A bow to you sir. You not only know everything about mechanical engineering, you know everything about software + manufacturing + top notch intelligence and skill. Best of luck to you. And all the success. you really deserve it.
Thanks for your kind words! This is more the result of a "collective intelligence" of a broad range of colleagues and other interested parties providing input and nudging me to learn and apply what I need to know to improve the design.
I came here for a video about cute kittens. Ended up learning about the Miller cycle and Delayed Intake Valve Closing. But - here's my take - Pros Efficiency Gains: Innovative energy transfer mechanism could reduce frictional losses. Compact Design: Circumferential piston arrangement reduces engine footprint. Unique Motion Conversion: Non-circular gears optimize oscillatory-to-rotational motion. Modularity: Potential for easier integration into certain compact systems. Innovation: Departure from conventional ICE designs opens possibilities for specialized applications. Cons Manufacturing Complexity: Expensive and challenging to produce components like non-circular gears. Durability Concerns: Increased wear on unconventional moving parts, including gears and shafts. Thermal Management Issues: Cooling combustion chambers in a circular layout could be difficult. Friction Losses: Oscillatory piston motion may introduce additional friction on chamber walls. Valve Timing Limitation: Rotating cam plates restrict flexibility compared to modern variable valve timing. Lower Power Density: Likely less power output compared to conventional turbocharged ICEs. Maintenance Challenges: Specialized design could complicate repairs and servicing. Limited Ecosystem Support: Requires unique tooling and expertise, reducing adoption potential. One last Con - no cute kittens. Other than that - good video.
Thanks so much for your thoughtful response! I love it when I get detailed critiques, as that's how this design has progressed through the years. I had a dozen or more experts that I leaned on when I was teaching at the polytechnic college during its development, and they were an invaluable source. Some responses to your comments, particularly the "cons": Manufacturability is an issue; I have a handful of machinists who have provided input into how to do what's required, and I think they've shown that modern CNC machines can do the work required without much difficulty. The idea is to have most of the parts cast, with final touch-ups done with 5-axis CNC machines. The gears can only be made using a CNC-controlled gear shaper, as grinding wouldn't produce the same pressure angle for each tooth. However, I have worked with the manufacturers of gear shapers, and they concur that the task can be easily programmed into a CNC-controlled gear shaper with a software-controlled variable centre distance. My design software specifies the optimal number of teeth for the cutter wheel. It's true, though, that generating gears this way would take longer than casting and machining the piston connecting rods in a conventional piston engine. Abouts gears and shaft wear: the engineers I worked with at the polytechnic college showed me how to predict and prevent wear using pressure-velocity calculations, so that's a part of the design process, as well. One of my main concerns was for the outward revolutionary force on the planet shafts and bearings, and I'm pleased to say that I have a new design that moves those planets inside non-circular ring gears, reducing the distance from the rotational axis to just over a quarter of what's shown in the engine in this video. That greatly reduces the outward pressure on the bearings, and the rotational velocity is also reduced. Thermal Management is achieved by circulating coolant through channels in the pistons, since that's what's stationary in this design. I haven't had the chance to get a thermal analysis for the most recent design from the thermal engineer expert at the polytechnic, but she provided one for earlier designs and was satisfied that cooling shouldn't be an issue. Cylinder wall friction: The FEA analysis indicates that the maximum outward displacement of the cylinders is less than 50 nm, so the orientation of the cylinders with respect to the pistons will fall well within the tolerance allowed. The rings themselves will experience a slight outward force, particularly at mid-stroke where the velocity is greatest. This needs to be evaluated in more detail, but the outward force is certainly much lower than that experienced by similar parts in rotary engines -- for example, the apical seal in the Wankel engine. I should look more into the way that variable valve trains work, like Toyota's VVTi system. However, I think that being able to adjust the open time from 40 degrees to 80 degrees (that's 80 degrees to 160 degrees in a conventional engine) is a considerable range. Thanks for getting me thinking, though! In terms of power density, by being two-stroke instead of four-stroke, it's already almost double the power density of a conventional clean four-stroke engine. The one in this video is predicted to max at about 80 hp @6500 RPM; its diameter is 320 mm (12.5") and its height is similar. Maintenance is an issue, particularly since I've chosen to include all the things that are normally "external" -- or at least easily accessible -- inside this engine: oil pumps, fuel pumps, supercharger, etc. If I find a manufacturing partner, it may be their choice to revert to having those as addons instead for easier repairs. Ecosystem support: You can't imagine how many times I've put this design on the shelf because of my environmental concerns and the likelihood that IC engines will be phased out. People keep telling me that I should keep working on it, particularly if it can be used to support environmental causes -- for combined heat and power (CHP) or cogeneration, or as a simple hybrid (charging the batteries of an EV on long-haul trips); and of course, using renewable fuel sources instead of fossil fuels. Sorry about the cats ;-) Thanks again! -Ross
Double-take: I talked about outward force on the rings -- one of the main reasons I had for switching to moving cylinders instead of moving pistons was to put the rings in the stationary pistons, so that's not an issue. However, there is still the issue of the intake valves and the supercharger valves experiencing an outward force as the cylinders oscillate. Your comments have me thinking of ways to reduce that outward force, or at least the effect of that outward force, including using something like conventional reed valves for the supercharger, and for the input to the combustion chamber, an assembly of linked poppet-style valves (for example, four small valves per cylinder, since that provides much greater venting than a single large valve with greater resilience per valve under pressure) all on something like a hinged arm, instead of individual valve guide bearing surfaces. Again, thanks for stirring the creative juices!
I do not think that a combustion engine with the usual 3000 rpm and 1000 + c heat cycles with as much parts as a Swiss automatic watch will run reliable enough for mass production. Nice effort though. PS: How do you bore, hone and mass produce a two part banana shaped cylinder?
Thanks for your interest. By the way, by comparison to my engine, a conventional V-8 would have about double the number of parts as a Swiss watch, and still seems to be reliable enough for mass production ;-) This engine was originally designed to redline at 6500 RPM and passed the approval of a design engineer and a thermal engineer. Of course, a real prototype would provide more definitive results. According to the machinists I work with, the toroidal cylinders would be shaped using a 5-axis CNC machine with a rotating cutter generating the bore while following a circular path along the stroke -- not a challenging process, but requiring specialty equipment. For mass production, the raw blanks would be cast and final-bored using the 5-axis CNC machine. The real manufacturing challenge is the non-circular gears. They can only be produced using a CNC-controlled Gear Shaper (which is definitely not a CNC milling machine), with specialty software. Unfortunately, gear shaping takes longer than other gear manufacturing processes, so this would be the time-limiting and cost-generating process. Although I doubt that I'll release a video of it because it strays too far from the original patent, I have a radial design that has all the advantages of the OPCE without the manufacturing challenges. With this new engine configuration, it feels like I'm abandoning five decades of designing gears and working with engineers and manufacturers to come up with a production-ready OPCE, but on the bright side, everything I've learned along the way about engines, engine cycles, and manufacturing has helped me clarify what's important so I can now simplify while retaining the key features. Thanks again for taking the time to comment!
Even though you might consider it to be too late for automobile applications, it would still be a good idea to adopt one into a popular car because that seems to be the real test of any new engine, it's what the average person expects and is entitled to.
Interesting thought! One application that has been floated a number of times is that of incorporating it into a portable charger for long trips with EVs -- essentially, turn your plugin EV into a hybrid. Thanks for your interest!
Thanks for your support! I actually make a distinction between rotary engines (where the motor parts spin completely around the axis) and an oscillating engine (where the motor parts move back and forth in only part of a circular path). My earliest designs were rotary, but I moved to oscillating designs to reduce the wear from centrifugal motion. Thanks again!
All the funding I received was through the research and innovation department of the college I was working for. All the best with your design! I'm currently working on a radial implementation of my engine cycle!
