Indeed it has been tried and there are some excellent youtube clips of the engine running: search for 'Jerry Hale rotary'. The angular momentum of rotary engines, used in the early 20th century, presented a small problem in manoeuvrability in fighter aircraft but (according to a pilot who flies working rotary engine aircraft for a historic flight collection) the effect is not very significant and problems of effective lubrication are much more important
@nedladdy I assume you're referring to the Caminez engine. It had four cylinders like this one and with such an arrangement there is no torque overlap. In 90 degrees the torque goes from 0 to max and back to 0. Then repeats four times per rev. Consequently, there is a huge torque variation which tends to be very hard on the propeller or whatever it's driving. My newest engine is 8 cyls. 2 rows of 4 cyls staggered 45 degrees. This gives complete overlap and eliminates the problem.
@DJHale68 Sorry DJ, I seen to have misled you. World War One Vintage aircraft had rotary engines, in that the engines rotate , the crankshaft was fixed to the plane and the prop was bolted to the cylinders/crankcase. The angular momentum of the that mass spinning made the plane more difficult to control. Wiki articles describe it better, start at sopwith camel or something similar.
As for increasing cylinder numbers, aero engineers found that 12 was the optimal number.
@nedladdy I too was concerned about the angular momentum of inertia of this configuration and so decided to measure it and compare it to the inertia of the wooden prop I was using. This is done by hanging the rotor from a steel wire on its' axis and then causing it to oscillate. Knowing the wire dia and length and timing the oscillations I could calculate the inertia. It turned out that the inertia of the rotor was actually smaller than the inertia of the prop.
@nedladdy WWI rotories had a problem with inertia because of the large diameter of the engine. The inertia goes up as the square of the radius. This new rotary has a very small diameter rotor and so has a proportionally smaller moment of inertia. The flywheel/crankshaft of the normal reciprocating engine would undoubtably have more inertia than this rotor.
Has anyone built a working model of this? I'm just asking because it doesn't look to me like it would work. I'm not trying to be a dick. I applaud the creativity of whoever invented this. On the power stroke, it looks like the piston is pushing against an immovable fixed point (the yellow thing in the center). If you watch the animation, the power stroke is slow as if the fuel is burning very slowly, instead of a quick expansion.
@wrjamescom This isn't my video, so I don't have all the answers, but I believe you are incorrect. At 0:40, you can clearly see that the "yellow thing" is a fully rendered, 3D object, and not just an empty space. Also, it appears to me that this "yellow thing" is what the rollers roll against to force the pistons outward to create the compression in the top cylinder and the exhaust in the bottom one.
Hello Mr Hale! :) A curiosity is raping my mind: it would be possible with your engine, to compete aganist modern 4 Strokes in terms of emissions, seal duration and seal leaks?
with more moving parts and a higher friction coefficient... isn't this just a more complicated Wankel Rotary? I'm not Being rude. I would just like some clarification.
@canadiangearhead80 More parts, yes. But this engine solves the two main problems the Wankel has: poor seal life and poor fuel economy due to a very high surface area to volume ratio. The friction level is probably about halfway between the Wankel and the common reciprocater.
@DJHale68 Hello Mr Hale! :) A curiosity is raping my mind: it would be possible with your engine, to compete aganist modern 4 Strokes in terms of emissions, seal duration and seal leaks?
@MultiMotoRider In terms of emissions, this engine with carburetors should be about the same as modern engines with direct injection and somewhat better than them if it had direction injection. Seal durability remains to be seen.It will be much better than the Wankel because it has area contact whereas the Wankel has only line contact. Sealing integrity so far has been excellent, fully as good as a typical reciprocater.
@DJHale68 Thank you Mr Hale! I want to thank you because your invention gave me the strength to believe in a modern engine, powerfull, light, and reliable. If I were a manufacturer I would ask you to build together the engine but unfortunately i am only a young boy who lives with a passion for engines AND with engines. I'm sorry for my bad english, i don't speak so much well it :) Greetings From ITALY!!
alot re-inventing the wheel lately . seems it takes folks a decade or more to figure out that its already been done , thought of, tried and disgaurded for another design. but then again it took Edison thousands of tries before he got the light bulb just right. so rock on!
@fred972levrai The quasi turbine has even worse sealing problems than the wankle. Surface area to volume ratio is horrible too. You notice that you don't see one running on gasoline.
The only problem with this in the proposed aplication is that you will be moving the heaviest part of the engine, making it less efficient than it otherwise might be
@mrturtlebobington The mass of the rotor just takes the place of the flywheel which you have in the normal reciprocating engine. It's just an energy storage device and does not affect efficiency.
@teredude It's a common misconception that a long stroke engine will produce more torque than a short stroke one. If you have two engines; one with a long stroke, the other with a much shorter stroke, but otherwise are the same in all respects, then they will produce the same torque at the same speed. Otherwise the same means the same displacement, same thermal efficiency, same mechanical efficiency, same volumetric efficiency, etc, etc. Length of stroke does not factor in at all.
@teredude The idle speed of this proof of concept engine presently is 550-600 RPM. I have no dyno so I haven't determined the power band. I'm using a propeller to load the engine. It's making 8-8.5 HP @ 8000 RPM. Displacement is 3.5 cubic inches. Have you watched the two YOU-TUBE videos ( Jerry Hale rotary 1 and Jerry Hale rotary 2 )?
@teredude Not neccessarily so. Torque is mainly a function of air flow per revolution of the output shaft. This engine utilizes its' displacement twice as often as a normal four stroke engine and therefore should produce twice the torque.
This engine does not need spark advance. That's one of the advantages of a cam type engine. The cam shape is such that the piston stops a TDC and then stays there for a number of degrees to allow the combustion to come to completion. This also improves the thermal efficiency and practically eliminates any hydrocarbon emissions.
@2WheelsSometimes1 I'm not sure that engines this small really need spark advance, especially if they run at a pretty constant RPM (I may be wrong). It seems like it doesn't matter if it's running poorly at low revs, as long as it gets up into the powerband and stays there. Also, those ports must cover at least 10deg of rotation, so you could adjust it to spark anywhere from the leading edge to the trailing edge. Or you could make it a oval-shaped port, and cover even more degrees.
