As soon as you hear that aggressive violin music you know you're in for something "revolutionary". I swear I've heard that same music on half the scam Kickstarters Thunderf00t has debunked.
Principles of mechanical engineering. I think that is what you're refering to. I think guy's that make factory production line machines use stuff like that.
That looks like the design brief was to create a standard 2 stroke engine without using centuries old proven crankshaft technology and make it as complicated as humanly possible.
I call these kind of designs "square wheel solutions". When the designer specifically sets out to solve an old problem in a completely novel way. After years of work the result is a bizarrely complicated, hard to manufacture square wheel that (under very specific conditions) performs almost as well as a cheap conventional round 100 year old wheel. The square wheel has only one real advantage: The designer owns the patent for it.
there are many working opposed piston 2 stroke engines out there which were widely used in buses. Take the Commer TS3 as an example. Yes they could theoretically be made 50% ligther, more powerful and have less moving parts. Because engines like these have already been made. This type of engine could be made to achieve these goals with the technology that we have today
I had an engine idea eerily similar to this set up about 6 or 7 years ago, but honestly I didn't know enough about engines to begin designing & building one. Still don't, really, but I enjoy thinking about this sort of thing.
i don't think they know any more than you do, moreso that dunning-krueger is is full effect and you had the sense not to try designing something without knowing how, unlike them.
This is the anti-Alfadan engine. Just imagine the acceleration on the pistons when it goes from x m/s to -x m/s in the span of a few degrees of crank rotation instead of it being gradual like in an Alfadan engine, or even a regular piston engine. I looked at the bore X stroke and rpm of some diesel locomotives, and Alfadan engine looks rather feasible to me now. Not only that, they also do not use the biggest benefit of having 2 cylinder banks 180 degrees apart. That is using a boxer configuration. This engine will have insane primary and secondary imbalance. This design doubles the imbalance rather than cancelling it out. Speaking of torque they are also wrong. I like that you mention that the pressure would drop off. Infact, given the insane acceleration of the piston right after TDC, the pressure drop would be more drastic after TDC, because the volume would increase faster than a regular piston engine per degree of crank rotation right after TDC. Using pressure to try to work out the torque is an error prone way of doing things. That's why PV diagrams exist. Calculate the work done, punch in the RPM and then derive torque/power from that. Its much less error prone, and works for all configurations. Your pistons could have all sorts of shapes, travel paths, speed relation to the crank and what not, PV diagrams will spare you the minute details like having to do a surface integral over the surface of a rotary (yes Matt, I am not letting that one slide) to arrive at a proper result.
I’m glad to see they have an actual engine running, and video of that, which you also showed. One thing I learned in a painful way riding bikes all year around in southern Michigan as a teen (that, or walking in sub 0 F snow/ice, over 2 km with hills to/from high school) is just how important coefficient of expansion is on cruiser style bike chains and gearing: a bike with no derailleur for taking up slack or providing any, when it got cold enough, between frozen axle grease (not synthetic) and binding chain, it was like having a 100 kg load on the bike, and the chain was prone to coming off, and the crank gear and chain wore heavily. I see those large teeth in that engine design and how they’re attached to a place they’ll have lots of waste heat, and wonder how much that’ll affect their dimensions and all that goes with it.
Dude that engine if ever gets built into a prototype, (assuming it works as intended) will blow up after a short time of operation. It's like me trying to build an aircraft using flapping wings like birds, only just disregarding 100 years of research and proven aircraft design/technology.
The biggest problem I see with this design is the massive central rectangular component that connects the two pistons together and delivers power to the output shift. It is both heavy and fragile at the same time and it must reciprocate at relatively high speeds not a good combination for longevity or efficient operation.
10:30 zero sideload claim seem to be false. Teeth are not engaging symmetrically on both sides. It would push moving assembly against the cylinder wall.
Yeah but in comparison to a piston engine it's nothing much. You could also say gravity... as for the teeth, the internal carrier is on bearings that take that load.
U either have no linear bearings, and sideload, or u have linear bearings, as here, and no sideload, or at least a little that the linear bearings must bear/take. What I mean, is that, to have a sideload, the linear bearings would first have to fail. u also have sideloads and friction between the pins and the cam they ride on, on that turning disc, but no sideloads anywhere near where the combustion takes place. The teeth are not engaging symmetrically: Behind the cam-disc, there´s a 2nd pair of opposed pistons, riding on the same cam-disc, that don´t simply guarantee symmetry (by having opposed sideloads that neutral each other via the cam-disc), but also fill the torque-gaps, that the front pistonpair leaves open (from the hand-off of a teeth-pair till the hand-on of the next teeth-pair there´s a tiny power-gap, that´s filled by the overlapping action of the back pistonpair, a gap of 15° every 90°-turn of the shaft).
Here's an update to go over: ua-cam.com/video/IzhFqiEWmMY/v-deo.html Looks like there's the small prototype and more graphing data. Also, I like all the comments about the gear teeth. How many teeth mesh in a standard pair of transmission gears? Watch the teardown of an F1 gear box and see what 1,000 hp on two teeth looks like :-/ but then we're all UA-cam experts here in the comments section...
So have they made a video to get investors sold on the idea? Because engineers have their reservations on this video… but if it’s made to impress the people with money… it might work…
Yeah, atleast these guys have a miniature version of their idea. I think this is a type of a boxer engine with this wierd thing like a crankshaft rather than an 'Opposed piston' engine.
