ICE Breakthrough!? NEW Piston Design BREAKS Records
2023 ж. 13 Мам.
271 723 Рет қаралды
Speed of Air Engine Technologies has come out with a really unique piston design. But is it hype or is there merit behind modifying the piston head.
Sources & Credits:
soapistons.com/
• Speed of Air (SOA)
• Blueray Piston - Casti... (Blue Ray Piston)
• Introducing the Strong... (JE Ultra Series)
• Wave piston design low... (Volvo)
• Introducing the Cat® 7... (CAT)
/ 183662634550772
• Piston Bowl Design
www.caeses.com/blog/2017/pist...
(This includes the web app software for developing bowls)
Music:
"Cinematic Technology" From Envato
25% more economy is utter nonsense. If they do that, I will be shocked. And I mean do it with the similar performance.
Yeah, even 5-10% would be very impressive. 25% is totally bullshit. I believe there are still many improvements we can make with ICE, but no one thing is ever going to be giving 25% better efficiency, its going to be a dozen small things all adding an extra % here and there.
Sure would like you read your reply, but the idiots that write this software apparently think that what I want to have happen when I click on reply, is to move the next reply down to make room, never show any text, and move the next reply back up again. Software coders are IDIOTS, many of them. I spend more time face planting while trying to use most software packages than I spend using them where they actually work. Do you know which software seems to work far and away the best? The FREE kind, open source...GO FIGURE, and with not one goofy manager in sight. :-/ And yes, I tried refreshing the page. I know, turn the computer off and back on again, right? Probably won't fix it. I designed hardware for a living, and guess what, IT WORKED, not when it felt like it, but all the time. You would think that rant would make lower my blood pressure back down, but it doesn't. Thanks for trying, anyway. And the worst part is that even if you locate them, you can't shoot them, or even step hard on their toes. The last sentence, kidding, at least the first option.
yea that's the number that made me rewind to hear if i misheard
I think it's a play on words. Let's start with 30% efficiency. I don't think they mean they are now 55% but rather 25% of the 30% more... So like 37% and I could believe that. What do you think?
@@frankcarter8399 this kind of design doesn't make sense at all. it is about hype. do you still remember they claimed that put a fan into a engine manifold could boost 25% power and fuel saving in 90s'?
This reminds of a guy I knew that bought into every gas saving gimmick out there. He installed them all on his car, filled the tank with gas and went to prove everyone wrong. Well, sure enough, after driving his car about a half of a block away from the gas station, his tank overflowed…
Dyno would prove it
As an engine builder this claimed 25% improvement seems like marketing BS as with the increased service intervals. Ceramic coated pistons save 4-5% in fuel so 25% seems completely unrealistic. I would like to see two identical engines, one with the new pistons and one with factory pistons run side by side on an engine dyno to validate these claims. Actually I had another think about this and in particular the 80% NOX reduction. The most effective way of reducing NOX is through a lean burn. The Mazda Skyactive would be the best example of this. Perhaps the ceramic coatings on the pistons allows for the fuel pump to be dialed back or in the case of common rail the fuel delivery would be electronically altered to give a lean burn. A lean burn would improve fuel economy, reduce carbon in the oil and greatly reduce NOX emissions. Maybe the dimples play a roll in the pistons being able to survive a lean fuel environment.
What do you think about the 80% nitrogen oxide claim? I think that is high with a small increase in fuel savings?
I cannot say for sure. It seems like a very bold claim. I would really like to see a side by side test.
@@malcolmkermode9794 . Umm ,............. BTW " seams " is spelled SEEMS .
Its ligit. We have been working on it for 10+ years but kept it quiet until the patents where issued.
@@Tech_Planethow about plasma pulse spark plug
The same was found with the jet boats in New Zealand the older boats performed better than the new boats the only difference was the old boats had lots of dents all over the bottom and the new boats were flat bottomed so now all the new boats have a dented bottom and perform just as good as the old boats similar to the golf ball dimples
LMBO!!!!
Lol I don't know if you're bs'ing but it makes sense for a boat hull. Up on plain they would hold air pockets that produce less drag than a flat skin. Some boats have a channel coming down from the sides where as the boat's moving the channel acts as a venturi pulling air under the hull creating tiny air bubbles that slide between the hull and water producing less drag.
Off to golf driving range with surfboard as target, all these new dents will work wonders increasing performance!
Dolphins do as well.... or perhaps small ripples... but they outlawed swimming suita that were similar, that held little spots of air. Perhaps it's contact surface area?
