In Autocar this week.

BMW are experimenting with using the waste heat from an IC engine to
produce steam which drives a motor attached to the main engine. On the
test bed they're getting a 15% saving in fuel consumption - at the same
time as more power and torque.

Seems it's not a new idea, but BMW reckon it is practical and should be in
production within 10 years.

--
*If you think nobody cares about you, try missing a couple of payments *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In Autocar this week.

BMW are experimenting with using the waste heat from an IC engine to
produce steam which drives a motor attached to the main engine. On the
test bed they're getting a 15% saving in fuel consumption - at the
same time as more power and torque.

Seems it's not a new idea, but BMW reckon it is practical and should
be in production within 10 years.

When I was a nipper my old man was a tinkerer in electric motors and
generators and although this is very vague he put together on a piece of
wood a small cycle light generator a 12 or 24 volt motor(?) and rechargable
battery connected together whereby the battery started the motor which in
turn rotated the generator wheel thus fed power to the battery for charging
purposes, obviously there was some electronics in between which as i said
was very vague recollection

--
Sir Benjamin Middlethwaite

The3rd Earl Of Derby wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In Autocar this week.

BMW are experimenting with using the waste heat from an IC engine to
produce steam which drives a motor attached to the main engine. On the
test bed they're getting a 15% saving in fuel consumption - at the
same time as more power and torque.

Seems it's not a new idea, but BMW reckon it is practical and should
be in production within 10 years.

When I was a nipper my old man was a tinkerer in electric motors and
generators and although this is very vague he put together on a piece of
wood a small cycle light generator a 12 or 24 volt motor(?) and rechargable
battery connected together whereby the battery started the motor which in
turn rotated the generator wheel thus fed power to the battery for charging
purposes, obviously there was some electronics in between which as i said
was very vague recollection

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

Alas, not.
However, the BMW gadget suffers from none of this - car engines are quite
inefficient (thermodynamically), and the exhaust temperature (at the
exhaust valve) is around 700C.

Current car engines are about 25% at best efficient, so 75% of power goes
out the exhaust pipe wasted.
Theoretically, about 66% of this could be recovered by a completely
efficient heat engine, but in practice, even large power stations only get
about 50%, and they start off a bit hotter, as well as having ready access
to cooling water.

10% is probably achievable - in the long term, for maybe a recovery of 7.5%,
or a gain in efficiency of 30%.
This means however major additional systems such as much, much bigger
radiators.

"Ian Stirling" wrote in message
...
The3rd Earl Of Derby wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In Autocar this week.

BMW are experimenting with using the waste heat from an IC engine to
produce steam which drives a motor attached to the main engine. On the
test bed they're getting a 15% saving in fuel consumption - at the
same time as more power and torque.

Seems it's not a new idea, but BMW reckon it is practical and should
be in production within 10 years.

When I was a nipper my old man was a tinkerer in electric motors and
generators and although this is very vague he put together on a piece of
wood a small cycle light generator a 12 or 24 volt motor(?) and
rechargable
battery connected together whereby the battery started the motor which in
turn rotated the generator wheel thus fed power to the battery for
charging
purposes, obviously there was some electronics in between which as i said
was very vague recollection

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

Alas, not.
However, the BMW gadget suffers from none of this - car engines are quite
inefficient (thermodynamically), and the exhaust temperature (at the
exhaust valve) is around 700C.

Current car engines are about 25% at best efficient, so 75% of power goes
out the exhaust pipe wasted.
Theoretically, about 66% of this could be recovered by a completely
efficient heat engine, but in practice, even large power stations only get
about 50%, and they start off a bit hotter, as well as having ready access
to cooling water.

10% is probably achievable - in the long term, for maybe a recovery of
7.5%,
or a gain in efficiency of 30%.
This means however major additional systems such as much, much bigger
radiators.

Best cars, maybe 18% efficiency, power stations lucky if 25%, fluidised coal
bed stations can reach 33% efficiency.

