Green Car Congress: New Toroidal Internal Combustion Engine Promises 20:1 Power-to-Weight Ratio

« Toyota to Introduce Flex-Fuel Vehicles in US by 2008 | Main | Biodiesel Continues to Expand Globally »

New Toroidal Internal Combustion Engine Promises 20:1 Power-to-Weight Ratio

18 April 2006

The Massive Yet Tiny (MYT) engine

A California inventor is developing a new compact and highly efficient engine—the Massive Yet Tiny (MYT) engine—that promises high power output with a very high power to weight ratio (20:1). The inventor, Raphial Morgado, recently won first prize in the 2005 Emhart-NASA Tech Briefs Design Contest for his work on the engine.

The engine moves pistons on different rotors relative to each other to form combustion chambers of variable volume in a toroidal cylinder. The pistons move in stepwise fashion, with the pistons on one rotor travelling a predetermined distance while the pistons on the other rotor remain substantially stationary.

Fuel is drawn into a chamber as one of the pistons defining the chamber moves away from the other, and then compressed as the second piston moves toward the first.

The cycles of the MYT engine. Click to enlarge.

Combustion of the fuel drives the first piston away from the second, and the spent gases are then expelled from the chamber by the second piston moving again toward the first. An output shaft is connected to the rotors in such manner that the shaft rotates continuously while the rotors and pistons move in their stepwise fashion.

The engine fires 16 times on one revolution of the crankshaft, 32 times on two. By comparison, a standard V8 fires four times per crankshaft revolution—one-quarter the number of the MYT. Angel Labs, the company developing the engine, calculates the equivalent displacement of the MYT as 848 cubic inches (13.9 liters), with a 3-inch bore and a 3.75-inch stroke. The company further calculates that the 14" x 14", 150-pound prototype could produce power in excess of 3,000 hp.

[The 3,000 hp rating] is conservatively estimated from 850 CID. A conventional engine can produce 4 hp per CID (when turbo charged). Four times 850 [the equivalent displacement] is more than 3,000. Our data of air motoring (800 lb.ft. of torque from 150 psi of compressed air) extrapolates to more than 4,000 lb.ft. of torque when fuel is ignited, exceeding our conservative estimate.

—Jin K. Kim, Managing Member, Angel Labs

The design is also modular. Additional MYT units can be connected by removing the rear cover of the engine and connecting another ME chamber assembly. With a dual-assembly configuration, the engine becomes a “64-cylinder” engine with 1,695 cubic inches displacement (27.8 liters), raising the power-to-weight ratio up to a projected 40:1.

The engine uses only about 20% of the number of parts normally found in a reciprocating internal combustion engine, and only 12 of the MYT parts are moving parts, reducing friction and parasitic losses.

Unlike a reciprocating combustion engine, the MYT engine permits a piston dwell at the equivalent of Top Dead Center (TDC)—the starting point for combustion. The current prototype is set for a piston dwell of approximately 12 degrees of the crankshaft rotation. By adding in that delay under combustion before permitting the power stroke, the MYT burns a greater percentage of the fuel and air mixture in the combustion chamber, resulting in a more complete combustion.

All we know is that 12-degrees dwell at the TDC, which no other engine can do, will burn all the fuels completely. Therefore, we expect very clean emissions.

—Jin K. Kim

Other features of the engine include:

The ability to support a compression ratio as high as 70:1.
No valves. The MYT uses open ports with no restriction. Airflow action is one way.
The entire engine acts as a heat sink and a radiator. It is both air and oil cooled.
There is no thrust loading on piston skirts.
Pistons do not touch the cylinder walls, only the rings do.
Pistons travel only the same direction. No reciprocation, only stop and go.
There are no cylinder heads, no cam shaft, no valves (the ME is equivalent to the bottom end of a reciprocating engine).
Intake compression and power stroke and exhaust stroke events are happening all at the same time, so there are no load strokes.

The MYT engine is not the first implementation of rotating pistons in a toroidal cylinder—the 1968 Tschudi engine is very similar in concept. (A newer derivative is by Hoose, 2005.) The key to the MYT engine is its timing mechanism.

The stop and go actions can be generated in many different ways, but you can not have active locking mechanism, because it will break under repeated stress. It took Raphial, who usually can invent in a couple of hours per invention, more than two years to come up with this invention (he threw away about 10 different ways of implementation.)

—Jin Kim, in the Angel Labs forum

Angel Labs is targeting a number of application: autombiles and trucks, pumps and compressors, aviation (helicopter, fixed wing and UAV), and military. Their goal is to license the technology non-exclusively to everyone. According to Jin Kim, Angel Labs is currently in discussions with Lockheed Margin, Boeing, Ford and several smaller potential licensees.

(A hat-tip to Bob C!)

Resources:

Morgado, US Patent #6,739,307: Internal combustion engine and method
Tschudi, US Patent #3,381,669: Rotary Internal Combustion Engine
Hoose, US Patent #6,880,494: Toroidal internal combustion engine
Angel Labs forum discussion of the MYT mechanism
Videos of the MYT in action.

April 18, 2006 in Concept Engines, Diesel, Emissions, Engines, Fuel Efficiency | Permalink | Comments (53) | TrackBack (2)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/4694106

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference New Toroidal Internal Combustion Engine Promises 20:1 Power-to-Weight Ratio:

» Un'energica innovazione from Network Games
[Read More]

Tracked on Apr 19, 2006 8:05:23 AM

» Massive Yet Tiny Engine from ENGINEERING.com
[Read More]

Tracked on Jul 5, 2006 6:41:54 AM

Comments

If this is really practical, the applications for light aircraft should be huge.

Posted by: Nick | Apr 18, 2006 3:08:24 PM

Could it be used for a much lighter weight genset for PHEVs?

Posted by: Harvey D. | Apr 18, 2006 3:31:11 PM

What is power to weight ratio of other ICEs? 20:1 is a nice ratio but i would like something in which to compare.

Posted by: John Allison | Apr 18, 2006 3:34:47 PM

I note that this engine has only been run with compressed air, not on a combustion cycle. This means that the following are not characterized yet:

Mechanical loading of the various mechanisms (including the stop/start system).
Stress on the cooling system.
Thermal efficiency.

This thing sounds a lot like the next Wankel, and could have problems of its own. Let's wait and see before gushing over it. That said, 40 HP/lb puts it into territory where it competes with gas turbines!

Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Apr 18, 2006 4:02:31 PM

Er, even 20 HP/lb does.

The state of the art in auto engines is about 100 HP/liter for high performance models (about 1.6 HP per cubic inch). I can't tell you what the typical power/weight is for cars, but for opposed-piston light aircraft engines it is about 0.5 HP per pound.

Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Apr 18, 2006 4:06:34 PM

Sounds like a bunch of hot air to me. These "im going to revolutionize the internal combusition engine" ideas come out of nowhere every 5 minutes. They haven't even run the engine with fuel yet. Just compressed air so don't hold your breath.

Posted by: Justin | Apr 18, 2006 4:48:13 PM

Looks much like the Sarich Orbital engine:
http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/patents/ex_orbit.shtml

This is what happened to it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_engine

Posted by: Ender | Apr 18, 2006 7:55:22 PM

Trying to get electronics TSO'd for aircraft use is enough of a headache. I could just imagine what he will have to go through to get a brand new powerplant certified for aviation use.

Posted by: Patrick | Apr 18, 2006 10:33:38 PM

"...that promises high power output with a very high power to weight ratio (20:1)."
Sorry but as long as power and weight are not expressed in the same units, such a sentence is pure nonsense. I would certainly never trust an inventor who is not even able to use proper terms to describe his "discovery".

Posted by: François | Apr 19, 2006 12:00:04 AM

I'm supposed to know a little bit about mechanics. This thing is greek to me.

I don't know greek.

Posted by: Lucas | Apr 19, 2006 6:33:28 AM

Given that it is an American inventor I would hazard a guess that they are saying 20hp to 1lb, but that is only specualtion since it isn't explicitly defined.

I believe the LS1 from GM weighs ~400-450lbs and developed 400hp in Z06 form that would give 1hp per lb but that is with emissions equipment (catalytic converters & mufflers), emissions requirements and driven accessories. Until they have this engine running in an EPA lab to ascertain compliance with automotive emissions standards the power it produces can't be compared.

For example: A drag car from Puerto Rico, known as Sakura, was running mid 7 second 1/4 mile times using a 2.6L 4 cylinder turbocharged engine developing somewhere around 1000hp (the motor used with turbocharger weighed around 350lbs) but don't expect that engine to meet emissions standards for noise or air.

Posted by: Patrick | Apr 19, 2006 8:33:16 AM

If this thing can really pull this kind of power to weight ratio, maybe I can finally get a flying car in my lifetime. It looks like this prototype runs on diesel as well - I wonder what the thermodynamic efficiency of this motor will end up being.

Posted by: Nate | Apr 19, 2006 10:15:44 AM

Well, if you read the article, you would see that the claim was 150Lbs and 3000hp.

20hp : 1Lbs

Modern high output street legal engines Are between 1:1 HP:Lbs and 1.5. (Some bike engines offer 2:1 but not for very long :)

Someone earlier mentioned HP/Liter, but that is a measurment not useful for anything but marketing.
It bears no relivance to HP:Weight, nor reliability, nor thermal efficiency or emissions. It is a moron's litmus test.

This engine is potentially exciting, but I agree with previous posts, I want to see it run on a fuel, and I have doubts about 150Lbs worth of material handeling the stresses from 3000hp, or even half of that.

Posted by: Ash | Apr 19, 2006 11:02:47 AM

Consider this. 3000hp is over 7,500,000 btus/hr. If this engine is a very good 50% efficient a very small surface area would need to dissipate this much heat every hour. The surface temp may need to be over 1000F. Skepticism is very much in order.

Posted by: tom deplume | Apr 19, 2006 4:33:11 PM

I agree Tom,

With this much heat thermal cooling is a big problem.
I'm not sure how they are going to achieve good combustion in only 90 degrees CA. This is too short even with hydrogen. The exhaust heat losses will be very high and reduce the thermal efficney. I'm not sure how they are also achieving a high compression ratio with this configuration.

The engine has high surface area for the outer housing this will disapate much of the heat and lower the thermal efficiency. The cooling the center rotor will be a big problem.

You also have a strange split line running down the center of the combustion chamber that separates the two different rotor groups of four. This split line will be prone to combustion gas penetration, especially at very high compression ratios.

How does this keep the combustion rotation in the desired direction? It looks like it would just produce center pressure that would go both forward and backward.

I think that they use some elaborate gearing system, but this will add friction and be prone to wear. This will add to the reduction of the brake thermal efficiency.

You might somehow get high power density, but you won't be able to maintain it for very long due to the thermal loading and you certainly won't get very good fuel efficiency from high surface heat and exhaust losses. This would be something that the military might try, but I can't see what it will do to help reduce our oil and fuel consumption.

Posted by: Barry R. Guthrie | Apr 19, 2006 8:50:45 PM

This invention rings in very high on my "baloney" meter. Conceptually, toroidal combustion engines that work on the basic principles noted here have been around since the 1920s. See: U.S. Patent #1329625. Their theoretically high power-to-weight ratio is not a new discovery.

Plenty of inventors have been at work over the years trying to come up with improvements in design to make such an engine practicable (you can search the patent records for for examples), which it does not yet seem to be. If Mazda was willing to give the Wankel engine a try back when, I find it hard to believe that they did not stumble upon the toroidal concept and decline to pursue it for good reasons.

Reading between the lines, it seems that if anything new has been invented here, it would be some sort of stop-and-go mechanism, to get the variable speed piston movements needed for the concept to work. Not surprisingly, they disclose virutally nothing about the actual mechanics of that system, though I imagine that likely involves elliptical gearings linked to the central shaft(s), or some such.

What really limits engines of this sort is not the lack of a clever mechanical solution to the piston timing and speed issues, but the fundamental materials science problems that previous postings have identified: heat exchange, sealing the piston walls and toroidal assembly, building an assembly strong enough to withstand the forces generated by the production of that much power in that small a space, etc. I also notice that no mention is made of its fuel economy, and would tend to believe that it would not be good for very fundamental physical reasons.

I would be surprised if this amounts to anything more than an attempt to get misguided investors to put money into a venture of dubious merit.

Posted by: NBK-Boston | Apr 19, 2006 10:01:09 PM

Hmmm, power to weight ratio is 20hp/lb,eh? This proves that the inventor of this thing is an idiot when it comes to material science. Power is force times distance. Aluminum, Titanium and Steel can withstand certain amount of stress before they will break. The best heat engine (Diesel) is around 50% thermal efficient. This means that a lot of heat will need to be ejected from the engine before it will melt. A race-car engine is at the forefront of power-to-weight ratio, and at no more than 3hp/lb ratio, the limiting factor here is metallurgy, as the material cannot handle any more heat nor stress. A race car engine must be rebuilt after every race. A Wankel rotary engine is even simpler than the toroidal engine and it has no reciprocating parts, either, and a good Wankel engine has about 1hp/lb to 2hp/lb, no more.

