i'll add one to my next project,...hows that sound?

*snip*

I have removed the last few posts as they steered a bit off track and I did not feel they warranted an exclusive thread. Any questions should be directed to me.

I've got to say that if someone were going to kill the inventor they really should have done it before the patent was filed.

I looked at the patent and it's pretty detailed. Someone should be able to duplicate the apparatus. I imaging there will be aspects that would not work right to begin with but it should be possible to work them out.

I also did a few calculations. I don't have time to figure them out in great detail but they should be in the ballpark of correctness.

The energy content of gasoline now (I don't know what is was back then) is about 1.213x10^6 J/gal.

If this car got 100 mi/gal over the course of a mile the gas it would use has a maximum energy content of 1.213x10^6 J/mi.

The theoretical max efficiency of a gasoline engine based upon thermodynamic considerations is about 56 % so the engine could put out a maximum of 6.72x10^5 J/mi.

The car's mass was about 1844 kg so not taking into account any other losses this energy is equivalent to the energy of getting the car up to about 60 mph. This does not include any frictional losses or hill climbing and mechanical losses and is with a very generous efficiency calculation.

It could be than I am missing some aspect that would make it possible (or maybe lots of little ones) and I don't have the time to do a more detialed calculation but it seems to me based merely on the energy content of the gasoline it would be challenging to get a car of such mass to run at 100 mpg.

Christian

That's very interesting, Christian.

I would suggest to include some very important variables that you neglected to consider which will make the equation far more interesting and increase the variable potential dramatically:

• energy content of oxygen
• rotating mass
• inertia
• dieseling
• compression/heat

So Todd, why hasn't someone just constructed another one of these based on the patent? Or maybe it's not reproducible...one of those frustrating things science demands as proof.

I don't know. <_<

I wish someone would. :P

I'd buy it! :rolleyes:

maybe the engine ran on detonation as opposed to normal combustion. hmmm

Hi Stevo12886:

___Detonation needs some type of fuel as well …

___Good Luck

___Wayne R. Gerdes
___Hunt Club Farms Landscaping Ltd.
___Waynegerdes@earthlink.net

Stevo, I think you're right.

It is my understanding that timing changes were made to intentionally achieve a "dieseling state". When fuel is heated to a vapor, it is more volatile and therefore will react differently to compression.

I do not know this for sure, but I think that because of the higher fuel volatility, there would need to be a consideration made beyond ignition timing and potentially to intake/exhaust timing. In other words, actually offsetting the camshaft to retard the events and maybe even regrinding the cam to have much shorter intake durations.

i really dont understand why more detonation engines haven't been designed and built, its a more efficient use of gasoline. there are designs in the works for detonation ramjets to be used on airliners...i think the fuel consumption would be something like 1/6 of the original if my memory serves.