Control emissions at the cylinder level

The clean exhaust advantage of Relative Motion Cylinder

image3

Testing results as of August, 2019 showed that the main reason of adopting the direct injection solution, was about 40% better fuel efficiency and 70% lower CO2 output. The premixed fuel, in Conventional Cylinder had a cleaner output of C12H23, NO and NO2.


  • Relative Motion Cylinder however is not governed by the either-or choices, as we are now able to have triple the mean effective pressure and also use earlier injection because the piston speed is not anymore dependent only on initial pressure, but also on variable surface design. 

 

Relative Motion Cylinder provided 300% higher mean internal pressure at comparable conventional fuel and cylinder volumes, however that is without increasing piston speed that causes fluid freeze and incomplete exhaust burning.


Increased internal combustion pressure resulted in ridding of CH hydrocarbons, mass fraction was decreased by about ten folds from ( 6.59% to 0.067% in direct injection method with compression ratio of 18.3:1) However using premixed fuel and air, the hydrocarbon output was similar (about 0.0002%). This preferred cleaner carbon output, which is along with (CO) a marker of complete burning, was sacrificed for two reasons, first for the increase of CO2 output associated with the premix (from 5.7% to 16.9% ) and second, for the lower efficiency of the premix, meaning the 16.9 % will be calculated per mile as 25%.


 The mass fraction of exhaust markers, like C12H23, NO,NO2  were improved with the new Relative-Motion Design, at initial compression ratio of 18:1,  however CO and CO2 were increased in parallel with the decrease in O2 mass fraction. 


CO output increased in comparable fuel volume from 4.71% to 7.98% direct inject and 6.77% premix. Per mile output we had similar mass fraction output in direct injection, and 20% less with premix.


CO2 in Conventional Cylinder, decreased between premix and direct injection, for similar fuel volume from 16.93% to 5.72%. calculating per mile the numbers are about 500% enhancement difference accomplished by the direct injection, and that what explains the regulations of prohibiting the use of the premix fuel. in the new design, we can have 15% output per similar volume if used as a premix, but we can have about similar or better output per mile, when using a partially premixed fluid. Also the combination of CO+CO2 can be similar using a premix fuel in the Relative Motion Design, compared with direct injection in Conventional Cylinder. Higher compression ratios will further decrease the output of CO, example we had 250% lesser mass fraction output of CO at 30:1 theoretical compression ratio.


 A Relative Motion Cylinder, offers design controls that allow further increase of internal pressure by earlier fuel injection, without the suffering of increasing piston speed, or the loss of efficiency, and for that reason, emission controls will have more variable control tools, for better exhaust of all markers, and not only CO2 .


The (NO) output was about the same, but was also reduced by about 50 % after correction for fuel requirements per mile. However it was almost eliminated with earlier injection time, and that can save on the need for expensive early filtration methods intended to convert NO to NO2.  

IN summary, the new Relative-Motion Design, by increasing the mean effective pressure, along with controlling the piston speed with partially premixing the fuel, and within the limits of accepting about 20% enhancement on CO2, it can allow ten folds enhancements on CH, NO and NO2.


Sizing of internal cylinder parts, under variable motion engineering controls of piston speeds, and cylinder internal combustion pressure, provided many choices of final designs to better address the needs of environmental and energy gain requirements. 

When adopted, direct injection offered a double work-energy availability. With a Relative Motion Cylinder we will take another even bigger positive step, as to the size of improvements on both energy return and cleaner emissions.

 

 

Better exhaust output

image4

Reduced hydrocarbons

H12C23 tests showed 500% reduction of non-manageable hydrocarbons where mass fraction in comparable direct injection parameters decreased from 2.13% to 0.39% with Relative Motion at 30:1 compression ratio, and from 6.59% to 0.67% at 18:1 compression ratio.

Our premix option will eliminate this black material output of exhaust down to 0.00024%, which is a 1000 times less than it is in the direct injection method.