Posted by: Roger Pham | Apr 19, 2006 10:21:17 PM

It would be great if this engine had said power to weight ratio; however, I have to remain a skeptic. If you take a look at some of the other advanced rotary engines that have recently come out you will find that they do not get anywhere near such figures. The design that comes to mind is the randcam engine that has many more power pulses per rotation in a compact and efficient design. They are getting great numbers, but they are nowhere near what this gentleman is claiming. Also, on paper the randcam seems to be a better design, but I may be wrong. I have not done an in depth review of either engine. Another thing to consider that pumping efficiency does not necessarily translate into the efficiency of the engine with the complete combustion cycle. Combustion efficiency is quite different. I read through some of the discussions on the MYT engine site and as I recall there was a question posed as to why they had not run combustion test. I encourage you to go to the source to get the reply 100% correct; however, I recall it being to the effect that they did not want to damage the engine as they had experienced damage in a previous combustion test. If such is the case they may indeed have problems with the engine parts being able to withstand the stress of the process. I have to admit that this design is quite interesting. I wish them the best of success. I hope they overcome all of their engineering hurdles. Don't we all?

Posted by: Daniel | Apr 20, 2006 6:00:02 AM

This design does have better thermal properties than the Wankel; the ratio of surface to volume is much lower, and there appears to be no period where the intake and exhaust are interconnected. The big issue appears to be the mechanical arrangements for moving the vanes.

This may have more potential as a topping cycle for gas turbines than as a stand-alone engine. In a gas turbine, combustion occurs at constant pressure and the gases expand, increasing entropy. Now consider a gas turbine blowing through an engine like this, running at 1:1 compression ratio and a larger expansion ratio. The fuel would burn in a closed chamber and the gases would increase in pressure, deriving work from the expansion before being released to run the turbine. An adiabatic engine built with silicon carbide combustion-chamber surfaces could eliminate most need for cooling, too.

If a gas turbine could get an extra 3:1 pressure ratio in the expansion stage, it would improve the efficiency considerably. It would also let the turbine idle with much lower fuel consumption, as the compressor would not be required to generate sufficient pressure to keep the engine operating.

Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Apr 20, 2006 7:58:51 AM

The thermal problem of this engine is pale in comparison to the sealing problem for this engine, since the power can be scaled back to reduce heat. The most fundamental problem is the sealing of the cut out in the donut hole that may render it totally impractical. This is because there is no piston rod on the underside of the piston, so the pistons must transfer their power laterally to the engine shaft through a cut out groove around the donut hole, as the pistons move circularly in the toroidal cylinder. Now, imagine trying to seal this groove against leak of oil and hot exhaust gas. The sealing problem of the Wankel is pale in comparison to this problem.
No, Ceramics like silicon carbide, are brittle, and would not be a good idea here due to the rapid changing in temperature in the combustion chamber, hence tremendous heat stress, leading to cracking. Metal can withstand temperature changes much better. Gas turbine blades would be much better candidate for ceramic due to the lack of sudden temperature variation. Even metallic high-temp nickel alloy of gas turbine blades does not like rapid temperature change, either, and so, turbine engines are limited to a finite number of cycles of throttling up and down in a jet aircraft.

Posted by: Roger Pham | Apr 21, 2006 3:59:22 PM

This design has MUCH worse thermal efficienies vs a Wankel, Engineer-poet, at least as described: the "dwell" of 12-degrees means the effective engine surface area at it's "TDC" is probably doubled, and since that is the point of highest temp/pressure, it'd have roughly twice the energy loss from heat as a conventional engine.

That 12-degree also reduces the angular distance for getting a good expansion ratio. If they were able to reduce the "dwell" and increase the expansion ratio, though, perhaps the efficienies would come back up. However, the reason they probably won't be able to, if they manage to build one, is that they have a terrible arrangement for the flame kernal at the spark plug. It's at the cylinder wall!! They'd get terrible incomplete combustion without the dwell, I'd imagine. And it gets worse: the gap of the plug can't extend into the swept area at all(!!) - so the rings will be going over a gap, which is not possible with current ring technology... you'll get immediate wear and strain to the rings.

The other problem to the rings & sealing is that the "cylinder wall" halves are moving in relation to each other, meaning these would have to be sealed to each other, which would be a HUGE source of friction that isn't mentioned. In an ICE, piston/cylinder wall friction is about 70% of total friction, but in this engine it'd be under 50% because of the addition in the friction from one-half of the cylinder wall to the other!!

Several technical points of the article are in error, under "features":

1. There is no way a gasoline engine can reach 70:1... and it's not a diesel since I see spark plugs. People have worked on high-compression gas-detonation engines, but this design isn't suited for it with its sealing issues.

2. Open ports with no restriction is not a benefit (one-way airflow is, though). I've seen the data from Lotus's cam-less high-pressure hydraulic valvetrain, which can mimic any profile, even square-wave... open values with a square-wave, though, and they actually have worse airflow. I also believe (though it's not mentioned) that this would be a very low-rpm, low-mean-piston-speed engine, so to salvage air-flow with some fancy variable-length-runner intake system may be difficult, due to the extreme length of the runners required. Probably measured in feet, not inches.

3. Air/Oil cooled? Are you kidding me. Everyone has already pointed out extreme cooling a 3000hp 150lb engine would require... of course what we really want is a 300hp 50lb version, I guess, but either way cooling requirements are basically bhp over thermal efficieny, so you'd need a larger cooling system than a normal 300hp engine, not a smaller/non-existant one.

4. No thrust loading?? Ok, take a bucket of water, and swing it over your head on a rope... do you feel loading on your arm? These piston skirts will as well... its centrifugal. There should be much less than the load caused by the kinematics of a connecting rod, especially if this is a low-rpm engine, but it's not zero.

5. Pistons don't touch the cylinder walls? Please. See #4

6. No reciprocation? The momentum loss in a "stop and go" system described here is EXACTLY equal to the momentum loss in a reciprocating engine, so this is technically accurate, but of exactly ZERO benefit.

7. There 6th bullet point is actually somewhat correct, cheers!

8. They almost had a run, there! But no... while it's true all the strokes happen simultaneously, this is not a benefit... because there are a lot of off-axis forces because every-other piston is moving together, but adjacent pistons are moving with opposing motions, and extreme & opposing forces. Note that the "upper cylinder head" function is being performed by the bottom-half of the trailing piston!! so these forces will require extremely robust construction, perhaps heavier-duty than a convention ICE engine that has seperate power/intake/etc strokes.

