Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

Smokey's Adiabatic Engine 6

Status
Not open for further replies.

SBBlue

Automotive
Oct 6, 2003
118
0
0
Somebody in another discussion thread made a mention of Smokey Yunick's adiabatic engine. I had never heard of it before, and did an internet search as well as retrieve the patent and dug up some old Popular Science magazines that discussed it.

For those of you not in the know, Smokey Yunick was a legendary race car mechanic and Popular Science correspondant. He died a couple of years ago. In March 1983 Popular Science carried a story about an engine he had developed that only had two cylinders and 78 cubic inches but developed 150 hp and got 60 mpg when installed in what looks like a Volkswagon Rabbit. He called it his "adiabatic engine." Supposedly all sorts of car companies were quite interested in the engine.

A followup story done in Popular Science in November of 2000 stated that the "engine came close to going into production with General Motors several years ago, but the deal hit a stalemate when patent owners couldn't agree on details." If you visit the patent office, you will find that the patent covering the engine (US 4862859) was allowed to expire in March 2002. (Web site for patent:
In reviewing the patent it appears that Smokey's engine used an "afterheater": coolant heat was used to vaporize gasoline, and exhaust heat was used to heat the air/fuel mixture coming from a turbocharger compressor to 440 deg F. In the cylinder the air/fuel mix reached a temperature of 1600 deg F before ignition -- all without detonation.

According to the Popular Science article, the reason for no detonation was "Smokey's Secret".

After reviewing some of the numbers provided in the Popular Science article and in Smokey's patent, I've been able to deduce the following about the engine;

1. The air/fuel ratio was something on the order of 22:1 to 27:1.

2. Peak combustion temperature was above 5000 degrees F.

3. Exhaust gas temperature (before the turbocharger) was about 2200 deg F.

4. Assuming no loss of cylinder heat to the cylinder walls (i.e., an actual adiabatic engine) the best possible efficiency was about 38%. If the engine used a Miller cycle modification, an efficiency of 48% would be possible (no mention was made of the Miller cycle)

My conclusions:

1. Smokey may have been able to get the engine to work, even though there was a high intake temperature, by using a very lean air/fuel mixture to prevent detonation.

2. There was no way that this engine was developing efficiencies of 50-60%.

3. It is doubtful that the engine, as described, would last long because of extremely high temperatures. With the claimed fuel flow and intake air temperature, the peak combustion temperature would be over 5000 deg F, as compared to perhaps 3500 deg F for a normal spark ignition engine.

4. I find it very hard to imagine that General Motors was ready to put the engine into production and didn't only because of patent royalty issues -- only to have the patent abandoned several years later.

==============================

Comments, anyone? Did anyone ever actually see this engine, or hear anything about it?
 
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

I read the article about Smokey´s engine when it was published, just after graduation. I decided to perform some experimentation in my own car.

At the time, I had a VW Gol (parent of VW Fox to be export later to US by VW of Brazil) featuring the air-cooled boxer 1.3L engine (yes, the old beetle unit upgraded a little by Porsche engineering). My car was an alcohol version, featuring a 10.5:1 compression ratio, against 7.5:1 (if I´m not wrong) for the gasoline version, and a heated intake manifold (exhaust gases flowing around the intake pipes).

After some thought, I came to the conclusion that lean mixture were al least one of the secret for avoiding knock and improving efficiency. I decided to run the engine on gasoline, keeping the much higher compression ratio and the heating system. Air-fuel ratio and spark timing could be manually changed from driver´s position. Gasoline pump was connected to a plastic bottle in order to monitoring fuel consumption.

At two consecutive weekends running the car at a flat road, constant 80 km/h speed, and looking for the best adjustment, I got 23 km/l, very impressive for that engine, against something about 15 km/l (I am not quite sure) for the gasoline standard version. Contrarily to what one should expect for a lean mixture, I could no detect any lag when throttle were suddenly opening. However, if throttle was released fast engine used to falter for a while.

I didn´t sustained high loads for long time, but knock was not very common. By the way, my wife had to learn how to delay ignition when engine was knocking. Yes, she had to learn how knock sounds too. Fuel pump connection with tank was restored beforehand (she refused to feed the bottle). General fuel consumption was not that good, but it must be remenbered that automatic carburetor and spark timing adjustments were untouched.

After driving for some 6 months, I decided to sell the car. I asked my mechanic to open the engine and see if there was something wrong and restore engine original configuration. Besides being puzzled about what I was trying to do, his only remark was that combustion chambers and spark plugs were unusually clean. No signal of excessively lean mixture arising from slow and late combustion.

In my view, some of the principles applied by Smokey irrespective to their actual effectiveness:

- lean burn to improve efficiency, to avoid knocking, and to reduce heat rejection;
- heated lean mixture to reduce pump losses;
- heated mixture to avoid misfiring;
- partial heat recovery through intake compression and heating from cooling system and exhaust gases.

Few years later I did some cycle simulations (instantaneous combustion, no heat rejection, no friction, and no flow losses) with heat recovery in order to access how much I could get. In order to take advantage of intake heating you must compress the mixture before, just as it is compressed in the combustion chamber before ignition. However, if you compress, intake temperature is higher, so less heat you can get from exhaust especially if you are using lean mixtures. On the other hand, stoichiometric mixtures can lead to temperatures that reach turbine limits. Water injection lowers exhaust gases temperatures, but efficiency deteriorates because of the worse fluid thermal properties. Once results should get worse with introduction of flow losses I did not pursued this subject further.


 
Gasoline's autoignition temperature is somewhat higher. I don't remember the exact figure off hand, but I think its over a thousand degrees F.

But it's certainly less than 1600 deg F. As to why it didn't auto-ignite -- If old Smokey was telling the truth, perhaps because the fuel/air mixture was so lean?
 
What about fuel "cracking", that is breaking down the long string hydrocarbons into, basicaly methane. Has anyone acyually tried building and testing these ideas?
 
Karter,

The former government chief engineer here in Sri Lanka has fitted about 50 engines in cars, vans, trucks, generators etc. with small flash gasifiers (fuel crackers) which appear to give quite good improvements in fuel consumption. The people who are using them say they work.

Apparently the rapid cracking of the fuel gives a different mix of hydrocarbons and these act as a catalyst to improve the combustion process. I'm not a chem eng and am highly dubious about the claims but here is some info if you are interested in the topic:

The patent is 5,398,663 look on
I have put an old article about this invention at
He is trying to get the NOx emissions checked but others are lower (CO, particulates, hydrocarbons) probably due to lower fuel consumption. NOx may be a problem.

cheers, derek


Join us at
 
Did any of you bother to study Smokey's patent?

I did, and it was kinda scary. He proposed having an enclosed intake manifold, full of a volatile fuel-air mixture and heated to close to it's autoignition temperature. Do the words "KA-BOOM" mean anything to you?

Adiabatic engine concepts always sound great in theory, but they never pan out in practice.

Here's the reality: to achieve optimum BTE, you can't beat a large displacement, slow running CI engine:


Regards,
Terry
 
How about fuel injection, shut off the fuel and let the motor use up whats left. I still would like to hear if anyone has actually built and tested one. What happened to Smoky's cars?
 
Smokey's daughter has a VW rabbit with a working adiabatic engine. There's suppossed to be a display in the Smithsonian with some of his handiwork also. There is a bunch of Smokey stuff on display at the Don Garlits museum in Ocala, FL.----------Phil
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top