I would say, from a commercial standpoint, that any advantage of the 'low friction piston' would be offset by the difficult to machine bores, the balancing issues of the curved piston arms, connecting rods and crank all working in different planes, and it the extra reciprocating mass involved. Most modern engines have tiny pistons, with virtually no skirt on them, just a small pad with Teflon on it.
@@ejrupp9555 I beg to differ on the machining also. How do you machine a smooth finish on a curved bore and hone it suitable for piston ring sealing easily? Certainly going to be more difficult/expensive than a cylindrical bore.
@@Danger_mouse A fly cutter on a rotating assembly indexed on the very pin that the piston rotates and Bob's your uncle. The shape of the cutter just needs to match the curve of the radius. The term you were looking for is "more expensive". Blocks are cast close to the final dimensions (lost foam/sand cast) and the cutters are cleaning up to final specs. And remember he already built it on his own when there were less precise tools available. CNC fixtures do insane things these days. The issue with the layout is primary and secondary balance. The required counter balancing features eat up the efficiencies. And with out them, the life of the engine is suspect. Look up "Driving 4 Answers" www.youtube.com/@d4a/search?query=secondary%20balance
@@ejrupp9555 If you put to engine together one on top of the other, where the spark plugs would be. Then you could put 20spark plugs through the wall of the torus! Yes you would have 2 crankshafts with gear on that would mate with a common idler gear that drives the out put shaft which would be on centre. This would get rid of some of the balance issues & double the power of the engine! Obviously it would have to be a Reed Valved crank compression, exhaust side ported 2 stroke!
Almost every viable idea using piston engines has been tested already, but the claim of 30 percent reduction in friction if true would be phenomenal in racing engines and saving fuel. Great video. 👍
I wonder if this has benefits from the geometry the way an offset crank does? The original Prius had an offset crank which made the piston reach top dead center when the crank pin is already a little bit past the typical TDC which is straight up. When the power stroke happens, the crank is at an ideal leverage point to maximize torque output, instead of the maximum force being wasted pushing a crank pin straight down and trying to pry the crank away from the block. This design could go even farther.
@@mistergreeen I think due to size and weight, CG , and two stroke capacity, it’s ideal for ships , would do away with the sliding block con rod and lower height. A 16 cylinder v ?
I’m thinking out loud here. Maybe it could be cast close, and then some sort of rotating tool is placed where the piston goes to guarantee it follows the correct curve.
I think this high torque/low rpm design would be best suited as a stationary power source for temporary or emergency electrical generation or to operate a pump of some kind. Maybe to alleviate flooding. It's reduced requirement for cooling and lubrication _Could_ allow it to sit dormant for extended periods of time. I think it will have it's place, just not in transportation.
I don't think that engine will work for heavy-duty trucks. From the look of it, it doesn't have enough mass inside the crankshaft to keep the intera force motion going.
If you look close you at 4:02 you can see that the connecting rod is crossing over and into the bottom portion of the cylinder wall. This is a no go because the rings will be open to the crankcase and the oil. Over time the rings will become covered with crusty oil not allowing them to seal, plus you will have blow-by into the crankcase. Also you will be adding huge amount of reciprocating mass thus increasing stress at higher RPMs and keeping the motor from revving very high. I think you would be much better off with a conventional set-up using a large bore and short piston, long rod and a short through on the crank. His principle might make a good diesel engine.
How does one machine the curved cylinder bore with any degree of accuracy? How is the weight of that massive curved connecting rod balanced? What keeps the motor from shaking itself to pieces at 3500 rpm or higher? This a no-go concept for typical transportation vehicles.
The increased mass of the swing arm would more than cancel out any efficiency increase due to less side load on the pistons. This engine would never make the high RPMs of a modern piston engine because of the reciprocating mass of the swing arm. It might work for a low RPM diesel engine, but why would you need the extra complexity of the swing arm to eliminate frictional losses when the diesel fuel lubricates the cylinder walls to reduce friction?
Exactly! Twin offset crankshafts with half weight piston rods would eliminate side thrust and piston skirts, and provide a more direct down pressure on intake and power strokes. Build it as an Opposed Piston design, with two pistons in one cylinder, cut the strokes in half, and get twice the RPM (HP).
Si en Argentina Eduardo Taurozzi ..ahún a sus 80 años espera su reconocimiento si es posible en vida ...ya que cuando tenia 40 años lo patententó ...y ahora esta libre la patente de intento de este motor genial ¡¡¡¡¡
There are some other solutions a bit better than this engine, like double piston (first is so called fire-piston, and second is a guide-piston) or another solution: shifted crankshaft - both significantly reducing piston-to-cylinder friction. Next, as mentioned at the end (why not earlier, when they were explaining lower mass of the piston?) mass, inertia of rotating parts is not smaller than in any other commercial engine! Additional curved guide arm compensates (in negative meaning) lower mass of the piston! Plus vibrations (a need to use something like Lanchester balancer). An interesting design, still with some drawbacks which make it not so impressive and not better than "a regular solutions". I always smile when I see a comparison to any "regular engine" or a commercial when efficiency of washing powder is compared to "a regular, normal washing powder"
I wonder how much more (or less) torque it makes? It looks like the piston is pushing more along the centerline of the rod when the rod/crank angle is at 90deg.
Excellent remark, in deed with a curved piston path it will follow the rotation mouvement of the crankshaft for much longer (15 to 25°) compared lo liniair motion of the conventionnel piston, and with the right angle applied to it for much longer, you can extract a lot more usefull work out of the combustion, I'm guessing around 10_15% more tork
The inefficient indirect rod-to-crankshaft force in conventional engines is still there. The reciprocating and rotating masses are significantly greater than a standard engine. The curved bores are very hard to machine, though may not require great precision with a skirtless piston.
Mazda had a variable compression engine that had an arm like this although a different mechanism and shape. Which I feel proved superior. Also there are counter balanced engines that have an arm much like Suzuki's New parallel twin 775cc engine, which balances the engine for smoothness although not perfect it's better and it's a more torquey engine having a longer stroke and smaller bore than it's competitor the Honda hornet 755cc. Which is a typical over square higher revving. I believe this engine is the typical give and take and not overly practical in terms of size Mass weight and production costs. Over all the answer is already out there and I don't believe big oil is only one reason it's not a popularized engine design.
@@Rose_Butterfly98 I think he meant Infiniti. Infiniti Variable compression engine has more moving parts meaning more shit to break and it looks hard to replace all those parts. Looks good on paper but seems very unconventional and expensive.
How about some details of how they have manufactured the cylinder block which looks like it's main manufacturing downfall. Making a round hole in one plain is relatively easy, an accurate curved bore, how?
The problem is that toroids are hard to machine. When the issues of machining the toroidal cylinders are beaten, they will see greater use. The pendulum pistons with their toroidal cylinders, in medical gas compressors, are less of an issue as medically rating the equipment adds to the overall costs, anyways, so machining the cylinders is less of an issue.
