why bother with a piston and valves? why not just have continuous combustion, and use the flow of compressed air, via rotating air blades? oh wait that's a jet engine/ gas turbine
Like an small Anodine; pulse jet; engine - that both heats water for steam, & produces thrust, both acting through a steam turbine geared to a triple expansion engine on a closed loop condenser to recover the steam/water that also pre warms the water. ;-)
if one wanted a simplified 4 stroke internal combustion engine one need not look farther than the Wankel rotary. and as much as i love that thng, its got its fair share of problems. some of them, particularly the side seals, this monstrosity borrows.
@@jondepinet i just dont think engines today are really all that complicated, especially 20-30 year ago. Now, they are complicated in the way their VVT systems and emissions work but a regular old pushrod or overhead cam engine to me is pretty straight forward. I may be wrong but even including the wankel (which i dont have any problems with except durability amd efficiency, i think theyre a novel idea if those issues were addressed) i think we've nearly perfected the combustion engine. I dont see how we would be able to get much more power and efficiency than a 200 hp engine getting 40+ mpg and having a comfortable 200,000+ mile service range (Toyota). I know i sound ignorant, and i love seeing what new technology has to offer, but i think the internal combustion engine is just about perfect. I dont think we will improve all that much in the design department. But i might be wrong, and if i am, i cant wait to see it!
@@ericchapman8956 i agree, i think we've reached some kind of endgame with reciprocating engines. on one hand some brands have been experimenting with undersized piston rings to reduce drag at the expense of added oil consumption to keep meeting and exceeding fuel economy and horsepower standards, but thats been biting brands in the ass as far as i can tell. VAGs 2.0 TFSIs did this between 2011 and 2014 iirc. for example. on the other we are still getting some interesting innovations but like you said it seems to be limited to the valvetrain. Fiats MultiAir is an interesting system, as is Koenigseggs freevalve.
That's the spirit! Stomp innovation into the ground before it has any chance to proove itself. Why have we become so negative against anything deviating from old procedures? Sure it is a complex mechanism but that is no reason to not at least try, fail and subsequently inspire new technology... Let that sink in
@@l.merbecks8144 I do believe I had started this thread with an expression of gratefulness. ;) The "try, fail, and subsequently inspire" is exactly the process that got us the simple engines that we have. I suppose we could go back and revisit giant flapping umbrellas too, in an attempt at new innovation in aircraft.
@@dansw0rkshop My deepest apologies I didn’t catch that. But I stick to my opinion: “Sometimes we need to step back to see new opportunities” What if -even though current IC engines are beautifully simple and quite efficient- there’s a better way which needs a completely bold approach? Anyway, have a nice day! :)
I gotta agree with @@zombine555. We are familiar with our current ICE's, so obviously this will seem "overcomplicated". It would be a lot "simpler" if it was kept to only 3 valves, but that wasn't the final design. It's actually pretty impressive.
there is no compression to start with except for the miniscule ammount offered by the turbo but that also comes with the issue it wont work with diesel
@@FredDufresne This thing is essentially a gun that shoots in a ring instead of a line, due to the "bullet" (piston) being radially mounted on the drive axis through the slot in the ID of the "barrel" (toroidal housing)
gas turbines need exotic materials at least in the bearings and lots of rpm to work... theyre very fuel and air hungry ask chrysler about putting them in cars😂. also idk if their exhausts can be be filtered very well. idk exactly how effective cats are but i like to think we use them for a reason .. i do know the rotary's weakness is how much it relies on wierd shaped seals to control hot gasses. the crazy shaped combustion chamber didn't help and it compounded the heating issue... all those issues would plague this "engine"... 2 stroke deisels get primary compression from a screw blower this thing would rely totally on boost for compression lol it wouldn't even start without a leaf blower...😂 speaking of turbines. for real tho gas turbines have their place this doesn't...
@@typhoon1575 "gas turbines have their place and this idea doesn't"... what i was getting at is the reason an idea like is so tempting is cuz it would have advantages of a piston engine: sealed "power stroke", low rpm torque, shouldn't need exotic materials, controllable exhaust/noise..etc... without imbalance and other wierd stuff pistons do.. this was just some guy who thought he was the first to think of an internal combustion water wheel 😂 and clearly doesn't know that fast moving metal parts need lube🙄.. rotary valve piston engines(2 and 4 stroke) were a thing along with cylindrical valves and they sucked even with proper lubrication.. also i'm pretty sure the gas powered water wheel was patented by wankel🤣 those were plagued by sealing, heating and lube problems this would be 10x worse along with the whacky gyroscopic effects like a rotary crankcase engine but none of the self cooling lol it would spray oil everywhere tho just like a ww1 era plane lol
@@ianbuilds7712 Actually gas turbines don't use exotic alloys in the bearings. Those are cooled by oil and therefore don't need to be. The blades in the hot section are where the expensive alloys are used. There would be no issues using a catalytic converter, it would just need to be sized for the flow rate. They are not used in cars because they are less efficient. They also don't have great response times, and would require more complex transmissions due to the high speeds. The would probably be better in an electric hybrid, coupled to a generator. Despite the lower efficiency, they are used in aircraft due to a huge power to weight ratio. As for this design. It would not work, practically. Sealing it would be nearly impossible, if you did manage to enough to get in to run, it would not be for very long. Lubrication is an issue too. Thermal expansion would be uneven causing the seals to open up around the heated sections. The piston would be hard to seal with the walls expanding unevenly. It is a good thought experiment at best.
48 gears, 12 unbalanced rotating wheels, a piston that needs to cross 12 gaps, 2 rotating lines going in, all that before even hitting a gear box. This thing is going to blow up.
you could make the rotating lines not rotate by having the torus rotate and have the pistons be stationary, but that would make the cooling system suck more.
This is a seal nightmare. Piston/toroid seal and the associated friction would be crazy. And how you intend to achieve the pressures of an inexistent compression stage? The turbo by itself can't deliver that high pressure. This might work if you consider an external combustion chamber to deliver the already combusted mixture to the «explosion» stage. Again, working with high pressure gases needs excelent seals. And you have so many valves to put seals. Nice concept, though!
Yeah I thought the exact same thing tbh. without an external combustion chambers and exhaust chambers it will not work. Not to mention the laws of inertia causing it to warp scoring the bore losing compression
This is all theoretical. The motor wil not even produce 2% of the power of a IC engine, all the gases will leak from the gap. And running a oil film on it is a real nightmare.
@@UltraGamma25 No, the frictional losses would significantly reduce the lifespan of this already unserviceable design and it would cause a scarily low power output. Exactly what BMW is looking for.
Hey I suppose he's just looking into an interesting "out-of-the-box" way of approaching a problem. It's far from ideal but it's very interesting. Is'nt that what science is about, asking the questions an seeing what happens, even if it is just theoretical?
@@morgadoapi4431 And if it was described as "far from ideal but an interesting thing to consider" I'd have no problem with it. I'm not saying this engine couldn't work, or that it's a stupid idea, or that you can't improve on reciprocating piston engines. I'm saying this video claims higher thermal efficiency than a reciprocating engine and that claim is definitely totally false. The captions clearly state "higher thermal efficiency" which is totally untrue with no compression stroke, because higher compression == higher thermal efficiency. A generic car diesel engine compresses the mixture 20:1, and that's after a turbocharger increases intake pressure. This design could never achieve that compression ratio.
@@PKMartin seem like you missed part of the video. There is a continuous power stroke. The fuel/air mixer is continuously provided and ignited. The valves just close after the position goes through to help keep pressure up. Exhaust gases are exhausted from in front of the position through the ring. You can see it after the fuel and air pipes are added. Watch again and read, don't throw it out the window until you at least understand where he's trying to go. Yes there are more than a few problems. But point to any engine that did at least have some when starting. 4-strokes had poor power to weight. We're heavy, had oil burn that would ask the us to invade and slow. Turbines and jet turbines were unreliable hard to keep going and even hard to make thrust from. Heck steam engines were a mess when they were first invented
@@cailco100 seems like you missed part of my comment. I never said there's no power stroke, I said there is no compression beyond the turbocharger - at no point is the piston moving towards the mixture. The theoretical efficiency of an Otto or Diesel cycle engine is limited by the compression ratio, which for this engine design is much lower than a reciprocating engine so the thermal efficiency will always be worse. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_efficiency Saying "petrol engines used to be bad" does not automatically mean this design will become amazing - this engine will always have poor thermal efficiency because of its design, but you need to understand some thermodynamics to appreciate why. It's ingenious and I appreciate the simplicity, but the claim of high thermal efficiency is absolutely wrong.
