Inside Bruce Crower’s Six-Stroke Engine:
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dl...THISWEEKSISSUE
[...]
“I’ve been trying to think how to capture radiator losses for over 30
years,” explains the veteran camshaft grinder and race engine builder.
“One morning about 18 months ago I woke up, like from a dream, and I
knew immediately that I had the answer.”
[...]

Basically, his engine injects water into the cylinder after the
normal exhaust strike, which adds another steam power stroke and
exhaust stroke, as well as cooling the cylinder. This apparently
eliminates the need for an external cooling system and uses some of
the heat energy that would otherwise be lost through the radiator.

Thoughts? Would this present a corrosion issue? Does it sound
worthwhile?

R,
Tom Q.

Christopher Tidy wrote:
Tom Quackenbush wrote:
Inside Bruce Crower’s Six-Stroke Engine:
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dl...THISWEEKSISSUE

[...]
“I’ve been trying to think how to capture radiator losses for over 30
years,” explains the veteran camshaft grinder and race engine builder.
“One morning about 18 months ago I woke up, like from a dream, and I
knew immediately that I had the answer.”
[...]

Basically, his engine injects water into the cylinder after the
normal exhaust strike, which adds another steam power stroke and
exhaust stroke, as well as cooling the cylinder. This apparently
eliminates the need for an external cooling system and uses some of
the heat energy that would otherwise be lost through the radiator.

Thoughts? Would this present a corrosion issue? Does it sound
worthwhile?

I suspect it won't present a corrosion problem. You've got to remember
that water is a product of combustion in any internal combustion engine,
so there's a lot of steam in the cylinders anyway.

It's an interesting idea. I will be keen to see how it develops. The
downside will be that you have to fill your car with water as well as
petrol, unless he includes a condenser to recover the water from the
exhaust gases.

Best wishes,

Chris

You'd have to fill your car with fairly special water -- or you'd have
all sorts of weird deposits on your cylinder walls.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Do you need to implement control loops in software?
"Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" gives you just what it says.
See details at http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html

Christopher Tidy wrote:

Tom Quackenbush

I suspect it won't present a corrosion problem. You've got to remember
that water is a product of combustion in any internal combustion engine,
so there's a lot of steam in the cylinders anyway.

Good point.

It's an interesting idea. I will be keen to see how it develops. The
downside will be that you have to fill your car with water as well as
petrol, unless he includes a condenser to recover the water from the
exhaust gases.

I did read somewhere that he planned to incorporate a condenser
later. It wouldn't have to be particularly efficient, either, given
the water contained in the combustion exhaust.

R,
Tom Q.

Tim Wescott wrote:
snip
You'd have to fill your car with fairly special water -- or you'd have
all sorts of weird deposits on your cylinder walls.

But they'd be being steam-cleaned. g

You raise a good point. I think the article mentioned distilled
water, but that Crower was using rain water. I'd think you'd want to
meet similar standards as apply to boiler feedwater. If the system
included a condensor, it would be less of an issue.

R,
Tom Q.

Christopher Tidy wrote:

It's an interesting idea. I will be keen to see how it develops. The
downside will be that you have to fill your car with water as well as
petrol, unless he includes a condenser to recover the water from the
exhaust gases.

Be easy enough to rig up some kind of bifurcated fueling nozzle with two
adjacent orifices on the car. If it can really run that cool, imagine
the advances in aero design with no need for a massive airflow over the
motor or radiator.

It is a brilliant idea, so simple in the concept. Keeping the water
liquid in a Minnesota winter might be tricky, but a small heater in a
short run tank, and the exhaust pipe through the main tank, and building
in a way to freeze/thaw without damage (elastic tank & hoses?) might get
there.

Stuart

Tom Quackenbush wrote:
Inside Bruce Crower’s Six-Stroke Engine:
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dl...THISWEEKSISSUE
[...]
“I’ve been trying to think how to capture radiator losses for over 30
years,” explains the veteran camshaft grinder and race engine builder.
“One morning about 18 months ago I woke up, like from a dream, and I
knew immediately that I had the answer.”
[...]

Basically, his engine injects water into the cylinder after the
normal exhaust strike, which adds another steam power stroke and
exhaust stroke, as well as cooling the cylinder. This apparently
eliminates the need for an external cooling system and uses some of
the heat energy that would otherwise be lost through the radiator.

Thoughts? Would this present a corrosion issue? Does it sound
worthwhile?