To reduce friction from the piston rings, my approach was to create a 2-stroke instead of a 4-stroke, refreshing the air at BDC. Inject fuel on the way up, and introduce a spark. I quickly found these already existed in the 60´s, but were oils burners. (They didn´t run on a fuel-oil mix, but the ¨valves¨ were mere holes in the cylinder wall at BDC. So crank case oil splashed into the exhaust ports half the time.) Cutting the friction in half once more, requires a 1-stroke engine. That means every stroke is a power stroke. One can stick a single piston in a bore to do so, having a head on each side. But then there´s no room for a power take off (pushrod). However if the piston is elongated and shaped like a bell bar (weight lifting), there´s room in the middle for a power take off. The cylinder wall would be breached in the middle, but the stroke never gets that far. Although this appears like 2 pistons, being one cast means the piston(s) cannot tilt, and thus need less rings. It does need 2 counter rotating balance wheels to keep it from shaking apart, but these double as flywheels. TL;DR it gives you the benefit of this pendulum engine, whilst having a straight bore.
DUDE! A six-axis boring machine can do that standing on its head? why there is not a big push into this design is easy. because of electric vehicles coming up once charging times are solved then the fossil-fueled engine will go the way of the steam engine, which worked in its time but is now passed up by tech. there are batteries out there that have no cycle life and are pure lithium batteries. if there is no cycle life on a battery that means you can recharge it ...FOREVER! SO THAT SUPPLY BULLSHIT TEAR UP FOR THE MATERIALS WILL END REAL QUICK OLD BATTRIES MATERIALS CAN BE RECYCLED INTO THES NEW TYPE OF BATTRIES, THUS REDUCING THE SUPPLY DEMAND. ONCE BUILD AND PASS q.c.? THEN THERE IS GOOD FOR LIFE OR MAYBE EVEN GENERATIONAL AS WELL? NOW THAT IS SOLVED, CHARGING ON THE FLY IS NEXT, ONCE THAT IS DONE, BARRING ANY FAILURES THE SYSTEM RUNS FOR A VERY LONG TIME. DOES NOT POLLUTE AT ALL. AND CAN BE TOTALLY RECYCLED, SO THAT IS WHY THERE ARE NO NEW FOSSIL FUEL ENGINES TO BE COMING OUT ANYTIME SOON. WHY WOULD ANYONE REALLY NEED ONE WITH THIS COMING ALONG JUST NICELY?
@@brucesweatman2146it wouldn't be particularly difficult to machine it on a lathe with a boring bar. Rather than bolting it directly to lathe cross feed. One would bolt a pin to the cross feed, and then slot the engine over the pin via the the piston arm pivot point. Then the engine is just rocked back and forth to cut the bore. There might be some theoretical argument the bore will end up a tiny bit out of round... However the piston doesn't rotate in the bore, so mechanically there's no problem.
@@stevecummins324 Dude you use a bridgeport with a changing arch boring table? or if you want it done in an hour use a 5-axis boring machine real easy. to hold any line or degree you would not be using any lathe?
Wouldn’t the piston skirts, even though shorter than conventional pistons, have to be curved to match the inner and outer radius of the curved cylinder and taper to flat at perpendicular to the curve of the cylinder to maintain tight enough tolerances for the piston rings to seal?
Yes, and drilling out a toroidal engine is easy with curved drill bits (that's a joke), which makes this the most complicated machining task possibly on the face of the planet for conventional tools. Its obvious why its not popular when jet engines are probably easier to machine than this thing...
@@kalmmonke5037 Hi! Not hydraulic... mechanical but using a very old mechanical concept. I´m mounting the new prototype for bench test. I can´t give more details because no one use it until today. It will put internal combustion engines in other level, with higher mechanical efficience, having maximum torque from th iddle to the higher RPM the engine can rev.
Offset crankshaft in i934 Chevrolet 4 cylinder car. We had one! What happened to the Marshall rotary engine with no seal problem and almost no friction ?
I red about this concept in a magazine from my university here in Argentina about 45 years ago. I know the compressor is under manufacturing, but as far as I know sadly non of the automative companies have been interested in his design.
I dont see how the piston being smaller and lighter is why that is a benefit....when the additional weight of the banana shaped Guide rod has mass of its own that is part of the piston and recipricates with it.
What happens when the pivot bearing wears out? Betcha this engine goes from "low friction" to shredding itself faster than any conventional ICE engine.
The inventor managed to reduce friction to a minimum, and he took advantage of the design to implement it in medical compressors, they are very popular in Argentina where he is from. There is more information but in Spanish
Side loading of the piston in a conventional engine can be reduced by lengthening the rod. This increases its mass but also makes the engine more geometrically efficient. It's a trade-off, like everything else. No mention is made of the energy required to shove the pendulum back and forth- since it obviously will be doing it at far higher than its natural swinging frequency. Machining the block will be an expensive nightmare, and the piston itself will have to be curved along its axis so that it does not rock back and forth in the bore.
Just one question: Where the pendulum? I see parts going around and back and forth like in any engine but I don't see anything that resembles a pendulum. Maybe a slight renaming of the device would be in order.
30 % ? A little too much don't you think ? Piston friction in the cylinder account for approximately 20% of all losses in an engine , so even if you came to eliminate them all, you will see theoraticelly a maximum of 20% less losses, in the best cases 10% reduction in fuel consumption. All thought, an amazing idea
@Silver Dream Machine i wouldn't think so but i wanted to make a prototype of this engine for years, still can't find anyone who knows how to make curved cilinders on iron, but i think maybe it could be made in some sort of really precise iron casting mold, still they make the compressors in mass it doesn't make much sense to me
@@santiagoarribasclar3316 The cylinders are drilled with a flat disc drill. The clinderblock is fixed on the rotation axis witch is later used from the pstons. Now you can drill the cylinders, the feed for drilling is the angle around the piston rotation axis. No CNC control required. Hope it is understandable and helps. Would be happ to see your results!
@Silver Dream Machine actually, it needs a balancer shaft as well cuz u can't balance a rotating motion with a reciprocating one, it will be smaller though, i think
Modern conventional engines reduce piston friction by offsetting the bores in relation to the crankshaft, something that you did not mention. It seems like the only advantage of this engine is reduced piston friction but it has additional load with that curved lever. And that curved bore would be more expensive to manufacture. Nice idea but nah.
conventional cylinders with offset combustion chambers gain much of what this design does for reducing friction but are far easier to manufacture. I think that's the main factor. They get probably 60-80% of the gain you would with this setup without the significant manufacturing difficulties or balancing questions.
