Diesel Rotary?
08-03-2006, 11:03 AM
#51
Registered
The first link doesn't state that GM is going to use it. It is only telling about possible ways to do it. If anything it suggests that American auto manufacturers won't use it.
Although this technology might be used in Europe for diesel engine applications, two major drawbacks make the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and vehicle manufacturers reluctant to adopt it. First, SCR requires an additional, tamperproof tank on the vehicle to carry urea; and second, it necessitates a urea delivery infrastructure, which would have to be developed.
Ford might actually be doning it but they can't build a decent engine already so this isn't going to help them. When VW and a few others bring cleaner diesels into the country in the next year or 2 that don't use urea, the people that are using it will see very quickly that the public isn't going to want to deal with the stuff. Especially since it is a chemical that has always been deemed harmful to you through smoking not to mention the fact that it is a component in Urine. Not too many people are going to want to use that when they won't have to with others. I don't see it being anything more than a temporary solution to the couple of auto manufacturers that can't meet emissions standards without it. The rest that can will ultimately be copied and no one will use urea after not too long.
If we told people that manure packed catalytic converters that had to be serviced from time to time could clean the air to better levels but another company had an engine that could match it without manure, which one would most people choose? It won't last long.
Although this technology might be used in Europe for diesel engine applications, two major drawbacks make the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and vehicle manufacturers reluctant to adopt it. First, SCR requires an additional, tamperproof tank on the vehicle to carry urea; and second, it necessitates a urea delivery infrastructure, which would have to be developed.
Ford might actually be doning it but they can't build a decent engine already so this isn't going to help them. When VW and a few others bring cleaner diesels into the country in the next year or 2 that don't use urea, the people that are using it will see very quickly that the public isn't going to want to deal with the stuff. Especially since it is a chemical that has always been deemed harmful to you through smoking not to mention the fact that it is a component in Urine. Not too many people are going to want to use that when they won't have to with others. I don't see it being anything more than a temporary solution to the couple of auto manufacturers that can't meet emissions standards without it. The rest that can will ultimately be copied and no one will use urea after not too long.
If we told people that manure packed catalytic converters that had to be serviced from time to time could clean the air to better levels but another company had an engine that could match it without manure, which one would most people choose? It won't last long.
08-04-2006, 04:12 PM
#52
I WAS BEES
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought of something, I think it might be a little more complicated than needed, and it would probably wear out the apex seals quicker.
I can see it in my head and I just drew a little diagram on a post-it, but it's hard to put into words.
What if. Instead of the elongated chamber on the rotor like we have currently, it was pulled back further to the trailing apex seal and made slightly deeper to create more of a "flattening" effect (imagine the rotor, but instead of a semi-circle combustion area, replace it with a slightly letter P shaped divot) this would squeezing the fuel closer to the back. On top of that also have a "piston" type object to press into the "P" shaped area, this would occur when the apex seal runs over an elevated portion of this "piston".
Like I said I can see it and draw it, but it's hard to put into words.
I can see it in my head and I just drew a little diagram on a post-it, but it's hard to put into words.
What if. Instead of the elongated chamber on the rotor like we have currently, it was pulled back further to the trailing apex seal and made slightly deeper to create more of a "flattening" effect (imagine the rotor, but instead of a semi-circle combustion area, replace it with a slightly letter P shaped divot) this would squeezing the fuel closer to the back. On top of that also have a "piston" type object to press into the "P" shaped area, this would occur when the apex seal runs over an elevated portion of this "piston".
Like I said I can see it and draw it, but it's hard to put into words.
08-04-2006, 04:17 PM
#53
I WAS BEES
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rotarygod
The first link doesn't state that GM is going to use it. It is only telling about possible ways to do it. If anything it suggests that American auto manufacturers won't use it.
Although this technology might be used in Europe for diesel engine applications, two major drawbacks make the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and vehicle manufacturers reluctant to adopt it. First, SCR requires an additional, tamperproof tank on the vehicle to carry urea; and second, it necessitates a urea delivery infrastructure, which would have to be developed.
Ford might actually be doning it but they can't build a decent engine already so this isn't going to help them. When VW and a few others bring cleaner diesels into the country in the next year or 2 that don't use urea, the people that are using it will see very quickly that the public isn't going to want to deal with the stuff. Especially since it is a chemical that has always been deemed harmful to you through smoking not to mention the fact that it is a component in Urine. Not too many people are going to want to use that when they won't have to with others. I don't see it being anything more than a temporary solution to the couple of auto manufacturers that can't meet emissions standards without it. The rest that can will ultimately be copied and no one will use urea after not too long.
If we told people that manure packed catalytic converters that had to be serviced from time to time could clean the air to better levels but another company had an engine that could match it without manure, which one would most people choose? It won't last long.
Although this technology might be used in Europe for diesel engine applications, two major drawbacks make the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and vehicle manufacturers reluctant to adopt it. First, SCR requires an additional, tamperproof tank on the vehicle to carry urea; and second, it necessitates a urea delivery infrastructure, which would have to be developed.
Ford might actually be doning it but they can't build a decent engine already so this isn't going to help them. When VW and a few others bring cleaner diesels into the country in the next year or 2 that don't use urea, the people that are using it will see very quickly that the public isn't going to want to deal with the stuff. Especially since it is a chemical that has always been deemed harmful to you through smoking not to mention the fact that it is a component in Urine. Not too many people are going to want to use that when they won't have to with others. I don't see it being anything more than a temporary solution to the couple of auto manufacturers that can't meet emissions standards without it. The rest that can will ultimately be copied and no one will use urea after not too long.
If we told people that manure packed catalytic converters that had to be serviced from time to time could clean the air to better levels but another company had an engine that could match it without manure, which one would most people choose? It won't last long.
Great info on Urea and the other names it goes by that you might find on Food labels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urea - Used in moisturizers and shampoos etc.
It's something that's got a seemingly bad rap. It's really high in nitrates and makes for a great fertilizer.
When chicken farmers cultivate it they have to water it down because it will literally "burn" plants because of the high amount of nitrates.
(I found myself reading one of my ex's agriculture books when she was pre-vet)
Last edited by Photic; 08-04-2006 at 04:22 PM.
08-04-2006, 06:29 PM
#54
Super Moderator
Urea is great for GREENING up the lawn too!!!, but yeah to much will burn any plant...
Want that tree, shrub or bush to green up or grow better, if you are a guy just PEE on it every now and then...
Want that tree, shrub or bush to green up or grow better, if you are a guy just PEE on it every now and then...
08-05-2006, 04:03 PM
#55
Registered
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At least in Europe all new Trucks (with Truck I mean a vehicle with at least 16 tons gross weight) are using SCR and tank so called AdBlue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdBlue (commercial name for urea diluent).
NOx cannot be prevented from being created during the combustion in a diesel engine. It can only be reduced with certain measures. Diesel engines always run lean (= lots of nitrogen and oxygen = the basic elements to produce NOx) and high compression ratios lead to high temperatures (= production of NOx). Urea is ultimately the only solution to significantly reduce NOx without reducing efficiency as well.
NOx cannot be prevented from being created during the combustion in a diesel engine. It can only be reduced with certain measures. Diesel engines always run lean (= lots of nitrogen and oxygen = the basic elements to produce NOx) and high compression ratios lead to high temperatures (= production of NOx). Urea is ultimately the only solution to significantly reduce NOx without reducing efficiency as well.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
jasonrxeight
RX-8's For Sale/Wanted
2
09-30-2015 01:53 PM
