November 12, 2005

Wanted: High-Efficiency Gasoline Engine X-Prize

Hatched by Dafydd

In chapter 2 of the Wishing Ring, I discussed high-temperature ceramic engines. But of course, there are likely many different ways to rework the basic concept of the infernal combustion engine to make it highly efficient -- which I'm arbitrarily defining to mean operating at 75% efficiency or greater, as opposed to the 12%-15% that we get out of such engines today.

For back-of-the-fingernail estimate purposes, let's say a car gets on average 30 miles per gallon today. If that constitutes 15% efficiency, then 75% efficiency (five times that) would be 150 mpg. Here is my suggestion for solving the problem of overreliance on Middle Eastern oil imports:

Let the federal government run an "X-prize" contest for the first person to demonstrate a production model of an automobile that gets 150 miles per gallon of ordinary gasoline... where the prize is a federal transportation contract (or series of contracts) worth $1,000,000,000. That's one billion dollars -- but only to be paid when an actual production model is demonstrated, and paid not as a reward but as a contract for new fleets of vehicles for all the federal agencies, from the Department of Defense (military and civilian) to State to Interior to Transportation.

Of course, such an engine could also be adapted to electricity production and to industry; it would transform and revolutionize our economy... and once again move America forward by a quantum leap of technology.

Note that the feds pay absolutely nothing for development: zip, nada, zilch. Not one dime is forked over until the new car is available for production. But the value of the contract is so large that every major automotive developer, plus tons of "backyard inventors," will eagerly leap into the race.

High-temp ceramics are a good point to start; but there's nothing wrong with including ideas like flywheels and such to conserve momentum at the margins, or other ways to increase efficiency, and thus serendipitously reduce pollution by hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and so forth (those all represent unburnt fuel; greater efficiency would reduce or even eliminate them ).;

Let's unleash the genie of American ingenuity and the power of postive greed to reduce the importance of the Middle-Eastern oil fields (and not coincidentally, the importance of a certain "Yugo" of South America) and give a world-class kick in the butt to the American -- and eventually world -- economy!

A big announcement of such a great race by President Bush himself at a press conference, with all the bells and whistles -- Bush surrounded by conservative budget hawks, military mavins, the heads of several automobile manufacturers, and a bunch of well-known environmentalists and global-warming maniacs -- would be a political rocket to the Moon: at once, Bush would be promoting Americanism, conservatism, energy independence, energy conservation, small business, big business, the economy, and greater military power! And all without spending a dime of taxpayer money until there are actual results.

Golly, I can't think of anything more adventurous and exciting to rouse the American people out of their torpor, short of sprouting wings and a halo (in which case, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State and the ACLU would be after him). I would love to script that speech... I envision Bush actually holding up one of those giant-sized Publisher's Clearing House checks for one billion dollars, payable to "American inventor."

A whopping big tip of the hat to Jerry Pournelle, who told me about this same idea (I think it was original with Jerry) for the original "X-Prize," for development of a completely privately financed lifting vehicle that could fly from runway to orbit, many, many years before the X Prize Foundation came up with the same idea. I'm just adapting it to a more pressing and immediate problem.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, November 12, 2005, at the time of 12:35 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/207

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Wanted: High-Efficiency Gasoline Engine X-Prize:

» Ceramic riches from TechnoChitlins
Dayfidd has a wonderful Idea- Let the federal government run an "X-prize" contest for the first person to demonstrate a production model of an automobile that gets 150 miles per gallon of ordinary gasoline... where the prize is a federal... [Read More]

Tracked on November 12, 2005 2:34 PM

Comments

The following hissed in response by: Steven Den Beste

I'm pretty sure that 75% efficiency is physically impossible, because of those pesky laws of Thermodynamics.)

It's easy to pull arbitrary numbers out of a hat and make them a target, but that doesn't mean it can be done. About 25 years ago I worked for Tektronix helping to develop logic analyzers. One of our EE's looked at the most recent FCC specifications regarding EMI (Electromagnetic Interference) emissions for test leads, and realized that it was physically impossible to achieve the FCC standard unless we changed the Universal Electrical Constant.

A couple of our EE's had to make a trip to Washington to give the FCC's regulators a remedial course in physics so as to get the standard changed.

Don't assume that the fact that engines now are only 15% efficient is due to lack of motivation or intelligence on the part of engineers or the companies they work for. Car companies have no incentive to waste gasoline, and high mileage on cars would be a massive competitive advantage. GM would stand to make far more than one billion dollars from such an advantage if it were attainable; they don't need your paltry $1 billion prize to have an incentive to create such an engine if it were actually feasible.

Not even the "genie of American innovation" can violate the laws of physics.

The above hissed in response by: Steven Den Beste [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 12, 2005 4:29 AM

The following hissed in response by: karrde

One of the fundamental problems with most internal combustion engines is the fact that the piston reverses direction hundreds of times per second.

There is another design (the rotary or Wankel engine) which in theory should be more efficient. It has been used by Mazda occasionally. The central idea of the rotary engine is that a three-sided rotor turns on a spindle. Various "combustion chambers" surround the rotor in the engine, so that the turning of the rotor repeatedly opens and closes the combustion chambers.

