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.

How Much Efficiency Gain is Possible?

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.