ehhh.

although you may burn a strong percentage of the fuel INSIDE your engine, it does not neccessarily mean that it is burning QUICK enough. it must all burn for that instant of downstroke. After that the fuel continues to burn and isn't doing much. This is part of the reason that engines lose efficiency at high rpms.

__________________

Now I might be missing something here, but doesn't Larry Bibles theory seem more plausible than Mr. Tao's? I mean the way I read Larry's write up he will sell us some magic pill that will make our fuel tank overflow with the riches of the petroleum industry. Now that is a concept we can all buy into.

...And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

__________________

Lets not get into another fairy tale, one per thread is enough.

Eh?

So are you saying that burning the fuel quicker will reduce waste heat? I think not. Burning too fast is just as bad as burning too slowly.

The down-stroke of the piston does not happen in an instant.

And I also don't buy this as a reason that efficiency is lost at high RPM. The problem really is that the engine must pump air to work, and given a certain intake, exhaust and camshaft profile, the engine is designed to run within a certain band.

While large engines tend to run much more slowly than small engines, you can look at two engines of the same displacement and find very, very different RPM bands.

Consider the engine in a Metro and compare it to the engine in a large race bike. The Metro will be lucky to survive 8K RPM. The race bike rider hasn't even let out the clutch yet. The engines are close to the same size.

you are right, I agree.

Thermal waste is an inherent flaw of the internal combustion engine, though. These simple 'mini improvements' and add-ons are simply trying to stick with a design someone like yourself may see as outdated.

I did mention that 'burn time' was PART of the problem. I made no claims against waste heat, only the way fuel is burnt; primarily, as a function of it's atomization in diesel.

I see your point. Besides the turbo, have you ever come across an addition to the ICE that was focused on the capture of thermal waste?

__________________

I read about a 6 stroke engine where after the exhaust stroke, the valves were closed and water was injected into the hot combustion chamber, which turned to steam, cooled the combustion chamber, and provided an extra "power stroke" although the power is probably quite less than the real power stroke. Anyway, the benefits were eliminating the water cooling system, and more fuel efficiency, the drawback was hauling around a tank of distilled water. Its been a while since I read it, might be more drawbacks too...but that would be a good use of the waste heat.

__________________
1985 300TD-euro 352,000 mi
1974 240D (1?)52,000 mi - has a new home now