Car Engine Powered by Lasers.

[charrington]

Everything else about an automobile is being retooled to be leaner and greener, so it was only a matter of time before spark plugs got a second look. While they might seem like an essential component for ignition, a group of Japanese researchers think their lasers can do a better job.

"If you want save gasoline, cut CO2 and [emissions] with more power, new ignition should be required," said Takunori Taira, an associate professor of laser research at the Institute for Molecular Science in Okazaki, Japan, whose team developed the new system.

Each composite laser is made from ceramic powders heated up to become transparent, and then embedded with metal ions. Separate segments of the material are bonded together to make a laser that's nearly a half an inch long.

Several fast pulses provide enough concentrated optical energy for one of tiny lasers to ignite an air-fuel mixture. Unlike spark plugs, the lasers don't have electrodes that erode over time, making them ideal for use in clean-fuel vehicles. Taira said that the laser also works faster than a spark plug, which should improve fuel efficiency.

Other existing large-pulse megawatt lasers are complicated, unstable, inefficient, and costly, Taira said. And, until recently, pulse lasers were too large for use in with automobile engines. The new ceramic laser system that Taira's team created can fit into an engine's cylinder head.

Until this study, it was impossible to produce the kind of power needed for laser ignition in such a compact body, Taira said. Several years ago, a group from the Japanese automotive technology company Denso Corporation visited his lab to discuss using his lasers for ignition. That collaboration paved the way for the new laser's development.

These ceramic microchip lasers are suitable for mass production, which will bring down the price, Taira added.

A spokesman for Denso Corporation said that they can't provide details yet about the laser systems' retail price or impact on fuel efficiency because they are still in the research and development stage. Taira's group is working on a three-beam laser that they hope will be even faster than their current one. They will be presenting their laser research next week at the Conference on Lasers and Electro Optics in Baltimore.

Greg Quarles is a physicist as well as president and C.O.O. of B.E. Meyers...
MORE
http://news.discovery.com/tech/laser-car-engine-power-110502.html

[ramicio]

The common, single-electrode spark plug is all that is ever needed.  Those multiple-electrode plugs and thick plug wires are a gimmick.  You can't get power from a more powerful spark.  The fuel either ignites from spark or it doesn't.  Timing is so precise these days anyway, we don't need lasers.  The problem is the internal combustion engine.  It's terribly inefficient to begin with.  Cars are getting slower and girlier and more hippie-like.

[charrington]

The common, single-electrode spark plug is all that is ever needed.  Those multiple-electrode plugs and thick plug wires are a gimmick.  You can't get power from a more powerful spark.  The fuel either ignites from spark or it doesn't.  Timing is so precise these days anyway, we don't need lasers.  The problem is the internal combustion engine.  It's terribly inefficient to begin with.  Cars are getting slower and girlier and more hippie-like.

There looking at it differently -- it takes a lot more industry to make a spark plug then it does the laser. It takes more Oil to build your car or truck then you will use in that car or trucks entire lifetime. You can get this laser wet and it will still do it's job, You don't need to change them --- etc...

[jesussdad]

whats with the deceptive thread title? its the same as saying engines are powered by spark plugs.

[charrington]

whats with the deceptive thread title? its the same as saying engines are powered by spark plugs.

Well you might post to the article author maybe he can tell you why he titled it such -- follow the link to the site.

[TonkaTim]

whats with the deceptive thread title? its the same as saying engines are powered by spark plugs.

The title is definitely misleading. Probably worded to get maximum attention for a higher hit count.

My not be a bad idea depending on end cost. But to increase overall MPG efficiency engine designers need to focus on ways to raise overall compression ratios to achieve similar power levels while using less fuel. The newer direct fuel injection helps achieve that goal. Longer rod ratios aid in making  higher compression usable with our low grade fuels by increasing piston dwell time during the combustion process. The current variable valve timing helps as well, though I keep expecting a manufacturer to employ camless valve actuation. Which would reduce reciprocating mass and horsepower drag by replacing all the rotating camshaft components with an electromagnetic valve actuator in the same process as a modern electronic fuel injector. The valve timing actuation could then be infinitely variable based on load demand & rpm controlled via the vehicles o board engine management computer.

