Wicked new engine been developed huge power tiny size

derry

Wicked new engine been developed huge power tiny size

lots of info oon these you tube

Hopefully the engine can do what it says it can do

Basicaly the normal 2000 liter engine would be replaced by a engine of 10 to 15KG about the size of a large macdo coke cola cup which could easily be made to fit in the dash board

basic explanation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqSIq39TMNM&feature=related

very good explanation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MBYg1NPzMY&feature=related

egg head who made the engine explains it similar to above
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_5_m-MxptI&feature=related


More stuff on you tube but that should bring you up to date

That kind of small engine with so much power able to do 150MPG and use nearly any fuel sounds good for me cant wait for it to get into production


Derry

copacetic

Hardly 'new' though, been around a long time..

eg, this report in April 2006.

http://gizmodo.com/166953/angel-labs-massive-yet-tiny-engine-the-little-engine-that-could

E92

We're (almost) 3 years further down the road and still no sign of it.

You'd think the car makers would have said something about this by now considering how "revolutionary" it is meant to be?

Regrettably, the Internal Combustion Engine is dying a very long and slow death. We are seeing this in the form of smaller engines with fewer cylinders replacing larger engines with more cylinders.

The only future it has is running on hydrogen, in reality the fuel cell is what the vast majority of cars will be running on in the future.

alan4cult

Reminds me of the Wankel engine.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wankel_engine

itarumaa

There has been loads and loads of engine types and all the time they never get to production or comes to production and takes the creators money and company goes down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSU_Ro_80

This car is a good example.

Henry Ford III

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGlUZg2pC0Q&feature=related

Interesting.

derry

E92 wrote: »

We're (almost) 3 years further down the road and still no sign of it.

You'd think the car makers would have said something about this by now considering how "revolutionary" it is meant to be?

Regrettably, the Internal Combustion Engine is dying a very long and slow death. We are seeing this in the form of smaller engines with fewer cylinders replacing larger engines with more cylinders.

The only future it has is running on hydrogen, in reality the fuel cell is what the vast majority of cars will be running on in the future.

Any new deveopment which makes a quantum leap will hit problems especialy from vested interests.

If the specs are correct a 850BHP engine that has weight of ~9KG then a more normal smaller engine producing some ~100BHP could weight less than ~2kg .A normal ~2 KG engine would typically produce ~5BHP at best .

Now due to the small size of the engine replacing a normal ~100 bhp engine weight of some ~100KG plus with a ~2kg motor will lead to fuel big saving from weight loss.Then as most other engines are 30% efficient and this one is 60% efficient this will give even more large fuel saving .


If we assume the new car will return even more weight saving from the body of the car as it needs less strong suspension fro losing the engine weight and less big chassis to carry a heavy engine then even more fuel saving can be had.
So the result of a ~150MPG car seems likely.

If we compare the electric car heavy but with better efficeincy returns a ~100MPG equivanent in terms of fuel we can see this internal combustion will make make electric look like gas guzzelers
Those with electric car agenda would prefer this solution which is more efficient than electric to disappear


Those who produce cars with big lumps in them prefer incremental changes. Change a piece here tweak a piece there is a lot cheaper than throwing out the big lumps and buying in a whole load of new tools to build a new smaller engine.

The car manufactuers would also have to pay a heafty price in licence costs to produce this engine .As the average car costs something like $10 in unrefined raw materials or $100 in refined raw materials and possibly $1000 each with building on the assembly line if the licence cost them say $100 on each car the result would be down stream price hike in cars of at least 10% probably more like 100% or 200% which can dent sales a lot in a sluggish market

What the car manufactuers would prefer is the company that made the engine and its patent went bust and then they could buy up the patent for cents for each car they made.

Or car manufactuers will endevour to produce something similar that they can patent so as not to pay the licence costs and then sell the licence to other car companies .

At the moment the big three in the USA and Japanese Toyota are losing money hand over fist and risk to be gone in a few years so new engines is not high on the wish list .

What they want now is just an ordinary engine that requires a few tweaks for a few dollars that goes from the ~30MPG to ~60MPG.That would keep most Internal combustion engines in favor with most joe soap car buyers and keep sales going well in this thin market.

The real world is most car buyer when offered a car to replace the one they have will look for a replacement that some few new extra minor features like slightly better MPG and doesn't add too much extra cost to the new car .This result ina gradual incremental increase in MPG for cars year on year.quantum jumps in the car Industry are rarer than hens theeth as the problem is to convince th customer why to spend more cost price for some new quantum jump feature.
Most customers will not be prepared to pay 100% more or very often even 20% more for a car even if the MPG went from 30MPG to 150MPG and the horsepower went from ~100 to ~200 BHP.Its the school bus run machine or the stuck in traffic commuter car and extra money spent on the car will take away from other things like maybe the winter holiday break to the canary Islands.Some 90% of car buyers are grudingly car users and buyers and if a new cheap beam me up device came on the market would drop cars overnight .

You only got to look the history of diesel engines.The diesel was always getting 30% more MPG than petrol and the fuel often cost 10% cheaper than petrol. Yet for the last twenty years the change from mostly petrol car to now a good few diesel cars has been a uphill battle as the extra costs to make the diesel has made the diesel have a typicaly 20% extra cost to buy when new.Even today many drivers especialy low annual milage drivers still buy petrol cars as it often requires a 30,000 mile a year driver to recoup back the premium cost of the diesel car.