If there is a will. There is a way. In this motor pistons have no pressure to the cylinder wall, like it is in common motors, where pistons "want to go outside of the cylinder wall". So that is why all the pistons friction has been eliminated in Taurozzi Pendulum Engine. That means more power from same amount of gasoline, and longer lifetime of the engine. Usually in common motors cylinder walls worn out out of tolerance because pistons can freely rest to the cylinder wall without any extra support. So pistons and piston rings take cylinder wall bit by bit. When time goes on cylinders are slowly getting oval shape. In Taurozzi engine pistons do not rest in cylinder wall, because pistons have that extra support arm, that guides pistons way all the way thru cylinder.
This engine structure must be very directional, meaning only one correct rotating direction has the positive fuel efficiency gain, while the reversed wrong rotating direction will have negative gain. Thus its V structure and opposed boxer structure will have the gain cancelled each other. So I think only by inline I-4 or I-6 structure this engine will have overall positive gains from all the cylinders involved. We need to answer: What is the only one correct rotating direction???
In my opinion, the best way to optimize and simplify the design of the Taurozzi engine would be to replace the complex system made up of the "rod-banana guide" set, together with the connecting rod and crankshaft, by a double curved chainring, like a curved fork, which could be welded to the base of the piston with a semi-toothed gearing knob coupled to the rack gear. This would substantially reduce the moment of inertia and consequently increase energy efficiency, decrease fuel consumption and increase power without significant changes in torque and further reduce friction.
You say it has 30% efficiency because of the lighter piston... What about that extra rod that connects to the piston? Looks like it would weigh about what a standard piston would weigh. Counter acting the inertia of the extra rod would, I think, cancel out any gains.
If you just increase the rod and stroke you can reduce the friction, it just reduces peak rpm, but diesels are designed this way since they are limited to low rpm.
I have an article about the British Tri-Dyne engine featured in the July 1969 Popular Science magazine. At 350cc (21.35 cu. inch), weighing 135 pounds it delivers 90 hp. It is a true rotary engine since it does not turn eccentrically like a Wankel engine. Also it requires no seals which was a problem with the Wankel. Designed by British inventer John Marshall the Tri-Dyne engine has 3 moving parts turning up to 12,000 rpm plus. It is more compact than the coventional automobile engine and would be ideal in aviation applications.
Funnily enough, when I saw the Toronzi's "Boxer" Format, I was bought to mind of the TS3 "Commer Knocker", an Opposed Pistol Design designed by the Rootes company, that utilized a singular Crankshaft and six pistons in a Three Cylinder format. The company that made it actually planned for a Four Cylinder version known as TS4, which had boasted increased fuel efficency, lesser emissions and more power, but the Chryslar company bought out the small company before the TS4 could enter mass production, and ordered all schematics, Plans and models of the TS4 to be destroyed, only four functional TS4 Engines escaping destruction thanks to their designers managing to smuggle them out.
Indeed, I also thought of the taurozzi pendulum engine being a good candidate for an opposed piston. this is because you would only need one crankshaft and the reciprocating linkages have less moving parts when they move in an arc. perhaps engine balance would benefit too.
While I can see more advantages than mentioned in this video like an effectively longer power and intake stroke and shorter compression and exhaust, I can’t get over the bad info in the video. Even if piston side loading and ring drag were totally eliminated, it would barely make a dent in cooling system demands. While friction can take a few hp total (and create a proportionate amount of heat), what about the hundreds of hp worth of combustion heat…. The good old 1/3 out the tailpipe, into the cooling system, and into power. While that ratio is slowly changing, the point is, overlooking the main heat source in an internal COMBUSTION engine and saying no cooling system is needed because of a reduction (not elimination) of friction is a pretty big oversight.
Not to take anything away from Taurozzi, but if the primary benefit is the reduction in frictional losses due to positional control of the piston, the same thing could essentially be accomplished with a guided upper piston rod, much like steam engines used a century ago. Would require a taller deck, but wouldn't require the specialized machining of a curved cylinder bore.
The piston has to be heavier due to its complexity along with extra shafts and crank case size. The extra size also makes stuffing it into a vehicle more cumbersome. It looks like it would be very difficult to assemble or service. Although interesting it looks like a fail to me.
I wish the inventor & his team all the best , that is a great distinctive power plant , and is worthy of proper research & development, towards a prototype # 2 stage & then Production 🤔👍👌🤞🥃
I wonder how the engine would do with a alcohol or other dry fuels since ethanol tends to dry out engines not rated or made to handle E-85. I would love to see a fun business case to compare offering pendulum engines that run on dryer fuels (tooling, infrastructure, R&D, emissions performance) compared to the heavy investment needed for swapping factories to battery tech. With how money hungry and machining heavy running a top fuel dragster is, I'm surprised they aren't exploring these engines. Lighter, more torque, complex machining challenges... sounds right up their alley.🤔
Toyota uses a Atkinson cycle in its hybrids, which provides a 40 percent efficiency over the Carnot cycle which extracts 30 percent in general from gasoline. A more traditional engine giving roughly the same increase in efficiency. The drawback is that the Atkinson is less responsive, but electric motors in the hybrid system take up the slack. Notably, the plug - in RAV4 is the second fastest car in toyota’s stable.
oNCE THE MATH IS DONE AND PART OF MAKING WILL BE THE LONG RUN/ MAKE DIE CASTS FOR HIGH-PRESSURE INJECTION OF THE ROUGH PART THAN MACHINE FINISHED ID CHEAPER SINCE MACHINES CAN DO 98 PERCENT OF THE WORK at the SAME RATE SAME SCALE, AN SAME LEVEL at EVERY SINGLE TIME, NOT LIKE A HUMAN WORKER, WHO UNLIKE A MACHINE CAN HAVE BAD HAIR DAY?
That's quite an interesting concept and since there is a medical gas compressor made using similar design the machining is obviously possible (although the cost of medicine probably means cost isn't a problem for that design?) Is it made in two halves and then fitted together? I don't see any other way of doing it (unless there is some sort of 'ball' cutter/grinder)
@@lasskinn474 You have given me an idea of how it could be done though with a rotary table and radiused cutters on a horizontal mill. Grinding to exact size and surface finish would only be a little more difficult but there are grinding heads with micro adjustment. Modern electronics could probably take care of size variations due to grinding wheel wear.. It would still be far more complex than a conventional cylinder design and probably overheat unless run as a low speed diesel (the only other type of opposed piston engine I've seen).
@@1crazypj well diesel or gasoline, that's just what you make the compression ratio be, I guess that's what made diesels with opposing pistons feasible. cooling the piston could/would be done with some oil squirters same you can do on regular I suppose and cylinder walls would need to have liquid cooling paths behind them. I dunno about how or if it would be thermally more efficient than a regular engine. you'd still need a valve train for 4 stroke operation too and the pivots end up wasting energy as well. the whole idea might be better suited just as a pump. it might be easier to get it to precision with some cylinder liner that would be done on a different process, those parts could be manufactured separately, just a curved tube basically.
