Zero Emissions Diesels: How Ducted Fuel Injection can Save the Diesel Engine
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 ส.ค. 2022
- Just because the upcoming emissions standards appear to be nearly impossible to meet, it can be done with the right innovation, which takes us to Sandia National Laboratories, the masterminds behind a new type of diesel injection system which can almost completely eliminate diesel engine emissions output and potentially save the diesel engine from death.
Scientific American article: www.scientificamerican.com/ar...
Check out our website: dustrunnersauto.com
Follow me on Instagram: @bryce.cleveland
Gear I use to shoot my videos:
(Buying through these links supports the channel)
Panasonic G7: amzn.to/2FKsmKe
Panasonic 25mm F1.7: amzn.to/2X8LQhG
Rode Mic: amzn.to/2J0lrik
Tascam DR05: amzn.to/2LvYFjR
Neewer lights: amzn.to/2Xem68x
-Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use. No copyright infringement intended. ALL RIGHTS BELONG TO THEIR RESPECTIVE OWNERS - ยานยนต์และพาหนะ
If you guys enjoyed the video, please SMASH THAT LIKE BUTTON. It helps the channel out a huge amount and helps TH-cam put the video in front of more people. Thanks for watching 😬
where is the link that you said you would leave in the description?
yes, link please :)
I totally forgot to add it to the description! Here you go: www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-diesel-finally-come-clean/
The greenness don't w a nt A NY oil usage , so unless the people push it it won't happen and will b pushed aside like som as NY other devices
@@dwslters1437 why would this affect oil consumption? this just changes how the fuel is atomized?
The Diesel engine is by far the greatest engine produced. It has been maligned by the nutcases who don't understand the real world
It's being suppressed by oil companies that would like to see it outlawed because it's so efficient.
🏆💯
But it spews out dirty sooty exhaust.
See my comment on this...
👍
@@raybin6873 if a diesel is running correctly it burns very clean - especially if burning new synthetic fuel oils. The matter can be corrected further by designing engines with higher compression ratios. The reason why this is not done currently is because lubrication oil on cylinder walls would ignite. Ceramic engines and pistons with graphite rings are being explored. A simple solution to current engine design is to have bubbler water drum filters instead of paper felt air filters. When a diesel can't get enough air it definitely burns dirty. This happens when an air filter is clogged either by dust, high humidity or both. Also worn out, low compression engines and engine with worn out injectors also burn dirty.
@@raybin6873 lots don't
That makes too much sense, and the government is not known for making sense.
Yep. when the epa will be outlawed then maybe we’ll see better technology to make Diesel engines good again.
It's not even what it claims to be if you look at it. It's just marketing wank!
@@charlesrodriguez7984 you think it’ll ever happen?
@@OscarHernandez-il8tv probably
@@evil_me. Yeah the EPA isn’t exactly what the name says. They are on a mission to kill the Internal Combustion engine on baseless data. They’ve been wrong since the 1960s, & they will continue to be wrong for years to come.
The EPA did a study to figure out if using Ethonol in gasoline has any eco friendly benefits recently, & not a shocker they found that Ethonol is a giant waste cuz u gotta burn more diesel to farm the corn to make either BioDiesel or Ethonol.
Not just that, but Ethonol is hard on everything in the fuel system. Ethonol is caustic, it has a terrible shelf life, clogs up carburetors, eats fuel lines, & absorbs water.
The only thing good it does it raise the octane level of the fuel, & that’s it. Lots of damage & fuel tank rust just to raise the octane level.
If this DFI system does exactly what it says it does in most real world driving conditions, I could imagine that some markets would see an increase in diesel equipped passenger cars due to this newfound cleanliness of the engine. If it doesn’t stink and if it doesn’t poop out black shit, people would probably be more interested in Diesel engines. This could be very big news for the Diesel engine in general.
Volkswagen and it’s sub-brands can finally go back to diesels
The "stink" has already been dealt with with the "ultra low sulfur" diesel.
Modern diesels running on modern fuel don’t stink or “poop out black shit”. Not a properly running one anyways
@@nsboost only modified ones do which whoever first said that doesn’t realize
@@johndavidwolf4239
Load of crap.
All diesel fumes stink rancid.
I’ve been saying this for the past 20 years, invest in clean burning efficient diesels and here they are with a huge innovation
Except they put Navistar in the introduction, and there fore.....POOP.
That makes total sense, pre mixing fuel and oxygen is the way to get the cleanest or best combustion in any style of combustion. It’s just like an oxy/acetylene torch, if you have ever lit just the acetylene and tried to get any heat to speak of from it…. You get soot with very little to no effective heat add some O2 and then you can cut steel plate and many other useful stuff
Except a torch is localized ignition point.
And diesel ignites all at the same time
@@fastinradfordable that's not the comparison he's making. We all know that.
If the key is premixing fuel why are carburettors not more fuel efficient than injectors.
@@creed2409 Carbs are not more fuel efficient because they are very crude (i.e. not dynamic) in the adjustment of the fuel mixture. A computerized carb with precise fuel metering might do better.
@@dannysnyder6791 We already make computerised carbs and whilst they are better than crude manufacture of past, still do not exceed injectors. My point is about this theory on premixing being, i think, a bit optimistic. Simply spacing the injector a few inches inside a tube with compressed air behind it. The bunsen burner principle example seemingly doesnt even consider that air and fuel is conventionally mixed inside the engine before ignition. In conditions unlike open air, with massive turbulence and compression. I'm just sceptical as all previous design and testing found that the further atomisation is from combustion the more likelihood of fuel condensing or pooling, hence direct injector.
It would be very interesting to retrofit a Detroit 2 cycle Diesel. The removal of the DEF system would greatly increase reliability of present engines.
Will be patiently waiting for the 8v71 kit :D
Yeah but there’s no profit in not making you buy in extra fluid
I would love to see retrofit kits for Cummins xBT series engines if this turns out to be the miracle it's being touted as
Hell yes!
My understanding is that DEF fluid is injected into the exhaust ( hence the name; diesel EXHAUST fluid) and not into the engine, and has no bearing on the reliability of the engine.
We live in a society that is socially engineered to be anti-diesel. I have operated diesels since 1985 and know how efficient they are- even without this innovation. Sure looks like a great idea!
No, the society we live in just has science. Wich proves that Diesel engines have worse emissions than fuel. Diesel in its nature is a lower grade fuel than normal gasoline.
@@KAMI_24 Look at science, as I was getting 55mpg on my 1.6 VW and my associates were driving vehicles that were getting about 20mpg. Their commuting consumed 3X the fuel. Please note that the most significant pollution from diesel is the nitros oxide, and if you operate Diesel engines in an enclosed space, your eyes may water, compared to gasoline- as you will die from the fumes. Gasoline is much more expensive to produce.
