Massive Yet Tiny (MYT) Engine Going to Production!

reply to post by plumranch


Excellent research!

This is the kind of proactive fact checking that appears to becoming rarer and rarer at ATS.

Once again, thank you. The light at the end of the tunnel is not an oncoming train.

reply to post by homeskillet


A F1 car goes up to 18-22 000rpm, idle at 5000 rpm

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

If you got the impression that i thought these technologies/ideas where unproven i apologise as i must certainly do not have to see to believe. The theoretical aspects i am familiar with are more than enough for me to rarely dismiss these claims out of hand or at all and my ciriticism is aimed at how apparently easily and consistently these inventions can be kept from the markets by the ignorance and arrogance of their inventors.

Inventors who claim that they will have everything 'up and running ' 'soon' should be dismissed as they are either very arrogant ( Assuming they know what their up against) or some bad mixture of naivety and ignorance.

Either way i am sick of inventors who give the whole field a bad name due to their very large character flaws.

Hope that clears up my views!

Stellar

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

I wont comment on this specific invention because i just don't know that much about it. Since i know that you are in fact referring to these 'inventions' in general i will point out that this is a capitalist system where the profit ( or rather the control ) motive reigns supreme. As proved by various experiments with electric vehicle's it isn't only the fuel/oil majors that takes a significant knock but more so the car manufacturers and car industry in general that suffers for massive reduced maintenance and after service costs.

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.

How would this save GM when you can sell one car in ten year term instead of three or four? They can't even make a profit on the ten year term so how on god's earth will they make it on the one? As for the buying up the patent why bother when no major auto maker will touch revolutionary technologies that will reduce their profit margins? You know what sort of pressure and legal action to force this industry to install safety belts and similar safety measures?

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

Well it must be nonsense because clearly your too smart to be taken in by a scam perpetuated for more than a century by a industry worth hundreds of billions.

"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?

As i explained these technologies are in themselves seriously disruptive to the auto industry as it stands, given how their profit frequently comes from after sales services, most of those auto makers would not survive the transition being in the financial trouble that they have been in for the last decades.

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?

The oil companies do not control everything and they could in fact more readily make the transition to the new standard as they are involved in a far larger array of industrial activities than are the car manufacturers. For my part i don't believe that the oil industry men or car manufacturer CEO's decided on these policies as much as they realise that there are higher powers than themselves that they would do well not to cross. If that is not something you can accept you could at least consider my prior arguments that this industry is in no shape for such a reform and wont allow smaller manufacturers to undercut 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.

Which are still prone to the same wear and tear as regular cars hence the fact that the transition is happening at all. When people campaign for a end to the draft of males for unnecessary wars those who stand to gain doesn't give up on war but instead allow women to join the service and make a few generals; so what if we half of the tremendous pollution caused by regular polluting transportation? They are allowing change on THEIR terms and that's why they are not so easily going to allow electric vehicles back on the roads after getting them off the roads a century ago.

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?

Well it doesn't work perfectly for the oil and car industries as their business model devastates the world the rest of the people on it needs for their survival. They are doing the best they can to maintain the power they have but obvious being outnumbered as they are they can't prevent ALL moves against their interest. Why is it that your acceptance of such a conspiracy depends on totally incompetent inventors and supremely brilliant conspirators that can stem the tide of human invention and progress for all eternity? Isn't that the type of fundamentalist belief you seem to be dismissing?

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?

And kings sometimes pardoned some of their nobles who stepped out of line in the interest of maintaining the general system of patronage and rule by the few. Why can humans in general cooperate to bring about change for the better and why then this belief that these industries ( who are for the most part operated by people who have no idea what interest they are serving on the larger scale) can not be and are not slowly succumbing to the pressure of the popular will? Why the belief in their ultimate victory when we now have such things as minimum wages and social security?

I think you just don't have much faith in the people of the world and thus not much in yourself.

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. "

No, they do not control everything but what they can and do they apply rigorously to further their interest hence the fact that we are getting these engines and electric technologies now and not fifty or a hundred years ago when they were invented. The circular logic you are applying will always have you defending those with power against both your and the rest of humanities best interest.

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.

