It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Why is this not in production? Great energy invention!

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 11:07 AM
The MYT Engine
Invented by Raphial Morgado, owner of Angel Labs, LLC.

Imagine dumping the big V-8 in your SUV for a 25-pound, 2.4 liter engine that gives you 150 miles per gallon on biodiesel - with a boost in horsepower and torque to boot. Meet Raphial Morgado and the little engine that could... With up to 40 times the power to weight ratio of a conventional engine, flexible fuel compatibility, a displacement of 850 cubic inches and the torque of a 32-cylinder engine, the MYT is the beginning of a new paradigm for engines in the 21st century! source

Basically it is a doughnut shaped combustion engine that uses only cylinder heads (no pistons) in conjuction to produce locomotion. It can run on many different fuels, is VERY small and light, very efficient and can be scaled up or down to meet many consumer needs.

I would think that there are some investors out there with enouhg money to bring this to light.

More links:


Angel Labs home page

Interview with the inventor


and what if...

we combined that with another fuel saving technology?

Thermal Catalytic Cracking
Invented by Bruce J. Mcburney, owner of HIMAC Publishing Company

HIMAC is a research-based publishing company situated in Niagara Falls, Ontario. started by J. Bruce McBurney, HIMAC has established a mandate to raise public awareness on an important scientific finding that has been suppressed by hypocritical governments and greedy oil companies and automobile manufacturers: the supression of a super-high mileage fuel conversion carburetor system. Our engines could increase efficiency 4-5 times by using a system that can change the gasoline or diesel into natural gas and methanol. source

The theory is that by super-heating the gasoline into a vapor, you are breaking it down into smaller hydrocarbons, which in turn makes yields much higher outputs during the combustion process.

More links:

Very informative online report by Bruce

HIMAC Research home page

History of vapor carbs and links to patents

Okay, I know about a millions reasons why this is not in production, but I do think that everyone here should have a look at this. I hope these inventions and ideas have inspired some of you, maybe sparked an interest in helping the cause somehow. This world is a world of opportunity, for both the good and the bad. Let's do what we can to disseminate this information guys.


posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 12:11 PM
Because OIL is what is making those who rule us wealthy and that is all.

They are now seeing the end of OIL though, as the environment is starting to collapse.

This is also drving the higher OIL prices because they know they cannot keep other tech under wraps for much longer and not destroy the planet in the process.

Nuclear energy is a clear/proven answer to reducing the worlds use of oil. It has not matured because of this same reason.

Wind mills and solar power are also viable mass energy producer that have been stifled by the rich and powerfull.

They are making thier last oil run now as you can see prices ever climing as we slowly tolerate it.

Once they milk all they can out of us, and hopefully before our enviroment is destroyed you will see engines like this and many other breakthrough technologies replacing oil.

This is that last hoorah for oil and they are milking us for all they can get away with.

Im betting on Hydrogen and Ethanol as the replacement we will see soonest.

Will see.

posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 12:23 PM
I agree with you, I think the way to produce hydrogen will be improved upon, making the actual process itself more energy efficient, which will lead to hydrogen actually being a viable energy source. Same with ethanol, but maybe more along the lines of cellulosic ethanol:Poular Science article

10 or 15 years ago, this engine would have been a HUGE deal~! Now, people are just so pessimistic in regards to the oil situation that this is falling through the cracks.

No, I don't think this is the final answer for saving the environment and/or producing all of the world's energy, but I do think that this is EXACTLY the kind of direction we need to start heading in; a society that would be allining to adapt to emerging technologies and be willing to replace existing ones with more readily than in the past.

posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 01:01 PM
Mazda already manufactures cars with rotary engines, and they are no better than the rest. The key to a more effecient combustion process is increasing surface of gasoline. Turning it into a new molecule is not as good as an idea as increasing surface area.

posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 01:27 PM
This is NOTHING like a rotary engine, please read the links...

Increase the surface area of gasoline? Could you elaborate? We might be talking about the same thing on this as well, please refer to the links...


posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 10:13 PM
Unfortunately, I think Hydrogen could become the successor to gasoline. Because: People have heard of it, its been buzzing around for years, and if everyone has at least heard of it, it gives it a leg up on competitor products (regardless if there better). And another reason being ZERO EMISIONS, this day and age that means quite abit. Hydrogen vehicles have been in R&D phase for awhile, and in recent years companies are showing off there hydrogen vehicles, and all the major manufactures have a hydrogen powered car.

