Crower (of Crower Cams) has just patented a new "six stroke" engine design. The crank turns 3 times for each single cam revolution. The extra two piston strokes are after the normal exhaust stroke, and involve water direct injection into a closed cylinder. This flashes into steam, and produces a second power stroke. The exhaust then opens to vent the steam. Enough heat is drawn off by this steam production that no actual cooling system is required.

It's claimed this can improve fuel economy by as much as 40%.

He's got a single-cylinder spark-ignition prototype working, and is now working on a compression-ignition version.

Wow!

But wouldnt that require a lot of water?

Interesting idea.

When water turns to steam it expands to 17,000 times the volume of the water...

You'd have to purge ALL of the water after steambustion before adding gas again....how wouldja do that?


I like the idea though! gas stations and water stations...

brent

QUOTE (wertygrog @ Feb 28 2006, 06:10 PM)

You'd have to purge ALL of the water after steambustion before adding gas again....how wouldja do that? I like the idea though! gas stations and water stations... brent

Why would you have to purge all of the water? Water injection for boosted cars has been done for decades, so there's no incompatibility.

doesn't sound too efficient for producing power though... but I'm no engineer... what do I know?

QUOTE (wertygrog @ Feb 28 2006, 09:10 PM)

You'd have to purge ALL of the water after steambustion before adding gas again....how wouldja do that? I like the idea though! gas stations and water stations... brent

Would you? What about water injection? What does it do anyway? I think this is aa amazing idea. Where is Dave D? Whattayasay MIT guy?

Whaddya mean it's not efficient...

It ups the efficiency of the engine.... You are getting extra power from waste heat. Might be able to dump the parasitic draw of the cooling fan AND get extra energy from each burn.....

Hope it really works..

Ken

i love the idea. probably not for high performance engines but i bet that thing can run and run on a gallon of gas.

i'm still dreaming of the day when i have the time and money to pursue my dream of a commercially viable ogle / otto engine. (an engine that runs on vapor instead of atomized fuel)

i hope people never stop thinking outside the box...

it's so fun!

QUOTE (kwales @ Feb 28 2006, 09:22 PM)

Whaddya mean it's not efficient... It ups the efficiency of the engine.... You are getting extra power from waste heat. Might be able to dump the parasitic draw of the cooling fan AND get extra energy from each burn..... Hope it really works.. Ken

2 strokes of "steam power" per 4 of combustion doesn't sound like a real advantage for power... cooling, sure... which would help fuel economy... but it's not going to double the hp or anything... and you'd have to get a 10k redline

It all depends on how much power you get out of the steam stroke. If you can get 1/2 the power of a regular power stroke out of the steam stroke, then you will have equivalent power for an equally sized 4 stroke engine.

But the purpose is not for more power out of a certain sized engine. It's about making use of the waste heat of the engine thereby increasing the overall efficiency of the engine. I think it is brilliant.

Bet it runs like crap at startup though.

Demick

direct inject on fuel really lean should get combustion temps up.

crower write-up

James-
this must be what you read...


i want to know more....

QUOTE (Dr. Roger @ Feb 28 2006, 06:23 PM)

i'm still dreaming of the day when i have the time and money to pursue my dream of a commercially viable ogle / otto engine. (an engine that runs on vapor instead of atomized fuel)

That system is a hoax. Gasoline has an associated enthalpy (stored energy). No matter what you do to the gas, you can only get so much energy out of its potential. Asking for a internal energy that doesnt exist defies so many laws of thermodynamics. There have been a bunch of articles I've read discounting the theory along with some schoolin'.

This is a really interesting topic. One thing I dont understand his how heat is lost in the vaporization of water. The blurb specifically suggests the vaporization process is self cooling, but with my level of education, that doesnt quite make sense.

I do see the possibility for work to be utilized from the heat through vaporization. Its amazing this hasnt been tried... I mean steam power was one of the first methods of propulsion in automobiles.

Wouldnt there be problems introduced with the use of glow plugs instead of an ignition based spark plug? What happens on the compression stroke with the water in the chamber?

I really need to gather my thoughts and do some freashening up... thanks for posting this! I just lost a few nights sleep.. haha

QUOTE (SGB @ Feb 28 2006, 07:27 PM)

crower write-up James- this must be what you read... i want to know more....

Actually, I read the original blurb in Autoweek. I hope there's lots more information forthcoming. It's been a very long while since anyone has come up with a really new idea in IC engines (well, one that works).

