A new, more efficient engine design...for people who like big engines!

[cheesehead]

The MYT engine is yet another new engine technology, new industrial revolution, blah blah blah.

However, instead of running on compressed air or using hydrogen, this one runs on good-old fashioned diesel - though, with a little work, used oil from Taco Bell should work just fine.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zqSIq39TMNM

The idea is pretty simple - just put all the pistons in one tube, which is shaped into a loop. When one piston fires, it moves forward - the other side then compresses gas between it and the next piston. While the specs are a bit overstated (for example, it would appear to rev much lower than a normal V8), the fact remains: This is a really tiny engine that can produce a lot of horsepower, and with a bit of work, we can have teenagers killing themselves at greater velocities than ever before.

 

[imported_Tick]

Seems like it would have problems with sealing, like all rotary engines, and would go BANG-BANG-BANG as each piston advance came to a stop. Also, has anyone actually built a working one?

 

[CycloWizard]

I did a quick search and found the company's website, Angel Labs LLC. They have an actual engine sitting on a table and some videos that I haven't watched yet. I don't see that this would be 'revolutionary', as it's not much different from a regular rotary engine (as Tick pointed out). A little more digging turns up that the inventor won a NASA award (link). This latter site lists the following benefits:
-The ability to support a compression ratio as high as 70:1.

-No valves. The MYT uses open ports with no restriction. Airflow action is one way.

-The entire engine acts as a heat sink and a radiator. It is both air and oil cooled.

-There is no thrust loading on piston skirts.

-Pistons do not touch the cylinder walls, only the rings do.

-Pistons travel only the same direction. No reciprocation, only stop and go.

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

-Intake compression and power stroke and exhaust stroke events are happening all at the same time, so there are no load strokes.

I can see how this could work, but the devil is in the details. The timing would be more critical than in a standard ICE engine, and it seems to me that it would fail if the power demand were varied. I'd definitely like to see this thing in action before overanalyzing it, but their animations leave something to be desired.

 

[George Powell]

It's a pity they ony show the engine being air motored. I'm a little sceptical about the claims they make, also they only talk about power to weight ratios and it being the equivalent of much larger engines.

There is no talk about the aactual eficiency of the engine and its fuel consumption. The the modern consumer it doesn't matter if it produces 2000hp, its whether it does 40 to the gallon that counts. (Certainly here in the UK)

 

[cheesehead]

Originally posted by: George Powell
It's a pity they ony show the engine being air motored. I'm a little sceptical about the claims they make, also they only talk about power to weight ratios and it being the equivalent of much larger engines.

There is no talk about the aactual eficiency of the engine and its fuel consumption. The the modern consumer it doesn't matter if it produces 2000hp, its whether it does 40 to the gallon that counts. (Certainly here in the UK)

I agree - I personally doubt it can do nearly that much. It seems that, in theory, fuel economy should be better though - it's not reciprocating.

Also, it looks a lot different from a Wankel to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wankel_engine

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Would love to see this actually running on diesel or biofuel before saying anything (me sceptical?), it certainly could be interesting but as cyclo said the devil is in the detail.

As for fuel economy, if it is able to power the entire system off one intake port at idle (cutting the fuel to the other injectors/ports) at low rpm, it could be quite efficient.

Edit: just listened to the engine running on compressed air on the angel labs site (dont go to youtube the sound is messed up) and it sounds very like a rotary, remember that thing is only running at 850rpm!

 

[Howard]

Did they have to get that guy to narrate?

 

[cheesehead]

Originally posted by: Howard
Did they have to get that guy to narrate?

The inventor speakes with a thick accent.


(really, he does - look up his Youtube video.)


I personally thought it was funny.

 

[OSX]

So what is the problem with the Wankel? Why don't more people use it?

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: OSX
So what is the problem with the Wankel? Why don't more people use it?

We don't have good enough material/engineering to make good seals. Higher rpm leads to incomplete combustion, leading to rich exhaust, making it fail emission test. Mazda tried to burn it off before hitting the pipe but that is kinda fuel inefficient. Don't know about current gen rotary.