Yeah this is old stuff. I remember when it first started making it's rounds. First we did it to performance intakes, now pistons. It ACTUALLY does work, idk about their numbers though. It doesn't seem unreasonable considering that this idea literally came from aerodynamics of golf balls. The dimples make the air fuel burn, and the mixture much more consistent.
So we should all add a few ball bearings to each cylinder lol
Lol
good ideal. but won't make much difference.
Lol! OM, that would be worse engine wear than using water injection. 🤣
Obviously!
No u take out the sparkplug and insert a golfball
Normally you do not want dimples or nicks/dents on the top of your piston because it creates hot spots and can cause issues with pre-detination which can destroy rod bearings among other things over time.
Sharp edges create hotspots. Not the dimples.
Except in a diesel there is no such thing as "predetonation" because by design the fuel needs to combust as fast as possible. In fact quality of fuel combustion is measured in cetane numbers. Higher numbers = better quality fuel = faster detonation.
@erikkovacs3097 you can have an uneven flame front propagation resulting in uneven pressure distribution on the piston.
@@travisbarrow3408 Sure from clogged injectors but from dimples on the piston?
@@erikkovacs3097 each dimple has a sharp edge.this type of piston has been tried before.a dished piston and a dimpled piston has all been tried.dished pistons have been used in outboard motors in the 80s.and a dimpled piston has been tried in the racing world.
I think there is a certain point in engineering when something does it's job well enough that until there is a monumental change in the way we approach physics, the idea of an ice engine for propulsion should always be considered. this along with the new ai technology benefits to new designs can help refine what is plausible.
As long as those ICE engines have an LCD display.
Is the performance based on a new piston? How does the performance change after carbon build-up?
There is so much energy lost int he IC engine. Just capturing a fraction of the loss would be a magnificent prize and make such a huge difference.
Heat energy lost
One thing you need to consider is that those industrial haulers mostly operate in a very predictable, constant pace. This means they can fine tune every components of the drivetrain to offer the highest efficiency within the tighter operating margin, where as privately owned vehicles have to basically do everything well (go slow, fast, start & stop often, go fast at constant pace, etc.). This makes optimization for large gains on personal vehicles much more challenging (and much less likely through these gimmicks) than on industrial machinery.
I see that you have the Volvo WAVE piston for diesels. I did meet one of the persons behind that design a few years ago.
If something seems too good to be true it probably isn't. If they'd claimed 3 or 4 or 5% I'd have believed but not 25%
Isn’t that type of piston similar to those in stratified charge engines? They’ve been on the go for years so I’m surprised they’ve only just discovered this extra technique of creating vortices. I thought they already studied the way the charge swirls about. I’m just amazed that this is something new.
Honda's CVCC? That did not use special pistons. It did use a special combustion chamber, an extra intake valve, and a special carburetor. When introduced, Honda refitted a Chevy V8 with CVCC, which then passed the emissions testing (as required at that time) without a catalytic convertor.
Golf ball texture always means more efficient.
That’s my takeaway from all these component shape videos
The reality is each one of those dimples is a tiny refractory and helps for complete and a lot cleaner combustion.
With every increment of efficiency increase in combustion engine performance, the competitiveness of pure electric performance reduces dramatically. It seems relatively inexpensive and quick to make substantial improvements to combustion efficiency, while holy grail battery tech is always 5 years away. And even then the electricity has to come from some place that requires thermal and kinetic energy inputs from combustion power units.
very interesting thanks for the vid....peace out
Interesting, Thank You. I hope they work , If only to keep the ev's away
Does the increase in surface area increase power or is it always only based on bore diameter?
My question is how long do the dimples last after the engine carbons up ???
Try hydrogen or E85
Would love to get Gale Banks' opinion on this.
Does Gale Banks do Heavy Diesels ? Because THAT is what those pistons are for .
@@johncunningham4820 diesels for army trucks
@@twanheijkoop6753 . Really ? You sure ? Anyway , I have heard of Gale Banks . A Legendary RACE ENGINE Builder in the U.S. I've seen a few of his Vids . Definitely sounds like the " Real Deal " . There is no real reason he WOULDN'T work on Diesels . The Overall principles ARE the Same . SUCK , SQUEEZE , BANG , BLOW . Rinse and repeat............. It's the Fuelling and Architecture that are different . And I suspect the Army may want QUIETER running Diesels for TRUCKS , rather than More Power . Tank Engine ? YEAH MAKE IT LOUD and 3,000 hp . It has to push 80 - 100 tons FAST . And it's Armed and Armoured . Trucks not so much . Quiet is good for them .
