SwRI Launches HEDGE II Consortium for High-Efficiency Gasoline Engine
17 January 2009
 |
| Cycle simulation comparison of HEDGE and diesel engines in medium-duty applications. Source: SwRI. Click to enlarge. |
Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) will launch its second cooperative research program aimed at developing a high-efficiency gasoline engine for both the light-duty automotive and medium-duty engine markets. HEDGE II, a four-year effort, will expand on earlier efforts to improve gasoline engine technology for future emissions and fuel economy requirements.
The first HEDGE (High-Efficiency, Dilute Gasoline Engine) consortium focused on high levels of exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) combined with supporting technologies such as high-energy ignition and advanced boosting systems to develop strategies for high efficiency. (Earlier post.)
EGR levels of up to 50% are the key element in the development of an aggressive knock mitigation strategy.
That showed we could significantly improve gasoline engine performance and efficiency. Not only were we able to decrease fuel consumption, but we were able to lower emissions significantly. Our HEDGE engine fuel consumption is roughly the same as a modern diesel engine but with much lower emissions.
—Terry Alger, manager of the Advanced Combustion and Emissions Section in SwRI’s Engine, Emissions and Vehicle Research Division
HEDGE II consortium members are drawn from members of the transportation industry in Asia, Europe and the United States. The members represent a broad industry cross section, including light, heavy-duty and off-road engine manufacturers, component suppliers and oil and fuel companies.
| “Many of the concepts that we have developed, you will probably see in production in the next few years.” —Terry Alger |
The consortium will seek to extend the fuel efficiency and performance gains from HEDGE I and develop supporting technologies for high efficiency, including ignition technology, air handling systems and other hardware to address new combustion concepts for highly dilute gasoline engines. Participants will select the consortium work from a number of projects. Institute engineers and scientists recommend areas of interest based on SwRI’s extensive automotive-related experience and on work initiated in the Institute’s internal research program.
The projects will continue work undertaken in the first HEDGE consortium, with high levels of EGR again playing a prime role in developing an aggressive knock mitigation strategy. Consortium members also will look at advanced turbocharging systems and the effects of hydrogen and biofuels.
We will continue to develop these concepts that were initiated in the first HEDGE program and further develop the supporting technologies to implement this strategy in modern engines.
—Terry Alger
Consortium membership allows the yearly contribution to be multiplied by the number of participants, providing substantially more pre-competitive research than would be possible with funding from a single client. In addition, SwRI’s internal research programs involving control algorithms, advanced ignition technology and innovative combustion concepts will be shared with consortium members.
A kickoff meeting for the HEDGE II consortium is planned for 20 January 2009.
There could be no better investment in America than to invest in America becoming energy independent! We need to utilize everything in out power to reduce our dependence on foreign oil including using our own natural resources. Create cheap clean energy, new badly needed green jobs, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. OPEC will continue to cut production until they achieve their desired 80-100. per barrel. The high cost of fuel this past year seriously damaged our economy and society. Oil is finite. We are using oil globally at the rate of 2X faster than new oil is being discovered. We need to take some of these billions in bail out bucks and bail ourselves out of our dependence on foreign oil. Jeff Wilson has a really good new book out called The Manhattan Project of 2009 Energy Independence Now. He explores our uses of oil besides gasoline, our depletion, out reserves and stores as well as viable options to replace oil.Oil is finite, it will run out in the not too distant future. WE need to take some of these billions in bail out bucks and bail America out of it's dependence on foreign oil. The historic high price of gas this past year did serious damage to our economy and society. WE should never allow others to have that much power over our economy again. I wish every member of congress would read this book too.
www.themanhattanprojectof2009.com
Posted by: Sherry | 17 January 2009 at 07:14 AM
So, um - Sherry,
What do you think of HEDGE II ?
Or HEDGE I ?
Or HEDGE ?
Posted by: ToppaTom | 17 January 2009 at 08:02 AM
Sherry,
We are using oil ate the rate of 3X faster (not 2X faster) than new oil being discovered.
over the 10 past years we have burned 300 Billons Barrel and discoverd only 100 Billions Barrels (on that's a much expensive oil to extract than the one we have burn.
moving forward we need to find one new Saoudia every 7 years to maintain the production at current level, in short : NO WAY.
Posted by: Treehugger | 17 January 2009 at 08:28 AM
Or, to keep the oil party going, a new "North Sea" would have to be discovered every 2 years.
Given the critical situation, there should be a lot of light cars which are at least as efficient as the
Audi A2 diesel 1,2 (3 liters of diesel to go 100 km, or
78.4 miles per US gallon)
Sherry, you can view a good letter to president Obama
here: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4957
Posted by: Jorge | 17 January 2009 at 10:09 AM
Another article of many on improving the ICE. I'm always for that; however, I don't think they will ever achieve more than a 5-10% increase in efficiency in an ICE which still wastes 60 to 70% of the fuel in the form of heat and emissions. Burning chemicals in the atmosphere is the basic problem of the ICE. Solve that problem and you have something.
Posted by: Lad | 17 January 2009 at 10:22 AM
It will be much better idea to use one of the modern external combustion engine the the outdated ICE.
The Cyclone Technology steam engine might be good example. From what I read it have very low emission (much lower then ICE) with efficiency comparable to Diesel engine and weight to power ration better then ICE.
Steam engine with concave cone vortex like expander with turbine might be another idea - that should push the overall efficiency well above 50%.
