1. Home
  2. Woodworking Forum
  3. OT: Internal Combustion Breakthrough?

OT: Internal Combustion Breakthrough?

Explanatory videos are about halfway down the page.

formatting link

Reply to
KIMOSABE
Loading thread data ...

formatting link
>That is pretty amazing stuff. If this engine checks out, it could change some things. The idea of just retrofitting vehicles is a good one. It makes it an individual thing. You don't have to change the world or get the auto manufacturers to change their religions.

We need more mad geniuses out there tackling present day problems Wanna solve the energy crisis? Spend some money on guys like this. Instead of the SOS or corporate big boys.

I am curious as to how vehicle design would change with an engine that is much smaller and lighter. Hmmmmmmmmm....., lots of stuff to ponder here.

Reply to
Lee Michaels

formatting link
>I am downloading more about this guy and his technology. It is fascinating stuff. Where did you learn about him?

I am going to spend a very pleasurable hour or two perusing this topic. Thanks for the heads up.

Reply to
Lee Michaels

"Lee Michaels" wrote

Here's hoping his bodyguards are top notch ....

Reply to
Swingman

Call me a cynic, but this sounds a little too good to be true. There seems to be very little "credible" press (is that an oxymoron?) given the claimed performance. And it seems to have been around for a good

5 years. It'll be interesting to see though.

JP

Reply to
Jay Pique

Interesting to see what the pistons are attached to..and how they're sealed. It is one thing to draw 'floating' pistons in a toroidal chamber.... Also it's one thing to produce a lot of power, but you have to attach the 'engine' to the frame somehow. As it sits there, it ain't producing nuttin'. I'm smelling...shenanigans, tomfoolery...IOW, I'm more than cynical.

Reply to
Robatoy

And or does not get offered 10 million for the patents and then we never hear anything again.

Reply to
Leon

Call me a cynic, but this sounds a little too good to be true. There seems to be very little "credible" press (is that an oxymoron?) given the claimed performance. And it seems to have been around for a good

5 years. It'll be interesting to see though.

I would say that more likely it is a great invention that will be bought by an oil company and we will never see it again.

Reply to
Leon
5 years. It'll be interesting to see though.

JP

****************************************************************

Sounds very similar in theory to the Wankle, but more sophisticated. That was a huge success too wasn't it? (zoom, zoom, zoom)

Reply to
Ed Pawlowski

"Leon" wrote

That already happened. He offered it to the big three car companies and the only way they would do it if he signed over control to outside parties. Which is why he went dark for two years. The military also offered to bankroll him if he produced the engine just for them. He said no.

His game plan is to start a small manufacturing plant and offer franchises to retrofit existing vehicles. Once that is developed enough, he would then license the technology to others. Thereby maintaining control and ownership.

There is a lot of interest in this technology and NASA has given him an award. It is getting out there in terms of working pototypes, etc. The trick, of course, is a working engine for sale. If he pulls that off, it will get very interesting.

As for the skeptics, read his stuff. He explains how he does it. I have two primary concerns. The first is that the metals, machining, bearings, etc will all work together in a fashion that the engine would be viable for a reasonable service life. The other concern is that some psycho (or spook) will blow him away.

Reply to
Lee Michaels

Right now it looks like he's got a cute little air motor. If it actually runs on fuel, doesn't overheat at high power, holds together for a few thousand hours, gives reasonable throttle response, passes emissions, and if it really achieves the efficiency he claims, _then_ he's got an engine.

Incidentally that "award" was second prize in a contest (yeah, they call it the "first prize" but there's also a "grand prize").

Reply to
J. Clarke

"J. Clarke" wrote

The air is used in public settings to meet fire codes. He has run them on fuel for awhile now. The easiest fuel for it to use is deisel. All of his initial offerings will be in deisel. He can make a few changes to use other fuels.

Again, he has to build something beyond prototypes. I wish him the best. It is a real creative feat. But real life has a way of dashing dreams.

Reply to
Lee Michaels

Does he have a video of it running on something other than air? I didn't see one on his site. I know he _says_ that he has, but where's the meat?

I wish him well too, but don't really expect him to deliver. In engineering when someone comes to you with something that looks too good to be true, it generally is.

Reply to
J. Clarke

Lee Michaels wrote: ...

Where real life is spelled "thermodynamics"...

--

Reply to
dpb

I can't see it keeping cool either. The method of displacement might be different, but exothermic BTU are just that, exothermic.

850 HP of heat, is a lot of heat and in a concentrated package like that? Then there is the whole question of making it a sealed package. I'm not optimistic.
Reply to
Robatoy

It would probably be a good idea for him to talk with the SawStop people, they successfully made it happen with similar skepticism and pit falls. I am not so sure that I would be too concerned about connectivity initially. The car sized engine would be tiny, IIRC the inventor held up a coffee can sized object suggesting that a car engine could be that size. With mass production cost would come down and something that small would probably be similar in cost to a starter motor. So you have to replace the motor 3 or 4 times during the life of a car, not totally unlike replacing 3 or 4 sets of tires and or 2 or 3 batteries.

Reply to
Leon

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Check out the Mazda RX8:

formatting link
to 232 hp from 1.3 L rotary. Goes like stink :)

P D Q

Reply to
PDQ

Yeah, we all know that Mazda keeps a token Wankel in the lineup. But don't be too surprised if in the current economic downturn that proves to be a luxury that they can no longer afford.

If it was such an outstanding success then _every_ Mazda would have one.

Friend of mine, an engineer, had an RX-7. Somebody stole it and he used the insurance money to buy a used Porsche. Says how much he was impressed with it.

Reply to
J. Clarke

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Check out the Mazda RX8:

formatting link
to 232 hp from 1.3 L rotary. Goes like stink :)

P D Q

A big claimed difference between the rotary and this MTY engine is that the rotary engine has relatively low torque at lower RPM's the MTY claims very high torque.

Reply to
Leon

...

I'm speaking in more general sense of thermodynamics as in the three laws not just heat transfer.

I have the feeling the overall efficiencies claimed will not bear up to detailed scrutiny in practice.

Reminds me of, oh, cold fusion, say...the lone researcher w/ no replication outside of own laboratory.

But, then again, if he's really got something he'll become _very_ famous.

--

Reply to
dpb

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.