It's to efficient. No one is gonna make money off it. This idea won't take off.
@@NickOvchinnikov too efficient to make money of off..?
@@NickOvchinnikov Think you missed the part of it not being owned or invested in by a politician in the house or senate....
If this comes to the market, I hope they integrate these injectors to the engines on the road rn.
Wont happen, the design will require a new head, plus all the computer controls will make it impossible. The ducts as you can see in the video are huge. This is no little small injector tip.
@@scottdowney4318 yeah they make it sound like it's the injector that's new, but really it's the cold surrounding cushion of air the diesel is injected into that prevents autoignition until a bit of mixing has occurred and something something atomization.
I don’t understand why you say the Diesel is dying. I see absolutely no alternative in our immediate future. And the reality is we have had struck diesel emissions for a decade or more now and it’s “working”…
I was going to say… Until (if ever)battery technology makes absolute leaps and bounds of improvement Diesel engines are not going anywhere.
The medium duty diesel industry is dying (think f250-f550) many people are opting for the gas versions due to reliability and not having emissions.
This guy shills for “renewable” energy in every video.
Its because politicians and government bureaucrats are doing everything they can to kill all internal combustion in favor of electric battery. The EV is the Betamax (or maybe the curly fluorescent light bulb for you kids) of our time.
Cummins came out with a diesel that could run on about anything including farts and hydrogen
When I saw the title I immediately got excited for better diesel emissions reduction equipment.
too bad the title is all thats good about this.
This is not gonna be a thing and wont make any difference for the average person.
soot is already a none issue for anything with a particle filter.
@@Pixelplanet5 Less soot out the combustion chamber means less clogs in the emissions systems, better efficiency across the board as well as better air quality and less money wasted on warranty claims and out of warranty maintenance.
@@Trussme96 all that doesnt matter though as soot is not the reason why diesel engines are unable to meet their future emissions standards.
This will give the high polluting diesel engine a bit more time at best but overall all combustion engines are on the way out in the next ~2 decades and this is not gonna change that.
@@Trussme96 we might see this injector soon but idk if it’ll happen.
Here I am watching the "epa killed the diesel engine over 35 years" yesterday, upset and looking forward to deleting future diesels, and here you give me cautious hope.
We can build a particle accelerator yet we can't can't invent anything to beat the diesel engine ,diesel engines have advanced massively over the past 100 years or so but there is nothing out there that can match there power to weight ratio reliability and cost of this engine I drive trucks and being able to maintain momentum on a steep climb with up to 44 tons with a engine the size of a fridge is impressive it will take something special to beat this
Gas engines have better power to weight, reliability, and are cheaper. Diesels have their place where weight isnt as big an issue, and have advantage of better mpg and running lower rpms if turbodiesel. Still the best choice for big trucks i agree. They dont compare in power to weight, there are probably production literbikes that make more than 1hp per pound of engine/trans assembly weight. Same with some higher hp aluminum chevy v8s, like the ls7, just talking engine weight on that one. All diesels i know of are iron block and very heavy, usually 1000+lbs. Im talking cummins, duramax, powerstrokes here. Diesels just cant rev as high as gas, but they will always have a place.
It isn't about power to weight or how fast it can rev. Diesel is all about torque, you won't make a gas engine develop the kind of torque a diesel can easily. At least not one with the reliability of a diesel. Hell, even trains which run on electric use diesel generators.
@@connor3288 there's a reason heavy industry uses diesel. It's just better for it's use case. Let's be real here, the vast majority of people don't even use the benefits that petrol has over diesel
@@NatoriousGamePlay i said they have their place. Modern truck diesels just arent worth it for most buyers, they have expensive emissions system problems and tend to get worse mpg than older diesels, and combined with the price increase of diesel fuel and engines it doesnt make sense for most. Diesel repairs and parts prices are higher, and higher downtime. The government has ruined diesels with overregulation imo. The days of mechanical pump diesel cars/trucks are over in the us, those appeal to me. Some of the fuel systems on modern diesels cost more than gas engines. And government military diesels have no emissions systems as far as i know! For everyday transport and towing non-commercial give me an n/a gas engine all day long. I like diesels but for non-commercial use in the us it is more expensive and doesnt make sense. I would love to be able to buy a newer Hilux diesel.
@@connor3288 Mercedes om606 diesel, can rev like anything else and make incredible horsepower, have a look, , diesels make far more torque than those engines you mention, big diesels can tow 40 plus tonnes with ease, you would break your aluminum block In half , and yes a litre bike will produce that power and chew the fuel doing so; but it has no torque to do anything like a diesel, or do two million plus miles. Turbocharged diesels with air assisted/mixed fuel injectors will be the next best thing ,
I was taught in the year 1963 by good instructors that when no computers existed , well very few, max power from Diesel engines when fuel was completely burned.
By observing the exhaust any visible smoke was excessive fuel (like the so called hot rodders think is cool) I watched as a large truck placed on a dyne running under load showed the truth in what the man said.
With the computers we have now in the automotive industry , there is no reason the emissions cannot be controlled . A modern computer can see what is happening in each individual cylinder and can adjust the fuel compression, etc to give the best , cleanest running possible. Just get your head out from your hinny most and see trucks are necessary if you wish to continue eating, staying warm, etc. even though we complain about them on the highways. Of course you may grow your own food, make your own clothes, cause I sure won’t make them for you, or give you what I grow. It would be best for the people that wish to do away with oil products to start chasing rabbits for clothes, and learning to eat their front lawn, if you have one.
ok
This reads as incomprehensible rambling
Totally agree.
Look at some tuners, they just flood in diesel and wait for the turbo to try and fix the Air fuel ratio for a cleaner burn.
With more modern techniques it would smoke a lot less, because it is much better controlled.
What was the point you're trying to make in that word vomit?
Boy I had a hearty laugh at that. 'Chasing rabbits and eating lawn' hilarious but it could turn true someday. I hope the true Lord shows us mercy.
Time is going to be the greatest challenge to this injector. Sounds great, but all we can do is wait unfortunately
The greatest challenge is stopping the environmental quacks from killing it. Their idea of clean is all electric everything which is insane. There will never be an electric 747.
It is not necessarily an injector. It is a device that can be attached to the end of the direct injectors on the cylinder heads. This device not only makes sense, it needs to be put into production. Especially with the advent of renewable diesel fuel, this device would make all the exhaust after treatment devices obsolete because the engine is running much more efficiently and putting more work energy to the crankshaft and tires to get the rig further down the road before having to refuel.
Thats what I was thinking. Wouldn't it be easier to just make new long tipped nozzles for existing injectors? Sure, the clips, o rings and fuel rail may have to be spaced out, but that seems doable.
@@dankline9162 Take a look at any mechanic video dealing on modern engines. You will see things fail in bizzar fashion. I would not be surprised if carbon build up on nozzles tips due to poor fuel pressure would be the achilleas heel of these things...
