Increasing efficiency - converting heat?

Ok,

I've been pondering the fact that cars waste a huge amount of energy through heat of exhaust and the engines radiant heat. I was thinking, and wouldn't it be very usefull to try to convert this heat into more usefull energy? I've heard some numbers stated, where the loss is around 30% of the total energy stored in gas.
I was wondering if a heat conversion device like a steam engine could utilize some of this wasted heat. Perhaps convert exhaust heat to energy to run a fan for the radiator? It just seems like so much is wasted...

Does anyone have any experience with steam or other methods of converting heat to usefull energy? It seems this might be a usefull modification to high performance engines that burn through alot of gas.

Before you leave work for home wrap your dinner in some tin foil and wire it onto the exhaust.
It should be well cooked by the time you get home.

Or, you could try a Turbo Charger.

Ok,

I've been pondering the fact that cars waste a huge amount of energy through heat of exhaust and the engines radiant heat. I was thinking, and wouldn't it be very usefull to try to convert this heat into more usefull energy? I've heard some numbers stated, where the loss is around 30% of the total energy stored in gas.
I was wondering if a heat conversion device like a steam engine could utilize some of this wasted heat. Perhaps convert exhaust heat to energy to run a fan for the radiator? It just seems like so much is wasted...

Does anyone have any experience with steam or other methods of converting heat to useful energy? It seems this might be a usefull modification to high performance engines that burn through alot of gas.

Well if 30% of the heat is lost in the exhaust, 30% is lost to the cooling system, and 10% is miscellaneous losses. There is really only about 20% of the energy left over for useful work.

Taking some of this lost energy to increase the heat lost from the radiator isn’t going to improve the engine's efficiency. Any heat lost is work lost, and no device can recover all the losses.

If you are really hard up to maximize efficiency then you need to develop of way to prevent the heat loss in the first place, not try to recover it later to run trivial devices.

On the other hand if you are only focused on dealing with recovering lost heat, Moppie is right on point and you should check out:

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/turbo.htm

and/or

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0375751408/103-1307330-7304619?v=glance

turbos increase efficiency.......and fun :devil:

if you want increased thermo-efficiency get a diesel. they are far better than gas engines.... if you all can figure out a way to convert all that energy loss in a cost effective manner then patent it and contact all the auto makers... im sure theyd like to know how you did it

if you want increased thermo-efficiency get a diesel. they are far better than gas engines.... if you all can figure out a way to convert all that energy loss in a cost effective manner then patent it and contact all the auto makers... im sure theyd like to know how you did it

I like that idea, but that takes a lot of thinking.....Diesel is a good idea, but turbo diesel.....:devil: now we're talking! :p

Instead of trying to reclaim wasted heat, how about designing an engine that extracts more useful energy from the fuel by converting more of it to motion and less to heat.

Diesels are better at this than gasoline piston engines because diesel fuel can operate at higher compression ratios.

BTW rotary gas engines are less thermodynamically efficient than piston gas engines, hence their mileage is worse.

As far as I know, one way is to raise the operating temperature of an engine, without melting the pistons, rings or cylinder walls.
For years, manufacturers have experimented with ceramic coatings, ceramic parts, eliminating oiling systems (oil would just burn at really high temps anyways) and eliminating fluid cooling systems.
My guess is that no commercially-viable major tech breakthrough has been made in this field.

turbos increase efficiency.......and fun :devil:
Beaten :naughty:

As far as I know, one way is to raise the operating temperature of an engine, without melting the pistons, rings or cylinder walls. My guess is that no commercially-viable major tech breakthrough has been made in this field.

Yep, raising the temp of the engine is good for efficiency, but not quite as good for power of course. The only viable step in this direction that I've found is Evans NPG coolant. NPG in thier case stands for non-aqueous propylene glycol. since cooling systems don't rely on the actual temperature of the water, they rely on the ability for it to transfer heat out, the actual temperature of the engine can be higher than we currently run. Since the Evans coolant doesn't get mixed with water it can't boil (well, not until something like 380 degrees). I think regular oil starts losing its life around 260 degrees, and synthetic somewhere around 280. The caddy 500 in my Bonneville runs Evans and I keep it running around 250. Detonation isn't a problem since there is no nucleate boiling to allow chamber temps to spike. It works well so far on 10w40

I wouldn't call Evans coolant a major viable breakthrough, but its at least a step in the right direction. Until then, I'll just run a turbo :)

increasing engine temps would increase peak combustion temps and therefore increase NOX emissions. egr flow would have to be increased and that just takes up precious space in the combustion chamber. not to mention all that extra carbon buildup from the temps being so high

increasing engine temps would increase peak combustion temps and therefore increase NOX emissions. egr flow would have to be increased and that just takes up precious space in the combustion chamber. not to mention all that extra carbon buildup from the temps being so high

As long as the coolant is taking as much heat out as the combustion puts in, it doesn't matter what the temperature of the coolant is. Its just that as water increases temp it begins to boil (nucleate boiling) and this has an exponential effect on detonation. So you are correct when discussing water based coolants.

