digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at gas2.org

Low Cost Gas Engine Innovation Doubles Fuel Economy

gas2.org — Revetec, a little known company from the Gold Coast region of Australia, may be on to something huge: they ’ve created an engine that is 50% smaller, 50% lighter, has 50% lower emissions and is cheaper to manufacture than a conventional internal combustion engine of the same horsepower.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • DrCrankenstein, on 06/26/2008, -2/+26I've seen that cylinder design with only 2, but it looks pretty cool with 4 on a diagonal axis. I'll take one.
    • ericthegreat, on 06/27/2008, -7/+3Snake oil?
    • raytibbitts, on 06/27/2008, -4/+2it looks like it should shake itself up and down, until it falls apart. Good on them if it works.
    • schneb, on 06/27/2008, -1/+3I was thinking that this would be great for ultralites, but then remembered that they need high revs for the prop. My brother-in-law is pushing Wankels for just such a purpose. I sent him this link.
  • Fangsinmybeard, on 06/26/2008, -4/+20It's like some of those airplane radial engines. I guess it would be lighter than a normal engine.
  • beauley, on 06/26/2008, -27/+2There have been many attempts to design an electric powered vehicle for as long as the the internal combustion engine has been around. Unfortunately, battery power was never a formidable contender to the present internal combustion engine, but it looks as though the future looks more pronising.
    http://www.gomestic.com/Consumer-Information/The-E ...
    The Electric Vehicle, is It the Answer?
    • clarkd, on 06/27/2008, -2/+15Congrats? And how is this relevant to this particular article?
    • noahgelman, on 06/27/2008, -2/+5It even says "Gas Engine Innovation" in the title, this has nothing to do with electric engines. Tard.
  • S7aind, on 06/26/2008, -0/+65There are so many prototypes like hydrogen cars, electric cars, etc. that I see here that take awhile to see widespread use, but a more efficient engine like this could make it in cars almost immediately.
    • G-RaZoR, on 06/27/2008, -0/+7Yes, they could fit into cars almost immediately, pending production, design and implementation into cars, etc...

      I would imagine it would take at least a year for them to be mass produced and developed to fit into a car.
    • trogdor282, on 06/27/2008, -6/+12If this makes for a 80 mpg Yaris, why are they sitting around making fancy animated GIFs of it instead of licensing it to Toyota? Oh, right, cuz it's a scam. Mark my words.
      • MikeSD34, on 06/27/2008, -0/+16You try calling up a major car manufacturer that you have a radical new engine design that you would like them to fund. Tell me how long it takes before they stop laughing.

        I'm not saying that it's not crap, just that the fact that it hasn't taken off doesn't mean that it's a hoax.
    • sabroskie, on 06/27/2008, -4/+2http://current.com/items/89021286_genepax_japanese ...

      car that rules solely on water
      • AnotherBrian, on 06/27/2008, -0/+3Shenanigans.

        From what little info I can find on this, it seems like the water is the electrolyte in a wet cell battery. This is not new to anyone who knows basic chemistry. It's equivalent giving someone a (charged up) lead-acid battery, telling them to add a bit of water+sulfuric acid and proclaiming that the water+sulfric acid is powering the battery. It is not, any more than a potato clock is powered by potatoes. (It's powered by the chemical potential difference of the electrodes, the potato just provides an compatible electrical path.)

        I bet one of these is a rip off of the other.
        Water Powered Clock @ thinkgeek.com
        http://www.thinkgeek.com/homeoffice/lights/757e/

        With a name like thinkgeek, one would imagine they should know better.
      • formergthing, on 06/27/2008, -2/+3A car that runs on water is a perpetual motion machine. It takes energy to get water to act as a fuel, and the amount of energy you get out of it can never be greater than what you've put into it.

        So you might as well skip the water and just make it electric.
        • seandaly, on 06/27/2008, -6/+3People, please stop regurgitating this "law of energy" crap unless you understand the science behind it.

          #1. A car that runs on water may ultimately not end up being a perpetual motion machine.

          #2. It may not always take more energy to extract energy from water than you get out of it. It just does today.

          You people realize that water DOES have energy in it, right? You're not creating something from nothing here. Water has a an incredible amount of energy stored in it... You're not violating any laws of physics. Water is hydrogen and oxygen. The sun is a giant ball of burning hydrogen. We put zero energy into the sun yet it somehow manages to continue it's energy producing evil every day! H202 (hydrogen peroxide) is basically water with an extra hydrogen atom. When high concentrations come into contact with a proper catalyst (almost any organic matter, although silver and platinum work well), it violently decomposes into H2O (steam) and hydrogen. It actually WANTS to get rid of that extra hydrogen atom. We just need to figure out exactly what conditions make the molecular bond weakest / easiest to break.

