The Internal Combustion Engine Is Not Dead

The entire topic of twin-charge systems is quite interesting. What is though somewhat baffling, is the fact, that today's auto industry and ICE manufactures have not tried to step back from the original design by Nikolaus Otto. Every engine today with an exclusion to the RX 8 Engine or the Rotary Engine (Felix Wankel's design), are functioning either in accordance to the Otto-Cycle or Diesel-Cycle. The Otto- and Diesel-Cycles are technically the same, in terms of the numbers of cycles they implement, but make use of a different type of petroleum based fuel, which gets directly injected into the combustion chamber.

Many manufacturers of Auto and Stationary ICEs have run test trials in the late 90s and early 2000s with engines of which internal combustion engine components were either machined from special metal alloys or even ceramic materials. There have been in the field test engines with ceramic valves, ceramic main bearings, etc. There was even a piston design which was capable of altering the compression ratio based upon the amount of oil in its multi-piece assembly of which a chamber held oil to raise and/or lower the piston face accordingly.

Many speculations can be made to why such technologies have not reached past their development stage.
1)One of them is the tooling cost, for which most manufacturers would have to pay out of their running Cash
Flow
2)The technology was too complex and costly to produce

The goal of of today's auto and ICE manufacturers must be to derive solutions which are less complex, less computer regulate and less costly to produce.

Building E-Hybrids is not the answer. Not in the short term future.

E-Hybrid technologies are too complex, costly and environmentally unfriendly; not to mention the range, recharging time and collision risk.
The maintenance is significantly increased, as well as the cost to maintain the battery pack after a certain duty cycle.

The infrastructure is not even presently available.
For that reason, a stepping stone or new technology has to surpass the position of the E-Hybrid technology.

NIAMA-REISSER, LLC has done so. Its revolutionary, patented internal combustion engine, the so called CHB Internal Combustion Engine, has attributes that will make any ICE enthusiast, operator stand still in his/her tracks.

The engine is to over 30% manufactured from "engineered composite materials", like ceramic. For that reason, the CHB can run dry without any oil in its crankcase. Furthermore, does it employ a new type of cycle ---THE REISSER CYCLE---. It is a hybrid between a four-stroke and a two-stroke engine. The CHB Engine is a direct fuel injected diesel. Its injection occurs via a common rail fuel injection system with 1800 bar rail pressure. This helps atomize the fuel mixture in the combustion chamber. The revolutionary torus shaped combustion chamber furthermore atomizes the fuel in conjunction with its geometrical features.

The engine has all the pros of a two-stroke engine: High Power to Weight Ratio, Less Engine Components, Higher Rpms
but none of its weaknesses which include: High Emissions, Noise db Levels, High Fuel consumption.
For every revolution of the crank shaft are two power-strokes due to the kinematic of the CHB.

It is cleaner than a four-stroke diesel engine and has the same noise levels as such.

All of the above combines to an overall thermal efficiency of 67%.
This is realized due to a higher compression ratio, beyond 25:1 and its kinematic motion and allocation of the combustion chambers.

The CHB has much less moving parts than today's ICEs. Its footprint is also significantly reduced in comparison to conventional ICEs.

Production costs are substantially reduced, due to the fact, that the CHB can be built in form of a sandwich principle. The basic component set of the CHB are those of a 1000 ccm CHB Engine. Now multiple engines of the basic set can be coupled to each other. This is a modular type of engine design which is patented as well.

This new technology would mean that a retooling cost would have to be taken into account for by any current ICE manufacturer. Nonetheless, would it create jobs and employment opportunities in new sectors of the industry.

Visit the CHB and Reisser-Cycle websites: www.nr-chb.com, www.reissercycle.com

No....if big auto makers think that they can use IC engines for more than another decade then we're all screwed. We need to go electric and we need to do it fast.

The ICE is doomed unless some magical form if biofuel is found. What is going to power these when the oil runs out?

Diesel is efficient because of how diesel fuel performs at a given temperature and pressure. One unit of diesel fuel has more btu (energy) than gasoline if both were burned at optimum pressure. Gasoline should be burned at much higher pressures but causes emissions to go up.

What the US should have demanded in the 70's is great mileage. The emissions would have been a free effect. Instead we burned through billions of barrels of oil for so called emissions that calculated based on PPM instead of annual pounds of emissions. Everyone in the US could have been getting 40+ mpg running diesels and importing half the oil.

