This is a little of topic maybe, but I happened accross a really neat engine design that claims to be easy to manufacture because it uses a lot of designs that are already being made. i'm not sure if you guys have seen this yet, and they make some big claims. I'm and ME Major at Iowa state, and have 2 years left. Just about everything I've read from them holds water. It'll take a while to wrap your brain around the design and how it functions, but well worth the while. They're claiming 850 hp out of a 14"x14"x 8" (inches wide X inches tall X inches deep) package that weighs <150 lbs. I thought this would be a good scholarly place with a lot of experience to bring it up and discuss it. They also have a good forum for discussion, and some pretty knowedgable people asked some hard questions and got some pretty goo explanations. Angel Labs are in process of getting their patent finalized, and I have a co-worker whose friend's boss is working in the patent office to accept that patent. It has to be legit. How feasible is this design to produce? I'm thinking not bad, and I want to go racing. Someone want to help put up the 3 million (for Angel Labs llc to finish their testing) to get the exclusive production rights for 5 years and I'll be a testing engineer for you? We couldn't build factories fast enough, and design enough applications-- if the engine proves to be true. retrofitting of old vehicles, aircraft, watercraft, new cars, motorcycles. They're talking about 200 hp out of a large coffee can sized motor. 200hp riding mowers?! I emailed them and I have a word document if anyone is interested as to why such a high output. Even though I've only taken statics, and physics I and II, and Mechanics of Materials, it all sounds right to me. I can't find a flaw in their reasoning.

Here's their link: They have movies of it running and assembling/building it. As a mechanic by trade it looks extremely easy to assemble, no heads, valves, or cams to deal with and time. They also have their recording from the L.A. Auto show were they first revealed to the public.

www.angellabsllc.com

Indy cars watch out, the next Geo Metro is coming to get ya!

How about you invest that three million in a existing project. I have a bridge I could sell you, (near brooklyn.) I also have a patent for making snake oil without harming the snakes... :)

Here is Kenichi Yamamoto outstanding treatise on the requirements for a practical rotary engine. It gives you a good checklist for sifting bull****.
http://www.rotaryeng.net/What-is-a-rotary-engine4.txt

Don't underestimate the technical challenges inherent in materials compatiblity, sealing, lubrication and cooling. It took Mazda over a decade to take Felix's working engine to a reliable practical engine. It is very easy to produce horsepower - the challenge is doing so reliably.

It took Mazda over a decade to take Felix's working engine to a reliable practical engine. It is very easy to produce horsepower - the challenge is doing so reliably.

Ha! Mazda still hasn't, their Rotax engines need a complete overhaul and rebuild at 100,000mi. Now sure, 100k Miles isn't bad - but my older and more complex 4.0 I6 in my Jeep is just at its halfway point around 150k miles.

I'm not sure I would totally discredit this design right off the bat - it certainly is an interesting design. With all the detail on their website and in the forum, as well as the patent, this engine is a perfect candidate for some of the talent on this board to machine a working scale model to test what they say. The law does allow for an individual to build from a patent to verify claims.

Hi Javadog, on what fact are you basing that statement about the Madza?

Rotax is an Austrian company specialising in two stroke engines for personal water craft and snowmobiles, and four stoke motorcycle and certified aircraft engines (the 650 BMW has a Rotax engine).

The Mazda 13B (the renesis is still really a further development of the 13b with side exhaust ports) is an extremely reliable engine. The differculty of marketing the perfect technical solution to apex seal lubrication (premixing two stroke oil in the fuel) leads to a compromise which can limit engine life.

One the one hand you inject crankcase oil which is not optimized for sliding metallic seal lubrication (as is two stroke oil) and can lead to varnishing, and on the other hand, the oil injection pump on the 13B had hard plastic lines which were routed close to the turbos of the later turbo engines. The heat cause embrittlement, and an oil line failure would lead to apex seal failure.

The core 13b is good for nearly unlimited life if you keep the apex seals lubricated correctly. As with any design, the devil is in the details.

The best test of any engine technology is the race track. When the flag drops, the bull**** stopss. Mazda won the Le Man 24 Hr with a Wankel.

I'm sorry, I did confuse the Rotax and the Mazda rotary. The Rotax is the model I was referring to with regard to rebuilds...