However overall, not having looked at the patents yet, and seen the air-engine demo, won't write this off yet. Well, I'll write it off for fuel efficiency and clean-burning, but if the sealing, intake, and combustion issues can be overcome, which is certainly possible, it would be very compact for it's power output, if not for it's weight. That is useful in some applications - tanks, airplanes, etc.

And it is original, at least to a wankel/orbital... I haven't looked at the referenced patents from '69 though, but even if it's not completely original to those patents, at least those patents have long expired.

Good luck to them I guess. Most of the errors I pointed out are just on people writing articles about engines who aren't engine people, or haven't thought through their own inventions I guess.

-Kevin

Posted by: Kevin | Apr 22, 2006 9:35:28 PM

Sorry for the typos above. It occurs to me you could fix the spark plug problems I mentioned above, by housing the spark plug _inside_ the pistons, which would position the plug properly, and leave no gap in the cylinder wall to give the rings problems. You should be able to wire/insulate the plug through the attachment of the piston to the power transmission ring (maybe). Kills 2 birds with one stone. Hmm, if that is an original idea, maybe I shouldn't have disclosed it here. *wink* *wink*

-Kev

Posted by: Kevin | Apr 22, 2006 9:43:48 PM

Under the hood of almost all modern automobiles there sits a four-stroke internal combustion engine (ICE). Though the efficiency of the design has been improved upon significantly in the intervening years, the basic concept is the same today as that used by the first practical four-stroke engine built in the 1870s...But the automotive industry may soon be revolutionized by a new six-stroke design which adds a second power stroke, resulting in a much more efficient and less polluting alternative.
[...]
...After the exhaust cycles out of the chamber, rather than squirting more fuel and air into the chamber, his design injects ordinary water. Inside the extremely hot chamber, the water immediately turns to steam– expanding to 1600 times its volume– which forces the piston down for a second power stroke. Another exhaust cycle pushes the steam out of the chamber, and then the six-stroke cycle begins again.
The Six-Stroke Engine

Posted by: CharlesWT | Apr 22, 2006 10:57:36 PM

Kevin: without more info on the mechanisms (as opposed to the combustion chamber) of the toroidal engine, it's hard to conclude that it's either great or fatally flawed. Besides, there are lots of ways to alter the other pieces while leaving the basics more or less the same. And I don't see sealing as the big issue you do; inertial forces are never going to force a vane against the wall as they do in a piston engine, so the seals can be built with very different mechanical properties which would not work (or even survive) as piston rings.

CharlesWT: I saw that too. I'm not sure if it has a future, but if it does it's going to need a second exhaust valve for the steam stroke, a separate manifold for steam and a condenser.

Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Apr 23, 2006 11:52:37 PM

Thanks, Kevin for a thorough analysis, and especially in explaining that the two cylinder halves are moving against each other. I kept thinking erroneously that some kind of transverse cut out at the center of the torus allows the pistons to transmit their force to the center shaft. Now, then, the issue is even more interesting:
1) For the kind of pressure involved in generating decent horsepower in a IC engine, a cylinder half will be pushed away from the other half with the greatest of force. Let's say 500-600 psi at the end of combustion point, then the cylinder halves are pushed away from each other with forces of thousands of pounds. Now, let's see what kind of seal and lubrication would be able to hold up against that kind of force in that kind of heat without breaking down and excessive wear? not to mention heavy construction need at the junction of the seal, causing high inertial mass that must be stopped and go continously, thus accelerating the wear on the gearing mechanism that allows such a weird motion to occur. In a standard piston Otto-cycle engine, the piston pin and crankshaft are also exposed to high force right at the point of combustion, but the difference is that the piston pin and crankshaft are protected from the extreme combustion heat so that the oil won't get degraded, and that they are generously lubricated by fresh oil forced in under high pressure.
2) Dwell time of 12 degrees for complete combustion? Pure fantasy. This much time and 3000-5000 degrees F of heat generated and tremendous amount of force necessary to restrain the piston movement until the dwell time is over means tremendous thermal stress and mechanical stress on all the involved parts, such that, if this design will ever work at all, it won't last very long. How long can one expose lubricant to extreme heat of 3000 degrees F?
If you think that Wankel engine is having problem with rotor seal and efficiency, don't look toward this new design for salvation.
GOOD LUCK, MYT engine and Raphial Morgado, you are gonna need a lot of it!!!

Posted by: Roger Pham | Apr 24, 2006 5:11:20 PM

The impossible heat dissipation problem for the claimed 3,000 horsepower rating is unimportant because there is no 3,000 horsepower. I thought of this exact engine design for a high school project where we were assigned to "build a better mousetrap" in 1986. I scrapped it as naive without knowing anyone had already patented the same basic problematic idea. The major reasons why it isn't in plenty of machines right now are mostly listed in comments above. I am only writing in reference to the 3,000 HP rating. He comes up with this number above by starting with an optimistic number of The engine fires 16 times on one revolution of the crankshaft, 32 times on two. By comparison, a standard V8 fires four times per crankshaft revolution—one-quarter the number of the MYT. Angel Labs, the company developing the engine, calculates the equivalent displacement of the MYT as 848 cubic inches (13.9 liters), with a 3-inch bore and a 3.75-inch stroke. The company further calculates that the 14" x 14", 150-pound prototype could produce power in excess of 3,000 hp.

[The 3,000 hp rating] is conservatively estimated from 850 CID. A conventional engine can produce 4 hp per CID (when turbo charged). Four times 850 [the equivalent displacement] is more than 3,000. Our data of air motoring (800 lb.ft. of torque from 150 psi of compressed air) extrapolates to more than 4,000 lb.ft. of torque when fuel is ignited, exceeding our conservative estimate.

—Jin K. Kim, Managing Member, Angel Labs

All we know is that 12-degrees dwell at the TDC, which no other engine can do, will burn all the fuels completely. Therefore, we expect very clean emissions.

—Jin K. Kim

Other features of the engine include:

The ability to support a compression ratio as high as 70:1.

No valves. The MYT uses open ports with no restriction. Airflow action is one way.

The entire engine acts as a heat sink and a radiator. It is both air and oil cooled.

There is no thrust loading on piston skirts.

Pistons do not touch the cylinder walls, only the rings do.

Pistons travel only the same direction. No reciprocation, only stop and go.

There are no cylinder heads, no cam shaft, no valves (the ME is equivalent to the bottom end of a reciprocating engine).

Intake compression and power stroke and exhaust stroke events are happening all at the same time, so there are no load strokes.

The stop and go actions can be generated in many different ways, but you can not have active locking mechanism, because it will break under repeated stress. It took Raphial, who usually can invent in a couple of hours per invention, more than two years to come up with this invention (he threw away about 10 different ways of implementation.)

