CO2 Cycle vs N2 (air) Cycle

Most all IC engines run on air which contains ~21% oxygen and ~78% Nitrogen (N2).  The working fluid is considered to be N2 and the O2 is consumed in the combustion.  

A CO2 cycle can be made in a closed system to eliminate the N2 and allow CO2 to be the working fluid.  The Oxygen for combustion is obtained from a tank or from air via a Zeolite filter that separates out oxygen from air.  The CO2 is mixed with O2, compressed and fuel added to combust and create heat which increases pressures.  The exhaust is CO2 and Water.

Exhaust from combustion is mixed with a certain amount of oxygen and compressed.  This mixture is combusted with carbon fuels, such as CH4 or gasoline.  The result is CO2 and H20 with no NOX, HCs or soot.  

The cycle used in the New Engine Type allows the exhaust to be fully expanded and cooled.  A certain amount of CO2 remains as the "working fluid" and it recompressed and used over and over again.  Each time the added CO2 from combustion is added to the working fluid and removed as pressure builds.  

This excess CO2 is then stored in a tank by compressing it.

The tank has a bladder or separator with fuel (CH4 or liquid fuels) on one side and CO2 on the other.  The tank is similar to an accumulator found in hydraulic systems.

Usually with CH4 at 3600 PSI a second tank of equal size is needed.  The pressure starts out low (empty) and builds over time.  The compressor stages bleed off excess as needed to maintain system loop pressures.  Once the pressure exceeds the cycle peak pressure, a second compressor high pressure stage takes over to step the pressure up to the final 3600 psi where the tank is full and no more CO2 can be stored.   

600 mile range is by design for full zero CO2 emissions with 28 gallon tanks in the floor like how Tesla batteries are placed.  It can be longer or shorter depending on goals.  If the tank were the same volume (53 gallons) as that found on a Tesla EV, the range would be around 900 miles with a round tank volume of 42 gallons with 1/2 filled with CH4. The effective fuel would be 6 gallons equivalent to gasoline in CH4 and 150 mpg for a range of 900 miles.  This is 3 times further than a battery EV with 300 mile range, like that found in a Model 3 Tesla.  

Again, that is 3 times further with ZERO Emissions...none.  Reality is a Tesla is only 200 miles when you consider battery charge issues that restrict 0-100% of charge use to to 66% of 300 mile claimed range.  900/200=4.5 times further with ZERO emissions.  

Remember without zero emissions the range can be 4200 miles on 28 gallons of gasoline at 150 mpg and 6300 miles on 42 gallons.  This is likely what most people will do who don't have access to Natural Gas or care about CO2 capture and a way to use it in their house to make fuel.  

The CO2 is removed from car/truck for use in fuel making, in a greenhouse, or some industrial use.  The CO2 has VALUE and is controlled in the its use, unlike old IC engines.

If the CO2 is used to make carbon fuels (CH4 or C8, for example) the effective emissions to the atmosphere is zero, provided no leaks occur.  

In essence, the Carbon is a carrier of energy from the Renewable energy electric source on the building/house, into the fuel via fuel maker, to the engine and back to the fuel maker in a closed loop.

Excess CO2 can be dumped to the air without storage and still use the CO2 cycle.  This would result in the maximum efficiency of the engine due to the superior CO2 cycle.  No work would be needed to recompress and store the CO2, thus saving fuel (~10%).  

Clearly a closed loop CO2 cycle with house would be ideal.  The range is enough (600-900 miles) depending on goals. 

This is better know as combustion with air.  Air is compressed, fuel added and burned, followed by the air being expanded and the emissions are dumped to the air, just like most IC engines.  

The New Engine Type with N2 (air) as cycle fluid can be ultra clean with only CO2, N2 and water as emissions products.  Little to no NOx is created due to the temperature limit of 1500 Kelvin below which NOx does not form.  This 1500 K limit also cuts into efficiencies to some degree compared to the CO2 cycle that can go to 2100 K.  

