Scuderi engine

[SomptingGuy]

http://www.scuderigroup.com/technology/the_technology.html

I've just been reading through the info on their web site and wondered if others here also have. The claims seem reasonable to me, so long as the transfer passage can actually be built and fitted and survive the pressures.

 

[SMOKEY44211]

Boy you struck a nerve with me. I became aware of this design about 6 months ago. The principle people involved with developing this engine live fairly close to me. It has gotten a lot of media hype in this geographic region. I even had a conversation with the son of the patent holder (who is a patent attourney). According to newspaper article the design recieved a favorable evaluation from southwest research institute. The Scuderi group was formed to raise money to build and test a working model. Suppossedly it will cost $16 million to build and evaluate a working prototype. A congressman named Olver (who has been the recipient of campaign contributions from this group) is a member of a subcommittee of the EPA.has made a recomendation that the government give $2 million to this group to help develop this engine. Anyone could build a working prototype of this design for well under $ one hundred thousand. Money and politics aside I think the thing is a dog. Biggest drawback that I see is poor expansion ratio. On the intake side a roots type or screw compessor would achieve the task much more efficiently then the piston method shown in the abstract and animation. I think the thing will run but how its going to achieve better fuel in/work out is a mystery to me. I hope others from this community weigh in on this.--------Phil

 

[globi5]

I agree with you, having a supercharger on the intake side can do the same task.
Besides, they argue that it is an advantage to have intake and exhaust side divided. However, the contrary is the case, cool intake gases prevent cylinders, pistons and valves from overheating. (Ceramic engines still do not exist.) After all, one reason why diesel piston engines are still more efficient than gasturbines is the fact that they can bear higher temperatures for a short time. A turbine is constantly exposed to hot exhaust gases and thus cannot deal with the same peak temperatures, piston engines can.
Btw, is it seriously this easy to get money from the government?

 

[malbeare]

I think that it is only a twin cylinder twostroke with an inefficient supercharger and poor transfer system . give me a Detroit twostroke diesel any day it would outperform this one.

A tidy mind not intelligent as it ignors the random opportunities of total chaos. Thats my excuse anyway
Malbeare

 

[Fabrico]

The concept of separate "intake" and "exhaust" pistons is certainly nothing new. In every case the "working" piston gets all the heat. The engine above looks like it would have very high cylinder sidwall pressure. They might save many millions by doing a little plumbing on a Harley engine. I would'nt buy stock in it.

There have been some 2-strokes set up similarly. A 2-cylinder single or "twingle". Two pistons, one combustion chamber. Rear cylinder intake, front cylinder exhaust. They were made by Puch of Austria, sold in the US by Sears, and I had a few. They ran fairly well, but if pushed too hard had a nasty habit of melting the exhaust side piston.

 

[EdDanzer]

This is not the first split cycle engine built, nor probably the last. Although I have never done a CFD study on the intake and exhaust pumping energy required for a 2 stroke engine, my guess is it is higher than a 4 stroke engine. The reason is the air speed and pressure required in relation to time should require greater power for the same air volume. In order to increase the thermal efficiency of an internal combustion engine the pumping energy must be low and, or use most of the heat created to do work other than sustain operation.
Using a supercharger to store compressed air for increasing compression is probably not energy efficient. A turbo uses waste exhaust heat.
As with all crankshaft engines used for transportation, the efficiency changes with load and speed. This is not the best design for a vehicle.

 

[levil]

And what about the weight issue?
two piston for one Cycle? how it's going to compensate that?
by 7% more efficiency?

 

[gijim]

I liked that other engine better, the 6 stroke that was a steam engine for 2 cycles... Better use of heat = better efficiency, IMHO.