The linkage between the pistons and the crank remind me a Caminez from 1925
Not really a new idea. At the time it was in development the state of the art in terms of machining was really up to the concept. It failed during Navy trials due to poor machining of some of the parts
Germany still is fighting for world Control.It failed twice openly waging war but never gave up the idea.Today it is using snitchers to infiltrate foreign countries and manipulate their population and their government.Preferably against each other.And they infiltrate the economy of other states.They are using brainwashing and steering techniques abroad to get rid of people not being pro german.As somebody said:We dont have nukes,we have to do this.Thumbs up if you want the BND to stop torturing
The displacement is 3.5 cu.in. but its used twice as often as in a normal 4-stroke engine so the effective displacement is 7.0 cu.in. This assumes the same RPM in both engines.
@LarryLane07 Sealing!!! Sealing!! Sealing! This engine seals as well as your normal reciprocating engine. Sealing is absolutely critical for power, efficiency, starting, idling, etc., etc. If your engine doesn't seal well, you won't be able to run it as a gasoline engine. You can power it with compressed air at very low overall efficiency, which is what they're doing with the Quasi-turbine, but then it is not a prime mover.
The drive mechanic is quite similar to the 1927 fairchild-caminez engine, but without the valvetrain. The system turns out more or less to be a Wankel, having the pistons configurated in a rotor , sealing it to a fixed outer-house ( sealing should be better than wankel ) EVen lubrication should be better than wankel.
@frankydevaere All the issues you have brought up are discussed in an article I wrote for a magazine called "Model Engine Builder". You can order back issues from their web site. Go to -- modelenginebuilder dot commmercial-- and order issue #15.
Move the outlet a little further, having the expansionstroke a little longer. Then you have a thermoefficient atkinson. Could be very interesting for generators, even for onboard hybrids.
Nice design. Very compact and wellbalanced. Genius.
How to you get the heat out the pistonrotor? How do you get the pistonsprings lubricated?Are the seals on the outerdiameter ( ignition,inlet en outlet) doing their job? Never mind the negativism . I like the free pistons ( no slap, no sidethrust ) because of the double conrods .
I had the (almost) same exact idea, but in mine, the outer gear (like in the video) was the one spinning while the inside mechanism was immobile. This way, centrifugal forces wouldn't damage it. I based mine on the Quasiturbine, but like, inverted.
@Dankarlpang This is a proof of concept engine. I'm only using a prop to load it with and to provide cooling air. I'm working on a water cooled version now which - scaled up- would be usable in automotive applications.
I thought the explosions is what made it move, all i see is a bunch of pistons that some how rotate and explode, these combustions do not make the pistons move and that means it couldnt possibly work
Well...that sure looks like a lot of fragile linkages to break. So you save the valvetrain, which has pretty constant and mild-ish forces on it, and replace it with a complex 4-link/roller/cam setup under crank-forces? How long do you suppose that would last under 300hp, at this scale? And how much do you think it'd WEIGH? Somehow I have a feeling that the reason that they've stuck with conventional piston/crank engines for so long is that they've TRIED all this, and it ain't any better.
As Jerry Hale says the aim of the engine is to produce a small (think model aircraft sized) smooth running engine with very high power to weight ratio. I think that he has achieved a successful result and a working version is demonstrated on Youtube.
@appropriatedesign If you wanted that, a roots blower operated in reverse would work too. No offense, but this seems a little complicated and I think it really doesn't need to be.
@mynith A roots blower doesn't seal well enough to work at the much higher pressures that exist with internal combustion. They work well at 20-30 psi for supercharging purposes but internal combustion takes pressures up to 500-700 psi.
@mynith If they could get power just by operating a Root-type in reverse, they would have done so long ago, don't you think? Hale is right; a Roots is way too loose fitting, and you have no room for expansion; no power-stroke. You'd be running a continuous-bleed engine and like a 1:3 compression ratio (or something like that). This engine is clever, but I can see a lot of potential practical problems that make it seem not worth the effort, this late in the game. It doesn't have enough "pros".
The gas loads applied to the piston are transmitted directly to the cam by the roller. The links see none of this load. Their only purpose is to pull the piston back toward center during the intake stroke. This puts them in pure tension. They never see compressive loads. In my model engine, the max load to pull the piston back at 5000 RPM equals 216 lbs. Each of the four steel links is capable of 2300 lbs in tension. So, fragile it is not.
@justforever96 That really isn't much different than a WWI aircraft engine. The old Pratt Whitney 1000ci X radials (circa 1925) operated with the same crank shaft technology.. The only difference is you made it a 2 cycle engine rather than a 4 cycle.
@RevFastEddy I'm not sure I follow you...first, the "WWI" engines you seem to be thinking of are "rotary" engines (not Wankels though), which the P&W wasn't. The R-1340 Wasp (not 1000ci) was a normal radial; the only P&W "X" engines I know of are late WWII H-block engines. All that aside, the only similarities between this and a WWI rotary are that there are cylinders, and they rotate around the crank, but other than that they are very different. There's no fixed crank-pin; this is totally new.
@justforever96 do not confuse the H block as different, it actually just 2 flat 8 engines weldedtogether ang geared. Theyt were also terrible maintainence wise... My grandfather was a fitter/armourer in rcaf around the time the first Typhoon's were coming into play.. lol all he said was they were huge and loud.
@RevFastEddy no this is completly different the a radial engine. For one, in a radial (9 cylynder in 1 row... the connecting rods connect to a plate which revolves around the driveshaft... this looks to be miraculously turning it with a couple 90 degree hinge's.
@justforever96 sorry but this engine has the potential of running backwards by the look of it ( if it runs at all) so hows it spin, I dont see an off center crankshaft, oh .. I see, this engine doesn't spin it moves back and forth with no way to turn an output shaft?
@Me102288 First, I'm pretty sure there ARE running, small scale engines of this type...so much for not working. I just question if it's really better than what we have. Second, I suppose it COULD turn backwards, if you didn't mind the exhaust flowing out of the intake manifold. Third, an "off-center crank"? Huh? The outer casing is fixed; the center cam is fixed to that by the arms on one side. The entire rotating assembly is connected to a center crankshaft; you can see it in the first moments.
@MrYoanEmond No major breakthroughs, no. They've stuck with the tried and true piston and crank since day one, although they've tried everything else under the sun...and largely found it to offer no improvement, or improvement in one area at a sacrifice in another. The closest to successful is the Wankel rotary, but even then there are trade-offs...fuel consumption, pollution, sealing, low torque, etc.
@MrYoanEmond We're basically at the same point now were piston aero engines were after WWII. They had made all the big jumps and gotten it down to such a science, that only incremental gains could be found. Basically, they'd figured out how to make engines as good as they could get, and they'd found the turbojet, which was just beginning to unlock it's potential (and already beating the piston engines!). We can fiddle with variable timing, etc, but we'll hit the wall soon, as far as potential.
