This looks promising. It is basically a continuous combustion wave turbine. While not super powerful in this early design and not intended to replace a V-8 it can be brought to market for a hybrid vehicle application soon, according to the researcher. See the video below. While they’ve got a focus on CO2 for the usual reasons, I’ll take increased efficiency any day.
Schematic model of a wave disk engine, showing combustion and shockwaves within the channels. Source: Michigan State University.
Researchers from Michigan State University have been awarded $2.5 million from the Department of Energy’s ARPA-E program to complete its prototype development of a new gasoline-fueled wave disc engine and electricity generator that promises to be five times more efficient than traditional auto engines in electricity production, 20% lighter, and 30% cheaper to manufacture.
The wave disc engine, a new implementation of wave rotor technology, was earlier developed by the Michigan State group in collaboration with researchers from the Warsaw Institute of Technology. About the size of a large cooking pot, the novel, hyper-efficient engine could replace current engine/generator technologies for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.
The award will allow a team of MSU engineers and scientists, led by Norbert Müller, an associate professor of mechanical engineering, to begin working toward producing a vehicle-size wave disc engine/generator during the next two years, building on existing modeling, analysis and lab experimentation they have already completed.
Our goal is to enable hyper-efficient hybrid vehicles to meet consumer needs for a 500-mile driving range, lower vehicle prices, full-size utility, improved highway performance and very low operating costs. The WDG also can reduce carbon dioxide emissions by as much as 95 percent in comparison to modern internal combustion vehicle engines.
From ARPA-E
The Wave Disk Generator revolutionizes auto efficiency at lower vehicle costs. Currently, 15% of automobile fuel is used for propulsion; the other 85% is wasted. A Wave Disk Generator hybrid uses 60% of fuel for vehicle propulsion.
MSU’s shock wave combustion generator is the size of a cooking pot and generates electricity very efficiently. This revolutionary generator replaces today’s 1,000 pounds of engine, transmission, cooling system, emissions, and fluids resulting in a lighter, more fuel-efficient electric vehicle. This technology provides 500-mile-plus driving range, is 30% lighter, and 30% less expensive than current, new plug-in hybrid vehicles. It overcomes the cost, weight, and driving range challenges of battery-powered electric vehicles.
This development exceeds national CO2 emission reduction goals for transportation. A 90% reduction is calculated in CO2 emissions versus gasoline engine vehicles. Wave Disk Generator application scales as small as motor scooters and as large as delivery trucks, due to its small size, low weight, and low cost. This technology enables us to radically improve the atmosphere and human health of major global cities.
Last week, the prototype was presented to the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA), this video was released:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
…and how exactly are they going to ensure that the vanes are still sealed after one or two years of normal operation? That thing is going to be spewing raw fuel out its exhaust pipe faster than you can ask ‘what ever happened to the Mazda rotary engine?’.
The idea of using a detonation wave is attractive, because the higher temperatures offer the potential for better efficiency. Also, the design appears to be nice engineering, following the engineering dictate to ‘simplificate and add lightness’.
However, the reality is that the engine has no running prototype as yet, just parts that may or may not work as expected.
The impressive performance figures should consequently be taken with a grain of salt.
Each explosion would push on both the leading fin and the trailing fin. Timing the ignition of the gas closer to the leading fin would be essential; otherwise, it would slow down and stop if not turn backwards. I wonder about how robust this system would be because those fins look rather thin to me. This could reduce the lifespan of the engine. As well, how difficult will it be to seal the engine from leaks? As it heats up, would it not warp? Even slight warping could kill the seal. — John M Reynolds
I would like to point out, that this is not some crackpot cold-fusion-esque pseudoscience. The principle of the wave rotor is proven technology, albeit very tricky and sensitive technology.
The new aspect here, is combustion within the wave rotor.
However, I suspect problems, when this engine is run at non optimal speeds, because exact timing of the process within the wave rotor is of immense importance. This is probably the reason, why it is proposed for hybrid cars only, because here the engine can run at a constant speed and with constant power output, and a battery/condenser buffers the varying power demand. Alternatively a battery of many small wave rotor engines that can be turned on and off individually might also do the trick.
