Millennium Cell Awarded NSF Phase I SBIR Grant for Next-Gen Borohydride Hydrogen Storage
Honda Develops New Bio-Fabric for Interiors; To Be Applied to Fuel-Cell Vehicles First

Concept: Modified Rotary Engine with Integral Flywheel Effect

Ride1
A cutaway sketch of the RIDE engine in combustion mode. Note the offset of the crankshaft from central rotational axis.

A Virginia inventor is devising a rotary engine with an integral flywheel effect to serve as a single-unit hybrid power plant. Gary Greenwell’s new RIDE (Rotational Inertial Dampening Engine) modifies the design of the Gnome rotary aircraft engine design of the WW I era to enable the rotating engine block to function as a freely-spinning flywheel, thereby offering an integrated flywheel-based hybrid power capability.

Greenwell (who has 30+ years in the engine side of the auto industry) estimates that the RIDE engine, through its combination of combustion power and kinetic energy storage, could support automotive fuel economies in the range of 100 to 120 mpg without the additional cost of electric motors and batteries.

Gnome_1
A cutaway drawing of the Gnome rotary engine. The inlet valve was in the piston.

The Gnome. The Gnome radial engine—developed almost a century ago—seems counter-intuitive. It features a crankshaft mounted on the airplane, with the rotary engine block and cylinder heads—to which the propeller was attached—rotating around the crankshaft. In other words, the propeller and engine block rotated as a unitary segment.

A number of early aviation engines were designed in this manner. With the crankcase and cylinders revolving in one circle, and the pistons in another, offset circle, there were no reciprocating parts and no need for a heavy counterbalance. The momentum of the crankcase and cylinders smoothed out the power pulses, thereby eliminating the need for a heavy flywheel. These rotary engines had the best power-to-weight ratio of any configuration at the time.

They also had a number of downsides, notably their total-loss oil systems. Centrifugal force threw the lubricating oil out after the first trip through the engine. The aircraft’s range was thus limited by the amount of oil it could carry as well as fuel. A gyroscopic effect created by the spinning mass also made maneuvering the airplane difficult—not a good feature in a fighter aircraft.

RIDE as a rotary engine. Greenwell made a number of significant changes to the rotary design, including inverting the relationship between the cylinder heads and the pistons. Rather than have the cylinder heads rotate as part of the radial engine block, Greenwell has the pistons affixed to the exterior ring, with the cylinder heads attached to the crankshaft.

There are no connecting rods as in the Gnome, and no valves in either the piston or the cylinder head. Instead, the rotation of the cylinder ring uncovers inlet and exhaust ports.

Moving the cylinder heads close to the fixed center where the ports would be located allowed the elimination of valve train components. The inversion also addressed the issue of centrifugal forces that cause the lubricating oil to migrate into the cylinders (as in the Gnome).

Reversing the position causes the oil to migrate away from the combustion chambers, thereby reducing the need for fine-tuning the piston rings for oil control, according to Greenwell.

Avoiding the total oil loss system entirely, RIDE will use a lubrication system more similar to the dry sump systems used on aircraft engines. Pressurized oil would be supplied to the center of the engine, to be centrifugally distributed to the outer perimeter, where small return pumps would force it back to the center.

Although it can be applied as a spark ignition system, RIDE is ideally a compression ignition system.

The key invention, though, is the Powerswitch: the moveable crank journal that allows the engine to convert to flywheel mode, along with its management software.

RIDE as flywheel. While the rotary combustion engine capability of RIDE might be mildly interesting, it is its ability to convert to flywheel mode for energy recovery that is the unique aspect of this approach.

Ride2_1
RIDE switching to flywheel mode. Note the movement of the crankshaft from being offset in combustion mode to aligned on the central rotational axis in flywheel mode.

RIDE makes the crankshaft a separate part from the engine support bearings. This change is critical to the revised radial design, as it allows the crankshaft to move to be positioned exactly as the rotational axis of the moving engine block—which, in turn, changes the running engine to a freely-spinning flywheel.

The pistons go from relative reciprocation to stationery in their cylinders when the engine is in flywheel mode. The switching mechanism—Powerswitch—is one of the key inventions for which Greenwell filed a patent in 2004.

The flywheel can store power for short periods of time, as well as recover energy from regenerative braking. (AFS Trinity was earlier exploring the viability of a flywheel-based hybrid drivetrain before opting for a more conventional battery/ultracapacitor approach it has under development with Ricardo. Earlier post.)

The RIDE engine will constantly transfer from fuel power to stored energy, while the vehicle speed remains constant, with the CVT (continuous variable transmission) adding power to the vehicle power train in the exact amounts necessary to compensate for all losses regardless of their origin.

This engine design recovers the vast majority of braking losses by converting linear inertia (vehicle) into rotational inertia (engine) in an exchange that involves no additional components than a currently produced vehicle.

This energy storage capability, Greenwell argues, will eliminate the vast majority of idling losses (100% losses). Utilizing the appropriate variable transmission and computer controls, regenerative braking can recover most of deceleration forces.

(Dynamometer figures, Greenwell notes, demonstrate that a reciprocating engine running at 2,000 rpm uses half the fuel consumed, to merely maintain that speed with no force applied to the drive wheels: “the penalty of reciprocation,” as he calls it.)

This is a large part of the function of hybrid designs—to replace combustion when it is least fuel-efficient (idling, stop-and-go driving, etc.) with a different, more efficient source of power and to recoup the kinetic energy from braking or deceleration—but hybrids require the addition of the additional power and energy storage systems (e.g., electric motor and battery pack).

The basic concept can be best understood in this example. You are stopping from 40 mph, and the linear inertia of the vehicle is converted to rotational inertia in the engine-flywheel, to be reapplied for acceleration when it is required.

If the system was capable of 90% efficiency re-acceleration would get your vehicle to 36 mph from the recovered energy. During the whole period of time this is occuring there would be no fuel consumed.

The flywheel storage would provide the power to accelerate, and after 36 mph you would need to run the engine (consume fuel) to restore flywheel inertia. The flywheel would never stop spinning while the vehicle was in operation, the fuel burning run mode [also] serves the purpose of restoring the flywheel’s inertia when it is depleted.

—Gary Greenwell

RIDE, according to Greenwell, is capable of storing 4 times the force in regeneration that it can produce by combustion.

Applications. As initially envisioned, the RIDE engine is purely a combustion engine. However, its design optionally includes auxiliary energy storage in other forms, such as compressed air or electrical. It could also function as the motor/pump in a hydraulic drive system.

RIDE is a subsidiary of EDGE Office Solutions.

Resources:

Comments

Fossil Boy

I think this website should be renamed Fossil Fuel Congress. If there is a crackpot scheme that doesn't involve green energy, you can bet old fossil fuel Mike Millikin will be posting it.

He does smatter in about 25% green energy stuff to keep it balanced, but 3 of 4 postings will be some new alternative that would keep the fossil fuel economy running.

Roger Pham

The previous posting is not entirely fair to Mr. Millikin, who is doing a great job with this website. GCC is very informative regarding environmentally-relevant vehicular technologies. Most of the readers of this site has strong technical background. The fossil fuel economy cannot be shut down overnight, but must be gradually weaned off with increasingly fuel-efficient engine technology, or so claimed all new alternative engine designs whether realistic or not.

Erik Midtskogen

I don't see why we need to speculate on whether this engine idea might be able to work. Since the inventor has apparently filed a patent, then that must mean he has a working prototype, right? So, let's hear how well the prototype is currently working.

Or in this day and age of instant riches for anyone who can have an original thought and then talk a good game about it, has the law about the working prototype as part of the patent application sort of fallen by the wayside?

Kevin

Gary,

The "cost of reciprocation" is a fantasy. This is born out by simple physics. You claim it's a
"known source of losses". Known by whom? Can you sight a scientific paper or other reference
from a reputable source?

It's clear that you haven't built a prototype. I seriously doubt you ever will. The engineering problems
just to make it run are huge. Even if you get one running, making it operate as efficiently as existing
engines would be twice as difficult. Without some innovation other than the rotary cylinder block, that's
the best you're going to achieve. And let's say you're right and I'm wrong. There's some law of
physics that everyone else has overlooked and your engine operates twice as efficiently as standard
reciprocating engines. You still have the obstacle of how to make it work in a real vehicle. The large
rotating cylinder block would be so difficult to accommodate that it would be impractical to implement
in a production vehicle.

Your idea is just like many other "pie in the sky" proposals:
1) Assume that thousands of engineers and scientists have overlooked something big. In your case: "reciprocation losses".
2) That this overlooked effect is a huge source of inefficiency: You claim 50%.
3) There's no working prototype. Do you have one in the works or even a schedule?

I stand my evaluation.

Larry

Mr. Greenwell,

I hesitated to post here, since I have no education or credentials. Hopefully you can overlook that and find time to answer some of my questions.

Am I correct in understanding that this same design could be utilized as an engine driving a hydraulic pump and in turn hydraulic motors at the wheels?

Is it practible to have engine drive a dynamo(?) with electric motors at the wheels?

Would it be practible to have the engine drive a "conventional" drive train?

Would it be practible to have more than one engine bank on a common crankshaft?

What am I missing? Why isn't there a prototype?

Since this basic design would function as a pump it seems to me that a small "dime sized" pump could be fabricated out of aluminum alloy and delrin, and run at low speed as a basic prototype.

I don't understand how the valving is accomplished...


Thanks in advance,

Larry

gary greenwell

Larry, your level of education is never a true measure of your intelligence. Its more a measurement of your ability to learn what is required to qualify for a degree (ever see a grade on a diploma?). My grandfather was illiterate, my grandmother made $25,000 from his business 25 years after he died at 55, and she lived to 90. In the field of his expertise he was unbeatable, his parents took him and his 6 brothers and sisters out of school when another sibling was killed with an axe.


I want to thank Mike for his time and efforts on my behalf, we spoke on the phone for 1 hour 20 minutes.

If you want to beat the 20% approximate rate of vehicle efficiency today it has to be a systematic approach.

The process of patenting any "idea" does not require a prototype. The estimated cost of a prototype is $250,000+. I have a functional model that represents the principles of operation. I can build a compressed air prototype for a few thousand dollars, that can be compared directly to a conventional design with direct comparisons of volume at pressure, as well as maximum obtainable pressure, that will demonstrate easily what can be expected. Any prototype would become instantly obsolete, and much of the development work can be done on a computer, to enhance the efficiency and durability of any prototype.

Any engine is basically a pump, take any internal combustion engine with a camshaft, replace that camshaft with one with two opposed lobes, and that
engine becomes a pump, as long as the camshaft timing is correct.

