So in 2012 this company said they were going to revolutionize engines with 30% more efficient opposed pistons, and in 2018 Achates Power said they were going to revolutionize engines with 30% more efficient opposed pistons, and yet where are the revolutionary engines?
This is an ad for Pinnacle. Big on hype, short on detail. What happens to the rings when they traverse the annular ports? What is the power-to-weight ratio?
it's currently May 2020, they said they had a partner debuting the engine in production in 2013 in Asia. I've never heard of them and nothing when I google it i find they have since merged with Greaves Cotton and are pushing a 'twin piston engine for TukTuks' nothing like what they were pitching in this video.
The amount of inertia that must be overcome to displace a well-entrenched “good enough” competitor is huge: the advantage over the others you have needs to be a quantum leap greater for people to overcome that hesitation from what the know to something unknown. The iPhone was one of those situations: previous smartphones even with touchscreens existed, and they ran apps, but the experience truly sucked, and entering data was a horror story. Apple solved that problem well enough they overcame that inertia. It helped greatly that it didn’t require redesigning and replacement of a capital investment for a person as expensive as a car, that you’re committed to many years of payments and use for most common drivers. In addition, for an engine, you either need the huge capital to build an engine manufacturing plant, or persuade automakers or someone else to do that, replacing production of another engine in its place, quite likely: there are limits to industrial zones where such heavy manufacturing can be done for various reasons. Apple had the added benefit that they could reduce the risk to would-be buyers of the iPhone that it was also a very neat iPod that could use their old music collection as well. Apple already had the supporting ecosystem to add value to the iPhone beyond that of just being a phone. I’m always curious as to what happens to all the new engine designs and if they mechanically work as proclaimed/expected, as I have interesting thoughts along those lines myself, many alternatives. However, given what I’ve stated above (and I didn’t even cover everything, I know!) it’s a tough row to hoe. Myself? If someone could prove they had a notably better engine with more power/fuel efficiency, and was reliable, I’d gladly replace my car’s engine, if only as an experiment, even though at the time of posting this my 2018 Subaru Outback’s 3.6l engine has less than 38,000 miles on it and thus far has been boringly reliable, sounds good to me while running, no turbo lag (no turbo!), is well-balanced, but frankly, is NOT a fuel-sipper! Then again, I’m not persuaded that how I need to drive in this area that the newer 2.4 H4 turbo claimed to produce more power/torque and get better mileage would get better mileage in practice, I expect long-term an expensive repair for the turbo (I keep cars until they’re too expensive to run/maintain, or they’re no longer safe or reliable enough) and having test-driven an Ascent with the newer engine, there’s a noticeable turbo lag, which I’m not willing to deal with in certain situations when I have an option of an engine without it with enough torque.
A friend of mine worked 15 years ago in a development departement for long time on revolutionairy normal petrol engine. 15 percent more power , 10 percent less fuel and no catalyst necassary so reduction of 35 percent production cost. The board rejected it ....because owners of older cars could face EXPENSIVE repairs of catalyst ...whereas owners of vehicle with newer engine would raise eyebrow : your old car has catalyst and my new car hasnt??!!??
Wait, you're talking about a sleeve valve engine? They have been around for a hundred years or so, they make very good power but they are not efficient, and are plagued with high oil consumption due to issues with lubricating the sleeves , a problem with the design and cannot really be remedied.
Some general philosophy the Opposed Piston engine is a good direction but a 4 stroke definitely has advantages over the 2 cycle with regards to efficiency and emissions. A slide valve is going to be plagued with the same problems the old British slide valve engines had decades ago. I would like to see someone build an OP on the same design as two flat head blocks mated with a spacer. This has been done with modified lawn mower engines (actual videos on UA-cam) but it was not refined and purpose built and thoroughly tested as these guys are doing.