Small dimples like a golf ball make more sense to reduce drag on the swirl effect
@@johncunningham4820 Yeah, he does diesels: www.youtube.com/@bankspower/videos
Dimples allow golf balls to reduce air friction to travel further and recently have been used in speaker ports for better flow, so its no surprise that they could have benefits in the combustion chamber and inlet and exhaust.
Back in the day we used to hand drill and polish an intake manifold like this on pre injection engines as it helped the fuel and air to mix
I like to hear some of the engineering and see some of the swirl patterns associated with it to be able to see the validity of this piston! Can you get it and make a video on that?
You can put it into a hydrodynamics program and watch it make a annular vortex ring from the fuel mist during the upstroke and several points of local turbulence near the end. When ignition occurs it does so at the center of the vortex ring rather than a single point near the piston head surface. It would give a more even burn but would be very prone to knocking. 🤔
I'm in agreeance with a few other comments, although we kneed to know the original piston design and compared compression ratios. Hollow top pistons like this typically allow a slightly larger initial charge, but lower compression ratio. Some loss in torque, but improved fuel efficiency. This was common back in the 60s and 70 where you could opt for a high compression or low compression engine where the only difference was the dished out piston crown.
Plus more piston surface area for the combustion heat to be transferred to. Not a benefit.
Bowl Type Pistons like those are used in DIESELS , which have a Flat Cylinder Head . The Bowl IS the combustion chamber .
Diesel Pistons ! And diesels run at a MINIMUM of 16:1 compression .
@@shannonjurgens3667 I have to be honest and say I have never mapped the thermodynamics between flat top and dished pistons, but I am sure the correct rings would handle any small differences. Just thinking back, heat also equals energy, so the additional heat also equates to energy transfer to the piston.
@@johncunningham4820 It's the same principle with low compression petrol/gas(US) engines. The Low/High compression label is a comparison rather than a static ratio. It was a long time debate in the performance and racing industry in the early day between Head combustion chamber vs Cylinder combustion chamber. Even though the volume cab be equal between both, the momentum of the piston and the gas charge of a dished piston seams it get a slight increase in the charge. As far as actual combustion goes it is a balance between piston crown design, head combustion chamber design as well as flow and swirl.
I wonder if a centered intake valve along with this piston would help? Especially since the intake charge has to come in at a weird angle.
I"m curious if the dimple design retains the same compression ratio... or if they make the bowl slightly smaller to account for additional volume created by the dimples.
Does not really matter what we think until the numbers are in. Sounds great and far-fetched all in one.
The dimples increase the air mixture close to the piston top which actually causes more turbulence inside the squish area, this results in a much better or more complete burn of the intake charge, less likely to have a pre-ignition although this is diesel so that is not much of an issue given the fuel is direct injected.
I believe you are correct. Isn't the fuel injected after the air is already compressed in a desiel engine?
@@mauricelarson7263 correct
Innovation usually comes in small incremental steps. If this lives up to 25% more economy that would be a massive step. If there is a true net gain and it's only 5%, it's still potentially worth implementing in new engine production. Now a really big game changing innovation is the recent toroidal propeller design. It is a significant increase in efficiency for boat propulsion, and for sound reduction in drones.
And double the oil life. Sounds too good to be true
Variable valve timing made those leaps
I reviewed the initial KZhead video by the manufacturer and they said they are marketing both piston’s and piston’s + Turbo + computer/tuner. If it’s just piston’s I don’t doubt that any change will produce some results, if you add tuning and turbocharger it’s not going to be $6k probably 10k plus the costs for installation and tuning. Most owners don’t have an extra 10 thousand bucks for an engine upgrade. Commercial fleet owners are a good fit and they can test the system for results. The part I don’t understand is why did it take so long to get here? I’m not towing anything but the claim is 25% better fuel mileage and lower environmental factors so low you might be able to pass emissions testing without catalytic converters or soot collecting no more regeneration and no more def fluid. I’m assuming that’s where the big fuel savings is not just the piston’s not just the tuner or the turbo. If there’s no more particulate filter required and no regenerate which is very fuel wasting process. Then I could agree with the %25 increase in fuel economy and reduction of Nox since the burn is more complete. I’m just wondering if we will continue to see idiots rolling coal with their pickup trucks?
