New engine prototype could potentially decrease auto emissions up to 90 percent | Hacker News Reader

New engine prototype could potentially decrease auto emissions up to 90 percent

nbcnews.com

25 pointsthinker25 comments

Previously:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2704614

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2425762

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2337237

   https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2704614 - 626 days ago
   https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2425762 - 706 days ago
   https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2337237 - 729 days ago

One feature I wish HN had was a merge tool. Merge these threads together, and possibly multiple links per story. Then we can just merge these links/comments into the older thread. Useful for emerging stories about the inevitable "Apple i*" that get posted 50x the day of a release. Kind of like techmeme.com "More:" option.

Yes, and...?

Just wanted to give added context that this was from 2011. I've also updated my comment with my thoughts.

This article is from 2011 and mentions a 25-kilowatt version by the end of the year. Anyone know of any updates?

I was going to add the same thing. I was following this when the news broke in 2011 (both Popular Mechanics and Science News had mentions) but nothing since. Since it hasn't gone black (aka 'secret') and has fallen off the "projects" page [1] of Mueller's lab, I'm guessing it doesn't actually work.

[1] http://www.egr.msu.edu/mueller/

EDIT: Found another article [2] that suggested late last year there was supposed to be a 25KW exemplar. Since its now close to the end of the first quarter of 2013 and there isn't a press release, I'm further convinced that their ended up not being anything to talk about.

[2] http://beforeitsnews.com/science-and-technology/2012/08/wait...

It's basically a low RPM centrifugal turbine engine. which is actually perfect for recharging batteries since it's not as dangerous to have in the car a as an axially vented turbine, which runs at much higher RPM and temperature.

It always irks me how those news of ground-breaking improvements in this and that actually never translate into improvements in greenhouse gases emissions or cleaner air (or do 10 years later in another form without my being aware of it maybe).

There's already a few companies (one of them is Tesla Motors, an American company) working on cars that actually cut emissions dramatically and do in fact put a dent into the polluting, gas-guzzling model of the "modern" car paradigm.

Here is one with a company behind it http://www.liquidpiston.com/default.html

But they don't have an animation

This is a picture of all the steps: http://www.gizmag.com/liquidpistol-rotary/24623/pictures#7

But I cannot understand from that.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but it sounds like a normal rotary (Wankel) engine you can buy from Mazda right now. They have some benefits, but they're not a magical cure-all - everyone except Mazda dropped development of them. Wikipedia for the lazy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wankel_engine

Actually, Mazda dropped the rotary a couple years ago due to efficiency issues. I think they may be working on a new model however.

I thought the same thing when I read the first description. But as an owner of an Rx7 (mazda's rotary car), I can assure you they are not very clean. In fact, they tend to do worse on emissions testing than cars from the same era, at least my older one does (an '88). Also, the "shockwave" part suggests this may not have sparkplugs...?

If this engine really can combine the exceptional power-weight ratio and small size of the rotary with modern fuel efficiency and emissions control, it could be a legitimate contender. I don't really get why the article claims it is good for hybrids though; is it just the weight factor? You could make a small rotary hybrid right now if you wanted, if weight was the issue.

From what little I've read [1], it does not look anything like a Wankel engine. While they both confer similar engineering benefits (though not claimed fuel benefits) compared to a reciprocating engine, the Wave Disk Generator/Engine,

1. uses compression of air/fuel mixture for ignition (like a diesel engine), not a separate ignition system

2. has an exhaust system that is both radial and circumferential using centrifugal/centripetal forces to clear the gases. Essentially exhausting all the time.

3. has an intake central and orthogonal to the plane of the rotor. Essentially continuous intake.

4. has no "hot spot" fixed housing locations for different parts of the thermodynamic cycle like in a Wankel engine, so, there is no need for a separate cooling or heat distribution system.

[1] http://sites.psu.edu/mitanshshah/2012/12/03/wave-disk-genera...

It has more in common with a turbine engine than it does a Wankel.

> The Wave Disk Generator uses 60 percent of its fuel for propulsion; standard car engines use just 15 percent. As a result, the generator is 3.5 times more fuel efficient than typical combustion engines.

" ... oh, did I mention that I flunked math?"

60 / 15 = 4, not 3.5.

I don't understand the point of this. I can decrease auto emission 100% by buying from Tesla.

You can decrease tailpipe emissions 100%, but you can't decrease net emissions that much. It's impossible.

> you can't decrease net emissions. It's impossible.

I call "bullshit" on your fatalism. Solar energy is powerful.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrje73EyKag

http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/secret-tesla-motors-master-p...

Look, I'm all for renewable energy, but where do the solar panels come from? You need to make them. This takes resources. These resources are difficult to acquire and manufacture into panels.

This is not zero cost.

No one said zero cost. Your claim was that "you can't decrease net emissions." If solar is lower net emissions-wise, you have decreased net emissions.

I said you can't decrease net emissions 100%, you just rephrased what I said by omitting that part.

No, I quoted the exact phrasing in a child comment as it stood at the time. Your later edit made your intent clearer.

Not true.

Even when the source-energy is coal, Tesla reduces net emissions a lot by eliminating the inefficiency of the IC engine.

And when the source-energy is solar, net emissions are even better. :-)

If you factor in the emissions of extracting and refining raw materials to produce the car, I wonder if the net for a Tesla is markedly better than a standard car.

I don't know the answer to that, just wondering.

I'm just saying you can't reduce emissions to zero unless you have a zero footprint solution to providing energy. There will always be some collateral damage, no matter how minor, until we're able to make solar panels out of entirely recycled materials using entirely renewable energy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com