Best cars, maybe 18% efficiency, power stations lucky if 25%, fluidised
coal bed stations can reach 33% efficiency.
Can't remember the formulae following the Xmas lunch, but I think modern
coal/oil plant is knocking on 40% and CCGT more like 50

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 16:58:29 -0000, "Ian_m" wrote:

"Ian Stirling" wrote in message
...
The3rd Earl Of Derby wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In Autocar this week.

BMW are experimenting with using the waste heat from an IC engine to
produce steam which drives a motor attached to the main engine. On the
test bed they're getting a 15% saving in fuel consumption - at the
same time as more power and torque.

Seems it's not a new idea, but BMW reckon it is practical and should
be in production within 10 years.

When I was a nipper my old man was a tinkerer in electric motors and
generators and although this is very vague he put together on a piece of
wood a small cycle light generator a 12 or 24 volt motor(?) and
rechargable
battery connected together whereby the battery started the motor which in
turn rotated the generator wheel thus fed power to the battery for
charging
purposes, obviously there was some electronics in between which as i said
was very vague recollection

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

Alas, not.
However, the BMW gadget suffers from none of this - car engines are quite
inefficient (thermodynamically), and the exhaust temperature (at the
exhaust valve) is around 700C.

Current car engines are about 25% at best efficient, so 75% of power goes
out the exhaust pipe wasted.
Theoretically, about 66% of this could be recovered by a completely
efficient heat engine, but in practice, even large power stations only get
about 50%, and they start off a bit hotter, as well as having ready access
to cooling water.

10% is probably achievable - in the long term, for maybe a recovery of
7.5%,
or a gain in efficiency of 30%.
This means however major additional systems such as much, much bigger
radiators.

Best cars, maybe 18% efficiency, power stations lucky if 25%, fluidised coal
bed stations can reach 33% efficiency.

What class of power station? Coal fired steam turbine with/without
passout, gas turbine, gas turbine with cogen, Low speed heavy fuel
diesel engine with waste heat recovery,? There are many combinations
the most efficient of which is likely the slow speed heavy oil diesel
engine with waste heat recovery that will exceed 50% efficiency,
however, this type of generation is not, I believe, used in the UK.
Industrial gas turbine with cogen is probably a very close second,
again with 50% plus efficiency.

In message , Edward W.
Thompson writes
What class of power station? Coal fired steam turbine with/without
passout, gas turbine, gas turbine with cogen, Low speed heavy fuel
diesel engine with waste heat recovery,? There are many combinations
the most efficient of which is likely the slow speed heavy oil diesel
engine with waste heat recovery that will exceed 50% efficiency,
however, this type of generation is not, I believe, used in the UK.
Industrial gas turbine with cogen is probably a very close second,
again with 50% plus efficiency.
Baglan Bay in South Wales is the worlds most efficient (non-cogen) power
station with an expected test efficiency of around 60% (Google GE 9H gas
turbine), add in cogeneration and you can expect the thermal efficiency
to exceed 70%.

Your typical coal fired station like Drax or Didcot will be around 36%
efficient.
--
Andrew Sinclair http://www.smellycat.org

Ian_m wrote:

Best cars, maybe 18% efficiency, power stations lucky if 25%, fluidised coal
bed stations can reach 33% efficiency.

diesel engines are better. the most efficient non vehicular diesel
engine can achieve over 50% efficiency.

a demonstration 1 litre car was able to travel over 100km on 0.89
litres of fuel. in practice production cars can do 100km on 3 litres of
fuel.

shokk

Ian Stirling wrote:
Current car engines are about 25% at best efficient, so 75% of power goes
out the exhaust pipe wasted.

I thought most was lost through the radiator.

"Chris Bacon" wrote in message
...
Ian Stirling wrote:
Current car engines are about 25% at best efficient, so 75% of power goes
out the exhaust pipe wasted.

I thought most was lost through the radiator.

If the head gasket goes on any car, you could sa it is steam powered..! )

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 23:00:38 +0000, Chris Bacon
wrote:

Ian Stirling wrote:
Current car engines are about 25% at best efficient, so 75% of power goes
out the exhaust pipe wasted.

I thought most was lost through the radiator.

