The six stroke engine ... it's two strokes better!
 

Article

The article doesn't have a lot of technical details, but it seems the extra 2 strokes are used to inject water, which instantly turns to steam, which powers the last stroke and provides the cooling (the engine has no radiator).

So instead of a 2 gallon 20 lb. radiator sytem, I need to carry around 15 gallons of distilled water at 8.33lbs. and $1 or so/Gal.

Makes sense to me.

If it works like it's theoretically supposed to, you'd be carrying less fuel. The weight savings factor is basically nil, but if he can make gasoline engines more efficient than diesel engines, he might be on to something.

Wow very impressive. i'de rather have the sports car the HS kids made. but still ;)

I'm working on an eight stroke engine that involves the same concept plus Taco Bell and a one-way valve in the driver's seat. Emission issues are holding me up so I'm thinking of switching to Baja Fresh.

Watch those backfires Pat...

More Strokes=More Gooder

That's what she said! Only without the engrish.

You guys make me raff [/engrish] :lol:

Yeah Dean, it would really suck to get 60 mpg, an extra 40 hp, and better cooling w/o a radiator, all for having to fill up 2/3 gas 1/3 water, especially since water costs 1/3rd the price of gas.

BTW, BWM already has a working prototype of a water/steam system, though I don't know if it uses the 6-stroke concept.

just more shit to go wrong as far as I'm concerned. every time "they" come up with some great new invention to revolutionise the automotive world, I get screwed somehow! (see: Nissan CVT)

I'll beleive it when I see it. water is not magic. it will need a delivery system, it's own tank and it weighs more than gas, etc. And who says it is cheaper than gas? You show me a nationwide distilled water distribution system in the quntities that we are talking about that delivers it at thousands of stations accross the counntry for less than gas, and I'll believe it.

I hope it is the answer to all our problems, but I'm not convinced. High pressure water vapor/steam if you prefer is going to squeeze through the smallest spaces in piston rings, scrub the lubrication from the cylinder walls, etc. Sounds like a bad recipe for a engine making any kind of torque.

And don't forget you have to stop the engine at some point. what happens to the cylinder that is full of unexhausted water vapor? can you say oxidation? Maybe we will have stainless or ceramic blocks.

And notice he hasn't managed to get it on a dyno, but is sure it makes more power...

Hope I'm wrong, but my pesimistic side is winning this one, and I say the glass is 3/4s empty.

Existing technology. www.aquamist.co.uk, or just use the same stuff that's used for fuel delivery in a parallel circuit.

Trade a 15 gallon fuel tank for a 10 gallon fuel tank + a 5 gallon water tank. Same space, only a little more weight. If you really think the extra 12 lbs the system weighs when topped actually makes a real-world difference... :roll:

Distilled water costs $0.66/gal at Walmart. Also, IIRC, the BMW system is nearly a closed system that reuses the water, so you rarely have to top off the system.

An engine block is exposed to more water just due to normal humidity that it is when you add water injection to the mix. I'm pretty sure it would be fine. Hell, cast-iron steam trains didn't rust out in 20 minutes. A modern engine designed for the water cycle would be no different than a current motor that has to deal w/ condensation and the like already. In fact, I'll bet a water-stroke motor would run cleaner due to the constant steam cleaning it gets.

He didn't say it makes more power, he said it makes the same power with less gas... which is the whole point. I said it makes more power, because the next step (since you've already got a water delivery system in place) is to add water injection to the gasoline power stroke and make more power.

Do I expect this to revolutionize the automobile industry? Nope. But I recognize that we're entering a new era of car design where we're going to see alternatives to the normal gasoline motor. Hybrids, E85, diesel, water-stroke, pure electric, hydrogen, etc... people are finally going to have choices. And as the kinks are worked out on smaller production cars, we'll start to see these technologies in large scale vehicles.

also if you count the weight reduction for no radiator , and the radiator coolent , it should equal out or save you more weight over all. ESP in those big rig examples. taking out a 1200 lb radiator. so he could carry 600 lbs of water and still be saving weight. the weight is definatly a moot point.

you can also distill your own water its not that hard. (i belive all you do it let it settle and drain most of a tank out slowly , and not from the very bottom) could be wrong on that, but i'm sure its easy enough.

