Transonic combustion 1

[black2003cobra]

Wondered what some of you folks thought about this. (Seems sort of like a combination of HCCI and DI...but different.)

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/24701/?a=f

Test results seem impressive:

http://green.yahoo.com/blog/ecogeek...n-improves-gas-engine-efficiency-over-50.html

Maybe some of you have seen some other good references?

 

[YvesLLewelyn]

I think the "50% better" needs to be clarified.
50% better than a SI engine's TE of about 30% - this can mean 30% plus 50% of 30% to give a TE of 45% (30 plus 15) or 30% plus 50% to give 80%.
45% I could maybe believe (this is in diesel territory) - but not 80%.
98mpg in a 3200lb car at 50mph - on a small US gallon? This is about 118mpg on a "proper" Imperial gallon. This does not seem very likely.

 

[black2003cobra]

I was assuming the improvements they mentioned were relative, not absolute. For example, 50% better than an efficiency of 30%, being 45%. If I put my consumer hat on, and say I was getting 45 mpg vs 30 mpg, I would say that was a 50% improvement. So I would translate that to a 50% (relative) improvement in ?f,b. That's how I'd look at it anyway.

 

[MikeHalloran]

Engineers assume that a relative improvement to an unspecified baseline is absolute flackery.



Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

 

[YvesLLewelyn]

blackcob - 45% seems like a perfectly reasonable claim and is about what you would expect from their system. In its higher CR forms (they mention 16 to 20:1 somewhere) it would appear to be little different in concept or performance to a conventional diesel engine.
None of this explains the 118mpg claim.

 

[TStaples]

black2003cobra,

Relative improvement is the correct assumption. As Engineers, we love to talk geek. The ROW however doesn't understand ?f,b, for example. So, our marketing folks have spelled things out in something they do (well, sometimes anyway) understand, m.p.g.

MikeHalloran,

Per my earlier comment, that's why they don't let Engineers do Marketing. But, I agree with you totally. I will talk with our Marketing folks and see if they will define that more concisely in future releases.

Yves,

Just curious. What 118 mpg claim?

-Tony Staples

http://www.tscombustion.com

 

[YvesLLewelyn]

Tony - for a 3200lb car at a steady 50mph you have been claiming 41.6km per litre?
Converted miles per US gallon (3.79l) this is 98mpg - converted to miles per Imperial gallon (4.55l) this is 118mpg. Mileage in Imperial gallons makes more sense to people in Oz,UK,NZ.

 

[patprimmer]

Mike

That is the major reason for my scepticism and in my mind, that point poisons the rest of the fruit from that tree

Regards
Pat
See FAQ731-376 for tips on use of eng-tips by professional engineers &

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm

for site rules

 

[turbomotor]

black2003cobra,

I have an engineer friend who was employed by Transonic. You may already know him, as he is a Ford performance enthusiast and ran his own business for a while selling supercharger kits for (I think) the 4.6 liter engine.

In any case, let me know if you want to pursue an off-line discussion on Transonic, and perhaps I can facilitate getting you and he together on the phone.

I assure you that he is a very ethical guy, and will not reveal to you any Transonic company sensitive info.

Dick

 

[TStaples]

Yves,

Now I understand where you got the 118 figure. I'm proudly guilty of being a unitationaly myopic American. I didn't see a specific conversion reference in the thread. I've seen some really good data, but not 118 mpg(US). Please understand that it's not a claim of 98 mpg on the Federal EPA cycle. It's simply a steady state fuel economy figure that has been reported from chassis dyno testing, with the appropriate 50 mph aero drag, and mass, etc . . . factored into the dyno load. In a nutshell, Transonic is claiming this is approx. 50% better than a typical Diesel CI pass. car of similar displacement, power, etc . . ., and closer to 100% better than the equivalent SI gasoline engine under the same conditions. This is public information, but perhaps not been made concisely enough (my opinion.)

Transonic is using those numbers because that particular test plays right to the sweet spot for the TSCi technology - light load/cruise. Those operating conditions demonstrate the biggest relative improvements of TSCi. Since this just happens to be where most typical pass. car engines spend 95%+ of their operational time, I think this is a very big leap forward.