Yes I have thought of all of those ideas for 40 years and I have discarded all of them as not being good enough. I am working on the good enough idea now!😊😊😊
As a retired middle-class individual, funding a prototype is a challenge. The college I worked for supported the plastic working prototype of the early design to the tune of $40,000, then supported development of a partial prototype to test the gears for $50,000. Unfortunately, they couldn't arrange for the use of a CNC-controlled gear shaper (the only practical way of making the gears) and paid a machinist to try to build the gears with a CNC milling machine. That was a dismal failure, and funds ran out before completion. I do have an impressive collection of nice-looking pieces of steel from that attempt, though! The college owns a $500,000 metal printer, and we printed one set of matching gears on it as a demo, but acceptable gear tooth quality is not something that can be achieved without after-printing machining with standard gear manufacturing equipment. Liebherr group's gear department was willing to write software and build a set of gears for about $20,000, but by then the college administration had changed and the new group were no longer willing to support research and development for insiders. They even initiated an IP assignment process to transfer patent ownership to me, with me paying the remaining fees for publishing the patent. One semester, a team from the college's Bachelor of Technology program worked with me and a 3D-printing and machining company from the USA, with the intent of them using my prototype as a show-piece in their advertising. We would supply a significant portion of the funds through a grant, and they would absorb the remaining costs. Unfortunately, their negotiations extended past the cutoff date for the grant we intended to access, and proceedings ground to a halt. One of the consultants I approached indicated that a full working metal prototype would likely cost about $250,000. This is bigger than many of the small-item grants available, but much too small for a typical automotive R&D grant. So, I'm still looking for a source of funds. In the meantime, though, not having anything in metal gives me the opportunity to refine the design, and even look at other variations that incorporate the engine cycle I've developed into other, simpler formats; so all is not lost. Thanks for your interest!
Have you built one and tested it? Because what looks good on the screen does not always turn out as good in reality. Its hard to see what is going on there, but from what I can see slamming the valve stem into the other valve at high speed might not be a good idea. I have solved all of the problems you have mentioned with the Rotary engine.
Nothing built except for the plastic proof-of-concept shown. I'm still waiting for someone with a quarter million bucks to pour into the real thing (almost happened once!) -- which gives me more time to refine the design and work on some almost-unrelated off-shoots based upon all I've learned in the five decades I've been working on this one! I have a much better circular design already, and am working on a simple linear engine that does pretty nearly everything the circular engine does, just not in as tiny a package. The valve action isn't physically accurate, due to limitations in the animation mode I've chosen in Autodesk Inventor. I just have the valves snapping open and closed at intervals designed to mimic the much smoother action of the valves. In reality, the intake valves, which are differential-pressure-activated, would close or at least partially close when the combustion chamber pressure rises to close to what remains in the supercharger, so when the exhaust valve closes, the intake valves would be very nearly closed if not already closed, and the exhaust valve wouldn't snap open and closed -- it would follow the contour of the cam. Thanks for this post and your interest! I doubt many people noticed the flaky simplified valve motion!
@prosstaylor @prosstaylor A plastic model is NOT proof of concept....... A working model is proof of concept. I am going to build mine soon. We can not do away with some kind of reciprocating or at least an eccentric orbital motion, because we have to create a pulsating volume. The task is to minimize the weight of the reciprocating motion, while maintaining functionality abd at a low cost.😊 Good luck with yours!
Wow -- you got me investigating 4D printing: creating 3D prints that morph into different shapes with time or exposure to external stimuli. Very cool! By the way, 3D printing the gears for my engines isn't trivial -- I have written two software programs with approximately 1500 lines of code each for generating the properly-shaped teeth as dxf files to import into the 3D modelling software for my engine models, and that I use to generate 3D printing files to make plastic versions of the gears when I need to double-check things. Once, the college I was working for printed me two steel gears on their half-million dollar metal printer sitting in its hundred-thousand dollar hermetically-sealed room. The gears are pretty good, except that the lower edge of each tooth is a bit rough due to the laser welding down into an unsupported bed of nanoparticle steel powder. They are still very nice show-and-tell items to visually demonstrate the accuracy of my software and the way in which the non-circular gears produce oscillatory motion. In order to handle the engine's power requirements, the gear teeth need to have a number of strength-and quality-related specifications, as well as being involute and helical with a constant pressure angle. Every tooth has a unique profile, and that profile changes from the bottom to the top of each helix, since the instantaneous radius changes as a function of the angle of rotation. That's not something commercial non-circular gear software offers at the moment (they do "rolling pinion" teeth where the pressure angle changes with distance from the centre shaft and the teeth are generated normal to the instantaneous pitch and not radial to the centre of the gear), but Liebherr Group's CNC gear shaper team have investigated my requirements, and indicate that it would be relatively trivial to write software for their gear shapers to meet the specifications. If I'd had $18,000 to throw away, they'd have written the software and sent me a trial set of gears in 2013. Thanks for your interest!
I just took a look at that -- interestingly, their labelling it as "1-stroke" just means that it's a 2-stroke with two power events per revolution, so 2/2 = 1. That's what my engine is achieving, as well, due to the bilobe gear oscillators which provide a 2-stroke power event for each half-rotation, or 2 x 1/2 = 1. I like the simplicity of their design. My engine has some advantages over theirs: uniflow scavenging, Miller Cycle with variable compression ratio, and stroke-by-stroke supercharging. Incidentally, on my computer right now I have a design that takes all of the concepts I've developed over the years in designing the OPCE engine and puts them into a non-circular design for simplicity and manufacturability. I'm hoping to build one of these, if for no other reason than to verify all that I've learned and incorporated into the OPCE. However, if it doesn't infringe on other people's designs, I may consider commercializing it. It's too bad that our intellectual property and patenting laws put designers into their own little silos. I'd like to see the designers of a number of promising designs sitting down and collaborating on the "ultimate" IC engine! Thanks for pointing this one out to me!
@ yeah I know that it’s not really a one stroke engine but it is a good marketing strategy. Hey man, you really got some talent. You’re really smart and you’re putting it to good use. I hope you build your engine one day. I’m sure you’ll leave your mark on the world with an amazing design. I really wanna build my own twin charged two-stroke opposed piston engine, that would have a sealed crank case diesel or gas but I don’t want mixed gas. I just like how it’s two-stroke and you get to harvest more energy and there’s no cams.
@@prosstaylorSee one of the key features of a good engine design, it should not cost 250k. You are competing with engines you can buy under $500 at Harbor Freight. Even a one off prototype should not cost more than 10k. I have one like that right now.
Actually, outside of the range of engines that would be used for home CHP, I'm competing with engines that cost $20,000 when you try to get them replaced in your F250, or a few million when you put them in your ocean-going tanker, but still prototyping is an expensive business. Once you get yours up and running, I'd love to see how it turned out!
@@prosstaylor For $250000 you can set up a machine shop and make it yourself! It would not cost anywhere near that to make a prototype. Go to India and they will do it $10,000! That is what I am doing!
My machinists say it's done using a 5-axis CNC machine with a rotating tool that cuts the bore while moving along a circular path to the end of the stroke. Thanks for your interest!
With a 5-axis CNC machine, a rotating cutter, significantly smaller than the bore, enters the end of the cylinder and traces around the bore while spiraling in along the bore radius. Since the stroke isn't that deep, the drive machinery remains outside the bore.
great idea with more parts per engine. nowadays we just fit an electric motor with some awesome lifepo4 cells. radial engine woukd be more efficient to this
Electric's great, and I hope we continue to move in that direction. There are still applications for IC engines, particularly when coupled with renewable fuels. Until our cars have replaceable batteries or safe ways to fast-charge, we'll still be stuck waiting for that charge. By the way, the configuration of the pistons, circular, radial, or linear, really isn't the most important thing -- it comes down to making them "opposed" so there's no energy wasted in vibrating the block, being able to vent the chamber effectively (lots of valve space and uniflow scavenging) and being able to allow for a greater expansion stroke than the compression stroke (Miller or Atkinson). The huge MAN uniflow two-stroke engines that run ocean liners have hit the 50% efficiency mark, and my engine cycle, adapted from theirs, adds the extra efficiency of opposed pistons and better chamber venting; so it's possible that my engine would match or beat that efficiency, which wasn't even dreamed of two decades ago. Odd that you should mention radial, though, because I have a design on my computer right now that's a radial arrangement that meets the requirements I listed above, in a simpler and more manufacturable configuration! It certainly isn't a WWI aircraft radial, though! Thanks for your interest!
