i dont post on here much, im more of a listener than a talker, but i found this and its a totally new concept to me. i want some people with engineering/engine building backgrounds (no offense to anyone else) to check out this website (if you havent already) www.impulsengine.com i know it may take while to read through the site but i found it interesting and intruiging. would this concept work? it seems to have worked for them or they wouldnt have invested so much time and money, yet ive never heard of this technique for power gains? in theory it does make sense, using negative pressure to draw in more fuel/air than in a conventional engine...but im not so sure. help me out here guys...if this is feasible and actually results the gain stated in the pages of that site, then it seems it would be a very power effective, cost effective, and efficient upgrade. ? thanks, jake
Well...it smells funny. I'd be much more of a believer if they'd won a bunch of races. A website proves nothing. Winning races proves plenty. The concept of using the exhaust gases to draw in more intake charge is nothing new. Look up the Isky '5-cycle' cam and you'll see he was doing the same thing a few decades ago. It seems to be a mix of valve overlap, exhaust tubing size, and ignition timing tweaks that make more torque, but not much horsepower. The part that smells funny is that it's almost hard to make more of one and not the other, since they are mathematically linked. Seeing obscene torque figures and rather sedate horspower peaks makes me wonder. If they're spending 'millions' on this revolutionary and successful engineering breakthrough, you think they'd have won a race or two... I know I would have. ~Scotch~
I'd stear clear of all that. For about 3k you can buy a reliable crate motor that is brand new (not rebuilt like theirs), and has all the horsepower you will need for the street. If you need torque for towing, get a big block. There's no information on any of their web pages. It is all info-mercial type text. I was looking for the statement "if I can do it, then you can do it" which is the kiss of death in advertising scam prevention. I got bored before I found it. Question: would you run that air cleaner contraption on any of your cars, trucks??
That is the biggest pile of **** I've seen in a loooog time! He is worried about the intake charge being pulled out the exhaust and he has NO valve overlap!!! Leaky valves?? He sells a restrictor for the radiator hose that will make it run cooler. If I clamp the hose off will the engine freeze?? Rubbish!
If both gas volumes are the same to start with, the BTU content of both cylinders will be the same; therefore the explosive capacity of both is the same. The difference in temperatures will require the spark in the cold cylinder to be hotter to get it to ignite. BUT the explosive capacity of the gas in both cylinders will still be the SAME. I haven't had time to digest this "information" yet, but it is light on SCIENTIFIC/ENGINEERING principals and heavy on the "sales verbage". I am skeptical. One thing I cannot reconcile is the HOT air intake. By heating the incoming combustion air, you are reducing the air density or said another way, reducing the oxygen content of the same volume of air. With less oxygen you have reduced the amount of fuel you can burn in order to generate the hot gas to expand and push the piston down. Less hot gas to expand means less ability to push the piston down. Thermodynamics teaches you that to achieve a greater power generation in any thermodynamic cycle (Otto, Diesel, Sterling, etc.) you need a GREATER temperature difference. This system is SUPPOSED to generate MORE power from a SMALLER temperature difference. This goes against sound engineering principals, i.e. Nature's Laws. And you know what a ***** Mother Nature is when you violate her laws.
MOST of the power comes from all the other stuff you get in the kit. the breather idea just makes it run more efficient. ive got a artical that shows a turbo where the muffler goes.
I've seen multiple threads about this over the past couple of years, on various forums, & I've not seen anyone yet who was able to show the validity of any of their concepts. The "two equal cylinders" thing pretty well sums up the quality of their "research". BTW, the Aussie guys usually have a few interesting things to say about Impulse as well, from a business standpoint. Run, run away very fast. Now, what I'd like to know more about is Smokey Yunick's concept hot air engine from the early '80s. It also sounded like ********- and a lot of people say it was- but they've never given any details (nor did Smokey, just little teases). Smokey himself eventually turned his back on it, supposedly because the Big Three snubbed him, not because of any design problems. He was a sharp enough guy that I'd give a little more credence to him, but he also played a lot of mind games & tricks, too.
If Smokey Yunick does something, everyone did it. How many fools are running around trying to re-invent his "Hot air engine" concept rather than making real HP? Yeah, mind games. AZAV8 nailed it. While serving in one regiment I had to do a six month course on Oxygen equipment for high al***ude parachuting. So I could go back and teach the Army. Everything I learned tells me this is ********, the only difference is the pressure held in the cylinder is higher however available content remains a constant. Hence same bang! How many times have you turned up to a drag strip with some al***ude and thought, "dam its hot, **** are we gonna make gobs of HP today"? I'm betting never. Laws of physics never change. Want power? Go with a proven setup.
