I normally run like crazy when someone asks me questions about a "new" engine, but when one of my directors asks me to evaluate a "new design" design, my knees shake.  That happened this morning.

We have seen free pistons, opposed oscillating pistons, scotch yoke pistons, toroidal blocks, ball valves, sliding sleeves, and tons of other combinations.  Strangely, or not so strangely, none of these has ever reached any significant success.  The old, inefficient Otto cycle engine still hangs around.  With the exception of sealing refinements and air-fuel metering, almost nothing has changed in 100+ years, not including OHC engines which is a refinement, or phased cams, also a refinement, or exhaust aftertreatments, which is not a refinement, but an attempt at fixing an engine inefficiency.

I wonder how long it will take before something else pops up and takes a reasonably strong stand against the tried and true engine design?

Lets look at the true IC engine replacement, not hybrids (although I feel that is where we are heading for the next 25 years).  Turbines are nice but not practical for a number of reasons.  

When we look at H2 as a potential fuel, it still uses the Otto cycle engine as a base, only the fuel has changed.  Are we really gaining anything on the engineering side?  I recognize the significant advantage on emissions, but fuel transport, storage, and infrastructure have still to be perfected.

We are pulling at semantics classifying a turbine engine in the same category as the Otto cycle piston and valve engine.  As good as the turbine engine is, it really shines in constant load applications, far superior to the piston engine, but it cannot compare to the piston engine for throttle response and manufacturing costs, necessary for daily driving and private operation.  Toss in the efficiency of the turbine compared to the versatility of the piston engine and we have a real discussion.

The conventional piston and valve engine has made significant advancements over its century plus life, certainly nothing to sneeze at, but most of the major advancements have been made in the last 20 years when electronics took a major role in design and controls.  Recognizing the items "tbuelna" lists, these are still refinements of the original design, basically correcting and improving on a design that originates almost 150 years ago.

Where do we go from here?  In my lifetime, or at the end of it, I too will be taken to my grave in a hearse powered by an Otto cycle engine, most likely.

The fuel cell will increase in popularity, but there is going to be a point where increased production will not significantly lower the cost per kilowatt, and we will need more power to make a transference of dominance between the piston and fuel cell powerplant.

Surely there must be something in the interim.

Until recently, most advances I have seen in the industry have revolved about extracting energy from a liquid fuel, petroleum based for the most part.  The quality of the distillates have improved from years prior but I do not see any great breakthroughs occuring in petroleum distillate technology.  So engineering efforts will be guided at more effectively squeezing every ounce of energy from the petrol with as little heat wasted and as few emissions as possible.  With the Otto cycle at approximately 28% efficient, there is alot of room for improvement, but new materials or not, we are in the exponential portion of the curve where many R&D dollars spent here will not add a representative gain in efficiency.

So where next?  Why make it better at all?  The main push seems to be the fact that the petroleum resource if finite and/or the environment is affected by the byproducts of the human transportation process (heat, emmisions).  So we need to make a device that transports humans using an infinite, cheap fuel source with no measurable impact to the environment while allowing high speeds and quick acceleration.  Oh utopia!

As mentioned earlier, batteries are just not there yet.  Lead acid, the bulk of the automotive state to date, is far from cutting edge but reliable and readily available.  We can get lead and sulfuric acid rather easily.  But what to do when the meriad of batteries need refurbishment or replacement.  Petroleum based fuel consumption is down in the hybrid, but the storage of environmentally unfriendly used lead, acid and the plastic battery cases become the problem.  If a completely electrical car is the course, then the non nuclear power plants centralize the polution efforts instead of spreading them to the individual vehicles.  For an environmental system, the pollution is not appreciably less over time.

So that leaves alternatives such as fuel cells and solar power.  Fuel cells presently have more promise near term, but I predict that eventually solar cell technology will be the winner combined with fuel cells.  Solar during daylight hours and fuel cell at night.  Recycling will come into play with hybrids to slow the battery issue as better batteries are produced, but with all of these, the consumer will not be happy with a mode of transportation that achieves 0-60 in 25+ seconds or a system with a maximum speed of 40 MPH.  Thus the main reasons the Otto cycle is still around .... vehicle provides the individual the ability to go where they want, when they want, quickly at a relatively low cost.  

I ask what are the alternatives if petrol were to disappear tomorrow?  That is the longterm (100+ years from now) we should be exploring now.

MORE NEWS