Cars are about 30% efficient at peak, usual operation is about 25%.
Cooling power = engine power is reasonable rule of thumb and assume
the remainder (33% up to 50%) goes down the exhaust pipe. Some of the
cooling is direct to air from hot under bonnet surfaces. Not enough
heat goes down exhaust pipe to run ancillaries at town road speeds and
idle. 70mph only needs about 35bhp, so maybe as little as 35bhp or up
to 50bhp goes to exhaust. They claim to extract 15% extra giving
about 5bhp at 70mph which would just about do for the ancillaries but
not with air-con.

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 23:00:38 +0000, Chris Bacon wrote:

Ian Stirling wrote:
Current car engines are about 25% at best efficient, so 75% of power goes
out the exhaust pipe wasted.

I thought most was lost through the radiator.

Nope. Exhaust.

Chris Bacon wrote:

Ian Stirling wrote:
Current car engines are about 25% at best efficient, so 75% of power goes
out the exhaust pipe wasted.

I thought most was lost through the radiator.

Strangely enough, cooling though the radiator is just as important as the
heating in the combustion for achieving high efficiency. You can only
extract mechanical energy between two temperatures; the larger the gap,
the more efficient.

Johannes wrote:
Chris Bacon wrote:

Ian Stirling wrote:
Current car engines are about 25% at best efficient, so 75% of
power goes out the exhaust pipe wasted.

I thought most was lost through the radiator.

Strangely enough, cooling though the radiator is just as important as
the heating in the combustion for achieving high efficiency. You can
only extract mechanical energy between two temperatures; the larger
the gap, the more efficient.

So what does the radiator cool that forms the 'cold' part of that pairing?

In article ,
Johannes wrote:
Strangely enough, cooling though the radiator is just as important as the
heating in the combustion for achieving high efficiency. You can only
extract mechanical energy between two temperatures; the larger the gap,
the more efficient.

That's a bit of an over simplification. Engines don't run at their most
efficient until up to temperature. Probably to do with proper atomisation
of the fuel.

--
*Life is hard; then you nap

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 21:46:02 GMT, Johannes wrote:

Chris Bacon wrote:

Ian Stirling wrote:
Current car engines are about 25% at best efficient, so 75% of power goes
out the exhaust pipe wasted.

I thought most was lost through the radiator.

Strangely enough, cooling though the radiator is just as important as the
heating in the combustion for achieving high efficiency. You can only
extract mechanical energy between two temperatures; the larger the gap,
the more efficient.

Sadly however, on car, the radioator does notr cool the exhaust gasses.

So you are talking ********.

If te exgaust were dindensed in te raradiator, it woudl indeed enable a
more efficient engine to be produyced, but teh cat enbsures that the
exhaust temperetures are high enough to make this impossible

"Ian Stirling" wrote in message
...

car engines are quite
inefficient (thermodynamically), and the
exhaust temperature (at the
exhaust valve) is around 700C.

Current car engines are about 25%
at best efficient, so 75% of power goes
out the exhaust pipe wasted.

No, 75% of "energy" is wasted.

Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Ian Stirling" wrote in message
...

car engines are quite
inefficient (thermodynamically), and the
exhaust temperature (at the
exhaust valve) is around 700C.

Current car engines are about 25%
at best efficient, so 75% of power goes
out the exhaust pipe wasted.

No, 75% of "energy" is wasted.

75% of both.
Energy = power * time.

The message
from Ian Stirling contains these words:

Current car engines are about 25%
at best efficient, so 75% of power goes
out the exhaust pipe wasted.

No, 75% of "energy" is wasted.

75% of both.

I hate to agree with Dribble, particularly when he is only right by
accident, but in the instance above his answer does seem to fit the
facts. Some of the wasted energy departs via the radiator rather than
the exhaust pipe. :-)

BTW Dribble thought up a convincing definition for 'mountain' yet?

--
Roger Chapman
Seasons greetings to all, even Dribble.

"The3rd Earl Of Derby" wrote in message
. uk...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In Autocar this week.