@@PKMartin exactly, well said, not sure how many more times Calico wants to get wrecked, but, if all of the valves are evenly spaced and alternate states after a piston travels through them, then there is maximum 2x compression of the current mixture. Even cars that run high boost pressures, like mine, need at least 10-ish:1 compression and spark to ignite pump gas. Also not clear that evacuating the exhaust gasses is efficient at all, the lateral load on the piston seal from centrifugal force would be immense, and it would be pulling a vacuum to get air in so even at 2:1 compression it’s likely barely above atmospheric in practice. Hope this guy got top marks for the animation though it’s pretty slick, but thumbs down for the ridiculous claims.
let me know when you have a working model of this, because it's impossible. I'd also like to point out that those gears will need lubrication, as all gears do, to remain efficient and not wear prematurely.
@@mxs4193 sealing of the slid in the toroidal cylinder, sealing of all the valves, lubrication of all the gliding parts in this construction, sheer size of the whole thing, incredible mechanical complexity... Shall I go on? At the point he's at, he might just use a turboshaft engine...
@@mxs4193 What makes it impossible is also the fact that pistons are not compressing the air fuel mixture, but using a turbocharger for the compression. And thing is, turbo chargers barely reach boost pressures upto 5 bar (normal use), while engines reach pressures of 20ish bars, just in petrol engine.
Hey I suppose he's just looking into an interesting "out-of-the-box" way of approaching a problem. It's far from ideal but it's very interesting. Is'nt that what science is about, asking the questions an seeing what happens, even if it is just theoretical?
Congratulations! None of the benefits of a rotary engine, along with none of the manufacturability, along with the fact that it will have to burn it's own lubricating oil.
@@gaberylosborne8018yeah, i've been wondering how the combustion even starts, as well as how you hook up the fuel lines externally, i would've understood if there were injectors in between thevalves at certain intervals
... than an RBMK nuclear reactor, yes. But a four-stroke Otto-engine is much simpler than this, not mentioning a two-stroke one. Imagine solving the sealing issues on this contraption. Since it can burn small amounts of fuel only, it can barely be efficient enough to overpower the friction caused by the seals. And there are gears too. Plus a turbo that can't produce enough pressure to fill the combustion chambers on low RPMs. There are many other issues with this thing, it's not an accidental thing that the conception couldn't make it to the factories.
Imma tell you right now: as a mechanical engineer, if you show up to a machine shop with the blueprints to that torus, you're gunna get punched in the face by the machinist.
Amazing ingenuity, even if it may be mechanically complex and may not be plausible for actual use, good work none the less! It is easy to point out flaws and easily dismiss implausible ideas but I see real creativity and out of the box thinking here. Obviously a lot of time and effort went into this and I appreciate it!
Well, while a nice concept, I can immediately see that there would be a tremendous amount of friction pretty much everywhere. I don't see anything that good in this, but hey, it's another way of looking at things!
It's things like this that make me wish I had the resources to just try and make something like this work, regardless of efficiency, just to see it work
Nice idea! You have to show it to the Ogdenville, Brockway, or North Haverbrook universities for further research and development. They will be really interested, they are now on the map!
Start the video with bad point for conventional motors like "heavy/complex construction/many moving parts/..." Show a model with over 9000 gaers and small parts added to ultra complex sealing ... What is improved ?
I like to see these alternative ideas being thrown around, even if they are less effective, they almost always have atleast one advantage. For instance I just saw an alternative jet design that although less efficient then axial jet engine would be way easier to build in your own garage. What I hate is when people point out all flaws of conventional design, point out all advantages of their design... while ignoring all the advantages that conventional design has over their design.
And what ? you can throw a video pointing out all the bads from conventional design and 10s later show the a new idea to make it even more complexe ... Maybe it can be good for a special application. Not to simplify an existing design
@@76629online That's a really shitty thing to say. The idea itself is certainly questionable but the design effort itself is not. Every inventor, designer has some really bizarre and totally impossible designs. Without imagination and the willingness to try we would not advance.
@@76629online someone out there trying to improve the world... then there’s you. Natural selection shouldn’t have selected you... but the abortion doctor should’ve.
this is something i was also wondering, once the "valve" closes behind the "piston" the pressure of the air between said valve and piston would decrease not increase, resulting in no compression. or have I missed something all together? an incredibly creative design nevertheless :)
I know, but you still thinking of it in an old cliche of reciprocating IC engines. The chamber is already filled with exhaust gases and its under high pressure while piston supplies more fuel and air to increase pressure further in order to continue its movement away from valve until it passes through next valve.
you don't ignite exhaust gases??? you compress the air and introduce a fuel and an an ignition source (spark plug), or in the case of diesels you have intense air compression wich in turn gives you the heat to also ignite the introduces diesel fuel?
There's obvious reasons why this isn't common place, but i like that you went through the effort of explaining your idea. Thanks for that it was quiite interesting actually :)
It's very easy to criticise a lot of aspects of this, but if nobody tried to dream of crazy things anymore, technology would be nowhere. So I applaud the effort you put in the concept!
Curious as to how you plan to seal the engine? Lubrication? Piston RIngs? I feel like this would suffer from the same sealing problems as a Wankel rotary engine.
If using a purely magnetic engine seals are unnessasary since you would only need another field to act as such, oil or fluids are unnessasary and this thing looks way over complicated since magnetic engines are very simple and powerful, so much completely unnessasary bs on this thing. Also a magnetic engine needs only a hand ful of parts and all pieces are completely interchangeable like legos
it would have to have labyrinth-like seals like in a turbine or compressor. it could seal. i suspect there would have to be a disc bolted onto the rotor ring, on either sides. so each face of the rotor ring will form a sandwich, with the rotor ring, the toroid body between and the bolted disc.. my main concern is with the spreading/flaring of the gap in the toroid body for the rotor ring. in industrial designs, they would just make it thick enough that it would be very rigid... but i suspect my added bolted disc will help clamp the toroid in..
I really like your design. Sure, it won't work as presented, but it is an excellent example of what is needed in a Toroidal design, constant motion, no cat and mouse piston movements and constant leverage. I have referred to this video many times to inspire these three design goals, no other video has so held my attention. I have now completed a design which I believe solves all of the problems I have seen in the numerous Toroidal engines presented on the web. Yours is the video that sold me on the basic toroidal concept. Thank you for your efforts!
If they could stack these like motors, say 3 or 4, maybe it could produce as much horsepower as approximately a coyote 5.0 at best, maybe 300-350bhp is a more reasonable number. Although it’s a complex design, hopefully it’ll be a much more lightweight platform at roughly the same size. I know that rotary engines make phenomenal horsepower for their displacement but maybe this engine design can produce more torque over the rotary?
@Gar Gar You know? It might be fun to try and come with something like this and see if it is stackable and see how it cranks up the torque with each stack. I dunno... just something that popped into my head. Maybe I'll go out and buy me a 3D printer!!! Ha!
high amount of oil consumption,unreliable,efficiency would b a greater issue as engine would stress up more under load,complexity involving maintainence,and actual power will be tested to limits, not criticising,you made an great effort to create something new,but just the factors which will be most invovled.
Awesome. Combine this with continuous burning to generate pressure... and it will work like a turbine. Inject 1 part air into the burn chamber, let the "flame" expand it 1000 times. A small diameter pump "injecting" air into the burner. A large diameter pump using the "exhaust" to rotate the main shaft. It becomes like a "high pressure turbine" or "low RPM turbine. The large radius wheel always has higher torque, to push a small amount of high pressure air into the burner... A high pressure, closed loop, continuous burning engine. Awesome. I found your video after having exactly the same idea as you have - "gates" closing behind the piston, and gates opening in front of the piston. Rotating gates - to keep it simple. Continuous drive, maximum torque, extremely efficient fuel burning, minimal heat loss... You got my support on it, for what that's worth.
Just give me all gears you have. Wait, wait. I'm worried what you just heard was, "Give me a lot of gears." What I said was, "Give me all the gears you have." Do you understand?
I was working on a similar system and I THINK his handling of the combustion pressure and valve timing are terrible but there are ways to overcome them not by using gears but what some companies are doing.
The reason why there’s no prototype is because the prototype would prove that the design doesn’t work. This thing would struggle to create power let alone power a car. Heck, a push lawnmower has more power than that.
Everyone is criticizing this, but it's an entirely unique and original engine design. Sure, it's complicated, but you have to admire the creativity and intellect required to create something this complex. Personally, I'd love to see an actual working prototype of something like this. Whether it offers any particular advantages over a traditional IC engine or not, it would be cool just to see it working. Mechanical watches don't have many advantages over quartz, but we're still making those!
I see a lot of people being rude in the comments who are clearly not engineers. This is a fun concept that although certianly will have flaws that any individual can point out is still impressive. An important part of the engineering design process is that while brainstorming there are no bad ideas. This is an idea and it's a unique interesting one. I personally would love to see if it could actually function. I wouldn't expect it to work perfectly and a giant spinning wheel full of inertia as an engine might be kinda a death trap, but you never know. Maybe there is some other great way to make a combustion engine that is yet to be designed. Coming up with anything is a start and is commendable.
