OT - Bill Crower designs gas engine with no cooling system.

This is for the Tech Heads. It definitely has some logistics issues, but it does seem pretty interesting.

http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060227/FREE/302270007/1023/THISWEEKSISSUE

 

I'm convinced that guys like Bruce Crower are operating on a different plane than most of us. In his seventies now...but still sharp, still thinking outside of the box...and talented enough to not only envision a concept but actually make the parts and see it through. God bless'im and the other pioneers of his generation. How come some newbie engineer working in Detroit didn't think of this...

 

On carrying water...how much can be distilled back out of the exhaust from both the water injected and the water produced by the burning gas?? I'd think lots...the radiator needed for that would be balanced out by reduced need to carry water. But then, you're back to the Achilles' heel of steamers...once the thing leaves San Diego, how do you cope with frezing, particularly when it's parked??

 

hahaha, I wrote Bill Crower. I guess I'm operating on a different plane myself today.

As for the water needing to be carried, I'm thinking that once its heat energy has been spent after turning to steam, it could be recollected and used again - a closed system. With modern insulation techniques, it could conceivably last a while without freezing. Or perhaps a thermometer could be used to determine when the water is near freezing, then start the engine without any intervention to generate heat.

Does anyone see why this wouldn't create a more efficient engine? I remember the Rube Goldberg contraption that was posted up a couple weeks back; this design seems more sound.

 

My thoughts exactly. Isn't it about time we came up with something new?

If more people could just think outside the box... Just imagine...

 

thats cool!!!!!

 

Kinda makes you wonder how many high effiency systems like this have been designed, only to be bought out and stashed away by the big oil companies for fear of lost profits.

 

If I could, i'd work for free to sweep his shop floors. It's people like him that get's shit done.

I think the big change in how cars are powered is going to be more regional than it is now. For instance, it would make sense to have a natural gas powered car where there's lots of it. Same thing with steam... it would make sense to have it where it's going to run best, and not for all parts of the country.

My dad has a magazine from the mid-70's (maybe hotrod engine book?), with an article on a 67 camaro power by steam. It had a really tricky boiler setup, and the motor was a small 6cyl boat engine if I remember right. Interesting stuff, steam almost won out over gasoline back in the begining.

 

Smokey Unik designed a gas engine with no cooling in the late 60s there was a Fish carb in the early 60s that both improved fuel economy AND increased performance with no moving parts.I have a write up onit done by a local paper after it was used on a stock car at Springfield Mass race track the car ownergained something like 2 second a lap with just the carb added

 

Hmm...

Guys - the engine DOES have a cooling system - it's internal.

What Bruce is doing is combining an internal combustion engine with a steam engine; he's capturing the waste heat of combustion to initiate a phase change within the cylinder - turning the water to steam, thus generating pressure converted to work while reducing the temps of the motor.

Since the dawn of the IC engine, the heat value of the fuel is consumed by thirds - one third to frictional losses, one third to exhaust, and one third to actual work. This means the average motor is only about 33% efficient.

Bruce is capturing a portion of the heat normally rejected to the cooling system - along with a component normally spent with the exhaust gases.

It's a good idea - the issue for a closed (condensing) system is by adding a stroke to the motor right after the exhaust stroke, the water will pick up products of combustion. The system would require RO filtration to re-use the condensate; not impossible, but complex. Same technology is used in fuel cells - so by the time they're viable, this motor would work, too.

Do a Web search on Abner Doble outta Stockton CA - also add in the Doble E14. This was the most advanced condensing steam engined car ever built; they're capable of 100+ MPH and killer acceleration.

As for the idea there was a killer carb or killer technology squashed by the oil companies or the auto companies - bullshit. It's all in the Automotive History Archives, a branch of the Detroit Public Library. You go in, ask for the reserarch materials, and read up. We're currently about as advanced as we can get with the IC motor in its current form - I drive a car that puts 300HP to the rear wheels and gets 27 MPG on the highway while clickin off sub 13 second passes at the strip - that's due to good fuel management.

Folks have been trying to re-invent the wheel since day one with varying success. Alt fuels, alt engine strokes (Miller cycle?) - they've all been tried. This is how we have the diesel, the turbo, fuel injection, hybrid powerplants, et.al. For example, water injection was first used on the '64 Olds turbo to manage detonation - before that, it was a popular aftermarket accessory to boost octane to run high - comp motors.

 

I was thinking the same thing, the article was a little erroneous to state no cooling system.

 

not to hijack this post I used alcohol in 70's with totally unshrouded no cooling system hilborn injected vw engine in a buggy running 14 to 1 compression with no problems in the desert I thought prices of a buck a gallon for alky was hi then gas was cheaper. same system could be used today

 

Ahhh, No!

The Fish Carbs have 3 moving parts. I know cause I own a view. They increase Zip and Mileage @ about 30% for 2 reasons.

1. The airfoil effect on the jet system (way better vaporisation)
2. Reduced losses because the level in the float chamber does not mather.

You all know how much float level influences engine operation.
A hair more ore less can make a difference.

Think of what happens to the level when you drive/uphill/downhill/break/accelerate/corner.

Frank

 

Question...

