MYT(Massive yet Tiny) engine

[adowdel]

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!

[RotarySMP]

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.

[JavaDog]

Originally Posted by RotarySMP 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.

[RotarySMP]

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.

[JavaDog]

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...

[CNC Pro]

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?

[mjarus]

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... . 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.

[pminmo]

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.

[lerman]

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

[JavaDog]

Originally Posted by lerman 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...

[Caprirs]

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.

[pminmo]

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.