No, a rotary vane engine. Energy is directly converted into rotation. No need for a conversion from piston strokes. This type of engine would be far superior to a piston but challenges remain with the vains friction on the engine housing at higher rpms. it can be done but no one seems to finance this superior design.
You are all full of knowledge about every branch of engineering there is. I'm proud of you. Now go, question every bit of complicated machinery there is! I'm sure people are excited to hear about your opinions.
aj stew I forgot one. So 4th. The first was a piston engine, second a jet engine, third is the rotary engine (triangle), and this one is the 4th. So there are 2 versions of a rotary engine that I know of now.
10/10 for whoever done the 3d animation,iv been using 3d for only a few years and have a bit of an understanding of what its capable of but this is just amazing.i can only imagine the hours required to design every part then to animate.hats off to you
@@zackrider3708 except that they dont as the wankel burns much oil, spits fire and puts out a ton of emissions, the reverse wankel by liquidpiston is much more interesting
@@joaosidonio7562 the russian rotary vane engine's biggest problem aside from sealing problem; is that heat is Not equally distributed across the entire engine equally so when metal expands because of this heat, the metals don't expand equally which can cause a lot of problems in the long run
@@zackrider3708 I am not dissing your opinion on the seals, I am just talking about the wankel engine, and I know you would be interested in looking at the liquid piston one
@@joaosidonio7562 wankel also have the problem of Not equally distributing the heat throughout the entire combustion chamber, this is the reason why we are still using the inline-4 conventional engine up to this day
Weren't you watching? the pistons moving forward also compresses the gas for the next ignition, the same happens in any design. That conpression of the gasses in front of the moving set also serves to decellerate them, so they use all of their energy on either turning the crank or compressing gas, which decelerates the pistons. This design is actually considderably more efficient than a traditional reciprocating engine, where the same losses are present.
Very cool. At first I was skeptical until I saw that you had a double shaft going to the pistons attached to a torque multiplier to keep them from going backwards. This is a very cool design and I think it would work well.
Mon Leyson Needless to say, the thing has two massive objects that are rotating at a non-uniform speed. If you try to make this go very fast, you will have some very high forces to deal with in whatever mechanism you use. A crank and pistons only has fairly light objects going up and down. Thus I expect this design to go nowhere. It is not as good as something we already have.
I'm not going to comment on the possible inefficiencies of this engine but I will commend the creator of the video package. It's wonderfully detailed, polished and was a joy to watch.
@@darrynfrost3401 centrifugal force towards the outer walls from the rotation movement will lead to uneven ring wear extremely bad as the pistons will be sliding much harder against the outside of the "donut" than the inside
Perfect intake, exhaust, and ingenious main shaft locking back piston motion mechanism, dependable to its lubrication system efficiency. Ceramic rings and piston housing sleeves could make a large difference in longevity. Theoretically it is a high efficiency engine. High in torque. Not a racing engine.
This is still a reciprocating piston engine arranged in a circular fashion. You have not reduced the reciprocating mass and may have increased it. That will ruin efficiency! How do you circularly seal the piston rings to the cylinder? Also, how do you intend on cooling and lubricating the pistons??? 10 points for animation dough!
***** not to mention nonlinear toroid form of the engine that deformates while heating.then,how pistons are connected to transmission?so there must be a cut in that tor wich would weaken the engine very much.
Adrizz5447 Look closely! What he calls the rotary vanes, are in a reciprocating motion compared to each-other while also rotating in a circle. The reciprocating motion is somewhat hidden, but it is there and it creates stop and go action which uses energy... and therefore lowers efficiency.
Both right. The Bradshaw engine was called "omega" but it's design had a single toroidal cylinder, containing four double-ended curved pistons. A great many ideas for engines in which toroidal pistons rotate or reciprocate within toroidal cylinders have been advanced. The difficulties of connecting such pistons to the output shaft by a simple and reliable mechanism, together with the problem of sealing the surfaces involved, make such ideas little more than amusing adventures in ingenuity.
My first thoughts were, "Didn't Yamaha do that with their two stroke motorcycle engines in the 1960's?" This one is seriously complex; good luck with that one. KISS!
allright heres the real problem, of course there are many ways to make combustion result in motion, like alot of ''new type engine'' videos here on youtube. the problem is that they all use the same principle, maybe a different type of crankshaft or combustion chamber or letting other parts rotate than usual, but this doesnt solve anything since the normal otto engine is the developed route since we chose it first, those engines will never catch up. the only way for a new type of engine is to optimalise engery use. a normal combustion engine uses only 30% energy of the fuel it gets. almost 70% is wasted through heat and tolerances. for instance find a way to use that heat as well or find a way to make the combustion stay cold or something. otherwise none of these other engines will happen.
Look up a 6-stroke, it uses the wasted heat to convert water to steam. Has issues in normal piston engine, in my view, any 'new engine' design must do the steam part to be more efficient.
once again, human beings capacity to design incredible machines blows my mind. Its nice to see attempts to dethrone the traditional combustion engine layout. keep at it. I know this is meant to use gas but one day our need for it will be completely abolished and the technology will be as common place as today's petrol guzzling engines, thanks to endeavors like this.
This is a very well made slick video. It was not cheap to make. The engine has not been progressed due to copyright infringement problems with the inventor and the company making the engine and car.
Quite the contrary, the Wankle rotary engine is a VERY successful design. Felix Wankel received his first patent for the engine in 1929 then NSU completed a working prototype in 1957. Then NSU licensed the concept to companies around the world. Since then Wankel rotary engines have been installed in a variety of vehicles and devices including automobiles, motorcycles, aircraft, go-karts, jet skis, snowmobiles, chain saws, and generators. Mazda also used them in the popular RX-7 and RX-8 models.
This is correct, but at the time it was an infeasible concept because of the cam drive gear, only current metallurgy is capable of holding up under the immense torque the motor produces. Now the strange thing is how quiet this has been since Russia cited their technology patents and the MYT engine was shuffled under the rug.
actually,it is very efficient in design and almost 45% efficient as an engine design.It use a two stroke approach,with no cranking to transfer kinectic energy to a drive train. Also, it uses vapor fuel or gasoline with up to 65+mpg. The engine design is used in a 2 or 4 door sedan weighing in at under2850lbs. Mihcail Prokorhov the owner of the company is over 6ft tall and drives it very comfortably,he says..