What the US needs to do now is force electric cars into production and hope the stockpile of nuclear fuel can be used to power it.

If engine makers want to maximize the profit of the internal combustion engine, fine maximize it to the point that there is no more profit to be made from them....but

When you bleed, do you let it heal quicker by not covering it, by that I mean adopting to new solutions right a way even though hydrogen or electric is expensive it will create the need for people to rush the technology to be more inexpensive. Or do you cover the wound by delaying the healing, by that I mean offer multiple solutions, for the combustion engine, and make the hydrogen or electric solution arrive decades later? I would go for the first one, but knowing society, no one wants to be forced, even though it may be the best solution, and hence a way for companies to take advantage of maximizing the profit of the internal combustion engine. Do you want it expensive at first, so it will become cheaper, probably faster than later? Odds are no, we humans are based on instant gratification, not patience, so the cheaper of the technologies is best. Even though a little pain might bring the solutions quicker. Either way Corporate America will follow what the masses want. Creative Destruction, the combustion engine will some day meet its demise by a new technology, like the Combustion Engine killing the horse and buggy. Odd are the demise will happen later than sooner.

Ya but their a pain in the ass to service because of their increasing complexity.

CO2 doesn't matter.
Oil won't run out.

But IC engines are inherently too inefficient and complex. The TeslaMotors motor has 1 moving part. And 90+% efficiency.

And electricity will cost 1/20 as much as now, well within the decade. focusfusion.org .

"What is going to power these when the oil runs out?"

This is an academic question; even the most pessimistic peak oil doomer models suggest an oil production above half of the current in 2030, which is longer than the life of the car.

Can't wait till this engine becomes available:

www.ecomotors.com/

Does anyone have more info on it?

If we're going to spend so much time and effort on this concept why not do it with an abundant resource like hydrogen. Don't be so short-sighted to keep using such a limited resource like oil or biofuels that can starve the ground of nutrients and place more burden on other resources. Balance is wiser than power. Power will come in time.

ICEs may evolve to be more efficient and clean, but this increases their complexity, and they are already quite complex machines. Compare this to the electric motor, with its simplicity and low maintenance, and you'll see which one is actually the better motor. Also, the efficiency of ICE is just horrible.

We cant ditch ICE's just yet. Many fail to realize jet engines are ICE's as well...and, well, anyone care to find a better alternative for our aircraft? Biofuels or other alternatives are gonna have to come to fruition as we dwindle our petroleum supplies down, otherwise we will be running a technology that has a definite end date.

Hydrogen is a viable alternative if electrolysis processes become more efficient, but for jet engine's they lack the energy density of hydrocarbon fuels. But for cars hydrogen and electricity are probably going to be the most obvious ways for alternative power...bio fuels just are not going to cut it. The amount of fuel the US alone uses makes the idea of producing biofuels completely insane and I bet they will produce WAY more harmful emissions than a hydrogen/electric hybrid.

Electric cars are also obvious when it comes to future fuel...but energy storage is the electric cars echilles(spelling?) heel. For now though, its nice to see VW is on top of things producing what consumers want right now....horsepower and fuel efficiency(give them a break they are trying!)

"If we're going to spend so much time and effort on this concept why not do it with an abundant resource like hydrogen."

Where pray tell is this abundant hydrogen resource? You have to make it, just like electricity. Hydrogen is not a way to produce energy, it is a way to consume energy.

"Don't be so short-sighted to keep using such a limited resource like oil or biofuels that can starve the ground of nutrients and place more burden on other resources."

Hydrogen gas is made from gasification of fossil fuels. It is about 3 times as efficient as first converting fossil fuels to electricity and then using electricity to electrolyse hydrogen and you don't have to have any expensive platinum-based electrolyzer. Wind and solar can't compete with fossil or nuclear electricity as it is; insisting on hydrogen makes fossil fuels far more competitive at the expense of nuclear and renewables.

Biofuels will keep me in the go long after the oil colapse and the resulting apocalypse - why we been making biofuel for generations.

A field of corn, a few fall hogs, and a wood lot gives me more than enough to keep my old diesle tractor and alchohol generator going. And you get bacon to boot.

The real problem isn't what the US will do, it is what the rest of the world does when the fact that we are 5% of the world's population producing 35% of the world's food doesn't matter because we are stuffing it all into both our cars and our mouths.

