Remarkable new fossil-fuel engine design is 5 times more efficient and reduces emissions 90%

Since Thermodynamic theory says that the best you can do in a heat engine is about 40%, I say fraud.

JeffD

 

No comment, Mojo? Just links? Man that stinks of Spam.

 

wow. i didn't know msu was a shill for detroit?

 

after reading the wiki page on wave disk engines, and the 2004 conference presentation from this group referenced there, I still don't understand it.

But that does not matter - if they have a substantially more efficient engine (within the bounds of reality) and they can manufacture it cheaply, then they deserve to get flithy stinking rich. If not, ARPA's deep pockets get 2.5 million shallower. They can handle that.

What's not to like?

 

I predict that this will ultimately be revealed to be, if not outright fraud, impractical or at par with existing heat engine efficiencies. The Wikipedia entry is barely a few days old with warning flags emblazoned at the header, and nearly every reference is also just a few days old. Those are GIANT red flags. Also flapping red in the breeze is the deliberately obfuscatory explanation of the engine which says nothing (very reminiscent of a recent post showing a YouTube video of a Toyota parody).

Sounds like much more like Fleishmann Pons cold fusion than anything real.

I wouldn't mind being proven wrong - I wish I do get proven wrong - but I think in this case it's unlikely.

 

Looks like someone's trying to get some grant money. Better him and a half dozen grad students get it than Halliburton. :madgrin:

 

It is too bad that "early development" is so regularly used as a euphemism for, "it'll never work in the real world." Or to put it another way, none of the fraudulent devices ever make it past the early development stage, do they? We have perpetual motion machines that have been in early development for over 100 years now.

Yeah, I'm being all negative. It shouldn't be hard to prove me wrong... I can't wait for that to happen. And won't be holding my breath. It is hard to determine where to put my money - in this or in all the PV breakthroughs that we've been hearing about for 50 years that will be commercialized in two years. Of Fuel Cell Vehicles. Anybody seen any of the millions that GM was going to have sold by 2010?

 

Some commercial combined cycle natural gas plants are already operating at 60%, so the limit is higher than 40%.

At this point I'll stick to 'highly exaggerated'. As Prius engines can do around 35%, there simply isn't room for the claimed improvement. I can wait a while before settling between 'real, but seriously overstated' and 'fraud'.

 

It's stll petroleum based so i'd rather see EESTOR's claims come true.

 

Seriously, why is this spam? And it reminds me a bit of the Wankel engine.


LoL? Mathematically difficult transient combustion technology . . . :faint:

 

Ahem. . . Fixed it for you should read Bush's program. :glare:

ARPA-E - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Obama funded it as would have Bush if the nation was not sliding head long into a recession.

 

60% CHP "efficiency" is not the same as 60% of heat energy converted to work. The analogy would be that if my Prius ICE is averaging say 35% thermodynamic efficiency in the summer, the ICE does not magically become so much better just because I heat the cabin in the winter with the ICE waste heat.

 

Mojo,

Just curious -- in the past did you post pie-in-the-sky hydrogen stories too ? And to be frank, you have proved yourself to be scientifically illiterate many times over with your climate change denialist claptrap.

 

No problem, all you have to do is figure out what to do with all the the gasoline a
6x35=210% efficient enghine produces.

The concept is interesting but greatly over-hyped.

 

Then what are the combined cycle gas turbine plants getting for the summed heat-to-work stages?