Engineering TV

How are they going to get the automakers to retool to put this engine in ther cars? A 30+% efficiency engine is difficult to get the public to go for it as current hybrid technology can achieve that number as well. A grassroot  movement is probably needed to get this engine into the hands of the consumers. A fleet of rental cars with this engine might help as well. Then again, an engine with efficiency not much higher than a hybrid is a very hard sell.

I'm no marketing expert, but here is what I think the advantages are: First, cost.  The cost of this engine is dramatically less then that of the hybrid technologies.  Second, simplicity.  There are fewer parts, less mechanical and supporting apparatus needed and no heavy batteries with large amounts of dangerous acids.  Third, maintanance and reliability.  The hybrid technology has the maintenance requirements of both electric and internal combustion (IC) engines.  Not to mention battery life issues.  Additionally, with no oil, coolant, or expensive exhaust filtration systems the Cyclone is overall cleaner then a hybrid.

All of what you said is true. If I have to guess, this engine will probably suffer the same fate as the Wankel engine even though it brings more benefits. It's advancement is evolutionary rather than revolutionary. Remember the Doble Steam car? These days, MPG is what makes cars sold. Cyclone Power has yet to demonstrate a passenger vehicle that gets much better MPG than today's automobiles.  Having said all that, I do think they have a market. From time to time, I feel like getting a very cheap used car and replace  its with a 50hp Cyclone.

Advent Power Systems (APS) is a Cyclone licensee in the field of military applications for the Cyclone Engine technology.

I believe this technology will continue to find new applications in various markets going forward.

Max. Kruce, I disagree with your comments regarding the efficiency of "hybrid technology". In fact, your comments may reflect a conceptual misunderstanding of how hybrid cars achieve greater fuel economy. The primary reason that hybrid cars see greater fuel economy is because the engines are smaller than their non-hybrid counterparts. This fact allows the engines in hybrid cars operate closer to their highest rated power where the efficiency is greatest. The same increase in fuel economy could be achieved (all other factors equal) by simply installing a much smaller engine in a conventional car. Of course, this would result in a seriously underpowered car... hence the need for "hybrid" cars to add an electric motor to assist during acceleration.

Automotive gasoline internal combustion engines operate at a thermal efficiency in the upper 20's, but only at the sweet spot near its highest rated power. The efficiency varies a great deal over the power range. In fact, the average efficiency of a conventional automobile engine during typical operation on the highway is only about 12%, and even less in city driving. Therefore, a hybrid car that sees 50% greater fuel economy than its conventional counterpart (all other factors equal) is only about 18% efficient. The reason the efficiency of 18% is well below the max engine efficiency of the upper 20's is due to the fact that even hybrid engines are not small enough to hit the sweet spot most of the time. To illustrate this fact further, consider that a 1970's Opel fitted in the early 1980's with an electric drive and battery charging system (series hybrid) consisting of a simple generator driven by a 5 hp lawn mower engine saw 75 mpg in city driving. In that case, whenever the internal combustion engine was operating it was pretty much right at the sweet spot, and during steady state operation battery losses were minimal.

Steam engines, including the Cyclone engine, have two very important characteristics that play into fuel economy in the automotive application. First, the efficiency of the Cyclone varies far less over the power range than do the internal combustion engines. Second, and most important for fuel economy, is the fact the the Cyclone operates most efficiently at part load where automotive engines operate most of the time.

I expect a Cyclone powered car to see a fuel economy approximately 50% greater than a modern parallel hybrid (such as the Prius) assuming that all other factors are equal. In other words, put an appropriately sized Cyclone in a Prius and I say the average mpg will go up by 50%.

Consider the many other advantages of the Cyclone over conventional automotive power plants and I say the Cyclone is a winner.

NOTE: The 1930's era Doble is a massive vehicle at 5000 pounds and relatively high rolling friction, yet sees 12-15 mpg city. It's power plant operates at about 15% thermal efficiency. See what I mean?

(addendum to previous post)

My figures on the efficiency of conventional cars (12% highway) are not accurate as this number considers factors beyond engine efficiency alone. With this in mind the average efficiency of a conventional automotive engine on the highway is no doubt higher than 12%, yet I maintain that it remains far below the peak efficiency of the engine. A cyclone powered Prius, therefore, would probably not see 50% greater fuel economy. However, I believe with confidence that it would be markedly better than the gas/electric Prius.