Hate to see what happens to that thing when one of those gears loses a tooth and the piston hits a closed valve... Well... actually I'd love to see it. I do love me some chaos and explosions. :)
Or if even the teeth on the gears wear down some, throwing the timing off. The valve openings would have to be oversized to compensate for thermal expansion and eventual valve train wear which can only lead to further loss of compression in an already low compression system (once the engine gets really moving, pumping precompressed air in won't be enough and this absolutely won't work with diesel)
Very cool invention , dont listen to people who talk bad about your ideas , they cant invent any thing at all , they have no ideas and they cannot solve creative problems like you can . Great video
What lubrication do you use? How do you ignite the fuel? How do you control the acceleration of the system? How do you account for the need for a gas tight fit between those curved surfaces? Wouldn't you need to have several pistons to balance the system? What advantages does this offer over a conventional systnt
One simple question: How much money would it cost to engineer and produce these at high volumes? I work with aircraft engine parts (turbine) and regularly visit many aeronautical factories and shops in New England. The tolerances involved in your design in fact require a level of precision beyond the realm of consumer use. The cost of machine work to get the rotational section with pistons sealed against the stator ring would make the basic components of the design too expensive for mass production. The stator ring would also need to be made in two halves, requiring many fasteners around the inner and outer circumference, so that the rotor section could be installed. How would the inner circumference of the stator be secured half-to-half with the need for the rotor between them? Would the pressure of the compressed area between piston and valve when closed exceed the integrity of the gap between both stator halves? In my opinion, the stator halves would need to be quite thick to prevent the gap increasing under load. Or, a robust framework would need to be installed to help keep both halves true and square. Either way, more complexity and more parts required, adding weight and cost. The geared valve timing would also need to go, replaced with shafts, rings and pinions. Or add a timing belt or chain. I really do think this design is impressive and unique. Please don't let me be a damper to your creativity! I'm just telling you from knowing what it takes to actually produce finely machined products, it's very expensive and prohibitive for mass marketing and usually this sort of technology ends up in commercial or military use, which would place your engine design not in competition with car engines or other reciprocating engines, but instead would make your engine design compete against turbines, and let's just say you have about 100 years less experience (and .00001% of the cash flow) than a company like Rolls Royce, General Electric, or Pratt and Whitney. They all are now producing gas turbines with unheard of efficiency and the costs have been reduced by metal 3d printing and other new technologies. Even so, the impressive amount of effort that goes into each one to ensure it doesn't self destruct is eye-opening in my experience. Tolerances are made to exacting specifications and these engines turn thousands of rpm's for hours at a stretch and just cannot fail. Maybe you would be better served using some of what you have created here, some of the principles- and go back to the drawing board, and simplify this idea! Make it foolproof to machine and construct. THEN you're onto something big!
whatmakesittick this is very well put. I think you nailed a lot of my objections on the head. I'd still be interested in seeing a working version. I can see this as an adjustable efficiency engine by skipping valve closings.
+Whatmakesittick - in addition to your engineering and production considerations and in spite of its truly impressive originality this is still an Otto cycle engine. If you can find a way to beat the laws of physics then ... +Farrukh - don't let the knockers kill your creativity - humankind needs thinkers like you
Anyone consider the gyroscopic aspect of this engine on motions of the vehicle? Then the bearings for 60~ish gears and discs. How would this install into an engine bay, under a hood, etc? Seems those discs, in red, would soot up from the combustion and become a problem.
It could install horizontally. With the insane love affair with SUVs, it could go under the floor (Americans brought Hummers and MacDonalds in droves, so they'll buy anything). The other issues will kill it before that does.
Talk about moving parts and wear, no lubrication, no rings for compression (lots of losses), heat causes expansion so ur gonna have to plan for that too.
A starter can turn the engine, but that is not going to spool the large turbo's needed to make this thing work. Only way I can see to start it is with air. Either you'd need a large tank of compressed air to spool the turbo and start the rotor moving, or a powerful electric supercharger to do the same.
How is the fuel compressed to help with combustion? How would you get a tight seal around all the areas in the cylinder walls to keep expansion in the chamber to force the piston around.
How do you compress the air for ignition? How do you stop it? How do you form a tight seal between the piston, the valve, and the center flywheel? How do you remove exhaust?
Lots of people are talking sh*t but I think it's a nice idea, even if it will never become feasible and if it has design flaws like the seal and the friction it'd give out, there's little compression etc. I appreciate that you took the time to design it, you're gonna inspire somebody with your idea that's for sure
Nice thinking out of the box👍 Tip: use 1 gear exchange to a flex shaft to all valves. You remove 33 gears 66 bearings and add one shaft. I bet all your gears sound pretty wicked behind the quick fire exhaust tho😁
I see a lot of sealing problems. Maybe it would be easier, to let three little jet engines rotate around a hub. That would give us a nice rotating motor.
Regular Jet engines would work better in this configuration as they do not need to spin at such a high rate to keep thrust and they would be fine with the g-load as many have been developed for aircraft to handle these kinds of stress. The issues with ramjets is they must have an intake air speed of at least mach 1 to be anywhere near thrust producing and even then any engine in this configuration (baring a rocket engine) would be pulling in the exhaust gases of the previous engine into the intake. The exhaust gases in the intake would cause compressor surges in a regular turbine engine and both turbines and ramjets would be starved for oxygen. The thermal efficiency of the ramjet would also be shit because it works on pulling in colder denser air to heat by burning fuel to get the air to expand. Fuel can only heat the air to be so hot and anymore fuel added does not cause an increase in thrust. This is why at higher speeds than about mach 5 ramjets start to shut down. The friction of the air hitting the inlet heats the air above what they can burn fuel to heat it. TLDR: Any jet engine (rocket, turbine, or ramjet) is almost utterly useless in a circle because of practical reasons. Just use the compressor shaft of a regular turbine engine. It makes more than enough horsepower to suit your needs.
That's similar to the experimental "tip jet" helicopters, which used small ramjets at the rotor blades' tips (hence the name, I know, dir!), in order to do away with the normal associated problem of torque produced by spinning the main rotor mechanically, therefore a tail rotor is no longer required. But I don't know if this configuration has ever been attempted to be used as an engine. Interesting!🤔
Very interesting , but unless I missed something you do not mention an ignition source .If this is multi fuel where is the spark ignition for volatile fuels , petrol lpg etc. and how is diesel ignited , is there sufficient compression , and how would it be injected into the cylinder ?
similar concept to sleeve-valve engines of the 30's. Too much friction and gunks up with use..better fuels these days? It might work...missed the lubrication part?
Not even plausible. The gear sets for the valve would fail easily and the valves themselves would be warping each time there is combustion. I played with a valve design like that and all the engineers I asked said that that would be the first failure point. Nevermind the lack of lubrication or how to machine such a piston
When I made this presentation in 2011 the idea was very raw, unchecked, unproven, without any calculations and computer simulations. Just a hypothesis. But now, when I've finished the 7th version of the engine I could prove all theoretical parts of the problem. The mechanical part is totally different from what is shown here. I could make it even more simpler. The hot part of the engine, that is, engine thermodynamics has been proven by making simulations in ANSYS Fluent. Continuous combustion in a closed chamber with moving piston was too problematic in my early CFD simulations causing backflow of exhaust gases into air inlet ports, but I could solve those problems too. Engine efficiency is at level of modern IC engines. But I think it is possible to achieve better results by making some optimization.
+Farrukh Sheraliyev I understand how this design could be made to work and I see that it has been asked, "How do you seal the valves", I know a way that this could be easily achieved but I won't mention how to do this here. The problem of how to achieve compression is also easily solvable and if you would like some help with the redesign of this innovative concept I am willing to help.
I had this exact idea in 2005, the holy grail of a positive displacement piston engine without wasteful reciprocation. came to same conclusions. Cred to the boy for making the nice model. But sealing and friction. Lad doesnt even have compression in it, thinks a turbo could do that.
So how does this build compression? Also rotary engine from mazda does the same thing its a 2stroke so its pretty quick but u got mixed gas the piston is a big block of steel and the spark happens by scratching the cylinder they are bad engines that dont last
Hey I suppose he's just looking into an interesting "out-of-the-box" way of approaching a problem. It's far from ideal but it's very interesting. Is'nt that what science is about, asking the questions an seeing what happens, even if it is just theoretical?
No turbocharger can compress air to the level needed for detonation, the largest and fastest-spinning automotive turbos produce in the whereabouts of 100psi in a one-off diesel drag truck. The most seen in a non-diesel is about 40psi. compression in a modern naturally aspirated engine (about 10:1) provides about 147psi depending on your altitude. Considering that the turbo would have to be feeding air behind the piston for this design, the pressure would be dropping at the same rate that the space between the piston and valve increases. There is no turbocharger that can provide the pressure of a compression stroke, specially not one that can move that much air into an *increasing* chamber. I like when people think outside the box, but when an idea doesn't work, it just doesn't. If you try to develop an impossible design, physics won't just let it slide because everything else about it works and you've put *so much* effort into it.