[ramicio]

How does it take more fuel to make a car than your car consumes in its lifetime.  That makes no sense.  Say your car costs $20k.  Most of that is markup.  Then they have to pay back money spent on R&D.  Then they pay the people.  Then you have the material cost.  Then you have the energy cost.  We need not focus on higher compression ratios, we need to focus on materials that let us run cars very lean and hot.  The hotter the engine is the more efficient it is.  But then the hotter it is the more likely you have knock, so you can't keep as high of a compression ratio.  Ceramics would be the answer, but they are too brittle currently.  No matter how you want to open valves, the energy has to come from somewhere.  We can make all these electronic goodies in cars, but no one ever seems to think that gets taken from the crank, but it does, in form of the alternator.  A higher piston dwell with a huge rod ratio is going to make for a pretty torque-less engine.  The end all solution is to move far away from the reciprocating piston design we use.  Rotary is a step up, but early problems with apex seals still scare the public.  IMHO a car should be a luxury when people want to use it for their own purpose of just driving around.  To get to where we NEED to go we should rely on transporting multiple people in a vehicle.  We are looking at such a small picture when we look at mileage because we don't factor in the gas mileage AND amount of people being transported.  A jumbo jet uses gallons per mile, but if you multiply its MPG by the number of people it can haul, it is a much more efficient way to travel than ANY personal vehicle will EVER be.  It also highly offends me to see the green agenda pushed into racing, making the cars more equal to each other, slower, and sissier.

[Rebelitarian]

We need cars powered by Newman Generators.

[ramicio]

We need to resurrect Nikola Tesla and see what he can do with today's knowledge and technology.  Why are people even still wasting time with free energy and perpetual motion?  You cannot get more energy out of something that you put in.

[charrington]

How does it take more fuel to make a car than your car consumes in its lifetime.  That makes no sense.  Say your car costs $20k.  Most of that is markup.  Then they have to pay back money spent on R&D.  Then they pay the people.  Then you have the material cost.  Then you have the energy cost.  We need not focus on higher compression ratios, we need to focus on materials that let us run cars very lean and hot.  The hotter the engine is the more efficient it is.  But then the hotter it is the more likely you have knock, so you can't keep as high of a compression ratio.  Ceramics would be the answer, but they are too brittle currently.  The end all solution is to move far away from the piston design we use.  Rotary is a step up, but early problems with apex seals still scare the public.  IMHO a car should be a luxury when people want to use it for their own purpose of just driving around.  To get to where we NEED to go we should rely on transporting multiple people in a vehicle.  We are looking at such a small picture when we look at mileage because we don't factor in the gas mileage AND amount of people being transported.  A jumbo jet uses gallons per mile, but if you multiply its MPG by the number of people it can haul, it is a much more efficient way to travel than ANY personal vehicle will EVER be.  It also highly offends me to see the green agenda pushed into racing, making the cars more equal to each other, slower, and sissier.

OIL more Oil.

The tires on a car alone take 22 gallons of oil to make ONE new tire (http://www.green.ca.gov/EPP/vehicles/RetreadedTires.htm) and about 7.5 liters are STILL in each tire when it's completed.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tire_fire

Take the equipment to make the car and the oil that is used to furnish all the metal castings etc.. It adds up. The "Plastics" in our cars alone takes over 100 gallons of oil to create. http://news.softpedia.com/news/Plastic-in-our-Cars-Takes-up-100-Gallons-of-Oil-per-Vehicle-112675.shtml

According to the Government (depending on how much you can trust their information) 42 barrels of oil is used in manufacturing the average car.


I don't think people stop and think how many things need oil to function or how oil affects the price of food etc. Just about everything uses Oil or is needed in the creation of another product,  packaging or transportation.


Oil - because it takes more oil to make and maintain the car then you'll ever use in it -- that's how.

It's not about Global warming or peak oil - it's reality. The computer screen you are looking at now takes Oil to make and the plastics are made from Oil etc. My bet is on it takes more money to make spark plugs and refurbish them over and over then it does for fiber optics that do NOT have the same thermal friction issues and properties.

[charrington]

We need to resurrect Nikola Tesla and see what he can do with today's knowledge and technology.  Why are people even still wasting time with free energy and perpetual motion?  You cannot get more energy out of something that you put in.

