"Look guis! We took ideas from two strokes, rotaries, and diesels and guess what! It can produce *almost* the same power as any of those individual engines but with none of the reliability, or simplicity!"
Two levers are between the piston rod and the transmission. The second lever's range of motion is permanently less than 90 degrees. The transmission splits the force to drive two mechanisms (like you wrote.) Two sets of combustion seals (standard cylinder and the complex one where the cylinder bank shears the spark and valve ports.) 2:47 the illustration - pause and use period and comma to step forward and back frame by frame.
MrAstrojensen the valvetrain is the largest single friction source in a traditional engine. Desmodronic valves reduce the friction dramatically but come with their own complications.Electro/pnuematic control is probably the way forward.
They call poppet valves 'complicated' but completely ignore the huge question, "What sort of insanely complicated arrangement will allow you to seal the cylinders and head/manifold when they are rotating relative to each other?" This system will inherit all the issues that make rotary valves impractical. NEXT!
If they can't hold manufacturing costs down and somehow beat the status quo wiht functionality and cost, what's the point? Weight reduction at what cost?
J.J. Lemstra Oh yes, amusement park rides are TERRIBLY unreliable. They require more maintenance than run time, fail regularly. People get killed on them almost every day!!! What the fuck are you smoking? Amusement park rides don't work, ANYTHING like this engine. It rotates and lifts each boom with air cylinders. It is not powered by one engine, or any engine. Its run off SEVERAL electric motors. You sir, are a fucking moron.
+POVadventure I was wondering this very thing.. Seems like you would have exhaust leakage around the two rotating plates. But surely that is their "proprietary" design.
+POVadventure it's similar to the wankel rotary engine. it will have seals of some sort isolating each piston. similar also to piston rings only, on the top, vs on the side. I assume.
Following on from Macomber in Edwardian days the Redrup wobble plate engine was developed for British Bristol buses in 1936 or 1937 but the 2nd World War killed it. This in not new.
I like most of this design, my only real issue is that variable valve timing gives power and efficiency across a wide power band, it's one of the big reasons modern engines are so much more efficient than even 10 years ago.
@@zaryabz56 A/F ratio is not the same as compression ratio and doesn’t allow the same control as variable valve timing. Because there are no valves in this design you cannot change valve timing or compression. The ports and cylinder stroke are both non variable.
Well this spins in a circle right? So there's got to be some centripetal force 'squishing' the pistons to the outside. I'm wondering how much this will cause additional wear on items like the piston rings.
The combustion engine is doomed, no matter how one tries to reinvent it. It's inevitable. Like the steam engine was for trains, boats, cranes and even factories.
i doubt it will last 50k miles. the design looks just too strange and odd. boxer engine with subaru are good while they last untill they blow 50k miles (crack in cylinder block usualy)
Yah the reason valves are used is because the seals moving around are impossible to have much wear life to them. So why would the world retool itself to save a couple hunder pounds, when regulations make them add thousands of pounds else where? I guess a bunch of engineers need jobs and the gov needs to spend grant money.
Where did you came up what hype? Boxer engines (Subaru and Porsche) are notorious for going past 200K miles with minimal wear. They're inherently balanced, so there's NO destructuve shaking motion, unlike V engines which require heavy (power robbing) counterweights just to keep the engine from shaking out itself to pieces. You think that by slandering boxer engines it will further your case against a completely unrelated technology like this Duke thing? How old are you? 12?
The compressor for your automotive air conditioner has a similar piston arrangement on a lot of cars. It's a matter of time someone make a engine out of it. Nicely done who ever.
I can see the thinking behind this and I genuinely believe that with the lower part count out could be far cheaper to produce, the problem is that production costs are one of the least concerns of any engine manufacturer, fuel efficiency, longevity, emissions, noise are all far greater concerns and no doubt why this engine hasn't been produced.
I feel like with so many parts moving in such an awkward motion, this engine would fail quicker than a typical I4, I5, V6, or V8. In order for this to become on option they would really need to stress test many engines under powerful load over many years. I think it's going to be really hard for anyone to ever compete with the engines we've become accustomed to.
Korben Dallas Eh. Many people won't keep a car for that long anyways. My car has 190k miles and runs fine. Only reason I still have it is because I don't have money for a newer one with less miles.
Korben Dallas Fewer parts doesn't mean it will last longer. Look at the wankel engine for example(not saying they are the same) it has fewer parts as well but isn't as reliable.
***** Biggest problem the wankel has that this engine would have is the sealing for the top of the combustion chamber. A piston ring as it wears will expand outwards through natural spring force and from the combustion stroke applying an expansion force. However, the apex seals on the rotaries, and the seals for this would have to have an applied force constant due to a flat on flat sealing characteristic and even more, the seals having to move across a port. As said above, fewer moving parts does not mean less chance of failure. It is how things move that does alot, and how it is lubricated. Any part with an asymetrical action will wear faster because it relies entirely on oil pressure to provide lubrication. A spinning part will naturally create a fluid film to prevent wear. As long as it has fluid of proper viscosity, no contact will occur. Properly gapped bearings, cam followers, etc all work on this principle. With proper care, they will last a very long time with final mechanical failure of an engine usually only due to cylinder and piston wear in which this effect does not happen. This is where I see the weakness in this engine being. The joints for the conrod connection. There is no cyclical force to provide lubrication, as result, relies entirely on pressure to take the constant impact load over and over again, almost like a hip joint.If ran presurized, should be okay. Same with the central portion where it applies to the crankshaft.
***** And fewer parts doesn't necessarily mean it will be less expensive to manufacture. Problem with a lot of these axial engines is their low rotational speed make them harder to integrate into modern applications.And then there is the emissions issue which killed the Wankel. By the time it was made clean, it was costlier than a piston engine.
Brett Carey Swash plate, used in hydraulics as well as AC for cars. Probably other things as well. I guess that is what inspired the engine idea. Cheers from John.
@@phoenixrc0074 Yeah saw that video too. I think they only use the acrylic head (see-through) just to demonstrate how the A/C compressor fires as an internal combustion engine.
no valves, no camshaft, no timing belt, no pre-ignition, higher compresion on pump gas.. i really like the design, only uses a swash-plate to convert reciprocating energy into rotational.. i like this design a lot
Peter Šori no, you wouldnt be able to fire an engine that was 3D printed, not even when not under stress, the pressure required in the cylinder alone would burst the walls of something 3D printed which has significantly inferior shear strength
Limon, i think he is talking about 3D printed metal, while you and i thought he was referring to 3D printed plastic. Peter, 3D printed metal is usually for structural components that are not usually under immense pressures or heat.
It may actually have fewer parts, but it likely loses efficiency in sealing the cylinder. Similar to the Wankel engine in that way. May also be more angular momentum (flywheel effect) because the moving parts are at a large radius (figure skater effect, arms in vs out), and possibly more rotating mass too. If it was invented and tooled up in the 40s or 50s, it might be competitive with regular fixed cylinder & crankshaft engines, and maybe kept pace with them. Since the current widespread engines are kind of approaching theoretical limits of what you can do with exploding gasoline in a cylinder, "new paradigms" aren't all that great, unless it can be made massively cheaper.
ikutoisahobo the smoothest engiges out there are in line 6... but anyway, this is a very silar design to rotary engines and those vibrate a lot like any other engine... diesel engines are the ones that vibrate the most so this engine should vibrate as much as a diesel engine or less... you could be right in vbrating like crazy if they were to build a diesel version, but then again there are rubber supports on the engine mounts for some reason right? you really think they would be smart enought to develop something so complex and forget about the vibrations?
Rotaries are much more reliable than everyone bangs on about them. It's not uncommon for well built rotaries to run 100,000 km before needing mechanical attention....
In theory you could, it the engine is capable in taking higher rotational stresses from the higher force of compressed, or charged air on ignition, it could be possible. I wonder what this would sound like compared to a typical 5 cylinder engine.
