Can direct injection engines start without a starter motor?

[larry moe 'n curly]

Are any cars currently in production with direct injection designed so
they can be be started even if the starter motor doesn't work, at
least in most cases, by having the computer choose a cylinder that has
its valves closed and its pistons in the power stroke position? At
least are direct injection cars designed to help the starter by doing
that?

[jim beam]

won't work.

for diesels, it's not the pressure of the compression stroke that
ignites the fuel, it's the adiabatic heating the compression causes.
once an engine stops, the heat in any compressed air charge quickly
dissipates. once gone, nothing you inject will ignite.

for gasoline, while the adiabatic heating it not as extreme as diesel,
it's still present and very much crucial to vaporize the air/fuel mix
when charged, and to raise its temp to the point where the spark will
"tip it over the edge" and ignite.

for either engine, the crank never comes to rest at or near the very top
of the stroke on switch-off. the more pistons, the closer you might be
to having one of course, but for most common 4, 6 or 8 cylinder engines,
no cylinder will be compressed quite enough.

it's also hard to have the engine computer "choose" which piston to try
and fire - most systems only know one spot on the crank, and that's tdc
on #1 piston. and that's not known until the sensor is triggered, and
that requires rotation - iow, it's "blind" once the engine is turned
off. you could change the sensor system and keep info in non-volatile
memory, but given all the above, it's something of a pointless exercise,
both computationally and financially.

--
nomina rutrum rutrum

[J R]

My 1914 Ford Model T doesn't have a starter motor, but soon as the
engine is warmed up, when I shut it off whichever cylinder has a charge
of gas in that cylinder the engine will usually start running when I
turn the ignition switch on.
cuhulin

[ben91932]

On Sep 8, 9:16 pm, "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencu...@my-deja.com>
wrote:

It is doable.
In the '80s Ford built an engine with no cam and computer controlled
solenoids to open and close the valves.It could start without a
starter motor.

One of the demonstrations I do for my students is to start an engine
with a soldering iron.It works great with GM Hei.
I set the motor up a bit past tdc on #1 and prime the cylinder with a
few drops of gas and leave the ignition on. When the students show up
I take a big transformer style soldering iron, hold it next to the
distributer. When I pull the trigger the hei makes a spark and (most
of the time) the engine fires up.
Makes a great discussion starter.
HTH,
Ben

[jim beam]

On 09/09/2011 08:10 AM, ben91932 wrote:
> On Sep 8, 9:16�pm, "larry moe 'n curly"<larrymoencu...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>> Are any cars currently in production with direct injection designed so
>> they can be be started even if the starter motor doesn't work, at
>> least in most cases, by having the computer choose a cylinder that has
>> its valves closed and its pistons in the power stroke position? � At
>> least are direct injection cars designed to help the starter by doing
>> that?
>
> It is doable.
> In the '80s Ford built an engine with no cam and computer controlled
> solenoids to open and close the valves.It could start without a
> starter motor.

did you personally see it run? because i think that's urban legend.
all the solenoid controlled cams do is allow reselection of which piston
to fire, they have no more bearing on the thermodynamics inside the
piston than cam controlled valves.

>
> One of the demonstrations I do for my students is to start an engine
> with a soldering iron.It works great with GM Hei.
> I set the motor up a bit past tdc on #1 and prime the cylinder with a
> few drops of gas and leave the ignition on. When the students show up
> I take a big transformer style soldering iron, hold it next to the
> distributer. When I pull the trigger the hei makes a spark and (most
> of the time) the engine fires up.

did you warm the engine up prior? otherwise you have a freshly primed
super-saturated fuel/air mix [in excess of what would normally be
possible - since condensation and run-down would prevent it], you have
an inductively triggered spark [again something not normally possible]
and you have a crank position never found on any normally stopped engine...

why not go for one of these?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffman_engine_starter
it'll definitely work...

note: it works by rotating the engine - something all other starters do.
you need rotation because you need the compression and adiabatic
heating to make this stuff work. that's why indirectly injected diesels
won't start without glow plugs - insufficient adiabatic heating on a
cold engine, so you have to heat something inside the chamber to get the
fuel to light.

> Makes a great discussion starter.
> HTH,
> Ben

--
nomina rutrum rutrum

[hachiroku]

Interesting question Has this ever been implemented in any other engine?
If not, did you patent the idea before throwing it out here?