@@prosstaylor i totally agree with you we still need ICE and CCE (diesel) i look towards the hybrid option with the ICE/CCE are used for electric generation. hydrogen should not be an option as cost and energy required is much higher than other alternatives. dual fuel lpg/diesel is the best option in my view. small engines on high compression for low rpm high torque for either the 3000rpm or 650rpm(tractor style) generators. i am subscribed and will be a passenger on your journey. all positives for everyone. you get to solve more puzzles. Have an awesome 2025 Sir.
How can an unaffiliated inventor get funding for patents? Is an US patent enough for an engine like this or a patent on multiple countries would be better? Something tells me that, even in the transport sector, there will be a surge in the need for compact and highly efficient engines that will no longer be coupled to primary traction, essentially as the last generation of combustion engines.
You ask hard questions. I had a short window of opportunity in which the college I worked for was willing to support my research and began the process of filing the patent. Without that, I would not have been able to cover the lawyer's fees for completing the process -- even the cost of the final steps was a bit daunting! My patent lawyer suggested staying with just the US patent. My daughter, who has a number of patents in the chemical/medical/agricultural world, always goes for multiple countries. I think my patent lawyer felt that the US was the most likely market for an engine design; however, it seems that there are a lot of European and Asian countries that are making significant advances as well. For size, efficiency, and simplicity of control, it makes sense to have an engine running at a constant "sweet spot" speed generating electricity rather than mechanically driving systems with widely varying requirements and desired response times. Thanks for your thoughtful response!
People have suggested "go fund me" campaigns and things like Dragons' Den. There may be other possible avenues for getting funding and support like these.
My respect. Very nice and exhaustive work! But in my opinion it's too complex and probably prone to be too expensive for the intended application. I hope you can work further to improve the concept. Send to you the best luck!
Thanks for your thoughtful response. It really is quite a complex and exacting design, and I continue to see if there are ways to achieve the same goals more simply.
Had me until the parastalstic pumps . When they fail, which they do/will , no lube . A small trocho or gear pump will last , and it will push oil through a filter.
Thanks for taking the time to provide this critique! You'll notice that these aren't actually peristaltic pumps, which force liquid through a flexible pipe. They're more like rotary compression pumps, with vanes following an eccentric surface. I'm definitely not tied to this minor feature of the design as shown -- the main thing is what's happening with the combustion chambers. Thanks again!
@ much better. The only thing is that it needs a filter for both lubricants, magnets for the drain plugs and enough pressure to run it. Rollers require less pressure, and they can be replaced if not worn excessively. I really like the idea of high compression and the ability to run long expansions to the compression and power. I have been fascinated by this when Volvo was experimenting with the decentralized design for heat and power. I think it was using the 2.3 red block. I’m betting that it would be cheaper to use than the grid, and with a Telsa battery it would work better, as it would work harder, heat from the battery and electronics is free heat . I’m lucky as a son of Dixie that I have never had to heat in the northern states or Canada, Russia etc. I’m sure there are some cobbler setups there that beat the grid .
No, you don't need mass efficiency in the stationary engine, you need the low amount of parts and ultra low cost. The ideal solution is a single piston engine.
Evidence from the OPOC and Achates engines indicates that having two opposed pistons will result in increases in efficiency of 25% to 50% over a single piston conventional engine. If I had to pare down what I have learned over the past five decades about engines and efficiency, that's the simplest piston system I would recommend. Thanks for your comment!
Yeah, it's pretty complex. However, it actually has fewer parts and definitely fewer moving assemblies than the V-8 it would compete with. Thanks for you input!
Right again. In commercial production, the bulk of the CNC work would be replaced with standard metal casting. On one of my earlier designs, I actually spent the time to design it for casting -- a very interesting set of skills to learn! Five-axis machining would probably be needed only for sleeve inserts. Thanks for your interest and input!
Sorry, I'm still looking for a commercial partner or research facility interested in building a working prototype. The closest I have is the $40,000 plastic compressed-air prototype of a much earlier design that's featured in this mini-documentary: ua-cam.com/video/S9bmfAhIFjg/v-deo.html or accessible from my channel. Thanks again!
Funny! As a retired computer engineering technology instructor, I have, oddly, never even accessed an AI site -- I'm still old-school enough to want to say exactly what I mean instead of letting something or someone else do it for me!
@@prosstaylor computer enginering, that explains the core around shape in your design from a mechanic view it look like a lil nightmare to "patch" but at the end it could lead to an improvement if you get the math right but the thing that get my atention in these are the gears, its hard to beat the simplicity and thoughness of the clasic oil bearings
I did some serious conversing with both KissSoft and Liebherr, and we determined that it would be surprisingly easy to generate the non-circular gears to my specifications using a conventional CNC-controlled gear shaper. Liebherr would have written the software and supplied me with a set of gears if I had been willing to cover the costs.
@@prosstaylor i mean it is like the rotary engine the change on force due to the change in direction of the pistons are held by certain theets that would wear those ones more, at the end is less contact area than a classic journal on a crankshaft, if they work for keeping the pistons in track like i think or im wrong? Thats what in mean by math if theyre going to be the aquiles tendon
I'm just going to post a response I sent to someone else recently. I hope that's OK! I'm guessing you've had a chance to tear apart a V-8 diesel engine with a turbocharger, fuel injection system, oil supply system, valve trains, cooling system, and all the rest of what makes it roar. If so, you'll have to agree that there are fewer parts in my engine (not the one shown, but an 8-cylinder version) than in the V-8 that it's intended to replace. The difference is that the V-8 started out as a fairly simple machine almost a century ago, and the complexities have been added over the years. My design takes the technology right to the present, benefitting from all we've learned about engines in the past century, so it doesn't have the luxury of starting simple (other than in all the 3D virtual models leading up to it). Incidentally, I'm currently working on an engine that has all the features of the OPCE (two stroke, opposed piston, uniflow, supercharged, infinitely variable exhaust valve timing, perfectly balanced statically and dynamically) in a much simpler linear (not circular) configuration. This is a case of starting with a few assumptions, designing an engine, learning a whole lot, refining the design, then realizing that some of the assumptions that got me going were misleading. It's input from folks like you that keep me thinking. Thanks for your input!
Your combustion chamber is far too cold for clean burning, especially of waste plastic and soot (and to compete in the modern world engines MUST burn waste plastic). And I didn't see any insulation. How do you prevent heat loss? Without a highly insulated combustion chamber there's no way to burn completely and reaching anywhere close to the Carnot efficiency limit is impossible. I like your variable compression, but is the engine's expansion to compression ratio held at 3:1 at all times? I don't see any catalytic staged combustion. How do you clean the exhaust, given that zero emissions is the minimum and actually cleaning the air is the goal? No Temporal Torque Transfer Device. How do you smooth the output? No hot wall ignition. Spark-initiated combustion is way slow and quenches badly, ruining efficiency and causing emissions. No simultaneous combined cycle, resulting in tremendous cooling losses. I see lots of issues and complexity, but you did partially solve a few issues. It can't even remotely compete with my engine, but I salute your effort.