So, they got 2.5 $ million just to make a bad copy of a Wankel engine?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wankel_engine
As for figure 1, where is the compression being made? Why should anything there rotate? Why shouldn’t the fresh air/fuel mix and the burnt exhaust just mix? At least this schematic concept is complete crap.
It is welcome new that there is a new contender for a more fuel efficient method of powering our transportation! I have been waiting so long, years in fact, for breaking news about the StarRotor engine here: http://www.starrotor.com/Engines
and the MYT engine here: http://www.angellabsllc.com/cmparison.html
that it needs another horse to enter the race.
Now come to think about it, that’s given me an idea!
I agree with the comment that it is the efficiency that is the real story here. I actually envision that this engine would have a large market in portable generators.
The efficiency claim sounds almost too good to be true. We’ve have had wonder engine claims in the past like the Wankel and the Sarich, but somehow when it comes down to it they just haven’t stacked up.
Lets hope this one makes it, not for the CO2 fantasy stuff but for the claimed gains in efficiency and cost effectiveness of the basic engine design.
There was some thing similar to this being done in the 80’s for aviation. Much larger than this one and it had several chambers to it. The Canadian company working on it was having torque problems with it. Haven’t heard anything about it since about 1991.
This has been around for a while. The video I think dates back to mid 2009. Norbert Mueller has some patents for injectors.
There was a lot of hype around the Orbital engine and a lot of investor money lost. The Orbital engine company had a quite a few patents. As well as I can remember the engine had problems with fuel injection and exhaust. I believe they eventual sold some of the injector technology but never solved the exhaust problems. It seems to me that the same problems arise with this. However, as time moves froward there are improved materials with higher tolerances and better controls systems but these all come at a manufacturing cost.
One can understand Universities wanting more money for more research.
Looks good to me.
I don’t believe man made (global warming) climate change is a problem. But if it was, innovation not regulation is the answer.
Seems that news of the death of us all has been somewhat exaggerated …
So this engine is more efficient, meaning less fuel used, therefore less taxes into the coffers of national governemnts? For that reason alone governments across the world will do their utmost to persuade motor manufacturers not to use the technology.
I’ve seen too many new engine designs with high promise. I’ll believe it when I see it. Consider the Scuderi. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124025229305035879.html
Opposed pistons, slanted pistons, electrical generator pistons, etc. Popular Science has been covering such for decades. We shall see.
@Ralph: A little unfair. American cars of the 1930’s had a wide range of gas mileage, from 50 MPG for the tiny Bantam and Crosley, to 30 MPG for the ‘compact’ Nash 600 and Willys, to 10 MPG for the big Packards and Caddies. Pretty much the same range as American cars of the 2000s. In every decade you could find a small American car that would get 30 with careful driving.
Nothing new here.
It looks like a “Comprex”. So I search on comprex engine and come up with…
http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?s=e4ffa18802d8071505babb1d1d0985b5&t=1874750
from October 31, 2009. This 2009 version has more text, but is nearly identical to to the article posted above.
Variations on the comprex compressor have been around since 1906. My father spent an unreasonable amount of time designing a comprex engine for an airplane when I was in my teens.
Since he has no current working prototype, I would presume these claims of efficiency are from computer models? And we know how that goes.
I have no issue with a bit of support in developing a working prototype, but if the design is as simple as is claimed, what are the obstacles that are preventing a working model? With today’s CAD systems, I don’t think it’s very expensive to have a milling machine pump out a few revisions of the rotor system for trial. Even if the results are not exactly as claimed, that would show that the concept is valid, just that it needs fine tuning to obtain the desired results.
One big obstacle will be the auto industry. Very slow to accept innovations, unless they come up with it themselves. But if this get government funding, this may get fast-tracked to Government Motor, whether they want it or not. 🙂
Regards..