The technology description demonstrates a woeful ignorance of heat transfer and thermodynamics. The thermal efficiency of internal combustion engines is just about maxed out until engine component materials, like ceramic pistons, are developed that let you run hotter. Every Junior level thermo text has a graph of theoretical maximum cycle efficiency versus temperature. Hotter (higher compression ratio) is better. engineering.union.edu/~brunob/mer026/Lec 27,28,29 Air cycles.doc The ideal otto cycle (Gasoline engine) efficiency depends ONLY on two factors, the compression ratio of the engine and the ratio of specific heats of the working fluid used. (The working fluid is air, and the specific heat ratio is a constant). There just is no free lunch, or generations of hot rodders would have found it when they were wringing fantastic amounts of power out of relatively small displacement engines. Dig in, guys....this is why I didn't have a life for six years......Slide
The Negative Pressure thing only works south of the Equator....notice the company is in Australia, if you try this up here in North America, it won't work. as far as the engineer in me can tell, that's an appropriate response for this thing.
agreed.. one of my former students worked on a similar project.. at awe tuning.. they do mostly high end exotic work porshe.. audi etc.. www.awetuning.com
.......So instead of blowing it ****s?...........I'll stick with the little doo-dad I put in the coil hole of my distributor.
My last thought on this: I'm going to order some of those pills from the magazine that I can put in my gas tank that will give me 150 miles per gallon. You know the ones the car manufacturers and the oil companies are conspiring to keep from us.
I didn't read it it probably ranks right up there with the whirly gig thing that goes in your carb airhorn to give your incomming air that turbine effect or the magnet you put on your fuel line to change your flul charge from positve to nagative. but my question is this, i'm looking at their kit and I'm wondering why does any reputable company not have a tubeing bender? I can understand a guy building one off headers in his garage from u bends but why in the world would any company that is going to m*** produce a kit not have a tubeing bender???
thanks guys, i had a feeling it was ******** but i just wanted to run it by some people who have more experience than i do. ill stick to a good ole' roots blower.
How much zot ya tryin' to build? I got a friend here in town that's squeezing 700 and change naturally aspirated dyno horses out of a 360 MOPAR.
Let me start by saying that I didn't read the article, only the responses here. There is an engine called a HCCI engine (homogeneous charge compression ignition) which works by heating the intake air charge. It is basically a cross between a gasoline and a diesel engine. It has no spark plug, no glow plug, and is not direct injected. Basically it port injects fuel (like a gas engine) and then compression ignites (kind of like a diesel). There is a difference in the type of combustion in an HCCI and a diesel. A diesel injects the fuel into a high pressure cylinder which iginites the fuel. Combustion in a diesel is broken into two parts: pre-mixe and diffusion. It starts by igniting the outside of the "plume" (which is the name for the fuel's shape as it is injected). This is called "pre-mixed", the pre-mixed burning is what causes the noise you hear in a diesel. This part of ignition causes a pressure spike and is the "bad" part of the diesel combustion. Now a pressure wave in the cylinder diffuses and burns the rest of the charge. This is called "diffusion" burning and is where the power comes from. The pressure builds much more gradual over a longer amount of piston travel, the area under this pressure curve (on a P-Theta chart) is the power. An HCCI goes POP! No pressure wave, no flame front. It is basically instantaneous ignition. It is similar to pre-ignition but instead of having a few ignition points you have infinite iginition points. It is better because you have "constant volume heat addition" in thermodynamic terms. The OTTO cycle ***umes this but in a real engine it doesn't happen. In a real (standard 4-cycle) engine the heat added (aka combustion) occurs over a period of time which means that the piston is moving, in other words the volume is changing. Because the power in a OTTO cycle is also the swept area, constant volume is better because it sweeps a larger area. This is basically a long winded way to get to this: In order for the HCCI engine to work (read: not blow up), and have instantaneous iginition, it is run very very lean. Way past the lean flammability limit (that is the air-fuel ratio where a spark will no longer iginite the charge). So to get this whole thing to go BANG, you heat the incoming air (preferably with some kind of exhaust heat exchanger or through compression aka- a turbo). This makes the whole thing work. Now because you are running very lean there is simply not much fuel there so the power output is low, but the efficiency is very good 40% and up. Also the emissions are very good. It is very lean so all of the charge burns aka: no HC emissions. It is lean so the combustion is complete (lots of extra O2) aka: no CO emissions. The peak temp is low because there is not much fuel in the cylinder so Nitrogen doesn't dis***ociate aka: no NOx emissions. The problems are that the engine doesn't like to be throttled, it likes to run at one RPM. Also to get any power output the engine has to be large (compared to what we are used to). Finally the controls systems are very complicated aka: temperamental.
just another scam......engineers have been working with engine pulses for years.....nothing new....just newly made into a cheesy scam......All that kit needs is one of those texas turbo swirly things to put on top of your carb..
The Jalopy Journal