@@lasskinn474 There were several opposed piston 'barrel engine' designs for light aircraft in the 80's and 90's (I'm interested in piston engines not aircraft though) None of them came to much as it wasn't possible to keep piston crown temperatures low enough to prevent damage. As for valves, you would use ports as in a two stroke. With opposed pistons there wouldn't be the problems of crankcase compression and losing fresh mixture out exhaust (It's how Germany did it before and during second world war) Aircraft engines are pretty limited on max rpm, the tip speed of propeller has to stay sub-sonic so most only spin around 2-2,500 rpm. A 'high speed' for aircraft engines is still below 4,000 rpm with reduction gear to drive prop. (Lycoming flat 4 was originally designed in 1938 and looks pretty much the same today from the ones I've seen on airboats in Florida)
I do like this engine. Manufacturing it will be very difficult. I can machine a conventional engine easily enough. This thing's cylinder walls will be tough...
At 30% increased efficiency that would be pretty nice looking at fuel prices today. Even if it was only in economy vehicles with lower horsepower. It would make EV cars have that much more to work against. It's nice you could park it and come back in a month and drive it away, no battery problems probably the military may be interested for drones.
At 2:00 'Why hasn't it been mass produced " ? As both a Fitter and Engineer ill take a wild guess..... how the fuk do you mass produce the 'cylinder' bore ? The piston alone will be a nightmare. (Maintenance is another story entirely!!) "Prototypes are easy, mass production is the difficult part"- Elon Musk
overbore, sleeve and crush fit, hone done. CNC and the machine tech is here, make two heads or three, clamp together with a gasketless fit, and hydraulically sleeve it. If its really that good, balancing isn't that bad shave drill fit metal. I would love to see a precision one of these crafted and get an idea for life span and maintenance, and power factor. Always thought about adding H2 into the air stream to get a better burn on combustion, I think this system would work well with that. Oversize the bearings for the expected load and keep them wet, looks like it could go many hundreds of thousands of miles.
@@guytech7310 why not make an internal hydraulic lathe to replace the piston? since it would move on the pistons pivot point, it would cut the bore perfectly in line, and the same system could be used to overbore when reconditioning the block.
@@martin-vv9lf Good luck on a alum. block with steel sleeves cylinders to fit that curve. I doubt this will ever been adopted by a mass produced vehicle.
@@guytech7310 I certainly wouldn't suggest piston liners with this design. There are some engines that use a solid block with the liners in one piece that are very reliable. the problem then is increased complexity in casting.
I'm looking at the angle between the connecting rod and the "banana" rod, and I'm thinking the wrist pin is going to have a short lifespan. Which is stronger, a wrist pin or a cylinder wall and piston? All that mass! And btw you can run any ice on hydrogen, and I do agree it is a much better fuel source. Cleaner, and about the same efficiency as gasoline. Almost same burn rate. People just get excited about the word hydrogen because they do t understand the properties, and think the hydrogen bomb detonates hydrogen. It doesn't. It uses the known consistent burn rate of hydrogen to compress the radioactive mass, causing the uranium or plutonium to detonate. Sorry, my mind wanders.
I would say, from a commercial standpoint, that any advantage of the 'low friction piston' would be offset by the difficult to machine bores, the balancing issues of the curved piston arms, connecting rods and crank all working in different planes, and it the extra reciprocating mass involved.
Most modern engines have tiny pistons, with virtually no skirt on them, just a small pad with Teflon on it.
Machining it is no more difficult than a linear type. The secondary balance issue is where it goes all willy nilly.
@@ejrupp9555 I beg to differ on the machining also.
How do you machine a smooth finish on a curved bore and hone it suitable for piston ring sealing easily?
Certainly going to be more difficult/expensive than a cylindrical bore.
@@Danger_mouse A fly cutter on a rotating assembly indexed on the very pin that the piston rotates and Bob's your uncle. The shape of the cutter just needs to match the curve of the radius. The term you were looking for is "more expensive". Blocks are cast close to the final dimensions (lost foam/sand cast) and the cutters are cleaning up to final specs. And remember he already built it on his own when there were less precise tools available. CNC fixtures do insane things these days.
The issue with the layout is primary and secondary balance. The required counter balancing features eat up the efficiencies. And with out them, the life of the engine is suspect. Look up "Driving 4 Answers" www.youtube.com/@d4a/search?query=secondary%20balance
@@Danger_mouse I was recommended this video after i watched that one ---> th-cam.com/video/gwtZkHoVMso/w-d-xo.html
@@ejrupp9555 If you put to engine together one on top of the other, where the spark plugs would be. Then you could put 20spark plugs through the wall of the torus! Yes you would have 2 crankshafts with gear on that would mate with a common idler gear that drives the out put shaft which would be on centre. This would get rid of some of the balance issues & double the power of the engine! Obviously it would have to be a Reed Valved crank compression, exhaust side ported 2 stroke!
Almost every viable idea using piston engines has been tested already, but the claim of 30 percent reduction in friction if true would be phenomenal in racing engines and saving fuel.
Great video.
👍
proved, in compressors
There is no way this produces 30% more efficiency!
That's a really dumb thing to say. This is probably as dumb as it looks, but if you think that every idea has been tried, you're a fucking idiot.
Except its a complete LIE
I wonder if this has benefits from the geometry the way an offset crank does? The original Prius had an offset crank which made the piston reach top dead center when the crank pin is already a little bit past the typical TDC which is straight up. When the power stroke happens, the crank is at an ideal leverage point to maximize torque output, instead of the maximum force being wasted pushing a crank pin straight down and trying to pry the crank away from the block. This design could go even farther.
The weight and inertia of the bent seem to have been overlooked.
Yes, looks like double to triple the reciprocating mass.
It eliminates lateral forces on the wrist pin, piston to cylinder wall friction, piston slap, heavy bore wear, power loss due to any of the latter…
this technology would be very good in 2 stroke engines, after all it basically reduces the need for lubrication in certain parts
With double or triple the reciprocating mass 😳.
More than offset by the extra mass and the cost of building it.
thus can be easily made out of carbon fiber as the load paths are simplified
@@wvision1433 the designer made a smokeless 2 stroke go kart engine
The combustion chamber is difficult to manufacture.
I feel like the metal 3d printers they use to make rocket parts could crank them out
@@mistergreeen I think due to size and weight, CG , and two stroke capacity, it’s ideal for ships , would do away with the sliding block con rod and lower height. A 16 cylinder v ?
Agreed.Very difficult to produce the curved bore with conventional machinery.
Its not complicated at all with conventional machinery. How did Taurozzi make it if it was so difficult?
Makes me wonder how he made this thing back then.
How do they bore and hone a curved cylinder?
I’m thinking out loud here. Maybe it could be cast close, and then some sort of rotating tool is placed where the piston goes to guarantee it follows the correct curve.