—Jin Kim, in the Angel Labs forum

(A hat-tip to Bob C!)

Resources:

Morgado, US Patent #6,739,307: Internal combustion engine and method

Tschudi, US Patent #3,381,669: Rotary Internal Combustion Engine

Hoose, US Patent #6,880,494: Toroidal internal combustion engine

Angel Labs forum discussion of the MYT mechanism

Videos of the MYT in action.

April 18, 2006 in Concept Engines, Diesel, Emissions, Engines, Fuel Efficiency | Permalink | Comments (25) | TrackBack (1)

TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/4694106

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference New Toroidal Internal Combustion Engine Promises 20:1 Power-to-Weight Ratio:

» Un'energica innovazione from Network Games
[Read More]

Tracked on Apr 19, 2006 8:05:23 AM

Comments
If this is really practical, the applications for light aircraft should be huge.

Posted by: Nick | Apr 18, 2006 3:08:24 PM

Could it be used for a much lighter weight genset for PHEVs?

Posted by: Harvey D. | Apr 18, 2006 3:31:11 PM

What is power to weight ratio of other ICEs? 20:1 is a nice ratio but i would like something in which to compare.

Posted by: John Allison | Apr 18, 2006 3:34:47 PM

I note that this engine has only been run with compressed air, not on a combustion cycle. This means that the following are not characterized yet:

Mechanical loading of the various mechanisms (including the stop/start system).
Stress on the cooling system.
Thermal efficiency.
This thing sounds a lot like the next Wankel, and could have problems of its own. Let's wait and see before gushing over it. That said, 40 HP/lb puts it into territory where it competes with gas turbines!

Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Apr 18, 2006 4:02:31 PM

Er, even 20 HP/lb does.

Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Apr 18, 2006 4:06:34 PM

Posted by: Justin | Apr 18, 2006 4:48:13 PM

Looks much like the Sarich Orbital engine:
http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/patents/ex_orbit.shtml

This is what happened to it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_engine

Posted by: Ender | Apr 18, 2006 7:55:22 PM

Trying to get electronics TSO'd for aircraft use is enough of a headache. I could just imagine what he will have to go through to get a brand new powerplant certified for aviation use.

Posted by: Patrick | Apr 18, 2006 10:33:38 PM

Posted by: François | Apr 19, 2006 12:00:04 AM

I'm supposed to know a little bit about mechanics. This thing is greek to me.

I don't know greek.

Posted by: Lucas | Apr 19, 2006 6:33:28 AM

Given that it is an American inventor I would hazard a guess that they are saying 20hp to 1lb, but that is only specualtion since it isn't explicitly defined.

Posted by: Patrick | Apr 19, 2006 8:33:16 AM

Posted by: Nate | Apr 19, 2006 10:15:44 AM

Well, if you read the article, you would see that the claim was 150Lbs and 3000hp.

20hp : 1Lbs

Modern high output street legal engines Are between 1:1 HP:Lbs and 1.5. (Some bike engines offer 2:1 but not for very long :)

Posted by: Ash | Apr 19, 2006 11:02:47 AM

Posted by: tom deplume | Apr 19, 2006 4:33:11 PM

I agree Tom,

The engine has high surface area for the outer housing this will disapate much of the heat and lower the thermal efficiency. The cooling the center rotor will be a big problem.

How does this keep the combustion rotation in the desired direction? It looks like it would just produce center pressure that would go both forward and backward.

I think that they use some elaborate gearing system, but this will add friction and be prone to wear. This will add to the reduction of the brake thermal efficiency.

Posted by: Barry R. Guthrie | Apr 19, 2006 8:50:45 PM

I would be surprised if this amounts to anything more than an attempt to get misguided investors to put money into a venture of dubious merit.

Posted by: NBK-Boston | Apr 19, 2006 10:01:09 PM

Posted by: Roger Pham | Apr 19, 2006 10:21:17 PM

Posted by: Daniel | Apr 20, 2006 6:00:02 AM

Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Apr 20, 2006 7:58:51 AM

Posted by: Roger Pham | Apr 21, 2006 3:59:22 PM

Several technical points of the article are in error, under "features":

5. Pistons don't touch the cylinder walls? Please. See #4

7. There 6th bullet point is actually somewhat correct, cheers!

Good luck to them I guess. Most of the errors I pointed out are just on people writing articles about engines who aren't engine people, or haven't thought through their own inventions I guess.

-Kevin

Posted by: Kevin | Apr 22, 2006 9:35:28 PM

-Kev

Posted by: Kevin | Apr 22, 2006 9:43:48 PM

Posted by: CharlesWT | Apr 22, 2006 10:57:36 PM

CharlesWT: I saw that too. I'm not sure if it has a future, but if it does it's going to need a second exhaust valve for the steam stroke, a separate manifold for steam and a condenser.

Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Apr 23, 2006 11:52:37 PM

Posted by: Roger Pham | Apr 24, 2006 5:11:20 PM

Post a comment

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments:
The impossible heat dissipation problem for the claimed 3,000 horsepower rating is unimportant because there is no 3,000 horsepower. I thought of this exact engine design for a high school project where we were assigned to "build a better mousetrap" in 1986. I called it "The Clapper." I got a B for creativity, but the judges new something about engine design and explained why it wouldn't work as well as a standard design. I scrapped it as naive without knowing anyone had already patented the same basic problematic idea as there was no internet then and patent searches were both expensive and time consuming. The major reasons why it isn't in plenty of machines right now are mostly listed in comments above. I am only writing in reference to the 3,000HP rating. He comes up with this number erroniously by starting with an optimistic number of 4HP per Cubic inch displacement. Let's just be nice and give him that one. He says the bore and stroke dimensions are 3" by 3.75", so pi times 3 times 3.75 gives us the displacement of one actual chamber volume (about 35.34 cubic inches). That times sixteen chambers equals 565.44 cubic inches. I don't know where the 848 CID number comes from. So then he multiplies this magic 848 times 4 to get 3,392 HP, but firing at how many rpms? He never states that. I think he might actually not understand how torque and HP are calculated. Well, thankfully I had to know when I was in tenth grade to pass my project. He should go to www.howstuffworks.com He is multiplying HP by the number of contained explosions per revolution, but the formula for calculating HP is foot pounds of torque times revolutions per minute, divided by 5,252. His arbitrary number of 4HP per CID is from an exceptionally refined four stroke design. That means without knowing how many RPMs this number is already unuseable. But let's be nice. Lets say that small high performance turbo charged four stroke engine is revving at 10,000 RPMs, that would give us 2.1 foot pounds of torque per cubic inch displacement using the formula. Now remember, HP by definition is inversely proportional to RPMS required to make a specific amount of torque. Lets assume the frictional and heat losses to be the same as the modern high performance four stroke, allowing for as many explosions to occur in the same rate of time. (Exploding gas pushing a piston and con rod, turning a crank twice while using a lot of that energy to stop a piston's motion and start it again at roughly the same speed while pushing out exhaust and sucking in air and compressing it, turning a turbocharger, heating up components, turning timing gears, etc. That's four stroke design. This engine is a four stroke design. These explosions and power losses are what determine the rate and power of everything else.) His design, like mine and others before them, creates sixteen explosions per revolution. It takes this energy and similarly pushes con rods to turn gears around another gear, to stop and start the pistons, compress the air, push out the exhaust, heat things up, turn a turbocharger, etc. Sound familiar. Higher RPMs are achieved by reducing the losses. If he has eight chambers, each firing twice per revolution we get sixteen explosions per revolution. If we believe this engine design to be as efficient per CID as a modern high performance turbocharged engine with the same bore and stroke with eight cyllinders, (which it's not) then 2.1 ft-lbs times 35.34 CID times sixteen equals 1,187.42 total ft-lbs per revolution. Now lets calculate how much horsepower that is. 1,187.42 ft-lbs times 1 revolution, divided by 5,252 equals .22 horsepower per revotion (sixteen explosions). Now lets compare that to the modern high performance turbocharged engine. It has the same bore and stroke creating the same amount of torque (1,187.42 ft-lbs), but it took more revolutions to produce it. In a modern V-8, there are eight pistons moving up and down in pairs, all connected to the same crankshaft. For those eight cyllinders to produce the same sixteen explosions, it would take four revolutions. 1,187.42 ft-lbs times 4 revolutions divided by 5,252 equals .90 horsepower. Since HP is inversely proportional to RPMs, divide that number by four and you get the same HP per revolution. I hope the NASA guys that gave him that award didn't fall for the same mumbo jumbo of 3,000 HP. If he won money with that prize, I wish I told NASA about it when I was 15.

Posted by: Brent | Apr 25, 2006 3:39:22 PM

My pop tried to tell me that pie r round and cornbread r square, but I learn't in skool that the area of a circle is pie times the radius squared or A=(Π*diameter^2/4). For a 3" bore and 3.75" stroke the vol of one "chamber" is 26.51 in^3. They are saying that for all cylinders in a 4-stroke, 8 cyl engine to fire, 2 revolutions are required. Thus for 2 revs of the myt concept it will fire 32 times equating to a displacement of 32*26.51 = 848 in^3.

Posted by: DJ | Apr 25, 2006 9:09:33 PM

OOPS! But my point is the same either way. Apparently I got ahead of myself in math (or behind myself since I haven't looked any of this stuff up since high school). I'll simplify so my point is more easily taken. Let's say each chamber explosion creates 1 ft-lb of torque on both the MYT and a standard V-8. For 16 such explosions on the MYT, the crank turns once. On the V-8, the crank turns 4 times. The amount of time it takes for eight pairs of explosions of equal size in chambers of equal size is the same. Those explosions are the only thing powering the other steps of doing equal work to compress equal volumes of air to expell equal amounts of exhaust, to stop and start eight pistons with con rods on excentric wheels, etc. The only thing that changes is the number of rotations on the crank arm. Those sixteen explosions create the same amount of torque, but not on both engine's crank arms. If he can get it to run, the MYT will create that torque in the same amount of time but with one quarter of the revolutions of a standard V-8. So once they take that same amount of torque created in the same amount of time and hook it up to a final drive of the same RPM, they end up with the same amount of HP. In other words, the MYT exerts four times more torque in four times as much time. Remember, RPM means revolutions per minute. They cancel each other out. The longer previous explanation, although apparently mathematically flawed, was flawed equally for both engines. I just have an intimate knowledge of this engine design since I thought I was the inventor of nearly an identical engine in 1986. The only difference is I scrapped it because standard engines have well sealed chambers with round sprung rings sealing them, and are easily rebuilt by replacing the whole cylinder and rings. My design, like his, has three long slits down the side of each chamber, preventing the possibility of sealing any where near as well or as easily. And if he invents a way to seal it, which is the real problem, (and why he hasn't run it as an engine since it WILL seize) then quite a few problems still remain. One of which is that the combustion chamber never gets a break. In his design, the exact same portion of the torus is always used for the exact same portion of the cycle. Meaning the part used for the combustion will be experiencing much higher temperatures than the portion used for intake 90 degrees away. Even more of a nightmare when it comes to sealing. Those standard piston rings are going to have to be constantly expanding and contracting to take up the difference in chamber size of vastly different temperature chambers. Standard engines use the same chamber for all for cycles, which is brilliant. This allows for very constant overall average temperatures in that chamber and make it a much more constant diameter for the rings to seal. In the MYT, when wear happens much quicker and it is time to rebuild the engine, it will be time for a whole new one since there is no way to press out a simple cyllinder wall and press in a new one, or bore it out. All major parts in the MYT design contain a portion of the chamber, meaning they would just have to be replaced. No aluminium engine block surrounding the steel cyllinder, just solid steel parts. Very heavy indead. That's one of the great things with the modern engine design, it's been refined to have many more parts, for the specific reason of being able to replace them for less money as they wear out. My conclusion is the same today as it was as a teenager. It will be heavier, much harder to seal, wear out much quicker, be unrebuildable, and far more expensive to mass produce in the first place compared to a standard design. Best of luck to him. P.S. Does anyone else think he looks like a crazy scientist on his web site which barely works. I love the white lab coat effect in all the pictures.

Posted by: Brent | Apr 26, 2006 10:36:40 AM

Are you guys engineers or simply nay sayers w/ college credit in Thermo I and Solid Mechanics? Lets suppose that there are problems w/ this design as all of you have convincingly illustrated... maybe you should propose a solution?

For example, if the compression ratio was reduced and the expansion ratio increased this engine could potentially operate on external combustion gases. It could even be staged to increase efficiency.

And about ceramic coating of the combustion chambers ... the assumption that the heat shock to the coating and the underlying metal components would cause the ceramic to crack is only true if the two materials have significant and different thermal expansion coefficients. Metals and ceramics alike are both available with low thermal expansion... and if nothing is sufficient it can be developed, thats what materials science is for.

It will probably be the case that this engine will require more than carbon steel ... but thats what progress is about.

So just for the sake of those attempting to change the world one invention at a time ... please only pose a problem if you have a solution/suggestion.

