shattering plan / invention / creation / scheme / whatever) "will a bank lend me money to go into production with this idea?" and god knows it is too easy to borrow money anyway.
I grew up reading "Boys Own" books, about the nice guy who got shafted by the nasty people who used him and discarded him building their racing cars, so he goes to the scrap yard and buys an old car and does it up and enters the race and WINS!!!!
Maybe that shit was possible 80 years ago, it isn't today.
You think you can maybe not compete on budget, or tech facilities at your disposal, but maybe have some idea that nobody else had before? Your idea better be implementable for 50 cents then, so ceramic coatings for the combustion chamber to limit absorbtion of free electrons and thus slow flame propogation are out.
-------------------------------
here's a thought for you.
fuel is about work done.
you have a job of work to do, move 10,000 tons of foodstuffs daily 200 miles into a big city.
diesel engines are far more efficient for this task than petrol, thanks to the high compression ratios.
diesel engines are far more polluting according to the EPA and NOx emissions, thanls to the high compression ratios.
low compression engines will satisfy the EPA and NOx emissions, but you do three or four times as many trips because tons of load shifted per gallon of fuel used just dropped through the floor.
so the stinky high compression diesel pumping out NOx actually pumps out LESS to do a given job than EPA complaint green low compression engines.
-
Maybe that shit was possible 80 years ago, it isn't today.
Hi Guy,
This is an interesting comment... And I think it gives some insight as to how you think and why you may have a problem with my little experiment...
I think it's funny / interesting that some of us are convinvced that the common man has no chance of doing anything original or new in todays big corperate world... CAT could do the same thing I'm doing... let out a press release and their stock would increase by some ammount making them a lot of money... Ya' I know the story...
"what makes you think that you can do something a big corperation like CAT or GM hasn't thought of or tried.... If it was so good they would sell it and make millions"...
Here's a neat story to prove my point...
http://www.mobilemag.com/content/100/354/C6787/
The thing is everyday there are still times when the little guy has the advantage over a well funded corperation and here's why..
If I worked at CAT I would need approval before I could go off and construct something to see if it worked... that could take a year or more in itself.. and by the time I got to where I am now CAT would have likely spent a few million $ and a few years on the project ... as far as the bank lending money.. at this stage I think they would be nuts to give me money... but if I could retrofit this to say work on a forklift... generators... or on any diesel that would benefit by having dramticaly less exhaust emissions then I might have a chance... BTW there are thousands of well funded business that are atemting to bring products to market and most often fail miserably... Have you ever heard of Ballard?
But keep in mind that companies like Ford, HP, The Wrights, Micrsoft, Apple all started from small...
OK I do have a dream... I would like to make some improvements... possibly a conrtibution.. I realize a lot of folks have spent billions trying to think of every known possible way to improve the combustion engine.. but guess what... there are still simple easy to implement ideas that have yet to be thought of... I make injector line heater for the veggi oil folks... at first I took a lot of heat for this idea... they said they weren't needed... then I gave some away... for testing... and guess what? they work and work well... If I'd have listened to some folks I would have just quit...
I'm an engine guy... not a MIT college grad kind of engine guy.... but more of a Smokey Yunick type with a twist... ... I'm an experimenter... I'm also a guy who has a lot of on hands experience with engines... I've made a lot of different types of engines... Stirling, IC Ericsson cycle, Piston Brayton, Combined cycle ... I've also had some unique experiences... as a kid (about 9 years old) I started collecting / fixing the old hit and miss engines.. I like them because you can see what the parts are doing... had a steam tractor when I was 16... I also used to own a marine construction company and have had a lot of diesel engines (80 or more) in tugs cranes... I'll bet I've owned most every make of diesel there is... CAT, Detroit, Deutz, Kamatsu, Lister, Petter, Perkins, MTU, Mercedes, EMD.. and some others too... and I've paid for more fuel in a year than most folks do in a lifetime... I have seen several fuel test engines.... some have adjustable compression.. A friend has a Ricardo like the on in the picture...
My lister is DI... but I'll bet mine runs almost as clean as clean as your Commet does... and that's without the EGR... so to sum things up...
I came hear to share something that I'm doing... something I thought folks would find interesting.. not an idea but real harware... because I thought other motorheads might enjoy it and possibly try it themselves.. I don't follow sports.... my love is engines and you don't find a lot of folks at the corner bar who get off discussing these topics.. so the forum is a fun place for me... You have clearly formed an opinion on what / how you think what I'm doing might be a waste of time... what the downsides are... (which it might be)... I get the impression that you may be the forum critic.... (every forum has one or two) you say I'm wasting my time... I say so far it seems like a worthwhile thing to look into to... I'm not huting you or anyone with my experiments... so why not just let me keep going and we'll see if it really is all a waste of time... ...
-
It's at times like this that I really wish I had listened to what my mother told me when I was young.
Halfnuts
-
Maybe that shit was possible 80 years ago, it isn't today.
Hi Guy,
This is an interesting comment... And I think it gives some insight as to how you think and why you may have a problem with my little experiment...
I think it's funny / interesting that some of us are convinvced that the common man has no chance of doing anything original or new in todays big corperate world... CAT could do the same thing I'm doing... let out a press release and their stock would increase by some ammount making them a lot of money... Ya' I know the story...
"what makes you think that you can do something a big corperation like CAT or GM hasn't thought of or tried.... If it was so good they would sell it and make millions"...
Here's a neat story to prove my point...
http://www.mobilemag.com/content/100/354/C6787/
. I'm not huting you or anyone with my experiments... so why not just let me keep going and we'll see if it really is all a waste of time... ...
2nd bit 1st
no, you aren't hurting me, and I don't want you to stop, I want you to do MORE.
1st bit
hey, there is NOTHING innovative in that car, not a single thing.
You could have done it pre war with balsa wood and doped canvas.
It is a simple application of power versus weight. It is a simpletons task to do this, because a simpleton car like this will not pass a Euro Ncap crash test http://www.euroncap.com/content/test_procedures/introduction.php
There are a shit load of other things it won't even look at, much less pass.
Morgan started making cars in 1936, by the war they had that standing 60 and economy down pat, went round corners too.
You can buy a morgan too, about 40 thousand dollars, not the 80-100k the student car would cost
I'm not knocking it, I know they are kids, and that's why it falls down, they are kids, kids could design and build a bridge across the atlantic.