@justforever96 Never say they've tried all this! You can never know where a brilliant idea comes from, trial and error isn't a bad thing... I've said it before and I'm saying it again... We evolve through trial and error, no matter how absurd or stupid it might seem... keep trying and one day you might get it right.
@unavailableyet I wouldn't suggest that people stop trying to come up with different ideas; I'm just not sure that they'll suceed. It's always good to keep ideas coming; at worst, you find out what doesn't work, at best sometimes an idea can lead to something even better, even if the original plan didn't work out so well.
Joop Carley didn't invent it either because it was used in the Caminez engine back in the 1920's. The earliest patent I've found on the basic idea goes back to 1905 when it was proposed for use in a hydraulic pump.
@08SilveradoLT The expanding hot gas in the power stroke forces the piston and associated roller down the sloping part of the two lobbed cam which is stationary at the centre of the engine. Because of the relative position this imparts angular motion to the piston and hence the cylinder walls and so on to the output shaft. The rhomboid links and rollers move the other pistons for induction, compression and exhaust.
@appropriatedesign Does the force of the piston against the cylinder wall wear the rings quickly? and is there much loss of energy in the friction of piston against cylinder wall?
The rings never see radial load from the piston as there is clearance behind the rings in the piston. This is standard practice in piston engine design.
There is energy loss due to friction between the piston and cylinder wall but it is the same as in the typical crank- connecting rod engine because max offset of the force line of action is the same at about 22-23 degrees.
Actually, the cam moves the pistons for compression and exhaust. The links only come into play during the intake stroke when they pull the piston back toward center. The links are never in compression, only tension.
I'm sure that it's not you quivering! Just my rather clunky animation which is done by modifying each position in CAD then rendering that frame for the animation. So it's entirely my poor animation technique where a tiny mistake in CAD position really shows up rather than the smooth operation of Jerry Hale's very neat little engine. Don't forget to see the original in operation.
de los intentos por mejorar la combustión interna, esta es la que me a llamado la atención, parce muy posible hacer el montaje, como recomendación podrías cambiar el basculante central (piezas amarillo y verde de tu modelo) por el grupo central de un motor cuadraromb, para reducir dramáticamente la fricción
Anything with pistons i stupid. Cuz it need to move up and stop down and stop. It would never ever work because there is way to many moving parts and friction.
I men try an rev that thing to 9000 rpm and see what would happend. KABOOM! if anything at all.
The geforces on the pistons would probably stop it.
I bought _Model Engine Builder_ magazine issue #15 and the article about this engine is FASCINATING, very well written. It's worth every penny (great customer service from the publisher, too). If you think it's a clever idea just from what litlle info is here on Youtube, the article will amaze you. (I have no connection with this engine or the magazine other than being a customer of the magazine).
Neat idea. How much centrifugal force is being put on the pistons and rods at high rpm? I suppose as a small hobby engine or something it would work fine, but I don't see it in large applications. The tensile forces on a piston rod between the exhaust and intake stroke are already a problem, as tension is fatiguing. Now take that engine and rotate it around the crankshaft instead, and you have drastically increased those loads.
The centrifugal force does indeed add a lot to the tensile load on the links. It's about twice the load due to moving the piston inward during the intake stroke. However, with the very short stroke I'm using, and the resulting small diameter of the rotor, both these loads are in bounds. This small model engine can safely rev to 15,000 RPM. If all dimensions are doubled, making the displacement 8 times larger, it can safely rev to about 7000 RPM using high tensile steel for the links.
I'm using a recirculating, cooled, and filtered oiling system. A small motor driven pump forces oil into the center of the rotor where it lubes the roller bearings and is then thrown out to lube the pistons. The action in the rotor then pushes the oil back out a return line to the radiator, tank, and filter. The oil control rings are critical and required quite a bit of development. I'm still working on those. I add a little 2-stroke oil to the fuel to lube the sliding seals rotor to stator.
There are several advantages. First, greater thermal efficiency, because the piston motion is controlled by a cam and can be stopped momentarily at TDC to allow complete combustion at constant volume. Secondly, lower heat losses due to the very compact combustion chamber. Third, lower emissions due to the more complete combustion. Forth, much smoother running due to complete inertial balance. Better specific output, HP per LB. Better durability due to elimination of all valve gear.
whats the purpose of the outside gearing? why does it need the diamond shape? why not have a relaxed version of the wankel design so the inner [yellow] piece not dissovle so quickly in the abundant heat of this 4 cil engine? how will you cool it? derive heat from it? get power to it? get power from it? with efficiency?
I'm running 10 to1 compression ratio, but could easily go up to 20 or 25 to 1 for diesel application if I wanted to. The combustion chamber is very clean since it has no valve heads to clear. Thus the piston can be made to conform very closely to the head.
eh... GM 327s have like a 4 inch stroke and they can be built to turn 10000 RPMs... no matter, this is not a rotary engine, it is a radial engine and they were in all the Jennings in ww1.. its not a new idea.
I think you're talking about the Jennys in WWI. They had OX5 engines (90 hp V8s). The Gnome engines of WWI were rotary engines - the pistons revolved and the crank stayed still.
The big improvement here is that each piston has a power stroke on each revolution instead of every other revolution. Each piston goes through all 4 cycles on each revolution.
The engine should give 2 stroke power with 4 stroke reliability. THAT'S a new idea!
Great job. I don't know why there are so many nay-sayers that always say nay! Good engineering like this is how great new things are made everyday. Keep thinking!
I like it very much. Pity some of the commenting viewers above didn't view the Jerry Hale video of the real engine running before putting their feet in their mouths.
when there is a petrol rotary that will produce 130BHP at 60MPG with no oil consumption 200,000 miles between rebuilds and cost and weigh less than a conventional piston engine then you will have a winner
My definition of the term "rotary engine" is one in which the vector summation of all the inertia forces always equals exactly zero. This engine meets that definition. What is your definition?
Concept is very close to the Wankel engine, only this one needs more moving parts.
Wankel (and this concept) then again is space efficient compared to classical piston engines - but not energy efficient. And space is not an important constraint in most applications.
That's why Wankel was not a big success as it seemed from the elegance of the idea.
It's not always about efficiency. It's not like there's a board of people watching YouTube for the next greatest thing.