I bet the Duke Engine has an Awsome, Interesting, Unique, Different, One of A Kind Sound to it, Just like all engines have there Unique sound to them! And Im really interested in Hearing this round Duke Engine
So not only are the pistons moving up and down like in a traditional engine, but now they've made them move laterally as well? What a great way to complicate a simple process.
but if u look at the prototype the pistons are not moving axially like in the 3d rendering... the whole block is moving around so lubrication issues and whit the seals to.
As usual, I see lots of pontificating on a technical youtube video from people with absolutely no idea what they are talking about. The sinusoidal reciprocator eliminates the crankshaft, which is a major cause of torque inefficiency in conventional internal combustion engines. It also eliminates the entire valve train, which is a major simplification. That and the greater space efficiency and power to weight ratio makes this a technically superior engine. I'd still rather have a Tesla with an electric motor, but still, it's a theoretical improvement over conventional engines.
I agree, but just seeing that big chunk of metal rotating around makes me think there are a lot of issues regarding wear. Also, I assume it can only have fixed timing for intake and exhaust, which is a big no-no these days. how is it lubricated and cooled?
alxcsb basicly all you need to do is make sure the crank-core doesn't fluctuate, so if you get the valve-timing aligned with the flux of the ignition-matrix (which is fairly easy to do using a combinatorial demuxer) most of the hard stuff will sort itself out.
I remember a now retired collogue of mine describing working on a similar engine in the 60's. I believe the main issue that they had was the centripetal force that the pistons exerted on the cylinder bores increased with a square law relationship to the rotational velocity. Basically you couldn’t run it very fast and the pistons wore out fast. Back then the materials technology couldn't get around this and they only made a few working prototypes before the project got killed. They also had issues with the inlet and exhaust ports wearing out, however the technology developed for the Wankel engine in this respect will be directly transferable. I suspect the engine would likely therfore run quite slow, which would mean it may be able to drive a propeller directly without a gearbox, making it very useful for powering small unmanned aircraft. A market which is currently receiving lots of investment and at which I suspect is the application the engine is aimed at.
Depending on different manufacturer's design's and who owns the car. My Beater 95 Toyota Camry has 334,000 miles so far carried over from my father, then my older brother and now me and it's still going. Idk about a lot of other cars reaching the 300,000 mile mark but any car made today should be able to last at least 200,000 miles. Even sports cars like the Nissan 350Z, 370Z and GTR Nissan specifically state that they want them to go up to 200k or beyond.
sharpemang I agree, cars should be able to get that kind of mileage, I wonder about planned obsolescence though. does anyone know if they have a more recent video about this? I just saw this on Car Throttle and apparently its 2 years old.
Bill Hamilton General motors is notorious especially in the late 90s to late 2000s purposely designing cars to fail so people would keep buying. Too bad it didn't work out too well for them when sales dropped and people started buying other cars. Part of the reason why I steer clear far from American cars is their scumbag CEOs trying to squeeze every last drop of money out of people and horrible corporate practices that specialize in screwing people over.
It's quite genius, and actually turns half the block and Pistons almost into a flywheel. Can't believe half the comments here of people giving up on a prototype. It hasn't even reached first generation and its durability is already up for comparison against an engine type that has had just under 100 years of r&d.
how exactly is it able to have a 14:1 compression ratio, what form of sealant can hold that pressure whilst rotating at speeds apparently higher than normal type engines?
I think there's too much friction caused by rotating cylinders around the engine. Imagine the friction going on between the cylinder that's burning and the rotating plate. The other issue is that the back and forth motion is converted to rotary motion by an angled bearing, which again I think causes more friction than a classic 90 degree connection to a crankshaft. Imagine you are trying to push a car that's out of gas, but instead of pushing from the back, you are pushing at 45 degrees on the driver's door. 50% of the energy you apply to the car will be converted into forward movement. The other 50% will be wasted by trying to push the car sideways, and the tires won't let you. That's the same principle the angled bearing shaft achieves.
To research engineers worldwide. I have a far better idea. Use this concept to build world's largest motor with 10,000 cylinders. Skip the spark plugs and ignition and fuel. At the drive-shaft, attach a 30 meter long bar running 90 degrees to the drive-shaft. At the end of that shaft place a drive animal such as 2 oxen and have them walk in a circle. The pistons would compress air only. The air could be used to function in a variety of ways.
+parapobabam I looked it up and have observed the 2nd definition on the internet and found it very annoying. Now I know what to call it when experts give incomplete instructions on how to do something on your computer making the instructions useless to laypersons who can follow clear instructions but cannot follow these instructions because they lack the knowledge the person giving the instructions has.
Maybe I never grew up, but I see this as a design adults would never have been able to achieve. The paradigm shift is absolutely brilliant! Great job!!!
as a Mechanical Engineer I can bet every thing I own that this engine will never beat conventional ICE; they have been around for more than 100 years for a reason. The friction in the duke engine is crazy since you have all this insane rotation of all this mass , moreover it will be impossible to reach high RPM because of the enormous centrifugal forces that would be involve also the cooling and lubrication system will be complex and unreliable because of the horizontal layout of the piston. Its a good try but just like the Concorde they will quickly realize that this design will never work.
I've been watching for a full minute and I can honestly say this engine looks so unstable... I feel like parts are going to constantly fail due to excessive stress and wear.
Although there aren't any production cars with this engine design, this basic operation is like an axial piston pump, and those are widely used as "variable displacement pumps" in hydraulic systems.
I like it very much and can see many advantages of the small "footprint" as it can fit under very small cowlings (aviation, uav's etc). Less moving parts, same advantage as in the 'wankel' engine however less problems with the seals, lubrication, diluted intake mixture due to inefficient side ports, etc. Good work!
An upscale version (like 15 litre displacement) may find home in aircraft or boats, but I highly doubt this can be used in cars. The fundamental design of having the pistons/con-rods rotating a central axis will generate a strong momentum that will be hard to balance. Furthermore, the vibration front to back will also be a factor. I like the principle which feels like implementing a Wankel Rotary with pistons. In theory this design is compact & rather simplistic as it eliminates the energy sapping parts like valve-train & crankshaft, but NVH will be an issue.
The real doktorbimmer Mazda didn't have any problems. Americans who refuse to follow basic instructions had problems, However anyone with half a brain could easily get over 100k without significant problems, something no American engine seems able to accomplish.
Floyd Wilson You seem extremely naive and uninformed buy the scope and seriousness of Mazda notorious premature engine failures. The RX-8 was the cause of one of the largest engine recalls in the automotive industry.
lol. I've got a '97 Astro with the 4.3 v6. 351,000 miles on original engine/trans. Maint. is key. Been through 5 fuel pumps and 2 spider injectors though. BTW this is a motor built at the low point in American quality.
The internal combustion engine will be with us for along time yet. The Duke engine, like many other new designs in the works are very much a product of of our new found and constantly evolving ability to conceptualize and model new technology. These are very exciting times. I hope I live long enough to see some of this new technology become reality.
I agree that there's the only, albeit important, issue that made Rotary engines unsustainable: The impossibility to keep a traveling combustion chamber perfectly sealed without squirting (and burning) gallons of oil to keep it sliding smoothly. If perfectly smooth, hard, impossible to wear un-human unobtanium materials existed, Felix Wankel's idea would had worked. Until that magic sealing material comes along, it is a 200 hp engine with the comsumption of a a 350 hp engine with 8 lawmowers' worth of smoked oil to boot. And Mazda spent decades trying to solve that only one problem and failed.
Two more problems with the Wankel as I see it: it really needs dimensionally perfect and stable combustion chambers (piston rings adapt on the fly) and it suffers from the exponentially decreasing compression ratio as the rotor moves away after combustion reducing the time the fuel has to completely burn.
with the centripetal force occurring as the engine rotates, won't that cause uneven wear in the cylinders? plus with the "big end" of the piston attaching to the crank with one connection at a 45 degree angle (or there about's, i don't know for sure) wouldn't that create a big danger for over revving causing the crankshaft to bend? Also with no apparent sump, I have no idea how it's lubricating itself.