The premix, can be partly used in the Relative-Motion Cylinder, with controlled CO2 level, while in a Conventional Cylinder it would increase CO2 by 500% to levels prohibited everywhere.

 


Reducing the non-manageable exhaust

image5

Non-manageable exhaust CO was reduced by 250% at compression ratio of 30:1

  

Due to increased combustion pressure with modified piston speed, in our Relative Motion Engine.   CO mass fraction at comparable direct injection test parameters was reduced from 4.43% to 1.76% at 30:1 theoretical compression ratio. at 18:1 we may lose such advantage, however that can be managed by partially premixing fluid, which provided better results.

 

Usually, combustion complete burning efficiency is associated with lower CO, and Hydrocarbons.

Enhancing Work Energy

image6

more work energy availability offers higher torque-horse power output or lower fuel requirements in

  

Similar graph enhancement was historically realized after discovering the benefits of direct injection.  This graph, can self-audit itself, showing less work energy available at the first 15% of the expansion stroke, due to having pressure applied to smaller surface, while the remaining 85% of stroke, work energy is doubled. Also the graph is informative of how higher initial acceleration results in a greater waste of energy.

 

Calculating useful energy by deducting friction losses, will further increase the benefits of the Relative-Motion Engine , where compression forces calculated as a loss in one cylinder, is simultaneously recovered  at each adjacent cylinder by increasing at each adjacent cylinder’s mean effective pressure.

Powerful & vibration refined Relative Motion engine

image7

Force per time graph

  

Like a bad driver, the ordinary Conventional Cylinder in this graph, seems to be wasting so much energy on sudden acceleration followed by non-useful sharp force decline, and according to Newton, forces and energy are used only during acceleration. 

In a Relative Motion Cylinder, motion is stabilized around a given motion baseline, requiring minimum acceleration changes, and as a result a minimum fuel requirement. 

     · This graph shows enhancement of a first combustion principle offering minimum motion boundaries as a function of time. 

     · Third & Forth principles, are to be adapted to Relative Motion Kinetics, having the initial combustion force minimized, & compensated by a force enhanced during the rest of stroke

 

      · While a Conventional torque graph turns negative around half distance of the power stroke, it extends beyond that in a Relative Motion Cylinder with a bigger average of torque magnitude and torque impulse time where power is proportionate to such changes.

Graph shows no force jerking of the piston motion in the new design as long as we do not apply secondary force suddenly after the power stroke starts

Contrary to history of about 20% energy recovery efficiency of conventional supercharging methods, we anticipate with the use of a turbocharger along with a Relative Motion cylinder that the energy recovery would be about 70-80% efficiency.

Increased cylinder mean effective pressure

image8

Increased cylinder mean internal combustion pressure.

Using comparable direct injection fuel volume and cylinder size, mean effective pressure behind a piston was more than doubled. 


A Relative Motion engine performance can be effectively measured as:


Performance = work per cycle /volume displaced

  • (Work= mean pressure* crank rev per cycle/ Engine Revolution per sec). that is 2-3 times bigger pressure in a Relative Motion Cylinder.
  • Volume displaced is about 1/2 in the presence of space occupier (floating piston).


Simple calculation provides over 300% improvement, at lower resisting loads and over 400% enhancement at higher resistance where mean pressure further improved and work graph difference is increased, all being done within our Relative Motion Operational Engine Cycle. 


On the window sticker of a vehicle, these performance calculations mean that an 18 miles per gallon of a Conventional Vehicle, shall improve its overall performance to about 70 miles per gallon ability, when using our Relative Motion Enhancements, which will not only help the consumer, but also can secure the energy market. 


  • This pressure enhancement, is before calculating effects of secondary forces,  or potential exhaust recovery at about 70%, using a turbocharger, or extending the expansion ratio, and also before calculating changes of friction losses, where boundaries area decreased. 

For all these above reasons, an average of 400% power output enhancement, is what we expect from the new Relative Motion Method, over a Conventional Cylinder, and that is how we obtain a 70 miles per gallon potential result.