Research Project - Replacing diesel engines... PLEASE HELP

Water.... injected properly will cool the cylinder and disperse carbon. We did this as boys to our street rod. We used the windshield washer pump to inject through the vacuum port of the Q-jet and had the switch set to open when the carb opened.

Worked good!

 

Could you cite your written/online sources for this information. I did a little surfing and just basically found the thermal value per gallon.

Emissions is a huge factor. I don't think our trucks (2011's with a DEF system) are that un-efficient, and they have a zero carbon footprint. In actuality, they are doing 7.1 + without break-in achieved as of yet.

It's been a long time since I visited theory, but I would think that if the heating of fuel cycling through the heads/injectors was a huge factor, they would have redesigned the injection system with external feed lines - similar to the old style Mack engines where the steel lines went from the fuel pump to the nozzle and the pump handled the timing duties.

I think the water jackets are sufficient enough to handle cooling duties. The majority of the heat produced by combustion is fielded by the piston dome, and cooled by the oil being sprayed on the underside of the piston.

Would have been done already, IMHO. Diesels breathe pretty easy to begin with, you're pressurizing the intake side to 20 - 30 PSI, and I think that smooth walls on the intake side would aggravate the molecules less and make for worse and less efficient combustion.

What about maybe nitrous or even ether? My point being is that you could inject a lot of stuff in there, but risk a good chance of launching a piston into orbit through the hood.

Why? I need more information than that. Oh, wait, it's a Ford truck. They can't even maintain heat in sub-zero weather.

And what would hydrogen equate to in emissions? I'm not trying to discourage the OP, but there are a lot of factors in designing a new breed of power-plant.

1. It's gotta be rock solid dependable, and easy to maintain.
2. It's gotta handle slight variations in fuel quality
3. Zero carbon footprint. Sorry, the next evolution of humanity actually cares about the environment, and our impact on it.
4. You can't have a tank of nitro-glycerin on the frame, so when Joe drunk 4-wheeler sideswipes your semi, half a town is vaporized and that load of tomatoes is turned into Pizza sauce instantly.

 

The Union Pacific railroad tried turbines to. I did not research it much but they did not work. I remember someone said they were really loud. Why replace a diesel? Just make it more efficent. There's no reason why a diesel can't get 10+ mpg. All this crap we have to deal with low sulpher fuel and etc is nothin' but a scam. Here's a news flash. They don't WANT to get fuel mileage out of anything. Why would they want to build something that gets 10+mpg. Fuel is at $3.00 a gallon. A most trucks average 4-6 mpg. If they went to 10+mpg they would lose money! That why they won't make motors more efficent.

 

Some of the SF Bay Fleet commuter tri-hull boats had those gas turbines on them when they first came out on the San Francisco Bay. They moved out quick enough, but the fuel consumption was out outrageous so they switched to diesel engines, it was that much cheaper to do so.

Same thing with the 1965 Chrysler Turbine car. They wont ever meet smog emissions and they burn too much fuel but they do get out and move quick, that's for sure. Gas Turbines are a lot like a Wankle rotary motor. Good on paper but not much else.

 

I think it was in the 70 they tried turbines in trucks and I remember they sucked gas and were 1400 degrees exhaust temp at the tip of the stacks. they would burn the leaves of trees when they wen't under them.

 

Turbines have two issues



Waste Heat.

This is why trains and cars quit using them. The exhaust heat is hot enough to melt just about anything.

Noise.

111db is a normal level of operation. But the good news here is that they are getting smaller, and quieter as a result.


How about a small nuclear reactor? Naaa, terrorists would just buy all the trucks.

 

GM tested some turbine equipped Astros years ago. remember reading about it in trade magazines..... Overdrive maybe? I do remember something about engine longevity being a problem and parts being ridiculously expensive.

 

It is nice to see all the love towards Sulfur, I really missed it myself, Use to be every second job was a burnt valve, great money maker.
Sulfur never helped with fuel economy or the Cetain rating of the fuel it is a mineral, a rock, the refiners just did not want to take it out of the fuel until mandated. The sulfur never burned it just coated the piston tops and valves it would break off and damage the turbine.
The good old days, it is great to reminisce about thing how they were but keep the facts straight, fantasy works, that is why we have FOX.

 

I have a question.

Where are all the college students that are actually working on new propulsion technologies? All I ever meet are the business related students. Without the engineering, the business guys would have nothing to sell...

Am I making any sense here?

 

We have a large quantity of Natural gas in this continent and Dual fuel technology is a proven thing. I could never see why no one does not expand the technology as an add on to trucks on road.