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.
People criticizing the rotary engine should get up to speed. The seal problem has been resolved and the units currently powering the RX-8 are so small that Mazda gives you a back seat for free. I’ve had experience with a 2004 and the power output of these small engines is impressive.
Of course there are other problems with the RX-8 but not leaking seals. Try starting the RX-8, moving 100 feet, turning it off and then re-starting it. Nope, not until a trip to the garage.
If you take a look at energy efficient vehicles, the main “improvement” is the fact that they are made lighter. Actual motor efficiency hasn’t increased that much over the years. Swap out all them F-150s, Dodge Rams and GMC Sierras for a Prius and high gas prices are solved. But that would be too easy. Better to invent a new motor that will only power a 500 lb car.
The diagram is incomprehensible. The video does not explain the cycle. Shock waves move at very very high speeds, this thing would have to spin so fast you could not make the vehicle corner both directions from the centripetal accelerations. The combustion is definitely internal here, and it is well known that achieving higher efficiency with internal combustion depends entirely on the temperatures involved. Letting pre-combustion gases mix with post-combustion gases destroys the efficiency and causes major emissions issues.
Also , it is quite strange that this work would be done at Michigan State. The US auto industry has a far close working relationship with the University of Michigan, funds labs there, hires grads and professors from there. MSU Engineering school has been at risk of loss of accreditation more than once.
Somebody involved has a close relationship with a Congressman, best way to get government funding. This technology is very dubious, far from proven, and the presentation is deliberately confusing. “Something is rotten in East Lansing.”
Ralph says:
April 11, 2011 at 2:22 am
—————————————
…4x the efficiency of some gas-guzzling American monstrosity designed in 1935, perhaps. But 4x 10% efficiency is … errr … about the same as a modern European turbo diesel.
There are no American engines in late model American vehicles that were designed in 1935. That was the era of the flathead Ford, which are long gone except as nostalgia pieces. I’m curious to know what vehicle you have so that I can read up on your European turbo diesel to see how it differs from an American Turbo Diesel. Diesel engines and diesel fuel are inherently a tad more thermally efficient than gasoline engines to begin with so comparing the two may be a tad unfair. I personally prefer gasoline engines from a performance standpoint. Since Ford markets a Turbo Diesel Focus in Europe I’m curious to see why it is not marketed in the US? popularity? emissions?
“While they’ve got a focus on CO2 for the usual reasons, I’ll take increased efficiency any day.”
Me too, but someone please show me exactly why I should care about CO2?
A volcano in the Philippines just the other day started emitting 4000 tons of CO2/day. I am not sure my town emits that in a year.
A penguin takes his WDG Hybrid vehicle to a mechanic with power issues. The mechanic says he will take a look at it and that it shouldn’t be long. The penguin deciides to go to the ice cream parlor across the street while the mechanic worked. He comes back after a short time and the mechanic says “I figured out the problem. It looks like you blew a seal.” The penguin wipes his mouth and says “No, that’s just ice cream.”
John
Was just blocked from posting this to Facebook. Seeing the above @Tom Harley, I guess I’ll try a couple times more.
Looks like it was taken from one of the first issues of Buck Rodgers,
Fantasy and miles don’t equate
I am interested in any light weight engine for light aircraft application where weight and redundancy are the most important specs.
At this moment the absolute winner is a 100 hp Rotax 912 S, a four stroke boxer engine with conventional Bing carbs.
The only developments over the past 15 years has been the introduction of the Thielert Centurion diesel engine which runs on Jet A1 and is based on the Mercedes A Class car production engine and a rotary engine based on the Mazda 13B rotary engine, http://www.mistral-engines.com/Media2/Mistral-News
Both are certified, very expensive and not entirely without problems.
The rotary performs at high revs = high fuel consumption but also high heat production, so the promised weight reduction from the rotary concept is destroyed because the additional weight of a heavy reduction gear and additional water and oil coolers. See: http://www.rotaryeng.net/
Boxer is still king. The cylinders are air cooled and only the cylinder head is water cooled which means a small radiator = small drag.
Another development is the introduction of small jet engines but their gain in weight is lost on noise and fuel consumption but just like electric there are niche applications for example on gliders. http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/08/sailplane-launches-itself-with-retractable-jet-engine/
I think the presented engine which in fact is a turbo with two combustion chambers, call it a self propelled turbo, will have to make lots of revs to deliver it’s performance.
This means it will suck in lot’s of fuel.
This engine won’t have a better performance than a rotary and I think it will need a lot of cooling.
