Welcome to Mutable Motors engine control systems

Welcome honored guest,

.

My name is Ed Batchelor, and I am asking for funding/ participation in a venture I think you will find interesting, relevant, important, and innovative. My goal is nothing short of offering an alternative to the ongoing (politically driven) worldwide conversion to electric vehicle power from petrol (and flex fuel) ICE motive power. I intend to provide a solution that is more effective, cheaper, easier to implement, and also retains current engines and driveline options (some transmissions with too few gears will need updating) with some modifications. To be clear, my goal is to meet strict emissions standards with high performance gasoline engines with 6 cylinders or more with applications including new vehicles and used ones.

.

I plan to include an input to the ECU of local IQAir scores to which engine performance limits will be matched so that emissions from vehicles will be reduced, on a day-to-day basis, for more heavily polluted areas via restricting operation at high power [perhaps as a daily time “budget” of 8 minutes or so above 60% of “standard peak power” for a local "PM2.5" USAQI score over 50 (or equivalent measure) and 2 minutes per day over 60% of max power for a local USAQI score over 100], although this is just a supplemental strategy. The focus is on reducing the current spread in the performance of petrol engines between maximum and operational thermal efficiency (best vs. actual). The goal is to meet Euro 7 tailpipe emissions standards and current U.S. "Tailpipe Emissions" standards. Specific methods address reducing NOx emissions.

.

As you are undoubtedly aware, modern passenger car gasoline engines are quite capable of nearly 40% thermal efficiency but typically operate at only 15% to 20%. The part most people don’t realize is that if an engine operates at maximum thermal efficiency (for that engine) then fuel economy is low, and any increase in fuel economy (by varying its operation) causes a decrease in thermal efficiency. In other words, through most of the normal range of road driving WITH A GIVEN ENGINE AND VEHICLE, fuel economy and thermal efficiency are inversely related, and the spread (or difference) is close to worst at best cruise fuel economy. To provide peak thermal efficiency the engine produces too much power (in normal operation) and to provide good fuel economy the engine is “throttled” (restricted), which reduces efficiency.

.

This means that the cheapest and MOST EFFECTIVE way to reduce emissions from road vehicles is to reduce this spread in existing engines by increasing efficiency in cruise operation to decrease fuel consumption, since reducing fuel consumption can reduce emissions; this is the reason almost every manufacturer has resorted to producing smaller engines. On the other hand, the most expensive and LEAST EFFECTIVE solution is to replace a gasoline powered vehicle with an electrically powered vehicle. This is due to 3 main factors. First, it produces more emissions to make an electric vehicle than a gasoline powered vehicle (and I’m proposing a solution that can be adapted for use on many existing gasoline powered vehicles, thus greatly reducing production emissions). Second, electric vehicles tend to cost more than gasoline powered ones and the electric drive batteries are significantly more expensive than the valve control system I propose (much of the complexity of the proposed solution is in the software). Third, electric vehicles require infrastructure changes and create waste-battery disposal issues. Another complication with conversing to electric vehicles is lack of access to charging stations for urban apartment dwellers (who often have no facilities available to plug in a car overnight).

.

My proposed conversion replaces camshaft operation with programmable pneumatic valve actuators. This conversion then allows programming a new combustion paradigm to supplement current Otto cycle operation (I employ new methods, but under maximum power operation Otto cycle operation is still employed). Reducing the average potential power available from each cylinder opens the throttle completely, filling each cylinder completely, the key is dynamically matching potential engine power to each operating condition (load, speed, pedal input, etc.). The methods are slightly complex and proprietary, so I won’t go into details here, but I look forward to an in-depth conversation (with an engineer present if you so desire, to confirm my claims). Cylinder deactivation does not provide the benefits of my methods and cutting 1/2 of the engine potential (a common cylinder deactivation strategy) only provides a small gain in efficiency. My method variably controls an engine’s potential power (roughly from 20% to 120% of OEM operation at a given rpm; and rpm is tightly controlled as part of the paradigm), provides access to a specialized method (not possible with cylinder deactivation) of cooling the EGR (recirculated exhaust gasses) to double its effectiveness, and with the precise control allowed using pneumatic actuators also employs other traditional techniques (Atkinson cycle for instance) for increasing efficiency. This variable control over all aspects of engine operation is why I call engines so modified “Mutable Motors”.

.

I’ve recently reconsidered a method similar to Honda’s lean burn engine from the early 1980s. That engine used a pre-combustion chamber to ensure ignition of the lean air/ fuel mixture but did not show impressive performance. Now that Formula 1 has gotten ahold of the idea and advanced it, higher compression ratios, turbocharging, and early intake valve closing combine to overcome the performance limitations of that Honda engine. This approach is also employed in many large engines used in industry. Integrating these methods with the proprietary Mutable Motors methods results in a substantial increase in low load fuel efficiency, which is now expected to be a constant 45% in the MV6 variant up to about 70 kW (94 HP) and extends the performance envelope up to 210 kW (280 HP) while allowing the displacement to be reduced to 2,7 liters. Peak efficiency of the MV8 of 43% with 280 kW (375 HP) “standard” power on tap is class topping while ensuring durability. These are not maximum power ratings and power can be safely increased for short bursts via an increase in turbocharger boost pressure.