It certainly makes sense. If there is a cylinder loaded and compressed,
firing the spark off should start the motor. I'd be wondering, however, if
it might get the crank going in the wrong direction, hence the need for a
motor to ensure proper rotation.

[J R]

There is a certain way/method (using the hand crank) to start a Model T
Ford (and similar cars of that vintage) and if you don't abide by that
certain way you could wind up with a busted wrist or thumb or knee.Those
old vehicles/engines can back fire and start runing in the wrong
direction.
cuhulin

[jim beam]

On 09/09/2011 08:04 PM, hachiroku wrote:
<snip for clarity>

> I'd be wondering, however, if
> it might get the crank going in the wrong direction, hence the need for a
> motor to ensure proper rotation.

good point. this is likely because as an engine stops rotating on
shutdown, it "bumps" up against compressed mixture on whatever piston is
in the compression stroke, and stops /before/ tdc, not after. even if
the mixture could be ignited cold, the piston would have to be
positioned after tdc, not before.

--
nomina rutrum rutrum

[jim]

Actually that is not necessarily the case.

The one engine i have seen that would self start looked like it would run
backwards for something 90-140 degrees and then reverse and run forward.

If you turned the warmed-up engine off and waited about 2 seconds and
turned it on it would sometimes start right up. Sometimes it would kick
back and blow smoke out the air intake and sometimes it would kick-back
and then reverse and start running. And sometimes it would just do
nothing when you turned the key back to on.

This was an IH engine with carburetor and points.

-jim

[jim beam]

On 09/10/2011 08:34 AM, jim wrote:
>
>
> jim beam wrote:
>>
>> On 09/09/2011 08:04 PM, hachiroku wrote:
>> <snip for clarity>
>>
>>> I'd be wondering, however, if
>>> it might get the crank going in the wrong direction, hence the need for a
>>> motor to ensure proper rotation.
>>
>> good point. this is likely because as an engine stops rotating on
>> shutdown, it "bumps" up against compressed mixture on whatever piston is
>> in the compression stroke, and stops /before/ tdc, not after. even if
>> the mixture could be ignited cold, the piston would have to be
>> positioned after tdc, not before.
>
>
> Actually that is not necessarily the case.
>
> The one engine i have seen that would self start looked like it would run
> backwards for something 90-140 degrees and then reverse and run forward.

then you had a serious carburetor problem dumping vast excess gas. the
only way a gasoline engine can "run backwards" is if it's getting fuel
from the exhaust. if you're dumping unmetered gas so it's accumulating
in the exhaust, it might run as long as that fuel vapor can exist in the
pipe, but beyond that, it's game over.

>
> If you turned the warmed-up engine off and waited about 2 seconds and
> turned it on it would sometimes start right up. Sometimes it would kick
> back and blow smoke out the air intake and sometimes it would kick-back
> and then reverse and start running. And sometimes it would just do
> nothing when you turned the key back to on.
>
> This was an IH engine with carburetor and points.
>
> -jim

historically, many [diesels - see above] engines have been able to "run
backwards". but since most of these engines have not been fitted to
italian tanks, this is considered a problem, and thus cams are usually
timed these days to prevent this from happening.

but you're not going to start a diesel without rotating the engine
[whichever direction] because you need the adiabatic heating to ignite
the fuel.

--
nomina rutrum rutrum

[jim]

jim beam wrote:
>
> On 09/10/2011 08:34 AM, jim wrote:
> >
> >
> > jim beam wrote:
> >>
> >> On 09/09/2011 08:04 PM, hachiroku wrote:
> >> <snip for clarity>
> >>
> >>> I'd be wondering, however, if
> >>> it might get the crank going in the wrong direction, hence the need for a
> >>> motor to ensure proper rotation.
> >>
> >> good point. this is likely because as an engine stops rotating on
> >> shutdown, it "bumps" up against compressed mixture on whatever piston is
> >> in the compression stroke, and stops /before/ tdc, not after. even if
> >> the mixture could be ignited cold, the piston would have to be
> >> positioned after tdc, not before.
> >
> >
> > Actually that is not necessarily the case.
> >
> > The one engine i have seen that would self start looked like it would run
> > backwards for something 90-140 degrees and then reverse and run forward.
>
> then you had a serious carburetor problem dumping vast excess gas.