As a pump this machine becomes an Infinitely Variable Transmission, with the 0 stroke position as neutral, and movement of the adjustable crank journal in opposite directions from the zero point being foreward and reverse. It is capable of a "ratio" over over 1000 to 1, as well as 1 to 1000. That means the engine can spin 1000 times for a single rotation of the drive wheels, and the reverse of this, 1 turn of the wheel to 1000 of the engine. This flow is consistent at any fixed journal position, and should not require any dampner for oscillations. The previous comment about running out of storage capability, is simply wrong, in situations (mountainous conditions) recovery could be accentuated with a simple addition of a pressure reservoir, or a larger battery with electrical energy stored conventionally. Its unnecessary where the terrain is not susbstantially mountainous.

Valving consists of passageways in the central shaft that supports the rotating cylinder heads. As they move around that axis, they pass over the port which aligns with a port in the rotating head. This allows flow of a liquid or a gas into the pressure chamber, where that pressure can be used to increase the speed of the mass of the rotating components. Pumps of identical configuration placed at each wheel, with corresponding dual path hydraulic lines, allow the pressure to be converted into rotational motion at each wheel, independently of the rotation of any other wheel. Scrap your conventional powertrain completely, including all the induction system components, and cooling system components.

This creates a bi-directional path where pressure can be converted into linear motion by the drive wheels. The regenerative path is where the vehicles wheels provide pressure back to the master pump. This pressure is converted into rotational storage in the mass of the engine component. By this means, using available antilock brake system components, you can regenerate almost every btu of energy of the linear motion of the vehicle, up to the limits of traction of each individual wheel, independently of the other wheels.

No current hybrid utilises 4 wheel regeneration effective to 0 vehicle speed. This design has that capability, as well as the capability to be shifted into reverse at 100 MPH without damage, like the old Buick Dynaflo transmission.

Dana corporation has just come out with a design that uses some of the principles I am attempting to explain here. There is no magic. Physics deals all of us the same deck of cards. To compare this to an original aircraft rotary engine is the same as comparing a jet aircraft engine to Heros Steam kettle turbine of 400BC.
The "nothing new" analogy applies to virtually every mechanical device. The basis of this machine is the old rotary, but that engine was never a variable displacement, variable compression engine.

The engine could be configured to drive a "dynamo". In fact the engine could be built inside and electric motor, as a backup in hydroelectric generation facilities. I prefer the pure hydraulic approach, but that certainly id no preference to the exclusion of any application that would prove to be more efficient.

I dont consider stacking the design feasible, but the displacement, could be of any amount without any practical limitation other than the ability to accurately machine the components.

An air passageway from the center to the outside perimeter of the engine, could also allow fluids or gasses to enter from either the cylinder head or the piston. That fluid it ti was air, would be "supercharged" by the centrifugla inertia of the rotating block, in the same way oil would be collected at the perimeter and returned to the center in a continuous loop, with a thermostatic cooler for high demand application where additional cooling was necessary.

As far as Kevins opinions, he is certainly entitled to them. Maybe he should read the 21st century roadmap document (google it son). On the last page you will see their projected 58% efficient free piston design, that uses (guess what) as its combustion cycle. If you cant find the answers to your questions there, maybe you would prefer them to remain unanswered. My question to you would be what is your solution for the current criminal state of energy wastage in the car you drive every day. Until those question are answered my solution will be considered by many different organizations who have already expressed interest in this (out of the box) concept. Maybe in 5 years or so I will be banking your contribution to the royalty check.

Gary

Wells

Gary. I'm wondering if this engine will be mounted horizontally in a vehicle. Also, I assume it integrates an outer ring, (aside the spinning flywheel block), for mounting purposes and to incorporate intake and exhaust ports, manifolds and fuel injection.

The flywheel effect does seem promising, so I won't belittle your efforts. However, I conclude that electric propulsion is necessary, and that any engine should act as an assist to the electric drive component.

If the RIDE engine can more efficiently turn a generator, then more power to you. In that regard, hydrolic propulsion seems impossibly impractical. Who shouldn't be skeptical of 'in-wheel' electric motor exposure to extremes of weather, road grime, twisting torque of road handling, and lack shock absorption? A body-mounted electric motor is arguably the most practical arrangement.

Now, if the RIDE flywheel can free-spin at high rpm as an energy storage system, as well as generating electricity at low rpm, that would be something.

Kyle

I stumbled upon your design and the discussion on the Green Car Congress site. Your design is interesting and may have some merit in some application, though I can't think of one off-hand. I must say though, you are completely wrong about your claimed efficiency gains via elimination of reciprocation. Heat engines operating on advanced thermodynamic cycles, perhaps with topping and bottoming cycles, or thermionic waste heat capture, along with advanced hybrid drivetrains, may increase mileage by a factor of ~4. In other words, a 20 mpg vehicle might become an 80 mpg vehicle. Yes, a small car may get 125 mpg as you claim, or even 200 mpg, but this could be accomplished best with a small advanced diesel (Google OPOC and CIBAI) in an series hybrid design, with batteries and ultracapacitors, or some other high capacity/high rate storage.

Consider the classical radial aircraft engine. It obviously involves reciprocation, since the pistons go up and down relative to the cylinders. Now consider the rotary aircraft engine. The same is true. The only thing that changes is the point of reference (Ask Einstein).

Your critics are absolutely correct when they say that the piston and rod merely pass momentum to and from the crankshaft. If you disagree, then where does the energy go? In what form? By what mechanism is it transformed? Or are you claiming to be violating the 1st Law of Thermodynamics?

In a nutshell, the only potential benefits of your design are the integral flywheel aspect and the simple mechanism for varying compression ratio. It remains to be seen whether either or both of them outweigh the many disadvantages. I doubt they will.

Please do not respond with a long, verbose explanation of every aspect as you have repeatedly on this forum. I perfectly understand all of the physics and practicalities involved in heat engine thermodynamics, engine design, and hybrid vehicle design. All of the various tangential subjects only obscure the fact that your claims for extreme fuel economy are based on a fallacious and unsupported claim that conjures a factor of two from thin air. Please explain that as thoroughly yet succinctly as possible. You might also include documentation from a credible source, e.g. a thermodynamics text, that this effect exists at all, complete with the math.

gary greenwell

Kyle

Two basic differences between a radial and a rotary engine;
In a radial the rods oscillate around a rotating crankshaft. In an original rotary the rods rotate around a fixed crankshaft. Reciprocation is apparent in a radial, it does not exist in a rotary. The connecting rods and pistons can not reciprocate, in the rotary, when the rods are rotating around a fixed axis. (View the animation previously mentioned, if you desire. I believe it would make this obvious).

In a radial the conversion of mechanical energy occurs at the rotating crankshaft (as it does in any other reciprocating, piston in cylinder, engine except a rotary). In an original rotary the conversion occurs at the cylinder head. We can debate whether that changes the thermodynamics of the engine, with some agreeing it does and some arguing it does not. Only a functional prototype will support or refute either position.

The assumption that energy in a multi cylinder engine can be transferred from one cylinder to another, contradicts the assumption that that same energy can also be available for external utilization.

Percentage loss quotes vary considerably, as they should. A perfect example of the vast range calculation differences would be a 1984 Cadillac, versus a 1984 Honda Civic HF, with the Honda capable of 4 times the mileage of the Cadillac.

The mileage claims are realistic, principlly due to the fact that the RIDE engine will only run to replenish flywheel energy losses, as the flywheels energy accumulation is depleted, to compensate for vehicle losses. RIDE addresses the principle of conservation of inertial forces in the vehicle. The only way you could drive a vehicle with a reciprocating engine that would campare to RIDE, would be to start the engine, accelerate to 40-50 MPH, shut the engine off, and coast to a speed of 10-15 MPH, and then repeat the process. This technique has been proven to be capable of tripling the efficiency of a vehicular system. In the case of the Opel Station Wagon tested in 1970 the difference was 40 MPG versus 125 MPG (no engine modifications). Currently that same tactic has produced a mileage figures of over 6000 MPG (Mike Millikin provided this figure to me during our 1 hour 20 minute phone conversation, and he obviously thought my CONCEPT was valid, or we would not be commenting on this thread in the first place).
Since this design only exists in a CONCEPTUAL state, there are no loss calculations, that have been developed based on a functional prototype. I doubt very seriously there has ever been a computer generated program for loss calculations for the design we are discussing, and I seriously hope that can be done as a part of the development process.
We can debate the losses directly related to the mechanical differences in the engine alone, but that is missing the point altogether. Assume I am wrong and there is no internal increase in efficiency, that is directly engine related. I did exactly that when I made the mileage claims. That negates the assumption that there would be no improvement internally, however that does not affect the improvement in overall efficiency of a vehicle, at least as far as the mileage claims.

The claims are based on the fact that RIDE would only regenerate (consuming fuel) about 25% of the time at highway speeds, and less in stop and go traffic. This operational tactic is exactly the same as used in every hybrid, and its benefits should be obvious to anyone who has studied hybrids.
This concept has been studied by several engineers who I know personally, and who know I relied on their imput before I ever began this process. One of these engineers is a PHD from MIT in theoretical aerodynamics, and his (as well as others) imput was crucial to my decision to try to bring this concept to a realistic state. When you attempt to use HISTORICAL data to analise any CONCEPT you must take into consideration the basic design differences, or your historical data becomes irrelevant. The systematic improvements due to the low percentage of fuel consuming operation time compared to vehicluar operation time, are the sole source of the mileage claims. If you assume any improvement during the time when the RIDE engine is consuming fuel (regeneration only) that would INCREASE the total system mileage improvements above and beyond any claim I have made.
The text in the original information presented in this topic represent less than 1% of the documents and data that I have accumulated as well as design specifics that are in the process of being patented at this time. Some of those design specifics, if made public, would compromise my patent protection, and for that reason I prefer to keep them private, unless there is an existing Non Disclosure Agreement signed by an interested party. That represents due diligence and protects my design from outside development and the potential for theft of my concept.

As far as the "verbose limiting" comment in your post, it represents the attitude of many people who consider the internet as a source of anonyminity that eliminates the necessity of common courtesy in communication. In other words if we were looking each other in the face, the communication would be different. I believe the communication should not be different regardlesss of the method. Maybe that is an obsolete thought on my part, but it represents the way I was raised as a child, and to those who dont follow that belief, I consider there less than considerate comments to be merely childish. I gaurantee you would not make those same negative comments when you were looking me in the face.

The process of bringing any concept to a state of reality is almost impossible. To understand this just consider all the "great ideas" that have never made the transition to reality. Based on that history this process is understandibly difficult, and investors want concrete data (as I would) before making the considerable financial commitment to continued development. At this point in my 55 years, I have the time as well as the financial resources to pursue this to the point where it could happen. Whether it does or doesnt was always obvious to me. This thread is a part of that process.

gary

Kyle

I am not surprised that you ignored my request to stay on subject. I didn’t want to get into all of the many ancillary issues. However, since you insist, I will deal with them one by one. I must admit to having difficulty understanding some of your post, so bear with me if I misunderstand. I know that this will make for a long post, but because of the disjointedness of your post, I think it best to quote it as I respond.