Yeah and I think metalergy is even more important. More robust it is the longer it will last and the longer it will stay out of the junk yard polluting.
@@TheAnnoyingBoss A ceramic thermal barrier coating could be applied to create greater longevity and keep heat where it belongs...in the combustion process.
@@matthewmiller2268 I wonder how that would compare to the type of coatings they do on these rifle bolt carrier groups. Nitride or whatever and stuff like that
In Germany there is a company that produces and sells diesel fuel which molecularly altered in such a way that sootlevels are going down dramatically. The current emissionstandard in Europe is euro 6 and the used test vehicle was an old 2.5L, 5 cylinder, euro 0 Mercedes. With the special diesel fuel it achieved a euro 10 emission level. The fuel can be used in almost every diesel engine, which would mean a new lifespan for dieselengines old and new.
do you have a source? euro 10 doesn´t exist so i call BS
@@faxxzc IF you understand the German language you could do a search here on TH-cam for 'diesel-lösung'. But only IF... Otherwise you can keep calling whatever you want and never know or understand.
By the way: again IF, you'd know the steps from euro 1 to 6 you could calculate euro 10. But, then again: IF...
@@baeruuttehei1393 Ich verstehe deutsch keine sorge. Euro 1 bis 6 ist nicht linear deswegen kann man nicht extrapolieren… alleine die verschiedenen unterstufen von euro 6, zb 6d, 6d-temp, 6d-temp-ivap, 6d-temp-ivap-isc und so weiter
"i want electric diesels" -EPA
the EPA wants you to walk everywhere and live in the stone age
Diesel electric locomotive engines have been around for decades.
@@johndavidwolf4239 we do have those but are they considered a hybrid?
@@dieselisking : Not really as they do not have a battery except for starting.
@@mikecubes1642 that is litertally true. if nobody stopped them, we'd be using a horse and buggy again. Thats why this new injector is being suppressed
Sick brother, I love emission compliances. I especially hope that California will back all this as they make the BEST decisions.
I've always found my Def lines don't freeze enough and my dpf filters don't clog enough.
It sucks and needs to work better that being said your not cool or more manly for wanting to breath in soot
This looks to be a MAJOR upgrade for base specific fuel consumption, allowing you to make upwards of twice the power on the same amount of fuel, or alternatively the same amount of power with less than half as much fuel. This is an absolute win like when electronic fuel injection happened allowing you to run the whole engine at the same air fuel ratio through the whole Power band with active adjustments the whole way. Or like when turbos were introduced to be able to stuff tons of extra air in, and allowing you to make the power of a big engine on a smaller turbo engine when you want to, but get close to the fuel economy of a small engine by itself when not under boost.
@@Prestiged_peck also if this comes out and manufacturers can get rid of the DPF then we get our vroom vroom sound back.
@@connor4961 OH YEAH gotta get the powerstroke roar back, ain't nothing match the exhaust sound of a powerstroke when it's making proper power!!!
@@Prestiged_peck yeah right now with this dpf bull crap they sound like a gutless vacuum cleaner.
Let’s hope this gets to market soon!
It can be retro-fitted? I wonder if they'll put it on those little diesel generators too. I saw a picture of that from California, where the charging stations for EVs were attached to a diesel generator.
At last, those EVs can run cleaner.
I'm betting this would have a huge application in the performance diesel part world. I'd definitely try them out in my 1st gen Cummins, it's smog exempt but a simple increase in power and MPG's would be great.
Even if we reduced emissions by 100% the EPA/CARB would never stop mandating the use of DPF and DEF systems, even 10 years ago the cleanest diesel engines emissions output for PM was less than the air coming through the air filter in California. For these groups it never ends, if we achieve 0 emissions they will just start regulating energy usage or heat, noise, light emissions ect. These people are way more concerned with their power trip than actually helping the environment.
Commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution needs to put an end to C.A.R.B.
States don’t get to regulate interstate commerce.
IT WOULD TAKE ALL / EVERY COUNTRY TO TAKE PART IN THIS FOR IT TO WORK ,,, IF U.S.A. WENT 100 % CLEAN IT WOULD DO NO GOOD IF CHINA / RUSSIA / IRAN & MANY MORE WOULD GIVE US THE MIDDLE FINGER
@rpracingproducts. You're absolutely right about the EPA being a control hungry goververnment organization. Even if this type of injector was added to diesel engines the epa would throw every regulation possible at the diesel industry to kill the diesel altogether.
Exactly. They don't care about the actual emissions or cost effectiveness. (Which is why the "Science" in support of DEF systems is completely fake.) They care about justifying budgets.
Why does anyone care what emissions a tractor has in the middle of a field, miles away from the next human? The dirt being plowed and the crops being harvested puts way more particles into the air.
By the time we got to the standards of the early 1990s, the problem was basically solved, had we just waited for the natural turnover to take most of the cars from the 1970s off the road.
Commiefornia is already regulating vehicle exhaust noise output. They also have "laws" in place that prevent the purchase of or ownership of a PC with a power supply above a specified wattage.
there are many places in the world that are not effected by EPA that could still benefit from this technology,, that is probably why the companies you mentioned are so interested.
Currently halfway through - I bet these run super hot… Like a Bunsen burner.
EDIT: reached the end. I think electric rail freight might be a good option to reduce emissions and highway hazards while they’re figuring this injector out. It’s some cool stuff!
So were all going to be running IDIs again haha
As a tech these newer system suck to repair. The cost of parts can cost as much as the vehicle is worth. There has to be a balance between tree hugging and reliability.
I totally hear that dude! After treatment parts do come close to the value of the truck! It’s music to our ears when the driver/owner says ok delete it. For the very reason pre-emission Semis are selling for astronomical figures, but they’re the most reliable thing on the road!
That's why I think these things need to be simpler and less plastic and complexity tbh
The consumer is partly to blame for all the fancy shit on modern vehicles. Think of all the electronic shifters. No way that costs less as a manufacturer than a lever and a linkage. It's because Mercedes or bmw had it so everyone else wants the same tech as a fancy car in their Kia or whatever. Oh but people are dumb and run themselves over with their dial shifter so we better make an electric parking brake too. I guess I'm just a loser driving an '04 with rolly poley windows lol
@@juliogonzo2718 Very well put, same here, and i am so glad that more and more people are publicly uncovering the semi-insanity that goes on, and the trillions spent by GOVs aiming at the wrong targets, and sacrificing people with their failed but deadly shots at the climate changes; and worse,they young children are being grossly misled into their wrong ideology too,we all know sad examples of this;
The amount of taxation and inspections dictated by the greenphissers' silly ideology is now staggering; of course the climate changes; it changes every day,every month,every year,every century,etc; Scientists tell us that the Sahara was once green land with rivers,people,cattle, lions,zebra,etc, and then it slowly turned into a desert,and there were no cars then;
Some 11,000 years ago, what we know today as the world's largest hot desert would've been unrecognizable. The now-dessicated northern strip of Africa was once green and alive, pocked with lakes, rivers, grasslands and even forests.
