For 40 percent better fuel economy, introducing the ... steam engine
Well, not exactly. After a history of getting maximum power out of whatever engine he could, inventor Bruce Cower is refocusing his talents onto fuel efficiency. He has spent a modest $1,000 over 1.5 years to reinvent our combustion cycle. He's taking the opposite route of Gary Smyth researching the efficiency potential of two-cycle ICEs, and perfecting a six-cycle engine. The basic idea is that the combustion chamber wastes a lot of energy in heat, so you can recapture some of that heat by squirting water into the 1500 degree chamber after the fourth stroke removes the exhaust gas. The water instantly vaporizes, producing a 1600 fold expansion in volume, powering the fifth stroke. On the final upward stroke, the steam is sucked out into a condenser to be reused as more injection water.
Cower estimates that using this method could increase fuel efficiency of gas engines by 40 percent, and diesels 5 (because they're already more efficient). The best part is, this technology can be implemented using existing parts right now, instead of waiting for other technologies to mature. Cower is tight-lipped about details on his invention while he waits for an answer on his patent application, but does have a working prototype in the form of a single-cylinder, blistering 8 horsepower diesel engine, which he has dubbed the Steam-o-Lene engine (from gas-o-line, I assume). If he gets his approval, he plans on selling the technology to whatever automaker can implement it.
[Source: Popular Science via Instapundit]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Katrina 4:02PM (5/24/2007)
40%?!? Yeah right. If you believe that I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you...
Reply
dcwf 4:56PM (5/24/2007)
Katrina, since similar technology was used with similar results on aircraft engines during WWII, what makes you think that 40% increased efficiencey is not attainable? Even if that weren't the case, given Bruce Cower's accomplishements over the past 2 decades, he more than deserves the benefit of the doubt.
Reply
werepants 4:58PM (5/24/2007)
You obviously don't realize just how ridiculously inefficient our cars are right now - the amount of energy that gets dumped out of the radiator and exhaust in the form of heat is BY FAR more than what is utilized to actual propel a car. This is an ingenious way to capture some of that energy, generating free power from energy that would otherwise be spent heating up your engine block. I wouldn't be surprised if this leads to increased innovation too - possibly eliminating the extra weight of complex cooling systems, and decreasing engine maintenance because of lower heat stress on components.
Reply
scappy 5:12PM (5/24/2007)
I do love this idea because it probably would also allow the engine to be otherwise air cooled. One problem I for see is the ngine oil being contaminated with water, which could cause some problems over the long haul.
I'd rather see an alternator that runs off a turbo style turbine, and attempting to gain some of that heat energy off of the exhaust sytem instead of the cylinders (for the water reason). Ethanol could be used in a closed loop for a system like this due to its much lower flash point.
Reply
Derek 5:35PM (5/24/2007)
Why 40% gain on gas and only 5% on diesel? There is not that much of a difference in energy lost to the cooling system between the two.
Actually, why make the process so complicated? Just use the existing cooling water to drive a steam turbine, no need for this water spray that will cause lots of thermodynamic stress.
Reply
Nick 7:59PM (5/24/2007)
Derek: I believe the bulk of waste energy goes out the tailpipe as hot exhaust, less via radiator. The 40%/5% discrepancy implies that diesel exhaust is significantly cooler than with gasoline (any experts reading this want to comment?).
BMW created a 'turbo steamer' prototype that captured waste heat to drive a steam turbo for extra efficiency:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/12/bmw_developing_.html
Reply
Geoff 8:16PM (5/24/2007)
Diesel engines are already more efficient because they use a compression ignition cycle rather than the Otto cycle of standard petrol engines (air/fuel premix) which is inherently more efficient. Compression ignition doesn't work very well with normal gasoline fuel due to pre-ignition problems (it's too volatile).
This idea seems plausible, certainly looks like a good way to re-capture a lot of energy that is usually lost as waste heat. But as an earlier poster indicated there are bound to be lubrication issues.
Reply
fadetoblack51 8:43PM (5/24/2007)
the name is Bruce CROWER, as in CROWER cams
Reply
Joseph 12:42PM (5/26/2007)
I don't believe this one bit. I already read the article in the Popular Mechanics magazine and the author said that there is only a 5% increase in fuel economy with diesel.
The magazine had a rating system consisting of 4-5 squares. On one side it said...prototype, and on the other side it said...product. This was all they way on prototype. Chances are this engine can't be used b/c it's either expensive, unreliable, or the "40%" is notoriously exageratted.
