Massive Yet Tiny (MYT) Engine Going to Production!

Originally posted 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.

The pistons aren't free floating. They're attached to either of two mobile discs that make up the inner wall of the combustion chamber area. As such, the pistons need a sort of half-ring, and the engine needs a pair of extremely hard to execute seals running axially to the combustion chamber. That kind of seal is the main reason all kinds of interesting rotary engines are impractical. Because if he's made a seal that runs the effective length of the combustion chamber work, then there are a few engines I find more interesting than this that could be made.

too many people seem to have the idea that lots of great tech is being suppressed, this really isn't the case.

The electric car required huge batteries to run, the best batteries on the market go into mobile phones and laptops -they are AWFUL- most laptops over a few years old have major battery issues (even my thinkpad) this is because when you charge and uncharge them often it kils them, thus if a car needed its huge batteries replaced every three years it would cost a huge amount of money and natural resources. Car batteries use lead acid which while it can be used in a car thats because it never goes past 50% flat, if you totally discharge a lead acid it calcifies and it's life is reduced to often as little as 20 cycles -thus in an electric car if you drove it to its full range you would kill the batteries -also lead acid has a low weight to charge ratio so you might need a ton of batteries to get a good range but then the cars power to weight ratio would be ruined.

Browns gas has been tested by all manor of people and it's just an oxygen hydrogen mix like all the others, not that good for anything but specialist use cutting and welding gear

as the poster above said many more complex combustion engines have been made but in terms of over all performance the standard v4, v6, v8 have proven to be the most effective design, though other engine types are common such as the flat 4 boxer, the wankel rotary engine and the opposed pushrod engine.

If this guy has managed to create a highly complex but stable engine then i'm sure we'll hear more about it, if he's a redneck hick who wan't to make a name for himself by faking numbers then we'll here more about him.

oh and for those worrying about the loss in weight, it will almost certainly be combined with an electric system so the battery weight will off set the lack of weight - a MYT engine in a hybrid would solve lots of problems and probably create the first good non-suv hybrids.

oh and the fuel cell is here now (see it wasn't suppressed they really were trying to make the output stable and the fuel supply safe) so we won't need internal combustion engines in things like cars anymore, or massive battery arrays - we'll just need to replace the catalyst every now and then.

By the way, this is NOTHING like the Wankel engine...not at all. In my opinion, you can't even compare the two. The "cylinder" on this one is like a doughnut shape with the "pistons" rotating inside the doughnut and driving a perpendicular shaft that would look like it's going through the middle of the doughnut.

Originally posted 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.

Stellar

Stellar does this mean that you have given up on your old buddy Tom Bearden?

Originally posted 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.

Emissions is not just the amount of fuel burned. In fact if to little fuel is in the cylinder (lean combustion) the combustion takes place much faster. This makes it far more efficient however also causes overheating of the cylinder walls , piston , valves... what happens is that each time the cylinder fires it vaporizes some of the metal. These high temps lead to very harmful nitrogen oxide emissions. It also degrades the engine life dramatically for obvious reasons.

The inventor does not say what fuel the engine gets these efficiencies at. With diesel it will have less fuel efficiency than gasoline however gasoline will also make many more heat related problems.

There are several ways that Internal Combustion Engines could be much more efficient that are already known and have been known by the industry for many years. These almost all consist of burning the fuel faster higher in the piston stroke in order to create more pressure on the piston as it travels along the power stroke. The problem is the life of the engine is reduced and the emissions produced are increased very dramatically. These problems are being solved but solved at an amazingly slow rate imo...

This includes Ultra lean burn engines and High compression Direct Injection Engines which are far more efficient and have been built and tested by Ford Mercedes Chrysler Honda Mitsubishi.... They all ran into these same problems. Just run a search for Direct Injection or Ultra Lean Combustion Engines...

Most new engine designs that veer from the traditional crankshaft piston and rod seeking a more efficient design run into cooling , lubrication , and wear problems. For several obvious reasons.

With the MYT engine all of the Pistons (32 Pistons) are in the same circular cylinder. This alone is going to increase the wear on the cylinder by a huge margin. It is also going to increase the heat inside of the combustion chamber by a huge margin because there is less area for heat to be transferred through the cylinder wall into the cooling system.

I can see how this engine would be a very effective pneumatic engine however I dont see it becoming a cost effective internal combustion engine due to heat and lubrication problems.