If it wasn't for J.P. Morgan we might know exactly what that would be like to have Tesla's inventions running the show.

[Rebelitarian]

We need to resurrect Nikola Tesla and see what he can do with today's knowledge and technology.  Why are people even still wasting time with free energy and perpetual motion?  You cannot get more energy out of something that you put in.

We need to go to Venus and find another Venusian like Tesla who will give Earth zero point technology.

[charrington]

We need to go to Venus and find another Venusian like Tesla who will give Earth zero point technology.

I've watched several videos about him and a couple of them say that a lot of his work was taken by our government at his death -- have you watched those?

[TonkaTim]

How does it take more fuel to make a car than your car consumes in its lifetime.  That makes no sense.  Say your car costs $20k.  Most of that is markup.  Then they have to pay back money spent on R&D.  Then they pay the people.  Then you have the material cost.  Then you have the energy cost.  We need not focus on higher compression ratios, we need to focus on materials that let us run cars very lean and hot.  The hotter the engine is the more efficient it is.  But then the hotter it is the more likely you have knock, so you can't keep as high of a compression ratio.  Ceramics would be the answer, but they are too brittle currently.  No matter how you want to open valves, the energy has to come from somewhere.  We can make all these electronic goodies in cars, but no one ever seems to think that gets taken from the crank, but it does, in form of the alternator.  A higher piston dwell with a huge rod ratio is going to make for a pretty torque-less engine.  The end all solution is to move far away from the reciprocating piston design we use.  Rotary is a step up, but early problems with apex seals still scare the public.  IMHO a car should be a luxury when people want to use it for their own purpose of just driving around.  To get to where we NEED to go we should rely on transporting multiple people in a vehicle.  We are looking at such a small picture when we look at mileage because we don't factor in the gas mileage AND amount of people being transported.  A jumbo jet uses gallons per mile, but if you multiply its MPG by the number of people it can haul, it is a much more efficient way to travel than ANY personal vehicle will EVER be.  It also highly offends me to see the green agenda pushed into racing, making the cars more equal to each other, slower, and sissier.

I don't think you fully understand piston dwell time and its relation to a more complete combustion cycle or relative compression ratio.

Piston dwell is the lag time between motion in upward & downward cycles. A longer rod ratio will increase piston dwell time fostering a more complete burn cycle. A complete burn cycle means less wasted fuel & more torque as in more power & better fuel efficiency.

Higher compression ratios means fuel is "squeezed" tighter making it more volatile fostering a more efficient burn cycle making an engine need less fuel to make the same power. High compression ratios are the key to what makes diesel engines more fuel efficient.

Typically since the EPA standards of the late 1970's average compression ratios on gasoline engines have been around 8.5-1, which has hurt peak engine efficiency whereas a diesel has been closer to 22-1. Now with very recent fuel delivery technologies manufacturers have been able to raise compression ratios up to 12-1 substantially increasing fuel efficiency

[Rebelitarian]

I've watched several videos about him and a couple of them say that a lot of his work was taken by our government at his death -- have you watched those?

I'd believe it.

They even rejected it at Project Magnet in the 1970s.  Clean and pollutant free energy instead of oil.

Nope Earth governments rejected it cuz there was no way to tax it.

[Elder]

The common, single-electrode spark plug is all that is ever needed.  Those multiple-electrode plugs and thick plug wires are a gimmick.  You can't get power from a more powerful spark.  The fuel either ignites from spark or it doesn't.  Timing is so precise these days anyway, we don't need lasers.  The problem is the internal combustion engine.  It's terribly inefficient to begin with.  Cars are getting slower and girlier and more hippie-like.

Yeah, not.
Using a split tip spark plug isn't a gimmick, it works.  And if your engine can take it, like a high-end sports car, use iridium split tips.
Hemi engines and new Ford engines use multiple spark plugs to ignite more fuel faster and more efficiently.