You might be thinking..."With all those good things, why did he say "Unfortunately"".
Because I think hydrogen isn't the best way to go, I would prefer we go with all-electric, and your power source would be batteries. and you could charge it at home, and for road trips it would have a "quick charge"-like feature so you would be ready to drive in just a couple minutes. If we sunk billions of dollars into battery-tech instead of oil hungry engines, the world would be far different. Its been calculated that the average cost of electricity currently, compared to oil, the cost to power your car would be around 60 cents per gallon.

edit: grammer

[edit on 10-8-2006 by Murcielago]

posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 10:24 PM
the problem with hydrogen or the catalyst method mentioned above is that both require superheating.

as far as that first engine, i will have to see it to believe it 100%. i like the part that it can run on biodiesel and if it gets 150 mph that would be splendid. the down side is of course the displacement, 850 cid is freakin huge. it wouldnt fit in most personal vehicles.

posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 10:25 PM

Originally posted by nogirt
Mazda already manufactures cars with rotary engines, and they are no better than the rest. The key to a more effecient combustion process is increasing surface of gasoline. Turning it into a new molecule is not as good as an idea as increasing surface area.

no better than the rest? are you kidding me? they are some of the best in the world. look up the specs on them if you dont believe it.

posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 12:48 AM
Here's another cool idea. Hard to say how reliable any of it is, when subjected to stress testing, etc. -Flash_dancer
Power on tap

Visit source for full article
(New Scientist Via Thomson Dialog NewsEdge) FORGET cars fuelled by alcohol and vegetable oil. Before long, you might be able to run your car with nothing more than water in its fuel tank. It would be the ultimate zero-emissions vehicle.

While water, plain old H2O, is not at first sight an obvious power source, it has a key virtue: it is an abundant source of hydrogen, the element widely touted as the green fuel of the future. If that hydrogen could be liberated on demand, it would overcome many of the obstacles that till now have prevented the dream of a hydrogen-powered car becoming reality. Producing hydrogen by conventional industrial means is expensive, inefficient and often polluting. Then there are the problems of storing and transporting hydrogen. The pressure tanks required to hold usable quantities of the fuel are heavy and cumbersome, which restricts the car's performance and range.

*Edit - Removed large quote of previous poster and added link for copy paste

[edit on 11-8-2006 by dbates]

posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 07:33 AM
jprohet420, it does have a large displacement, but because of the design is only 14" x 14"!!!!!

It combines many great qualities, just by rearranging the design of the already existing combustion engine. They didn't invent the wheel, they REinvented it.

Please guys, go look at this engine more closely, watch the trade show videos, they're very informative:

Video page

posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 01:01 PM
Wow guys, I thought this was a pretty big I wrong?

The ingenuity of the inventor and implications of this thing kind of blew my mind!

posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 01:53 PM
Well, I think this wouldnt go ahead becuase Oil is pretty much the best thing at the moment AND is keep people rich, which is what we want. [what they want.]

I think its going to be some time before they release a new fuel to the public.

posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 04:56 PM
It can run on regular unleaded gasoline...or diesel or biodiesel or ethanol.

posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 09:41 PM
I'll throw in my two cents. I think ethanol will be the next fuel. Guess what's up with hydrogen? You're still getting it from a non-renewable resource. The way they do it at the moment is run natural gas (methane) through the end of a steam cycle in a powerplant.
2H2O+CH4 --> 4H2 + 2CO2
Now you have to get natural gas from somewhere, it'll eventually dry up as well. Ethanol is renewable indefinitely as long as plants of certain types grow. Now we need to refine the pre-existing internal combustion engine. Start running compact chamber, 14:1 compression, and turbo the hell out of it. You'll get much better efficiency and more power out of smaller engine. We need real technology in cars, not this crap the car companies are throwing around. That means all of them, they're all idiots. They don't want to do real engineering work to do some friggin' good. They'd rather sit on their @sses and make what little money they can without any real advancement. I hate the car companies, every last one of them is friggin' stupid. Sorry, rant over.

posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 11:27 PM
How many of you have been fired by an American auto company or an American oil, energy or chemical company?

posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 11:54 PM
This engine is a nice redesign concept. I hope it makes it into production.

However.. you people who have doubts about hydrogen should feel much better once you read"Hydrogen can be taken from drano using an aluminum can as a catalyst. All you need to do is replace the water and the aluminum." (an aluminum can be disolved in as little as 5 minutes)

Needless to say this was discovered by a highschool drop out in canada. This was also about 3 years ago. No heat, no unsafe substances(once the drano is in a secure container), and on demand hydrogen.

Drop-outs Patent Hydrogen Production Method Take drano, add scrap aluminum cans and you get novel way to make hydrogen gas. Source: Nashua Telegraph [Nov 29, 2003] A 69-year-old, 10th-grade Canadian drop-out and his 58-year-old Norwegian cousin, who himself left school in the eighth grade, have just been granted two U.S. patents on a process that produces hydrogen by throwing discarded aluminum cans or foil into water laced with Drano.

from :

Best of all you won't need the aluminum recycling bin any more

Also BMW's hydrogen system has been able to freeze hydrogen so it should be alot safer (there are still problems with this however). But on their mini, they got gas like performance.