In the second video at 4:10 the inventor claims that the MYTH engine... I mean MYT engine was installed in a Ford focus they found out it would run with no fuel.. ONLY ATMOSPHERE AIR.. no compressed air. Supposedly they ran the car for 1000 hours on no fuel and no compressed air stored in the tanks. The car was put away in storage to apply for patents. After all they dont want to upset anybody!!



[edit on 15-1-2009 by Heckman]

Wow! This is a Hot Rodder's dream come true! Think of the applications...I cannot wait for this engine to be available to the general public. I wonder if Big Oil will fight them on the production plant? Remember what happened to Preston Tucker when he bucked the system?
I think all care people should support this effort.

That 850 cube ICE engine he showed was no V8. That was a big straight six diesel probably a cat or cummins and they as in 850cubic inches! the pistons the size of coffee cans!


From watching the video of the inventor demoing the MYT at that expo or whatever I get the feeling he's like most of the free energy scammers and is just looking for investors to rob, but hopefully I'm wrong. I just think if the thing could do half of what he claimed then why blow compressed air through it why not install it into a vehicle and show us some road testing or at least hook the thing up to an engine dyno and show us what it can do!!

Are there any videos out there of one of these engines actually running by burning fuel?

[edit on 15-1-2009 by warpboost]

i have a crazy idea, lets someone bring this up to the obama admin. to test if they have the balls to bring us into the next gen. maybe the inventor can get funding enough to get this thing going with international spotlight.

It would save weight which is always a good thing (I drive a late model 700hp supercharged Corvette). But It doesn't mean it would be efficient. The rotary Wankel engine is small but was known to be a fuel hog for it's size, and also had high emissions.

Originally posted by patent98310
i have a crazy idea, lets someone bring this up to the obama admin. to test if they have the balls to bring us into the next gen. maybe the inventor can get funding enough to get this thing going with international spotlight.

This is the brightest idea I've seen in this thread, aside from the engine itself. The O Team has to find SOME solution to the economic crisis... and I could personally see this as being THE solution. How many jobs could be created to retrofit the aging fleet of cars all across North America? Literally Millions.

Great thread!

It would save weight which is always a good thing (I drive a late model 3200lb 700hp supercharged Corvette).

Low weight doesn't mean it would be efficient. The rotary Wankel engine is small but was known to be a fuel hog for it's size, and also had high emissions.

i would like to see the transmission that thing would utilize to deliver its power .the transmission itself would have to be enormous ,that 850 cubic inch diesel delivers upwards of 1800 ftlbs of torque.no way that little myt can produce that

reply to post by patent98310


I had the same crazy idea. sombody should take this info over to the Obama website or somwhere where all his supporters go...somehow keep pressing it untill there is official recognition.

Originally posted by BENBAI66
i would like to see the transmission that thing would utilize to deliver its power .the transmission itself would have to be enormous ,that 850 cubic inch diesel delivers upwards of 1800 ftlbs of torque.no way that little myt can produce that

watch the video on pg 1 near bottom

he claIMS 1400 pounds of torque at 800 rpm,,, which is basically idling

Anyone find any videos of this thing running on fuel?

It seems like if the inventor wanted to get investors, He would PROVE this thing actually works as designed

I think this guy is a con man. In the video he claims he has a Ford Focus that ran on nothing but air and he's waiting for the patents.

I have no doubt that there are probably ways to make better internal combustion engines, because the reality is they haven't changed much in design in 100 years.

Instead of focusing on the unreal how about baby steps - based on reality?

Like this 100mpg car that was made more than 20 years ago. BTW - the engine was a mass produced Mercedes diesel engine, but the car was designed lightweight and aerodynamic like an aircraft. All existing technologies - nothing exotic or expensive.

Now being re-designed for the 100mpg X prize?

I think we could easily be getting 200-300 mpg if we really tried. Then eventually we can shift to alternative fuels.

[edit on 16-1-2009 by verylowfrequency]

Originally posted by Heckman
Stellar does this mean that you have given up on your old buddy Tom Bearden?

It just means i never really held my breath and haven't since found a reason to start doing so.....

at 4:10 the inventor claims that the MYTH engine...

You would think they could avoid giving us such nice acronym's to work with.

I mean MYT engine was installed in a Ford focus they found out it would run with no fuel.. ONLY ATMOSPHERE AIR.. no compressed air. Supposedly they ran the car for 1000 hours on no fuel and no compressed air stored in the tanks.