.

My proof-of-concept engine is a Ford 4,6-liter 3 valve V8 with increased compression (12 to 1) and decreased bore and stroke (with an 8 mm offset to aid efficiency) to provide a 3,6-liter displacement via reduced bore and stroke (a Coyote block is an option for later), turbocharged and using a lean burn/ pre-combustion chamber approach similar to Formula 1 (although I use an active chamber), combined direct and port injection (like the Ford Coyote V8), with cylinder heads specially modified to accept the pneumatic valve actuators. Performance expectations from this “MV8” are over 500 horsepower available but able to reach 55 mpg (or 4,27 liters per 100 km) in mixed driving of a midsize sedan (I’m expecting to use my 1987 Corvette for proof-of -concept). A 3 valve cylinder head is used specifically to reduce the pneumatic air consumed by the valve actuators as compared to the four valve Ford Coyote 5-liter V8 engine (in fact only 2 valves will be used much of the time to save pneumatic air and improve air/ fuel swirl) the valves are also reoriented; the shorter stroke of the converted 4,6 liter will also allow higher maximum engine speeds and power. The plan is to evolve the business, custom designing and manufacturing cylinder heads, valve actuators and ECU for many engines. Although turbocharging increases volumetric efficiency, it tends to do so at the expense of fuel economy when operated at low airflows, although the Mutable Motors methods offset this tendency. Formula 1 engines approach 50 percent efficiency, but they do not operate in the same regimes as road driven engines and are not long lived -- they still use some applicable methods.

.

Special transmission programming will be needed to optimize engine speed to match operating requirements, typically high rpm for high power and about 2100 to 2700 rpm for maximum fuel economy (cruise and mild acceleration); this differs slightly from typical engine speeds used in most engines at some road speeds because of the methods I use to ensure an open throttle at low power. I intend to supplement the gasoline engine with a 48-volt mild hybrid, with the motor/ generator/ starter integrated into the drivetrain (a well-developed application that reduces battery size and cost compared to strong hybrid or EV solutions, yet still allows for regenerative braking and augmented acceleration; it also eliminates a separate starter motor and alternator). One advantage of 48-volt systems is that they will not require “leaping” from the car to avoid 300 Volt shocks (like F1 cars sometimes require) and are recognized by regulators as safer for rescue personnel (first responders) since total “system” voltage doesn’t exceed 60 volts.

I envision the project in phases, both to maximize return on investment and to protect investors.

.

Dr. Robert Middleton (a scientific research assistant at the University of Michigan’s Lay Auto Lab) has agreed to run a computer simulation to prove the control/ combustion components of the proposed system for a price of about fifty thousand USD. We also have discussed (and he is receptive) to having engineering students involved in planning and construction of the final proof of concept vehicle. This not only provides relatively inexpensive and knowledgeable personnel, but also starts a cadre of experts to help grow the company. Conversion and testing of the engine (phase II) will cost roughly $100 thousand USD. Preparation and testing in the vehicle will probably cost another $150 thousand USD, mainly because that vehicle should be prepared to show at SEMA in Las Vegas (and worldwide) for marketing and education purposes. update: I believe that Dr. Middleton is no longer at the lab.

.

The final phase, of course, is beginning “kit” manufacturing and installation. Full engine production is also possible, acting as power systems supplier for multiple vehicle OEMs worldwide. The target group of engines are MV6 (Mutable V6), MV8, and MV10 engines designed to match engine power to application and provide good fuel economy and low emissions across all platforms (small to midsize SUV and sedan platforms with the MV6, muscle/ sport cars with the MV8, and cargo vans, pickups, and midsize commercial vehicles with the MV10). My unique operating methods do not translate well to 4-cylinder engines.

.

The university and I have submitted joint (and individual) proposals to three U.S. government agencies for STTR (and SBR) grant funding. The current political environment (worldwide it seems) is to fund electric vehicle research and hope that they eventually outperform gasoline powered vehicles (on the road and the marketplace). Where they will not outperform gasoline vehicles is life cycle emissions compared against the operating emissions reductions of 40% for existing gasoline engines predicted for this system. The latest of our grant proposals was not even considered (dismissed without review by the U.S. Department of Energy and National Science Foundation because “combustion engine technology is old”), and most private investors prefer to fund increasing sales of existing products (safe investments) but are not interested in socially responsible research projects.

.

Please consider funding phase I with a $50 000 USD (fifty thousand dollars, U.S.) donation, directly supporting Dr. Middleton’s (or a university of your choosing) computer modeling of this engine operating concept. Alternatively, if you have contacts in the industry or government regulators and research facilities. you may be able to help in other ways. If I can convince you of the efficacy and need for this effort, I will provide you with the contact information. Hopefully, you will be interested in moving forward as well providing the modeling results support my claims. I look forward to an opportunity to amaze you.

.

Feel free to browse the rest of the site, to return here just use the link you were given. Contact information is in the site header.