A pump similar to what is used on a merlin engine would provide more than ample compression but that also adds another layer of complexity and additional seal requirements. It is evident thr engineer put significant thought and effort into this design but I struggle to believe it would pass a simple cost benefit analysis.
Just one of those gears fails with the valve closed and the whole thing will self-destruct. Not to mention how does it ignite the mixture? Or compress it properly?
he thinks you can just supply compressed air by turbo, which you cant. or... you can, but then you would be better off just burning the fuel in a box and harnessing the power with the turbo itsself, making a jet
No energy wasted in reciprocating a mass back and forth, speeding up, slowing down, reversing, etc. problem is that it wont seal up at all and has way too much friction, besides has no compression.
Too much hate by the commenters! No, it wouldn't really work in real life, most likely, but it's a very, very interesting idea and an amazing animation! I really enjoyed watching it. Thank you!
This is extremely clever. I see only a few problems that can be worked around, for example as many people have stated before the lack of a compression stroke and lubrication, as well as pressures and vibration would be very difficult to manage. I propose, and while I realize this would remove the non reciprocal aspect, utilizing the pistons forward momentum to create it’s own compression through velocity. Theoretically, this could allow for greater and greater speeds, given that your cylinder is potentially infinitely long. You could have a compression stroke that lasts for four full rotations if your velocity and durability allow. You could also use this to inject even more fuel air mix into the cylinder prior to the compression. I’d think it would need to start out in a rocking back and forth motion, starting slowly with low compression. So, tackling this issue at a time, I propose this type of operation. Start the piston as a reciprocal, back and forth between two valves. We could control these via solenoid or electromagnetically clutched pulleys for the timing gears. (There’s probably some kind of mechanical way but for ease’s sake let’s use electrical.) The back and forth motion would allow us to build up compression until a threshold where the piston would reach a maximum velocity. At this point we open a valve and let it travel across a longer cylinder. We can then add more fuel/air mix, allowing heavier compression and a longer stroke. Now, for lubrication. What’s stopping us from running oil through the piston itself? Same with cooling, we can bore out the flywheel and run three lines, coolant, oil, and return coolant. For the oil, just use piston rings. Four(ish) rings, two sets on either side. The compression ring, the oil control ring, and two on the other side. Two oil control rings on a single cylinder, allows for no third ring(theoretically). Coolant runs through the piston, oil is controlled, and centrifugal force allows for an easier load on an oil pump. Finally, balancing. With the single piston you’d end up with a ton of vibration and balancing it would be near impossible without use of a counter weight. Simple solution, add a second cylinder at the apoapsis of the flywheel. Since we’re using valves anyway, this could potentially allow for still infinite cylinder length, but also if our valves don’t shift exactly as we need them to there’s no fuel/air wasted. It just preloads the second pistons return stroke more. If this is consistent there’s no issue, and it can be accounted for. In all likelihood, there’s probably a better way to do the valves. And managing exhaust would be a bit challenging, less you wanted to make it a classic four stroke and use the valve “float” (what I’m calling the gap between sealed and open) to vent exhaust gasses. I haven’t thought of a good way to inject fuel, and the best way I’ve thought of a spark plug is mounted in the cylinder head, but again, there’s probably a lot better of ways. Needing to rebuild the whole engine to do your spark plugs seems like a bad plan. Clearly there is much to think about, but there’s my three cents.
@@susie3702 I couldn't even click the pause button fast enough!!!! You don't know it's coming and by the time you shift your focus, it's gone!!!! He would fail if it were my class for this very reason!!!!!
Is the charge being compressed? If so, how? The compression from the compressors alone will not work in this case, Maybe for some simple load. But not for a heavy load for sure. if I'm wrong,please correct me.
sorry but this is less efficient than using a tiny rocket engine to power a car. also it would last about a minute before catastrophic mechanical failure
I’m not a mechanic or anything but with the pistons flying around a track away from the valves completely negate any impulse from the fuel? Also I don’t think this would be efficient because the piston isn’t pressing gasses together like in a real engine so wouldn’t need magnitudes more air an fuel to achieve the same impulse as in a real engine?
why bother with a piston and valves? why not just have continuous combustion, and use the flow of compressed air, via rotating air blades? oh wait that's a jet engine/ gas turbine
Came here looking for this comment.
@@timmeister6721 oh hey, i just posted that a few hours ago too, apparently youtube is recommending this video today
Like an small Anodine; pulse jet; engine - that both heats water for steam, & produces thrust, both acting through a steam turbine geared to a triple expansion engine on a closed loop condenser to recover the steam/water that also pre warms the water. ;-)
Rotary
@@sharcc2511 you are the smartest one so far
*Calls ordinary engines overly complex*
*Designs engine with 36 gear timing mechanism*
if one wanted a simplified 4 stroke internal combustion engine one need not look farther than the Wankel rotary. and as much as i love that thng, its got its fair share of problems. some of them, particularly the side seals, this monstrosity borrows.
@@jondepinet i just dont think engines today are really all that complicated, especially 20-30 year ago. Now, they are complicated in the way their VVT systems and emissions work but a regular old pushrod or overhead cam engine to me is pretty straight forward. I may be wrong but even including the wankel (which i dont have any problems with except durability amd efficiency, i think theyre a novel idea if those issues were addressed) i think we've nearly perfected the combustion engine. I dont see how we would be able to get much more power and efficiency than a 200 hp engine getting 40+ mpg and having a comfortable 200,000+ mile service range (Toyota). I know i sound ignorant, and i love seeing what new technology has to offer, but i think the internal combustion engine is just about perfect. I dont think we will improve all that much in the design department. But i might be wrong, and if i am, i cant wait to see it!
@@ericchapman8956 i agree, i think we've reached some kind of endgame with reciprocating engines. on one hand some brands have been experimenting with undersized piston rings to reduce drag at the expense of added oil consumption to keep meeting and exceeding fuel economy and horsepower standards, but thats been biting brands in the ass as far as i can tell. VAGs 2.0 TFSIs did this between 2011 and 2014 iirc. for example.
on the other we are still getting some interesting innovations but like you said it seems to be limited to the valvetrain. Fiats MultiAir is an interesting system, as is Koenigseggs freevalve.
@@ericchapman8956 Eric - aren't 4 strokes less than 25% mechanically and thermally efficient ?
That's a long way from "perfect"
@@NCOGNTO as perfect as they're probably going to get. Read.
Sometimes thinking outside the box solves otherwise intractable problems. Other times it's a great reminder of why we have a box.
I love this.
And so do I
Did you come up with this?
Yes all those seals on the sliding exhaust and intake, it'll be leaking ands spraying everywhere.
Thanks for demonstrating the beautiful simplicity of existing 4-stroke reciprocating engines. :)
Ikr?
Wait till you hear about the one with half the strokes! :)
That's the spirit! Stomp innovation into the ground before it has any chance to proove itself. Why have we become so negative against anything deviating from old procedures? Sure it is a complex mechanism but that is no reason to not at least try, fail and subsequently inspire new technology...
Let that sink in
@@l.merbecks8144 I do believe I had started this thread with an expression of gratefulness. ;) The "try, fail, and subsequently inspire" is exactly the process that got us the simple engines that we have. I suppose we could go back and revisit giant flapping umbrellas too, in an attempt at new innovation in aircraft.
@@dansw0rkshop My deepest apologies I didn’t catch that. But I stick to my opinion: “Sometimes we need to step back to see new opportunities” What if -even though current IC engines are beautifully simple and quite efficient- there’s a better way which needs a completely bold approach?
Anyway, have a nice day! :)
The final assembly of this thing makes my car’s engine look pretty simple.
Possibly, but this design is merely theoretical and is needlessly complicated.
Not... Really.
Actual car engines are pretty simple, and this design is overcomplicated as hell
I gotta agree with @@zombine555.
We are familiar with our current ICE's, so obviously this will seem "overcomplicated". It would be a lot "simpler" if it was kept to only 3 valves, but that wasn't the final design. It's actually pretty impressive.
Yeah, a V12 with 6 sequential turbos and a supercharger is simple compared to this.
I think one of the biggest struggles would be maintaining compression, once the components heat up your clearances will be off
Lmao he’s going to need to address the other 97 “big struggles” with this design before this thing even has a chance to get warm
@@Tom-cc1wl 😅😅😅 that's if it don't blow apart first
There's no compression in this design lol
there is no compression to start with except for the miniscule ammount offered by the turbo but that also comes with the issue it wont work with diesel
@@FredDufresne This thing is essentially a gun that shoots in a ring instead of a line, due to the "bullet" (piston) being radially mounted on the drive axis through the slot in the ID of the "barrel" (toroidal housing)
Mother of god, i thought people were just being overly critical, and then i watched it
Ikr
and then i freaked it
seriously, what is this design, does he always assume cars drive with 0 vibrations?
You have the name I wanted. xD
what do you mean, it's perfect and totally uncomplicated with plenty of tolerance for wobbly vehicles
6:00
The parasitic drag of all those gears and valves is mind boggling.