I suspect it won't present a corrosion problem. You've got to remember
that water is a product of combustion in any internal combustion engine,
so there's a lot of steam in the cylinders anyway.

It's an interesting idea. I will be keen to see how it develops. The
downside will be that you have to fill your car with water as well as
petrol, unless he includes a condenser to recover the water from the
exhaust gases.

Best wishes,

Chris

Stuart Wheaton wrote:
snip

Be easy enough to rig up some kind of bifurcated fueling nozzle with two
adjacent orifices on the car. If it can really run that cool, imagine
the advances in aero design with no need for a massive airflow over the
motor or radiator.

The article mentioned that Crower had converted a diesel engine to
run on gasoline & that he was using the fuel injectors to inject the
water. I don't know if he was still using the injectors for the gas,
though. Seems like it could present problems if you used the same
injector for both water and fuel. Like you say, some sort of
bifurcated injector should work.

It is a brilliant idea, so simple in the concept. Keeping the water
liquid in a Minnesota winter might be tricky, but a small heater in a
short run tank, and the exhaust pipe through the main tank, and building
in a way to freeze/thaw without damage (elastic tank & hoses?) might get
there.

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.

Good points about accommodating feed water in sub-freezing
temperatures; I hadn't thought of that. Water- ice in a pail expands
up and doesn't split the pail, maybe something like that would work,
also. l

R,
Tom Q.

What occurs to me is that this could be the solution to the running-lean
problem. Gas engines run way richer than they need to, 'cause running
lean gets too hot. But lean is more fuel efficient so if you can keep
the heat down with the water cycle you could run lean & gain that
efficiency, in addition to recovering the "radiator" heat.

Bob

Bob Engelhardt wrote:

What occurs to me is that this could be the solution to the running-lean
problem. Gas engines run way richer than they need to, 'cause running
lean gets too hot. But lean is more fuel efficient so if you can keep
the heat down with the water cycle you could run lean & gain that
efficiency, in addition to recovering the "radiator" heat.

Another good point.

R,
Tom Q.

On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 19:34:58 -0400, Tom Quackenbush
wrote:

Inside Bruce Crower’s Six-Stroke Engine:
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dl...THISWEEKSISSUE
[...]
“I’ve been trying to think how to capture radiator losses for over 30
years,” explains the veteran camshaft grinder and race engine builder.
“One morning about 18 months ago I woke up, like from a dream, and I
knew immediately that I had the answer.”
[...]

Basically, his engine injects water into the cylinder after the
normal exhaust strike, which adds another steam power stroke and
exhaust stroke, as well as cooling the cylinder. This apparently
eliminates the need for an external cooling system and uses some of
the heat energy that would otherwise be lost through the radiator.

Thoughts? Would this present a corrosion issue? Does it sound
worthwhile?

R,
Tom Q.


Sounds like a winner for hydrogen fuel..it could use the water formed
as the injectible water.....


Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional,
illogical liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an
unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the
proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Gunner Asch wrote:

Sounds like a winner for hydrogen fuel..it could use the water formed
as the injectible water.....

True - you could approach 100% recovery from H2/O2 exhaust. I think
that some or all the hydrogen burning engines burn some nitrogen,
though.

Even with hydrocarbon fuels you could reclaim a lot of water from
the exhaust. Something tells me that you've had occasion to run a gas
or propane heater in an enclosed area before. Lots of water appears.


R,
Tom Q.

A crock by any other name . . . . .

Bob Swinney
"Tom Quackenbush" wrote in message
news Inside Bruce Crower’s Six-Stroke Engine:
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dl...THISWEEKSISSUE
[...]
“I’ve been trying to think how to capture radiator losses for over 30
years,” explains the veteran camshaft grinder and race engine builder.
“One morning about 18 months ago I woke up, like from a dream, and I
knew immediately that I had the answer.”
[...]

Basically, his engine injects water into the cylinder after the
normal exhaust strike, which adds another steam power stroke and
exhaust stroke, as well as cooling the cylinder. This apparently
eliminates the need for an external cooling system and uses some of
the heat energy that would otherwise be lost through the radiator.

Thoughts? Would this present a corrosion issue? Does it sound
worthwhile?

R,
Tom Q.

