intercooler concept
06-10-2014, 01:53 AM
#1
Pro
Thread Starter
intercooler concept
another crazy engine performance idea...
this is not an AC unit!!!!!!!
sorry but I don't have many friends that are very smart to chat with about things like this...
this works on the principle of utilizing the waste heat of the exhaust to power an absorption refrigeration unit to cool intake charge temperatures..
how absorption refrigeration works
this system of using exhaust heat has been proven to work to replace the air conditioning in cars but has not been adopted for any use in automobiles (besides every RV refrigerator fired by propane)...
there is far more than enough waste heat in engine exhaust to power a system like this and they don't just cool, they freeze, many degrees below 0 very efficently
this would make use of free energy witch otherwise would be nothing but waste to increase the efficiency of any car by cooling its intake air temperature (turbo, no turbo, diesel, whatever), that means more horsepower, higher boost ability, and even better cruising MPG due to increased thermal efficiency FREE just by picking up the change that the exhaust throws away
the system is completely sealed, fill it once and it works forever, NO MOVING PARTS what so ever.. NO AC COMPRESSOR JUST HEAT
these things are currently used for industrial air conditioning and refrigeration wherever there is waste heat to be had, and they were invented and used before compression refrigeration was, before common electricity even
and taking heat from the exhaust after the turbo would somewhat condense the air in the exhaust pipe reducing pressure there thereby increasing the pressure differential between the header and exhaust improving the performance of the turbo.. probably so slightly it would be immeasurable tho
I have searched a lot and have never scene even any mention of absorption refrigeration used in intercoolers, a lot of nonsense negative energy gain compression refrigeration but nothing like this...
I don't know I just need someone to bounce ideas off of..
I see no reason that this would not work and be worth the install if it proves to work.. solder copper pipe in the right places, fill it up, no maintenance, good to go
maybe one day ill come up with something useful and end the poverty cycle..
who knows maybe formula 1 will like this thing.. there all about efficiency right now, I believe this could even improve there top spec engines just that little bit more..
this is not an AC unit!!!!!!!
sorry but I don't have many friends that are very smart to chat with about things like this...
this works on the principle of utilizing the waste heat of the exhaust to power an absorption refrigeration unit to cool intake charge temperatures..
how absorption refrigeration works
this system of using exhaust heat has been proven to work to replace the air conditioning in cars but has not been adopted for any use in automobiles (besides every RV refrigerator fired by propane)...
there is far more than enough waste heat in engine exhaust to power a system like this and they don't just cool, they freeze, many degrees below 0 very efficently
this would make use of free energy witch otherwise would be nothing but waste to increase the efficiency of any car by cooling its intake air temperature (turbo, no turbo, diesel, whatever), that means more horsepower, higher boost ability, and even better cruising MPG due to increased thermal efficiency FREE just by picking up the change that the exhaust throws away
the system is completely sealed, fill it once and it works forever, NO MOVING PARTS what so ever.. NO AC COMPRESSOR JUST HEAT
these things are currently used for industrial air conditioning and refrigeration wherever there is waste heat to be had, and they were invented and used before compression refrigeration was, before common electricity even
and taking heat from the exhaust after the turbo would somewhat condense the air in the exhaust pipe reducing pressure there thereby increasing the pressure differential between the header and exhaust improving the performance of the turbo.. probably so slightly it would be immeasurable tho
I have searched a lot and have never scene even any mention of absorption refrigeration used in intercoolers, a lot of nonsense negative energy gain compression refrigeration but nothing like this...
I don't know I just need someone to bounce ideas off of..
I see no reason that this would not work and be worth the install if it proves to work.. solder copper pipe in the right places, fill it up, no maintenance, good to go
maybe one day ill come up with something useful and end the poverty cycle..
who knows maybe formula 1 will like this thing.. there all about efficiency right now, I believe this could even improve there top spec engines just that little bit more..
06-10-2014, 08:02 AM
#2
Nice first post! I guess is time to start engineering a system and try it out. I know one crazy turbo guy that might be willing to try this, I'd help fab it up.... paging Dougs951S
06-10-2014, 08:07 AM
#3
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Very good idea, I wonder if it would be possible to DIY this kind of system and if the energy would be sufficient, since as far as I know, LPG powered coolers use constant flame and cool smal volume (40~120 liters) of static air.