Sometimes it's just neat to think up new engine designs, or lay down ones that were purely theoretical and can now have some kind of physical representation.
And the real men (drivers) are the guys that have a feel for any car and know how to react to tought situations and can get you from one point to the other, has NOTHING to do with pussies that know only how to accelerate (i.e. spool the turbo). My grandma can do it.
Could this concept be made to run on pressurized air? You could eliminate the compression stage and use 2 intakes and 2 exhaust stages simply using air pressure... could be interesting..
Thanks. You can find out a lot more about this engine in an article I wrote for Model Engine Builder magazine. Go to their web site, modelenginebuilder. commerical and order issue 15.
Indeed it has been tried and there are some excellent youtube clips of the engine running: search for 'Jerry Hale rotary'. The angular momentum of rotary engines, used in the early 20th century, presented a small problem in manoeuvrability in fighter aircraft but (according to a pilot who flies working rotary engine aircraft for a historic flight collection) the effect is not very significant and problems of effective lubrication are much more important
appropriatedesign 1 month ago
I suppose you realise tht this has been tried and was disastrous angular momentum wise?
nedladdy 1 month ago
@nedladdy I assume you're referring to the Caminez engine. It had four cylinders like this one and with such an arrangement there is no torque overlap. In 90 degrees the torque goes from 0 to max and back to 0. Then repeats four times per rev. Consequently, there is a huge torque variation which tends to be very hard on the propeller or whatever it's driving. My newest engine is 8 cyls. 2 rows of 4 cyls staggered 45 degrees. This gives complete overlap and eliminates the problem.
DJHale68 4 weeks ago
@DJHale68 Sorry DJ, I seen to have misled you. World War One Vintage aircraft had rotary engines, in that the engines rotate , the crankshaft was fixed to the plane and the prop was bolted to the cylinders/crankcase. The angular momentum of the that mass spinning made the plane more difficult to control. Wiki articles describe it better, start at sopwith camel or something similar.
As for increasing cylinder numbers, aero engineers found that 12 was the optimal number.
cheers
nedladdy 4 weeks ago
@nedladdy I too was concerned about the angular momentum of inertia of this configuration and so decided to measure it and compare it to the inertia of the wooden prop I was using. This is done by hanging the rotor from a steel wire on its' axis and then causing it to oscillate. Knowing the wire dia and length and timing the oscillations I could calculate the inertia. It turned out that the inertia of the rotor was actually smaller than the inertia of the prop.
DJHale68 3 weeks ago
@nedladdy WWI rotories had a problem with inertia because of the large diameter of the engine. The inertia goes up as the square of the radius. This new rotary has a very small diameter rotor and so has a proportionally smaller moment of inertia. The flywheel/crankshaft of the normal reciprocating engine would undoubtably have more inertia than this rotor.
DJHale68 3 weeks ago
It must be hard to cool down...
Renceau 1 month ago
Combinates the disadvantages of a piston engine with those of a rotary.
HesseJamez 1 month ago
@HesseJamez Combines the best advantages the piston engine with those of the rotary to produce a superior engine.
DJHale68 1 month ago
Has anyone built a working model of this? I'm just asking because it doesn't look to me like it would work. I'm not trying to be a dick. I applaud the creativity of whoever invented this. On the power stroke, it looks like the piston is pushing against an immovable fixed point (the yellow thing in the center). If you watch the animation, the power stroke is slow as if the fuel is burning very slowly, instead of a quick expansion.
Firesprink72 1 month ago
@Firesprink72 Do a Youtube search for 'Jerry Hale Rotary' to see an excellent working model.
Indeed the piston is pushing on an immovable object resulting in a tangential force which causes the piston (and cylinders) to revolve.
The progressive working expansion results in power throughout the working stroke with low structural forces which is generally very desirable.
appropriatedesign 1 month ago
@Firesprink72 The "yellow thing in the center" is the empty space between the rollers.
wrjamescom 3 weeks ago
@wrjamescom lol, no.
Blitzwolf44 2 weeks ago
@wrjamescom This isn't my video, so I don't have all the answers, but I believe you are incorrect. At 0:40, you can clearly see that the "yellow thing" is a fully rendered, 3D object, and not just an empty space. Also, it appears to me that this "yellow thing" is what the rollers roll against to force the pistons outward to create the compression in the top cylinder and the exhaust in the bottom one.
Firesprink72 2 weeks ago
Now i understand
Lalo04051998 1 month ago
this was originally designed by a new Zealander buy in the early 90's, he lives in Australia now.
lacrossetechnology 1 month ago
@lacrossetechnology NZ represent!
666TECHNO666 1 month ago
I don t understand under the pistons
Lalo04051998 1 month ago
@Lalo04051998 To understand the pistons WATCH IT! This ain't rocket science :P
FroobleToo 1 month ago
how does it turn..
micnossub 1 month ago
@micnossub Try Watching it! :P
FroobleToo 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hello Mr Hale! :) A curiosity is raping my mind: it would be possible with your engine, to compete aganist modern 4 Strokes in terms of emissions, seal duration and seal leaks?
Sorry for my horrible english :)
MultiMotoRider 2 months ago
its a vibrator
mafufen 2 months ago 2
@mafufen It's smooth as silk!
DJHale68 2 months ago
How do I get here from snowboarding videos? jw!!!
CraZiiProDz 2 months ago 2
with more moving parts and a higher friction coefficient... isn't this just a more complicated Wankel Rotary? I'm not Being rude. I would just like some clarification.
canadiangearhead80 2 months ago
@canadiangearhead80 More parts, yes. But this engine solves the two main problems the Wankel has: poor seal life and poor fuel economy due to a very high surface area to volume ratio. The friction level is probably about halfway between the Wankel and the common reciprocater.
DJHale68 2 months ago
@DJHale68 Hello Mr Hale! :) A curiosity is raping my mind: it would be possible with your engine, to compete aganist modern 4 Strokes in terms of emissions, seal duration and seal leaks?
Sorry for my horrible english :)
MultiMotoRider 2 months ago
@MultiMotoRider In terms of emissions, this engine with carburetors should be about the same as modern engines with direct injection and somewhat better than them if it had direction injection. Seal durability remains to be seen.It will be much better than the Wankel because it has area contact whereas the Wankel has only line contact. Sealing integrity so far has been excellent, fully as good as a typical reciprocater.
