The SUM-V Sport Utility MiniVan

There are several major drawbacks to using an SUV. They are enormously large, heavy, and suffer from very poor fuel efficiency ratings. However, they have a lot of room and can travel on uneven terrains.

To bypass the drawbacks of the SUV, I propose the SUM-V. It would be a minivan designed vehicle with suicide doors instead of sliders and a suitably sized engine.

The SUM-V would have a butterfly suspension like passenger cars instead of the ladderback as on trucks and SUVs. This would improve the vehicle's handling and comfort, allowing lighter shocks, reducing weight, and not requiring such a burden on the engine. The minivan style can also enjoy lower suspension than a standard SUV, giving it yet better handling and turning capabilities and ignoring the infrequently used offroading status.

I would give the vehicle a pair of rollbars and a double-hulled style roof and exterior, but otherwise make the center of gravity very low. It would be equipped with a CVT to provide more torque and power per engine cc.

Depending on technology and options, I could equip the SUM-V with an X-firing hydrogen engine producing around 200BHp to provide 150-180Hp on the road. At an estimated 7.1BHp/cc, this would require an almost 30cc engine.

It could also be equipped with a supercharged X-firing petroleum injection engine providing a similar amount of power. Since the engine would redline at such high levels and reach model compression rates, it could likely be only a 1-2 liter contraption when coupled with the CVT.

I could also fit it with a standard clean diesel V6 at probably a 3 liter level. Or an uncharged petroleum engine at 4 liters and they would all produce about 200BHp within their spin ranges.

The SUM-V should not look like a minivan. Miniven are for mothers and teenagers. The hood should advance like a car's hood, and be wide and flattish. The wheels could be slightly accented or sheer, as could the full trunk. The exhaust should be suitable for the engine to breathe without bottleneck and be treated with the Italian cement coating catalytic converter to reduce pollution [in the case of petroleum/carbon fuel].

[Hmm. Do the carbon stems from post-exhaust fill the atmosphere and in their low-energy state seek to bond with otherwise high-energy particles, reducing the energy level of those otherwise stable bits? This could be the chemical representation of a depression of energy, where it has been turned into motion.]

This vehicle would have all of the advantages of the SUV, but be far superior in efficiency and it's equal in comfort and usability.

GOAL!

Tires And Exhausts

"I'd like to see non-compressed air tires. Tires are always in danger of going flat, when that is not a good reason to stop driving. We should build tires filled with a biodegradeable elastic substance that will function partially as a shock, and improve shocks for a finer ride. They can be retreaded if necessary around a centerpieced sufficient tire. No one wants a flat tire.

I would also like to see wider exhausts for petrocarbon fuelled vehicles. It seems that a 'custom' exhaust can improve horsepower by a considerable level. These things are just shaped in the factory. Install larger exhausts standard to provide more powerful cars."

[All further articles pertaining to vehicles and transit before pure science will be shifted to this website from Billy Bunkie The Science Junkie.]

A workup of the single-stroke gear engine

What would a single stroke engine do? The 2-stroke seems very perpindicular in its efficiency. But could I make a meaningful 1-stroke engine from a circular cylinder? It’d have fuel combusted in an empty cylinder and use the force to turn a pair of flywheels or somesuch. That would probably not get very good compression. It’d be more like rocketry than combustion. Well, maybe it could. It might have a good seal which would dissipate more gradually from the cylinder through the flywheel. But the momentum would not appear. It might have poor torque, but it could possibly spin up quite well. Would it turn a wheel? Yes. The gasses must escape and one end is sealed. The other has this flywheel blocking it. Maybe if the cylinder is C-shaped. Well, that would put more wear on the arch, and would probably produce more heat. That might require interesting gears. If one gear could be acted upon by 2-clinders which it would intersect, that might work. It could be a long thick gear acted upon by any number of clinders, which it would intersect.

However, this would reduce the inefficiencies of a crankshaft system and would be ideal for attaching to a multitronic transmission with a belt, or even dircectly to this gear if the cone can be variably engaged or disengaged from the cylinder-gear. This could produce excellent torque and power.