“Two basic differences between a radial and a rotary engine;
In a radial the rods oscillate around a rotating crankshaft. In an original rotary the rods rotate around a fixed crankshaft. Reciprocation is apparent in a radial, it does not exist in a rotary. The connecting rods and pistons can not reciprocate, in the rotary, when the rods are rotating around a fixed axis. (View the animation previously mentioned, if you desire. I believe it would make this obvious).”

Yes, it is obvious, but you used the key word – APPARENT - while missing the concept. Your observations are true, i.e., the reciprocation is apparent, only when you assume that there is some mystical significance to your, the observer’s, frame of reference. There is no significance. As a thought experiment, consider that the engine is also rotating about the center of the Earth at 700 mph, the Earth is circling the sun at 33,000 mph, and the sun is circling the center of the Milky Way at 66,000 mps. Do we need to concern ourselves with these RELATIVE motions? Unless your answer is “Yes”, you need to explain what is different about your one, self-centric, frame of reference. Another way of looking at it is to see that there is plenty of reciprocation in an aircraft rotary as well, as long as you (quite reasonably) define reciprocation as continuously changing velocity (continuous acceleration or deceleration). A piston at TDC is traveling faster than when at BDC, because the rate of rotation is constant while the radius of rotation is constantly changing. All things are relative says Albert.

“In a radial the conversion of mechanical energy occurs at the rotating crankshaft (as it does in any other reciprocating, piston in cylinder, engine except a rotary). In an original rotary the conversion occurs at the cylinder head. We can debate whether that changes the thermodynamics of the engine, with some agreeing it does and some arguing it does not. Only a functional prototype will support or refute either position.”

Entirely wrong. There is no debate. I know thermo and this statement makes it very clear that you do not. The thermodynamics of a radial and rotary aircraft engine are identical except for minor effects on breathing from centripetal forces. There is no need for a prototype of your engine to answer this “debate” either. If there is a change in the thermodynamics, the cause of it should be readily apparent and easily explained.

“The assumption that energy in a multi cylinder engine can be transferred from one cylinder to another…”

I said that momentum is (quite obviously) transferred back and forth between the crankshaft and the reciprocating components. I suppose that some of it is momentarily passed to other pistons and rods, but so what? Again, you have avoided my central direct question – “WHERE DID THE ENERGY GO?”

“…contradicts the assumption that that same energy can also be available for external utilization.”

Huh? This is so left-field that I don’t even know how to respond to it.

“Percentage loss quotes vary considerably, as they should. A perfect example of the vast range calculation differences would be a 1984 Cadillac, versus a 1984 Honda Civic HF, with the Honda capable of 4 times the mileage of the Cadillac.

Huh? What does the ratio of mileage between these two vehicles tell us about (I assume) reciprocating losses?

“The mileage claims are realistic, principlly due to the fact that the RIDE engine will only run to replenish flywheel energy losses, as the flywheels energy accumulation is depleted, to compensate for vehicle losses. RIDE addresses the principle of conservation of inertial forces in the vehicle. The only way you could drive a vehicle with a reciprocating engine that would campare to RIDE, would be to start the engine, accelerate to 40-50 MPH, shut the engine off, and coast to a speed of 10-15 MPH, and then repeat the process. This technique has been proven to be capable of tripling the efficiency of a vehicular system. In the case of the Opel Station Wagon tested in 1970 the difference was 40 MPG versus 125 MPG (no engine modifications).”

And the only reason for this is the thermodynamic efficiency difference of the Otto cycle between part throttle and full throttle. It may be 32% at WOT and 10% at cruise because of pumping losses at the throttle plate (yea Diesel!). That difference neatly accounts for the above effect:

32/10 ~= 125/40

“Currently that same tactic has produced a mileage figures of over 6000 MPG (Mike Millikin provided this figure to me during our 1 hour 20 minute phone conversation, and he obviously thought my CONCEPT was valid, or we would not be commenting on this thread in the first place).”

This logical fallacy is known as “appeals to authority”. If you are going to use it, you should at least choose an actual authority in the field, not an IT guy.

”Since this design only exists in a CONCEPTUAL state, there are no loss calculations, that have been developed based on a functional prototype.”

Huh? The loss calculations should be done at the conceptual state. The loss MEASUREMENTS will come from the functional prototype.

“Assume I am wrong and there is no internal increase in efficiency, that is directly engine related.”

Unless you provide a mechanism founded in basic physics, you certainly are.

“I did exactly that when I made the mileage claims. That negates the assumption that there would be no improvement internally, however that does not affect the improvement in overall efficiency of a vehicle, at least as far as the mileage claims.
The claims are based on the fact that RIDE would only regenerate (consuming fuel) about 25% of the time at highway speeds, and less in stop and go traffic. This operational tactic is exactly the same as used in every hybrid, and its benefits should be obvious to anyone who has studied hybrids.”

If the thermodynamic efficiency of two heat engines is the same, but one is four times as powerful as the other, one can either run the small one 100% of the time or the big one 25% of the time while producing precisely the same amount of energy to propel the vehicle and consuming fuel at precisely the same rate over time. - 1st Law of Thermo. Therefore, the effect you describe above is fallacious. If you disagree with this obviously true statement, please tell me where it is wrong. Yes, hybrids get better fuel economy. Here are the reasons: 1) The smaller engine operates at a more open throttle position on average. 2) The smaller engine w/ more open throttle produces less frictional losses per unit output. (both yield greater thermodynamic efficiency) 3) Regenerative braking. Period. If you insist that there is some other mechanism at work, describe it using principles of physics.

”This concept has been studied by several engineers who I know personally, and who know I relied on their imput before I ever began this process. One of these engineers is a PHD from MIT in theoretical aerodynamics, and his (as well as others) imput was crucial to my decision to try to bring this concept to a realistic state.”

Appeals to authority. Let science do the talking. If you cannot explain the concept consistent with known principles, perhaps you can have one of them do so.

“When you attempt to use HISTORICAL data to analise any CONCEPT you must take into consideration the basic design differences, or your historical data becomes irrelevant.”

I am not using historical data, I am using PHYSICS. Vehicles that now operate at an average 1st Law efficiency of 17 or 18% may some day achieve ~70% (4 times) No more is possible from a heat engine (Carnot’s Law) and that also happens to be the limit of fuel cells as well.

“The systematic improvements due to the low percentage of fuel consuming operation time compared to vehicluar operation time, are the sole source of the mileage claims.”

Then you have just conceded. Unless you or the MIT PHD can explain this mysterious phenomenon.

”The text in the original information presented in this topic represent less than 1% of the documents and data that I have accumulated as well as design specifics that are in the process of being patented at this time. Some of those design specifics, if made public, would compromise my patent protection, and for that reason I prefer to keep them private, unless there is an existing Non Disclosure Agreement signed by an interested party. That represents due diligence and protects my design from outside development and the potential for theft of my concept.”

Let me see if I understand this? Are you saying that you can’t reveal why this concept has the benefits that you claim because it’s a trade secret? ;o)

“As far as the "verbose limiting" comment in your post, it represents the attitude of many people who consider the internet as a source of anonyminity that eliminates the necessity of common courtesy in communication. In other words if we were looking each other in the face, the communication would be different. I believe the communication should not be different regardlesss of the method. Maybe that is an obsolete thought on my part, but it represents the way I was raised as a child, and to those who dont follow that belief, I consider there less than considerate comments to be merely childish. I gaurantee you would not make those same negative comments when you were looking me in the face.”

Yes I would. And I suppose that you are furious at this post. Perhaps you will use your righteous anger as an excuse to refuse to respond to it. My upbringing placed a premium on truth and intellectual honesty. That is all I’m seeking. My attempt to keep the exchange on track was merely an attempt to deconflate the many jumbled concepts and concentrate on what I thought was the key one. Since you did not oblige, I have systematically addressed them all, including what you now claim to be the key concept. The fact that I'm being terse and blunt while very successfully refuting your 'concepts' is just being concise and to the point.

“The process of bringing any concept to a state of reality is almost impossible. To understand this just consider all the "great ideas" that have never made the transition to reality. Based on that history this process is understandibly difficult, and investors want concrete data (as I would) before making the considerable financial commitment to continued development.”

Most investors have limited scientific and technical skills. Those of us who do have these skills want concrete IDEAS before even bothering with the considerable expense required to obtain data. If you cannot support the concepts, only a dupe would fund development.

pauln

Thank you Kyle for your needed scientific perspective, which I can not provide. But my strong scepticism from the moment I came across this posting, and which was reinforced by the inventor's comments, is due to the completely erroneous assumption that the historical rotary aircraft engine was somehow an intrinsicly superior engine. It's brief "superiority" was strictly due to its place in the early history of aircraft engine development: the Gnome was invented (in 1907)because the engines before it were heavy, vibrated badly and the cooling systems (liquid) were heavy and unreliable. The Gnome addressed all three of these quite elegantly, with the radial layout of the cylinders evening out the pwer cycles, while the rotary aspect meant that the cylinders were always cooled, by creating their own airflow.

In those very early days of aircraft engine design, it was a good step forward, but it also had many problems, incuding the following from the book The History of Aviation: "The main drawback of the rotary was its high fuel and oil consumption..."

Aircraft engine design continued to advance, with the best features of the rotary, its compact size and smooth power pulses being developed into the radial, which became a very reliable and fairly efficient engine still much in use today.

Any advantages the rotary engine had was purely because it was one step forward in the very early days of aircraft engine development, when each step still brought significant improvements, and not because of the almost magical powers the inventor attributes to it.

The fact that the inventor based his whole concept on that historical footnote was the big tipoff when I first read this post. Making claims of superiority of a long discarded concept reminds me way too much of the conspiracy rumors of the famous Fish carburator that supposedly delivered 200mpg in the 1940's, but that was bought out by the big 3 or the oil companies because they were threatened by it.

What I felt intuitively, knew from history, as well as common sense, Kyle has exposed scientifically: this concept is dead on arrival. Mr. Greenwell, enjoy your 15 minutes of "fame".

Kyle

From your initial post:

“The claim of 125 MPG is based on the application tactic. Consider the fact that this engine when running is not paying the energy penalty of reciprocation, which amounts to about 50 % of consumption (sustained speed dyno tests, not real world situations where the difference would be greater). If you consider the 1984 Honda CRX HF (70MPG highway) as an example and you eliminate the 50% reciprocation cost, I consider the mileage claims to be conservative.”