Why would they need to? There is no side loading on the cylinder. Only a very light piston ring seal.
a ball hone ! hone hell how would you rebore it ?
get one of those curved drill bits
@4:05 you animation shows the Con rod passing through the cylinder wall higher than the piston rings will drop too LOL.
I think this high torque/low rpm design would be best suited as a stationary power source for temporary or emergency electrical generation or to operate a pump of some kind. Maybe to alleviate flooding. It's reduced requirement for cooling and lubrication _Could_ allow it to sit dormant for extended periods of time. I think it will have it's place, just not in transportation.
Or you could compact it and install in a bike
I don't think that engine will work for heavy-duty trucks. From the look of it, it doesn't have enough mass inside the crankshaft to keep the intera force motion going.
Why do you say its low rpm?
If you look close you at 4:02 you can see that the connecting rod is crossing over and into the bottom portion of the cylinder wall. This is a no go because the rings will be open to the crankcase and the oil. Over time the rings will become covered with crusty oil not allowing them to seal, plus you will have blow-by into the crankcase. Also you will be adding huge amount of reciprocating mass thus increasing stress at higher RPMs and keeping the motor from revving very high. I think you would be much better off with a conventional set-up using a large bore and short piston, long rod and a short through on the crank. His principle might make a good diesel engine.
It did make a good diesel engine, there are a couple companies that use them in diesel generators.
This engine fits well inside a museum.
GENIOO ! OJALA SE DEN CUENTA DE QUE ESTA SIMPLE MODIFICACION LES DA VIDA Y POTENCIA AL MOTOR( IGUAL QUE LOS VALANCINES DE DUCATI)
How does one machine the curved cylinder bore with any degree of accuracy? How is the weight of that massive curved connecting rod balanced? What keeps the motor from shaking itself to pieces at 3500 rpm or higher? This a no-go concept for typical transportation vehicles.
The increased mass of the swing arm would more than cancel out any efficiency increase due to less side load on the pistons. This engine would never make the high RPMs of a modern piston engine because of the reciprocating mass of the swing arm. It might work for a low RPM diesel engine, but why would you need the extra complexity of the swing arm to eliminate frictional losses when the diesel fuel lubricates the cylinder walls to reduce friction?
Exactly! Twin offset crankshafts with half weight piston rods would eliminate side thrust and piston skirts, and provide a more direct down pressure on intake and power strokes. Build it as an Opposed Piston design, with two pistons in one cylinder, cut the strokes in half, and get twice the RPM (HP).
I mentioned in my separate comment - a need to use something like Lanchester balancer
Si en Argentina Eduardo Taurozzi ..ahún a sus 80 años espera su reconocimiento si es posible en vida ...ya que cuando tenia 40 años lo patententó ...y ahora esta libre la patente de intento de este motor genial ¡¡¡¡¡
There are some other solutions a bit better than this engine, like double piston (first is so called fire-piston, and second is a guide-piston) or another solution: shifted crankshaft - both significantly reducing piston-to-cylinder friction. Next, as mentioned at the end (why not earlier, when they were explaining lower mass of the piston?) mass, inertia of rotating parts is not smaller than in any other commercial engine! Additional curved guide arm compensates (in negative meaning) lower mass of the piston! Plus vibrations (a need to use something like Lanchester balancer).
An interesting design, still with some drawbacks which make it not so impressive and not better than "a regular solutions".
I always smile when I see a comparison to any "regular engine" or a commercial when efficiency of washing powder is compared to "a regular, normal washing powder"
I wonder how much more (or less) torque it makes? It looks like the piston is pushing more along the centerline of the rod when the rod/crank angle is at 90deg.
Excellent remark, in deed with a curved piston path it will follow the rotation mouvement of the crankshaft for much longer (15 to 25°) compared lo liniair motion of the conventionnel piston, and with the right angle applied to it for much longer, you can extract a lot more usefull work out of the combustion,
I'm guessing around 10_15% more tork
The inefficient indirect rod-to-crankshaft force in conventional engines is still there. The reciprocating and rotating masses are significantly greater than a standard engine. The curved bores are very hard to machine, though may not require great precision with a skirtless piston.
curved bores are not very hard. they are just different, you teenager or buffoon. you save weight on the curve system. and you save a lot of oil .
replace the piston with a boring tool and there you have it, curved bore
Mazda had a variable compression engine that had an arm like this although a different mechanism and shape. Which I feel proved superior. Also there are counter balanced engines that have an arm much like Suzuki's New parallel twin 775cc engine, which balances the engine for smoothness although not perfect it's better and it's a more torquey engine having a longer stroke and smaller bore than it's competitor the Honda hornet 755cc. Which is a typical over square higher revving. I believe this engine is the typical give and take and not overly practical in terms of size Mass weight and production costs. Over all the answer is already out there and I don't believe big oil is only one reason it's not a popularized engine design.
The variable comp engine I'm thinking of had a two piece engine block and a connecting rod and eccentric shaft tying them together.
@@kingcosworth2643 like the Infiniti one?
@@Rose_Butterfly98 I think he meant Infiniti. Infiniti Variable compression engine has more moving parts meaning more shit to break and it looks hard to replace all those parts. Looks good on paper but seems very unconventional and expensive.
How about some details of how they have manufactured the cylinder block which looks like it's main manufacturing downfall. Making a round hole in one plain is relatively easy, an accurate curved bore, how?
My thought is you could make a spherical bit to bore the hole out and make a pendulum that it's attached to.
How to create that curved piston liner? It must be with super precision metal casting? Or diasil diecast methode?
The problem is that toroids are hard to machine. When the issues of machining the toroidal cylinders are beaten, they will see greater use. The pendulum pistons with their toroidal cylinders, in medical gas compressors, are less of an issue as medically rating the equipment adds to the overall costs, anyways, so machining the cylinders is less of an issue.
To reduce friction from the piston rings, my approach was to create a 2-stroke instead of a 4-stroke, refreshing the air at BDC. Inject fuel on the way up, and introduce a spark.
I quickly found these already existed in the 60´s, but were oils burners. (They didn´t run on a fuel-oil mix, but the ¨valves¨ were mere holes in the cylinder wall at BDC. So crank case oil splashed into the exhaust ports half the time.)
Cutting the friction in half once more, requires a 1-stroke engine. That means every stroke is a power stroke.
One can stick a single piston in a bore to do so, having a head on each side. But then there´s no room for a power take off (pushrod).
However if the piston is elongated and shaped like a bell bar (weight lifting), there´s room in the middle for a power take off. The cylinder wall would be breached in the middle, but the stroke never gets that far.
Although this appears like 2 pistons, being one cast means the piston(s) cannot tilt, and thus need less rings.
It does need 2 counter rotating balance wheels to keep it from shaking apart, but these double as flywheels.
TL;DR it gives you the benefit of this pendulum engine, whilst having a straight bore.
That's the reason why they just show animations...... but never the actual machined components.