The point is that the shaft does not stop as on conventional. In any case if it is done this way it probably works well enough for the purpose. The engine is uses in conjunction with "super capacitors" to buffer the energy fluctuations. There is SUV based on this engine + 2 electric motors. Main engine uses gasoline and/or natural gas. They claim 3.5 l/100km consumption (around 67mpg) which is damn good with around 10 seconds to 60mph. Time will show how reliable it actually is.
i would think the powered side would have way more pressure from the expanding gases then the resistance of the compression or vacuum of the intake of air.
it's funny how in every new creative technology vid i see involving new engines, there's always those who think they know everything there is about mechanics, saying that the new tech in the vid is highly ineficient and will never work, dumping a bunch of criticism like they have a master degree in engineering or something. i'm willing to bet these people know nothing of what they're talking about and just like to say shit about those tech because it's new and they don't understand it. is beyond me why new ideas, development and progress of technology is so frowned upon. could it be just a severe case of close-mindness? is that contagious? i sure hope not
when muskets came up a lot of soldiers who still had pikes were frowning upon the new kind of soldiers among them. Today we know how bad muskets worked out in battle. The majority of people are victims of habit. Guess what the people of yesterday said about anything you use today. You're not providing change by repeating someone else's blueprint. I don't see this motor not work. It sure may have its own disadvantages compared to other motors. But in the other hand; all combustion motors have their own specific (dis)-advantages.
This criticism is usually based on simple physics and material knowledge. For example - this engine needs powerful one-way clutch, strong enough to withstand power of fuel explosion few times per second. Also piston rings will have uneven wear due to travel distance difference and you cannot have few of them because it will decrease engine capacity. To lubricate the pistons you have to inject oil into the fuel, which will cause terrible emission. Combustion always occurs in the same point of torus, which will cause thermal expansion and compression issues due to uneven space between pistons and engine chamber. And yes - you can actually build this engine. And confirm those weak points. But there is no point in doing so. The same way there is no point of building innovative chair with 2 legs only because it's innovative. It simply won't improve anything. You can have creativity on top of good engineering, but not instead of it.
Everyone can design something that will have fundamental flaws but will work perfectly as computer animation :) And in this case it is not just theoretical discussion but it has already been proved. Mazda wasted a lot of money trying to solve exactly the same subset of issues (piston/rotor two side lubrication, emissions from burned oil, thermal expansion of single spot in combustion chamber and piston seals trouble) in Wankel rotary. And dropped this design when, despite all improvements, it still was significantly less efficient and less durable than classic engine. So this Vane engine will share the same faith. It will exist as concept. Engineers who designed this are *not* stupid to fight already lost battle and bother building prototypes. Or they may make one, just for the fun of having it on the shelf. From time to time someone will repost their concept as "revolutionary" without any technical analysis and ponies will be upset that it gets negative feedback :P
Pawel Pabian I can understand that. As a concept, this machine works, but it's impractical in common application. Are there even any working "revolutions"? I've seen shorts of various combustion motors, which all seemed to share the same weak spot of requiring lubricant added to their fuel.
It looks like there are actually two crankshafts, one per pair of pistons. As each pair starts and stops moving, the shafts alternate between which transfers power. The brown rockers at :30 transfer the energy to a pair of cranks connected to a set of helical gears, which I presume are for controlling engine timing. The two cranks are mounted to some sort of rotating case, which is attached to the final output shaft. To be fair, the video could be a lot clearer. I struggled with it myself.
***** Power source... That is the reason. Electric cars just wont work in cold climate. Sure it will run in +30... but in -20 your lucky if you get half what in summer. Battery packs or power cells need to advance tons so we could use those here in north. Seriously other thing is that when your driving in cold climate with petrol engine, it produce heat, that is directed into cockpit, but in electric car you have to use more fuel/electricity to produce heat. In summer its other way around to produce cold. That is problem what i have+many other here, with electric cars. I know what those can do performance vise, but usability in here just wont cut it+price+over complicated electric systems that need maintenance.
Hellsong89 But do consider that new battery cells, which are currently in development, are less affected by temperature than those we use (which use ionic solutions or pastes), like the Li-Air battery
***** yeah sure when they are proven to work up in the north, but until then i'm not about thinking getting electric car... not the mention price aspect.
It looks like the Swing Piston engine that Otto Lutz designed in the 1940s, was also patented by him. Plenty of stuff on the net about the russians taking this design and calling it their own. looks like in the 1990's many reintroduced the design as their own.
I think they just used the black extension as a stand-in for a transmission, but if you took the chromed end cap off it would expose the area where a shaft would be placed to move energy from the engine on to whatever you're attaching it to.
It puts most of its energy into turning the crank, the rest is used to compress the gas. If you look at the mechanism that stops each set of pistons, you'll see that it also feeds that energy into turning the crank. Actually get familiar with a design before you get all pious and claim it won't work. There are working prototypes that are markedly more efficient than any traditional reciprocating piston engine.
The scheme of the serial hybrid has long been used on heavy freight transport. Examples - Heavy tank Destroyers "Elephant", locomotive, mining truck (carrying capacity of about 300 tons).
Nopiw, you clearly have not seen a vane engine working before, or you might have but the science seems so far ahead to you that it simply looks like magic. I assure you it is not.
Your right, not impossible. A pocket of lubricating oil could exist between the two piston heads (black band seen in the animation), although you'd have to shield it from the exhaust outlet and fuel/air inlet.
Looks like a useless over complication. Installation, maintenance, cooling, balancing, reliability all look to be worse than a traditional reciprocating cylinder engine. Even if it is slightly more efficient (which I doubt), it will be a bad design for longevity and likely cost more to operate in the long run. Stick with simple and proven and cheap.
Thats what they said when the otto engine first was demonstrated. 'Nah...stay with simple proven things, steam and horses'. I hear what you are saying, but C'mon.. It's cool with new things and concepts too.
secularnevrosis But that is exactly the problem. We have very complicated machines and technology but very few people can afford to benefit from that technology. Why innovate and complicate a simple engine design when people can't afford the simple version in the first place?