You also told me in your previous post that your mileage claims were wholly unrelated to “the energy penalty of reciprocation”. However, in your presentation, you wrote:

“Elimination of engine riciprocation (sic)

A RIDE engine would need in theory 50% less fuel because it operates approximately 50% of the time in fuel burning mode. The other 50% of operation is using stored energy from the spinning engine which acts as it own flywheel power storage system.”

This not only contradicts yourself, it shows an astounding lack of knowledge of the most basic principle in nature. Reductio ad absurdum - By this logic, if one were to install a 4000hp engine and run it 1% of the time, you would get a 99% reduction in fuel usage.

Please explain the contradictions.

Continuing from your first post:

“It has been known for decades that the basic automobile's efficiency can be greatly enhanced by the operational tactic of accelerating the vehicle, then shutting down the engine and allowing the linear inertia of the vehicle to be maximised, by coasting.”

Your mysterious principle behind this phenomenon is mentioned over and over with no attempt to explain it whatsoever. No mention of the actual causes (primarily the Otto cycle throttling problem). No mention of the fact that Diesels don’t have it. (And therefore, along with higher thermodynamic efficiency from higher compression ratio, get similar mileage to current hybrids)

“Assume for a minute the total "run" time is less than 20% overall, that means you are not generating waste heat during 80% of this same same period of time, which will greatly reduce cooling requirements in the first place.”

But you are generating 5 times the heat when you are running. Net effect – zilch. Well, actually, the net effect would be destructive thermal cycling of critical engine components.

”Excess air in the combustion chamber will also serve to reduce peak temperatures and allow heat saturation of the unburned oxygen in the excess air.”

That last part is indecipherable.

”This pressure can be routed to another "pump-motor" in the wheel of the vehicle, eliminating all of the powertrain components necessary in a conventional application. The result is a 25% reduction in the total number of individual components per vehicle, just the opposite of conventional hybrid designs, no $8000 batttery, or $6000 electric motor, which makes a current hybrid a throw away car at 100,000 miles when the warrantee runs out.”

The natural and inevitable progression of hybrid designs will see the engines get smaller and the motors get bigger. As soon as that trend reaches the threshold, parallel hybrids will give way to serial hybrids, eliminating the transmission and most of the drivetrain. That’s serious part count reduction. Then consider that these engines will probably have 2 cylinders. And again, look up OPOC. It has 41+% efficiency from a 40hp engine – proven on the dyno. Since compression ignition engines generally suffer rapid loss of efficiency as they shrink, this is astounding. This also happens to be ~ the right size. Then look up CIBAI. It yields a fundamental increase in efficiency over the Diesel cycle while having neither the high pressure, high precision fuel injection system or an ignition system. Seriously thought out CONCEPTS such as these are the future of transportation.

BTW, why would someone with an MBA consistently misspell “imput”?

That leads to another question. Why, considering that you are promoting technical concepts, and have “30+ years in the engine side of the auto industry”, would you only list your MBA education? I’m also curious to know in what capacity you were involved in “the engine side of the auto industry”. It is most apparent that it was not in an engineering capacity.

From your presentation:

“The Freedom Car goal is to improve the efficiency of internal combustion engines to 45% for light-duty applications and to 55% for heavy duty applications by 2012. RIDE engine can met that goal now.”

There is no thermodynamic basis for this claim. Assuming you are to operate it on a Diesel cycle, the best you can expect is Diesel range efficiency. In an automotive size engine, that would be ~40% at the optimum load and speed. (BTW, a series hybrid can always run at it’s optimum load and speed. A RIDE will suffer the compromises and varying efficiency related to operation at variable speed.

“A 35mpg vehicle could see 70 to over 100mpg not only on the highway but in city traffic.

First of all, this is worded backward. As an aggressively hybrid design, one expects much better fuel economy in the city. Second, if we assume that it does get such mileage in the city, it is the result of: 1) Lower average speed = lower wind resistance. 2) Engine off at idle. 3) Regenerative braking. 4) Increased thermodynamic efficiency from a small engine at more open throttle. (Otto cycle assumed) Only the last of these factors is working for you on the highway, so your mileage will increase, but nowhere close to the city mileage. BUT WAIT! The RIDE is not smaller. It has to be big enough to give decent acceleration when the “flywheel” is exhausted. Therefore – NO GAIN!

“Reduced emissions and heat losses

50% exhaust is produced. The engine is not burning fuel half of the time. This means less exhaust is produced.”

Just one more example of your violation of the 1st Law. Reductio ad absurdum – If the vehicle were configured such that the engine ran 1% of the time, would this yield a 99% reduction in emissions?

gary greenwell

To Roger Pham in response to your May 26th post:
One of the main reasons for the ineffeciency of the Wankel is the fact that a certain percentage of the pressure created by combustion, is applied to the rotor in the wrong direction. To understand this look at the rotor position at the point where the maximum pressure is applied. A significant percentage of the surface of the rotor would be moving backwards, if the larger percentage was not forced in the correct direction by that same pressure. This can not be overcome without changing the basic physical properties of the enegine itself.

Textbook figures that have been posted as fact apply to a particular test engine in a particular set of parameters. With efficiency quotes for engines ranging fron the 22% to 48% (pick your own number if you dont like this one) those same textbook figures become irrelevant, without clearly stating the exact engine and the specifics of the test procedure that produced those figures. To say they appply to this CONCEPT lacks credibility, and presumes those textbook figures apply universally to any engine. Since that is obviously an impossible assumption, my response would be the only realistic percentages could only be determined by applying the same test parameters to this engine CONCEPT. As far as any conclusions presented using that flawed comparison I DONT THINK SO, is my obvious response. The only test percentages that would have any true validity would be those created by a functional prototype. Until then any figures quoted require assumtptions which render them as an opinion.

Reduction of idling is a method of increasing overall efficiency. RIDE eliminates idling. It also eliminates wide open throttle high speed operation, which also enhances effeciency. RIDE only operates in the most effecient range of load and speed, the flywheel assures there is a significant load applied any time the engine is consuming fuel, another path to greater effeciency.

Could you use a separate engine and flywheel to accomplish the same effect? Yes, but only to a point. The engine would have to cycle between running and stopping, the duration of those cycles would be dependent on the flywheels storage capabilities. Any increase in weight and complexity would be above and beyond the RIDE engine, and your system would have to have enough raw horsepower to overcome sustained grades. These compromises make your system less efficient, and dont address the issue of the additional number of parts necessary in a conventional engine, or the potential for failure of a high speed flywheel in accidents. RIDE would be robust enough to survive these catastrophic events in the same way conventional engines can absorb that abuse (of course that is my opinion, but it is based on much experience with wrecked cars and engines).
WW2 "corn cob" engines relied on the propeller to function as a flywleel. They did use a radial in a tank in WW2, and in that instance the mass of the necessary cooling fan also served as a flywheel. Fastest tank produced during the war.

gary

Kyle

In response to your last post:

It is quite likely that Mr. Pham won't be responding since more than a month has transpired.

Why did you not respond to any of the key points that he made in his post?:

His complete accounting of all energy flows in both a piston and Wankel. You missed its significance entirely. Instead, you reached deep and pulled out another hilarious bit of nonsense: "One of the main reasons for the ineffeciency of the Wankel is the fact that a certain percentage of the pressure created by combustion, is applied to the rotor in the wrong direction." This can be refuted any number of ways. The easiest way was already done by Mr. Pham - 1st Law analysis. But of course, since you know nothing whatsoever about thermo, you chose to ignore it. Perhaps an analogy is in order. If you have not already, look up the OPOC engine. Two versions are described. In one, the pistons in a cylinder move 180deg out of phase. In the preferred version, for reasons of optimizing scavenging, they do not. In other words, during the beginning of the power stroke, one of the pistons is still advancing toward top dead center, against the pressure, yet the engine yielded astounding efficiency. How do you explain that?

In short, since fluid pressure is identical throughout the fluid volume, the theoretical work done is strictly a function of pressure and change of volume. The shape of the volume and how it changes shape is immaterial.

You actually hit on the real Wankel problem - excess flame quenching and heat loss caused by large combustion chamber surface area - in a previous post. Yet you now have invented yet one more nonsense principle out of thin air.

In response to his 'textbook' energy balances, you dismiss them because the test engines and conditions aren't spelled out. They needn't be. Most auto sized engines are quite similar in this regard and you can be sure that the piston/wankel comparo was done on an apples-apples basis. You then say, "To say they appply to this CONCEPT lacks credibility, and presumes those textbook figures apply universally to any engine." The figures do not apply universally to all engines, but the CONCEPTS do! The key one is the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. I suggest that you look it up.

"Could you use a separate engine and flywheel to accomplish the same effect? Yes, but only to a point. The engine would have to cycle between running and stopping, the duration of those cycles would be dependent on the flywheels storage capabilities. Any increase in weight and complexity would be above and beyond the RIDE engine, and your system would have to have enough raw horsepower to overcome sustained grades."

1) Your engine has to cycle on/off also. 2) The duration of your cycles is also dependent on your 'flywheel' storage capacity. 3) Kevin earlier provided the MATH to show that a separate flywheel would add a trivial amount of weight, probably less than the additional weight of your design. 4) Your system would also have to have the raw horsepower to overcome sustained grades. So what exactly is your point?

I'm really stumped as to why you would respond to a 5 week old post, ignoring its clear refutations of your concept, and continue to ignore all of the other refutations that are obvious to a 1st year engineering student. You have repeatedly claimed that lack of reciprocation was key to your concept and good for doubling efficiency and then backed down and said it had nothing to do with it. You have repeatedly referenced the HISTORICAL (and you nailed me for supposedly arguing based on historical data) accounts of high mileage from hard accelleration followed by engine off coasting, but never once showed the slightest inkling of the underlying concepts. And niether have you responded when I revealed them to you. You have shown a complete lack of understanding of the most basic freshman physics in your claims about heat losses and emissions. And you have not responded when I so clearly debunked them.

You have virtually no intellectual foundation to understand the concepts that are being conveyed to you on this forum, which means you have absolutely no business actually trying to work with these concepts. Heck, you've repeatedly made it obvious that you are working with concepts that only exist in your imagination.

Kyle

To all concerned - The following exchange was made off-forum. I suggest anyone considering investing show this thread to a 1st year ME student. If in fact, Mr. Greenwell has garnered interest in his infinitely variable transmission concept, I think it telling that he apparently has not succeeded in doing so with his engine concept.

Gary - "As far as the forum and my responses to criticism, I went through that process 3 years ago, before I ever applied for a patent. I will be flying to the Detroit area for meetings concerning the Infinitely Variable Transmission, version of this machine (RIDE). Apparently you have a certain amount of interest in this concept, or you would have rejected it outright, and there would be no practical reason to bring up the issues you presented, or waste your valuable time.

There are hundreds of examples of inventions by people who do not share your educational background. The founder of Honda refused to hire engineers whose background was limited to a formal education, he considered their experience to be more important, than their education.