Was the Fish Carb that was sold in the '50s the same ( or developed by the same people )
http://www.boni.com/fish/ ,
as the Reece Fish Carb used in England on Mini's and Imps?
http://mk1-performance-conversions.co.uk/technical_carb.htm

 

I had the pleasure of working with Bruce for a number of years and his thought processes are awesome. For instance; we were driving up to OC to look at some machinery and he started to do some "what if's". He verbally outline the process of using braking power to create electricity to charge a battery. Just like the Prious uses today! During that same ride, he opined that it would be possible to put one way valves in shock absorbers so that they could generate compressed air that would be stored and used on a small turbine wheel as a supercharger.

 

I stand corrected ;
I was quoting a news paper article done about the races and the FISH carbed cars performance changes stood out enough for the reporter to interview the people involved.I have since found an full page add with cutaway of a FISH carb in the back of if i remember correctly Popular Mechanics Magazine from late 50s or early 60s.Most of my older books are packed in storage right now or I'd post a copy of the add.
DOES ANYONE KNOW WHY THE FISH WENT OUT OF PRODUCTION?
I didn't see anything on the FISH link above

 

That is amazing... I just wonder about rust if you let the car sit for a couple of days or a week or so.

 

Run it like a boat with wet pipes, turn the water off and blip the throttle once or twice. Dry as it gets, and no carbon. Or for a computer controlled car for the brainless masses (dude what's a cylinder?) have the computer run the car for a short time on just fuel after you turn the key off.

IIRC I have read that internal cooling was tried when cars in general were new (1909?). The reason they didn't stick with it was they didn't have the tech to recycle the water. Being a total loss system meant that if you let it run out of water the engine was toast.

As for reclaiming the water out of the Exhaust, I believe the Shenandoah did just that, but the heat exchangers they used to condense it out were HUGE.

Yes of course he's a genius, he had to be to come up with the stuff he has over the years without the aid of computers or billion dollar labs. Of course IMHO most of the guys that were into making speed parts (Crower, Edelbrock, Isky, Hilborn, Smokey, Navaro, etc...) all had to be, even if their genius was in taking something already in use elsewhere and making it work in a car (and usually better than where it came from).

 

Aren't the old Fish carburetor and the currently available Predator built using the same basic design ?

I ran a Predator on a 360 sprint car and was amazed at its performance !

 

The technology possibilities are endless! There are thousands of IC ideas that were thought up years ago, but we just didn't have the technology to make them work. Today we have the technology - but we have other forces working against us - complacency (why fix it if it ain't broke or there is not enough pain to make a change). Oil will get higher, eventually some of these ideas will be put to work. I just wonder how long before we do it.

 

@metalshapes
The brittish Reese version was smaller and had some minor modifications but basicly the same design.

@leon renaud
The electronic Injections and emission stuff killed Fish and Rees. They tryed to do a injection (throttlebody) version but with no luck.
Later a improved version was made by the Brown Company till the end of the 80s I think.
There is at least one company that still makes them - cant remember the name in the moment. There seems to be no big market for such a carb when most poeple drive injected cars.

@JohnnyFast
Fish and Predator are way different designs. The Predator is a verry intresting variable venturi design - offten underestemated, the Fish has no venturi at all.

My "Fishfriend" Jan collected lots of Information and drawings on his site.
It´s a German site but allm the downloadable documents are in english.
http://fish.jan-wulf.de

Frank

 

Cool, thanks...

Lots of great Info on your friends site as well...

 

thank you I knew it wasn't the "oil companies"squashed them thing my only info on these was a friend finding a fish carb and then that article about the fish equipted stock car

 

...on a different plane...sheesh...

 

Okay, I see my corrosion question from the other thread was already answered. But what about metal fatigue from the repeated quenching of the combustion chambers? I can't help but think that repeated heating and cooling of metal wouldn't be good for longevity of parts.

-Dave

 

Lets put on our Crower "Caps" here. If the engine is allowed to warm up, then by operating at an ideal combustion chamber temp, means we don't have the cold temp rich-mixture issue. So just for grins, my guess would be that the water injector/steam cycle is limited to carrying off enough BTUs to produce a steam head pressure "stroke" that is sufficient to boost rotational power, during the two additional cycles. If it were too efficient...or lets say sufficent to lower the chamber temp back into the "warming-up" phase, then we've moved out of the sweet spot, and instead pay an additional penalty by fuel's power stroke having to be richer. So if you first: choose an rpm, a combustion chamber size & surface area (det's the steam heating surface area) and optimise the efficiency of the fuel-in to power out, of cycles 1-4, Then we can size the pulse of injected water, and gain the second power stroke...keeping cycles 5 & 6 limited to a predetermined lower combustion chamber temp goal. Combining the two, steam cycle w/the fuel cycle yields a best efficiency. The sweet-spot tuning diagrams are my guide here. Don't know Dave, the heat now leaves the exhaust valve, the chamber & the piston in two directions...inward toward the steam vapor, and outward, toward the coolant. If it was thermal shock, then I'd guess it would be needing enrichment during the next cycle#1?

 

I have said for years that someone should make a nuclear motor. Could be just a miniature version of a submarine. One could put a fuel rod in there the size of a cigarette and run it for a hundred years ... Bet California would love that idea!!

 

None.

Car companies are in business to keep car companies in business, not oil companies.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon

 

to further hijack this thread away from Mr. Crower, here is a FISH, it's NIB, on the bay
http://cgi.ebay.com/Legendary-FISH-...ageNameZWD4VQQcmdZViewItem?_trksid=p1638.m124

Frank