Control emissions at the cylinder level, with Zero CO, Zero HC and near zero NO
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 carbon C12H23, NO and NO2 due to higher combustion values of pressure.
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.
To compare one to one work output results, when pistons were recording different speeds, we were stopping simulations of a power stroke at 0.025 seconds to calculate how many Joules were produced per second as a time dependent method.
Hydrocarbons: 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 (about 0.000200 % in conventional cylinder and 0.000000% with Relative-Motion cylinder coupled with turbocharge forces). This preferred cleaner carbon output, along with (CO) makes a marker of complete burning.
CO output increased in comparable fuel volume from 4.71% to 7.98% using direct inject. However it was zero when used 10:1 compression with premixed fuel. higher pressures will further decrease the output of CO, for that reason, we were able to reach zero CO emission by adding turbo charge forces acting on the floating piston.
CO2 in Conventional Cylinder, decreased with direct injection, for similar diesel fuel volume from 16.93% to 5.72%. calculating per mile the numbers show about 500% enhancement with direct injection, and that is what explains the regulations of prohibiting the use of the premix fuel. in the new design, we experienced only about 15% higher output per similar volume if used as a premix rather than direct injection, and about 10% lower CO2 output with turbocharge forces applied to floating piston with crankshaft piston speed tested at comparable or similar to conventional.
A Relative Motion Cylinder, offers design controls that allow further increase of internal pressure by earlier fuel injection,or by turbo charge without the suffering of increasing piston speed, or the loss of efficiency, and for that reason, emission controls will have more control tools, for better exhaust of all markers, and not only CO2 .
The (NO) output: comparing conventional and Relative-Motion, was about the same per similar fuel volume, but was also reduced after correction per mile. However it was almost eliminated with earlier injection time, Also NO output was 0.000036% of fuel mass fraction when using turbocharge with disengagement of pistons around middle distance, where temperature compared much lower than all other tests, when we changed design and allowed continued engagement of pistons during the power stroke, heat curve was high and NO was worse than conventional.
The NO final tests dropped NO from 11,000 parts per million in conventional cylinder to only 35 parts per million with Relative Motion design using premix fluid and turbocharge forces.
The capability to eliminate NO, by cylinder design and sizing, can save on the need for expensive early filtration methods intended to convert NO to NO2.
IN summary, by increasing the mean effective pressure, using earlier injection or premix, or by using turbocharge forces, the new Relative-Motion Design, along with controlling the piston speed by changing its engagement diameter, with guaranteed disengagement we were able to eliminate completely CO, NO and other free radicals which make the most harming part of burning fossil fuel.
NO2 output was about 55 parts per million in conventional cylinder testing, and that was between 15 -65 parts per million with Relative-Motion, where best results achieved with lower temperature, and with higher torque associated with turbocharge forces.
Sizing of internal cylinder parts, under variable 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.
It is well know for engine designers, that a decrease in the air-to-fuel ratio in SI engines results in an increase in CO and HC emissions. For this reason we may claim that the method of a 4-stroke engine, making every stroke a compression stroke, must greatly enhances the air-to fuel ratio and help decrease CO and HC emissions.
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 theoretical compression ratio, and from 6.59% to 0.67% at 18:1 compression ratio.
using 10:1 compression with a (premix and turbocharge forces) Hydro Carbons were completely eliminated 0.000000 parts per million.
Our premix option alone ( without turbo charging) 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.
Internal pressure in a Relative Motion Cylinder, increases with higher driving loads, applying turbocharge forces, using earlier injection or premix fluid.
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, and learning from these numbers, we used 10:1 compression ratio with applied turbo charge forces, using premix fuel we achieved 0.000000% output of CO.
Usually, combustion complete burning efficiency is associated with lower CO, and Hydrocarbons.
Using similar compression ratio, fuel volume and timing of fuel injection, shows different work energy availability, in a conventional and Relative-Motion Cylinders.
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.
To compare the brake power of our Relative Motion cylinder with a similar bore conventional cylinder, we applied the dynamometer resistance methodology, by comparing tests, first without resistance and then with resistance applied against the crankshaft piston. Tests showed that the bigger the resistance is the wider the area is between work per time graphs is, with Relative Motion engine offering a higher positive results of driving force.
Using Adiabatic process calculation, of combusting 50 mg of similar fuel, in a four inches diameter cylinder, we enhanced work output from 150 Joules to about 400 Joules, and with turbo charging the power stroke, we had about 800 Joules of work output, instead of 180 Joules of expected conventional output.
Calculating useful energy by deducting friction losses, will further increase the benefits of the Relative-Motion Engine.
Also while a compression stroke makes a loss of a power stroke effectiveness in conventional cylinders, it is simultaneously recovered in a Relative-Motion cylinder, by increasing the adjacent cylinder’s mean effective pressure.
To compare one to one work output results, when pistons were recording different speeds, we were stopping simulations of a power stroke at 0.025 seconds to calculate how many output Joules were produced per second as a time dependent method.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Copyright © 2019 Relative-Motion- All Rights Reserved.
All material on this website including but not limited to text, images, videos, graphics, animation, physics methods and equations and other materials (herein "content") are subject to the copyright and other intellectual property rights. Content of this website is for personal use only and may not be reproduced, communicated or published, in whole or in part, for any purpose without the express written consent of this website ownership.
Limitations of liabilities
Any and all information on this website is provided "as is" with no warranties as to the accuracy, adequacy, completeness, or appropriateness for any particular use. This website disclaims liability for any errors or damages whatsoever that may arise out of or in connection with the use of this website, even after any advice of the possibility of such damages. This statement applies however only to the extent permitted by applicable laws.