Why aren't there any Ceramic combustion engines .

[GreekMaverick]

Awwwhhh the wonderful "thing" that is Ceramics, I do ask why aren't there any ceramic combustion engines made yet although I do know the Answer to my question, it is just sad how hampered we are with moving forward with a new technology /evolution of the combustion engine. we aways have to think about the "little" guy. every bit that makes a metal combustion engine move, the coolant that needs to be used, the oil that needs to be burned etc etc.....yet with the likes of Tesla here we are getting a very vibrant glimpse of a future FREE of a combustion motor all together. I do like Tesla and I think they have a magnificent product, but call me an old fashion hooligan, no electric Buzz winning will ever replace the pure roar of a powerful petrol motor.

Prototypes of ceramic engines have been made, and the results are incredible. Because of their tolerance of heat, they can burn 3 times hotter than a metal engine... hot enough for motor oil to act like a clean-burning fuel, and producing practically NO pollution with regular gasoline.

((CO2 isn't a toxic pollutant. If it was, we'd all be dead right now. When methane and other carbon-chain molecueles are burned in the cleanest way possible, you'll get CO2 and water. If the reaction isn't complete, you'll get CO, nitrogen oxides, and leftover hydrocarbon emissions. You and every other animal on the planet spews out CO2 in massive quantities. Every plant at night will spew out CO2 as well. But when the sun is shining, every tree, every clump of moss, every tiny cell of algae, every green leaf with chloroplasts in it will guzzle CO2 and vent off the waste fumes: that highly reactive, highly corrosive, highly unstable gas called oxygen))

In addition, they need no coolant system (no radiator), and because they can be cut to very tight tolerances (parts can be made to fit within several microns of distance) no engine oil is needed. They're so efficient that a ceramic engine, when compared to a regular 4-stroke engine of identical size, will produce 250% of the horsepower using approximately 25% of the fuel. They can easily weigh 50% to 80% less.

A batch of 10 of these engines, with 1 liter displacement, producing 500hp each, has been created by the Germans and have been extensively tested. The longest one has been run the equivalent of 1,200,000 miles and still shows no signs of wear and tear.

So what's the catch? First of all, nobody's set up to build these things in mass, so for now they'd be extremely expensive. Plus if released, the face of the oil industry would completely change. Potentially thousands of people could lose their jobs, and the Middle Eastern and South American countries would no longer be sitting on the enormous piles of wealth they currently enjoy.

http://ceramicrotaryengines.com/

[pmeloche]

I don't have an answer to your question although conspirationists would say that the current industry leaders would prefer things the way they are to keep profits going their way. My feeling is that they will want to burn every last drop of oil before relinquishing their control to alternative methods for engines.

I don't remember hearing or reading anything about carbon dioxide being a toxic pollutant. CO2 is however a major greenhouse effect contributor although pound for pound methane (CH4) is 27x worse than CO2 as a grenhouse effect gas.

Cheers.

[pgviper]

Wow, had no idea about these. Very interesting read. There is a lot of money to be lost if they are produced and a lot of money to be made. All depends who has the most influence where it counts.

[Mirko]

Thanks for sharing, didn't know they existed. I can't see the corporations that are heavily dependent on oil for profits to let something like this get mass produced if it is as efficient as claimed.

[Biorin]

I had no idea about this either. Even though there have been prototypes, I'm kind of surprised that no one's put it into some pricey/rare car yet. Perhaps it's just that they think electric vehicles are the way of the future so it's not really worth investing all this money into something that will quickly become obsolete.

[Holset]

Definitely interesting!

[wisesoul]

I'm intrigued. Thanks for posting.

[ScarecrowBoat]

probably because every time you hit a bump you'd need to replace your block

[GreekMaverick]

Originally Posted by ScarecrowBoat

probably because every time you hit a bump you'd need to replace your block

They have developed them to be extremely tough, ceramics have been proven, even Porsche is Using them on their ceramic disc brakes.

[Efthreeoh]

You've hit on my pet peeve.