Yes, it wouldn't increase power much, but it should substantially increase efficiency. No cooling system would make the engine a lot smaller and lighter, though much of that would be offset by the water tank. It's a brilliant idea that's been possible for decades, not one that's only possible thanks to some new technology, so it's really amazing no one has thought of it until now.

It's not two strokes of steam power per 1 stroke of gas power. It's one power stroke followed by an exhaust stroke followed by a steam power stroke, followed by a second exhaust stroke.

During warmup, you could use a VTEC like arrangement to kick in a set of cam lobes that allowed it to run just like a normal 4-stroke.

QUOTE (MattR @ Feb 28 2006, 10:37 PM)

This is a really interesting topic. One thing I dont understand his how heat is lost in the vaporization of water. The blurb specifically suggests the vaporization process is self cooling, but with my level of education, that doesnt quite make sense.

Well, the heat energy must transfer to the lower energy component of the system, the water, in order to effect steam. It is the same concept (basically) as respiration (sweating).

The water absorbs the heat energy, the heat energy excites the water molecules causing them to expand, the expanding water exerts some force on its container.

QUOTE (MattR @ Feb 28 2006, 10:26 PM)

QUOTE (Dr. Roger @ Feb 28 2006, 06:23 PM) i'm still dreaming of the day when i have the time and money to pursue my dream of a commercially viable ogle / otto engine. (an engine that runs on vapor instead of atomized fuel) That system is a hoax. Gasoline has an associated enthalpy (stored energy). No matter what you do to the gas, you can only get so much energy out of its potential. Asking for a internal energy that doesnt exist defies so many laws of thermodynamics. There have been a bunch of articles I've read discounting the theory along with some schoolin'.

matt loses 2 respect points.
1 for believing everything he reads and
2 for having a large penis.

Bastard!

just keep to yer learning boy and someday you just might get it.
what did dingleberry do , delete his post?

QUOTE (Dr. Roger @ Feb 28 2006, 10:49 PM)

matt loses 2 respect points.   1 for believing everything he reads and 2 for having a large penis. Bastard! just keep to yer learning boy and someday you just might get it.

roger loses 5 credibility points... as subtraction is not his strong suit...

-1 + -2= -3 respect points....

QUOTE (MattR @ Feb 28 2006, 09:37 PM)

This is a really interesting topic. One thing I dont understand his how heat is lost in the vaporization of water. The blurb specifically suggests the vaporization process is self cooling, but with my level of education, that doesnt quite make sense. I do see the possibility for work to be utilized from the heat through vaporization. Its amazing this hasnt been tried... I mean steam power was one of the first methods of propulsion in automobiles. Wouldnt there be problems introduced with the use of glow plugs instead of an ignition based spark plug? What happens on the compression stroke with the water in the chamber? I really need to gather my thoughts and do some freashening up... thanks for posting this! I just lost a few nights sleep.. haha

The cooling effect is strictly in the "flash water into steam" part. The heat to do this has to come from somewhere, and it comes from the heat that's in the engine already. Thus, "heating" the steam "cools" the engine. Thermodynamics can be odd that way. The heat then can be reused to propel the piston, then leaves the engine out the exhaust.

You basically have to think of heat as a fluid that can "flow" from one place to another. Indeed, all of the early work on thermodynamics was done before anyone knew atoms existed. In Carnot's time (early 19th century), it was literally believed there WAS a fluid at work, moving the heat around. It wasn't until thermodynamics was well established that it was discovered that heat was nothing more than vibrating atoms, but all of the equations still worked. Carnot's cycle is still used today to explain how "heat engines" work.

There wouldn't be any water in the chamber during the compression stroke, as all of the water vapor should have escaped during the "steam exhaust" stroke. As that ends, the normal gas intake stroke would take place, followed by the normal gas compression stroke, the plug would fire, then the gas power stroke, then the gas exhaust stroke, near the end of which the water would be injected, then the steam power stroke, followed by the steam exhaust stroke.

