Interesting but shares the same huge obstacle as Revetec: doesn't work within current production vehicle architecture (to be fair 2 cyl Revetec would work great in a Subaru).
Both would make great powerplants for outboard marine or motorcycle!!

How about using it as a range extender in a BEV ?
[ Much smaller, of course ]

And they overcame the piston sealing issue how????

Interesting concept, as they move the compressed charge from the front to the back of the cylinder where it is burned they can use the Scuderi effect which is the generation of a massive turbulence that speed the combustion process and gives a more complete combustion.

But the problem of this engine is that the valve has to be activated extremely fast and with a perfect synchronism otherwise the compressed air will just escape. It requires a complex set of cams to activate the valves, and the sealing as well as the lubrication of the whole thin will be a nightmare.

There is already plenty of Rotary concept around, none have been developped so I wouldn't sound pessimistic but...

Mister HarveyD, How could you be so sure that EESTOR will be a game changer that will displace signiicantly or even substantially the ICE ? sorry but today there is nothing that convince me that battery powered elecric vehicle will be more than a niche market given their limitations. Progress on the batteries in the next 10 years, yeah the same argument was given in the 70s with the NaS batteriesm then again in the 90s with the NiMH and now it comes again with Li-ion. Progress in battery will be incremental, not through breakthrough it has always been this way in the battery industry and always be.. And those who say the opposite have no idea what it takes to bring a new material into market, not the slightest idea.

HarveyD

Again how can you be so sure that e-storage will gain so much momentum between 2010-2020 ? again where are the sprout for this ? the multiple annoucement here and there that the electric car is coming ? nothing more than a Hype from big car compagnies to get subsidies. Introduction of electric car will be deceptive and extremely slow just as progress on batteries.

Harvey

Massive investment are a necessary condition but certainly not a garantee of success as you stubornly stick to. Progress in battery for computer and cell phone, oh yes low hanging fruits but they are anywhere close to what what we need for cars industry. Look at firefly, using a well known lead technology that they are trying to improve, after years of sweat tey stil don't have a product. You have no idea how deceptive battery industry is, doing 6 months of cycles to come to the conclusion that your technology is still not good and that you have to modify it again and re-go through this tedious cycling again.

Treehugger,

The improvements in Li-ion batteries over the past years have made the Tesla Roadster and i-Miev and a massive growth in e-bike sales possible. How did that happen with the computer industry so frustrated?

Anne

Massive growth of e-bike sales thanks to lithium battery, are you so sure ? 90% of e-bike are sold in china and they use lead batteries.

The Tesla roadster is a success, but is it a viable model for the mass car industry ? I am not too sure to be honnest even if I praise such a technical accomplishment. I see a model for the luxury ultra-clean cars industry, where people can afford 10 000$ of batteries than they can replace every 4 years, but hardly more than that. The Tesla S will incorporate up to 1800 pounds of battery pack. Not trivial at all.

Harvey, I never said that the challenge is impossible, I am just cooling over optimistic view that say that everything will battery powered 10 years from now. It will take much much more time than that. Asides I doubt that the supply of lithium will allow to scale the electric car production to the point it becomes a game changer for our everyday transportation.

The EV1 was nearly as good as the TESLA and it was not impossible to make it five years ago. The technology is from the makers of the TZERO who also did prototype technology for the EV1.

To pretend that the advancements in batteries can come as cheaply and as quickly or even come at all similar to computers is a great misunderstanding of chemistry and physics. It is very similar to expecting that gasoline can produce ten times more heat if we devote enough research to it.

Solar cells are also made of the MAGICAL computer silicon but their energy production is not even twice what it was twenty years ago. Exotic materials can now make solar cells twice as effecient at over ten times the cost. But even they do not produce power at night.

Lithium-ion batteries are very expensive for the power that they can store. You can find the figures in the stores where they are bought. It would be far cheaper to use lead or nickel-cadmium and recharge more often.

ZEBRA batteries still have as much energy per pound or more than most complete lithium battery packs, and they have excellent cost reduction potentials.

A few million dollars of engineering would now make it possible to put ZEBRA type cells in laptops and cell phones at lower costs than present lithium batteries, but just put them on the charger every night so they don't freeze into inactivity or keep a spare or two on a charger. But why would you want a battery that could last ten years before it wore out.