A huge drawback of this design is that the seals around the combustion area are hard to design for long-term use. Once the seals wear down, inefficient burning and bad emissions rise considerably.

Efficiency of engines can be measured in several ways, though. According to this article, the thermal efficiency (the amount of heat energy converted to mechanical energy) tends to max out at 35% for high-end racing engines. However, mechanical efficiency (amount of mechanical work done on the piston transferred to mechanical work done at the wheels) is in the high 90% range.

That makes me think that the limitations on engine efficiency are more due to fundamental design questions. For example, a heat-based engine is most efficient if all the heat energy is expended by the expansion of the heat-based gas. Yet allowing for this amount of expansion would require an engine with a phenomenally huge cylinder size. It might also require a slower RPM level, since it takes some time for the heated gas in the cylinder to expand until its temperature returns to ambient temperature.

Your car obviously doesn't take advantage of all the heat energy of burning gasoline. If you touch the exhaust piping of a car that has warmed up, you'll probably be burned--this extra heat in the exhaust came from the excess heat energy that is in the exhaust gases.

There's probably a lot more that can be said--but it usually boils down to basic thermodynamics, and the limitations of engine size, RPM for stable running, and materials. I wouldn't be surprised if we can eke out a 5% increase in horsepower-per-pound if we go to ceramic engine blocks. But at what cost in material? Is it worth the money spent, on either research or construction?

The above hissed in response by: karrde [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 12, 2005 8:16 AM

The following hissed in response by: Stephen Macklin

I had a similar idea back in October 2003. Only instead of increasing efficiency of gas engines beyond the laws of physics, it focused on an x-prize for a non petroleum fueled engine.

The above hissed in response by: Stephen Macklin [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 12, 2005 9:03 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Steven Den Beste:

I'm pretty sure that 75% efficiency is physically impossible, because of those pesky laws of Thermodynamics.)

Oh? Which law of thermodynamics is that? I don't recall reading about the "75% law."

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 12, 2005 10:53 AM

The following hissed in response by: RBMN

GM (for example) doesn't live in a vacuum. There are a constellation of industries that surround the American auto industry, and live off the existing designs of GM, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, etc. products. What if GM stopped selling the standard internal combustion car altogether, tomorrow? And what if customers didn't want the replacement technology, because the sticker price was just too much, or it was too sluggish, or too difficult to customize and personalize? In that case, GM's existing in-service fleet might become the "GM market," and the new-and-used-parts industry, and the after-market custom industry could make a lot of money keeping that fleet alive and running instead. GM would be out in the cold, with an expensive product they can't sell, and other people would be making lots of money maintaining the older products that they no longer want want to sell. Gasoline is going to have to get up to about $10/gallon for anything significant to happen in the auto industry. The momentum of the whole industry is just too great.

The above hissed in response by: RBMN [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 12, 2005 11:01 AM

The following hissed in response by: Steven Den Beste

"Nothing is impossible for the man who doesn't have to do it himself." -- old engineering aphorism

The above hissed in response by: Steven Den Beste [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 12, 2005 2:48 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dishman

Second law of thermodynamics and the Carnot Cycle.
To run at 75% efficiency with an ambient exhaust temperature, a perfect (frictionless, etc.) combustion engine would need to run at roughly 2200 degrees fahrenheit (4x ambient). I believe that's substantially higher than gasoline will produce.
That's for a completely ideal system. Any real system would be worse.

The above hissed in response by: Dishman [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 12, 2005 5:21 PM

The following hissed in response by: cdquarles

Dafydd,

I wish I had my Physical Chemistry book handy. IC engines, diesels particularly, are highly efficient mechanically. Your auto engine runs about 25% efficiency (Carnot heat cycle HT-LT/HT where HT is the peak chamber temp and LT is the exhaust gas temp) and 90% mechanically for about 20% overall. Gas turbines typically are 35 to 40% efficient overall (jets, coal/gas/oil fired electric, nuclear electric...these are steam turbines essentially). The ceramic engine you mentioned would allow for much higher peak temps, improving their thermodynamic efficiency. Remember that your typical life form is at best 10% efficient thermodynamically. Another way to increase efficiency would be to have secondary systems to capture more of the thermal energy of combustion and convert it to useful work than the current systems are able to do. Electric batteries are 200 or so years old. Steam engines are more than 2 millenia old. Electric generators are contemporary with internal combustion engines. The first practical fuel cells were made about 72 years ago.

What everyone needs to consider is that very sharp people have been working on these systems for long periods of time; and economic efficiency counts as much as, if not more than, thermodynamic efficiency. TANSTAAFL!

The above hissed in response by: cdquarles [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 12, 2005 6:06 PM

The following hissed in response by: HelenW

Let's unleash the genie of American ingenuity


Presumes there is some leash on Americans, and the people of every car building country.

Or shall we indulge in a planetary conspiracy theory where advanced automotive technology is being suppressed by Bush and Cheney?