The N2 cycle can use Nitrogen fuels (NH3 or N2H4), as well as carbon fuels.  With Nitrogen fuels the CO2 emissions are zero, thus solving the CO2 problem without capture means.  The range can be about 1/3 that of gasoline using NH3.

A 28 gallon tank with NH3 would give 9.33 GGE for at 150 mpg for a range of 1400 miles.  A 42 gallon tank system would give 2100 miles and zero CO2 emissions.  

NH3-H20 30% solution could be used (much safer than NH3) and it would give 1 GGE for every 10 gallons.  28 gallons would be 2.8 GGE for a range of 420 miles.  With 42 gal tanks, it would yield 630 miles on Ammonia hydroxide 30%, which can be shipped in a plastic container as non hazardous cleaner.  This is what you would fertilize you lawn with...  It can be stored in plastic containers at home with no issues.  Amazon will ship it in plastic jugs.  Again this would be 100% zero CO2 emissions vehicle with fuel make from house solar.

Tanks can store emissions of N2 cycles if needed, just like the CO2 cycle does.  The mixture contains N2, CO2, and H20.  There is little point in doing this.  The savings from CO2 cycle with higher temperature (2100 K) are not allowed with the N2 1500k limit due to NOx formation.  If CO2 storage is wanted, the N2 cycle is not the best choice due to the greater efficiencies of the CO2 cycle which allow exhaust to be recompressed for free compared to a N2 cycle.  

Storage of N2 would only be used when indoors where zero emissions are needed for some reason.  The gases would be vented to the air later on.  Range would be similar to CO2 cycle show above.

The cycle fluids of N2 or CO2 can be mixed if needed or changed from one to the other without a purging of one or the other.  The issue is the degree of purity needed for the fuel maker and down stream applications, such as industrial use.  

If purity is NOT critical, the cycle can be switched back and forth with an associated purging over time of the N2 or CO2, as applicable.  Oxygen will be needed in the transition from air to CO2 due to the need of oxygen injection for a CO2 cycle.  Excess oxygen just becomes another working fluid depending on the amount of fuel used per cycle.  This can be adjusted in theory to allow little to no O2 to remain at the end of the tank fill.

For example, if N2 is being used in an open cycle, and the driver wants to use CO2 storage (virtue signal to a Tesla car?), the Oxygen can be turned on and the system ran immediately with ALL CO2 stored from that time forward.  The cycle would be a mix of CO2 and N2 with progressively more CO2 in the ratio as the tank empties.  

This switching could be used to allow use of the engine where a government regulation restricts CO2 within a jurisdiction.  Once an airplane or car is out of the jurisdiction, the stored CO2 could be vented if needed.  This allows roadable airplanes on the ground that may require CO2 capture, but when flown in the general airspace the CO2 is not an issue.  Yes, this is all silly nonsense, but it does meet the regulations being imposed by CO2 haters.

An airplane, for example, could land at the Sacramento capital or in the UK where they want to ban CO2 emissions and drive around with zero CO2.  It then can switch back to no compression of CO2 and vent the CO2 into the air when flying.  

In high power applications the N2 (air) open cycle would be needed due to cooling requirement of recompression.   This allows silly laws to be complied with without crippling the airplane range with CO2 storage requirements.  

Those who believe CO2 is a problem can use CO2 capture and recycle it to get to 100% zero CO2 emissions with a closed loop via fuel making of CH4 or C8 in houses with solar electric sources.

Those who want CO2 for greenhouses will love this capture feature.  In essence you get free fertilizer to make your greenhouse crops grow 2-3 times faster from fuel used in a 150 mpg car.  Instead of burning fuel to get CO2 for a greenhouse, use the fuel in a car and then transfer the captured CO2 to the greenhouse tank system where it is used over time to feed crops.