I noticed the cylinders seemed smaller stroke on the cv engine I'm guessing half the size cc , half the fuel, except its a two stroke and they drink twice as much fuel usually
At least Achates Power is farther along than Alfadan and this company. They already got Walmart to agree to test their engines in a real world 3 month cycle to compare it to the standard Diesel engine that they're using. www.nwaonline.com/news/2021/may/26/walmart-truck-to-test-new-diesel-engine/?business A truck from Walmart Inc.'s private fleet will test a cleaner-burning and more efficient diesel engine starting this summer. The three-cylinder, 10.6-liter engine will be placed in one of Walmart's Peterbilt 579 trucks to haul goods in Southern California. Although the engine has been tested in labs, its use in the Walmart truck will be its first on-the-road test, said Karen Caesar, information officer for the California Air Resources Board's Southern California office. The truck will be in service starting in July and will run for at least three months, said Larry Fromm, executive vice president of business development for Achates Power Inc.
It's the Junckers Jumo but now it's dropping off junk at Walmart instead of dropping bombs on London. At least with cylinder ported diesels you're not blowing a load of fuel out of the exhaust like with petrol ones.
From information released to the public, there is no reason why Achates's engine will not work. However, it is a 2-stroke diesel engine. The challenge is on meeting emission standard. It may also consume a lot of lubrication oil. If you are Ford, you will be hesistating to put this one into production when emission control is still a big challenge to it
@@catchnkill Achates claims to have the emissions issue under control to meet the CARB's new strictor emissions rules that are coming up in the near future. Now they're in the "Real World" testing phase with a potential big customer like "Walmart".
Here is an idea I have been toying around from time-to-time: What if there would be a linear generator set up in square shape, 4 cylinders and 8 pistons, with opposite corners striking at the same time... in theory it should give quite boost in power-to-weight ratio as it would have fairly small amount of moving parts while getting the benefits of opposing pistons?
No thought to how the sinusoidal motion of the piston will reduce thermal efficiency by making the piston move slower after ignition than a tilting connecting rod engine.
I just sent a few links via email. There is/was a great multi-video series (documentary, 11 videos I think) on Michael Czysz. I think it is this: Motoczysz - Birth of a Racer
It won't work. The pistons can not be without wrist pins or the rod will bend or the piston would jam in the cylinder and the whole thing would explode.
1 good thing about the design compared to conventional conrods, is that if they made it a 4-stroke with four more cylinders, then they would have a very balanced flat eight engine, that could potentially rev very high.
There is a way to make a horizontally opposed piston engine which both balances out the rocking moment and the piston-conrod forces. I’m sure every manufacturer has thought of it, however there is little point in doing it as the rocking moment is small enough not to warrant it.
A suggestion for a video, there is at present a big kerfuffle going on in the American V8 community re the topic of reversing pistons to gain power. Standard pistons have an offset little end to prevent piston slap, if you reverse the piston orientation, it gives a slight mechanical advantage, similar to an offset crank, your opinion would be interesting
@@dirtygarageguy Engines are engines, bike,car electric, generator they're basically the same, if you calculate vectors, reversing the pistons makes sense for increased power. It's an old hot rodder's trick, the rules say all components must be standard.....
@@dirtygarageguy Clockwise rotating engine, little end is offset to the left so that the transition of the side thrust on the piston occurs before tdc and the power stroke. Less piston slap noise. The disadvantage is that the piston reaches tdc before the crank is at the top of it's stroke relative to the centre line of the cylinder. Reverse the piston and the crank is past the centre line of the cylinder when the piston reaches tdc, hence the mechanical advantage. Don't know whether bike engines use offset pistons, but most cars and commercial vehicles do.
I thought it was a 4 stroke. The valves are clearly depicted at the top of each cylinder. I'm confused. How can it be a two stroke with valves at the top of the cylinders?
So you've got 2 x "Siamese twin" opposed piston thingies going back and forth like a lady of the nights undercrackers? In essence the same balance as a 180° L twin like Ferrari and Porsche used in their 12 bangers in the 70s. That's gonna vibrate your fillings right out I reckon. I'll stick with my Subaru thankyou.
Wow, imagine the adjustments needed to line up the bore with the linear bearings to acheive normal "friction free" function?... Also "no side loads"??? Right, the rack'n'pinion will suuuuurely not impart any perpendicular forces! *Mega-roll-eye-emoji*
2:10 its actually a not so practical design. Those tooth based crankshaft is definitely would not be able to handle the high torque. For that opposed piston design you already got the Boxer engine which is far more reliable.
If the engine was being fed compressed air....the power stroke could very well be more linear but using a trapped charge of burning fuel and air the pressure drops dramatically once the volume increases. People argue that the conventional engine has maximum leverage at 50% stroke length where the thrust angle is 90 degrees, which is true, but the available pressure is WAY down so most of the energy that is going to be gotten has been delivered by the time the crankshaft has rotated 20 degrees. You can get a little more...like with a diesel by continuing to inject more fuel...but that assumes there is still oxygen to be used so the initial part of the burn will be super lean which reduces the pressure early in the stroke. There is a very good set of reasons the modern engines work as well as they do...and all of these 'breakthrough' designs never seem to pan out...do they? Anyone want to take a wager whether this design will make it to serial production? I sure wouldn't.....