Carbon dioxide is the enemy, not internal combustion engine. Keep that in mind, the synthetic fuel will save the ICE vehicles and the other one, is alternative fuel. They're both better.
Carbon dioxide is not the enemy and never was, ask any greenhouse grower! If you've fallen for that propaganda I bet you're quadruple poked too eh!......
@@paulzx10 Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared spectrum light and reemits it in all directions creating a blanket in the troposphere. If it didn't work we'd be a frozen planet. If we didn't know that we'd also not be very good at fertilizer science either. You can't just cherry pick the science you like. Trend the hydrological patterns over the past 120 years yourself. The data isn't a secret. It's not a narrative, it's measurements.
The problem with the Diesel Engine is not the Diesel Engine, it is the Diesel. Until they stop putting all the trash from petrol production into diesel we'll never get anywhere. The bunsen burner theory goes out of the window when you exchange methane for butane which has a higher carbon count per hydrogen atom, you start finding it harder to get that good complete combustion without soot production since there's more carbon being added to the reaction per hydrogen atom. The most simple solution would be to put better quality fuel on offer, then we wouldn't be where we are now. DPF's are only necessary because they find it necessary to sell us the trash. Oxygenating components can be added very easily to high quality base fuel and then there would literally be 5% or maybe less of the soot and nitrogen emissions that plague the diesel engine as it stands
Nitrogen emissions? Isn't the atmosphere literally mostly nitrogen?!?
@@TheAnnoyingBoss nitrogen isn't a problem so long as it comes out the way it went in, unfortunately due to the pressure and heat within a diesel engine during combustion, the activation energy is high enough that nitrogen will also react with the oxygen since the oxygen is not being used up quickly enough by the hydrogen. Remember complete combustion is hydrocarbon+ oxygen=carbon dioxide+ dihydrogen oxide (water) when the oxygen in the reaction isn't used up quickly enough by the hydrocarbon, there is residual oxygen left over by the time the activation energy gets high enough to start a nitrogen + oxygen reaction. The key is to use up all of the oxygen before the pressure and heat becomes high enough to allow the nitrogen reaction to take place. The diesel engine issue in this regard is the fact that there will always be residual oxygen left over since there is no throttle to control the air flow and thus reduce the oxygen content in the cylinder. The reason they don't throttle them is because the fuel is garbage so they have to run lean in order to avoid high levels of soot production, but this then creates the nitrogen problem. The only realistic solution is to have a stoichiometric burn and have a good enough fuel and fuel system that no soot formation takes place due to heat spots etc. In really, throttling a diesel isn't going to work because then there is nothing to create compression for the ignition......soot or nitrogen is the compromise, but both can be reduced significantly by having a more complete combustion which will cause less areas for the nitrogen reaction to take place, as there will be no heat spots just a uniform flame front
I love the idea that it can be retrofitted to older engines.
But, will it work with biodiesel as well?
There is no reason it shouldn't.
Might need to be modified to handle more viscous fluids though
There is no reason it shouldn't work about the same because the principle is the same
Ahhh good question 🤔
Biofuel is the absolute worse idea for fuel ever created though. You know how many corn fields it requires to make it? To many. That could be used to grow other foods. I find a lot of people don't consider this. Biofuels comes from crops. And we need those to eat. The earth only so big. And we have a food shortage globally. So making using food just to run cars is highly irresponsible.
As a truck driver I hope this becomes the standard.
We all know it won't see the light of day. They want us driving overpriced go carts that are attached to the internet.
It should have been the standard years ago if it were not being actively suppressed..
Crazy thing Mr. Gale Bank has built low emission Diesel engines with no dpf or def
I have a 1991 12 valve Cummins owned 22 years. This is a very interesting injector. My truck is still factory no changes just age.
I don't drive much anymore maybe 100 miles a week. I may start up 2- 4 days. And it is my main transportation. (Retired once).
Could this ducted system be applied to more than just diesel engines? What about gasoline engines? What about heavy fuel oil engines used on ships? Could we see any applications of this in aerospace?
It seems that the ducted injector could theoretically be used on any fuel as long as it's a fluid.
Not much use in gasoline engines since they inject fuel prior to compression and don't produce soot. Any engine using compression (usually diesel) ignition could benefit. With regards to aerospace, piston aircraft engines generally use spark ignition. Turbine engines, however, do use compression ignition as the fuel is injected straight into the high pressure hot air coming into the combustion chamber. GE's newest aircraft engines (GEnX I believe) use a special 3d printed fuel injector that mixes the air and fuel into a lean mixture before it begins to combust, decreasing NOx emissions. It probably reduces soot but I'm not sure if turbine engines have a soot problem.
@@Zed86zz If I had to guess Id think not as soot would make problems for the clearances.
The question shouldn't be whether this works with "gasoline" engines, the question should be whether this works with other types of fuels with compression ignition, which in theory, it could. We call compression ignition engines "diesels", but the reality is that many different types of fuels can be used with same "diesel" cycle.
That new injector would be awesome just think to have an diesel engine trucks without any of the problematic DOC,DPF,DEF or SCR systems, but hey that would make to much common sense but hey with government involved common sense isn't common 🤷🏿♂️
The problem is, it's NOT about emissions. It's about destroying YOU.
I am hooked on your program. Great view points and insights
There is zero chance you will be able to retro fit this system to other/older Diesel Engines. This fuel system will require an engine specifically designed for it.
Fortunately, this isn't true. The older systems didn't rely on computers, therefore there would be no sensors telling it there was a problem because something was different. For the newer systems, a simple modification to the ECM / PCM should correct any sensor issues. I would definitely try something like this on my 2001 W9.
@@mihybrid1 the issue isn't about how the fuel system is operated. It's about space. You won't be able to physically fit this new injector into the same space. The new injector will have added complexity, air. That will require more space. Space in a Cylinder Head is already maximize by the Engine Designers.
@@John-od7xw Agreed about the design. But the fuel injector, if it's designed for that engine, will be sized to take that into consideration
Mercedes was working on something similar a few decades ago. Didn't have good power output as far as I remember. Amazing fuel economy and reliability but like 1/3 less power per displacement.
Then bring back the significantly more efficient uniflo 2-strokes.. problem resolved
@@Errol.C-nz "more efficient 2-strokes" LOLOLOLOL They had 80% higher consumption for 60% more power per displacement. Not to mention their short lifespan, oil consumption, noise, low torque and high rpm power peak. Their ONLY advantage was weight when comparing naturally aspirated engines. With high pressure turbocharging, 4-strokes are far more reliable, efficient, and powerful. 4-strokes can utilize VGT turbos to make nearly instant torque rise down below 1200rpm, a 2-stroke can't have any exhaust backpressure higher than intake pressure.