BMW are experimenting with using the waste heat from an IC engine to
produce steam which drives a motor attached to the main engine. On the
test bed they're getting a 15% saving in fuel consumption - at the
same time as more power and torque.

Seems it's not a new idea, but BMW reckon it is practical and should
be in production within 10 years.

When I was a nipper my old man was a tinkerer in electric motors and
generators and although this is very vague he put together on a piece of
wood a small cycle light generator a 12 or 24 volt motor(?) and
rechargable
battery connected together whereby the battery started the motor which in
turn rotated the generator wheel thus fed power to the battery for
charging
purposes, obviously there was some electronics in between which as i said
was very vague recollection

A Perpetual Motion Machine. I hope it worked. Some do, but can only turn
themsleves and produce no more power for other work.

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 14:11:42 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

BMW are experimenting with using the waste heat from an IC engine to
produce steam which drives a motor attached to the main engine.

http://www.gizmag.co.uk/go/4936/

Andy Dingley wrote:

BMW are experimenting with using the waste heat from an IC engine to
produce steam which drives a motor attached to the main engine.

http://www.gizmag.co.uk/go/4936/

Looking at the pics ( which aren't very clear & I haven't spent very
long looking) it seems they're using the heat from the catalytic
converter as a superheater.

My understanding was that a catalytic converter increased fuel
consumption by about 10%, whilst the heat generated in catalysing CO
into CO2 was sufficient to make it a fire hazard in dry grass. So now
the Germans have added on a steam engine which recovers 10% of the
efficiency.

I saw Maggie Thatcher (ex industrial chemist) on TV ranting about
catalytic converters, the only time I heard her speak sense. A more
cost-effective method of reducing emissions was the lean-burn engine,
which was both more efficient and less polluting that an un-catted
engine. I believe Rover had done much development on the lean-burn
technology, but that seems to have been scuttled after BMW's brief
period at the helm.

In article .com,
Aidan wrote:
My understanding was that a catalytic converter increased fuel
consumption by about 10%, whilst the heat generated in catalysing CO
into CO2 was sufficient to make it a fire hazard in dry grass. So now
the Germans have added on a steam engine which recovers 10% of the
efficiency.

Nothing like 10% with a modern cat.

I saw Maggie Thatcher (ex industrial chemist) on TV ranting about
catalytic converters, the only time I heard her speak sense. A more
cost-effective method of reducing emissions was the lean-burn engine,
which was both more efficient and less polluting that an un-catted
engine. I believe Rover had done much development on the lean-burn
technology, but that seems to have been scuttled after BMW's brief
period at the helm.

Rover never produced a lean burn engine - although they may have
researched it. Indeed, they limped on with carburettors long after
everyone had gone to EFI - not surprising since they owned SU
carburettors. Even although they produced the first EFI equipped UK model
in the SD1 Vitesse and it was obvious then this was the way to go.

--
*Certain frogs can be frozen solid, then thawed, and survive *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 09:12:59 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

Indeed, they limped on with carburettors long after
everyone had gone to EFI - not surprising since they owned SU
carburettors.

Nothing wrong with carburettors (as Rover developed them) in terms of
performance, just the problems of extra cost, complexity and (mainly)
poor performance in later life. EFI is _very_ cheap to make these days
- hardly any expensive machining and we all know what Moore's law did to
anything needing the electronic smarts of the average GameBoy.

In article ,
Andy Dingley wrote:
Indeed, they limped on with carburettors long after
everyone had gone to EFI - not surprising since they owned SU
carburettors.

Nothing wrong with carburettors (as Rover developed them) in terms of
performance, just the problems of extra cost, complexity and (mainly)
poor performance in later life.

The last versions with ECU controlled mixture and idle speed in an attempt
to control emissions were hardly paragons of reliability - although they
did work ok when they worked. However, must have come very close to the
cost of decent EFI, so really rather pointless.

EFI is _very_ cheap to make these days - hardly any expensive machining
and we all know what Moore's law did to anything needing the electronic
smarts of the average GameBoy.

