What's wrong with computer models? People can start billion dollar companies that can survive for months and the United States can start wars with just computer models. That's how powerful they are.
@@Tech_Planet this one might be a little tough but there are companies that offer 24/7 drone security with charging stations.. which ive never seen a video on before. also new technology for trains and rail travel.. from new steam engine tech to electric. one last one would be geothermal technology.. there are some advancements in geothermal which is very interesting. thanks !!!
I didn't know there were companies actively working on fusion engines, very intresting, it'd be nice if you made a video covering that field in more detail
For sure, I will talk more about space engines/drives in the future. I honestly don't think that particular company will make a fusion drive anytime soon but there a lot of interesting developments including FRC right now!
I was impressed by the last 1. But anyone not want the terrifying left to right engine I mean it didn't want to stay started but it seems like it can go boom any moment.
Coaxial engine has a number of longevity issues, all those sliding parts will eventually fail unless the engine is highly maintained, not to mention tolerances will inevitably be a nightmare to deal with. there's a reason why there's not many linear parts in engines, pistons use slightly sprung rings to make up for clearance tolerances, and stem valves do eventually need their components replaced; though stem valves also don't see the forces of the piston itself, the linear bearings in the coaxial engine will see these forces and should have an expected shorter lifespan. Not to mention the issues with the rollers with the cam groove, more than likely their bearings will be the first parts needing replacing yet they're at the heart of the engine, which isn't good design. The MA-250 is interesting, but also problematic. The engine cannot scale without a geartrain. Any attempts of scaling that doesn't involve linking two separate motors externally will inevitably make it a swashplate engine, like what Duke had designed, which has it's own issues. The internal gearing really isn't ideal, though is entirely needed, because the moment any other component fails in a way that produces shrapnel, those gear teeth are getting destroyed. Not to mention assembly will become a pain in the ass with how gears need to be set, a lot of dry assembly, disassembly, and reassembly just to shim the entire gearset correctly. The rotary disc valve is an interesting addition, but tolerances and sealing will be one of the biggest issues with this engine; iirc, rotary disc valves have always been problematic. Plus if you scale an individual cylinder, you start having to question the strength of the connecting rods, as it's a split design, the rods are inherently weaker than a singular, more solid rod. CV Motion's motor is promising on paper but not in reality. Again, it's based on gearing, the moment you have particulate in you oil, those gear teeth are getting chewed up; then again the issue of if there's shrapnel from an explosive failure, like if a detonation happens to blow through a cylinder, if a bearing gets destroyed and shits its guts, etc. Gears are bad when there's a number of other components that could break and get caught in them, it's why transmissions and differentials, any geartrain component, are their own separate cavity; even a camshaft's drive, whether it's geared or chained, is in it's own separate assembly and cavity. Plus there's such little engagement between the rotary and linear components, if a set of teeth break you have a pair of dead cylinders. It's just not good for longevity, plus scaling becomes an issue as you'll need beefier components as you add more pairs of pistons. Omega 1 is interesting, it's essentially combining a rotary valve with the combustion chamber. My main issue with it is that half of the volumetric footprint goes entirely unused, the top half serves no purpose other than having a matched disc for the intake and exhaust discs. If they could find a way to mirror the setup so that both the top and bottom halves functioned as an engine, then it'd be interesting, otherwise there's just so much dead weight and unnecessarily used space. I also don't see why there can't be more combustions per cycle, the current engine only has one per cycle, but due to the way it's made this seems unnecessarily low given how large the discs are. Between the two improvements, you could get at least four combustions per revolution, though this number could probably be pushed further. But all of this is just trying to reinvent the wheel when there's not much reinventing to be done. We're at the point that we can't squeeze out more efficiency with simplistic designs, it's why the typical engine design is becoming so complex with different variable systems, because we're at the point that we need to minmax every little variable to squeeze out additional efficiency. I just don't see the point in making overly complex designs that do essentially the same thing as a typical crankshaft, or trying to find alternate designs that'll inevitably fall behind due to lack of being able to be variable. The designs are interesting, but they won't realistically lead anywhere, and it's far too late in the internal combustion engine's life cycle to be questioning new designs, as everything is moving onto alternatives for a variety of reasons.
Thank you very much for your post. It was very difficult for me to understand what was going on in these engine designs, even after watching the video twice. Your insights answered my question of, is any of this feasible?
The couple of engines in this video that have working models definitely did not sound smooth. If your car was making those rattling noises you would take it for a service.
i argue that certain simplistic mechanisms are capable of improving the ICE well beyond where it is now... gears work fine. most motorbikes stick gears in with engines, no problems there. even run the clutch in the same oil. a gear in an engine is under far less stress than a gear in say, a differential.
rubber washers are not the biggest issue with the mach effect drive. It's just a rehash of repeated designs that theoretically... don't work. But people say they do, because they can't test effectively, and they get hype and funding to eventually reveal they don't work.
The Avadi engine caught my eye in this lineup.. its got the minimalism of a rotary (somewhat with sightly more rotating parts) where it looks like a traditional piston engine mated with a differential to produce this gyroscopic 4stroke wonder. I'm guessing the low-end torque is what would compele some to choose this over a rotary engine, or the inversed cousin (liquid piston).
i followed the mega (mach effect) drive for some time. im not convinced. its supposed to exploit local mass fluctuations that arise due to the nature of mass. the idea is that mass doesn't mean anything unless you have another mass to compare it to (applying general relativity to the origin of mass). the theoretical backing has some serious science cred, and if not for that id have passed it by like i did em drive. you push a mass while its heavier and pull when its lighter, its essentially a vibrator. typical reactionless drive shenanigans. supposedly, according to its creator, there is a "magic frequency" that will produced thrust if you hit it. thats where i lose interest. i dont think it would be that simple. you would either need to model, predict or measure the mass fluctuations you are trying to lock in on, and then synchronize your oscillations to it with some kind of control loop. using something like gravitational wave interferometry might be a good place to start. i think they are currently trying to re--jigger their experiment until they get the results they want. until they get their thrust above their noise floor its really not worth anyone's time.
