Inventors come on in!!
is this the idea youre looking for http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDZSOEHQyZE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRQ9uHhUYu0&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRQ9uHhUYu0&NR=1
I don't see any reality reasoning here. It isn't as simple as pumping air in and pushing exhaust out. You can't just say that "sucking the exhaust out" will be the key. That is missing the big picture.
The explosion inside the cylinder is what makes the power, by pushing the piston down. A controlled explosion has a lot of energy. Think simple here, those explosions of the combustion process deliver hundreds of hp. Even the best exhaust system might only be worth 30 hp. So, the order of magnitude isn't even the same between efficient combustion vs highly flowing exhaust.
Also, intake flow is subsonic speed, exhaust flow is supersonic. How are you going to improve on a supersonic speed for this process?
Several car manufacturers are already experimenting with electric solenoid operated intake and exhaust valves. Those are the next step in engine evolution. No more cams, springs, rockers, pushrods etc.. Your cam specs will all be controlled by computer, firing those solenoid valves.
The explosion inside the cylinder is what makes the power, by pushing the piston down. A controlled explosion has a lot of energy. Think simple here, those explosions of the combustion process deliver hundreds of hp. Even the best exhaust system might only be worth 30 hp. So, the order of magnitude isn't even the same between efficient combustion vs highly flowing exhaust.
Also, intake flow is subsonic speed, exhaust flow is supersonic. How are you going to improve on a supersonic speed for this process?
Several car manufacturers are already experimenting with electric solenoid operated intake and exhaust valves. Those are the next step in engine evolution. No more cams, springs, rockers, pushrods etc.. Your cam specs will all be controlled by computer, firing those solenoid valves.
Still won't work...
Your 1" hole equals a valve...your basically going back to valve system. So when you say that, what is changing in engines nowadays to what you want? Basically the valve system in today's engines are big injectors. You just contradicted yourself in saying that you can flow more air through a valve than an injector. So then what is the point of using injectors if you are back to valves? So if you say you can run two batteries and a higher amp alternator, where do you think the energy comes from--the engine of course right? So that means your drawing more power out of the engine. Plus you need to be able to recharge the batteries and provide power to everything else. Another factor your not counting in is how many amps 4 compressors would use. That's a huge amount. So when you are telling me that when cars have stereos w/ 20 amplifiers they are pulling a lot of power from the obviously modified electrical system, right? Yes, but you need to understand that the power for those is coming from the engine.
Everything powered on a car comes from the engine. There is no way to get energy from somewhere else because nothing else is providing the energy. The only way to get more energy is to provide another source of power being another internal combustion motor or a battery that eventually needs power from another source. So your really not making anything more efficient. Your complicating things to the point where nobody will buy the design. Same thing goes with your exhaust idea. How are you gonna get the exhaust gas out w/out energy provided from the engine?
As I said before the only way to get an engine more efficient is to reduce friction. Friction takes away energy and translates it into heat that is then taken away by the cooling system of the engine. Another factor to think about is how much energy does the block take in when each chamber ignites. You want to reduce that as much also. So when you figure that out you can use a very small engine that is very efficient and makes huge amounts of power.
What you think companies haven't already though of your idea? Most of these companies already have the ability to make a much more efficient engine and they do it by a reduction of friction. Its not crazy to think that gm and all those companies can create large v8 engines that produce 100mpg and make 350-400 hp. So you may want to ask why they don't do it instead of sending them a design that really does nothing, but complicate things or does the same thing in a different way.
Your 1" hole equals a valve...your basically going back to valve system. So when you say that, what is changing in engines nowadays to what you want? Basically the valve system in today's engines are big injectors. You just contradicted yourself in saying that you can flow more air through a valve than an injector. So then what is the point of using injectors if you are back to valves? So if you say you can run two batteries and a higher amp alternator, where do you think the energy comes from--the engine of course right? So that means your drawing more power out of the engine. Plus you need to be able to recharge the batteries and provide power to everything else. Another factor your not counting in is how many amps 4 compressors would use. That's a huge amount. So when you are telling me that when cars have stereos w/ 20 amplifiers they are pulling a lot of power from the obviously modified electrical system, right? Yes, but you need to understand that the power for those is coming from the engine.
Everything powered on a car comes from the engine. There is no way to get energy from somewhere else because nothing else is providing the energy. The only way to get more energy is to provide another source of power being another internal combustion motor or a battery that eventually needs power from another source. So your really not making anything more efficient. Your complicating things to the point where nobody will buy the design. Same thing goes with your exhaust idea. How are you gonna get the exhaust gas out w/out energy provided from the engine?
As I said before the only way to get an engine more efficient is to reduce friction. Friction takes away energy and translates it into heat that is then taken away by the cooling system of the engine. Another factor to think about is how much energy does the block take in when each chamber ignites. You want to reduce that as much also. So when you figure that out you can use a very small engine that is very efficient and makes huge amounts of power.