True. Or would,be if I knew what Moore's law was. ;-)

--
*Why can't women put on mascara with their mouth closed?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Aidan wrote:
I saw Maggie Thatcher (ex industrial chemist) on TV ranting about
catalytic converters, the only time I heard her speak sense. A more
cost-effective method of reducing emissions was the lean-burn engine,
which was both more efficient and less polluting that an un-catted
engine. I believe Rover had done much development on the lean-burn
technology, but that seems to have been scuttled after BMW's brief
period at the helm.

"Europe" followed legislation implemented in California, to
cause a horrendous own-goal re. environmental impact. Catalytic
converters have little place in motoring in the UK.

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 10:24:54 +0000, Chris Bacon
wrote:

| Aidan wrote:
| I saw Maggie Thatcher (ex industrial chemist) on TV ranting about
| catalytic converters, the only time I heard her speak sense. A more
| cost-effective method of reducing emissions was the lean-burn engine,
| which was both more efficient and less polluting that an un-catted
| engine. I believe Rover had done much development on the lean-burn
| technology, but that seems to have been scuttled after BMW's brief
| period at the helm.
|
| "Europe" followed legislation implemented in California, to
| cause a horrendous own-goal re. environmental impact. Catalytic
| converters have little place in motoring in the UK.

IIRC only the maximum emissions of cars are limited, there is nothing
to say you *must* have catalytic converters.
--
Dave Fawthrop hyphen Hyphenologist.co.uk Register your mobile phone
IMEI *free* on http://www.menduk.org/. Keep the username and password.
If it gets stolen report it your provider to get it blocked. To hopefully
get it back report on http://www.menduk.org/ or 08701 123 123.

Dave Fawthrop wrote:
Chris Bacon wrote:

| Aidan wrote:
| I saw Maggie Thatcher (ex industrial chemist) on TV ranting about
| catalytic converters, the only time I heard her speak sense. A more
| cost-effective method of reducing emissions was the lean-burn engine,
| which was both more efficient and less polluting that an un-catted
| engine. I believe Rover had done much development on the lean-burn
| technology, but that seems to have been scuttled after BMW's brief
| period at the helm.
|
| "Europe" followed legislation implemented in California, to
| cause a horrendous own-goal re. environmental impact. Catalytic
| converters have little place in motoring in the UK.

IIRC only the maximum emissions of cars are limited, there is nothing
to say you *must* have catalytic converters.

AFAIK all new cars made since January 1993 *must* have a
catalytic converter fitted. Europead directive blah, unless
it's only UK law, which I doubt.

In article ,
Chris Bacon wrote:
I saw Maggie Thatcher (ex industrial chemist) on TV ranting about
catalytic converters, the only time I heard her speak sense. A more
cost-effective method of reducing emissions was the lean-burn engine,
which was both more efficient and less polluting that an un-catted
engine. I believe Rover had done much development on the lean-burn
technology, but that seems to have been scuttled after BMW's brief
period at the helm.

"Europe" followed legislation implemented in California, to
cause a horrendous own-goal re. environmental impact. Catalytic
converters have little place in motoring in the UK.

Yes they do - as anyone who walks close to town traffic will know. You can
instantly tell an older non cat equipped car by the smell. And it's not
pleasant. CO2 may be bad for global warming, but CO, NOX and hydrocarbons
aren't pleasant at the point of emission.

--
*I took an IQ test and the results were negative.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Chris Bacon wrote:
Aiden wrote, but the DP munged the attributions:
catalytic converters, the only time I heard her speak sense. A more
cost-effective method of reducing emissions was the lean-burn engine,
which was both more efficient and less polluting that an un-catted
engine. I believe Rover had done much development on the lean-burn
technology, but that seems to have been scuttled after BMW's brief
period at the helm.

"Europe" followed legislation implemented in California, to
cause a horrendous own-goal re. environmental impact. Catalytic
converters have little place in motoring in the UK.

Yes they do - as anyone who walks close to town traffic will know. You can
instantly tell an older non cat equipped car by the smell. And it's not
pleasant.

This is rubbish. Most cars are used for short journeys, during
which their catalytic converters do not work properly. There's
also another potential health problem in that masses of finely-
divided platinum is now being deposited all over the place.