Which is why i don't have to get stuck on the oil companies and can instead see the large picture where those who have gained fast fortunes trough the capitalist system are using it's agents ( nation states and their corporations ) to protect the system from the overwhelming majority of the 6.5 billion people on Earth who are far worse off for it. Capitalism in their eye's is a system by which they can accumulate profit/wealth which corresponds directly with economic power and power over others they must have to protect their ill gotten goods. This is why progress is fought at every turn and why we electric cars are making a desperately slow comeback after a century of orchestrated neglect.

In closing they can't do everything as they like all the time but they can and do try to channel poplar pressure for change into avenue's they believe they can control hence small 'efficient' IC cars instead of fully electric one's. When they have held up the tide as long as they can they will transition to electric cars but make them overwhelming expensive ( claiming technology implementation problems never admitting that they spent little resources to make it better) and the whole process tortuously slow. When they can no longer maintain that charade they will get more and more efficient and by this time they may have already shifted a good deal of their capitol into the nuclear or other power 'generation' industries so that they can tax you as best they can for as long as they can. Maybe one day we will see self contained vacuum energy powered cars ( such as Tesla built more than century ago) but I'm not holding my breath.

Stellar


[edit on 28-1-2009 by StellarX]

Originally posted by AmmonSeth

You really believe that those companies wouldnt relish an opportunity for Oil to last even longer, thus keeping them in control even further into your future?

Since I don't believe in peak oil, the answer is no. Greed has no boundaries. They want to claim oil scarcity and force inefficiency into the market to keep the demand and prices up.

here's the engine running (not at the car show)

And there's always this known answer to the gas fuel problem.
Too bad the philipino gov. has a treaty with big oil.

Mr. Daniel Dingel's Water Car(part1)

That would be the easies retrofit. Got Agua?

reply to post by imd12c4funn

About all the vidio shows is the running engine, lots of noise and shouting and a display readout. When the readout finally comes into focus it is saying about 0450 and decreasing while you can hear the engine slowing down. I assume that is RPMs. So the engine is running slowly. Your car engine is going about 2000- 2500 at cruise speed.

It operates slowly because the engine accomplishes in one revolution what your car does in 2. This is a big plus in terms of lubrication, cooling and efficiency. Slower speeds allow for much more efficient lubrication and since this engine has no crankcase for oil and must rely on the fuel to lubricate, slow speed is an advantage.

the down side of the slow speed is that to power some applications may require a step up gearbox. Prop planes require about a 2500 RPM, boats similar, turboprops also. It would require a different transmission in a car or truck also.

I emailed the company contact and got no response??

The last progress on the website was 3 years ago!

reply to post by StellarX


yours is the most objective viewpoint on the site..... we have tried to deal with this group several times.... they really don't want to mfg. the units, they just want someone to give them $10,M and ongoing royalty payments!!!

First off, hello!
This is a very interesting forum!

As a mechanical engineer I think this engine is totally feasible and I have been following it with great interest for a number of years.

The fact the cylinders run in one direction and have no lateral forces applied indicates it will run with extremely low friction and with the use of ports as opposed to valves would mean it could reach very high compression ratios - ensuring a much cleaner/efficient burn - which in turn would enable it to achieve high MPG with low emissions. Also the lack of reciprocating masses would enable it to reach higher revolutions and would negate the need for power sapping balancing shafts.
Also as it makes high torque at low revs would negate the need for a multiple speed gearbox - perhaps a two speed, one for town and another for higher speed - with reverse would be sufficient (so long as the power figures stated are true - which I believe they could well be given the number of power pulses per revolution)

You cannot compare the engine to a two stroke as a two stroke's design is extremely flawed - I wont go into details on this (however advances have been made in two stroke technology - making it as clean as 4 strokes but with the added bonus of having less parts, being lighter and putting out more power than an equivalent capacity 4 stroke).