DJHale68 2 months ago
@DJHale68 Thank you Mr Hale! I want to thank you because your invention gave me the strength to believe in a modern engine, powerfull, light, and reliable. If I were a manufacturer I would ask you to build together the engine but unfortunately i am only a young boy who lives with a passion for engines AND with engines. I'm sorry for my bad english, i don't speak so much well it :) Greetings From ITALY!!
MultiMotoRider 2 months ago
the rpm you could achieve with a stable version of that would be insane, i think 30000 rpm plus
fraillafacaition 2 months ago
I dont care if it would fall apart or not, if I came up with something like that I would be proud lol
DrRediculousMD 2 months ago
alot re-inventing the wheel lately . seems it takes folks a decade or more to figure out that its already been done , thought of, tried and disgaurded for another design. but then again it took Edison thousands of tries before he got the light bulb just right. so rock on!
wan2bvader 3 months ago
Looks like the quasi turbine, same principles.
fred972levrai 3 months ago
@fred972levrai The quasi turbine has even worse sealing problems than the wankle. Surface area to volume ratio is horrible too. You notice that you don't see one running on gasoline.
DJHale68 3 months ago
The only problem with this in the proposed aplication is that you will be moving the heaviest part of the engine, making it less efficient than it otherwise might be
mrturtlebobington 3 months ago
@mrturtlebobington The mass of the rotor just takes the place of the flywheel which you have in the normal reciprocating engine. It's just an energy storage device and does not affect efficiency.
DJHale68 3 months ago
amazing engine!
atoy128 3 months ago
I understand that but what I am questioning is the length of the stroke. What is the RPM at idle? What is optimum power band RPM for this design?
teredude 3 months ago
@teredude It's a common misconception that a long stroke engine will produce more torque than a short stroke one. If you have two engines; one with a long stroke, the other with a much shorter stroke, but otherwise are the same in all respects, then they will produce the same torque at the same speed. Otherwise the same means the same displacement, same thermal efficiency, same mechanical efficiency, same volumetric efficiency, etc, etc. Length of stroke does not factor in at all.
DJHale68 3 months ago
@teredude The idle speed of this proof of concept engine presently is 550-600 RPM. I have no dyno so I haven't determined the power band. I'm using a propeller to load the engine. It's making 8-8.5 HP @ 8000 RPM. Displacement is 3.5 cubic inches. Have you watched the two YOU-TUBE videos ( Jerry Hale rotary 1 and Jerry Hale rotary 2 )?
DJHale68 3 months ago
These designs seem to be all high RPM low Torque designs.
teredude 3 months ago
@teredude Not neccessarily so. Torque is mainly a function of air flow per revolution of the output shaft. This engine utilizes its' displacement twice as often as a normal four stroke engine and therefore should produce twice the torque.
DJHale68 3 months ago
This engine does not need spark advance. That's one of the advantages of a cam type engine. The cam shape is such that the piston stops a TDC and then stays there for a number of degrees to allow the combustion to come to completion. This also improves the thermal efficiency and practically eliminates any hydrocarbon emissions.
DJHale68 3 months ago
I see biker's boobs on the right side.
khemmac 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So how would your timing work to advance or retard it? Since there is only a hole that rotates to allow a spark.
2WheelsSometimes1 3 months ago
So how would your timing work to advance or retard it? Since there is only a hole that rotates to allow a spark.
2WheelsSometimes1 3 months ago
@2WheelsSometimes1 I'm not sure that engines this small really need spark advance, especially if they run at a pretty constant RPM (I may be wrong). It seems like it doesn't matter if it's running poorly at low revs, as long as it gets up into the powerband and stays there. Also, those ports must cover at least 10deg of rotation, so you could adjust it to spark anywhere from the leading edge to the trailing edge. Or you could make it a oval-shaped port, and cover even more degrees.
justforever96 3 months ago
The linkage between the pistons and the crank remind me a Caminez from 1925
Not really a new idea. At the time it was in development the state of the art in terms of machining was really up to the concept. It failed during Navy trials due to poor machining of some of the parts
mpetersen6 3 months ago
that looks like the pumb in a diesel engine with a "common rail" system
geo6642 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Germany still is fighting for world Control.It failed twice openly waging war but never gave up the idea.Today it is using snitchers to infiltrate foreign countries and manipulate their population and their government.Preferably against each other.And they infiltrate the economy of other states.They are using brainwashing and steering techniques abroad to get rid of people not being pro german.As somebody said:We dont have nukes,we have to do this.Thumbs up if you want the BND to stop torturing
wwwtotalitaerde 4 months ago
way cool!
lokeycmos 4 months ago
The displacement is 3.5 cu.in. but its used twice as often as in a normal 4-stroke engine so the effective displacement is 7.0 cu.in. This assumes the same RPM in both engines.
DJHale68 4 months ago
nice animation, but you should give Fairchild-Caminez some credit for this engine layout.
profgustavomecanica 5 months ago
nope this won't work (for long)
DjGisME 6 months ago
Do I see a creation with Zero torque and severe chance of overheating? I think so
TheIceychill2 6 months ago
Oh I see, the pistons have a cylinder under them that rolls along the stationary dog bone
Jakedasnake1066 6 months ago
Why o why does anything have to ROTATE?? How about a pulsating drive of sorts?? why is this so impossibe?? maxwell
Moneymax3001 6 months ago
nice idea
Bateker 7 months ago
nice animation
crudeoilsystems 7 months ago
@08SilveradoLT
Yeah... this thing wouldn't rotate.
TheAngryCanary 9 months ago
this is another approach : watch?v=1ZqCdNU8MlA
frankydevaere 1 year ago
I would have to think that it would heat up extremely fast ...
leeknivek 1 year ago
sort of clever except it seems it has a very large friction surface. and associated seal issues perhaps
DanFrederiksen 1 year ago
What advantage does this engine have over a rotary or quasi-turbine engine?
LarryLane07 1 year ago
@LarryLane07 Sealing!!! Sealing!! Sealing! This engine seals as well as your normal reciprocating engine. Sealing is absolutely critical for power, efficiency, starting, idling, etc., etc. If your engine doesn't seal well, you won't be able to run it as a gasoline engine. You can power it with compressed air at very low overall efficiency, which is what they're doing with the Quasi-turbine, but then it is not a prime mover.
DJHale68 1 year ago
if i am richt this ty of engine was invented by Joop Carly between 1940 and 1950.
the placing of the in take outtake and ignition is a bit diferent.
and there were problems with the lubrication.
Richthofen6 1 year ago
I duno if the metals and thickness of the piston chamber are thick enough to handle such combustion.
