PDA

View Full Version : Six stroke engine...up to 40% more efficient



Dimitrios
03-15-2006, 12:08 AM
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060227/FREE/302270007/1023/THISWEEKSISSUE

Inside Bruce Crower’s Six-Stroke Engine
By PETE LYONS
6:00 am, February 27, 2006


Advertisement

Bruce Crower has lived, breathed and built hot engines his whole life. Now he’s working on a cool one—one that harnesses normally-wasted heat energy by creating steam inside the combustion chamber, and using it to boost the engine’s power output and also to control its temperature.

“I’ve been trying to think how to capture radiator losses for over 30 years,” explains the veteran camshaft grinder and race engine builder. “One morning about 18 months ago I woke up, like from a dream, and I knew immediately that I had the answer.”

Hurrying to his comprehensively-equipped home workshop in the rural hills outside San Diego, he began drawing and machining parts, and installing them in a highly modified, single-cylinder industrial powerplant, a 12-hp diesel he converted to use gasoline. He bolted that to a test frame, poured equal amounts of fuel and water into twin tanks, and pulled the starter-rope.

“My first reaction was, ‘Gulp! It runs!’” the 75-year-old inventor remembers. “And then this ‘snow’ started falling on me. I thought, ‘What hath God wrought…’”

The “snow” was flakes of white paint blasted from the ceiling by the powerful pulses of exhaust gas and steam emitted from the open exhaust stack, which pointed straight up.

Over the following year Crower undertook a methodical development program, in particular trying out numerous variations in camshaft profiles and timing as he narrowed the operating parameters of his patented six-stroke cycle.

Recently he’s been trying variations of the double-lobe exhaust cams to delay and even eliminate the opening of the exhaust valve after the first power stroke, to “recompress” the combustion gasses and thus increase the force of the steam-stroke.

The engine has yet to operate against a load on a dyno, but his testing to date encourages Crower to expect that once he gets hard numbers, the engine will show normal levels of power on substantially less fuel, and without overheating.

“It’ll run for an hour and you can literally put your hand on it. It’s warm, yeah, but it’s not scorching hot. Any conventional engine running without a water jacket or fins, you couldn’t do that.”

Indeed, the test unit has no external cooling system—no water jacket, no water pump, no radiator; nothing. It does retain fins because it came with them, but Crower indicates the engine would be more efficient if he took the trouble to grind them off. He has discarded the original cooling fan.

So far he has used only gasoline, but Bruce believes a diesel-fueled test engine he is now constructing—with a hand-made billet head incorporating the one-third-speed camshaft—will realize the true potential of his concept.

Potential…and Questions
Crower invites us to imagine a car or truck (he speaks of a Bonneville streamliner, too) free of a radiator and its associated air ducting, fan, plumbing, coolant weight, etc.

“Especially an 18-wheeler, they’ve got that massive radiator that weighs 800, 1000 pounds. Not necessary,” he asserts. “In those big trucks, they look at payload as their bread and butter. If you get 1000 lb. or more off the truck…”

Offsetting that, of course, would be the need to carry large quantities of water, and water is heavier than gasoline or diesel oil. Preliminary estimates suggest a Crower cycle engine will use roughly as many gallons of water as fuel.

And Crower feels the water should be distilled, to prevent deposits inside the system, so a supply infrastructure will have to be created. (He uses rainwater in his testing.) Keeping the water from freezing will be another challenge.

But the inventor sees overriding benefits. “Can you imagine how much fuel goes into radiator losses every day in America? A good spark-ignition engine is about 24 percent efficient; ie., about 24 cents of your gasoline dollar ends up in power. The rest goes out in heat loss through the exhaust or radiator, and in driving the water pump and the fan and other friction losses.

“A good diesel is about 30 percent efficient, a good turbo diesel about 33 percent. But you still have radiators and heavy components, and fan losses are extremely high on a big diesel truck.”