Also he states the engine is an EQUIVALENT to a 32 cylinder engine, as it makes 16 power strokes per one 360 degree revolution - a standard fourstroke engine makes it's power on the fourth stroke or every 720 degrees of crank rotation. There are great animated diagrams showing the engine in operation - it's ingeniously simple)

The only problem I see with this is the power figures it produces seem way too excessive for the size of the output shaft. The CSA of the shaft would be way too small to withstand the power and torque figures stated - unless he intends on using high grade & extremely expensive materials. Also the toroidal stop-start motion is a achieved by using "conrods" and a type of clever gear linkage - this in my mind could also be a weak point, however it would be relatively simple to encase this in oil - thus solving the lubrication problem that many people on here are stating would be an issue. The combustion chambers would be sufficiently lubed by the fuel as they have such lower friction values.

With regards to heat dissipation - water/oil cooling is a possibility and again due to low friction values and the shape of the cylinder the use of air cooling would be sufficient as the cylinders have direct exposure ensuring great air flow - with the addition of cooling fins/heat sinks to increase the surface area of course.

I'm not saying I'm not sceptical, I am! It's just on paper the engine looks like it could achieve what he's saying - however in reality I believe todays materials would struggle to handle the power output - unless they incorporate some sort of engine management system, which again is totally feasible.

I really hope he can achieve all what he says!

The internal combustion engine has already been invented. I don't see how more cylinders will make it more efficient and smaller. I call scam on this one. There is not even one video of it running on fuel. So many scammers out there asking for money.

This sounds too good to be true, I'd imagine it would have high emissions. I bet if this thing goes to the public market you will start seeing a lot of ultra fast sleeper civics lol.

BTW, anyone have any info on release dates or any update on production?

reply to post by naycalvert


Here's an update from June 5:

pesn.com...

In a nutshell, Morgado is still having problems getting the funding he needs (big surprise).

Imagine how much the airline industry would save on fuel if they went to turbo props using this engine. Also the heavy shipping industry like cargo vessels. If they had these engines for their inboard outdrives and bow thrusters they would be able to ship cargo for less than 1/3 the present shipping cost for fuel.

That would make imports cheaper for everyone and save so much fuel the world would have to reduce production in order to not just have piles of fuel laying around in tankers waiting to be used.

I hope this guy has a great security team.

Maybe since we no longer have "oil families" in the white house,

this will be allowed.

Let's hope.

reply to post by ladyinwaiting


By now it should be clear that the banks and big corporations really run the US, not the White House. Don't expect Obama to help with this, or any of the other revolutionary technologies.

It's all on "we the people" to make this happen!!

Just because somebody has a good idea or a great improvement on a current idea doesn't mean there's a market for it. People are always coming up with better mousetraps, but the mousetrap industry just keeps chugging away. Sometimes a product does well because it's "good enough."

And it's not some dark conspiracy at work. It's just that people and corporations don't like to change. They don't like to change their business relationships and plans. They don't just toss out their entire production line because somebody invents a new way to do something.

One hopes that eventually the cream will rise to the top, but there are many different ways of determining what is "best" for any given time.

reply to post by Nohup


Open your eyes, man!

Clearly the vested interests have some way of scaring venture capitalists and industrialists away from these revolutionary energy technologies and engines. There's no other explanation for all these "better mousetrap"-builders failing to get their inventions to market over, and over, and over, and over again, for over 100 years............

Originally posted by MajorDisaster
reply to post by Nohup

 

Open your eyes, man!

Clearly the vested interests have some way of scaring venture capitalists and industrialists away from these revolutionary energy technologies and engines. There's no other explanation for all these "better mousetrap"-builders failing to get their inventions to market over, and over, and over, and over again, for over 100 years.

Maybe. But venture capitalization is risky no matter what. I'd say that what's also kept the markets so status quo is the 85% rip-off and scam rate that goes along with this "revolutionary technology" stuff. Otherwise, it's much easier for the evil corporations to simply buy the technology themselves, and slowly incorporate it into their businesses. With a good new technology, everybody wins. However, if it has problems, if it's a hoax, or if the market just doesn't want it, then it's not worth even sabotaging some poor inventor to keep it quiet.

reply to post by Nohup


You don't consider buying up the technology and then breaking promises to bring it to market, an act of sabotage?

reply to post by MajorDisaster


Ah I see, I did read that post before but I missed the part about having funding issues.
Thanks
Nate