Ethanol? Fast burning fuel? Ethanol is quite gentle compared to standard gasoline. Excellent high performance fuel, but not exactly when I would call a quick flashbang.
Boss, I can't get to work, teeth in my engine just felt off. Don't you worry, they are cheap and easy to manufacture, I can be towed from time to time, right?
He finished in the top 100 in Tech Briefs annual contest back in 2012 with the same unsubstantiated claims he's still making today. We have to give him kudos for not trying to scam money from thousands of small investors at least and for being consistent in his unverified claims.
Have you seen Craig Laycock's 'conjoined piston' engine? ua-cam.com/channels/xQuLv-Jxz8XYr1tGUJf2MQ.html It exists only in CAD but it's a lot less byzantine than this one and doesn't have disconcerting features like partial gears. As best I can tell, the pistons are driven by the gear on the crank which is kept in mesh by the disc full of holes. Fun features include a bearing that's almost the bore diameter and, due to the holey disc running in the opposite direction to the crank, the bearing between that and the crank effectively running at twice the engine rpm.
Just looking at this from a thermal dynamics standpoint... Normal internal combustion engine =40% efficiency If these claims are true, that you get the same power from half the fuel... Wouldn't that mean 80% efficiency? I'm not an engineer so obviously I could be wrong - but I very highly doubt that these people can achieve anything close to 80% when the most efficient engines made are only recently hitting the 50% efficiency, such as motogp and f1 engines. I know you can get an extra 10% or so from a diesel - but what am I missing here? Power is simply the amount of actual work compared to the energy that's in the fuel... The reason internal combustion engines are only around 50% efficient is because half of the energy in the fuel is lost to heat, friction, pumping loss etc. You're always gonna create a fuck ton of heat in any ICE (internal combustion engine) so you are always gonna lose some energy from that... And I don't think it's possible to create any engine that has zero friction or pumping losses. Can someone figure out what the supposed thermal efficiency of this magic engine is? Because this engine seems to be breaking the laws of physics... Just like alfadan and all the other horse shit magic engines you see on UA-cam. I find it hilarious that they all have a nice fancy solid works animation... But NONE OF THEM have ever built a working prototype. That's says all you need to know lol The best, smartest engineers are in motorsports... And there's a huge push for cleaner, greener racing.... Especially in f1 and sports cars.... There's been over 20 engine builders in f1 just in the last few decades... And they still use a standard flat plane crank design. If they haven't come up with a magic engine that runs at 75% thermal efficiency, you guys really think some random start up company is gonna build a magic engine? LOL cmon now
Ehhh most gasoline engines today are running about 25 to 30% efficiency. Most engines achieving better efficiency than that are doing so at a very narrow and specific RPM and other specific conditions not found outside a lab.
Those gear teeth scare me, the mechanical precision required is not a fun thing to achieve, and all ahat load on the same mating parts over and over? Dont think its long for this earth. Hope to see more of these.
@10:00 the piston to sidewall graph is wrong. If you include ring tension into the equation the force of burning gasses expand the rings onto the bore so it would be high load at ignition then it would fall off. Also not only is it torque dropping off due to the piston moving down the bore it also will drop off because you have to open the bloody exhaust valve ffs.
Easy! They add more shit to the same basic design, random gear teeth for no reason (they won't be problematic, right) more weight for more torque transfer and let's see what else, a random weirdly shaped box, MORE HORSEPOWER! what?
That engine design is a pile of fecal matter. A flat opposed engine like the current Porsche 9A1 is built proper and can take one hell of a good thrashing.
It infuriates me that a boxer engine is called a boxer, while while opposed piston engines are not, but they are boxing! Conventional boxers are like two dudes standing back to back
"Alfadan, you watching?" hahahahahaha those tiny little teeths aren't gonna be able to handle the force put on it right? or it'll have wear problems? like them seals on a wankel?
The strength is fine. All gears run on pretty much 2 teeth, the difference is the load is shared over all the teeth, so if this is compared to a gear with 20 teeth, then it's going to last 1/10th as long, however, what do you know wears teeth of gears out?
@@dirtygarageguy Well, alignment would be an issue. Vibration could cause tiny mis-alignment on the whole system and cause excessive wear to those teeths. And plus they use ball bearing on the very end and not something like a conical bearing to preload the system. And lubrication, i guess? but that applies to all gears under stress. love your videos btw, have been watching more and more since the alfadan thing haha
Looks fragile as fook ,, after a century of testing we still use strong crankshaft rods and piston for reliability, every month now someone coming up with fancy mechanism that reminds me more about origami than actual engineering
In 9 years time the UK will ban the sale of combustion engines, other countries have or will follow. Why design and build new combustion engines now, the ship has sailed.
That is not going to happen lol. If the world banned petrol engines what would we do with all the left over petrol from the production of diesel? Maybe invent a combustion device to convert it's heat energy into motion so we can make use of it......
Not going to happen soon. Asia, South America and Africa those vast majority of area there are countless countries that do not have money to upgrade the infrastructure for electric vehicles. ICE cars will still have decades of life
It's not a 2 stroke! It has 4 cycles like a normal 4 stroke. The crank just spins half the speed of a normal crank because of that weird ass setup. The piston goes through the usual four strokes in the period of one crankshaft rotation
IT IS!!! Lol the animation is, the demo in the video at the end is. They have said they have designs for both. Every TDC there's an ignition event, that makes it a 2 stroke.