Ahh Frequency Resonance. If you can build a device that can alter the frequency resonance on a mass then you can move it just by changing its frequency to the frequency of destination.Like tuning in a radio station, you will be there
Ah yes, the Wile E. Coyote drive. The piston does not have mass until it looks down, and the engine generates power through the modulated holding up of a little sign that says "uh-oh!"
Agreed. It's like a kid in the living room shuffling across the floor by scooting a laundry basket forward over and over again. It isn't thrust, it's a pulsed change in position with no change in momentum.
I've owned and played with just about every type of internal combustion engine that's ever existed (so far as I know). My favorites are 1. The OG Model T engine, because when it was introduced there was no standard fuel like today, so that lump of iron could run on the gasoline of the day, ethanol, naptha, kerosene, and even turpentine. On the tin lizzy's steering wheel you had 2 levers for controlling the ignition systems advance or retarding function basically you were the engines ecu 2. The Ls3 of the C6 corvette which maintained a rediculously simple cam in block design with two valves per cylinder, a narrow low profile long block, and even with 6.2 liters and 400+ hp/tq was able to get better fuel economy than my wife's 2020 ford escape with a 3 cylinder turbocharged engine and 8 forward gears
lamplough compound two stroke? how about a melhuish aka "gothic" oil engine? sigh. another twostroke... rover "10"? bisschop "non compression"? humphrey pump? theres been some pretty oddball designs made it into production at some point or another...
The GX100 is genius! With a few modifications you could turn it into a turbo-ram-jet, meaning it could achieve speeds of nearly mach 5, theoreticly of course. However, that would not come cheap.
The Omega 1 has the greatest potential for power to weight ratio and ease of manufacturing because of the lower number of moving parts. Been mentioned before but the sealing issues, if they can be overcome, could be an incredible move forward in the development of the ICE (Internal Combustion Engine). I see it as the final gasp for automotive and aeronautical use. Once battery tech greatly improves the energy density then EV's will bury the combustion engine.
Since 1/3 to 1/2 of all cars are 2nd car commuters that travel an average of 15 miles to work, battery range is not the problem. Work commuter cars are a huge market, and as soon as prices come down and people are confident with battery reliability, there will be a massive switch to electric.
If Murphys law holds true, someone will invent the most efficient ice in history, only to find that the price of fuel goes up so high that it is of no use.
@@joeboxter3635 Murphy's law cannot negate the most basic law of supply and demand, once the demand drops because of greatly increased efficiency then the price will drop accordingly.
Omega 1 does have "seals" its just they dont use any intermediatory seal to do the sealing. It will necessarily suffer from heat expansion problems due to the tight fit and the gap tolerance compromise needed to prevent it seizing will create the very same seal problems every other engine of this form has had. I hope I'm wrong, but really.... who's kidding who?
"Less" is for things which can't be counted. "Fewer" is for ALL things which can be counted. This is basic English: Less corruption. Less milk. Less juicy. Fewer job openings. Fewer nails. Fewer heart attacks. Fewer grammar mistakes! Do you see how this works?
I invested in the Liquid Piston engine due to the three firings per rotation, dual lobe, tri-chamber reverse type Wankel.. It is a simpler design, more compact than the Omega engine, but not 'stak-able'. I would like top see it in the light aircraft market.. It's developers are touting the military market instead of the lawnmower market..
capillary kăp′ə-lĕr″ē Interesting video. On the last one, if it is an IC engine I suspect it is still dependent on fuel air ratios, unless I am misunderstanding something. Diesels are much less so, but highly volatile fuels, as far as I know, require a fairly tight fuel air ratio to run. They did not need to be full stoichiometric though, until catalytic converters were installed for emissions reduction. That is what drives the exceedingly narrow band of fuel/air required in today's gasoline fueled cars. Cars used to go pretty rich under full throttle (power valves in Holley's, etc). I doubt they do this to that degree now, but am not certain. It would just surprise me if they did, because the manufacturers want long converter life.
As regards the last one, the Omega One, I watched their promo video or something and it looked like they had a runner at the end. Feel free to correct me as long as we're civil
That last one talks about how the engine redline is 25,000 RPM. However, their home page does not show any gear reduction system -- and doesn't even show an output shaft!!
Sry, the combustion happens around the entire circumference of the bottom rotor and exhaust is expelled on the port. Check out the link th-cam.com/video/gi7IOXQ7oyo/w-d-xo.html and it shows the cycle around 5:00 minute mark. I'm not sure if it will work, it's kind of like a rotary config but theoretically it would be more efficient. I will cover it more in the future if they manage to build a running prototype.
What's the projected thermal efficiency of the Omega 1? I think at this point the marginal gains in efficiency/weight are not going to be enough to differentiate them from new 100+ horsepower, 80lb electric motors... super expensive, half-ton battery packs notwithstanding.
Right ! About how the Permanent Magmatic Motor could we'll use a reverse spinning half( correcting it's pull to the right tendencyg) so that in Space, it's finally proven how the Top replacing the Prop, how it pulls forward !