QUOTE (Dr. Roger @ Feb 28 2006, 09:49 PM)

QUOTE (MattR @ Feb 28 2006, 10:26 PM) QUOTE (Dr. Roger @ Feb 28 2006, 06:23 PM) i'm still dreaming of the day when i have the time and money to pursue my dream of a commercially viable ogle / otto engine. (an engine that runs on vapor instead of atomized fuel) That system is a hoax. Gasoline has an associated enthalpy (stored energy). No matter what you do to the gas, you can only get so much energy out of its potential. Asking for a internal energy that doesnt exist defies so many laws of thermodynamics. There have been a bunch of articles I've read discounting the theory along with some schoolin'. matt loses 2 respect points. 1 for believing everything he reads and 2 for having a large penis. Bastard! just keep to yer learning boy and someday you just might get it. what did dingleberry do , delete his post?

I dont believe everything I read. I did read about the magical system that gets 120mpg with a carburator...

Its just physically impossible, unless you dont believe what the world of physics and engineering has to say about... anything.

Okay, lets assume thermodynamics is "wrong." Well, there is math to proove the theory. So now we have to assume calculus is "wrong?" I'm not quite willing to discount everything those old guys came up with hundreds of years ago quite yet...

QUOTE (Dr Evil @ Feb 28 2006, 09:49 PM)

QUOTE (MattR @ Feb 28 2006, 10:37 PM) This is a really interesting topic.  One thing I dont understand his how heat is lost in the vaporization of water.  The blurb specifically suggests the vaporization process is self cooling, but with my level of education, that doesnt quite make sense. Well, the heat energy must transfer to the lower energy component of the system, the water, in order to effect steam. It is the same concept (basically) as respiration (sweating). The water absorbs the heat energy, the heat energy excites the water molecules causing them to expand, the expanding water exerts some force on its container.

Okay. The heat from the combustion vaporizes the water. The latent energy released forces the piston down, doing some work (which benefits the system). Now we have a cooler combustion chamber from a cooler water pulling some heat from the combustion cycle. But the hot water leaves the combustion chamber. Whats to prevent it from staying vapor? A water distiller takes water vapor and turns it into liquid, but it requires an outside source to cool the water. A steam engine works because it consumes water (by expelling it).

QUOTE

That system is a hoax. Gasoline has an associated enthalpy (stored energy). No matter what you do to the gas, you can only get so much energy out of its potential. Asking for a internal energy that doesnt exist defies so many laws of thermodynamics. There have been a bunch of articles I've read discounting the theory along with some schoolin'.

matt:

atomized fuel obviously goes "bang" right?
does gas vapor go bang too? the correct answer is "yes".

which state of gasoline is being utilized in the leanest method?

answer is..........

No matter if it works out or not, it sure is interesting to hear that some of these "old guys" like Crower or the late Smokey Yunick are willing to experiment and try these ideas.

The trick to this whole thing is to change how you think about "potential energy". We are used to seeing efficency referenced in terms of hydrocarbons, or more specifically how many are unburnt. A low emission vehicle is not necessarily highly efficient. The heat produced by an engine is lost energy, the more heat byproduct, the less efficient it is. All the steam system is doing is capitalizing on that loss. If you want to truly explore the potential energy of a gallon of gas, think nuclear

and, matt, please don't tellme fuel vapor doesn't work...

smokey eunick did it in his garage and his patentented prototype is in the smithsonian...

http://www.smokeyyunick.com/PressReleases/...Smithsonian.pdf

Here it is - It's F'ing brilliant! Using the energy normally wasted as heat to make power.
Now they need to get some high tech diesel people working on the water injection portion using todays trick direct injection sytems to control the water usage - this way you could control the engine temperature like you control A/F ratios on a modern gasser. Just make sure you don't run out of water!

I had the pleasure of meeting this old dude in Paso Robles 10-14 years ago that had just got a patent on his engine design that had no cooling system. He had stacks of patent drawings and it was very difficult to understand but I finally got it (don't ask me now - it had one spark plug and on carb for any number of cylinders and the whole engine rotated around the crankshaft). I'm sure he is gone by now. One of his stories was about when he brought it to GM and burned up a small 100hp dyno and was told by GM engineers that his engine didn't work.


Inside Bruce Crower’s Six-Stroke Engine


By PETE LYONS

AutoWeek | Published 02/23/06, 9:35 am et



Bruce Crower has lived, breathed and built hot engines his whole life. Now he’s working on a cool one—one that harnesses normally-wasted heat energy by creating steam inside the combustion chamber, and using it to boost the engine’s power output and also to control its temperature.

“I’ve been trying to think how to capture radiator losses for over 30 years,” explains the veteran camshaft grinder and race engine builder. “One morning about 18 months ago I woke up, like from a dream, and I knew immediately that I had the answer.”

