Hacker News Reader

Comment by i_am_jl | Hacker News Reader

I am sure that I don't understand the specifics of what Porsche is doing, but the article says the cycle is intake-compression-power-compression-power-exhaust. For that to be the case they have to be burning the same fuel and air mixture twice, and I don't understand the chemistry there enough to even speculate how it works.

I think it's safe to assume that the second stroke is burning incomplete combustion products left over from the first stroke. I think that the second compression stroke would have to be higher compression than the first in order to get more complete combustion of what's left behind.

View on HN

That actually makes a lot of sense merging with some comments from above.

Second stroke goes lower and there are some ports to add air which are not accessed during the initial compression stroke...so the stroke is longer (higher compression) and more air is added to help with the reburn.

Kinda sounds like combining the idea of the Miller cycle with a variable compression/stroke setup (see Nissan).

There are a lot of ideas out there that create gains individually...glad to see them being combined more and more in modern engines. (ex. VRIS, VVT, DFI,) I personally think there is still another few decades of playing around with ICE to be done...not sure it will be viable for the market...but the research will lead to a lot more interesting engineering.

Ah, extra ports, that makes a lot more sense. I had missed that detail.

So the first phase is like a regular 4-stroke engine, and the second phase is more like 2-stroke engine, where extra air (and possibly fuel) is introduced into the cylinder, like a 2-stroke, through ports located below the position of the piston during the bottom dead center of the first phase.

So I guess you have something like intake (high), compression (high), power (high->low), compression (low), exhaust (low->high), where in parenthesis is the adjustable piston height?

So a richer higher-compression first phase, followed by a leaner lower-compression second phase?

Finally got time to read a bit of the patent, which talks about two TDCs and BDCs, which I'll denote as "high" and "low", as related to the distance of the piston to the crankshaft. So the high TDC has maximum compression, and low BDC has the maximum cylinder volume, and the scavenging port(s) are between high BDC and low BDC.

Unless I screwed up my notation shift, the strokes from the patent are as follows:

1. Intake (low TDC -> high BDC)

2. Compression (high BDC -> high TDC)

3. Power (high TDC -> low BDC)

4. Compression (low BDC -> high TDC)

5. Power (high TDC -> high BDC)

6. Exhaust (high BDC -> low BDC)

So during the first power stroke, stroke 3, the cylinder moves from "high" to "low" and thus is the longer power stroke. Also during the second compression stroke, stroke 4, the cylinder position moves from "low" to "high". So technically leading to higher compression ratio. I was thinking it would cost too much energy to do so, hence dismissed that alternative, but I guess not.

The patent also notes that the extra scavenging ports are not needed, fresh air-fuel mixture can be introduced via the inlet valve(s) while the piston moves between the two BDCs.

Would be fun to try to simulate it in Ange's engine simulator[1].

[1]: https://github.com/ange-yaghi/engine-sim

I would imagine that pulling the air from the bottom would help more with scavenging the cylinder than the top but yeah...I can imagine it wouldn't matter.

That all makes sense. Pretty much what I assumed. The compression stroke at #4 is the longest stroke. Then it also has the benefit of the Power stroke at #5 being shorter which will mean it will have the benefit of a short(er) stroke motor on the power (more torque?) during that cycle.

The shorter stroke on #1 is desirable since you are using boost (I am assuming Miller cycle here) to control the beginning of compression as opposed to the intake valve.

Once the mechanical timing is down I assume it isn't too bad to keep all in line though...but a mess if it gets out.

I suspect the second stroke is higher compression. First stroke has the compression "shape" controlled by the boost (miller cycle).

With direct injection they could even be injecting more fuel into the cylinder for the second stroke...but I suspect the second stroke F/A ratio is determined by the first stroke remnants combined with the extra air allowed in at the bottom of the second stroke.

All of this with the cam variators, timing control, boost control and fuel setup that VW already runs would be fairly easy to control with the proper sensors and code.

Just speculating at this point...but it makes sense to me.

> Miller cycle

Heh all along I'm wondering, what kind of thermodynamic cycle is it? By six strokes, does it mean there are actually distinct new phases to the PV graphs compared to Atkinson/Carnot/Miller?

Or is it just masquerading a well-known cycle underneath six strokes, only some parts are being optimised?

Not sure myself...

Seems to be like it is a Miller cycle (or could be) on the initial 4 strokes. Which would allow you to control the timing of the "Compression max point" in the stroke by varying the boost. That may also vary the amount of spent fuel remaining for the second "scavenge" stroke...which if I am reading comments above correctly it pulls air from ports lower in the cylinder which would help clear the cylinder for the next 4 stroke cycle.

Seems to me more focused on reburning/scavenging to make a "cleaner" burn than anything else though.

*Not an engineer...just a shadetree mechanic who reads too deep into engine papers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com