Levi Gray Sure... I can understand that. Idéas and creativety springs forth new concepts of long 'forgotten' inventions when new understanding and materials are made avaible. Piston driven machines are very old inventions that has been improved and altered since they were invented. All "new" inventions are also expensive when they are still in the prototype phase or not widely used. I'm not sure, at this point in time, about further major developments when it comes to the internal combustion engine. I'm more vouching for new developments, materials and ideas regarding external combustion (yes a very old concept). Much simpler and cleaner than conventional otto's.
secularnevrosis External Combustion is the future? OK... Good luck with that and the "greenies". The future is in batteries and power storage. Combustion can only be made "so efficient" and still be economically possible.
Levi Gray Yup...Battery technology is improving day by day and is easy to use in different solutions. External combustion is much easier to control in regards to how much it pollutes. And you can use most kinds of fuel like different vegetable oils, biomass products and alcohols. Using battery technology in conjunction with external combustion isn't a bad idea. I think the "greenies" would approve.
I agree. That's why I think we should base a lot of our supplies on solar. It won't last forever, but will be still shining long enough after we self destruct ...
The big drawback for this design is revealed in the first 16 seconds. Each piston is held from the side (let's call them 'connecting limb') in order to provide transfer of combustion forces to the central 'drive gear' spindle. The enclosing toroidal shaped cylinder, needed to contain the combustion gases, is made in two halves and is compromised because it has to allow for the intrusion (and motion) of the piston connecting limbs. Not only does this represent a major engineering challenge to maintain gas tight seals at high temperatures and pressures, but is also a breach to thermal containment by providing a path for heat to be conducted away. Additionally the swept volume is large and thermal transfer from combustion gases to the cylinder wall will be high (as is the case with the Mazda Wankel rotary engine). All of these issues severely compromise thermodynamic efficiency.
+joseph prosser Yeah, that was the part of the animation is conveniently obscured by the gasses. The flanges (connecting limbs) in the pistons have connection holes for the transmission disk but the disk slides under the static piston while being powered by the moving piston during the combustion stroke. No locking mechanism is demonstrated. I think this is a student CAD project to show mastery of the design tool. It describes a process, not a prototype. In that context it is well done. The locking mechanism could be a ratchet built upon the Wankel floating seal concept but your point about sealing the cylinder is probably the kiss of death for the fundamental design. The piston path would probably create high friction/wear if they overcame the connecting limb seal problem.
+Fifty States As a piece of technical animation it is beautiful. But as my dad used to say to me no matter how much you polish it, crap is still crap. Too many of these designs are led astray by size and power density issues but the holy grail is thermodynamic efficiency. Everyone one would be quite happy if engines were physically twice as big as long as they were 50% efficient (better than 100mpg). There is a lot of wasted energy in the hot exhaust of internal combustion engines. Variable compression ratio and Atkinson cycle needs more effort. Take a look at Gomecsys in The Netherlands, not limited to just fanciful animations they have actually built a working engine that is driven in a car.
My first query would be the piston gas sealing arrangements. They appear to have what could be described as normal piston rings, but there's the obvious gap for the actuator attachment. Even for normal piston engines, the occasional blow-by of superheated gases causes damage by destroying lubrication. But for this engine it seems possibly a more difficult task to solve than even the Wankel rotary engine. And for that reason alone it'll be a non-starter for a reliable and durable engine.
Correct, an interim engine will be used in the first yo mobile models. And yes, the company definitely got good PR heading in Prokhorov direction. It will likely make cars too, just later than the overly optimistic date of 2012. Likely 2014 or so before we see them coming of the assembly line. There are pictures of the factory well under construction. Check them out. Privet from USA :)
Russians have very smart engineers. I still dare to say that, though appreciating the ingenuity of the design, I don't see significant practical advantage in this engine because it is still a different version of pulstating engine just like the Otto. Besides the complexity to build this seems no smaller than the the standard.
The yo and this engine have been in production since march of last year.Michail Prokorhov,(who ran against Putin the last time around, also owns the nj nics and built staples stadium. The design works very well the way it is and can run on vapor(cng) or gasoline,@65+ mpg.
It is a four cylinder that uses rotational position timing instead of poppet valves. It also is a four stroke as it has intake compression power and exhaust. Rotational force is maintained by a one way only Mechanism at :54 Pros and cons depend on "How well the seals hold up and what kind of mechanical advantage you get from holding basically the cylinder head then releasing it. I don't know I am just saying
In all honesty, unless you have a freewheel system to prevent that loss of energy when the combustion cycle goes off, then there is a significant decrease in energy, to the point where the engine would stall. But that would cause the whole thing to break down after a few hundred miles, so my best guess is that they're using the impact between the two sets of pistons and the compression of the gasses to act as an air spring, fuzing combustion cycle and compression cycle. Theoretical, but nifty.
How am I lying? The Taurozzi pendulum motor, invented by an Argentine where only piston ring touches the cylinder walls. There is friction at one point that requires the use of lubricants, although much less than in a conventional engine. The inventor (Taurozzi) argues that Teflon bearings and rings resolved this. True, this "can" be viewed as a toroidal engine it's really not, the cylinders are simply curved not in a circular pattern. I have never seen or heard of a I/C version in production.
If you look at the vane engine running you´ll notice way more gas comes out of the exaust than the piston engine. Just for the size of the cylinder makes it less efficient (studies show that smaller combustion chambers make the engine more efficient.)
I think this motor will sent the retirement letter to the pistons engines. The piston engines have being in use for many years, many moving parts inside. they are about 2,000 hours total for overhaul.
I tested a prototype, It has as much torque as a model T running on kerosene downhill, and is as fuel efficient as the drag racer car..... not to mention it has more parts both wearable and structural making it a heavy engine
They are energy indeed, but to convert them, they have to be spent ! That means for instance, remagnetasing your magnets once their magnetic energy has been depleted. They is NO free energy. Same for gravity, you want to get some work out of it, you first have to raise a mass, which in turn takes energy. These are only potential energies, that means you get to create the potential first.