Wow. New vids from this channel are always great to find. This channel really does a great job explaining and presenting this new tech. Thanks. 😷STAY😷SAFE😷 👁
You can't really call anything an engine until it actually works as one. Until then it's just an idea for propulsion. So the few engines shown were at best, eh. Aside from the direct pulsar drives that are currently making some progress
There are conspiracies where in GM, engineers invented a modified version of the regular piston engine that would have an average lifespan of 30 years but GM shelved it. Another engineer invented a new type of engine that is extremely efficient and then BMW bought the whole idea and shelved it also.
LOL… Directed Energy Weapons… They are going to be surprised when they realize how small the window is for that, and that the Navy things it is already closed.
If there is NO WORKING PROTOTYPE, then concept is not tangible and can't be reasonably claimed to function. A working sample gives a real & testable model on which to build.
Would be better if the Omega 1 engine weren't coverage weren't so superficial. We never really get a good look at how it works. It's like that with coverage of it all over.
Range extension is a huge potential market as the infrastructure for charging stations just isn't there yet across the world. We will always have some level of codependency, and the Otto cycle is old tech that can always be reinvented and made more efficient!
The problem with fission driven spacecraft is the power in, power out ratio. Essentially with Tokomak design the current break even on the ground does not include all the other inputs. The amount of energy put into the correct test beds is currently greater by a factor of 7 than the energy that can be achieved, but assuming one can get this to a positive energy output let’s go through the problems in space. 1, Dealing with the radioactive buildup, not a problem since it’s not near people, but it is a violation of the treaty regarding the non nuclearization of space. 2. Extracting heat without steam and heat transmission (heat exchangers or cooling ponds) and relying on methods like thermocoupling are very inefficient. At best a 30% efficiency can be obtained, realistically 15%. 3. Coupled with #2 fusion reactors are designed for large scale operation, heat turnovers are in the 10 to 100 Megawatt range. At 30% efficiency that minimally 7 megawatts of heat that needs to be dissipated without conduction or convection, just radiation. In space weight is everything, and building massive heat radiator defeats the purpose. Direct fusion drives. You could for instance build a theoretical fusion drive, however now instead of contained fusion and ion/electric propulsion you now are direct ejection of plasma, not a problem except now you reaction is no longer contained, which might get you beyond earths orbit, but radioactivity is directly injected into earths sphere of influence, a clear violation of #1. The second problem with the fusion drive is that you need a lot of energy to trigger fusion, this equates to a powerplant once again in the megawatt range, in order to prevent the heat problem one would need solar, preventing its use away from the sun, or heavy radiators. But there is a problem, as fusion proceeds the reaction products favor reaction, but in direct fusion drives those products are lost. Xrays are lost, on the plus side pesky neutrons are lost. Another problem, at anyone time only a small fraction of atoms are fusing, that means atoms are being ejected which are not being accelerated by the reaction. There has been a proposed solution, to poison the reaction with antimatter collisions, therefore increasing heat and pressure, the problem is the energy required to make anti-matter. While fusion power is always 50 years in the future, fusion power in space is always going to be a couple hundred years in the future.
Great points! I think that is why there is heavy research into FRC (Helion & TAE) because it can be converted into direct current from the expanding plasma. Out of all the fusion methods, it might be the most promising but it's far from being proven, maybe 10 years at best just to demo on a very large config.
You are aware nuclear batteries that use many kg of plutonium are already REGULARLY used in space right? You're talking about the treaty about nuclear weapons in space. In addition, venting a fusion reactor would make a great thruster, 100% efficiency as no conversions are taking place.
Would you like to go over that last one again, I didn't get anything out of that. I don't think your peddling perpetual motion so I obviously missed something LOL
If the Mach effect works, then the star trek impulse engine will be realised. One of the scientists has spent 30 years working on it. There is a good TH-cam clip about its development
Number 1 will work with hho Making it the best out there. Two injectors 1 for hydrogen 1 for oxygen. No air intake. It would be completely carbon free. Vegetable oil to keep the lube. This is where we should be going
Do one on the Zubrin DiPole Drive! (It offers similar propellant-less propulsion to concepts like the mach effect drive, but without relying upon... controversial... physics).
Might want to include Allam Cycle turbines. They operate with supercritical CO2 and liquid methane + liquid oxygen, producing pure CO2 and pure water. No external emissions (though you have to put the CO2 somewhere, at least it comes in a bottle instead of dumped in the air).
Too many too fast but then I watched it cause it was short. Go into more detail about the fusion engines. Space craft engines need to get light and powerful so that part of this is very interesting!
Also… re: Flying Cars. We don’t have Flying Cars for the same reason we don’t have Hovercraft Tanks. They are a VERY BAD IDEA. And in the case of Flying Cars, we have had the technology to make them since the first patented Flying Car in 1919/1920. It turns-out that they are a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist (not on Earth, at any rate). Flying Cars are something that is really better suited to a planet like Mars, albeit with a denser atmosphere. Were Mars to have an Atmosphere that was 5x to 10x denser than it is (allowing us to actually breath that atmosphere were it sufficiently terraformed to provide O2), then Flying Cars could be developed alongside the Infrastructure, which would really only be needed in the exterior of the cities (which would need to be subterranean pending a Magnetic Field being created).
I suspect we only like the idea of flying cars because of the illusion of freedom. We falsify imagine we would be the only one flying through the sky to our destination. As if somehow we leave all the suckers are on the ground as we alone are released from gravity, responsibilities, and laws. I think it refers to a feeling we have of effortless action and freedom from worldly cares. It would be an unmitigated disaster of logistics and impossible to coordinate all those cars in the air. unless they were computer controlled. I still they have a role to play i remote natural locations and for residents hopping to small islands.