I guess it is needed much (MUCH) more energy to cool 7500 liters of air per minute for several degrees, than it is to cool static air volume of average fridge/freezer to 8°C/-18°C in few hours.
(7500 liters assuming 6000RPM with 2.5 displacement @ atmospheric pressure. With turbo assume x2 or more)
Welcome, and keep coming with posts like this
I guess it is needed much (MUCH) more energy to cool 7500 liters of air per minute for several degrees, than it is to cool static air volume of average fridge/freezer to 8°C/-18°C in few hours.
(7500 liters assuming 6000RPM with 2.5 displacement @ atmospheric pressure. With turbo assume x2 or more)
Welcome, and keep coming with posts like this
Last edited by Voith; 06-10-2014 at 08:49 AM.
06-10-2014, 09:00 AM
#4
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Btw: this is ~30.000L pool.
Very simplified equation would be: 2.5L engine @6000 RPM @ 1atmospheric BAR + 1 forced induction BAR = 15.000L of air per minute.
So you would need to cool air volume the size of that pool for ~10°C or more in 2 minutes.
I doubt that heat generated by exhaust pipe produces anywhere near energy that would be required to achieve this.
Very simplified equation would be: 2.5L engine @6000 RPM @ 1atmospheric BAR + 1 forced induction BAR = 15.000L of air per minute.
So you would need to cool air volume the size of that pool for ~10°C or more in 2 minutes.
I doubt that heat generated by exhaust pipe produces anywhere near energy that would be required to achieve this.
06-10-2014, 09:57 AM
#5
Rennlist Member
But how about as a replacement for the car's AC? I know nothing about these systems, but if in fact they're used in AC applications elsewhere, on the surface it seems suitable for an automotive application.
06-10-2014, 12:00 PM
#6
Race Car
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Austin TX, drinking beer in the garage
Posts: 3,602
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
7 Posts
Btw: this is ~30.000L pool.
Very simplified equation would be: 2.5L engine @6000 RPM @ 1atmospheric BAR + 1 forced induction BAR = 15.000L of air per minute.
So you would need to cool air volume the size of that pool for ~10°C or more in 2 minutes.
I doubt that heat generated by exhaust pipe produces anywhere near energy that would be required to achieve this.
Very simplified equation would be: 2.5L engine @6000 RPM @ 1atmospheric BAR + 1 forced induction BAR = 15.000L of air per minute.
So you would need to cool air volume the size of that pool for ~10°C or more in 2 minutes.
I doubt that heat generated by exhaust pipe produces anywhere near energy that would be required to achieve this.
Edit: for clarification, the specific heat of dry air is 1.006 kJ/kg*C. My engine consumes ~18 kg/min of dry air. To be more effective than my intercooler, you would have to cool 18 kg of air by ~35* C, which would take 633 kJ of energy, or 14 horsepower minutes. This is a actuallu trivial in comparison to gas energy content of 42 MJ/kg. The problem is proportionality, and the fact that our cars dont burn anywhere close to a kg/min of fuel. The density of gas is about .74 kg/liter. Real time fuel flow at WOT typically doesnt exceed .06 liters/min, so roughly .044-.045 kg/min. This fuel has an energy content of ~ 1.865 MJ, only three times more than the energy needed for the cooler to work even as well as a normal front mount air to air unit. Almost sounds like a good idea, before you consider all the thermal losses, losses due to friction and pumping losses in the motor, the energy lost from the exhaust to spin the turbine, losses due to light and sound energy, and of course the energy sent to the flywheel.
Last edited by Dougs951S; 06-10-2014 at 01:35 PM.
06-10-2014, 01:00 PM
#7
Instructor
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Sunny Florida
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fasteddie - Interesting concept. Great job sketching things out graphically.
Extending any concept down to the micro-scale (and high demand) of automotive applications probably represents one of the biggest challenges in engineering. I really like the out of box thinking going on here. Innovation begins with having the bravery to ask new questions and work toward answers.