Does nobody remember the mercedes c111?
does a google
(http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-mno/Mercedes-Benz-C111-Three-Generations-1024x768.jpg)
in the seventies merc built this DIESEL powered monster and knocked out records by the ton, in one continuous (except for changing drivers every few hours) 60 hour stint (no breakdowns) in the early seventies they broke 16 world records, and from memory got over 220 mph out of it
here's the bit almost nobody knows.
the powerplant came from a 300D saloon car...
so, you actually prove my argument, rather than disproving it. the man in the street can't beat the big company, especially when it comes to old and well understood technology like internal combustion or automotive engineering.
-
Aw heck, nobody took the bait. You're supposed to ask, "So what did she tell you?"
An I reply, "I don't know 'cause I didn't LISTEN!"
It'd sure be nice to see some numbers on power and exhaust gas composition. The rest of your comments are subjective and, may I say, rather hopeful, which leaves some of us cold.
I finally get what's going on. Air consists of appx. 80% nitrogen, 20% oxygen and about 0.2% carbon dioxide. The bulk of the air charge inducted into the cylinder on each intake stroke is nitrogen which doesn't take part in the combustion equation to any great extent. So it's really fuel, oxygen and carbon dioxide that are the players.
By cooling and recirculating the exhaust gas, you're merely shifting the "spectator gas" from nitrogen to mostly carbon dioxide and water vapor which can be condensed if you REALLY cool the exhaust. The problem I see is that in order to supply enough oxygen to run the engine, unless the oxygen you're supplying via the compressed air line is pure oxygen, 80% of what you're delivering will be nitrogen, and you're back where you started. And if you are in any way limiting the amount of oxygen, your exhaust is going to become rich with carbon monoxide and soot, the result of incomplete combustion.
A scheme like this may work at idle which is a fuel-limited state, but as more power is required of the engine, oxygen will become limiting, hence the need for a turbocharger and mebbe even nitrous oxide injection. Hey, THERE'S a thought!
Halfnuts
-
so, you actually prove my argument, rather than disproving it. the man in the street can't beat the big company, especially when it comes to old and well understood technology like internal combustion or automotive engineering
So you think the big guys have the advantage... OK sometimes this is true... they have more people and $ but they have disadvantages too... I doubt that I'll change you opinion but I'd like to make some points...
I've noticed something on forums... The thinking is different on your side of the pond...
When I first proposed my Injector line heaters one of the biggest critics was a fellow from the UK... Told me they were a waste of time... snake oil... and that I shouldn't be allowed to sell them... something about MOT... I got pissed... WTF is MOT? and why would anyone care if I was selling injector line heaters?.... I offered him a heater for free if he would test it and post the results.. and he took me up on it... now He says he sees some improvements when the lines are heated... better faster starting... less smoke... I know they work because I did some tailpipe testing and HC's went from 26 PPM (without) to 13 PPM (with) ...
When I sold my construction company I started an SOFC company... A few years ago I offered it for sale... An outfit in Italy was interested and flew me over... It was a rather large company and so I asked them what they needed me / my company for? They replyed that for some reason folks on our side of the pond seem to be better at bringing new ideas to fruition... Something about optimism and seeking answers to what sometimes seem like imposible solutions...
BTW I read your blog.. some folks over hear think different than you... I think when it comes to new stuff smaller is better.. most times a few or maybe even one smart guy can accomplish a lot more than an entire team of engineeres... and IMO it's these individuals who make the difference... not big corperations like Benz... sure it may be that Benz happens to employ one of these brite folks... and that's where they get new ideas.. But over here it's just as likely that the guy may be on his own...
On this side of the pond we still believe in the little guy... that some guy in his garage is likely to become the next Bill Gates.. all things are possible and results can be achieved by anyone who is smart enough and willing to invest the time.. .. it's just a different style of thinking... and IMO a lot better world to live in that the one where the little guy never gets a chance..
BTW most combustion engine advancements came from racing... and an awful lot of that racing was done by common tinkerers in thier garages.. Big companies came along and copied the ideas... IMO it's people not companies that can make the difference..
-
"IMO it's people not companies that can make the difference.. "
i would agree with that statement on the surface, but..
companies don't do, make or produce anything, ... people do and having said that consider this
it is damn near impossible today for an individual outside of a corporation to dream up, develop, manufacture and bring to market anything that hasnt been done to some extent better before.
consdering all the time, dollars, equipment etc to develop and get an idea to work, and once having it marketable, you better have deeeeeeep pockets to stand up to all the bureaucratic, regulation, inspection and litigation that will likely follow.
and then how many little guys have the bucks to do all the testing that is required, millions of cycles, millions of hours, or miles or whatever.
sure there is room still for the little guy to come up with some interesting concepts, and maybe a working model, but quite another to get it to pass all the hoops and make it to market.
say one does get past all the hurdles, and has a billion dollar idea or product, then you got the chinese knocking it off before you can gear up to fill the orders.
then from a liability standpoint you are on the hook "cradle to grave" in this country it seems on most stuff.
i fear gone are the days of hundreds of guys building the better mouse trap in their garage, and making money at it.
would that stop me, or rather should it stop you from experimenting? no!
keep at it, who knows you might be one of the lucky ones and figure out something that hasn't been thought of yet. i just don't think i am that smart or have enough money or time to even entertain such an endevour.
if you do, then God bless you, go forth and prosper
bob g
-
So you think the big guys have the advantage... OK sometimes this is true... they have more people and $ but they have disadvantages too... I doubt that I'll change you opinion but I'd like to make some points...
My opinion is based one experience, there are areas where the little guy can make a difference, even in automotive engineering, I can even give you a current example, but that idea is nothing if not put into production, and only the big guys can do that, and when they do that they are hard nosed, they do not love their pet project, so lots of ideas fall by the wayside.
You are playing with EGR, good on you.
But I ask a question. Have you any idea just how much research has been done into this, and almost since IC engines came into existence, and have you studied this so you aren't duplicating any dead ends?
Here's a small clue, I know of a man who was doing EGR research on a genuine lister in the 1930s, or rather I know his son, or did.
The application, down a deep hard rock cornish mine shaft pumping water.
He didn't make it.
I've noticed something on forums... The thinking is different on your side of the pond...
When I first proposed my Injector line heaters one of the biggest critics was a fellow from the UK... Told me they were a waste of time... snake oil... and that I shouldn't be allowed to sell them... something about MOT... I got pissed... WTF is MOT? and why would anyone care if I was selling injector line heaters?.... I offered him a heater for free if he would test it and post the results.. and he took me up on it... now He says he sees some improvements when the lines are heated... better faster starting... less smoke... I know they work because I did some tailpipe testing and HC's went from 26 PPM (without) to 13 PPM (with) ...
