Why won’t the internal combustion engine die? To oversimplify the issue, it’s partly because of its incumbency and partly because it’s very good at what it does. Environmentalists hate it because it’s dirty, and while some engineers pursue alternate energy forms, there are still plenty of smart people tweaking the internal combustion engine to make it less dirty, more efficient, and more powerful. One person in the latter category is Christian von Koenigsegg , the rather brilliant inventor behind the Swedish supercar skunkworks that bears his name. Anyone with a basic understanding of how engines work is bound to be impressed by von Koenigsegg’s latest breakthrough: He’s developed an engine with no cams. With a conventional engine, the valves are driven by cams that are necessarily egg-shaped, with each cam driving its attendant valve stem into its deepest extension at the pointiest part of the egg as the cam rotates on the camshaft. Simple physics dictate this be a gradual process; because of the egg shape the valve gradually opens, maxes out, and gradually closes. If a cam was shaped like an off-center square, for instance, the valve stem would break on the corners. With von Koenigsegg’s radical “Free Valve” engine design, the valves operate independently and electronically to depress/open, while a mechanical spring returns them to the closed position. This means the valves quickly slam open, allowing fuel to flood the combustion chamber, then quickly slam shut. Ditto for the exhaust valves. So fuel is not gradually seeping in and exhaust is not gradually seeping out—it’s going BAM in, BAM out. The benefits? The engine is much smaller, of course, requiring no camshaft or timing belt. On top of that they’re projecting 30% less fuel consumption, 30% more torque, 30% more horsepower, and a staggering 50% less emissions. In the video below, von Koenigsegg walks you through it: (more…)
Read this article:
Holy Cow: Christian von Koenigsegg Invents “Free Valve” Engine That Requires No Camshaft
It makes such little cents You probably know that the U.S. penny used to be made out of copper, which was once inexpensive. As the cost of copper began to rise, it would have cost more per penny than the penny’s own value, so the U.S. Mint switched over to a zinc alloy. But the price of zinc has been steadily rising since 2005. Which is why U.S. currency is in the absurd situation it is now: A one-cent piece costs about 2.4 cents to make. A penny is 97.5% zinc and 2.5% copper, and that zinc ain’t cheap. The nickel’s got it even worse. This five-cent coin costs 11.2 cents to manufacture. That’s because 75% of it is zinc and 25% is, well, nickel, another expensive metal. Which means that a nickel costs more to produce than every U.S. bill from a one-dollar bill (5.2 cents) all the way up to a C-note (7.7 cents). The money math starts to make a little more sense when we get to the smaller dime (92% copper, 8% nickel), which rings in at a production cost of 5.7 cents. The quarter, which has the same ingredients as the dime, is only a slighly better bargain at 11.1 cents. Clearly the U.S. Mint needs to start researching cheaper alloys or phasing out the penny and the nickel. It’s true that the math is a little more complicated than it would be for pure product manufacturing; for example, while you’d quickly go broke selling a product for $100 that cost $240 to make, currency is a little trickier. The government has an obligation to produce and circulate currency because it enables commerce, so it’s okay if they lose a little in manufacturing costs, as its citizens will theoretically make it back up by creating wealth. But if we don’t do that fuzzy math and look at it in terms of straight production, in 2012 alone the U.S. government lost $58 million dollars just by making pennies. (more…) 
Materials movement sucks, and it’s our job as designers, engineers or craftspersons to learn tricks to deal with it. You’ll put a slight arc in a plastic surface that’s supposed to be flat, so that after it comes out of the mold and cools the surface doesn’t get all wavy; a furniture builder in Arizona shipping a hardwood table to the Gulf states will use joinery that compensates for the humidity and attendant wood expansion; and similar allowances have to be made when joining steel and aluminum, as they expand at different rates when the temperature changes. On this latter front, Honda’s engineers have made a breakthrough that those who work with fabrics may find interesting: They’ve discovered that by creating a “3D Lock Seam”—essentially a flat-felled seam for you sewists—and using a special adhesive in place of the spot-welding they’d use with steel-on-steel, they can bond steel with aluminum in a way that negates the whole thermal deformation thing. Practically speaking, what this new process enables them to do is create door panels that are steel on the inside and aluminum on the outside. This cuts the weight of the door panels by some 17%, which ought to reduce fuel consumption. (Honda also mentions that “In addition, weight reduction at the outer side of the vehicle body enables [us] to concentrate the point of gravity toward the center of the vehicle, contributing to improved stability in vehicle maneuvering,” but that sounds like spin to us.) Unsurprisingly they’re mum on how they’ve pulled this off or what exactly the adhesive is, but they do mention that “these technologies do not require a dedicated process; as a result, existing production lines can accommodate these new technologies.” The language is kind of vague but it sounds like they’re saying they don’t require massive re-tooling, which is a manufacturing coup. Honda’s U.S. plants are the first to get this manufacturing upgrade, and we’ll be seeing the new doors as soon as next month, on the U.S.-built Acura RLX. (more…)