Moving from concept to design is a resource dependent path. The first step would really be to make some reasonable estimates of the energy transfers / requirements. My guess is that automotive thermal efficiency is probably less than 30%. Much less at partial loads vs WOT. By inference this leaves a lot of potential to recover lost energy. As the cost of energy continues to climb, efficiency considerations will continue to drive design.
Great first post - Keep 'em coming.
Extending any concept down to the micro-scale (and high demand) of automotive applications probably represents one of the biggest challenges in engineering. I really like the out of box thinking going on here. Innovation begins with having the bravery to ask new questions and work toward answers.
Moving from concept to design is a resource dependent path. The first step would really be to make some reasonable estimates of the energy transfers / requirements. My guess is that automotive thermal efficiency is probably less than 30%. Much less at partial loads vs WOT. By inference this leaves a lot of potential to recover lost energy. As the cost of energy continues to climb, efficiency considerations will continue to drive design.
Great first post - Keep 'em coming.
Trending Topics
06-10-2014, 01:13 PM
#8
Team Owner
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: one thousand, five hundred miles north of Ft. Lauderdale for the summer.
Posts: 28,705
Received 212 Likes
on
153 Posts
'od, this time you've gone too far' in 3... 2... 1....
or (please take the following post as kindhearted words of caution....)
welcome.
in the context of the 1980s, these cars are high-strung 4 cylinder engines right from the factory. in a perfect world, your idea's are sound.... we applaud your enduring spirit and willingness to endeavor to persevere in the face of the harsh realities of life in the 944/4 cylinder tuning world.... and what is the harsh reality? 80s automobile technology and a considerable lack of power; not only to move the car down the road, but also to run power robbing systems like the AC...
in a large motorhome, something like this sounds fine.... but, in the end, power is power. power is what you really crave... and like many who've come before, you've taken the first turn on the long road to discovery that what you really need and desire; (is a big v8 thundering inside your sweet ride), and finally enough God damned horsepower to be satisfied driving the damn thing...
hopefully you will make this discovery early, face the truth bravely, and despite carrying a heavy heart, come to a sober realization that there is only 1 final and absolute solution..... therefore: may we take this moment to pray, that you will take the proper steps before it is too late.... and financial ruin has, in fact occurred. yes, my brother..... the world of Porsche 4 cylinder tuning might be likened to the siege of Berlin in April 1945.... and finding the courage to pick up the pieces... but the parts sellers and their unlimited support - is yours for the asking - all with just a few swipes of your VISA card....
bankruptcy/divorce/homeless/suicided cases via Porsche 4 cylinders on rl 944 forums: 2,854
bankruptcy/divorce/homeless/suicided cases running Chevrolet V8's on rl 944 forums: 0
just get a V8 and crank that AC.
Godspeed
*suicided (as in Jesus, another of our great warriors has fallen beneath the waves)
or (please take the following post as kindhearted words of caution....)
welcome.
in the context of the 1980s, these cars are high-strung 4 cylinder engines right from the factory. in a perfect world, your idea's are sound.... we applaud your enduring spirit and willingness to endeavor to persevere in the face of the harsh realities of life in the 944/4 cylinder tuning world.... and what is the harsh reality? 80s automobile technology and a considerable lack of power; not only to move the car down the road, but also to run power robbing systems like the AC...
in a large motorhome, something like this sounds fine.... but, in the end, power is power. power is what you really crave... and like many who've come before, you've taken the first turn on the long road to discovery that what you really need and desire; (is a big v8 thundering inside your sweet ride), and finally enough God damned horsepower to be satisfied driving the damn thing...
hopefully you will make this discovery early, face the truth bravely, and despite carrying a heavy heart, come to a sober realization that there is only 1 final and absolute solution..... therefore: may we take this moment to pray, that you will take the proper steps before it is too late.... and financial ruin has, in fact occurred. yes, my brother..... the world of Porsche 4 cylinder tuning might be likened to the siege of Berlin in April 1945.... and finding the courage to pick up the pieces... but the parts sellers and their unlimited support - is yours for the asking - all with just a few swipes of your VISA card....
bankruptcy/divorce/homeless/suicided cases via Porsche 4 cylinders on rl 944 forums: 2,854
bankruptcy/divorce/homeless/suicided cases running Chevrolet V8's on rl 944 forums: 0
just get a V8 and crank that AC.