I'll hazard a guess, if you "presented" them the way you have so far presented this idea, he would have had a hard job understanding how and why it worked, especially if he had no experience of alternative fuels (your marine diesel / bunker oil experience sets you way ahead of the average mechanic in this area) so was just naturally suspicious, like the magnetic fuel line fuel conditioners and 100 mph carburretors people sell....
When I sold my construction company I started an SOFC company... A few years ago I offered it for sale... An outfit in Italy was interested and flew me over... It was a rather large company and so I asked them what they needed me / my company for? They replyed that for some reason folks on our side of the pond seem to be better at bringing new ideas to fruition... Something about optimism and seeking answers to what sometimes seem like imposible solutions...
There is an element of truth to that, long list of english inventors and inventions that went to the states to go into production, but back in history the USA was a different market with different forces, nowadays its a more homogenous world market. Ideas pretty much fly everywhere or nowhere.
BTW I read your blog.. some folks over hear think different than you... I think when it comes to new stuff smaller is better.. most times a few or maybe even one smart guy can accomplish a lot more than an entire team of engineeres... and IMO it's these individuals who make the difference... not big corperations like Benz... sure it may be that Benz happens to employ one of these brite folks... and that's where they get new ideas.. But over here it's just as likely that the guy may be on his own...
I don't think smaller is better, or bigger is better, I think better is better.
small or big doesn't enter in to the equation for me, unless it is a pill I have to swallow or a penis enhancement (joke)
I care what works best, and that means best overall in the long run. Including total cost of ownership, downtime, duty cycle, etc etc etc.
On this side of the pond we still believe in the little guy... that some guy in his garage is likely to become the next Bill Gates.. all things are possible and results can be achieved by anyone who is smart enough and willing to invest the time.. .. it's just a different style of thinking... and IMO a lot better world to live in that the one where the little guy never gets a chance..
your thinking is a couple of decades out of date, as you'll find out if you invent something, then discover half of it is already patented by someone else who didn't invent it, but just owns a shed load of patents so that they are in a position to cross licence with someone else with a shed load of patents.
BTW most combustion engine advancements came from racing... and an awful lot of that racing was done by common tinkerers in thier garages.. Big companies came along and copied the ideas... IMO it's people not companies that can make the difference..
take a look at the following, from bill gates himself in 1976
(http://www.surfbaud.co.uk/Lister/pictures/homebrew_V2_01_p2.jpg)
and the reply
(http://www.surfbaud.co.uk/Lister/pictures/homebrew_V2_02_p2.jpg)
-
Ahhhhhhh! ........very interesting tidbits of history!!!!
-
...I have very little vollume of air going through the system... maybe 5 CFM @ 2-5 PSI.. If I starv it for air the engine will start making less power.... To calculate the air required I ran the engine near open rack and kept taking away air untill it started to slow... then added some air back.. that way I know I'm adding enough air for combustion at full power...
Understood. Suppose you explain how much air you ended up calculating was neded, including the extra air addded back? Are yu saying the total air input was 5 cfm? Or is it another number not shown in your post?
-
Most engines are "lean burn", that's where the power is.
What matey is playing with is "stoichiometric burn", which isn't suited to heavy diesels or heavy duty motors, just light and medium.
Stoichiometric burn combined with three way catalysts produce a very clean exhaust. Downside is significant power loss compared to lean burn.
Stoichiometric burn with no catalysts actually produces more of some emissions (just less soot, so it LOOKS cleaner) and less power than lean burn.
There is a design for a stoichiometric burn engine with no catalysts that produces very very low emissions. You could theoretically retofit a Lister 6/1 to do this, but you want a 3 or 4 cylinder idealy, equally spaced piston timing, so 120 degree crank for the triple and 90 degree crank for the four pot
Basically you run low and constant RPM, about 250-300 tops, the Lister itself is just a gas engine like a steam engine, no inlet ports as such, you have a specialised pre-combustion chamber that burns injected fuel and injected compressed gas continuously, but slowly and at very low combustion temperatures, expansion takes place and this is then fed to the cylinder to drive the pistons down in series, of course you are absorbing significant amounts of power to drive the compressor and ancilliaries.
The "big lie" with emissions is that you can have either a very clean burning engine, or you can have a very fuel efficient engine, but not both, trying to get both is always a kludge that involves bolting ancilliaries onto the engine like three stage catalysts, in many ways this gives you the worst of both worlds, moderate fuel efficiency, moderate emissions, massive additional expense.
If "fuel shortages" are an issue and you are trying to extract the most energy from a gallon of fuel, you'll go for lean burn and screw the emissions.
====================
Why this isn't going away isn't about diesel engines, it is about petrol / gasoline engines.
Currently petrol engines run somehwere about 10:1 compression ratio give or take a bit, using modern technologies, microprocessor controls and fancy three way catalysers you can up this to about 20:1 reasonably easily, and despite the losses from the ancilliaries still come out ahead of the game in pure fuel economy and efficiency.
Diesel already runs in the region of 20:1, so there is bugger all you can do to it.
SO.
Emissions regulations are designed to force manufacturers and people into a more expensive but more efficient new level playing field where petrol engines will run about 20:1 compression.
Applying these same regs to light and medium diesels is simply there to stop people saying "screw this, I'm buying a diesel car"
Listers were built lean burn and high fuel economy, you can't get from there to a modern emissions friendly diesel, well, you can, but the effort is more than it is worth.
Far easier to reclassify a Lister as something that the regulations do not apply to.
This does appear to be a peculiarly american psychological trait, europeans will automatically look for legal ways around other laws, while americans appear to lower their horns and charge full ahead directly at the laws, trying to change them or wreck them.
Your Indian manufacturers are only there to make money, they will sell and ship you absolutely anything you like, if you are prepared to pay for it.
If all you are prepared to ask for are stationary diesel engines then that is all they will ship you.
A european would be asking the indians to ship him dynamometers, which are emissions exempt, or scientific experimental test beds, which are emissions exempt, or space heaters, which are emissions exempt, etc etc etc.