Hurrying to his comprehensively-equipped home workshop in the rural hills outside San Diego, he began drawing and machining parts, and installing them in a highly modified, single-cylinder industrial powerplant, a 12-hp diesel he converted to use gasoline. He bolted that to a test frame, poured equal amounts of fuel and water into twin tanks, and pulled the starter-rope.

“My first reaction was, ‘Gulp! It runs!’” the 75-year-old inventor remembers. “And then this ‘snow’ started falling on me. I thought, ‘What hath God wrought…’”

The “snow” was flakes of white paint blasted from the ceiling by the powerful pulses of exhaust gas and steam emitted from the open exhaust stack, which pointed straight up.

Over the following year Crower undertook a methodical development program, in particular trying out numerous variations in camshaft profiles and timing as he narrowed the operating parameters of his patented six-stroke cycle.

Recently he’s been trying variations of the double-lobe exhaust cams to delay and even eliminate the opening of the exhaust valve after the first power stroke, to “recompress” the combustion gasses and thus increase the force of the steam-stroke.

The engine has yet to operate against a load on a dyno, but his testing to date encourages Crower to expect that once he gets hard numbers, the engine will show normal levels of power on substantially less fuel, and without overheating.

“It’ll run for an hour and you can literally put your hand on it. It’s warm, yeah, but it’s not scorching hot. Any conventional engine running without a water jacket or fins, you couldn’t do that.”

Indeed, the test unit has no external cooling system—no water jacket, no water pump, no radiator; nothing. It does retain fins because it came with them, but Crower indicates the engine would be more efficient if he took the trouble to grind them off. He has discarded the original cooling fan.

So far he has used only gasoline, but Bruce believes a diesel-fueled test engine he is now constructing—with a hand-made billet head incorporating the one-third-speed camshaft—will realize the true potential of his concept.

Potential…and Questions
Crower invites us to imagine a car or truck (he speaks of a Bonneville streamliner, too) free of a radiator and its associated air ducting, fan, plumbing, coolant weight, etc.

“Especially an 18-wheeler, they’ve got that massive radiator that weighs 800, 1000 pounds. Not necessary,” he asserts. “In those big trucks, they look at payload as their bread and butter. If you get 1000 lb. or more off the truck…”

Offsetting that, of course, would be the need to carry large quantities of water, and water is heavier than gasoline or diesel oil. Preliminary estimates suggest a Crower cycle engine will use roughly as many gallons of water as fuel.

And Crower feels the water should be distilled, to prevent deposits inside the system, so a supply infrastructure will have to be created. (He uses rainwater in his testing.) Keeping the water from freezing will be another challenge.

But the inventor sees overriding benefits. “Can you imagine how much fuel goes into radiator losses every day in America? A good spark-ignition engine is about 24 percent efficient; ie., about 24 cents of your gasoline dollar ends up in power. The rest goes out in heat loss through the exhaust or radiator, and in driving the water pump and the fan and other friction losses.

“A good diesel is about 30 percent efficient, a good turbo diesel about 33 percent. But you still have radiators and heavy components, and fan losses are extremely high on a big diesel truck.”

Bottom-line, Bruce estimates his new operating cycle could improve a typical engine’s fuel consumption by 40 percent. He also anticipates that exhaust emissions may be greatly reduced. It’s all thanks to the steam.

“A lot of people don’t know that water expands 1600 times when it goes from liquid into steam. Sixteen hundred! This is why steam power is so good. But it’s dangerous…”

The danger of a boiler explosion has long been a factor in engineering—and in operating—steam powerplants of all kinds, and Crower is properly wary of the miniature boiler he has conjured up inside his test engine. That’s one reason he chose to use one originally manufactured as a diesel, for its inherent strength, though he installed a carburetor and ignition system so it could burn gasoline at first.

The original diesel fuel injector system now supplies the water spray to generate the steam-stroke.

In addition to producing extra power, the injected water cools the piston and exhaust valve, which suggests to Crower that he could raise the compression ratio. “I’ve done this many times on regular engines: 15-to-1 on gasoline for the first five seconds works pretty good until you get some chamber heat and then suddenly it gets into pinging. But with the chamber being chilled, I bet 12-, 13-to-1 will be no problem on cheap fuel.

“So what we can maybe do is have fuels that aren’t quite as good…It’ll save a nickel a gallon not having to keep three grades going.”