I would personally love to see a prototype of this (even if it doesnt work at all), Great job on the design.
this is literally just an over-complex and worse attempt at a gas turbine engine which is much simpler and better
gas turbines need exotic materials at least in the bearings and lots of rpm to work... theyre very fuel and air hungry ask chrysler about putting them in cars😂. also idk if their exhausts can be be filtered very well. idk exactly how effective cats are but i like to think we use them for a reason .. i do know the rotary's weakness is how much it relies on wierd shaped seals to control hot gasses. the crazy shaped combustion chamber didn't help and it compounded the heating issue... all those issues would plague this "engine"... 2 stroke deisels get primary compression from a screw blower this thing would rely totally on boost for compression lol it wouldn't even start without a leaf blower...😂 speaking of turbines. for real tho gas turbines have their place this doesn't...
builds you say that as if this mess is any better
@@typhoon1575 "gas turbines have their place and this idea doesn't"... what i was getting at is the reason an idea like is so tempting is cuz it would have advantages of a piston engine: sealed "power stroke", low rpm torque, shouldn't need exotic materials, controllable exhaust/noise..etc... without imbalance and other wierd stuff pistons do.. this was just some guy who thought he was the first to think of an internal combustion water wheel 😂 and clearly doesn't know that fast moving metal parts need lube🙄.. rotary valve piston engines(2 and 4 stroke) were a thing along with cylindrical valves and they sucked even with proper lubrication.. also i'm pretty sure the gas powered water wheel was patented by wankel🤣 those were plagued by sealing, heating and lube problems this would be 10x worse along with the whacky gyroscopic effects like a rotary crankcase engine but none of the self cooling lol it would spray oil everywhere tho just like a ww1 era plane lol
@@ianbuilds7712 Actually gas turbines don't use exotic alloys in the bearings. Those are cooled by oil and therefore don't need to be. The blades in the hot section are where the expensive alloys are used. There would be no issues using a catalytic converter, it would just need to be sized for the flow rate.
They are not used in cars because they are less efficient. They also don't have great response times, and would require more complex transmissions due to the high speeds. The would probably be better in an electric hybrid, coupled to a generator.
Despite the lower efficiency, they are used in aircraft due to a huge power to weight ratio.
As for this design. It would not work, practically. Sealing it would be nearly impossible, if you did manage to enough to get in to run, it would not be for very long. Lubrication is an issue too. Thermal expansion would be uneven causing the seals to open up around the heated sections. The piston would be hard to seal with the walls expanding unevenly.
It is a good thought experiment at best.
48 gears, 12 unbalanced rotating wheels, a piston that needs to cross 12 gaps, 2 rotating lines going in, all that before even hitting a gear box. This thing is going to blow up.
And the non-existent deal for the cut on the center
you could make the rotating lines not rotate by having the torus rotate and have the pistons be stationary, but that would make the cooling system suck more.
This is a seal nightmare. Piston/toroid seal and the associated friction would be crazy. And how you intend to achieve the pressures of an inexistent compression stage? The turbo by itself can't deliver that high pressure. This might work if you consider an external combustion chamber to deliver the already combusted mixture to the «explosion» stage. Again, working with high pressure gases needs excelent seals. And you have so many valves to put seals. Nice concept, though!
Yeah I thought the exact same thing tbh. without an external combustion chambers and exhaust chambers it will not work. Not to mention the laws of inertia causing it to warp scoring the bore losing compression
This is all theoretical.
The motor wil not even produce 2% of the power of a IC engine, all the gases will leak from the gap. And running a oil film on it is a real nightmare.
@@DatBoiOrly THIS. Don't forget torsion and stretching meaning it'll eventually just snap.
@@user-sc5ob5ek9h It's not that it's not efficient, there are just too many failure points. OPOC is better.
@@UltraGamma25 No, the frictional losses would significantly reduce the lifespan of this already unserviceable design and it would cause a scarily low power output.
Exactly what BMW is looking for.
I wonder if you can show us the energy loss from friction in those *36 gears.*
Thanks
9%.
1 error and the whole thing explodes
@@UltraGamma25 You could say the same for an ordinary engine!
@@douggraham5812 False.
If you can make that comparison you know nothing about engineering.
@@douggraham5812 Check out the Neutral Drop RUclips channel. Engines are more resilient than you might think.
I see many rotating seals that must tolerate very hot gases. Good luck.
- Says "higher thermal efficiency" than reciprocating engines
- Has no compression stroke
Someone needs to revise the Carnot cycle
Hey I suppose he's just looking into an interesting "out-of-the-box" way of approaching a problem. It's far from ideal but it's very interesting. Is'nt that what science is about, asking the questions an seeing what happens, even if it is just theoretical?
@@morgadoapi4431 And if it was described as "far from ideal but an interesting thing to consider" I'd have no problem with it. I'm not saying this engine couldn't work, or that it's a stupid idea, or that you can't improve on reciprocating piston engines. I'm saying this video claims higher thermal efficiency than a reciprocating engine and that claim is definitely totally false. The captions clearly state "higher thermal efficiency" which is totally untrue with no compression stroke, because higher compression == higher thermal efficiency. A generic car diesel engine compresses the mixture 20:1, and that's after a turbocharger increases intake pressure. This design could never achieve that compression ratio.
@@PKMartin seem like you missed part of the video. There is a continuous power stroke. The fuel/air mixer is continuously provided and ignited. The valves just close after the position goes through to help keep pressure up. Exhaust gases are exhausted from in front of the position through the ring. You can see it after the fuel and air pipes are added. Watch again and read, don't throw it out the window until you at least understand where he's trying to go. Yes there are more than a few problems. But point to any engine that did at least have some when starting.
4-strokes had poor power to weight. We're heavy, had oil burn that would ask the us to invade and slow. Turbines and jet turbines were unreliable hard to keep going and even hard to make thrust from. Heck steam engines were a mess when they were first invented
@@cailco100 seems like you missed part of my comment. I never said there's no power stroke, I said there is no compression beyond the turbocharger - at no point is the piston moving towards the mixture. The theoretical efficiency of an Otto or Diesel cycle engine is limited by the compression ratio, which for this engine design is much lower than a reciprocating engine so the thermal efficiency will always be worse. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_efficiency
Saying "petrol engines used to be bad" does not automatically mean this design will become amazing - this engine will always have poor thermal efficiency because of its design, but you need to understand some thermodynamics to appreciate why. It's ingenious and I appreciate the simplicity, but the claim of high thermal efficiency is absolutely wrong.
@@PKMartin exactly, well said, not sure how many more times Calico wants to get wrecked, but, if all of the valves are evenly spaced and alternate states after a piston travels through them, then there is maximum 2x compression of the current mixture. Even cars that run high boost pressures, like mine, need at least 10-ish:1 compression and spark to ignite pump gas. Also not clear that evacuating the exhaust gasses is efficient at all, the lateral load on the piston seal from centrifugal force would be immense, and it would be pulling a vacuum to get air in so even at 2:1 compression it’s likely barely above atmospheric in practice. Hope this guy got top marks for the animation though it’s pretty slick, but thumbs down for the ridiculous claims.
let me know when you have a working model of this, because it's impossible. I'd also like to point out that those gears will need lubrication, as all gears do, to remain efficient and not wear prematurely.
What makes this impossible?
@@mxs4193 sealing of the slid in the toroidal cylinder, sealing of all the valves, lubrication of all the gliding parts in this construction, sheer size of the whole thing, incredible mechanical complexity...
Shall I go on?
At the point he's at, he might just use a turboshaft engine...
@@mxs4193 What makes it impossible is also the fact that pistons are not compressing the air fuel mixture, but using a turbocharger for the compression. And thing is, turbo chargers barely reach boost pressures upto 5 bar (normal use), while engines reach pressures of 20ish bars, just in petrol engine.
@@mxs4193 no compression, and no spark plug. Plus it is way to complicated, and it needs lubrication
@@oldtimegames96 there are people running turbos up to and over 50psi.
This guy is like "Regular engines have to many moving parts" and then he just adds a ton of gears in 4:42 like wth
This design won the “Ridiculously complex engine” contest.
Hey I suppose he's just looking into an interesting "out-of-the-box" way of approaching a problem. It's far from ideal but it's very interesting. Is'nt that what science is about, asking the questions an seeing what happens, even if it is just theoretical?
@@morgadoapi4431 you copy/pasted that response for another comment, y?
Congratulations! None of the benefits of a rotary engine, along with none of the manufacturability, along with the fact that it will have to burn it's own lubricating oil.
2 stroke made round
The oil burning isn't an issue as it would rattle itself apart long before the oil has a chance to burn
Gotta love backseat engineers 🤙
@@seanboland4671 more like spin itself apart
@@gaberylosborne8018yeah, i've been wondering how the combustion even starts, as well as how you hook up the fuel lines externally, i would've understood if there were injectors in between thevalves at certain intervals
THE DEFINITION OF EUPHORIA IS WHEN YOU HAVE A GREAT IDEA JUST BEFORE YOU FIGURE OUT WHATS WRONG WITH IT !
