Emerging engine (Cogen) technology

 For those interested:

http://irc.cordis.lu/success/completesuccess.cfm?SUCCESS_ID 7
http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id 26051
http://conceptengine.tripod.com/conceptengine/id2.html

The engine is aimed towards static power generation, although initially
large units - cogen.  It can be used for vehicles too, if scaled down.
Millions are being spent on R&D, so this one may actually be a reality.

 

Here is the actual engine:
http://www.archerengine.dabsol.co.uk/index.htm

 

Reading phrases on that page such as:

"The Doodlebug was a primitve pulsed jet rocket"  (which it wasn't, it
was a pulsejet -- there's a very significant and important difference
between a rocket and a jet and if the inventors don't know that,
well)...

Also, their efficiency claims are inordinately suspect.  Stationary
turbine engines use a host of other ancilliary equipment to gain
additional thermal efficiency.  The hot exhaust gases are often used
to heat water that then drives a steam turbine -- the output of this
turbine is oft-included in the overall efficiency ratings.  The same
thing *can* be done with a conventional piston engine -- but it seldom
is.

One of the reasons that turbine engines claim high efficiencies is
that they are usually *very* powerful engines.  Unfortunately, this
efficiency doesn't scale particularly well if you're only looking for
shaft horsepower.

Pulsed combustion *can* produce higher thermal efficiencies than
constant combustion -- but there's a lot more to producing an
efficient engine than just getting a good conversion of fuel to heat.

The most efficient internal combustion engine will not get warm to the
touch and will emit room-temperature exhaust gasses.   It's *how* you
convert that thermal energy into work that is the key factor to an
engine's efficiency.

--
you can contact me via http://aardvark.co.nz/contact/

 

I'm not defending them. They didn't do the web site.


If you look you sill see two pistons, not vanes.  The engine appears a cross
between a piston and turbine, hence their claims of scalability.

If a pure turbine offers the same, then why is a Dutch company progressing
the engine to implement it where a normal turbine could be used?


The Keston condensing boiler uses plastic drain pipe for the exhaust flue
and you can put your hand over the flue and not burn it.  All by extracting
energy from latent heat. They are doing similar with water injection.


It looks promising, and fast-track R&D to get it in operation.  We shall
see.

 
A turbo on the exhaust comes to mind.


They are more efficient when in relatively constant revolutions and the
efficiencies come with very high revs.  Two reasons why they have never made
it into the common auto as the operational conditions are very different to
a ship, plane or generator. I believe high revving ceramic turbines (30,000
revs/min) looked feasible for auto's, but only when a high revving
alternator was attached which would then drive an electric motor, which
drove the wheels.

This is used in ships, and some trains.  With ships the turbines and
electric motors can be in very different positions in the ship making it
easy to design and better for stability. the Normandie, sunk in NY harbour
in WW2, was the first to use this design, which is now pretty standard.


There is a lot more, and a major point is less friction, which the
Archer-Trice has.  It has little friction, a few moving parts, compared with
the current IC engines.


Any of the current engines that under some sort of development can do better
than what we already have.  If you can double fuel economy, combined with
simplicity, then you have a winner.