As I said before, this engine has a lot benefits/potentials not found in traditional ICEs. However, the auto industry is not the internet where something new and remarkable can become a sensation overnight. In order for them to become successful in the consumer auto market, Cyclone Power might have to go through quite a few money lossing years, and time/money is not on their side. This is probably one reason that their stock being traded in OC instead of Nasdaq.

Max, of course the market will determine finally if the Cyclone is a success. But if you take some time to consider objectively the advantages of the Cyclone over the internal combustion engine for applications including stationary power, automotive, boating, and small engines then you should conclude that the Cyclone has a good chance of succeeding in the market place. In fact, any engine of variable output used today could be replaced by a Cyclone to lower operating costs. I say that the only thing to stop the Cyclone from making it big time would be some fundamental flaw in the design that makes maintenance costs excessive or greatly reduces longevity. However, if it turns out that the construction costs and long term maintenance costs of the Cyclone are no greater than conventional engines, then the tremendous savings in fuel costs will bring the Cyclone into prominence in the near future. Perhaps buying some Cyclone stock in the near future is not a bad idea.  

Check out the Scuderi Split Cycle engine and Scuderi Air-hybrid being developed.  This requires no special infrastructure change or tooling but can increase gas mileage at least 30% and reduce emissions 80%. The prototype is in process now but the computer modeling completed by Southwest Research Institute has validated the design(s).  This had a front page on Machine Design a year ago and I've been following it since.  It's not the replacement we need for fossil fuels but it will benefit everyone until that invention comes along.  This engine can burn anything that the current engines can burn and it appears the greatest benefit is in diesel making the earlier numbers even more significant.

Go on, flame it for being 'fabless' and not integrating HVAC and regenerative brakes (and roaded axles, one supposes) in the high-pressure block too.  Success in the municipal, construction, and architectural motion markets could be enough.

It is easy to reject out of hand because it is neither planar nor shipped with an 0.2W demo board and spice models.  Sed Muove, Bruno!

I have been following the development of Scuderi Split Cycle for a while. It is a piston Bryton cycle engine with the mix in the expender and an one way valve. So it should have the same efficiency as a gas turbine for the same compression ratio. Back to Cyclone power. The fact that the company looks like a intellectual holding company really bothers me. If the engine is so simple and costs so little to build, why aren't they start producing auto engines.

(addendum)

Another issue is with leaks. I checked some supercritical water power plants. The water leak is about 20gallons/minute for 500MW output. That comes to about 1 gallon of deionized water for every 600miles driven with a 50hp engine driving at 60miles/h. If I am running low with water while driving cross country, where am I going find deionized water in the middle of the desert?

Max, I like the Scuderi engine too. I prefer the Cyclone primarily because it can use a far wider range of fuels including fuels that require less refining. The Cyclone is also far simpler, and while further testing should reveal with certainty, I expect the Cyclone to require less maintenance and achieve greater longevity than internal combustion engines because the peak operating temperatures are lower and there is no carbon fouling in the cylinders.

As far as your concern on water leaking, the Cyclone is a hermetically sealed system. Leakage is minimal. It would be a mistake to compare a Cyclone engine to an electrical power plant with respect to leakage. I used to be a steam plant operator in a power plant. There are so many places for water to leak and so much water in the system that water leakage is inevitable. In short, it does not follow that the Cyclone engine leaks water merely because a modern steam power plant leaks water. One could compare the thermodynamics of the two, but they are two different systems.

Cyclone is devoted to developing the engines not its manufacture and distribution. But one answer to your question as to why we don't see Cyclones on the market yet is because its a new invention, and also because it's very difficult for people to break away from the status quo and objectively consider alternatives... especially a "steam engine" that the internal engine supplanted almost a hundred years ago.

Just some more comments on efficiency because so many seem to be concerned about this.

I'm going to try and bring the reader down to Earth with the following comments by emphasizing a truth. This truth is that efficiency should not be determined as an engineer would by, for example, measuring the work performed by the engine, minus transmission losses, and then compared with the heat expended in burning the fuel (i.e. net thermal efficiency) or similar approaches. In reality, efficiency, as Harry Schoell likes to say, is a four letter word: C O S T.