Ford Motor Company (as were others) was working on ceramic engine technology and had running prototypes in cars 25 years ago. The problem is introduction of new technology is expensive, and back then Governments were not subsidizing new technology introductions as they are now with electric, hybrid, and alternate fuel burning cars; leaving the automotive companies to do it all themselves. Introduction of a ceramic engine meant an entirely new manufacturing infrastructure (new manufacturing and inspection techniques, materials support, machine tools, etc.) that is highly costly to implement for low-cost mass production. Then add in the giant leap to convince the consumer that a ceramic engine (the same base technology of dishes - that break when you drop them on the floor) is as durable as a metal engine (that has been in use for 100 years), and the business risk was just too great. Also, fuel prices in the US were very low (are still very low), which does not induce the majority of consumers to risk their money on a new technology.

Jumping to today, the Progressives (Al Gore) have done a great job at villainizing the internal combustion engine as the killer of the planet. Bumping the efficiency of the ICE to nearly 95% with a ceramic engine still doesn't solve the made-up CO2 problem (it actually changes the weather you know!) because it will still use carbon based fuels and kill the planet - albeit just a bit slower. This reason alone keeps Governments from adopting and subsidizing ceramic engine technologies to reduce the business risk, so I doubt it will ever see the light of day. Imagine the advancement of the ceramic engine if even half the non-private funding that has gone into battery development (the Tesla's battery has the equivalent of 2 gallons of gasoline) went into maturing the technology for mass production. But what we'll do is try and achieve the pipe dream of battery technology that near meets the energy density of gasoline, or better yet diesel fuel, and develop a network of electric charging stations throughout the country so we can stop, have lunch, and recharge our cars.

Thanks for bringing the subject up; it's a great topic.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by pmeloche

I don't have an answer to your question although conspirationists would say that the current industry leaders would prefer things the way they are to keep profits going their way. My feeling is that they will want to burn every last drop of oil before relinquishing their control to alternative methods for engines.

I don't remember hearing or reading anything about carbon dioxide being a toxic pollutant. CO2 is however a major greenhouse effect contributor although pound for pound methane (CH4) is 27x worse than CO2 as a grenhouse effect gas.

Cheers.

Dude, the US EPA declared it a pollutant in 2009 by basically saying the increasing rate of CO2 in the atmosphere is hazardous to the planet's health.

If I were an oil company executive, I'd love the introduction of a ceramic engine, because it would only extend my all-powerful reign over the planet's population under high profits and inadvertent murder.

[ScarecrowBoat]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

You've hit on my pet peeve.

Ford Motor Company (as were others) was working on ceramic engine technology and had running prototypes in cars 25 years ago. The problem is introduction of new technology is expensive, and back then Governments were not subsidizing new technology introductions as they are now with electric, hybrid, and alternate fuel burning cars; leaving the automotive companies to do it all themselves. Introduction of a ceramic engine meant an entirely new manufacturing infrastructure (new manufacturing and inspection techniques, materials support, machine tools, etc.) that is highly costly to implement for low-cost mass production. Then add in the giant leap to convince the consumer that a ceramic engine (the same base technology of dishes - that break when you drop them on the floor) is as durable as a metal engine (that has been in use for 100 years), and the business risk was just too great. Also, fuel prices in the US were very low (are still very low), which does not induce the majority of consumers to risk their money on a new technology.

Jumping to today, the Progressives (Al Gore) have done a great job at villainizing the internal combustion engine as the killer of the planet. Bumping the efficiency of the ICE to nearly 95% with a ceramic engine still doesn't solve the made-up CO2 problem (it actually changes the weather you know!) because it will still use carbon based fuels and kill the planet - albeit just a bit slower. This reason alone keeps Governments from adopting and subsidizing ceramic engine technologies to reduce the business risk, so I doubt it will ever see the light of day. Imagine the advancement of the ceramic engine if even half the non-private funding that has gone into battery development (the Tesla's battery has the equivalent of 2 gallons of gasoline) went into maturing the technology for mass production. But what we'll do is try and achieve the pipe dream of battery technology that near meets the energy density of gasoline, or better yet diesel fuel, and develop a network of electric charging stations throughout the country so we can stop, have lunch, and recharge our cars.

Thanks for bringing the subject up; it's a great topic.

[GreekMaverick]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

You've hit on my pet peeve.