@@dirtygarageguy the running motor is not the same motor that's shown in the beginning of your video. Watch again. Look at the gears on the cams and the crank. They are the same size. If the piston makes 4 cycles per one rotation of the crank the gear on the crank would have to be double the size of the gears on the cams for it to be a 2 stroke.. I know it's not much but look at the valve timing. I've seen this motor before and would respectfully say you are incorrect
1) the demo in the video is a glow plug engine, with no head. Therefore it's a nitro 2 stroke. In the animation the cylinder fires every time the piston is at TDC. We're not talking about cycles, like otto, diesel etc, we're talking strokes. Example. A wankel run the otto cycle, but isn't any strokes. A diesel cycles engine has both 2T and 4T engine version. Strokes is how many time the piston travel the length of the "stroke", hence its name. It doesn't matter what the crank is doing. This isnt an opinion. Just look at 2 stroke diesels vs 4 stroke ones....
@@dirtygarageguy you're arguing semantics. I know the animation doesn't show it for very long but look at the cam drive and valve timing. The bottom valves stay open for one full stroke then the the top valves open for another full stroke. That engine couldn't run as a 2 stroke You could be correct, ignition could take place every TDC but with the valve timing the animation has it would be a wasted spark.
I'm not arguing semantics. A 2T is called a 2T because it travels the stroke twice per cycle, then repeats. Same as a 4T. This is the literal definition. In the animation they state double of the ignition events per rev so they can run half the rpm. Then same animation also shows at every TDC the mixture ignites. I'm just going on what it shows. They literally say in the comments of said video it can be converted to run either. Cycles are not strokes and visa versa, thatsvwhy they have different names
My mental capacity is insufficient to keep track of all the parts.
As soon as you hear that aggressive violin music you know you're in for something "revolutionary". I swear I've heard that same music on half the scam Kickstarters Thunderf00t has debunked.
I even used it on a pisstake video
the first bit genuinely looks like a clip out of one of those "mechanism's you only see in engineering textbooks" videos YT occasionally recommends
Principles of mechanical engineering. I think that is what you're refering to.
I think guy's that make factory production line machines use stuff like that.
@@shanerorko8076 "mechanisms that you can only meet in books, have never met reality" i was close...just search that you'll see what i'm talking about
gluing a pipe full of tobbaco to a stereo speaker is a revolution, but what does it mean?
Damn. You spoiled my funding round plans
It means you're qualified to create 70's prog rock album art, lol
Well it seems CV Motion Tech have found the engine Holy Grail.................
That looks like the design brief was to create a standard 2 stroke engine without using centuries old proven crankshaft technology and make it as complicated as humanly possible.
Well said!
I call these kind of designs "square wheel solutions".
When the designer specifically sets out to solve an old problem in a completely novel way. After years of work the result is a bizarrely complicated, hard to manufacture square wheel that (under very specific conditions) performs almost as well as a cheap conventional round 100 year old wheel.
The square wheel has only one real advantage: The designer owns the patent for it.
yes that pinion teeth is going to get fucked after 40 hours of engine runtime.
It's on CAD now, it must be true.
Dells mates learned SolidWorks...
Struth...
@@seanohutton3185 LOL Delbum and his shenanigans.
This engine is exactly what the world needs. Why?
Because it is so convoluted that it makes me want to buy an electric scooter
🤦🏻♂️🤣
The electro-fascists(tm) has figured out the long game strategy; false flag operations! 😂 Just flood the market with chitt ideas!
I'm glad I've got the the dulcet Northern tones to dispell me of the myths, inaccuracies and bare faced lies of the posh bird.
it's always that music with that chord sequence as well, the same one they use on adverts for business loans and stuff, it is sickly.
His sigh at 4:45 was epic! Someone use it for memes
You are a dummy Tom - every new unproven design is 50% lighter, 50% more powerful, and has 50% less moving parts. And those are just a rookie numbers.
there are many working opposed piston 2 stroke engines out there which were widely used in buses. Take the Commer TS3 as an example. Yes they could theoretically be made 50% ligther, more powerful and have less moving parts. Because engines like these have already been made. This type of engine could be made to achieve these goals with the technology that we have today
I had an engine idea eerily similar to this set up about 6 or 7 years ago, but honestly I didn't know enough about engines to begin designing & building one. Still don't, really, but I enjoy thinking about this sort of thing.
i don't think they know any more than you do, moreso that dunning-krueger is is full effect and you had the sense not to try designing something without knowing how, unlike them.
She's givin her all she's got captain
So they've swapped the crank in a VW Beetle engine for a yoke and turned it into a two stroke?
Uncle Adolf in Argentina will be impressed.
This is the anti-Alfadan engine. Just imagine the acceleration on the pistons when it goes from x m/s to -x m/s in the span of a few degrees of crank rotation instead of it being gradual like in an Alfadan engine, or even a regular piston engine. I looked at the bore X stroke and rpm of some diesel locomotives, and Alfadan engine looks rather feasible to me now.
Not only that, they also do not use the biggest benefit of having 2 cylinder banks 180 degrees apart. That is using a boxer configuration. This engine will have insane primary and secondary imbalance. This design doubles the imbalance rather than cancelling it out.
Speaking of torque they are also wrong. I like that you mention that the pressure would drop off. Infact, given the insane acceleration of the piston right after TDC, the pressure drop would be more drastic after TDC, because the volume would increase faster than a regular piston engine per degree of crank rotation right after TDC.