The Omega 1 has my vote. Using hydrogen there would be no or little emissions and 4 of them stacked in a small car would be awesome. Would love to see this motor in mass production but probably wont.
I'm not an engineer, Jeremy ~ BUT, I'm a long-time engine "enthusiast" and........like you, I have a brain. In spite of "their" claim of 24K rpm and 160 hp from such a small/lightweight (35lb) form, I'm reluctant to accept many of Astron Aerospace's design:
The only engine concepts that are real , is the actually built ones. You can do all sorts of things with 3 D models, you have to build them actually and see !
Nice video. However these all seem very heath robins based on a decline technology internal combustion engines. More innovation on electric motors is needed to align with better energy density of batteries perhaps
3- so despite not having a net-positive Tokamak on earth, where space is abundant and you can make the reactor as large as you want (important in fusion, the larger it is the more efficient it is) this company claims to be able to make one that fits in a spacecraft? K.
In New Zealand after the Second World War someone made a water powers car engine it didn’t use or need petrol or diesel etc, I know this is true because my grandad saw it. And the person who built it gave it to the New Zealand government so it would help them but they didn’t do anything with it and later he died (conveniently)
Omega is suspicious. They claim to have a working prototype, but they don't show it. The numbers seem to be arbitrary and well suiting. Overall, also their website seems just to attract money with nothing to show for it. Never seen the design before or heard of it despite it looks intriguing. And they are assumed to start mass production "soon". That doesn't look good contrary to the animation - another point, very good animation, but no real engine to show, that are a bunch of red flags for me. And what are the aims for it? Is this going to be anywhere or just an entertaining piece for old guys with much spare time? ( a bit over the point said maybe) In contrast, the tile engine is the opposite, real prototype working, a serious niche application with high demand. That's no joke.
They did show a prototype but it looked like it was just running on air with lots of seal problems. It is possible but they have to come up with some innovative solutions to keeping it reliable. But yeah, lots of companies do that to raise money and nothing comes to fruition. Its kind of like fusion power lol
So verrrryyy risky. I giv'em a 1% chance of success. Despite the interesting and quite innovative idea. Yeah, fusion is a prime example or the quirky wind power designs every now and then.
The most incredible engines are the ones going extinct. RC nitro motors. The LRP motor can output 4.69hp at .77lbs/350 grams...and somehow that doesn't turn heads.
It's nice to see a couple of actual working prototypes rather than just computer models 🙂
"Working". Haaahaaahaaa
What's wrong with computer models? People can start billion dollar companies that can survive for months and the United States can start wars with just computer models. That's how powerful they are.
@@preddy09 there is no computer model for this
Love how straightforward your videos are not like others who keep spitting non related bs at the start of the video. KEEP IT UP
noooice... love your videos dude keep them up. if you ever need ideas dont be afraid to ask your subscribers for future ideas
Thanks, I am definitely open to any new ideas from subs!
@@Tech_Planet this one might be a little tough but there are companies that offer 24/7 drone security with charging stations.. which ive never seen a video on before. also new technology for trains and rail travel.. from new steam engine tech to electric. one last one would be geothermal technology.. there are some advancements in geothermal which is very interesting. thanks !!!
@@chronicawareness9986 Nice, thanks I will look into some of that tech!
I didn't know there were companies actively working on fusion engines, very intresting, it'd be nice if you made a video covering that field in more detail
For sure, I will talk more about space engines/drives in the future. I honestly don't think that particular company will make a fusion drive anytime soon but there a lot of interesting developments including FRC right now!
I was impressed by the last 1.
But anyone not want the terrifying left to right engine I mean it didn't want to stay started but it seems like it can go boom any moment.
If he would cover each one in detail it would be very nice since they are all very interesting in themselves
You know what they say about fusion? Just 10 more years. To be clear, they have been saying this since the 1950s.
@@thesilentone4024 well, that's why you have an unmanned vessel for it.
Coaxial engine has a number of longevity issues, all those sliding parts will eventually fail unless the engine is highly maintained, not to mention tolerances will inevitably be a nightmare to deal with. there's a reason why there's not many linear parts in engines, pistons use slightly sprung rings to make up for clearance tolerances, and stem valves do eventually need their components replaced; though stem valves also don't see the forces of the piston itself, the linear bearings in the coaxial engine will see these forces and should have an expected shorter lifespan. Not to mention the issues with the rollers with the cam groove, more than likely their bearings will be the first parts needing replacing yet they're at the heart of the engine, which isn't good design.
The MA-250 is interesting, but also problematic. The engine cannot scale without a geartrain. Any attempts of scaling that doesn't involve linking two separate motors externally will inevitably make it a swashplate engine, like what Duke had designed, which has it's own issues. The internal gearing really isn't ideal, though is entirely needed, because the moment any other component fails in a way that produces shrapnel, those gear teeth are getting destroyed. Not to mention assembly will become a pain in the ass with how gears need to be set, a lot of dry assembly, disassembly, and reassembly just to shim the entire gearset correctly. The rotary disc valve is an interesting addition, but tolerances and sealing will be one of the biggest issues with this engine; iirc, rotary disc valves have always been problematic. Plus if you scale an individual cylinder, you start having to question the strength of the connecting rods, as it's a split design, the rods are inherently weaker than a singular, more solid rod.