I wouldn’t be too quick to discount adowdel’s find. Angel Labs are not the only ones working on similar engine designs. I’ve seen other’s online. Check out this web site:

http://www.ox2engine.com

You will notice Director and President of Advanced Engine Technologies, Inc. is Carroll Shelby.
Shelby’s presence should give the design some “credibility”, or at least the financial chance it needs to see it past the prototype stage.
We’ll have to wait and see… anyone into buying stocks?

Many a moon ago I had a 1982 RX-7... as Javadog claimed right at 98,000 miles the engine would overheat. The problem was that the inner seals that divide the combustions chamber slowly wear away at the engine walls. This causes the oil to overheat as the oilpan sits right below the thinning walls. This is appearantly pretty bad. I was told at this at the Mazda stealership.

Oddly enough, a side effect of this degredation is that as the engine wears on in life it actually starts running better, right up until you start having pretty large issues... (chair) . I was told that people would take the older RX-7s like mine and put a 327 in them for racing. I had not the time, patience, or money for such an operation so I let it go so someone else could have their fun.

mjarus.

Both links are interesting. It does seem there should be room for growth in IC engines. Seems like the industry has been stuck in this conventional piston-crank-cam configuration for ever. Logically it would seem that cars need rotary motive power and that significan efficiency improvements could be achived in some rotary configuration.

They claim to use standard components, pistons, rings, etc. Sure they do. You just take a standard piston and bend it so that it will fit inside a torus.

To make a standard cylinder, you just bore it and lap it. I can make a piston on my lathe. Then turn some grooves for piston rings. Or, I could cast the piston out of aluminum and then turn some slots for rings. That's not so easy with a curved piston.

Ken

They claim to use standard components, pistons, rings, etc. Sure they do. You just take a standard piston and bend it so that it will fit inside a torus.

To make a standard cylinder, you just bore it and lap it. I can make a piston on my lathe. Then turn some grooves for piston rings. Or, I could cast the piston out of aluminum and then turn some slots for rings. That's not so easy with a curved piston.

Ken

Did you actually look at the patent? By standard components, they mean standard as far as production is concerned. Their piston isn't curved (well, the sides are just like on a "regular" piston). Again, I suggest you take the time to look over the diagrams in their forum, as well as the patents.

I don't know why people are so harsh about alternative designs for engines. Other than the really high HP/Torque claims, nothing else is all that crazy...

There are some fundamentals of engines that often get overlooked when these sorts of amazing claims are made. Not discounting this guys claims. Just trying to keep people's feet on the ground when examining new concepts.

First, if you're burning gasoline, stoichemetric ratio is about 14:1. That means 14 parts air to one part gasoline. Alcohol fuels are closer to 7:1. Using that ratio and your power requirements will tell you how much air you have to move through the engine in a given time period. Doesn't matter if it's a rotary or reciprocating engine. You gotta have air to burn with the fuel and air flow characteristics of engines can be dead giveaways about their power potential.

Second, although this gent's design is not exactly a reciprocating assembly, that little dwell he adds to extract a longer burn time means that his pistons have to slow down or stop once each "power stroke" which is the akin to conventional 2-stroke engines stopping at the bottom of the stroke to reverse the piston. It looks like smooth continuous rotating motion but it's not.

Third, Conventional engines run around 30% efficient. That means that for each 3hp worth of heat generated in the cylinder, one goes out the crankshaft, one out the radiator, and one out the exhaust pipe. If this guy's engine can put out cold exhaust gases and no heat is lost to the ambient environment, he would be a miracle worker. The cold exhaust idea is the basis of turbochargers and why they improve efficiency.

I'm not a believer that nothing new will be invented. But, I'm skeptical of drastic claims until proven independently. Personally, I think this guy has combined a turbine with a 2-stroke engine. If he maintains the same efficiency as convnetional motors but cuts the package down to a third the size, he'll be one smart dude and deserves to get rich. I hope it works.

I guess the thing I come back too (at least for a gasoline engine) is the energy available in gasoline. If I'm tinking straight, 1 Gallon of Gasoline = 125,000 Btu, 1.0 horsepower (hp) = 2545 Btu per hour, so 1 Gal of gas is roughly 49 hp per hour at 100% conversiion efficiency. If 49 hp would maintain a vehicle at 60mph that would be 60 miles per gallon regardless of engine size.

Did you actually look at the patent? By standard components, they mean standard as far as production is concerned. Their piston isn't curved (well, the sides are just like on a "regular" piston). Again, I suggest you take the time to look over the diagrams in their forum, as well as the patents.