Remember the Wankel? Nice theory, but then the theory meets reality. The ability to seal the rotating guts and not have the seals fail in short order was just not there. The Otto cycle or the Diesel cycle are not the do all or end all, but you run up against the limits of the Carnot cycle. It is a heat engine like all the rest. These guys will not repeal the laws of thermodynamics either.
There is another design that is gaining excitement and it is about 60% more efficient then todays engines. It is a normal internal combustion engine but it uses shuttle tiles to allow for less heat rejection making it much more fuel frugal. It’s being developed by Dwight Engine Technologies and the DOT. The engine shown in this article looks very similar to the Wankle Engine that had so many problems.
Anthony,
Do you know what makes this a more powerful torque engine?
The turbine is inverted the exhaust come from the center out which then centrifugal force is a friend to this design. It still can be more efficient as all the energy is not coming out at all 360 degrees.
This is very similar to the power generating turbine I had created, 7 years ago.
Wow, they’ve recycled the 1960’s wave rotor engine idea – perhaps more familiar as the comprex turbochargers used in some 80’s Mazdas – but presented it as something exciting different and new! (Comprex turbos weren’t as good as conventional turbos).
Wave rotor engines have been assessed for myriad applications over the last 50 years, but never measure up once they get past studies and idealised assumptions into actual hardware. Ideally quite efficient (but not as efficient as IC engines) if only it weren’t for all of the severe loss mechanisms:
1/ Seal leakage between fast moving rotor blades and fixed stator, made far worse by thermal expansion of hot blades that leads to greater gaps being required. Can’t use lubricated contact seals due to high speeds and gas temps and oil leakage into exhaust that is unacceptable for emissions (like two stroke).
2/ The unwanted mixing between cool inlet air (to be compressed) and hot exhaust air (to be expanded) that heats and cools them respectively before compression and expansion process take place – this is highly undesirable thermodynamically and is made even worse in their radial layout by coriolis forces that increase the mixing.
3/ Similarly hot blade walls that heats pre-compression air and cools pre-expansion air – very undesirable.
4/Very low effective compression ratio, probably no greater than 3 or 4 – that as all petrol heads know severely limits efficiency.
5/Power Turbine (that they haven’t shown), is lower efficiency than an IC engine piston at converting pressure to power, turbines that can only handle half the temperature that pistons can – again reducing efficiency.
Unfortunately for me (as it’s what I do professionally) engine development is a fruitful area for BS artists, there are at least several hundred active ‘innovative’ engine projects in the world that are probably better than this but will never even match existing IC engines. Don’t back this dog.
Just some comments.
The 15% efficiency quoted for IC is somehwat too low. Perhaps drivetrain
efficiencies are factored in.
Also 60% thermal efficiency from shock waves? Generally shock waves
are to be avoided in any heat engine since they are irreversible processes
which always leads to lower efficiencies. If high efficiency is achieved,
then high temperatures must be involved which leads to materials issues.
I would guess the 60% effiicency does not include the drive train. I also
conjecture it also does not include the turbine.
And yeah, if they can get 60% conervsion, then why not use them to generate
electricity. 40% is a typical efficiency for a single cycle gas turbine. If
you can get 60% efficiency, could conceivably justify replacing all electricity
generating gas turbines in the USA.
I suspect some major over-hyping is going on.
Saving CO2? CO2 is sooo 1990. Now everyone is worried about NITROGEN polution.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13025304 refers…
I also recall that university development programs can usually run on anything over $200k per year; they are getting more than $1200k per year. I wonder what they are doing with all that money? They must be buying some equipment for the department, which has its pros and cons for all involved, even the tax payers.
Color me as hopeful but waiting for more proof.
Two observations:
1) the video shows components and diagrams but no working model;
2) the design implies that the engine will operate best at a single speed where the velocity of the pressure waves from combustion will match the rotation of the vanes and the volume for expansion, (in other words, the resonant frequency of the device) Therefore it will be great for running a generator but lousy for running a transmission.