If you were trying to do something clearly illegal, such as ship something to Iraq that could be used for violent ends, clearly this would be stupid, but you are importing what are very plainly big lumps of cast iron that look like they came out of the ark. Nobody is going to look at them in a packing case and think "hm, these look like rocket launchers"
(try importing ITT reverse osmosis cores from the states to spain during gulf war one, failing, and sending someone to the states by air to buy them and bring them back as hand luggage..... that presses ALL the buttons of twitchy customs men)
Hell, you'd find it just as easy to get the indians to cast "Lister" into the iron, run over all the paintwork with a blowtorch and get them shipped as antiques for restoration, or just bring them in as parts and ship them to customer that way too.
As long as you can buy diesel without a licence, nobody really cares.
Worst thing you can do IMHO is go cap in hand to the EPA and try and go through the certification process, once you present yourselves to them then they are duty bound to treat you just like any other engine manufacturer or importer.
The analogy here in the UK is if I wanted to run my vehicles on vegetable oil I'd go to the cash and carry and get myself an account and buy bulk, and if anyone asks questions I'm running takeaway chip fryers. What I would not do it tip that veggie oil into my fuel tank in the cash and carry car park and then drive straight to the Ministry of Transport and the VAT man and declare what I had done and ask pretty please to pay duty on it so I could work within laws that were not written with me in mind in the first place.
-
Extended Abstract -Keynote Address SAElndia Mobility Conference -
January 10-12, 2002, Channai, India
Should heavy-duty natural gas-fueled (NG) engines be lean-burn or stoichiometric fuel metering calibrations? Theoretically lean-burn provides theoretical better fuel efficiency and is the new NG engine design available for the United States and Europe. The stoichiometric engine would provide control of all exhaust emissions including NOx when combined with the proven 3-way catalyst system, and has the potential for better power and performance. This system, however, is not currentlya design option for heavy-duty engines. On
the other hand, the stoichiometric engine dominates for new light-duty vehicles. A dilemma exists -light-duty NG fueled vehicles use the stoichiometric engine for optimal emissions control, power and performance, whereas heavy-duty en- gines do not use this system. This has become my area of personal interest and is the subject of this keynote address.
First some background
A pioneering, if not revolutionary, change in urban transportation fuel occurred in Delhi in the year 2000 with its mandate that natural gas (NG) fuel be used for light-duty vehicles, autorickshaws and buses -37,600 vehicles in all. This mandate has presented a significant challenge to SAE engineers with respect to safety, fuel efficiency, power, emissions control, durability, fitting, maintenance and program planning. The logic analyses with respect to all factors needed for the application of practical retrofit NG fueling and emission control systems to existing and new Delhi vehicles is quite complicated. Nevertheless, despite a rather short time period, progress has been.made, although from what I have read, the topic is still of raging public debate. There are over 1 million NG-fueled vehicles in operation in the world. The leading user
countries are Argentina, Italy, USA, Brazil and Russia. India had about 10,000 NG-fueled vehic.les in 2000 and is probably now in the 4th or 5th posi tion among world leaders. In fact, it seems that mayors and local governments of many world cities are requesting similar action for NG-fueled urban city vehicles.
A NG urban transportation fuel makes very good sense -especially to world cities like Delhi where high populations of heavy-duty vehicles such as buses and delivery vehicles with diesel engines are in all-day use. Heavy-duty diesel engines are long-Iived and last for a generation -30 to 40 years -and contribute to a high percentage of urban black smoke and soot particulate emissions and NOx emissions. NG fuel combined with a closed-loop fuel metering system and 3-way catalyst (TWG) will immediately and dramatically bring black soot and NOx emissions to low levels. Alternately, black soot emissions will be greatly reduced with NG lean-burn fuel metering and a NG oxidation catalyst designed to eliminate HG emissions (especially the gray smoke lube oil generated particulate emissions and formaldehyde - a carcinogen) and CO emissions.
There are other advantages to NG-fueled engines. These include the following: excellent cold start and transient emissions, zero evaporative emissions, independence from oil supplies, diversity of fuel, proven world supplies and 20%
lower GO2 emissions. Disadvantages include the following: local supply and distribution is limited, fuel quality can be variable, high pressure storage tanks are required and with contribute to overall system cost, and the small market limits a more desirable amount of engine engineering to achieve optimal results for power, fuel economy and emissions control.
There are many urban NG program issues to consider. Health is the foremost consideration for India citizens when considering alternatives and approaches. India cities are severely polluted by transportation engines and heavy-duty engines are one of the main contributors. Conversion to a NG transportation fuel appears to be an overwhelming first choice1. For the SAE Engineer, there are
many challenges such as: safety, emissions control, energy efficiency, engine power, system cost and competitiveness. These areas compose the professional domain of SAE Engineers in addition to being active, contributing citizens. I am sure many SAE Engineers at this SAE Mobility Conference are engaged one way or the other in contributing to a successful program.
New light-duty natural gas SI vehicles have been designed and sold that utilize closed-loop oxygen-sensor controlled fuel metering systems and TWC emissions control. All major car companies sell GEM NG vehicles. One example is the medium-duty Ford F150 trucks qualified to meet the existing California ultra-low vehicle (ULEV) emission standards for 2000 and 2001. In addition, NG conversion kits that have been designed and proven for conversion of existing vehicles are available from many companies throughout the world. Two types are available: 1) a closed-loop stoichiometric systems with TWC catalysts or 2) an open-loop with oxidation catalysts.
India is making new history in the converting autorickshaws to natural gas fuel. I have nothing to report or question on this matter there being there being no published experience.
1) By 2010 or later clean new diesel engines now under development for USA 2007 and European 2008 regulations may become available to India and other world cities. The subject is complex and I do not include this related subject within the scope of this current discussion.
Publications exploring diesel engine emission control often offer the observation that a diesel engine cannot utilize the proven TWC system for HC, GO and NOx control because the diesel engine cannot be run at the stoichiometric air and fuel mixture. The question that immediately comes to my mind is - why then is not a stoichiometric air ind fuel mixture a practical approach for a NG engine? The NG fueled engine does not have this imitation. One intuitive reason would be related to fuel efficiency since this matter is a great importance to a heavy-duty engine customer. I jid a search and came up with a couple of techni-
cal publications that compared demonstrations of the two systems. There were also some recent lublications of NG engine developments aimed at overcoming design or field problems of early NG engine designs.