Fewer parts overall, but more parts in the most crucial areas. In the standard piston engine, the connecting rod pivots about the crankshaft in one axis. In this Duke engine, it connects to the crankshaft via universal joint. One has to wonder how well that will hold up when the engine is operated under load, such as when accelerating a 4000lb car day after day for years. Universal joints are obviously suitable for drive shafts, but the demands placed on a drive shaft are radically different than those of an engine's connecting rod.
The first thought that occurred to me is this is like a mix of the technologies between a Wankel engine and a Vulcan rotary cannon. Amazing engineering vision in true non linear 3D.
14:1 at 91! That is fantastic! Is this direct port injection without a valve since there is no cam? What is the peak RPM you have experienced? This is such a cool design!
This is cool, but it seems like it will have the same issues as the rotary. It will need to be able to seal the cylinders against the head while the cylinders are rotating/sliding along it. There is no good way to oil it, so it will likely have the same longevity issues as the apex seals on a rotary. Could try running oil in with the fuel like a 2-stroke and some rotary engine builders do that. But, you will never get that past emissions standards in a stock vehicle.
+WraithCommander42 Great points. Also, they'd have to think about cooling the massive rotating assembly housing the 5 cylinders - and sealing that all off as well.
Bio Power I grant you they are far more reliable then they used to be. But, compared to piston engine, they just don't last as long. When was the last time you heard of a rotary lasting 300,000 miles? Piston engine can do that, but rotaries just don't last that long. I'm not saying they are bad, they just don't last as long as piston engines.
+WraithCommander42 Bad owners not engines. mine is at 150,000 miles no issues at all. drive it hard, rev it high, it lasts. Counter intuitive to piston engine owners.
Bio Power What i am saying is that most rotary engine failures are caused by the owners, not the engine design. Not a single Mazda 767, 767B, 787 or 787B ever suffered engine failure while racing in endurance series. Why? Because they were being driven hard, hard premixed gas and were being revved to 10,500. Its the owners, not the cars.
by the time this has reached production stage there will be no fossil fuel left to power it. interesting new concept never the less. innovation always deserves encouragement.
I see no point in this. Yes, the valve train is simplified but everything else is notably more complicated. Think about the machine work involved & the overall bearing surface. The pistons now have 2 wrist pins. Now there is friction on the piston rings plus the top of the cylinder. Newer isn't always better, different isn't always better. It is good to try new things but there is a reason the standard engine has dominated so long.
True, however at least some one is out there trying to improve on what I would almost call beating a dead horse. But just think about how long the traditional reciprocating engine has been around easily since the 1800s vs anything really new that has come how within the last 100 years or so that has even come close and only one comes to mind that was a success being which the Wankel Rotary engine. At least some on out there is trying to improve the automotive industry and not just being a pessimist over the whole ordeal.
john halkoski I am not saying don't try, I am just saying this isn't it. A piston in a cylinder has been the best way to convert expanding gasses, from steam to gasoline into forward motion for well over 150 years. Steam turbines work better on large scales (ships electricity production) This is still using the piston in a cylinder, they are just doing it in a novel way. They are going to extreme lengths to simplify the valve train. They have extremely complex bearing surfaces that would be hard & expensive to manufacture, getting them lubricated is another major problem. Yes, they have cut down the number of parts but it's at the cost of single parts making very complex motions. Current engines are lots of parts making simple motions. That is easy to make, easy to fix & a simple motion is easier to make reliable. That basic design is going to be hard to improve upon but that's not saying it can't be done. Like you point out, rotary was/is an alternative. That came many years after the basic piston in a cylinder. Who is to say there isn't yet another way?
Their is another way its called the MYT engine (mighty yet tiny) its only 14" in size but internally produces the same amount of power as a semi truck but still gets 100mpg= naturally aspirated making close to 800ft lbs of Torque
This the same movement found in an axial piston pump. If the angle between swash plate and the main shaft can be adjusted while the engine is running, it would be able to change its compression ratio on the fly.
As an old mechanic I love to HATE the wobble motor, my only real experience I've had is with Air-condition compressors, years back we ran axial compressors, heavy-reliable-powerful. now we run wobble plate designs such as this, Modern-Complex working angels Always lead to failure, this engine will run fine if Completely maintained and clean, Ahhh But once a little dirt or any other "real-world" condition pops up your done.
Minigun works fine with similar design. Yes it is still different from this one but not very much in the end when you think about their basic functions.
MrBrander except the barrel only rotates on a minigun..this is like the barrel being inside another barrel all the while having a firing pin that rotates and shifts back and forth on its axis.
I have a hunch that all the counter-rotating parts (especially the entire cylinder block, yikes!) will cause problems. Easier, i think, to have normal valves and spark plugs.
For all the problem observations they weren't issues unfamiliar to the designers. The question revolves around the ability to demonstrate that so many departures and willful complications can be overcome and unique capability proven. It's impressive they have engines running reportedly well on the test stand.
How the fuck does it seal the combustion chamber?? And if it can seal, how much friction does that create, considering its moving? Wouldn't that always be the weak point?
totszwai dude you are the on that's an idiot here "how does your piston moves up and down and can still seal? Same idea." because a conventional piston has rubber sealings around the piston head which seal the cylinder but still allow it to move by lubricating with oil. the piston in this engine IS ROTATING through the engine so it isn't in one place going up and down but is moving to the left aswell and that is a problem since you still need to have a seal to have compression from the explosion to get up and down movement which drives the crack shaft.
***** Simply because any other car manufactures don't own the patent? DUH. Mika_012397 Wow, RUBBER SEAL. LOOOOOOL! Mika, go own and work on a car before replying please. Is no rubber. In fact is usually cast iron or steel. And the fact that this piston in this engine is rotating (like you said it yourself), is actually even better than a piston that is traveling up and down. The way they seal this rotating piston "block" will be exactly the same way they seal traditional pistons with the piston ring, just that there will be one extra "seal ring" between the rotating block and the mating surface.
Wouldnt it just be better if you had the cylinders non-rotating and have it direct injected and by having it rotating you take up more space in the engine room
As opposed to a regular engine, the force of the pistons are pushing down almost at a right angle to the crankshaft, causing more friction which in return causes premature wear in this case.
its been 10+ years, any update video for us? I've been watching this since I was a kid and now I'm a fully grown adult. Hope to see traditional piston engines being destroyed in market by these innovative piston engines and of course the legendary rotary engines.
+David Orchard I would agree. They show 9 seconds of an engine appearing to be the Duke design, and only 7 of those with it hooked up to diagnostic equipment under the appearance of it running. The missing design facets that others here in the comments are calling out are important: how is this thing lubricated, and how are they accounting for cylinder compression in a moving-cylinder design? Granted this video is 4 minutes, but those are fundamentally important checkboxes when explaining how this engine works, which is why it's supposedly better. The other problem with this design is displacement. If it needs to be made larger, the circumference of the engine grows. The same thing happens if you want to add more cylinders. And since this video is comparing this design to conventional reciprocating inline-4s, the industry already knows what it can achieve for MPG results with those kinds of engines. This duke design is untested, does not appear to save any more space (though it is compelling for how much it saves in parts), is not being demonstrated while hooked to a conventional automatic transmission in a real car on a real road, we see no MPG results, nothing. After searching here on YT for 'duke engine', I see only 5 videos on the first page talking about it, a couple of which are recycles of this video, and another of someone building a 3D model of this engine in AutoDesk software. Not enough backing to become feasible reality.
This would have been a great piston engine design for aircraft in the 1900s, combining the compactness of inline layout with the power of radial layout
playerzoma It's a drummers joke, insinuating that using cow bell will make your drumming better; the joke I'm making here is, since there is no actual test footage showing this engine running, it's safe to assume by the age of this video that it got tanked at some point, therefore adding "cow bell" would make it better. This joke was obviously not meant for you.
Assuming the CAD design is similar to the actual motor, I have some questions. 1. Since there's minimal lateral movement between the swash plate and piston, couldn't the pistons themselves be shorter and also not require the wrist pins? Potentially eliminate several parts, reducing overall weight, and increasing rev limit and throttle response. 2. How do you cool the rotating cylinder block? and how is the engine coolant sealed off? 3. How is the stationary head sealed to the block and what way are the contact surfaces set up to reduce oil burning and parasitic drag?
