It's amazing what can be maxe to work in computer graphics. Where can I find a video of the physical engine, wheher already working or not, explained by a HUMAN voice? Whenever I see a concept working in CGI with a synthetic voice telling me all about it, what I see/hear is "Investment scam!"
There are dozens of rotary designs. All are quite interesting and claiming for being the solution for the void that the Wankel leave. Assuming this prototype worked decently well, In spite of the huge personal satisfaction(I'm a designer too), if you think to rush to the doors of developers, universities or motor-companies, I would recomended before to make a throughout thermodynamic study trying to demonstrate why your design consumes around 160-150gr/kwh. with almost no NOx or PM. This is the only way to say this is better than yours.
Real engine inventors and builders, like me, cring at the world of 3D where everything works to perfection. Try a real engine and see the many problems that suddenly appear.
I choose to sweat and get my hands dirty in the machine shop. It's all very well sitting in front of a computer screen playing with graphics, but it gets nothing done in the real world. My own engine will not be shown on RUclips....way too secret after 32 years of research and development.
Paul Ellis. Correct, I am currently building an opposed piston 3/6 cyl engine (complete bottom end assemblies ready for production) with my own unique valving intended for light aircraft. As much as they excite me, my engine projects are sadly 2nd and sometimes 3rd to viable projects though (non-engine), damn money keeps me at those as a priority, lol. If you have a genuine engine prospect, I can help. I do field inventions for investment and production. I am based and live in China (not Chinese) and Patents are easy and cheap here, about $1000 which once secured gets you 12 months to make a decision to patent in other countries, or not.
I am well known for my 2 stroke successes in racing, I understand them quite well. This is my short engine, I designed the crankcases myself and had the dies made to accept off the shelf components. I have a batch reay to be developed one day, I'm not in a hurry for mine as I am helping another guy get his aero engine up to speed and there would be a conflict. s620.photobucket.com/user/mongrelexo/media/block4_zpscf2ff469.jpg.html I am interested to hear more, cheapracer@yahoo.com
The internal combustion engine as we know it today is the answer to the steam engine. There has been minimal improvement in 100 years. The efficiency is at most 35% of the 100% fuel you put in, the rest is converted into heat. We need to be more economical with our energy. Any attempt to improve the internal combustion engine is carrying water to the sea! Let it go and put your intelligence into something meaningful.
The secondary blast of fuel from the secondary set of fuel injectors...if combustion has already happened, where is the fresh air coming from to allow the secondary blast of fuel to ignite? Remember the fire triangle: heat/fuel/oxygen. Too much or not enough of just one part and you're not getting fire. Too much gasoline? No boom. Not enough heat/spark? No boom. No oxygen? Well the sun does a good job of burning without it but stars are special cases (that whole hydrogen to helium back to hydrogen, fission-fusion thing its got going on).
Any new engine has to have advantages over what we have. It must be significantly cheaper, or more reliable. Piston engines are made in such vast numbers that beating them on price for a small production run in the early stages is a non-starter - and they're pretty reliable. So - any *inventor* of a new engine is up against stiff competition from the piston engine. My car has pistons. It has driven the equivalent of twice around the globe, and so far, has not given any trouble - and that's only 50,000 miles. I expect it to do the same again before I scrap it - and when I do, it won't be because its piston engine has worn out - it will be, perhaps, because the bodywork is going rusty, or because the law has moved against diesel, and it has become too expensive to run - or maybe because I have got too old to be driving. When you're in the euphoria of having invented the next big thing - especially where there's another big thing that you're competing against - take a reality check before you allow yourself to get acrried away.