Wonder if this old guy could work with the HS kids that made the soy bean biodesiel car . could combine everything and come out with around 100 miles to the gallon (of desiel) . Now that would be Sick!

And combustion gases don't? IIRC typical cylinder pressures are in the thousands of psi, any fluid at those kinds of pressures is going to squeeze through any gaps.

ya isn't there less resitance to push the piston , then for the air to just escape out the rings? If not wouldn't every engine leak lots of air and end up not running?

Given that roughly half of the the combustion byproduct is water, I'm sure it'll be fine.

Edit: way late. :p

No, you filter it (optional) then boil it off and capture the steam.

5Gal + 10Gal <> "Preliminary estimates suggest a Crower cycle engine will use roughly as many gallons of water as fuel."

12HP under no load <> 300HP under 300ft/lb load

Steam engine <> internal combustion oil sump engine.

Combustion cycle water injection or humidity <> injected water, and high pressure steam

Walmart 1 gal. jug <> 100 or so Billion gallons of distilled water, and the infrastructure to create and deliver it.(Based on 170+ Billion gallon gasoline consumption in the US alone)

All I'm saying "SHOW ME THE MONEY!"

That is all.

And where does the energy to make distilled water come from? Magic fairy dust?

Removing particulate matter from water has to be easier than digging up oil half way across the earth and turning it into gas. Distilled water would be hella cheap if demand rose.

No, it's like Santa Claus' sleigh. It comes from the hopes and dreams of little children.

We need to work on getting actual clean water lines to residences before we start worrying about piping distilled water to gas stations. I swear, I turn on a tap in this state and it looks like coconut Kool-aid or somthing. :mad:

El Rosal Taqueria FTW! I know the owner, maybe we can get you a sponsor! :oops:

Seriously though, I'm fascinated by the number of alternative fuel, hybrid and new ideas that have been surfacing of late. Maybe the fuel companies will finally cut some slack.

How? Every type of good water filtration or distillation requires energy in the form of pressure, heat, or electricity.

It's like the whole hydrogen powered car theory. Where does all the hydrogen come from? Electrolysis. And the power for the electrolysis comes from where? Coal or petroleum fired power plants. Doh...

Yes, there are solar powered methods of water seperation, but last I knew, were not scalable to the levels required for a hydrogen based economy.

Well boiling water does take some energy, but my point was I imagine it's a helluva lot less energy than is consumed manufacturing gas.

Um, exhaust valve... I challenge you to stop an engine after combustion has been initiated but before the exhaust valve on that cyliner opens...

You can stop fuel from exploding by not firing a spark plug. Much harder to get water to not vaporize in the same environment.

So don't fire the water injector... Ok, that's an option, but does that mean the engine has to run 5 more strokes without injection to make sure? Don't know. Maybe you are right, that's not an issue.

Who's BANSUMS?

Ok, maybe, but...

Probably the only viable alternative to our petroleum based economy is solar - electric.

Put solar cells on every south facing roof/building surface, and you might have a chance of moving away from Hydrocarbon based fuels.

Even a magic 50% reduction in fuel consumption is still consumption, and still "Less Billions" or was it "fewer billions" in oil company pockets. Less Billions is still better than no billions.

Hi I'm Dean. Because a technology only helps, instead of completely removing our dependance on oil, I think it sucks and we shouldn't bother at all.

:roll:

C'mon man, everything you're pointing our are hurdles, not deal breakers. Hell, put the filtration system on the car itself... sure it'll reduce mileage, but the car will still get a better mpg than a non-water cycle motor and now you can fill the water tank in the driveway w/ your hose.

And so what if the tank is 50/50 gas/water... it's not like we're adding 1500 lbs to the car. Hell, you have a Dodge Stealth... the last thing you should be doing is complaining that this theoretical car is going to weigh too much because there's a 2.4 lb difference in weight between a gallon of water and a gallon of gas. At least the weight of the water is going towards helping the mileage and environment... What's the benefit to that extra 500lbs your Stealth carries around?