They never did completely solve the sealing of the Wankel. If a theoretically perfectly shaped combustion chamber could be machined, and a perfectly shaped rotor seal could be constructed, then it would have been a better engine. The unsolvable problem with the Wankel is the offset motion of the rotor after combustion and it's non-linear compression ratio as the rotor moves away.
I see ports instead of valves. Historically we know that engines with ports only operate well at a narrow rpm range, outside of which they have deplorable efficiency.
Nessaj Nothing to do with how high they can rev. Problem is you make a two stroke that revs to 10k, and it'll have 100% of max torque from 8k to 9k, 40% of it at 3-7k, uses twice as much fuel and throws out ten times as much harmful emissions as a four stroke with the same power. It's useless for a road vehicle.
It is a Rotary, Mixed with a Revolver, and a Two-stroke engine... I love it, although doubt its reliability. I'm with the one dude, far more machining required. Show us how we can make a thousand horsepower and we'll be good. Rotary Engines are great for the literage, but require multiple engines / rotors to make competitive power. Aaaaaaaand rotaries aren't known for being reliable
a revolver hey? haha but yea simplicity of a two stroke.. maybe they should add a bearing where the off camber shaft is turning... that would boost reliability big time... i feel like without it it would go through them shafts like every 25000 miles... but yes the complex-simplicity is just amazing!!
zach sylvester 2:54 total revolver ahaha. Yeah I don't want to go into what i think would make this better because I'm not an Engineer... I don't even want to say yet because I'm not even a sophomore in an Engineering program, just a fresh.. ahh fuck
Bill Hamilton gotcha man i looked at a few revolvers and it pretty much is one... i feel kinda foolish! but there's so many possible upgrades to this but as of right now i think its kinda crappy, but a great idea
Rotaries are reliable, but their problem is that they drink a lot of fuel and oil, I know a guy with an RX-8 that had to refill the oil every 1800km and do a complete flush every 5000km, as well as achieving a pretty bad fuel economy of 15L/100km, however he drives it like a maniac, so I guess the normal consumption is at around 10-11L. That is huge for a 1.3L 3-rotor, I own a Corvette with a 6.2L engine that gets combined 11L.
The long GM a/c compressor from the '70s had a swash-plate crank ran at least six cylinders. NO RODS. When the went to the pancake radial, their first ones would come from together to apart, quite often!!! Sikorsky used a swashplate to change the pitch in the rotor blades. Very similar to this reciprocator! Oh'Yeah!!! I think it was in the 40s when he got his first helicopter off the ground.
It is obvious from the comments that people just don't understand this engine, I am having a rather hard time with it myself. I will however, not discount it's possibilities. It will certainly be interesting to see what comes of it in the next few years. If it can be proven to be as good as they infer, the auto makers should be beating the doors down to get involved and fund further development.
If this engine is so damn good. How come no one wants it? A good product stands on it's own merits without a fancy marketing campaign and a sales pitch.
"Look guis! We took ideas from two strokes, rotaries, and diesels and guess what! It can produce *almost* the same power as any of those individual engines but with none of the reliability, or simplicity!"
Ah German Engineering
@@bryanmartinez6600 "never use one part where you can get 5 to fit."
Worse, this is just a radial engine but with the cylinders all facing the same way, if anyone gonna design a new engine aviation will do it first
System used in car's A/C compressors but they dont care about sealing the fluid much because it will just reduce cooling efficiency by a bit.
Atleast they dont have to get valve timing correct each time
this is the Gatling gun of engines
Function about like one
Right?
LOVE IT!
2012 : Find out how technology from Duke Engines increases the efficiency of the internal combustion engine.
2020 :
May have been a good technology in the 70's, but today the future is electric.
@@martythemartian99 tbh yeah or probably back at the 90s where we'd see a cool wankle vs duke engine war
@@martythemartian99 TRUE !
@グールにも愛が必要 what if the apex seals were replaced with bearings
@@renz1013 then it wouldn't seal, that's exactly why they are the weakest link in a rotary, they are necessary yet unreliable
All the energy goes into rotating that fat block
Two levers are between the piston rod and the transmission. The second lever's range of motion is permanently less than 90 degrees. The transmission splits the force to drive two mechanisms (like you wrote.) Two sets of combustion seals (standard cylinder and the complex one where the cylinder bank shears the spark and valve ports.) 2:47 the illustration - pause and use period and comma to step forward and back frame by frame.
whatever your engineer smokin, i want one mate.
Friction, friction everywhere.
^ THIS!
MPHstep There's a lot of friction in a normal engine as well and the lifting of the valves with their strong springs also requires a lot of power.
MrAstrojensen the valvetrain is the largest single friction source in a traditional engine. Desmodronic valves reduce the friction dramatically but come with their own complications.Electro/pnuematic control is probably the way forward.
stoatwblr I had not heard of desmodromic valves before, so I learned something new today. Thanks!
@@MrAstrojensen, check it in Ducati engines.
They call poppet valves 'complicated' but completely ignore the huge question, "What sort of insanely complicated arrangement will allow you to seal the cylinders and head/manifold when they are rotating relative to each other?" This system will inherit all the issues that make rotary valves impractical.
NEXT!
If they can't hold manufacturing costs down and somehow beat the status quo wiht functionality and cost, what's the point? Weight reduction at what cost?
This is an axial flow a/c compressor with spark plugs.
Curby Weaver Doesn't matter if they can get Honda et al to put it in a MotoGP bike. If it's lighter, it's faster.
J.J. Lemstra Oh yes, amusement park rides are TERRIBLY unreliable. They require more maintenance than run time, fail regularly. People get killed on them almost every day!!! What the fuck are you smoking? Amusement park rides don't work, ANYTHING like this engine. It rotates and lifts each boom with air cylinders. It is not powered by one engine, or any engine. Its run off SEVERAL electric motors. You sir, are a fucking moron.
It works in a somewhat similar fashion as a sleeve valve engine. 91 octane is ridiculously more expensive than 87 octane.
How are you going to seal the cylinder to achieve the 14:1 compression ratio with the cylinders moving?
+POVadventure I was wondering this very thing.. Seems like you would have exhaust leakage around the two rotating plates. But surely that is their "proprietary" design.
+POVadventure Good Question. There must be something in the engine having a extreme wear off.
+POVadventure it's similar to the wankel rotary engine. it will have seals of some sort isolating each piston. similar also to piston rings only, on the top, vs on the side. I assume.
Following on from Macomber in Edwardian days the Redrup wobble plate engine was developed for British Bristol buses in 1936 or 1937 but the 2nd World War killed it. This in not new.
+Justin S Boost in -> Apex seals out
I like most of this design, my only real issue is that variable valve timing gives power and efficiency across a wide power band, it's one of the big reasons modern engines are so much more efficient than even 10 years ago.
I suppose u could still control the compression ratio, like fuel and air ratio in the port. That would have the same effect i think?
@@zaryabz56
A/F ratio is not the same as compression ratio and doesn’t allow the same control as variable valve timing. Because there are no valves in this design you cannot change valve timing or compression. The ports and cylinder stroke are both non variable.
Could be done using a Swashplate like a hydraulic pump has, takes it from a 1 litre to 5 litre engine...
Part of me wonders what happens at high RPMs. It seems like a lot of outward force wearing on the rings.
Outwards force how so??
Well this spins in a circle right? So there's got to be some centripetal force 'squishing' the pistons to the outside. I'm wondering how much this will cause additional wear on items like the piston rings.
I never thought about that
Also will the oscillation be harsh? It tends to be with smaller engines and especially with ones that throw their weight around.
Wondering the same, allot of strange offset angles, feels like its gona wobble and ware like my grandma's hips
Never to be heard from again...
The combustion engine is doomed, no matter how one tries to reinvent it. It's inevitable. Like the steam engine was for trains, boats, cranes and even factories.
very interesting design. call me when it can last 200k miles.
i doubt it will last 50k miles. the design looks just too strange and odd.
boxer engine with subaru are good while they last untill they blow 50k miles (crack in cylinder block usualy)
Yah the reason valves are used is because the seals moving around are impossible to have much wear life to them. So why would the world retool itself to save a couple hunder pounds, when regulations make them add thousands of pounds else where? I guess a bunch of engineers need jobs and the gov needs to spend grant money.