As for his hope of lowering emissions, Bruce speculates the steam might purge “cling-on hydrocarbons” out of the combustion chamber. “This thing may turn out to be so clean that you won’t have to have a catalytic converter.

But he admits that’s unknown, saying “there’s a lot of experimenting still to be done.” Which prospect makes him smile. He thrives on this kind of challenge.
Bruce’s Background
“You’ve kinda got to be in the cam business and know the dynamics of engines,” Bruce Crower says about how the idea occurred to him. And he certainly has that background.

He was building and racing hot rods (and hot bikes), manufacturing speed equipment and operating his own speed shop in his home town of Phoenix when he was still a teen.

After moving to San Diego in the 1950s, among other exploits he dropped a Hemi into a Hudson and drove it to a 157-mph speed record at Bonneville.

Inevitably, the inventive and inexhaustible Crower built up a major equipment business in superchargers, intake manifolds, clutches and, especially, camshafts. He’s also credited with first suggesting a rear wing to Don Garlits—in 1963, three years before Jim Hall’s winged Chaparral. Bruce Crower is now in Florida’s Drag Racing Hall of Fame.

Crower actually had introduced a wing two years earlier, during practice on Jim Rathmann's 1961 Indianapolis car—five years before Jim Hall’s winged Chaparral. Bruce had been crewing at the Speedway since 1954 (Jimmy Bryan, second place), and had been part of Rathmann's 1960 victory effort. He was likewise on the winning teams in 1966 (Graham Hill) and 1967 (AJ Foyt). Three decades later, in 1998, Eddie Cheever won with Crower cams.

Bruce even produced his own complete Indy engine, a flat-8 that didn’t quite make the field in 1977 and then was rendered obsolete (due to its width) by the advent of ground-effect tunnels. But the Crower 8 and its automatic clutch did win an SAE award for innovation.

Today, Crower Cams and Equipment Company employs about 160 people in five facilities, and manufactures not only cams but crankshafts and connecting rods—including titanium rods for (unnamed) Formula One customers.

Bruce Crower can’t be called retired now, but he’s happy to let the company he founded “roll along” while he “plays with cars.” That’s how he looks at the intensive R&D work he carries out in the privacy of his 13-acre horse property near the rural community of Jamul.

One of several projects is building up Honda S2000 engines for the Midget raced by his granddaughter, Ashley Swanson. (“I think she’s on par with Danica Patrick,” says the proud grampa.)

But his prime focus is proving his six-stroke engine is as revolutionary as he believes it is. “I’ve been trying to find something wrong with the whole basic idea for almost a year,” he says, “but I think we’re going to have a very marketable item.”

Then he adds philosophically, “If it turns out to be great, fine. If it doesn’t, it’s just another year out of my life that I’ve had a lot of fun doing something.”

QUOTE (Dr. Roger @ Feb 28 2006, 10:32 PM)

and, matt, please don't tellme fuel vapor doesn't work... smokey eunick did it in his garage and his patentented prototype is in the smithsonian... http://www.smokeyyunick.com/PressReleases/...Smithsonian.pdf

I see the "hot vapor engine" with no description.

What is a "hot vapor engine"? Is that the same as the frog carburator advertised in the back of popular mechanics in the 50s?

Thanks for the article Porscharu!

Its a very interesting read.

FYI On dad 944 turbo race car, he ran an water injection mix and although it didnt do much for performance, he upped the boost and after he took apart the engine (probably 10k miles later) there was no carbon on the pistons at all, walls were clean, ect.. but the engine had blowby and little compression so a higher compression engine is going in... bigger turbo, more boost.. Im shooting for 350rwhp..

QUOTE (Andyrew @ Mar 1 2006, 12:30 AM)

FYI On dad 944 turbo race car, he ran an water injection mix and although it didnt do much for performance, he upped the boost and after he took apart the engine (probably 10k miles later) there was no carbon on the pistons at all, walls were clean, ect.. but the engine had blowby and little compression so a higher compression engine is going in... bigger turbo, more boost.. Im shooting for 350rwhp..

water injection mix? care to elaborate?

windshield washer fluid... certain kind has a large percentage of alcohol... and is recommended by the company to use...

Sounds like a brilliant idea to increase efficiency.