So the ceramic will allow the piston to run cooler and the dimples allow less surface tension on the ceramic? When porting intakes especially on diesels, we’ll dimple the low pressure areas of the port to to create less tension to speed up the airflow so the air doesn’t slow down in the low pressure area. Might be a benefit inside the cup but I don’t see a point of dimpling the flats on the piston?
as a 2 stroke guy i can attest to things of this nature and idk why i never thought hey why not do that on 4 stroke. hear me out. some 2 stroke cylinders that are high rpm 10,000 ish rpms but dont have crazy port timings they actually respond well to some combustion chamber modifications. it was found that some waves like ^^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^^ going around the cylinder head would actually give better combustion. squish band heads came out shortly later and that pretty much did the same thing those marks on the head did. if you were to have some raised stampings on the piston or on the head you could induce or almost compression ignition in areas so the flame doesnt have to reach as far to ignite the edge of the cylinder. its already trying to burn so it would catch much easier. alot like relighting a smoldering fire vs cold wet wood. yeah it wont make 11 million horsepower but it would improve efficiency some. i have some proof on one of my 2 stroke cylinders i also tested that out on and yet again it did alot of tricks. you can easily tell the before and after combustion marks on fresh cylinder and how much better it was after making the modifications. that cylinder in particular was blowing the fresh combustion straight out the exhaust port and just wasting fuel and putting it in the exhaust. after 5 mins with a dremel the flame front was dead center of the piston and it was much more light brown and not wet and unburnt oil tar. i never would have thought something that simple would help but it made a huge diff in tune tune ability and driveability. and a little bit of power.
I saw to use of dimples a while back in a racing magazine. However the dimple were placed in the cylinder head rather than the top of the piston.
Optimization of the pressure front on the piston should be the focus. Adding a compressed air path to the injector and a mixing venturi to fully atomize the fuel being placed into the combustion chamber will provide much better gains.
"Golf ball texture means more efficient" _when doing what golf ball textures do on golf balls._ That is, when creating a turbulent boundary layer of air in a laminar airflow, avoiding the laminar air from sticking to the surface of a dimpled object, decreasing drag in the process. This was applied to the front face of the VW Golf to great effect, again, due to the car moving in laminar air, decreasing the drag of air on the car. We are talking about applying this principle to a piston moving forward against and compressing already turbulent air, air made turbulent to increase the access of oxygen to fuel. I have little reason to believe there is any laminar air drag on the piston to neutralize using dimples. Most of the efficiency and emissions improvements come from the ceramic and various coatings. Less heat absorbed by the engine = more heat in the ignited gas = more pressure = more useful work = more power with the same amount of fuel or less fuel for the same power. Now we're talking. If I am right (and I reckon there's a chance I'm not) then the dimples are a marketing plot device meant to promote a company that wouldn't receive much attention otherwise for doing the "same old pistons with a dull coat". Can't really justify $2300 for coatings alone, gotta add machining that hauler company businessmen can understand is expensive.
Can u get them for snowmobile? Or your just making them for automobiles
cast pistons = bigger clearances until hot = more pollution on start up = hyperutectic = high in silicone and special rings better sealing and smaller gaps is the new industry type = PSZ partially stabilized zirconium pistons and berrillium alloys for valve seals is an advanced product - even coated and de frictionized less oil and services ? all put on hold for electric !
25%? I call BS. I would believe 2.5% and even that would still be an impressive improvement.
Somender Signh , motorcycle racer and mechanic, patented a piston very similar to this one. It was written about in 2004 Popular Science magazine.
For my 1995 F-350 7.3L Powerstroke a piston kit, pistons and rings, is $3700.97 or $462.62 per cylinder!! Are you kidding!!!! It’s a damn piston for a pickup truck!! Companies like this piss me off! If they can’t figure out a way to manufacture a piston with a few little dimples on the top for a reasonable price I hope they go out of business!
The grooves leading from the Squash Band to the Combustion Chamber are the most effective part of this mod. Someander Singh has been doing this for decades on different engines. As the piston moves through TDC pressure from the SB is shot through these grooves to fragment the flame front adding turbulence at the right time of combustion. The results are cleaner oil, cleaner piston crown, economy, you can run higher compression or less octane, on gas engines you can pull away in 3rd from low idle. Should be able to retard ignition a degree or two and cut down on negative torque. The dimples would thicken the Boundary Layer and add to the jet grooves volume in the piston SB. Volume down warning. kzhead.info/sun/g96Gl7SSr3ZtfK8/bejne.html
Hey this is a really thing me and my dad rebuilt a cat 3406e 2ws and put this on the pistons and a can clarify that by the butt dyno it has more low end torce and the exhaust smells a lot different I don't know about fuel mileage it's only been running for a month or month and a half
Currently mainly for Diesels?
I questioned the manufacturer of this design. If I were to take a used engine that may already be worn, causing loss of cylinder seal, then rebuilt it with "these" pistons, sure there is going to be a power increase. But when I asked about this, the manufacturer avoided that question. I have not yet seen where they took an engine that had under 10% leakdown, replaced the pistons with "these", and seen any appreciable power, torque, or emissions improvement. They've not been able to prove that yet.