YTBYlover 1 year ago
The drive mechanic is quite similar to the 1927 fairchild-caminez engine, but without the valvetrain. The system turns out more or less to be a Wankel, having the pistons configurated in a rotor , sealing it to a fixed outer-house ( sealing should be better than wankel ) EVen lubrication should be better than wankel.
frankydevaere 1 year ago
@frankydevaere All the issues you have brought up are discussed in an article I wrote for a magazine called "Model Engine Builder". You can order back issues from their web site. Go to -- modelenginebuilder dot commmercial-- and order issue #15.
DJHale68 1 year ago
Comment removed
DJHale68 1 year ago
Move the outlet a little further, having the expansionstroke a little longer. Then you have a thermoefficient atkinson. Could be very interesting for generators, even for onboard hybrids.
frankydevaere 1 year ago
Nice design. Very compact and wellbalanced. Genius.
How to you get the heat out the pistonrotor? How do you get the pistonsprings lubricated?Are the seals on the outerdiameter ( ignition,inlet en outlet) doing their job? Never mind the negativism . I like the free pistons ( no slap, no sidethrust ) because of the double conrods .
frankydevaere 1 year ago
TRACTION CONTROL ?
pimpmyforklift 1 year ago
Please tell me the name of the designe program ...
nemanume 1 year ago
@nemanume I've used the Alibre CAD program to design the engine.
DJHale68 1 year ago
I had the (almost) same exact idea, but in mine, the outer gear (like in the video) was the one spinning while the inside mechanism was immobile. This way, centrifugal forces wouldn't damage it. I based mine on the Quasiturbine, but like, inverted.
Garocheux 1 year ago
this is a plane engine ?
Dankarlpang 1 year ago
@Dankarlpang This is a proof of concept engine. I'm only using a prop to load it with and to provide cooling air. I'm working on a water cooled version now which - scaled up- would be usable in automotive applications.
DJHale68 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please watch:
SUPER-EFFICIENT ENGINE Newest Design
TABAGfrancis 1 year ago
This is genius.
master777999 1 year ago
I thought the explosions is what made it move, all i see is a bunch of pistons that some how rotate and explode, these combustions do not make the pistons move and that means it couldnt possibly work
Hiddenjello 1 year ago
Well...that sure looks like a lot of fragile linkages to break. So you save the valvetrain, which has pretty constant and mild-ish forces on it, and replace it with a complex 4-link/roller/cam setup under crank-forces? How long do you suppose that would last under 300hp, at this scale? And how much do you think it'd WEIGH? Somehow I have a feeling that the reason that they've stuck with conventional piston/crank engines for so long is that they've TRIED all this, and it ain't any better.
justforever96 1 year ago
@justforever96
As Jerry Hale says the aim of the engine is to produce a small (think model aircraft sized) smooth running engine with very high power to weight ratio. I think that he has achieved a successful result and a working version is demonstrated on Youtube.
appropriatedesign 1 year ago 4
@appropriatedesign If you wanted that, a roots blower operated in reverse would work too. No offense, but this seems a little complicated and I think it really doesn't need to be.
mynith 1 year ago
@mynith A roots blower doesn't seal well enough to work at the much higher pressures that exist with internal combustion. They work well at 20-30 psi for supercharging purposes but internal combustion takes pressures up to 500-700 psi.
DJHale68 1 year ago
@mynith If they could get power just by operating a Root-type in reverse, they would have done so long ago, don't you think? Hale is right; a Roots is way too loose fitting, and you have no room for expansion; no power-stroke. You'd be running a continuous-bleed engine and like a 1:3 compression ratio (or something like that). This engine is clever, but I can see a lot of potential practical problems that make it seem not worth the effort, this late in the game. It doesn't have enough "pros".
justforever96 11 months ago
@appropriatedesign 2 strokes provide just that (;
tylervanballegooyen 10 months ago
@justforever96
The gas loads applied to the piston are transmitted directly to the cam by the roller. The links see none of this load. Their only purpose is to pull the piston back toward center during the intake stroke. This puts them in pure tension. They never see compressive loads. In my model engine, the max load to pull the piston back at 5000 RPM equals 216 lbs. Each of the four steel links is capable of 2300 lbs in tension. So, fragile it is not.
DJHale68 1 year ago
@DJHale68 So what is the displacement of your model, anyway?
justforever96 4 months ago
@justforever96 That really isn't much different than a WWI aircraft engine. The old Pratt Whitney 1000ci X radials (circa 1925) operated with the same crank shaft technology.. The only difference is you made it a 2 cycle engine rather than a 4 cycle.
RevFastEddy 11 months ago
@RevFastEddy I'm not sure I follow you...first, the "WWI" engines you seem to be thinking of are "rotary" engines (not Wankels though), which the P&W wasn't. The R-1340 Wasp (not 1000ci) was a normal radial; the only P&W "X" engines I know of are late WWII H-block engines. All that aside, the only similarities between this and a WWI rotary are that there are cylinders, and they rotate around the crank, but other than that they are very different. There's no fixed crank-pin; this is totally new.
justforever96 11 months ago
@justforever96 do not confuse the H block as different, it actually just 2 flat 8 engines weldedtogether ang geared. Theyt were also terrible maintainence wise... My grandfather was a fitter/armourer in rcaf around the time the first Typhoon's were coming into play.. lol all he said was they were huge and loud.
Me102288 9 months ago
@RevFastEddy no this is completly different the a radial engine. For one, in a radial (9 cylynder in 1 row... the connecting rods connect to a plate which revolves around the driveshaft... this looks to be miraculously turning it with a couple 90 degree hinge's.
Me102288 9 months ago
@justforever96 sorry but this engine has the potential of running backwards by the look of it ( if it runs at all) so hows it spin, I dont see an off center crankshaft, oh .. I see, this engine doesn't spin it moves back and forth with no way to turn an output shaft?
Me102288 10 months ago
@Me102288 First, I'm pretty sure there ARE running, small scale engines of this type...so much for not working. I just question if it's really better than what we have. Second, I suppose it COULD turn backwards, if you didn't mind the exhaust flowing out of the intake manifold. Third, an "off-center crank"? Huh? The outer casing is fixed; the center cam is fixed to that by the arms on one side. The entire rotating assembly is connected to a center crankshaft; you can see it in the first moments.
justforever96 9 months ago
@justforever96 You think theres no improvment possible in the engine forms of today?