Or even better, there's no reason why the water cycle can't just be its own cylinder where exhaust heat is taken from the gas cylinders, and water is injected to convert to steam creating a power stroke, then recycled back to the water tank to be reused. IIRC, that's how BMW's water system works. With the exception of piston blow by, it's a closed system.

Is it really that hard to see that leveraging the heat from the fuel combustion as mechanical energy instead of radiating and exhausting it off the car is a good idea?

So, Im wondering about how much pressure you get from the steam expansion relative to the heat loss in the cylinder, which affects combustion on the other power stroke. Also, the extra cooling effect directly int eh cylinder would allow combustion that would otherwise be unsafe- AFRs and ignition timing would be able to run in parameters that would normally lead quickly to hot spots and detonation.

I think direct cylinder cooling would be a fantastic benefit to turbocharged cars, allowing for 3 and 4 bar of boost on a street car. However, I'm not sure what effect the cold exhaust would have on the turbo's spooling. You would have to redesign the turbo quite extensively, or just switch to supercharging.

I'm kinda with Dean here. I've seen SO MANY "alternative fuels" and other such variations on the internal combustion engine, like this one, all of which have sounded great at first, and turned out to be nothing more than a big FLOP. In my head, the entire idea here is absolutely un-useable. I may know much more about automotive theory than I do Physics, but it just doesn't click that this thing would be 1. reliable 2. economical 3. more efficient than what we have already.

I recall an engine oil cap I showed Dean and Scott on Saturday, that had milky oil on it from the condensation known to exsist in Nissan motors, and it scared the crap out of all of us. I imagine cylinders FULL of water vapor blowing past rings producing effects 100 times what we saw on Saturday. Scary.

Frankly, I think if there were more pessimists in the world, we could avoid SO many mistakes! :D "Dude, a blimp full of highly explosive gas is not a good idea..." See: Hindenburg

Actually, that might be an outstanding idea. Significantly lower EGTs have no negative effect on a blower, and allow for more boost and/or no/less intercooling.

Additonally, more or less water/steam injection could be used to control the EGTs with FI motors, more than for the power stroke part. Sort of super-WI for making more power and more steam power for light-load cruise. Similar to the "on demand" Chrysler V8s and old Cadillac engines with 4 deactivating cylinders.

The Hindenburg burned because of the coating on the canvas, not because Hydrogen is flamable.

And if everyone were pessimists there'd be no innovation. This particular motor may not be the solution (I think pure electric or hydrogen electric will be the ultimate solution to get awa from oil) but it's certainly a step in the right direction.

For example, multi stage disposeable rockets are not the efficient way to get people into orbit... a RAM/SCRAM jet space plane would be much better... but since we can't build that yet, we built the space shuttle... a compromise. That's what these new hybrid motors are, the compromise interrum solution that we use to learn more about what it'll take to get to the better solution... which in turn becomes a compromise once an even better solution is thought up.

Just because an idea isn't perfect, doesn't make it a bad idea. This motor has promise, and I believe the technology can be made to work as advertized. Does that mean it'll ultimately be economical? Of course not. But that doesn't mean the idea is worthless or that it shouldn't be persued.

Diesels and rotaries were new ideas once too. Hell, when the IC combustion was first introduced, I'm sure a lot of folks thought it copuldn't replace... the steam engine. :p While I personally don't expect the 6 stroke motor to work, I hope it gets a fair shot and fails due to physics rather than economics or naysaying.

That does suck! But I'm not so sure that the extra cycle with water vapor is going to be that destructive. Cylinder pressure will be no more than they already are, with no more than twice as much water in teh chamber. Worse, yes, but not phenominally so.

:lol: :manatee:

Yes, but you have to remember, people said the same thing about the internal combustion engine when it was developed ages ago. Ideas often build off of other ideas for the most part. I just wish more people would build these things so we can laugh at them on the internet as they try to perfect their plans.


Also, Why is it that ever thread Mike K starts turns into a 100 post marathon within a day?...damn.

edit(okay, we all just said the same thing.)

Nothing against inovation, I'm just not sure this one is such a hot idea. If he had a 50HP 50Ft/LB prototype, I might have a different tune. The HS kids car really exists, and appears to have real performance numbers, so I am hopefully optimistic on that one.