The Helsinki Case
The Helsinki LPG and NG fueled urban bus demonstration program started in 1996. It has been followed and reported by Marku Ikonen, VTT Energy, Finland. Three reports were given respectively in Los Angeles, Helsinki, and San Diego about the experience with these gas buses operated in Helsinki over six years. Stoichiometric CNG and LPG fueled buses and lean-burn CNG buses were included in this demonstration. The City of Helsinki has decided to use gaseous fuel powered buses for all downtown lines by 2002-2003 -about 70 to 80 buses. In the first reports the stoichiometric CNG buses had very good in-field performance experience and an expected loss of fuel efficiency compared to diesel engines. The first lean-burn CNG buses did not have good in-field reliability and poorer than expected fuel consumption (these were the EURO-1 design versions but the problems were reported to have been overcome with an advanced EURO-2 lean-burn design). Note: the stoichiometric CNG buses were
removed from the Helsinki program and therefore are no longer followed by VTT -an event of which I was personally saddened.
The Volvo Level 3 (EURO3) CNG and BioGas Engine:
Volvo engines in the Helsinki study above were Level 1 versions. In the interim, Volvo designed Level 2 and 3 gas engines for the EURO2 and EURO3. A paper by C-E Hedberg, Volvo Powertrain, reported on the Level 3 engine development for the Volvo DH10 CNG/BioGas Engine. The design objectives were as follows: 1) reduce NOx and PM emissions, 2) eliminate black smoke and 3) reduce noise and vibration. The system used the following:
*
Spark-ignited combustion
*
Inductive ignition coils -each cylinder -with integrated power stages
*
Full 24 volt system
*
Turbocharger with air cooling and electronically controlled waste gate
*
Individual cylinder fuel metering valves - electronically controlled
*
Lambda Sonde (oxygen sensor) with linear lean control which gave adaptive control for gas quality, altitude and ambient temperature
*
Integrated electronic engine management system -electronic throttle, torque-based control independent of ambient temperature and altitude
*
Oxidation catalyst -designed for methane
*
EGR (exhaust gas recirculation)
The system test result was 2.0 g/kWh NOx, and <0.05g/kWh PM (both R49/ETC). Quite remarkable.
The Brussels Case
In 1998, G. Lenaers, VITO, reported on a comparison of (1) NG stoichiometric bus equipped with a TWC and (2) NG lean-burn buses equipped with oxidation catalysts compared to a EURO2 diesel engine bus. The buses were operated and emissions tested on three different Brussels bus routes. The NG lean-burn buses had fuel consumption about 112.5% higher than the diesel bus whereas the NG stoichiometric bus was about 125% higher. On the other hand, NOx stoichiometric bus emissions were 2% (0.44 g/km) of that of diesel bus (19.7 g/km) whereas the NG lean-burn buses were 91% and 85% respectively. PM emissions were not measured.
Clearly, a stoichiometric air/fuel calibration and TWC can reduce NOx emissions to very low levels compared to the lean-burn calibration.
The DaimlerChrysler NG Engine Design
DaimlerChrysler, Stuttgart, Germany. G. Frankel, et al. The development of the M906 LAG lean-burn natural gas engine with multipoint gas injection.
The purpose of this work was to develop a practical NG engine for use in city vehicles designed for the power and torque of diesel engines. The objective was to achieve engine power and torque as close as possible to that of the Die-
sel OM 906 LA engine -MD = 1100 Nm at n = 1200 rev/min. Power: PE = 205 kW at n = 2300 rev/min. Capacity: 6.88 liter.
Constraints were:
*
Retain outside dimensions
*
Minimum changes and use of common diesel engine components because of economics of a small engine market
*
Lean-burn. Lambda = 1.0 cannot cope with combustion temperature
Design changes:
*
Modern boost system
*
Multipoint gas injection -common rail
*
Single-coil ignition
*
CR = 10.5. Higher would exceed voltage capacity of ignition system at peak torque
*
VTG turbocharger. Lower back pressure gave 1% improved fuel efficiency over a wide range
Achievement:
Emissions: g/Kwh -NOx 2.0, THC 0.75, NMHC 0.05, CO 0.1, PM <0.05.
Switzerland Design. SAE Technical Paper 2000-01-2825, C. Nellen and Konstantinos Boulouchos, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, ETH, Zurich.
Target: Overcome the dilemma between the trade-off of low emissions and high engine efficiency.
Design Selected:
*
Exhaust gas recirculation (EGR)
*
Stoichiometric Fuel Mixture (Lambda = 1.00)
*
3-way Catalytic Converter
*
Supercharged and aftercooled for high power and thermal efficiency
Achievement:
*
Demonstrated very low engine NOx with cooled EGR compared to lean-burn concept
*
NOx at -0.003 g/kWh with TWC
*
Compression ratio up to 13.3
*
BMEP to 23 Bar -290 kW from 10 liter engine at 1500 rpm
*
Engine efficiency -40% at 12 Bar BMEP and 42% at 23 Bar -unrivaled for gas engines
*
Practical thermal and mechanical loading
*
Robust to gas composition extremes with respect to engine performance and emissions
*
Extended field tests underway
The outstanding level of emissions control and high level of engine efficiency in an apparent practical system has been achieved through engineering and a focus on the desired goal.
Conclusions
*
NG is a clean fuel. Wise choice for immediate decrease in urban mobile source emissions. NG exhaust products (SI and compression ignition engines) require catalytic emission control to achieve goal
*
NG provides India with a measure of fuel independence and fuels diversity
*
Survey shows that heavy-duty CNG engines have been designed with lean-burn calibrations in the U.S and Europe.
*
The main reasons are that for stoichiometric calibrations:
1.
Cylinder temperatures too high
2.
Knock tendency limits high turbocharge pressure that would otherwise yield better engine efficiency
3.
Ignition voltage requirement (at high BMEP) exceeds system capability
4.
Less favorable theoretical fuel efficiency
5.
Small market
*
However, an effective NOx emission control system is not yet developed for the lean-burn NG engine
*
Initial demonstrations have shown that stoichiometric GNG heavy-duty engines provide good field performance but lower fuel efficiency than lean-burn GNG engines. Very low NOx emissions + HG and CO emissions control are achieved with stoichiometric CNG engines equipped with TWC.
*
Recent improved lean-burn GNG engine designs utilizing a lean oxygen sensor have overcome field application problems with good power and less sensitivity to fuel and operating conditions, but lack of NOx emissions control remains.
*
A Swiss development program developed a stoichiometric GNG engine approach aimed at solving the traditional fuel efficiency Vs emissions control barrier. The new approach achieved excellent fuel efficiency, power and ultra-low NOx control. The approach is without undue stress on engine components and
is undergoing additional durability demonstration
*
India SAE Engineers - Can the Swiss development be applied to new and/or in-use NG engines and achieve optimal fuel efficiency as well as ultimate HC, GO and NOx emissions control. A problem and a challenge to consider and resolve for India and other countries.