How does it take more fuel to make a car than your car consumes in its lifetime.  That makes no sense.  Say your car costs $20k.  Most of that is markup.  Then they have to pay back money spent on R&D.  Then they pay the people.  Then you have the material cost.  Then you have the energy cost.  We need not focus on higher compression ratios, we need to focus on materials that let us run cars very lean and hot.  The hotter the engine is the more efficient it is.  But then the hotter it is the more likely you have knock, so you can't keep as high of a compression ratio.  Ceramics would be the answer, but they are too brittle currently.  No matter how you want to open valves, the energy has to come from somewhere.  We can make all these electronic goodies in cars, but no one ever seems to think that gets taken from the crank, but it does, in form of the alternator.  A higher piston dwell with a huge rod ratio is going to make for a pretty torque-less engine.  The end all solution is to move far away from the reciprocating piston design we use.  Rotary is a step up, but early problems with apex seals still scare the public.  IMHO a car should be a luxury when people want to use it for their own purpose of just driving around.  To get to where we NEED to go we should rely on transporting multiple people in a vehicle.  We are looking at such a small picture when we look at mileage because we don't factor in the gas mileage AND amount of people being transported.  A jumbo jet uses gallons per mile, but if you multiply its MPG by the number of people it can haul, it is a much more efficient way to travel than ANY personal vehicle will EVER be.  It also highly offends me to see the green agenda pushed into racing, making the cars more equal to each other, slower, and sissier.

I don't even know where to begin... it doesn't take more energy to create a car than it consumes in it's life.  Cooler engines are more efficient (seriously?  I can't believe I had to type that).  Higher compression equals more power as the air/ fuel mixture is closer to critical mass before ignition.  Knocking comes from using shitty low-octane fuel.  Gasoline engines are designed to run on OCTANE not some random chemical compound.  When you use 87 the quality is so low that it can't handle high compression and will detonate just from being compressed before the spark plug has a chance to ignite the fuel.  Auto Shop 101.
High piston dwell allows for a longer burn cycle to make sure you get maximum power out of your compressed air/ fuel.  Auto Shop 201.
IMHO I NEED to drive a Hummer to get where I need to go regardless of number of people.  And since I can afford it I don't really care.  Or do you want to "ration" how much energy I'm allowed in a way other than "I make these many dollars and spend them on this much truck and fuel?"
The cost of maintaining an airport isn't factored into your equation there... since my friend's father owns 1/3 of a major airport here in L.A. I've been familiarized with the costs.
And I haven't seen any "green agenda" put into racing... other than the fact that they "race" these new fangled type solar powered and alternative fuel cars to find the highest level of performance in the "alternative energy" market.

OIL more Oil.

The tires on a car alone take 22 gallons of oil to make ONE new tire (http://www.green.ca.gov/EPP/vehicles/RetreadedTires.htm) and about 7.5 liters are STILL in each tire when it's completed.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tire_fire

Take the equipment to make the car and the oil that is used to furnish all the metal castings etc.. It adds up. The "Plastics" in our cars alone takes over 100 gallons of oil to create. http://news.softpedia.com/news/Plastic-in-our-Cars-Takes-up-100-Gallons-of-Oil-per-Vehicle-112675.shtml

According to the Government (depending on how much you can trust their information) 42 barrels of oil is used in manufacturing the average car.

I don't think people stop and think how many things need oil to function or how oil affects the price of food etc. Just about everything uses Oil or is needed in the creation of another product,  packaging or transportation.

Oil - because it takes more oil to make and maintain the car then you'll ever use in it -- that's how.

It's not about Global warming or peak oil - it's reality. The computer screen you are looking at now takes Oil to make and the plastics are made from Oil etc. My bet is on it takes more money to make spark plugs and refurbish them over and over then it does for fiber optics that do NOT have the same thermal friction issues and properties.

It does take oil to make the automobile.  Here's something to calculate: does it take more oil to make more car parts out of plastic to reduce the weight and in turn improve fuel efficiency than it does to mine and refine more metal for those parts and keep end user mpg around 15-20?

As for what Tesla was working on that he was cheated out of, that's National Security now.  All new tech is kept quiet under National Security.  And just like how the government will make your land into a national park if you find oil or rubies, they will usurp your tech in the name of National Security and keep it under wraps.  Oh really?  The "nat'l security state" is destroying freedom and free markets?

[Rebelitarian]

It's not national security it's oil company security.

Earth uses zero point energy the oil industry will dry up overnight.

[Elder]

It's not national security it's oil company security.

Earth uses zero point energy the oil industry will dry up overnight.

