It emits THC? Damn. Bet that will be popular.

 

Well, true. Why sue when you have everything to gain? But I think it's a lot more involved than just licensing fees. If a major auto manufacturer would take on this new technology (not just some new VTEC stuff) it would involve a serious redesign of the current manufacturing process, millions (maybe even billions) of dollars in new tooling, new facilities, research and development costs, and what do you do with the last 50+ years of technology and all of the old equipment that you have investment in . . . throw it out? Also, what about all the jobs that would change, the new training that would be needed -- not just in the manufacturing site but in the dealers and repair shops. I'm sure none of the little shops would know how to work on this new fangled stuff, it would probably be a "dealer only" type of repair and that equals more $$$$ to the customer. In terms of the fuel consumption, if you can achieve a lot of horse power on standard pump gas and get exceptionally good mileage (I believe Coates claimed upwards of 70 MPG when he spoke at my school), how would that affect our economy since it relies so heavily on oil? I'm sure no car manufacturer would want to be known for putting a large portion of the oil industry out of business.

So, in my opinion, there's just a lot more to it than meets the eye.

Matt

 

Wher can I get one of these motors?

 

Matt: Coates claimed 70 MPG with these "wunder heads"??? Well, that firmly puts him in the BS camp as far as I'm concerned together with the other dreamers...

 

Zwede: It was some number like that . . . absurd even with today's standards. However, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt since current diesel technology can produce 40 or 50+ MPG. If his heads can increase the compression ratio, improve the combustion process, and reduce the resistance on the "cam shaft" to just the rotating inertia, then why not 70 MPG?

The 2000 edition of the "Engine Masters" publication had a write-up detailing these new heads and how they work, as well as a little comparison with poppet valves. It might be posted on his web page, but I know it came with the last packet of info I got from them.


Matt

 

My chemistry professor told us that the "engine of the future" will most likely run on CNG. Natural gas is cheap, plentiful, will be easier to convert to, and will not sacrafice power. CNG has an octane rating of 125. Fuel cells that run on hydrogen are still a losing battle. An average automotive fuel cell runs at least at $1million. And Hydrogen is alot more expensive.

 

AND it runs on "digested gases". Turns farts into chronic!

The rotary valve design actually pre dates overhead valve designs. Seals were the problem and still are as well as flow dynamics of a moveable port as well as heat transfer, etc. etc.

 

That must have been a while back. It ain't cheap and plentiful no more. We actually have a shortage just with industrial and residential use. No way we could switch cars over to it on a national scale.

 

Actually that was in the last month.

BTW my college just got a multimillion dollar grant to develop alternitive fuel systems.

Hydrogen doesn't occur naturaully and must be manufactured.

 

been around for awile,I tried to contact i tried 2/3 yrs ago about a add-on head change and got NO info back

 

What do you mean hydrogen doesnt occur naturally and needs to be manufactured? Dont you mean harvested? Cant hydrogen be harvested from water? Electric engines seem pretty promising for a future engine.

 

Hydrogen has one electron which means it reacts easily. This is why you don't find hydrogen alone. There is some talk of hydrogen internal combustion engines, the all electric car is pretty much dead. Any electric car that would be introduced in the near future would be powered by a fuel cell.
It can be harvested from water because it is more expensive then other means. If it could be done more efficiently than it would be an excellent fuel.

 

Problem is that fossil fuels need to be used to break the bonds between the hydrogen atoms and the oxygen atom. Perhaps nuclear power could be used to do it more efficiently, but it would take more power to make the hydrogen then the hydrogren would actually produce. This is right now, with more technology it could move over to that.

 

The water molecule is extremely strong.
BTW, the source that most of the hydroden used today comes from is natural gas.

 

This does sound like a fairly complex technology when compared with current valve systems but when you come down to it... it's a new head design. Should be way easier than hybrids and if it works well it's something that can be applied to other lines far easier than hybrid technology. In addition, hybrid technology addresses only economy, not necissarily efficiency. You wouldn't want a hybrid 'vette or truck to tow a boat but boosting the efficiency of those vehicles would be great. Appease the EPA if nothing else.

