Smokey's Hot Vapor Engine

[gasmasher]

In my research of Smokey's engine Something Has struck me that no one seems to metion. When the air/fuel mixture is heated up past the Turbo (check valve), a lot of pressure is created down stream .When the intake valve opens, this pressure is directed to the top of the piston much like combustion pressure. This seemes to me to be the most important factor in making this engine more efficient. He has used the exhaust heat from the power stroke to expand the airfuel charge thus creating another power stroke.Instead of intake,compression,power,exhaust as a conventional four srtoke, he has power/intake,compression,power,exhaust.What do you think?thread71-78116

 

[pubstyle]

Simply put,I believe Smokey only retained the density of the charge (as if the same engine normaly aspired would have)yet heating it nearer to flash point..It would be interesting to know if it was preigniting at any time or all the time..

 

[SMOKEY44211]

I was fortunate to converse at legnth with a gentelman who worked closely with Smokey on that project. ( I think a lot of work which Smokey took credit for was actually done by this man) The patent abstract, all of the media published articles and the surviving engines that utilized this concept were carbureted. The engines did not operate under high boost conditions. (Less then 4 psi. at max throttle /load) As a result there was not much positive pressure doing work on the piston during the intake stroke. The way it was explained to me was that there was a chemical radical present in the fuel (pump gasoline) that acted as a detonation/preignition suppresant at elevated temps. He also went on to say that all engines exhibit some degree of detonation. If the engine components were robust enough to withstand the seemingly instant rise in pressure there was a lot to be gained in BSFC.#'s. An additional benifit was that by virtue of the high intake temps. the fuel was in a gaseous state and that reduced the time needed for complete deflagration, thus reducing the amount of spark timing lead and the associated negative work. I suspect the Nox #,s were fairly high but that really wasn't on the radar at the time he was developing this process. Even a worst case scenario I'm sure it was better then a diesel.---------Phil

 

[globi5]

I'm not sure whether this has already been discussed in the original thread: But, if intake temperature is increased, air density is reduced. Thus pumping losses are reduced at partial throttle = higher efficiency.
SMOKEY44211 already mentioned detonation. Detonation at or after TDC will increase efficiency of any engine. If detonation only occurs at partial throttle, engine is possibly capable to handle the pressure peaks.

Honda actually came up with this activated radical combustion engine on 2 cycle engines

http://www.motorcycle.com/mo/mchonda/exp2_tech.html

which basically has the same goal as the Smokey engine, but instead of using the heat of the exhaust gases to heat the intake gases it utilizes the exhaust gases to heat the intake directly and promote auto ignition.

 

[franzh]

As with Smokey44211, I had the opportunity to see the car in the earlyish 80's when it was still running. It was a bear to get running right until it was thoroughly hot. The added heating of the fuel did bring it closer to its vapor pressure with the fuel flashing to a vapor when it left the turbo (his words as a "homoginzer"). I suspect much of the efficiency was due to the fuel and air becoming a more homogenious mixture, with the turbo serving two functions: added power and a mixing device through heating.

Franz

eng-tips, by professional engineers for professional engineers
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

 

[turbocohen]

Franz, the turbo also acted as a sort of check valve to allow expanded working fluid to work against the piston. Worked for Smokey in the 1984-86 timeframe. Smokey fired me twice but I drove a few lab rats while there.
I recall a lot of thermally fatigued manifold flanges and other heat stress related issues.

Good post guys

 

[cre8iveguy]

Guys, the hot vapor engine is an undisputable fact, Smokey Yunick is the father, and the patent number is U.S. patent number 4,503,833 granted on March 12, 1985.

First, some Smokey Yunick credentials that are undisputable, traceable by documentation and numerous photos...B-17 pilot in WWII (1942-43, crash landed two bombers that were so shot up they failed structurally upon landing), member of Flying Tigers (1943-1944), helicopter pilot (1970's-80's), casanova (forever), motorcycle racer (1938-40), inventor (lifelong), head of Chevrolet racing development (1955-1956), Head of Ford racing (1957-1958), Head of Pontiac Racing (1959-1962), won Nascar Championships in 1951 and 1953 with Hudson, won Daytona 500 twice, won Indianapolis in 1960 (almost again in 1969, hose clamp prevented it), created the angle plug head for Chevrolet, the extended reach spark plug in your car today, etc., etc. Made and lost several fortunes, successfully searched for gold, silver and oil in Equador, was automotive consultant to Ford, Chevrolet, and Chrysler at various times in his life, knew Henry Ford II by first name, Bunkie Knudsen was his best friend, Pete Estes, Harley Earl, Mickey Thompson, Bruton Smith, Ed Cole, Zora Duntov, Richard Petty, John DeLorean, and Werner Von Braun were friends...