The car industry has learnt over along time that having the smallest most powerful engine doesn't sell cars .What sells cars is the cost price of them to the customer and the reputation to be very reliable.New engine development where engine sizes shrink and power increases often have all sorts of teething problems which takes years of trials and developments to sort out.If a car gets lauched before the bugs are sorted as many early Wankel engines did, the customers return rapidily back to more clunky more reliable solutions .

My guess is this new engine is far too good for the aircraft industry to ignore.If it can give the aircraft industry 4 times the milage for the same fuel it will be seen on aircrafts ASAP . A jumbo jet will probably have a combo of two of these engines using the subsonic multi bladed props mixxed with two of the normal jet engines for the initial flights until the new engine proves itself.Then the Jumbo will convert to 4 of the these engines and expect noise of jumbo jets to reduce and costs to fly to drop further.Maybe less than E50 euro ( ticket seat cost not airport taxxes)one way to cross the atlantic.
But even for the avaition market it takes about ten years to get new engines type approved for aircrafts as the test trials take years .

For the car manufactuering market expect this engine in some exotic up market cars first so they can test out the engine in the real world and then watch the engine come into other lesser priced cars.Thats the way the car market can get the richer car buyers to pay the costs of sorting out the bugs in a new engine type. That process will probably take more than ten years before we see that new engine in a typical Ford Cortina , if Ford is still there.

This whacy stuff hydrogen isn't a runner in the real world.It has a low power density so ranges even with big tanks tend to be small often less than 150miles.Hydrogen is mostly made from oil based fuels so your wasting energy to convert oil to hydrogen instead to just put it in the tank.The other option to use Fuel cells is orbital costs and so are mor often seen in orbiting satilies which can pay these exotic costs .Fuel cell prices often costs 100 times per Kilowat than oil or bio fuel solutions .These costs are not even expected to drop to Oil or bio fuel solution prices inside twenty years .All these extra cost gets passed onto the customer.Very soon that customer see these other new cars with small engines on diesel or petrol going 150MPG and ranges of 1000 miles on small tanks on cheaper fuel will sell up from the hydrogen car and swop over to the better solution.The electric car market is similar when they see the better cost from the new small engine cars compared to a restricted range two ton milk float they will change over too

Its real world stuff .Petrol or oil fuels or bio fuels are very power dense fuels .Oil and bio fuels fuels have typicaly 100 times the power per kilo than lead acid batteries .Even exotic lithuim polymer or LiFe lithuim iron or Lithuim titanate can only at best return 7% the power that oil based fuels have per kilo of weight .

Its only been the the typical modern car has often been throwing out ~95% the fuel out the tail pipe in emmisions that made battery solutions look so good . A real quantum leap in liquid fuel solutions from Bio fuels or oil fuels will make the battery solutions look like a gas guzzeler

This new engine if the oil companies or car manufactuers dont squash it could supply that result .

Don't expect the media who are often paid servants of the oil industry or car manufactuers to spell out the advantages for something that they wish to buy cheap or mayby sqaush to tell you the facts or even publish what plans they are doing with it .

The bigest risks for this engine to come to market are factors like the car industry have some cheaper solution which gives eneogh extra mpg to keep customers and government happy.Also there is the risk that the Chinese might go ahead and produce a similar copy cat version and not pay the licence for the engine as the Chinese don't always respect world wide patents.Its not alway's the best solutions will make the inventor a lot of money and its more often that somebody else will make a lot of money from a new device .Even worse the inventor often get squat .




Derry

Plug

This thing like the wankel engine will have to be rebuilt every now and again. Also the cooling issue, this thing has a long way to go before car manufactures will even consider it.

Maybe if this idea was 30 years old we might have it in a few cars as of present but nah I don't think it will ever take off. Sounds like dirt anyway.
6 pod straight will do just fine for me!

derry

Plug wrote: »

This thing like the wankel engine will have to be rebuilt every now and again. Also the cooling issue, this thing has a long way to go before car manufactures will even consider it.

Maybe if this idea was 30 years old we might have it in a few cars as of present but nah I don't think it will ever take off. Sounds like dirt anyway.
6 pod straight will do just fine for me!

Thats a good observation.Any engine that has to be rebuilt on a regular basis such as every 20,000 miles would not be popular with the punters.
Mechanics time is costly and can negate quickly saving from fuel saving if they occor to frequently
So far to date many smaller more powerful engines have suffered from need ing to be seviced to freqently to be economic
Time will tell if this engine suffers those issues

Asssuming it doesn,t require to be rebuilt to frequently the cooling issue doesn,t look that complex to me .They state air and oil cooling works fine. It makes sense as the engine has a 60% thermic efficiency.This means it only has to find a way to get rid of the 40% waste heat .Our normal 4 pod or 6 pod engines are often 30% thermic efficient so they have to find a way to get rid of the 70% wasted heat .Buy spreading the explosions with more pistons such as they often use 16 cyclinders the heat is more spread out over more of the engine making cooling issues more easy I suspect
Another pecular fact they can make the pistons any shape square even if they want .


Derry