Godspeed
*suicided (as in Jesus, another of our great warriors has fallen beneath the waves)
Last edited by odurandina; 06-10-2014 at 05:05 PM.
06-10-2014, 04:21 PM
#9
Former Vendor
I'll repeat what I posted on 924board.
I've done extensive research on refrigerant-based intercooling. Bottom line, heat soak of the refrigerant is a huge issue. Building a system with enough capacity to deal with the demands of boost cooling is not worth the weight, parasitic HP loss, complexity, or cost. The system will heat soak way too fast to be of any practical use.
The Lightning trucks had a variant of a refrigerant based system, and they were only good for drag racing. Your Porsche was meant for road racing, meaning long periods on-boost. Air-to-air is by far the most efficient arrangement for the application, especially if you can minimize pressure drop, number of bends, etc. Best part is, you can supplement it with additional charge-cooling techniques like water sprayers and water meth injection, with no incremental parasitic HP loss, and fairly minimal add'l weight/complexity/cost.
I've done extensive research on refrigerant-based intercooling. Bottom line, heat soak of the refrigerant is a huge issue. Building a system with enough capacity to deal with the demands of boost cooling is not worth the weight, parasitic HP loss, complexity, or cost. The system will heat soak way too fast to be of any practical use.
The Lightning trucks had a variant of a refrigerant based system, and they were only good for drag racing. Your Porsche was meant for road racing, meaning long periods on-boost. Air-to-air is by far the most efficient arrangement for the application, especially if you can minimize pressure drop, number of bends, etc. Best part is, you can supplement it with additional charge-cooling techniques like water sprayers and water meth injection, with no incremental parasitic HP loss, and fairly minimal add'l weight/complexity/cost.
06-10-2014, 04:49 PM
#10
Former Vendor
Some more food for thought:
Every 10°F of intake air temp impacts HP by ~1%. In a best case scenario, most automotive air conditioning systems can reduce air temperature by 50°F. So assuming you could reduce charge air temp by 50°F using a refrigerant-based system, you would gain AT BEST only 5%. On your 931, you're looking at 5% x 150BHP = 7.5BHP gain. Now consider that most automotive A/C compressors consume 12-15 BHP. So you are effectively looking at a LOSS in power, not a gain. To put it succinctly, you would have to build a system with the refrigerant / heat exchanger / capacity characteristics that could SUSTAIN a temperature differential of 100°F just to break even! When I arrived at this conclusion, I abandoned the refrigeration path because I could not find any automotive grade components that could sustain that kind of performance.
Now, the other factor to consider is that in order to deal with the CFM airflow in a forced induction scenario, you are going to be pumping a relatively MASSIVE amount of heated air over the evaporator, i.e., WAY more hot air in a much shorter period of time than for cooling the cabin. The heat has to be transferred somewhere, and where it gets transferred in this hypothetical system is to the refrigerant. The only way to counteract this effect is to increase the refrigerant capacity of the system, which adds weight.
So to look at it another way, an air to air intercooler is ultimately the ideal solution because the cooling medium (ambient air) is essentially a free resource that weighs nothing, adds no complexity, and is limited only by the size of the frontal area of the intercooler. So there is absolutely no way you will ever build a refrigerant-based system that will out-perform air-to-air, especially for scenarios involving long periods of on-boost performance.
The few OEM production examples of refrigerant-based systems I discovered tend to use some variation of a complex three-stage system such as that found on the aforementioned Lightning trucks. In these systems, a conventional liquid-to-air intercooler has it's glycol-based coolant passed through a refrigerant-based heat exchanger just before going to the liquid-to-air stage. The refrigerant cycle is only triggered during WOT events to help avoid the heat soak issue I describe above.
Consequently, these systems were only good for short bursts of boost, and susceptible to heat soak in daily driving / stop-and-go scenarios, as well as prolonged boost runs (such as road racing). The added weight and complexity barely makes it worthwhile, and such a system would be quite difficult to engineer on a hobbyist budget.
