BLOZ UP Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/04/24/massive-yet-tiny-engine-promises-big-things/ I dunno... If released, I'll wait and see what happens when other people buy it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OlderThanMe Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 that is really cool. 840 cubic inches in half the size of a Z motor...I wonder what it would sound like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Z0wner Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 hmm... good swap candidate... IF true Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zhadman Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 It looks neat, but why don't they show a working version? I dunno... could be a sham. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olie05 Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 could you imagine the nightmare in routing the intake/exhaust manifolds on that thing? It appears it has intake and exhaust ports all over the thing. On the bright side, it would be a good excuse to do ITBS... oh wait, then you have to synch them all up too. I'm sure it would sound nice at high rpms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GabeRoc Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 it looks to me like there would only be 4 intake, 4 exhaust and 4 plugs per side, or 8 total. it seems to have functional zones similar to what a rotary has where all the intake, combustion and exhausting takes place in localized zones. what i don't get is how they keep the back 'piston' from moving durring combustion. also, if i'm seeing it correctly, there are 4 'power strokes' occuring at the same time, an interesting force and vibration problem. I don't buy their "this doesnt' reciprocate, the pistons only stop" argument. if it stops it might as well change directions, the accelerations are about the same either way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olie05 Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 I don't buy their "this doesnt' reciprocate, the pistons only stop" argument. if it stops it might as well change directions, the accelerations are about the same either way. Maybe they are trying to say its better for vibration? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewievette Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 It looks like a sound idea and is acctually something that I want to get into however I see a similar problem as the wankel, seals are going to be tough. For those that want to know more, follow the links and read up: http://www.angellabsllc.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Z0wner Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 I don't know... after a little research it looks fairly shoddy I guess only time will tell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tfreer85 Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 For that to be such a great idea, and quite a complex model, their website and poor quality of video makes me wonder about the true quality of their product. I mean the idea seems very cool, but there is a lot that I'm left questioning about. Tyson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest iskone Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 I poked around on the forum they have up and was no help. Just talk about a video of it running on combustion fuel but not the real thing. Then there is the lame video of the "air motoring", not good signs to me. Isk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtcookson Posted May 3, 2006 Share Posted May 3, 2006 Imagine the torque that thing would make... the pistons would always be putting maximum leverage on the crank on every combustion. If that thing is produced that could be amazing. I wonder what the fuel economy would be like though... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNeedForZ Posted May 3, 2006 Share Posted May 3, 2006 The one thing I don't trust is how the pistons attach to the round disks. The stop and go motion of pistons create a lot of rocking loads to the disk they are attached to, the pistons is likely to break off from the disks and once something breaks in the engine the whole thing is destroyed since they share one common cylinder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtcookson Posted May 3, 2006 Share Posted May 3, 2006 I don't believe the pistons ever truly stop... they just kind of dwell for an extended period... however... take for instance their 14 inch version. You have a bore of 3 inches, so the total circumference of the piston would be ~9.42 inches. Roughly 1/4 of the piston is connected to "crank" so roughly 2.4 inches of metal. From there the piston looks to be... I don't know, maybe 2 inches thick at the bottom at the least? That's actually quite a bit of material to hold up to the abuse. On top of that, the pistons put a good amount of leverage on the crank so that would require less stress on the pistons right there for the amount of power produced. On top of that, there are gears in there. If he actually geared it so that there was a higher torque output at the output shaft than what was being put in, that would again be less stress on the pistons than if it were a direct setup making that kind of power. Either way... if this thing works out (and no large companies put them under) this could change everything. I'm definitley going to keep an eye on this. Its definitely an awesome looking design. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNeedForZ Posted May 3, 2006 Share Posted May 3, 2006 Gearing or leverage is one thing, but they can't help with the stop and go inertial load. And inertial load is the major problem, more than torque loads. When the inertial load is a rocking load against material it's even worse. When the material is hot it's worst because it is probably aluminium and aluminum gets a lot weaker hot, and then aluminum is not known for its fatigue resistance, it's going to break. Rotary engine do not have this problem because the "piston" and "rotor" is one triangular piece. Is there anything MYT engine can do but a stack of wankel cannot do? I don't see it. If the MYT engine can rev to 5000rpm with any fuel and hold the rpm for 5 minutes without failing instead of putting with compressed air then I am convinced this engine is ok. However the question still stands : what can this engine do that a stack of rotary engine cannot? They do share similar problems, except the rotary engine do not have problem with rocking loads or anything rocking back and forth like the two set of pistons in MYT. There is nothing that stops the developers from showing us a real fueled engine running, but they just don't show it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtcookson Posted May 3, 2006 Share Posted May 3, 2006 I don't see how there's a "rocking load"... if part of the engine were reciprocating I could see that being possible, but the pistons never stop. They speed up and slow down but never go in a reverse direction that would cause any sort of rocking. I'm sorry, but could you explain that rocking/inertial load a bit further? I must just not be understanding the concept. Sorry. If the MYT engine can rev to 5000rpm with any fuel and hold the rpm for 5 minutes Most road going engines probably wouldn't even be able to handle that... however, they are supposedly making a 2.4 liter "F1" version that could very likely pull that off and more without a single problem. I think most of that particular one is supposed to be made out of titanium. what can this engine do that a stack of rotary engine cannot? Have an extremely higher efficient (i.e. fuel economy), make more power for its weight, run just about any fuel you want quite easily, make a **** load more low end torque.... etc. etc. etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNeedForZ Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 Rocking load...ok you see how 4 pistons move as a set and two set of pistons = 8 right? Each set of pistons connect to something...a disk or rotor of sorts so essentially, there are two parts looking like this : ...| --O-- ...| the ... means nothing, just have to put them there to keep the spacing correct. When you accelerate/decelerate the assembly rotationally, the inertia of the piston rocks the piston at the base, where it is attached to the rotor. It's like when the bus accelerates, you are shoved towards the back and when the bus brakes you are pushed toward the front. If you stand in the bus and your feet are planted on the floor, the accel/decel will feel like someone is pushing you back and forth, that's what I am refering to. If you glue a standing piece of wood on the bus floor, the inertial load accompanying acceleration and braking will eventually tear out the glue, and the wood will detach from the floor. Suppose the rotors do not really stop at any time, but inertial load exists with acceleration and deceleration of the assembly. If the rotors never really stop, it only helps a bit, but inertial load is there as long as acceleration/deceleration is there. Their website also states that the pistons "stop and go", just like in their animation. How highly efficient is the MYT engine? It's what they are telling us for sure. When rotary engine came out, highly efficient was what they called it. Besides, they can't run any fuel in MYT, the inventor said it is best run with vegetable oil since the fuel lubricates the engine. If it is to run with gasoline with seperate oil lubricant(and suppose they find a way to lubricate the engine), oil will get transported to the outer wall of the doughnut cylinder eventually. Let's not forget crud, mud, soot and any kind of fouling will be swept to the outer wall as well due to centrifugal force. Which bring up another point, fuel droplets will tend to gather near the outer wall (air can move easily, but fuel droplets want to go in tangent direction), if the cylinder fillings have one area rich, one area lean and a fraction of it just right, how efficient can this thing be? I say it is most likely a diesel engine with fuel injected before combustion or a gas fuel engine, but is it reliable? To me, the fact that a single stray debris can ruin the whole engine that requires special machinery to rebore defeats the engine's advantages. Anyway, I want to stay skeptical. I missed dinner typing these, lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chopstic Posted May 6, 2006 Share Posted May 6, 2006 858 hp! whats that based on? is there a working model? Im betting its just a prediction, probably about as acurate as the lady down the street from me who PREDICTS things with tarot cards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtcookson Posted May 6, 2006 Share Posted May 6, 2006 Rocking load...ok you see how 4 pistons move as a set and two set of pistons = 8 right? Each set of pistons connect to something...a disk or rotor of sorts so essentially' date=' there are two parts looking like this : ...