cool new motor

[j260z]

check out this site. this has to be the coolest new motor i've seen.

http://www.angellabsllc.com/index.html

14" x 14", 32 cylinder, 3000 hp at 150 lbs!!!! as soon as they come into production sign me up!

[Z0wner]

this has been discussed... search:mrgreen:

[BillZ260]

I hadn't seen it, must have missed it earlier.

 

Is it still all theory or does the thing run?

[Z0wner]

Well, they do not have it running on a fuel. They have used air though...

 

I think they said they didn't have the funds to build a fuel powered one or something or another...

 

Right now I am calling BS but time will tell (WOULDN'T IT BE AWESOME IF IT WORKED)

[lazycyril]

to many moving parts, harder to seal then a wankel-rotary, cant possibly

be very flow rate efccient.

 

looks to be more of an engeering concept proof then something viable.

[ProjectSR20]

Too many moving parts?? 26 moving parts, 31 total. Let me ask how many parts are in the motor in you car right now. Harder to seal? It looks to me like it is the same as a piston moving in a cylinder. I'm sure there are rings on the pistons as well. Its just a circular cylinder instead of straight up and down. Why would it not be "flow efficent"? I think this would be bad a** if it went into production.

[mtcookson]

to many moving parts' date=' harder to seal then a wankel-rotary, cant possibly

be very flow rate efccient.

 

looks to be more of an engeering concept proof then something viable.[/quote']

 

wrong, wrong, and wrong.

 

it has very few moving parts, like said above. it will be much easier to seal than a wankel rotary because everything is round. the thing has no valves... its direct air in, direct air out, and has constant maximum leverage on the crank. it should turn out to be an incredible engine.

[ProjectSR20]

wrong' date=' wrong, and wrong.

 

it has very few moving parts, like said above. it will be much easier to seal than a wankel rotary because everything is round. the thing has no valves... its direct air in, direct air out, and has constant maximum leverage on the crank. it should turn out to be an incredible engine.[/quote']

 

 

Well said, those were the words I was looking for.

[cygnusx1]

The seal between the lead rotor and the trailing rotor, that keeps the gasses from escaping to the crank, could be a potential problem because it would require pretty high preload forces to make the seal. The compression forces are trying to rip apart the two connecting rod discs making the seal is critical. It is shaping up to be a torque monster but not a HP monster.

[buZy]

I wonder what Grumpy's opinion is? Can you quick chime in on this one.

[TheNeedForZ]

It has been talked about. I explained why it won't work.

 

http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=110413&page=2

[mtcookson]

I still believe its going to work... I have to. Our engines have been around too long and we definitely need an upgrade. I believe this one is definitely it... we'll see though I guess.

[TheNeedForZ]

I still believe its going to work... I have to. Our engines have been around too long and we definitely need an upgrade. I believe this one is definitely it... we'll see though I guess.

 

Well now you are just in love with that engine because love is blind.

[mtcookson]

I suppose so... but from what I've seen other people are simply blind from being so pessimistic.

[TheNeedForZ]

I wasn't being pessimistic, Heck, I want it to work, but MYT won't work AS IS. There are ways to solve the inertial load problem, that's by changing the shape of the cross section of the "doughnut." Tell you later, I gotta go watch deal or no deal

[mario_82_ZXT]

Have you guys seen this one?

http://www.revetec.com/

 

Seems pretty neat... just too low of a redline.

Mario

[phantaz]

looks like a hybrid boxer engine to me..

[TheNeedForZ]

I wasn't being pessimistic, Heck, I want it to work, but MYT won't work AS IS. There are ways to solve the inertial load problem, that's by changing the shape of the cross section of the "doughnut." Tell you later, I gotta go watch deal or no deal

 

Ok for starters I dunno why the inventor go all the trouble to make the cross section of the doughnut(and piston) a circle. If the cross section is a "D" or half a circle, the geometry of the piston (also a "D") allows more "meat" at the base where the piston is attached to the rotating ring. Regardless of being round or "D", the complexity(or simplicity) of machining remain unchanged. By making the piston very thin at the outer circumference and beefy at the base, the inertial load can be countered.

 

Another radical engine design similar to MYT is Quasiturbine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasiturbine

[mtcookson]

I didn't necessarily mean you were being pessimistic but a lot of people on some other forums are.

 

The reason for the circle design would be to make it a rotary design an not reciprocating. A rotary engine will simply be able to make power better and more efficiently than a reciprocating engine.

 

 

Here's another interesting engine. A lot like the MYT in that it has a round chamber and the same piston design but the outside spins and the pistons essentially reciprocate, they move back and forth.

http://www.rotoblock.com/howitworks.shtml

 

This one has been tested on fuel and they have a video of it here:

http://www.rotoblock.com/concept_validated.shtml

[TheNeedForZ]

Yeah from what the links showed, the Rotoblock is VERY similar to MYT, except in MYT the pistons move relative to ports while in Rotoblock the ports move relative to pistons. How the two inventors were able to obtain patents without infringing upon each others design is beyond me. They are both reciprocating engines, well...I wouldn't call the MYT a rotary engine since it stops and goes. They share the very same problem. At least the rotoblock has a running engine. They now need to find a way to move up in the rpm without breaking the engine. Inertial load is the major enemy.