Control emissions at the cylinder level, with Zero CO, Zero HC and near zero NO
Design models updates
Self charge Cylinder
- After about five years working around the Concept, a design supported by theoretical studies and by multiple simulations, is now satisfactory and ready to a prototype design, available upon request:
- In this latest design of two pistons fired in the same direction,with one piston containing the other and with a high natural aspiration capabilities, we were able to overcome all remained difficuties we faced in the Relative-Motion design:
- We had over 50% cut in friction losses, when compared with a conventional cyclinder.
-We solved the high oil consumption challange.
We enhanced the breathing capabilities by 2.6 times of conventional natural aspiration, equivalant with best turbocharging capabilities without the need to additional heat management of turbocharging.
-The addition of two rods per cylender, means cutting the needs to turbo-charging and subcooling equipmens.
-Turbo-charging can still be depolyed if needed for additional higher levels of compression.
The capabilities to control CO and NO at the cyclinder level, which is giving the chance not only to save the cost of an expensive three way catalyst in gasoline engines, but also to avoid producing CO2 at the level of such catalyst ( CO+NO=CO2 +1/2 N2)
- Lower emissions, requires higher air flow and higher MEP and these numbers are doubled in a RME design compared to conventional, without decreasing power density.
Particulate Matter emmissions was historically enhanced by turbocharging,and the RME is capable to double induction pressure when compared to conventional turbocharging.
- Completing four strokes in one cycle, solved the challange of the lower engine rated speeds in a Diesel engine, and improved the power density. a Deisel 3000 RPM in our RME compares with a gosoline 6000 RPM rated speed.
- Containing the combustion within the iron boundaries of our floating piston, gives the opportunity to use Aluminum in the engine block, and this would mean, Aluminum Deisel engine is now possible. It will mean alot to a 15 tons engine in a train or a ship.
- Containing the Deisel combustion noise and vibration within the boundaries of the floating piston, away from the engine block, will mean that we can build a Deisel engine as queit as a gasoline one.
- The lower exhaust temprature in a Deisel lean combustion is greatly solved by increasing the exhaust pressure from 0.5-1 bar conventional to about 2 bars in the RME. Particulate is also minimized greatly at the cyclinder level due to a much higher combustion pressure and to a longer stroke time.
The conflict between the unthrotled operation that can enhance engine output and the EGR (exhaust recycling operation to manage NOx) is solved because the exhaust recycling in the RME is achieved by controlling the exhaust valve size and position, rather than redirecting exhaust to the intake valve, Meaning we can establish better soot and power output numbers by enhancing airflow, and still enhance NOx number by recycling 30-40% exhaust as in EGR engines without conflict.
Also, the high oil consumption associated with using sleevees in a conventional engine, was finally solved and patented for the design of our RME, paving the way for queiter, more durable and cheaper to produce engine.
In a case study, comparing the Relative Motion Cylinder to the newly introduced 2-strokes engine with advanced valves from Mazda, which is said to compare to EV efficiency, offering 50% better efficiency than a conventional 4-strokes, we claim the following
-Relative Motion better solves the vibration challange
-Relative Motion has less friction losses
-Relative Motion has less parts
- The Relative Motion cylinder does not suffer partial losses of the injected compressed air when exhaust valves open.
- Relative Motion has three folds of time available for scavenging, and twice the time available for breathing.
- Relative Motion can drop the Side camshafts, and use floating piston as a valve , if no further turbo charging is need above 2.6
A second shelfed design
When the occupying structure is mechanically connected to a crankshaft, the overall engine design will be similar in its industrial feasibility and parts requirements to opposed piston arrangements, however, the physics principles involved are completely different.
An opposed-piston engine physically represents motion as a function of position.
Relative Motion cylinder, having two pistons fired at the same direction, represents in physical terms, motion as a function of time, where the second piston creates a field of pressure that changes how the power output is calculated.
By using a skirt from the past century practice, we tried to solve the combustion and ports seeling challanges.
-------------------------
Good results were accomplished by this design
superior sound and vibration insulation, known of using sleeves.
Failures Realized
------------------------
Inferior air flow management
inferior lubrication results
A First ShelfedDesign
Spring-support model
The idea of this assembly was to replace tradetional turbo & Super charge methods, by a control cylinder dedicated only for suction and compression to lower the cooling needs.
Failures Realized
-------------------------------------------------
inferior in friction losses
inferior oil management
inferior air management
limited to a fixed speed applications like a generator
Learned From a Converge Simulation
The figure is from a mesh designed using Converge
----------------------------------------
When we hired a third party using Converge software to perform a comparison test between a conventional and a Relative-Motion cylinder, using similar crank piston size and stroke distance, and comparable fuel and air volumes, we learned that they had to delay their delivery of result, as for the first time in many years of their work, they experienced what they called " Higher trap mass at BDC than that of TDC by 40%, meaning the calculated exhaust mass at BDC was 40% bigger than the starting mass used at TDC of air and fuel.
The lab had to contact the Software vendor for consulting and after few months of verifications, it was decided that the Relative Motion cylinder design is causing such results, which were never seen in a conventional cylinder testing.
Before this communication, the 40% advantage was explained in physics terms as a result of space saving from motion as a function of time, where the occupying structure is competeing for space with the combussion gas, and now we learned that we can use a simpler engineering term, which is a computer reading gain addressed as " a bigger trap mass result in a Relative Motion Cylinder"
The computer reading showed also that the mean effective pressure increased from 90 bars in the conventional cylinder to 180 bars in the Relative-Motion cylinder.
The lab reported a 40% power enhancement based on the trap mass figures reading, and not based on the mean effective pressure.
For us it was not about how much gain they interpreted, but about learning the engineering term of the gain we know we established in physics.