I mentioned earlier the notion of water sprayers on the air-to-air intercooler. This technique takes advantage of condensation / evaporation to actually increase the efficiency of the air-to-air intercooler. This approach is highly effective, and quite easy to configure and install using off the shelf components. Add to that a water-meth injection kit, and you get even more charge-air cooling PLUS octane boost. If I were going to build the ultimate intercooling setup, it would be an appropriately sized front mount air-to-air core with carefully tuned end tanks, the minimum number of bends, a water sprayer, and a water meth injection kit. You could probably get a complete setup somewhere in the $1K-$1.5K range, with minimal weight gain and no parasitic HP loss. The only appreciable drawback to these setups is the consumable media for the sprayers and water-meth injection. Might not be feasible for enduro racing, but for street driving and sprint racing, it's about the best combination you can achieve.
Every 10°F of intake air temp impacts HP by ~1%. In a best case scenario, most automotive air conditioning systems can reduce air temperature by 50°F. So assuming you could reduce charge air temp by 50°F using a refrigerant-based system, you would gain AT BEST only 5%. On your 931, you're looking at 5% x 150BHP = 7.5BHP gain. Now consider that most automotive A/C compressors consume 12-15 BHP. So you are effectively looking at a LOSS in power, not a gain. To put it succinctly, you would have to build a system with the refrigerant / heat exchanger / capacity characteristics that could SUSTAIN a temperature differential of 100°F just to break even! When I arrived at this conclusion, I abandoned the refrigeration path because I could not find any automotive grade components that could sustain that kind of performance.
Now, the other factor to consider is that in order to deal with the CFM airflow in a forced induction scenario, you are going to be pumping a relatively MASSIVE amount of heated air over the evaporator, i.e., WAY more hot air in a much shorter period of time than for cooling the cabin. The heat has to be transferred somewhere, and where it gets transferred in this hypothetical system is to the refrigerant. The only way to counteract this effect is to increase the refrigerant capacity of the system, which adds weight.
So to look at it another way, an air to air intercooler is ultimately the ideal solution because the cooling medium (ambient air) is essentially a free resource that weighs nothing, adds no complexity, and is limited only by the size of the frontal area of the intercooler. So there is absolutely no way you will ever build a refrigerant-based system that will out-perform air-to-air, especially for scenarios involving long periods of on-boost performance.
The few OEM production examples of refrigerant-based systems I discovered tend to use some variation of a complex three-stage system such as that found on the aforementioned Lightning trucks. In these systems, a conventional liquid-to-air intercooler has it's glycol-based coolant passed through a refrigerant-based heat exchanger just before going to the liquid-to-air stage. The refrigerant cycle is only triggered during WOT events to help avoid the heat soak issue I describe above.
Consequently, these systems were only good for short bursts of boost, and susceptible to heat soak in daily driving / stop-and-go scenarios, as well as prolonged boost runs (such as road racing). The added weight and complexity barely makes it worthwhile, and such a system would be quite difficult to engineer on a hobbyist budget.
I mentioned earlier the notion of water sprayers on the air-to-air intercooler. This technique takes advantage of condensation / evaporation to actually increase the efficiency of the air-to-air intercooler. This approach is highly effective, and quite easy to configure and install using off the shelf components. Add to that a water-meth injection kit, and you get even more charge-air cooling PLUS octane boost. If I were going to build the ultimate intercooling setup, it would be an appropriately sized front mount air-to-air core with carefully tuned end tanks, the minimum number of bends, a water sprayer, and a water meth injection kit. You could probably get a complete setup somewhere in the $1K-$1.5K range, with minimal weight gain and no parasitic HP loss. The only appreciable drawback to these setups is the consumable media for the sprayers and water-meth injection. Might not be feasible for enduro racing, but for street driving and sprint racing, it's about the best combination you can achieve.
06-10-2014, 09:15 PM
#11
Nordschleife Master
Any refrigerant based system would run a regular front mounted air-to-air intercooler before the refrigeration stage.
The refrigeration circuit should run most of the time, cooling a tank of glycol in a separate circuit. As long as the glycol is above some threshold temperature, the refrigerant cycle runs to cool it.
The cooling capacity of that glycol is then available, on demand, in select situations at the final intercooling stage. This is another separate circuit, which will route the cool glycol first thru the intercooler, then regular air-to-liquid heat exchanger, and finally back to the tank. One can, for example, trigger the glycol based on intake air temperature, knock sensors, etc.