No, The only thing unusual about the engine was that it had very low
resistance. When warm you could push on the fan with one finger and get
the engine to turn.

As for extra gas. There is always excess gas pumped into the exhaust when
you shut off the engine.

> the
> only way a gasoline engine can "run backwards" is if it's getting fuel
> from the exhaust.

Of course there is gas in the exhaust. What did you think happened when
you turn the engine off? There are a few engines designed with a solenoid
in the carb that cut off the flow when ignition is turned off, but most
engines just keep sucking gas until the engine stops turning.

> if you're dumping unmetered gas so it's accumulating
> in the exhaust, it might run as long as that fuel vapor can exist in the
> pipe, but beyond that, it's game over.

It didn't run backwards. It started by turning backwards about a 1/4-1/2
revolution and then reversing and running forward. Sometimes it would not
reverse, but run for one or two revolutions backwards and sometimes when
you turned the key back to on it would do like most engines (which is
nothing).

>
> >
> > If you turned the warmed-up engine off and waited about 2 seconds and
> > turned it on it would sometimes start right up. Sometimes it would kick
> > back and blow smoke out the air intake and sometimes it would kick-back
> > and then reverse and start running. And sometimes it would just do
> > nothing when you turned the key back to on.
> >
> > This was an IH engine with carburetor and points.
> >
> > -jim
>
> historically, many [diesels - see above] engines have been able to "run
> backwards".

I didn't say the engine "ran backwards" at least not for any amount of
time. The engine revolved in the reverse direction for less than 1/2 turn
and then changed direction and started up and ran normally. This was on a
step-van so with the engine cover off you were sitting right next to the
engine and you could watch the fan turn.

[jim beam]

On 09/10/2011 09:37 AM, jim wrote:
>
>
> jim beam wrote:
>>
>> On 09/10/2011 08:34 AM, jim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 09/09/2011 08:04 PM, hachiroku wrote:
>>>> <snip for clarity>
>>>>
>>>>> I'd be wondering, however, if
>>>>> it might get the crank going in the wrong direction, hence the need for a
>>>>> motor to ensure proper rotation.
>>>>
>>>> good point. this is likely because as an engine stops rotating on
>>>> shutdown, it "bumps" up against compressed mixture on whatever piston is
>>>> in the compression stroke, and stops /before/ tdc, not after. even if
>>>> the mixture could be ignited cold, the piston would have to be
>>>> positioned after tdc, not before.
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually that is not necessarily the case.
>>>
>>> The one engine i have seen that would self start looked like it would run
>>> backwards for something 90-140 degrees and then reverse and run forward.
>>
>> then you had a serious carburetor problem dumping vast excess gas.
>
> No, The only thing unusual about the engine was that it had very low
> resistance. When warm you could push on the fan with one finger and get
> the engine to turn.
>
> As for extra gas. There is always excess gas pumped into the exhaust when
> you shut off the engine.

when talking about carburetion, "excess" means "in excess of the air
supply". which is why i tried to dumb it down to "dumping gas" earlier.
apparently i didn't succeed in my objective.

>
>
>> the
>> only way a gasoline engine can "run backwards" is if it's getting fuel
>> from the exhaust.
>
> Of course there is gas in the exhaust. What did you think happened when
> you turn the engine off? There are a few engines designed with a solenoid
> in the carb that cut off the flow when ignition is turned off, but most
> engines just keep sucking gas until the engine stops turning.
>
>> if you're dumping unmetered gas so it's accumulating
>> in the exhaust, it might run as long as that fuel vapor can exist in the
>> pipe, but beyond that, it's game over.
>
> It didn't run backwards. It started by turning backwards about a 1/4-1/2
> revolution and then reversing and running forward.

uh huh.

> Sometimes it would not
> reverse, but run for one or two revolutions backwards and sometimes when
> you turned the key back to on it would do like most engines (which is
> nothing).
>
>>
>>>
>>> If you turned the warmed-up engine off and waited about 2 seconds and
>>> turned it on it would sometimes start right up. Sometimes it would kick
>>> back and blow smoke out the air intake and sometimes it would kick-back
>>> and then reverse and start running. And sometimes it would just do
>>> nothing when you turned the key back to on.
>>>
>>> This was an IH engine with carburetor and points.
>>>
>>> -jim
>>
>> historically, many [diesels - see above] engines have been able to "run
>> backwards".
>
> I didn't say the engine "ran backwards" at least not for any amount of
> time. The engine revolved in the reverse direction for less than 1/2 turn
> and then changed direction and started up and ran normally. This was on a
> step-van so with the engine cover off you were sitting right next to the
> engine and you could watch the fan turn.

sure, i believe in the magical flywheel changing its angular momentum
too, because everybody knows how flywheels got their name - they
inexplicably fly backwards and forwards!