Bottom-line, Bruce estimates his new operating cycle could improve a typical engine’s fuel consumption by 40 percent. He also anticipates that exhaust emissions may be greatly reduced. It’s all thanks to the steam.

“A lot of people don’t know that water expands 1600 times when it goes from liquid into steam. Sixteen hundred! This is why steam power is so good. But it’s dangerous…”

The danger of a boiler explosion has long been a factor in engineering—and in operating—steam powerplants of all kinds, and Crower is properly wary of the miniature boiler he has conjured up inside his test engine. That’s one reason he chose to use one originally manufactured as a diesel, for its inherent strength, though he installed a carburetor and ignition system so it could burn gasoline at first.

The original diesel fuel injector system now supplies the water spray to generate the steam-stroke.

In addition to producing extra power, the injected water cools the piston and exhaust valve, which suggests to Crower that he could raise the compression ratio. “I’ve done this many times on regular engines: 15-to-1 on gasoline for the first five seconds works pretty good until you get some chamber heat and then suddenly it gets into pinging. But with the chamber being chilled, I bet 12-, 13-to-1 will be no problem on cheap fuel.

“So what we can maybe do is have fuels that aren’t quite as good…It’ll save a nickel a gallon not having to keep three grades going.”

As for his hope of lowering emissions, Bruce speculates the steam might purge “cling-on hydrocarbons” out of the combustion chamber. “This thing may turn out to be so clean that you won’t have to have a catalytic converter.

But he admits that’s unknown, saying “there’s a lot of experimenting still to be done.” Which prospect makes him smile. He thrives on this kind of challenge.
Bruce’s Background
“You’ve kinda got to be in the cam business and know the dynamics of engines,” Bruce Crower says about how the idea occurred to him. And he certainly has that background.

He was building and racing hot rods (and hot bikes), manufacturing speed equipment and operating his own speed shop in his home town of Phoenix when he was still a teen.

After moving to San Diego in the 1950s, among other exploits he dropped a Hemi into a Hudson and drove it to a 157-mph speed record at Bonneville.

Inevitably, the inventive and inexhaustible Crower built up a major equipment business in superchargers, intake manifolds, clutches and, especially, camshafts. He’s also credited with first suggesting a rear wing to Don Garlits—in 1963, three years before Jim Hall’s winged Chaparral. Bruce Crower is now in Florida’s Drag Racing Hall of Fame.

Crower actually had introduced a wing two years earlier, during practice on Jim Rathmann's 1961 Indianapolis car—five years before Jim Hall’s winged Chaparral. Bruce had been crewing at the Speedway since 1954 (Jimmy Bryan, second place), and had been part of Rathmann's 1960 victory effort. He was likewise on the winning teams in 1966 (Graham Hill) and 1967 (AJ Foyt). Three decades later, in 1998, Eddie Cheever won with Crower cams.

Bruce even produced his own complete Indy engine, a flat-8 that didn’t quite make the field in 1977 and then was rendered obsolete (due to its width) by the advent of ground-effect tunnels. But the Crower 8 and its automatic clutch did win an SAE award for innovation.

Today, Crower Cams and Equipment Company employs about 160 people in five facilities, and manufactures not only cams but crankshafts and connecting rods—including titanium rods for (unnamed) Formula One customers.

Bruce Crower can’t be called retired now, but he’s happy to let the company he founded “roll along” while he “plays with cars.” That’s how he looks at the intensive R&D work he carries out in the privacy of his 13-acre horse property near the rural community of Jamul.

One of several projects is building up Honda S2000 engines for the Midget raced by his granddaughter, Ashley Swanson. (“I think she’s on par with Danica Patrick,” says the proud grampa.)

But his prime focus is proving his six-stroke engine is as revolutionary as he believes it is. “I’ve been trying to find something wrong with the whole basic idea for almost a year,” he says, “but I think we’re going to have a very marketable item.”

