|
reply posted on 14-1-2009 @ 08:07 AM by StellarX
|
You wonder how such smart scientist/inventors can reach that age and still be so desperately naive. I wish them all the best of luck but that's
something i do for each claim about revolutionizing ( not that this is all that much of one) the energy business. Needless to say i am still waiting
for the 'revolution' and for one these inventors to become savvy enough to actually get something done.
In this business arrogance either gets you killed or the obscurity you should have enjoyed while you had the chance. If you can't afford to develop
and distribute ( to say nothing of getting patent rights&defending them) your invention you are wasting your time looking for people who were smart
enough to get rich and thus smart enough not to risk their necks by supporting even minor 'revolutions' in engine or energy technologies.
Stellar
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 14-1-2009 @ 11:32 AM by Anonymous ATS
|
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 14-1-2009 @ 11:57 AM by Desert Dawg
|
I haven't seen the patent, but the MYT engine sounds a lot like the Jocko Power Ring three cycle engine.
Go here to read about it: outside.away.com...
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 14-1-2009 @ 12:33 PM by Matyas
|
reply to post by ANNED
Really? This I was not aware of.
Please tell me more.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 14-1-2009 @ 01:16 PM by Toadmund
|
'Objects in motion tend to stay in motion'
So a regular ICE has pistons that go up and down at very high rates of speed.
I wonder how much energy is consumed just rapidly reversing a piston moving upwards back to the bottom. That piston wants to keep moving up, then
it's momentum is instantly reversed, then it has to move from the bottom to the top, instantly.
Take a large rock, move it rapidly up and down to see what I mean, or, get in your car, hit the gas, then throw it in reverse, then forward, then
reverse, a lot of energy wasted fighting momentum.
And that's not to mention all the moving parts, no wonder an Internal Combustion Engine is only about (?) 25% efficient, or 75% in-efficient I should
say.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 14-1-2009 @ 03:02 PM by LucidDreamer85
|
Originally posted by BorgHoffen
Look I want one of these, I would buy it, I would like to know how to build it myself.
I am all for this kind of thing.I wish it could become reality.
But the chances are like all the rest of the things ive seen over the years.
It is just someone else telling lies to try and make themselves rich.
So they can buy themselves a tesla roadster.
I believe the real technology would be suppressed before it even gets to this forum.
The oil company's would use billions of dollars to stop its release, they could hire whole company's of mercenaries to deal with the problem.
I think these releases are just more attempts at individuals trying to make money.
They are looking for someone with $10 million to head up the franchising of retrofit garages that would replace existing engines with their
engine.
Wow gee only 10 million in franchise fees?hahaha
Now we see the motives for this don't we? 
Another liar trying to get rich.And very rich at that.
[edit on 14-1-2009 by BorgHoffen]
10 mil is for the cost of the plant and the payment to use that space and everything in the building and property tax and everything else ....plus
labor to build the place...labor to have people run the place.
Thats were the money goes you dumb A**.
Start reading some facts, you sound like n idiot.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 14-1-2009 @ 03:17 PM by Realtruth
|
You can kiss that technology goodbye if the US government and wants and exclusive.
Enough said.
Originally posted by MajorDisaster
pesn.com...
One of his biggest customers standing in line is the U.S. Military, who wants an exclusive on production until they are fitted, but Morgado wants the
technology to also be available to the public.
Sterling Allan interviews Raphial
Morgado
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 14-1-2009 @ 03:25 PM by eaganthorn
|
Originally posted by ANNED
most likely will never pass smog test in calif.
the Wankel engine went off the market because of smog control laws
Sorry, but I have to throw down a flag on that play. My Rex, the RX-8 has a Wankel engine, AKA Wankel rocket. Although, it is made in Japan, FYI.
That being said, it is not a fuel saver by any stretch.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 14-1-2009 @ 03:33 PM by WhatIveSeen
|
Anyone who says it wont pass the smog test needs to brush up on basic math. If he is saying that you will get 150mpg or so in the same car with the
same 10-20gal fuel tank how could it possibly guzzle fuel and pollute the air when you can use that one full tank to go ~6x farther than your 25mpg
car on soybean/biodiesel. Now Im no car expert but wouldn't that mean you use 6x less fuel and produce 6x less smog? Not to mention that you are
using a new type of fuel and your car is 800lb lighter.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 14-1-2009 @ 03:36 PM by Shere Khaan
|
Originally posted by Toadmund
'Objects in motion tend to stay in motion'
So a regular ICE has pistons that go up and down at very high rates of speed.
I wonder how much energy is consumed just rapidly reversing a piston moving upwards back to the bottom. That piston wants to keep moving up, then
it's momentum is instantly reversed, then it has to move from the bottom to the top, instantly.
Have a look at ICE engine schematics and have a look at the role of the crankshaft. The pistons go up and down but the direction change is not
instantaneous, it follows a sine curve as the crankshaft rotates.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 14-1-2009 @ 04:02 PM by homeskillet
|
reply to post by Shere Khaan
you still have to take into account the momentum of moving parts. look at f1 cars or other race engines and you'll see lightweight pistons, rods,
valves etc to minimize this resistance. the lighter the better but still not "great". its the difference between a motor say in your car revving to
7200-8000 max and an f1 car at at least 10,000 rpms.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 14-1-2009 @ 04:13 PM by Desolate Cancer
|
Come on people do you really think this thing works? I mean test it in a controlled environment in a lab setting.