Using pressure to try to work out the torque is an error prone way of doing things. That's why PV diagrams exist. Calculate the work done, punch in the RPM and then derive torque/power from that. Its much less error prone, and works for all configurations. Your pistons could have all sorts of shapes, travel paths, speed relation to the crank and what not, PV diagrams will spare you the minute details like having to do a surface integral over the surface of a rotary (yes Matt, I am not letting that one slide) to arrive at a proper result.
7:00. There it is, that sudden stop I was talking about.
It's a revolution because the engine revolutes. Ha, I think I just invented a word.
I’m glad to see they have an actual engine running, and video of that, which you also showed.
One thing I learned in a painful way riding bikes all year around in southern Michigan as a teen (that, or walking in sub 0 F snow/ice, over 2 km with hills to/from high school) is just how important coefficient of expansion is on cruiser style bike chains and gearing: a bike with no derailleur for taking up slack or providing any, when it got cold enough, between frozen axle grease (not synthetic) and binding chain, it was like having a 100 kg load on the bike, and the chain was prone to coming off, and the crank gear and chain wore heavily. I see those large teeth in that engine design and how they’re attached to a place they’ll have lots of waste heat, and wonder how much that’ll affect their dimensions and all that goes with it.
Dude that engine if ever gets built into a prototype, (assuming it works as intended) will blow up after a short time of operation. It's like me trying to build an aircraft using flapping wings like birds, only just disregarding 100 years of research and proven aircraft design/technology.
The biggest problem I see with this design is the massive central rectangular component that connects the two pistons together and delivers power to the output shift. It is both heavy and fragile at the same time and it must reciprocate at relatively high speeds not a good combination for longevity or efficient operation.
This thing looks awesome, tbh.
10:30 zero sideload claim seem to be false. Teeth are not engaging symmetrically on both sides. It would push moving assembly against the cylinder wall.
Yeah but in comparison to a piston engine it's nothing much. You could also say gravity... as for the teeth, the internal carrier is on bearings that take that load.
U either have no linear bearings, and sideload, or u have linear bearings, as here, and no sideload, or at least a little that the linear bearings must bear/take. What I mean, is that, to have a sideload, the linear bearings would first have to fail. u also have sideloads and friction between the pins and the cam they ride on, on that turning disc, but no sideloads anywhere near where the combustion takes place. The teeth are not engaging symmetrically: Behind the cam-disc, there´s a 2nd pair of opposed pistons, riding on the same cam-disc, that don´t simply guarantee symmetry (by having opposed sideloads that neutral each other via the cam-disc), but also fill the torque-gaps, that the front pistonpair leaves open (from the hand-off of a teeth-pair till the hand-on of the next teeth-pair there´s a tiny power-gap, that´s filled by the overlapping action of the back pistonpair, a gap of 15° every 90°-turn of the shaft).
Here's an update to go over: ua-cam.com/video/IzhFqiEWmMY/v-deo.html Looks like there's the small prototype and more graphing data. Also, I like all the comments about the gear teeth. How many teeth mesh in a standard pair of transmission gears? Watch the teardown of an F1 gear box and see what 1,000 hp on two teeth looks like :-/ but then we're all UA-cam experts here in the comments section...
Someone didn't want to use a simple scotch yoke because the patent is in the public domain.
Hang on were adding an awful lot of shit here! lololol
Looks like a turbo nutter version of a scotch yoke
Can the CV Motion Crank be used on an Opposed Piston setup? How about a Coaxial Crank setup? It might make it more efficient right?
"oh no, not a roller bearing.." lmao!
They kinda forgot it would be extremely loud with all the ratchets and stuff
So have they made a video to get investors sold on the idea? Because engineers have their reservations on this video… but if it’s made to impress the people with money… it might work…
Yeah, atleast these guys have a miniature version of their idea. I think this is a type of a boxer engine with this wierd thing like a crankshaft rather than an 'Opposed piston' engine.
Can you imagine the impact force/energy at TDC?
@@mordinsolus9414 No, can you please explain sir ?
Did you see the table shaking... Lol
I noticed the cylinders seemed smaller stroke on the cv engine I'm guessing half the size cc , half the fuel, except its a two stroke and they drink twice as much fuel usually
Well yeah, it's a revolution, that's how we go forwards is by revolving a tire. I do admit that I love desmo systems.
Been waiting for this engine for years now thought weed never see it
That piston acceleration at TDC and BDC though, what is tensile strength and fatigue anyways...
Fck secondary inbalance and sine movment. Lets make square movment
there 4 points where the drive shaft is decoupled from the piston rack , tap the breaks and strip the teeth off , never mind the backlash
I always wondered what a gas version of a 2stroke diesel would be like, like a Detroit 6-71 on gasoline, direct injection, with scavenger and turbo,
Those cylinder heads look exactly like a Vmax 1200.
I would like to hear your thoughts on Achates. They have been around forever with prototypes but haven’t been able to get to mass production.
Already on it
At least Achates Power is farther along than Alfadan and this company.
They already got Walmart to agree to test their engines in a real world 3 month cycle to compare it to the standard Diesel engine that they're using.
www.nwaonline.com/news/2021/may/26/walmart-truck-to-test-new-diesel-engine/?business
A truck from Walmart Inc.'s private fleet will test a cleaner-burning and more efficient diesel engine starting this summer.