What if; they did this but then put a water cycle between the standard 4 and intake (so 6 stroke essentially) thus keeping things cool. Uses waste energy thus saving fuel per cycle and keeps the intake cooler thus 2 fold increase in efficiency 👍
The engine is opposed piston. Poppet valves don't work. The questions are, how does an opposed piston 2 stroke compare to single piston 4 stroke, how does a opposed piston 4 stroke compare to an opposed piston 4 stroke, and can oil loss from sleeve valves be reduced?
Already done in England in the 50’s. They were bought out and new owner destroyed plans. A few were hidden away and still exist. Chrysler bought them out.
@@spankeyfishwas designed by a NZ engineer in Whanganui in late twenties. He took it to Ford and GM but they rejected it. The patient run out and the Germans grabbed it.
Knight built it, and Daimler put it in a car over 100 years ago. It worked, kinda. Smokey, underpowered for it's displacement, extremely thirsty engine but it was quiet... Sleeve valves are interesting, deceptively simple and even elegant in application but not "efficient" and never will be.
nothing, end gases(aka emissions according to the epa) cause knock, that is why 4 stroke engines are more efficient than 2 stroke engines and Miller cycle (scavenging) engines are even more efficient. All other things being equal.
It's a four stroke! I see little improvement in efficiency here. The ports are still quite small and don't forget, they have to serve two pistons instead of one. Where are the increases in thermodynamic efficiency and there is extra friction horsepower to contend with. Still has a camshaft and valve springs and the sleeves are long with high mass, so rpm's are restricted.
Sleeve valve engines are not new and I have never heard of them being thermally more efficient. I note that the the claimed efficiency gains are neither described nor proven. That's the sort of thing that makes you go "hmmmmm..."
i agree with your notion, but i believe most of the efficiency they are talking about gaining is from the opposed-piston design. typically opposed pistons are 2 stroke engines. the sleeve valve allows them to make one a 4 stroke which gives better economy
The most efficient way to use the fuel, both oil (Diesel) and gasoline (Benzene) is to burn it in centralised burners that use the heat to produce steam and electricity and then the cars use the electricity to drive on. You can theoretically burn Diesel and the only thing that comes out is water. If the facility is using the right tech to clean the exhaust like water injection and wet scrubbers and other techniques that can be used...
Stinks. 1) Two cranks for a real savings in parts costs, packaging and frictional losses! 2) Sleeve valves to make sure lots of oil goes out the exhaust! 3) An opposed-piston chamber delivering a really ugly chamber! 4) Port timing giving really low CR ratios! There are worse ones around, but this one is trying for the gold!
3 is important, but if you have higher compression ratios, that improves net efficiency, and a 4 stroke is more efficient than a 2 stroke. If these can make up for the issues with sleeve valves and two cranks then it could be a benefit. Finally, if 3D printing of pistons and sleeves, means fewer of the expansion or accuracy issues of forging casting or machining, then 2 is less of an issue. I would need more information on actual performance before putting money in the concept, but it could be hypothetically more efficient.
Ridiculous ! and I prove it: that was published on Jan 2012, we are in 2019, 7 years later, no one has even heard of any development from this so called'' pinnacle'' engine !
So in 2012 this company said they were going to revolutionize engines with 30% more efficient opposed pistons, and in 2018 Achates Power said they were going to revolutionize engines with 30% more efficient opposed pistons, and yet where are the revolutionary engines?
Bought up and shelved by the big money economic groups.
I agree, with Achates the US Gov pitched in lots of money and what is to show for it?
Fuel is not the way they want to go. “Efficiency” and “emissions” are just the lies they tell you.
This is an ad for Pinnacle. Big on hype, short on detail.
What happens to the rings when they traverse the annular ports?
What is the power-to-weight ratio?
Which company have you tied up with?
Looking forward to see the car in India
So what is its efficiency if it is so great?
Running version?
Will it run on alcohol or hydrogen? How does it work?
it's currently May 2020, they said they had a partner debuting the engine in production in 2013 in Asia. I've never heard of them and nothing when I google it i find they have since merged with Greaves Cotton and are pushing a 'twin piston engine for TukTuks' nothing like what they were pitching in this video.
