The EGR thing was such an irrational solution to California's air pollution problem in the 70s. Unfortunately this culture of pro-EGA has persisted even after we have three way catalytic converter. I could not believe it that all the text books are still promoting that nonsense. (excuse me for my strong words)
I should be careful, maybe I'll be flamed by EGR advocates.
As I come from outside of auto/racing industry, I am not even a mechanical engineer. I am not brought up properly to favor EGR on Otto engines. That is why I could make this breakthrough. Before Chen engine, many mysteries in engine really confused me. Now, after I discover the truth there are no more unexplained mysteries. It is my opinion, that all text books must be rewritten(again, this will turn people's stomach)
Bottom line. You hit the nail on the head. Thank you.
Chengine wrote:The EGR thing was such an irrational solution to California's air pollution problem in the 70s. Unfortunately this culture of pro-EGA has persisted even after we have three way catalytic converter. I could not believe it that all the text books are still promoting that nonsense. (excuse me for my strong words)
I should be careful, maybe I'll be flamed by EGR advocates.
As I come from outside of auto/racing industry, I am not even a mechanical engineer. I am not brought up properly to favor EGR on Otto engines. That is why I could make this breakthrough. Before Chen engine, many mysteries in engine really confused me. Now, after I discover the truth there are no more unexplained mysteries. It is my opinion, that all text books must be rewritten(again, this will turn people's stomach)
Bottom line. You hit the nail on the head. Thank you.
Chengine
if you add oxygen to the exhaust, which you will adding air instead of exhaust, the three-way cat doesn't work. So you'll just make the NOx problem of diesels worse
Chengine wrote:....Before Chen engine, many mysteries in engine really confused me. Now, after I discover the truth there are no more unexplained mysteries. It is my opinion, that all text books must be rewritten(again, this will turn people's stomach)...
The thing that is already turning people's stomachs is your unmitigated gall and outrageous, unsubstantiated, claims for "large" improvements in mpg and in cleanliness. You haven't demonstrated your claim how flushing out the residual gases will do anything. You cite no scientific research, either yours or some one else's, on combustion to back up your claims.
I am not an engine expert, but I am a Graduate Degreed Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineer (including a graduate level course on engine combustion) to whom your claims and your Patent are totally bogus.
(My faith Patent examiners took a large nosedive after seeing that you got a patent.)
First I need to apologize for the way this concept is presented. Usually a topic is presented in a power point presentation with many supporting graphs. However, the way this Chen Engine is presented, it is more like one view graph at a time and without graphics. I am not frustrated as I know the whole story.
It is impossible to ask some one to be patient. It is like watch the first ten minutes of a movie and you must leave. I would be totally mad as well. Of course the simplest explanation is that this guy just jerks us around and got nothing!!!!!!!
I do hope that you have read my patent which is presented more or less in one piece, although my thinking has changed a lot since then. In fact, looking at that patent the only thing good is what patent office granted me. Much of the rationals are obsolete. Although the bottom line is still correct, by purging exhaust gas out by air, you gain efficiency and power.
Since I have been through the motivation and fundamental physics, thermaldynamics part of it, I start concentrating on the implementation. As the saying goes, the devil is in the details. All good ideas failed not because the idea is not sound, it is in the implementation. I have spent most of the time on implementation. I am happy to say that there is no significant problems except the injector. It is not the injector prototype rather the reliability of injector working billions of cycles.
I am sorry again that we are now only at slide number 6, the story is far from finished.
Nonetheless, for those of you who is convinced of this Chen engine concept, you should start now and build the simplest Chen engine that is model C. Only a compressor and modified exhaust port is required to make a Chen engine. You'll gain immediate benefit of saving gas at idle and slow traffic. And of course 10% at high speed.
Do not worry about me. In my last innovation, the only justification I have for that project is "I can do better than hundreds of Ph.Ds in top research labs". But then that is when money flows easily and they do not expect you to produce any results.
bill shoe wrote:Draw PV diagrams of a regular engine cycle vs the engine cycle you propose. Then explain where the difference comes from. Don't waste more time and words until you do that.
You posted another novel without answering a basic question. If I were sitting in your magical power point and you were on slide 6 with no real analysis done id walk out. I have a magic oil that will make your engine 20% better. The oil is created from pressing snakes under incredibly high pressures. Your crap my work with magic carbureted buyers but here in sparta you face free men.
Except for the animation, everything is OK. My next version will include the engine fundamentals and will predict efficiency gain at idle and low load.
As much as I see the point of what you are trying to achieve, and agree that it MAY be worth investigating a little further, there are so many unsubstantiated claims here and in your presentation that do not have any substance to them.
My advice to you is to go back to the workshop, invest a small amount of the money you made from the Wavelength locker and build one of your engines, attach a compressor to it. Run it at idle with and without the compressed air and provide some actual test results to substantiate this 40% efficiency increase and trillion $ saving.
Alternatively, provide some, even the most basic of your calculations to explain to us where the numbers you provide come from. Its very tiresome reading so many people asking fro some evidence or calculation but getting nothing in return.
My other question: What percentage of fuel use is at idle (<2000rpm) where this device works, i'd guess and say its very small. My turbo VW uses 1l/hr when idling, and overall I probably spend 1 hour idling or sub 2k rpm (this is generous) per week (using 55l of fuel). That is 1l/55 or 1.8% of my fuel usage. A 40% efficiency increase on 1.8% of usage is a 0.72% overall fuel efficiency saving. Is it really worth it?
This whole technology solves the same problem as the stop/start engines in modern cars. I had a 2013 Subaru XV that in the 3 months I owned it saved 2l of fuel from stopping and starting the engine. That was definitely not worth it, and I suspect this is simply destined to be a marketing ploy also if it does work.
We all have seen diesel trucks leave their engine running at truck stops. Why? I only find that answer recently. It is cheaper for them to leave it on for 1-2 hours than to shut off and restart again, especially in winter. Correct me if I am wrong. The 18 wheeler burns 1 gallon of Diesel in 1.5 hours idling. If that is what makes my cab warm and avoid starting engine again. That is worth it.
On the other hand, I saw that report stating that two minutes of idling at traffic lights would have allow the car to drive for 1 mile.
The reason, again I am making unsubstantiated statement,, if you indulge me, is that the diesel engine does not have waste gas problem, or much, much less. In Diesel even at idle, you have full air pressure and usually you have turbo boost, thus residual air is purged. I maintain that this is the main reason at idle Diesel is orders of magnitude better than Otto engine.
As regarding to why I have not yet built at least a Chen engine C. I did not receive a cent from invention of such a significance.
Instead I got fired. Perhaps my habit of making unsubstantiated statements, even it turns out to be true, really turns people off. It does not matter now. Bottom line, I do not have the resources even to make such an modest prototype. That is one of the reason I am on this forum to try alternative way to get Chen engine project moving.
I do not think that I can request for support on this forum, so I will not.
My goal is to convince major automobile companies to invest development in Chen engine, again with or without me, I do not really care. It is easy to build a prototype. (well much easier than others). I would estimate the effort need to develop Multi Air engine, about $100 million would do it. Depending on how successful the reliability of air injector, the real commercial vehicle will be on the market probably 10 years from now. (Yes, I like to make projection as well)
My secondary goals are for all other motor manufactures to adopt Chen engine, from Formula one to lawn mower, from Honda generator to airplane engine. Any type of Otto engine.
Since it is add on to the basic Otto engine, even if this system fails, it would not cause catastrophic failure of the engine, as long as the failure mode is stuck closed. The engine will still run, just inefficiently and emit pollutants.
