One third of car fuel consumption is due to friction loss
http://www.vtt.fi/news/2012/12012012.jsp12.01.2012
[font size=4]Fuel consumption and emissions can be reduced with new technology[/font]
[font size=3]No less than one third of a car´s fuel consumption is spent in overcoming friction, and this friction loss has a direct impact on both fuel consumption and emissions. However, new technology can reduce friction by anything from 10% to 80% in various components of a car, according to a joint study by VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland and Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) in USA. It should thus be possible to reduce car´s fuel consumption and emissions by 18% within the next 5 to 10 years and up to 61% within 15 to 25 years.
…
Of the energy output of fuel in a car engine, 33% is spent in exhaust, 29% in cooling and 38% in mechanical energy, of which friction losses account for 33% and air resistance for 5%. By comparison, an electric car has only half the friction loss of that of a car with a conventional internal combustion engine.
…
Friction can be reduced by 10% to 50% using new surface technologies such as diamond-like carbon materials and nanocomposites. Laser texturing can be employed to etch a microtopography on the surface of the material to guide the lubricant flow and internal pressures so as to reduce friction by 25% to 50% and fuel consumption by 4%. Ionic liquids are made up of electrically charged molecules that repel one another, enabling a further 25% to 50% reduction in friction.
…
Realistically, though, over a period of 5 to 10 years of enhanced action and product development measures could be expected to enable savings of 117,000 million litres in fuel consumption per year, representing an 18% reduction from the present level. Furthermore, in realistic terms, carbon dioxide emissions could be expected to decrease by 290 million tonnes per year and financial savings to amount to EUR 174,000 million per year in the short term.
…[/font][/font]
= new reply since forum marked as read
Most loss of power to friction is unavoidable, it is the cost of running an engine. For Cylinders to work, the must be a relatively tight fit between the piston and the cylinder's wall. That tight fit means friction, now the friction can be reduced, in older engine (Steam Engines etc) this was done with grease, in modern engines this is done with oil, Now, some of the new Nanotechnology material can decrease friction even more, but never to Zero.
Another way to reduce friction, is to reduce the number of moving parts (i.e. reduce the number of cylinders in an engine). GM tried this in the 1980s with its infamous 4-6-8 cylinder engine. The concept was sound, and maybe someday someone will do it right. but it was a debacle for GM.
The 4-5-8 cylinder car was a car that would use all 8 cylinder when full power was needed, but drop to 6 then 4 when full power was NOT needed (and engage my cylinders if more power was needed). The engine was designed to save fuel by cutting friction by stopping the cylinders from working (no movement of the pistons with the Cylinder, friction produced would be Zero).
The Hybrids reduce friction is a similar way, by cutting out the engine completely when it is NOT needed to move the car or charge the batteries, again Zero Friction do to no movement of the Pistons.
The biggest problem when it comes to reducing friction is the COST to reduce the friction. The 4-6-8 engine and the Hybrids reduce friction the easy way, by not producing any or reducing the production of friction as much as possible.
Nanotechnologies is the expensive way. Material on the Nano level often have opposite characteristics then they have at normal levels, many have reduced ability to produce friction. The bad side is such materials must be thin and thus will wear out much sooner then thicker conventional surfaces (The reduce friction will reduce the rate of loss, but the loss will still exist, thus the surface must be replaced, sometime sooner then a conventional surface, and at other times later).
My sister is in the design and manufacturer of some Nanotechnology material, one of the things she is working on is drill bits. With the nanotechnology surface the drill bits last 3-4 times as long as conventional bits and it certain manufacturing situation that is a huge deduction in costs (i.e. less down time as the bits have to be changed AND the bits increase production do the rate of decline it the ability to drill is slower then a bit with a conventional surface).
The down side is the price, each bit has to be carefully process or the nano material does NOT adhere to the surface. This increases the price of the bits. IS the price of ten times the price of a Conventional bit worth the extra time on the job and the longer period that bit is "good". That is something the buyers of the Bit must decide on a case by case basis.