@@RockSolitude No - you misunderstand me. Only this week, I watched the manufacture, in the home workshop, of an internal combustion engine with a rotary valve induction. The maker failed to get it running, and abandoned the project, though he had a physical, potentially working engine on his bench. Please go there and read my comments, you will see that I encouraged him to spend a bit more time on it and make it work - because it was so nearly there! But he was making it as a hobbyist - a one-off. ruclips.net/video/u_F5OGjLpOQ/видео.html&ab_channel=MeanwhileintheGarage If you want to produce a new engine as a "pet project" just to see if you can make it run, to drive your lawn mower - then go for it, and you will have my enthusiastic best wishes that it will work to your satisfaction. The video above may have been made as a pet project as well - a video-making project. However, I stand by what I said. If you're doing it with a view to a manufacturing run for profit, it takes very serious planning consideration. In a few years, there may well be legislation against the internal combustion engine - or against any engine that produces direct emissions other than water (hydrogen engines). In the face of that possibility, would you, RockSolitude, invest your family's future in a new design of internal combustion engine? Would you seriously think it worthwhile to spend years perfecting something that nobody may be allowed, by law, to use? Of course,we don't know. The IC engine may still be around 30 years from now, but you'd have to be a betting man to spend time and money on it. Please go back to my comment that you criticised, and explain why you disagree with it. Do you disagree that you should " take a reality check before you allow yourself to get acrried away"?
Not impressed. This animation hides the actual combustion chamber where all the work actually happens and spends too much time describing ancillary systems. Show an actual cross section of the combustion chamber, then BUILD it!
The internal combustion engine is less mechanical design and many more thermodynamic concepts !!!! You can put your engine in the trash and dedicate yourself to doing something else more positive.
that animation is incredible.
It's amazing what can be maxe to work in computer graphics. Where can I find a video of the physical engine, wheher already working or not, explained by a HUMAN voice? Whenever I see a concept working in CGI with a synthetic voice telling me all about it, what I see/hear is "Investment scam!"
problems: seals, (very) non robust design.
very nice animation.
Very complex
There are dozens of rotary designs. All are quite interesting and claiming for being the solution for the void that the Wankel leave.
Assuming this prototype worked decently well,
In spite of the huge personal satisfaction(I'm a designer too), if you think to rush to the doors of developers, universities or motor-companies, I would recomended before to make a throughout thermodynamic study trying to demonstrate why your design consumes around 160-150gr/kwh. with almost no NOx or PM.
This is the only way to say this is better than yours.
This is an engine in theory, let's see a working example.
Real engine inventors and builders, like me, cring at the world of 3D where everything works to perfection.
Try a real engine and see the many problems that suddenly appear.
I choose to sweat and get my hands dirty in the machine shop. It's all very well sitting in front of a computer screen playing with graphics, but it gets nothing done in the real world. My own engine will not be shown on RUclips....way too secret after 32 years of research and development.
Paul Ellis.
Correct, I am currently building an opposed piston 3/6 cyl engine (complete bottom end assemblies ready for production) with my own unique valving intended for light aircraft.
As much as they excite me, my engine projects are sadly 2nd and sometimes 3rd to viable projects though (non-engine), damn money keeps me at those as a priority, lol.
If you have a genuine engine prospect, I can help. I do field inventions for investment and production. I am based and live in China (not Chinese) and Patents are easy and cheap here, about $1000 which once secured gets you 12 months to make a decision to patent in other countries, or not.
That sounds great. Funnily enough, my engine is an opposed twin two-stroke for a motorcycle. A highly radical concept.
I am well known for my 2 stroke successes in racing, I understand them quite well.
This is my short engine, I designed the crankcases myself and had the dies made to accept off the shelf components. I have a batch reay to be developed one day, I'm not in a hurry for mine as I am helping another guy get his aero engine up to speed and there would be a conflict.
s620.photobucket.com/user/mongrelexo/media/block4_zpscf2ff469.jpg.html
I am interested to hear more, cheapracer@yahoo.com
@@markmark5269 note
Süper bir tenoloji hayran kaldım
The internal combustion engine as we know it today is the answer to the steam engine. There has been minimal improvement in 100 years. The efficiency is at most 35% of the 100% fuel you put in, the rest is converted into heat. We need to be more economical with our energy. Any attempt to improve the internal combustion engine is carrying water to the sea! Let it go and put your intelligence into something meaningful.
they already are by attempting new things and innovations with the combustion engine 🤦♂
The secondary blast of fuel from the secondary set of fuel injectors...if combustion has already happened, where is the fresh air coming from to allow the secondary blast of fuel to ignite?