The key is how to get the pressure to unidirectional pure velocity. Once we overcome that problem then we can think how to build thermal engine with 50 may be 60% sufficiency.
Posted by: mkimagine | 17 January 2009 at 11:20 AM
Re the Cyclone ... We've been down this discussion road before. Nutshell summary: don't believe what you read on the internet without question. With realistic cycle temperatures and pressures and REASONABLE (practical and achievable) boiler efficiency, you are NOT going to be able to get a simple Rankine cycle engine to be as efficient as a good diesel engine, and probably not as good as a good spark-ignition engine.
Posted by: Brian P | 17 January 2009 at 02:22 PM
It isn't clear what can be done in Hedge II that isn't being done in other places. ICE makers and users have been working on efficiency intensively.
The text itself is polished but unrevealing.
But the first consortium led to a second. So this effort is probably worthwhile. The goal is certainly so.
Putting the ICE in perspective: It is true that major gains in any aspect of performance are not to be expected.
But the ICE industry is so large that even smaller gains will save a lot of fuel and stop a lot of emissions.
So slight improvements to the ICE over the next decade can be very helpful.
In contrast, a slight improvement in fuel cells, while welcome and desired, wouldn't actually do much because the industry is still so small; for now it would be similar to modiflying the horseshoe a little.
Posted by: Ken | 17 January 2009 at 03:51 PM
I will disagree with the boiler efficiency. Good design could get up to 90%.
The efficiency of Cyclone is on pare of small Diesel engine. You have to also remember that Cyclone engine can be directly coupled to the wheels with out transmission due to very high torque. That realy big advantage.
I do however believe that the method used to convert heat and pressure to kinetic energy in contemporary engine have limitation that are extremely difficult to overcome and different approach have to be look for.
The basic thermodynamic model used for more then 200 yeas, and is practically limited to pressure, volume and temperature. The velocity in most cases is not even mention. My believe is finding passive and efficient pressure to velocity converter will be the key. Once we there the pressure and temperature variable will be eliminated from the final equation, and the effort to convert velocity to useful kinetic energy might look much more promising then the contemporary method.
Posted by: mkimagine | 17 January 2009 at 09:19 PM
has there been a 3rd party efficiency test of a Cyclone steam engine? They do have working engines and I would like to see some numbers.
Even if they never achieve the efficiency of a modern gas engine, perhaps there is an application in cars due to the (supposed, no pollution controls, no transmission) simplicity. They must also be durable and cheap to manufacture to make any inroads in that market...In long range hauling, efficiency is the ultimate requirement, and I dont think they will beat a diesel.
Posted by: Herm | 18 January 2009 at 08:32 AM
The 2009 VW Jetta TDI gets better fuel economy than a Toyota Prius. If the HEDGE II engine as is claimed has the same efficiency as a small Diesel why would anyone in his right mind buy a hybrid when this technology eventually is put into a vehicle.
Posted by: Mannstein | 18 January 2009 at 05:06 PM
Hybrid powertrain can be applied to any type of engine including this one.
Of course, if you work out the economics of combining an expensive engine with an expensive drivetrain, the gain of doing both is well into diminishing-returns, so it may only be worthwhile in certain applications.
Posted by: Brian P | 18 January 2009 at 07:46 PM
@ Mannstein,
If a Prius had a diesel engine, don't you think it would getter mileage than a VW Jetta TDI? There's more energy in a gallon of diesel, because it takes more oil to make a gallon of diesel. The particulate emission problems from diesel are well known.
We should look at an apples-to-apples efficiency of well-to-wheels for ICE, Diesel, bioethanol, biodiesel, biobutanol, and BEV to make a fair comparison, then consider pollutants for total impact.
Nanosolar has a blogpost on their website about how many kilometers you can drive on the energy produced by 2.5 acres of land http://www.nanosolar.com/blog3/?p=93 and, well, it seems to strongly encourage us to hurry up and get to BEV.
Posted by: HealthyBreeze | 19 January 2009 at 11:58 AM
The higher compression is the reason for deisel efficiency.
Lower fuel mixture temperatures show a similar improvement.
I wonder If the Crower cycle wouldnt be possible and practical with both these benefits?
Some numbers from wikepedia show a deisel energy content between regular and premium gasoline . Energy is Mj Mega joules.
Also: The energy content of conventional diesel can vary up to 15% from supplier to supplier or from
summer to winter. This variability in conventional diesel is due to changes in its composition which
are determined by refining and blending practices. Number 2 diesel fuel usually has higher energy
content than Number 1 diesel fuel, with blends of Number 1 and Number 2 varying between the
two parent fuel values.
The efficiency of diesel engines is the same whether using biodiesel, diesel, or biodiesel blends so
differences in horsepower, torque or fuel economy are due entirely to volumetric energy content.
*I don't have handy numbers as to the precise fuels quoted, so this is for illustrative purposes only*.
Regular Gasoline Mj litre 34.8, Mj kg 44.4, RON Min 91
Premium Gasoline Mj litre 39.5, Mj kg 50.4, RON Min 95
Diesel Mj litre 38.6 , Mj kg 45.4 Cetane no 25 (*)
(*) Diesel is not used in a gasoline engine, so its low octane rating is not an issue; the relevant metric for diesel engines is the cetane number.
Posted by: arnold | 20 January 2009 at 12:44 AM