The problem with this system is that there's five heat exchangers:
1) air to air first stage intercooler.
2) air to liquid intercooler as the second stage.
3) liquid to air heat exchanger for the first stage cooling of glycol that comes out of the second stage intercooler.
4) the refrigeration stage evaporator used to cool the glycol.
5) the refrigerant condencer.
The potential net power increase from refrigeration of intake charge is substantial, because cooler air allows one to run more boost. It's not very efficient, of course, unless one can use the waste heat in the turbo downpipe.
Within the next five years, we'll probably see mainstream use of:
- Kinetic energy recovery system from the turbocharger shaft that will produce electricity (F1 uses this)
- A steam engine powered by exhaust waste heat (http://www.dvice.com/archives/2011/0...turbosteam.php)
- Thermoelectric generator using exhaust waste heat (speculative because of low efficiency)
The refrigeration circuit should run most of the time, cooling a tank of glycol in a separate circuit. As long as the glycol is above some threshold temperature, the refrigerant cycle runs to cool it.
The cooling capacity of that glycol is then available, on demand, in select situations at the final intercooling stage. This is another separate circuit, which will route the cool glycol first thru the intercooler, then regular air-to-liquid heat exchanger, and finally back to the tank. One can, for example, trigger the glycol based on intake air temperature, knock sensors, etc.
The problem with this system is that there's five heat exchangers:
1) air to air first stage intercooler.
2) air to liquid intercooler as the second stage.
3) liquid to air heat exchanger for the first stage cooling of glycol that comes out of the second stage intercooler.
4) the refrigeration stage evaporator used to cool the glycol.
5) the refrigerant condencer.
The potential net power increase from refrigeration of intake charge is substantial, because cooler air allows one to run more boost. It's not very efficient, of course, unless one can use the waste heat in the turbo downpipe.
Within the next five years, we'll probably see mainstream use of:
- Kinetic energy recovery system from the turbocharger shaft that will produce electricity (F1 uses this)
- A steam engine powered by exhaust waste heat (http://www.dvice.com/archives/2011/0...turbosteam.php)
- Thermoelectric generator using exhaust waste heat (speculative because of low efficiency)
06-11-2014, 12:08 AM
#12
Rennlist Member
Just to put the nail in the coffin, so to speak, ammonia systems depend on being vertical and stable. Sloshing around in a curve would be unavoidable, and unacceptable.
06-11-2014, 01:40 AM
#13
Pro
Thread Starter
ok first off thank you guys, I am almost overwhelmed by the acceptance I am receiving on this...
I thought I was almost certainly setting myself up for ridicule and it was very surprising to me just now to see such optimistic responses....
I will now begin to address specific things
I thought I was almost certainly setting myself up for ridicule and it was very surprising to me just now to see such optimistic responses....
I will now begin to address specific things
06-11-2014, 02:30 AM
#14
Pro
Thread Starter
I have an absorption refrigerator in my 5th wheel..
I think I am going to strip it down to its guts and...
bolt a little Briggs n Stratton to a workbench
shoot exhaust at ammonia boiler
rig up intake to draw past the cooling circuit
measure intake temperature vs atmospheric and record changes
if there are any temp drops recorded it is a success, I cant for the life of me see how there wouldn't be
what i need help with is the science/formulas
Voith
yes it would take much much more cooling capacity to make a dent in intake air temps of an engine, but then again there is much much more freely available heat energy in the exhaust of that same engine than that little fridge burner....
i believe it would scale...
bureau13
many people have tried with the ac compressor and all have failed..
the ac compressor takes energy off of the crank to turn and due to the laws of physics you will always net a loss in performance due to inefficiency...
Dougs951S
you might be the math guy i need if that all makes instant sense to you
but like you say, as far as i am informed an internal combustion engine can only turn 25% of the energy in gasoline into kinetic energy to push the car, the 75% it has no use for is all expelled in waste heat and racers go to the ends of the earth
just to get rid of it as best they can..