Wow I wonder how my Subaru has gotten to 115k miles then.
+Christopher Middleman wow... wonder how mine has 300k.......
Where did you came up what hype? Boxer engines (Subaru and Porsche) are notorious for going past 200K miles with minimal wear. They're inherently balanced, so there's NO destructuve shaking motion, unlike V engines which require heavy (power robbing) counterweights just to keep the engine from shaking out itself to pieces.
You think that by slandering boxer engines it will further your case against a completely unrelated technology like this Duke thing? How old are you? 12?
The compressor for your automotive air conditioner has a similar piston arrangement on a lot of cars. It's a matter of time someone make a engine out of it. Nicely done who ever.
Parts moving at high speeds have maximum stability and longevity if they travel along one plane.
So, design exception would depend on material ability and unusual demonstrable utility?
I can see the thinking behind this and I genuinely believe that with the lower part count out could be far cheaper to produce, the problem is that production costs are one of the least concerns of any engine manufacturer, fuel efficiency, longevity, emissions, noise are all far greater concerns and no doubt why this engine hasn't been produced.
I feel like with so many parts moving in such an awkward motion, this engine would fail quicker than a typical I4, I5, V6, or V8. In order for this to become on option they would really need to stress test many engines under powerful load over many years. I think it's going to be really hard for anyone to ever compete with the engines we've become accustomed to.
With fewer moving parts, it will certainly last longer than current designs.
Korben Dallas
Eh. Many people won't keep a car for that long anyways. My car has 190k miles and runs fine. Only reason I still have it is because I don't have money for a newer one with less miles.
Korben Dallas Fewer parts doesn't mean it will last longer. Look at the wankel engine for example(not saying they are the same) it has fewer parts as well but isn't as reliable.
***** Biggest problem the wankel has that this engine would have is the sealing for the top of the combustion chamber. A piston ring as it wears will expand outwards through natural spring force and from the combustion stroke applying an expansion force. However, the apex seals on the rotaries, and the seals for this would have to have an applied force constant due to a flat on flat sealing characteristic and even more, the seals having to move across a port.
As said above, fewer moving parts does not mean less chance of failure. It is how things move that does alot, and how it is lubricated. Any part with an asymetrical action will wear faster because it relies entirely on oil pressure to provide lubrication. A spinning part will naturally create a fluid film to prevent wear. As long as it has fluid of proper viscosity, no contact will occur.
Properly gapped bearings, cam followers, etc all work on this principle. With proper care, they will last a very long time with final mechanical failure of an engine usually only due to cylinder and piston wear in which this effect does not happen.
This is where I see the weakness in this engine being. The joints for the conrod connection. There is no cyclical force to provide lubrication, as result, relies entirely on pressure to take the constant impact load over and over again, almost like a hip joint.If ran presurized, should be okay. Same with the central portion where it applies to the crankshaft.
*****
And fewer parts doesn't necessarily mean it will be less expensive to manufacture. Problem with a lot of these axial engines is their low rotational speed make them harder to integrate into modern applications.And then there is the emissions issue which killed the Wankel. By the time it was made clean, it was costlier than a piston engine.
Intriguing. I hope you guys are successful. It must be an enormous challenge to get the rotating cylinders to seal against the head.
So its like a oversized reverse A/C Compressor?
Brett Carey Swash plate, used in hydraulics as well as AC for cars. Probably other things as well. I guess that is what inspired the engine idea. Cheers from John.
I haven't seen one in forty years, but, it reminds me of the inside of some hydraulic pumps too.
@@phoenixrc0074 Yeah saw that video too. I think they only use the acrylic head (see-through) just to demonstrate how the A/C compressor fires as an internal combustion engine.
A/C doesn't have to deal with spark and exhaust #YoureRight #JustPilingOn
I thought this said nuke engine
+TheDwarfNextDoor Lmao
with out a doubt... it will blow up...
Hahaha
Back to the classic sci-fi, fellow dreamers.
i thought its a joke engine
no valves, no camshaft, no timing belt, no pre-ignition, higher compresion on pump gas.. i really like the design, only uses a swash-plate to convert reciprocating energy into rotational.. i like this design a lot
well im just wondering how they plan to seal the combustion chambers
***** all talk and no proof?...they showed a running unit being tested in the video...
Peter Šori ^^^ Armchair Engineer.
Peter Šori no, you wouldnt be able to fire an engine that was 3D printed, not even when not under stress, the pressure required in the cylinder alone would burst the walls of something 3D printed which has significantly inferior shear strength
Limon, i think he is talking about 3D printed metal, while you and i thought he was referring to 3D printed plastic. Peter, 3D printed metal is usually for structural components that are not usually under immense pressures or heat.
"Fewer parts"? hahahaha
Just looking at the animations you can tell this would be a massive headache to any expert mechanic. Everything moves. LOLOL
You can have a large portion of parts move. But the amount of SOLID OBJECTS(parts) in total is less.
Maybe fewer, but this not means less expensive.
@@cesaresperelli true but I'm talking about moving parts not cost
So manny moving parts
It may actually have fewer parts, but it likely loses efficiency in sealing the cylinder. Similar to the Wankel engine in that way. May also be more angular momentum (flywheel effect) because the moving parts are at a large radius (figure skater effect, arms in vs out), and possibly more rotating mass too.
If it was invented and tooled up in the 40s or 50s, it might be competitive with regular fixed cylinder & crankshaft engines, and maybe kept pace with them. Since the current widespread engines are kind of approaching theoretical limits of what you can do with exploding gasoline in a cylinder, "new paradigms" aren't all that great, unless it can be made massively cheaper.
That thing must vibrate like crazy! That's no "light" piece of metal that's wobbling around. This engine is anything but simple.
ikutoisahobo You have heard of balancing right...
Endresult Yes, but please enlighten me on how you would defy physics? Balancing can only minimize it so much.
ikutoisahobo the smoothest engiges out there are in line 6... but anyway, this is a very silar design to rotary engines and those vibrate a lot like any other engine... diesel engines are the ones that vibrate the most so this engine should vibrate as much as a diesel engine or less... you could be right in vbrating like crazy if they were to build a diesel version, but then again there are rubber supports on the engine mounts for some reason right? you really think they would be smart enought to develop something so complex and forget about the vibrations?
ikutoisahobo so why would the vibration be any worse than any other IC engine if anything it should be better mounted shocks than inline engines have
You can see from the design where they are balancing it. I don't think it would vibrate much al all
less parts overall but more moving parts which means more seals or bearings. this engine seems about as reliable as a rotary engine to me.
Exactly what I was thinking while watching.
In theory, a rotary should by more reliable because of less moving parts. Funny how things work one way on paper and another in practice.
not true... rotaries are wayyy more unreliable
"Exactly what I was thinking while watching"
- Me 2 :D
Rotaries are much more reliable than everyone bangs on about them. It's not uncommon for well built rotaries to run 100,000 km before needing mechanical attention....
So... when can we turbo it?
In theory you could, it the engine is capable in taking higher rotational stresses from the higher force of compressed, or charged air on ignition, it could be possible.
I wonder what this would sound like compared to a typical 5 cylinder engine.
You can kind of hear it startup in the video, it sounds quite lopey TheHeftyDanielson
I bet the Duke Engine has an Awsome, Interesting, Unique, Different, One of A Kind Sound to it, Just like all engines have there Unique sound to them! And Im really interested in Hearing this round Duke Engine
Too Kool , I have been a mechanic for 35 years , this is really exciting!
Great and amazing design, but with moving cylinder walls, it would be lightweight, but oil-hungry like a rotary wankel,
So not only are the pistons moving up and down like in a traditional engine, but now they've made them move laterally as well? What a great way to complicate a simple process.