Microcombustion Hydrogen Engines

Note also that hydrogen fuel is more powerful combustant than gasoline fuel. A gallon of ~91 octane gasoline, atomized into a piston, will produce 125,000 BTU/h, and diesel produces 147,000 BTU/h, and a pound of hydrogen burns 61,000 btu/h. Hydrogen burns at 325 btu/h per cubic foot [30cc^3 = 2700cc = 2.7 liters]. However, there are 10 H2 molecules per cc at sea level kPa. Hydrogen will burn at 4% oxygenation.

1 horsepower is 2540 btu/h.

Inside a 49cc engine [4-stroke] running at 2000rpm, this becomes 49,000 cc of hydrogen/m, x 4% = 1960 cc of hydrogen. x 60 minutes = 46hp, uncompressed 4% hydrogen. This concentration level could potentially be increased dramatically. Also, the rpm level could increase to perhaps 4000rpm. At 4000 rpm the same equation would produce up to 161 hp from a 49cc engine space. Double the concentration of hydrogen to 8% [4% is the lowest] and this will double the figure to 322hp, with losses from less perfect combustion and higher volume. But a 49cc engine is no slouch when run with hydrogen. That will run a serious car quite well.

The trick is the percentage ratio between gasoline combustion strength and hydrogen combustion strength. I might estimate freehand that hydrogen is 5X as powerful as gasoline. They are, however, liquid vs gas, so the method becomes a critical ratio fulcrum.

Unfortunately, two-stroke engines are far more polluting than any automobile. It is important to reject the two-stroke engine.

I would like to see a 4-stroke 4-piston microcombustion engine running a moped. Many mopeds only generate something around 3 bhp. Plane engines have X-designed piston setups to minimize vibration and wear that a non-V16 engine could only dream of. This engine would be tiny. It could have pistons each ~10cc in size, and because of the safer redline, could likely operate up to 5000RPM or higher. Many motorcycle engines redline at 14,000RPM. Using hydrogen gas as fuel, and producing 2500R X40CC /M, we would find ourselves running through 100,000cc of hydrogen a minute and 6,000,000 CC of hydrogen per hour.

Hydrogen burns at 325 btu/h per 2700cc. 60,000CC / 27CC = 2222 X 325 btu. 722,222 btu/h would come from this engine. /2540 btu/h per Hp. That would show up as 284BHp, from a 40CC engine@5000RPM. Application: 40cc is 0.04 liters. How many ounces is this? 3.63- liters = 1 gallon. 1 gallon = 128 ounces. 3.63 liters / 128 ounces = 0.028 liters per ounce. This engine, which would be about one and a half ounces, would produce 284Hp. I could put that on roller skates.

I would attach it to a multitronic transmission and that to the wheel[s]. If I only needed 28.4Hp, I could reduce the engine size to 4CC, smaller than your average immunological injection. Hydrogen will produce 7.1Hp per CC at 5000RPM. It produces 1.42Hp per CC at 1000RPM.

The X-Banger Engine

Pick Jesus. The myelin sheath on the neuron of life. All intention is within this sheath. Do not affect things outside this sheath, but strengthen the vine within. Have faith in this train, and through your faith do not allow quantum uncertainties to form inside it.

And now, the X-banger.

It’s a 4X piston setup, mounted on a circular frame, all firing at once to form circular vibration. This pushes pistons, which each turn one gear mounted at the frame. They each work on this circular chain or belt style crankshaft. The chain or belt then goes around a multitronic transmission, which is on the wheel.

How to get the gears to mesh on the belt and the belt on the cone though? The gears could have a smoother portion, the belt could have holes in it, but to put pegs on the cone is ridiculous. How would it not slip? It could be grippy with lots of small bumps and the belt would be wide and thin and grippy, with gearspots. No, the differing length of the loop based on the cone would affect hole placement. Plus that is ass to arrange. I’ll put a tensor smooth roller on it to keep it taut on the gears and crt.

This would provide excellent durability and performance up to high RPMs, providing inapprorpiate horsepower per engine. A diesel-style injection method using normal fuel is also expected to increase octane performance and improve combustion.

