|
Let’s look at
what is happening inside of an engine.
Air and fuel is drawn or forced into a
cylinder, and then ignited. The result
is heat which expands the gas, forcing
the piston down the stroke, and thus
providing power to the output shaft. The
work has been done by the heat
generated. So why is it accepted that
the heat lost through the exhaust and
cooling system, be added into the losses
equation? The heat has performed its job
and provided the power already. Heat
lost out the exhaust and cooling system
is energy byproduct from work already
performed.
So let’s look at
this in more depth. A fuel has a certain
amount of potential energy. The fuel has
the capability of generating a certain
amount of heat. If we deduct the heat
generated from the fuels potential in an
internal combustion engine we experience
approximately 20% losses (Combustion and
heat transfer).
Quote taken
from: (Advanced Combustion and Emission
Control Research for High-Efficiency
Engines - Oak Ridge National Laboratory)
“The conventional engine combustion
process causes the largest losses, which
are difficult to mitigate or even
explain. Typical combustion is highly
irreversible in the thermodynamic sense
and results in destruction of about 20%
of the fuel’s energy potential.”
The expanded
gases push the piston down the bore.
|
|
We then transfer
that reciprocating force to rotational
torque.
As previously
explained, a conventional engine’s
con-rod/crankshaft transfers this with
approximately 35% losses. We then have
pumping or compression losses of around
10%, frictional losses of approximately
3%, Mechanical losses of 3% and
parasitic losses of approximately 2%. We
have now accounted for 73% of an
engine’s losses. This engine is 27%
efficient which accounts for 100% of all
the fuel’s potential energy.
The independent
testing of the Revetec X4v2 engine at
Orbital Australia in early 2008 proved
this theory to be correct. During the
testing the exhaust temperature was
slightly higher than normal, which means
that the fuel mixture was burning slower
and incomplete due to reduced turbulence
and antiquated combustion chamber
design, yet the engines total efficiency
was higher.
More heat was
lost through the exhaust, heat lost
through cooling the lubricating oil also
increased, yet the engine reached 39.5%
total efficiency. Heat transferred into
the radiator was quite normal and
pumping losses were about the same.
Given all this
data and the results from testing,
conclusively proves, that stated engine
losses are incorrect. If our theory was
totally incorrect, it would have been
impossible to achieve the results we
accomplished.
|
|
We have stated that a
crankshaft connecting rod device in a
petrol engine is approximately 65%
efficient matching the mechanical device
and cylinder pressure to an output
shaft. We have calculated that our
Revetec engine bottom end design is
approximately 85% efficient. This 20%
gain means that utilising a late model
automotive engine cylinder
|
|
head, and optimising
the design, it is possible to achieve an
efficiency level of approximately 50%.
This type of figure has been viewed as
unachievable in the industry. Similarly,
the Revetec engine design can improve
efficiency on diesel and other type
fuelled engines and/or other
reciprocating to rotational transfer
mechanical devices.
|