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 20:39:00 -0400, Stuart Wheaton
wrote:

Christopher Tidy wrote:

It's an interesting idea. I will be keen to see how it develops. The
downside will be that you have to fill your car with water as well as
petrol, unless he includes a condenser to recover the water from the
exhaust gases.

Be easy enough to rig up some kind of bifurcated fueling nozzle with two
adjacent orifices on the car. If it can really run that cool, imagine
the advances in aero design with no need for a massive airflow over the
motor or radiator.

It is a brilliant idea, so simple in the concept. Keeping the water
liquid in a Minnesota winter might be tricky, but a small heater in a
short run tank, and the exhaust pipe through the main tank, and building
in a way to freeze/thaw without damage (elastic tank & hoses?) might get
there.

Stuart


Or add some ethanol to the water.....


Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional,
illogical liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an
unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the
proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

"Tom Quackenbush" wrote in message
...
Stuart Wheaton wrote:
snip

Be easy enough to rig up some kind of bifurcated fueling nozzle with two
adjacent orifices on the car. If it can really run that cool, imagine
the advances in aero design with no need for a massive airflow over the
motor or radiator.

The article mentioned that Crower had converted a diesel engine to
run on gasoline & that he was using the fuel injectors to inject the
water. I don't know if he was still using the injectors for the gas,
though. Seems like it could present problems if you used the same
injector for both water and fuel. Like you say, some sort of
bifurcated injector should work.

It is a brilliant idea, so simple in the concept.

FWIW, there was an engine of similar concept built in the 1920s. At least a
couple of them wound up in marine installations. Fuel was cheaper then and
they proved not to be worth the complication.

I only mention that because the idea of a two-stage engine producing steam
is really an old one. There were a number of two-stage transportation
engines (trucks or cars) built by the major manufacturers, as prototypes, in
the 1970s.

I found that 1920s engine somewhere on the Web the last time this was
discussed, within the past year.

On a different tack, the current record holder for efficiency is a two-stage
stationary turbine built by GE this year. It ran at 51% thermal efficiency.
These prime movers are one of the two types of gas/steam turbines that are
being built in some new generating-plant installations. The other
technology, which produces efficiency in the 42% - 47% range, is
supercritical steam.

--
Ed Huntress

"Tom Quackenbush" wrote in message
news
Inside Bruce Crower's Six-Stroke Engine:
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dl...THISWEEKSISSUE
[...]

If anyone can pull this off, it is Bruce Crower. In the mid 60's, he
developed a clutch system we used on AA Fuel dragsters to eliminate
Wheel spin and the need for any transmission. The guy is a mechanical genius
--
Peter DiVergilio
Most of the money I've wasted was mostly spent trying to impress people who
were never going to like me anyway!

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

On a different tack, the current record holder for efficiency is a
two-stage stationary turbine built by GE this year. It ran at 51% thermal
efficiency.

Hmm. That may be 61%. I'd have to look it up.

--
Ed Huntress

Assume that you can inject water on the downstroke following the normal
exhaust stroke, have it evaporate rapidly enough to furnish steam presure to
add some net power to the crankshaft. In addition to all the other
questions raised, I will add this one. You will now have TWO power strokes.
The second one will probably give you less power than the first. If it's a
lot less, then the engine will end up with less net horsepower, because the
gasoline power strokes will be spaced further apart. Then, if you can get
it to produce some steam power at full throttle, what will happen as you
throttle down? Will you still have enough heat in the cylinders to generate
steam pressure?

Leo Lichtman wrote:
Assume that you can inject water on the downstroke following the normal
exhaust stroke, have it evaporate rapidly enough to furnish steam presure to
add some net power to the crankshaft.

To be picky about: you would add water at the top of the exhaust stroke.
You would meter the amount of water so that it would all boil (flash).

... You will now have TWO power strokes.
The second one will probably give you less power than the first. If it's a
lot less, then the engine will end up with less net horsepower, because the
gasoline power strokes will be spaced further apart.

True, but the gas use is also less & given you're getting *some* power
from the steam stroke, your efficiency will be higher. Putting it the
other way around: if you increase the RPM so that your gas use is the
same as a 4-cycle (same number of combustion strokes per second), you
will get more power.

Then, if you can get
it to produce some steam power at full throttle, what will happen as you
throttle down? Will you still have enough heat in the cylinders to generate
steam pressure?

You'll have enough heat to produce *some* steam. You just "throttle"
the water along with the gas.