They are not really interested in you generating less profit for them. Here is a list of old technologies. Hold onto your hats, the last one is a kicker. The best way to design a conventional engine is a scotch yoke like design with two in line pistons and an electric generator inbetween connected to an electric system, or with an old magnetic variable transmission (maybe), that reaches such high compression it burns the hydrogen. This has been tried before. I call the online generator engine the Watson engine, after my friend Daniel Watson who suggested it, when I was briefly trying to figure out how to do a low friction orbital piston engine with near constant speed through the stroke for electric generation between the pistons. There was a company that was designing a variation of this theme aiming at 100Mpg a decade or do ago. I think a design was in a form lift at the time. Look up the Israeli Aquarius engine (process that Atlantis), that was cheap, as it could be made out of softer steel, and stick a electric generator between the pistons, about the same time as the previous engine. We are talking about designs that would propell a small car to wrll over 140Mpg (EU). Now, there was a small car manufacturer in France, going back frcsrs, that produced cats with up to over 140Mpg, without these engines. With these engines, we could look at 200mpg+, as was achieved in the 1920's or so, using precracked normal fuel. Once they cracked the fuel, they could no longer get these sorts of results without much pronlems doing so. Look up low temperature burning and engine designs, which is how spontaneous human combustion mechanism consumes even bone. Let's look at the hybrid electric turbo diesel Golf that got down to around 1.74 litres per hundred kilometres (over 150mp US). They curved repossessed and scrapped all of those, like an earlier hybrid once people figured out they could just modify them, to recharge the day battery pack each night, rather than use feul to charge the battery pack. Even movie stars going to court to keep their vehicles against the regulation, couldn't go it. A massive scandal. Look up the technology around 15 years ago, where they electromagnetically stimulate the wave front of the fuel burn to get a more complete burn. I figured out, of I applied that to deisel, I could perhaps get much better economy and a clean fuel burn, without a particulate filter. Look up the fish carburettor, an alternative to injection, where they try to close it fine, and destroy the factory. We didn't need early complex injection technologies. Look up the regenerated braking that for used, that compressed the engine to brake, turned off the engine, and used the compression to restart the engine and take off. So, you stop at traffic lights with a lot less fuel usage. How come we don't all have cars like that, using one of these newer engine technologies? Look up the junk emissions control technologies, that just used more fuel, so that for decades new equivalent cars couldn't compete on fuel economy. Now, the real kicker. Years ago, in an environmental fair, there was a guy with a mod carburettor system in Australia, claiming over 1000 MPG (non American MPG). I didn't know exactly what he was doing, and concluded that was too big. But, knowing now, what guys were up to at that stage, it is like the amount an orgon energy device, would use to lubricate the system, to stop it seizing up or warping, as the orgon energy is virtually like extracting vacuum energy. But, at the time I didn't know about this. Guts into this and hydrogen fuel generation car technologies, had people from intelligence turn up and told them to stop. I think military intelligence. I had a couple of friends in military intelligence (I never discussed this with them). So, just with a normal type of fuel, and a combination of the more normal types of technologies above, and this toroidal like piston (look that up), we should be driving around cars with up to between 200-300 mph, non electric. It is a con. Now, add electric, and maybe we will get 200-300 mpg more of the time. People are dim witted, including the people who let these people do this to us! Look it all up, and see what was really out there. Most of the stuff I mentioned is the more conventional type of technologies, so doable. Bunches in Australia were connected to a the All Earth Technology people over here (actually I think that was EMP in Victoria, Australia), Whoever it was, sold heaps of publications and kits on these things, and people started research groups and properties eventually, and had their own publication).
The smart thing the company did was open-source the cad files to allow for free engineering input. They can pay a team to browse engineering forums and cherrypick what works in order to streamline their product. Crowd sourcing is typically really efficient for RnD.
cant wait to see what the AI overlords will come up with for the design for some engines
They have been playing around with crown shapes for ever but I notice that they are not using valve scallops in these designs. I would love to see a four valve cross flow side valve with a hemi piston.
@Karl with a K Not yet. But good luck to all those working in it.
This would only be available for low compression turbocharged applications. My pistons in my 12.5:1 engine are domed with valve reliefs, the opposite of a bowl.
This was pretty specifically geared towards diesels. Which even in their lowest compression turbo variants sit around 16.5:1 and upwards of 24:1 in some older NA models. That "dish" in the piston you're seeing here is actually the bowl or chamber where combustion takes place in a diesel because the bottom of the cylinder head is perfectly flat and has no chamber volume.