You are right. And they have to lock in place the 2 opposed pistons during combustion, which could need a complex and heavy gear system (that will have to absorb some of the rotational energy, and to deal with the torque from the combustion and compression piston). The electrical generator+battery+inverter+motor+shitload of stuff makes this thing a hell of an expensive and inefficient engine.
All these people shooting ideas down drive me crazy. There already is a rotary engine in mas production inside Mazda vehicles. This is just another take on that design to get more power. Thinking outside the box is what gives us innovation. I would like to know where this idea went in development.
Wow! I obviously pushed a sensetive button there. Please don't be too offended when somebody challenges your thinking, it could help you to improve your design. I will look forward to being proved wrong. Regards Tony Davies
Выглядит красиво но есть множество недостатков вот только несколько 1. В момент детонации поршни будит разлетаться по сторонам, а не по кругу как показано на видео. Это надо делать фиксацию поршня что усложняет конструкцию. 2. Очень много болтовых соединений.
It seems to me, although I could certainly be mistaken, that the parts of this engine that would wear out the fastest, or be most likely to fail or need servicing, are the ones which are buried the deepest and hardest/most expensive to get at.
Actually it is an toroidal orbital engine not a rotary vane. I remember one being demonstrated in England some time in the early 1950's. A rotary engine has a continuous motion [like the Wankel]. this one reciprocates and has pistons.
I wanted to say that the scheme is applied for a long time :) yes to the "elephant" scheme has little effect on the old mining trucks, too. the main reason - the use of old hardware components (the same magnetic amplifier). Now there igbt and supercapacitors.
the chemical energy in a fuelcell must be replaced at some point and that is not an easy or environmentally friendly task. a combustion engine can leverage the energy contained in a chemical fuel to create relatively high amounts of mechanical energy. This is why so many power plants use gas turbines because even a tiny turbine (smaller than a 4 cylinder engine) can produce 1400 hp which is roughly 1044000 Watts or 1044 kW even with a 20% power loss that is efficient for 24/7 continuous power
I don't really understand what you are trying to say, but this hybrid IS one solution to go electric! Batteries are not good solution. They are heavy, they have bad capacity etc... Who want's to buy car that can drive only 100km and then needs recharging? Modern engines have to be lightweight, compact, powerful and economy. Today it's not important for engine to be simple. If it brokes, it's important to be replaced easy. If you want engine that has less moving parts, buy old Briggs&Stratton.
no clue about the engine, but the animation is kick-ass!
A rotary steam engine 😜
No, a rotary vane engine. Energy is directly converted into rotation. No need for a conversion from piston strokes. This type of engine would be far superior to a piston but challenges remain with the vains friction on the engine housing at higher rpms. it can be done but no one seems to finance this superior design.
Everything works when its animated.
Reddit Gold User How do you cool that contraption?.
Crobular I with cgi
You are all full of knowledge about every branch of engineering there is. I'm proud of you. Now go, question every bit of complicated machinery there is! I'm sure people are excited to hear about your opinions.
Reddit Gold User Thanks for the reminder. I'll now give myself an insignificant +1. At least it got your attention, which I was going for.
haahaaaa
This is the third type of engine I've learned of today.
for me it"s the second for today, after the Hüttlin ball v2
aj stew
I forgot one. So 4th. The first was a piston engine, second a jet engine, third is the rotary engine (triangle), and this one is the 4th. So there are 2 versions of a rotary engine that I know of now.
another 2
stirling and tesla turbine
10/10 for whoever done the 3d animation,iv been using 3d for only a few years and have a bit of an understanding of what its capable of but this is just amazing.i can only imagine the hours required to design every part then to animate.hats off to you
Maintaining a seal on that configuration would be a nightmare
sealing problems on the wankel is much more worst than this one and yet it work out well
@@zackrider3708 except that they dont as the wankel burns much oil, spits fire and puts out a ton of emissions, the reverse wankel by liquidpiston is much more interesting
@@joaosidonio7562 the russian rotary vane engine's biggest problem aside from sealing problem; is that heat is Not equally distributed across the entire engine equally so when metal expands because of this heat, the metals don't expand equally which can cause a lot of problems in the long run
@@zackrider3708 I am not dissing your opinion on the seals, I am just talking about the wankel engine, and I know you would be interested in looking at the liquid piston one
@@joaosidonio7562 wankel also have the problem of Not equally distributing the heat throughout the entire combustion chamber, this is the reason why we are still using the inline-4 conventional engine up to this day
Weren't you watching? the pistons moving forward also compresses the gas for the next ignition, the same happens in any design. That conpression of the gasses in front of the moving set also serves to decellerate them, so they use all of their energy on either turning the crank or compressing gas, which decelerates the pistons. This design is actually considderably more efficient than a traditional reciprocating engine, where the same losses are present.
Very cool. At first I was skeptical until I saw that you had a double shaft going to the pistons attached to a torque multiplier to keep them from going backwards. This is a very cool design and I think it would work well.
I don't think that torque multiplier will stop that piston going backwards.
Because you need an opposite force after all.
***** Pawls, I suppose.
it won't run backwards, its a variation of the virmel and kauertz engines
I think so ,, MYT engines on the otherversions didnt use that mechanism!
Mon Leyson Needless to say, the thing has two massive objects that are rotating at a non-uniform speed. If you try to make this go very fast, you will have some very high forces to deal with in whatever mechanism you use.
A crank and pistons only has fairly light objects going up and down. Thus I expect this design to go nowhere. It is not as good as something we already have.
I'm not going to comment on the possible inefficiencies of this engine but I will commend the creator of the video package. It's wonderfully detailed, polished and was a joy to watch.
Computer animation, makes everything look like its the best thing ever.
You know it's Russian when it has about 12000 screws and 1000 in case you loose some.
You forgot that it should run on vodka
Too many moving parts and too complicated! SORRY I am a 2 stroke and wankel engine enthusiast.
«Было гладко на бумаге, да забыли про овраги..."
That thing would eat piston rings alive
Why? What kind of forces would they experience that are so much different than a reciprocating motion engine?