Like I said earlier, I hope this is the best thing since sliced bread, but I am going to take a wait and see attitude on this one.

If you are convinced otherwise, I strongly encourage you to invest in distilled water futures, and short sell Radiators-R-US.

with a new 6 stroke engine it better park itslef also.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8oBB2WjKOA

AH! I never said EVERYONE should be pessimists, just that there should be more of us pissing in the Cheerios of those out there who are "blindly optimistic". I do firmly believe in innovation and new takes on old ideas, but, like I said, I've just seen FAR too many "innovations" such as this one... which went nowhere really, really fast. Again, I have been around the block in Auto theory, but am a tad behind in the physics department, compared to some people here! A good idea is a good idea, and if this turns out to be the next big thing, I'll eat these words and happily congratulate the inventor, but in my humble opinion, I don't think it will. Doesn't mean that he should give up the project, just the opinion of one dude!

Matt's got a good point tho, as long as they keep ending up on the internet so we can laugh at them, keep 'em coming!

http://www.jasongriffey.net/images/cowbell.gif

This thread needs more cowbell.

LOL bro , where does Revined 93 octane fuel come from ? fairy dust ?

i'll place you a $20 bet that it takes more energy to produce 1 gallon of 93 octane fuel, then it does to produce 1 gallon of distilled water. (yes i'm a gambling man)

where will i find out the answer ? i have no clue but i dought yer gonna take the bet ;)

Edit: not trying to flame but I sincerly belive it costs more to pump out oil, refine it and make the winter/sumer formulas, the it costs to distall water. crude oil is like $60 a barrel and you don't get 100% gas out of that. its 42 gallons per barrel (or so says google) so that's already around around $1.42 per gallon assuming you refine it for free with 0% loss.

distilled water sells for less then that, so unles the distilled water companies are operating at a loss. you are beyond wrong about the costs.


does this mean you won't take my bet ?

ummm, quotes so we know who you're trying to take money from? :p

You are probably right, but do you know how much it would cost to put in the infrastructure to deliver 100 Billion gallons of distilled water a year? And it is likely that it would be taxed at the same rate fuel is, or we would run out of money for highways, etc...

And it may add $500 to the cost of each car, etc...

I'm just saying it ain't as cheap as you think it is.

Dean, I'm pretty sure the maybe 50,000 cars/year that might end up with this motor probably won't need 100 billion gallons of water distributed across the nation at every single gas station. If you think we can swap every motor in every car in America to use 50% water before we can build the infrastructure to handle the delivery of water you're out of your mind. Even if this motor was a phenominal success, it'd still take decades before it was in the majority of vehicles on the road.

In addition, what make you think that all the infrastructure currently in use for gasoline won't work for water? Instead of 87, 89, 91 at the pump how about 87, 91, H2O at the pump? Holy shit, I must be some sort of genius.

OMG! Yes Scott, you are a F'ing genius. :P

Damnit Cody, you were supposed to keep him occupied in the Social Security thread.

Scott, you win, I was just down on 4th street and paid $100 for stock in "Stroke Me Six Times, Inc." I think I got 20 shares... The sales girl wasn't very good looking, and she insisted on cash, but I'm in on the ground floor baby...
___________________________________

Did I say you have to build it all at once, nooooo, I just asked if he knew how much it cost to deploy that kind of infrastructure, I stated no time period for that deployment. Yes, it would be gradual, OK?

Could existing infrastructure be leveraged, yes, but only with quite a bit of modification. you can't pump H2O out of he same nozzle as 87, and 91, so something has to change there.

Not sure it's a real good idea to even transport them in the same truck, but OK, maybe you can.

Know how many thousands of miles of gasoline pipeline there is in the US? Neither do I , but I bet it is a boat load. Probably can't switch back and forth easily, if at all, so start digging or finding a work around, or come up with localized "manufacturering" plants which cost more typically than large centralized ones.

Can it be done, yes, but it is only going to happen if somebody can make a profit on it no matter how f'ing cool it is. Share holders won't have it any other way.

He gave up. :D