The only interesting engine design I have seen lately comes from the inventor of the Eco Mobile (Switzerland) and is now tested in a scooter. It’s called the ‘Ball Engine” and it didn’t take 2.5 million of Government funding to reach the working prototype stage.
http://www.monotracer.ch/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=55&Itemid=137&lang=de
As a last note:
What people tend to forget when we talk about engine efficiency is the fact that the energy density of a liter gasoline or diesel is the best we have available (apart from nuclear) but that it has a limit. Thermal losses are all in the game.
Yes, we can make engines more fuel efficient but that always comes with a price of additional weight and additional technology and costs.
Weight is something we don’t need in an aircraft and additional technology always goes at the costs of redundancy, read reliability.
That’s why the only real innovation is the elctronic engine management and electronic fuel injection which eventually will replace the carburators in aircraft engines.
Today double EMC’s and injection systems have been developed that are more redundant than carburators.
As for the current trend in hybrid electric and electric energy density of batteries and weight is still the limiting factor and I don’t see this problem disappear.
Any person out in the market today must be crazy to buy a Toyota Prius or a Honda Hybrid if you can by a Beamer Diesel, a bigger, more comfortable, safer and more reliable car with a similar fuel consumption.
Honda and Toyota still have a conventional drive train which means you can still drive the car when the battery is out.
The Chevy Volt however is all electric and the engine only functions as a range extender. This is nothing more but a driving laptop with a power generator and it’s just as vulnerable. In extreme weather conditions, hot or warm these cars are crap.
As for the CO2 claim: If you burn a gallon of gasoline, you burn a gallon of gasoline.
No matter what type of engine you use.
So I really wonder what the theory is behind the reduced CO2 claim.
Must be another invention?
Jeff Carlson says:
April 11, 2011 at 8:35 am
Ditto, Mr. Carlson. When you see a truly elegant design concept, one that makes you say “Of course! [facepalm] Why didn’t I think of that?” you know you are likely to be on a good path. I can’t “intuit” the wave disk. That doesn’t mean I’m the ultimate arbiter of goodness, but if you can’t see the elegance up front, be suspicious.
The OPOC is a lovely design. It has been a great performer so far, and packaging would allow much more effective automobile internal layouts. Combined with an intelligent hybridization (mild hybrid with start/stop capability), you could have the American “family sedan” — Accord/Malibu/Sonata/Altima/Fusion/Camry seating and storage — that achieves better than 60mpg (under 4l/100km) in the Urban cycle with no change in driveability or comfort from the current ~2.5l 4cyl versions.
I think it might have some challenges with oil in the exhaust because of the way the piston rings move over the port, but it is a MUCH smaller challenge than this very questionable idea.
Well if you look at that wiki article on how the Wankel engine works, you can see that one of its problems is simple geometry. There are few configurations for the engine cavity, and rotor profile, that enable continuous rotary motion with accuarte sealing of the tips of the triangular rotor, to the casing, and a direct result of this geometry restriction is that the maximum compression ratio that the Wankel engine is quite low; somewhere aropund 6:1 as I recall. This low compression contibuted both to the lousy combustion efficiency, and also to the low thermal efficiency; which resulted in high gasoline consumption, and high unburned hydrocarbons. For the same reason (low compression), I believe the Wankel was actually very good on low NOx production.
One of the reasons that gas autos sold in the USA are required to operate properly on 87 (or lower) octane regular gas, is because it is known that very high compression engines, which require premium gas, generate oodles on NOx by burning the air (nitrogen and oxygen). The NOx does NOT come from the fuel; it is simply burnt air.
Higher performance imports often suggest (in the owner’s manual) that you use premium fuel; they can’t require that you do. The premium fuel permits them to support their 50,000 mile between service claims. On regular fuel they would be pinging much sooner due to carbon deposit buildup in the engine.
I would prefer that the promoters of the rotary wave engine, build a lawn mower sized prototype, before shouting out from the mountain tops about their solution to our four dollar gas prices.
gianmarco says:
April 11, 2011 at 1:57 am
they need government money to produce the prototype of something that would make its designer a billionaire.
That one always gets me. Then, their on-cue reduction-of-CO2-emissions-grant-justification/plea statement, for good measure.
The conspiracy theorists have already thrashed it on Farcebook, saying that it “will disappear as soon as the oil companies get a hold of it”. Personally, I’d like it to APPEAR first. This is either BIG NEWS, or another slowly-fizzling thing…like the water engine claims of a few years ago.
PHD = Pile it Higher and Deeper…
Until they get a B.S. degreed engineer to actually fabricate, build and test it, it is a Doctroral wet dream.