Thanks for your response. I'll briefly address the points you bring up. Temperature -- the thermal engineer I was working with was much more concerned about it being too hot and trying to get the generated heat away from the combustion chamber, hence the liquid cooling system. Variable compression -- by definition this means that the expansion to compression ratio is variable, not a constant value; it does, however, mean that the ratio you've indicated is one of the possibilities. Catalysis -- if needed (i.e. if using hydrocarbon-based fuels), catalytic converters would be added externally to the engine, as is typical of equivalent engines. Torque Transfer -- the output is, by nature, smooth, since the engine stroke is almost sinusoidal and forces are balanced across the engine; there is sufficient mass in the oscillator mechanism to act as a passive flywheel. Hot Wall -- the engine as shown is compression ignition, not spark ignition, with two fuel injectors per chamber to set the injection-initiated combustion to the best possible time(s) for clean burning and maximum power; the clean air in the charge is compressed to well above the ignition temperature of the fuel prior to injection, so there is no need for hot wall ignition. Combined Cycle -- as indicated in the video, the "waste" heat isn't wasted -- it's used in a Cogeneration or Combined Heat and Power system for heating water to be used for space and water heating. Complexity -- yeah, it's pretty complex! It still has a lot fewer parts, and fewer unique parts, than a typical V-8 conventional engine; and I'm currently working on what looks like a completely different design (radial!) that still has all the performance characteristics of the circular engine -- opposed pistons, uniflow two-stoke, variable compression using exhaust valve control, stroke-by-stroke supercharger, perfect static and dynamic balance, Miller Cycle, extremely large valve venting area, etc. I probably won't post a video of this one, though, because I think it's strayed too far from the original patent! All the best with your design! I have had quite a few discussions with an engineer who was working on ceramic linings for IC engines to increase wall temperatures without damaging other parts of the engine. Interesting work!
I'm guessing you've had a chance to tear apart a V-8 diesel engine with a turbocharger, fuel injection system, oil supply system, valve trains, cooling system, and all the rest of what makes it roar. If so, you'll have to agree that there are fewer parts in my engine (not the one shown, but an 8-cylinder version) than in the V-8 that it's intended to replace. The difference is that the V-8 started out as a fairly simple machine almost a century ago, and the complexities have been added over the years. My design takes the technology right to the present, benefitting from all we've learned about engines in the past century, so it doesn't have the luxury of starting simple (other than in all the 3D virtual models leading up to it). Incidentally, I'm currently working on an engine that has all the features of the OPCE (two stroke, opposed piston, uniflow, supercharged, infinitely variable exhaust valve timing, perfectly balanced statically and dynamically) in a much simpler linear (not circular) configuration. This is a case of starting with a few assumptions, designing an engine, learning a whole lot, refining the design, then realizing that some of the assumptions that got me going were misleading. It's input from folks like you that keep me thinking. Thanks for your input!
So you reinvented the Taurozzi engine from Argentina. Don't worry, I saw patents replicated before. First of all, this design and dozens more which works on the kinematics doesn't solved at all the core issue related to these thermal machines. I put it on numbers : you need to lower 160 gr/kWh of BSFC AND get rid of most harmful emissions. If you don't achieve that, there isn't an incentive to even try your design. Sorry, but better an awful truth than a nice lie
Thanks for your input. I'll have to look up the Taurozzi engine -- I've never heard of it. My lawyers and I did as extensive a check as we could to try to avoid infringing any patents, and didn't see anything close to what I designed. Have you checked out your numbers on the OPOC engine and the Achates engine? I'd be curious to see how they fare. For certain, mine is considerably lighter, as there is no fixed block and no counterweights on massive crankshafts. By the way, you should be looking for g/kW, not kWh -- power is in kilowatts, energy is in kilowatt*hours. The engine in the video is about 600 g/kW, which is a lot less than most internal combustion engines but not as low as you would like it to be. Is your target based upon electric motors? Thanks again!
I took a moment to look at the Taurozzi engine. The only thing that's even remotely similar to my engine is the curved cylinders and toroidal pistons. His engine isn't opposed piston, the pistons move instead of the cylinders as in my design, doesn't have uniflow scavenging, uses conventional cam shafts (for both exhaust and intake valves), has valves half the size of the ones in mine (restricted venting), uses a crank shaft with counterweights instead of precision non-circular gears, doesn't have variable charge or variable compression, doesn't use the Miller engine cycle, and isn't symmetrical and therefore ideally balanced and vibration free. No wonder it didn't show up in any of the patent searches we made. But thanks for pointing it out to me -- I'm always interested in other people's designs! Have you had a chance to look at the one that calls itself the "Liquid Piston Engine"? Although I don't think rotary engines are the answer, this one overcomes almost all of the problems demonstrated by the Wankel engine.
@@prosstaylor , FYI en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake-specific_fuel_consumption This is the most important fact at the time to consider other engine technology than the usual one There is one, and only one way to achieve values below 160 gr/kWh and is performing detonation-deflagration instead of combustion The issue is the exergy availability destruction Is complicated and cannot be Fixed only doing mechanical changes Innengine, liquid piston, achates, and every engine which uses the same combustion principle lost before the usual looses approx 25% of the fuel energy
Thank you for staying with me on this. I completely misunderstood your metric (and your units were correct -- sorry about that!), so I'm glad you pointed me in the right direction. Yes, IC engines are notoriously inefficient -- mine is an attempt to make a big step to improve that, but you're right that even a big step doesn't come close to the number you're suggesting. I'll continue to look into your suggestions. Thanks again, and Merry Christmas!
I'm not sure what happened here -- I can no longer see your posting with the Wikipedia article on BSFC anymore, and I've lost two of my replies to you. I'll re-post that content, and hopefully it doesn't show up as duplicate information. Interestingly, my 2-stroke design was inspired by the MAN 2-stroke diesel, which, in the Wikipedia table, is at 155 g/kWh, so past the target you set for me. With three further advantages over the MAN diesel, my engine should be competitive (at least at the huge scale of their marine engine!). Mine doesn't rely on porting, so I could, if I wanted to, open the intake channel at BDC, not at 75 degrees out of 90, for a longer combustion stroke; mine is opposed piston, which, according to the builders of the OPOC and Achates engines, improves efficiency by up to 50% over a conventional engine; mine can have valves almost the size of the cylinder bore, dramatically increasing venting, which is one of the big limitations on conventional engines -- Chrysler was excited to increase venting just a tiny bit by doing a hemi head! You've now got me interested in doing a giant marine engine to match the MAN! I've done some much bigger mockups, and it scales up beautifully; I considered using it for diesel-electric trains at one point. I agree with you that IC engines are notoriously inefficient, and we should be aiming for more efficient systems. However, I started designing this in 1975, and it's hard to let go of the thousands of hours I've poured into it in almost five decades! There are still applications that are best suited to something like an IC engine, and with renewable fuels and very low emission fuel options available now, there still may be a place for my engine. Thanks again for your critique, for sparking my thinking, and for pointing me to BSFC as a good metric for efficiency. Merry Christmas!
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave his only Son (Jesus) and whosoever believeth in Him shall not die, but have everlasting life" Repent of your wrongdoings and believe in Jesus now.
A bow to you sir. You not only know everything about mechanical engineering, you know everything about software + manufacturing + top notch intelligence and skill. Best of luck to you. And all the success. you really deserve it.
Thanks for your kind words! This is more the result of a "collective intelligence" of a broad range of colleagues and other interested parties providing input and nudging me to learn and apply what I need to know to improve the design.
I generally brush off "revolutionary" engines, but this one is compelling and nicely explained. I hope you find venture capital for your endeavor.
Thanks!
Waaaay over my head but understood enough to believe you have something good here.
Thanks!
We have to suggest this engine for a review on D4A! Great video
Thanks!
I came here for a video about cute kittens. Ended up learning about the Miller cycle and Delayed Intake Valve Closing. But - here's my take - Pros
Efficiency Gains: Innovative energy transfer mechanism could reduce frictional losses.
Compact Design: Circumferential piston arrangement reduces engine footprint.
Unique Motion Conversion: Non-circular gears optimize oscillatory-to-rotational motion.
Modularity: Potential for easier integration into certain compact systems.
Innovation: Departure from conventional ICE designs opens possibilities for specialized applications.
Cons
Manufacturing Complexity: Expensive and challenging to produce components like non-circular gears.
Durability Concerns: Increased wear on unconventional moving parts, including gears and shafts.
Thermal Management Issues: Cooling combustion chambers in a circular layout could be difficult.