CV Motion's motor is promising on paper but not in reality. Again, it's based on gearing, the moment you have particulate in you oil, those gear teeth are getting chewed up; then again the issue of if there's shrapnel from an explosive failure, like if a detonation happens to blow through a cylinder, if a bearing gets destroyed and shits its guts, etc. Gears are bad when there's a number of other components that could break and get caught in them, it's why transmissions and differentials, any geartrain component, are their own separate cavity; even a camshaft's drive, whether it's geared or chained, is in it's own separate assembly and cavity. Plus there's such little engagement between the rotary and linear components, if a set of teeth break you have a pair of dead cylinders. It's just not good for longevity, plus scaling becomes an issue as you'll need beefier components as you add more pairs of pistons.
Omega 1 is interesting, it's essentially combining a rotary valve with the combustion chamber. My main issue with it is that half of the volumetric footprint goes entirely unused, the top half serves no purpose other than having a matched disc for the intake and exhaust discs. If they could find a way to mirror the setup so that both the top and bottom halves functioned as an engine, then it'd be interesting, otherwise there's just so much dead weight and unnecessarily used space. I also don't see why there can't be more combustions per cycle, the current engine only has one per cycle, but due to the way it's made this seems unnecessarily low given how large the discs are. Between the two improvements, you could get at least four combustions per revolution, though this number could probably be pushed further.
But all of this is just trying to reinvent the wheel when there's not much reinventing to be done. We're at the point that we can't squeeze out more efficiency with simplistic designs, it's why the typical engine design is becoming so complex with different variable systems, because we're at the point that we need to minmax every little variable to squeeze out additional efficiency. I just don't see the point in making overly complex designs that do essentially the same thing as a typical crankshaft, or trying to find alternate designs that'll inevitably fall behind due to lack of being able to be variable. The designs are interesting, but they won't realistically lead anywhere, and it's far too late in the internal combustion engine's life cycle to be questioning new designs, as everything is moving onto alternatives for a variety of reasons.
Thank you very much for your post. It was very difficult for me to understand what was going on in these engine designs, even after watching the video twice. Your insights answered my question of, is any of this feasible?
👍
The couple of engines in this video that have working models definitely did not sound smooth. If your car was making those rattling noises you would take it for a service.
i argue that certain simplistic mechanisms are capable of improving the ICE well beyond where it is now...
gears work fine. most motorbikes stick gears in with engines, no problems there. even run the clutch in the same oil.
a gear in an engine is under far less stress than a gear in say, a differential.
The mach effect drive relying on rubber washers. What could possibly go wrong?
rubber washers are not the biggest issue with the mach effect drive. It's just a rehash of repeated designs that theoretically... don't work. But people say they do, because they can't test effectively, and they get hype and funding to eventually reveal they don't work.
had the same thought, rubber washers never fail!
Absolutely nothing 😂
The Avadi engine caught my eye in this lineup.. its got the minimalism of a rotary (somewhat with sightly more rotating parts) where it looks like a traditional piston engine mated with a differential to produce this gyroscopic 4stroke wonder.
I'm guessing the low-end torque is what would compele some to choose this over a rotary engine, or the inversed cousin (liquid piston).
its still just a fancy way of operating the "traditional otto cycle". with all the inherent faults of a crank and conrod.
i followed the mega (mach effect) drive for some time. im not convinced. its supposed to exploit local mass fluctuations that arise due to the nature of mass. the idea is that mass doesn't mean anything unless you have another mass to compare it to (applying general relativity to the origin of mass). the theoretical backing has some serious science cred, and if not for that id have passed it by like i did em drive. you push a mass while its heavier and pull when its lighter, its essentially a vibrator. typical reactionless drive shenanigans. supposedly, according to its creator, there is a "magic frequency" that will produced thrust if you hit it. thats where i lose interest. i dont think it would be that simple. you would either need to model, predict or measure the mass fluctuations you are trying to lock in on, and then synchronize your oscillations to it with some kind of control loop. using something like gravitational wave interferometry might be a good place to start. i think they are currently trying to re--jigger their experiment until they get the results they want. until they get their thrust above their noise floor its really not worth anyone's time.
Ahh Frequency Resonance. If you can build a device that can alter the frequency resonance on a mass then you can move it just by changing its frequency to the frequency of destination.Like tuning in a radio station, you will be there
@@johnclancy2551 i just use gravity waves as an example. but without knowing when to push and when to pull, you just have an overzealous vibrator.
Ah yes, the Wile E. Coyote drive.
The piston does not have mass until it looks down, and the engine generates power through the modulated holding up of a little sign that says "uh-oh!"
honestly it seems like those free energy devices on indian youtube channels 🤣🤣
Agreed. It's like a kid in the living room shuffling across the floor by scooting a laundry basket forward over and over again. It isn't thrust, it's a pulsed change in position with no change in momentum.
graphics/animation and commentary are very well done!
I've owned and played with just about every type of internal combustion engine that's ever existed (so far as I know). My favorites are
1. The OG Model T engine, because when it was introduced there was no standard fuel like today, so that lump of iron could run on the gasoline of the day, ethanol, naptha, kerosene, and even turpentine. On the tin lizzy's steering wheel you had 2 levers for controlling the ignition systems advance or retarding function basically you were the engines ecu
2. The Ls3 of the C6 corvette which maintained a rediculously simple cam in block design with two valves per cylinder, a narrow low profile long block, and even with 6.2 liters and 400+ hp/tq was able to get better fuel economy than my wife's 2020 ford escape with a 3 cylinder turbocharged engine and 8 forward gears
lamplough compound two stroke?
how about a melhuish aka "gothic" oil engine? sigh. another twostroke...
rover "10"?
bisschop "non compression"?
humphrey pump?
theres been some pretty oddball designs made it into production at some point or another...
Great content! Each of these needs a video of its own.