===

The piston would be fed from the center of the X, which could be vacant, strangely. I don’t know if that would affect performance or longevity. So those wires would be fed from the fuel tank/source, whatever kind that may be, with a pedal wire valve/op on it. That would allow the fuel to flow into the place.

HM. Gravity-fed fuel will become less pressurized as the tank wears on. The fuel should be injected into the thing by powered mechanics. I suppose it should run like a diesel regardless of the fuel type. The pistons will compress air to very high temperature, then the fuel will be forced in and go. How will they compress it, though? Probably go forward to open while disengaged from the wheels, then down without fuel to a low level, then inject fuel, explodes in fire, forces open.

When it opens, it should release this spent fuel through a valve to the cat and tailpipe. I’d like to get a fire from every compress, not every other. I want that. But cleanly. Somehow the chamber would need to be emptied of air after it fires, and also have air put into it at the same time. So while it is open, the air would rush out to the cat and also into the chamber. It would be important to get all the air out to the cat and none of it out the in-valve. This can be done. Maybe with longer chambers or cycle… you know, I bet this thing could just be done. It shouldn’t be a big difficulty. If we’ve got to put vacuum force onto the thing go ahead, put a tiny compressor in there to suck the air out faster, which will suck air in as well.

I suppose that is a supercharger. Well, it’s a post-combustate supercharger. Include filter, it seems. Well, would I want those fumes to go through another machine and leave residue? It could be supercharged from the front and put the end-valve right to the cat. I might also use that Italcement pollutant destroying method with an intramuffler light source. That does sound very dodgy. If we can get LED’s to produce reactive-level rays, the thing could save a lot of money and space and power on cats and perhaps improve cleansing performance.

Okay. Piston begins open. The soup pushes air through it. Hmm… the in-air valve could be at the bottom near the fuel valve, and the exit valve could be near the top and be exposed and opened when the piston is open. So, the piston is open. No fuel is in it and the cat gets nothing. The soup pushes air through it and the piston begins to drop. The soup will operate pushing until it is no longer economical to push air into the piston, and then it will close. The piston will continue falling and compress the supercharged air. Then the fuel will be injected into the chamber by the [powered?] atomizer, and explode quite violently and completely, forcing the piston upwards, turning the gear, turning the crank, turning the crt, turning the wheel.

The soup will then push the air out to the cat and refresh the piston with new air until it is again uneconomical for the pump to work. This should be measured at normal atmospheric pressure and reflected by how far down the cylinder’s intake valve is in the cycle of the piston. I know diesel engines can get 25:1 compression, and that petrol engines get 12-15:1. I expect this method, especially considering the deep-end stroke and dynamic air injection that the vehicle could produce an even higher compression ratio. This would allow more fuel to be put into the piston per stroke, and could probably produce a 2-stroke cycle instead of a 4-stroke, doubling performance without knowingly reducing exhaust quality. The ability to place more fuel into the cylinder would also increase performance per stroke, and the x-setup would allow a higher RPM. This produces a trifecta of power over a normal petrol engine. I would use it for my HHO engines.

The original momentum will need to come from somewhere. Normally cars just have spark plugs, but this supercharged fuel injection engine will have none, and instead have powered atomizers. The pistons may need to be forced down by the gear, via the chain crankshaft, via the crt, which could mean an e-aux-powered transmission. Eaux? Waters? Maybe some kind of hydraulic starting device. A supercap, maybe, to bust it through for the first firing. Or it could rely on some kind of water pressure buildup, or it could be from the water splitter’s fuel cell component, which would have a housed source of water separate from water fuel. This would be reserved for a low-power electric operation, while the majority of the power would come from HHO, or the normal fuel. Outside of water splitting, this would be a small brushless electric motor attached to the crt, useful for the torque of starting the engine, and for other assists. This would also be an alternator for the car, and could potentially charge a supercap for its own power later.

[PS 16 Nov 2006: Examine the Panhard/Boxer Flat Twin engine. The X-banger would be similar to a flat 4, with 90*'d x-axis cylinders. This is allegedly used in planes to make them last longer.]