[edit on 11-8-2006 by scoobdude]

posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 12:33 AM
Sounds better than the overhyped hybrid technology. 150 miles per gallon would be great, and the fuel flexibility sounds great too. I believe we've got more options than the oil industry likes to admit too.

But, this wonderful engine will probably get shoved into the cracks where nobody will see it, while big dollars get pumped into the hybrid market. Oh, companies try to convice us that 35 miles per gallon in an SUV is a big deal. The thing is, I think we may have allready had the technology to triple those 35 mile per gallon numbers years ago.

And there will be disinformation agents here on this very board trying to convince us that the inventor is a nut, blah, blah, blah. But that's not going to stop us from seeking and finding truth.

An intermediate step on the way toward better engines is conversion, like being able to convert a normal engine into an engine that runs on a better and renewable fuel. This makes it more affordable for all to take advantage of new fuel. We all don't have money to dump on a new vehicle, but we may be able to afford an add-on conversion kit.

For those who can afford it, available should be new engine technology. New vehicles for those with plenty of funding, and full engine replacements for those with a little less money to spend.

And if the executives in the oil industry had sense they would invest in new technology. Some of us will move on to different fuels with or without you. Maybe after big oil crashes you guys can go to work at a fast food restraunt like some of the rest of us?


posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 01:02 AM

Originally posted by ledbedder20
This is NOTHING like a rotary engine, please read the links...

Actually, the MYT engine shares many attributes with a Wankle rotary engine; although I think it may have improved on the concept.

I was impressed. But I have a couple of concerns:

-With a displacement (per the example) of over 800ci, what is the expected fuel consumption rate? It's one thing to get more power from a smaller, simpler package, it's another to produce that power most efficiently. Mazda's rotary engines are marvels of simplicity and power-to-weight efficiency; but they have never been touted as highly fuel efficient.

-While we're on the subject of wankle-cycle engines, my second concern references a continuing problem with Mazda rotaries: Seal wear. Although somewhat improved with years of R&D, Mazda's rotaries have always suffered from premature rotor tip seal failure due to wear.

Given the MYT's design, I'd be concerned that the "flapper-pistions" would suffer the same type of excessive seal wear.

As to why this invention isn't being produced? My concerns aside, gee whis! the patent is only 2 years old!

It'd take that long just to design and build the factory to produce the dang things!

[edit on 12-8-2006 by Bhadhidar]

posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 01:48 AM
Bhadhidar, I too wonder about the flapper pistons. The rotary engine expansion chamber was flawed from the get go. but i loved holding the throttle down on my rotary mazda pickup through an entire redlight and just dumping the clutch at green. that truck ran for many years through massive abuse. But i dont see the comparison of this engine and the wankle other than the rotation of the piston. Can you give me references, im just not seeing it in the specs of the MYT and specs of the Wankle.

Very Nice find ledbetter. Im amazed this isnt in production on a larger scale. the 14" by 14" version would be pumping out 1700ci which is double a Large diesel engine. The one he referenced for auto production would be 4" x 7". And by removing 800lbs from the chassis of the vehicle he is guesstimating it would increase mileage. He is also running this on 100% biofuel recommended. Soybean oil fuel. He stated he recommends it since it not only runs on it, it lubricates it also. Interesting.

The only thing im curious about is i do not see it in any type of application drawing a "load" on the engine. Like a generator or large water pump. The one test vid of it actually running, shows it starting at hi rpm and gradually slowing down and then they shut it down. Maybe i answered my own large scale production statement in this paragraph.

Lets stick to discussing the engine and leave the alternate fuel discussion for another thread shall we.

posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 04:04 AM
vapor carbs have been around for ages (f-ex Pogue carb), simply use exhaust gasses to pre-heat the fuel over an appropriate catalyst to vaporize it, which in turn greatly improves combustion. the sad aspect is that there are accounts of WW2 military hardware using the tech (along with some primitive magnetic device, btw) and thousands if not tens of thousands of people must have had access and knowledge of this relatively simple system.

think about the following, in a perfect world, exhaust would contain carbon dioxide and water, both of which do not smell at all, now compare with the real world and you'll see that as long as you can smell the exhaust, combustion is incomplete, therefore energy is lost.

wrt the MYT rotary piston engine, a neat design, but quite new, so it's no surprise it's not being mass produced. i personally doubt it wil ever be, because sold weight translates into money, so a heavy car with a heavy engine means lots revenue for both, the manufacturer and big oil (higher fuel consumption AND higher energy requirements during production).

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in