The amount of inertia that must be overcome to displace a well-entrenched “good enough” competitor is huge: the advantage over the others you have needs to be a quantum leap greater for people to overcome that hesitation from what the know to something unknown.
The iPhone was one of those situations: previous smartphones even with touchscreens existed, and they ran apps, but the experience truly sucked, and entering data was a horror story. Apple solved that problem well enough they overcame that inertia. It helped greatly that it didn’t require redesigning and replacement of a capital investment for a person as expensive as a car, that you’re committed to many years of payments and use for most common drivers. In addition, for an engine, you either need the huge capital to build an engine manufacturing plant, or persuade automakers or someone else to do that, replacing production of another engine in its place, quite likely: there are limits to industrial zones where such heavy manufacturing can be done for various reasons.
Apple had the added benefit that they could reduce the risk to would-be buyers of the iPhone that it was also a very neat iPod that could use their old music collection as well. Apple already had the supporting ecosystem to add value to the iPhone beyond that of just being a phone.
I’m always curious as to what happens to all the new engine designs and if they mechanically work as proclaimed/expected, as I have interesting thoughts along those lines myself, many alternatives. However, given what I’ve stated above (and I didn’t even cover everything, I know!) it’s a tough row to hoe. Myself? If someone could prove they had a notably better engine with more power/fuel efficiency, and was reliable, I’d gladly replace my car’s engine, if only as an experiment, even though at the time of posting this my 2018 Subaru Outback’s 3.6l engine has less than 38,000 miles on it and thus far has been boringly reliable, sounds good to me while running, no turbo lag (no turbo!), is well-balanced, but frankly, is NOT a fuel-sipper! Then again, I’m not persuaded that how I need to drive in this area that the newer 2.4 H4 turbo claimed to produce more power/torque and get better mileage would get better mileage in practice, I expect long-term an expensive repair for the turbo (I keep cars until they’re too expensive to run/maintain, or they’re no longer safe or reliable enough) and having test-driven an Ascent with the newer engine, there’s a noticeable turbo lag, which I’m not willing to deal with in certain situations when I have an option of an engine without it with enough torque.
A friend of mine worked 15 years ago in a development departement for long time on revolutionairy normal petrol engine. 15 percent more power , 10 percent less fuel and no catalyst necassary so reduction of 35 percent production cost. The board rejected it ....because owners of older cars could face EXPENSIVE repairs of catalyst ...whereas owners of vehicle with newer engine would raise eyebrow : your old car has catalyst and my new car hasnt??!!??
Wait, you're talking about a sleeve valve engine?
They have been around for a hundred years or so, they make very good power but they are not efficient, and are plagued with high oil consumption due to issues with lubricating the sleeves , a problem with the design and cannot really be remedied.
the ones you are talking about are ported this one is not ported.
Some general philosophy the Opposed Piston engine is a good direction but a 4 stroke definitely has advantages over the 2 cycle with regards to efficiency and emissions. A slide valve is going to be plagued with the same problems the old British slide valve engines had decades ago. I would like to see someone build an OP on the same design as two flat head blocks mated with a spacer. This has been done with modified lawn mower engines (actual videos on UA-cam) but it was not refined and purpose built and thoroughly tested as these guys are doing.
What if; they did this but then put a water cycle between the standard 4 and intake (so 6 stroke essentially) thus keeping things cool. Uses waste energy thus saving fuel per cycle and keeps the intake cooler thus 2 fold increase in efficiency 👍
How much efficiency gain for the sleeve valves compared to overhead valves? What's the compression ratio?
The engine is opposed piston. Poppet valves don't work. The questions are, how does an opposed piston 2 stroke compare to single piston 4 stroke, how does a opposed piston 4 stroke compare to an opposed piston 4 stroke, and can oil loss from sleeve valves be reduced?
@@brettknoss486 this sleeve valve is not ported , there is no oil lose.
Stunning lady.
i am working in development of connecting rod for this engine
I would like to see an opposed piston diesel Marine & or aircraft engine .
What about cars?