It appears the piston is painted on top and the side. I also see that Cerakote has a high temp "Piston paint" and they have a video of them painting the top and sides. I think it is a hydrophobic finish that reduces friction and carbon build up?? Not sure.
I Cerakoted my piston skirts with the Micro Slick and Ceramic V-136 the tops, didint do the head and valves unfortunately, I also got the crank, Vanos and bearing shells WPC treated, in my BMW S54, I average around 32 mpg on the highway, and throttle response is crazy fast, compared to a stock M3 and everyone that has driven mine, they say its a lot faster than theirs, and mine is stock, 45k miles on the rebuild, burns 0 oil.
ya, the coatings are no joke
Makes sense.
The design would allow for two things, it would mix the fuel and air better due to local turbulence, the second would be more surface area would conduct the expansion force more evenly. 20% is a stretch, but 10 to 15% will be likely. It also would be more tolorant of very lean mixtures where detonation occurs which is probably where the 20% is coming from.
And if lean mixtures is what you're looking for, Mazda has Skyactiv X for that. Shame they aren't bringing it to the US.
Diesel engines cannot detonate. This company does not mention gasoline engines but does say something cryptic like they would like to expand their product into other applications including other fuels.
My dad and I thought of something like that back in the 90’s, but they are missing something lols
0:54 Steel is not a new material for pistons. Pistons were steel before they were aluminum.
There's a lot of skepticism about the 25% figure, but what is the maximum observed under ideal lab conditions? If the mixture of fuel and air was as good as physics allows, would we get 25%?
Max theoretical thermodynamic efficiency for Diesels is 70%. Most run between 30-50%. So a 25% gain (30%->37.5% or 50->62.5%) would all be within theoretical limits.
Tractor trailers gets about 4 mpg. +25% would be 5 mpg. I have serious doubts this design would have any benefit to non diesel applications.
When can we have a block made of clear aluminum? Can't be hiding those cute dimples!
This Makes Me Think of an Old Myth Busters Episode Where They Were Studying Aerodynamic Cars and MPG They Took a Car and Put Dimples All Over it Looked Like a Golf Ball. That Car Got The Best MPG and Before They Dimpled it They Did a MPG on That Car and After The Dimples There Was a 17 % MPG Improvement Very Interesting in Deed !
IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THE COMBUSTION ON THE EDGE IS A GOOD IDEA, WHAT DOES IT HELP TO DO THAT?
Stronger flame front
If the gain is from air turbulence, it seems turbine shaped fins/channels on the intake side of the valve stem would create a vortex as the intake air flows by the valve into the compression chamber. (Patent pending)
Some drag racers running pro stock in the early 70's had little strips of steel metal brazed in the intake ports. Don't know if they gained much but it's neat seeing what they had to do to the heads back then.
efficiency is the key here more power better fuel and less emissions'. i would say if 15% better fuel and power and maybe 6o % reduction in nox emissions is true their will be a market for this part
It lowers the compression ratio so u lose power
What makes you think the piston top cannot be designed to maintain CR with new contours? All that matters for achieving a given CR is the total volume of the combustion chamber.
Turn up the boost.
A-luminum... the up & down voice tone is also interesting.
I have a CNC mill , I'll have to try that out
Run it and watch it😊
Should be simpler to create 3D printed prototypes to use as sacrificial mold core. Create reproducible forms in bulk. High pressure form them. Polish to fit. Seems silly to machine any more than necessary. Car manufacturers hate longevity so of course must be after-market.
Golf balls have great effects for aerodynamics from having similar design indentations
I would be surprised if they managed to do that. even a 5% decrease of fuel consumption would be a big win. furthermore, e-fuels are slowly coming. could be interesting.
e-fuel is bio-fuel. efuel is being processed or produced by human machine. bio fuel is being processed by plants Sun+carbon+H2O=biofuel. our gas is added 10%bio fuel. nothing interesting.
Yeah the e fuel thing seems very interesting, especially since battery tech really hasn't improved recently
Lol that's why they say "up to"
Stirring the air just as the combustion starts is a somewhat new idea. You can do the same in a gas engine by modifying the cylinder head. Sominar Sing in India worked with the head, placing a notch across the quench area of the piston, aimed at the spark plug. As the piston hits TDC, a jet of air stirs the mixture. A test we did with a 300 Ford inline showed even without data there was a big change in the engine at low RPM's. You can put the truck in 5th gear at 20mph where the engine is below idle speed. No bucking or complaining, it just pulls through.