I agree! I might do a full video on the Omega, I can't really reveal more info right now though heh
The GX100 is genius! With a few modifications you could turn it into a turbo-ram-jet, meaning it could achieve speeds of nearly mach 5, theoreticly of course. However, that would not come cheap.
That is true & there are a few companies working on bypassing the turbo for a ram-jet hybrid config!
The Omega 1 has the greatest potential for power to weight ratio and ease of manufacturing because of the lower number of moving parts. Been mentioned before but the sealing issues, if they can be overcome, could be an incredible move forward in the development of the ICE (Internal Combustion Engine). I see it as the final gasp for automotive and aeronautical use. Once battery tech greatly improves the energy density then EV's will bury the combustion engine.
Since 1/3 to 1/2 of all cars are 2nd car commuters that travel an average of 15 miles to work, battery range is not the problem. Work commuter cars are a huge market, and as soon as prices come down and people are confident with battery reliability, there will be a massive switch to electric.
Electric Energy is not FREE. Transporting (transforming)it is a 75-85% POWER LOSS.
If Murphys law holds true, someone will invent the most efficient ice in history, only to find that the price of fuel goes up so high that it is of no use.
@@joeboxter3635 Murphy's law cannot negate the most basic law of supply and demand, once the demand drops because of greatly increased efficiency then the price will drop accordingly.
@@donaldstrishock3923 that's just not true.
How can I not like this? Thanks for the engine talk.
I recall a MYT engine. Rotating piston combustion chamber. Have seen a few TH-cam videos. Has been around for 20+ years. Any comments?
John
Nice video,thank you for sharrng it :)
Omega 1 does have "seals" its just they dont use any intermediatory seal to do the sealing. It will necessarily suffer from heat expansion problems due to the tight fit and the gap tolerance compromise needed to prevent it seizing will create the very same seal problems every other engine of this form has had. I hope I'm wrong, but really.... who's kidding who?
I love these videos...def one of my guilty pleasures (but, I don't need to feel guilty about my love of learning).
Awesome video as always!
Thanks!
5:50 I think this is the stat that interests me the most because, 25 000 rpm, I WANT TO HEAR THAT!
2022: Developing new petrol engines is a bit like wagon wheel innovation.
Maybe electric motors aren't perfect yet..
incredible, most of these have real working prototypes or look to be reasonably real
For sure, they are all really close to commercial models!
"Less" is for things which can't be counted.
"Fewer" is for ALL things which can be counted.
This is basic English:
Less corruption. Less milk. Less juicy.
Fewer job openings. Fewer nails. Fewer heart attacks. Fewer grammar mistakes!
Do you see how this works?
Great video!
Love your videos keep up the good work
Thanks!
Your welcome bro
Hey, really good video dude!
Sehr interessant! Gerne mehr davon! Zum Beispiel, was macht der Kugelmotor?
Nice to see an engineering video that isn’t all computer animation.
I invested in the Liquid Piston engine due to the three firings per rotation, dual lobe, tri-chamber reverse type Wankel.. It is a simpler design, more compact than the Omega engine, but not 'stak-able'. I would like top see it in the light aircraft market.. It's developers are touting the military market instead of the lawnmower market..
I've been hearing it for years....WHERE IS THE LAWN MOWER???
@@1voiceofstl I think it has NOx emission problems
capillary
kăp′ə-lĕr″ē
Interesting video.
On the last one, if it is an IC engine I suspect it is still dependent on fuel air ratios, unless I am misunderstanding something. Diesels are much less so, but highly volatile fuels, as far as I know, require a fairly tight fuel air ratio to run. They did not need to be full stoichiometric
though, until catalytic converters were installed for emissions reduction. That is what drives the exceedingly narrow band of fuel/air required in today's gasoline fueled cars. Cars used to go pretty rich under full throttle (power valves in Holley's, etc). I doubt they do this to that degree now, but am not certain. It would just surprise me if they did, because the manufacturers want long converter life.
As regards the last one, the Omega One, I watched their promo video or something and it looked like they had a runner at the end. Feel free to correct me as long as we're civil
Yep, you are right! Very early, looked like it was running on air but it's a good start.
That's wonderful! Fair play to them 👏👏👍
No mention of the free piston linear engine?
That last one talks about how the engine redline is 25,000 RPM. However, their home page does not show any gear reduction system -- and doesn't even show an output shaft!!
I'd like to see the omega1 come to life and put it in a bush plane.
Would be nice to know how these comppare to exhisting engines in terms of efficiency.
Not very well they're just Reinventing the wheel 🤷♂️
I see some promise in a couple of these designs to change the vacuum industry
more detail on the last one would be nice. i have no idea how it is supposed to operate.
Sry, the combustion happens around the entire circumference of the bottom rotor and exhaust is expelled on the port. Check out the link th-cam.com/video/gi7IOXQ7oyo/w-d-xo.html and it shows the cycle around 5:00 minute mark. I'm not sure if it will work, it's kind of like a rotary config but theoretically it would be more efficient.
I will cover it more in the future if they manage to build a running prototype.
This was a cool video, glad I found it 👍
Charles Duell: "close the patent office, everything that can be invented has been invented". I don't know, was this invented before 1889?
Shows the intelligence of government workers.
What's the projected thermal efficiency of the Omega 1? I think at this point the marginal gains in efficiency/weight are not going to be enough to differentiate them from new 100+ horsepower, 80lb electric motors... super expensive, half-ton battery packs notwithstanding.
The most amazing part is a tech countdown video that isn't some bs.
Love the video
Keep em comin
Thank you
Does it have "less parts" or "fewer parts"?