If you need the coolant to remove 100 joules of energy and its capable of releasing 100 joules, thats all that matters. It doesn't matter to the engine if the coolant is 100 or 800 degrees. So, provided its capable of removing heat (not temperature; they're different) in the same capacity at higher temps, NOx won't increase.

Put it this way, if a typical car is tuned to not detonate at 230 degrees of coolant temp, but it might at 240, its not because its ten degrees hotter, its because the hotter water is starting to boil off the water jacket which reduces its ability to remove heat. The resulting combustion temp is much higher than 10 degrees more. Adding 10 degrees of coolant temp really doesn't matter when the combustion temps can reach 1800.

In most cars today, the cooler temps make more carbon deposits, too. I hate to directly disagree, but I wanted to make sure this part was clear.

[QUOTE=curtis73]If you need the coolant to remove 100 joules of energy and its capable of releasing 100 joules, thats all that matters. /QUOTE]
Just to clarify this to the underclasses----
Normally the ability to make, absorb, transfer, radiate heat, blah, etc. is expressed in Calories or BTUs.
The term "Joule" would be commonly used to express something like--- the amount of energy that had passed thru your Honda Civic's tires after it got hit by a bolt of lightning (and why they are all very flat...not that you would care).
However--
1 Joule is= 9.48 × 10-4 BTU
1 Joule is= 2.390 × 10-4 Calorie
I just don't want anybody to turn their Geo's engine into hot melt glue 'cause they mixed sumpthin' up on their calculator.
;)
deleted "current" for "energy"

sorry if im argumentative, but im drinking and my redneck is coming out... lol

are we talking about modern engines or the 500 caddy? there is a huge difference. higher engine temperatures have an exponential effect on metal expansion do they not? if so, then bearing clearances would have to be larger for the hotter running engines which could mean nasty knocking sounds on cold running. a 50/50 mix of ethyl-glycol coolant and water at 15psi boils at around 260, which i believe was posted above as the temp at which normal oil breaks down. so why is there any need to have your cooling system stronger than your weakest link(oil system)? a redesign of radiators, coolant temp sensors and thermostats would have to be done. not to mention the fact that on "modern cars" the emission monitors/readiness tests wont run with an intake air temp higher than 170. that value will be affected by the increased engine temps. i guess the makers could start installing intercoolers on all the cars... and last but not least, as it was stated above increased engine temps arent good for power output. i guess its up to the consumer whether they want a 10% gain in fuel economy or a 10% loss in power output.

IMO... if it were possible to do in any way, one of the manufactureres would have been on it like stink on shit a long time ago.

sorry if i pissed anyone off, have a happy turkey day if you are fortunate enough to live in the greatest nation on earth

Just a thought.
There's a cook book called "Maniflod Destiny" about cooking on various parts of the engine.

Just to clarify this to the underclasses----
Normally the ability to make, absorb, transfer, radiate heat, blah, etc. is expressed in Calories or BTUs.
The term "Joule" would be

Thanks for the clarification. I'm a bit "old school" :)

oh yeah, i live in the greatest nation on earth but we had our thanksgiving day in october (im talking about canada)

Anyways on the subject of redesigning the whole engine, piston engines only produce power on one stroke per rotation per cylender. if you use something that uses more like a rotary or a quasiturbine you get more efficiency because there isn't the added resistance of those extra strokes.

also the limiting factor on the power of a piston engine is how fast you can accelerate the internal parts (whether positive or negative acceleration) because you have to accelerate it up, negatively accelerate it up (deceleration) then accelerate it down. this reduces the efficiency. one other thing is you could use a turbine engine, these are constantly turning and you don't need to change the direction of parts, you just need to apply a force in one direction (well a circular pattern but you get the idea).

you could also have a hybrid, an engine that charges betteries and it moves with electric motors. this would remove the inefficiency of acceleration because the engine would be running at a constant speed. turbines are not very efficient on acceleration but very efficient at a constant speed so they are perfect for this. also you don't need stuff like valves, cooling (well you need lubrication and you might need cooling for that but you don't need water cooling), or any of that stuff in a piston engine, turbines are very simple and very efficient. best of all, they run on basically any fuel, propane, gasoline, diesel, kerosene, etc.

a classmate and I are working on a science fair project to build a turbine engine and measure which fuel produces the highest thrust, rpm, temperature, etc. Ill keep you guys posted on our progress, it might be slow because i go to a boarding school but I think it should be interesting.

