MSimon wrote:ravingdave,
Auto mfgs spend enormous amounts of money for tenths of a mpg. If there was an easy way to do it, it would already be done.
Auto mfgs DO spend a lot of money for insignificant improvements, and in that regard a large enough private beuracracy begins to equal the incompetence of regular government beuracracies. The auto industry has made a mountain of blunders in their history. The fact that they can't seem to do something != it can't be done. Look at the money spent on iter so far. Polywell might not work, but if it fails, it has still cost a lot less.
MSimon wrote:
It makes no sense to go with an engine that would double auto efficiency at an additional cost of $20,000 a vehicle. Heck even an additional $5K a vehicle is stretching the economics. And economics represents the total energy cost. Production plants, engineers, factory workers, etc.
Of course it makes no sense if it is not first economically feasable, but I believe engineers have too long been subject to "intellectual phase lock." I think it is possible to push engines closer to the carnot efficiency limits, but too many engineers have been thinking inside the box. (rankine cycle)
There are some really good ideas out there in engine land, then there are some ideas that just constitute "another way to burn gas." While I don't see it achieving significant thermal improvement, the Coates engine valve system seems to be a significant improvement in volumetric efficiency as well as greatly reduced friction losses.
http://www.coatesengine.com/technology.html
The Scuderi engine design looks like it could improve thermal efficiency if they can actually get those valves working as well as they claim.
http://www.scuderigroup.com/technology/ ... ation.html
Then of course there is also turbine truck engines, which is interesting.
The weak spot to me is the efficiency of those turbine wheels.
http://www.ttengines.com/technology.htm l
None of these guys may ever go anywhere, but they are thinking outside the box.
David