Add lubrication issues to your list.
but if u look at the prototype the pistons are not moving axially like in the 3d rendering... the whole block is moving around so lubrication issues and whit the seals to.
As usual, I see lots of pontificating on a technical youtube video from people with absolutely no idea what they are talking about. The sinusoidal reciprocator eliminates the crankshaft, which is a major cause of torque inefficiency in conventional internal combustion engines. It also eliminates the entire valve train, which is a major simplification. That and the greater space efficiency and power to weight ratio makes this a technically superior engine.
I'd still rather have a Tesla with an electric motor, but still, it's a theoretical improvement over conventional engines.
I agree, but just seeing that big chunk of metal rotating around makes me think there are a lot of issues regarding wear. Also, I assume it can only have fixed timing for intake and exhaust, which is a big no-no these days. how is it lubricated and cooled?
alxcsb basicly all you need to do is make sure the crank-core doesn't fluctuate, so if you get the valve-timing aligned with the flux of the ignition-matrix (which is fairly easy to do using a combinatorial demuxer) most of the hard stuff will sort itself out.
Just looked up Duke Engines, and the last update on their site is from 2013... Guess it didn't catch on.
Diggin' this jam a lot. Exactly my style. I'm planning to work with 'em one day ... that would be awesome.
I remember a now retired collogue of mine describing working on a similar engine in the 60's. I believe the main issue that they had was the centripetal force that the pistons exerted on the cylinder bores increased with a square law relationship to the rotational velocity. Basically you couldn’t run it very fast and the pistons wore out fast. Back then the materials technology couldn't get around this and they only made a few working prototypes before the project got killed. They also had issues with the inlet and exhaust ports wearing out, however the technology developed for the Wankel engine in this respect will be directly transferable.
I suspect the engine would likely therfore run quite slow, which would mean it may be able to drive a propeller directly without a gearbox, making it very useful for powering small unmanned aircraft. A market which is currently receiving lots of investment and at which I suspect is the application the engine is aimed at.
if what you are saying is correct then how come piston pumps are all over the market
I see this being very unreliable like the rotary engines. I'll believe it when I see this thing run for 300,000 miles with minimal issues.
average cars last over 300000 miles?
Depending on different manufacturer's design's and who owns the car. My Beater 95 Toyota Camry has 334,000 miles so far carried over from my father, then my older brother and now me and it's still going. Idk about a lot of other cars reaching the 300,000 mile mark but any car made today should be able to last at least 200,000 miles. Even sports cars like the Nissan 350Z, 370Z and GTR Nissan specifically state that they want them to go up to 200k or beyond.
sharpemang
I agree, cars should be able to get that kind of mileage, I wonder about planned obsolescence though.
does anyone know if they have a more recent video about this? I just saw this on Car Throttle and apparently its 2 years old.
Bill Hamilton General motors is notorious especially in the late 90s to late 2000s purposely designing cars to fail so people would keep buying. Too bad it didn't work out too well for them when sales dropped and people started buying other cars. Part of the reason why I steer clear far from American cars is their scumbag CEOs trying to squeeze every last drop of money out of people and horrible corporate practices that specialize in screwing people over.
sharpemang Don't stear clear of american cars just because of gm. 90s ford trucks and Chrsyler Jeeps are on the road with well over 200k
It's quite genius, and actually turns half the block and Pistons almost into a flywheel. Can't believe half the comments here of people giving up on a prototype. It hasn't even reached first generation and its durability is already up for comparison against an engine type that has had just under 100 years of r&d.
The inherent friction of wobble plates, makes this type of engine impractical, in the long run, not to mention the sealing problems.
thats alot of friction
how exactly is it able to have a 14:1 compression ratio, what form of sealant can hold that pressure whilst rotating at speeds apparently higher than normal type engines?
It's unbelievable that at the moment of posting this comment this video is almost 11 years old yet I had never seen something like this
my engineering teacher told me about these, these are awesome
I think there's too much friction caused by rotating cylinders around the engine. Imagine the friction going on between the cylinder that's burning and the rotating plate.
The other issue is that the back and forth motion is converted to rotary motion by an angled bearing, which again I think causes more friction than a classic 90 degree connection to a crankshaft.
Imagine you are trying to push a car that's out of gas, but instead of pushing from the back, you are pushing at 45 degrees on the driver's door. 50% of the energy you apply to the car will be converted into forward movement. The other 50% will be wasted by trying to push the car sideways, and the tires won't let you. That's the same principle the angled bearing shaft achieves.
To research engineers worldwide. I have a far better idea. Use this concept to build world's largest motor with 10,000 cylinders. Skip the spark plugs and ignition and fuel. At the drive-shaft, attach a 30 meter long bar running 90 degrees to the drive-shaft. At the end of that shaft place a drive animal such as 2 oxen and have them walk in a circle. The pistons would compress air only. The air could be used to function in a variety of ways.
+David Locklear you should not have stopped your medication plan sir..
+David Locklear look up the Dunning-Kruger effect before you try to tell research engineers that you have "far better" ideas.
+parapobabam I looked it up and have observed the 2nd definition on the internet and found it very annoying. Now I know what to call it when experts give incomplete instructions on how to do something on your computer making the instructions useless to laypersons who can follow clear instructions but cannot follow these instructions because they lack the knowledge the person giving the instructions has.
Congratulations, you invented the exact design of a hydraulic pump.
Maybe I never grew up, but I see this as a design adults would never have been able to achieve. The paradigm shift is absolutely brilliant! Great job!!!
as a Mechanical Engineer I can bet every thing I own that this engine will never beat conventional ICE; they have been around for more than 100 years for a reason. The friction in the duke engine is crazy since you have all this insane rotation of all this mass , moreover it will be impossible to reach high RPM because of the enormous centrifugal forces that would be involve also the cooling and lubrication system will be complex and unreliable because of the horizontal layout of the piston. Its a good try but just like the Concorde they will quickly realize that this design will never work.
I've been watching for a full minute and I can honestly say this engine looks so unstable... I feel like parts are going to constantly fail due to excessive stress and wear.
Although there aren't any production cars with this engine design, this basic operation is like an axial piston pump, and those are widely used as "variable displacement pumps" in hydraulic systems.
I like it very much and can see many advantages of the small "footprint" as it can fit under very small cowlings (aviation, uav's etc). Less moving parts, same advantage as in the 'wankel' engine however less problems with the seals, lubrication, diluted intake mixture due to inefficient side ports, etc. Good work!
That intake and exhaust port timing is just hilarious.
An upscale version (like 15 litre displacement) may find home in aircraft or boats, but I highly doubt this can be used in cars. The fundamental design of having the pistons/con-rods rotating a central axis will generate a strong momentum that will be hard to balance. Furthermore, the vibration front to back will also be a factor.
I like the principle which feels like implementing a Wankel Rotary with pistons. In theory this design is compact & rather simplistic as it eliminates the energy sapping parts like valve-train & crankshaft, but NVH will be an issue.
This has the same problem as the rotary engine, how are you going to seal off all the cylinders?
That actually isn't a problem with rotary engines when operated properly.
Its not? You mean Wankel engine right? Then why did Mazda continue to have serious problems right up to when the abandoned the design in 2012???
The real doktorbimmer Mazda didn't have any problems. Americans who refuse to follow basic instructions had problems, However anyone with half a brain could easily get over 100k without significant problems, something no American engine seems able to accomplish.
Floyd Wilson You seem extremely naive and uninformed buy the scope and seriousness of Mazda notorious premature engine failures. The RX-8 was the cause of one of the largest engine recalls in the automotive industry.
lol. I've got a '97 Astro with the 4.3 v6. 351,000 miles on original engine/trans. Maint. is key. Been through 5 fuel pumps and 2 spider injectors though. BTW this is a motor built at the low point in American quality.
no matter what engine anyone makes, the standard engine weve been manufacturing for decades now and tried to perfect, is doing excellent nowadays.
The internal combustion engine will be with us for along time yet. The Duke engine, like many other new designs in the works are very much a product of of our new found and constantly evolving ability to conceptualize and model new technology. These are very exciting times. I hope I live long enough to see some of this new technology become reality.