QUOTE (MattR @ Mar 1 2006, 12:31 AM)

QUOTE (Andyrew @ Mar 1 2006, 12:30 AM) FYI On dad 944 turbo race car, he ran an water injection mix and although it didnt do much for performance, he upped the boost and after he took apart the engine (probably 10k miles later) there was no carbon on the pistons at all, walls were clean, ect.. but the engine had blowby and little compression  so a higher compression engine is going in... bigger turbo, more boost.. Im shooting for 350rwhp.. water injection mix? care to elaborate?

Oh come on now! You don't know what water injection is? Do a search for water injection and Ricardo or better yet get a book from pre-WW2 engine tech. Water injection is amazing stuff that is WAY overlooked and underused today. Odd when a $100 water injection setup can kill a $1000 intercooler for performance - ever see an intercooler get the charge air temp under ambient? It's easy with water.

Heres a good write up with more math and chemistry than most people want.
water

Look at the VW head sliced up too, that's me when I'm even more bored than waiting for Andy to upgrade 914club.nonclub

QUOTE (MattR @ Feb 28 2006, 10:02 PM)

QUOTE (Dr Evil @ Feb 28 2006, 09:49 PM) QUOTE (MattR @ Feb 28 2006, 10:37 PM) This is a really interesting topic.  One thing I dont understand his how heat is lost in the vaporization of water.  The blurb specifically suggests the vaporization process is self cooling, but with my level of education, that doesnt quite make sense. Well, the heat energy must transfer to the lower energy component of the system, the water, in order to effect steam. It is the same concept (basically) as respiration (sweating). The water absorbs the heat energy, the heat energy excites the water molecules causing them to expand, the expanding water exerts some force on its container. Okay. The heat from the combustion vaporizes the water. The latent energy released forces the piston down, doing some work (which benefits the system). Now we have a cooler combustion chamber from a cooler water pulling some heat from the combustion cycle. But the hot water leaves the combustion chamber. Whats to prevent it from staying vapor? A water distiller takes water vapor and turns it into liquid, but it requires an outside source to cool the water. A steam engine works because it consumes water (by expelling it).

Who really cares what the vapor does after it leaves the combustion chamber, unless you have a turbo after it. Just send everyhing on out the back.

As far as the whole diesel concept goes, it seems to me that you might have a hell of a time cooling the chamber without cooling the element that keeps everything going.

Just my not quite as educated opinions. But I guess thats what I get for being a buisness major instead of an engineer.

QUOTE (guiltless @ Mar 1 2006, 02:05 AM)

As far as the whole diesel concept goes, it seems to me that you might have a hell of a time cooling the chamber without cooling the element that keeps everything going. Just my not quite as educated opinions. But I guess thats what I get for being a buisness major instead of an engineer.

The spark plug keep everything going (and compressed fuel and oxygen) - your car starts when it's cold (I hope) Making steam isn't going to make anything "cold"

QUOTE (Andyrew @ Mar 1 2006, 12:30 AM)

FYI On dad 944 turbo race car, he ran an water injection mix and although it didnt do much for performance, he upped the boost and after he took apart the engine (probably 10k miles later) there was no carbon on the pistons at all, walls were clean, ect.. but the engine had blowby and little compression so a higher compression engine is going in... bigger turbo, more boost.. Im shooting for 350rwhp..

Where was the water/alcohol injected? Into the compressor or after the intercooler? It can make a huge difference. Most people are chicken and go after the compressor.

The vast expanses of the universe are negatively charged plasma.

If that doesn't work for you, try ZPE.


M

QUOTE (redshift @ Mar 1 2006, 05:04 AM)

The vast expanses of the universe are negatively charged plasma. If that doesn't work for you, try ZPE. M

Miles, if you're into astronomy at all...

there's a huge supernova that's occuring right now, i'm gonna look at it tonight, I missed the point of greatest brightness tho

b

It sounds like a good idea, but I am not an engineer. If it works, this would look cool with steam coming out of it.....

I'm NO engineer, but
for atomized fuel to burn effeciently doesn't the combustion chamber need to be at a certain temperature? If the water cooled the chamber beyond that point, it seems the engine would be fighting with itself to maintain efficiency?

QUOTE (Dead Air @ Mar 1 2006, 05:16 AM)

I'm NO engineer, but for atomized fuel to burn effeciently doesn't the combustion chamber need to be at a certain temperature? If the water cooled the chamber beyond that point, it seems the engine would be fighting with itself to maintain efficiency?

Yes, quite right. The trick is to cool the engine enough that it won't self-destruct, but not so much that you end up with poor thermal efficiency, as the energy in the fuel will go to heating up the engine rather than pushing the piston. Essentially, the engine would spend all of its time "warming up".