Back to reality: Manufacturers are quick to exploit the tiniest design advantage. The prize is always there to be had in a free market.

The above hissed in response by: HelenW [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 12, 2005 6:29 PM

The following hissed in response by: streeter

Dafydd, I'm with a company named Parker Hannifin.
We are a strategic partner with a company named Vectrix(Vetrixusa.com) which is leading the way in fuel cell/electric motor/battery technology in high performance scooter technology. This is far from a small venture and is poised for large scale launch. Do a quick check, industry is on the way. You guys should enjoy it. Vetrixusa.com
-Streeter Parker

The above hissed in response by: streeter [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 12, 2005 7:45 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Dishman:

Second law of thermodynamics and the Carnot Cycle.

To run at 75% efficiency with an ambient exhaust temperature, a perfect (frictionless, etc.) combustion engine would need to run at roughly 2200 degrees fahrenheit (4x ambient). I believe that's substantially higher than gasoline will produce.

Actually, the ceramic engine burns gasoline at 5000 degrees Fahrenheit. Hot enough for you?

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 12, 2005 9:12 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

You know, the response here is absolutely hilarious. It boils down to:

  1. It'll never fly;
  2. If it could fly, we would already have invented it;
  3. Who would want to fly anyway? What's wrong with riding a horse?

Perhaps you all believe that all the significant inventions in the field of automotive design have already come and gone (by the 1950s), and all that is possible now are incremental improvements -- 5% here, 2% there; but I think that is as silly as saying that chemical rockets are the best we'll ever get, so there's no reason even to try to develop any other launching system.

Besides, if a laser launching system were possible, LockMart would already have invented it. They have a financial interest in cheap launches, after all.

Ford, GM, Nissan, BWM, et al, have billions and billions of dollars tied up in existing assembly lines, ironclad union contracts that specify how many of each type of autoworker they must hire each year, and decades of stagnant design teams who not only don't try to think of anything new, they have never even seen an automotive innovation in their entire careers -- since the last one was fuel injection for gasoline, developed by Bosch in 1950-something.

Typically, huge behemoths like GM don't innovate; they have too much invested in the status quo. And small "backyard" inventors can't afford to spend the time and money to develop really innovative systems that require production and testing.

True innovation comes from small, start-up companies backed by VC, often employing disaffected engineers from the big companies -- and sometimes even a division spun off from the mothership to give it more flexibility and free it from existing assembly lines, union contracts, and modes of thinking.

What VCs want to see is a guaranteed market for a working product; no venture capitalist expects an absolute guarantee that the new technology will work... that would be a bond investor, not a venture capitalist. But they want certainty that if it does indeed work, people will want to buy it.

This X-Prize would guarantee a huge market (huge by the standards of a startup, not GM) if the design works... and as with the X-Prize that just produced SpaceShipOne -- the first entirely privately financed rocket to go into suborbital flight, and soon to be the first private rocket to carry a man into orbit (all right, maybe that will be SpaceShipTwo!) -- such a prize does indeed drive innovation.

That earlier X-Prize also drove Rotary Rocket to attempt their incredibly creative design that eliminated the need for a fuel pump entirely. They dropped out because they couldn't get it to work; but every successful innovation is preceded by many failures. It's still a great idea -- and it sure didn't come from Northrup, LockMart, or Martin Marietta.

The bigs are always satisfied with a 2%-5% improvement; only the startups want to do something radically different.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 12, 2005 9:44 PM

The following hissed in response by: Steven Den Beste

In 2004 I wrote this:

We engineers get told to produce all kinds of things which are viewed as being desirable. But sometimes they are not feasible, and when we try to explain the reasons why, we soon get used to being told, "Don't tell us why you can't do it, tell us how you're going to do it." We get accused of being defeatist, unimaginative, gutless, stupid, uncreative, doctrinaire, inflexible, uncooperative. We get admonished to "think outside the box". We are preached at about how we should be thinking "Yes" instead of "No". We're told to stop thinking about "problems"; we are told that we should refer to them as "opportunities". (One engineering wag responded, "We're surrounded by insurmountable opportunities.")

Which is to say that we get beaten about the head and shoulders with platitudes.

That demonstrates another rather bitter engineering aphorism: "Everything is easy for the man who doesn't have to do it himself." He sees something he really wants, and doesn't want to be told that he can't have it, even if it is a fact that he can not have it. He doesn't want to hear "No" even if "No" is the real answer. Engineers are magicians, and we're supposed to make magic happen. We've pulled off so many miracles before, so why not this one?

The above hissed in response by: Steven Den Beste [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 13, 2005 5:49 AM

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

i just bought a new 2005 Ford truck...F150 for $15,700 "out the door". 17 miles a gallon on the first try. i could sleep in the area behind the seat!!! My dem Friend paid over $35-thousand for a Nissan small truck that barely gets "13.2 a gallon".

My new truck has AC, Heat, and even water. i may move from my hut, and start living in it...so to speak.

The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 13, 2005 5:18 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)


Remember me unto the end of days?


© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved