Hybrid Car – More Fun with Less Gas

another 110 mpg magic engine? For real maybe - Page 6

register ::  Login Password  :: Lost Password?
Posted by News on June 27, 2009, 10:16 pm

The ICE experts are betting on the Atkinson cycle:

Here is the real way to compare engine fuel efficiencies:

Notice that the Revetec isn't the most efficient and modern designs
don't improve much on the long-range aircraft piston engines of the
1930s and 40s. Unlike the big modern Diesels the Wright and similar
Pratt & Whitney radials were also extremely light, around 1.2 Lbs per

The Revetec greatly improves the bottom end efficiency and a gives a far
greater power/weight ratio, which is important in auto uses.
No crankshaft is used and the lobe can have many shapes giving more firing
stokes per output shaft revolution.  The top end can be diesel or any other
type of top end arrangement, and even two stroke.  This is a new design and
as yet is to be fully implemented.

In Olny in Buckinghamshire, a small company is making an aero engine design
similar to the old British Commer TS3 truck engine, which was based on the
Mercedes Benz 1930s aero engine.  The opposed piston diesel two stroke is
not dead yet.  http://www.dair.co.uk/

The Atkinson cycle will not propel IC engine design forwards any amount
worth mentioning.

Posted by Jim Wilkins on June 27, 2009, 11:21 pm

The WW1-era DynaCam (Herrmann, Axial Vector) is a similar linear
piston and cam design, except the cam axis is rotated 90 degrees to
parallel the cylinder axis where multiple surrounding pistons can bear
on it.


Posted by News on June 28, 2009, 9:46 am

The WW1-era DynaCam (Herrmann, Axial Vector) is a similar linear
piston and cam design, except the cam axis is rotated 90 degrees to
parallel the cylinder axis where multiple surrounding pistons can bear
on it.

Revetec looks like it will get into production.  The prototypes work well
and return great test results.  The potential in IC terms is enormous - they
are just getting the bottom end loves arrangement right for one successful
engine. After that, hopefully a multitude of variation should emerge the
design is so flexible. You can have a 4-stroke top end arrangement and the
lobes can give one, or even two power strokes per output revoltion in a one
cyldiner engine - a normal one cylidner 4-stroke has 1 power stroke "every
other" rev of the output shaft.   Piston side thrust is eliminated and power
sapping, bulky, weighty transmissions can be eliminated too enhancing
overall vehicle performance.  Power/weight is far superior to current

Alas the EV may race past it, maybe making it too late to make an impact.
Although it could be used as an ancillary unit or for gennys, etc.

Posted by Jim Wilkins on June 28, 2009, 1:19 pm
The DynaCam has been in intermittent production since the 30's. The
Revetec looks like a rearrangement to dodge Axial Vector's patent

The family of cam-, swash- and wobble-plate engines has hung on by its
fingernails for 100 years. The only real successes of the geometry
have been in space limited torpedo engines and the hydrostatic riding
mower transmission.

I build prototypes of new ideas for a living. The more promising ones,
such as what I'm working on now, are well funded and you won't hear
much until they are ready. The dog-and-pony shows promoting the idea
to the public are typical of projects that are in trouble and
desperately seeking less technically astute investors.

They aren't necessarily scams. There's a long history of great ideas
that almost worked except for one "small" problem that no one on the
team could quite solve. Then when the answer arrived from another
field such as materials research, it advanced competing designs even

I didn't realize the purpose of the stock market until I got into such
a project. It provides loans where the lender takes all the risk. The
borrower only has to pay back if the project is successful. It isn't
quite "The Producers" but it's close, inventors rely on "angels" just
like the theatre does.


Posted by Curbie on June 28, 2009, 2:18 pm
I agree!

There is an old lawyer adage:
"If you have the facts, bang on the facts,
if you don't have the facts, bang on the table."

To my experience, the technical group proves a new idea and the
marketing group promotes the idea as widely as they can to potential
investors either directly or through potential customers (word of
month). The minute an investor is obtained, the first thing they'll do
is gag the technical and marketing groups to secure their investment.

You can patent technologies; you can't patent ideas and there is more
than one way to "skin a cat". Since investors would prefer no
competition and there are always uncertainties with "locked"
technologies (more than one way to skin a cat), I view marketing
promotions of new technologies as "Want Ads" for investor, and am
generally skeptical of them until the market has had a chance to sort
them out.

For what its worth.


This Thread
Bookmark this thread:
  • Subject
  • Author
  • Date
please rate this thread