200 hp engine @ 25% = 200hp kinetic energy and another 600 hp worth of waste heat...
thats whats up
specsalot
yes I need to do the math and make some estimates... but its been really hard trying to find any info on absorption refrigeration especially what its input/output ratio's and whatnot all else math formulas are... with that i need some help..
odurandina
this isn't really specifically for a Porsche period.. I think the biggest market would be every long haul tractor trailer diesel on the road... if this system could improve there cruising fuel efficiency by just a couple percent by cooling its charge air just a little by using free heat off the exhaust it could add up to monumental fuel cost savings in that industry...
ideola
i do very highly respect you point of view but confuse this with trying to run an ac compressor, they USE energy...
this would run on nothing, repeat NOTHING but FREE WASTE energy and getting something for nothing is always an improvement..
ptuomov
wow.. i never thought of running this after an A2A intercooler to further cool the intake air... very interesting..
but this system uses no glycol what so ever, no compressor, very simple system with no moving parts at all...
i like it, a normal A2A and then a direct ammonia evaporator to air instead of water to air..
oh and no storage tanks or nothing of that sort, that's just extra weight..
these things continue to cool 24 hours after heat application.. that means its going to be cooling all night and still be cold when you go turn your key in the morning and apply more heat..
944Ross
i do realize that later forces may be a downfall but maybe there is a way to engineer this hindrance out of the system..
some college did successfully replace the air conditioning of a car with an absorption refrigeration unit using waste exhaust heat so maybe there is a way to do it...
please guys keep it up with the positive thoughts and ideas, i cant do this alone....
i promise to everyone that adds some valuable input to this concept that if this thing becomes a success and actually goes somewhere (makes money) ill make sure profits go to giving all helpful people a free system on the engine of there choice when the product can afford to...
i am not a money hungry person, or looking to get rich, this idea comes from my passion for performance and its something i want on MY car eventually if its any good..
but something like this could really be money if say force India wants to run it in formula 1 or Volvo want to incorporate it into there production diesels to gain an edge in fuel efficiency..
thanks again for the optimism guys
oh and btw.. im on a Porsche forum because im working on building a 1980 931s...
trashcans, lsd snail, all the goodies
06-11-2014, 02:40 AM
#15
Pro
Thread Starter
Very, very cool idea. Bravo for thinking outside the box, but I agree there is not nearly enough energy in the exhaust to cool the huge volume of air a boosted car consumes. Keep the ideas coming though, I like it!
Edit: for clarification, the specific heat of dry air is 1.006 kJ/kg*C. My engine consumes ~18 kg/min of dry air. To be more effective than my intercooler, you would have to cool 18 kg of air by ~35* C, which would take 633 kJ of energy, or 14 horsepower minutes. This is a actuallu trivial in comparison to gas energy content of 42 MJ/kg. The problem is proportionality, and the fact that our cars dont burn anywhere close to a kg/min of fuel. The density of gas is about .74 kg/liter. Real time fuel flow at WOT typically doesnt exceed .06 liters/min, so roughly .044-.045 kg/min. This fuel has an energy content of ~ 1.865 MJ, only three times more than the energy needed for the cooler to work even as well as a normal front mount air to air unit. Almost sounds like a good idea, before you consider all the thermal losses, losses due to friction and pumping losses in the motor, the energy lost from the exhaust to spin the turbine, losses due to light and sound energy, and of course the energy sent to the flywheel.
Edit: for clarification, the specific heat of dry air is 1.006 kJ/kg*C. My engine consumes ~18 kg/min of dry air. To be more effective than my intercooler, you would have to cool 18 kg of air by ~35* C, which would take 633 kJ of energy, or 14 horsepower minutes. This is a actuallu trivial in comparison to gas energy content of 42 MJ/kg. The problem is proportionality, and the fact that our cars dont burn anywhere close to a kg/min of fuel. The density of gas is about .74 kg/liter. Real time fuel flow at WOT typically doesnt exceed .06 liters/min, so roughly .044-.045 kg/min. This fuel has an energy content of ~ 1.865 MJ, only three times more than the energy needed for the cooler to work even as well as a normal front mount air to air unit. Almost sounds like a good idea, before you consider all the thermal losses, losses due to friction and pumping losses in the motor, the energy lost from the exhaust to spin the turbine, losses due to light and sound energy, and of course the energy sent to the flywheel.
the thermal losses are just what we are going to ust to power this thing.. it takes heat in one spot, makes cold in another, powered by the thermal losses of the engine.... free