MrYoanEmond 4 months ago
@MrYoanEmond No major breakthroughs, no. They've stuck with the tried and true piston and crank since day one, although they've tried everything else under the sun...and largely found it to offer no improvement, or improvement in one area at a sacrifice in another. The closest to successful is the Wankel rotary, but even then there are trade-offs...fuel consumption, pollution, sealing, low torque, etc.
justforever96 4 months ago
@MrYoanEmond We're basically at the same point now were piston aero engines were after WWII. They had made all the big jumps and gotten it down to such a science, that only incremental gains could be found. Basically, they'd figured out how to make engines as good as they could get, and they'd found the turbojet, which was just beginning to unlock it's potential (and already beating the piston engines!). We can fiddle with variable timing, etc, but we'll hit the wall soon, as far as potential.
justforever96 4 months ago
@justforever96 Never say they've tried all this! You can never know where a brilliant idea comes from, trial and error isn't a bad thing... I've said it before and I'm saying it again... We evolve through trial and error, no matter how absurd or stupid it might seem... keep trying and one day you might get it right.
unavailableyet 3 months ago
@unavailableyet I wouldn't suggest that people stop trying to come up with different ideas; I'm just not sure that they'll suceed. It's always good to keep ideas coming; at worst, you find out what doesn't work, at best sometimes an idea can lead to something even better, even if the original plan didn't work out so well.
justforever96 3 months ago
This is not a invention of Hale!
Bullshit!!!
This is an old invention of Joop Carley from Monster the Netherlands in 1948.
It was called the Wondertol. French companie Rocher-Carley build it but it was not a succes. Use google: Carley Wondertol and you sie de Dutch Site
stephanmarleen 1 year ago
@stephanmarleen
Joop Carley didn't invent it either because it was used in the Caminez engine back in the 1920's. The earliest patent I've found on the basic idea goes back to 1905 when it was proposed for use in a hydraulic pump.
DJHale68 1 year ago
@08SilveradoLT The expanding hot gas in the power stroke forces the piston and associated roller down the sloping part of the two lobbed cam which is stationary at the centre of the engine. Because of the relative position this imparts angular motion to the piston and hence the cylinder walls and so on to the output shaft. The rhomboid links and rollers move the other pistons for induction, compression and exhaust.
appropriatedesign 1 year ago
@appropriatedesign Does the force of the piston against the cylinder wall wear the rings quickly? and is there much loss of energy in the friction of piston against cylinder wall?
lildrummerboy52 1 year ago
@lildrummerboy52
The rings never see radial load from the piston as there is clearance behind the rings in the piston. This is standard practice in piston engine design.
There is energy loss due to friction between the piston and cylinder wall but it is the same as in the typical crank- connecting rod engine because max offset of the force line of action is the same at about 22-23 degrees.
DJHale68 1 year ago
@appropriatedesign
Actually, the cam moves the pistons for compression and exhaust. The links only come into play during the intake stroke when they pull the piston back toward center. The links are never in compression, only tension.
DJHale68 1 year ago
@appropriatedesign doesn't this put a whole lot of stress on the so called two lobbed cam? lubrication seems like a big problem to me...
koffiejuffrouw 1 year ago
I'm sure that it's not you quivering! Just my rather clunky animation which is done by modifying each position in CAD then rendering that frame for the animation. So it's entirely my poor animation technique where a tiny mistake in CAD position really shows up rather than the smooth operation of Jerry Hale's very neat little engine. Don't forget to see the original in operation.
appropriatedesign 1 year ago
is it just me or do the pistons seem to quiver at the bottom of the strokes?
it would be interesting to play around with that central, er, piece to see what happens
jonathanstensberg 1 year ago
de los intentos por mejorar la combustión interna, esta es la que me a llamado la atención, parce muy posible hacer el montaje, como recomendación podrías cambiar el basculante central (piezas amarillo y verde de tu modelo) por el grupo central de un motor cuadraromb, para reducir dramáticamente la fricción
Moleydoc 1 year ago
Lets see it work with Diesel fuel.
adamslurch71 1 year ago
Comment removed
Hitlo58 1 year ago
Anything with pistons i stupid. Cuz it need to move up and stop down and stop. It would never ever work because there is way to many moving parts and friction.
I men try an rev that thing to 9000 rpm and see what would happend. KABOOM! if anything at all.
The geforces on the pistons would probably stop it.
Its rubbish. Crap. Useless. But kinda cool.
Fou3Fan 1 year ago
@Fou3Fan Go to "Jerry Hale rotary 2" on u-tube and see it reving to 8000 rpm.
DJHale68 1 year ago
@Fou3Fan It IS working, wise guy. Lay off the surstromming.
madisonelectronic 1 year ago
seems like a very good idea
Otaku35 1 year ago
That's COOL! You have eliminated the crank with something that hopefully is more efficient. Have you built a functioning model yet?
BlakeMason2 1 year ago
@BlakeMason2 Yes. See "Jerry Hale rotary 1" and 2 on you-tube.
DJHale68 1 year ago
My mind is blown, until 10 mins ago I had no idea there are so many different types of combustion engines.
And this one looks awesome.
Civilizationsucks 1 year ago
mind=blown
SICKMurderface 1 year ago
tremendous centrifugal force would be tore to pieces :-(
fallouter32 1 year ago
that centre piece is so gonna break
toasterder 1 year ago
Well, this engine is 20 year too late i guess
MrHeinrich2010 2 years ago
niezły pomysł
gabriel0XD 2 years ago
I bought _Model Engine Builder_ magazine issue #15 and the article about this engine is FASCINATING, very well written. It's worth every penny (great customer service from the publisher, too). If you think it's a clever idea just from what litlle info is here on Youtube, the article will amaze you. (I have no connection with this engine or the magazine other than being a customer of the magazine).
TheRooster602 2 years ago 3
@TheRooster602 Thank you Rooster. I'm glad you liked the article.
DJHale68 2 years ago
Neat idea. How much centrifugal force is being put on the pistons and rods at high rpm? I suppose as a small hobby engine or something it would work fine, but I don't see it in large applications. The tensile forces on a piston rod between the exhaust and intake stroke are already a problem, as tension is fatiguing. Now take that engine and rotate it around the crankshaft instead, and you have drastically increased those loads.
kovacs88 2 years ago
The centrifugal force does indeed add a lot to the tensile load on the links. It's about twice the load due to moving the piston inward during the intake stroke. However, with the very short stroke I'm using, and the resulting small diameter of the rotor, both these loads are in bounds. This small model engine can safely rev to 15,000 RPM. If all dimensions are doubled, making the displacement 8 times larger, it can safely rev to about 7000 RPM using high tensile steel for the links.
