It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Revolutionary Internal combustion engine

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 08:42 PM
link   
www.leftlanenews.com...


A new type of internal combustion engine known as the “Massive Yet Tiny” engine. It “has the potential to replace all the existing internal combustion engines and jet engines,” according to the inventor. It reportedly has a power to weight ratio 40 times higher than a regular internal combustion engine. A 14-inch, 150-pound MYT would reportedly have the same power as a 32 cylinder diesel engine — putting out 858 horsepower.

The prototype has a 14 inch diameter and is 14 inches long. It weighs 150lbs. There are only 26 moving parts, 31 parts total. The first prototype uses diesel or biodiesel for fuel. Through two revolutions of its crankshaft, the ME firing cycle is equivalent to a 32 cylinder reciprocating engine, that is, it fires 32 times. As a result, its displacement is equivalent to an 848 cubic inch reciprocating engine, despite its compactness. This displacement comparison is derived as follows: (3.1416*(3)(3)*3.75)/4*32 = 848 cubic inches, with a 3″ bore and 3.75″ stroke, four stroke cycle and thirty two firings. The design is also modular. Additional units can be connected to increase power. The ME is actually a large (extremely efficiently organized) displacement internal combustion engine; therefore its high horsepower output. Moreover, with the high number of cylinders firing in close order, a high number of pulses are generated for high torque, but without the friction and parasitic losses discussed below.


wow, my jaw dropped when I was reading this, anybody got any good info on this, it's a bit too good to be true almost. if it's not debunked or deeped six to maintain the status quo. Oil/cars/current state of engine efficiency make the world ("capitalist world") go round, what would be the future implicatiions if this pans out?



MBF

posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Like you said, it's a bit too good to be true almost. It's late and I want to read a little more before I deceide, but this may not be all that it is claimed to be.



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Interesting design.

I'd have to see more/better pictures to get a good sense of how the thing works, though; still not too clear on how it works. Too bad they don't provide a schematic with the article.

Off-hand, my only concern would be whether or not they could devise a way to keep the piston rings in working order for a decent period of time. The Wankle rotary engine had/has the same problem.

Actually this engine has many of the same qualities as the Wankle. Same promise....Same disappointments?



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 11:23 PM
link   
Simple question,

whats the fuel efficiency?


Cug

posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 12:54 AM
link   
www.angellabsllc.com...

They have a few movies showing how it works, along with the full US patent. It looks like it works a lot like the rotary Wankel engine as far as getting the power to the crank, and the way they have the cylinders set up it could eliminate the sealing problems rotaries have.

I have to reserve judgment, the main reason is they have yet to actually run the thing.

Another new engine concept (that actually runs) is Bruce Crower's 6 stroke



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by PlausibleDeniability
Simple question,

whats the fuel efficiency?


same exact question was going through my mind when I read the 900 or so HP projection, the whole premise of the story intrigued me but it was pretty vague and left a lot of question, hopefully this leads to something in the next few months.

Cug

I actually remember reading that autoweek article a while back, has there been anything new on the six stroke? that's the problem I see whenever something too good to be true comes up it always seems to die off even when they work, i mean if you look around we could seriously have viable alternative to the conventional combustion engine with in 5-10 years if all the big auto company had their backs against the wall, but is just too much money to be made all around by the status quo, oil isn’t going anywhere any time soon and they figure might as well milk the system for all it’s worth while they can.



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 01:57 AM
link   
Wow! The concept sounds fantastic, but like everyone else, I'm not at all sure I understand it enough to even comment on it. The 6 stroke engine also sounds neat. I wonder if it would be possible to combine the two concepts? The engine video I watched did not show enough to answer any of my questions, but it did add one, namely heat dissipation. The thing looks like it would have to run hot.



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 10:05 AM
link   
It might be as revolutionary as the Hybrid cars which got 60 miles/gallon.

Oh wait - those disappointed us and only got 35 miles/gallon.

I'll believe it when they make a commercially available model.



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Oblivions void
but is just too much money to be made all around by the status quo, oil isn’t going anywhere any time soon and they figure might as well milk the system for all it’s worth while they can.


Funny thing called a fiscal obligation to the owners of the company (the millions of shareholders). Get them to all agree on not making any money for a decade and you'll see the companies more willing to spend the money on such innovations. Else, the companies face potential shareholder litigation for breach of responsibility. The company has a responsibility to its shareholders, like it or not.