DUDE! A six-axis boring machine can do that standing on its head? why there is not a big push into this design is easy. because of electric vehicles coming up once charging times are solved then the fossil-fueled engine will go the way of the steam engine, which worked in its time but is now passed up by tech. there are batteries out there that have no cycle life and are pure lithium batteries. if there is no cycle life on a battery that means you can recharge it ...FOREVER! SO THAT SUPPLY BULLSHIT TEAR UP FOR THE MATERIALS WILL END REAL QUICK OLD BATTRIES MATERIALS CAN BE RECYCLED INTO THES NEW TYPE OF BATTRIES, THUS REDUCING THE SUPPLY DEMAND. ONCE BUILD AND PASS q.c.? THEN THERE IS GOOD FOR LIFE OR MAYBE EVEN GENERATIONAL AS WELL? NOW THAT IS SOLVED, CHARGING ON THE FLY IS NEXT, ONCE THAT IS DONE, BARRING ANY FAILURES THE SYSTEM RUNS FOR A VERY LONG TIME. DOES NOT POLLUTE AT ALL. AND CAN BE TOTALLY RECYCLED, SO THAT IS WHY THERE ARE NO NEW FOSSIL FUEL ENGINES TO BE COMING OUT ANYTIME SOON. WHY WOULD ANYONE REALLY NEED ONE WITH THIS COMING ALONG JUST NICELY?
@@brucesweatman2146it wouldn't be particularly difficult to machine it on a lathe with a boring bar.
Rather than bolting it directly to lathe cross feed. One would bolt a pin to the cross feed, and then slot the engine over the pin via the the piston arm pivot point. Then the engine is just rocked back and forth to cut the bore.
There might be some theoretical argument the bore will end up a tiny bit out of round... However the piston doesn't rotate in the bore, so mechanically there's no problem.
@@stevecummins324 Dude you use a bridgeport with a changing arch boring table? or if you want it done in an hour use a 5-axis boring machine real easy. to hold any line or degree you would not be using any lathe?
Wouldn’t the piston skirts, even though shorter than conventional pistons, have to be curved to match the inner and outer radius of the curved cylinder and taper to flat at perpendicular to the curve of the cylinder to maintain tight enough tolerances for the piston rings to seal?
Yes, and drilling out a toroidal engine is easy with curved drill bits (that's a joke), which makes this the most complicated machining task possibly on the face of the planet for conventional tools. Its obvious why its not popular when jet engines are probably easier to machine than this thing...
Producing an engine with a potential problem is not a problem for the auto industry. Eco boost?
AWESOME!!
I have two engines concept, since 2004 at the University.
One with rotor.
Other with pistons and "crankshaft" but no rods.
amazing
hydrallic crankshaft?
@@kalmmonke5037 Hi! Not hydraulic... mechanical but using a very old mechanical concept. I´m mounting the new prototype for bench test. I can´t give more details because no one use it until today. It will put internal combustion engines in other level, with higher mechanical efficience, having maximum torque from th iddle to the higher RPM the engine can rev.
Offset crankshaft in i934 Chevrolet 4 cylinder car. We had one!
What happened to the Marshall rotary engine with no seal problem and almost no friction ?
If you think this is a great idea try thinking again
I red about this concept in a magazine from my university here in Argentina about 45 years ago. I know the compressor is under manufacturing, but as far as I know sadly non of the automative companies have been interested in his design.
Because it has zero advantage and a lot of downsides
@gowdsake7103 not at all, the compressors were yet in production and as far as I know with no major problems, anyway it was a try done many years ago.
Cost to manufacture and service would be too difficult for this to ever become a reality
I dont see how the piston being smaller and lighter is why that is a benefit....when the additional weight of the banana shaped Guide rod has mass of its own that is part of the piston and recipricates with it.
Less mass to move, more bang for your buck literally. The banana only helps the motion and also due to less friction more bang for the buck
Corporate Greed Did em IN!
Couple a quite small one of these engines into an electric car and run it on Hydrogen! I would buy one tomorrow, no today. Magic 😊
How do you machine the cylinders?
How do they machine the bores? And are balance shafts needed, as reciprocating mass is greater with the banana levers?
I am very interested in knowing how the geometry of the bores
produced.
Do you think we can see one and even use it someday in the future?
4:12 you may reduce friction on the wall there but in reality you just moved the friction from the wall to that second crank arm bearing.
What happens when the pivot bearing wears out? Betcha this engine goes from "low friction" to shredding itself faster than any conventional ICE engine.
The inventor managed to reduce friction to a minimum, and he took advantage of the design to implement it in medical compressors, they are very popular in Argentina where he is from. There is more information but in Spanish
How long does it last though?
The increased weight attached to the reciprocating arm ie: the conrod would severely hamper this design.
Very interesting though
Side loading of the piston in a conventional engine can be reduced by lengthening the rod. This increases its mass but also makes the engine more geometrically efficient. It's a trade-off, like everything else.
No mention is made of the energy required to shove the pendulum back and forth- since it obviously will be doing it at far higher than its natural swinging frequency. Machining the block will be an expensive nightmare, and the piston itself will have to be curved along its axis so that it does not rock back and forth in the bore.
Just one question: Where the pendulum? I see parts going around and back and forth like in any engine but I don't see anything that resembles a pendulum. Maybe a slight renaming of the device would be in order.
you added another conecting rodd
your going backwards to solve a imagionary problem
and for what gains over my sbc?
Can this be arranged for opposed piston travel? Any benefits?
Why has not the ellipsoidal crankshaft been put into production? Lack of balance ? Difficult to machine ?
difficult to machine and many non-standard parts increase the cost.
30 % ? A little too much don't you think ?
Piston friction in the cylinder account for approximately 20% of all losses in an engine , so even if you came to eliminate them all, you will see theoraticelly a maximum of 20% less losses, in the best cases 10% reduction in fuel consumption.
All thought, an amazing idea
actually depends on the engine but most of them have higher than 20% losses from ring friction some even go up to 50%
@Silver Dream Machine i wouldn't think so but i wanted to make a prototype of this engine for years, still can't find anyone who knows how to make curved cilinders on iron, but i think maybe it could be made in some sort of really precise iron casting mold, still they make the compressors in mass it doesn't make much sense to me
@@santiagoarribasclar3316 The cylinders are drilled with a flat disc drill. The clinderblock is fixed on the rotation axis witch is later used from the pstons. Now you can drill the cylinders, the feed for drilling is the angle around the piston rotation axis. No CNC control required. Hope it is understandable and helps.
Would be happ to see your results!
@Silver Dream Machine actually, it needs a balancer shaft as well cuz u can't balance a rotating motion with a reciprocating one, it will be smaller though, i think
this is a pie-in-the-sky novelty engine, no room for logical thinking here.
Talento Argentino. Me da mucho orgullo
Do you 3d print the cylinder or torus?/ Bcos it has to be very smooth surface. What cnc machine was used to bore this?
