After years of computer simulations and no prototypes it is a big surprize that such a discovery can be made. Computers simulations are perfect examples of how machines and global warming works.

Computer controlled valve can be built and installed and operated for all engines.

Or perhaps we can see that the Scuderi engine is just a piston version of a jet engine and just go with the Capstone turbines.

If you want a combination of turbine and piston you can go with the Electro-turbine-supercharger of the new OPOC or you could go in the other direction with the Pescara free piston turbine combinations that could burn crude oil without refining like the super large piston ship engines. ..HG..

I was commenting that the many years of computer similations of Scuderi did not reveal the whole truth, and that a prototype should have been built and tested years ago. Scuderi has been long known for relying on simulations rather than tests to keep the investors excited. Please read my prior comment carefully to try and get the irony about computer simulations that was built into it. You can also read my prior posts about Scuderi to find out, fully, that I knew that they were testing now a prototype at long last.

Except for the interesting concept of an air-hybrid version of their engine, the efficiency increases proposed are achieved by plug in hybrids which can use far less gasoline, and turbines are simpler and sufficiently efficient for the low efficiency of traveling at high speeds on motorways.

Wasting energy by traveling at 80 instead of 55, even for long trips, is an issue that will eventually have to be looked at in this world of required energy efficient appliances and water efficient toilets.

If you cannot describe to me, without looking it up, how a Pescara engine worked, please restrain your comments about my understanding of engines. You may also consider what you know about the Still engine used in several ships and stationary engines as well as a locomotive first. ..HG..

Pretty soon, most cars will be HEV's, and the ICE will only run when it's most efficient to do so. This will make this discovery moot. No need to run ICE at low power setting, low efficiency level anymore.

I move that the nation should have plan to retrofit many many existing cars into HEV's, in the wake of the Gulf oil spill disaster.

I think Henry understands this "technology" quite well, even amidst the BS that comes from Scuderi.

So now, just like daytime TV they create a problem where none existed and say they solved it and, in fact, the "very low COV in the Scuderi Engine indicates that the combustion mix is even more complete and robust than in a conventional engine."

I will be relieved when all the other auto makers are forced to quit unloading those high COV engine on us.

And then
"This makes us very confident that, when fully mapped and analyzed, the efficiency of the engine will be even higher than previously predicted, which so far has been the pattern in the measured data we have acquired to date."

I guess they mean after another decade of simulation and fund raising.

I don't think the Scuderi concept is really promising for gasoline engines, it is more interesting for diesel because its highly turbulent combustion and injection after TDC reduces NOx and soot, at least if we beleive their claim which they haven't really proved yet...

But any concept of ICE will have hard time to make it through, turbo charged high pressure diesel are already very efficient and powerful. Future will tell but they will have to show really strong benefits to convince cars manufacturers. I think new ICE concept could be successful in emerging countries where marketing has not yet established standards so the market is more open, and hybrid are probably too expensive for India or china.

ESStor is following Scuderi's foot steps?

You mean, "if they ever build a production prototype, will the combustion piston/cylinder will survive constant exposure to high temperatures".

The computer simulation does just fine, I am sure.

Scuderi has no intention of building a full engine, they just want to licence their patents, that means that if an engine or car manufacturer isn't convinced in the first place, this engine will stay as it is : vaporware.

TT
After the Scuderi Group goes public, significant returns/money would already be in the pockets of many small investors. These are investors who had the insight to be part of a this advanced technology and were not afraid to back it up with there hard earned dollars. It's not just about the Scuderi's personally but more like the Scuderi family which also includes all investors.

The tourengine is comparable to the OPOC in design.

OPOC has higher power density because both cylinders fire in 2-stroke cycle, whereas in the tourengine, only one cylinder fires at all. OPOC is very simple, having no valve train. OPOC has no heat loss to the cylinder head, since there is no cylinder head. OPOC is turbocharged wherein exhaust energy can further be captured. Electric motor/generator can be used to boost the turbocharger and also capture excess energy from the turbine and turn into electrical energy (electrical turbocompounding).

What is the advantage of the tourengine? A cooler intake cylinder in the tourengine can increase volumetric efficiency, but the force feeding (turbocharging) in the OPOC can do just that. No heat loss from the compressing cylinder? but then, there will be no cooling charge to help cool the expansion/combustion cylinder to keep the oil from burning. Higher expansion of the tourengine's power cylinder increase harnessing of exhaust gas' energy? That's the turbocharger/turbocompounder is for in the OPOC engine.

What is the advantage of the tourengine, again?

No, Atkinson-cycle engines in HEV's are already doing that.
Heat loss in OPOC engine is already low, but it can use ceramic insulator too.
Turbocompounding captures residual pressure in the exhaust gas and turns it into work, just like the over-expansion cycle of Atkinson's.

OPOC engine has 1/2 the number of pistons for doing the same work as in a conventional or split-cycle engine, without any movable valve nor valve train. This tremendous cost and weight saving permits the use of turbocharging and electric boost/turbocompounding without increase in overall engine cost.

Well, isn't it logic and fact that utilizing a single cylinder for intake and compression as well as for combustion and exhaust strokes drastically limits low heat rejection benefits (i.e Ceramic)?

Compared to common IC's, this engine (Tours) weigh less (compression side is lighter) and of course can also take turbocharging and electric boost/turbo compounding.

In regard to quote " OPOC engine has 1/2 the number of pistons for doing the same work as in a conventional or split-cycle engine " much can be said, it is not as "clean" as one may perceive but lets leave it for now.

"Well, isn't it logic and fact that utilizing a single cylinder for intake and compression as well as for combustion and exhaust strokes drastically limits low heat rejection benefits (i.e Ceramic)?"

OPOC by itself, without any ceramic coating,already has low-heat rejection benefit. The piston crown can be coated with ceramic, as well the circumferential part of the combustion area can also be coated to get further low-heat rejection benefit. The cool intake air goes right past the piston crown into the cylinder while the exhaust gas, which is already hot,goes sideward out of the cylinder without much contact with the piston crown. There is no cylinder head in the OPOC for heat loss to occur. The cylinder wall must be cooled or your lubricant will burn up, in any engines.

"In regard to quote " OPOC engine has 1/2 the number of pistons for doing the same work as in a conventional or split-cycle engine " much can be said, it is not as "clean" as one may perceive but lets leave it for now."

OPOC design may lose a minuscule amount of oil out of the exhaust, but the overall amount may be less than that of a older 4-stroker losing oil from the valve stems and through the piston rings. There are twice as much pistons and rings in a 4-stroker as in the 2-stroke OPOC design, and a lot of valves whereas the OPOC has none!