COZBY ENTERPRISES, INC.

The, "An Assessment of the Technology of Rankine Engines For Automobiles"

February 18, 2009 John A. Cozby

     In 1977 the United States Department of Energy published a report that was designated as "DOE/CS-0125". The complete title of the government sanctioned document was, "An Assessment of the Technology of Rankine Engines For Automobiles", and is 90 pages in length plus 7 introductory pages and cover. I will hereafter generally refer to it as either "DOE/CS-0125", or simply, the "Assessment". I first received a copy from the Department of Energy in April, 1982 as part of a DOE response to a disclosure I had sent them concerning advancing the state of the art in the design and construction of high efficiency advanced Rankine cycle engines for automobiles and other applications. The disclosure that I had sent was a truly authentic American innovation that my brother, Ken, and I had spent over fifteen years studying, researching and developing. The "Assessment" added support to the fact that we were correct in our thinking and approach. We immediately began to study the "Assessment" because it was presented as explaining why the Department of Energy and the automotive industry would not consider Rankine engine technology. This odd and distorted interpretation by our Department of Energy and the automotive industry was very confusing and perplexing to us. The Department of Energy’s weird use of the "Assessment" appears to be more politically motivated "spin" than a rational and legitimate presentation of the findings of the "Assessment". My papers, "Evidence of the Department of Energy’s Costly Duplicity", Oct. 2008, "General Motors’ Flawed Perception of Rankine Technology", January 2009, and "The Advanced Rankine Engine Conundrum", January, 2009 is germane to this subject. We were astonished that the Department of Energy had chosen such ill conceived, badly designed, and poorly built engines for their assessment in the first place. Aside from that fact, the following statements and conclusions are from the "Assessment" itself:

     Based on the insights gained in the ERDA (U. S. Department of Energy) program, SES (Scientific Energy Systems Corporation, a DOE contractor) has published design concepts for possible future steam engines of greatly improved efficiency. . . . The "Mark II" design is conceivable after a major program of expander research and development . . .

     Vehicles using external combustion engines for propulsion, such as the piston-type steam engine of advanced design, potentially offer a satisfactory alternative to the present automobile and should have very low pollution and noise characteristics.

     5. Research opportunities were identified which pointed to increases in fuel economy without degraded emissions.

     3. . . . improvements are possible . . . however, the main gain in fuel economy of future Rankine engines will be in the design point selection and improved cycle efficiency. The design point should be selected based on part load power requirements rather than peak load requirements.

     Significant progress has been made . . . , especially in the areas of emissions and fuel economy.

     . . . it began to appear that some alternative to the internal combustion engine would have to be found. One such alternative was the external combustion engine. . . . the Rankine engine appeared to be suitable for automotive application.

     SES achieved vapor generator efficiencies in the range of 92 percent to 98 percent at part load.

     Test results, SES: Shortest Cold-Start Cranking Time, sec. . . . 13

     In 1929, a Doble . . . Important advancements by Doble include ignition key starting, cold-starting times which were under one minute.

     Startup Time . . . 65 percent full power within 45 seconds of "key on".

     7. Startup: At room temperature, startup to the point of safe driveaway, typically, can be expected in less than one minute.

     The major conclusions of the report are that the Rankine engine can provide very low emissions, that the fuel economy is not competitive with spark-ignition or projected alternative engines at this time, and that there is some evidence that a variety of fuels could be easily utilized in Rankine engines.

     Vehicles using external combustion engines for propulsion, such as the piston-type steam engine of advanced design, potentially offer a satisfactory alternative to the present automobile and should have very low pollution . . .

     Results — All four systems demonstrated the potential for low exhaust emissions which was the original main intent of the program.

     Conclusions from AAPS Program — 2. It was demonstrated that it is possible to design a low-polluting Rankine engine which will fit into a standard automobile. . .

     Carter Steam Engines — Tests by EPA in June 1974 found this to be the first automobile ever to meet the original 1976 exhaust emission levels without the use of add-on devices.

     The State of the Art in 1977 Significant progress has been made in the areas of emissions and fuel economy. . . . to find ways to reduce automotive air pollution . . . it began to appear that some alternative to the internal combustion engine would have to be found. One such alternative was the external combustion engine. . . . the Rankine engine appeared to be suitable for automotive application.

     Because the Rankine engine employs a continuous external combustion process, the exhaust is relatively free from noxious pollutants.

     Burners and Combustion — Specific emissions of oxides of nitrogen were demonstrated to be about ten times lower than the minimum acceptable value.

     H. OVERALL PROGRAM EVALUATION The results of the program show that Rankine cycle automobile engines can be made to yield extremely low exhaust emissions.

     The emissions resulting from premixed, prevaporized combustion resulted in very low emissions.

     The system designed by SES was successful in showing a low-emission, very compact, highly integrated vapor-generator design using premixed, prevaporized combustion.