@@darrynfrost3401 centrifugal force towards the outer walls from the rotation movement will lead to uneven ring wear extremely bad as the pistons will be sliding much harder against the outside of the "donut" than the inside
Perfect intake, exhaust, and ingenious main shaft locking back piston motion mechanism, dependable to its lubrication system efficiency. Ceramic rings and piston housing sleeves could make a large difference in longevity. Theoretically it is a high efficiency engine. High in torque. Not a racing engine.
This is still a reciprocating piston engine arranged in a circular fashion.
You have not reduced the reciprocating mass and may have increased it.
That will ruin efficiency!
How do you circularly seal the piston rings to the cylinder?
Also, how do you intend on cooling and lubricating the pistons???
10 points for animation dough!
not to mention the larger cylinder walls will pass heat from combustion, lowering efficiency more.
***** not to mention nonlinear toroid form of the engine that deformates while heating.then,how pistons are connected to transmission?so there must be a cut in that tor wich would weaken the engine very much.
I'm sorry, but I see no reciprocation on this engine design whatsoever. You do know what reciprocating means right?
Adrizz5447 Look closely! What he calls the rotary vanes, are in a reciprocating motion compared to each-other while also rotating in a circle. The reciprocating motion is somewhat hidden, but it is there and it creates stop and go action which uses energy... and therefore lowers efficiency.
EvenStar LoveAnanda Hi, my understanding of reciprocating means moving back and forth or up and down in a line.
i don't see that here
Both right. The Bradshaw engine was called "omega" but it's design had a single toroidal cylinder, containing four double-ended curved pistons. A great many ideas for engines in which toroidal pistons rotate or reciprocate within toroidal cylinders have been advanced. The difficulties of connecting such pistons to the output shaft by a simple and reliable mechanism, together with the problem of sealing the surfaces involved, make such ideas little more than amusing adventures in ingenuity.
I came up with a new engine design. I call it the Hammer Engine. I wish I could make this good of an animation of it though....
My first thoughts were, "Didn't Yamaha do that with their two stroke motorcycle engines in the 1960's?" This one is seriously complex; good luck with that one.
KISS!
This engine failed. It was announced more then 6yrs ago and nothing happened.
ofc it did, it was russian
cruel. lol.
what you know about Russian tech moron?
Piotrek 95% of "revolutionary" russian tech is a scam. Statistics bro.
like Su T50 new tank or TopolM? , Usa tech f35 crap for 400 billion this example
allright heres the real problem, of course there are many ways to make combustion result in motion, like alot of ''new type engine'' videos here on youtube. the problem is that they all use the same principle, maybe a different type of crankshaft or combustion chamber or letting other parts rotate than usual, but this doesnt solve anything since the normal otto engine is the developed route since we chose it first, those engines will never catch up. the only way for a new type of engine is to optimalise engery use. a normal combustion engine uses only 30% energy of the fuel it gets. almost 70% is wasted through heat and tolerances. for instance find a way to use that heat as well or find a way to make the combustion stay cold or something. otherwise none of these other engines will happen.
I found a way.
Two moving parts in my design. All energy the combustion makes is put to use.
Look up a 6-stroke, it uses the wasted heat to convert water to steam. Has issues in normal piston engine, in my view, any 'new engine' design must do the steam part
to be more efficient.
Yeah... but didn't you forget the gaskets?
once again, human beings capacity to design incredible machines blows my mind. Its nice to see attempts to dethrone the traditional combustion engine layout. keep at it. I know this is meant to use gas but one day our need for it will be completely abolished and the technology will be as common place as today's petrol guzzling engines, thanks to endeavors like this.
In Soviet Russia, a rotary engine rotates YOU!
😁
yooo lmfaooooooo
ROFL 💀
I like the introduction very much, with the crossover from logo to combustion :-)
こう言う所がロシア人の頭の良さですよ。
この様な技術力を持ちながら、量産供給化出来ないロシアの生産工業基盤が残念ですね。
shengwu zhongye
でもだからこそロシアは凄い部分が有るんですよ。
もしかしたら日本人と比類するかも。
何故って、お金の事とは関係無くやっちゃう所が有りますからね。
SCIENCEe HAL dont know what U said
This is a very well made slick video. It was not cheap to make. The engine has not been progressed due to copyright infringement problems with the inventor and the company making the engine and car.
2:08 I convinced myself that's what the engine sounded like in their simulation
Quite the contrary, the Wankle rotary engine is a VERY successful design. Felix Wankel received his first patent for the engine in 1929 then NSU completed a working prototype in 1957. Then NSU licensed the concept to companies around the world. Since then Wankel rotary engines have been installed in a variety of vehicles and devices including automobiles, motorcycles, aircraft, go-karts, jet skis, snowmobiles, chain saws, and generators. Mazda also used them in the popular RX-7 and RX-8 models.
The Germans had working examples during WW2, they wanted to use them to power aircraft. Just an old idea resurfacing
This is correct, but at the time it was an infeasible concept because of the cam drive gear, only current metallurgy is capable of holding up under the immense torque the motor produces. Now the strange thing is how quiet this has been since Russia cited their technology patents and the MYT engine was shuffled under the rug.
Germans already did it all in the hittler times jeje...
actually,it is very efficient in design and almost 45% efficient as an engine design.It use a two stroke approach,with no cranking to transfer kinectic energy to a drive train. Also, it uses vapor fuel or gasoline with up to 65+mpg.
The engine design is used in a 2 or 4 door sedan weighing in at under2850lbs. Mihcail Prokorhov the owner of the company is over 6ft tall and drives it very comfortably,he says..
Вещь ахуительная👍. Жаль только, что стоит пару лямов $, и ресурс 500 км. А так всё заебись
The point is that the shaft does not stop as on conventional. In any case if it is done this way it probably works well enough for the purpose. The engine is uses in conjunction with "super capacitors" to buffer the energy fluctuations. There is SUV based on this engine + 2 electric motors. Main engine uses gasoline and/or natural gas. They claim 3.5 l/100km consumption (around 67mpg) which is damn good with around 10 seconds to 60mph. Time will show how reliable it actually is.
also in order the gas to propel the piston to a direction >>> the opposite direction
i would think the powered side would have way more pressure from the expanding gases then the resistance of the compression or vacuum of the intake of air.