There are so many venture capital companies out there, people are oh the oil industry this and the oil industry that, but think for a second if some
guy back in the 70's or 80's made a care that ran on water it would have been replicated many times over by other people by now.
This whole idea that the oil industry buys patents and locks them up is beyond ridiculous.
Back to the MYT engine though if this really worked I personally can point Raphael in the direction of a half dozen venture capitalists who would kill
each other to be able to invest in this product.
[edit on 14-1-2009 by Desolate Cancer]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 14-1-2009 @ 04:34 PM by mdiinican
|
Originally posted by eaganthorn
Originally posted by ANNED
most likely will never pass smog test in calif.
the Wankel engine went off the market because of smog control laws
Sorry, but I have to throw down a flag on that play. My Rex, the RX-8 has a Wankel engine, AKA Wankel rocket. Although, it is made in Japan, FYI.
That being said, it is not a fuel saver by any stretch.
It's true though. The RX8's renesis engine is the only production Wankel engine in the world that'll meet California emissions standards as far as
I know, and they went way out of their way to make it meet those standards. The RX7's engine is only allowed still because the RX7 is a very old car
by now, and not subject to the same emissions standards that new cars are subject to.
Rotary engines have low compression and tend to burn oil. That doesn't tend to make them very fuel efficient, and it tends to make them comparatively
highly polluting. The rotary design, however, does make for compact, mechanically simple engines with a very high power to weight ratio.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 14-1-2009 @ 04:41 PM by Juliodone
|
^ bit of a cycnical view but I do agree that there are issues with some of the claims....
Its basically a Wankel engine as stated earlier and this design has been tinkered with for over 70 by some of the great engineering institutions.
Sikorsky even use it in one of their UAV's so it's not like its already got applications in exotic scenarios :
en.wikipedia.org...
I've only ever seen it being propelled by compressed air ( I say propelled as the energy from the preasurised air drives the mechanism) which bothers
me as the output claims seem to be high.
If he had something that kicked out that much power to weight and potential fuel saving; he could manufacture a range of low cost, industrial
application motors (Generators, pumps etc ) and fund any larger projects he wanted...
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 14-1-2009 @ 05:38 PM by MajorDisaster
|
Originally posted by Desolate Cancer
Back to the MYT engine though if this really worked I personally can point Raphael in the direction of a half dozen venture capitalists who would kill
each other to be able to invest in this product.
Hey, please do! If you can bring this to the attention of these venture capitalists, that would be great! 
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 14-1-2009 @ 06:15 PM by ledbedder20
|
I've been following Angel Labs and the MYT engine for a while now and I'm glad it's getting some more attention these days. Unfortunately, I don't
think this is going to see production. If the military says they want it, then they can legally prevent further releases of information OR completely
prevent them from manufacturing the engine from a "national security" standpoint. This is probably what's going to happen, but we can keep our
fingers crossed.
The technology is based on sound engineering, I'm surprised something like this hasn't been done before...
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 14-1-2009 @ 06:16 PM by mopusvindictus
|
Hey!
Don't all be so pessimistic, This is America the Oil companies won't obscure this and beat it into non existence...
This man will 20 years from now have a career lecturing on how his device could have prevented ww3 when oil supplies crashed and the invention won't
disappear either... This is America, there will be independent people who buy some for their sit x bunkers and I bet somewhere late night on cable I
see one of these hooked up to a sex machine in Czechoslovakia or something...
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 14-1-2009 @ 08:15 PM by pteridine
|
reply to post by Juliodone
A Wankel has tip seals, which are the problem [see the 1969 NSU Prinz]. This engine seems to have free floating pistons which imply rings, which we
know work well.
I plan to follow this development, closely.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 14-1-2009 @ 08:30 PM by daniel_g
|
Originally posted by Darthorious
My only concern is the reduction in weight and how it will affect cars/trucks on snow packed roads.
I think this is a good concern. My dad used to own a Rodeo, and my uncle had a Nissan Patrol. Whenever we went to the beach the Rodeo would get stuck
in the sand while in 2WD, the Patrol didn't have that problem. The difference between the two was only about 500 pounds. Dunno if the tires also
played a big difference(I think the patrol's were wider)
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 14-1-2009 @ 08:30 PM by ANNED
|
it now cost a lot of money to keep a RX-7 on the road due the the cost of having the engine rebuilt. they have a short engine life due to the smog
rules.
I believe that the RX-8 will have the same problems long before the cars wear out.
www.slate.com...
The only real use i see for this engine would be in hybrid cars as this engine could be made real small and light but drive a generator big enough to
power a hybrid car.
This may also be a good engine for running on natural gas in a natural gas hybrid car.
Also it is easier to clean up a natural gas engine or diesel engine then it is a gas engine and still keep the horsepower.
[edit on 14-1-2009 by ANNED]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