Best of luck with your new ideas
1:10
"...22 Foot/pound of torque" 🤣
Not sure why the tamiya rs540 motors werent mentioned here.
Right ! About how the Permanent Magmatic Motor could we'll use a reverse spinning half( correcting it's pull to the right tendencyg) so that in Space, it's finally proven how the Top replacing the Prop, how it pulls forward !
That Plasma engine....tells me I need to get the frik moving on getting my own prototype out or I'm gonna be left in the dust. thanks.
Very interesting. I would have though that the Liquid Piston Engine would have deserved a place in that line up, though.
It was covered before I think in the 1st Strangest Engines.
The 3rd engine didn't want to stay started lol 😆.
Well I'm impressed they didn't have methane or nitrogen gas engines.
Hey guys. It’s just a fella doing a video. Try not to read to much into it. 😏
Wow. New vids from this channel are always great to find.
This channel really does a great job explaining and presenting this new tech. Thanks.
😷STAY😷SAFE😷 👁
good stuff!!
Thanks for watching!
I want funding to make my own omega 1!!! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
You can't really call anything an engine until it actually works as one. Until then it's just an idea for propulsion. So the few engines shown were at best, eh. Aside from the direct pulsar drives that are currently making some progress
The Omega 1 is a Tesla engine (boundary), but as a commenter stated earlier, it is not a good version of it.
There are conspiracies where in GM, engineers invented a modified version of the regular piston engine that would have an average lifespan of 30 years but GM shelved it. Another engineer invented a new type of engine that is extremely efficient and then BMW bought the whole idea and shelved it also.
These will be the only industrial secrets ever kept over more than one year's time!
LOL… Directed Energy Weapons…
They are going to be surprised when they realize how small the window is for that, and that the Navy things it is already closed.
Still waiting for brilliant men to produce an engine as powerful and efficient as the flagellum
If there is NO WORKING PROTOTYPE, then concept is not tangible and can't be reasonably claimed to function. A working sample gives a real & testable model on which to build.
More engine plce ilove to hear frome you
Would be better if the Omega 1 engine weren't coverage weren't so superficial. We never really get a good look at how it works. It's like that with coverage of it all over.
Don’t understand why there are still companies spending money developing internal combustion engines.
I think if batteries can last 15 years it would make some small ICE obsolete. It's almost there but a refined rotary could be beneficial in hybrids.
@@Tech_Planet in less than 15 years batteries will be considerably better than they are now. Tesla batteries are already lasting in excess of 8 years.
Range extension is a huge potential market as the infrastructure for charging stations just isn't there yet across the world. We will always have some level of codependency, and the Otto cycle is old tech that can always be reinvented and made more efficient!
Omega? Whey would they name an engine after the Oldsmobile X car?
The problem with fission driven spacecraft is the power in, power out ratio. Essentially with Tokomak design the current break even on the ground does not include all the other inputs. The amount of energy put into the correct test beds is currently greater by a factor of 7 than the energy that can be achieved, but assuming one can get this to a positive energy output let’s go through the problems in space.
1, Dealing with the radioactive buildup, not a problem since it’s not near people, but it is a violation of the treaty regarding the non nuclearization of space.
2. Extracting heat without steam and heat transmission (heat exchangers or cooling ponds) and relying on methods like thermocoupling are very inefficient. At best a 30% efficiency can be obtained, realistically 15%.
3. Coupled with #2 fusion reactors are designed for large scale operation, heat turnovers are in the 10 to 100 Megawatt range. At 30% efficiency that minimally 7 megawatts of heat that needs to be dissipated without conduction or convection, just radiation. In space weight is everything, and building massive heat radiator defeats the purpose.
Direct fusion drives. You could for instance build a theoretical fusion drive, however now instead of contained fusion and ion/electric propulsion you now are direct ejection of plasma, not a problem except now you reaction is no longer contained, which might get you beyond earths orbit, but radioactivity is directly injected into earths sphere of influence, a clear violation of #1.
The second problem with the fusion drive is that you need a lot of energy to trigger fusion, this equates to a powerplant once again in the megawatt range, in order to prevent the heat problem one would need solar, preventing its use away from the sun, or heavy radiators. But there is a problem, as fusion proceeds the reaction products favor reaction, but in direct fusion drives those products are lost. Xrays are lost, on the plus side pesky neutrons are lost. Another problem, at anyone time only a small fraction of atoms are fusing, that means atoms are being ejected which are not being accelerated by the reaction.
There has been a proposed solution, to poison the reaction with antimatter collisions, therefore increasing heat and pressure, the problem is the energy required to make anti-matter.
While fusion power is always 50 years in the future, fusion power in space is always going to be a couple hundred years in the future.
Great points! I think that is why there is heavy research into FRC (Helion & TAE) because it can be converted into direct current from the expanding plasma. Out of all the fusion methods, it might be the most promising but it's far from being proven, maybe 10 years at best just to demo on a very large config.
You are aware nuclear batteries that use many kg of plutonium are already REGULARLY used in space right? You're talking about the treaty about nuclear weapons in space. In addition, venting a fusion reactor would make a great thruster, 100% efficiency as no conversions are taking place.
Would you like to go over that last one again, I didn't get anything out of that. I don't think your peddling perpetual motion so I obviously missed something LOL
If the Mach effect works, then the star trek impulse engine will be realised. One of the scientists has spent 30 years working on it. There is a good TH-cam clip about its development
what about Radmax rotary engine
The only drawback to ion drives is that gases need to be used in order for them to work in space.
That's true of everything short of solar/light sails. No reaction mass, no go
I didn't understand how that last one worked!!