The best animation I have ever seen in internet.Concept design superb but have to see the result that is final.Waiting.Best wishes.
it's funny how in every new creative technology vid i see involving new engines, there's always those who think they know everything there is about mechanics, saying that the new tech in the vid is highly ineficient and will never work, dumping a bunch of criticism like they have a master degree in engineering or something.
i'm willing to bet these people know nothing of what they're talking about and just like to say shit about those tech because it's new and they don't understand it.
is beyond me why new ideas, development and progress of technology is so frowned upon. could it be just a severe case of close-mindness? is that contagious? i sure hope not
when muskets came up a lot of soldiers who still had pikes were frowning upon the new kind of soldiers among them. Today we know how bad muskets worked out in battle.
The majority of people are victims of habit. Guess what the people of yesterday said about anything you use today.
You're not providing change by repeating someone else's blueprint.
I don't see this motor not work. It sure may have its own disadvantages compared to other motors. But in the other hand; all combustion motors have their own specific (dis)-advantages.
This criticism is usually based on simple physics and material knowledge. For example - this engine needs powerful one-way clutch, strong enough to withstand power of fuel explosion few times per second. Also piston rings will have uneven wear due to travel distance difference and you cannot have few of them because it will decrease engine capacity. To lubricate the pistons you have to inject oil into the fuel, which will cause terrible emission. Combustion always occurs in the same point of torus, which will cause thermal expansion and compression issues due to uneven space between pistons and engine chamber.
And yes - you can actually build this engine. And confirm those weak points. But there is no point in doing so. The same way there is no point of building innovative chair with 2 legs only because it's innovative. It simply won't improve anything. You can have creativity on top of good engineering, but not instead of it.
it's hard to swallow that you guys know better then the engineers who designed this engine
Everyone can design something that will have fundamental flaws but will work perfectly as computer animation :)
And in this case it is not just theoretical discussion but it has already been proved. Mazda wasted a lot of money trying to solve exactly the same subset of issues (piston/rotor two side lubrication, emissions from burned oil, thermal expansion of single spot in combustion chamber and piston seals trouble) in Wankel rotary. And dropped this design when, despite all improvements, it still was significantly less efficient and less durable than classic engine. So this Vane engine will share the same faith. It will exist as concept. Engineers who designed this are *not* stupid to fight already lost battle and bother building prototypes. Or they may make one, just for the fun of having it on the shelf.
From time to time someone will repost their concept as "revolutionary" without any technical analysis and ponies will be upset that it gets negative feedback :P
Pawel Pabian I can understand that. As a concept, this machine works, but it's impractical in common application.
Are there even any working "revolutions"? I've seen shorts of various combustion motors, which all seemed to share the same weak spot of requiring lubricant added to their fuel.
It looks like there are actually two crankshafts, one per pair of pistons. As each pair starts and stops moving, the shafts alternate between which transfers power. The brown rockers at :30 transfer the energy to a pair of cranks connected to a set of helical gears, which I presume are for controlling engine timing. The two cranks are mounted to some sort of rotating case, which is attached to the final output shaft.
To be fair, the video could be a lot clearer. I struggled with it myself.
essentially a 2 cylinder/per rotation engine where the pistons slap against each other. Hard to believe this can be functional in the real world
I think that is really creative and has a lot of potential. It is like the diesel electric trains but for other vehicles.
It'd need oil like a 2 stroke to lubricate the pistons . .
Двигатель будущего уже найден только увидеть его в реальном времени .
Why is there so much innovation still going around combustion engines while electric ones have so much more potential for most of applications??
***** Power source... That is the reason. Electric cars just wont work in cold climate. Sure it will run in +30... but in -20 your lucky if you get half what in summer. Battery packs or power cells need to advance tons so we could use those here in north. Seriously other thing is that when your driving in cold climate with petrol engine, it produce heat, that is directed into cockpit, but in electric car you have to use more fuel/electricity to produce heat. In summer its other way around to produce cold. That is problem what i have+many other here, with electric cars. I know what those can do performance vise, but usability in here just wont cut it+price+over complicated electric systems that need maintenance.
Hellsong89 But do consider that new battery cells, which are currently in development, are less affected by temperature than those we use (which use ionic solutions or pastes), like the Li-Air battery
***** yeah sure when they are proven to work up in the north, but until then i'm not about thinking getting electric car... not the mention price aspect.
***** there is a documantary called "who killed the electric car". It pretty much sums up why the industry has not adapted the electric car yet.
Electricity still needs to be produced either way.Easier to make it as you need it,batteries on go so far.(a nice pun also)
Great video presentation. Looks like an animated SolidWorks program. Well done.
GET THIS IN MY CAR NOW
would never have guessed by myself this engine could run on automobiles, planes, boats, and trucks : this is so smart !…
The unusual combustion engine is a German design from the time of WWII. I've seen it in some book yet, but don't remember the title.
histgeek3 was the book about Harley Davidson. they don't work on paper.
Oiling has ALWAYS been this engine's nemesis...even after the installation of a pressure-fed system (originally it was a "Splash" type!).
The best part is that it runs on vodka.
a guy already built this a few years ago he won a contest put on by NASA its a sweet motor great power and mpgs.
Excellent animation :-)
That is truly one bad ass illustration.
As cool as it looks, sadly it wont work and is very inefficient. Great job on the animation though.
they've already been made, and they do work, efficiently.
It looks like the Swing Piston engine that Otto Lutz designed in the 1940s, was also patented by him. Plenty of stuff on the net about the russians taking this design and calling it their own. looks like in the 1990's many reintroduced the design as their own.
look up MYT, but looks a bit dodgy
I think they just used the black extension as a stand-in for a transmission, but if you took the chromed end cap off it would expose the area where a shaft would be placed to move energy from the engine on to whatever you're attaching it to.
too many screws, when you asking me
+Arvid Nordmannen You ever worked on an actual engine? lol
kinda, because i'm a fucking automotive mechatronics....
Arvid Nordmannen
Then your comment is more stupid. As there are hundreds of screws holding most engines together.
but it's fucking complicated as hell....
+Arvid Nordmannen I sometimes see people with that many screw but they are all loose!!
