

New Engine Invention is 3.5X More Efficient Than Current Combustion Engines - salimmadjd
http://news.discovery.com/autos/new-car-engine-sends-shockwaves-through-auto-industry-110405.html

======
sp332
_hope to have a car-sized 25-kilowatt version of the prototype ready by the
end of the year._

This was posted last year. Any update?

Edit: well at least you can see it in action here:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIPSTTvHfLs>

Edit2: Just noticed it said "car-sized _25 kW_ " but that's only 33
horsepower. That's about half as much as a Smart car.

~~~
cantankerous
Assuming that the engine is both lighter and more efficient according to the
article you might think that the horsepower numbers are going to be on a
different scale compared to what we're used to. Old Geo Metros ran on 55HP and
they used the "old inefficient engine".

~~~
sp332
Horsepower is power _output_. So the new engine might take a lot less fuel,
but it still only puts out half as much power as a Smart car engine.

~~~
cantankerous
I'm not talking about power output. It's obvious that it puts out half as much
power as a Smart Car. What I'm saying is that it might not matter.

I'm talking about necessary power output. If the engine cuts the weight of the
car in half, then the scale of HP you're used to hearing applied to haul the
car around in a desirable manner changes because you don't need as much.

~~~
anamax
> If the engine cuts the weight of the car in half

Then this engine has negative weight because current engines are much less
half the weight of the car, let alone half the weight of the car plus typical
load (which is the relevant weight).

Yes, an engine that weighs less means that you can have other parts that weigh
less as well, but it's still not enough.

------
zoharj
This is BS. Thermodynamics places a limit on engine efficiency at about 37%,
the top of the line combustion engine is maybe 25% efficient. Thus an increase
in efficiency of 3.5 times is BS. The only possible way to get the efficiency
above 37% is to have the engine get super hot, ~>1500F. Which for obvious
reasons is not practical

~~~
cantankerous
"As a result, the generator is 3.5 times more fuel efficient than typical
combustion engines." It's talking about fuel efficiency, not thermal
efficiency. Figuring in that the generator weighs a lot less and can make the
car a lot smaller is probably where these numbers come in. The article could
be a bit more specific about it, though.

~~~
anamax
> Figuring in that the generator weighs a lot less and can make the car a lot
> smaller is probably where these numbers come in.

The only relevant question is whether "the generator" is significantly more
efficent than a conventional engine with the same power output, size, and
weight. After all, we can make smaller conventional engines to put in smaller
cars.

Disagree? Then I'll point out that there are micro-vehicles with conventional
engines (albeit tiny ones) that do even better, thus "proving" that
conventional engines are far superior....

------
CWuestefeld
This might be interesting.

Then again, I've read too many of these stories that turn out to be
exaggeration, or the writer misunderstanding the real capabilities of the
invention.

------
senthil_rajasek
They are calling this a "Wave Disk Engine".

Here is a link to the wikipedia article
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_disk_engine>

------
agpen
This article is more than a year old, has there been any real followup?