--
nomina rutrum rutrum

[jim]

jim beam wrote:

> sure, i believe in the magical flywheel changing its angular momentum
> too, because everybody knows how flywheels got their name - they
> inexplicably fly backwards and forwards!
>

Lots a people ended up with a broken arm when that happened on the old
hand crank engines. And they had heavy flywheels.

[jim beam]

even old hand crank engines had ratchets. and that was to protect
against a weak cranker bouncing back off compression, not spontaneously
changing direction of spin.

--
nomina rutrum rutrum

[jim]

jim beam wrote:
>
> On 09/10/2011 01:27 PM, jim wrote:
> >
> >
> > jim beam wrote:
> >
> >> sure, i believe in the magical flywheel changing its angular momentum
> >> too, because everybody knows how flywheels got their name - they
> >> inexplicably fly backwards and forwards!
> >>
> >
> > Lots a people ended up with a broken arm when that happened on the old
> > hand crank engines. And they had heavy flywheels.
>
> even old hand crank engines had ratchets.

Most of them didn't.

> and that was to protect
> against a weak cranker bouncing back off compression, not spontaneously
> changing direction of spin.

"bouncing back off compression " = "changing direction of spin"

[jim]

jim wrote:
>

>
> > and that was to protect
> > against a weak cranker bouncing back off compression, not spontaneously
> > changing direction of spin.
>
> "bouncing back off compression " = "changing direction of spin"

I should add that it wasn't bouncing back on compression, it was the
cylinder firing before it got to TDC that caused the engine to reverse
direction and break arms.

[J R]

http://www.devilfinder.com/find.php?q=How+to+start+a+Ford+Model+T

Tin Lizzies have been known to run people down after starting them
up.Thank Gawd for the electric motor.
cuhulin

[jim]

jim beam wrote:

> >
> > It didn't run backwards. It started by turning backwards about a 1/4-1/2
> > revolution and then reversing and running forward.
>
> uh huh.
>

Here is a movie of starting an engine by turning it backwards and then it
reverses direction and starts.
And notice the flywheel is huge
I knew somebody would have that on film because lots of old tractors used
to start like this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWuhl-bcWFE

[Ed Treijs]

On Sep 9, 12:16 am, "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencu...@my-deja.com>
wrote:

Mazda SISS. However, it is unclear whether this technology actually
made it into production cars. Mazda seems to have planned to introduce
it in 2009, but did it actually happen?

http://www.mazda.com/mazdaspirit/env/engine/siss.html

[jim beam]

the two pain points to take away from that link are:

1. the engine has to be stopped with a piston /after/ tdc, which is no
small control issue.

2. the engine needs to be hot.

neither of which are going to make the conventional starter motor go
away any time soon [and certainly not for diesels], unless we all just
go for hybid technology and be done with it.

--
nomina rutrum rutrum

[J R]

Wouldn't all that stopping and starting of the engine put extra wear and
tear on the starter motor?
cuhulin

[jim beam]

er, it's a single cylinder. i hope you noticed that. there are many
more degrees of rotation to "bounce" off before you encounter another
compression stroke. as opposed to a 4. and most definitely as opposed
to an 8. assuming of course you also paid attention to the part about
the valve release...


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

[jim beam]

On 09/10/2011 02:44 PM, jim wrote:
>
>
> jim wrote:
>>
>
>>
>>> and that was to protect
>>> against a weak cranker bouncing back off compression, not spontaneously
>>> changing direction of spin.
>>
>> "bouncing back off compression " = "changing direction of spin"
>
> I should add that it wasn't bouncing back on compression,

then you don't understand what you were looking at, and this is a
pointless conversation. i should have looked at your handle and
realized this before responding since this seems to be the common thread
linking all your emissions on this group.

> it was the
> cylinder firing before it got to TDC that caused the engine to reverse
> direction and break arms.

in spite of the ratchet naturally...


