

Bill Gates Applies for Patent on Electromagnetic Engine - ccarpenterg
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220090091138%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20090091138&RS=DN/20090091138

======
cabalamat
It's an interesting idea, and it's a good illustration of why the patent
system is broken. This idea is the sort that a clever person could get in half
an hour, but in inself it isn't fully worked out, and therefore lacks utility.
To turn this idea into a working practical engine would take many man-years of
engineering effort.

The patent system is supposed to be a bargain: an inventor gets a limted-term
monopoly on an invention, in return for teaching that invention to others. But
this invention doesn't teach others how to make the device; to do that you'd
need exmpensive man-years of engineering.

Similarly, in 1930, Frank Whittle patented the turbojet. But his patent didn't
teach others how to make a turbojet -- how could it when Whittle didn't know
himself how to do it, and only had a working engine in 1937?

Probably the patent system is unreformable, but if it is reformable, then one
necessary reform would be for any patent application to include a working
example of the invention, and all technical drawings and documentation (in
computer-readable formats).

------
mindslight
Sigh, yet another bogus (probable) patent obvious to a practitioner of the art
(of power electronics/control systems). We brainstormed about this concept
several years ago where I was working (unfortunately nothing formal, just as
an interesting problem). It'd certainly require the right materials and
engineering to create a practical realization (and perhaps there's some
patentable details), but that doesn't mean the first to create a prototype
should be able to claim the general concept of combining a combustion cylinder
with a linear motor.

It will be interesting to see if the implementation is actually viable (and
how efficient it can be), given the power levels required by a typical
vehicle.

------
noonespecial
Can anyone actually read this thing? Did he just replace the mechanical
flywheel with an electrical one?

~~~
gills
It looks like they replace the crankshaft with electromotive components,
attaching the piston rod directly to either a linear actuator or a rotating
generator.

At first I was pretty skeptical if the usefulness of such a device. The
crankshaft in an engine transfers power to a load, but it also performs an
elegant and complicated synchronization task for multiple cylinders and
ancillary systems (like lubrication, cooling, fuel supply, ...).

But the crank also imposes a practical limit on stroke length because a long
stroke in a small space gives you pretty high angles and less efficient power
transfer. The short stroke puts an artificially-low limit on the fraction of
energy from the combustion that can be recovered.

Attaching a kinetic-to-electric conversion device directly to the cylinder
allows the stroke length to be longer (basically unbounded) so a larger
fraction of the energy can be captured, and less wasted as heat.

Then a multi-cylinder engine basically becomes a computer program, where it's
easy to implement fine timing, synchronization, load-balancing and load-
prediction tasks using sensor networks.

I'm skeptical that it would be more useful than just dropping the mechanical
conversion and it's relatively high losses, and using something like a fuel
cell instead.

~~~
Andys
Lubrication, fuel, and cooling systems all work more efficiently when powered
by electric motors. The reason is they increase drag unnecessarily at high
motor rpms. (But they also cost more).

I think this would be a logical way of making a car engine more efficient.
Fuel cells are cool but the infrastructure already set up to refuel and
maintain petrol engines is vast and not ready to go away yet.

~~~
rbanffy
"the infrastructure already set up to refuel and maintain petrol engines is
vast and not ready to go away yet."

And that's precisely why ethanol engines are such a nice idea. I have been
driving ethanol-running cars since my youth and can tell you they work just
fine and have a pretty low carbon footprint, specially when compared to
fossil-fuel based ones.

I sincerely doubt they got their math straight.

~~~
jibiki
In terms of carbon footprint, a lot depends on where the ethanol comes from.
For instance, if you're getting it from corn grown in the US, then you are
doing it wrong...

(The wikipedia article is kind of awful, but it touches on the main concerns:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_ethanol> )

~~~
rbanffy
We are getting it from sugar cane in Brazil. While not the most efficient way,
it's pretty good. Getting ethanol from corn is so stupid only a government
could imagine it.

I think I have owned only one car that ran on gasoline, an import from
Argentina.

------
aurora72
Replacing the mechanical parts with some more efficient electromagnetic
innovation is good and such inventions might help the >110 years old Otto-
cycle engines go on a bit more.

However, that was October 2007, and the search towards alternative energy
sources & radically efficient engines, still keep growing. By leaps and bounds
these days.

This PATENTED innovation still concerns itself with the "pistons" i.e. an
Otto-cycle which is doomed. So it's not much of a real innovation.

------
yurisagalov
someone will have to excuse me, since I've yet to go to bed, but after briefly
reading this + the toms hardware article, I couldn't help but chuckle at the
thought of the "If Microsoft made cars..." jokes that circulated the web in
the late 90s

------
TrevorJ
There is still a lot of kinetic energy loss due to piston inertia - it seems
that the circular engine designs hold more promise.

------
rbanffy
This looks fairly obvious to me. And mind you I haven't really been an
engineer for at least 10 years.