Ok guys, I appreciate all of your input. If you checked my profile you already know I already run a turbo on my car. The idea's I am trying to generate on this thread are new ideas, not everything thats currently available.
I was thinking again, about the design problems that might occur with a STEAM powered turbo perhaps? What if you had a long boiler that coupled to your exhaust systems piping and or the radiator? Could this steam activate a turbo?
This may sound silly, but I really want to push the boundaries here, and incorporate all your combined knowledge into my research. Any opinions on what I've suggested?

Many years ago I read of flowing the coolant the other way around the engine - coolest to the head, so you can raise compression, and then warmer coolant at the cylinder walls for less condensation. It was supposed to work, and I believe one of GMC small blocks does it this way. Also, the Japanese have "direct injection" gasoline engines. By directing the fuel into the combustion chamber directly, you cool the mixture, which again allows higher compression. I'm told our fuel will be clean enough to consider this in a few years. And I just remembered, BMW has a variable valve system that allows them to remove the throttle valve. This reduces pumping loses.
Btw: a steam powered turbo? Can you imagine the turbo lag first thing in the morning? (in winter) But an interesting idea.

Yeah, the lag during the exhaust heating would be substantial, thusly a good reason to run dual turbo type setup. The steam driven turbo would only activate at ideal operating temperature. This would however absorb some of the "wasted" potential present in the radiated heat.

If large portions of gas are wasted in heat, I see this as an easily accessible source of energy. Just because it hasnt been done doesnt mean it cant.

Anyone else see some potential in my idea?

i just heard one that is kindof off the wall, but interesting. modify an engine such that half of the cylinders burn fuel, and the other half recieve the exhaust gasses to push the pistons downward. esentially the exhaust of one cylinder is directed into the intake of the next cylinder in the cycle and when the "driven cylinder" reaches bdc the exhaust valve for that cylinder opens so the exhust gasses are not compressed on the piston's upward stroke. i don't know how viable the idea is, but i just spoke to someone who brought it up and thought it would make a good conversation piece.

Have you seen how big steam powered engines tend to be?
And how much fuel they have to burn to generate enough heat to boil enough water to produce useable power?

the problem i see with that idea is the extra moving mass. if you have a v8, half of the cylenders run on exhaust and he other on fuel, you're trying to turn the mass of a v8 with the power of an inline 4. maybe if you were to use smaller cylenders with lighter parts it might work but i don't think so. it's a good concept but i think a turbine would be a more feasable use for exhaust gases because you're not forcing anything to change directions.

And a turbo doesn't add eficiency, in theory it should but it adds exhaust backpressure that makes the engine work harder, also it adds air and fuel so you're burning more fuel per stroke.

Have you seen how big steam powered engines tend to be?
And how much fuel they have to burn to generate enough heat to boil enough water to produce useable power?


Ya but I corrected my idea into a turbo, certainly alot easier to turn then a full block engine. As I said before the turbo is an assesory one in a dual turbo set up.

The fuel is the exhaust gas, heating a relatively small amount of water. Your fuel is basically the gas that you put into your engine but is wasted as heat. Right?

Anybody that understands what I'm saying, please give me pointers.

I understand, but what your missing is that to produce enough steam, with enough heat and pressure to be useful it has to be heated under pressure in a Boiler.
A boiler is heavy.
To produce enough steam to be of any use it would take more heat than the exhaust is capable of producing.
You might, be able to build a very small boiler that was able to extract enough heat out of the exhaust to run a very small turbine that produced enough power to run your indicators or dash lights.
But then what would be the point?
You would still need an alternator to produce power for the rest of the cars electrical system, and your boiler/turbine assembly would still be so big and heavy that it have a negative effect on the cars performance, safety and looks.
And of course a modern exhaust system needs to be operating at a high temprature in order for the Catalytic converters to work.
By useing the exhaust heat to boil water you would also be cooling the exhaust.