Bob

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

On Jul 4, 7:27 pm, Bob Engelhardt wrote:
What occurs to me is that this could be the solution to the running-lean
problem. Gas engines run way richer than they need to, 'cause running
lean gets too hot.

Not so much anymore. With computerized fuel injection and
knock sensors and the like, mixtures are about as lean as you can get,
I think. Aircraft engines, being air-cooled, will consume much more
fuel at high power settings just to cool them, but in cruise we can
lean them (manually) to the lean side of Peak Exhaust Temperature and
get better mileage. The key there is injection that's uniform
(difficult to achieve with the mechanical systems used on aircraft,
and the primitive induction systems) and lower power settings, usually
65% or so.
Computerized systems are a ways off for aircraft. The
reliability of such stuff isn't good enough yet and requires too many
backup systems. But they sure do the trick in autos.

Dan

On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 17:02:49 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Jul 4, 7:27 pm, Bob Engelhardt wrote:
What occurs to me is that this could be the solution to the running-lean
problem. Gas engines run way richer than they need to, 'cause running
lean gets too hot.

Not so much anymore. With computerized fuel injection and
knock sensors and the like, mixtures are about as lean as you can get,
I think. Aircraft engines, being air-cooled, will consume much more
fuel at high power settings just to cool them, but in cruise we can
lean them (manually) to the lean side of Peak Exhaust Temperature and
get better mileage. The key there is injection that's uniform
(difficult to achieve with the mechanical systems used on aircraft,
and the primitive induction systems) and lower power settings, usually
65% or so.
Computerized systems are a ways off for aircraft. The
reliability of such stuff isn't good enough yet and requires too many
backup systems. But they sure do the trick in autos.

Dan

I find that inference odd. That computers and associated electronics
are less reliable than the mechanical systems they replace. In cars
they are much more reliable than the mechanical systems they replace.
It kinda gives me the creeps to think of driving a car with electronic
steering but you can buy them. Maybe it's not the reliablility that's
the issue, but cost. The cost of testing and certifying.
ERS

On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 04:34:35 GMT, wrote:


I find that inference odd. That computers and associated electronics
are less reliable than the mechanical systems they replace. In cars
they are much more reliable than the mechanical systems they replace.
It kinda gives me the creeps to think of driving a car with electronic
steering but you can buy them. Maybe it's not the reliablility that's
the issue, but cost. The cost of testing and certifying.
ERS

You are sooo right! Which is why tractor magnetos are much more
reliable than aircraft mags - product improvement without
certification costs.

Bob

http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060227/FREE/302270007/1023/THISWEEKSISSUE

--
Pete Snell
Department of Physics
Royal Military College
Kingston, Ontario,
Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
it's spring and the goat-footed balloonMan whistles far and wee

eecummings (1894-1962) Chansons Innocentes: I

"Bob Engelhardt" wrote: (clip) the gas use is also less & given you're
getting *some* power
from the steam stroke, your efficiency will be higher. Putting it the
other way around: if you increase the RPM so that your gas use is the same
as a 4-cycle (same number of combustion strokes per second), you will get
more power. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thanks. You understood my confusion.

wrote in message
...
On Jul 4, 7:27 pm, Bob Engelhardt wrote:
What occurs to me is that this could be the solution to the running-lean
problem. Gas engines run way richer than they need to, 'cause running
lean gets too hot.

Not so much anymore. With computerized fuel injection and
knock sensors and the like, mixtures are about as lean as you can get,
I think. Aircraft engines, being air-cooled, will consume much more
fuel at high power settings just to cool them, but in cruise we can
lean them (manually) to the lean side of Peak Exhaust Temperature and
get better mileage. The key there is injection that's uniform
(difficult to achieve with the mechanical systems used on aircraft,
and the primitive induction systems) and lower power settings, usually
65% or so.
Computerized systems are a ways off for aircraft. The
reliability of such stuff isn't good enough yet and requires too many
backup systems. But they sure do the trick in autos.

Dan


Aircraft are already using electronic engine controls.

Cessna has diesel with electronice engine management, for one.

As for the water injection, there's a guy doing development on that right
now, he claims 5% efficiency improvement on diesels, as high as 40% on
gasoline engines.
Can't recall the name, he's a camshaft manufacturer.

On Jul 7, 11:51 am, "Jon" wrote:

Aircraft are already using electronic engine controls.

Cessna has diesel with electronice engine management, for one.

