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

 

[globi5]

So, higher fuel costs are a blessing for engineers?

 

[JayMaechtlen]

oh, yes- I used 6% inflation for the computations, and current cost of gas ~ 3.25 usd/gal
Interestingly enough, when you plot gas prices in US from 60's to now, averages to about 6% inflation...

Higher fuel cost=blessing to engineers?
I guess that it will lead to more jobs in some areas...
That ignores direct and indirect costs of fuel costs borne by engineers and families, of course.

Jay Maechtlen

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

 

[globi5]

What if income tax was reduced and fuel tax increased?

 

[JayMaechtlen]

"income tax reduced" - revenue replaced by fuel tax?

"Fuel tax increased" looks the same to consumers and engineers as increased fuel price.
Higher fuel cost means that a higher cost premium is justified for any incremental gain in fuel efficiency.

want a copy of my primitive spreadsheet?


Jay Maechtlen

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

 

[globi5]

At least, it would be interesting to see your calculation if fuel costs were significantly higher.

My point is: One should try to find ways to increase efficiency (make concepts such as hot vapor engines viable) without having to increase the net burden on the consumers.
As long as one lives in a country that doesn't pump its own fuel what's the point of sending all this money abroad and not use it to increase efficiency instead?

 

[turbocohen]

With modern materials and engineering principles applied, hvc still would not offer the cost benefits available by other means such as DI, VVT, better gear ratios, other efficient stuff etc. Fuel coking issues alone would kill it in early durability validation. Modern trends are to supply fuel at the last moment to improve the management of stray hydrocarbons. HVC did not and cannot resolve issues with wall wetting and overscavenge. The latest DI engines have negligible bore wall wetting by using re-enetrant sprays that minimize impingement on the bores hence minimizing ring crevice outgassing and oil dilution. Guys, HVC was an attempt to optimize the engines our forefathers cut their teeth on and there is a lot we can learn from it but it aint gonna fly as an oem engine. The Miller cycle was similar to where smokey could have taken hvc had he put up with my inexperience and other bull$hip offerred by a GM engineer who understood combustion better than most.

 

[GregLocock]

Jay, I guess my point was, and you have come to the same conclusion, that the rational budget for improving the fuel efficiency is a tiny proportion of the totaal cost of the car. You are saying that in a rational world a car that uses no fuel at all is only worth 15% more than a normal car with today's technology.



Cheers

Greg Locock

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

 

[JayMaechtlen]

Hi, Greg
I didn't state my results clearly, though we agree on the net result:
The "100% improvement" means 50mpg instead of 25mpg.
at 1000 mpg, (essentially zero fuel usage) it comes out around 28%, or an allowable new car cost of $32200 instead of $25000.
rephrase:
MPG Cost Benefit per year after paid off
25.0 $25,000.00 $0.00
50.0 $28,700.00 $1,100.00
1000.0 $32,200.00 $2,200.00


Jay Maechtlen

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

 

[automotivebreath]

Looking at the cost savings at the pump exclusively may
not show the complete benefit. If fuel consumption is
reduced by 100% then we should realize similar reductions
in HC and CO emissions, more valuable that the personal
savings.

In addition supply and demand of fuel should drive fuel
cost down, for the consumer and the world, it's a win win
situation.

 

[patprimmer]

Also a much smaller tank and fuel load would be required, giving further savings in vehicle weight and packaging, maybe resulting in a smaller vehicle etc etc.

Regards

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.