What has been calculated wrong?
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 by-product 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. |