Remember the fire triangle: heat/fuel/oxygen. Too much or not enough of just one part and you're not getting fire. Too much gasoline? No boom. Not enough heat/spark? No boom. No oxygen? Well the sun does a good job of burning without it but stars are special cases (that whole hydrogen to helium back to hydrogen, fission-fusion thing its got going on).
good point. maybe it has excess of air from first injector. either way i dont really get the logic of 2 injectors anyway
Does it have an actual working version? Will love to see>. :D
10 years later still nothing
Any new engine has to have advantages over what we have. It must be significantly cheaper, or more reliable. Piston engines are made in such vast numbers that beating them on price for a small production run in the early stages is a non-starter - and they're pretty reliable. So - any *inventor* of a new engine is up against stiff competition from the piston engine. My car has pistons. It has driven the equivalent of twice around the globe, and so far, has not given any trouble - and that's only 50,000 miles. I expect it to do the same again before I scrap it - and when I do, it won't be because its piston engine has worn out - it will be, perhaps, because the bodywork is going rusty, or because the law has moved against diesel, and it has become too expensive to run - or maybe because I have got too old to be driving.
When you're in the euphoria of having invented the next big thing - especially where there's another big thing that you're competing against - take a reality check before you allow yourself to get acrried away.
If you had your way there wouldn't be any new innovation at all. Poor argument.
@@RockSolitude No - you misunderstand me. Only this week, I watched the manufacture, in the home workshop, of an internal combustion engine with a rotary valve induction. The maker failed to get it running, and abandoned the project, though he had a physical, potentially working engine on his bench. Please go there and read my comments, you will see that I encouraged him to spend a bit more time on it and make it work - because it was so nearly there! But he was making it as a hobbyist - a one-off. ruclips.net/video/u_F5OGjLpOQ/видео.html&ab_channel=MeanwhileintheGarage
If you want to produce a new engine as a "pet project" just to see if you can make it run, to drive your lawn mower - then go for it, and you will have my enthusiastic best wishes that it will work to your satisfaction. The video above may have been made as a pet project as well - a video-making project. However, I stand by what I said. If you're doing it with a view to a manufacturing run for profit, it takes very serious planning consideration.
In a few years, there may well be legislation against the internal combustion engine - or against any engine that produces direct emissions other than water (hydrogen engines). In the face of that possibility, would you, RockSolitude, invest your family's future in a new design of internal combustion engine? Would you seriously think it worthwhile to spend years perfecting something that nobody may be allowed, by law, to use?
Of course,we don't know. The IC engine may still be around 30 years from now, but you'd have to be a betting man to spend time and money on it.
Please go back to my comment that you criticised, and explain why you disagree with it. Do you disagree that you should " take a reality check before you allow yourself to get acrried away"?
Interesante, que rendimiento tiene
question............can it be any more complicated? Calling rube goldberg!
Would be 50 thousands times simpler if it was a steam rotary engine, but noooooooooooooooooooo, it NEEDS to be an internal combustion energy
Not impressed. This animation hides the actual combustion chamber where all the work actually happens and spends too much time describing ancillary systems. Show an actual cross section of the combustion chamber, then BUILD it!
Not cylinder kick🙏🙏
This seems needlessly complicated...
Answer to question no one asks..
too confusing
Too complicated
I see reciprocation do you see reciprocation? Poppet valves too. Get a Tesla.
The internal combustion engine is less mechanical design and many more thermodynamic concepts !!!!
You can put your engine in the trash and dedicate yourself to doing something else more positive.
Why to be so agressive !? OK it can't work but the design is so nice ........
Like writing pointless, kind of stupid and aggressive comments like this?
rubbish
Another Wankel, which is worst motor ever
Booooolshit