@@superjesus4307 oh how little you know
@@Errol.C-nz Thats a large sum more than you contain.
Soot is currently a non-issue for all major manufacturers. The emissions being controlled are NOX (Nitrogen oxides). The other thing to consider is a lot of the Carbon output is nano particles that string together in the exhaust, these cannot be controlled in the combustion cycle as the will be created right through the mixture range from being ultra lean to rich.
The counter intuitive thing about particle size is that a rich mixture is easier to "make clean" then a stoichiometric or lean mixture as smaller particle sizes created in leaner hotter mixtures are harder to trap and also more potentially more damaging to the environment.
Current injector tech is in the 95th+ percentile of hydrocarbon based fuel burn efficiency leaving only small room for improvement. thus gains are more easily made in capturing the exhaust emissions and capturing wasted energy in general. Regenerative systems on a diesel engine would produce far more emission saving then any future engine developments.
Particle emissions are not bad to the environment, but to human health.
Great video. I remember reading about 4 or so years ago that Toyota was working on this type of technology. Great to see other companies doing so also.
Hi all! I’ve watched this presentation and work for a company that has helped fund this research. Here is why this will not come into play:
1) Most diesel injectors use not 1 but multiple “holes” in their injector tips. The duct design demonstrated on a test engine is on for a single plume/hole.
2) the small thermal mass of the duct material becomes a hot spot and it eventually fails the material
3) Additionally, the benefits only have been demonstrated on steady state operations, not transient/acceleration.
It is a fascinating application, but technology just isn’t there.
Diesel alternative fuels or multi fuel engines running a compression ignition cycle are more promising for GHG reduction.
Looks like a IDI injection system like was common before the emissions regs.
Indirect injection in the past burned cleaner but was slightly less fuel efficient because some of the heat energy was lost to the precombustion chambers.
IDI diesels can rev to 5k RPM when designed properly increasing HP output.
They were designed to combat the sooty reputation of diesel engines 40+ years ago.
I love my 7.3 idi
Thank you, we’ve been needing this for many years
Haven’t heard any major manufacturer working on DFI so that means this idea is in the fantasy ideas bucket not yet reached r&d in real life!
I say chance it, because companies really don’t have a choice. Either die with other reliability plaguing emissions systems or adopt this system and cross your fingers.
Where can i get in touch with the company that is developing this? I would love to test it out in my ‘06 Jeep Liberty. It needs new injectors now anyway.
Just found your videos and love your fact based presentations!! John Deere has released three new forage harvestors featuring 18L DEF free diesel engines!! Imagine how much progress could be made if our governemnt took the kind of money they're spending on "green energy" alternatives and invested with private industry to develop emission free internal combustion engines!!
@@jadenspires1891 I'll Check out Edward's channel! I think in the long run hydrogen fueled engines will be the answer! They can't build enough windmills and solar panels to fill our energy needs! Looking forward to more of your posts!!
@@jadenspires1891 I couldn't agree more, with the addition to your list of clean petroleum based fuels and definitely nuclear! Used to know a physics teacher who was a total greenie and he would argue that we aren't going to get out of this energy mess until we recommitt to nuclear energy!!
@@jadenspires1891 continue the work on cleaning up petroleum based truck, auto and industry emmissions, electric generation emmissions, etc
@@jadenspires1891 sure, synthetics, bio-fuels, and continued research and development on lowering emmissions on current internal combustion production engines.
@@jadenspires1891 Great, very innovative
I've heard of Sandia before. God bless them.
It reminds me of the Honda 3 barrel lean burn system they had in the 70s and 80s. An extra valve to let more air in to the source of combustion kinda deal.
I think with this new injector injector cup failures will definitely be more common due to the much leaner burn at the tip of the injector.
With the right material used this could be made a non-issue, but it will be a question of cost. If they combine this with more efficient valvetrains in the larger engines, and possibly even cylinder deactivation (I would only accept this on OHC engines as companies ford and Mercedes have proven it can be made reliable over the years, the lash adjusters can be starved of oil completely safely on OHC engines because they don't need to move up and down in a bore, unlike GM and chrysler's pushrod lifters which play the same role of holding tension but are, in current designs, splash oiled for a large portion of their lives as oil pressure is used to activate or deactivate them)
@@Prestiged_peck Cylinder deactivation wouldn't really provide much more efficiency for a semi truck unless its bobtailing.
Also Mercedes had a similar-ish system on there om616 and om617 engines in the 70s and 80s. the fuel was injected into a tube with a ball at the end for better atomization and less noise. So I really don't think cost would be that big of an issue if the system is as good as it sounds.
@@robwhite3241 I was thinking more for class 2-5 trucks that can make more than enough power even with a work bed to keep rolling down the freeway when down a few cylinders, and even if they don't they can add extra fuel to the still active cylinders while not having to deal with the pumping losses of compressing air in the deactivated cylinders. Cummins will probably have a hard time doing it as straight 6's don't take kindly to dropping cylinders, but Isuzu and ford should have no issues doing it to the v8 powerstrokes and duramaxes if they go overhead cam. With this massive reduction/near elimination of soot, they might even be able to bring in VCT or VVT systems, further increasing overall efficiency by allowing the engine to spread the torque curve over a wider range and effectively make the engine act like it's more powerful than it actually is (think about it, you can make an engine with a really peaky torque curve, and the. Use VCT to move the peak around, thereby raising average toque)
@@Prestiged_peck Now class 2-5 yes I definitely agree. These diesel pickup motors that they're putting in nowadays are so crazy. They put out more than my 1970s caterpillar motor that has 15 liters of displacement.
Most people who buy these diesel trucks don't even use the power they have and so they get the same damn milage the gas one's get, only less reliable. The new motors can already move the torque around pretty good with computer timed injections, with the addition of VVT and VCT they could just keep it at 900rpm and be efficient but still have the power when they need it.
These electric numb nuts don't understand that there still much more innovation before the internal combustion will ever be done. We're just getting started.
@@robwhite3241 alternatively, they can forgo the complexity of VCT/VVT, and instead build an engine that idles really clean, and runs REALLY efficient and clean at ±50 rpm of the torque and power peaks, with a really peak power/torque curve, and then hook it to a generator. And drive the wheels with electric motors, dropping a small power balancing battery where thr transfer case would normally go, boom, super efficient, extremely good torque, and extremely clean operation, all with what could be a relatively simple hybrid system. Engine can be off for low speed parking lot level maneuvers, run at a high efficient idle for low load normal speed driving, and when power is needed it can be run full force and generate all the motor generators can use, you can also add in an inverter and power tap in the bed like the F150 powerboost has, but being a diesel it can generate lots more electricity and actually properly run a work site with a big enough inverter.