There has been studies that gasoline is actually a product of the earths core not dead dinos and that it is more renewable than we thought.

Taking, that is very interesting. But how does this occur? And just because theres a possibility that that is true, does this mean we should continue using petroleum---especially after whats happening right now in the Gulf! I know we desperately rely on petrol, but we need to continue looking for viable, more abundant and cleaner alternatives. Cars do not need to be as stringent on energy densities as aircraft do, so why not save the hydrocarbons for aircraft where the energy dense fuels are most important, and build cars more on running electric and hydrogen.

I like V-dub and all, but General Motors made two-stroke diesels for decades that were available with turbochargers feeding a supercharger. From those motors are where hot-rodders get their 6-71 and 8-71 blowers..

Not a comment but a sales pitch?

"There has been studies that gasoline is actually a product of the earths core not dead dinos and that it is more renewable than we thought."

All known major oil deposits are biological in origin. The carbon isotope ratio matches the preference of plants(which slightly favour the lighter carbon-12 isotope over carbon-13). The source rocks invariably turn out to be sedimentary rocks.

Even if oil is abiogenic, what would that change? We can't put civilization on hold for a couple of hundred million years while we wait for more oil to form.

Thank you Popular Science! The IC engine is much more efficient than it was just 20 years ago, a result of natural market forces seeking better efficiency and lower costs. Thank heaven for innovation, engineers and nerds. I'm anxious for the fuel-sipping European turbo-diesels to show up here. We had a loud, gutless VW Rabbit diesel back in the 80's...that got 63 mpg (on a really slow freeway trip at 50 mph). Top that Prius! I wouldn't mind owning a modern quiet, cleaner and more powerful turbo diesel car.

There is a efficiency/performance ceiling for Otto cycle engines that is rapidly being approached.

Electric cars are capable of delivering performance and efficiency at the same time. The torque curve of an electric motor is fairly constant from 0 to its maximum RPMs. If an electric motor needs more power to move a load it draws more current in accordance with Ohms law. If an Otto cycle engine needs more power to move a load, it simply stalls; this is why it needs a gearbox. An electric motor has torque available, even at 0 RPM. An Otto cycle engine will never be able to do this by design.

Electric cars are efficient, not just in fuel economy but in energy economy. Electric motors can exceed 90% efficiency in energy conversion. That is to say if the motor draws 100 J of energy you get 90 J of energy delivered to the drive train. No ICE can do that. Even the most efficient diesels used on extremely large sea vessels barely approach 50% efficiency. In most cars its more like 30-35%. This means that about 70% of the energy is wasted as heat into the engine's radiator.

Electric cars can be equipped with regenerative braking. This actually converts the momentum of the car back to electricity that can be re-used to power it while slowing the vehicle down at the same time. This concept is also used in some diesel-electric trains as well. There is simply no way to the convert the momentum or exhaust gases of an ICE car back into gasoline and re-use them.

Modern Otto cycle engine require tune-ups, oil changes, etc to maintain optimal performance. While I know some people love working on their cars, most people want user friendly consumer products. Electric cars have fewer moving parts (no camshaft, minimal gearing, etc) and generate much less vibration, since the motor rotates rather than recuperates (pistons). And best of all no oil changes. You might have to change the battery coolant--after about 3 years. Consumers want easy and low maintainance cars, not ancient technology.

The Otto cycle engine is dead.

Compressed natural gas powers my Toyota 2001 Camry. 200 miles costs me about $8 and it is much cleaner that a gasoline burning hybrid, with no expensive batteries to replace. Now if Toyota would just release their new CNG Hybrid Camry, that would be a cool car!

I think most drive trains will be moving towards EREVs and the ICE will just need to be efficient at a very narrow running range to power a small generator.

Check out the Voltec system on the new Volt, due out in 6 months (already ramping up on the volume production line).

Who needs all of this ICE complication for a few percentage points of reduction when the electrification of transportation can reduce our fossil fuel use by multiples, especially petroleum?

Electric engines may be efficient, but the battery tech is a long way from what's needed. A tank of gas/diesel contains an incredible amount of energy.

Hybrids push complexity towards the absurd.

As far as needing to change right now -- probably a recipe for disaster. The mandate for emissions controls caused a decade or so of automotive disasters. Development for government mandate eventually gets done, but it's a painful and inefficient process.

