Wow!!!

OMG!! I want that soo badly

That's propably an investor fraud. Every few months there are people who create a perpetuum mobile, get some banks to fund them with a few millions, pay themselves a CEO salary, declare bancupcy after 2 years and buy a nice palace in the mediterranian from their salary (which they can keep due to the laws in most countries).

Vain

Looks like a fraud to me too.

Check out the forum...

I checked the illustration movies, funny how they don't say anything about reliability or fuel consumption.

I'll give them respect since they did have manage to get the engine running, but it's not much of use unless the reliability is on par with a traditional piston engine.

The fuel consumption must also be insane, considering the displacement.

They broke pistons on the only engine they had during their first real fuel run.
They're running air trials till they can fund/ have the next real fuel-ready engine.. the Thermodynamics thread seems to have the most concise criticism.

hahaha! probably doesn't work. Maybe we need an MYT5!

it's an interesting concept, but I'll believe in it when I see a prototype running on gasoline actually powering a vehicle.

Quote :

Through two revolutions of its crankshaft, the ME firing cycle is equivalent to a 32 cylinder reciprocating engine, that is, it fires 32 times. As a result, its displacement is equivalent to an 848 cubic inch reciprocating engine, despite its compactness.

Does that make sense to anyone else?

848ci / 32 fires = 26.5 ci / "cylinder"
Which I guess is the volume before ignition.
http://www.angellabsllc.com/mytani.swf

another petrol engine...we need renewable/clean sources of energy.

Seems similar in concept to a Wankel, only I don't see how those "pistons" (if that's what they're calling those little flaps) could possibly withstand the forces being applied to them for long, without just snapping right off. Seems like this would have the same emissions problems as the Wankel as well.

They're not flaps.. look around:
http://www.angellabsllc.com/resourse.html

I don't know...the way the whole thing is presented - I mean the website and especially this animated presentation video - reminds me a little of 19th-century charlatans who tried to sell crude oil as a new medicine to cure any disease...
I think they're ballyhooing it a little too much to be trusted, considering how far they've actually gotten in the development..

Come on if your going to reinvent the world at least call it something slightly less cheesey. I see the potential but really can't see these people sorting it if their website is anything to go by. And I definatley don't think it will reliably produce 2000 bhp and they have convineantly forgot about mentioning the torque.

Quote from ajp71 :

And I definatley don't think it will reliably produce 2000 bhp and they have convineantly forgot about mentioning the torque.

True, but if it's low torque then to get big power it must have lots of revs... which means you can use lots of gearing reduction and get all your torque back at the wheels. So not a big problem.

there is a video of one of these guys speaking at some motorshow where he claims it produces ridiculously high torque at low revs (well frankly i have no idea how high those numbers are as he keeps the websites stile of using bs-units ... but it sounds like a lot)

Probably lb-in.

isnt lb a unit of mass making it one of the biggest bs units ever to come out of the imperial unit system ?

Yes, lb is mass, but lbf is pounds force (or the equivilent of lbs in gravity, or lb * g (in ft/sec). The f is often dropped (as it's obvious), so lb-in is a measure of force per unit length.

Imperial isn't bs at all, it's a very valid and useable system of measurement. In many cases it's far more valid for engineering and estimating. Simply saying that metric is the only way, and the best way, is closed minded and foolish.

how would it be more valid for engineering ?

Because it's a perfectly valid system of measurement. When I'm machining stuff I routinely use both imperial and metric systems (though not on the same job, one or the other at a time), as both have pluses and minuses. But as the actual numbers used are, ultimately, arbitrary lengths that someone, somewhere decided as defacto.

I'm even more inclinded to use imperial units in everyday life as the short sighted, pompous, idiotic and stupid EU beaurocrats have 'banned' it's use for the vast majority of applications. As soon as anything is needlessly banned I try and use it. I do and say a lot of things that are banned, often BECAUSE they are banned. Don't let the EU create an Orwellian society. 1984 this ain't.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Yes, lb is mass, but lbf is pounds force (or the equivilent of lbs in gravity, or lb * g (in ft/sec). The f is often dropped (as it's obvious), so lb-in is a measure of force per unit length.

Imperial isn't bs at all, it's a very valid and useable system of measurement. In many cases it's far more valid for engineering and estimating. Simply saying that metric is the only way, and the best way, is closed minded and foolish.

Both systems work, although imperial is somewhat incompatible with much of the world. I've always found the metric system to be far more elegant and easier to use personally. I was rather unique in that view as a kid here in USA, but perhaps that was the result of being raised by a physicist. Unfortunately, many Americans are still grossly ignorant of the metric system and simply don't want to deal with it at all.

Anyway, as for the engine, it looks like a twist on the rotary/wankel concept, but much more complicated. I don't see how the "chamber walls/pistons/whatever you call them" can withstand such a rapid cycle of compressions and expansions constantly speeding up and slowing down as they revolve at what I presume to be some rather high RPM to deliver the alleged power. Although I suppose the current internal combustion engine seems somewhat chaotic with so many parts continuously changing directions; at least compared to a turbine where everything just smoothly spins. I have a hard time believing this miracle engine can surpass the power to weight ratio and reliability of today’s gas turbines. However, being of a more scientific disposition, I tend to question pretty much everything until it's proven. Still, it's very interesting indeed. I'm looking forward to seeing how it turns out.

Speaking of turbines, is anyone familiar with the old experiment where they put a turbine engine (used through a transmission to drive the wheels) into a car to compete on the oval track? Evidently, it was somewhat slower off the line, but proceeded to dominate the race until a bearing failure prevented it from finishing, or so the story goes at least.

Here are a couple interesting links:

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

http://www.indy500.com/photo/l ... &series_id=1&lo=h