As far as putting the oil industry out of biz... as long as OPEC has a say in things, oil prices will be high enough. I tend to think lower gas prices would be better for our economy as we are less dependent on oil (and petrol product) sales but more dependent on oil consumption. Trucks, trains, planes, even ships burn petrol products to get the things we buy to our doors and shops and that cost is passed on to the consumer. Airlines in particular have been hit hard by petrol prices. Mark my words... as two countries (India and China) start to catch up with the US economy (and their oil consumption goes WAY up) we are going to be in a world of hurt. Compared to European prices we have had it really easy for a long time and our economy has benefited in a big way.

I hope I'm not sounding pissy or anything, that's really not how I mean any of this. I'm truly intrigued by this technology. I'd LOVE a V-8 that could do 10,000 RPM and still be streetable. I've even gone through the trouble of converting my car to EFI for (among other things) fuel efficiency. It sounds like a step forward that could be retrofitted to older designs which is fantastic. I guess I'm just a little jaded from all those years of reading Popular Science and never seeing the gadgets appear in stores.

 

Making hydrogen is cheap and easy. Remember 7th grade chemistry? Electrolysis, simply put, involves running D/C current through plain old water, with a trace of any electrolyte, and presto, water splits into oxygen and hydrogen, which bubble right up. This is what happens when you (heaven forbid!) get the jumper cables hooked up backwards, hydrogen H2 and 02 are promptly generated, along with heat and sparks, and if you don't catch on quick enough the darn thing explodes.

DC current is easy and (believe it or not) cheap to produce with solar cells or wind turbines. This type of electicity is normally troublesome because it is intermittent, and can't be promptly "ramped up" or turned down like a coal fired generator (or nuclear fired turbine). On the other hand, you can stick a wind turbine in a field and have it busilly hydrolyse water at it's own pace, and recover the energy by combusting the hydrogen later at your liesure (or feeding it to a fuel cell if you prefer). Solar panels in the desert, on a rooftop, or wherever can do the same thing.

The problem with hydrogen is storing it (need high pressure tanks) and distributing it (pipelines) safely and efficiently. The infrastructure isn't there, and would/will take a long time to build. We already do it with natural gas (it heats my home), but you don't see many hydrogen stations on the corner yet for your fuel cell vehicle. And storing enough hydrogen in your car (safely! Think "Columbia Shuttle") to drive to the next fillup station is a tricky problem too.

Hydrogen is attractive because it is infinitely available and renewable, and can serve as a storage medium for energy collected intermittently by other renewable means. What we lack at present is infrastructure, and some technologies for storage/utilization. I personally think it's silly to use natural gas or coal or oil to make hydrogen, when wind and solar options are so much cleaner, and well suited to the task to boot. There just isn't enough political or industrial will to make the big investment as long as petroleum can be had cheaply. Quintuple the cost of fossil fuels, (already there in some parts of the world), and all of a sudden American ingenuity and industry could and would very quickly develop new technology and infrastructure to switch to a hydrogen economy.

 

Sorry, but it's not that easy on a large scale. That is why most of the hydrogen today comes from natural gas. Plus you have to process twice as much water than as natural gas to get the same amount of hydrogen. How do I know this, the college I attend is Kettering University. One of the leading engineering schools in the country. They have an automotve powertrain/alternative fuels program. They are devloping fuel cells and other alternative fuels. They have lectures open to all students about the feasability of different fuels. I am inclined to believe them. That being said, if all of the problems associated with hydrogen were sovled, it would make a great fuel for IC engines.

Btw, If you haven't heard of Kettering, you might recognize the school's old name; the General Motors Institute. Kettering

 

You mean "Challenger", whose explosion was due to a faulty o-ring in the solid fuel rocket, causing it to hit the liquid oxygen tank. The Columbia accident was a structral failure. Now back to the topic.

 

cool idea

 

their idea sounds awesome. Too bad we can't convince the company to sell stock to corvette forum members only. Then we can all afford the c3 of our dreams.