Steam power is big and heavy, and best suited to stationary engines

Plus, lets not forget that every time you ask energy to change phases or transfer from one substrate to another, you lose some of it. Its better to just use the exhaust to directly power the turbo instead of extracting some of the energy from the exhaust into water to then power the turbo.

The five main problems I see with designing a steam operated turbo go like this... and PLEASE forgive me for the long post. Its 11pm, the wife is asleep, and I have no life :D

1) lag if you make it direct to turbo. If you ask the water to make steam as you require it, the lag will be incredible... like on the order of 5 minutes. If you think about gasoline exhaust at its absolute hottest, your talking about 1800 degrees F, or about the same as an electric stove on Hi. It would take quite a while to get steam.

2) storing steam if you make it indirect. The other way I see is using a boiler like Moppie the Dirty Hippie said. The issue then becomes how to store a boiler on board a car and keep it hot enough to have steam on demand. Not to mention, getting the water hot enough to generate steam might take 30 miles or 2 minutes depending on how much water you have in the boiler.

3) storing all the water. Even if you effectively design the system to work properly, it will take a pretty good volume of steam to operate it and I can't imagine 10 gallons of water lasting as long as 10 gallons of gas on a spirited Sunday drive.

4) how to control the steam if its stored. If you have a boiler with steam, you need an entire system to modulate how much steam and how much the turbo sees based on where your foot is. You would also have to make sure the controller compensates for the temperature of the water. On a cold morning when you first start out to work if you floor the throttle while the water is still 40 degrees, the ECM needs to know that the turbo isn't going to magically produce 10 psi like it did last night when you shut down.

5) The boiler will probably have to be metallic to be able to transfer heat of that magnitude. The water will need to have some way of staying liquid when the temps drop below freezing. So, you need to have something dissolved in the water to lower its freezing point. Anti-freeze won't do since Ethylene Glycol and Propylene Glycol will evaporate at about 360 degrees. Once the water is gone the glycols will start boiling. Plus, you would have to start with at least 40% glycol meaning that of your capacity for water, only 60% can be used. In addition, as the water evaporates and you approach the 40% volume mark, the amount of available steam will drop off. You wouldn't get full pressure all the way until you're out of water, you would slowly lose available steam. A common way to combat freezing is by dissolving a disassociative ionic substance in water like NaCl; table salt. The problem is that their ionic bond is what makes the water not freeze, and it also give the water incredibly higher electrolytic properties that will erode even the best stainless steel in short order.

NONE of this is to say that its not possible, especially since you've given it much thought and I just jumped in. I'm interested to hear what you have in mind. I can see two sides here. A typical turbo uses exhaust heat and flow to generate energy, but the bottom line is that it only recovers a fraction of the heat. I can see that an exhaust-to-water intercooler could effectively remove much more heat from the exhaust and store it as steam than a typical turbo, but I'm not sure that you can effectively get the energy back out of the water into a turbine without compromising the design of the car. I guess what I'm saying is that your idea is thermodynamically sound. There is a lot of energy wasted in the exhaust. A turbo recovers some of it, but you could get a lot more heat if you absorbed it into water... its just that I can't see that storing it as steam or hot water would be very effective in an automotive application.

Alright guys, you've given great insight. I see some of the downfalls of this system from a new standpoint. You boys got some experience that I just don't got right now. I've thought about what you've said and think its time to go back to the drawing board. No way a full boiler system would be effective, that is for certain. I do have some follow up thoughts.

A)Would the steam from a substance with a lower boiling point such as ethanol or methanol produce steam at a lower temperature? Is this a viable alternative to my theoretical water steam turbo?

B)Everyone says there is not enough available energy, when this simply isnt true. If 75% of my gas is used in my engine to produce cranking power..then who's to say the remaining 25% has limited usefullness such as running dash lights. I understand the losses when converting types..this whole project is trying to find a way to efficiently use this lost power. No way around it, 25-40% potenital energy has got to be able to run more then dash lights.
I understand the whole catalytic process uses the heat..too bad my car isnt running one. This wasnt ever really considered when I was thinking about the idea. Good point though indeed.

A)Would the steam from a substance with a lower boiling point such as ethanol or methanol produce steam at a lower temperature? Is this a viable alternative to my theoretical water steam turbo?


Yes, but who wants an incindiary vapor at high temperatures hanging around in their car? :D Big booms happen that way.