Friction Losses: Oscillatory piston motion may introduce additional friction on chamber walls.
Valve Timing Limitation: Rotating cam plates restrict flexibility compared to modern variable valve timing.
Lower Power Density: Likely less power output compared to conventional turbocharged ICEs.
Maintenance Challenges: Specialized design could complicate repairs and servicing.
Limited Ecosystem Support: Requires unique tooling and expertise, reducing adoption potential. One last Con - no cute kittens. Other than that - good video.
Thanks so much for your thoughtful response! I love it when I get detailed critiques, as that's how this design has progressed through the years. I had a dozen or more experts that I leaned on when I was teaching at the polytechnic college during its development, and they were an invaluable source.
Some responses to your comments, particularly the "cons":
Manufacturability is an issue; I have a handful of machinists who have provided input into how to do what's required, and I think they've shown that modern CNC machines can do the work required without much difficulty. The idea is to have most of the parts cast, with final touch-ups done with 5-axis CNC machines.
The gears can only be made using a CNC-controlled gear shaper, as grinding wouldn't produce the same pressure angle for each tooth. However, I have worked with the manufacturers of gear shapers, and they concur that the task can be easily programmed into a CNC-controlled gear shaper with a software-controlled variable centre distance. My design software specifies the optimal number of teeth for the cutter wheel. It's true, though, that generating gears this way would take longer than casting and machining the piston connecting rods in a conventional piston engine.
Abouts gears and shaft wear: the engineers I worked with at the polytechnic college showed me how to predict and prevent wear using pressure-velocity calculations, so that's a part of the design process, as well. One of my main concerns was for the outward revolutionary force on the planet shafts and bearings, and I'm pleased to say that I have a new design that moves those planets inside non-circular ring gears, reducing the distance from the rotational axis to just over a quarter of what's shown in the engine in this video. That greatly reduces the outward pressure on the bearings, and the rotational velocity is also reduced.
Thermal Management is achieved by circulating coolant through channels in the pistons, since that's what's stationary in this design. I haven't had the chance to get a thermal analysis for the most recent design from the thermal engineer expert at the polytechnic, but she provided one for earlier designs and was satisfied that cooling shouldn't be an issue.
Cylinder wall friction: The FEA analysis indicates that the maximum outward displacement of the cylinders is less than 50 nm, so the orientation of the cylinders with respect to the pistons will fall well within the tolerance allowed. The rings themselves will experience a slight outward force, particularly at mid-stroke where the velocity is greatest. This needs to be evaluated in more detail, but the outward force is certainly much lower than that experienced by similar parts in rotary engines -- for example, the apical seal in the Wankel engine.
I should look more into the way that variable valve trains work, like Toyota's VVTi system. However, I think that being able to adjust the open time from 40 degrees to 80 degrees (that's 80 degrees to 160 degrees in a conventional engine) is a considerable range. Thanks for getting me thinking, though!
In terms of power density, by being two-stroke instead of four-stroke, it's already almost double the power density of a conventional clean four-stroke engine. The one in this video is predicted to max at about 80 hp @6500 RPM; its diameter is 320 mm (12.5") and its height is similar.
Maintenance is an issue, particularly since I've chosen to include all the things that are normally "external" -- or at least easily accessible -- inside this engine: oil pumps, fuel pumps, supercharger, etc. If I find a manufacturing partner, it may be their choice to revert to having those as addons instead for easier repairs.
Ecosystem support: You can't imagine how many times I've put this design on the shelf because of my environmental concerns and the likelihood that IC engines will be phased out. People keep telling me that I should keep working on it, particularly if it can be used to support environmental causes -- for combined heat and power (CHP) or cogeneration, or as a simple hybrid (charging the batteries of an EV on long-haul trips); and of course, using renewable fuel sources instead of fossil fuels.
Sorry about the cats ;-)
Thanks again!
-Ross
Double-take: I talked about outward force on the rings -- one of the main reasons I had for switching to moving cylinders instead of moving pistons was to put the rings in the stationary pistons, so that's not an issue. However, there is still the issue of the intake valves and the supercharger valves experiencing an outward force as the cylinders oscillate. Your comments have me thinking of ways to reduce that outward force, or at least the effect of that outward force, including using something like conventional reed valves for the supercharger, and for the input to the combustion chamber, an assembly of linked poppet-style valves (for example, four small valves per cylinder, since that provides much greater venting than a single large valve with greater resilience per valve under pressure) all on something like a hinged arm, instead of individual valve guide bearing surfaces. Again, thanks for stirring the creative juices!
I do not think that a combustion engine with the usual 3000 rpm and 1000 + c heat cycles with as much parts as a Swiss automatic watch will run reliable enough for mass production. Nice effort though. PS: How do you bore, hone and mass produce a two part banana shaped cylinder?
Thanks for your interest. By the way, by comparison to my engine, a conventional V-8 would have about double the number of parts as a Swiss watch, and still seems to be reliable enough for mass production ;-) This engine was originally designed to redline at 6500 RPM and passed the approval of a design engineer and a thermal engineer. Of course, a real prototype would provide more definitive results.
According to the machinists I work with, the toroidal cylinders would be shaped using a 5-axis CNC machine with a rotating cutter generating the bore while following a circular path along the stroke -- not a challenging process, but requiring specialty equipment. For mass production, the raw blanks would be cast and final-bored using the 5-axis CNC machine.
The real manufacturing challenge is the non-circular gears. They can only be produced using a CNC-controlled Gear Shaper (which is definitely not a CNC milling machine), with specialty software. Unfortunately, gear shaping takes longer than other gear manufacturing processes, so this would be the time-limiting and cost-generating process.
Although I doubt that I'll release a video of it because it strays too far from the original patent, I have a radial design that has all the advantages of the OPCE without the manufacturing challenges. With this new engine configuration, it feels like I'm abandoning five decades of designing gears and working with engineers and manufacturers to come up with a production-ready OPCE, but on the bright side, everything I've learned along the way about engines, engine cycles, and manufacturing has helped me clarify what's important so I can now simplify while retaining the key features.
Thanks again for taking the time to comment!
Even though you might consider it to be too late for automobile applications, it would still be a good idea to adopt one into a popular car because that seems to be the real test of any new engine, it's what the average person expects and is entitled to.
Interesting thought! One application that has been floated a number of times is that of incorporating it into a portable charger for long trips with EVs -- essentially, turn your plugin EV into a hybrid.
Thanks for your interest!
Wonderfol Rotary Engines !... Congratulation...
Thanks for your support! I actually make a distinction between rotary engines (where the motor parts spin completely around the axis) and an oscillating engine (where the motor parts move back and forth in only part of a circular path). My earliest designs were rotary, but I moved to oscillating designs to reduce the wear from centrifugal motion. Thanks again!
Excellent. I have lots of things I would do with those motors.
Thanks for your interest!
Great video!❤
Thanks!
Wow, good luck. This is cool.
Thanks!
Mind if I ask where you obtained the funding for the prototypes?
Are they interested in funding another radial Rankine Cycle engine design?
All the funding I received was through the research and innovation department of the college I was working for. All the best with your design! I'm currently working on a radial implementation of my engine cycle!
im designing an engine, crazy to see someone else has similar ideas, (not exact/uniquely) we should get in touch some day
Sounds interesting!
Yes I have thought of all of those ideas for 40 years and I have discarded all of them as not being good enough.
I am working on the good enough idea now!😊😊😊
All the best!
Nice 3D rendering. When will you run the actual prototype engine? With modern even metal 3D printing, I would assume it would be easy to test.
As a retired middle-class individual, funding a prototype is a challenge. The college I worked for supported the plastic working prototype of the early design to the tune of $40,000, then supported development of a partial prototype to test the gears for $50,000. Unfortunately, they couldn't arrange for the use of a CNC-controlled gear shaper (the only practical way of making the gears) and paid a machinist to try to build the gears with a CNC milling machine. That was a dismal failure, and funds ran out before completion. I do have an impressive collection of nice-looking pieces of steel from that attempt, though!