When it comes to car engines, we are talking about an engine that there is no down time to change cylinders (If the Cylinder goes bad, most engines are junked) and is in constant motion (Which makes it a good place for Nanotechnology). On the other hand, the surface will be exposed to some friction which will lead to the surface slowly becoming worn down and defeating the savings in friction do to the Nanotechnologies.
One factor not often discussed is how will oil affect these surfaces? Nano surface may make the use of oil inadvisable (to much friction to to the oil) but we are disgusting an metal to metal part that BURNS Gasoline or diesel (Which are "oils"
. Thus the interaction between the fuel and the mechanical part could involve "oil" in the form of Gasoline or Diesel fuel WITH the increase level of friction under this hypothetical. Thus what one gains in reduced friction do to the nanotechnology may be lost with the contamination from the diesel oil or gasoline.
Just pointing out the problem with improving an engine 50% as stated in the article. The most cost effective ways to reduce friction in engines have been done over the last 30 or so years (Today's engine are a whole lot more efficient then the engines of the 1970s).
The most cost effective way to reduce engine use of oil may NOT be to make the engine more efficient, but to make it smaller. Smaller engines weigh less and thus do NOT have to push as much weight as the engine propels the car. This permits smaller and lighter transmissions, drive trains and even auto bodies. The smaller engine could run closer to its optimum efficient speed more the time (This is how the Hybrid engines get such high fuel efficiencies, much smaller engines that runs at full speed only, thus at the engines most efficient level. Once the batteries are charged, the engine shuts down till needed for extra power).
Reduce friction would help these engines get even smaller (and thus lighter) so that the smaller engine can pull as much weight as today's engines. The key is to what degree would the reduction in friction in the engine actually increase the efficiency of the engine? and at what cost. A 100% friction-less engine is something that will never occur, and I have my concern that even a 50% increase in efficiency can be made with reduction in friction alone.
The real problem is at what cost? Would such an engine cost $100,000 each AND be useless after two years? (i.e. the friction-less surface would have deteriorated so that the engine can not work after two years). In certain function that may be ideal (i.e. ambulances when Gasoline gets to $20 a gallon) but in most cases not usable.
The better solution is to work on small increases in engine efficiency but emphasis less performance and thus greater fuel savings (The SMART car gets almost as good fuel economy as a hybrid but at half the cost and is good enough for one to two people to commute to and from work).
Reducing friction is a engine will help, but higher return on investments when it comes to fuel efficiency are found elsewhere and will continue to be found elsewhere unless there is some HUGE Breakthrough in reducing friction and even then a combination of the two policies would increase fuel efficiency even more.
somehow stopped the pistons from going up and down in the disabled cylinders? Best I remember they only stopped the valves from opening so the cylinder wouldn't have any gas to burn and by closing the combustion chamber by leaving the valves closed they recouped some of the energy that it took to make the piston go up by using the air in the chamber as a spring to help push the piston back down. I know of no and I mean no engine that had or has a way to stop a piston from traveling up and down if the motor is running. At this point it would be mechanically impossible, at a price that anyone would be willing to pay for said engine. If I'm wrong show me the way, please.
I threw a rod in one of my old fords one time and that piston quit going up and down but the engine leaked oil like a sieve and made all kinds of noise, got me home though even though it had a hole in the block as big as a tator. I know because I stuck a potato in the hole so it wouldn't leak so much oil so I could get it to the mechanic the next morning that was going to put me in a new rebuilt engine.
I would like to see a diagram of how they stopped the pistons from traveling up and down or at least an explanation of how they did that.
Maybe you just mis typed when you insinuated that the pistons stopped moving, or maybe I just mis understood what you were saying
peace and have a good day but please fill me in on how this worked.
Just to let you know I'm a motor head, I've rebuilt more engines than I can count on everything from motorcycles, autos, trucks, dozers, lawnmowers pretty much every kind of engine made.