Then he adds philosophically, “If it turns out to be great, fine. If it doesn’t, it’s just another year out of my life that I’ve had a lot of fun doing something.”

dupa12345
03-15-2006, 12:28 AM
is anybody thinking hydrogen engine putting out water to put it right back into the engine again .. of course you'd have to figure out the ratio of how much hydrogen has to get burned to get enough water to cool the engine and run the water system but i'm sure it would help with storage and the whole thing with getting purified water

nevertheless great way to bring back some of that heat energy back into the powerplant

dupa12345
03-15-2006, 12:41 AM
well on second thought .. he tries to figure out how to utilize heat .. but heat is nothing else but loss of energy due to friction .. limit friction and you have no water bullshit to worry about .. so to be more eficient look for frictionless materials instead of playing around with water .. but than its rocket science and its kind of way over most of our heads .. and cost of materials maybe prohibitive

YellowMP5
03-15-2006, 01:43 AM
engineers rule

spacemonkey
03-15-2006, 01:53 AM
is anybody thinking hydrogen engine putting out water to put it right back into the engine again .. of course you'd have to figure out the ratio of how much hydrogen has to get burned to get enough water to cool the engine and run the water system but i'm sure it would help with storage and the whole thing with getting purified water

nevertheless great way to bring back some of that heat energy back into the powerplant

depends....there are two kinds of hydrogen engines out there.

1st is a hydrogen combustion engine....works the same way as a gasoline combustion engine except it uses hydrogen. Mazda and BMW have all done extensive reesearch in these type of cars. The problem is a tank of hydrogen will not get you very far at all....and the unit is super combersome. in the case of the mazda hydrogen RX8 it has a gasoline tank like a normal RX8 and a htdrogen tank in the trunk. And I remember reading a full hydrogen fill up got very very low milage. Same witht he BMW. and I believe GM might have toyed with this idea...and might still have interest in hydrogen combustion.

Now a better more efficent hydrogen engine is called a hydrogen fuel cell. This is what Honda, Toyota and GM are investing into. It work alot like a battery in that theres a cemical reaction or somethign like that. I know very little details about this but I do know this is the most efficent hydrogen engine that is beign research. the milage is alot better and the unit is more compact.

Now the question is the hydrogen fuel cell is the future. the hydrogen combustion is the near future. our infostructure is based of gasoline....what better to make people swithc to hydrogen then a car that is able to run both hydrogen and gasoline...well thats what mazda beleives in . A Cheap way to make hydrogen engines...very little modification is needed to run hydrogen on a rotary engine and can be manufatuered in the same way as gasoline rotaries.

I think your idea maywork in combustion sense but in terms of the hydrogen fuel cell which acts more like your car battery...it may not.

dupa12345
03-15-2006, 01:58 AM
yeah may be im just a casual reader of these things

though i did forget that combustion itself generates heat .. so this guy is onto something for trying to capture it

spacemonkey
03-15-2006, 02:07 AM
like a steam engine.

dmitrik4
03-15-2006, 02:43 AM
i like the idea. i was reading it thinking, "crower...cams...sounds familiar...." :)

i don't know about this no catalytic converter needed" stuff, but the basic premise sounds reasonable. he's right about all that heat being wasted. how about a diesel hybrid 6-stroke? recover energy from both the waste engine heat and the brakes.

that's the key; there is a phenomenal amount of energy stored in fossil fuel. the trick is wasting as little of it as possible.

on the topic of fossil and other fuels, check this out...pretty interesting. made me reconsider the wisdom/feasibility of "biofuels."

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-10/uou-bm9102603.php

p5power
03-15-2006, 04:39 AM
i like the idea. i was reading it thinking, "crower...cams...sounds familiar...." :)

i don't know about this no catalytic converter needed" stuff, but the basic premise sounds reasonable. he's right about all that heat being wasted. how about a diesel hybrid 6-stroke? recover energy from both the waste engine heat and the brakes.

that's the key; there is a phenomenal amount of energy stored in fossil fuel. the trick is wasting as little of it as possible.

on the topic of fossil and other fuels, check this out...pretty interesting. made me reconsider the wisdom/feasibility of "biofuels."