-
To GuyFawkes:
What is your obsession with Fattywaggonman's project?
All of the great inventors of our time had many failures for every success.
Seems like if more of us experimented with our machines we would have a better understanding of their ins and outs.
Academia certainly has a place, even here, but a little bit goes a long way.
Why not just let him experiment away?
jim
-
To GuyFawkes:
What is your obsession with Fattywaggonman's project?
All of the great inventors of our time had many failures for every success.
Seems like if more of us experimented with our machines we would have a better understanding of their ins and outs.
Academia certainly has a place, even here, but a little bit goes a long way.
Why not just let him experiment away?
jim
I'm not obsessed.
My professional opinion is that his apparent complete reliance on seat of the pants guesstimates is the core issue, because it means that no-one but himself can really comment, and yet he is apparently asking for comment.
To an outsider such as myself the seat of his ass aspect of his project is by far the most notable and significant aspect.
In my experience the instant these sorts of project are subjected to empirical analysis all the claimed breakthoughs dissapear, to be replaced with exactly the same problems and challenges that everyone else who has attempted to tackle the same problem has encountered.
I'll say it again, I think his willingness to experiment is great, and should be encouraged. Did nobody read the bit I said about he should add a paypal link because I throw him a few bucks now and again? What is that if not support?
But, in exchange for bunging him a few bucks now and again, I want to see numbers.
He is manking many fundamental errors, a classic one is "the exhaust gas looks clean to my eyes, and smells clean to my nose"
Which is great, except most emissions gases are invisible to the human eye and undetectable by the human nose, you could be quadrupling them and have absolutely no idea whatsoever.
The human eye can see white exhaust smoke, which is either too lean or just a very cold day, black smoke, which is too rich, and blue smoke which is oil.
carbon monoxide has NO SMELL and NO TASTE and NO COLOUR
nitrogen monoxide has NO SMELL and NO TASTE and NO COLOUR
and yet this guy is claiming, based upon his eyes and his nose, that his engine modifications have resulted in a cleaner exhaust with less emissions.
sure, he can eventually put an EGA on the engine and get numbers, but he won't know if the drilled depressions or milled slots contributed to the results, or maybe the weather, or maybe the fuel, or maybe contaminants in the ingested air, or anything else.
this is not about invention, or experimentation, or academia, it is about scientific method.
if you do not use a scientific method you will end up like those guys who claiimed they had managed to achieve cold fusion in a bucket of water in a lab.
they couldn't explain how they had done it
they couldn't explain what other possible sources they had eliminated
they couldn't explain to anyone else how to duplicate it.
even if you are doing good work, you just painted yourself with the same tell tale signs all the junk science freaks adorn themselves with, which is a bloody shame, to say the least.
_IF_ he is the one in a million on the right track to stumbling across something no-one else has done before, constructive criticism from the likes of me on a place like this isn't going to stop him, on the contrary, it will help him.
Has he considered the "dead zone" he is creating in those pistons? Surely not, because he would know dead zone can account for up to 20% of emissions. Wanna eliminate the dead zone, move that top ring WAAAAAY up to the top of the piston.
Google and the Internet isn't everything, there are more things than you can shake a stick at that are very real, and very old, but according to google and the internet do not exist (hell, 1954 engineering diaries is just a wee example, there are NO technical references of note online) but they are out there, I have seen actual piston designs in a range than span either side of what he is fdoing, from milder that his to wilder than his, in litho prints in books 50 / 60 / 70 years old. It ain't new and at didn't work then, why will it work now? because oil is more expensive? because we have finite element modelling on computers? because we have CNC?
no
if you want to boost the emissions performance of the lister(oid) then you are going to have to design an entirely new piston (& rings), very high top ring and top ring set for minimal dead zone, flat as possible to minimise torque losses to the barrel, pay a great deal of attantion to the mechanical interface between piston+rings and barrel (listard coating anyone?) and the real bitch will be designing a new conrod to go with your new piston and keep the whole engine in balance, this alone will reduce emissions by 25%.
-
Just though I would stick my head up and offer up a little info.
Determining just exactly what is coming out of an engine is a little more involved then just sticking a probe in the tail pipe, that is just a feel good check for an engine that has already been characterized. Real testing is more on the order of capturing every cubic foot of exhaust gas that comes out of the engine in very large plastic bags so that it can be tested and double checked and tested some more. And you don't just pump any old air into the engine.
http://www.google.com/search?hs=spJ&hl=en&lr=&client=opera&rls=en&q=engine++emissions+%22bag+test%22&btnG=Search
Edited: Changed the search to get rid of the "air bag" stuff.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&client=opera&rls=en&q=engine++emissions+%22bag+test%22+-%22air+bag%22&btnG=Search
-
Most engines are "lean burn", that's where the power is.
What matey is playing with is "stoichiometric burn", which isn't suited to heavy diesels or heavy duty motors, just light and medium.
Stoichiometric burn combined with three way catalysts produce a very clean exhaust. Downside is significant power loss compared to lean burn.
Well this is sort of correct but not entirely... Here are some things to consider... "stoichiometric burn" or SB... is normally achieved by limiting the intake vollume in some way... Usually a butterfly type valve is used.. Limiting the intake vollume also has the effect of lowering the compression ratio.. which also lowers the expansion ratio... the expansion ratio is where the efficiency lies so SB engine tend to be less efficient... The new DI systems that are being used by outboard manutactures and Audi use ethier air or high pressure to atomise the fuel and have limited if any restricition of the intake charge vollume... kind of a Diesel / Otto hybrid.. exept Otto shouldn't be credited with the use use of the intake restriction for regulation... I think Benz or Daimel came up with it though I'm not cirtain.. Anyhow... My closed loop engine is still Lean Burn as far as the cycle goes... so no measureable efficiency losses... BTW IMO it would have been better if India had just implemented Orbital's technology to the existing ifrastructure and not CNG...
http://www.envirofit.org/files/publications/SAE%20SETC%20Design%20of%20a%20Direct%20Injection%20Retrofit%20Kit%20for%20Small.pdf
The close loop system I'm using can be SB (by adding a vollume of air proportional to the fuel being consumed) or LB (by adding more air than is needed for combustion... ethier way you get the benefit of returning unburned fuel (smoke) back to the intake for another chance at combustion..