The college owns a $500,000 metal printer, and we printed one set of matching gears on it as a demo, but acceptable gear tooth quality is not something that can be achieved without after-printing machining with standard gear manufacturing equipment.
Liebherr group's gear department was willing to write software and build a set of gears for about $20,000, but by then the college administration had changed and the new group were no longer willing to support research and development for insiders. They even initiated an IP assignment process to transfer patent ownership to me, with me paying the remaining fees for publishing the patent.
One semester, a team from the college's Bachelor of Technology program worked with me and a 3D-printing and machining company from the USA, with the intent of them using my prototype as a show-piece in their advertising. We would supply a significant portion of the funds through a grant, and they would absorb the remaining costs. Unfortunately, their negotiations extended past the cutoff date for the grant we intended to access, and proceedings ground to a halt.
One of the consultants I approached indicated that a full working metal prototype would likely cost about $250,000. This is bigger than many of the small-item grants available, but much too small for a typical automotive R&D grant.
So, I'm still looking for a source of funds. In the meantime, though, not having anything in metal gives me the opportunity to refine the design, and even look at other variations that incorporate the engine cycle I've developed into other, simpler formats; so all is not lost.
Thanks for your interest!
@ Understand completely and thank you for your complete response. Best of luck on your endeavor.
Thanks!
Very cool 😎
Thanks!
Have you built one and tested it?
Because what looks good on the screen does not always turn out as good in reality.
Its hard to see what is going on there, but from what I can see slamming the valve stem into the other valve at high speed might not be a good idea.
I have solved all of the problems you have mentioned with the Rotary engine.
Nothing built except for the plastic proof-of-concept shown. I'm still waiting for someone with a quarter million bucks to pour into the real thing (almost happened once!) -- which gives me more time to refine the design and work on some almost-unrelated off-shoots based upon all I've learned in the five decades I've been working on this one! I have a much better circular design already, and am working on a simple linear engine that does pretty nearly everything the circular engine does, just not in as tiny a package.
The valve action isn't physically accurate, due to limitations in the animation mode I've chosen in Autodesk Inventor. I just have the valves snapping open and closed at intervals designed to mimic the much smoother action of the valves. In reality, the intake valves, which are differential-pressure-activated, would close or at least partially close when the combustion chamber pressure rises to close to what remains in the supercharger, so when the exhaust valve closes, the intake valves would be very nearly closed if not already closed, and the exhaust valve wouldn't snap open and closed -- it would follow the contour of the cam.
Thanks for this post and your interest! I doubt many people noticed the flaky simplified valve motion!
@prosstaylor @prosstaylor A plastic model is NOT proof of concept.......
A working model is proof of concept.
I am going to build mine soon.
We can not do away with some kind of reciprocating or at least an eccentric orbital motion, because we have to create a pulsating volume.
The task is to minimize the weight of the reciprocating motion, while maintaining functionality abd at a low cost.😊 Good luck with yours!
I'm going to make one of these with my 4D printer !
Wow -- you got me investigating 4D printing: creating 3D prints that morph into different shapes with time or exposure to external stimuli. Very cool!
By the way, 3D printing the gears for my engines isn't trivial -- I have written two software programs with approximately 1500 lines of code each for generating the properly-shaped teeth as dxf files to import into the 3D modelling software for my engine models, and that I use to generate 3D printing files to make plastic versions of the gears when I need to double-check things.
Once, the college I was working for printed me two steel gears on their half-million dollar metal printer sitting in its hundred-thousand dollar hermetically-sealed room. The gears are pretty good, except that the lower edge of each tooth is a bit rough due to the laser welding down into an unsupported bed of nanoparticle steel powder. They are still very nice show-and-tell items to visually demonstrate the accuracy of my software and the way in which the non-circular gears produce oscillatory motion.
In order to handle the engine's power requirements, the gear teeth need to have a number of strength-and quality-related specifications, as well as being involute and helical with a constant pressure angle. Every tooth has a unique profile, and that profile changes from the bottom to the top of each helix, since the instantaneous radius changes as a function of the angle of rotation.
That's not something commercial non-circular gear software offers at the moment (they do "rolling pinion" teeth where the pressure angle changes with distance from the centre shaft and the teeth are generated normal to the instantaneous pitch and not radial to the centre of the gear), but Liebherr Group's CNC gear shaper team have investigated my requirements, and indicate that it would be relatively trivial to write software for their gear shapers to meet the specifications. If I'd had $18,000 to throw away, they'd have written the software and sent me a trial set of gears in 2013.
Thanks for your interest!
What are you’re thoughts on the “1 stroke” INN engine
I just took a look at that -- interestingly, their labelling it as "1-stroke" just means that it's a 2-stroke with two power events per revolution, so 2/2 = 1. That's what my engine is achieving, as well, due to the bilobe gear oscillators which provide a 2-stroke power event for each half-rotation, or 2 x 1/2 = 1. I like the simplicity of their design. My engine has some advantages over theirs: uniflow scavenging, Miller Cycle with variable compression ratio, and stroke-by-stroke supercharging.
Incidentally, on my computer right now I have a design that takes all of the concepts I've developed over the years in designing the OPCE engine and puts them into a non-circular design for simplicity and manufacturability. I'm hoping to build one of these, if for no other reason than to verify all that I've learned and incorporated into the OPCE. However, if it doesn't infringe on other people's designs, I may consider commercializing it.
It's too bad that our intellectual property and patenting laws put designers into their own little silos. I'd like to see the designers of a number of promising designs sitting down and collaborating on the "ultimate" IC engine!
Thanks for pointing this one out to me!
@ yeah I know that it’s not really a one stroke engine but it is a good marketing strategy. Hey man, you really got some talent. You’re really smart and you’re putting it to good use. I hope you build your engine one day. I’m sure you’ll leave your mark on the world with an amazing design. I really wanna build my own twin charged two-stroke opposed piston engine, that would have a sealed crank case diesel or gas but I don’t want mixed gas. I just like how it’s two-stroke and you get to harvest more energy and there’s no cams.
Thanks for your kind words!
Incredable. I want one.
Thanks! So do I! Now, if someone would supply about $250k, we could build a prototype ;-)
@@prosstaylorSee one of the key features of a good engine design, it should not cost 250k.
You are competing with engines you can buy under $500 at Harbor Freight.
Even a one off prototype should not cost more than 10k.
I have one like that right now.
Actually, outside of the range of engines that would be used for home CHP, I'm competing with engines that cost $20,000 when you try to get them replaced in your F250, or a few million when you put them in your ocean-going tanker, but still prototyping is an expensive business. Once you get yours up and running, I'd love to see how it turned out!
@@prosstaylor For $250000 you can set up a machine shop and make it yourself! It would not cost anywhere near that to make a prototype. Go to India and they will do it $10,000! That is what I am doing!
How are the curved cylinders and curved pistons machined?
My machinists say it's done using a 5-axis CNC machine with a rotating tool that cuts the bore while moving along a circular path to the end of the stroke.
Thanks for your interest!
How do you bore the curved cylinders?
With a 5-axis CNC machine, a rotating cutter, significantly smaller than the bore, enters the end of the cylinder and traces around the bore while spiraling in along the bore radius. Since the stroke isn't that deep, the drive machinery remains outside the bore.
great idea with more parts per engine. nowadays we just fit an electric motor with some awesome lifepo4 cells. radial engine woukd be more efficient to this
Electric's great, and I hope we continue to move in that direction. There are still applications for IC engines, particularly when coupled with renewable fuels. Until our cars have replaceable batteries or safe ways to fast-charge, we'll still be stuck waiting for that charge.
By the way, the configuration of the pistons, circular, radial, or linear, really isn't the most important thing -- it comes down to making them "opposed" so there's no energy wasted in vibrating the block, being able to vent the chamber effectively (lots of valve space and uniflow scavenging) and being able to allow for a greater expansion stroke than the compression stroke (Miller or Atkinson).