Reply
nextpixar 10:20PM (5/24/2007)
I did a patent search under his name and came up empty. similar 6 stroke patents like 2,671,311 issued 3-9-1954, and many others to follow. Other blogs on this mentioned steam engines using water tolerant lube, and water/ethanol mix for cold weather. I applaud any efforts on new, more efficient use of resources.
Reply
rem83 9:09AM (5/25/2007)
40% isn't too hard to believe. A normal automotive Otto cycle is maybe 25% efficient. 40% of 25% is 10%, so if you could increase total efficiency from 25% to 35%, there's your 40% boost in efficiency. Since 75% of the energy from your combustion is lost to heat, it's not too hard to believe you could recapture 13.33% of that waste energy in your steam cycle.
Assuming Diesel is 35% efficient, and you're capturing 13.33% of your waste heat (which is now 65%), you're recapturing a total of 8.66% of your combustion energy. In this case, you're only increasing your efficiency by 24.7% ( = 8.66% / 35%). While I mostly just estimated these numbers and assumed that the percentage of waste heat you recapture is constant, you can see that the effect would be even larger for larger efficiency disparities in the 4-stroke cycles.
I am pretty curious as to how the torque differs between steam and combustion strokes, as well as what kind of effect this has on redline rpm.
Reply
Derek 4:17PM (5/25/2007)
Regarding where the energy goes, the 'ballpark' numbers I always see are about 1/3 out the exhaust, 1/3 out the radiator.
He is capturing the energy from the heat of the combustion chamber, which should be a hotter place on a diesel than on gas engine. Possibly there is a problem with poor engine performance if you rob too much heat from the diesels chamber? I know my 220D is one grumpy engine when cold.
Reply
Susan K 2:34PM (5/27/2007)
Now we need some inventor to do the same for elctricity transmission.
2/3 of the energy is lost in transmission!
Reply
banman 5:41PM (6/04/2007)
The Idea is correct, extract energy from the wasted exhaust, this approach will not amount to anything.
Yes the exhaust stream of gas might approach 1500 deg (more like 1000 on an average loaded motor). The cylinder is not 1500 deg, unless the piston just melted. The cooling system is seeing to that.
If you use the leftover heat in the cylinder to convert a small amount of water to steam, and do it by adding an additional cycle to the motor ie 6-cycle, the friction loss just went up 50% with respect to the normal combustion cycle. And now the cylinder is much cooler then normal for the combustion cycle reducing its efficiency.
Why do you think Crower has just invested only $1000? Because the results are not vey good.
Reply
Homebuilding 1:47PM (6/11/2007)
This idea has great promise.
Crower is after capturing unused heat and converting it into usable torque.
He knows a lot more than he's letting on, I'd guess.
In the six cycle engine, he gets 2 power strokes out of six instead of the customary 1 out of 4---plus no weight penalty of hauling the radiator and water pump around....and no power to operate pumps.
The fellow is a brainiac hot-rodder--he's one of the minds that brought us nitromethane powered dragsters that go from zero to 330 mph in 4.5 seconds. His cam and intake work DO apply to cars you buy today---especially those that have variable valve timing than can make 200 horsepower out of less than 150 cubic inches.
The biggest problem might be the portability of all of that water....BUT, this idea has application for stationary ICE power plants....and we will be driving more electric cars in our future.
Homebuilding
Reply
Homebuilding 8:52AM (6/12/2007)
This idea has great promise.Crower is after capturing unused
heat and
converting it into usable torque.He knows a lot more than he's
letting on, I'd guess.In the six cycle engine, he gets 2 power
strokes out of six instead of the customary 1 out of 4---plus no
weight penalty of hauling the radiator and water pump around....and
no power to operate pumps. The fellow is a brainiac hot-rodder--he's
one of the minds that brought us nitromethane powered dragsters that
go from zero to 330 mph in 4.5 seconds. His cam and intake work DO
apply to cars you buy today---especially those that have variable
valve timing than can make 200 horsepower out of less than 150 cubic
inches.The biggest problem might be the portability of all of that
water....BUT, this idea has application for stationary ICE power
plants....and we will be driving more electric cars in our
future.
Homebuilding
Reply
ss gatlin 12:26AM (7/18/2007)
i think cower is onto something here, i wonder if anyone has tried hydrogenperoxide where up on you get water + a free O2 molecule.
Reply
a Time Traveller 2360 9:35PM (11/26/2007)
Is this a dead issue?
Where are the recent the follow ups?
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/05/24/for-40-percent-better-fuel-economy-introducing-the-steam-en/
Reply
prade 5:17AM (1/28/2008)
The idea is really fascinating.. isn't there a chance of the fuel mixing with moisture..? What if the engine comes to rest after the fifth stroke.. how would be the water in the cylinder be removed..?
Reply