Ultra efficient split-cycle engine tech ready for sale

[TinmanMS6]

Ultra efficient split-cycle engine tech ready for sale

American engineering firm Scuderi is expecting to license a new ultra-efficient engine design called the split-cycle within the next 12 months. The design uses a revolutionary new system to provide engines that release significantly less emissions than current offerings and is claimed to be one of the most efficient internal combustion engine designs in the world.

Typical combustion engines are 33% efficient at the moment - meaning that they use about 1/3 of the power available in the fuel they burn. The Scuderi engine pushes this figure to nearly 40%, a major breakthrough achieved through some clever technology, reports Automotive News.

The Scuderi engine splits the strokes of the four-stroke cycle over a pair of dedicated compression and power cylinders, meaning that the design of each cylinder can be independently optimized to perform the separate and distinct tasks of compression and power. This means that engines can be designed in ways that were impossible before, making the technology one of the most sought after products in the industry.

By next year Scuderi is planning on introducing both petrol and diesel prototypes, with both engines greatly reducing emissions and increasing fuel-efficiency. The deal would allow a manufacturer to purchase the technology and develop it as they see fit. At this point it seems that a non-U.S. automaker will likely win the bid but nothing is in writing at the moment and this could change.

 

[TinmanMS6]

Animation of how this engine works:
http://www.scuderigroup.com/technology/animations/split_sideview.html

 

[GhostMercury]

..wow. looks cool but my brain hurts

 

[Hughes412]

So what I see seems to be one piston is forcing in air to the other piston instead of having one piston doing both sucking and blowing? Seems like it might be for efficient but will cut back on power maybe?

 

[flat_black]

So... Twice the rotating mass from two pistons, one piston pumping the entire volume of air/fuel mixture, three poppet valves, minimum, and a flap valve..? It looks like a two stroke air pump attached to a four stroke... I, personally, don't like the idea after I've looked it over a bit. Maybe something will happen to change my mind, but added complexity in this case seems like a bad idea.

Efficiency is about dealing well with inherent complexity, and removing unnecessary complexity, so while this may be gathering more potential energy from the fuel, I think the possibility of increasing VE by means of rotary valves, which removes the poppet is a very good potential for greater gains than adding far more rotating mass, and using the power stroke to compress the air/fuel during the compression stroke, only to have it pass through a tube to the intake of the secondary piston... I'm thinking a lot of the atomization of the fuel (though anything that carburates well, like liquid propane, would probably work well in this situation,) adjustment of the valves, both poppet and flap/pressure, and combustion chamber shapes...

Overall this seems like it's an unneccesary design that won't lend itself well to general applications. But hey, I'm game for trying, if another company is gonna foot the bill! =)

 

[Roywhitep5]

we need to modernize steam power for automotive applications

 

[Foolish]

It's cool to see someone developing new ICE technologies, I just wonder if it will ever come to market.

I think Mazda needs to make the evolutionary leap from Rotary to Quasiturbine engines, as it's kind of the same idea, only better. Thing is, the Quasiturbine was patented in 1996, and I've never heard anything about it until yesterday!

 

[Dimitrios]

So... Twice the rotating mass from two pistons, one piston pumping the entire volume of air/fuel mixture, three poppet valves, minimum, and a flap valve..? It looks like a two stroke air pump attached to a four stroke... I, personally, don't like the idea after I've looked it over a bit. Maybe something will happen to change my mind, but added complexity in this case seems like a bad idea.

Efficiency is about dealing well with inherent complexity, and removing unnecessary complexity, so while this may be gathering more potential energy from the fuel, I think the possibility of increasing VE by means of rotary valves, which removes the poppet is a very good potential for greater gains than adding far more rotating mass, and using the power stroke to compress the air/fuel during the compression stroke, only to have it pass through a tube to the intake of the secondary piston... I'm thinking a lot of the atomization of the fuel (though anything that carburates well, like liquid propane, would probably work well in this situation,) adjustment of the valves, both poppet and flap/pressure, and combustion chamber shapes...

Overall this seems like it's an unneccesary design that won't lend itself well to general applications. But hey, I'm game for trying, if another company is gonna foot the bill! =)

But you may be looking at too much from a gasoline powered consumer/automotive perspective (and I agree with most of your points). Efficiency by adding unnecessary complexity may be inherently juxtaposed.

It seems as if they're [initially] targeting the diesel market: generators, pumps, and other industrial applications (potentially freight market). These are huge consumers of fuel. Rail (as an example) is currently trying to reinvent itself to become a better competitor with LTL and LH over the road freight and mileage is one value add to customers.

I have a colleague that works in the locomotive industry and he's been working on R&D on regenerative braking (the energy stored as potential compressed air) for locomotives and entire mile+ long trains. The impacts of even incremental gains in these markets are enormous (esp. when you look at the larger non-North American market: put one of these split-cycle engines to pump water someplace where a traditional motor would not work due to the cost of fuel...assuming alternatives such as solar were considered as well)

Off their page:

The Scuderi Engine has an even bigger impact on diesel engines than on gasoline engines. Because the Scuderi Split-Cycle Technology not only improves the performance of the engine but reduces the complexity and cost of the engine, the impact is staggering.

The Scuderi Technology drastically reduces the cost of diesel systems by eliminating or dramatically reducing three of the most expensive and complex parts of a diesel system: turbocharging, injectors, and exhaust treatment.

Interesting to see it pan out. Mazda seems to be the one automotive company that has a tradition of looking at non-traditional engine technologies (Wankel, Miller induction). Time will tell...good to see progress regardless.