emissions free engine, produced in a garage!!
- Thread starter micra_pete
- Start date
DEI lol. I'm suprised ollyc98 didn't come up with that one 
I love the first response he got :laugh:
There's still time.
DEI lol. I'm suprised ollyc98 didn't come up with that one
There's still time.
Micra 110
Site Supporter
*May i point out that this is not a rant but a constructive post*
I don't know what all the fuss is about tbo...this has been posted on many websites but not one person has explained as to WHY it doesn't work? I know nothing about 'Turbos' and it seems that nobody else does.
When someone comes up with an idea and that's all it was, an idea fwn people seem to think it's ok to join the p***take band wagon.
Why is it such a bad idea to have a Emissionless car? In this day and age anything is possible, it's called 'Inovation' but if you know different and would like to explain why this concept wouldn't work then please feel free to enlighten me
The Americans have had a system in place in which to burn all the fuel in 2 stages for years so what's different in this idea?
Horse and Cart owners thought Henry Ford was mad when he made the first car.....
Discuss....
I don't know what all the fuss is about tbo...this has been posted on many websites but not one person has explained as to WHY it doesn't work? I know nothing about 'Turbos' and it seems that nobody else does.
When someone comes up with an idea and that's all it was, an idea fwn people seem to think it's ok to join the p***take band wagon.
Why is it such a bad idea to have a Emissionless car? In this day and age anything is possible, it's called 'Inovation' but if you know different and would like to explain why this concept wouldn't work then please feel free to enlighten me
The Americans have had a system in place in which to burn all the fuel in 2 stages for years so what's different in this idea?
Horse and Cart owners thought Henry Ford was mad when he made the first car.....
Discuss....
Because you need oxygen to burn. Once it's burnt there is less oxygen. therefore less chance of it burning 2nd time round. Put it through a 3rd time and it's barely likely to combust at all. Use www.wikipedia.org to find out about internal combustion engines and turbochargers.
Pete
Site Supporter
an engine burns fuel with air and heat, Air comes in with O2 at approx 20%, much of this is used and combines with the fuel giving energy and waste products. What this chap is suggesting is using the waste products again, and again and again and again.
In modern low emissions cars the exhaust gas may be fed round again inorder to burn off unburnt fuel, this cannot be done indefinitely and without new air or getting rid of the spent exhaust it will simply die out.
Much like you if you breathe into a plastic bag, you'll suffocate because you NEED Oxygen.
In modern low emissions cars the exhaust gas may be fed round again inorder to burn off unburnt fuel, this cannot be done indefinitely and without new air or getting rid of the spent exhaust it will simply die out.
Much like you if you breathe into a plastic bag, you'll suffocate because you NEED Oxygen.
More boost doesn't equal more efficient engine for a start. Efficiency i based upon how much energy something releases compared to how much is put in the first place not the total power made. I think modern petrol engines are something like 30% efficient.
Antony
Ex. Club Member
there was once an engine made entirely of ceramic, (well silocone) that used no oil, no water and ran 80 efficient,
this is due to the microscopic lubricational properties of the material and the fact that it can withstand much higher temperatures. this allowed one test engine to produce 600bhp+ at 15000 rpm with just 1000cc. but ran so hot you could actualy see the pistons inside the block.
couple this technology to the rotary technology, or even the "spherical valve technology" and you will have an almost 90% efficient engine that needs no cooling or lubrication.
but the engine was baught by Ford and distroyed...... as was the valve technology.
but ive seen it, was over 10 years ago, but i dont forget things like that..lol
il see if i can delve into the bowls of tinterwebnet thingy mabob and find some articles...
this is due to the microscopic lubricational properties of the material and the fact that it can withstand much higher temperatures. this allowed one test engine to produce 600bhp+ at 15000 rpm with just 1000cc. but ran so hot you could actualy see the pistons inside the block.
couple this technology to the rotary technology, or even the "spherical valve technology" and you will have an almost 90% efficient engine that needs no cooling or lubrication.
but the engine was baught by Ford and distroyed...... as was the valve technology.
but ive seen it, was over 10 years ago, but i dont forget things like that..lol
il see if i can delve into the bowls of tinterwebnet thingy mabob and find some articles...
It's entirely possible to run an engine and recycle the exhaust products without discharging to atmosphere, there are however some very big drawbacks to this, namely engine life. I don't know if they still exist but submarines used an emergency generator rated at around 1000hp, which was based on a hydrogen peroxide source. They would run for 3days before they ate themselves to death from the build up of acids.
Micra 110
Site Supporter
Petrol Engine only 30% efficient that's an outragiously low output....i didn't know it was that bad....What's the percentage if i was riding a Pushbike?
What Antony said about that Engine is a good example of corporations stifling really good ideas....although it was proved it could work....unlike matey from across the Pond.....
What Antony said about that Engine is a good example of corporations stifling really good ideas....although it was proved it could work....unlike matey from across the Pond.....
Ceirwan
Ex. Club Member
I have heard of the ceramic engine before, but to my knowledge it was prohibitively expensive, and also prone to shattering if the slightest thing went wrong.