Ooh yes! Much less complicated.
... than an RBMK nuclear reactor, yes. But a four-stroke Otto-engine is much simpler than this, not mentioning a two-stroke one. Imagine solving the sealing issues on this contraption. Since it can burn small amounts of fuel only, it can barely be efficient enough to overpower the friction caused by the seals. And there are gears too. Plus a turbo that can't produce enough pressure to fill the combustion chambers on low RPMs. There are many other issues with this thing, it's not an accidental thing that the conception couldn't make it to the factories.
@@baladar1353 he was being sarcastic
@@baladar1353 jesus christ someone cant pick up a hint of sarcasm
@@carlwheezerofsouls3273 Ok, may I hang myself?
@@baladar1353 yeah sure sure but im gonna need that soul afterwards, just sign here:_________
Imma tell you right now: as a mechanical engineer, if you show up to a machine shop with the blueprints to that torus, you're gunna get punched in the face by the machinist.
Amazing ingenuity, even if it may be mechanically complex and may not be plausible for actual use, good work none the less! It is easy to point out flaws and easily dismiss implausible ideas but I see real creativity and out of the box thinking here. Obviously a lot of time and effort went into this and I appreciate it!
Well, while a nice concept, I can immediately see that there would be a tremendous amount of friction pretty much everywhere.
I don't see anything that good in this, but hey, it's another way of looking at things!
Nice animation, thanks for sharing your ideas!
6:50 Oh yeah, that's much simpler now than an typical internal combustion engine.
It's things like this that make me wish I had the resources to just try and make something like this work, regardless of efficiency, just to see it work
Nice idea! You have to show it to the Ogdenville, Brockway, or North Haverbrook universities for further research and development. They will be really interested, they are now on the map!
Mono means one
What about us brain dead slobs?
@@steveguida2639 We'll set you up with cushy jobs
Start the video with bad point for conventional motors like "heavy/complex construction/many moving parts/..."
Show a model with over 9000 gaers and small parts added to ultra complex sealing ...
What is improved ?
I like to see these alternative ideas being thrown around, even if they are less effective, they almost always have atleast one advantage. For instance I just saw an alternative jet design that although less efficient then axial jet engine would be way easier to build in your own garage.
What I hate is when people point out all flaws of conventional design, point out all advantages of their design... while ignoring all the advantages that conventional design has over their design.
And what ? you can throw a video pointing out all the bads from conventional design and 10s later show the a new idea to make it even more complexe ...
Maybe it can be good for a special application. Not to simplify an existing design
Five years later, are you any closer to a working prototype?
No, because he’s probably dead by now, an effect of natural selection no doubt.
@@76629online That's a really shitty thing to say. The idea itself is certainly questionable but the design effort itself is not. Every inventor, designer has some really bizarre and totally impossible designs. Without imagination and the willingness to try we would not advance.
@@76629online someone out there trying to improve the world... then there’s you.
Natural selection shouldn’t have selected you... but the abortion doctor should’ve.
@@loganthesaint you’re an idiot, too.
@@loganthesaint who the fuck hurt you bro
how do you achieve compression when the piston is constantly moving away from the valve/compression area.
this is something i was also wondering, once the "valve" closes behind the "piston" the pressure of the air between said valve and piston would decrease not increase, resulting in no compression.
or have I missed something all together?
an incredibly creative design nevertheless :)
the air is pre-compressed in turbocharger and takes part in combustion as soon as it enters the chamber.
Farrukh Sheraliyev doesn't matter, the air loses compression the further it travels away.
I know, but you still thinking of it in an old cliche of reciprocating IC engines.
The chamber is already filled with exhaust gases and its under high pressure while piston supplies more fuel and air to increase pressure further in order to continue its movement away from valve until it passes through next valve.
you don't ignite exhaust gases??? you compress the air and introduce a fuel and an an ignition source (spark plug), or in the case of diesels you have intense air compression wich in turn gives you the heat to also ignite the introduces diesel fuel?
There's obvious reasons why this isn't common place, but i like that you went through the effort of explaining your idea. Thanks for that it was quiite interesting actually :)
It's very easy to criticise a lot of aspects of this, but if nobody tried to dream of crazy things anymore, technology would be nowhere.
So I applaud the effort you put in the concept!
I hope you will post a video of a running prototype at some point. I'd love to see it go!
Curious as to how you plan to seal the engine? Lubrication? Piston RIngs? I feel like this would suffer from the same sealing problems as a Wankel rotary engine.
AidanMC1995
Wankel sealing problems were solved 50 years ago and improved since.
If using a purely magnetic engine seals are unnessasary since you would only need another field to act as such, oil or fluids are unnessasary and this thing looks way over complicated since magnetic engines are very simple and powerful, so much completely unnessasary bs on this thing. Also a magnetic engine needs only a hand ful of parts and all pieces are completely interchangeable like legos
it would have to have labyrinth-like seals like in a turbine or compressor. it could seal. i suspect there would have to be a disc bolted onto the rotor ring, on either sides. so each face of the rotor ring will form a sandwich, with the rotor ring, the toroid body between and the bolted disc..
my main concern is with the spreading/flaring of the gap in the toroid body for the rotor ring. in industrial designs, they would just make it thick enough that it would be very rigid... but i suspect my added bolted disc will help clamp the toroid in..
im not too sure how all that weight and sealing friction will affect efficiency though.
AidanMC1995
More so..
I can imagine a cool anime show of a alternate world where warring nations with airplanes fought in the skies with this cool design.
Radial engines were used in some of the earliest airplanes, search them up!
I really like your design. Sure, it won't work as presented, but it is an excellent example of what is needed in a Toroidal design, constant motion, no cat and mouse piston movements and constant leverage. I have referred to this video many times to inspire these three design goals, no other video has so held my attention. I have now completed a design which I believe solves all of the problems I have seen in the numerous Toroidal engines presented on the web. Yours is the video that sold me on the basic toroidal concept. Thank you for your efforts!
This looks to me, like an internal combustion version of an electric motor... replace valves with coils, pistons with magnets etc...
If they could stack these like motors, say 3 or 4, maybe it could produce as much horsepower as approximately a coyote 5.0 at best, maybe 300-350bhp is a more reasonable number. Although it’s a complex design, hopefully it’ll be a much more lightweight platform at roughly the same size. I know that rotary engines make phenomenal horsepower for their displacement but maybe this engine design can produce more torque over the rotary?
Think water wheel
@@Diamondsintherubble Wouldn't that be more akin to the old radials from WWII? Don't get me wrong but it seems to me that the principal is the same...
@Gar Gar You know? It might be fun to try and come with something like this and see if it is stackable and see how it cranks up the torque with each stack.
I dunno... just something that popped into my head.
Maybe I'll go out and buy me a 3D printer!!! Ha!
And it's probably more effective to power an electric motor using a combustion engine generator than this engine
high amount of oil consumption,unreliable,efficiency would b a greater issue as engine would stress up more under load,complexity involving maintainence,and actual power will be tested to limits,
not criticising,you made an great effort to create something new,but just the factors which will be most invovled.
Awesome. Combine this with continuous burning to generate pressure... and it will work like a turbine.
Inject 1 part air into the burn chamber, let the "flame" expand it 1000 times. A small diameter pump "injecting" air into the burner. A large diameter pump using the "exhaust" to rotate the main shaft.
It becomes like a "high pressure turbine" or "low RPM turbine. The large radius wheel always has higher torque, to push a small amount of high pressure air into the burner... A high pressure, closed loop, continuous burning engine. Awesome.
I found your video after having exactly the same idea as you have - "gates" closing behind the piston, and gates opening in front of the piston. Rotating gates - to keep it simple. Continuous drive, maximum torque, extremely efficient fuel burning, minimal heat loss... You got my support on it, for what that's worth.
Just give me all gears you have. Wait, wait. I'm worried what you just heard was, "Give me a lot of gears." What I said was, "Give me all the gears you have." Do you understand?
Lovely cartoons, to be sure ! Got one running yet ? I'll get seriously interested when that happens.
There is a good reason we are seeing drawings instead of a prototype.
because its only a concept
I was working on a similar system and I THINK his handling of the combustion pressure and valve timing are terrible but there are ways to overcome them not by using gears but what some companies are doing.
Its a seal nightmare.
The reason why there’s no prototype is because the prototype would prove that the design doesn’t work. This thing would struggle to create power let alone power a car. Heck, a push lawnmower has more power than that.
Everyone is criticizing this, but it's an entirely unique and original engine design.
Sure, it's complicated, but you have to admire the creativity and intellect required to create something this complex.
Personally, I'd love to see an actual working prototype of something like this. Whether it offers any particular advantages over a traditional IC engine or not, it would be cool just to see it working.
Mechanical watches don't have many advantages over quartz, but we're still making those!