I agree that there's the only, albeit important, issue that made Rotary engines unsustainable: The impossibility to keep a traveling combustion chamber perfectly sealed without squirting (and burning) gallons of oil to keep it sliding smoothly. If perfectly smooth, hard, impossible to wear un-human unobtanium materials existed, Felix Wankel's idea would had worked.
Until that magic sealing material comes along, it is a 200 hp engine with the comsumption of a a 350 hp engine with 8 lawmowers' worth of smoked oil to boot. And Mazda spent decades trying to solve that only one problem and failed.
Two more problems with the Wankel as I see it: it really needs dimensionally perfect and stable combustion chambers (piston rings adapt on the fly) and it suffers from the exponentially decreasing compression ratio as the rotor moves away after combustion reducing the time the fuel has to completely burn.
with the centripetal force occurring as the engine rotates, won't that cause uneven wear in the cylinders? plus with the "big end" of the piston attaching to the crank with one connection at a 45 degree angle (or there about's, i don't know for sure) wouldn't that create a big danger for over revving causing the crankshaft to bend? Also with no apparent sump, I have no idea how it's lubricating itself.
+edwardfeast Someone doesn't understand the difference between centripetal and centrifugal...
Amazing, Keep up the good work. I want this in a new sports car!
Fewer parts overall, but more parts in the most crucial areas. In the standard piston engine, the connecting rod pivots about the crankshaft in one axis. In this Duke engine, it connects to the crankshaft via universal joint. One has to wonder how well that will hold up when the engine is operated under load, such as when accelerating a 4000lb car day after day for years.
Universal joints are obviously suitable for drive shafts, but the demands placed on a drive shaft are radically different than those of an engine's connecting rod.
How do you isolate the power stroke from the exhaust port? The video looks like the power stroke would lose energy through the exhaust port.
Wow- the design kinda reminds me of an *AC compressor*? Pistons moving with a swashplate, in a "radial" configuration.
The first thought that occurred to me is this is like a mix of the technologies between a Wankel engine and a Vulcan rotary cannon. Amazing engineering vision in true non linear 3D.
If there is an advantages section that is not immediately followed by a disadvantages section, the argument being made can safely be discarded.
14:1 at 91! That is fantastic! Is this direct port injection without a valve since there is no cam? What is the peak RPM you have experienced? This is such a cool design!
This is cool, but it seems like it will have the same issues as the rotary. It will need to be able to seal the cylinders against the head while the cylinders are rotating/sliding along it. There is no good way to oil it, so it will likely have the same longevity issues as the apex seals on a rotary. Could try running oil in with the fuel like a 2-stroke and some rotary engine builders do that. But, you will never get that past emissions standards in a stock vehicle.
+WraithCommander42 Great points. Also, they'd have to think about cooling the massive rotating assembly housing the 5 cylinders - and sealing that all off as well.
Peter Paradis
Since they have a running engine, they may have solved that already. Though, I don't know how.
Bio Power
I grant you they are far more reliable then they used to be. But, compared to piston engine, they just don't last as long. When was the last time you heard of a rotary lasting 300,000 miles? Piston engine can do that, but rotaries just don't last that long. I'm not saying they are bad, they just don't last as long as piston engines.
+WraithCommander42 Bad owners not engines. mine is at 150,000 miles no issues at all. drive it hard, rev it high, it lasts. Counter intuitive to piston engine owners.
Bio Power What i am saying is that most rotary engine failures are caused by the owners, not the engine design. Not a single Mazda 767, 767B, 787 or 787B ever suffered engine failure while racing in endurance series. Why? Because they were being driven hard, hard premixed gas and were being revved to 10,500.
Its the owners, not the cars.
by the time this has reached production stage there will be no fossil fuel left to power it. interesting new concept never the less. innovation always deserves encouragement.
Basically an A/C compressor. Despite the complexity, it's really reliable
This video was uploaded four (4) years ago. Where does it stand now? Does anything use it, or was the design abandoned?
+jp2code They're looking for funding
jp2code I don't see much of it. Not even a vehicle with it
4 years isn't a long time for something this radical. But it's been 8 and still...
I see no point in this. Yes, the valve train is simplified but everything else is notably more complicated. Think about the machine work involved & the overall bearing surface. The pistons now have 2 wrist pins. Now there is friction on the piston rings plus the top of the cylinder. Newer isn't always better, different isn't always better. It is good to try new things but there is a reason the standard engine has dominated so long.
True, however at least some one is out there trying to improve on what I would almost call beating a dead horse. But just think about how long the traditional reciprocating engine has been around easily since the 1800s vs anything really new that has come how within the last 100 years or so that has even come close and only one comes to mind that was a success being which the Wankel Rotary engine. At least some on out there is trying to improve the automotive industry and not just being a pessimist over the whole ordeal.
john halkoski I am not saying don't try, I am just saying this isn't it. A piston in a cylinder has been the best way to convert expanding gasses, from steam to gasoline into forward motion for well over 150 years. Steam turbines work better on large scales (ships electricity production)
This is still using the piston in a cylinder, they are just doing it in a novel way. They are going to extreme lengths to simplify the valve train. They have extremely complex bearing surfaces that would be hard & expensive to manufacture, getting them lubricated is another major problem. Yes, they have cut down the number of parts but it's at the cost of single parts making very complex motions.
Current engines are lots of parts making simple motions. That is easy to make, easy to fix & a simple motion is easier to make reliable. That basic design is going to be hard to improve upon but that's not saying it can't be done. Like you point out, rotary was/is an alternative. That came many years after the basic piston in a cylinder. Who is to say there isn't yet another way?
Their is another way its called the MYT engine (mighty yet tiny) its only 14" in size but internally produces the same amount of power as a semi truck but still gets 100mpg= naturally aspirated making close to 800ft lbs of Torque
john halkoski that engine is amazing, i had never heard of it before reading your comment.
john halkoski that engine is amazing, i had never heard of it before reading your comment.
this is a really cool Idea I want it developed enough to be put in cars/trucks
This the same movement found in an axial piston pump. If the angle between swash plate and the main shaft can be adjusted while the engine is running, it would be able to change its compression ratio on the fly.
As an old mechanic I love to HATE the wobble motor, my only real experience I've had is with Air-condition compressors, years back we ran axial compressors, heavy-reliable-powerful. now we run wobble plate designs such as this, Modern-Complex working angels Always lead to failure, this engine will run fine if Completely maintained and clean, Ahhh But once a little dirt or any other "real-world" condition pops up your done.
I see friction everywhere.
and i see wear everywhere :D
100posto I don't see any water jackets either.
I see dead people.
Minigun works fine with similar design. Yes it is still different from this one but not very much in the end when you think about their basic functions.
MrBrander
except the barrel only rotates on a minigun..this is like the barrel being inside another barrel all the while having a firing pin that rotates and shifts back and forth on its axis.
An axial engine by another name. Modern submarine-launched torpedoes use these compact, fuel-agnostic engines to reach high under-water speeds.
Lets see that star in the middle go at 7000 RPMs and see how it holds up over 100,000 miles
I have a hunch that all the counter-rotating parts (especially the entire cylinder block, yikes!) will cause problems. Easier, i think, to have normal valves and spark plugs.
Good luck sealing off the head!
As many said this technology seems to be a bit too late. Maybe. But is anyone else as excited as I am to see the application of this engine!?
For all the problem observations they weren't issues unfamiliar to the designers. The question revolves around the ability to demonstrate that so many departures and willful complications can be overcome and unique capability proven. It's impressive they have engines running reportedly well on the test stand.
How the fuck does it seal the combustion chamber?? And if it can seal, how much friction does that create, considering its moving? Wouldn't that always be the weak point?
CarMad97ci how does your piston moves up and down and can still seal? Same idea.
***** you are an idiot. I doubt you even know how this motor operates before you make your comments. please stop commenting.
totszwai dude you are the on that's an idiot here "how does your piston moves up and down and can still seal? Same idea." because a conventional piston has rubber sealings around the piston head which seal the cylinder but still allow it to move by lubricating with oil. the piston in this engine IS ROTATING through the engine so it isn't in one place going up and down but is moving to the left aswell and that is a problem since you still need to have a seal to have compression from the explosion to get up and down movement which drives the crack shaft.
