Comments on: “Massive Yet Tiny” engine promises big things

By: MYT Engine.... - darkmesa

MYT Engine.... - darkmesa — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 01:04:05 +0000

[...] Engine…. “Massive Yet Tiny” engine promises big things sounds nuts! give me 2 w/ twin turbos each. Chad __________________ 1999 M6 Trans [...]

By: donnie

donnie — Sun, 11 Jun 2006 10:34:16 +0000

WOW just what I need for my kids gocart

By: donnie

donnie — Sun, 11 Jun 2006 10:34:12 +0000

WOW just what I need for my kids gocart

By: Ben

Ben — Sat, 13 May 2006 07:10:55 +0000

“standard car engine weighs 600~1000 pounds”
A small block chevy weighs about 600 pounds; a diesel in a one ton pickup weighs about 1000 pounds. A typical 4 cylinder will weigh 200-300 pounds.

The videos from their site are very interesting. I can’t wait to see what becomes of this motor. I know that I would much rather work on that motor than on my small block chevy.

By: Paradox Racing

Paradox Racing — Sun, 07 May 2006 05:30:08 +0000

I can see how this thing could work, but the flaw I see, which may have been what killed the prototype, is this: What keeps the trailing piston from being forced backwards? As the mixture is compressed and ignited it would try to force the two pistons apart, which is fine for the forward piston, because that’s the whole point, but on the trailing piston, the only resistance I could see would be the inertia of the engine, and this will create PHENOMINAL stresses where that trailing piston attaches to the crankshaft, much like what happens to a piston or rotary engine when it “detonates prematurely”. This effect will be increased when using the compression ratios needed for diesel operation. Not to mention that there is a long path for the combustion gasses to travel before being exhausted about 270 degrees from the ignition point. That would create a lot of heat build up, which, much like the design of the quasi-turbine engine could be handled pretty well because of the large amount of surface area they travel through and heat-sinks, but at that point, a lot of the heat and velocity of the gasses will be lost, and may create a problem with evacuation through the exhaust. I think this is a very interesting design, and would love to see it progress, but as with many experimental engines, it probably will never see production. But then again, who knows?

By: Eric

Eric — Sun, 07 May 2006 03:50:06 +0000

I saw this thing at the L.A. auto show. I also spent some time talking with these guys including the engineers (designer and assistant). There are 2 intakes and 2 exhaust “holes”. The engine can be converted to diesel or unleaded fuel by adding sparkplugs (one on top and one on bottom). The engine is more fuel efficient because less energy is required to turn the whole thing *note piston engines go up and down, wenkel run in an epicodial pattern and spin. Plus you only have two intakes opposed to an intake per cylinder. They have actually put a working engine in a car (something retarded like a focus or something) however; it only ran for a short while (like a two or three months). They wouldn’t tell me why it was no longer running. Therefore, this engine does actually work however they wouldn’t tell me about the drawbacks. They have no intention on building or manufacturing any of these. They strictly want to sell the technology to manufacturers who use engines like the automotive and aquatic industries. To put a comparable engine in your car would weigh about 30 lbs. and be about 7″x7″. Remember the engine is more fuel-efficient because it eliminates hundreds of pounds from the vehicles overall weight (standard car engine weighs 600~1000 pounds, myt weighs 30 pounds). At 800 rpm this thing kicks out over 800 lbs. of torque. At 3000 rpm this thing kicks out 4000 lbs. of torque.

One of the downsides I could see was, they recommended bio fuel for both combustion and heat disapation. All lovely if we could actually go to the pump and get bio diesel. As far as I know they are waiting on patents and such. Hope to see this in the future. Anyhoo thought I would throw my two cents in.

By: doig

doig — Sat, 06 May 2006 19:31:03 +0000

Angel’s Jin referred to a “Company X” as a potential licensee. Who is conmpany X? Or which publicly traded company has either licensed or is invetigating use for military or civilian use?

By: David

David — Fri, 05 May 2006 03:53:27 +0000

There is always” The next best thing”, with Trillions of dollars spent on research and developemen in the automotive, racing and aerospace industries in the last hundred years this is the magic bullet to cure our woes? Its got the initails B.S. and hogwash written all over it!!!t

By: Benson

Benson — Tue, 02 May 2006 20:24:19 +0000

WOW, rotary engines was always the way to go because it was in a constant rotating motion unlike piston that has to go up and down . But piston engines do have its good points.To me this would be the greatest invention to man kind if it works, combining rotary with piston together it could solve the the quest for more power for any types of applications.

By: Johnny Boos

Johnny Boos — Sat, 29 Apr 2006 12:03:04 +0000

I’m kind of perplexed by the combustion process. On a reciprocating engine, the combustion process works against a fixed surface (the cylinder head). I can’t see from these views how the combustion process does not allow the pressure to push the rotary piston’s backwards.