That one i would love to see! You would think that at least a few inventors would find a way to do public displays of these types of technologies despite the best efforts of the them and the they? Then again Israel is bombing the living daylights out of a defenseless Palestinian people so what chance does a few inventors have when it comes to upsetting the international economic order?

The car was put away in storage to apply for patents. After all they dont want to upset anybody!!

If only this was about 'upsetting' people and not perhaps because they have kids and extended families they don't want to start having 'accidents'. Admittedly it's exceedingly frustrating to watch these guys find the time to 'market' their novel inventions but so often no time or resources to produce them and just start selling them without fanfare.

Clearly too many of these inventors are in it for the money( i suppose capitalist systems yields at least a few capitalist) and quite easily persuaded to lead a more quite life.

Stellar

So this guy has invented Combustion Engine 2.0 yet he can't get any funding?

If he had what he says he had then he would be sitting back and watching the car manufacturers in an insane bidding war to buy the patent - he would get 10s of billions and be world famous. This invention would save GM at a stroke.

The "Big Oil" supression angle is just nonsense. I posted most of this on another thread, but it's worth repeating:

"There are 33 major car companies, and a ton of minor ones, from all over the world. It's one of the most competitive industries on the planet but you are trying to tell me that every single one is controlled by the oil industry? So who controls Volkswagan? Who controls Toyota? Who controls Hyundai or Suzuki or the Shanghai Automotive industry Coporation?

Why do all these companies from every corner of the planet allow themselves to be controlled by oil companies and lose billions of dollars (or go bankrupt) in the process? What's in it for them?

Fuel effeciency of the main selling points for many of the cars in Europe and Asia, and increasingly so in the US. Here in the UK over 50% of new cars sold are diesel - do you think this is because of there smooth quite running or because they are fuel effecient? Car adverts put their MPG in big bold lettering as a selling point and often play on the fact you hardly ever have to fill them up. Have a look round Tokoyo or Paris or Milan - people are driving tiny fuel effecient cars.

Why do we have cars like the Prius or the Smart car? Or how about all the specialist firms that only work on technologies to reduce fuel consumption? Zytec are one such company who are currently working on an ultra-effecient electric car with Smart. Are they controlled by the oil industry too? There a loads of these companies about. How does that work again?

BMW are currently advertising a car that automatically switches the engine on and off when in traffic - specifically to save fuel. The oil industry let this one through again?

Here in London there is a congestion charge based on how polluting your vehicle is - the most polluting are charged at £30 ($60) a day! Electric cars pay nothing. Yet of course the oil industry controls all this. "

Oil companies wouldn't give a carp even if they could do anything about it anyway - a petrol engine effecient as claimed would just make it affordable enough for another billion Chinese and Indians to run cars and burn through more oil.

Originally posted by StellarX

That one i would love to see! You would think that at least a few inventors would find a way to do public displays of these types of technologies despite the best efforts of the them and the they?

There are conventions and things you can go to where inventors demonstrate this sort of stuff. The TeslaTech convention and things like that

The MYTH engine, eh?

There are a number of engines that run on compressed air. Also the engineering behind this little brute is sound.

The reason funding is scarce is due to the Recession. Car companies would have to order a whole new line of bots to assemble these new type of cars, not to mention redesigning vehicles for the lighter weight and power.

Nothing is so simple. Same with the hydrogen kits. Every make of automobile has its quirks, and the trial method is still alive and well.

You folks need to do a little more research before dissing these ideas. You could be missing something!

i did watch the video.im not an engineer nor an exceptionally bright individual.but i have been a heavy equipment mechanic for over 20 years.what im saying is that tiny shaft coming from that engine could not physically withstand 1400 plus ftlbs of torque.in order for it to do so it would have to be attached to a transmission that would allow it to putter along at very low rpm while providingenough strength to allow it to deliver the power to the driven members.i rebuild heavy transmissions and the only ones that handle that kind of power and remain durable weigh around 500pounds at the least and most are much more.you could not hang that engine onto for instance a large truck differential assy and think it would put out enough torque to pull 50000 lbs .i dont believe it .if it works great but im not inpressed yet .why couldnt he show a video of it on a dyno or of it powering the car.theres always an excuse.alsom in the video it looked to me like the air was simply turning the rotating assembly.if it was legit he would have investors beating each other up to get on board.just my humble greasy opinion