     VI. STATE OF THE ART, 1977 The principle and strongest advantage for Rankine engines appears to be extremely low exhaust emissions.

     Vehicles using . . . the piston-type steam engine of advanced design, potentially offer a satisfactory alternative to the present automobile. . .

     2. It was demonstrated that it is possible to design a low-polluting Rankine engine which will fit into a standard automobile. . .

     Carter Steam Engines — The second generation . . . is lighter in weight, more powerful, and more efficient . . . the complete system weighs only 359 lb.

     . . . the Rankine engine appeared to be suitable for automobile application. . .

     Vapor Generator — The SES vapor generator . . . The packaged weight of the burner-vapor-generator assembly was 90 lb; The overall dimensions were 16.1 inches in diameter x 18.5 inches long.

     SES has published design concepts and calculations for possible future steam engines of greatly improved efficiency, . . . The "Mark II" design is conceivable after a major program of expander research and development, . . .

     H. OVERALL PROGRAM EVALUATION 1. Combustion systems and vapor generators were developed to a high level of maturity. . . . and power levels in packages which were remarkably small and light were demonstrated.

     The system design by SES was successful in showing a low-emission, very compact, highly integrated vapor-generator design. . .

     6. Size — A Rankine engine will generally fit into the engine compartment of an equivalent spark ignition engine. It appears that a fully integrated Rankine engine design might be more attractive because of its size.

     10. Safety: Modern Rankine engines appear to be safe without qualification. The use of monotube boilers effectively removes boiler explosion as a potential problem, and the rest of the engine will differ little as far as safety from the spark ignition engine it replaces.

     The major conclusions of the report are that . . . there is some evidence that a variety of fuels could be easily utilized in Rankine engines.

     Of course, the Rankine engine holds, in common with other constant-combustion engines, a multifuel capability. It is a special advantage for any engine to be able to burn "broad-cut fuels". . . . It is also likely that Rankine engines could use synthetic fuels derived from coal or shale more easily than internal combustion engines.

     Fuels — Low emission operation can be expected with gasoline, kerosene, and diesel fuel. Some work has been done with synthetic fuels with encouraging results.

     2. Results with piston expanders were generally encouraging; lubrication at 1,000 F in-let steam temperature was proven possible, and the piston expanders showed higher peak and part load efficiencies than the turbine expanders. Piston expander valving remains a fruitful area for further development, however.

     Further work is required, however, on both expanders and control systems. . .

     It is seen that the "Assessment" is very positive and supportive of Rankine engine development. The "Assessment" is especially supportive of advanced Rankine cycle engine development. The "Assessment" actually calls for a major program of expander research and development with an emphasis on efficiency, expander valving, and control systems. As far as I know, Cozby, MSE, and the State of Montana are the only ones who have tried to answer this urgent call. We got no help, but only opposition, from DOE.

     The Department of Energy should have paid attention to and heeded its own report. GM should have paid attention to and heeded DOE/CS-0125. They should have listened to us. We had no chance of being heard until GM bankruptcy and a tattered economy became reality.

John A. Cozby                             February 21, 2009

The ERDA Report

and how it relates to jobs and the economy

      The United States Energy Research and Development Administration of the Federal Government published an official report, ERDA-77-54. ERDA stated in their report that, "During the late 1960's . . . it began to appear that some alternative to the internal combustion engine would have to be found. One such alternative was the external combustion engine. . . the Rankine engine appeared to be suitable for automobile application (the steam engine is the most familiar form of the Rankine engine. . ." In this report ERDA called for a major government supported program for the development of advanced Rankine cycle steam engines for automobiles. ERDA called for such a major program because they had determined that advanced Rankine engines could be developed for automobiles that would be clean, fuel diverse, and very efficient. The Cozbys of Cozby Enterprises, Inc. had been working on properly designed advanced Rankine cycle steam engines for about eleven years before the Energy Research and Development Administration confirmed the soundness of the Cozby approach in their ERDA report. Cozby had come to the same conclusions as ERDA, except that Cozby has advanced the Rankine technology a few levels beyond that envisioned by ERDA.

     I have stated that the DOE contradicted their own report and so it would seem, but my statement is somewhat in error. It was actually the Energy Research and Development Administration’s report that the DOE later claimed and appropriated as their own and then disrespected, abused, ridiculed, rejected, contradicted, misused, contorted, misinterpreted, and misunderstood. The DOE then foisted their falsified version off on Congress and the American people.

     Today we are very concerned about jobs and the state of our economy. A major program for development of advanced Rankine cycle steam engine technology can indeed turn America’s economy around and create more good, steady, high paying jobs than most Americans can even imagine. You are invited to visit the educational, informational website, cozincmtusa.com for more information.

Thank you.

John A. Cozby September 1, 2010