Popular Science: Somender Singh's engine mod increases torque/fuel economy

[mechtech]

I have a feeling that I would like and get along with Mr. Singh if I knew him personally. My kinda guy! I think the reality of the situation is that the auto Mfrs. have spent enormous amounts of time and money developing and testing flame propagation in combustion chambers. I'm sure engineering and testing of this situation is a high priority [emissions , fuel economy, more power from smaller engines]. I'ts hard for me to believe that many similar ideas were not engineered and tested. This goes for the racing community, as well. I don't think they know that grooves in a piston would help immensely, and then not utilize the concept! Mr. Singh may not have a worthwhile idea.

 

[mjo]

Or it could be that these grooves and higher compression burn the fuel so cleanly, with zero pinging, and keep the engine cool enough to allow the engine to run pretty much forever. If a manufacturer switched to such an engine it wouldn't make the same profit off of replacement parts and newer engines.

 

[rg144]

There are plenty of innovations that are ignored for a variety of reasons. Five-stroke, six stroke engines exist with promise of improved efficiencies. Hybrids are just showing up finally (even a Hybrid Hummer-2) thanks to Toyota's huge investment. Fuel cell cars, etc, etc. And what about mass transit innovations? All that stuff you see in Popular Science will take decades to make safe and economical. Maybe in this case companies are hesitant paying patent royalties versus having something similar their R&D departments are cooking up. Or maybe there is a difficulty in mass producing. If it were called "cylinder cyclone" and sold in a box at automotive stores promising fewer emissions and improved gas mileage, and actually did nothing, the unsuspecting public would make Mr Singh a rich man.

 

[Gerret]

quote:

---

Originally posted by rg144: There are plenty of innovations that are ignored for a variety of reasons.

---

How about Honda's "Active Radical Combustion" 2-stroke engine? I suspect that it died because it couldn't meet emissions requirements in developed countries, but who knows? http://www.motorcycle.com/mo/mchonda/exp2_tech.html

 

[Gurkha]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mjo: Or it could be that these grooves and higher compression burn the fuel so cleanly, with zero pinging, and keep the engine cool enough to allow the engine to run pretty much forever. If a manufacturer switched to such an engine it wouldn't make the same profit off of replacement parts and newer engines.

---

You definitely raise a very valid point.

 

[mechtech]

Most maintained engines will outlast the rest of the car, nowadays. I don't think anyone is afraid of an engine lasting too long and hurting their profits. It just doesn't apply anymore. Mfrs. would do anything for less emmissions and more fuel economy, however. Many people in these forums assert that the switch to light oils [0-20] is for CAFE reasons, even though engine wear may be increased, and the fuel ecomony benefit is a faction of a percent improvement. Why wouldn't the Mfrs. jump on an extremely simple change to piston design that would promise great benefits? Wouldn't obtaining the patent or license for it make their vehicles much more fuel efficient, and highly desireable to the cost concerned public? This would result in great profit to the Mfr! A great advantage over the competition! Engineering degrees aren't just handed out - I have respect for the incredible time, efforts, and study involved with research in this field. It is at a very high, competitive level.

 

[friendly_jacek]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mechtech: Most maintained engines will outlast the rest of the car, nowadays. I don't think anyone is afraid of an engine lasting too long and hurting their profits. It just doesn't apply anymore. Mfrs. would do anything for less emmissions and more fuel economy, however. Many people in these forums assert that the switch to light oils [0-20] is for CAFE reasons, even though engine wear may be increased, and the fuel ecomony benefit is a faction of a percent improvement. Why wouldn't the Mfrs. jump on an extremely simple change to piston design that would promise great benefits? Wouldn't obtaining the patent or license for it make their vehicles much more fuel efficient, and highly desireable to the cost concerned public? This would result in great profit to the Mfr! A great advantage over the competition! Engineering degrees aren't just handed out - I have respect for the incredible time, efforts, and study involved with research in this field. It is at a very high, competitive level.

---

It maybe something or may be not. We will see, looks like Indian car manufacturers will look into it. I know a similar story from Poland circa 25 years ago. Sameone discovered that if a small fan-like passive tubine is placed after carburator, fuel efficiency would increase in his car 20% or so by increased turbulence in the intake system. He patented the device and could not find anyone interested to produce it. Only after media cried foul it was produced as aftermarket device. It would work some in some cars but not in most. Later, carburators were replaced by fuel injection and he made no money that I am aware of.

 

[friendly_jacek]

Did I mention that Poland ranks 23th on the 2004 medal chart with 10 (3 gold, 2 silver, 5 bronze)?

 

[Gurkha]

quote:

---

Originally posted by friendly_jacek: Did I mention that Poland ranks 23th on the 2004 medal chart with 10 (3 gold, 2 silver, 5 bronze)?

---

I rest my case, India ranks 65, pretty dismal show as usual.

 

[crashz]

Huge R&D departments and massive teams of engineers have a big hurdle to jump, which is not there for the backyard mechanic/thinker. They have to prove, without a doubt that their radical ideas will work, with benefits that far out weigh the penalties. With that and a reliance on proven theory, engineers are more inclined to make the safe moves/upgrades that can be proven easily, easily accepted by their peers and the general public, and of course cost effective for the company. Whereas the armchair designer is free to think up the most radical ideas, even if they cannot prove them with working models and comprehensive testing. In short, they don't have to answer to anyone until they are ready. If their design is a miserable failure, they can always chock it up to experience. The engineer with 20 yrs under his belt has no such luxury. Unless of course he is willing to gamble away his career. Innovation is now up to the amatures.