No, they're working on it. They don't have a saleable airplane.
Their engine is the Thielert Centurion, and Thielert is in deep
financial trouble, partly because they've had several engines quit
when the FADEC (Full Authority Digital Engine Controls) failed when
the power supply was lost. Electrical supply is critical, and so we
still have most piston engined airplanes using magnetos, which are
self-contained. Even airliners using electronic engine controls and
fly-by-wire flight controls still need several backup systems, both in
the computerized controls and their power supplies. Redundant systems
in little airplanes add a lot of complexity, cost and weight, and the
airplane becomes financially unattractive and a maintenance headache.
Any failure that kills someone can turn into a compnay-killing
lawsuit. One failure, one death. It's that simple. Thielert may not
survive their current problems, and their biggest customer, Diamond
Aircraft, who use the Centurion in their Twinstar, might buy it and
try to keep the supply coming.

Dan

On Jul 4, 6:34*pm, Tom Quackenbush wrote:
Inside Bruce Crower’s Six-Stroke Engine:http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dl...0227/FREE/3022...
[...]
“I’ve been trying to think how to capture radiator losses for over 30
years,” explains the veteran camshaft grinder and race engine builder.
“One morning about 18 months ago I woke up, like from a dream, and I
knew immediately that I had the answer.”
[...]

* *Basically, his engine injects water into the cylinder after the
normal exhaust strike, which adds another steam power stroke and
exhaust stroke, as well as cooling the cylinder. This apparently
eliminates the need for an external cooling system and uses some of
the heat energy that would otherwise be lost through the radiator.

* Thoughts? Would this present a corrosion issue? Does it sound
worthwhile?

R,
Tom Q.

But then, if you cool the cylinder down, doesn't the next cycle lose
efficiency in the gasoline portion of the cycle?

In article
,
Don Stauffer in Minnesota wrote:

But then, if you cool the cylinder down, doesn't the next cycle lose
efficiency in the gasoline portion of the cycle?

Or4 does it gain efficiency by letting more air in ?

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Don Stauffer in Minnesota wrote:

On Jul 4, 6:34 pm, Tom Quackenbush wrote:

Inside Bruce Crower’s Six-Stroke Engine:http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dl...0227/FREE/3022...
[...]
“I’ve been trying to think how to capture radiator losses for over 30
years,” explains the veteran camshaft grinder and race engine builder.
“One morning about 18 months ago I woke up, like from a dream, and I
knew immediately that I had the answer.”
[...]

Basically, his engine injects water into the cylinder after the
normal exhaust strike, which adds another steam power stroke and
exhaust stroke, as well as cooling the cylinder. This apparently
eliminates the need for an external cooling system and uses some of
the heat energy that would otherwise be lost through the radiator.

Thoughts? Would this present a corrosion issue? Does it sound
worthwhile?

R,
Tom Q.


But then, if you cool the cylinder down, doesn't the next cycle lose
efficiency in the gasoline portion of the cycle?


I'm going to guess that it depends on the heat.

How hot the cylinder is - and how much heat is removed.

There is probably a peak temperature at which things are most efficient.
Above that (or below it) efficiency would be less.

Auto engines have water jackets and radiators to remove excess heat.
Without them the engine would overheat and fail.

If this trick can make the engine work right at the right temperature
the engine might not need (as much?) external cooling.

SWAG, that's all.

Richard


--
(remove the X to email)

Now just why the HELL do I have to press 1 for English?
John Wayne

"cavelamb himself" wrote: If this trick can make the engine work right at
the right temperature
the engine might not need (as much?) external cooling.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Since the timing and quantity of water injected is controlled by the
designer, it ought to be possible to completely eliminate the water jacket,
pump and radiator. Maybe add an oil cooler, if water injection doesn't
properly handle crank case temperature.

Leo Lichtman wrote:
"cavelamb himself" wrote: If this trick can make the engine work right at
the right temperature

the engine might not need (as much?) external cooling.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Since the timing and quantity of water injected is controlled by the
designer, it ought to be possible to completely eliminate the water jacket,
pump and radiator. Maybe add an oil cooler, if water injection doesn't
properly handle crank case temperature.




And - just possibly - build an internal combustion engine that actually
IS efficient?

Or more so than the ones in use today at least.

On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 17:51:05 GMT, "Jon"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Jul 4, 7:27 pm, Bob Engelhardt wrote:
What occurs to me is that this could be the solution to the running-lean
problem. Gas engines run way richer than they need to, 'cause running
lean gets too hot.