I was warned in advance of the response I should expect, from people whose background was primarily academic. As long as we can agree to debate our differences in opinion with mutual respect, the debate should be constructive. If mutual respect does not exist, then there is no purpose in continuing any debate. If you wish to constructively criticise, that would be appreciated. If you want to "kill the messenger" because you dont like the message, the result is a waste of our time and energy, without potential benefit to either party.

I never got furious when reading your response. To do so is self destructive, without benefit, and I never understood why people would engage in this type of behaviour in the first place.

Sorry about the gramatical errors, I was actually taught to be an excellent student, but that was a long time ago.

As far as addressing the issues, I try to do my best. Apparently you dont consider that to be sufficient. Point taken, and respectfully understood. This process is currently stalled by the time it takes the Patent Office to issue the patent. Since the patent process is incomplete, that represents my first priority. When (assuming it happens) the patent is issued, then I have a legitimate claim to the design. Until that point in time, there is no reason to continue the process, of development beyond the conceptual stage."

Kyle - "You say that you responded to criticisms such as mine 3 years ago. In that case, all you need do is point me to those responses. You wrote, "As far as addressing the issues, I try to do my best. Apparently you don't consider that to be sufficient. Point taken, and respectfully understood." You either don't seem to understand that you have utterly failed to respond with anything other than jumbled pseudo-science, or you know full well. As for my interest in the matter; it is quite simple. I don't want anyone to lose their hard-earned money on a boondoggle; even yourself if you aren't just scamming.

Yes, you are correct; many inventions come from people lacking formal education. However, if scientific or technical knowledge and skills was required, you can be sure they acquired it somewhere. You have made it very, very clear (if you aren't scamming) that you lack the most fundamental basics in the field in which your invention lies. You cannot comprehend the concept of conservation of energy as applied to a crank/slider mechanism. You claim thermodynamic efficiency 10 to 15% beyond current small diesel technology with no plausible thermodynamic explanation. At least until I explained it to you, it was abundantly clear that you had no understanding of why full-throttle acceleration/engine-off coasting yields the efficiency gains that it does. In response to a complete energy balance on a typical Wankel, you made an off-the-wall explanation for it's efficiency problems, showing yet again no grasp whatever of the very concept of the 1st Law of Thermo.

Your accusation that I'm a mere academic is laughable. I've worked as an engineer in the auto industry for 23 years. Again, I ask, where did you learn physics, especially thermo? Please respond intelligently to the criticisms made. Explain the above 4 examples in universal terms - MATH."

Roger Pham

Thanks, Kyle,for lending your professional engineering perspective and superb reasoning skill into this interesting subject. That's why peer review process is of utmost importance in any unexpected results or claims in science and technology fields. And that's why science have accomplished so much in such a short span of few hundred years. In the dark ages before scientific reasoning and inquiry, people are suspectible to superstitious beliefs and fallacies that has greatly restrained technogical progress. Without a sound scientific basis for any conceptual design, success will not likely ensue, and will be like hit or miss, mostly miss, similar to the work of alchemists before the age of modern science.

Roger Pham

Mr. Greenwell,

Ah, I'm very happy to see...and thanks for addressing my posting on May 26 06. In restrospect, no doubt your invention(s) have shown a lot of originality and creativity. We sincerely hope that our collective exchange of ideas here will help us learn more about your design, and may further help you perfecting the design or your presentation of your concept to scientific authorities...to the point that the resultant product will really help humanity overcome the looming energy crisis.

W/r/t using the Wankel as a comparison to your rotary engine concept, I am sorry that it was not a good comparison, due to the intrinsic lack of efficiency of the Wankel as outlined by Mr. Kyle Towers. Now, I understand why: The combustion chamber in a Wankel rotary does not have the benefit of a cooling intake stroke like in the 4-stroke-cycle piston engine, but the Wankel's combustion chamber must constantly be exposed to hot gases. Thus, in order to make the Wankel rotary to survive the high heat of combustion, the combustion temperature must be reduced by several means, hence lower Carnot efficiency percentage, AND with resultant incomplete combustion of fuel at part throttle, AND by effort to do external cooling of the combustion chamber, thus excessive heat loss.

Regarding whether a conventional engine with a CVT and a seperate flywheel can compare to your RIDE concept, Mr. Kyle Towers has succintly provided the answer. But, I have to admit that your concept is more elegant, in that in your RIDE concept the engine can be started instantly by using the momentum of the entire spinning mass without requiring a starter motor that can be subjected to wear and tear due to frequent starting and stopping. Toyota's Hybrid Synergy Drive HSD has overcome the requirement for a starter motor by using a planetary drive which utilizes 75% the engine-starting torque from the momentum of the car and only 25% of the engine-starting torque from the starter-generator. But, of course, the HSD along with the battery is quite expensive, and does not allow the engine to run only 20% of the time like in your RIDE concept. To be able to turn off the engine with all the associated pumping loss and internal friction and coasting for much of the time the car is running without wearing out the engine starter or the engine clutch is a very fine and practical idea.

I still don't know how your plan to do fuel injection thru the exhaust port using a single central fuel injector? Might that lead to some unburned fuel being blown out of the exhaust port with the fresh scavenging air going up the cylinder from the intake port at the bottom of the cylinder? (two-stroke Diesel operation) Oh, Okay, you can provide another intake port beside the exhaust port on the hollow crankshaft for 4-cycle operation, and inject the fuel together with the air intake...? Please kindly educate us. May be additional diagram will be of help, or a link to your patent, or patent application?

I now have to admit that your concept is looking better and better as I put more thought into analyzing it.

Please kindly do not take offense at us readers for making sometimes unfavorable or inappropriate comments regarding your concept. We do not know your concept as intimately as you do, so sometimes our comments came from lack of familiarity with the fine details or principles of your concept. Please patiently educating us readers as you encountering criticism or unfavorable comments, because sometimes from these unpleasant exchanges of ideas that much can be learned, and that can be a two-way streets.

Best wishes, and hope to hear from you soon!

gary greenwell

1/29/06 Kyle wrote

"A piston at TDC is travelling faster than when at BDC becasue the rate of rotation is constant, while the radius of rotation is constantly changing"

It is my understanding that at the instant in time when the piston is at TDC or BDC that piston is STATIONARY.

Maybe your "perfect understanding" is less than perfect!

If your statement is true, then where is the reciprocation in a reciprocating engine?

My knowledge of the piston movement at TDC and BDC is based on real world situations in determining whether an engine had gone "out of timing" as a part of a diagnostic process. This consisted of physically placing a steel rod through the spark plug hole and using the lack of piston movement to determine whether TDC coincided with the mark on the harmonic balancer (sometimes the balancer outer ring would slip and the mark could not be trusted), and the camshaft timing was correct. According to your statement that would not be possible. This is a common practice of people who actually work on engines.

I did notice Kyle, you managed to refrian from calling me a scam here, while you failed to do so in the email you sent me personally. Do not send me any more personal emails, I find your attitude violated my request for communication without a "kill the messenger because you dont like the message" attitude. If you feel you do not need to abide by that, do so at your own risk.

I live within 20 miles of NASA Langley, and Newport News Shipbuilding (Northrop Grumman) I know many engineers from my daily business, and many of them started out as customers and ended up as friends. The problem here is if any of them became directly involved in this process, the government, and Northrop Grumman would have legitimate claims on my patent rights. If I even listed their names here it could cost them a career.

My net worth is over 800k, my credit rating is over 800 as well. I dont need this kind of rubbish, when it gets personal. To insinuate my motives are less than genuine consititues prejudice of the worst kind. Only a fool would ever attempt to bring a new engine concept to fruition for any financial gain. If you dont agree just look at the facts, the last "new" engine was the Wankel, at least one that made it into production. The original patent was issued in 1926, at least that was one of the documents our patent search revealed. The odds are at least 100,000 to 1 against any inventor.

If I knew how to provide absolute mathematical proof of my concept, I wouldnt hesitate for a minute to do so, or to pay someone to do the same thing. You can always buy knowledge, but you cant buy imagination or innovation. To demand what simply doesnt exist is just another way of "killing the messenger", and represents an institutionalised response to any "out of the box" innovation. If that is in the best interest of any of us, I personally have no idea of how it would provide a benefit, at least to myself. Unlike Kyle I dont presume to speak for others, as he did in my response to Roger Pham. Roger I truly appreciate your last response. I also understand my limitations, much better than Kyle might think. Does that understanding mean I should never attempt to make this concept known to others?

Before you judge too quickly, try for a minute to walk a mile in my shoes. In reality your are damned if you do and damned if you dont. I will probably never see a penny from all this crap, history has proven to be very unkind to people with imagination. Rudolf Diesel died a broken man, along with many others whose contributions were significant.

Responders with "kill the messenger" attitudes who attempt to crush imagination with preconcieved (and incorrect) assumptions about an idea, are only following the path of least resistance, and indeed are doing little more than "shooting fish in a barrel".

Is it not somewhat disingenuious to demand mathematical proof of something that does not exist in a state where it can be tested to provide data that can be used to calculate realistic figures. Of course, even when that is done, the same person could just state, "your figures lack credibility because there is a conflict of interest". By its very nature data produced by those who dont believe this concept has validity, would be considered more credible than my own regardless of whether it was or wasn't.

This basically places the inventor in an impossible situation, unless he can find an unimpeachable third party to provide the data.

I guess Kyle also belives this whole process is an attempt to convince some naieve investor to dump money into my personal slush fund. Can you actually believe that any investor would be stupid enough to risk funds on something with as poor a record as engine innovation inventions.

My real objective here is to create interest, and thinking, by people who wish to do so, and possibly a better method of conserving inertail forces in vehicles.

A simple test that I performed, was to drive a 1990 Honda Civic (no check engine light, OBD 1or 2, but fuel injected) to a speed of 40 MPH then put the transmission in neutral and coast to a stop. It took 2700 feet. Then I accelerated to 40 and turned the engine off, and downshifted at the same speeds I had upshifted while accelerating, the distance was 870 feet. The percentage difference was almost exactly the same as the original contest won by the Opel in 1970 when they managed to get 124 MPG in a car that normally got about 40 at a steady 26 MPH. Using this process I can triple the Civics already impressive 42 MPG urban mileage, which proves my concept. This assumes no difference in engine efficiency (since it does not exist) but does improve the overall systems efficiency by over 200%, which is the basic of any claim I ever made. Since I could never prove an increase in engine efficiency, I simple didnt include that ASSUMPTION in any ESTIMATE.

Sorry Kyle, no Diesel factor here (your assumptions again ;)), but if this concept (configured as a diesel) is MORE efficient than gas, or alcohol, or biodiesel, or any other fuel you could imagine (even hydrogen and oxygen without compression), then that would obviously be the best path, as long as emissions issues were not a factor (including total heat emissions as well as obnixous smells).

Oh one more thing the Kyle, you may want to check Toyotas current 2007 models, they are actually working on unthrottled operation of their GASOLINE engines under certain circumstances.

I worked for Mercedes in the early 1980'S during the time period when the 240D and 300D models transitioned from throttled to unthrottled operation. Their clain was a 7% improvement in efficiency. otherwise the engines were identical in every respect. The earlier throttled models suffered from a problem that was unusual. When the vacuum system developed a leak you couldn't turn the engine off, becasue the smallest vaccuum leak was enough to keep the engine running. When the went to the unthrottled induction system they added a separate vacuum pump to operated the vaccuum controlled accessories.

Another mistaken assumption Kyle, you presumed my engine would operate at WOT, which is different from unthrottled operation. Now I guess you could continue to argue the point that unthrottled is WOT, but again you incorrectly assume something that is wrong.

An unthrottled doesel engine can idle, of course, the control of engine speed and power is strictly based on fuel provided by the injection pump. Gasoling engines can not tolerate this process, but diesels work fine.
My design allows you to maximise the load placed on the engine by simply adjusting the mass of the flywheel. It also allows you to have a large displacement, high torque engine, that can operate in its ideal range of efficiency (another incorrect assumption KYLE). This provides you with the raw horsepower to climb steep grades, and with the IVT would actually make it possible to have the same climbing ability as dedicated 4WD vehicles, with the efficiency of an aerodynamic passenger vehicle. Try that in your complex, and expensive, parallel or series hybrid.

Gary

Kyle


Gary - "A piston at TDC is travelling faster than when at BDC becasue the rate of rotation is constant, while the radius of rotation is constantly changing"

It is my understanding that at the instant in time when the piston is at TDC or BDC that piston is STATIONARY.

Maybe your "perfect understanding" is less than perfect!

If your statement is true, then where is the reciprocation in a reciprocating engine?”

This is verbatim from my post - “Another way of looking at it is to see that there is plenty of reciprocation in an aircraft rotary as well, as long as you (quite reasonably) define reciprocation as continuously changing velocity (continuous acceleration or deceleration). A piston at TDC is traveling faster than when at BDC, because the rate of rotation is constant while the radius of rotation is constantly changing. All things are relative says Albert.”

It is perfectly clear that I was referring to an aircraft rotary, which is precisely the same as your engine in this regard. Therefore, your criticism is totally unfounded. Now that I have pointed out your misreading of my post, do you agree that in your engine, the pistons and rods are constantly accelerating and decelerating just as in any piston engine?

Gary – “I did notice Kyle, you managed to refrian from calling me a scam here, while you failed to do so in the email you sent me personally. Do not send me any more personal emails, I find your attitude violated my request for communication without a "kill the messenger because you dont like the message" attitude. If you feel you do not need to abide by that, do so at your own risk.”

Actually, I posted my e-mail verbatim on this forum. I did not call you a scammer. I did say that there are only two possibilities. You are either technically illiterate or you are a scammer. There is simply no other option.

Gary – “I live within 20 miles of NASA Langley, and Newport News Shipbuilding (Northrop Grumman) I know many engineers from my daily business, and many of them started out as customers and ended up as friends. The problem here is if any of them became directly involved in this process, the government, and Northrop Grumman would have legitimate claims on my patent rights. If I even listed their names here it could cost them a career.

My net worth is over 800k, my credit rating is over 800 as well. I dont need this kind of rubbish, when it gets personal. To insinuate my motives are less than genuine consititues prejudice of the worst kind.”

I see no reason for the above other than another use of a fallacious ad hominem argument. And again, I’m merely pointing out that, other than ignorance, deceit is the only other possibility.

Gary – “Only a fool would ever attempt to bring a new engine concept to fruition for any financial gain. If you dont agree just look at the facts, the last "new" engine was the Wankel, at least one that made it into production. The original patent was issued in 1926, at least that was one of the documents our patent search revealed. The odds are at least 100,000 to 1 against any inventor.”

I think the OPOC qualifies as a new engine. It is being used right now in military UAV’s and a larger unit is in development for commercial aircraft. A group in Houston has developed a new, complex compound engine cycle that the Navy has installed on a ship and is performing very well with 1st Law efficiency approaching 70%!

Gary - “If I knew how to provide absolute mathematical proof of my concept, I wouldnt hesitate for a minute to do so, or to pay someone to do the same thing. You can always buy knowledge, but you cant buy imagination or innovation. To demand what simply doesnt exist is just another way of "killing the messenger", and represents an institutionalised response to any "out of the box" innovation.”

All of the physics are very well understood and complex software models have been in use for many years. To demand what doesn’t exist is not “killing the messenger”. It is demanding what should exist. You don’t even need the complex models to see if you’re in the ballpark vis-à-vis conventional engines. Every equation and every input variable could be found in any thermodynamics text and the resultant math could fit on a page or two. The fact that you can’t do it and have not had it done is simply more evidence that your “concepts” are invalid.

Gary – “If that is in the best interest of any of us, I personally have no idea of how it would provide a benefit, at least to myself.”

I’m at a loss for words.

Gary – “Responders with "kill the messenger" attitudes who attempt to crush imagination with preconcieved (and incorrect) assumptions about an idea, are only following the path of least resistance, and indeed are doing little more than "shooting fish in a barrel".”

An utterly incorrect assessment if this directed at myself. I am an inveterate inventor and enjoy studying innovations in many fields. My “assumptions” are actually nothing more than your own words. You have repeatedly stated the flawed principles upon which your engine concept rests. As for my "shooting fish in a barrel"; that is a fairly accurate representation of our debate.

“Is it not somewhat disingenuous to demand mathematical proof of something that does not exist in a state where it can be tested to provide data that can be used to calculate realistic figures.”

No. It is not. Assuming you change “proof” to “evidence”, as any good scientist would.

“Of course, even when that is done, the same person could just state, "your figures lack credibility because there is a conflict of interest". By its very nature data produced by those who dont believe this concept has validity, would be considered more credible than my own regardless of whether it was or wasn't.”

Wrong again. I am not referring to data. Data comes from observation. If you correct that by substituting “calculations”, there are literally 100’s of thousands of people with the requisite understanding to either confirm or refute them.


”Can you actually believe that any investor would be stupid enough to risk funds on something with as poor a record as engine innovation inventions.”

People have been scammed on far, far more risky, and sometimes ridiculous, inventions.

A simple test that I performed, was to drive a 1990 Honda Civic (no check engine light, OBD 1or 2, but fuel injected) to a speed of 40 MPH then put the transmission in neutral and coast to a stop. It took 2700 feet. Then I accelerated to 40 and turned the engine off, and downshifted at the same speeds I had upshifted while accelerating, the distance was 870 feet. The percentage difference was almost exactly the same as the original contest won by the Opel in 1970 when they managed to get 124 MPG in a car that normally got about 40 at a steady 26 MPH. Using this process I can triple the Civics already impressive 42 MPG urban mileage, which proves my concept. This assumes no difference in engine efficiency (since it does not exist) but does improve the overall systems efficiency by over 200%, which is the basic of any claim I ever made. Since I could never prove an increase in engine efficiency, I simple didnt include that ASSUMPTION in any ESTIMATE.”

You never took a physics course. How can you state, against common knowledge and obvious engineering sense, that there is no difference in engine efficiency in this method? I am speechless yet again. You have repeated your description of your test, but have not made any attempt whatsoever to explain the physical principles at work. If it is not the difference in engine efficiency (w/ help from the reduced drag from a low average speed), then please (for the third or fourth time!) tell me what this principle is!

“Sorry Kyle, no Diesel factor here (your assumptions again ;)), but if this concept (configured as a diesel) is MORE efficient than gas, or alcohol, or biodiesel, or any other fuel you could imagine (even hydrogen and oxygen without compression), then that would obviously be the best path, as long as emissions issues were not a factor (including total heat emissions as well as obnixous smells).”

So, if not diesel, are you saying you can get 55% efficiency in the Otto cycle! On what physical principle is this based? Where does the increase come from? Your verbosity continues to work against you. By going off on such tangents, you continue to reveal even more gaps in your understanding of basic principles. First, this paragraph reads as if it were the fuel that mattered. It is the cycle that matters. Second, any cycle that operates w/o compression sufficient to reach the temperature limitations set by material properties or NOX emissions, is foolishly limiting its Carnot efficiency. Yes, a hydrogen/oxygen operation removes the latter and, w/o looking it up, probably comes close to, if not exceeds, the former. However, there is an high energy penalty to pay for producing relatively pure O2. If done on board, considerable bulk, weight, complexity, and cost would be added to the vehicle. If done remotely, you have added another expensive high-pressure ‘fueling’ system and increased the hazard factors.

“Oh one more thing the Kyle, you may want to check Toyotas current 2007 models, they are actually working on unthrottled operation of their GASOLINE engines under certain circumstances.”

Yes, this and many other developments are underway. However, the increase in efficiency is incremental, since, as you state, it occurs under only certain operating regimes. It has minimal affect on the validity of my observations even in regard to such vehicles and in no way refutes my point about current vehicles. I’m not sure why you wrote this. Is it meant to somehow refute the well-known FACT that Otto cycle engines suffer from throttling losses at part throttle?

“I worked for Mercedes in the early 1980'S during the time period when the 240D and 300D models transitioned from throttled to unthrottled operation. Their clain was a 7% improvement in efficiency. otherwise the engines were identical in every respect.”

I am confused as to why you wrote this. You have just confirmed my point. Thank you. When they removed the throttle and assumed traditional Diesel operation, they recovered most of the difference between Otto and Diesel cycle efficiency (at the dominant part-throttle condition). The remainder was due to higher compression yielding a higher average temperature of heat input, which by Carnot’s Theorem directly increases efficiency.

“Another mistaken assumption Kyle, you presumed my engine would operate at WOT, which is different from unthrottled operation. Now I guess you could continue to argue the point that unthrottled is WOT, but again you incorrectly assume something that is wrong.”

Semantics. Operationally, there is no difference. You are grasping at straws to find fault with my “assumptions”.


”My design allows you to maximise the load placed on the engine by simply adjusting the mass of the flywheel. It also allows you to have a large displacement, high torque engine, that can operate in its ideal range of efficiency (another incorrect assumption KYLE).”

Please quote me where I have incorrectly assumed something in this regard. I have no idea as to what you are referring. As for “can operate in its ideal range of efficiency”. Yes, it can operate without throttling losses. This is a different concept from the optimum SPEED. Intake and exhaust systems are tuned for best efficiency somewhere in the mid-range. Combustion heat losses sap efficiency at low speeds. Pumping losses and, to a lesser extent, non-linear friction coefficients, sap efficiency at high speeds. Your concept, by its very design, must continuously change speed over a broad range.