The huge MAN uniflow two-stroke engines that run ocean liners have hit the 50% efficiency mark, and my engine cycle, adapted from theirs, adds the extra efficiency of opposed pistons and better chamber venting; so it's possible that my engine would match or beat that efficiency, which wasn't even dreamed of two decades ago.
Odd that you should mention radial, though, because I have a design on my computer right now that's a radial arrangement that meets the requirements I listed above, in a simpler and more manufacturable configuration! It certainly isn't a WWI aircraft radial, though!
Thanks for your interest!
@@prosstaylor i totally agree with you we still need ICE and CCE (diesel) i look towards the hybrid option with the ICE/CCE are used for electric generation. hydrogen should not be an option as cost and energy required is much higher than other alternatives. dual fuel lpg/diesel is the best option in my view. small engines on high compression for low rpm high torque for either the 3000rpm or 650rpm(tractor style) generators. i am subscribed and will be a passenger on your journey. all positives for everyone. you get to solve more puzzles. Have an awesome 2025 Sir.
Thank you! All the best!
How can an unaffiliated inventor get funding for patents? Is an US patent enough for an engine like this or a patent on multiple countries would be better? Something tells me that, even in the transport sector, there will be a surge in the need for compact and highly efficient engines that will no longer be coupled to primary traction, essentially as the last generation of combustion engines.
You ask hard questions. I had a short window of opportunity in which the college I worked for was willing to support my research and began the process of filing the patent. Without that, I would not have been able to cover the lawyer's fees for completing the process -- even the cost of the final steps was a bit daunting! My patent lawyer suggested staying with just the US patent. My daughter, who has a number of patents in the chemical/medical/agricultural world, always goes for multiple countries. I think my patent lawyer felt that the US was the most likely market for an engine design; however, it seems that there are a lot of European and Asian countries that are making significant advances as well.
For size, efficiency, and simplicity of control, it makes sense to have an engine running at a constant "sweet spot" speed generating electricity rather than mechanically driving systems with widely varying requirements and desired response times.
Thanks for your thoughtful response!
People have suggested "go fund me" campaigns and things like Dragons' Den. There may be other possible avenues for getting funding and support like these.
My respect. Very nice and exhaustive work! But in my opinion it's too complex and probably prone to be too expensive for the intended application. I hope you can work further to improve the concept. Send to you the best luck!
Thanks for your thoughtful response. It really is quite a complex and exacting design, and I continue to see if there are ways to achieve the same goals more simply.
What was that second part?
I'm not sure what you're specifically referring to -- please provide a bit more detail. Thanks!
Had me until the parastalstic pumps . When they fail, which they do/will , no lube . A small trocho or gear pump will last , and it will push oil through a filter.
Thanks for taking the time to provide this critique! You'll notice that these aren't actually peristaltic pumps, which force liquid through a flexible pipe. They're more like rotary compression pumps, with vanes following an eccentric surface. I'm definitely not tied to this minor feature of the design as shown -- the main thing is what's happening with the combustion chambers. Thanks again!
@ much better. The only thing is that it needs a filter for both lubricants, magnets for the drain plugs and enough pressure to run it. Rollers require less pressure, and they can be replaced if not worn excessively. I really like the idea of high compression and the ability to run long expansions to the compression and power. I have been fascinated by this when Volvo was experimenting with the decentralized design for heat and power. I think it was using the 2.3 red block. I’m betting that it would be cheaper to use than the grid, and with a Telsa battery it would work better, as it would work harder, heat from the battery and electronics is free heat . I’m lucky as a son of Dixie that I have never had to heat in the northern states or Canada, Russia etc. I’m sure there are some cobbler setups there that beat the grid .
Thanks again for your insight and suggestions! Much appreciated!
No, you don't need mass efficiency in the stationary engine, you need the low amount of parts and ultra low cost. The ideal solution is a single piston engine.
Evidence from the OPOC and Achates engines indicates that having two opposed pistons will result in increases in efficiency of 25% to 50% over a single piston conventional engine. If I had to pare down what I have learned over the past five decades about engines and efficiency, that's the simplest piston system I would recommend.
Thanks for your comment!
Cool idea, but FAR too complex and expensive to produce compared to other options.
Yeah, it's pretty complex. However, it actually has fewer parts and definitely fewer moving assemblies than the V-8 it would compete with. Thanks for you input!
@@prosstaylor Not so much the number, as the complexity. I see a lot of complex machining required. 5 axis isn't cheap.
Right again. In commercial production, the bulk of the CNC work would be replaced with standard metal casting. On one of my earlier designs, I actually spent the time to design it for casting -- a very interesting set of skills to learn! Five-axis machining would probably be needed only for sleeve inserts. Thanks for your interest and input!
@@prosstaylor If that works for some of the really oddball parts, then you might be onto something. Do you have any videos of it running?
Sorry, I'm still looking for a commercial partner or research facility interested in building a working prototype. The closest I have is the $40,000 plastic compressed-air prototype of a much earlier design that's featured in this mini-documentary: ua-cam.com/video/S9bmfAhIFjg/v-deo.html or accessible from my channel. Thanks again!
Not bad for AI 👍
Al Bundy? Does sound like him.
Funny! As a retired computer engineering technology instructor, I have, oddly, never even accessed an AI site -- I'm still old-school enough to want to say exactly what I mean instead of letting something or someone else do it for me!
@@prosstaylor computer enginering, that explains the core around shape in your design from a mechanic view it look like a lil nightmare to "patch" but at the end it could lead to an improvement if you get the math right but the thing that get my atention in these are the gears, its hard to beat the simplicity and thoughness of the clasic oil bearings
I did some serious conversing with both KissSoft and Liebherr, and we determined that it would be surprisingly easy to generate the non-circular gears to my specifications using a conventional CNC-controlled gear shaper. Liebherr would have written the software and supplied me with a set of gears if I had been willing to cover the costs.
@@prosstaylor i mean it is like the rotary engine the change on force due to the change in direction of the pistons are held by certain theets that would wear those ones more, at the end is less contact area than a classic journal on a crankshaft, if they work for keeping the pistons in track like i think or im wrong? Thats what in mean by math if theyre going to be the aquiles tendon
Too many parts. Might be OK for lawnmower or leaf blower. Mybe an outboard motor.
I'm just going to post a response I sent to someone else recently. I hope that's OK!
I'm guessing you've had a chance to tear apart a V-8 diesel engine with a turbocharger, fuel injection system, oil supply system, valve trains, cooling system, and all the rest of what makes it roar. If so, you'll have to agree that there are fewer parts in my engine (not the one shown, but an 8-cylinder version) than in the V-8 that it's intended to replace. The difference is that the V-8 started out as a fairly simple machine almost a century ago, and the complexities have been added over the years. My design takes the technology right to the present, benefitting from all we've learned about engines in the past century, so it doesn't have the luxury of starting simple (other than in all the 3D virtual models leading up to it).
Incidentally, I'm currently working on an engine that has all the features of the OPCE (two stroke, opposed piston, uniflow, supercharged, infinitely variable exhaust valve timing, perfectly balanced statically and dynamically) in a much simpler linear (not circular) configuration. This is a case of starting with a few assumptions, designing an engine, learning a whole lot, refining the design, then realizing that some of the assumptions that got me going were misleading.
It's input from folks like you that keep me thinking.
Thanks for your input!
Your combustion chamber is far too cold for clean burning, especially of waste plastic and soot (and to compete in the modern world engines MUST burn waste plastic). And I didn't see any insulation. How do you prevent heat loss? Without a highly insulated combustion chamber there's no way to burn completely and reaching anywhere close to the Carnot efficiency limit is impossible.
I like your variable compression, but is the engine's expansion to compression ratio held at 3:1 at all times?
I don't see any catalytic staged combustion. How do you clean the exhaust, given that zero emissions is the minimum and actually cleaning the air is the goal?
No Temporal Torque Transfer Device. How do you smooth the output?
No hot wall ignition. Spark-initiated combustion is way slow and quenches badly, ruining efficiency and causing emissions.