So, even if an internal combustion configuration, such as the Scuderi, were to achieve better net thermal efficiency than the Cyclone (and it may not), it is the net cost of operation including fuel costs that matters in the real world. Consider that the Cyclone can literally be fueled by crude oil. This would cut out a huge cost, the cost of refining and additives. Consider that cellulosic ethanol may be cost effective today if used to fuel a Cyclone engine because only the intitial distillation step is required. Consider also that the Cyclone could likely be fueled by coal in the form of a coal slurry, and a Cyclone has been operated for brief periods in testing using coal dust. The price of coal ($/btu) is less than that of oil by a factor of 5-20, depending on quality... and the U.S. just happens to have about a third of all known high grade coal deposits in the world.

Fuel flexibility ... what about the air-hybrid ... can't get cheaper than air!  And the jury and IR&D is still out as to how much more flexible Scuderi is going to be able to be ... there are constant tweaks and improvements going on now!  

Mark, kindly send me an e-mail

abigpicture@aol.com

seems you know much about the cyclone engine.

do you know any techincal things about it?

not interested in the intellectual property, but as a possible

licensee for power generation?

Mark,

any idea of what the emmissions would be like

using a coal slurry?

Thanks

JOHN

I thought of it again. The Cyclone is very applicable for residential power generation. It is quiet, and more efficient than small ICEs. For automobile application, there are just too many ways for it to go wrong.

Please note that I am not affiliated with Cyclone Power Technologies in any way. I have only followed their work with interest for the last couple of years.

Note also that I have no knowledge of a Cyclone engine having been fueled by a coal slurry, but based on my understanding it should be possible.

As far as emissions if a coal slurry were used, I am speculating but I suspect that it would be quite good when one considers the configuration of the combustion chamber. The air is admitted tangentially into the cylindrical combustion chamber creating a vortex (hence the name "Cyclone"). This generates centrifugal forces that cause particles of greater density to remain on the exterior. The result is that fuel particles tend to remain in the combustion chamber much longer allowing for complete combustion. The hot combustion gasses then pass through a 'pancake' stack of heat exchanger tubing (from the outside in) to finally escape through the exhaust that lies in the top center of the combustion chamber, right above the center of the heat exchanger tubing stack. From there the exhaust gasses pass through a heat exchanger that preheats the air before it first enters the combustion chamber. So, the air is at about 500F when it first enters the combustion chamber, and the exhaust gasses finally leaving the engine is only about 350F.

Max, I am genuinely curious to know what sort of problems you anticipate for the Cyclone in the automotive application. It seems to me that there are many more ways for conventional automotive configurations to "go wrong", yet they seem to work just fine.

Max  .....I don't beleive that is correct.....how many ways can it go wrong...anymore than an ICE?

john

no radiator to overheat...no transmission to break... no

oil to leak......I don't see the downside here....enlighten us..

Mark, I understand how it works perfectly. The problem I have with this engine when used is an automotive application is when you and I drive the car, it will work perfectly. When the general public drive it, they will run through pot holes, bang it left and right, rupture part of the water lines and total the engine. Another thing is the water leak, there is just no such thing as a closed system, and you think the house wives will keep an eye on the water level. In an ICE. When you are low in (or run out of) motor oil, the car can still run for many many miles before the engine dies. With the Cyclone, water is life, no water, no go, and good luck finding deionized water at gas stations.

Abigpicture, for residential power generation, the Cyclone is perfect as the electric generator can be integrated into the engine.  So a totally closed system is possible. No crank sharf, no throttling valve, and no water leak.

Max, yours are legitimate concerns. Yet I believe that the problems are not insurmountable. I strongly assert that these problems can be solved, and the incentives currently in place will make their solution all the more likely in coming years.

There would certainly be some water lost during operation, only a fool would believe otherwise. But if the water loss is minimal such that only infrequent additions of water is necessary, perhaps annually or even semi-annually, then this would be perfectly acceptable to the public as far as I'm concerned.

The Cyclone has many years of rigorous testing before it may be considered ready for a big move into the market place.  I am hopeful, and I am betting long on its success.

Max, much less of a problem than building a nuke power plant, or

drill deep for black gold. This is an easy fix compared to other solutions. good luck to the inventor.