Posted by: Matt | May 11, 2006 5:36:17 PM

A mighty claim that this is the only engine in the world that they know of that can give a dwell at TDC.

Revetec engine can also do this. www.revetec.com and is alot more simple in design.

Posted by: Brad | May 25, 2006 12:39:58 AM

What would be the output in hp of a 350 pound high efficient electric motor? If the same or better, then this engine maybe still born, as battery technology is surging ahead. Look at the Tesla electric car - the power management does it...and batteries are getting better by the year.

Posted by: John | Jul 27, 2006 9:58:48 AM

With 25-1 compression and no valves, the most natural way to build this thing is as a diesal and diesals naturally run cooler than gasoline engines. A 160 hp engine for a Dodge Neon would be the size of a volleyball and it would be mainly empty space under the hood. Performance would be significantly enhanced by the sheer weight loss.

Posted by: Ted | Aug 20, 2006 8:49:15 PM

This web is very good. sent me details about i.c engins

Posted by: jackson | Sep 5, 2006 8:18:12 PM

Something more intelligent was tried by German engineers during ww2. It was called the Lutz engine. It used the same toroidal chamber but only as an air compressor, fuel was injected afterwards in a regular gas turbine chamber. It was meant more for regular jet propulsion, but configurations where power was taken from the shaft were considered too. It had one big advantage over conventional gas turbine engines - the compressor delivered constant pressure regardless of RPM, which is impossible to do with a regular impeller, (this is the cause for the loss of efficiency at any other regime than cruise in a regular gas turbine). This made possible its use as a propulsion for ground vehicles while keeping piston engine like fuel efficiency (a 1000HP gas turbine engine was mounted on a Panther tank, but it was very inefficient, they were actively looking for alternatives). Unfortunately the work on it was not completed, one major issue being the inadequate strength of the materials used.

Posted by: Dan Oprea | Sep 12, 2006 12:03:44 PM

Where I said above constant pressure should have been constant volume (in direct relationship with RPM). The trouble with the gas turbine engines at that time was that compressors had a very narrow RPM range where they operated efficiently (German wartime axial compressors had a peak eff of about 80%) and that the constant pressure approach could not get the correct fuel/air ratio (which was calculated from shaft RPM). Lutz's approach attacked both problems, and if completed today would result in an engine with gas turbine power to weight ratio and piston engine fuel efficiency (across the whole RPM range).

Posted by: Dan Oprea | Sep 12, 2006 1:36:47 PM

i'm a sri lankan. i was looking 4 moto enjin's photos 4 my project. i like very much 2 ur greencar project. it's very good 4 our world. if u can promote it as world famus fuel system, i think that will be a very good 4 our & world future. b,couse world will become a green world.

Posted by: Hirantha | Sep 26, 2006 12:00:12 PM

I am a student of a technical school,I've been working on a project of how to build an helicopter but all my trialshas not yielded so I decided to go get more information of how to work on this project.
please kindly send me the full details of how to go on building an helicopter with construction plans.
I'am urgently expecting your feedback.
Olamide

Posted by: Olamide | Nov 7, 2006 11:44:43 AM

Ok, all that. but how does it actualy work? whats the perpose of it?

Posted by: Simon Jones | Nov 28, 2006 7:52:17 AM

The MYT engine claims are PURE NONSENSE. I have read the complete Angel Labs forum, analysed the motions shown in the patent, and talked with both Raphial and Jin. Here is the list of issues (all my opinion, of course - but I am knowledgable enough on engine technology to be confident in what I'm saying):

1. The most fundamental error they have made is that the displacement is NOT 850 cubic inches, but 1/4 of that (212 CID). This is not debatable. The displacement of a 4-stroke engine is not related to how many times it fires per output shaft revolution - it is related to the total swept volume (in other words, the total volume of all concurrent chambers). This is 212 cubic inches.

2. The mechanism which moves the pistons creates a 4:1 gear reduction (vs. a std. piston engine) between the variation of the chamber volume and the rotation of the output shaft (power stroke = 45 degrees vs. 180 degrees). This makes the output have 4X torque but 1/4X the rpm, all other things being equal.

3. The 150 psi compressed air run data is CORRECT, but their interpretation is completely wrong. A) Due to the 4:1 gear reduction, the 800 ft-lb of torque is about what calculations predict. The output rpm was only 800 rpm! So, translating back to un-geared for the best apples-to-apples comparison to a normal engine - the output would have been 200 ft-lb @ 3200 rpm. Very reasonable...but not very exciting. B) Jin's comment about 10X the torque with combustion vs. 150 psi is dead wrong. Most engines have a BMEP (Brake Mean Effective Pressure) of approx. 150 psi or a bit higher. This means that the output torque RUNNING FUEL is equivalent to a constant 150 psi in the chamber during the power stroke. Surprising but true - because although the PEAK pressure is indeed about 10X (1500 psi), the pressure falls very quickly as the chamber expands. So...800 ft-lb x 800 rpm / 5252 = 120 horsepower. I project that they be able to acheive 200 HP with gasoline after some tuning. This, however, is about the same as a wankel of the same physical size / weight.

4. Jin's comments about "12 degrees of dwell at tdc" is also completely incorrect. The chamber volume of MYT actually cycles in a near-sinusiod, very similar to a normal piston engine (slight difference only). Not that the long dwell would make a significant efficiency difference anyway.

5. The MYT pistons do not move in a smooth radial fashion. The 2 sets of 4 pistons have a motion which is a rapid rotational oscillation superimposed on rotation. Each piston set accelerates to 2X the nominal rpm and back to zero FOUR TIMES PER REVOLUTION. This creates huge dynamic forces, which will severly limit the peak rpm of the engine (even though the breating limit of the engine will also limit it to approx. 1/4 the normal peak rpms of an engine, or 8000/4 = ~2000 rpm at most).

6. The Angel Labs claims of 150 MPG are completely baseless. There is nothing in this engine design which would give a significant increase in efficiency.

7. The problems others have mentioned about heat and sealing are true. However, these are kind-of "moot points", since the performance claims are so inaccurate.

8. I have discussed these flaws in person with Jin and Raphial. Neither one has even the slightest understanding of mechanical engineering or analysis.

In conclusion- its hard to say whether they are scamsters or just delusional. Either way- I wouldn't waste your time reading their outrageous claims.

Posted by: kkersey | Nov 29, 2006 11:28:09 PM

Interesting idea, other thing I seem to think would be an issue, is the fuel. With intense heat, what's to say the fuel wont detonate before it's even compressed..