The hot vapor engine not only existed but was installed into at least 6 different makes of vehicles...after a thirty minute ride in the car, Ford, GM, Chrysler, DeLorean, BMW, Volvo and Volkswagen were all interested. DeLorean immediately offered 20 million (with the backing of H.L. Hunt in Texas) with a formal contract to be signed on a Thursday. DeLorean was arrested for drug possession on the preceding Tuesday, and the deal fell through. For Smokey's direct account of what happened, see page 525 of his autobiography "Best Damned Garage in Town".

Cars in which Yunick hot vapor (adiabatic) engines were installed included the DeLorean (3 cylinder), Ford Fiesta (1 cylinder), Volkswagen (2 cylinder), Pontiac Fiero (4 cylinder), Chrysler (4 cylinder) and Buick Skylark (3 cylinder). Some of these cars still survive, and Smokey's daughter has the Volkswagen and the Pontiac Fiero is owned by a collector in South Carolina. A 3 cylinder engine is in the Smithsonian, along with his trademark hat.

All automotive engineers that tested the hot vapor engines came away amazed with the power vs. gas mileage, as well as the tremendous lowering of emissions because of the engines efficiency. Puzzling to them was the lack of a spike that should have killed the engines, and they tried everything imaginable to get the engine to spike but to no avail. Finally, just before his death in 2001, GM bought the rights to the homogenizer, the very item that Smokey considered the brains of the system. You will see it soon because there are several experimental cars under way that will stimulate the technology, not GM designs but rogue designs by guys like yourselves, or should I say the doers and not the theoreticists who talk it to death...

I was lucky to have met Mr. Yunick in his later years, 1999, at Lowe's Motor Speedway, and told him that I thought that he was one of the most gifted engineers to have ever lived. After asking him about the status of the hot vapor engine he seemed to brighten up, and stated that he was leaving it as his legacy, that he realized in the early 70's that the fossil fuels would not last forever. Asked about his most proud moment in life, after his wife Margie and kids, he mentioned the hot vapor engine and the number of engineers from around the world that tested it trying to get it to fail, and the fact that all left amazed at the performance and lack of emissions.

Guys, instead of talking about the hot vapor engine research it, make one (Smokey did, so can you, he tells you how), and put it into a car. This solution is so much better than a hybrid, a corn car (ethanol), etc.

...just do it...bruce kepley, Monroe, NC, USA

 

[reidh]

I hate to sound skeptical, but....

How is it that an amazing technology developed 20 years ago that could forever change the auto industry (fuel economy, reduced emissions, etc.) be kept out of production for so long?

-Reidh

 

[Fabrico]

On another note, it ultimately could be a bridge across the gap between piston engines and turbines. Further development might see the pistons, and other inefficient junk, eliminated.

 

[reidh]

If the BSFC of turbines were lower, there is no doubt in my mind that turbines would replace pistons.

-Reidh

 

[dicer]

Since a simple anology of a turbine is like a torque converter or fluid coupling, that will always have slippage, that is why a turbine will never be more effcient than a positive displacement type engine.
Though they would make great space heaters.

 

[globi5]

Nowadays, almost all diesel engines are basically gasturbines with moving combustion chambers (pistons) and this way reach higher peak pressures and temperatures. Higher peak pressure and temperatures = higher efficiency. (A turbocharger has a compressor and a turbine like any gasturbine.)

Besides: Combined cycle powerplants (gasturbine + steamturbine) reach efficiencies of 60%.

As far as the Smokey concept goes:
It's also a fact, that downsized engines (and a bunch of other concepts) are more efficient than 'conventional engines' and still not all cars have downsized engines (probably because costs always play a role as well.)

Besides: Aren't the piston engines of today not significantly more efficient and cleaner than they were 20 years ago?

 

[GregLocock]

Well this is always good for a giggle. How much extra would you be prepared to pay form a baseline of $25000, and say 25 mpg, for a new car that offered identical functionality etc , that used 10% less fuel?

Or how about 100% less fuel? (ie none)


Explain your reasoning.


Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[turbocohen]

Ralph Johnson worked for smokey up through the mid 80's and I was a shop assistant. Drove a few hot vapor mobile myself. There was a pontiac sunbird with very tall gearing that was reasonably efficient and could scoot.
At the risk of of posthumously insulting the guy who hired me, there are advantages to hot vapor most of which are accomplished with better transmissions of today and fuel injector spray qualities, vastly improved mixture prep and transport and improved combustion geometry, reduced ring drag, reduced ring crevice volume, etc. Higher efficiencies at lower rpm's accomplish the same thing at a lower cost. The advantages of hot vapor cycle are real but expensive and not practical in all climates. When I worked there it became obvious that the system depended on huge manifold volumes and going closed loop would be damn difficult due to long fuel transport delays. I am not faulting the man but TBI FI was needed and did not make the cut, I beleive, since Smokey did not feel he could trust me or others with calibration.. I urged him and annoyed Ralph with comments about adopting FI. Again, knowing it would piss my elders off, I mentioned FI till the cows came home if for no other reason to compensate for Durability issues that were as real then as they are now.
There was a lot of good thinking that might have seen light of day had Smokey allowed me or someone more qualified to apply FI to HVC but even with best case injection and calibration the system then required massive manifold volumes. Long after being fired the second time I built a 2.2 liter HVC that essentially required way different cam, taller gearing, a lot more manifold heat with less volume and other stuff. I wound up with a modified IHI, an expensive pile of aluminum and a set of wheels that hauled ass like a wildcat after a tabasco enema all while knocking down 40mpg in a dodge minivan.

Respectfully, Turbo

 

[automotivebreath]

We will see fuel consumption reductions when it becomes
a priority in this country, the technology to do so is
in production now. Several years ago you could buy a
inexpensive, comfortable Volkswagen turbo diesel here
in America that could get 46 MPG, it’s no longer available
here, something about emissions. For a little more money
you can purchase a filthy gas guzzling pick-up truck, go
figure.

SMOKEY44211, do you know more about the chemical
radicals in the fuel, is this something that was added?
Pre-flame OH radicals must have been a problem with the
mixture pre-heating, I’d like to understand how they dealt
with this. Or perhaps they were the first to experiment
with HCCI! With the influx of money going into
understanding gasoline compression ignition, they have
found that auto-ignition can be controlled with out
experiencing destructive detonation. I suppose Smokey
knew that long ago.

 

[turbocohen]

Indolene

 

[automotivebreath]

turbocohen

A quick search finds this: "Indolene is used extensively as a
standard certification fuel in both the automotive and oil
industries" Is there something about the chemical composition
of indoline that helps to control radical formations?

 

[turbocohen]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smokey_Yunick

Yall have fun.. here is some good reading.

 

[SMOKEY44211]

automotivebreath I don't know the chemical radical he was referring to. Simply stated "there is a chemical radical preasant in gasoline fuel that acts as a detonation retardent at elevated temperatures". Along with this discussion he also went on to say that all of the engines (both hot vapor and normally aspirated) tested all showed significant power improvements at the onset of detonation but none of them was able to survive for very long. It was his conclusion that if the internals of the engine were robust enough or if detonation could be controlled so as not to exceed the mechanical limits of of the engine that there was much to be gained both in power output and BSFC#'s. Regarding fuel injection vs carburetor once the fuel is heated to a vapor state it doesn't matter what method is used as long as mixture ratio is correct. Technology at the time (mid 80's) favored carb for reasons of durability and ease of adjustment. Emission focus was on HC and CO. I suspect NOX #'s were fairly high but that wasn't much of a concern at the time the R+D was taking place. The engine worked. Fuel in/ work out #'s are pretty impressive. The Delorean deal did a lot keep it out of production. The emission citeria of today would have to be addressed in order for it to make it to the market place. It would be an interesting project to duplicate however I think there are techniques and materials available today that would be a lot easier and cost effective to impliment then to try and polish up the hot vapor concept for general acceptance.----------Phil

 

[JayMaechtlen]

Hi, Greg
Based on real quick calcs, it looks to me that
10% fuel economy allows 2.5% cost increase
20% fuel economy allows 5% cost increase
100% fuel economy allows 15% cost increase

assuming fuel saved pays for increased car payments for the first six years.
After the car is payed off, you would then see savings in pocket. Hmmm...

These are really approximate numbers, but should be the correct order-of-magnitude.

yes?

Jay Maechtlen

http://home.covad.net/~jmaechtlen/