[EDIT]: an/a

[edit on 4/25/2006 by titian]



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by titian
Funny thing called a fiscal obligation to the owners of the company (the millions of shareholders). Get them to all agree on not making any money for a decade and you'll see the companies more willing to spend the money on such innovations. Else, the companies face potential shareholder litigation for breach of responsibility. The company has a responsibility to its shareholders, like it or not.


this is part of what I ment to say by the "status quo" I was trying (vaguely I guess) to lump everything together under one umbrella. too many factions milking the system to ever let it truly change. it's like if let's say the auto manufactures decided to start making engines that got you 100 mpgs and brokedown 3 percent of the times they do now and cost a fraction of what it cost now to produce current engines, the Oil companies, their stock holders, and everyone else who makes money from the system would all join in to shot it down. it all reminds me of Dune, "the spice must flow" no matter what. I dont know, guess I'm starting to rant, lol.



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 03:43 PM
link   
I think there are quite a few alternatives that have come to people's minds. I say that because my father-in-law has an idea for a very simple engine that has fewer moving parts and doesn't need a carb. I know very little about cars but he rebuilt his first engine at age 12 and owned a car repair shop in previous life. Doesn't mean he's a genius -- my point is that ideas for these alternatives come from a variety of people. It makes you wonder why we're using the technology we're using now and not any of these ideas.

CNN had a special about the oil prices over the weekend. It said that the US auto companies spent more time on making a big engine efficient for the SUVs than anything else. That way the SUVs got a "decent" mileage.



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Apparently the contest this guy won was real... or it appears real.

Here is a .pdf with pictures of this engine:
emhartcontest.com...

Here is his entry in the Emhart Contest:
emhartcontest.com...

Oddly enough, he won FIRST PRIZE, but NOT GRAND PRIZE.

The downside that is quite obvious is in the video... this engine is REALLY, REALLY LOUD.

How do you put a loud engine in a production car? That will take some time to sort out. However, if this thing is real, it will be known to the general public soon enough.

Another piece of possible evidence that I find interesting is the list of judges:
emhartcontest.com...

They seem qualified... unless they are PR people (Public Relations). Maybe this could be the next big thing. The judges represent tool makers and aerospace companies and the whole contest seems to be sponsored by NASA.


I am a little worried about this picture taken at the L.A. Auto Show... you can probably guess why:
www.angellabsllc.com...

[edit on 25-4-2006 by Protector]



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 04:40 PM
link   
I read through about half of the patent, looking for some details, then I checked to see if it was real.

It's real (his patent):
Official Filing with U.S. Patent Office

.pdf on his website of patent:
www.angellabsllc.com...

Filed in 2002, approved in 2004, it has detailed specs of the engine you've seen on the other websites and says that there is potentially 2000 horsepower in a 14 in cylinder design weighing rougly 200 pounds (90.9 kg).

Now, using the following website for Cubic Inch Displacement (CID):
www.ajdesigner.com...

We can calculate the value using his patent specifications, which are:
32 cylinders
3.00 inch bore
3.75 inch stroke

and CID = cylinders * bore^2 * stroke *0.7845

where 0.7845 = PI/4

Solution:

Cubic Inch Displacement (CID) = 848.232 inch^3


Other Units:

Cubic Inch Displacement (CID) = 0.013900032070848 meter^3
Cubic Inch Displacement (CID) = 13900.032070848 centimeter^3
Cubic Inch Displacement (CID) = 0.490875 foot^3
Cubic Inch Displacement (CID) = 848.232 inch^3
Cubic Inch Displacement (CID) = 13.900032070848 liter
Cubic Inch Displacement (CID) = 13900.032070848 milliliter


SO.....

His numbers seem to add up, although I'm a bit skeptical as to whether these equations stand up to his specific design.

[edit on 25-4-2006 by Protector]

[edit on 25-4-2006 by Protector]



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 05:58 PM
link   
We will definately have to see this one in motion before deciding wether its a good thing to invest time in.

I've been pourig over as much information as I can find... everything seems to check out. But, as they say, it works well on paper, but in practical applications...

When anyone notices a video of it working in a practical environment, please post it, I would love to see some field trial results.



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 06:25 PM
link   
What volume is that 150 PSI air input??? As in CFM??Lots of questions need answered.

mikell


MBF

posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 10:55 PM
link   
I don't know if this will work or not, I can't see enough of the internal parts to decide. The fact that there looks like a hand crank on the left side of the crankshaft doesn't help any. I'll look at the patent when I have time.


Cug

posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Protector

The downside that is quite obvious is in the video... this engine is REALLY, REALLY LOUD.


The reason it was loud was they were just running compressed air through it, ever hear someone with an air wrench? Compressed air is LOUD.

It has yet to be run using any type of internal combustion.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join