... The goal is to reduce specific fuel consumption (SFC) 30 percent, and emissions of carbon dioxide by 40 percent and nitrogen oxides by 53 percent, says American Eurocopter CEO Marc Paganini.
These sound like admirable goals but I seriously question the ability of any combustion engine process of any technology to deliver all of them.
Specific fuel consumption can be reduced because, for a given amount of fuel energy, thermodynamic efficiency determines how much of that energy can be harnessed and diesels have a clear advantage. Nitrogen oxides are often worse in diesel engines as the conditions of their formation - heat and pressure - are what gives diesels their thermodynamic efficiency, though a catalytic converter could be used to lower these.
But reducing carbon dioxides in a hydro
carbon-based fuel burned with air is an oxymoron if there ever was. Unless they're proposing solid carbon or carbon monoxide as an end products (which bring with them entirely different sets of problems), this is impossible for any isomer of any hydrocarbon of any molecular mass, or any stochiometric combustion efficiency, whether a catalytic converter is used or not. American Eurocopter's engineers may be quite good, but they cannot change fundamental chemical processes.
The other item I often don't see mentioned when talking about diesels is the basic fact that a given volume of diesel fuel has more energy in it to begin with than does the same volume of gasoline/petrol.
... its only a matter of time before petrol becomes obsolete.
Quite true ... in more ways than one.
Bob