With the engines being over 150 years old you're not going to see anything that produces improvements of 25%, you'll see single figure improvements and like everything else they only work when carefully controlled. Shaping of the piston head isn't new and sometimes its a necessity but you quickly find that the piston crown builds up deposits that collect in areas where gas speeds are lower - so any gains will likely diminish. Having said that, there will always be gains to be made and its encouraging to see that despite the projected demise of the ICE, I'm sure it will be around for a while yet. The problem with Petrol and Diesel is that they are just so bloody good at what they do. A while ago someone calculated that if you fill a petrol car with 100 litres of Diesel in a couple of minutes thats equivalent of 50MW of power flow. Thats the entire output of a small power station - or 20 wind turbines ideal conditions or 25 Hectares of Solar at midday on the equator.
1l Diesel equals 12kw/h ....100l Diesel equals 1200kw/h ...1200kw/H =1.2Mw/h
Looks like a twist on the 20+ yr old "Somender Singh Grooves"; one or more shallow grooves that start near the bore wall on the cylinder heads quench pad area and extend across the quench pad area pointing towards the spark plug location....etc etc....design to increase combustion.... New piston breakthrough....^snorrrrrrrre^
Read about that 25+ years ago.
Id try them in my 56 block 5.9 cummins build but not at the price they want for them. I could get a set of Monotherms cheaper and have EGT just become a number at that point.
It is the same reason a golf ball with small round holes in it goes twice as far than a smooth ball , air flow disruption over a surface, they learned long ago polishing intake ports in any engine reduces flow , and putting small divits or round holes in the surface improve air flow, that is why every intake port you have ever seen is rough cast, the factory can cast smooth ports but the cheap way without taking the time to drill hundreds of small holes in confined port space is to make it rough cast, simple !
bigger combustion chamber would lower compression mostly, but if you use it for clearance for valves opening more, it could show some hp gains. i think you do lose torque. only records this contoured piston would break is in emissions. you know they aren't looking for more power as the goal, just be miserly with fuel and be more green
I'm pretty sure they would adjust the stroke to keep compression the same. Otherwise, it would burn more fuel, not less.
Wtf are you talking about? If these results are shown to be useful in smaller engines and implemented, then manufacturers will just adjust the bore and stroke to account for the dimples. U fool
Page up
this works by effectively creating 2 combustion chambers - one smaller chamber that can be run very rich (the void in the piston) and the typical space between the piston and the head as the primary that can be run very lean.
You did not mention any potential increase of horsepower to be found with this technology. This tech may be able to dramatically enhance I.C. performances. And in doing that, help us all with dealing with the mid-steps of evolution from I.C. to E.V.
Thought-provoking video. Like many innovative videos, this touches on the economics of research and development in terms of the unit end result (what percent fuel savings improvement does 1 unit produce in this case) but would benefit from a complete market size analysis. The video focuses on fuel economy savings. It doesn't directly mention any R&D costs. However, if R&D didn't cost any time or money then the most optimized form for all new piston manufacturing would already be used. If there is an R&D cost then the question becomes one of optimizing for pistons that have a very high number manufactured annually; for pistons that are manufactured in huge numbers it makes sense to invest in the optimization program, whereas for small and niche pistons it would not be a worthwhile investment, unless the same piston design can then be used in a variety of engine product lines. For this reason where looking at fuel consumption price savings it is important to take a glance at the sales volumes involved to know whether it makes sense to spend time and money on a design improvement.
With fuel prices continually climbing to record numbers and certain refineries only making diesel fuels instead of gasoline. Fuel economy is first on my list of priorities of savings. If the design can be applied to all types of piston driven engines and an actual 25% increase in fuel savings per tank of gas. It will be a good money saver for the consumer, as well as most likely better engine service life, per investment to the consumer I say where can I get a set or two or three?
Maybe I was mistaken but in the video I understood that a 6.7 cummins set was $3700, and that over 100,000 miles it would save around $5000. On top of the price of the pistons you would also have the cost of installation parts needed to install those and if you don't do it yourself you would have the labor as well. Completely negating the savings. The only benefits (if true) would be the emissions reduction at great monetary cost.
At 3:36 Did he really just pronounce Soot like "suit". Bawhahaha
Is this only for diesels, or is it also for gasoline engines?
I'm more into plane aerodynamics, but I can't figure out what that design could effectively do in terms of fluid dynamics
Not sure if I can believe any thing you said as you added a " g " to Cummins !!!
You can accomplish the same thing if you have the piston wpc and zero gaps rings.. also have the rings wpc treated... 80% less friction...wpc treat rods and connecting sleeve.
It's old technology. Larry Widmer of EnDyn was doing it 40 years ago on gasoline engines. If it was working that well, the OE companies would have already adopted it.
that thing got a hemi?