The three-cylinder, 10.6-liter engine will be placed in one of Walmart's Peterbilt 579 trucks to haul goods in Southern California.
Although the engine has been tested in labs, its use in the Walmart truck will be its first on-the-road test, said Karen Caesar, information officer for the California Air Resources Board's Southern California office.
The truck will be in service starting in July and will run for at least three months, said Larry Fromm, executive vice president of business development for Achates Power Inc.
It's the Junckers Jumo but now it's dropping off junk at Walmart instead of dropping bombs on London. At least with cylinder ported diesels you're not blowing a load of fuel out of the exhaust like with petrol ones.
From information released to the public, there is no reason why Achates's engine will not work. However, it is a 2-stroke diesel engine. The challenge is on meeting emission standard. It may also consume a lot of lubrication oil. If you are Ford, you will be hesistating to put this one into production when emission control is still a big challenge to it
@@catchnkill Achates claims to have the emissions issue under control to meet the CARB's new strictor emissions rules that are coming up in the near future. Now they're in the "Real World" testing phase with a potential big customer like "Walmart".
Matt: How? How?
Narrator: You have to imagine!
My interpretation of that engine is that it's still a four stroke that does all four strokes in onre revolution because the gear thing is four sided.
Well no, it fires at tdc every stroke, that's 2 stroke to complete the cycle... so...
@@dirtygarageguy Yeah, kinda got confused by the visulisation, mixing it up with twin lobed cam engine.
@@dirtygarageguy no it does not. Watch the beginning of your own video. It does all 4 cycles with only one crankshaft rotation
Since when does rotation and stroke mean the same thing. Do you understand English?
Brilliant video thank u ♥️👀👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
Here is an idea I have been toying around from time-to-time:
What if there would be a linear generator set up in square shape, 4 cylinders and 8 pistons, with opposite corners striking at the same time... in theory it should give quite boost in power-to-weight ratio as it would have fairly small amount of moving parts while getting the benefits of opposing pistons?
No thought to how the sinusoidal motion of the piston will reduce thermal efficiency by making the piston move slower after ignition than a tilting connecting rod engine.
you kidding me! that amount of torque and power will be handled only by three teeth of metal !!!. it's will break down from the first run
I would love to have a string trimmer with that engine. Maybe a chainsaw too.
What are your thoughts on the aquarius engine out of Israel? Do you think there is any validity to their engine?
The what?
@@dirtygarageguy www.aquariusengines.com/
It is a "Two Sided Free Piston Linear Engine (FPLE)" that runs on hydrogen according what they have published.
They smokin sum good weed..🤣🤣
To Alfadan, Q.E.D.
I love your videos ...
Can you please do a review of the Michael Czysz motorcycle engine .....
Link?
I just sent a few links via email. There is/was a great multi-video series (documentary, 11 videos I think) on Michael Czysz. I think it is this:
Motoczysz - Birth of a Racer
That looks like it would las as long as a wankle (50,000K)
No where near as long. The teeth are a big issue
@@archiedentone5950 I tend to agree.
that reciprocating mass is a bit much haha
no piston skirt side loading just gear and bearing drag and clatter everywhere as parts collide and separate.
8:00 I think what the lady in the video is saying is that their design doesn't have torque losses due to conversion to rotation.
Full range torque!!
It won't work. The pistons can not be without wrist pins or the rod will bend or the piston would jam in the cylinder and the whole thing would explode.
No oil in the fuel they say. So why is the prototype smoking like crazy?
Well it is a new engine, and a prototype.
1 good thing about the design compared to conventional conrods, is that if they made it a 4-stroke with four more cylinders, then they would have a very balanced flat eight engine, that could potentially rev very high.
There is a way to make a horizontally opposed piston engine which both balances out the rocking moment and the piston-conrod forces.
I’m sure every manufacturer has thought of it, however there is little point in doing it as the rocking moment is small enough not to warrant it.
A suggestion for a video, there is at present a big kerfuffle going on in the American V8 community re the topic of reversing pistons to gain power. Standard pistons have an offset little end to prevent piston slap, if you reverse the piston orientation, it gives a slight mechanical advantage, similar to an offset crank, your opinion would be interesting
These people are idiots.
@@dirtygarageguy Engines are engines, bike,car electric, generator they're basically the same, if you calculate vectors, reversing the pistons makes sense for increased power. It's an old hot rodder's trick, the rules say all components must be standard.....
Does it? Why are they even offset? To reduce the side loading on the power stroke... reversing them does what?
@@dirtygarageguy Clockwise rotating engine, little end is offset to the left so that the transition of the side thrust on the piston occurs before tdc and the power stroke. Less piston slap noise.
The disadvantage is that the piston reaches tdc before the crank is at the top of it's stroke relative to the centre line of the cylinder. Reverse the piston and the crank is past the centre line of the cylinder when the piston reaches tdc, hence the mechanical advantage. Don't know whether bike engines use offset pistons, but most cars and commercial vehicles do.
🤣🤣🤣🤣 wow, did you just say it reaches TDC before? And how much difference is power does this make??? 😆🤣😂
Do some of the toroidal engine designs.....
I thought it was a 4 stroke. The valves are clearly depicted at the top of each cylinder. I'm confused. How can it be a two stroke with valves at the top of the cylinders?