DJHale68 2 years ago
Why type of lubrication system would it run? A 2 stroke type fuel mix? Oil in that rotating assembly might be an issue.
kovacs88 2 years ago
I'm using a recirculating, cooled, and filtered oiling system. A small motor driven pump forces oil into the center of the rotor where it lubes the roller bearings and is then thrown out to lube the pistons. The action in the rotor then pushes the oil back out a return line to the radiator, tank, and filter. The oil control rings are critical and required quite a bit of development. I'm still working on those. I add a little 2-stroke oil to the fuel to lube the sliding seals rotor to stator.
DJHale68 2 years ago
whats the advantage over a normal engine?
I think ur just reinventineg the wheel, good idea as it is.
tpvalley 2 years ago
There are several advantages. First, greater thermal efficiency, because the piston motion is controlled by a cam and can be stopped momentarily at TDC to allow complete combustion at constant volume. Secondly, lower heat losses due to the very compact combustion chamber. Third, lower emissions due to the more complete combustion. Forth, much smoother running due to complete inertial balance. Better specific output, HP per LB. Better durability due to elimination of all valve gear.
DJHale68 2 years ago 11
whats the purpose of the outside gearing? why does it need the diamond shape? why not have a relaxed version of the wankel design so the inner [yellow] piece not dissovle so quickly in the abundant heat of this 4 cil engine? how will you cool it? derive heat from it? get power to it? get power from it? with efficiency?
ridethroughlife 2 years ago
The outside gearing is the cooling sistem.
ufoistvan 2 years ago
I love it. Very creative.
megarawdeal 2 years ago
cool idea but the amount of compression needed for that tiny stroke would be insane
but a turbo might fix that problem
MrJBarfield 2 years ago
I'm running 10 to1 compression ratio, but could easily go up to 20 or 25 to 1 for diesel application if I wanted to. The combustion chamber is very clean since it has no valve heads to clear. Thus the piston can be made to conform very closely to the head.
DJHale68 2 years ago
eh... GM 327s have like a 4 inch stroke and they can be built to turn 10000 RPMs... no matter, this is not a rotary engine, it is a radial engine and they were in all the Jennings in ww1.. its not a new idea.
dirtTdude 2 years ago
I think you're talking about the Jennys in WWI. They had OX5 engines (90 hp V8s). The Gnome engines of WWI were rotary engines - the pistons revolved and the crank stayed still.
The big improvement here is that each piston has a power stroke on each revolution instead of every other revolution. Each piston goes through all 4 cycles on each revolution.
The engine should give 2 stroke power with 4 stroke reliability. THAT'S a new idea!
emailhater 2 years ago
oh, thank you, 'Gnome'.... i'll study it more.
dirtTdude 2 years ago
Great job. I don't know why there are so many nay-sayers that always say nay! Good engineering like this is how great new things are made everyday. Keep thinking!
ksp420 2 years ago
it would work, but has way too many parts... consider the wankel only has like 7...
DFX2K9 2 years ago 2
Hummm? Please check out the Edwards winged rotary
dedwards8708 2 years ago
the point rotary engine give astonishing spining range hi rpm bu pistons go ahead stops and come back pointless
alpgirayaykut 2 years ago
I like it very much. Pity some of the commenting viewers above didn't view the Jerry Hale video of the real engine running before putting their feet in their mouths.
mjdevink 2 years ago
hahahahahahahahaha FAIL
NehpetsK57 2 years ago
hmmm, thats different
darkeyce02 2 years ago
when there is a petrol rotary that will produce 130BHP at 60MPG with no oil consumption 200,000 miles between rebuilds and cost and weigh less than a conventional piston engine then you will have a winner
TG280 2 years ago
This looks more like a radial engine than a rotary engine.
Kdog54902 2 years ago
My definition of the term "rotary engine" is one in which the vector summation of all the inertia forces always equals exactly zero. This engine meets that definition. What is your definition?
DJHale68 2 years ago 22
Concept is very close to the Wankel engine, only this one needs more moving parts.
Wankel (and this concept) then again is space efficient compared to classical piston engines - but not energy efficient. And space is not an important constraint in most applications.
That's why Wankel was not a big success as it seemed from the elegance of the idea.
breg77 2 years ago
It ok´s god, but how can a moveing be produced there, i think it´s not possible that that works efficiently!!
joshua25071994 2 years ago
It's not always about efficiency. It's not like there's a board of people watching YouTube for the next greatest thing.
Sometimes it's just neat to think up new engine designs, or lay down ones that were purely theoretical and can now have some kind of physical representation.
QuantumCarl 2 years ago
It's gonna use a lot of oil to get it running smoothly.
Also I now understand that the center shaft should not routate and is used to rotate the piston holders.
Cool design, though it will suffer performace drawbacks at higher speeds.
Read a bit about VTEC and you'll understand what I mean.
Overall, good idea!
Bulgaria10 2 years ago
vtec is for girls man
markbrown06 2 years ago
Care to elaborate on it?
Go invent something that increases performance or does whatever good and then come back.
Punk!
Bulgaria10 2 years ago
do you take vtec seriously? im sure you must drive a honda. vtec is just a noise, turbos seperate the men from the boys.
punk!
markbrown06 2 years ago
Yea I drive a honda and I respect the technology.
And the real men (drivers) are the guys that have a feel for any car and know how to react to tought situations and can get you from one point to the other, has NOTHING to do with pussies that know only how to accelerate (i.e. spool the turbo). My grandma can do it.
Bulgaria10 2 years ago
a varable vane turbo has alot more technology then vtec (as in my vid) your grandma drives a honda too.
markbrown06 2 years ago
Mark, just settle down! :\ Now-a-days cars are about efficiency, mainly because people want to save more money when they buy fuel.
I think that's what Bulgaria's trying to explain?
okayillgonow 2 years ago
Could this concept be made to run on pressurized air? You could eliminate the compression stage and use 2 intakes and 2 exhaust stages simply using air pressure... could be interesting..
jkrash07 3 years ago
genius...
sebairaf3 3 years ago
wow, superb engine design
andhraking 3 years ago
Genius. Very cool idea
JakesArnoose 3 years ago
Thanks. You can find out a lot more about this engine in an article I wrote for Model Engine Builder magazine. Go to their web site, modelenginebuilder. commerical and order issue 15.
DJHale68 3 years ago