Yeah, like I said, National Security.  You think poor people set up government to protect their lack of stuff?

I don't believe in Zero Point energy.  It's a theory proposed by mathematicians whom always concoct theories based on nothing in order to explain things in incorrect terms.

[jesussdad]

indeed. we don't even need these gas burners anymore. the alternatives are countless from biofuels to electric to water power. all would be workable if the tech wasn't so suppressed and mired by hoaxes etc. the ev1 was a decent electric car and look what happened to it a la who killed the electric car. big oil has the gov in their pocket and thats how they sustain our addiction.
and yes zero point is a fact proved by the kazimir effect and the fact that the universe expands. its only a matter of time until we can apply electromechanical systems to it if its not already being done

[charrington]

Yeah, not.
Using a split tip spark plug isn't a gimmick, it works.  And if your engine can take it, like a high-end sports car, use iridium split tips.
Hemi engines and new Ford engines use multiple spark plugs to ignite more fuel faster and more efficiently.

I don't even know where to begin... it doesn't take more energy to create a car than it consumes in it's life.  Cooler engines are more efficient (seriously?  I can't believe I had to type that).  Higher compression equals more power as the air/ fuel mixture is closer to critical mass before ignition.  Knocking comes from using shitty low-octane fuel.  Gasoline engines are designed to run on OCTANE not some random chemical compound.  When you use 87 the quality is so low that it can't handle high compression and will detonate just from being compressed before the spark plug has a chance to ignite the fuel.  Auto Shop 101.
High piston dwell allows for a longer burn cycle to make sure you get maximum power out of your compressed air/ fuel.  Auto Shop 201.
IMHO I NEED to drive a Hummer to get where I need to go regardless of number of people.  And since I can afford it I don't really care.  Or do you want to "ration" how much energy I'm allowed in a way other than "I make these many dollars and spend them on this much truck and fuel?"
The cost of maintaining an airport isn't factored into your equation there... since my friend's father owns 1/3 of a major airport here in L.A. I've been familiarized with the costs.
And I haven't seen any "green agenda" put into racing... other than the fact that they "race" these new fangled type solar powered and alternative fuel cars to find the highest level of performance in the "alternative energy" market.

That wouldn't happen to be Van Nuys airport would it? I learned to fly there.

It does take oil to make the automobile.  Here's something to calculate: does it take more oil to make more car parts out of plastic to reduce the weight and in turn improve fuel efficiency than it does to mine and refine more metal for those parts and keep end user mpg around 15-20?

That's a good question --- Maybe I can just short cut this and say it's more fuel efficient to purchase a used car than it would be to purchase a new one? ha ..

As for what Tesla was working on that he was cheated out of, that's National Security now.  All new tech is kept quiet under National Security.  And just like how the government will make your land into a national park if you find oil or rubies, they will usurp your tech in the name of National Security and keep it under wraps.  Oh really?  The "nat'l security state" is destroying freedom and free markets?

Yes it's very sad ---

[ramicio]

1. I never said cooler engines are more efficient.  I said the opposite.  Learn to read.

2. You use more oil to fuel the car than it takes to make it.  Period.  Maybe with your awesome import throwaway peices of crap that last 5 years because they simply don't make parts able to be replaces, but any real car made to be maintained WILL last FOREVER.

3. Anything but a common copper or platinum plug is a gimmick.  If the spark ignites the mixture to begin with you cannot gain power with a more powerful spark.  Anything that has to do with spark that gives you more power is called timing.  On a single electrode the spark hits the same exact spot every time.  Every time there is spark it keeps the spot clean.  On a >1 electrode plug you have the spark searching for the path of least resistance.  When combustion occurs, the electrode that didn't get spark gets dirty.  They don't add power and they don't last as long.  They are for ricer idiots.  You only need to strengthen ignitions when you stuff more air into an engine and that gap can't be sparked across anymore (too much resistance) to light the fuel.  Most factory ignition systems are robust enough to support many times the car's factory output.  The only revolutions in ignition I support are the elimination of moving parts.  The distributor should die.  OEM coil-on-plug is all that will ever be needed.

4. There is more to compression ratio that the rod ratio and bore and stroke.

Technology is only going to get so many MPG out of a gasoline piston engine.  Power (torque) is getting to be quite pathetic.