Modern conventional engines reduce piston friction by offsetting the bores in relation to the crankshaft, something that you did not mention. It seems like the only advantage of this engine is reduced piston friction but it has additional load with that curved lever. And that curved bore would be more expensive to manufacture. Nice idea but nah.
conventional cylinders with offset combustion chambers gain much of what this design does for reducing friction but are far easier to manufacture. I think that's the main factor. They get probably 60-80% of the gain you would with this setup without the significant manufacturing difficulties or balancing questions.
Yeah. I agree. Mass producing these cilinders isn't viable unfortunately.
If there is a will. There is a way. In this motor pistons have no pressure to the cylinder wall, like it is in common motors, where pistons "want to go outside of the cylinder wall". So that is why all the pistons friction has been eliminated in Taurozzi Pendulum Engine. That means more power from same amount of gasoline, and longer lifetime of the engine. Usually in common motors cylinder walls worn out out of tolerance because pistons can freely rest to the cylinder wall without any extra support. So pistons and piston rings take cylinder wall bit by bit. When time goes on cylinders are slowly getting oval shape. In Taurozzi engine pistons do not rest in cylinder wall, because pistons have that extra support arm, that guides pistons way all the way thru cylinder.
This engine structure must be very directional, meaning only one correct rotating direction has the positive fuel efficiency gain, while the reversed wrong rotating direction will have negative gain. Thus its V structure and opposed boxer structure will have the gain cancelled each other.
So I think only by inline I-4 or I-6 structure this engine will have overall positive gains from all the cylinders involved. We need to answer: What is the only one correct rotating direction???
In my opinion, the best way to optimize and simplify the design of the Taurozzi engine would be to replace the complex system made up of the "rod-banana guide" set, together with the connecting rod and crankshaft, by a double curved chainring, like a curved fork, which could be welded to the base of the piston with a semi-toothed gearing knob coupled to the rack gear.
This would substantially reduce the moment of inertia and consequently increase energy efficiency, decrease fuel consumption and increase power without significant changes in torque and further reduce friction.
Can this be combined with opposed piston engine to eliminate the head & valves ?
The images @ 5:40 are of a compressor rather than the engine.
Nice video 👍👍
You say it has 30% efficiency because of the lighter piston... What about that extra rod that connects to the piston? Looks like it would weigh about what a standard piston would weigh. Counter acting the inertia of the extra rod would, I think, cancel out any gains.
If you just increase the rod and stroke you can reduce the friction, it just reduces peak rpm, but diesels are designed this way since they are limited to low rpm.
I have an article about the British Tri-Dyne engine featured in the July 1969 Popular Science magazine. At 350cc (21.35 cu. inch), weighing 135 pounds it delivers 90 hp. It is a true rotary engine since it does not turn eccentrically like a Wankel engine. Also it requires no seals which was a problem with the Wankel.
Designed by British inventer John Marshall the Tri-Dyne engine has 3 moving parts turning up to 12,000 rpm plus. It is more compact than the coventional automobile engine and would be ideal in aviation applications.
I love this engineering concept
this would work amazing in a two stroke or even an opposed piston
there''s already toroidial design opposed piston, another idea that doesn't work in the real world
Funnily enough, when I saw the Toronzi's "Boxer" Format, I was bought to mind of the TS3 "Commer Knocker", an Opposed Pistol Design designed by the Rootes company, that utilized a singular Crankshaft and six pistons in a Three Cylinder format.
The company that made it actually planned for a Four Cylinder version known as TS4, which had boasted increased fuel efficency, lesser emissions and more power, but the Chryslar company bought out the small company before the TS4 could enter mass production, and ordered all schematics, Plans and models of the TS4 to be destroyed, only four functional TS4 Engines escaping destruction thanks to their designers managing to smuggle them out.
Indeed, I also thought of the taurozzi pendulum engine being a good candidate for an opposed piston. this is because you would only need one crankshaft and the reciprocating linkages have less moving parts when they move in an arc. perhaps engine balance would benefit too.
This looks like it would be the way to go to pair with hydrogen on demand? Would require minimal and could use water-friendly lubricants
While I can see more advantages than mentioned in this video like an effectively longer power and intake stroke and shorter compression and exhaust, I can’t get over the bad info in the video. Even if piston side loading and ring drag were totally eliminated, it would barely make a dent in cooling system demands. While friction can take a few hp total (and create a proportionate amount of heat), what about the hundreds of hp worth of combustion heat…. The good old 1/3 out the tailpipe, into the cooling system, and into power. While that ratio is slowly changing, the point is, overlooking the main heat source in an internal COMBUSTION engine and saying no cooling system is needed because of a reduction (not elimination) of friction is a pretty big oversight.
I like the design, but need extra plywheel at the front of crankshaft coz it has two piston so need an extra torque converter. Nice design
You should do a video of triang engine, three triangular pistons on one crank, its like the delta engine used in diesel trains today,
There was no mention of balancing. If it was easily balanced I reckon he would have mentioned that
The "stroke" is so small though. How does it even make torque? This is amazing. I didn't even know about it.
Never seen this before. Cheers
seems like the additional sprung weight would cancel out any gains due to friction improvement.
Is it rebuildable?
Not to take anything away from Taurozzi, but if the primary benefit is the reduction in frictional losses due to positional control of the piston, the same thing could essentially be accomplished with a guided upper piston rod, much like steam engines used a century ago. Would require a taller deck, but wouldn't require the specialized machining of a curved cylinder bore.
That would simply move the friction losses to the guided rod.
The lower outermost cylinder bores would have the most wear as well as the piston skirts in said locations
The piston has to be heavier due to its complexity along with extra shafts and crank case size. The extra size also makes stuffing it into a vehicle more cumbersome. It looks like it would be very difficult to assemble or service. Although interesting it looks like a fail to me.
I wish the inventor & his team all the best , that is a great distinctive power plant , and is worthy of proper research & development, towards a prototype # 2 stage & then
Production 🤔👍👌🤞🥃
The reciprocating friction isn't in the piston as much as it is on the ring pack.
I wonder how the engine would do with a alcohol or other dry fuels since ethanol tends to dry out engines not rated or made to handle E-85.
I would love to see a fun business case to compare offering pendulum engines that run on dryer fuels (tooling, infrastructure, R&D, emissions performance) compared to the heavy investment needed for swapping factories to battery tech.
With how money hungry and machining heavy running a top fuel dragster is, I'm surprised they aren't exploring these engines. Lighter, more torque, complex machining challenges... sounds right up their alley.🤔
I was waiting for a vibration test or feedback especially at high rpms
Toyota uses a Atkinson cycle in its hybrids, which provides a 40 percent efficiency over the Carnot cycle which extracts 30 percent in general from gasoline. A more traditional engine giving roughly the same increase in efficiency. The drawback is that the Atkinson is less responsive, but electric motors in the hybrid system take up the slack. Notably, the plug - in RAV4 is the second fastest car in toyota’s stable.