Number 1☝️
So you've got 2 x "Siamese twin" opposed piston thingies going back and forth like a lady of the nights undercrackers? In essence the same balance as a 180° L twin like Ferrari and Porsche used in their 12 bangers in the 70s. That's gonna vibrate your fillings right out I reckon. I'll stick with my Subaru thankyou.
Wow, imagine the adjustments needed to line up the bore with the linear bearings to acheive normal "friction free" function?... Also "no side loads"??? Right, the rack'n'pinion will suuuuurely not impart any perpendicular forces! *Mega-roll-eye-emoji*
Frikken heck, once you scale this bad boi up to family sized pack it will emit the lovely smooth sound of chains being dropped on steel deck.
Engineers. Common sense and cynicism is not always present
Whats wrong with roller bearings?
this isnt an oposed piston engine. its a boxer engine
also the crankshaft is a real mechanism
2:10 its actually a not so practical design. Those tooth based crankshaft is definitely would not be able to handle the high torque. For that opposed piston design you already got the Boxer engine which is far more reliable.
If the engine was being fed compressed air....the power stroke could very well be more linear but using a trapped charge of burning fuel and air the pressure drops dramatically once the volume increases. People argue that the conventional engine has maximum leverage at 50% stroke length where the thrust angle is 90 degrees, which is true, but the available pressure is WAY down so most of the energy that is going to be gotten has been delivered by the time the crankshaft has rotated 20 degrees. You can get a little more...like with a diesel by continuing to inject more fuel...but that assumes there is still oxygen to be used so the initial part of the burn will be super lean which reduces the pressure early in the stroke. There is a very good set of reasons the modern engines work as well as they do...and all of these 'breakthrough' designs never seem to pan out...do they? Anyone want to take a wager whether this design will make it to serial production? I sure wouldn't.....
Bingo
I am so confused.
Ethanol? Fast burning fuel?
Ethanol is quite gentle compared to standard gasoline. Excellent high performance fuel, but not exactly when I would call a quick flashbang.
In GDI they can just diesel the shit up with lean initial mixture and constantly added fuel. Still no way to met this claims, it is used in cars
There is no benefits for this madness
Lot of weak, critical parts and mass for some weird vibrations
Boss, I can't get to work, teeth in my engine just felt off. Don't you worry, they are cheap and easy to manufacture, I can be towed from time to time, right?
Crap, I thought he was going to talk about new developments with the likes of the WW2 Aircraft Jumo diesel.....Commer, Achates SOMETHING
To get the power they say it would need to maintain the same pressure 85% of the stroke......lol nm you just got to that bit
The reciprocating parts come to a sudden stop. Build a working model and stand well back when you start it cause it's going to blow up.
🤔👍
Everything works in CAD.
Antipractiocos de construir y descartables,bajo torque,quizas solo para motocicletas o generadores eléctricos,autos híbridos
7:06-9:59 Yep that's just absolute bollocks. No way you gonna get such torque curve unless if you have electric motor
He finished in the top 100 in Tech Briefs annual contest back in 2012 with the same unsubstantiated claims he's still making today.
We have to give him kudos for not trying to scam money from thousands of small investors at least and for being consistent in his unverified claims.
What tech brief?
@@dirtygarageguy Tech Briefs is a magazine. They host annual Create the Future Design Contest.
Have you seen Craig Laycock's 'conjoined piston' engine? ua-cam.com/channels/xQuLv-Jxz8XYr1tGUJf2MQ.html
It exists only in CAD but it's a lot less byzantine than this one and doesn't have disconcerting features like partial gears. As best I can tell, the pistons are driven by the gear on the crank which is kept in mesh by the disc full of holes. Fun features include a bearing that's almost the bore diameter and, due to the holey disc running in the opposite direction to the crank, the bearing between that and the crank effectively running at twice the engine rpm.
Yes
Just looking at this from a thermal dynamics standpoint...
Normal internal combustion engine =40% efficiency
If these claims are true, that you get the same power from half the fuel... Wouldn't that mean 80% efficiency?
I'm not an engineer so obviously I could be wrong - but I very highly doubt that these people can achieve anything close to 80% when the most efficient engines made are only recently hitting the 50% efficiency, such as motogp and f1 engines.
I know you can get an extra 10% or so from a diesel - but what am I missing here?
Power is simply the amount of actual work compared to the energy that's in the fuel... The reason internal combustion engines are only around 50% efficient is because half of the energy in the fuel is lost to heat, friction, pumping loss etc.
You're always gonna create a fuck ton of heat in any ICE (internal combustion engine) so you are always gonna lose some energy from that... And I don't think it's possible to create any engine that has zero friction or pumping losses.
Can someone figure out what the supposed thermal efficiency of this magic engine is?
Because this engine seems to be breaking the laws of physics... Just like alfadan and all the other horse shit magic engines you see on UA-cam.
I find it hilarious that they all have a nice fancy solid works animation... But NONE OF THEM have ever built a working prototype.
That's says all you need to know lol
The best, smartest engineers are in motorsports... And there's a huge push for cleaner, greener racing.... Especially in f1 and sports cars....
There's been over 20 engine builders in f1 just in the last few decades... And they still use a standard flat plane crank design.
If they haven't come up with a magic engine that runs at 75% thermal efficiency, you guys really think some random start up company is gonna build a magic engine?
LOL cmon now
Ehhh most gasoline engines today are running about 25 to 30% efficiency. Most engines achieving better efficiency than that are doing so at a very narrow and specific RPM and other specific conditions not found outside a lab.