What you think companies haven't already though of your idea? Most of these companies already have the ability to make a much more efficient engine and they do it by a reduction of friction. Its not crazy to think that gm and all those companies can create large v8 engines that produce 100mpg and make 350-400 hp. So you may want to ask why they don't do it instead of sending them a design that really does nothing, but complicate things or does the same thing in a different way.
the solenoid does not have to be 1", I was just letting you understand cfms compared to psi.
Im sure youve heard of HVLP paint guns that flow more volume at less preasure so Im not blowing this concept out my ***
the alternator is the most efficient way to produce electricity at a low % of HP loss. you might lose 2-5% power with a high amp alternator and not greatly affect performance.
How much hp loss do you think you can gain by cutting off you alternator belt?? not much maybe 2 or 3 rwhp so the fact that you think it is inefficient to use a high amp alternator to power the electrical system and 2 batteries is wrong. this is why we dont have huge generators on our cars today anymore, we use efficient alternators
if you still think its robbing you of HP, then go buy $40 performance pulleys lol
And complicating everything to where no one wants to buy it???
I dont care for making money on this and trust me, if this system is more fuel efficient, power efficient and has less emissions, we are lucky if the goverment doesnt make it mandatory. it will sell if it will save people money and provide more power and better for the enviornment. consumers dont give a **** about complexity, i can prove this with Ford sales lol(sorry ford guys but you are on a gm based site)
and the friction reduction idea has been maxed out in my opinion, with roller rockers, roller lifters, needle bearing this and that, and synthetic oils and other stuff. there really isnt anything left unless you can think of a way to remove parts that cause friction and my idea makes that possible
is this the idea youre looking for http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDZSOEHQyZE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRQ9uHhUYu0&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRQ9uHhUYu0&NR=1
at max a 5-10% hp increase
my idea force feeds intake and eliminates intake valvetrain.
The exhaust suction was an idea i had but i dont know if it will work on my idea of the aircharger system
maybe on a regular style engine with an electronically controlled turbo at a constant exhaust vaccume
maybe an internal 3" turbine inside the exhaust pipe to suck all that out... I dont know lol
LS1 Tech Stories
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
6 Common C5 Corvette Failures and What's Involved In Repairing Them
Pouria Savadkouei
Retro Modern Bandit Pontiac Trans AM Comes With Burt Reynolds' Autograph
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Greatest Cadillac V Series Performance Models Ever, Ranked
Pouria Savadkouei
Top 10 Most Powerful Chevy Trucks Ever Made!
Hennessey's New Supercharged Silverado ZR2 Has 700 HP
Verdad Gallardo
Coachbuilt N2A Anteros Is an LS2-Powered C6 Corvette In Italian Clothes
Verdad Gallardo
Awesome K5 Blazer Restomod Comes With C7 Corvette Power
Verdad Gallardo
10 Camaros You Should Never Buy
10 LS Engine Myths That Refuse to Die
Verdad Gallardo yes the piston creates its power on the ignition/combustion stroke but then is robbed of its power by the intake and exhaust strokes.
so improving forcefeeding the piston on the intake stroke
or improving forcesucking the piston on the exhaust stroke will greatly conserve and gain power
so improving forcefeeding the piston on the intake stroke
or improving forcesucking the piston on the exhaust stroke will greatly conserve and gain power
On The Tree
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
From: DFW
why do you insist on a valve? this means intake manifold and intake valvetrain is necesary. an air valve solenoid is to be in place of the existing valve, elecrtonicaly controled by the computer to open at an edequate rpm and duration in corolation to fuel injector ratio
the solenoid does not have to be 1", I was just letting you understand cfms compared to psi.
Im sure youve heard of HVLP paint guns that flow more volume at less preasure so Im not blowing this concept out my ***
the alternator is the most efficient way to produce electricity at a low % of HP loss. you might lose 2-5% power with a high amp alternator and not greatly affect performance.
How much hp loss do you think you can gain by cutting off you alternator belt?? not much maybe 2 or 3 rwhp so the fact that you think it is inefficient to use a high amp alternator to power the electrical system and 2 batteries is wrong. this is why we dont have huge generators on our cars today anymore, we use efficient alternators
if you still think its robbing you of HP, then go buy $40 performance pulleys lol
And complicating everything to where no one wants to buy it???
I dont care for making money on this and trust me, if this system is more fuel efficient, power efficient and has less emissions, we are lucky if the goverment doesnt make it mandatory. it will sell if it will save people money and provide more power and better for the enviornment. consumers dont give a **** about complexity, i can prove this with Ford sales lol(sorry ford guys but you are on a gm based site)
and the friction reduction idea has been maxed out in my opinion, with roller rockers, roller lifters, needle bearing this and that, and synthetic oils and other stuff. there really isnt anything left unless you can think of a way to remove parts that cause friction and my idea makes that possible
the solenoid does not have to be 1", I was just letting you understand cfms compared to psi.
Im sure youve heard of HVLP paint guns that flow more volume at less preasure so Im not blowing this concept out my ***
the alternator is the most efficient way to produce electricity at a low % of HP loss. you might lose 2-5% power with a high amp alternator and not greatly affect performance.