Ford Motor Company (as were others) was working on ceramic engine technology and had running prototypes in cars 25 years ago. The problem is introduction of new technology is expensive, and back then Governments were not subsidizing new technology introductions as they are now with electric, hybrid, and alternate fuel burning cars; leaving the automotive companies to do it all themselves. Introduction of a ceramic engine meant an entirely new manufacturing infrastructure (new manufacturing and inspection techniques, materials support, machine tools, etc.) that is highly costly to implement for low-cost mass production. Then add in the giant leap to convince the consumer that a ceramic engine (the same base technology of dishes - that break when you drop them on the floor) is as durable as a metal engine (that has been in use for 100 years), and the business risk was just too great. Also, fuel prices in the US were very low (are still very low), which does not induce the majority of consumers to risk their money on a new technology.

Jumping to today, the Progressives (Al Gore) have done a great job at villainizing the internal combustion engine as the killer of the planet. Bumping the efficiency of the ICE to nearly 95% with a ceramic engine still doesn't solve the made-up CO2 problem (it actually changes the weather you know!) because it will still use carbon based fuels and kill the planet - albeit just a bit slower. This reason alone keeps Governments from adopting and subsidizing ceramic engine technologies to reduce the business risk, so I doubt it will ever see the light of day. Imagine the advancement of the ceramic engine if even half the non-private funding that has gone into battery development (the Tesla's battery has the equivalent of 2 gallons of gasoline) went into maturing the technology for mass production. But what we'll do is try and achieve the pipe dream of battery technology that near meets the energy density of gasoline, or better yet diesel fuel, and develop a network of electric charging stations throughout the country so we can stop, have lunch, and recharge our cars.

Thanks for bringing the subject up; it's a great topic.

[1NS0MN1A]

Excess CO2 lowers the PH of the oceans, gives you less oxygen per breathe, oh and did i say lowers the pH of the ocean? That makes acidic fish, acidic animals that eat fish (including humans) and ultimately, a chain of events that lead to a lower quality of life.

[Meeni]

If it were a ready for production tech you'd see it in F1 or in Ferraris already. Probably not cost effective or résilient enough.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by 1NS0MN1A

Excess CO2 lowers the PH of the oceans, gives you less oxygen per breathe, oh and did i say lowers the pH of the ocean? That makes acidic fish, acidic animals that eat fish (including humans) and ultimately, a chain of events that lead to a lower quality of life.

And you've stopped driving?

[1NS0MN1A]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

And you've stopped driving?

I could give 100 shits less. Just wanted to let people know that Co2 does, in fact, have an adverse effect on the environment. Carry on.

[bjayfan]

Originally Posted by 1NS0MN1A

I could give 100 shits less. Just wanted to let people know that Co2 does, in fact, have an adverse effect on the environment. Carry on.

Like photosynthesis!

[positiveions]

Expensive technology. Mass produced, I'm sure will bring the price down~just like anything else.

But the topic was brought-up by my friend and I. It does absorbs great heat, and dissipates it pretty well. The dilemma is: why aren't most manufacturers jumping on this piece of technology? No idea.

Moving on to the next topic.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by 1NS0MN1A

I could give 100 shits less. Just wanted to let people know that Co2 does, in fact, have an adverse effect on the environment. Carry on.

So about 100,000 years ago it is estimated the human population on the planet was about 900,000 people. Today the human population is estimated to be about 7.5 Billion C02-exhaling humans. Do you think that has had an adverse effect on the environment?

The point I was making is, unfortunately political pressures sometimes drive (an limit) the introduction of new technology.

[bjayfan]

Originally Posted by positiveions

But the topic was brought-up by my friend and I. It does absorbs great heat, and dissipates it pretty well. The dilemma is: why aren't most manufacturers jumping on this piece of technology? No idea.

If you do a little searching you'll find that there's been some (a lot) testing/research into ceramic cylinder sleeves. A method to introduce the tech into existing productions that allows capturing some of the benefits and continued testing/research without having to spend significant R&D dollars.

When topics like this come up that ignore realities and even begin to mention 'conspiracy theories' or brush at what some see as political spins it doesn't lend itself well to productive discussion.

[Biorin]

Originally Posted by bjayfan

If you do a little searching you'll find that there's been some (a lot) testing/research into ceramic cylinder sleeves. A method to introduce the tech into existing productions that allows capturing some of the benefits and continued testing/research without having to spend significant R&D dollars.

When topics like this come up that ignore realities and even begin to mention 'conspiracy theories' or brush at what some see as political spins it doesn't lend itself well to productive discussion.

I spoke to an engineer friend and he thought that ceramic-lined engines were the way to go as well. Much less brittle and certainly much cheaper.