CO2 may be bad for global warming, but CO, NOX and hydrocarbons
aren't pleasant at the point of emission.

What does a catalytic converter spit out then it's not yet
functioning well?

Perhaps you'd like to transfer this (or x-psot) to a relevant
car-related NG.

On 21 Dec 2005 16:41:05 -0800, "Aidan" wrote:

I saw Maggie Thatcher (ex industrial chemist) on TV ranting about
catalytic converters, the only time I heard her speak sense. A more
cost-effective method of reducing emissions was the lean-burn engine,

For late-80s designs of catalyst, and for late-80s Ford-based
predictions of lean burn engines.

Catalysts are much less restrictive now than they were then. The Yanks
put up with rubbish for 20 years and just threw a few more cylinders at
the problem. Europe wouldn't, so we fixed it.

As for lean-burn, then much of the hype over it came from Ford, who were
themselves being hoodwinked by outsourced R&D to a bunch of cowboys. A
particular cowboy in fact who nicked my '50s edition of Ricardo.
*******.

"Aidan" wrote in message
oups.com...

Andy Dingley wrote:

BMW are experimenting with using the waste heat from an IC engine to
produce steam which drives a motor attached to the main engine.

http://www.gizmag.co.uk/go/4936/

Looking at the pics ( which aren't very clear & I haven't spent very
long looking) it seems they're using the heat from the catalytic
converter as a superheater.

My understanding was that a catalytic converter increased fuel
consumption by about 10%, whilst the heat generated in catalysing CO
into CO2 was sufficient to make it a fire hazard in dry grass. So now
the Germans have added on a steam engine which recovers 10% of the
efficiency.

I saw Maggie Thatcher (ex industrial chemist) on TV ranting about
catalytic converters, the only time I heard her speak sense. A more
cost-effective method of reducing emissions was the lean-burn engine,
which was both more efficient and less polluting that an un-catted
engine. I believe Rover had done much development on the lean-burn
technology, but that seems to have been scuttled after BMW's brief
period at the helm.

BL and Honda had much work on it. The problem was that all the world had
gone over to catalyst, so us and Japs had to follow. A bit like the VHS v
Betamax.

"Aidan" wrote in message
oups.com...

Andy Dingley wrote:

BMW are experimenting with using the waste heat from an IC engine to
produce steam which drives a motor attached to the main engine.

http://www.gizmag.co.uk/go/4936/

Looking at the pics ( which aren't very clear & I haven't spent very
long looking) it seems they're using the heat from the catalytic
converter as a superheater.

It's overcomplex and cannot compete with the simplicity and efficiency of a
Toyota setup hybrid, which most major companies are adopting.

"Andy Dingley" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 14:11:42 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

BMW are experimenting with using the waste heat from an IC engine to
produce steam which drives a motor attached to the main engine.

http://www.gizmag.co.uk/go/4936/

A non starter. As much as 25% of an engines power may be to run the
ancillaries not to drive the wheels. This SteamCell is the size of a PC
tower and is very clean using external combustion and ceramic fibre burners.
They have installed these in buses and coaches, and leave the engine just to
turn the wheels with no fan belts on it at all. Then the overall emissions
are down, and overall efficiency up as this thing is well above 25%
efficient, more like 80%. It can actually drive a small car too.
http://www.enginion-ag.de/en/

It can also turn a genny to power and electric motor. This is viewed as
feasible and economical too. It can also run off natural gas and be used as
microCHP in a building.

Battery technology has come along, long way, to the point the electric car
is technologically here. Any other innovation is a stop-gap or a desperate
attempt at a comp[any which can't grasp the future. What have BMW ever
innovated that matters?

Using Lithium batteries in a car only 5%, or less, of the energy stored in
the vehicle is lost, while 75% of the energy in your tank is wasted. It is
more efficient overall to pour the fuel in a motor at a power station with
efficient combustion, energy re-claim and advanced scrubbers, which turns a
genny, which sends the electricity down a line, charges a vehicle battery
and runs the motor, rather than pour the fuel in the car directly. Also
they are 100% clean at point of burn.