I don't know why people are so harsh about alternative designs for engines. Other than the really high HP/Torque claims, nothing else is all that crazy...

I looked at all the drawings, and skimmed the patent. Depending on the length of the piston, and how far the rings extend from the piston, the might not have to be curved. But in the rings at the two ends are NOT parallel -- they are tilted with respect to one another. With the right fixture, you could turn the grooves on a lathe. But they are NOT standard components as far as production is concerned.

Did you see the video clip where he claims that an engine for a car would be four (or was it 4-1/2) inches in diameter and seven inches long? Think of all the engineering involved in getting coolant in and out -- I assume if it is standard technology, it still needs a radiator, a fan, an alternator, a starter, a water pump (although one could use the same tech for the pump). -- I suppose the extra power available would let us use an electric water pump.

Where do you suppose the exhaust pipe would connect? It will need a two inch (or so) diameter pipe, won't it? And how about the air cleaner and inlet? -- another large pipe. I guess the inch or so diameter drive shaft would come off the back.

Or maybe since the suckers are so small, we could put one at each wheel and have four wheel drive. Electronically control the relative speeds. After all, otherwise the differential would be larger than the engine.

There are enough problems involved in using this patent that the patent might expire before the technology could be deployed. Of course, there would be many more patents generated along the way.

Ken

Untill one (or several) is running on fuel long enough to be evaluated independantly and those results duplicated its all speculation and theory. We got hobbiests making jet engines and flying model planes with them, and 1/4 scale small block engines made in peoples garages.

If this thing is less complex than a conventional engine and is made with conventional mechanical procedures than why isn't one or several models available to evaluate? I dont understand why they are still stuck talking about it, whats the problem with building a few working full scale models to evaluate?

I havent spent a lot of time reading through all of the website, am I missing something?

They have only run it on air, so how could they have any clue about the hp on fuel? The mechanism that controls the dwell on the "stroke" seems like it could be prone to wear. Also there is huge potential for sealing problems!

Cool design if it works, but I won't belive it until I see one running on fuel.

They have ran it on fuel, but only for a short time, without metering. They suggest running soy oil or bio diesel and run it as a compression ignition engine. They Have only built an air cooled design right now, although if future testing decides that it needs water cooling, how hard is throwing on a coolant jacket? Another thing I would like to point out is that all of the force from the combustion directly converts to a tangential (torque creating) force. Unlike the standard reciproctating engine, at the top of piston stroke, on a standard engine there is very little actual torque made (since torque = force X distance from the pivot), even though that's where the pressure is the highest. When the piston is half way through it's stroke, that's when it's is putting a tangential force on the crank, and for a split second all energy being produced is creating pure torque (neglecting friction). As it nears the bottom of the stroke, the actual torque created returns back to zero. So it's only making real torque for the center 1/2 or maybe even a third of the ignition stroke. Back to the MYT, you must understand that you're getting 2 firing events at the same time, and 16 events per rotation, and that is how they get the 32 cylinder equivelant. Also with this design, I don't see why modern ceramics couldn't be used as the cylinder liner and pistons, since there will never be a piston touching the wall, just rings.

As for the rotory engine coments, this is a whole different design than the rotory. Nothing in common except they each turn a crank shaft. As an aside, I had a 1986 Mazda Rx-7, I bought it with 100,000 miles on it, and ran the crap out of it. Of course changing the oil and doing little maintenance stuff like vac lines, clutch, etc. I retired it with well over 150,000, and the only reason I retired it was because the elctronics in the dash were all going bad (stupid cold solder goo, very expensive to replace) and the tranny was making some scary noises. The 93+ turbo motors gave themselves a bad name because mazda was trying to compete with the supra turbo and 300zx tt in the Jap HP wars and the 2 rotor wasn't up to the task. They should have just ran a detuned 3 rotor!


I'm going to email angel labs llc again, and see if I can get some more detailed info.

I looked at all the drawings, and skimmed the patent. Depending on the length of the piston, and how far the rings extend from the piston, the might not have to be curved. But in the rings at the two ends are NOT parallel -- they are tilted with respect to one another. With the right fixture, you could turn the grooves on a lathe. But they are NOT standard components as far as production is concerned.

Did you see the video clip where he claims that an engine for a car would be four (or was it 4-1/2) inches in diameter and seven inches long? Think of all the engineering involved in getting coolant in and out -- I assume if it is standard technology, it still needs a radiator, a fan, an alternator, a starter, a water pump (although one could use the same tech for the pump). -- I suppose the extra power available would let us use an electric water pump.

