COZBY ENTERPRISES, INC.

Internal Combustion Engine Update, Reality Check and Rebuttal    June 2009

      The automotive industry believes it is making great advances in engines.  For decades the automotive and engine industries in cooperation with the Department of Energy have labored and labored and they have brought forth a mouse (or more literally, many mice).
      In 2006, General Motors claimed it “is working hard to develop advanced technologies that will increase fuel efficiency and limit the environmental impact of our vehicles . . .  GM is developing hybrid-electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. . . . We are making great progress . . . estimated 20 percent improvement in fuel economy. . . .  at least 25 percent fuel savings . . . a new U.S. Department of Energy program . . . www.gmability.com”  (From GM letter of Feb. 2006.  ref: pages 122, 123 in my “big book” – Advanced Rankine Cycle Engine Technology as well as the section, “General Motors’ Flawed Perception of Rankine Technology”.)
      General Motors believes a 20 percent improvement in mileage is great — a major advance.  (This is partly the reason General Motors is in the shape it is in.)  Looking at a 20% improvement from a practical point of view:  If a vehicle is getting 20 miles per gallon, a 20% improvement means the vehicle would then get 24 miles per gallon.  If I owned a vehicle that got 24 mpg rather than 20 mpg I would be glad for the increase — unless I knew that I should be getting 60 to 70 mpg.  Then the 4 mpg increase would seem minuscule, and I would feel cheated rather than grateful.  Such is the case.
      In 1982 the Department of Energy falsely stated that they were supporting better alternatives than the Rankine cycle engine.  (From DOE letter of APR 16, 1982; ref: page 110 in my “big book” – Advanced Rankine Cycle Engine Technology as well as the section, “Evidence of the Department of Energy’s Costly Duplicity”) In the Department of Energy’s 1977 publication, “An Assessment of the Technology of Rankine Engines For Automobiles”, the Department of Energy acknowledges that an advanced Rankine engine of Roger Demler’s design could achieve about a 50% improvement in efficiency over the gasoline engine.  The Department of Energy recognized that “a major program of expander research and development” would be required.  A 50% improvement over the gasoline engine, but advanced Rankine was not good enough, DOE said.  Now, thirty-two years later, little or no improvement has been made in the gasoline engine efficiency over the gasoline engines of 1977.  Yet, now the Department of Energy and General Motors say that a 20% to 25% improvement is “great progress”, but a 50% improvement is not good enough!  This is pure automotive/DOE foolishness.  (Today, a much better, much more efficient advanced Rankine engine design than Roger Demler’s original rudimentary design is available.  We are still waiting on the “major program of expander research and development” identified by the Department of Energy.)
 
 What is wrong with this picture?!   Do we have bureaucracy run amok?
 This whole fiasco is just ludicrous!!!
     Forward to July 2008: The July issue of “Popular Mechanics”, had a feature article by Chuck Tanner on “Super MPG Engines”, page 70.  The article is also titled, “Re-inventing the Engine”.  (I have a copy in my file.)  PM claims this information is a GM exclusive.  “Normally off-limits to outsiders, the lab has opened its doors to PM for an exclusive preview of a new engine . . .”  GM’s homogeneous charge compression ignition, or HCCI, computer controlled engine is discussed.  Also discussed are: The Sturman combustion cycle (Eddie Sturman based in Woodland Park, Colo.); Split-Cycle Combustion (the Scuderi Group based in West Springfield, Mass.); Ethanol Boost (Lesley Bromberg, Daniel Cohn and John Heywood, from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology); and Turbocompounding (Detroit Diesel, Scania and Volvo).  Turbocharging, direct fuel injection, variable valve timing (VVT), and cylinder deactivation are included in the article.
      All of these approaches are with the inherently dirty, wasteful internal combustion engine.  While all of these approaches may result in some minor degree of improvement, the amount of improvement is incrementally small in comparison to what needs to be done and can be realized to a much greater degree in a properly designed advanced Rankine cycle engine.  And, the Rankine is cleaner and more fuel diverse, while being significantly more efficient with better fuel economy.
      The minuscule improvements of General Motors and others are not “better alternatives”.  These developments are a protracted waste of much valuable time, effort, and money while diverting resources from the real solution of advanced Rankine engine development.
      The evidence is in and the verdict is clear!  Even the futuristic “Re-invented, Super MPG” internal combustion engines cannot begin to compete with properly designed advanced Rankine cycle engines.  The modern high tech internal combustion engine effort shows itself to be woefully lacking and not a satisfactory solution.  A silk purse cannot from a sow’s ear be made!

         
John A. Cozby