You are correct that even with turbos there is a considerable amount of heat wasted out the tailpipe, but I'm not sure that water/steam is the best way of harnessing it with current technology.

How about a regular turbo for the normal power adder, but also a turbine-driven alternator? That would remove the drag associated with a belt-driven accessory and make more use of the exhaust heat. You or I with a lead foot would have no trouble keeping the batteries charged, but you might have trouble if a grandma buys the technology. She'd never have her foot in it enough to spin the alternator.

Drive the alternator of the end of the Turbos compressor wheel.
Could be interesting, your removing the loss from the belt drive, but creating turbo lag and powerloss under high electrical load. Turn the Lights on and lose 5psi :D
Crank up the stereo and blow your turbo :lol:



What you need is a head activated electrical engery generating chemical reaction that will last for several hours and reset itself when the heat source is removed.
Then you could use it power an electric motor etc.

you could have a blet driven and exhaust driven alternator, you have the belt with an electric clutch that only connects when you don't have enough electricity running on exhaust. when the batteries are fully charged, it only runs on exhaust.

Jayslay, did you make a fundamental eror, or did I read you wrong.
A standard Carnot cycle gas engine is about 20% efficient. That's 80% out the rad, tailpipe, etc.
Diesels are about 30%, with gas turbines up around 40%.
I've read that an efficient, modern coal-fired electrical plant runs around 25%.
Yes, there's lots of waste heat around.
A WW2 Spitfire (aircraft) did a couple of interesting things with waste heat. The stubby exhaust pipes were fashioned so that the exhaust added about 70 hp to the airframe as thrust. As well, the radiators, under the wing, heated (explanded) air, so that when it left the rad housing, it was accelerated and created enough thrust as to cause no drag, sort of like a ram-jet. Unfortunately, non of this applies to a car.
Thermo-couples are simple units to make electricity from heat. They can be as simple as iron wire and copper wire twisted together. But it takes a lot of them to get much power.

curtis,
Thanks again for your input. I'm still caught up on the heat convertion, althought the exhaust driven alternator is an interesting plot. Could be far easier to apply then what drew suggest below, though doesnt really capitalize on the radiant heat as much.


Drew,
Those numbers I gave are not really accurate, just some figures I've heard. The main point is that a very considerable portion of inputted gasoline is wasted as heat during the combustion. Thank you though for the back-up data. ;) Interesting about the thrust factor of the Spitfire! I have thought about thermocouples a bit, just not enough. How many windings are needed? In fact, I may just go do some reading right now... I'm guessing you would need some voltage regulation and storage for the electricity produced?

I just remembered - somewhere I read that the radiator housing (Spitfire) by cancelling drag, gave them another 140 hp to the airframe.
Thermocouples: you'll probably read much more than I know. I'll assume that the longer the twist, the more current. I'd expect somewhere around .3 to .5 volt, but I'm guessing. I wondered about replacing a muffler with a "box" full of these, to lighten the load on the alternator. - Store the juice in the battery.
Didn't Ford have a 2 speed drive belt system, to lower parasitic loses? ie; turn the water pump and alternator slower. (on a Mustang, I believe)

One way to get better thermal effecency it do decrease the surface to volume ratio. Using fewer larger pistons with a longer stroke will reduce the amount of surface area for the heat to be absorbed into. But of course larger pistons, crank and rods means lower redline RPM but more torque.

good idea but you'll also have more surface area on the cylender walls for the heat to be absorbed into. I believe the hemispherical heads provided the best thermal efficiency yet (the HEMI engines). check it out on www.howstuffworks.com.

And a turbo doesn't add eficiency, in theory it should but it adds exhaust backpressure that makes the engine work harder, also it adds air and fuel so you're burning more fuel per stroke.

THe backpressure caused by a turbo is minimal compared to the enrgy it gets from exaust heat to compress air to raist engine efficency.

my idea was to use a small, high compression engine (higher comrpession = Better thermal efficency) and run Alternator, AC, and powersteering off of the rotation from a turbo.


Turbine engines are efficent...however to get them to work it takes alot of fule...which means they just make alot of power :lol2:

If you are just looking for great MPG Hybrids arent the way to go. Remember that no energy transfer can be 100% efficent so converting motioni nto electricity and then into sored chemical energy and back to electricity and then back to motion is a HUGE waste of energy. Look at the 0-60 times :cwm27: . that is how they get the MPG they do. get a car of similar weight and put a smaller, high compression engine in it with some type of VVT that produces enough power to get the same 0-60 times and the non hybrid will have better MPG.