Not so much anymore. With computerized fuel injection and
knock sensors and the like, mixtures are about as lean as you can get,
I think. Aircraft engines, being air-cooled, will consume much more
fuel at high power settings just to cool them, but in cruise we can
lean them (manually) to the lean side of Peak Exhaust Temperature and
get better mileage. The key there is injection that's uniform
(difficult to achieve with the mechanical systems used on aircraft,
and the primitive induction systems) and lower power settings, usually
65% or so.
Computerized systems are a ways off for aircraft. The
reliability of such stuff isn't good enough yet and requires too many
backup systems. But they sure do the trick in autos.

Dan


Aircraft are already using electronic engine controls.

Cessna has diesel with electronice engine management, for one.

As for the water injection, there's a guy doing development on that right
now, he claims 5% efficiency improvement on diesels, as high as 40% on
gasoline engines.
Can't recall the name, he's a camshaft manufacturer.


Heck, most of the newer diesel pickups now built in Thailand have
computerized engine controls and get better fuel economy then the
older mechanical injected models.


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

peter divergilio wrote:
Tom Quackenbush
Inside Bruce Crower's Six-Stroke Engine:
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dl...THISWEEKSISSUE
[...]

If anyone can pull this off, it is Bruce Crower. In the mid 60's, he
developed a clutch system we used on AA Fuel dragsters to eliminate
Wheel spin and the need for any transmission. The guy is a mechanical genius.

Thanks, Peter. I didn't know anything about his credentials beyond
what was said in the article.

R,
Tom Q.

Don Stauffer wrote:
Tom Quackenbush wrote:
snip
* *Basically, his engine injects water into the cylinder after the
normal exhaust strike, which adds another steam power stroke and
exhaust stroke, as well as cooling the cylinder. This apparently
eliminates the need for an external cooling system and uses some of
the heat energy that would otherwise be lost through the radiator.
snip.

But then, if you cool the cylinder down, doesn't the next cycle lose
efficiency in the gasoline portion of the cycle?

Good question. Does anyone here know what the optimum cylinder
temperature is for gasiline combustion?

In a sense, this system is replacing the normal water cooling system
and the amount of water injected could vary to provide the proper
cylinder temperature, within limits.

You could use one or more temperature sensors on the head to control
the amount of water injected and the degree of cooling (no pun
intended). You'd probably want the temp. sensors anyway - running out
of water and melting the engine is considered poor form, or so I've
heard.

R,

Tom Q.

Ed Huntress wrote:

FWIW, there was an engine of similar concept built in the 1920s. At least a
couple of them wound up in marine installations. Fuel was cheaper then and
they proved not to be worth the complication.

I only mention that because the idea of a two-stage engine producing steam
is really an old one. There were a number of two-stage transportation
engines (trucks or cars) built by the major manufacturers, as prototypes, in
the 1970s.

I found that 1920s engine somewhere on the Web the last time this was
discussed, within the past year.

On a different tack, the current record holder for efficiency is a two-stage
stationary turbine built by GE this year. It ran at 51% thermal efficiency.
These prime movers are one of the two types of gas/steam turbines that are
being built in some new generating-plant installations. The other
technology, which produces efficiency in the 42% - 47% range, is
supercritical steam.

Thanks, Ed.

R,
Tom Q.

Dan_Thomas wrote:

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.


Well, keep in mind that the cyclinder needs to be cooled anyway,
whether through conventonal air- or water-cooling, or through this
water inection method. The amount of cooling derived from this water
injection system could be tailored to approximate that of convential
cooling systems, if that turns out to be more efficient.

I'm in 100% agreement with your statement about the hidden
"gotchas". Just seemed like an interesting idea to kick around.

R,
Tom Q.

"Charlie+" wrote: (clip) Surely with modern electronic injector controls
the same effect could be
produced by metered atomised water injection a fraction after the oil/air
flame
front has started in a 4 stroke cycle. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This may be possible, but it culd be tricky. You don't want to cool the
burning gases excessively, because that would cause a loss in pressure, with
a resulting loss in power. OTOH, it's possible that the vaporizing water
could even out the cylinder pressure on the downstroke, resulting in a
longer sustained power stroke. This would be sort of like a steam Diesel
stroke. (The Diesel injects fuel evenly as the piston descends.)