Where do you suppose the exhaust pipe would connect? It will need a two inch (or so) diameter pipe, won't it? And how about the air cleaner and inlet? -- another large pipe. I guess the inch or so diameter drive shaft would come off the back.

Or maybe since the suckers are so small, we could put one at each wheel and have four wheel drive. Electronically control the relative speeds. After all, otherwise the differential would be larger than the engine.

There are enough problems involved in using this patent that the patent might expire before the technology could be deployed. Of course, there would be many more patents generated along the way.

Ken


As far as exhaust goes I'll use a motorcycle example, on a 1000cc V-twin, they usually use dual exhaust. On a 1,000 cc 4 cylinder they us a single exhast pipe. The MYT take in 26.5 ci per intake movement. So it creates a high velocity, low volume movement. With the twin, there is a huge pulse every once in a while, and need enough flow for each huge pulse. With the 4 cylinder you get a bunch of little pulses, at different times, and don't need as much flow at any given instance. With the MYT it would be like a small 32 cylinder, with each cylinder taking it's turn at the port. Each port could be huge compared the the bore, and offer what ever flow characteristics designer would like. It would be a steady stream of air... until you start getting into the upper RPM's... Even then I bet if you used the <300 hp use 2.5" and <500 use 3" and >500 hp... biggest that can be ran for the given chassis.

as for the drive shaft etc, I have also thought about how small the engine could be made in all practicallity. They may just have to find a size that fits in between the 14" model, and the 7" model and detune to the horsepower levels wanted in order to effectively connect the drivetrain.

as of right now it's air cooled, but if future testing dictates water cooling put a water jacket around the outside and run an oil squiter and a huge oil cooler if extra internal cooling is needed... no biggie.

I was also thinking about the alternator design for generators. The Gens that I work on in the army are huge... If the engine is even 14" x 14" it would be dwarfed by some of the generators, and still produce more than enough power. I suppose that means that the electrical engineers have more catching up to do! :)

Also as an aside, they can completely taylor the compression ratio, anything from like 5:1 to 60:1...

I've been reading on their forum, and There are a couple Mech Engineers saying that there will be a large "kinetic imbalance" and are building excell spreadsheets trying to prove themselves out. The imbalance the way I understand it is due to the accelleration and decel of the piston, and the way it translates that movement through the "mini cranks". Angel labs LLc is claiming 10,000 to 15,000 rpm capabilities, which I don't see happening since the mini cranks spin 4 times per revolution. that makes 40,000 - 60,000 rpm with a 1.5" stroke, on 2 mini cranks that are rotating 4" from center at 10,000 rpm. There's a lot of inward force there. just my .02 worth

thos rings will have to extend out pretty far and I can tell you for sure that rings aren't very good at transfering energy.

I see a lot of potential problems with the engine...but ther are also problems with turbine, rotaries, and four strokes...they have just been worked out.

personal gut feeling though? don't buy it

Well, once it's run on gas, I'd like to see the torque figures. 814 lb-ft of torque seems impressive, but once you start to think about it being run on air, and that all you're doing is running a complicated air pump, it's really not impressive at all. It's just an overly large torque wrench.

Anyway, once you start combusting fuel - then you can start posting numbers. Saying that you can produce 800+ lb-ft of torque while running on air is just stupid, IMHO.

http://www2.northerntool.com/product/371243_371243.htm

Just my observation, it doesn't matter how much power you're getting out, how much fuel are you putting in. As I recall there was a guy in 1920's who built a steam motorbike, fueled by kerosene in a monotube boiler. The pressure on the two pistons of the engine was about several thousand pounds per square inch. At the expense of burning several gallons of fuel per mile it was awesome, unstoppable, lethal and beat all the police Harlies at the time. There was a reward offered to anyone who would ride it with the throttle wide open for two minutes. No one tried. I have the write up of the article and it's present whereabouts if anyone is interested.
Ian.

I would like to see more detailed diagrams on the construction of the engine. Are there any or are they waiting for the patent to go through first? They said there are 32 firings. I want to see a diagram of this. I didn't join the forum, are there any more pics in it?

Interesting.