How much hp loss do you think you can gain by cutting off you alternator belt?? not much maybe 2 or 3 rwhp so the fact that you think it is inefficient to use a high amp alternator to power the electrical system and 2 batteries is wrong. this is why we dont have huge generators on our cars today anymore, we use efficient alternators
if you still think its robbing you of HP, then go buy $40 performance pulleys lol
And complicating everything to where no one wants to buy it???
I dont care for making money on this and trust me, if this system is more fuel efficient, power efficient and has less emissions, we are lucky if the goverment doesnt make it mandatory. it will sell if it will save people money and provide more power and better for the enviornment. consumers dont give a **** about complexity, i can prove this with Ford sales lol(sorry ford guys but you are on a gm based site)
and the friction reduction idea has been maxed out in my opinion, with roller rockers, roller lifters, needle bearing this and that, and synthetic oils and other stuff. there really isnt anything left unless you can think of a way to remove parts that cause friction and my idea makes that possible
Just like Tony said...you can't expect to pump it in and out.
yes the piston creates its power on the ignition/combustion stroke but then is robbed of its power by the intake and exhaust strokes.
so improving forcefeeding the piston on the intake stroke
or improving forcesucking the piston on the exhaust stroke will greatly conserve and gain power
so improving forcefeeding the piston on the intake stroke
or improving forcesucking the piston on the exhaust stroke will greatly conserve and gain power
Order of magnitude. Your idea avoids this big picture.
1. The combustion/explosion provides multiple 100s of horsepower.
2. Enhancing just the intake or exhaust flow does not. Try less than 100 hp.
So, which of those two is more likely to show bigger output by improving the process?
Read my reply above again.
Order of magnitude. Your idea avoids this big picture.
1. The combustion/explosion provides multiple 100s of horsepower.
2. Enhancing just the intake or exhaust flow does not. Try less than 100 hp.
So, which of those two is more likely to show bigger output by improving the process?
Order of magnitude. Your idea avoids this big picture.
1. The combustion/explosion provides multiple 100s of horsepower.
2. Enhancing just the intake or exhaust flow does not. Try less than 100 hp.
So, which of those two is more likely to show bigger output by improving the process?
but it will do the same thing as a supercharger and more because it will forcefeed and at the same time eliminate the necesity of intake valvetrain/friction.
there is more than likely a limit of deminishing efficiency as the cubic inches increase because of steady flow and air requirements but who knows what that is until someone tests and tunes this system?
lets say for example you take two I4 engines
one is traditional setup and by traditional I mean current, not old school
and you take the same engine with a custom head setup with forcefed electric solenoid controled valves at a certain cfm and psi that creates boost and higher compression, now you eliminate the intake valvetrain
lets even say you keep the stock cam just remove all the intake lifters, rockers and traditional style valves,
then you inject below 0 degree liquid propane and run them against each other
What do you assume the outcome will be???
I still think the traditional will be less efficient regardless of the % of improvement
Now it might just make around 100% more power with this setup and even if it makes just 50% more, who will argue which is better?
one is traditional setup and by traditional I mean current, not old school
and you take the same engine with a custom head setup with forcefed electric solenoid controled valves at a certain cfm and psi that creates boost and higher compression, now you eliminate the intake valvetrain
lets even say you keep the stock cam just remove all the intake lifters, rockers and traditional style valves,
then you inject below 0 degree liquid propane and run them against each other
What do you assume the outcome will be???
I still think the traditional will be less efficient regardless of the % of improvement
Now it might just make around 100% more power with this setup and even if it makes just 50% more, who will argue which is better?
has anyone seen the MYT (massive yet tiny) engine?
the 14" model is supposedly comparable to a 32cylinder 4 stroke big rig diesel. makes same power/tq etc but in a tiny size i saw it a couple of years ago but didnt keep up with it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGlUZg2pC0Q
the 14" model is supposedly comparable to a 32cylinder 4 stroke big rig diesel. makes same power/tq etc but in a tiny size i saw it a couple of years ago but didnt keep up with it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGlUZg2pC0Q
I didnt think anyone would figure it out right away. has anyone seen the MYT (massive yet tiny) engine?
the 14" model is supposedly comparable to a 32cylinder 4 stroke big rig diesel. makes same power/tq etc but in a tiny size i saw it a couple of years ago but didnt keep up with it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGlUZg2pC0Q
the 14" model is supposedly comparable to a 32cylinder 4 stroke big rig diesel. makes same power/tq etc but in a tiny size i saw it a couple of years ago but didnt keep up with it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGlUZg2pC0Q
I want one lol.
The problem with people is that we are too scared to learn or use something we do not know of, we are too acustomed to being the same and getting used to it and not changing cause what we have "works"
There is no advancement without risks or probability of loss.
"You will never know if you can fly if you do not jump!!"
Another thing wrong with people is that we are naturaly greedy.
Many engine designs have been attempted or designed to be very efficient but the goverment shuts it down like biodeisel. they are trying to tax it now because when you pay for gasoline you pay road taxes and when you go get joe blow's restaurant oil, you do not pay taxes.
I think its bull that we can overcome dependence of fossil fuels but we sell patents on a good invention or allow the gov. to shut us down.
People need to invent new things, apply and not sell out.