| --O-- ...| the ... means nothing, just have to put them there to keep the spacing correct. When you accelerate/decelerate the assembly rotationally, the inertia of the piston rocks the piston at the base, where it is attached to the rotor. It's like when the bus accelerates, you are shoved towards the back and when the bus brakes you are pushed toward the front. If you stand in the bus and your feet are planted on the floor, the accel/decel will feel like someone is pushing you back and forth, that's what I am refering to. If you glue a standing piece of wood on the bus floor, the inertial load accompanying acceleration and braking will eventually tear out the glue, and the wood will detach from the floor. Suppose the rotors do not really stop at any time, but inertial load exists with acceleration and deceleration of the assembly. If the rotors never really stop, it only helps a bit, but inertial load is there as long as acceleration/deceleration is there. Their website also states that the pistons "stop and go", just like in their animation. How highly efficient is the MYT engine? It's what they are telling us for sure. When rotary engine came out, highly efficient was what they called it. Besides, they can't run any fuel in MYT, the inventor said it is best run with vegetable oil since the fuel lubricates the engine. If it is to run with gasoline with seperate oil lubricant(and suppose they find a way to lubricate the engine), oil will get transported to the outer wall of the doughnut cylinder eventually. Let's not forget crud, mud, soot and any kind of fouling will be swept to the outer wall as well due to centrifugal force. Which bring up another point, fuel droplets will tend to gather near the outer wall (air can move easily, but fuel droplets want to go in tangent direction), if the cylinder fillings have one area rich, one area lean and a fraction of it just right, how efficient can this thing be? I say it is most likely a diesel engine with fuel injected before combustion or a gas fuel engine, but is it reliable? To me, the fact that a single stray debris can ruin the whole engine that requires special machinery to rebore defeats the engine's advantages. Anyway, I want to stay skeptical. I missed dinner typing these, lol.[/quote'] Alright, I think I understand what you're getting at now. I can see that happening to the pistons when they come to the exhaust and intake port. I think the compression and combustion would counteract that inertia when they come to that point. Sound right? It would be like someone holding you back under braking in that bus scenario. When I originally looked at the video it didn't really look like the pistons were stopping all that much (mostly because the person was turning a bit too choppy). I sped it up and can see that they do stop at a point, so I understand that now. I bet though, even with some of the inertial loads on the pistons, they should be strong enough to handle it and the leverage wouldn't be all that great. Take your bus example again. Glue a 2x4 on the floor and glue a 2x8 as well. Stopping and starting, the 2x8 would much more likely to break than the 2x4 even though both have equal amounts of contact and glue to the floor. The pistons are probably small enough that they wouldn't be stressed overly much. On the efficiency part, not only would the volumetric efficiency be very good due to such open ports but they should be much more thermal efficient due to being able to more thoroughly burn the fuel. The MYT has a dwell of 12 degrees, which is much more than any piston engine, which should allow for the fuel to burn much more completely if not fully. The fuel probably wouldn't have enough time to fly to the outside of the chamber before combustion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtcookson Posted May 6, 2006 Share Posted May 6, 2006 858 hp! whats that based on? is there a working model? Im betting its just a prediction, probably about as acurate as the lady down the street from me who PREDICTS things with tarot cards. Probably based on 1 hp per cubic inch (or thereabout). Not really a bad basis considering some of the more inefficient engines can produce 1 hp/ci. Most of the newer engines can pull that off quite easily and the older ones with some basic bolt-ons should be able to do it. It could probably do more though since horsepower is based on torque multiplied by rpm divided by 5252 and since it made over 800 ft. lb. of torque running compressed air... running with fuel should be much higher. Especially basically having constant maximum torque being put on the crank due to the piston always being on the outside of it. That would be one fun engine if it does run... the low end torque would be incredible... as would the torque throughout the entire rev range. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.