I see a lot of people being rude in the comments who are clearly not engineers. This is a fun concept that although certianly will have flaws that any individual can point out is still impressive. An important part of the engineering design process is that while brainstorming there are no bad ideas. This is an idea and it's a unique interesting one. I personally would love to see if it could actually function. I wouldn't expect it to work perfectly and a giant spinning wheel full of inertia as an engine might be kinda a death trap, but you never know. Maybe there is some other great way to make a combustion engine that is yet to be designed. Coming up with anything is a start and is commendable.
I though of something very similar to this ages ago but like i could never solve the friction and seal issue with the piston
Hate to see what happens to that thing when one of those gears loses a tooth and the piston hits a closed valve... Well... actually I'd love to see it. I do love me some chaos and explosions. :)
Or if even the teeth on the gears wear down some, throwing the timing off. The valve openings would have to be oversized to compensate for thermal expansion and eventual valve train wear which can only lead to further loss of compression in an already low compression system (once the engine gets really moving, pumping precompressed air in won't be enough and this absolutely won't work with diesel)
Very cool invention , dont listen to people who talk bad about your ideas , they cant invent any thing at all , they have no ideas and they cannot solve creative problems like you can . Great video
What lubrication do you use? How do you ignite the fuel? How do you control the acceleration of the system? How do you account for the need for a gas tight fit between those curved surfaces? Wouldn't you need to have several pistons to balance the system?
What advantages does this offer over a conventional systnt
One simple question: How much money would it cost to engineer and produce these at high volumes? I work with aircraft engine parts (turbine) and regularly visit many aeronautical factories and shops in New England. The tolerances involved in your design in fact require a level of precision beyond the realm of consumer use. The cost of machine work to get the rotational section with pistons sealed against the stator ring would make the basic components of the design too expensive for mass production. The stator ring would also need to be made in two halves, requiring many fasteners around the inner and outer circumference, so that the rotor section could be installed. How would the inner circumference of the stator be secured half-to-half with the need for the rotor between them? Would the pressure of the compressed area between piston and valve when closed exceed the integrity of the gap between both stator halves? In my opinion, the stator halves would need to be quite thick to prevent the gap increasing under load. Or, a robust framework would need to be installed to help keep both halves true and square. Either way, more complexity and more parts required, adding weight and cost. The geared valve timing would also need to go, replaced with shafts, rings and pinions. Or add a timing belt or chain.
I really do think this design is impressive and unique. Please don't let me be a damper to your creativity! I'm just telling you from knowing what it takes to actually produce finely machined products, it's very expensive and prohibitive for mass marketing and usually this sort of technology ends up in commercial or military use, which would place your engine design not in competition with car engines or other reciprocating engines, but instead would make your engine design compete against turbines, and let's just say you have about 100 years less experience (and .00001% of the cash flow) than a company like Rolls Royce, General Electric, or Pratt and Whitney. They all are now producing gas turbines with unheard of efficiency and the costs have been reduced by metal 3d printing and other new technologies. Even so, the impressive amount of effort that goes into each one to ensure it doesn't self destruct is eye-opening in my experience. Tolerances are made to exacting specifications and these engines turn thousands of rpm's for hours at a stretch and just cannot fail.
Maybe you would be better served using some of what you have created here, some of the principles- and go back to the drawing board, and simplify this idea! Make it foolproof to machine and construct. THEN you're onto something big!
whatmakesittick this is very well put. I think you nailed a lot of my objections on the head. I'd still be interested in seeing a working version. I can see this as an adjustable efficiency engine by skipping valve closings.
It's a concept. That is all.
+Whatmakesittick - in addition to your engineering and production considerations and in spite of its truly impressive originality this is still an Otto cycle engine. If you can find a way to beat the laws of physics then ...
+Farrukh - don't let the knockers kill your creativity - humankind needs thinkers like you
Anyone consider the gyroscopic aspect of this engine on motions of the vehicle?
Then the bearings for 60~ish gears and discs. How would this install into an engine bay, under a hood, etc?
Seems those discs, in red, would soot up from the combustion and become a problem.
It could install horizontally. With the insane love affair with SUVs, it could go under the floor (Americans brought Hummers and MacDonalds in droves, so they'll buy anything). The other issues will kill it before that does.
Valve-failure = Instant self-destruction!
I'm just wondering since there is that groove, wouldn't there be leakage?
i had an idea something like this but could not figure out how to make it work in my head, the idea of the rotatonal valves amazed me
Talk about moving parts and wear, no lubrication, no rings for compression (lots of losses), heat causes expansion so ur gonna have to plan for that too.
I do not see a phase in your engine where the air is compressed before combustion?
He's going to do that with that turbocharger looking compressor. He's be better of just having an external combustion engine.
Seaescape I think you are onto something there
Perfectly fit harmonically tuned flywheel. Wait the car has to turn?
I guess it could work for trains.
How do you achieve compression when none of the mating surfaces can possibly be sealed?
Very Interesting mind design but can foresee big problems with sealing. You have a bright future.
How would you start this engine, because if the turbo is not spinning when you try to start, how do you get initial compression?
The same way a piston engine is started - external 'kick'.
A starter that turns the engine
A starter can turn the engine, but that is not going to spool the large turbo's needed to make this thing work. Only way I can see to start it is with air. Either you'd need a large tank of compressed air to spool the turbo and start the rotor moving, or a powerful electric supercharger to do the same.
How is the fuel compressed to help with combustion? How would you get a tight seal around all the areas in the cylinder walls to keep expansion in the chamber to force the piston around.
The valves will have a hard time rotating smoothly considering the axial force from combusting fuel. How would the inner surface be machined?
In a nutshell - forget it! The Rotary Engine has its' flaws but is 100 times better than this offering.
I like it. Would love to see a working prototype
How do you compress the air for ignition?
How do you stop it?
How do you form a tight seal between the piston, the valve, and the center flywheel?
How do you remove exhaust?
Lots of people are talking sh*t but I think it's a nice idea, even if it will never become feasible and if it has design flaws like the seal and the friction it'd give out, there's little compression etc. I appreciate that you took the time to design it, you're gonna inspire somebody with your idea that's for sure
Not to mention that in this configuration you have a lot of vibrations due to the piston mass. It is indeed more complex than a piston engine...
I think we took the rotary engine as far as we could, and it's still has disadvantages in comparison to a reciprocating style of engine.
I'm a Hardcore Rotary engine fan and I agree piston engines are more efficient.
how do you seal the slot in the stator? i see lots of friction there.
i have been thinking how to do this kind of architecture as heat/steam engine..
Nice thinking out of the box👍
Tip: use 1 gear exchange to a flex shaft to all valves. You remove 33 gears 66 bearings and add one shaft.
I bet all your gears sound pretty wicked behind the quick fire exhaust tho😁
Rube Goldberg would approve.🤣🤣
🤣🤣🤣
I see a lot of sealing problems. Maybe it would be easier, to let three little jet engines rotate around a hub. That would give us a nice rotating motor.
I'm afraid regular jet engines wouldn't last in the configuration you proposed. Maybe it's better to use ramjets instead as they have no moving parts.
Regular Jet engines would work better in this configuration as they do not need to spin at such a high rate to keep thrust and they would be fine with the g-load as many have been developed for aircraft to handle these kinds of stress. The issues with ramjets is they must have an intake air speed of at least mach 1 to be anywhere near thrust producing and even then any engine in this configuration (baring a rocket engine) would be pulling in the exhaust gases of the previous engine into the intake. The exhaust gases in the intake would cause compressor surges in a regular turbine engine and both turbines and ramjets would be starved for oxygen. The thermal efficiency of the ramjet would also be shit because it works on pulling in colder denser air to heat by burning fuel to get the air to expand. Fuel can only heat the air to be so hot and anymore fuel added does not cause an increase in thrust. This is why at higher speeds than about mach 5 ramjets start to shut down. The friction of the air hitting the inlet heats the air above what they can burn fuel to heat it.
TLDR: Any jet engine (rocket, turbine, or ramjet) is almost utterly useless in a circle because of practical reasons. Just use the compressor shaft of a regular turbine engine. It makes more than enough horsepower to suit your needs.
That's similar to the experimental "tip jet" helicopters, which used small ramjets at the rotor blades' tips (hence the name, I know, dir!), in order to do away with the normal associated problem of torque produced by spinning the main rotor mechanically, therefore a tail rotor is no longer required.
But I don't know if this configuration has ever been attempted to be used as an engine.
Interesting!🤔
Or just power the car with a single Tesla turbine. (The inventor, not the car company)
Does it use oil/gas mix, with a separate oil filled gearbox of the valvetrain, like a 2-smoker?
Very interesting , but unless I missed something you do not mention an ignition source .If this is multi fuel where is the spark ignition for volatile fuels , petrol lpg etc. and how is diesel ignited , is there sufficient compression , and how would it be injected into the cylinder ?
similar concept to sleeve-valve engines of the 30's. Too much friction and gunks up with use..better fuels these days? It might work...missed the lubrication part?