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

[jim]

jim beam wrote:
>
> On 09/10/2011 02:44 PM, jim wrote:
> >
> >
> > jim wrote:
> >>
> >
> >>
> >>> and that was to protect
> >>> against a weak cranker bouncing back off compression, not spontaneously
> >>> changing direction of spin.
> >>
> >> "bouncing back off compression " = "changing direction of spin"
> >
> > I should add that it wasn't bouncing back on compression,
>
> then you don't understand what you were looking at, and this is a
> pointless conversation. i should have looked at your handle and
> realized this before responding since this seems to be the common thread
> linking all your emissions on this group.

Maybe you are the dummy.

The engine in the video does not bounce off compression
You can hear the engine fire and see that immediately causes
the engine to reverse the direction of spin.
They wouldn't have gone to all the trouble of getting the magneto
into position ready to trip if "bounce off compression" was
all that was needed.
The engine has to fire when turning in the reverse direction
for that method to start the engine
If the magneto fails to fire while turning backward it won't work.

>
> > it was the
> > cylinder firing before it got to TDC that caused the engine to reverse
> > direction and break arms.
>
> in spite of the ratchet naturally...

There was usually no ratchet you dummy.

And the point is the engine fires causing it to
accelerate in the opposite direction
That is more than just bouncing off compression

Bouncing off compression would of course be changing direction
also. But it isn't going to bounce off compression with
any more force than was used to create the compression

When the engine fires, causing a reversal of spin, that
produces a lot more spin in the opposite direction

[jim]

Did you forget what you said already?

"sure, i believe in the magical flywheel
changing its angular momentum "

There is nothing magical about an engine changing direction
of spin even when it has a massive flywheel.

The point of the video was to debunk your belief in magic flywheels
that you think prevent engines from reversing direstion.

The "valve release" has nothing to do with anything we are discussing
All that does is allow the engine to be rotated more easily.
A strong man can rotate the engine without the compression release
He shut the compression release back to off before starting the engine.
The compression release had nothing to do with
the engine changing direction of spin.

And this engine goes thru many compression strokes between firings
So you are wrong about that too.

This is a hit and miss engine. It does not fire after every compression
stroke. You can hear the engine fire only about every 20 revolutions
of the engine (by my count).
That is how it runs when idling
Every time it fires it speeds up and then slows down between "hits"
If the engine were put under a load it would start firing with fewer
"miss" cycles.
Under maximum load it would "hit" after every compression stroke.

And it did not just "bounce off" the compression
The engine fired when rotating backward and that caused the
engine to change direction of spin and propelled
the engine in the forward direction with sufficient energy to
get it past the next compression stroke and then it fired again
in the video you can hear each time the engine fires (pffffft!)
While idling it only fires about 5-6 times a minute.

Here is a good explanation of how hit-and-miss engines work

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmQYIRLdeGM

[jim beam]

On 09/13/2011 07:28 AM, jim wrote:
>
>
> jim beam wrote:
>>
>> On 09/10/2011 02:44 PM, jim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> jim wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> and that was to protect
>>>>> against a weak cranker bouncing back off compression, not spontaneously
>>>>> changing direction of spin.
>>>>
>>>> "bouncing back off compression " = "changing direction of spin"
>>>
>>> I should add that it wasn't bouncing back on compression,
>>
>> then you don't understand what you were looking at, and this is a
>> pointless conversation. i should have looked at your handle and
>> realized this before responding since this seems to be the common thread
>> linking all your emissions on this group.
>
> Maybe you are the dummy.
>
> The engine in the video does not bounce off compression

i said "then you don't understand what you were looking at" for a reason
- that's a cue for you to stop and think. i didn't say it just to have
to keep repeating.

> You can hear the engine fire and see that immediately causes
> the engine to reverse the direction of spin.
> They wouldn't have gone to all the trouble of getting the magneto
> into position ready to trip if "bounce off compression" was
> all that was needed.
> The engine has to fire when turning in the reverse direction
> for that method to start the engine
> If the magneto fails to fire while turning backward it won't work.
>
>>
>>> it was the
>>> cylinder firing before it got to TDC that caused the engine to reverse
>>> direction and break arms.
>>
>> in spite of the ratchet naturally...
>
> There was usually no ratchet you dummy.