By: crossmediaman

crossmediaman — Sat, 29 Apr 2006 05:06:41 +0000

The physics of the piston rings is what will kill them. Inertia will pull the piston head against the outside of the cylinder of the ring with more point force than a piston ring can handle.

This is very similar to a Wankle rotory engine, the spinning elements almost always fail from the stresses.

By: Da Goomba

Da Goomba — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 20:31:27 +0000

How long will it be before BIG-OIL buys the patent, makes the proto-type disappear, and the inventor winds up buried along with Jimmy Hoffa underneath Giant Stadium in the Meadowlands ?

Anything that will potentially give you 4 times the power of a normal V8 with a possible fuel efficiency that this engine offers will be squashed immediately.

We will be dependent on fossil fuel for many, many, many, more years.
Too many powerful people stand to lose billions if this technology comes out.

Don’t believe all the “alternative fuel” “e85�? nonsense that you hear.
If they really wanted it to happen, it could happen just about over night. It’s all done to keep the outraged American Citizen (that is getting raped at the pump) quiet.

By: John

John — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 01:02:14 +0000

Since they resorted to air motoring tests, instead of putting real fuel into the engine, the company knows the engine is not reliable as is. The model they have built is to demonstrate the technology works.

But they are strictly an Intellectual Property company, waiting for an automaker to license the technology and develop it to a usable state.

My question is, what is its fuel efficiency?
We know that the Wankel engine Mazda uses, even though it has less displacement, it uses MORE fuel, putting out 238 hp at a mere 16 mpg. That is less efficient than a conventional 238 hp V6 engine.

By: Alan

Alan — Wed, 26 Apr 2006 15:24:26 +0000

No way it will work without a lot more cooling. Any engine that could generate 800+ horsepower for any time will generate a lot of heat – and need cooling that is way more substantial than the little air fins. I suppose it might be possible to use a LARGE oil cooler, but those have drawbacks too.

By: Number22

Number22 — Wed, 26 Apr 2006 09:51:06 +0000

Not sure this engine has a future in the car market. Car manufacturers are investing big $$$ in fuell cell technology. Perhaps planes, boats, trains and such would benefit from a new combustion engine… while the oil lasts and provided we don’t get hammered before than by the ignorance of some countries to support Kyoto and improve the environment… I’m rather sceptical. Combustion is old fashioned.

By: fnchaffin

fnchaffin — Wed, 26 Apr 2006 03:22:23 +0000

The date is wrong on this stuff … it oughta be April 1st…

By: oxbcat

oxbcat — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 23:16:33 +0000

#21,
did you READ the atricle?
there are NO CAMS since there are NO VALVES!

read the #7 bullet point

or here i will paste it for you.

# There are no cylinder heads, no cam shaft, no valves (the ME is equivalent to the bottom end of a reciprocating engine).

sorry to threadcrap

By: Ark

Ark — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 21:51:45 +0000

Seems perfect for a diesel engine….

By: DarkMastyr

DarkMastyr — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 17:41:34 +0000

Oh plus there’s gotta be an insane design for the intake and exhaust manifold on this sucker. In the end, the whole engine might not be any smaller than your typical IC engine you find in your car. Alright I’m done bashing this thing.

By: DarkMastyr

DarkMastyr — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 17:37:05 +0000

I just thought of some other aspects… with that many combustion chambers, you’re going to need an individual cam for each one, meaning a total of 8 cams and 32 lifters. You would also need at least 8 different injectors. Combined with the number of cylinders this design currently implements, this amounts to some serious cost.

A serious issue that I see with this design now that I think about it is that there is no way for the injectors to spray fuel directly on top of the cylinder. This means that there needs to be some seriously innovative design of the sidewalls to implement an effective swirl effect. Otherwise, you’ll have problems with obtaining a proper mixture.

By: DarkMastyr

DarkMastyr — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 17:27:23 +0000

I just read the patent that was filed for this engine. The design is innovative for sure, but I can see at least one major difficulty with regards to this engine design. Effectively, this engine is just a series of 2-stroke engines combined into a circular form, although each individual cylinder runs on a 4-stroke cycle. The biggest problem with this design is going to be proper lubrication. Although this design does not suffer the scavenging effects that 2-stroke engines face, each piston experiences combustion above and below the piston surface, just like a 2-stroke. This means that oil consumption on this particular type of engine will be much greater than a 4-stroke.

By: jeff helms

jeff helms — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 16:59:21 +0000

WOWZERS… i’m psyched about this new development. this technology will perpetuate new ideas which will lead to better, more sophisticated types of combustion engines. the development of new equipment will inevitably encounter problems. they got this far… i’m sure they will work the bugs out. two thumbs up!!

By: Trex

Trex — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 14:29:57 +0000

Ref #16 – engine being an internet hoax – There is nothing about a Massive Yet Tiny engine on snopes.com – yet…

By: Mickey Mouse

Mickey Mouse — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 14:27:30 +0000

It really exists but it probably won’t go anywhere. They had it at the LA Auto Show in January. Similar to Rand-Cam, et. al.