I don't want to overstep my professional bounds here, but because of my involvement, I take it personally when I see statements like "snake oil", and "flackery". However, until we have finished putting together a more comprehensive, independently verified (outside test lab), data package, and reach the appropriate time when our team decides it's best to release such data, I'm thick-skinned enough to keep biting my lip. I'm personally very proud of the work that Transonic's people have done to take an initial good idea from our founder, and realize it, improve it, and develop it to where it is today.

I appreciate that everyone is interested, but all of the technical analysis being discussed here is based on the limited amount of marketing information that's been released. It is what it is; marketing information. It's designed to raise interest in what we are doing, and to attract potential customers, who get much more in-depth data after signing an NDA.

In my opinion, Transonic isn't asking anything from the general public, so we don't have an obligation to publicly reveal anything unnecessarily. Doing so at this stage carries the risk of showing a potential competitor too much. I completely understand the skepticism, because the numbers are big, and you don't have all the details. I know I would be myself. Wait until more in-depth data is ultimately released for public consumption and scrutiny. I cannot give specifics, but I will say it's in the plan. That's only logical, as we move forward as a company. When more information is released, I will be sure to post a link to it here. That is what the OP requested.





-Tony Staples

http://www.tscombustion.com

 

[TStaples]

Dick,

Not necessary. I know to whom you are referring very well. I still have his number. He, like me, was one of the earliest hires at TSC. He was a tremendous contributor to our company, and I wish he hadn't departed as early as he did. He still hangs out with "the guys" fairly regularly. When you have as many car crazy horsepower junkies on staff as we do ... .

It's actually funny how many 400+ horsepower cars sit in the parking lot of our Green-Tech company. I'm personally responsible for a couple. I guess it like hiring a computer hacker to be head of cyber-security. Advancing the state of the art in combustion is penance for my personal consumption of gi-normous (highly technical term that) quantities of Shell Ultimate with "Nitrogen." Now, if I could only get them to sell me Shell Ultimate with "Nitro"!



-Tony Staples

http://www.tscombustion.com

 

[patprimmer]

Tony

I Was extremely sceptical, then I went back and read your history and pulled my head in somewhat. I am still sceptical as I am a scientist, and the data to date lacks scientific method, but I do genuinely hope I am proved wrong.

Regards
Pat
See FAQ731-376 for tips on use of eng-tips by professional engineers &

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm

for site rules

 

[YvesLLewelyn]

Tony - You have said it in plain English - you are claiming 50% better than than the equivalent diesel mileage and about 100% better than than the equivalent SI mileage (does this equate to a TE of about 60%?).
You words and attitude seem sincere - so like PP (I think) I will reserve judgement until further evidence.
If true it would be an amazing achievement.

 

[SomptingGuy]

It would indeed be an amazing achievement if these claims are substantiated. Power, torque & BSFC curves from the engine would be interesting.

- Steve

 

[marcusaurailius]

seems too good for the motorists to have !!!
I cant see the gov,or the petrol companys actually going along with it just yet, maybe 12 15 years,
just think of all the lost revenue the will loose,

would be good to actually have some on the road, to put the sceptics at rest !!!

regards marcus

One does nae have to know how some thing works, to know that it is nae working right

http://s545.photobucket.com/albums/hh369/marcusaurailius/

 

[malbeare]

patprimmer,
I concure and thank you I now know that I have to publish BSFC figures. her is a link to a recent article

http://www.just-auto.com/article.aspx?id=93295

"I would have thought the method was proprietor, but the results would be shouted from the foof tops IF THEY WERE GOOD.Everywhere I worked in technical marketing roles, a press release or technical data might go along the lines of:-By improving the X process by Y we achieved an improvement in Z of Q% by test method M. The conditions were controlled by NFurther independent tests were carried out by the NATA registered laboratory B and their report can be supplied if you are interested. We can supply samples so you can conduct your own tests. Please contact us via XXXX for further action. The proprietary details are of course not included. Hypothetically it might be something like we improve combustion efficiency and pressure build rate by controlling a:f mixture quality in a stratified zone within the chamber so that the nano particle size and localised control of a:f aids rapid but controled combustion.Missing is the details of how you achieve and control the stratified charge and the fuel particle size."

cheers Malbeare