In the horse and buggy days- (not that not long ago )Gasoline was not readily available in the desert nor elsewhere. ICE cars brought the demand that made gasoline available everywhere.

If these Cyclones got popular and needed water, water would become available. I don't see the difference

A few general comments:

Existing internal combustion engines are not (as Mark said) most efficienct at maximum power.  They are most efficient at maximum torque, which is typically at a much lower rpm, and may be associated with 60 or 70% of maximum power.  

The prius engine is 38% efficient, prior to any hydridizing effects, so a significant improvement beyond the Prius is very unlikely.  In fact, there is nothing in this presentation that would lead me to think that this engine in a Prius-sized car would acheive Prius-like mileage.   (Several automotive diesels, incidentally, are now over 40% efficient .)

The engine's natural torque curve, which falls off dramatically with RPM, is not the torque curve we generally want in an engine, nor is it the torque curve we usually associate with an electric motor, the permanent magnet versions of which can produce constant torques and hp that increase in straight line fashion.  The engine's natural torque curve suggests very high acceleration at low speeds,  with rates falling off much faster than they would in first and second gear in a conventional vehicle.  

Despite all that, it is an impressive effort, and it is a very young technology, competing with highly-evolved engines and highly-evolved supporting systems.    

I doubt that leakage would be any more of a problem than in a sealed refrigeration unit, most of which go 10 - 15 years without attention.   If leakage were a concern, a simple onboard water tank, with automatic pressure feed would suffice for occasional top ups -- but honestly, I think there is no merit at all to the leakage argument.  

Certainly interesting.    

I like the idea but how long does it take to warm up

in the morning when you get ready to drive to work?  Maybe

you put in a timer that gets it going early.

Or maybe combine it with an electric motor and use the

Cyclone as generator.  

Ken Fry, I disagree with some of your comments, but in particular the implications of your comments concerning the efficiency of the Prius engine.

What is relevant to this discussion is that the efficiency of the internal combustion engine varies a great deal over the power range (or torque if you wish - who cares?... within a narrow rpm range the two are directly proportional anyway). As far as I'm concerned, you're missing the forest for the trees in emphasizing the difference. The fact remains that automotive engines, on average, do not operate near their greatest possible efficiency the vast majority of the time in the real world.

The efficiency of the Prius engine has been measured at the low end of Diesel engine efficiencies, this is true (low 30's, I disagree with your claim of high 30's). However, the Prius is a parallel hybrid, and as such the engine does not operate at its peak efficiency most of the time during operation. Please consider the results of the retrofitted Opel that I mentioned. If the Prius engine sees 38% efficiency during operation as you claim, then how does a series hybrid Opel using a late 1970's gasoline lawn mower engine achieve 75 mpg in city driving, and with generator and battery losses to contend with? I seriously doubt the lawn mover engine was achieving 50%+ efficiency. Quite frankly, the 38% efficiency figure might be true in Alice's Wonderland, but not here on Earth.

I maintain my position that a Prius fitted with a Cyclone engine will see an increase in fuel economy. I also maintain that your analysis is flawed.

Ken Fry, if you choose to reply to my comments, then you should also address the fuel economy seen in the Doble steam car. This massive vehicle of 5000 pounds is well known to see fuel economy roughly equivalent to a modern gasoline vehicle of equivalent mass (in CITY driving mind you).  The steam power plant used in the Doble was measured at a peak efficiency of about 18%, but saw closer to 12-15% during normal operation. One could reasonably conclude that the modern automotive gas engines are not operating at an efficiency that is appreciably greater than the Doble power plant. Now, assuming that the efficiency of the gas engines in trucks and SUV's of equivalant mass of the Doble is roughly the same as a conventional compact car the mass of a Prius, the greater fuel economy seen in the Prius considered as a function primarily of it's more efficient engine (other factors including lower air drag and lower rolling friction would deflate the real engine efficiency in this analysis) would put the real Prius engine efficiency at no better than the mid 20's (and that's generous). Of course, one need not go any further than the performance of the retrofitted Opel series hybrid powered by a late 1970's lawn mower engine (75 mpg city) to see the absurdity of the claim that the Prius operates at an efficiency in the high 30's.

