MSU researchers create a new engine prototype (w/ video)

awdrifter

awdrifter

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Messages
3,449
http://img9.imageshack.**/img9/217/wavedisk.jpg

(PhysOrg.com) -- Researchers at Michigan State University have built a prototype, based on the research first released in 2009, of the Wave Disk Generator -- an engine that does not have pistons, crankshafts or valves.

This new model, which does away with the internal combustion engine of the past, has the potential to reduce auto emissions up to 90 percent, when compared to the current emissions level. This is because the engine uses roughly 60 percent of its fuel for propulsion, when you compare this to the typical cars engine that uses only 15 percent of fuel for propulsion, we can see how the increase is possible.

The new engine prototype is built with a disc-shaped shock wave generator that is about the size of a sauce pan, and will require no transmission system, cooling system, emissions regulation or fluids, which means that you will end up not only doing something good for the planet, but you will end up with less in maintenance costs, if this new prototype ever comes to the market.

The engine works like this: a rotor, with a wave-like pattern carved into channels. The fuel and air enter and mix through the central inlets. The rotor then spins, blocking the exit of gasses. As the pressure builds it will generate a shock wave that will compress the mixture. Once it is ignited an outlet opens to let the hot gases escape, and your car can move as usual.

The engine prototype was shown off by Norbert M?ller and other colleagues at Michigan State University at a meeting with the Department of Energy?s Advanced Research Projects Agency.


? 2010 PhysOrg.com
Click to expand...

[video=youtube;uf_-IMgla34]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uf_-IMgla34[/video]

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-msu-prototype-video.html

It's not exactly automotive news, but it's related.
 
It's an engine, and supposedly a really fuel efficient one.
 
28035101.jpg


A bit easier to get image. :)
 
This new model, which does away with the internal combustion engine of the past, has the potential to reduce auto emissions up to 90 percent, when compared to the current emissions level. This is because the engine uses roughly 60 percent of its fuel for propulsion, when you compare this to the typical cars engine that uses only 15 percent of fuel for propulsion, we can see how the increase is possible.
Click to expand...

No, you don't see how the increase is possible. Using 60% instead of 15% will not cut emissions by 90%. In order to cut emissions by 90%, you would have to use 10% of the fuel compared to a traditional engine - that would result in utilizing 150% of the available fuel (15%*10). Thermodynamics would like a word.
 
narf said:
No, you don't see how the increase is possible. Using 60% instead of 15% will not cut emissions by 90%. In order to cut emissions by 90%, you would have to use 10% of the fuel compared to a traditional engine - that would result in utilizing 150% of the available fuel (15%*10). Thermodynamics would like a word.
Click to expand...

Couldn't part of the emissions reduction be a more efficient combustion? It wouldn't be a flat figure based on the amount of fuel burned, right? Like...a lower-lumen lightbulb doesn't mean it's less efficient. You need to know about the wattage of said lightbulbs.
 
Last edited:
Usually the engines with better efficiency burn cleaner and produce less emissions for a used liter of fuel.

Edit: right, forget the maths. I'm going to sleep.
 
Last edited:
NecroJoe said:
Couldn't part of the emissions reduction be a more efficient combustion? It wouldn't be a flat figure based on the amount of fuel burned, right? Like...a lower-lumen lightbulb doesn't mean it's less efficient. You need to know about the wattage of said lightbulbs.
Click to expand...

That's the trouble with the word "emissions". What kind of emissions were they talking about?

By mass, burning fuel emits mostly carbon dioxide. Any other emissions is negligible by mass - a kilometre with a regular ICE may result in 150g of CO2 emitted. CO should be 0.Xg, NOx should be 0.0Xg, etc. - reducing CO2 emissions by X percent will reduce the overall emissions by mass by pretty much X percent as well.
The amount of carbon dioxide emitted is pretty much proportional to the amount of fuel burnt. As a result, going from 10l/100km to 2.5l/100km (15% to 60% efficiency) would cut emissions by mass by 75%, not 90%.

I can't assume any other measure than mass (greenhouse effect, human toxicity, etc) because they did not specify anything.


Also, "more efficient combustion" means what? Less unburnt fuel? Current ICEs manage to burn pretty much all of it already.
 
narf said:
That's the trouble with the word "emissions". What kind of emissions were they talking about?

By mass, burning fuel emits mostly carbon dioxide. Any other emissions is negligible by mass - a kilometre with a regular ICE may result in 150g of CO2 emitted. CO should be 0.Xg, NOx should be 0.0Xg, etc. - reducing CO2 emissions by X percent will reduce the overall emissions by mass by pretty much X percent as well.
The amount of carbon dioxide emitted is pretty much proportional to the amount of fuel burnt. As a result, going from 10l/100km to 2.5l/100km (15% to 60% efficiency) would cut emissions by mass by 75%, not 90%.

I can't assume any other measure than mass (greenhouse effect, human toxicity, etc) because they did not specify anything.


Also, "more efficient combustion" means what? Less unburnt fuel? Current ICEs manage to burn pretty much all of it already.
Click to expand...
Ok, I've had enough. Could you please do my math calculation so I could go and...
drinking.gif
 
narf said:
That depends on the kind and amount of maths, and on the payment :lol:
Click to expand...
I already gave up. Would have given you a million.
 
narf said:
Aww. Could really have put those million Finnish racing drivers to good use.


Always specify your units...
Click to expand...

A million is a lot whatever it is!
At least it sounds like it. :p

On topic, I believe a typical 4 stroke petrol engine has an efficiency closer to 35% not 15%. Diesels are even better.
 
In theory, yes. In real-life operation, no.

If you could operate your ICE at peak efficiency all the time then you would indeed cut your fuel bill in halfish.

Idling alone will put a dent in your efficiency by contributing nothing towards propulsion but consuming fuel. High revs will lower efficiency. Low load will lower efficiency. Ideally, (for example) 1900rpm and 80% throttle all the time or off.
 
Last edited:
Seems like part Wankel, part turbine.
 
Forget these vague 'efficiency' claims. I want a BSFC number right now.
 
Last edited:
Seen something similar to this when researching ways to use evapourated refridgerant in a waste heat recovery system. Think it might of been the Tesla turbine.... bladless turbine. But there was something else, Ill have to dig it out.

About this coming to market. Ill hold judgement on that because, just because something works in the research lab doesnt mean its ready for the prime time. For example I am working on a very novel way of regenerating Diesel Particulate Filters. At the moment, it works and it works pretty well and we are only a 25% way into the project. But theres a very good chance the guys we're working for (Caterpillar, so this is no joke and theres the money and ability to put stuff into production) will never put it into production or even on one of their vehicles...despite it working alot better than what they got now. (It comes down to packaging and system costs and how the end user might have to interact with it amd what to do with the soot once its removed)

Likewise, this is a scale model. Does it work just as well when you scale it up? will it provide enought power/torque to move a modern automobile? will you have to double/triple/quadruple up to get similar power/torque?


He mentions the Brayton cycle... which is basically what Compressor-Turbine engines work on. Would of been nice to see a video of it working.
 
Last edited:
*waits 2 years before Japanese perfect German design, as per usual*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top