Also, Hybrid's downfall is they shut the engine off and then start it up when needed. We all learned in basic automechanics that an engine is least fule efficent on start up, even if it it warm.

yes but i was proposing a turbine hybrid, turbines aren't very efficient on acceleration but are extremely efficient for constant speed. this way you could have it running at a constant speed and transfer energy to the batteries. it could runn very low and only accelerate when the batteries were running low. it could probably be alot more efficient than todays hybrids and get good 0-60 times (because electric motors have great torque) and it would be easier to limit speeds (if parents didn't want their kids to be going 100 miles per hour).

Turbine Hybrids are already in common use, but not in automotive aplications.
They get used in large ships, in tanks, and sometimes in locomotives.

The problem is the size of the Turbine needed to produce enough power, its to big for safe, and easy street use.
Turbine powered cars, where the turbine had a direct link to the wheels have been built in the past, but they all suffered problems with very high heat.
If you exhaust it out the back you melt or burn anything behind you (no good in traffic) and venting it out the top can create issues with visablity through the heat haze.

good idea but you'll also have more surface area on the cylender walls for the heat to be absorbed into. I believe the hemispherical heads provided the best thermal efficiency yet (the HEMI engines). check it out on www.howstuffworks.com.

Not really remember I said few, larger, pistons by chomparing a 4 inch bore to a 6 inch bore we have roughly twice the displacement with only about 33% more surface area. Put V8 displacement into a large bore 4 cylinder engine with half the nimber of cylinders and it will only have about 83% of the surface area at a lighter weight but at the loss of high RPM.

I thought all the big bore stuff had problems with emissions. That's why Chrysler and Ford brought out V-10s. Also, 4 cylinders above 2.2 to 2.5 L have balance shafts, I can't see spinning parasitic wieghts help efficiency.

Holy shit, BMW steals Jayslay420's mistrusted IC steam engine idea….


December 14, 2005

A large percentage of the energy released when petroleum is burned disappears out the exhaust system as heat. This has always been the case but the amount of energy released looks set to be cut by more than 80% thanks to a new system devised by BMW. BMW’s announcement of the new technology is somewhat of a technological bombshell as it adds yet another form of hybrid automobile – a turbosteamer.

The concept uses energy from the exhaust gasses of the traditional Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) to power a steam engine which also contributes power to the automobile – an overall 15 per cent improvement for the combined drive system. Even bigger news is that the drive has been designed so that it can be installed in existing model series – meaning that every model in the BMW range could become 15% more efficient overnight if the company chose to make the reduced consumption accessible to as many people as possible.

Combining the innovative assistance drive with a 1.8 litre BMW four-cylinder engine on the test rig reduced consumption by up to 15 percent and generated 10 kilowatts more power and 20 Nm more torque. This increased power and efficiency comes for, well, … nothing. The energy is extracted exclusively from the heat in the exhaust gases and cooling water so it is essentially a quantum leap in efficiency.

The Turbosteamer is based on the same principle of the steam engine: liquid is heated to form steam in two circuits and this is used to power the engine. The primary energy supplier is the high-temperature circuit which uses exhaust heat from the internal combustion engine as an energy source via heat exchangers. More than 80 percent of the heat energy contained in the exhaust gases is recycled using this technology. The steam is then conducted directly into an expansion unit linked to the crankshaft of the internal combustion engine. Most of the remaining residual heat is absorbed by the cooling circuit of the engine, which acts as the second energy supply for the Turbosteamer.

The development of the assistance drive has reached the phase involving comprehensive tests on the test rig. The components for this drive have been designed so that they are capable of being installed in existing model series. Tests have been carried out on a number of sample packages to ensure that the BMW 3 Series provides adequate space. The engine compartment of a four-cylinder model offers enough space to allow the expansion units to be accommodated.

Ongoing development of the concept is focusing initially on making the components simpler and smaller. The long-term development goal is to have a system capable of volume production within ten years.
“This project resolves the apparent contradiction between consumption and emission reductions on one hand, and performance and agility on the other,” commented Professor Burkhard Göschel.

Link: http://www.gizmag.com/go/4936/

Holy shit, BMW steals Jayslay420's mistrusted IC steam engine idea….

Link: http://www.gizmag.com/go/4936/

Look like most of us were very wrong.

Heres some more links: http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&q=turbosteamer&meta=

Well, now that its been done already, i have to move on to something else. Thanks for all the support guys...