No simultaneous combined cycle, resulting in tremendous cooling losses.
I see lots of issues and complexity, but you did partially solve a few issues. It can't even remotely compete with my engine, but I salute your effort.
Thanks for your response. I'll briefly address the points you bring up.
Temperature -- the thermal engineer I was working with was much more concerned about it being too hot and trying to get the generated heat away from the combustion chamber, hence the liquid cooling system.
Variable compression -- by definition this means that the expansion to compression ratio is variable, not a constant value; it does, however, mean that the ratio you've indicated is one of the possibilities.
Catalysis -- if needed (i.e. if using hydrocarbon-based fuels), catalytic converters would be added externally to the engine, as is typical of equivalent engines.
Torque Transfer -- the output is, by nature, smooth, since the engine stroke is almost sinusoidal and forces are balanced across the engine; there is sufficient mass in the oscillator mechanism to act as a passive flywheel.
Hot Wall -- the engine as shown is compression ignition, not spark ignition, with two fuel injectors per chamber to set the injection-initiated combustion to the best possible time(s) for clean burning and maximum power; the clean air in the charge is compressed to well above the ignition temperature of the fuel prior to injection, so there is no need for hot wall ignition.
Combined Cycle -- as indicated in the video, the "waste" heat isn't wasted -- it's used in a Cogeneration or Combined Heat and Power system for heating water to be used for space and water heating.
Complexity -- yeah, it's pretty complex! It still has a lot fewer parts, and fewer unique parts, than a typical V-8 conventional engine; and I'm currently working on what looks like a completely different design (radial!) that still has all the performance characteristics of the circular engine -- opposed pistons, uniflow two-stoke, variable compression using exhaust valve control, stroke-by-stroke supercharger, perfect static and dynamic balance, Miller Cycle, extremely large valve venting area, etc. I probably won't post a video of this one, though, because I think it's strayed too far from the original patent!
All the best with your design! I have had quite a few discussions with an engineer who was working on ceramic linings for IC engines to increase wall temperatures without damaging other parts of the engine. Interesting work!
That is a great engine, but no one will make it. Too labour intensive.
Thanks for your response! I have a couple of machinists who are intrigued by the challenge!
Looks too complex to ever be produced.
I'm guessing you've had a chance to tear apart a V-8 diesel engine with a turbocharger, fuel injection system, oil supply system, valve trains, cooling system, and all the rest of what makes it roar. If so, you'll have to agree that there are fewer parts in my engine (not the one shown, but an 8-cylinder version) than in the V-8 that it's intended to replace. The difference is that the V-8 started out as a fairly simple machine almost a century ago, and the complexities have been added over the years. My design takes the technology right to the present, benefitting from all we've learned about engines in the past century, so it doesn't have the luxury of starting simple (other than in all the 3D virtual models leading up to it).
Incidentally, I'm currently working on an engine that has all the features of the OPCE (two stroke, opposed piston, uniflow, supercharged, infinitely variable exhaust valve timing, perfectly balanced statically and dynamically) in a much simpler linear (not circular) configuration. This is a case of starting with a few assumptions, designing an engine, learning a whole lot, refining the design, then realizing that some of the assumptions that got me going were misleading.
It's input from folks like you that keep me thinking.
Thanks for your input!
So you reinvented the Taurozzi engine from Argentina. Don't worry, I saw patents replicated before.
First of all, this design and dozens more which works on the kinematics doesn't solved at all the core issue related to these thermal machines.
I put it on numbers : you need to lower 160 gr/kWh of BSFC AND get rid of most harmful emissions.
If you don't achieve that, there isn't an incentive to even try your design.
Sorry, but better an awful truth than a nice lie
Thanks for your input. I'll have to look up the Taurozzi engine -- I've never heard of it. My lawyers and I did as extensive a check as we could to try to avoid infringing any patents, and didn't see anything close to what I designed.
Have you checked out your numbers on the OPOC engine and the Achates engine? I'd be curious to see how they fare. For certain, mine is considerably lighter, as there is no fixed block and no counterweights on massive crankshafts.
By the way, you should be looking for g/kW, not kWh -- power is in kilowatts, energy is in kilowatt*hours.
The engine in the video is about 600 g/kW, which is a lot less than most internal combustion engines but not as low as you would like it to be. Is your target based upon electric motors?
Thanks again!
I took a moment to look at the Taurozzi engine. The only thing that's even remotely similar to my engine is the curved cylinders and toroidal pistons. His engine isn't opposed piston, the pistons move instead of the cylinders as in my design, doesn't have uniflow scavenging, uses conventional cam shafts (for both exhaust and intake valves), has valves half the size of the ones in mine (restricted venting), uses a crank shaft with counterweights instead of precision non-circular gears, doesn't have variable charge or variable compression, doesn't use the Miller engine cycle, and isn't symmetrical and therefore ideally balanced and vibration free. No wonder it didn't show up in any of the patent searches we made.
But thanks for pointing it out to me -- I'm always interested in other people's designs!
Have you had a chance to look at the one that calls itself the "Liquid Piston Engine"? Although I don't think rotary engines are the answer, this one overcomes almost all of the problems demonstrated by the Wankel engine.
@@prosstaylor , FYI
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake-specific_fuel_consumption
This is the most important fact at the time to consider other engine technology than the usual one
There is one, and only one way to achieve values below 160 gr/kWh and is performing detonation-deflagration instead of combustion
The issue is the exergy availability destruction
Is complicated and cannot be
Fixed only doing mechanical changes
Innengine, liquid piston, achates, and every engine which uses the same combustion principle lost before the usual looses approx 25% of the fuel energy
Thank you for staying with me on this. I completely misunderstood your metric (and your units were correct -- sorry about that!), so I'm glad you pointed me in the right direction. Yes, IC engines are notoriously inefficient -- mine is an attempt to make a big step to improve that, but you're right that even a big step doesn't come close to the number you're suggesting. I'll continue to look into your suggestions. Thanks again, and Merry Christmas!
I'm not sure what happened here -- I can no longer see your posting with the Wikipedia article on BSFC anymore, and I've lost two of my replies to you. I'll re-post that content, and hopefully it doesn't show up as duplicate information.
Interestingly, my 2-stroke design was inspired by the MAN 2-stroke diesel, which, in the Wikipedia table, is at 155 g/kWh, so past the target you set for me. With three further advantages over the MAN diesel, my engine should be competitive (at least at the huge scale of their marine engine!). Mine doesn't rely on porting, so I could, if I wanted to, open the intake channel at BDC, not at 75 degrees out of 90, for a longer combustion stroke; mine is opposed piston, which, according to the builders of the OPOC and Achates engines, improves efficiency by up to 50% over a conventional engine; mine can have valves almost the size of the cylinder bore, dramatically increasing venting, which is one of the big limitations on conventional engines -- Chrysler was excited to increase venting just a tiny bit by doing a hemi head!
You've now got me interested in doing a giant marine engine to match the MAN! I've done some much bigger mockups, and it scales up beautifully; I considered using it for diesel-electric trains at one point.
I agree with you that IC engines are notoriously inefficient, and we should be aiming for more efficient systems. However, I started designing this in 1975, and it's hard to let go of the thousands of hours I've poured into it in almost five decades! There are still applications that are best suited to something like an IC engine, and with renewable fuels and very low emission fuel options available now, there still may be a place for my engine.
Thanks again for your critique, for sparking my thinking, and for pointing me to BSFC as a good metric for efficiency.
Merry Christmas!
Probably a good engine engineering idea, and pretty good graphics, but appallingly bad and unenthusiastic narration. Zero stars.
Sorry about that. I hope my target audience is more interested in the design than in my thespian performance ;-)
Too much too complicated...
It still has fewer parts and fewer moving assemblies than the conventional V-8 it would compete with. Thanks for your insight!
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave his only Son (Jesus) and whosoever believeth in Him shall not die, but have everlasting life" Repent of your wrongdoings and believe in Jesus now.
As a long-time believer and volunteer pastor, I thank you for getting the message out!