Ehm,.. might help a bit,.. if it actually does what us claimed. If this can be retro fitted,.. that'd be interesting.
It works on an intake manifold, why wouldn't it also work on a piston? The concept is... the (air eddies) little pockets cause air motion to better atomize fuel. 2/3 better fuel economy just for doing this to an intake manifold...
someone said "hey, golf balls go really far because of the dimples, lets put those on a piston and claim inflated efficiency numbers"
You will know they're really onto something when you see a piston crown that's NOT symmetrical... because the air charge is not symmetrical 😮
The dimples in golf balls are also put there for a good reason.
AERO-DYNAMICS ON GOLF BALLS
I feel that ICE engine technology still has so much more to give and it’s a shame that much of that potential might never be reached due to the shift towards electric.
The sh - t towards electric. 💩
There will be no shift to electric power our government keeps jacking around to get you to look the other way or make your life so difficult you don't got time to question what they're up to. Looks like we got a lot of serious questions regarding criminal behavior not to mention the usual theft fraud abuse Along with greasing the political skids money laundering and ever-popular influence pedaling or outright treason
Don't worry, EV's will get pushback when we realise batteries have to be recycled. And that it's very expensive.
I don't think ICE engines will completely disappear until most of the oil is used. We're not just going to turn our backs on that energy resource. I think the future lies in hybrids...
Don't get me started on the 2 stroke. Way more power than a 4 stroke ,can be done without oil in the fuel ,and less crap flying around inside. But no they killed em.
May I ask about the history of thus company , they claim they beat or be even with tesla is that true
I am very skeptical. To start, they state that their two test engines were mine-haul 3516s... you're looking at a 6.7" bore and a 7.5" stroke with a max rpm of what... 1800-ish on a good day. C/R is 12.5 to 13. to 1. They state their tests were done over a decade ago, and they used ceramic coatings, as opposed to just changing the piston design for comparison. Did their new piston design change the C/R? What about just ceramic coating a stock piston, etc. Too many variables at play.
One word: Deposits
I don't know anything about engines, so let me explain how they work. Paul and Temple seem to have different ideas about the spare bedroom on top of the piston. Either the economy is improved and power is lost or the other way around? Show your work gentlemens.
Oh they will, but just like with all the perpetual motion guys they won't let you view the entire mechanism, which in that case usually means opening the cabinet below. That is the 'proprietary' part. And they take it away at intervals to 'change the batteries out'. One of my favorites at these sorts of shenanigans was Smokey Yunick, a designer/ mechanic for a NASCAR team, used to say if the rules didn't specifically disallow something, then it was fair game. In one case, to increase gas capacity he put a bladder in the tank for the measurement, and then deflated and removed it after the verification by the tech guys. In another, they drained the tank, which measured correctly, and then found something else that didn't meet spec, so he drove it off to his shop, with no fuel in the tank. He also got there, because he had increased the fuel capacity using oversized lines, which held enough to get him there. And that wasn't even what they'd busted him for that made him drive off in a huff. Don't even get me started on Fish carbs and water injection and other such BS, as far as gas mileage goes. Smokey came up with some amazing stuff though, and pioneered some equipment to do a lot of it. Some of it was nuts, and didn't work worth a damn, like IIRC, a distributor with eight sets of points. He made a ceramic engine once using, again IIRC, ceramics, without any cooling, and that did work quite well as far as performance and economy, but there you could work out the pertinent equations and determine exactly why.
@@MrJdsenior Yup, can't stop shenanigans.
I'm going to go with hype.
This was an old trick in racing and land speed gasoline engines except they made the dimples on the combustion chambers and bowls, not the pistons. Would be interesting to compare the designs.
So now I'm thinking shape of the bowl, it should try to mimic the shape of the molecules laser printed right in the center of each indentured point, in my mind that could save on fuel economy if the molecules could somehow act as a chain instead of clumps
Bruh
The supposed better mixture will be more than negated by the reduced compression ratio.
Wtf are you talking about? If these results are shown to be useful in smaller engines and implemented, then manufacturers will just adjust the bore and stroke to account for the dimples. U fool
The Omega1 by axios aeronautical is the future. 160hp at 35lbs.
Please give us the viewers more. It is fascinating to hear of this development to make the engine performance better.
Of course, this was only part 1 for now as it's going to take awhile to verify.
What I see is a reduction in compression due to the dimples, less power would make the engine work harder and use more fuel.
I guess this could work in forced induction applications. But what about compression in a naturally aspirated engine?
Data will be forthcoming as it is undergoing epa verification. One PER customer in canada has absolutely seen results on par with the claims.