"then you don't understand what you were looking at"


>

> And the point is the engine fires causing it to
> accelerate in the opposite direction
> That is more than just bouncing off compression
>
> Bouncing off compression would of course be changing direction
> also. But it isn't going to bounce off compression with
> any more force than was used to create the compression
>
> When the engine fires, causing a reversal of spin, that
> produces a lot more spin in the opposite direction

"then you don't understand what you were looking at"

i apologize - i'm a much greater "dummy" than you. i mistakenly
presumed you would read the above and stop to think. i was wrong and
will try not to confront you with "difficult" concepts again.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

[jim]

jim beam wrote:

> >
> > When the engine fires, causing a reversal of spin, that
> > produces a lot more spin in the opposite direction
>
> "then you don't understand what you were looking at"

Keep piling up the evidence that you are the dummy

It has nothing to do with what I'm "looking" at

In the video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWuhl-bcWFE
You can't see when the engine fires,
but you can hear when it fires
That pfffft sound you hear every once in a while
when it runs is the engine firing (it hits on that cycle)

It is called hit and miss engine because
it is designed to only fire when the engine speed drops
below a preset point.

When the video shows it being started
it fires once as he turns it backwards
that causes it to reverse direction and spin forward
then after the next compression stroke you can hear
it fire again. this is because the engine speed is
below the preset point.
After that it goes for maybe 8-10 seconds before it
fires for the third time.

I listened to the video again and by my count the
engine fired only 7 times during the video
You can see the engine speedup each time
you hear it fire.
It kind of sounds like a dog panting during the
cycles when the engine doesn't fire.

All of the above is observed by listening carefully
None of that is something you can tell by "looking"


Here is another video of a hit and miss engine starting
This one is designed a little different
on this one the operator has to manually trip the magneto
to get it to fire while turning it backward
He turns the engine backwards against compression and
as the compression builds he continues to push with his right hand
and slaps the magneto with is left hand and the engine fires and
changes direction and starts running.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIa40MADTpI

[jthomp...@gmail.com]

Any direct injection gasoline engine can start without a starter motor. They produce a high pressure(most injectors for GAS DIRECT INJECTION/or SIDI for GM)between 500 to 2900 PSI depending on the platform. The fuel injectors also run around 60 to 70 volts as opposed to the traditional 12v injectors. They also have the ability to fire one to three times per event and run on compression rations of 11:1 to 13:1. They can run on multiple mods including stratified, stratefied homogeneous, homogeneous anti knock, homogeneous lean, and homogeneous.

2000(yes two thousand) psi is enough to turn a piston over.

[Nate Nagel]

I don't think that you'd want to spin the engine over by using fuel
pressure... the compression stroke would hydrolock the engine, which
tends to be detrimental to future functionality.

However, you do raise an interesting point, that with modern engine
controls, it might be possible for the engine computer to "know" which
piston is just past TDC on its power stroke, inject a small fuel charge
into that cylinder, then fire the plug, then proceed to the next
cylinder etc. until the engine is running normally. Sort of analogous
to an antique aircraft engine started with cartridges.

There must be a reason this approach is found lacking however -
immediate thoughts off the top of my head

1) there may not be enough oxygen in an uncompressed cylinder at TDC to
burn enough fuel to reliably spin the engine to the "next" cylinder,
especially if the engine is at operating temperature (e.g. after a short
fuel stop) as the air in the engine would be considerably less dense
than it would be at normal ambient temperatures.

2) Would rely on ECM memory to remember position of crankshaft and
camshaft until next starting event. If your battery goes flat over a
period of disuse, without a conventional starter motor it would be
impossible to start the engine without either push-starting or cranking
the engine by hand; not something I'd want to try with a high
compression 6-cylinder by myself. Alternately, a new kind of sensor
would have to be used which would allow the ECM to read cam position
relatively precisely at zero RPM.

To my knowledge nobody has implemented this approach yet; my
direct-injected BMW engine still has a conventional electric starter, as
does Hyundai's and every other mass produced DI engine.

HOWEVER - I'm finding this line of thought interesting, and if it could
work, would make an interesting ECM program addition for a backup
starting method in the event of an electric starter motor failure; sadly
not an uncommon issue with BMW N54/N55 engines from what I read on the
forums. Rather than leaving one stranded, such a scheme would result in
the engine starting but with an error message on the dashboard e.g.
"Starter motor failed, repair at earliest convenience" or something like
that.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

[JR]

My T Model Ford car will be 100 years old in 2014

[Geoff Welsh]

wow! excellent example of a specious argument.