-
Well this is sort of correct but not entirely...
Fatty, If I lives five miles down the road I could call by and get my hands dirty and you could explain what you were doing and I could show you some old books and we'd both communicate better.
The internet doesn't allow that, so it highlights the old problem with all experimentation and innovation, documented work and observations.
Pictures of your modified piston are nice, I want to know.
a/ Mass of material removed
b/ volume of material removed.
d/ previous and current swept volume and combustion chamber volume
e/ previous and current piston area
f/ previous and current exhaust gas temperatures and fuel used for a given load for a given time
g/ ambient pressure / temp / humidity throughout
These are cheap seat of the ass measurements and documentation to do, and apart from real feel stuff like smell and vibration and so on, go a HELL of a long way towards bridging the gap of not being five miles down the road and able to do hands on.
With JUST those numbers we can do a comparison to getting the same numbers by simply adding a thicker head gasket or base gasket and lowering compression that way, and eliminate the lowered compression aspect of your mods and see what difference the hoped for turbulence makes.
More importantly, YOU can tell, five mods down the line, how this mod compares to the state of affairs after the first mod, and after the second mod, because memory ain't good enough for that and subjective feel certainly ain't good enough for that.
-
Well said, Guy.
Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.
-
Guy:
Would you mind thumbing over the FAO doc "Wood gas as engine fuel"
http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/docrep/t0512e/t0512e00.htm
I am intersted in your take on the injection timing changes, injector and pump modifications and your whole angle on the Stoichiometric burn ratio table.
Not trying to hijack this thread, but some of the piston modifications and injection changes are along the same path.
Doug
-
For those who might be interested here's some vieo of my IC ericsson cycle engine...
(http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e136/fattywagonman/th_MVC-001V.jpg) (http://s38.photobucket.com/albums/e136/fattywagonman/?action=view¤t=MVC-001V.flv)
-
Guy:
Would you mind thumbing over the FAO doc "Wood gas as engine fuel"
http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/docrep/t0512e/t0512e00.htm
I am intersted in your take on the injection timing changes, injector and pump modifications and your whole angle on the Stoichiometric burn ratio table.
Not trying to hijack this thread, but some of the piston modifications and injection changes are along the same path.
Doug
wow, that'll take some reading and digesting, don't hold your breath.. ;)
-
For those who might be interested here's some vieo of my IC ericsson cycle engine...
Looks cool, got any still pics so's we can get a clearer look. ;D
I have been wanting to take a try at George Cayley's engine.
http://stirlingengines.org.uk/pioneers/pion3.html
I believe that an internal combustion version of the ericsson cycle is essentially the brayton cycle. When George Brayton was working on engines he used pistons for compressing and expanding and only in fairly modern times has the brayton cycle come to mean gas turbine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ericsson_Cycle
http://www.todayinsci.com/B/Brayton_George/BraytonGeorgeEngine.htm
Google books.
http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&vid=0wgP2lF6VG2RCHMny6&id=_DsgCveKE84C&as_brr=1&vq=brayton&dq=Brayton+engine&lpg=PA231&pg=PA232
See ya monday
-
Hi Andre,
There is a family of engines all similar to the Cayley.... The Barber (never built) Bucket, Roper, and Trewella all used a compressor and then passed the compressed air through the firebox where it was heated by the fire and and then on to the expander where some of the heat energy was extracted... kind of a crude version of the Brayton cycle... There is an Old guy by the name of Oly Bergy who has built copys of the Roper, Trewella, and the Ericsson ship engine.... none of the early engines recaptured any of the heat after exhaust.... These are the oldest type of IC engines.. But the Ericsson was different.. it was EC .. heat was applied to the outside of the expander cylinder and a regenerator (thermal capacitor) was used to retain some of the normally wasted heat... the use of the regenerator gives the Ericsson cycle an efficiency possibility comparable to Stirling.. Then Brayton came along and started making fire inside the expander cylinder... IMO the downfalls of the Brayton piston engines is that he didn't build a hot cylinder / piston with and extender and that he never recuperated the waste heat.. Ricardo built the Dolphin engine which is also similar but it uses a phased crank to transfer the working fluid...
http://www.oldengine.org/members/diesel/Misc/Ricardo.htm
http://www-g.eng.cam.ac.uk/125/achievements/ricardo/page07.htm
I don't believe he was the first to phase the crank.. but his engine is worth mentioning since it was in production and ran well.. .. there have been several split phase engine throught the years.. some performed well.. unfortunately none have ever been a huge sucess...
-
I don't believe he was the first to phase the crank.. but his engine is worth mentioning since it was in production and ran well.. .. there have been several split phase engine throught the years.. some performed well.. unfortunately none have ever been a huge sucess...
The "deek" DKW piston charged split phase was a *great* engine, and deek were the gods of 2 stroke, even the HD hummer was theirs
I *think* I have a handle on what you are trying to do.
If I was you, I'd buy three 6/1 listeroids and tear them down. Build a horizontally opposed, twin crank, crosshead design testbed, but don't lock the cranks in phase, use that to alter timing and compression, be clever about it and you can offset the "TDC / Head" section to one side, and use comet style combined inlet / injection chambers, perhaps more than one, staggered axially, ported exhaust barrel at the "opposite" end away from the "head" end, use the crank phases to move the virtual "stroke" left and right, while taking most power from one side and doing most scavenge with the other... it would be too complex and failure prone to make a production engine, but as a testbed you could do almost anything with it.
My reservations about your approach are perhaps best summed up by reading Lou Kramer, how not to go about convincing anyone you have anything worthwhile
http://www.siscom.net/~louisekramer/index.htm
-
Hi I don't know if this is similar to the concepts just mentioned. Two stroke two piston ina common cyl.
http://www.commer.org.nz/TS3motor.html
I think it is a great engine (British, of course) :D
Dennis
-
:o :o :o Guess what? I was sitting here watching TV about 3:30pm (now 4:08pm), Saturday, 10 June, 2006 and I saw fattywagonmans nitrogen extractor!!!
I was watching "Todays' Environment" on Ch. 2, WESH, NBC network out of Orlando, FL. and they were talking about storing apples in large warehouses pumped rich with nitrogen. They would get the nitrogen from an apparatus similar to reverse osmosis for water. Pump air into a bundle of hollow fibers under high pressure and the nitrogen would come through one side and the Oxygen, CO2 and other gases would stay inside. Find a way to extract the CO2 or get oxygen through instead of nitrogen and you have your oxygen supply for the engine. Les
I'll leave off talking about reverse osmosis unless you want me to.
