Brickley Engine

People ask me, “Why are you spending your time and energy

on the internal combustion engine? Isn’t it a thing of the past?

What about all of the new alternatives?

Well, many people talk about hybrid and electric cars, and while they

might be helpful for a part of our future of transportation needs, they

simply don’t work in all applications. Currently they subtract

a measly 2 million gallons from the 380 million we use daily.

That’s not much of a reduction.

Hybrids are also costly; and while an electric motor assists the

internal combustion engine to improve fuel mileage in the city, we

are fooling ourselves if we don’t admit that the internal combustion

engine is still the heart of the hybrid’s power.

Electric cars sound great; however, the material and production costs

associated with their batteries indicate that they will always be too

expensive for the average person to buy. 20-40 thousand dollars

for a battery is not realistic for 90% of the population.

And because two thirds of that cost is materials there is very little

room for reducing the cost through large production volumes.

It has been estimated that by 2025 electric cars might hold as much as

just 2% of the market.

So let’s face it, technological and economic facts suggest that the

internal combustion engine will continue to be the prime-mover

for decades to come, whether it runs on gas, diesel, compressed

natural gas or hydrogen.

It is critical, therefore, that the internal combustion engine be

made more fuel efficient and yet remain affordable.

This is the focus of my engine configuration.

By drastically reducing engine friction,  it allows for

improvements in fuel consumption of up to 20% at a very reasonable

cost. So, here is my question to you:

Can we really afford to pass up a new technology when it has

the potential to save millions of gallons of fuel each day?

I need help to get my engine design into various forms of

production.   I do not have the economic resources to do it by

myself, but I do have solid science to support my design, and I own

the intellectual property.

Please share with me your thoughts about the engine itself, the

funding of a prototype, and anything else you might think useful.  I

can be contacted through my website: www.brickleyengine.com.

A much more fuel efficient internal combustion engine could resurrect

American car manufacturing, contribute to world economic recovery,

and could seriously impact the production of greenhouse gasses on a

global level.

I think it might be helpful to pass on a few  graphs showing the breakdown of friction for a typical engine and a comparison of a typical engine with my configuration.

The numbers for the first graph are from the Automotive Research Center at the Univ. of Michagan. Type 1 is a typical engine and Type 2 is the Brickley configuration. The numbers for the Brickley configuration are based on reducing the the number of bearings on the crankshaft and increasing the number of pinned joints. The overall reduction in friction in this comparison is 36%. My impression is that it could be reduced even further if in the case of a four cylinder engine two roller bearings were employed on the crank and a much smaller oil pump were used because of the much reduced demands of squeeze film lubrication which used at all of the pins. There is a possibility that the oil pump could be eliminated altogether further improving the reduction.

Because the most frequent criticisms of my engine configuration concern questions involving pin friction and reciprocating mass I must say that a good SAE paper to look at regarding the losses in pinned joints (piston pins specifically in this paper) is SAE 2005-01-1651. The authors ask a very valuable question: Because pin friction shows up as heat, how much heat can be dissipated  from a bearing that is lubricated by splash, has no oil flow to take away heat, has a very hot piston sitting right next to it and has very tight clearances? Regarding reciprocating mass it must be pointed out that while my configuration does involve more mass the configuration does not respond the same as a typical configuration to increased mass for a number reasons (1) there are no piston skirts (the place where much of the reciprocating friction shows up) (2) squeeze time and the movement at the joint rotation at the end of the squeeze time allows for a different friction response  and (3) the connecting rod performs a very different function in my configuration because the cylinders are already connected to each other through the linkage, to mention a few differences.
Also, I am including a few additional graphs relating to the 1.9 L TDI diesel for an example of projected gains. I used a diesel so I could simply use a Willans line for the friction determination.

http://i287.photobucket.com/albums/ll130/biodeez/BSFCMapwcruisingload.jpg

From this graph a Willans line for 1500 rpm looks like this:

Using y=mx +b; m=(2753-1680)/(11.97-6); m=179.7

Inserting m and solving for b we get 2753=(179.7)(11.97) +b ; b=602

602g/hr is the amount of fuel consumed at idle (zero power, y intercept)

The x intercept would then be -602=(179.7)(x) ; x=-3.35kW (friction power)

A 36% reduction in the 3.35kW shows up on the ordinate as (1-.36)(602) which equals 358g/hr now instead of 602g/hr at idle (-244g/hr)

The new formula is now very close to y= 179.7x + 358

A common point to measure for average fuel economy is 1/6 throttle 1500 rpm. In this case that point is 5.23 kW.

The fuel consumption for this point is y= (179.7)(5.23) +358 ; y=1298 g/hr.

The fuel consumption for the original engine is y= (179.7)(5.23) +603 ;y=1543 g/hr.

This is a reduction in fuel consumption of 15.8 %.

I now have a blog. I am looking forward to posting soon and communicating with everyone.