Therea are a lot of unique engine designs that work really well. providing you provide them with with externally generaed sources of high pressure gasses that ultimately do work on a piston or compressor blade so as to extract power from the gasses. HOWEVER, when you have to internally combust so as to generate the high pressure gasses, the complexity escallates geometrically. The simple and essentially painless addition of spark and fuel really do complicate matters quite extensively...

Somethings else to consider in todays environment: emissions and fuel efficiency. These are PRE-EMINENT in the minds of production engine designers anymore - the development of power is NOT of a primary concern anymore unless you're involved with racing in some way shape or form.

Even in today's racing environment, cost containment is of a prime concern. With the fuel situation (IE: the use of imported crude), I'm wondering when fuel efficiency will become a mandated performance criteria in racing.

Those old enough to recall the oil embargo of the 70's recall the fact that when push came to shove, the racing series HAD to take drastic action as their "useless waste of fuel" was deemed as politically unacceptable. Sadly, the folks who run the racing series have poor memories and/or are too young to realize that they may see history repeat itself.

It is always cook to develop HUGE amounts of power from small packages. However, in today's environment, we may need to rechannel our power creation efforts into something that would better serve the driving public much more appropriately.

As a lover of horsepower, I'm clearly seeing that those of us who know how to do it may have to rechannel our knowledge into more beneficial and "responsible" avenues of engine development.

I like the design but also think they're a little ambitious with their claims. Maybe it's just the way their claims are being interpreted.

My understanding is that they're arguing that they can fire around 16 full cylinders theoretically pre rotation...and then comparing that to a normal motor that only fires once every other stroke. Assuming the output was equal then they're probably right (hence 4xV8's/2(strokes)=16). It would be sucking tons of air and fuel and spewing tons of exhaust. I only saw that they claimed to have a really good power to weight ratio...not that they could produce more power with less fuel.

Caprirs, I thought you gave a lot of good comments but you mention: "which is the akin to conventional 2-stroke engines stopping at the bottom of the stroke to reverse the piston"...don't all motors do this?

Another big plus on this is that the pistons don't need to drag on anything. This is quite different than any previous motor. That's not to say that the rings don't still drag...but nothing needs to guide the piston.

I'd like a scaled one for a dirt bike...it would only weigh 3.75 pounds and have 50 HP!

I've been thinking about this a little more...BTW, Heat is the downfall of this idea.

Anyway, back to what I was thinking; why not square pistons on this type of layout? It would certainly be easier to machine. The rings would need some clever engineering but could still be done...probably U shaped in two pieces as opposed to a circle (or perhaps one on all 4 sides).

Again...this whole design is all about improving mechanical efficiency...lots of processes working from a simple motion. How in the heck could they handle the heat though! In the end they would probably need much smaller pistons for more cooling area and it wouldn't perform much different than any other motor.

Square pistons would play havoc with Perfect Circle brand piston rings woudn't it???

Yes square pistons would be somewhat easy to machine - but squared off bores then become your nighmare not to mention affecting a sliding sealing for the system.

However, there was a prior precendent with a non round piston - a motorcycle (Honda maybe) used a football/oval shaped piston at one time - it had two connecting rods to connect it to the crankshaft if memory serves correctly. Piston cooling was but one issue that they had to contend with to make it work properly.

Yes, the heat generated via the addition of spark and fuel becomes a real problem when you start taking a functioning bench model air pump and turning it into a running engine.

Well my though was that the rings on square pistons would need some fresh ideas...maybe ceramic bearings (it has straight edges after all).

I still can't help but focus on 8 ignitions in the same spot with each cycle and no relief...just don't build the block out of magnesium.

I agree with your post in that this is just another idea that maybe is at the wrong time. It could (after serious R&D) possibly provide more HP to weight...but not as significant as they claim (especially comparing a billet test motor to a cast iron crate motor). People looking to spend money on new engines are focusing on Nano-cell lithium batteries and hybrid do-hickies. Still...it'd be a fun project to build a mini model of - If someone built a working model on any scale to start with.

....Still...it'd be a fun project to build a mini model of - If someone built a working model on any scale to start with.

I managed to view the 'resources' section of their site and saw all the videos etc that you folks are talking about. Maybe one of the very capable and experienced machinists on the zone might want to use all the videos and diagrams to 'throw together' a working model and tell us how it goes!! ;)

:( I REALLY would like to get a working one of these right now. It'd be 'perfect' for a project Im working on. If someone builds one that will output 200hp pm me and we'll talk. (obviously it's patented so sshhhh! ) :D