It puts most of its energy into turning the crank, the rest is used to compress the gas. If you look at the mechanism that stops each set of pistons, you'll see that it also feeds that energy into turning the crank. Actually get familiar with a design before you get all pious and claim it won't work. There are working prototypes that are markedly more efficient than any traditional reciprocating piston engine.
Great animation.
Is this engine actually used or is it a concept?
A nightmare!
It would never work
The scheme of the serial hybrid has long been used on heavy freight transport. Examples - Heavy tank Destroyers "Elephant", locomotive, mining truck (carrying capacity of about 300 tons).
This left me confused as to what this is.. Is it an engine, a hybrid power station or a generator?
It's an electrical generator driven by the vane engine.
Nopiw They had a few working.
Nopiw, you clearly have not seen a vane engine working before, or you might have but the science seems so far ahead to you that it simply looks like magic.
I assure you it is not.
Nopiw Men with no engineering understanding. That is sad.
Nopiw You do not even understand, never mind care.
Your right, not impossible. A pocket of lubricating oil could exist between the two piston heads (black band seen in the animation), although you'd have to shield it from the exhaust outlet and fuel/air inlet.
needs more bolts and screws
Looks like a useless over complication. Installation, maintenance, cooling, balancing, reliability all look to be worse than a traditional reciprocating cylinder engine. Even if it is slightly more efficient (which I doubt), it will be a bad design for longevity and likely cost more to operate in the long run. Stick with simple and proven and cheap.
Thats what they said when the otto engine first was demonstrated. 'Nah...stay with simple proven things, steam and horses'.
I hear what you are saying, but C'mon.. It's cool with new things and concepts too.
secularnevrosis But that is exactly the problem. We have very complicated machines and technology but very few people can afford to benefit from that technology. Why innovate and complicate a simple engine design when people can't afford the simple version in the first place?
Levi Gray
Sure... I can understand that.
Idéas and creativety springs forth new concepts of long 'forgotten' inventions when new understanding and materials are made avaible.
Piston driven machines are very old inventions that has been improved and altered since they were invented. All "new" inventions are also expensive when they are still in the prototype phase or not widely used.
I'm not sure, at this point in time, about further major developments when it comes to the internal combustion engine. I'm more vouching for new developments, materials and ideas regarding external combustion (yes a very old concept). Much simpler and cleaner than conventional otto's.
secularnevrosis External Combustion is the future? OK... Good luck with that and the "greenies".
The future is in batteries and power storage. Combustion can only be made "so efficient" and still be economically possible.
Levi Gray Yup...Battery technology is improving day by day and is easy to use in different solutions.
External combustion is much easier to control in regards to how much it pollutes. And you can use most kinds of fuel like different vegetable oils, biomass products and alcohols. Using battery technology in conjunction with external combustion isn't a bad idea. I think the "greenies" would approve.
I agree. That's why I think we should base a lot of our supplies on solar. It won't last forever, but will be still shining long enough after we self destruct ...
It's not Russian engine and Polish! Constructor is Wożniak!
Dariusz Why do so many Polish idiots claim Russians steal everything from them? 😂 Poland cannot into space.
This engine is polish the name is m.y.t.e. meaning massive yet tiny engine
Дариуш:
Polskie nawoznik(łajnie) , a nie silnik.:)))
Nobody, because russians steal a best things to themselves, but worst things left in Poland.
The big drawback for this design is revealed in the first 16 seconds. Each piston is held from the side (let's call them 'connecting limb') in order to provide transfer of combustion forces to the central 'drive gear' spindle. The enclosing toroidal shaped cylinder, needed to contain the combustion gases, is made in two halves and is compromised because it has to allow for the intrusion (and motion) of the piston connecting limbs. Not only does this represent a major engineering challenge to maintain gas tight seals at high temperatures and pressures, but is also a breach to thermal containment by providing a path for heat to be conducted away. Additionally the swept volume is large and thermal transfer from combustion gases to the cylinder wall will be high (as is the case with the Mazda Wankel rotary engine). All of these issues severely compromise thermodynamic efficiency.
+joseph prosser Yeah, that was the part of the animation is conveniently obscured by the gasses. The flanges (connecting limbs) in the pistons have connection holes for the transmission disk but the disk slides under the static piston while being powered by the moving piston during the combustion stroke. No locking mechanism is demonstrated. I think this is a student CAD project to show mastery of the design tool. It describes a process, not a prototype. In that context it is well done.
The locking mechanism could be a ratchet built upon the Wankel floating seal concept but your point about sealing the cylinder is probably the kiss of death for the fundamental design. The piston path would probably create high friction/wear if they overcame the connecting limb seal problem.
+Fifty States As a piece of technical animation it is beautiful. But as my dad used to say to me no matter how much you polish it, crap is still crap. Too many of these designs are led astray by size and power density issues but the holy grail is thermodynamic efficiency. Everyone one would be quite happy if engines were physically twice as big as long as they were 50% efficient (better than 100mpg). There is a lot of wasted energy in the hot exhaust of internal combustion engines. Variable compression ratio and Atkinson cycle needs more effort. Take a look at Gomecsys in The Netherlands, not limited to just fanciful animations they have actually built a working engine that is driven in a car.
Hmm youtube teaches us that russian cant drive :)
An Englishman designed a virtually identical motor in the 1950's or 60's. It was called the "Orbital". It disappeared very quickly.
This would never work in a million years. I would love someone to prove me wrong though.
The name is Stanley Meyer!
Our hero... Never forget his quest which should be ours by heart!
My first query would be the piston gas sealing arrangements. They appear to have what could be described as normal piston rings, but there's the obvious gap for the actuator attachment. Even for normal piston engines, the occasional blow-by of superheated gases causes damage by destroying lubrication. But for this engine it seems possibly a more difficult task to solve than even the Wankel rotary engine. And for that reason alone it'll be a non-starter for a reliable and durable engine.
I saw this engine way back in the 1970's. an American inventor called it a coffee can engine. Nothing new here.