A nuclear energy powered battery can be made and has been used, but even a very rich man would not be allowed to have even the ones used in pacemakers some time ago for long life. Isotope 94-238 batteries will last a whole life. And they can be made to be put inside a human without damage. Such energy devices are keeping Spirit and Oportunity alive on Mars. The failure to use them in the polar explorer was a great waste of resources. ..HG..

Anne

You are right, progress happen continuously and even breakthrough that trigger dramatic changes happen regularly, though rarely where you expect them to happen. Henry is right when he compares Battery to Solar cell, typical where the pace of progress is tight to introduction of new material, progress can only be slow. Mico-electronic doesn't suffer this limitation, you increase the density of integration but the materila is always the same that's why the progress are so dramatic. Of course at some point you reach the limit of what a guiven material can return even in micro-electronic and then you hav to introduce a new material.

So yes batteries will progress, but their energy density won't be much different 10 years from now, compared to where they are today.

Ok Roger

1900 introduction of lead batteries 30Whrs/Kg, 1960 introduction of NiCd batteries 45Whrs/kg, 1985 introduction of Lithium based batteries 80Whrs/Kg. And don't forget if you want the battery to last for some time you can use only 50% of these values, well we are not there yet...

Treehugger,

The energy density of lead acid batteries is currently ~30 Wh/kg. I don't think they already achieved that around 1900. Same for NiCad, I believe energy density was much lower when the technology was introduced. So the figure you should mention for Li-ion is more like 150 Wh/kg, which is where that technology currently is.

Henry, how can you say: Enough nickel-cadmium or nickel metal hydride cells could be packed into the EV1 to give it both range and acceleration nearly similar or perhaps better to the TESLA

The energy density of NiCad is at best 50 Wh/kg. The Roadster battery is 120 Wh/kg. With NiCads, the battery would weigh more than a ton. The body of the car and suspension would have to be reinforced, adding even more weight. To give it the same performance, you would need to put a larger motor in it, adding yet more weight. The power electronics would have to be upgraded, more weight. Then, due to all this extra weight, the consumption would increase so you would have to add more batteries to give it the same range. More weight. The Roadster would easily end up twice as heavy. That would not make it the car people drool over.

The high energy density (Li-ion) battery is vital to the success Tesla Roadster.

....with an optimized power unit from ACpropulsion

Ah, there's the catch. Well there is one thing you should know about propulsions: they can not offer more than 100% efficiency. In the Roadster it is probably close to 80%, so you can not squeeze out that much more performance out of the same electricity. Even a 100% efficient propulsion would NEVER, EVER make up for lower energy density batteries.

And the guy in charge of power train development at Tesla is a former employee of AC Propulsion. So their technology is already in the Roadster.

To protect the public from everything but the raw heat of isotope 94-238, less than a one-eighth inch thick steel can will work for most purposes.

You should see the care with which plutonium is handled and transported by PROFESSIONALS. All the heavy packaging and shielding and precautions and procedures and protective clothing, etc. And you push the idea of putting millions of plutionium batteries with a mere 1/8 inch sheet metal protection in the hands of everyone? And on top of that, have them drive it around in a mostly reckless manner?

And there's more. Your plutonium power plant puts out constant power. You would still need a normal battery since a car needs variable power. The average car is in motion less than 5% of its life. The other 95% of the time it is parked. So you must choose: size your plutonium powerplant to the average power needed while the car is in motion (~8 kW) or to the average lifetime power (~300W). In the first case you will throw away 95% of the energy. And 8 kW is still not enough for long highway trips. Well, and forget about the 300 W plutonium power plant. It will not be capable of sustaining the charge level even during a week of driving a few extra miles. In reality you will have to make the choice between a horrendously inefficient use of plutonium or regularly charge your plutonium powered car.

Forget about the plutonium battery. It can never and will never work because it doesn't solve a single problem, it only creates them.

We do not need to invent or use carbon free fuels for cars to make a big difference in CO2, we can do it with smaller engines AND motors in cars and also use hybrids and lighter weight cars.

Yes we do. The amount of cars on the road in this world is growing faster than the average fuel consumption is declining. The net result is that CO2 emissions from cars are increasing. And somewhere down the line we hit the 100% barrier, where we have squeezed out all the energy of every last drop of gasoline. How to improve further then, if still more people are buying and driving cars?