***** Simply because any other car manufactures don't own the patent? DUH.
Mika_012397 Wow, RUBBER SEAL. LOOOOOOL! Mika, go own and work on a car before replying please. Is no rubber. In fact is usually cast iron or steel. And the fact that this piston in this engine is rotating (like you said it yourself), is actually even better than a piston that is traveling up and down. The way they seal this rotating piston "block" will be exactly the same way they seal traditional pistons with the piston ring, just that there will be one extra "seal ring" between the rotating block and the mating surface.
its like a 2 strk
Wouldnt it just be better if you had the cylinders non-rotating and have it direct injected and by having it rotating you take up more space in the engine room
As opposed to a regular engine, the force of the pistons are pushing down almost at a right angle to the crankshaft, causing more friction which in return causes premature wear in this case.
its been 10+ years, any update video for us?
I've been watching this since I was a kid and now I'm a fully grown adult.
Hope to see traditional piston engines being destroyed in market by these innovative piston engines and of course the legendary rotary engines.
Why can't we see an engine working instead of a cartoon? Seeing is believing.
+David Orchard They show it running in the video.
Thanks I'll check it out
+David Orchard Why would you comment about not seeing something in a video that you haven't even watched???
Actually Diamond Viper 1984 I have watched it and if you call a 2 second window of what could of been an electric motor you are easily entertained.
+David Orchard I would agree. They show 9 seconds of an engine appearing to be the Duke design, and only 7 of those with it hooked up to diagnostic equipment under the appearance of it running.
The missing design facets that others here in the comments are calling out are important: how is this thing lubricated, and how are they accounting for cylinder compression in a moving-cylinder design? Granted this video is 4 minutes, but those are fundamentally important checkboxes when explaining how this engine works, which is why it's supposedly better.
The other problem with this design is displacement. If it needs to be made larger, the circumference of the engine grows. The same thing happens if you want to add more cylinders. And since this video is comparing this design to conventional reciprocating inline-4s, the industry already knows what it can achieve for MPG results with those kinds of engines. This duke design is untested, does not appear to save any more space (though it is compelling for how much it saves in parts), is not being demonstrated while hooked to a conventional automatic transmission in a real car on a real road, we see no MPG results, nothing.
After searching here on YT for 'duke engine', I see only 5 videos on the first page talking about it, a couple of which are recycles of this video, and another of someone building a 3D model of this engine in AutoDesk software. Not enough backing to become feasible reality.
This is literally just a air compressor but it's an engine
This would have been a great piston engine design for aircraft in the 1900s, combining the compactness of inline layout with the power of radial layout
I really can't wait for this to be realized so I can build a hot rod with it. It will be super smooth and linear.
Listen up kids,
Now im going to give you ONE very important reason why this is NEVER going to work...
Needs more cow bell...
But what about the sinusoidal reciprocation?
Drummer?
+cult friction what is cow bell in german? the ding dong to find cows or is the just a stupid comment?
+playerzoma I think it's an inside joke for drummers, where you can also use a cowbell, where drummers often say: not enough cowbell!!
playerzoma It's a drummers joke, insinuating that using cow bell will make your drumming better; the joke I'm making here is, since there is no actual test footage showing this engine running, it's safe to assume by the age of this video that it got tanked at some point, therefore adding "cow bell" would make it better. This joke was obviously not meant for you.
Any update on this engine? after 3 years
+Muhammad Adzraf Tahir no because it does not work ... you can not compress with a moving cylinder
Make it 8.
Assuming the CAD design is similar to the actual motor, I have some questions.
1. Since there's minimal lateral movement between the swash plate and piston, couldn't the pistons themselves be shorter and also not require the wrist pins? Potentially eliminate several parts, reducing overall weight, and increasing rev limit and throttle response.
2. How do you cool the rotating cylinder block? and how is the engine coolant sealed off?
3. How is the stationary head sealed to the block and what way are the contact surfaces set up to reduce oil burning and parasitic drag?
Good to see new ideas, but all the advantages listed you can just get in a direct injection engine.
weight saving? less parts? more power with less CC? did anyone say rotary?
Actually look up rotary displacement. for example Mazda RX-8 is 1.3 but the overall displacement would give you 4.2 l. I'm not making this up...
I see lots of wear, sealing problems and cooling problems
yes, indeed
If they could seal a Wankel engine, I think they could seal this
Saeid Momtahan
XD and how successful is the Wankel engine? especially with its oil consumption?
They never did completely solve the sealing of the Wankel. If a theoretically perfectly shaped combustion chamber could be machined, and a perfectly shaped rotor seal could be constructed, then it would have been a better engine. The unsolvable problem with the Wankel is the offset motion of the rotor after combustion and it's non-linear compression ratio as the rotor moves away.
This is the engine i had a dream about 3 years ago... i like this idea then the one we have now...
Wow, I would love to see what this Engine is capable of when it or ever hits the market
I see ports instead of valves. Historically we know that engines with ports only operate well at a narrow rpm range, outside of which they have deplorable efficiency.
Two-stroke engines have ports and they can rev pretty fukn high
Nessaj Nothing to do with how high they can rev. Problem is you make a two stroke that revs to 10k, and it'll have 100% of max torque from 8k to 9k, 40% of it at 3-7k, uses twice as much fuel and throws out ten times as much harmful emissions as a four stroke with the same power. It's useless for a road vehicle.
Yeah you do have a pretty good point there
Wankel engine had the same problem..
It is a Rotary, Mixed with a Revolver, and a Two-stroke engine...
I love it, although doubt its reliability. I'm with the one dude, far more machining required.
Show us how we can make a thousand horsepower and we'll be good. Rotary Engines are great for the literage, but require multiple engines / rotors to make competitive power. Aaaaaaaand rotaries aren't known for being reliable
a revolver hey? haha but yea simplicity of a two stroke.. maybe they should add a bearing where the off camber shaft is turning... that would boost reliability big time... i feel like without it it would go through them shafts like every 25000 miles... but yes the complex-simplicity is just amazing!!
zach sylvester
2:54 total revolver ahaha. Yeah I don't want to go into what i think would make this better because I'm not an Engineer... I don't even want to say yet because I'm not even a sophomore in an Engineering program, just a fresh.. ahh fuck
Bill Hamilton gotcha man i looked at a few revolvers and it pretty much is one... i feel kinda foolish! but there's so many possible upgrades to this but as of right now i think its kinda crappy, but a great idea
It isn't a rotary though, the rotary you're thinking of is a Wankel engine and this engine does not follow anywhere near the same principle.
Rotaries are reliable, but their problem is that they drink a lot of fuel and oil, I know a guy with an RX-8 that had to refill the oil every 1800km and do a complete flush every 5000km, as well as achieving a pretty bad fuel economy of 15L/100km, however he drives it like a maniac, so I guess the normal consumption is at around 10-11L. That is huge for a 1.3L 3-rotor, I own a Corvette with a 6.2L engine that gets combined 11L.
The long GM a/c compressor from the '70s had a swash-plate crank ran at least six cylinders. NO RODS. When the went to the pancake radial, their first ones would come from together to apart, quite often!!! Sikorsky used a swashplate to change the pitch in the rotor blades. Very similar to this reciprocator! Oh'Yeah!!! I think it was in the 40s when he got his first helicopter off the ground.
What's your engine, inline, V, boxer?
Nope, I have a belly dancer.
The Wankel engine just took a huge shit on duke.
May have some emissions advantages but it's still more or less a complex rotary.
Colt-Engine // Revolver-Motor 👍
It is obvious from the comments that people just don't understand this engine, I am having a rather hard time with it myself. I will however, not discount it's possibilities. It will certainly be interesting to see what comes of it in the next few years. If it can be proven to be as good as they infer, the auto makers should be beating the doors down to get involved and fund further development.
If this engine is so damn good. How come no one wants it? A good product stands on it's own merits without a fancy marketing campaign and a sales pitch.