Posted by: Matt | Dec 1, 2006 9:24:32 AM

I patented quite the same engine in Italy in 2002 and I'm going to make a static costruction for showing the way it works. I'm happy to discover that in another part of the world someone get the same idea. If you want to know something more about my work, write me at legaloddo@libero.it. Sincerely. Davide Oddo - Sanremo Italy.

Posted by: Davide Oddo | Dec 7, 2006 12:15:25 AM

Simon, you are 100% correct. The inventor got caught up in theory and lost track of properly applying it. Its very easy to do, I get worked up myself whenever I have a new invention. In this case when the figures just dont add up and start to push the boundries of logical physics you really need to become your own worst critic. Who knows, maybe this might have an application in some form of industry. I just would worry a bit about the vibration.

Posted by: Brian G | Mar 4, 2007 9:42:17 PM

How will the engineers solve the cooling and lubrication (the pistons)?

Posted by: Eric P | Mar 17, 2007 5:21:19 AM

Can anyone please confirm my distant memories . In about 1955-1957 ithink i remember in probably Practical Motorist, Motor Sport. or similar, articles on a supposed revolutionary engine, rotary or in fact i think the cylinder was circular [as against straight!]and the pistons were opposed in some way. The engine was said to have few moving parts and was going to be the way forward for the internal combustion engine, I am sure it was designed by a Prof. Bradshaw and was called the OMEGA engine. can anyone confirm this. Perhaps the patent was bought-up and shelved by the car giants?

Posted by: r.g.redpath. | Aug 2, 2007 4:13:13 PM

Posted by: r.g.redpath. | Aug 2, 2007 4:13:56 PM

The torus should be halved cylindrically, therefore creating outer and inner halves. The pistons should be placed by cutting a slot on the inner half. The pistons will have to be positioned by bolting them in their respective torus halves, thus both halves will have equal number of pistons arranged radially. The pistons should be hollowed for provision of recirculating coolant system coiled through them. Two inner ring seals will be wedged between the angled slots provided in the mating surfaces of the halves and anchored to one of the pistons to cover the end gaps of the rings. The half-circular piston rings should touch the torus rings by one of their tips in side by side sequence by alternately-acting leaf springs. The half-segment piston-ring gaps will then be sealed by having circular segment rings (flushed to piston flat surfaces) projecting by the opposite sides, pressing into the torus inner sealing rings. The rest of the mating surfaces of the torus halves will have labyrinth seals to limit the blow-by gases. That labyrinth could be introduced with coolant that might serve also as steam generator to use up waste heat if needed. Therefore, the main parts accessible outside the combustion chamber that might serve as anchoring bodies for their variable-rotation mechanism would be the two halves of the toroidal casing. To minimize surface area to benefit for the dwell they talked about, the piston circular surfaces should have a half sphere cavities made of heat-insulating material placed at the center, with a provision that the piston surface should mate with the other piston surface by means of hydraulic spring mount to totally close up the flat gaps, therefore limiting the waste heat of combustion. The torus outside surfaces should be finned to limit the weight and stiffening the structure for centrifugal warping. The fluid flow should be aided greatly by centrifugal force as well as by the rapid rotational acceleration and deceleration of the chamber walls. It would be easy to incorporate vanes for turbine and compressor configuration--it is perfect for supercharging and complete expansion.
Good luck and God bless. Hope you are not fooling the investors including the potential ones. Study your configuration well. Ask me for more advice and I will gladly help. You can ask for CAD solid models if you like my proposed configurations.

Posted by: Julius Siador | Aug 27, 2007 10:50:36 PM

I have read through all of your comment and 1 thing seams to be forgoten. Leverage. Most engines develope peak preasure a 10* ATDC. This means that if you have 1000 pounds of force acting against the piston you have only 175 pound doing useful work, the rest is absorbed by the block trying to keep the crank shaft from going into the road.

However the forces are at 90*. The full 1000lbs are doing work against the crank. Not 175lbs. That is almost 6X the amount of force durring the same time. That engine could very easily put out 5.71hp for every 1 that most other engines do.

Posted by: Jon Robertson | Sep 20, 2007 1:04:48 PM

Sure has been a while since the last post here... and no updates I can find anywhere... is this dead in the water???

Posted by: Chris Lawson | Nov 15, 2007 11:53:02 AM

This would make a great air compressor.

Posted by: Brett | Dec 15, 2007 6:12:39 PM

Hi i readed all .and i liked it .actually i am very interested in ic engines without cam can u tell me something about that...

Posted by: atul khiste | Jan 24, 2008 3:24:33 AM

Quote: "All we know is that 12-degrees dwell at the TDC, which no other engine can do, will burn all the fuels completely. Therefore, we expect very clean emissions.
—Jin K. Kim"

The Revetec engine can do this and has done this over ten years ago.

Posted by: Brad | Mar 3, 2008 10:36:04 PM

ahm, that's great work of yours if is really work for good.....but i have a different views and idea regarding machine and engine,,,,, my idea is engine or machine that runs with no fuel to be burn out..... it's not like the magnetic engine but i do believed in that concept coz nothing is imposible now..... i have a 2 wide draft of my idea here, but i dnt know how to start this or put it into works, i just want to make the prototype of this and i'd like to asked for you're help to do this, its like a perpertual motion machine, yes its a perpetual motion machine, they've said that it isn't work anymore but i have a different view of idea, i want to break that rumors that it isn't work..... we'll just give a try once and for all, i know somebody has already done this before, i've already seen a lot of these tru my research here, but i have a different approach on how to do this exactly that will works forever and ever..... im just a fool who wants to help this crazy world, coz its our mother earth, ok!!!!!
so, how i want to do this?
if you come here in the Philippines, i want to gave it to you my drawing of a real "perpetual motion machine".....whoever you are, i will gave it to you for free but i have a five little conditoned to make,,,,,and you'll know these once you get here..... i will explain it to you how will it works and how to be done.....
ok!!!!! thanks to all! and to whom ever read this, think, why does the earth revolved to the sun in a eliptical way? if you got the answer, you got my work, the secret of energy, a force of knowlegde, you simply revealed the mystery of life..... God is Great!!!!!
on Einstein statement of relativity on four words or less, you'll got how a "star" is as especial as you are!!!!!if you understand it clearly..... it has tobe star-t-end.....Eugene Peter A. Gupit

Posted by: iykiri tixiv kytmx | Oct 2, 2008 1:45:40 AM

Ideas like this have been around for a looooong time. Calculate the inertia involved in bringing a large rotational mass to a dead stop in a couple of milliseconds and you will quickly see why no one has successfully marketed an engine like this.

Posted by: james | Oct 31, 2008 2:47:37 PM