By: nikivee

nikivee — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 14:16:35 +0000

I believe it’s an internet hoax. No real info on that site. Don’t believe everything you see on the net.

By: David Every

David Every — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 12:18:48 +0000

Seems like its first application would be in prop driven aircraft. You have higher airflow, and weight to power is more critical, the price-point is tolerated as higher. Gotchas, reliability needs to be proven.

I’ve seen the animation… but it does’t show crankshaft – I’m curious how that assumbly works to get the opposing start/stops on the two halves…. My concern is more about heat/lubrication issues… but I really hope it works. Double the efficiency or more, is a really cool thing.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 11:40:44 +0000

I’m waiting for Lutz to come out and say he invented it and it will appear in the next shared model of Opel, Vauxhall, Diawoo, Malibu, Saab, Iszuzzu, Oldsmobile (brought back just for the occasion), Buick, Caddy and GMC.

j i m

By: JohnnyBlazE

JohnnyBlazE — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 11:07:19 +0000

The human race needs developments in technology and engineering… It will be good to see a revolution in engines. Progress isn’t a bad thing if it breeds good results. Imagine the aerospace applications of a tiny engine producing a lot of power… Could overcome a lot of obstacles and modify how well we can exploit the physics of the world…. non?

Anyway good luck to them!

By: Guttersludge

Guttersludge — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 11:03:28 +0000

Incredible! Brunel would love it!

Here’s an idea: arguably and in my pseudo-humble opinion, Ferrari is probably the forthright authority on performance dispension and engineering technology, most things considered; how about if Angel Labs leased specifications to Maranello for some R&D down-time, to see what they make of it? I reckon if Ferrari can successfully define a purpose for it, any manufacturer on the planet could, eventually. I’m sure old ‘Mike Shoemaker’ or ‘Looker Bedoua’ would love to toss it about Fiorano for a few weeks for a laugh.

I sense excitement from all of you regarding this new marvel – but not enough for my liking! Methinks this could well be the most significant invention in the history of modern automotion!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 06:33:38 +0000

Hope it doesn’t use fuel like a jet engine to make all that power like one!

By: Ron

Ron — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 06:17:48 +0000

Hmm…sounds intersting enough, but I also wonder how it would fare as far as emmisions testing and although the flex-fuel is a good idea…what about consumption. These questions will take time to answer and yes it will be years before we ever get to witness it, if ever…. I myself hope we do see it come to fruition

By: Drew

Drew — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 04:57:18 +0000

Like #7 said, there is bound to be some sort of critical flaw they haven’t overcome yet… Otherwise, this thing would be all over the news.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 04:54:28 +0000

If everything was so simple, we would not have internal combustion engines by now.

By: Albert

Albert — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 04:06:53 +0000

it all seems to be marvelous and such, but im sure there are a few flaws, perhaps major ones that prevent it from really making it big. Perhaps production cost or something or other. If it really was as great as it sounds, I’m quite sure it would have been rushed into testing by now and application

By: Issac

Issac — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 02:23:46 +0000

very good idea, no real terrible drawbacks. I am impressed, an ENGINEering marvel… but as some of you guys already said… this kinda thing takes time to make into the world in mass production

By: Alan

Alan — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 01:20:09 +0000

“he horsepower is impressive, but we all know it’s torque that moves a vehicle (except off the showroom floor). What’s the torque output of this engine at that 850hp?” -Greg

“Moreover, with the high number of cylinders firing in close order, a high number of pulses are generated for high torque, but without the friction and parasitic losses discussed below.”

By: Peter

Peter — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 00:40:19 +0000

Pretty cool. I wouldn’t expect it in daily driver cars for at least a decade, though.

By: Greg Justice

Greg Justice — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 00:36:54 +0000

This is extremely interesting, especially the “off-the-shelf” build aspect.

I have a couple of questions: What is the intended application? Automotive? Aerospace? If it’s automotive, what kind of efficiency would we expect to see in, say, a 3500lb vehicle?

How would you harness the power, e.g. would the engine live inside a housing that would bolt to a transmission? How would that effect the air cooling capability?

The horsepower is impressive, but we all know it’s torque that moves a vehicle (except off the showroom floor). What’s the torque output of this engine at that 850hp?

Thanks, I’m eager to hear back from you.
Greg Justice

By: Carlos

Carlos — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 00:28:04 +0000

Ooh, this appeared in a Sport Compact Car article about new engines in development a few months ago.

As on rotaries, sealing will be one of the main problems. It’s the mundane, simple things that get in the way of a lot of these designs. Good luck to them!

By: TheProfessor

TheProfessor — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 00:19:33 +0000

I’d be surprised if this actually breaks into the automotive industry.

Great idea and concept, but seems like they haven’t run any actual tests on it. Mainly just calculations and short runs.

If it DOES work, we won’t see it for at least a few years…I wouldn’t mind having it in my engine bay though….Pretty ingenious, a relatively simple combination of rotary and traditional ICE motors