Those gear teeth scare me, the mechanical precision required is not a fun thing to achieve, and all ahat load on the same mating parts over and over? Dont think its long for this earth.
Hope to see more of these.
I'd machine it rough, jam it full of lapping compound and run it in. Not good at scale though. What gets me in this design is the box ways.
I think the designer saw the "Trammel of Archimedes" and decided that they could put pistons around it and create an engine. 🤣
@10:00 the piston to sidewall graph is wrong. If you include ring tension into the equation the force of burning gasses expand the rings onto the bore so it would be high load at ignition then it would fall off.
Also not only is it torque dropping off due to the piston moving down the bore it also will drop off because you have to open the bloody exhaust valve ffs.
They're talking about piston side loading due to the rod angle of incidence
Its because the engineers are like medical doctors. They really have no fucking clue but a guess.
Easy! They add more shit to the same basic design, random gear teeth for no reason (they won't be problematic, right) more weight for more torque transfer and let's see what else, a random weirdly shaped box, MORE HORSEPOWER! what?
That engine design is a pile of fecal matter. A flat opposed engine like the current Porsche 9A1 is built proper and can take one hell of a good thrashing.
It infuriates me that a boxer engine is called a boxer, while while opposed piston engines are not, but they are boxing! Conventional boxers are like two dudes standing back to back
Can't trust any product that has that background music. Any way can't see that 2 tooth rack and pinyin lasting very long
I want one as soon as someone buys the bridge l’ve got for sale!
Snake oil sales are still holding up!
"Alfadan, you watching?" hahahahahaha
those tiny little teeths aren't gonna be able to handle the force put on it right? or it'll have wear problems? like them seals on a wankel?
The strength is fine. All gears run on pretty much 2 teeth, the difference is the load is shared over all the teeth, so if this is compared to a gear with 20 teeth, then it's going to last 1/10th as long, however, what do you know wears teeth of gears out?
@@dirtygarageguy Well, alignment would be an issue. Vibration could cause tiny mis-alignment on the whole system and cause excessive wear to those teeths. And plus they use ball bearing on the very end and not something like a conical bearing to preload the system. And lubrication, i guess? but that applies to all gears under stress.
love your videos btw, have been watching more and more since the alfadan thing haha
Just use nitrometh
How about this 3 cylinder opposed piston engine with 3 crankshafts.
ua-cam.com/video/fKvk121lawg/v-deo.html
Looks fragile as fook ,, after a century of testing we still use strong crankshaft rods and piston for reliability, every month now someone coming up with fancy mechanism that reminds me more about origami than actual engineering
In 9 years time the UK will ban the sale of combustion engines, other countries have or will follow. Why design and build new combustion engines now, the ship has sailed.
Lol no it hasn't. 1) that's cars. 2) petrol and diesel only. Not hybrids.
That is not going to happen lol.
If the world banned petrol engines what would we do with all the left over petrol from the production of diesel? Maybe invent a combustion device to convert it's heat energy into motion so we can make use of it......
It's only the sale of them, they aren't banning the use of them.
Not going to happen soon. Asia, South America and Africa those vast majority of area there are countless countries that do not have money to upgrade the infrastructure for electric vehicles. ICE cars will still have decades of life
May just work, needs a crank shaft though to improve simplicity and mechanical sympathy...
It's not a 2 stroke! It has 4 cycles like a normal 4 stroke. The crank just spins half the speed of a normal crank because of that weird ass setup. The piston goes through the usual four strokes in the period of one crankshaft rotation
IT IS!!! Lol the animation is, the demo in the video at the end is. They have said they have designs for both. Every TDC there's an ignition event, that makes it a 2 stroke.
@@dirtygarageguy the running motor is not the same motor that's shown in the beginning of your video. Watch again. Look at the gears on the cams and the crank. They are the same size. If the piston makes 4 cycles per one rotation of the crank the gear on the crank would have to be double the size of the gears on the cams for it to be a 2 stroke.. I know it's not much but look at the valve timing. I've seen this motor before and would respectfully say you are incorrect
1) the demo in the video is a glow plug engine, with no head. Therefore it's a nitro 2 stroke. In the animation the cylinder fires every time the piston is at TDC. We're not talking about cycles, like otto, diesel etc, we're talking strokes.
Example. A wankel run the otto cycle, but isn't any strokes. A diesel cycles engine has both 2T and 4T engine version. Strokes is how many time the piston travel the length of the "stroke", hence its name. It doesn't matter what the crank is doing. This isnt an opinion. Just look at 2 stroke diesels vs 4 stroke ones....
@@dirtygarageguy you're arguing semantics. I know the animation doesn't show it for very long but look at the cam drive and valve timing. The bottom valves stay open for one full stroke then the the top valves open for another full stroke. That engine couldn't run as a 2 stroke You could be correct, ignition could take place every TDC but with the valve timing the animation has it would be a wasted spark.
I'm not arguing semantics. A 2T is called a 2T because it travels the stroke twice per cycle, then repeats. Same as a 4T. This is the literal definition.
In the animation they state double of the ignition events per rev so they can run half the rpm. Then same animation also shows at every TDC the mixture ignites. I'm just going on what it shows. They literally say in the comments of said video it can be converted to run either.
Cycles are not strokes and visa versa, thatsvwhy they have different names