Hi, I actually worked at Orbital Engine Company for 13 years from 1985. The actual Orbital Engine was shelved in 1983. There was to many issues with it ,mainly sealing problems. The company mainly concentrated on the fuel delivery sytem that was first used on the Orbital. It was adapted to use on two stroke engines. It used air and fuel to inject directly into the cylinder. This went on for many years and the company invented many other patented ideas. The company is still going today .
The engine was never commercialised because the design was fundamentally flawed. It had major sealing and wear issues. Roughly a billion dollars (adjusted for inflation) was spent trying to solve these problems. Legendary engine designer Phil Irving gave a scathing critique of the Orbital engine design when it first announced. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Irving Ralph Sarich sold out of the company early and became a staggeringly wealthy property investor.
This should have been developed... it was buried by big companies that saw it as a threat. If I recall correctly, Ford was one company instrumental in getting it's development terminated...
You're wrong. Look at the Wikipedia articles on Ralph Saritch. The engine was fundamentally flawed so didn't need to be terminated by Ford. This is a dumb conspiracy theory probably circulated by Holden lovers.
@@chrisismail your dad spins spanners and does oil changes. he never stops to think about kinematics or basic mechanical principles. the reason they never worked is really simple. each chamber is formed by two vanes. pressure acts in ALL directions equally. so it acts on two vanes at the same time... one acting CW, one CCW. the only force "left over", the only force that can cause rotation, is the difference in their areas. if you have a thousand psi of combustion pressure, one vane with 1squin, the other of 1.1 squin... the only "extra" force available is that 0.1squin of area. which at 1000psi is only 100 lbs. yet teh chamber itself with all that surface area is experiencing tremendous, but useless, force. whereas the same pressure acting on a piston of 1squin will deliver 1000lbs of force.
A good number of views,, This engine has been redone,concept do say. The vengeance Canada(especially) The Fibonacci. Also 100+year old drawings can be found. Good upload,aye. Can more of the story be told.
Way too complicated Engine - Doomed from the beginning - This is still crank engine and could never be as efficient as a piston engine. Ralph seems to think it is a single piston engine but it is really dependent on the number of chambers. The shape of the cylinders are constantly changing leading to poor combustion and the combustion pressure is wasted because not all the pressure is rotating the piston. Graeme John Eddington.
agreed. most of the pressure is acting radially... doing nothing but radiating heat away through excessive surface areas, and the little bit acting on any vane is counteracted by a nearly equal force acting on the vane at the other end of any "chamber". only a tiny fraction of the pressure gets to act "tangentially" in one direction. unlike a piston in a cylinder once its passed TDC... and even that only starts to get a decent amount of mechanical advantage or leverage around 45 degrees or so... at least all the pressure on the piston can only make it act in one direction...
Hi, I actually worked at Orbital Engine Company for 13 years from 1985. The actual Orbital Engine was shelved in 1983. There was to many issues with it ,mainly sealing problems. The company mainly concentrated on the fuel delivery sytem that was first used on the Orbital. It was adapted to use on two stroke engines. It used air and fuel to inject directly into the cylinder. This went on for many years and the company invented many other patented ideas. The company is still going today .
Do cry, oh cryer, "what of the night"
David Cryer Hi, can you please tell me where you sourced this footage? It's amazing!!
What’s the company called now?
Hey. Can I have a full PDF containing the full engine blueprint?
The engine was never commercialised because the design was fundamentally flawed. It had major sealing and wear issues. Roughly a billion dollars (adjusted for inflation) was spent trying to solve these problems.
Legendary engine designer Phil Irving gave a scathing critique of the Orbital engine design when it first announced. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Irving
Ralph Sarich sold out of the company early and became a staggeringly wealthy property investor.
Is this engine design used in Maleo car proto back then in 90's?
Unfortunately the maleo never made its debut. The Toyota Kijang and Timor (KIA Sephia) is more loved by Indonesian Gov.
Btw, Indonesian here
This should have been developed... it was buried by big companies that saw it as a threat.
If I recall correctly, Ford was one company instrumental in getting it's development terminated...
You're wrong. Look at the Wikipedia articles on Ralph Saritch. The engine was fundamentally flawed so didn't need to be terminated by Ford. This is a dumb conspiracy theory probably circulated by Holden lovers.
I mean wikipedias 'never'wrong !
@@Usernamebonus4 my dad is a mechanic, and he said big companies brought him out.
@@chrisismail your dad spins spanners and does oil changes.
he never stops to think about kinematics or basic mechanical principles.
the reason they never worked is really simple.
each chamber is formed by two vanes.
pressure acts in ALL directions equally.
so it acts on two vanes at the same time... one acting CW, one CCW. the only force "left over", the only force that can cause rotation, is the difference in their areas.
if you have a thousand psi of combustion pressure, one vane with 1squin, the other of 1.1 squin... the only "extra" force available is that 0.1squin of area. which at 1000psi is only 100 lbs. yet teh chamber itself with all that surface area is experiencing tremendous, but useless, force.
whereas the same pressure acting on a piston of 1squin will deliver 1000lbs of force.
Hey chadd, yours is a fresh post
A good number of views,,
This engine has been redone,concept do say. The vengeance Canada(especially)
The Fibonacci. Also 100+year old drawings can be found. Good upload,aye. Can more of the story be told.
Hi David, I'd love to know where this footage is sourced from? Please let me know if I can get in touch with you about this. thanks
Hi I Karen you can contact me on guruof7@hotmail.com
Air compressor,pump,expander
Too long vanes!
Way too complicated Engine - Doomed from the beginning - This is still crank engine and could never be as efficient as a piston engine. Ralph seems to think it is a single piston engine but it is really dependent on the number of chambers. The shape of the cylinders are constantly changing leading to poor combustion and the combustion pressure is wasted because not all the pressure is rotating the piston. Graeme John Eddington.
agreed. most of the pressure is acting radially... doing nothing but radiating heat away through excessive surface areas, and the little bit acting on any vane is counteracted by a nearly equal force acting on the vane at the other end of any "chamber".
only a tiny fraction of the pressure gets to act "tangentially" in one direction. unlike a piston in a cylinder once its passed TDC... and even that only starts to get a decent amount of mechanical advantage or leverage around 45 degrees or so... at least all the pressure on the piston can only make it act in one direction...