That was done in WW2, look up the Junkers Jumo engine series.
Already done in England in the 50’s. They were bought out and new owner destroyed plans. A few were hidden away and still exist. Chrysler bought them out.
@@spankeyfishwas designed by a NZ engineer in Whanganui in late twenties. He took it to Ford and GM but they rejected it. The patient run out and the Germans grabbed it.
LOL! This outfit needs a marketing department.
Knight built it, and Daimler put it in a car over 100 years ago.
It worked, kinda.
Smokey, underpowered for it's displacement, extremely thirsty engine but it was quiet...
Sleeve valves are interesting, deceptively simple and even elegant in application but not "efficient" and never will be.
pl. push for promoting, very promising. Thanks.
its 2016 so what happened?
nothing, end gases(aka emissions according to the epa) cause knock, that is why 4 stroke engines are more efficient than 2 stroke engines and Miller cycle (scavenging) engines are even more efficient. All other things being equal.
Thats a nice 2 stroke design
It's a four stroke! I see little improvement in efficiency here. The ports are still quite small and don't forget, they have to serve two pistons instead of one. Where are the increases in thermodynamic efficiency and there is extra friction horsepower to contend with. Still has a camshaft and valve springs and the sleeves are long with high mass, so rpm's are restricted.
I reckon there would have been sealing issues with the sleeve valve.
It's 2017 what happened
Sleeve valve engines are not new and I have never heard of them being thermally more efficient.
I note that the the claimed efficiency gains are neither described nor proven. That's the sort of thing that makes you go "hmmmmm..."
i agree with your notion, but i believe most of the efficiency they are talking about gaining is from the opposed-piston design. typically opposed pistons are 2 stroke engines. the sleeve valve allows them to make one a 4 stroke which gives better economy
Sleeve valves aren't, opposed piston engines can be more efficient than single piston cylinders, and 4 strokes are more efficient than 2 strokes.
Sleeve valve engines are not more efficient. Using sleeve valves is a great idea when used on an opposed piston engine.
Still using valves I see. I just like the opposed piston engine better.
The most efficient way to use the fuel, both oil (Diesel) and gasoline (Benzene) is to burn it in centralised burners that use the heat to produce steam and electricity and then the cars use the electricity to drive on. You can theoretically burn Diesel and the only thing that comes out is water. If the facility is using the right tech to clean the exhaust like water injection and wet scrubbers and other techniques that can be used...
A willy's Knight
Sounds ridiculous from today. "The combustion engine will last for more than 20 years from now"
Stinks.
1) Two cranks for a real savings in parts costs, packaging and frictional losses!
2) Sleeve valves to make sure lots of oil goes out the exhaust!
3) An opposed-piston chamber delivering a really ugly chamber!
4) Port timing giving really low CR ratios!
There are worse ones around, but this one is trying for the gold!
3 is important, but if you have higher compression ratios, that improves net efficiency, and a 4 stroke is more efficient than a 2 stroke. If these can make up for the issues with sleeve valves and two cranks then it could be a benefit. Finally, if 3D printing of pistons and sleeves, means fewer of the expansion or accuracy issues of forging casting or machining, then 2 is less of an issue. I would need more information on actual performance before putting money in the concept, but it could be hypothetically more efficient.
Pinnacle Engines must not have been successful. The assets just got acquired by another engine developer, Liquid Piston.
You can have the best ideas Evan ground breaking. But money runs out and three you are.
Ridiculous ! and I prove it: that was published on Jan 2012, we are in 2019, 7 years later, no one has even heard of any development from this so called'' pinnacle'' engine !
It doesn't matter what they call it. This engine design is over 80yrs old
It amazes me how time and money someone on a worthless machine. Get a grip on the torque output of this machine and cut all your BS.
6 x 3 1/2 21
1500x 3 1/2 6750(that is one poor american)
More like $100 gal
Well, that engine didn't age well!
Why do they start out with the vulgar sensationalism of "super efficient" and "crap"?
Slap the video editor and camera guy. This video embarrasses the whole concept.