Again, I’m not “shooting the messenger”. By repeatedly making this claim, you are trying to deflect from the real matters at hand.

Kyle

Roger,

I'm having trouble understanding what exactly is your new insight. You wrote, "To be able to turn off the engine with all the associated pumping loss and internal friction ..." is a gain. If you continue with the example of the engine running 20% of the time, the engine must produce 5 times the energy when it is running as compared to an engine that is running all of the time. Since his engine is unthrottled, it can be directly compared to a series hybrid with an engine 1/5 the size. Therefore, when running, it will generate ~5 times the pumping losses and ~5 times the friction. If you compare it to an equivalent size engine in a non-hybrid, the non-hybrid will have lower pumping losses if a Diesel because it is (on average, since his engine is constantly changing speed) running slower. If it is an Otto cycle, the pumping losses will be higher because of the throttling.

Your observation about wear on clutches and starters assumes that there are clutches and starters involved. The direction seems to be toward direct coupled combined motor/generators, so all such issues are obviated.

gary greenwell

Wrong assumption again Kyle.

"Your concept by its very design must change speeds over a broad range"

You really shold try to avoid such generalizations. You dont adequately describe your "broad range" where it actually has any real significance. My estimate would be in the range of 1500 to 3500 RPM. There are many variables involved here that could have a dramatic effect on this range. Adding mass to the perimeter of the engine-flywheel would increase the overall load, as well as the storage capabilities. The range could be significantly lower than this PROJECTED figure, but probably not higher. If you really read the initial information, you would have understood the fixed amount of fuel delivered per combustion cycle, does not consitute WOT. In a diesel when you have no throttle butterfly, full throttle is when you provide enough fuel to consume the maximum amount of oxygen available in the cylinder for complete combustion (never the most efficient way to run any engine). I never stated that, but you assumed exactly that. No wonder you cant understand the benefits. Although the ranges vary from engine to engine, 40-70% is a good overall estimate of percentage of throttle opening where efficiency is best. Maybe it would help you to understand if I simplify the explanation. I accelerate to 40 MPH in any car in 15 seconds (certainly not WOT!), it takes me 750 total revolutions of the engine to do this in 15 seconds, at an air fuel mix of slightly higher than 14.7 to 1. Then I shut off all the fuel to the engine, eliminate all the pumping losses, reciprocation losses, cooling system losses, exhaust losses, etc, etc (engine not running just a flywheel) now I coast a half a mile. I have travelled the distance it took to accelerate to 40 MPH, and coasted another half a mile on a total of 750, revolutions of the engine. It takes the Scion 3000 revolutions of the engine to travel 1 mile at 40 MPH (more if not in high gear). There is some math for you to digest.

Oh yes another point where you backed down, TDC or BDC whether rotary, radial, or the engine in your lawn mower, is the same. TDC is when a straight line would go through the center of the piston pin, the center of the crank journal where the rod connects, and the center of the engines main bearings. In a rotary TDC is in the same place relative to the fixed crankshaft. In any other engine TDC depends on the cylinder arrangement, the best way to understand would be to consider each cylinder individually. BDC is when the same line through the pin, passes through the center of the main bearing, and through the center of the rod bearing.

Who said I never took a Physics course Kyle? Obviously you cant know what level of education I achieved. Maybe you should concentrate on the message, becasue you certainly have managed to add your own creative information to my posts. You should earn an olympic award for the level you have managed to jump, to conclusions, with no basis in anything I have stated.

Gary

gary greenwell

Roger Pham,

I would appreciate any assistance in my earnest attempt to see this concept fully understood. The Department of Energy looked at this concept 2 years ago. My request for consideration was made through Virginia US Senator George Allens Office, in hopes it would be given reasonable consideration. To assume a lack of integrity on my part, in trying to further this idea, is simply wrong.

The DOE response basically stated the design was "unique", and "feasible". Then they stated that in their OPINION, based on the original rotary engines, and other rotary designs, including the Wankel, the efficiency gains would be negligible, and the R&D necessary would be costly. Their conclusion was obvious, but they never stated that the design was impractical and they made sure their OPINION about the efficiency was just that, an opinion. They never made any attempt to allow me to respond to any of their concerns about efficiency, not a single question was ever asked of myself. I offered to assign the rights to the US govt, for military applications, with no expectation of any compensation whatsoever, in hopes they would provide their considerable R&D resources, hardly the actions of a person of no integrity, with only financial gain as an incentive.

They never considered the operational tactic of only running the engine to generate flywheel storage. Of course if you assume no improvement in efficiency in 90 years, no engine design would be acceptable compared to one that had the benefit of a 90 year R&D improvement.

One of my engineer friends, a 47 year old graduate of West Point, gave me a very honest appraisal of his understanding of internal combustion engines, when he told me my understanding of engines was far superior to his own. My focus on engines goes back 45 years, to the third grade, when I could read a 385 page book in one night. My father (still alive at 85) graduated from the University of Virginia in 2 years and 9 months, after piloting a B17 in WW2. Unlike Kyle, these people know me personally and certainly have respect for my intelligence.

I have the original patent documents on my desktop, and would gladly send them to you as an email attachment. I only ask that you contact me privately by email, I will give you my address, and request you send me a simple non disclosure agreement, to protect my design while the patent process continues. The original completed application was filed 9-22-04, but there is a second round of provisional filings, relating to the IVT design, that includes a significant number of conceptual improvements that I have developed since the 9-22-04 date of the original completed patent application.

Anyone who doesnt understand the difference between a radial and an original rotary engine should Google
"Animated Engines Gnome" and simply watch the animation created by Matt Keveney. The lack of reciprocation in the original rotary design is obvious in the illustration, and Mr. keveney gives a brief analysis of the design. I am not aware of any reciprocating engine that accomplishes RELATIVE reciprocation of the piston and cylinder, with the exception of the original rotary.

Although I had studied engines for 40 years, I never really understood the original rotary engine until I went to Old Rheinbeck Aerodrome in 2000. I watched an airshow there that included several planes flying with these engines (very amazed the FAA would even allow them to be flown within 100 Yards of 4000 spectators), as well as a hands on inspection of a cut away static display of a original Gnome Monosupape (single valve) configuration. The exhaust valve was almost 4 inches in diameter, about 80% of the surface area of the cylinder head, while the spring tension on the valve was soo light you could open the valve with one finger. Centrifugal forces were used to keep the valve closed.

This thread has accomplished my goal of increasing public awareness of this CONCEPT. Every step of the development process has always included the basic belief that simplicity of design, with minimal components, maximising the utilization of every individual component, while eliminating any wasted energy, was my principle philosophy.

No matter what level of intelligence I may, or may not have, I believe this design offers an excellent alternative to the current path of development. I have never tried to violate any textbook loss calculations, or any thermodymanic laws, as some might think. This concept is almost impossible to explain to anyone regardless of their educational background. To address this issue I built a simple model that clearly demonstrates what I am trying to explain, and my West Point graduate friend told me the model was a superb demonstration piece. We have videos, and animations of the concept in motion, the illustrations Mike posted are snapshots of a moving animation.

Gary

Kyle

“My estimate would be in the range of 1500 to 3500 RPM. There are many variables involved here that could have a dramatic effect on this range. Adding mass to the perimeter of the engine-flywheel would increase the overall load, as well as the storage capabilities. The range could be significantly lower than this PROJECTED figure, but probably not higher.”

Your estimate represents a 2.33 ratio. A series hybrid would operate at not only a constant speed, but also a constant load, allowing every parameter to be exquisitely tuned to maximize efficiency at those conditions. E.g., the intake and exhaust runners would resonate like a pipe organ. 2) Adding mass to the perimeter of your engine (when you can’t take it away from the center because that is your basic mechanism) makes the weight of your concept even less competitive with a separate flywheel. If you were to significantly lower the ratio, say to 1.50, the angular momentum required to maintain the same performance must remain the same, so the polar moment of inertia must be increased by a factor of 2.33/1.50 = 1.56. That doesn’t mean an increase in weight of 56%, because, as you said, the weight can be added to the perimeter, but the increase would still be more than that of a separate flywheel. See Kevin’s post for the math that shows that the weight of said flywheel is trivial and almost certainly less than the additional weigh of your engine, even w/o added perimeter mass.

“If you really read the initial information, you would have understood the fixed amount of fuel delivered per combustion cycle, does not consitute WOT. In a diesel when you have no throttle butterfly, full throttle is when you provide enough fuel to consume the maximum amount of oxygen available in the cylinder for complete combustion (never the most efficient way to run any engine). I never stated that, but you assumed exactly that.”

Your initial info. stated that it was preferably a Diesel. I approached it as if it were a Diesel. You slammed me for assuming it was a Diesel (“Sorry Kyle, no Diesel factor here (your assumptions again ;) “). Now you tell me I must assume it’s a Diesel! Make up your mind!

“No wonder you cant understand the benefits. Although the ranges vary from engine to engine, 40-70% is a good overall estimate of percentage of throttle opening where efficiency is best.”

You are so confused that you are confusing me. 40-70% throttle opening is very definitely not where best efficiency is reached on a throttled engine. That would be at WOT. If you actually were referring to a Diesel and meant to say equivalence ratio, yes Diesels operate most efficiently at equivalence ratios in this range. The reason it is not at stoichiometric conditions is because, in that case, the engine achieves considerably less expansion and more energy is wasted in blowdown. The reason it is not lower is because the max. allowable temp. of heat input is never reached (Carnot’s Theorem again). If you meant something else entirely, please explain yourself.

“Maybe it would help you to understand if I simplify the explanation. I accelerate to 40 MPH in any car in 15 seconds (certainly not WOT!),…”

But much wider throttle than that required to cruise at 40 MPH. Those experiments you quote where very high mileage was achieved all used WOT. If you don’t use WOT, you still get a benefit, just not as much.

“… it takes me 750 total revolutions of the engine to do this in 15 seconds, at an air fuel mix of slightly higher than 14.7 to 1. Then I shut off all the fuel to the engine, eliminate all the pumping losses, reciprocation losses, cooling system losses, exhaust losses, etc, etc (engine not running just a flywheel) now I coast a half a mile. I have travelled the distance it took to accelerate to 40 MPH, and coasted another half a mile on a total of 750, revolutions of the engine. It takes the Scion 3000 revolutions of the engine to travel 1 mile at 40 MPH (more if not in high gear). There is some math for you to digest.”

What math? You threw some numbers on a page. After reading it several times, I can only conclude that you think the only factor in efficiency is engine revolutions per mile! And on top of that, you seem to be suggesting that stoichiometric is where you want to run. That infers either an Otto cycle or a Diesel running at equivalence ratio = 1. Is this not contrary to your earlier posts? Please explain yourself.