GW

[Tegger]

Geoff Welsh <GeeD...@some.rr.com> wrote in news:l63tb1$bng$1@dont-
email.me:

Not specious, but silly. OP must be going on book-learning and nothing
else. Or else he's just having fun trolling.

OP is forgetting three very important things:

1) Volume.
How much fuel is being dispensed at 2,000psi?

2) Time.
What is the duration of the injection at 2,000psi?

3) Oxygen.
Successful combustion requires both fuel and oxygen in the correct ratio.
How much oxygen is available to combine with the fuel he wants to inject at
2,000psi?

Why is it that 15,000 volts from a spark plug won't kill you, while 600
volts from an industrial fuse box can? OP won't be able to answer that one.

Compressed-air starters were common on higher-end cars before electric
starters becme practical. There's a reason why they're not around anymore.


--
Tegger

[JR]

There were compressed air powered Locomotives that operated in coal mines too.

[J.B. Wood]

On 11/14/2013 10:31 AM, jthomp...@gmail.com wrote:

> Any direct injection gasoline engine can start without a starter

> motor. <snip>

And of course you've witnessed this? If not, perhaps it's a candidate
for Discovery Channel's MythBusters. Sincerely,

--
J. B. Wood e-mail: arl_1...@hotmail.com

[Scott Dorsey]

J.B. Wood <arl_1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 11/14/2013 10:31 AM, jthomp...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Any direct injection gasoline engine can start without a starter
>> motor. <snip>
>
>And of course you've witnessed this? If not, perhaps it's a candidate
>for Discovery Channel's MythBusters. Sincerely,

I'm not sure why anyone would think spraying high pressure fuel into the
cylinder would be useful for starting. You don't get a lot of volume, and
if you DID get a lot of volume, you'd get hydrolocking.

Now. a high enough pressure supercharger, THAT you might have some luck
starting with.

Or just park it on a hill like I did with my Lada that had no functioning
starter.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[money2noise]

On Thursday, September 8, 2011 10:16:40 PM UTC-6, larry moe 'n curly wrote:
> Are any cars currently in production with direct injection designed so
>
> they can be be started even if the starter motor doesn't work, at
>
> least in most cases, by having the computer choose a cylinder that has
>
> its valves closed and its pistons in the power stroke position? At
>
> least are direct injection cars designed to help the starter by doing
>
> that?

Not to mention aren't most modern fuel injected cars running between 50 and 70psi at the injectors anyways? That's a far cry from 2000psi. Maybe a diesel would be more interesting?

[JR]

Wayyyy back in the Tin Lizzie years, some people would 'show off' by kicking a front tire of their T Model Ford cars and the engine would start running. What it was, the engine was already warmed up, they would switch off the ignition and then pull on the crank handle to make sure one of the pistons was on the compression stroke, then switch the igniton back on. Kick a tire, Ipso Presto, the engine would start up. www.mtfca.com

[Steve W.]

Same basic trick you use to start some old hit/miss engines.

--
Steve W.

[Nate Nagel]

He did specify *direct* injection; 2000 psi is about in the ballpark.

Another thing I forgot in my previous post - at least for BMW, the high
pressure fuel pump is engine driven, not electric - if pressure has bled
down while the engine is off (not unusual; I've already replaced one
leaky injector) there will be no ability to inject fuel until the engine
turns over a few times.

[Nate Nagel]

Looks like Bosch has been working on this, but apparently it's only
practical as a backup mechanism.

http://www.etas.com/data/RealTimes_2006/rt_2006_01_34_en.pdf

[JR]

Google,,, American Car Prospector His name is John Hames. He drives around (mostly in Colorado) looking for certain cars to buy and then sell to buyers on a list he has. Not long ago he bought an old Corvette that has a weird looking mechanical fuel injection system on it. On my Comcast TV channels line up, his show is on the Velocity TV channel on Sundays.

[T0m $herman]

Who needs a starter motor? I was able to push my 1994 Civic Si far
enough up a hill to bump start it with a nearly completely flat battery.

--
T0m $herm@n

[T0m $herman]

On 11/14/2013 8:00 PM, Tegger wrote:
> Compressed-air starters were common on higher-end cars before electric
> starters becme practical. There's a reason why they're not around anymore.

And on some aircraft - hand-propping is scary.

--
T0m $herm@n