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-10/uou-bm9102603.php
holy crap thats alot of prehistoric plants....interesting link.

jmv
03-15-2006, 08:40 AM
i think its badass that people are looking into this stuff. In some ways, if kinks can work out, i see this as more feasible that a hydrogen engine, just because we'd still be using (for the most part) readily available materials....

i think for hydrogen to really take off, there would have to be incentives from the government, because the car companies won't actually release a car if there is no fuel for it, and there won't be places to carry fuel if there is no car. Thats just what i think.

Shane5425
03-15-2006, 09:12 AM
i think gm is leaning more towards flex fuel.... Ethenal based.. only bad thing about it is how the fuel itself is dirty... bad for injectors... unless they found a way to refine it more, they tried to use it in the 80s, but was damageing to many cars..

NVP5White
03-15-2006, 09:47 AM
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-10/uou-bm9102603.php

So lets see how much oil/natural gas we might have...

1. Dukes also calculated that the amount of fossil fuel burned in a single year – 1997 was used in the study – totals 97 million billion pounds of carbon, which is equivalent to more than 400 times "all the plant matter that grows in the world in a year,"

1 Year of Fossil Fuel (FF) = 400 Years of plant growth (YPG)

2. The calculations showed that roughly...only one-10,750th of the carbon in plants deposited on ancient seafloors, deltas and lakebeds ends up as oil and natural gas.

Conversion efficientcy of Plant matter to Fossil Fuel (FF) = 10,750:1

Therefore: 1 Year FF = 400*10,750
1 Year FF = 4,300,000 YPG

Possible YPG for Earth = 2,000,000,000 (conservative estimate)

Estimated Possible Supply of FF = 2,000,000,000/4,300,000

= 465 Years of FF @ 1997 Consumption Rate

Also, he states that Biofuels would require a 50% increase in current levels of plant matter harvesting to replace the amount of energy we get from Fossil Fuels. Well, actually that's not such a big increase especially when you consider that some crops are more energy dense than others (soybeans) and that they would require less than 50% increase. Further, what are we doing with the plant matter we are harvesting now (besides what we eat, obviously)? We burn it or burry it or turn it into mulch. Instead we could turn it into biofuel. We'd have say 50% of our ENTIRE ENERGY NEED (not just gas for cars) from recycled plant matter (no additional harvesting) and the rest can be gained from Nuclear/wind/hydro power plants. So I don't really think that it is a case of choosing rainforests or cars.

NVP5White
03-15-2006, 09:57 AM
BTW...I like the idea of diesel engine efficiency and if you can enhance the benefits by using 2 more cycles and a bit of water, all the better. My concern lies with the fact that water would mix with combustion byproducts right in the cylinder and result in contaminated water vapor. Its like your spewing acid rain clouds from the tailpipe. I know a byproduct of catalysing exhaust gases now is water vapor but this is on a different scale. Also, would the moist conditions interfere with new particulate filters being introduced on diesels? I wonder...

Also, what effects does this have on engine block material? Most diesels are cast iron or have iron cylinder liners which are sensetive to water in a big way. There are nickel/steel alloys that would fit the bill but they are more expensive and harder ro work than iron.

dmitrik4
03-15-2006, 10:11 AM
same thing i thought when i read the article re: potential amount of FF.

your other points are well-taken, but not insurmountable, i think.

Dimitrios
03-15-2006, 08:05 PM
i think gm is leaning more towards flex fuel.... Ethenal based.. only bad thing about it is how the fuel itself is dirty... bad for injectors... unless they found a way to refine it more, they tried to use it in the 80s, but was damageing to many cars..

Ethanol (and other alcohols) aren't refined, they're distilled....just a nuance (deadhorse