It looks like this system could control cooling quite precisely, by varying the amount of water injected on each cycle. At some point, there's going to be an equilibrium between gaining power from the steam stroke, and losing it from overcooling. A dyno will quickly allow you to find this point (these points, more likely, as this will certainly vary as load changes), and you can program the water injection system accordingly.

QUOTE (guiltless @ Mar 1 2006, 02:05 AM)

Who really cares what the vapor does after it leaves the combustion chamber, unless you have a turbo after it. Just send everyhing on out the back.

If its a closed system you have to deal with the heat somehow. This appears to be an open system though and consumes gas. I had it wrong the first time. This makes a little more sense now. Instead of the water circulating through the system and worrying about cooling and bringing the vapor back to liquid, you just expell the vapor. Makes sense.

QUOTE (Porcharu @ Mar 1 2006, 01:53 AM)

Oh come on now! You don't know what water injection is?

Dont be a dick. I'm here to learn...

Exhaust gas temps are typically in the range of 1200-1500dF, so it's safe to say that at the end of the exhaust stroke that's close to the ambient temp in the cylinder. That's 2-3x your number, so there you are.

And I dont see why it would have to run a high pressure in the water. Theres no need for atomization (since its turining into steam when it hits the chamber anyways), so you could flood the chamber with just a few PSI I would imagine.

There is an interesting article in the latest Car and Driver mag about a BMW engine. Is this a different animal???

I think it's cool when new designs come out. Time will tell.

Just pinging.... Anyone heard of the Bork(sp?) engine?

Did Crower patent this? I'd like to see the abstract. Also, I'd like to see a plot of the cycle on a T-S diagram.

Also, the staem portion likely produces little power. I'll bet that thing needs a 50 pound flywheel to carry the extra revolution while the vater vapor expands.

This is a good thermo problem for you aspiring engineers. Us old engineers don't have as much free time...gotta keep the Porsche fleet running first and foremost.

I don't know where to look up the expansion time for water into steam, or the "flash" time, but there's a fair amount of time to play with here. If we just pick a number out of the air, say, 3000rpm, that means each full crank revolution takes 20 milliseconds, so each stroke takes 10ms. Figure you'd actually use more than one stroke for the expansion time, as you'd likely inject the water while the piston was still rising on the exhaust stroke. Let's say 150% of one stroke, or 15ms. That's a pretty long time, really. Plenty of reactions are measured in picoseconds. Sammy, I'd love to see some actual numbers on this, since I have no idea what the actual times are.

We're not going to be talking a large volume of water here, either. Since water expands to 1600 times its volume as steam, a volume of water that's about 1% of the cylinder volume would generate considerable pressure as steam. That's 5cc for a 2.0 four, which would expand to 8000cc of steam, or 16bar of pressure in the cylinder with the piston at BDC. If the water were injected with the piston near TDC, you'd be looking at a number 8-10x that.

Ok. So from my understanding. And correct me if any part of this is wrong (I'm as new to this as the rest of you are.)

1. Intake open, gas/air intake. Downstroke.
2 Upstroke Combustion.
3 Downstroke. Compression.
4. Exhaust partially open to prevent overpressurization in combustion chamber. Upstroke.
5. Water spray. Flash vaporizes. Expands in an envrionment that would be at a the highest pressure that the operating temperature will allow the water to flash at. Downstroke.
6.Exhaust full open. Everything comes out. Upstroke.

So a turbo wouldn't matter. The water would be vaporous and would just pass through like the air does.

The engine would benifit from the heat transfer from the metal to the water during stroke 5.

Water could possibly be recollected from the exhaust. For efficiency.

The car would benifit (powerwise) From having two downstrokes for the same fuel expense. And a direct port cooling system.

So less heat overall from the cycle. And the trick would to keep the cylinders within operating temp to prevent early wear. Except the comps that we have today would handle that.

And timing would have to be figured carefully, for the water cycle. Since that takes time. So a timing retard and less water injected at higher RPMs, right?

EXCEPT!!! That during the start phase, the engine wouldn't be hot enough to phase change the water. But the heat transfer is from exhaust to water, so this would be ok, as long as there is a combustion before water is injected.

So there will be small flaws that need perfected, but otherwise this is something that is far below our technological standards today, and those should be cleared up by what? 2007?