 

[bobsmith1492]

Is anyone familiar with gas turbines? As I posted elsewhere,

I had an old professor who sounded convinced that miniaturized turbines were the way of the future; imagine plugging a canister of hydrogen the size of an airsoft CO2 cartridge into your laptop and running for days, exhausting only a drip of warm water... well, it sounds far fetched to me, but on an automobile scale, why are there no gas turbines available for standard automobiles? I know they use them for tanks - what are the downsides? Loud? Poor/incompatible power/torque characteristics? Not possible to reduce in scale? How much more efficient than a standard V6 would one of comparable size and/or power be?

EDIT: Scratch that, they sound like crap for efficiency...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_turbine

 

[Xdreamer]

they burn the same amount of fuel stationary as at full throttle. They are fuel hogs.

 

[Prsn]

Is it just me or does this thing look like one of the perpetual motion machines I designed as a kid?

Uses the force of one explosion to the advantage of the next I mean, maybe I'm crazy.

 

[CTho9305]

Originally posted by: Prsn
Is it just me or does this thing look like one of the perpetual motion machines I designed as a kid?

Uses the force of one explosion to the advantage of the next I mean, maybe I'm crazy.

That's exactly what the engine in your car right now does... you spend a little bit of one combustion's energy to compress the air-gas mixture for the next one. You can do it since the energy it takes to compress the mixture is less than the extra power you get when the compressed mixture burns. You're still adding energy (i.e. gas) to each cylinder before the power stroke.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Gas turbines also have a lot of lag, which makes using them for engines a pain.

 

[bobsmith1492]

Originally posted by: PlasmaBomb
Gas turbines also have a lot of lag, which makes using them for engines a pain.

Lag between... the time you hit the gas and the time it accelerates?

 

[Mark R]

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492

Originally posted by: PlasmaBomb
Gas turbines also have a lot of lag, which makes using them for engines a pain.

Lag between... the time you hit the gas and the time it accelerates?

Yup - that's it, exactly.

On a turbine large enough to power a large car, this could easily be 5-10 seconds from hitting the accelerator to the turbine picking up power.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Yeah sorry I meant lag, as in time between you hitting the gas and it accelerating, it also works the other way, so when you close the throttle the turbine is still pumping out massive power until it winds down. Fuel figures for the Marine Turbine Technologies Y2K bike are 4-7 mpg, and it idles at 27,000rpm!

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Prsn
Is it just me or does this thing look like one of the perpetual motion machines I designed as a kid?

Uses the force of one explosion to the advantage of the next I mean, maybe I'm crazy.

It would be a perpetual motion machine if there were no fuel added. However, you're inputting chemical potential energy that transforms into kinetic energy upon combustion. This kinetic energy is then sufficient to compress the other chambers and turn the crank shaft.

 

[bobsmith1492]

Originally posted by: Mark R

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492

Originally posted by: PlasmaBomb
Gas turbines also have a lot of lag, which makes using them for engines a pain.

Lag between... the time you hit the gas and the time it accelerates?

Yup - that's it, exactly.

On a turbine large enough to power a large car, this could easily be 5-10 seconds from hitting the accelerator to the turbine picking up power.

You could use a decent-sized flywheel and automatic transaxle to compensate, I'd imagine? I don't imagine stopping would be an issue; just pop the clutch and it's disconnected; cut the fuel input and it wouldn't be wasting gas either. Now, add a flywheel and just dump the extra spindown into the flywheel, idle the turbine to keep the flywheel spinning, then when you hit the gas, use the flywheel velocity to start up and begin spinning up the turbine?

I guess it would take a bit more complicated of a powertrain, but that doesn't mean it's not possible, right?

They use them for tanks; so, tanks just take a bit to get going or do they do trickery to help it out? EDIT: Hm, I guess this guy disagrees with the use of turbines: http://www.g2mil.com/abramsdiesel.htm I still don't know if the poor fuel efficiency is simply because the engine is so oversized so the tank can accelerate well or if it's an inherent problem with turbine engines... anyone?