This zero emission feature comes in handy when the vehicle is indoors, such as with forklifts or car shows at convention centers.  It meets the regulations being entertained by CO2 alarmists hell bent on ending oil use.  It allows fuel makers of CH4 to have a source of CO2 to make fuels.  CO2 is rare in the air and valuable in making Carbon fuels.  

Ironically, this technology will put an end to carbon tax as a concept by putting a positive price that people will pay to take your CO2 so they can make fuels cheaper than oil or Natural gas.  Fuel could be made for at little at 50 cents/GGE in theory with the technology, which is less than Natural Gas at 80 cents/GGE and gasoline at $2/gal before tax. The key is access to CO2.  People would avoid road tax also, just like EVs do now.  Again, this technology unplugs the globalist plans of a CO2 tax and inverts it by creating a demand for CO2 to make fuels.  Since the CO2 is recycled, it is "neutral" and thus exempt from taxes...

The CO2 capture feature also comes in handy when a CO2 hater wants to virtual signal with their  toxic EV that they claim is zero emissions, but in reality is 3-10 times MORE CO2 than this tech in non capture mode.  You can tell them to stop making so much CO2 with that EV...and do it with a smile...LOL.

This tech with solar thermal + Engine + fuel make + car can be zero CO2 when it is run off grid without all the CO2 (550 gCO2/kwh) that if now on the grid.  This means zero CO2 30 years ahead of the Green New Deal that is dependent on the grid.  In other words, the grid is not the answer to quick Zero CO2.  This tech is.

Gasoline as fuel:

The ratio of gasoline to water and CO2 produced by combustion with CO2 compressed to 3600 psi is 1: 6.5 C02 and 1 water.  Total volume needed to store CO2 and Water from one unit of volume (gallon or liter) of gasoline is 7.5 times greater.  A 20 gallon tank, for example, can have 2.66 gallons of gasoline and result in 20 gallons of CO2+water (17.3 CO2, 2.71 water) when all the fuel is used up.  Notice that 13.55% of the volume is water.

Methane (CH4) as fuel:

The ratio of CH4 to water and CO2 produced by combustion with CO2 compressed to 3600 psi is 1: 4.5 C02 and 1.55 water.  Total volume needed to store CO2 and water from one unit of volume  of CH4 GGE is 6.5 times greater for 1 GGE of CH4.  A 20 gallon tank can have 3.32 GGE of CH4 or 11.7 gallon volume of CH4 at 3600 psi to start.  The  CH4/gasoline ratio at 3600 psi is 3.53.  It takes 3.53 gallons of volume of CH4 at 3600 psi to equal 1 gallon of gasoline (115,000 BTU).  The volume of CH4 needed to end up with 20 gallons of CO2 + Water is then 3.53 x 3.32 gallons = 11.7 gallons of CH4 at 3600 psi.  This 11.7 volume results in 20 gallons of CO2 and water (14.94 CO2, 5.14 water) when all the fuel (11.7 gallons at 3600 psi) is used up.  Notice that ~1/4 of the CO2 + water combustion products is water, not CO2...

Is CO2 in control of temperature?  

No, but some people failed science basics and seem to think it does control temperature.  Co2 is fully attenuated at 10,000 feet, and more CO2 in the air just lowers the height to extinction of the CO2 bans.  Double CO2 in air?  The height to extinction would be 5,000 feet, not 10,000 feet.

Engineers at New Engine Type deal with these "diversity" of opinions not by censoring people and banning CO2 like EVs attempt to do, but by allowing those who want to be zero CO2 to be able to do so via technology they control, and those who love CO2 in greenhouses or in the air to also do what they love, namely grow more green plants with more CO2.  

New Engine Type provides the technology to control your CO2 emissions how you see fit, unlike EVs.  If you want to be zero CO2, you can.  If you want to make more CO2, then buy oil and make more.  You have the freedom to control your CO2.

This tech therefore is designed to bring both sides together in peace love and harmony with respects to CO2, whether you love CO2 or hate it.  EVs just divide people and make the world a toxic dump.