I don’t think they can force the diesel engine out of market if the standards are too strict. I think a major economic hit (one that is more extreme than we have ever seen) will cause the standards to be dialed back or eliminated by refute of undue hardships and the lack of caring to follow the laws because of hardship.
That would be true if it were not the plan to put us back to the stone age. Too many people believe that politicians are actually trying to help when in many cases they aren't'.
As a handyman I clean houses. One customer has a 2 story B&B near a busy street having lots of truck traffic. The house gets dirty with a black sooty substance - needs pressure washing every 2 ~ years.
It hadn't dawned on me until recently that the soot is coming from the diesel trucks! (The house has white painted lapboard siding - was remodeled in 2011).
Hercules and Caterpillar engines had pre-combustion chambers years ago .
In a diesel engine design office in the 1980s we dreamed of a time when a diesel car would routinely do 100mpg (UK units). Could this be the dream coming true?
Yes. If the inventors don't have an "accident"
Wasn't the "Vortec" engine a little bit like this? The idea being that a "vortex" was created in the combustion chamber which improved the degree to which the fuel mixed with the air?
Diesels have used swirl for a long time.
This is the best news I’ve heard this year. Best part is this is happening just miles from my home.
Read about this about 3 years ago. Im glad they are persuing it.
It should be on every vehicle by now. Someone is being paid not to use it, or threatened
Diesel is a much better fuel source than coal, which is what the vast majority of electric cars run on. Plus diesel can be made be be renewable and waste products can be used in it. If designed to do so. EPA is about control they never have actually cared about the environment.
At this point in time, less than 20% of our electricity is made from coal. That is hardly a vast majority. However more than 21% of our electricity is made now from renewables such as solar, wind, etc.
60% of electricity generated in the United States is done with fossil fuels.
www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
@@oldandboosted what etc? There is nothing that you could class as "renewable" this isn't solar wind or hydro.
Fun fact the "green energy" dont support hydro electric.
Another fun fact, solar farms take up very large amounts of land.
Last fun fact, solar panels and windmills do have a life span (less then 30 years i think) but there isn't any way to recycle them, and that's beside being an intermittent power source that requires traditional backups (such as coal)
Diesel is the superior ICE fuel for transport, its only downside is it jells at low temperatures a problem that can be mitigated with additives or heaters.
Nuclear energy is the way to go for power generation as its waste is very easy to contain and not much is produced, not only is it safe its safer then ANY other energy source per KW.
@@ARockRaider you conveniently ignore the fact that coal spews tons and tons of pollutant into the air everyday. If you think coal is clean, you need to buy a house next to a coal power plant. And diesel is no better. Have you ever been rolled coal on? Diesel's spew almost as much pollutant as coal-fired power plants
@@oldandboosted I don't think coal is clean, I drive diesel trucks and when tuned properly they are every bit as clean as a car and definitely cleaner then your e-car that will only last 10 years if you are lucky and requires massive amounts of rare elements mined in countries that don't give a crap about clean mining.
Besides all that, co2 isn't even pollution, it's plant food! The stuff that plants need to photo synthesize!
Large green houses have artificially high co2 levels to increase how well the plants grow!
I think it begs the question if it really changes the air/fuel ratios.
Does it hit the perfect AFR with less fuel because it mixes better resulting in more power, fuel economy, and a more efficient burn?
Will it be reliable? It sounds like it will solve the emission control problems, but what about the mechanism itself, is it reliable?
If it does there’s a high likely hood of adoption.
Like any combustion engine, Oxygen is key. If you have fully oxygenated fuel you would not even need a intake manifold in theory. You could pump pure oxygenated fuel. Similar to how a rocket motor works in space under a vacuum. The better the air fuel mix, the better economy and power. Obviously such a design would look far from what a current engine operates like but the fundamentals are the same. Better mix, better combustion, better overall performance.
The EPA could care less about emissions. Their mission is to end fossil fuel use because it allows support of a population larger than the US govt. wishes to have.
A further development of the Ricardo Comet indirect injection system? The Ricardo design uses a hot precombustion chamber to vaporize the fuel. It has less PM 2.5 and NOx than DI under most circumstances.
I got rid of my newer diesel truck due to these things.. long term ownership would be too expensive with the egr , dpf, def systems being more expensive to fix than the truck would be worth in a few years. Seems kinda dumb if they knew excess fuel in the combustion chamber was the issue with diesel engines, that they decided to bandaid it with these crazy complex systems instead of just fixing the injection systems.. doesnt make sense, not like diesel engines are a new thing..
I would be more likely to believe it has more to do with politics and the adoption of electric vehicles.. if they make diesel clean and reliable, why do you need electric???
Mixing in more air to the fuel so it has more complete combustion, the diesel is vaporized so it burns more cleanly and thoroughly. But yeah the politicians and the vehicle makers are all strung out on going electric, which will be a failure with the public due to practicality issues. The solution is sticking with hydrocarbons. OR forcing people off the roads along with massive huma culling, like 75% of people eliminated AKA Cambodia the killing fields, but in the woke west it wont be so obvious as that.
This is what happens when the Government sticks its nose in an industry it has no business fooling with. The engine manufacturers were given what was at that time almost unimaginably strict emissions regulations that they had to conform to in an unreasonably short amount of time. The emissions regulations that started in the mid 90s were reasonably strict and spaced out enough to allow for cost effective R&D. However as we moved into the new century the emissions schedule quickly sped up. By the 2010s the emissions regulations were changing nearly every 2 years. Often times with massive reductions in allowed output. That left many manufacturers with a complex problem. Do they completely start over and redesign entire engine families from the ground up using brand new, theoretical technologies that were completely unproven (Ex. ducted injection)? Or do they continue with the technologies that they already have implemented; just ratcheted up to meet the new regulations. Manufacturers were familiar with EGR, and catalytic converters (SCR). A large, regenerating, soot filter wasn't a huge engineering or technical stretch either. In most cases the OEMs already had the basic manufacturing infrastructure, and know-how to implement these technologies in ever increasing levels to meet the increasingly more strict emissions regulations. This, plus the fact that all these technologies were bolt-on, or externally mounted systems that could be standardized and used across an entire engine family. The manufacturers knew that there were other options that had the potential to be more cost effective and simpler. They just didn't have the time to research, develop, and finance them. Prime examples of this would be International/Navistar and Caterpillar. International/Navistar made an error in judgment thinking that they could meet the new regulations without adding an SCR/DEF system. At the time it was a stretch but was possible, and meant they could offer a significantly lower cost of ownership. However as the regulations continued to tighten they quickly realized their mistake, but it was too late. The lost year or two of development was a deficit they couldn't recover from, ultimately costing the company 99% of its engine market share. Caterpillar took a totally different approach. As they examined the emissions schedule the decision was made to completely do away with their On-Road engine department. The cost/risk of developing the necessary technologies was too high. This plus the much slower and more relaxed pace of the Off-Road engine emissions schedule meant they could slowly develop the necessary technology, and for the most part, avoid the major growing pains being endured by their On-Road counterparts. In the end it all boils down to politics and government overreach.