Also, perhaps you may be interested in investigating the methodology used to measure the efficiency in internal combustion engines. While I am not certain, I believe that the efficiency is determined by comparing the power generated only on the power strokes as compared to the potential energy contained in the fuel consumed. In other words, they do not consider parasitic loads and the work required in compression. While I may be wrong, I am not making it up.

The way efficiency should be measured is to put the engine on a dyno and let it run a while. Measure the hp output and comparing it to the fuel burned. It should be a no brainer.

Max, I totally agree with you.

I'm sorry that I'm not able to provide any references or details regarding my comments on how IC engine efficiency is determined. It's been a while since I looked into it. If I come across more information I'll try to remember and post it here.

But either way it's not relevant to my primary argument that a Cyclone power car will see mpg greater than parallel hybrid cars (all other factors equal).... and could potentially see mpd (miles per dollar) far greater. The bottom line is that the efficiency of internal combustion engines varies dramatically over it's operating range, and peak efficiency is seen only under ideal conditions rarely seen outside a laboratory.

I, too, have been following Cyclone progress for quite a while (and others), not to mention electric and hybrid power and I doubt that anything other than IC will make an impression on the light vehicle market, regardless of operating cost advantages of a significant magnitude.

In my opinion, government legislation would need to force a change because:

1. Car companies margins are very slim (or negative) and an unforced change from IC to anything else would be expensive and too risky. Neither manufacturers, nor consumers, embrace radical change. The classic example is Toyota, the World's most successful and most conservative manufacturer.

2. Oil companies would lose out big time if they had to compete against alternative fuels and/or improved mpg. They have a huge infrastructure investment to protect and enough money and political clout to do it.

3. The Government consults the auto industry and oil industry before drafting legislation. If they stray out of line political donations get re-directed and consumers rebel if they see the Government restricting their 'rights' or increasing vehicle ownership costs (which they see as the cost of the vehicle before ticking the options boxes plus a few weeks fuel cost).

In my view the real potential is in heavy vehicles where initial outlay is very high and ongoing costs are critical. At the big end of the transport industry Accountants rule. They are also very conservative but if an accountant can see a safe way to significantly cut costs it will be like an orgasm. (Slight narrowing of the eyes and just a hint of a smile.)

Personally, if I could buy it, I would retrofit one of my cars with a Cyclone Engine, an electric motor and enough batteries to enable instant action until the Cyclone gets up to operating temperature in the most extreme weather. Then I would test it carefully for a couple of years and if I figured the payback period might be 5 years or so I would pursue the retro-fit market vigorously because there would be plenty of willing punters and the car manufacturers won't move into the market for many years, if at all.

Hi Redrik. I agree with you that the Cyclone is ideal for heavy vehicles. I also expect them to get into the small engine market (lawn equipement, etc).

About warm up time... the Cyclone requires only one minute for warm up from cold... no need at all for the electric drive system. The Cyclone requires less warm up time than Diesel engines.

One says the hybrids are competitive with this one.

But this one can go as the combustion component

of hybrids

I've looked at about twenty different options for a range extender for a plug in electric series hybrid and I think this is the best one yet- it has most of the advantages of a Stirling with a much better power density

Bill, the efficiency of the Cyclone does not vary much over its power range like internal combustion engines. Therefore, if you hybridize the Cyclone, then generator/battery/motor losses will drop the overall efficiency markedly as compared to the straight Cyclone power train. Check out my previous comments. I stand by my assertion that an automobile powered by a Cyclone engine will see better mpg (all other factors equal) than hybrid cars.

Mark ,you are right if I was looking for a motor that would be used constantly or very frequently - I'm looking for an engine that would only be used about 20 days a year as range extender and serve as a back-up/ mobile generator the rest of the time- one of my concerns for an ICE is if it doesn't run enough you might have problems with it.

Bill... so, it seems that you're looking to construct an electric vehicle, but with a versatile and efficient power plant to serve as a range extender (when needed) and also to provide electrical power for other uses? If so, then I love the idea, and I agree that the Cyclone would be ideal. Have you checked out their web site and the numerous other Cyclone engines that they're working on? There are some smaller models that will likely interest you. The Mark II is a two cylinder design that can generate 10kw electrical. It is not as efficient as the automotive design, but better than conventional gasoline IC generators on the market today.