On Jul 4, 7:01 pm, Tom Quackenbush wrote:

I thought that the simplicity of the idea was striking, as well. I
was wondering if there was some obvious "gotcha" factor that I hadn't
considered.

I'm no phycisist, but I'm wondering how much of the heat of the
next fuel burn cycle is going to be absorbed by the piston/cylinder/
head after the water has cooled these things off. And will that heat
absorbtion reduce the power output of the stroke? The reduced cooling
requirements seem to imply that less power is wasted, but if we lose a
whole cycle to this idea, plus the fact that the energy went out
through the exhaust in the form of water vapor rather than off the
rad, is anything really different? The cooler cylinder will be able to
draw in more fuel/air mix, as it doesn't expand so much passing
through the head, but that just burns more fuel and produces more
power. It doesn't save energy.
Maybe it'll work, but there are, in my experience, a lot of
little "gotchas" that crop up in "new" designs and make them useless.

Dan