We're in a transition era, and improving the IC engine is one part of that transition. I'm just a little disappointed that the article didn't mention engines such as the Ford boosted/direct injection engine just now coming out. They will be using something like a 3.5 liter as the base engine in the F150. GM and Chrysler have similar products. Some surprisingly good auto tech comes from the US

laurenra7:
"The IC engine is much more efficient than it was just 20 years ago, a result of natural market forces seeking better efficiency and lower costs." So CAFE standards had no effect?
Grow up and use your brain.

As I was saying, we shouldn't be so short-sighted. If the IC Engine is the route we want to go we have to look to an abundant resource. I simply mentioned hydrogen because it is the most abundant element in the known universe. There's also helium and for this planet I guess Nitrogen. Don't know if that one's a good idea though. I don't really like the idea of ICE altogether anyways. You need a physical resource. If we learned anything with oil, it doesn't quite work out well to take something away from the environment, burn it, and in the process put something that wasn't originally there back into the environment in mass quantities. Hey guys lets use oxygen! doh!

Electric is the way! ...just cause we use oil to provide electricity atm doesn't make that argument null. It just means we got to stop being morons and find more efficient ways of providing it. Sometimes we got to take a step back to move forward. IMO, that step back should be away from the ICE.

Hydrogen: MAJOR drawbacks...

Have you ever heard of "hydrogen embrittlement" ? Look it up.

It also happens to a lesser extent in CNG systems. I've seen the results (A _shredded_ Toyota Corolla in the 1990s caused New Zealand tank safety standards to be revised drastically upwards. The rest of the world belatedly followed suit)

Raw hydrogen is a cow to transport for the same reasons. It's best generated onsite for filling - and there's less than half the hydrogen in a gallon of liquid hydrogen than in a gallon of gasoline, let alone diesel.

Other:

Otto cycles and derivatives will be with us for many years to come.

For the poster who talks about changing piston strokes lengths: It's much easier to do this by adjusting valve opening timing - look up Atkinson cycle and Fiat's "multiair" systems - even easier if we move away from mechanical cams (the biggest source of friction in a car engine) to using fully hydraulically operated systems - not rocket science as formula 1 has been using this technology for 2 decades.

Even if oil ran out tomorrow, Otto cycle engines would persist - simply in lower numbers. There's _nothing_ which approaches the portable energy density of oils, whether fossil or renewables.

I agree with the point that the IC engine still has opportunities to exploit with twincharger and diesel options to increase efficiency. Electric is great but we also should be maximizing the current technology to its fullest.
Mike McDonnell
www.autosales.com

If combustion engines were going to be defeated I think they may have been in the past decade or so. Technology has advanced so far in today's autos but nothing seems to be as cost effective as the traditional gas or diesel engine. Either that or auto manufacturers have a vested interest in the fuel industry? Who knows. Auto dealers like the traditional vehicles because their prices remain stable. Imagine trying to sell a vehicle with new technology for double the price... in this economy.

Wes
www.toplocalauto.com

There is no strong alternative to combustion engine, and that's why it's still strong, but in near future this will change. New and cheaper technologies (batteries, lighter materials.... the engine is just too heavy...) are going to take over. Price is the biggest factor, next to risk for a company to completely move to something new.

Romy
Editor at www.bestcarfinder.com

The combustion is not dead however its drive force means is a dinasaur.

The combustion engine can easily be adapted to combustion. One cylinder heat source to a multiple cylinder heat engine where combustion force is replicated as combustion heat is used to expand a refrigerant such as R774 (CO2) or other gas.

The combustion engine has a compression stoke much like that found in the common electric fridge compressor. It also has an injector pump that will squirt liqid refrigerant such as CO2 into hot cylinder causing massive heat expansion of the CO2 (R774). The system works by CO2 injected at the power stroke, after which the exhaust valve remains open during the compression stroke(replicating a fridge compresser)which forces the hot CO2 into a common expansion chamber as found in fridges and the CO2 is cooled at this point. The injector pump acting again like a an electric fridge compressor convervts the cool CO2 into liquid and injects it into the hot cylinder kept that way by the water cooling jacket that is part of any water cooled combustion engine.

An exanple combustion heat of Diesel is 1,200 Celius and produce a force in the region of 38 bar. Co2 at 15* Celsius is 45 bar. CO2 at 32*Celius is 74 bar and at 130* Celius is 10,000 bar.
Blueprint, picture, graphs and working are available however not included as such is included in non www site but http site. Peter