-
Hi Les,
Yes O2 generator / nitrogen filters are fairly common in the medical industry... They usually have a compressor which charges 2 back and forth...
http://www.lenntech.com/oxygen.htm
Dennis the Commer is an OP diesel.. which is just 2 pistons in a common cylinder... this is a different animal than the split cycle engines where the compression is done in one cylinder and the expansion in another... I believe Hugo Junkerswas the originator of the OP engine.. He built his first in the late 1800's.. He later used them in aircraft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Jumo_205
Guy,
I was thinking about the 2 cylinder petter as a platform for a larger version of my engine... I would just convert one cylinder to a compressor and the other to an expander with an extended piston and cylinder so I could run it without cooling... I could Phase the cranks or leave them 180 and use an accumulatorto store the compressed air... exept for the IC this is classic Ericsson cycle...
-
Here's another good OP link
http://www.iet.auc.dk/sec2/junkers.htm
-
Hi I don't know if this is similar to the concepts just mentioned. Two stroke two piston ina common cyl.
http://www.commer.org.nz/TS3motor.html
I think it is a great engine (British, of course) :D
Dennis
nope, common crank below the barrels and two rockers, used is boats a bit, and used in DMU (diesel multiple unit) trains like below
(http://www.the7820library.org.uk/GWR%20DMU%20leaving%20Barnstaple%20July%201985.jpg)
always known to me a rootes-listers, had a strange farty exhaust note, especially the triples, blower was only really for scavenging the piston ported engine
usual piston ported 2 stroke problems, utterly dependent on blower, ring / ports wear so they burn oil, noisy bastards and not very economical, but simple and pretty reliable, in marine variation always problems because wet exhaust + waves = backpressure, 2 strokes hate it
-
How do I know this or that about my engine when I cannot see inside to know at that instant what is really going on. The great God of Abraham, through Jesus Christ, by way of the Holy Spirit has poured out his Spirit on me concerning this engine and how it is to be handled. This is something I do not take lightly and I will do as God has instructed me.
This is my favorite quote from the Kramer site ... Kramer does seem to be very driven.. I have to admit I don't throughly understand his concepts... I bet he's a neat guy.. and possibly a bit of a wack job... heck someone might say the same thing about me...
As for you comment
My reservations about your approach are perhaps best summed up by reading Lou Kramer, how not to go about convincing anyone you have anything worthwhile
Not sure what you ment by this coment... I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else that what I have is better.. I'm just sharing some of what I've been doing with other motorheads... maybe someone will find it interesting... As far as I'm aware there are very few recuperated / regenerated split cycle engines running... using a regenerator / recuperator is just one possible way to improve engine efficiency... BTW one of the neat things about my engine is that since the expander is so hot everything that enters burns very completely... motor oil burns without smoke or smell...
-
As far as I'm aware there are very few recuperated / regenerated split cycle engines running... using a regenerator / recuperator is just one possible way to improve engine efficiency...
there are very very few, simply because they aren't efficient**, and won't be until oil tops 150 - 200 a barrel...
** = Total Cost of Ownership
This is why I didn't set up in business making CHP units when I heard about the indian listeroids.
A UK 400 pound engine at the docks in calcutta turns into a UK 10,000 pound engine and CHP system when I'm done with it here.
At UK 10,000 pounds a pop, it is LITERALLY is so inefficient that if it ran on pure fresh air it would STILL work out more expensive than mains gas and electric and heating oil at current prices.
The thermal / work efficiency of the engine per Bthu of fuel used doesn't get a look in.
-
Hi Guy,
I agree the split cycle by itself is not that efficient but few recuperated engines have been proposed.. fewer have been built...
Here's a link to a patent that shows the basic layout of the engine I am building..
http://freepatentsonline.com/5499605.pdf
recuperating a split cycle engine should give possible efficiencies in the mid 40's and the reliability of a properly designed engine should be better than existing IC's.. not much shock loading... they operate more like a compressor when running... the other benefit is that these engine will run on any combustable fuel... liquid gasious or gasified fuel are no problem..
As far as the usefullness of CHP... CHP replacing the power grid?..I'm not sure that will ever happen.. I read your blog ans see that you put a lot of thought into this and figure it doesn't pencil out.. I know one of 60kW CHP generator at a local plating shop that saves the owner about $3-4K each month in the winter.. ..And there a lot of folks on the gulf coast who wish they had had a reliable generator when the huricanes took out the power.. there's also the wind solar folks who often run gasoline gens to charge batteries (very inneficient and costly) ... and here in the US some locations just cost too much to string the grid power to.. figures like $20-40K are the norm not the exeption... most of these locations use propane for heating so a propane fired CHP system would make sense.... An easier question might be what does it cost to be without power? The 2003 outage on the east coast was estimated to cost over $6 billion... and that's a lot of generators...
-
Here's a link to some informationabout the possible benefits of regeneration for those who are interetsed..
http://jazz.nist.gov/atpcf/prjbriefs/prjbrief.cfm?ProjectNumber=00-00-5574
-
Yes I am inclined to agree with idea of CHP, but the cost/payback ratio is kind of tilted against ecconomics of it right now. Unless you have free fuel and need a lot of heat....
Doug
I always come back to this.....
Indian CHP, no joke they are as serious about the technology of biomass fuel as any one more so I think
http://www.ankurscientific.com/
-
Hi Doug,
I too have been looking at Ankur.... for the past several years.. One problem I have with gasifiers is that after they heat the fuel to gasify it... the fuel has to be cleaned cooled only to be burned again... I think it would be much better to be able to use hot / slightly dirty gasified fuel... and burn it in a hot chmber.. Yesterday I went for a ride on my steamboat and as we chuged up the river on wood and used motor oil I looked up at the stack... no smoke.. (when you get the atomizer just right the combustion is very complete, nothing but heat) IMO we need to combine the efficiency of the IC engine with the ease of burning and low smoke that can be obtained with constant combustion... I think I have a way to do this in an engine similar to the one in the video..
-
It would be very interesting to see what you come up with Waggoman....
Doug
-
I think someone asked about some steamboat pics....
(http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e136/fattywagonman/2006-1sthalf019.jpg)
(http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e136/fattywagonman/2006-1sthalf021.jpg)
(http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e136/fattywagonman/2006-1sthalf020.jpg)