Very interesting design! Very out of the box but thats what we need. Opens up alot of new ideas! Good job!
How will you seal between the combustion chamber and the rotating thing? And rotary engine is so better :)
The truth be told...two words: "cluster fuck"
No, rustle61 is in fact correct...
Not even plausible. The gear sets for the valve would fail easily and the valves themselves would be warping each time there is combustion. I played with a valve design like that and all the engineers I asked said that that would be the first failure point. Nevermind the lack of lubrication or how to machine such a piston
Valve-failure = Instant self-destruction!
How are you getting a working compression ratio to make the fuel ignite? Gas or diesel wont ignite. Jet fuel?
Interesting design. Very good explanation.
Thanks for sharing. Please ignore the critics. I enjoy seeing new concepts.
When I made this presentation in 2011 the idea was very raw, unchecked, unproven, without any calculations and computer simulations. Just a hypothesis. But now, when I've finished the 7th version of the engine I could prove all theoretical parts of the problem. The mechanical part is totally different from what is shown here. I could make it even more simpler. The hot part of the engine, that is, engine thermodynamics has been proven by making simulations in ANSYS Fluent. Continuous combustion in a closed chamber with moving piston was too problematic in my early CFD simulations causing backflow of exhaust gases into air inlet ports, but I could solve those problems too. Engine efficiency is at level of modern IC engines. But I think it is possible to achieve better results by making some optimization.
+Farrukh Sheraliyev
Hello.
it is very nice design
i have inspired a similar machine 15 years ago
Like your 's machine.
No myt engine.
+Farrukh Sheraliyev I understand how this design could be made to work and I see that it has been asked, "How do you seal the valves", I know a way that this could be easily achieved but I won't mention how to do this here. The problem of how to achieve compression is also easily solvable and if you would like some help with the redesign of this innovative concept I am willing to help.
congratulations...but if this is the future engine...it is wrong...because it works with fuel...
we must to think a new engine without fuel...
@adrian Hydrogen could be an answer to this - using the sun for energy/electrolysis.
I had this exact idea 30 years ago. I ran it past an engineer in the physics department and he basically said sealing and no compression
I had this exact idea in 2005, the holy grail of a positive displacement piston engine without wasteful reciprocation. came to same conclusions. Cred to the boy for making the nice model. But sealing and friction. Lad doesnt even have compression in it, thinks a turbo could do that.
Would the black tubes not get destroyed by the gears controlling the valve timings?
So how does this build compression? Also rotary engine from mazda does the same thing its a 2stroke so its pretty quick but u got mixed gas the piston is a big block of steel and the spark happens by scratching the cylinder they are bad engines that dont last
one name.....Rube Goldberg . This is one of these designs that never make it off the drawing board, thank goodness.
Hey I suppose he's just looking into an interesting "out-of-the-box" way of approaching a problem. It's far from ideal but it's very interesting. Is'nt that what science is about, asking the questions an seeing what happens, even if it is just theoretical?
there is no compression?
the air is compressed, wouldn't need it anyways
No turbocharger can compress air to the level needed for detonation, the largest and fastest-spinning automotive turbos produce in the whereabouts of 100psi in a one-off diesel drag truck. The most seen in a non-diesel is about 40psi. compression in a modern naturally aspirated engine (about 10:1) provides about 147psi depending on your altitude. Considering that the turbo would have to be feeding air behind the piston for this design, the pressure would be dropping at the same rate that the space between the piston and valve increases. There is no turbocharger that can provide the pressure of a compression stroke, specially not one that can move that much air into an *increasing* chamber. I like when people think outside the box, but when an idea doesn't work, it just doesn't. If you try to develop an impossible design, physics won't just let it slide because everything else about it works and you've put *so much* effort into it.
Ricardo yep
A pump similar to what is used on a merlin engine would provide more than ample compression but that also adds another layer of complexity and additional seal requirements. It is evident thr engineer put significant thought and effort into this design but I struggle to believe it would pass a simple cost benefit analysis.
Just one of those gears fails with the valve closed and the whole thing will self-destruct. Not to mention how does it ignite the mixture? Or compress it properly?
he thinks you can just supply compressed air by turbo, which you cant. or... you can, but then you would be better off just burning the fuel in a box and harnessing the power with the turbo itsself, making a jet
How sealing of air or combustion gas are achieved between the toroid and the rotating wheel?
To any internal combustion engine, a big fat turbo is a necessity. Thumbs up 👍
That ain't gonna help the friction though
I don't see how this would be advantageous over a conventional type of engine...
No energy wasted in reciprocating a mass back and forth, speeding up, slowing down, reversing, etc. problem is that it wont seal up at all and has way too much friction, besides has no compression.
@@johnsmith4630 then use a gas turbine or a wankel, both of which are less efficient than a 4 stroke piston engine
Too much hate by the commenters!
No, it wouldn't really work in real life, most likely, but it's a very, very interesting idea and an amazing animation!
I really enjoyed watching it.
Thank you!
This is extremely clever. I see only a few problems that can be worked around, for example as many people have stated before the lack of a compression stroke and lubrication, as well as pressures and vibration would be very difficult to manage. I propose, and while I realize this would remove the non reciprocal aspect, utilizing the pistons forward momentum to create it’s own compression through velocity. Theoretically, this could allow for greater and greater speeds, given that your cylinder is potentially infinitely long. You could have a compression stroke that lasts for four full rotations if your velocity and durability allow. You could also use this to inject even more fuel air mix into the cylinder prior to the compression. I’d think it would need to start out in a rocking back and forth motion, starting slowly with low compression.
So, tackling this issue at a time, I propose this type of operation. Start the piston as a reciprocal, back and forth between two valves. We could control these via solenoid or electromagnetically clutched pulleys for the timing gears. (There’s probably some kind of mechanical way but for ease’s sake let’s use electrical.) The back and forth motion would allow us to build up compression until a threshold where the piston would reach a maximum velocity. At this point we open a valve and let it travel across a longer cylinder. We can then add more fuel/air mix, allowing heavier compression and a longer stroke.
Now, for lubrication. What’s stopping us from running oil through the piston itself? Same with cooling, we can bore out the flywheel and run three lines, coolant, oil, and return coolant. For the oil, just use piston rings. Four(ish) rings, two sets on either side. The compression ring, the oil control ring, and two on the other side. Two oil control rings on a single cylinder, allows for no third ring(theoretically). Coolant runs through the piston, oil is controlled, and centrifugal force allows for an easier load on an oil pump.
Finally, balancing. With the single piston you’d end up with a ton of vibration and balancing it would be near impossible without use of a counter weight. Simple solution, add a second cylinder at the apoapsis of the flywheel. Since we’re using valves anyway, this could potentially allow for still infinite cylinder length, but also if our valves don’t shift exactly as we need them to there’s no fuel/air wasted. It just preloads the second pistons return stroke more. If this is consistent there’s no issue, and it can be accounted for.
In all likelihood, there’s probably a better way to do the valves. And managing exhaust would be a bit challenging, less you wanted to make it a classic four stroke and use the valve “float” (what I’m calling the gap between sealed and open) to vent exhaust gasses.
I haven’t thought of a good way to inject fuel, and the best way I’ve thought of a spark plug is mounted in the cylinder head, but again, there’s probably a lot better of ways. Needing to rebuild the whole engine to do your spark plugs seems like a bad plan. Clearly there is much to think about, but there’s my three cents.
Biggest problem I have with this is that not everyone can read that fast :)
gotindrachenhart Literally no one can read that fast!
LOL ok, I mean my reading speed sucks but I was like hot damn that's fast AF!
have you never heard of the pause button?
@@susie3702 I couldn't even click the pause button fast enough!!!!
You don't know it's coming and by the time you shift your focus, it's gone!!!!
He would fail if it were my class for this very reason!!!!!
There are so many seals. The valve axis is different for every valve, making driving them a nightmare. This design seems to be a bit pointless.
This makes a wankel engine look like the wave of the future!
Is the charge being compressed? If so, how? The compression from the compressors alone will not work in this case, Maybe for some simple load. But not for a heavy load for sure. if I'm wrong,please correct me.
Very interesting concept but how does this fix any of the issues you called out with a reciprocating engine?
sorry but this is less efficient than using a tiny rocket engine to power a car.
also it would last about a minute before catastrophic mechanical failure
Nice design but I can imagine it will not work at high rpm.
I can imagine this won't work at even low RMSs.
Was this inspired by the way some of the compressed air motors out there work?
I’m not a mechanic or anything but with the pistons flying around a track away from the valves completely negate any impulse from the fuel? Also I don’t think this would be efficient because the piston isn’t pressing gasses together like in a real engine so wouldn’t need magnitudes more air an fuel to achieve the same impulse as in a real engine?
Hey guess what peeps
Electric car engines only have one moving part: the rotor.
Pipe down. Don't be sensible!