I don’t know, happy to watch tho!
These alternative piston engines really are solutions looking for problems.
Do you know liquidpiston?
Number 1 will work with hho
Making it the best out there.
Two injectors
1 for hydrogen
1 for oxygen.
No air intake.
It would be completely carbon free.
Vegetable oil to keep the lube.
This is where we should be going
Do one on the Zubrin DiPole Drive! (It offers similar propellant-less propulsion to concepts like the mach effect drive, but without relying upon... controversial... physics).
The last engine is just a screw super charger with fuel injectors and an ignition system , it's already been done .
If they can make a efficient engine running on plasma particles millions of degrees why the hell can’t we use that in modern tech
i thought of that type of engine years ago dont know hoe to get it made lol
Might want to include Allam Cycle turbines. They operate with supercritical CO2 and liquid methane + liquid oxygen, producing pure CO2 and pure water. No external emissions (though you have to put the CO2 somewhere, at least it comes in a bottle instead of dumped in the air).
straight to the graphene factory
Too many too fast but then I watched it cause it was short. Go into more detail about the fusion engines. Space craft engines need to get light and powerful so that part of this is very interesting!
I think there should be an engine which doesn't require the gearbox at all to alter/modulate the power ratio.
Also… re: Flying Cars.
We don’t have Flying Cars for the same reason we don’t have Hovercraft Tanks.
They are a VERY BAD IDEA. And in the case of Flying Cars, we have had the technology to make them since the first patented Flying Car in 1919/1920. It turns-out that they are a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist (not on Earth, at any rate).
Flying Cars are something that is really better suited to a planet like Mars, albeit with a denser atmosphere. Were Mars to have an Atmosphere that was 5x to 10x denser than it is (allowing us to actually breath that atmosphere were it sufficiently terraformed to provide O2), then Flying Cars could be developed alongside the Infrastructure, which would really only be needed in the exterior of the cities (which would need to be subterranean pending a Magnetic Field being created).
I suspect we only like the idea of flying cars because of the illusion of freedom. We falsify imagine we would be the only one flying through the sky to our destination. As if somehow we leave all the suckers are on the ground as we alone are released from gravity, responsibilities, and laws. I think it refers to a feeling we have of effortless action and freedom from worldly cares. It would be an unmitigated disaster of logistics and impossible to coordinate all those cars in the air. unless they were computer controlled. I still they have a role to play i remote natural locations and for residents hopping to small islands.
I want an Omega 1 motorcycle... 25k rpm down the highway.... woof
that CV is just another boxer with more complicated parts.
Rotary engine = better than the piston engine. Improve the rotary engine and let the piston engine rot.
The Omega 1 has my vote. Using hydrogen there would be no or little emissions and 4 of them stacked in a small car would be awesome. Would love to see this motor in mass production but probably wont.
I'm not an engineer, Jeremy ~ BUT, I'm a long-time engine "enthusiast" and........like you, I have a brain. In spite of "their" claim of 24K rpm and 160 hp from such a small/lightweight (35lb) form, I'm reluctant to accept many of Astron Aerospace's design:
The only engine concepts that are real , is the actually built ones.
You can do all sorts of things with 3 D models, you have to build them actually and see !
You the people only not a great people but you work Hardly to achieve the leadership..And you desrve it
Thank you for sharing the knowledge...
*fewer parts
Nice video. However these all seem very heath robins based on a decline technology internal combustion engines. More innovation on electric motors is needed to align with better energy density of batteries perhaps
3- so despite not having a net-positive Tokamak on earth, where space is abundant and you can make the reactor as large as you want (important in fusion, the larger it is the more efficient it is) this company claims to be able to make one that fits in a spacecraft? K.
In New Zealand after the Second World War someone made a water powers car engine it didn’t use or need petrol or diesel etc, I know this is true because my grandad saw it. And the person who built it gave it to the New Zealand government so it would help them but they didn’t do anything with it and later he died (conveniently)
Tok-tok engine always make me amazed by its simplicity 😀😀
The boxer looks like a modified Bourke.
= for piston fire? = for fish oil?
Cv motion is a bad day just waiting for some sucker.
Apparently there IS a working prototype of the Omega.......
Don't give the first engine to Morty ! (from the Rick and Morty)
Sorry I couldn't resist with that bad joke
🙈😅😅😅
Omega is suspicious. They claim to have a working prototype, but they don't show it. The numbers seem to be arbitrary and well suiting. Overall, also their website seems just to attract money with nothing to show for it. Never seen the design before or heard of it despite it looks intriguing. And they are assumed to start mass production "soon". That doesn't look good contrary to the animation - another point, very good animation, but no real engine to show, that are a bunch of red flags for me. And what are the aims for it? Is this going to be anywhere or just an entertaining piece for old guys with much spare time? ( a bit over the point said maybe)
In contrast, the tile engine is the opposite, real prototype working, a serious niche application with high demand. That's no joke.
They did show a prototype but it looked like it was just running on air with lots of seal problems. It is possible but they have to come up with some innovative solutions to keeping it reliable. But yeah, lots of companies do that to raise money and nothing comes to fruition. Its kind of like fusion power lol
So verrrryyy risky. I giv'em a 1% chance of success. Despite the interesting and quite innovative idea. Yeah, fusion is a prime example or the quirky wind power designs every now and then.
The most incredible engines are the ones going extinct. RC nitro motors. The LRP motor can output 4.69hp at .77lbs/350 grams...and somehow that doesn't turn heads.
until we find away to harnest and use gravity like a catapult nothing can let us travel in space in long distances.