@@davidbryan5203 A lot of green GND minded politicians honestly dont want you driving anything anywhere, electric or not and really would rather you're were dead and not using up the earth. In the EU they have voluntary euthenasia now, that women Ursula Von derLayen is encouraging people to off themselves for the sake of the environment. their GND ideas with green energy means there will not be enough energy and food to go around to everybody, so they want huge population reductions.
Well said, reliability is the number one thing manufacturers and large distributors will be looking at when deciding to use it or not
The government needs to give grants for this innovation. It will save jobs in the transportation industry, create jobs in its manufacturing, and ultimately provide a more stable market for logistics.
Diesel is not going away for the very long foreseeable future. Frankly no commonly found fuel can replace it for its intended usages and still be as efficient.
Yeah it's sure got it's problems like others but at the end of the day it's got power.
@@TheAnnoyingBoss with a push for synthetic diesel fuel, combinations of recycled-pet/bio diesel, and new advances in diesel tech, PZEV diesel vehicles are only a matter of time.
As awesome as this is and as much as I want it to come to market, I’m skeptical if it really will. Diesel engines don’t fit the new agenda that society is pushing, they want electric, electric, electric. It’s really sad but hopefully the diesel can pull through, cuz if there’s anything a diesel is good at… it’s pulling!
Society ain't pushing the agenda, Governments financed by big corporations and the WEF are the ones doing the pushing with your own tax $$$$$$$.
Electrics will NEVER be the future, gas is the perfect fuel.
Hippies can cope and seethe.
while i agree the future of diesel is bleak...
at least on the passenger side tho which i personally think its an absolute shame but meanwhile marine, off road, transport and stationary will never get the activist jankies looking for their electric car mental stroke to have an opinion on their businesses. they have money on the line, much more money that the usual electric everything zealot... it also doesnt help the fact that new battery technology aint going to make a mass production breakthrough until at least 5 to 7 years from now if the discoveries and research pace from recent times are any indicator to go by...
I hope this can solve the problems for diesel engines, the government shouldn't be forcing manufacturers to build worse products for consumers, even for emissions
Weber carburator got some phnominal performance by mixing some air into the fuel stream going to the ventural. The FISH carburator did something similar and was outlawed by NASCAR because the car with that carburator got twice the fuel mileage .
DI gas engines have a lot of carbon particulates in their emissions too, just check the tailpipe. I think if gasoline engines were held to the same carbon particulate standards diesels are they would probably have difficulty meeting them. But don’t say too much or the BEV zealots will ban all combustion engines.. which the current administration seems to be doing by making fuel scarce before having the replacement technology in place just forcing the square peg into to round hole to call it done no matter the consequences.
I think this injector technology might work for gasoline engines too. But I’m just guessing.
Gas engines in Europe are already seeing GPFs (Gasoline Particulate Filters).
@@codysimonson6260 GPFs, true
SCOTUS recently ruled that the EPA cannot make The rules. Congress has to do that I that I wonder how this will affect rules such as this period
I don't see this saving diesel cars and small trucks, but massive game changer for everything bigger if it works real world.
How do i get ahold of these people? I have no life, i will spend all my time testing these in real life to get it done! 24hrs a day 7 days a week!
If the EPA really cared about the environment, they'd focus on pushing nuclear energy, and working with states on developing actually good public transportation.
I mean, what's better? A few % decrease in emissions of every engine on the road, or the complete removal of those engines from the road?
The problem is not what powers the car, but the car itself. Electric vehicles will have issues that only the "experts" didn't see coming
There are two competing issues with Diesel engines, emissions and emissions nonsense.
The more efficient you can make an engine run the less emissions it produces.
Unless you have to deal with nonsense. The nonsense is nitros oxides. If you run a diesel at optimum efficiency there’s very little to no soot and very little fuel used to achieve maximum power. When you have to reduce nox you need to run very inefficiently using more fuel than necessary so as that the combustion temperature doesn’t get high enough to create nox. Recirculated exhaust gases supposedly cools the combustion temperature but reducing the oxygen available causing the fuel to burn more slowly and cooler creating vastly more incomplete fuel burn and excessive soot. Add DPF and regen of the dpf regularly and what would have been a clean and efficient engine becomes a very inefficient filthy engine that requires bandaids to get it through EPA nonsense.
And I say nonsense because the idea that nox is a dangerous pollutant is extremely exaggerated.
It is not good in cities with problematic climate conditions such as LosAngeles where nox can accumulate to produce photochemical smog and having a lot of inefficient badly maintained diesel running in an enclosed space like a bus station may cause some people breathing problems. But on the open road or even in the suburbs nox is not a problem.
You would need to be in miles long traffic jam of nothing but diesel vehicles to get a nox reading as high as what you get in doors from a gas cooker. Carbon dioxide is not a significant greenhouse gas either! To achieve the temperature forcing they claim of the tiny amount in the atmosphere at present the amount of c02 would need to exceed ten percent of the atmosphere, that’s about twenty times the present amount and would be almost impossible to achieve even if every single drop of fossil fuel was burnt all at once.
To achieve that level every Skerritt of chalk, marble and limestone would need to be dissolved in acid or roasted to release the c02 that fossils combined with calcium to turn into stone.
I think worrying about nox is nonsense as well, but I have also wondered about having a afterburner of some type, possibly running on a fuel that doesn't produce nox, then if possible that afterburner could be setup to replace the super charger (turbo) used in trucks providing an even more efficient engine by pulling exhaust gasses as well as supper charged the intake air.
@@ARockRaider running a dual fuel system reduces nox and improves power.
With duel fuel a gas such as methane is feed in small amounts into the intake so that there is something to burn immediately when the diesel is injected. Much of the nox comes from the first fraction of diesel that ignites before the rest of the fuel is in the combustion chamber. These systems are very good at reducing pollution while increasing power and economy but they’re complex and you need to fill up twice at every stop.
I have been wondering about what effect those ridiculous HHO devices would have on emissions?
Just topping up a water tank instead of a gas tank would be a lot simpler.
@@anomamos9095 I don't know what hho is, but I'm guessing something like water injection to run a cycle as a steam engine?
That's something I would LOVE to see tried.
As for the need for two top ups because of dual fuel, already kinda need that with DEF and that does nothing positive for the truck, just another system to break down and a very temperamental one at that.
