http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti.../THISWEEKSISSUE

Guy tinkers with S2000 motors too! Read towards the bottom of the article!

Bruce Crower is fairly famous. Ever heard of Crower rods? Pretty big name in good engine internals.

 

Interesting. I'd actually heard of his name in regards to cams, but that's still neat.

 

Very cool, but he is obviously doing this in a very measured manner so as not to make it sound extraordinary over night.

 

obviously, with a dateline on the article of late february, you have to expect.....












Repost.

 

Oops. Oh well, news to me. A combustion engine that doesn't require external cooling is pretty impressive in my book.

 

you guys ever hear of BMW's gas-steam hybrid?

-->click

 

imagine having to fill your car with say, 12 gallons of gas, and 20 of water. Say goodbye back seat, or hello greatly reduced range.

However, an engine like this might be good for pumping stations, or other stationary engines.

 

Arent you missing the major point...efficiency. The 6-stroke would be largely more efficient than a normal gas 4-stroke or even a 4-stroked diesel. They also state it will take roughly equal amounts of fuel and water. So figure 5 gallons of fuel and 5 gallons of water and you are at about the weight of a 14 gallon gas tank due to the water weight. Not too bad.

 

well, IMHO "would be more efficient" is a far cry from "is more efficient." And fuel efficiency isn't the end-all, be-all when it comes to vehicles, or people would all be riding motorcyles. Cost and practicality come into play, as does packaging.

One thing that I haven't seen addressed in regards to this engine is the fact that heat in the combustion chamber is necessary, not a bad thing. If you let the combustion chamber cool down every cycle, combustion is less comlete, and less power is made. I fail to see how increasing emissions and reducing power from combustion , e.g. wasting gas, is somehow confused with "greater efficiency." Unless, of course, that little problem has been ignored for now, under the assumption that "it will be solved."

 

So, up the compression = more heat. I doubt you'd get quite the efficency from the combustion, but theoretically theres a good 75-80% energy you can capture from steam. Obviously you aren't going to get it all and it is going to have to off set a loss from a less complete combustion. Will it, I dunno.