You said Carnot, but didn´t you mean Otto cycle?
@@STARDRIVE yes
Combine this with an offset piston and this could produce an amazing engine, though very complicated to produce.
oNCE THE MATH IS DONE AND PART OF MAKING WILL BE THE LONG RUN/ MAKE DIE CASTS FOR HIGH-PRESSURE INJECTION OF THE ROUGH PART THAN MACHINE FINISHED ID CHEAPER SINCE MACHINES CAN DO 98 PERCENT OF THE WORK at the SAME RATE SAME SCALE, AN SAME LEVEL at EVERY SINGLE TIME, NOT LIKE A HUMAN WORKER, WHO UNLIKE A MACHINE CAN HAVE BAD HAIR DAY?
It seems like the additional moving parts would effect longevity, costs. it might be good for applications but not for automotive use.
This technology in these era.. nothing impossible to manufacture.
PLS TELL ME ABOUT OPEL REKORD ENGINE 2,2 ENGINE AIRFLOW METRE AND 7 PIN RELAY IN SA CAN GET 6 PIN FEUL PUMP RELAY
Any new combustion engine design is fighting an uphill battle against the hype and push for electric motor powered vehicles.
It still hasn't been mass produced. Hell, it isn't even available across different markets. Its not even in limited production.
This engine design puts a new meaning to the moniker ... Get Bent
in the animation the connecting rod to the crank collides with the cylinder wall.
Wonder what a x24 would sound like ?
That's quite an interesting concept and since there is a medical gas compressor made using similar design the machining is obviously possible (although the cost of medicine probably means cost isn't a problem for that design?)
Is it made in two halves and then fitted together? I don't see any other way of doing it (unless there is some sort of 'ball' cutter/grinder)
just put rotating cutter on a swing like on which the piston is
@@lasskinn474
You have given me an idea of how it could be done though with a rotary table and radiused cutters on a horizontal mill. Grinding to exact size and surface finish would only be a little more difficult but there are grinding heads with micro adjustment. Modern electronics could probably take care of size variations due to grinding wheel wear.. It would still be far more complex than a conventional cylinder design and probably overheat unless run as a low speed diesel (the only other type of opposed piston engine I've seen).
@@1crazypj well diesel or gasoline, that's just what you make the compression ratio be, I guess that's what made diesels with opposing pistons feasible. cooling the piston could/would be done with some oil squirters same you can do on regular I suppose and cylinder walls would need to have liquid cooling paths behind them.
I dunno about how or if it would be thermally more efficient than a regular engine. you'd still need a valve train for 4 stroke operation too and the pivots end up wasting energy as well. the whole idea might be better suited just as a pump.
it might be easier to get it to precision with some cylinder liner that would be done on a different process, those parts could be manufactured separately, just a curved tube basically.
@@lasskinn474 There were several opposed piston 'barrel engine' designs for light aircraft in the 80's and 90's (I'm interested in piston engines not aircraft though) None of them came to much as it wasn't possible to keep piston crown temperatures low enough to prevent damage. As for valves, you would use ports as in a two stroke. With opposed pistons there wouldn't be the problems of crankcase compression and losing fresh mixture out exhaust (It's how Germany did it before and during second world war) Aircraft engines are pretty limited on max rpm, the tip speed of propeller has to stay sub-sonic so most only spin around 2-2,500 rpm. A 'high speed' for aircraft engines is still below 4,000 rpm with reduction gear to drive prop. (Lycoming flat 4 was originally designed in 1938 and looks pretty much the same today from the ones I've seen on airboats in Florida)
I do like this engine. Manufacturing it will be very difficult. I can machine a conventional engine easily enough. This thing's cylinder walls will be tough...
I cannot see how this design would be any better than a standard design..
ok the piston can be lighter but you require 2 connecting rods per cylinder which looses any weight benefit
At 30% increased efficiency that would be pretty nice looking at fuel prices today. Even if it was only in economy vehicles with lower horsepower. It would make EV cars have that much more to work against. It's nice you could park it and come back in a month and drive it away, no battery problems probably the military may be interested for drones.
Theory.
30% more efficient than an engine that's 40 - 60 years old.... Not impressive at all
so a more complicated boxer?
Amazing. Thought I was across most engine configurations. Seems not. Thanks for sharing.
Rica etsem otomatik çeviri seçeneklerine Türkçe dil seçeneği ekleyebilir misiniz ? Sizi anlamak ve takip etmek istiyorum !!!
At 2:00 'Why hasn't it been mass produced " ?
As both a Fitter and Engineer ill take a wild guess..... how the fuk do you mass produce the 'cylinder' bore ?
The piston alone will be a nightmare. (Maintenance is another story entirely!!)
"Prototypes are easy, mass production is the difficult part"- Elon Musk
I'm not sure if this is the dumbest thing I've ever seen, but it's certainly up there.
I had not heard of this engine before. Manufacturing those cylinders would not be trivial but not an insurmountable difficulty.
overbore, sleeve and crush fit, hone done. CNC and the machine tech is here, make two heads or three, clamp together with a gasketless fit, and hydraulically sleeve it. If its really that good, balancing isn't that bad shave drill fit metal. I would love to see a precision one of these crafted and get an idea for life span and maintenance, and power factor. Always thought about adding H2 into the air stream to get a better burn on combustion, I think this system would work well with that. Oversize the bearings for the expected load and keep them wet, looks like it could go many hundreds of thousands of miles.
Maching the curved bore would be the most problematic as cutting tools don't really do curves.
@@guytech7310 why not make an internal hydraulic lathe to replace the piston? since it would move on the pistons pivot point, it would cut the bore perfectly in line, and the same system could be used to overbore when reconditioning the block.
@@martin-vv9lf Good luck on a alum. block with steel sleeves cylinders to fit that curve.
I doubt this will ever been adopted by a mass produced vehicle.
@@guytech7310 I certainly wouldn't suggest piston liners with this design. There are some engines that use a solid block with the liners in one piece that are very reliable. the problem then is increased complexity in casting.
Can it handle the stress of Diesel and Turbo Charging?? If so, imagine the efficiency of a air/oil cooled small diesel!
I'm looking at the angle between the connecting rod and the "banana" rod, and I'm thinking the wrist pin is going to have a short lifespan. Which is stronger, a wrist pin or a cylinder wall and piston? All that mass! And btw you can run any ice on hydrogen, and I do agree it is a much better fuel source. Cleaner, and about the same efficiency as gasoline. Almost same burn rate. People just get excited about the word hydrogen because they do t understand the properties, and think the hydrogen bomb detonates hydrogen. It doesn't. It uses the known consistent burn rate of hydrogen to compress the radioactive mass, causing the uranium or plutonium to detonate. Sorry, my mind wanders.
we can modify a compressor with valves anf try it out