@@ARockRaider HHO is the system that some people fit to their vehicles in an attempt to get free energy by turn water into hydrogen and oxygen with a catalyser fitted under the hood.
There should be hundreds of how to make one videos on yt.
I'm gonna go with the people who have spent their entire lives studying this topic specifically.
How does the system plan to overcome cylinder pressure, when relying on the intake/atmospheric pressure? Injection is done on the compresstion stroke just before TDC, is it not?
If you go for a full and clean burning of a piston, the flame is way hotter than it was before. Does being more fuel efficient but also make the same or more losses then with more diesel.
How well did vortec work for gm?...This is a similar concept except you are porting in the cylinder. I see massive problems here. What happens as the tip wears? Falls into cylinder? The cylinder walls are not ment to be directly fired at and this will cause cylinder walls to crack/wear. Why are we so caught up on emission from something that is a drop in the bucket compared to industrial plants?
This design is more about much better atomization throughout the entire cylinder vs how it is now where most of the air fuel mixture is centralized below the injector.
It's not shooting jets of air fuel mixture at the cylinder walls.
The epa doesn't give a damn about the environment they just want to control people.
No offense to you but the information you are reading about is wildly inaccurate, basically marketing wank. Diesel engines don't inject more fuel than they can burn, all factory diesels run extremely lean. Secondly the egr issue was solved by cat before they stopped onroad engines, it's called CGI "clean gas injection" basically egr but draws exhaust AFTER the dpf so its clean. The only thing that "new" injector seems to do is create a tiny amount of swirl in the charge and also a hot spot in the combustion chamber.
In theory CGI was great, in reality it was terrible
@@ericb8030 it was still way better than the egr systems of the same time, and probably would be better if it was continued in development
@@evil_me Pipes routing back would crack or bust resulting in unfiltered air being drawn back in. Honestly they could just use more def for nox control and eventually eliminate egr all together
id like to put this on my 7.3l powersroke if it ever comes out. seems cool
It works as well under load, climbing mountains, with little or no loss of power?
It is absolutely mindboggling to me how the advantages and general efficiency of diesels, especially in passenger cars, is only now properly washing over to the states.
There was a time in central europe, where more than half of new cars were diesels, and im talking small, efficient, nice.
Take a VW Polo 1.6TDi for example, one of the more common examples over here.
We have a high-quality subcompact with 5 seats, a usable cargo-area, all the comfort you could ever need, yet still less than 1200kg with a 95-115hp diesel engine that makes like 250nm of torque and takes about 3.5l/100km, thats about 65mpg, while happily cruising at 100mph on the autobahn all day long. There is also the 1.2TDi, which runs rougher and makes 75hp, still pulls about 200nm and is insanely good in terms of drivability, while approaching 70mpg on normal use.
or take all the 2.0 diesels that are around here. Between 130 and 200hp on average, up to 500nm of torque in some configurations with the average being around 350-400, still getting 50+ mpg.
And its not like they are unreliable or downsized shitboxes" either; you see all of them at 150k miles+, running around, not having any issues. and thats with people using them as short-trip daily drivers.
The general approach of giant, oversized vehicles with giant, overpowered yet inefficient engines for daily use and usually a single person occupying it has been shoved so far down the throat of many but especially americans, that its just normal and they deal with that bullshit at this point.
Diesel has not been "smelly black smoke and loud stupid engines" for like 2 decades at this point, yet that consensus is still imbedded in people. and the "dieselgate" didnt help that, while meaning that at its worst, the emissions were still pretty good, despite the cheating.
Great idea - I think new cylinder heads would be required
If they can build such an engine that I don't have to use electronics or minimal electronics with excellent self service possibilities then I'm open arms.
I don't mind smart electronics but what I don't like is when these electronics are attached to plastic buttons and when one breaks it's $12 just to replace the little plastic piece inside the button to get it working again. There is toggle switches that exist way long term and cost $4.75. all this plastic
Ppl hating on diesel while our buses in the city are literally running on old frying oil
You can do the same with passenger diesel engines if ya filter the oil enough
Not sure if gas/petrol powered cars go do the same
Its literally powered by a waste product. Can't get a lot greener
I wonder if this could apply to gas engines and would it help
Can i trial a set for company data of these DFI injectors in my mechanicly injected 300 tdi motor ? I would be very keen to do so .
This guy is a genius he's talking about diesel engines and shows coal fired stacks.
Would an old precup cylinder head work or be similar?
Thank you❤
Thank you
So how do you go about retro fitting existing cars? Is there a kit or what?
Or is this technology only in development for new engines?
I believe its being suppressed
I like that you're still innocent enough to think any transportation cost would be passed on to consumers. We would likely actually see price increases to cover companies' costs of upgrading.
PLEASE!!! THIS IS AMAZING
Emission Standars in Europe are so strict that if i take my 15 liter diesel truck say through Norways captial Oslo the air going in the intake of the engine is more polluted than the air comming out of the exhaust. Euro 6 emission standard
Almost sounds like the first Diesel injection system: Blast injection. R. Diesel wasn't able to create the high pressure directly to the fuel. So he used compressed air to inject the fuel. Pressure was 200 bar.
I'm still not quite sure on this, is like IDI, or is the injector spraying into a "nozzle", that then spreads the fuel more.
The diesel is progressively mixed/atomised in an injector tube BEFORE it's fired into a deflector (baffle?) & into the cylinder when compression (lower than std c/r's) ignites it.. the trick has always been to atomiser in the tube in a way oxidising (burn) doesn't happen.. in the injector tube.. the next BIG question to answer is the political scam surrounding "nitrogen" emissions.. understand "energy equations" & how nitrogen oxide "emissions" stand on the equation.. there is only a fixed amount of nitrogen & oxygen.. on our planet.. so ask.. WHAT is nitrogen oxide derived from.. we don't bloody create it from nothing.. it's simply a shift of molecules that rebalance themselves in the atmosphere back to what they were.. before they went through a combustion process.. it's all a scam
Do you think that maybe one of the best systems for cars or transport in general be hybrids powered by bio Diesel engines?
i read a few years ago vag and bosch were building a new diesel 90% less dirty, and way more powerful. not heard from that in a while
its true diesel injectors use more then the needed amount of fuel, my boss knows a guy that deleted his kenworth heavy haul truck and he cant detune the truck enough to keep from rolling black smoke. No other mods just deleted and straight piped meaning the injectors under stock tunes are using excessive amounts of fuel that the truck cant keep up with unless is in much higher RPMs.
The harder the turbo boosts, more air in the intake and a better burn for the diesel.
“Rolling coal” as they say mostly happens when the engines are under boost, or before boost
There is a way to eliminate the diesel soot and NOx emission like the gasoline's - by make a hybrid with the gasoline combustion. This technology can be retrofitted into existing or new engines. Any interest?