 

[Agent11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams


'The M1 Abrams is powered by a 1500 hp (1119 kW) Honeywell AGT1500 (originally made by Lycoming) gas turbine, and a 6 speed (4 forward, 2 reverse) Allison X-1100-3B Hydro-Kinetic Automatic transmission, giving it a governed top speed of 45 mph (72 km/h) on roads, 30 mph (48 km/h) cross-country. With the engine governor removed, speeds of around 60 mph (100 km/h) are possible on an improved surface; however, damage to the drive train (especially to the tracks) and an increased risk of injuries to the crew can occur at speeds above 45 mph. The tank can be fueled with diesel fuel, kerosene, any grade of MOGAS (motor gasoline), or JP-4 or JP-8 jet fuel; the U.S. Army uses JP-8 jet fuel in order to simplify logistics.

The gas turbine propulsion system has proven quite reliable in practice and combat, but its high fuel consumption is a serious logistic issue (starting up the turbine alone consumes 40 liters of fuel). The high speed, high temperature jet exhaust emitted from the rear of M1 Abrams tanks makes it difficult for the infantry to proceed shadowing the tank in urban combat. The turbine is noisy, comparable to a helicopter engine, although the noise character (pitch) is significantly different from a contemporary diesel tank engine. Future US tanks may return to reciprocating engines for propulsion, as 4-stroke diesel engines have proven quite successful in other modern heavy tanks, e.g. the Leopard 2, Challenger 2 and Merkava. The small size, simplicity, power-to-weight ratio, and easy removal/replacement of the turbine powerpack does, however, present significant advantages over any proposed reciprocating replacement.

The Abrams can be carried by the C-5 Galaxy and C-17 Globemaster III. The limited capacity (one combat-ready tank or two transport-ready tanks in a C-5, one combat-ready tank in a C-17) caused serious logistical problems when deploying the tanks for the First Gulf War, though there was enough time for 1,848 tanks to be transported by ship. Tanks shipped in the transport-ready configuration require depot-level maintenance to install a number of sections of armor, and need to be fueled and loaded with ammunition. Tanks shipped in the combat-ready configuration can enter combat immediately.'


I think we need to wait for fusion reactors, then we can create hydrogen much easier for cars ect..
Too bad bush blew all the money he could have spent going to the moon to grab that helium 3 ;P

 

[Calin]

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
Is anyone familiar with gas turbines? As I posted elsewhere,

I had an old professor who sounded convinced that miniaturized turbines were the way of the future; imagine plugging a canister of hydrogen the size of an airsoft CO2 cartridge into your laptop and running for days, exhausting only a drip of warm water... well, it sounds far fetched to me, but on an automobile scale, why are there no gas turbines available for standard automobiles? I know they use them for tanks - what are the downsides? Loud? Poor/incompatible power/torque characteristics? Not possible to reduce in scale? How much more efficient than a standard V6 would one of comparable size and/or power be?

EDIT: Scratch that, they sound like crap for efficiency...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_turbine

They have them on tanks, for two reasons: they have high power and lower weight than diesels (we are talking about V12 diesels here, bigger than anything you could find on a road-worthy truck). The other reason: they can use any kind of fuel (lower than gasoline) with equal efficiency.

Some of the reasons are cost, their maintenance intervals, and some particular "workings".
There is a company that builds motorcycles and trucks with old, detuned (lower power) jet engines from helicopters (Jay Leno has such a motorcycle). The engine has about 250 horse power (detuned as it is), works from 3000 to 6000 rpm, has about 20-30 horse power at idle. Its torque and power increases greatly with rpm increase. Downside: no engine braking worth speaking of.
By the way, the motorcycles have only two gears.

 

[Calin]

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
I still don't know if the poor fuel efficiency is simply because the engine is so oversized so the tank can accelerate well or if it's an inherent problem with turbine engines... anyone?

All the similar tanks have engines at the 1000 horse power area - but Abrams (the M1A1 and M1A2 especially) are heavier. Power/weight ratio is 20HP/metric ton for the 1000HP T90 and 22 for the 68 metric tons M1A2)