This is very similar to the Quasi-Turbine developped by a Quebec physicist, Gilles Saint-Hilaire, PhD several years ago.
http://quasiturbine.promci.qc.ca/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasiturbine
They used flexible vanes instead of hard seals and rollers.
One major advantage of the quasi-turbine is that the seal remain at constant angle relative to the chamber wall, which avoids a lot of problems inherent to Wankel configuration. The QuasiTurbine website has a lot of information. I’ve seen one in operation.
The big advantage to this configuration is that it can detonate the mixture without breaking the engine. Conventional gas Otto engine is destroyed by mixture detonation, and the maximum force is applied at the point of least leverage in the cycle, when the cranking arm is aligned with the piston. In the Quasi-turbine (or the design above), the max force is not applied in such a mechanical lock-up context.
By the 1st of April 2012 pigs will use these marvellous engines in all their aeroplanes.
Nice cartoons and models!
Yes theoretical …
While a University of Texas study for Canada built a coal to diesel refinery process that proved in a real world test refinery was quite doable. Using a modified Fischer-Tropsche process(they would not disclose the process modifications) the refinery converted coal at a barrel of oil equivalent of under $30 a barrel. No word on how the refining process is too be used — by Canada.
The Crow Indians have a plan submitted to the EPA for approval, and have a $7 billion funding set up, using reservation mined coal, and would employee the entire reservation to staff the coal to diesel refinery. To date the EPA has not responded.
Doug Proctor says:
April 11, 2011 at 8:19 am
“…There is already in (beginning) production, the Coates engine. Not a Wankel. 20% less fuel, 30% less emissions, high efficiency. Generates carbon credits. Going into California and the heavy oil production areas. Used now for power generation. Can handle up to 30% H2S without stripping. Also waste gas as in sewage plants and landfills. But well known right now?
We don’t need much new technology, just the wisdom to use the current stuff. But there is no grant system or tenure for being practical. I don’t see Gore or Suzuki praising people for doing what is already available.”
Totally agree! Back in the 20’s Nikola Tesla patented his Disk Turbine. Just imagine if this had been developed how much less of our precious ‘black gold’ would have been consumed. Unfortunately the oil companies where only interested in maximising consumption, and along with governments who were keen to have more oil taxes, were able to suppress more efficient technologies (and alternative fuels).
Just found a link which explains Tesla’s engine…
http://www.rexresearch.com/teslatur/teslatur.htm
tarpon says:
Aren’t the Crow a separate nation? Why do they need EPA approval? Don’t casinos represent a precedent that they are independent, or is their independence on a short leash?
“A modern European turbo-diesel is already running at about 40% efficiency”
The legendary Gardner 6/8 LXB series Diesel engines were achieving that over 40 years ago, without any fancy electronic controls or turbochargers….
AND they have an incredibly good reputation for long life and reliability, with many examples running for over a million miles. Most of my school buses in the 60’s & 70’s were powered by them, and they are still the mainstay of travelling fairground generator sets.
http://german.gardnermarine.com/75/section.aspx/download/3
http://italian.gardnermarine.com/77/section.aspx/download/4
Bladon micro jets – where have I heard that name before? Ah, here it is: “Tata Ltd to Acquire Minority Stake in Bladon Jets 29th September 2010.” Government money on the intake side, Tata money and inside information on the outtake side.
Goes right along with the headline “New gasoline engine design has 4x efficiency of pistons” when matched against the text which says “promises to be five times more efficient than traditional auto engines …”
Hey, it’s just a computer model. That’s within the range of the slop.
This is a far simpler design than a Wankel; the comparisons are not apt. This has more in common with a piston two stroke and a traditional gas turbine . The challenges are in wave timing – there is limited need for valving or sealing. It will have an extraordinarily tight operating range, but that makes it ideal for a series electric hybrid.
It’s actually quite elegant. I could see this getting to commercialization in ~5 years.
Nothing is new under the sun, is it? Our neighbor was lucky enough to be given one of the Chrysler turbine cars in the early 1960’s to test:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Turbine_Car
It made the most impressive, Batmobile-like sound! 1963 apparently. It could run on castor oil, diesel, whatever…not picky.
A few minor things to work on: Sealing. Lubrication. Friction. No cooling?
60% efficiency? That’s the dream number to break for existing combined cycle electrical plants.
I hope their naively-phrased grant application hype shows they are better engineers than promoters because they’d better be to pull it off. I’m afraid though that the opposite might be true and ARPA-E doesn’t have too many credible choices if such hype doesn’t disqualify the applicants.
I hope they succeed but I am very skeptical.