Starrotor
1. Up to 10,000 rpm - lesser rpms show significant efficiency improvements over other compressors now, in the 5th generation, see website.
2. Turbulence created at the tips is one of the sealing techniques used. Other techniques are not divulged as yet, but I know of several possibilities. Read the patents.
3. Yes building the expander with higher temperatures will be interesting and probably require some new coatings and materials and possibly new technology.
4. This engine has very adjustible ports, for timing and opening, which makes it a very different engine than a jet. Torque is not a problem, look at the test graphs on the website, across a whole range of rpms. Do not make assumptions based upon your knowledge of jets.
5. It is a careful measured development process.

What I like about the engine is its simplicity and the balanced parts. It should be quite smooth running. I hope they can get a full engine running.

WE ARE CONSULTANTS FOR AN INTERNATIONAL GROUP TO DEVELOPE INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY BASED dIESEL eNGINES WITH STATE OF THE ART TECHNOLOGIES.
wE EXPLORE POSSIBILITIES OF ASSOCIATING WITH CONSULTANTS LIKE YOU FOR ADVISE.
pLEASE RESPOND
cHIDAMBARAM

sir
i am a student of mechanical enginering in india. i m quite a bit excited to know about your project.so sir i need your guidance in this field ,kindly send me all the information regarding the problems faced in this project.
yours faithfully,
Ravinder singh

Enjoyed reading the comments. However, think that the commenters are too close to the trees to see the forest. What is the goal? More efficient engines? Another fuel that disconnects us from fossil oil?

My goal is a portable fuel that can be stored in a can on the shelf, transported (by bucket bail or pipe) to a tank where the fuel can be poured in the fill port. The calories per gallon in the fuel doesn't matter.

The kind of engine doesn't matter just so it sips on the fuel and is VERY efficient. To get a "feel" of the energy required, I suggest that your readers try pushing a standard car 1-mile on flat ground.

Using "waste" to create fuel is a nice thing. "Waste" is our product. We pay big money to make it. Time to stop that.

"Waste" is another name for something we don't know how to use. Consequencely, it piles up in the environment.

At one time. gasoline was a "waste" product of refining petroleum.
TLC

we shuld build this now!!! andd this is off subject but I used to like the new coke better than classic coca cola....does any one know where I can get some?

Hi there folks, if you want to see something really interesting, go look up the four American patents in the name of Nigel Eric Rose. The technology path they represent results in reciprocating IC Engines that only use 1/3rd the amount of fuel to do the same amount of work, are smaller, lighter less complex. Now look at the dates on these patents,this has been available for a long time, scares the blazes out of all the engineers who've ever seen the presentation on it and nobody has ever said it won't work or the reduced fuel demand is incorrect. Americans can have high horse power cars or trucks running on any fuel, including hydrogen and still reduce the fuel and related emissions by better than 60%

Oh, I forgot to mention. The first patents I wrote in this field, covering advanced hydraulic actuators, introduced the concept of electronically controlled, hydraulically actuated and hydraulically amplified unit fuel injectors. Thats right folks these early patents originated a whole new field of actuators, that gave rise to such lovely little devices as the elctronically controlled hydraulic actuated and hydraulicallly amplified unit fuel injectors, subsequently used by such manufacturers as Caterpillar in their diesel engines. If you folks want practical power plants and a green world, start a grass routes movement to get this into production; the big guys don't want it. They stand to lose to much. Don't know how many characters can be used in these pastes so will do a third paste after this one.

Ok, so which automotive manufacturer wants to produce a vehicle that has no clutch, gearbox, drive shaft, universal joints, differential, drive axles, CV joints, or brakes? Nor does it have a starter motor, coolant pump, lubricant pump or power steering pump, they are all incorporated in the overall engine concept. How can a manufacturer charge a high price for a vehicle that is so much simpler to manufacture and what happens to the spare parts market, the most lucrative part of automotive production? Its simply not in their interests to produce this. Likewise, the vehicle automatically acquires recuprative braking and as the engine is dissociated from the driveline, it does not idle and its rate of operation is not linked to the speed of the vehicle. At low power settings, the engine simply slows down to an rpm that only produces the amount of power required. You could have vehicles of this type in the market in 6 months using crude forms of this power plant and even in that crude form, achieve the 60% reduction in fuel used. NOW THATS WHAT I CALL AN ENGINE INNOVATION

I just thought of something else I should mention. The amount of money that has been spent on fuel cell technology. Sorry folks, this thing kills the fuel cell and does the same for all those nice but expensive hybrids as well. You see, this isn't and never has been a hybrid, I think the technology path considerably predates the era of the hybrid, but is actually the first practical vehicle option post the hybrid era. Hows that for amusing. Who is proposing a fuel cell powered class 8 truck, nobody I know of is seriously proposing it; but this thing could be in a class 8 truck in a couple of months and not only provide the previously mentioned advantages, but significantly reduce the tare weight as well. Just another little advantage.

Bugger, seem to be on a bit of role right now. Consider what a 60% reduction in fuel demand for reciprocating IC engine applications would have on Global fuel demand, probably something like 24% reduction in demand for crude. Last time I looked, yesterday, the per barrel price was US$118, now if I remember rightly, at about US$100 per barrel, something around 4 million people in Indonesia alone, slipped back into poverty. I wonder what the situation is now, on a Global basis? How far do you think the per barrel price of crude will drop if there is a 24% Global reduction in demand and I think the actual reduction will be greater? Another thing that will come out of this will be the elimination of demand for bio-fuel and the return of agricultural land to the production of grains and cereals. I currently work in third world development for a European government owned organisation, you folks got any idea how badly the populations of poor countries are being hurt by the high crude prices? This is the chance to turn it all around, basically, development by the people for the people. Doesn't get much more meaningful. Another thing to consider, recycling of obsolete vehicles and components and the manufacture of retro-fit kits and completely new vehicles will go a long way towards revitalizing the economies of many countries. There really isn't a down side to this, you get a greener world, a simple path to the hydrogen economy, improved employment opportunites and vehicles that will give you more bang for the buck. How good do you want it?

Has anyone checked out this one?

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/04/updating_the_st.html