Correct, an interim engine will be used in the first yo mobile models. And yes, the company definitely got good PR heading in Prokhorov direction. It will likely make cars too, just later than the overly optimistic date of 2012. Likely 2014 or so before we see them coming of the assembly line. There are pictures of the factory well under construction. Check them out. Privet from USA :)
Тихим, ранним туманным утром вышел Ёжик к реке, берега которой почти таяли в небесном молоке. Вдруг видит - рыбак сидит с удочкой. Вот идет неспешно
Russians have very smart engineers. I still dare to say that, though appreciating the ingenuity of the design, I don't see significant practical advantage in this engine because it is still a different version of pulstating engine just like the Otto. Besides the complexity to build this seems no smaller than the the standard.
The yo and this engine have been in production since march of last year.Michail Prokorhov,(who ran against Putin the last time around, also owns the nj nics and built staples stadium. The design works very well the way it is and can run on vapor(cng) or gasoline,@65+ mpg.
best thing is if everyone develops different ideas someday someone will piece all the different types of engines together and make the ideal motor.
Damn! All those cylinder head bolts will be a bitch to torque in the future.
agree with you, many people saying bad things with no real knowledge.
Rotory Vane Engine shows great potential, Unlimited uses.
It is a four cylinder that uses rotational position timing instead of poppet valves.
It also is a four stroke as it has intake compression power and exhaust.
Rotational force is maintained by a one way only Mechanism at :54
Pros and cons depend on "How well the seals hold up and what kind of mechanical advantage you get from holding basically the cylinder head then releasing it. I don't know I am just saying
It looks that there is planetary gearbox system mixed with circumference piston alternating. really sophisticated solution.
In all honesty, unless you have a freewheel system to prevent that loss of energy when the combustion cycle goes off, then there is a significant decrease in energy, to the point where the engine would stall. But that would cause the whole thing to break down after a few hundred miles, so my best guess is that they're using the impact between the two sets of pistons and the compression of the gasses to act as an air spring, fuzing combustion cycle and compression cycle. Theoretical, but nifty.
This engine is just a fantastic phantasy !!!
How am I lying? The Taurozzi pendulum motor, invented by an Argentine where only piston ring touches the cylinder walls. There is friction at one point that requires the use of lubricants, although much less than in a conventional engine. The inventor (Taurozzi) argues that Teflon bearings and rings resolved this. True, this "can" be viewed as a toroidal engine it's really not, the cylinders are simply curved not in a circular pattern. I have never seen or heard of a I/C version in production.
I love rotary engines, I am working on external heat rotary engines, thanks for great video
Hi. I love rotary engines to. Accidental I am working for in-and external heated engine. My attention now is in theoretical step...
If you look at the vane engine running you´ll notice way more gas comes out of the exaust than the piston engine. Just for the size of the cylinder makes it less efficient (studies show that smaller combustion chambers make the engine more efficient.)
I think this motor will sent the retirement letter to the pistons engines. The piston engines have being in use for many years, many moving parts inside. they are about 2,000 hours total for overhaul.
I tested a prototype, It has as much torque as a model T running on kerosene downhill, and is as fuel efficient as the drag racer car..... not to mention it has more parts both wearable and structural making it a heavy engine
They are energy indeed, but to convert them, they have to be spent ! That means for instance, remagnetasing your magnets once their magnetic energy has been depleted. They is NO free energy. Same for gravity, you want to get some work out of it, you first have to raise a mass, which in turn takes energy. These are only potential energies, that means you get to create the potential first.
You are right.
And they have to lock in place the 2 opposed pistons during combustion, which could need a complex and heavy gear system (that will have to absorb some of the rotational energy, and to deal with the torque from the combustion and compression piston).
The electrical generator+battery+inverter+motor+shitload of stuff makes this thing a hell of an expensive and inefficient engine.
Very good animation, camera angles and parts placement assembly documentation.
Somebody is REALLY GREAT at computer animation!! But still, it's easier to do a computer animation than it is to manufacture a viable, working engine!
This is an extraordinarily complex engine, and working on it to fix the seals which would not last long would be a perpetual nightmare for owners.
All these people shooting ideas down drive me crazy. There already is a rotary engine in mas production inside Mazda vehicles. This is just another take on that design to get more power. Thinking outside the box is what gives us innovation. I would like to know where this idea went in development.
Wow! I obviously pushed a sensetive button there. Please don't be too offended when somebody challenges your thinking, it could help you to improve your design. I will look forward to being proved wrong. Regards Tony Davies
OMG I can`t believe it. since years I've been thinking if such an engine concept and now the russians have it!
Выглядит красиво но есть множество недостатков вот только несколько
1. В момент детонации поршни будит разлетаться по сторонам, а не по кругу как показано на видео. Это надо делать фиксацию поршня что усложняет конструкцию.
2. Очень много болтовых соединений.
major advantage over electric internal combustion engine:
1. high efficiency
2. huge torque
3. high reliability
It seems to me, although I could certainly be mistaken, that the parts of this engine that would wear out the fastest, or be most likely to fail or need servicing, are the ones which are buried the deepest and hardest/most expensive to get at.
Actually it is an toroidal orbital engine not a rotary vane. I remember one being demonstrated in England some time in the early 1950's. A rotary engine has a continuous motion [like the Wankel]. this one reciprocates and has pistons.
I wanted to say that the scheme is applied for a long time :) yes to the "elephant" scheme has little effect on the old mining trucks, too. the main reason - the use of old hardware components (the same magnetic amplifier). Now there igbt and supercapacitors.
I invented a similar type engine but with a variable stroke length, no planetary gears required and I've solved the sealing issue.
the chemical energy in a fuelcell must be replaced at some point and that is not an easy or environmentally friendly task. a combustion engine can leverage the energy contained in a chemical fuel to create relatively high amounts of mechanical energy. This is why so many power plants use gas turbines because even a tiny turbine (smaller than a 4 cylinder engine) can produce 1400 hp which is roughly 1044000 Watts or 1044 kW even with a 20% power loss that is efficient for 24/7 continuous power
I don't really understand what you are trying to say, but this hybrid IS one solution to go electric! Batteries are not good solution. They are heavy, they have bad capacity etc... Who want's to buy car that can drive only 100km and then needs recharging? Modern engines have to be lightweight, compact, powerful and economy. Today it's not important for engine to be simple. If it brokes, it's important to be replaced easy. If you want engine that has less moving parts, buy old Briggs&Stratton.