Edit: Quote Wikipedia:
In the early 1980s, Toyota researched production of an adiabatic ceramic engine which can run at a temperature of over 6000 °F (3300 °C). Ceramic engines do not require a cooling system and hence allow a major weight reduction and therefore greater fuel efficiency. Fuel efficiency of the engine is also higher at high temperature, as shown by Carnot's theorem. In a conventional metallic engine, much of the energy released from the fuel must be dissipated as waste heat in order to prevent a meltdown of the metallic parts. Despite all of these desirable properties, such engines are not in production because the manufacturing of ceramic parts in the requisite precision and durability is difficult. Imperfection in the ceramic leads to cracks, which can lead to potentially dangerous equipment failure. Such engines are possible in laboratory settings, but mass-production is unfeasible with current technology.
Edit: Quote Wikipedia:
In the early 1980s, Toyota researched production of an adiabatic ceramic engine which can run at a temperature of over 6000 °F (3300 °C). Ceramic engines do not require a cooling system and hence allow a major weight reduction and therefore greater fuel efficiency. Fuel efficiency of the engine is also higher at high temperature, as shown by Carnot's theorem. In a conventional metallic engine, much of the energy released from the fuel must be dissipated as waste heat in order to prevent a meltdown of the metallic parts. Despite all of these desirable properties, such engines are not in production because the manufacturing of ceramic parts in the requisite precision and durability is difficult. Imperfection in the ceramic leads to cracks, which can lead to potentially dangerous equipment failure. Such engines are possible in laboratory settings, but mass-production is unfeasible with current technology.
Antony
Ex. Club Member
however they did successfully use one to power a flood warning siren is canada...
alchemyst
Ex. Club Member
i think every ones missing the point entirely engines are just basically air pumps the main problem with his idea is not the heat the lack of oxygen ect. it is simply that you cannot keep adding and not have any exhaust the only things known to man that do this are black holes.
a zero emisions combustion engine is not possible in the nothing coming out sense of things.
a zero emision engine would still have an exhaust its just that the things coming out arent poisonous.
hydrogen engines burn very cleanly, as do alchohol powered engines, water engines have been made but unfortunately the process needed to split the water into hydrogen and oxygen suitable for combustion uses more power than the engine makes from burning the fuel.
plus if you burn pure oxgen and pure hydrogen your exhaust would mostly be water!
a zero emisions combustion engine is not possible in the nothing coming out sense of things.
a zero emision engine would still have an exhaust its just that the things coming out arent poisonous.
hydrogen engines burn very cleanly, as do alchohol powered engines, water engines have been made but unfortunately the process needed to split the water into hydrogen and oxygen suitable for combustion uses more power than the engine makes from burning the fuel.
plus if you burn pure oxgen and pure hydrogen your exhaust would mostly be water!
Its not burn off unburnt fuel, thats the job of the Cat. EGR is used to reduce the NOx content of the burn gasses. "NOx can contribute as much as 50% of total emissions when combusting oil"
I thought black holes are areas of very dense matter with incredible levels of gravity such that light cannot even escape therefore appear as a black hole? I can't see the connection!
Im glad you said that, I thought you were about to claim they worked!
Yes almost entirely, and indeed most of the engines exhaust is water vapour.
Seeeeeeeeeeeee this is what should have been discussed! this is actually starting to be an informative post. lol
Has any one actualy mentioned the fact that a turbo doesnt actually resend the exhaust 'air/fumes' back in, but that it simply uses it to spool the turbo, as i think (if it isnt a #### take post) this is where the guy could possibly be mistaken, and thus thinking about missing out the turbo etc,
when reading what he described, to me- it sounds like he thinks the turbo "grabs" the gasses out of the exhuast and then pressurises it back into the inlet,
rather than it actually using the exhaust fumes as a way of spooling the turbo into dragging clean ait into and pressurising it into the intake..
But i dont think that has ever been explained (or i missed that) but even the couple of posts in here didnt really explain that, they have just simply said it doesnt use the exhaust fumes. just never been explained as to what it does with them.
my 2p
Has any one actualy mentioned the fact that a turbo doesnt actually resend the exhaust 'air/fumes' back in, but that it simply uses it to spool the turbo, as i think (if it isnt a #### take post) this is where the guy could possibly be mistaken, and thus thinking about missing out the turbo etc,
when reading what he described, to me- it sounds like he thinks the turbo "grabs" the gasses out of the exhuast and then pressurises it back into the inlet,
rather than it actually using the exhaust fumes as a way of spooling the turbo into dragging clean ait into and pressurising it into the intake..
But i dont think that has ever been explained (or i missed that) but even the couple of posts in here didnt really explain that, they have just simply said it doesnt use the exhaust fumes. just never been explained as to what it does with them.
my 2p
Ceirwan
Ex. Club Member
Ed, what he's saying is that if you fed the exhaust back to the intake, no gasses would ever escape, but as you keep adding petrol etc there is more and more going into the engine and nothing escaping.
A black hole also has loads going into it and nothing can escape once it crosses the event horizon. That said blackholes do emit a lot of radiation. So some stuff gets out. The point is an engine isn't a blackhole, therefore if you kept putting in something would have to give.
A black hole also has loads going into it and nothing can escape once it crosses the event horizon. That said blackholes do emit a lot of radiation. So some stuff gets out. The point is an engine isn't a blackhole, therefore if you kept putting in something would have to give.
Providing the engine actually turns for more than a few revolutions.