Now, since you cannot operate with math, let’s perform a simple thought experiment. Consider that we have some vehicles with identical weights, rolling resistances, and aerodynamic drag. They are driven side by side, accelerating and decelerating with perfect synchronization. Vehicle A is a conventional Otto cycle. Vehicle B is a Diesel (that is what you want, right?) RIDE. Vehicle C is a series hybrid (Diesel to be apples-apples, but could be Otto at WOT). The mechanical energy required to complete a given driving cycle is obviously the same for all three vehicles. Each pound of fuel in each vehicle has 18,000 BTU of fuel value. If the average engine efficiency and the efficiency of regenerative braking is the same in all vehicles, by the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, they will get the same mileage.

Since A doesn’t have regenerative braking, we know it will have poorer efficiency. Since it is running on the Otto cycle and has an engine sized for acceleration, it operates at an average low throttle opening and therefore does even worse (or are you still denying the obvious?).

B operates on a Diesel cycle, so it will be a few % better than A right off. Assuming that it always runs at an optimum equivalence ratio and cutoff ratio, as made possible by the energy storage feature (as any good designer would have it), it will gain a few more %. Assuming that the transmission recovers braking energy at a high efficiency, the efficiency can soar relative to A. How much depends on how much braking is in the driving cycle. However, since your system has a high turn-down ratio transmission of either mechanical CVT, or by your preference, hydrostatic design, the efficiency isn’t any better, and in the latter case, probably worse, than other hybrid systems.

C gets the same upfront gain as B from lack of a throttle and high compression. It also would also run at the optimum equivalence ratio and cutoff ratio, i.e., at maximum allowable average temperature of heat input, so it gets the same gain as B from that as well. Whether the storage is battery, ultra-capacitor, flywheel, etc. or some combination, the efficiency of regeneration can be just as good or better than RIDE. If the wheels are powered by electrical motors, they double as generators. In a series hybrid, all power to the wheels is from the motors, so they are much more powerful than those of parallel hybrids, so whereas today’s hybrids may achieve 25% regeneration efficiency over a typical driving cycle, a series hybrid could easily achieve 75% if the motor/generators are sized for acceleration. But once sized for that, designers will include enough surge capacity to allow full panic braking w/o resort to friction braking. In the case of ultra-capacitors, the efficiency of regeneration would essentially equal the efficiency of the generator, which could be 90-95%. So C now has a slight edge.

But wait. It seems that at this point, B is still fairly competitive with C. However, there is the matter of B’s engine operating at variable speed and C’s at a fixed speed. B’s engine can never achieve the breathing efficiency of C’s. It sounds as if you have a mechanic’s view of engines, so certainly you know of the value of tuned headers. Imagine if they could be tuned to maximize breathing at one speed and load. Then imagine the same is done for the intake runners. Surely you are aware of engines w/ complex dual runner systems w/ active control to achieve better breathing efficiency over a broader speed range. Such cost and complexity indicates that the gains are substantial, right?

And let’s not forget the RIDE’s excess bulk and weight, compromised breathing, and other serious design problems.

“Oh yes another point where you backed down, TDC or BDC whether rotary, radial, or the engine in your lawn mower, is the same. TDC is when a straight line would go through the center of the piston pin, the center of the crank journal where the rod connects, and the center of the engines main bearings. In a rotary TDC is in the same place relative to the fixed crankshaft. In any other engine TDC depends on the cylinder arrangement, the best way to understand would be to consider each cylinder individually. BDC is when the same line through the pin, passes through the center of the main bearing, and through the center of the rod bearing.”

I backed down? I have no idea what you mean by that. I know full well what the definitions of TDC and BDC are and have no idea why you think it necessary to state them. One more time for the hard of thinking – IN A RIDE ENGINE, THE PISTONS ARE CONSTANTLY ACCELERATING AND DECELERATING JUST AS IN ANY PISTON ENGINE. THIS IS BECAUSE THEY ARE ROTATING AT A CONSTANT ANGULAR RATE, BUT NOT AT A CONSTANT VELOCITY. THEY ARE MOVING FASTER WHEN FURTHER FROM THE CENTER OF THE BLOCK’S ROTATION (BDC ON A RIDE) AND SLOWER WHEN CLOSER TO THE CENTER OF THE BLOCK’S ROTATION (TDC ON A RIDE).


“Who said I never took a Physics course Kyle? Obviously you cant know what level of education I achieved.”

If you have taken a physics course, you either didn’t grasp the most basic concepts or you have forgotten them. I do not know, other than your MBA, what your level of education is, but I do know beyond a shadow of doubt, from this exchange, that you have no mechanical engineering background at all.

“Maybe you should concentrate on the message, becasue you certainly have managed to add your own creative information to my posts. You should earn an olympic award for the level you have managed to jump, to conclusions, with no basis in anything I have stated.”

Everything in your concepts that I have critiqued is clearly in your writings. Every time you have claimed that I have made an incorrect assumption, the truth has been that I was either working with precisely the information that you gave me, or you were claiming that sound engineering principles were assumptions. The source of confusion is your muddled, conflicted explanations and conflation of different topics. The only question is whether that is your natural condition or an attempt to obfuscate.

From your next post:

“The DOE response basically stated the design was "unique", and "feasible". Then they stated that in their OPINION, based on the original rotary engines, and other rotary designs, including the Wankel, the efficiency gains would be negligible, and the R&D necessary would be costly. Their conclusion was obvious, but they never stated that the design was impractical and they made sure their OPINION about the efficiency was just that, an opinion. They never made any attempt to allow me to respond to any of their concerns about efficiency, not a single question was ever asked of myself.”

You believe it obvious that they concluded that any efficiency gains would be negligible? You had earlier claimed 50-55% efficiency? Please explain yourself.

“They never considered the operational tactic of only running the engine to generate flywheel storage.”


How do you know that? Was that not an integral part of the concept as you presented it to the DOE? Isn’t it more likely that they did and still reached the same conclusion?


“Of course if you assume no improvement in efficiency in 90 years, no engine design would be acceptable compared to one that had the benefit of a 90 year R&D improvement.”


You still don’t seem to grasp the fact that no chip-making R&D is required to analyze the basic concept. All of the principles necessary have been known for centuries now. The DOE people have enough of an engineering background that they need not make a single calculation to arrive at their conclusion. It is obvious to anyone in the field.


“One of my engineer friends, a 47 year old graduate of West Point, gave me a very honest appraisal of his understanding of internal combustion engines, when he told me my understanding of engines was far superior to his own. My focus on engines goes back 45 years, to the third grade, when I could read a 385 page book in one night. My father (still alive at 85) graduated from the University of Virginia in 2 years and 9 months, after piloting a B17 in WW2. Unlike Kyle, these people know me personally and certainly have respect for my intelligence.”


He isn’t an ME, is he? As for the rest – blatant chest-thumping ad hominem arguments because you can’t make engineering arguments.


“I have the original patent documents on my desktop, and would gladly send them to you as an email attachment. I only ask that you contact me privately by email, I will give you my address, and request you send me a simple non disclosure agreement, to protect my design while the patent process continues.”


If, as you say, these documents contain the missing info. that explains the mysterious source of your predicted efficiency gains, please arrange for me to get a copy. I will gladly sigh the non-disclosure agreement.


“Anyone who doesnt understand the difference between a radial and an original rotary engine should Google "Animated Engines Gnome" and simply watch the animation created by Matt Keveney. The lack of reciprocation in the original rotary design is obvious in the illustration, and Mr. keveney gives a brief analysis of the design.”


Sometimes the truth is not obvious.


“I am not aware of any reciprocating engine that accomplishes RELATIVE reciprocation of the piston and cylinder, with the exception of the original rotary.”


You used the right word – relative – but the importance went over your head.


“Although I had studied engines for 40 years, I never really understood the original rotary engine until I went to Old Rheinbeck Aerodrome in 2000.”

I understood it the first time I was exposed to it, probably in my early teens. If you didn’t understand it until 2000, there is a problem.


“I have never tried to violate any textbook loss calculations, or any thermodymanic laws, as some might think. This concept is almost impossible to explain to anyone regardless of their educational background.”

If, as you claim, you have not violated any thermodynamic laws in your explanations, then please explain why you cannot account for your predicted efficiency gains using thermodynamic principles. Also, if your engine differs from a standard piston engine as regards “cost of reciprocation”, why can you not account for this difference using simple dynamics?

“To address this issue I built a simple model that clearly demonstrates what I am trying to explain, and my West Point graduate friend told me the model was a superb demonstration piece. We have videos, and animations of the concept in motion, the illustrations Mike posted are snapshots of a moving animation.”


Are you saying that if you send these to me, they will explain the mysterious principles that your concept is founded upon? If so, please do.

gary greenwell

I will repeat myself so you wont miss it Kyle. DONT SEND ME ANY MORE EMAILS-UNDERSTOOD! The offer was made to Roger if he is interested. It will never be made to you, under any circumstances.

More of the same assumptions that support your perception of what is the ideal hybrid. My concept weighs less, needs fewer parts, is a much less expensive system overall. Lets also consider the much more expensive solution you prefer, as well as the fact that your hybrid will depreciate twice as fast, while the overall efficiency of your necessarily complicated system insures its initial efficiency will soon fade away while mine can continue for two to three times the useful life of the vehicle. Your high voltage hybrid is already a nightmare for any person involved in extracting people from seriously damaged vehicles. They are nightmares for repair techs, while keeping the manufacturers rich with their rediculously overpriced replacement parts. You advocate complexity, with no concept of the overall cost of operation. Your solution has poor acceleration, poor sustained grade capabilities, and presents a nightmare for any owner who tries to keep it for more than the warrantee period. More money in the manufacturers pocket, with a small energy savings to offset the much greater operational costs. Ill take your diesel non hybrid solution over this one anytime.

Watch the market for used high mileage hybrids, the Prius will be worth no more than a Corolla at 100k miles, when the extended warrantee on the hybrid components expires, in spite of the fact that it cost 10k more initially. This makes the break even point in a cost comparison over 300,000 miles, not even considering depreciation. I will take a Corolla and a 3000 gallon gas card over your solution anytime. When both vehicles have reached 100,000 miles, you are still 2000 gallons in the hole, along with 10k in depreciation. Try selling your 25,000 mile Prius for 10k at 100 k miles. You might as well donate it to charity.

My concept can be built more inexpensively than the least expensive automobile available on the market today. Your comparisons still contain your preconcieved notions about weight, which serves to only validate your conclusions. You simply insist on slanting the calculations to support your preconcieved opinions. Your objectivity has long since vanished, if indeed it was ever present from the beginning.

Gary

gary greenwell

Actually it should have been $25,000 Prius LOL
Gary

The comments to this entry are closed.