          The problem is, current methods of extracting that energy out of water are inefficient. There are a few ways to do it today and all involve attempting to convince the water to release the bond between the Hydrogen and Oxygen molecules by brute force. If we can put the water into a state where we weaken that bond, the process becomes easier to achieve.

          As we know, some molecules are easier to convince to unbind than others. Water just happens to have an extremely stable molecular bond structure.

          Some of the most promising methods for water dissociation involve using high frequencies to break the bond, which many don't realize is directly related to string theory. Many scientists working in the field of high-frequency sonics have noted the dissociation of water. We know it can be done, we have not yet found exactly which frequency(s) or sweeps induce the maximum effect.

          We can split water with a catalyst. At first glance, I guess it seems as though you're getting out more than you're putting in, although it's never discussed how much energy was required to produce or process the catalysts responsible.

          I'm rambling, but the point is that we don't know *****! The science behind these efforts is very young. Give it time...
  • MtheoryX, on 06/26/2008, -2/+18I wonder what kind of fuel economy one could get if this engine were used in a hybrid electric engine instead of a conventional engine.

    One can dream, anyway.
    • Mootabolife, on 06/27/2008, -2/+15Make it a diesel hybrid

      One can wet dream, anyway.
    • gl77, on 06/27/2008, -3/+7probably 35 highway/29 city.......same as they are now, same as some of the cars 20 years ago were getting, slap a "hybrid" badge on the side, and the suckers will eat it up.
      • empraptor, on 06/27/2008, -0/+7Attraction of hybrids for me is half higher mpg and half low noise.

        Gas mileage varies greatly with driving habits, but from what I read Priuses average 45mpg/42mpg city/highway.

        Honda Civics Hybrids average around there too, if not slightly lower.

        I'd love to get an Insight (60mpg) but Honda stopped making them in 2006. Probably hard to find used.
      • jerrycurley, on 06/27/2008, -6/+3What is it like going through life so simple minded? Those cars that got such great milesage 20 years ago would blow over in a 5 MPH breeze. THAT is why they were so efficient. Not because car manufacturers chose to make them less efficient now. Both the free market and the law demands higher safety standards that adds weight to cars. And on cars that were extremely light to begin with, that makes a HUGE difference.

        But I don't blame you. You read that on some anti-everything website and decided to just regurgitate it rather than think for yourself.
    • frontporsche, on 06/27/2008, -0/+3Given the article is accurate, switching to this Revtec engine wouldn't double the mileage a hybrid vehicle is already getting.

      Much of what makes a hybrid vehicle more efficient is that when the gasoline engine in a hybrid runs, it spend more of its time running near its efficient rpm range (as compared to a non-hybrid vehicle). The advantage of the Revtec is that it has a wider efficient rpm range. ...sort of two different approaches to the same problem.
      • empraptor, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Regenerative brakes + electric engine might help a little even if this engine does what the guy claims.
  • TheMachine1, on 06/26/2008, -6/+26"This isn’t some hoax..."

    "To illustrate how serious he is, Mr. Howell-Smith said that since 2001 his company has been in touch with the US Military Head of R&D for the Southern Hemisphere on a “regular basis” for the purpose of developing one of their engines for light aircraft."

    Not only is it likely a hoax that same scam that the "US military is looking into it" is something I've seen a few times in other high efficiency hoax engine news stories.
    • niccha, on 06/27/2008, -6/+14Did you read the rest of the article? They've independently tested their engine. Also, on their website it says that they've received a $1 million dollar grant from the Australian government. Visit their website for more info....
      • TheMachine1, on 06/27/2008, -1/+11I'm suspicious of the independence of the tester.

        http://www.startsurfing.com/encyclopedia/o/r/b/Orb ...

        The tester Orbital was hyping their on miracle engine during the energy criss of the 70's that never materialized.
      • mecharabbit, on 06/27/2008, -3/+5You can find countless examples of miracle engines that show up every few years. Sorry, but people a lot smarter than these guys have realized that the reciprocating piston overhead cam engine is as good as it gets for internal combustion engines.
        • spectre_25gt, on 06/27/2008, -2/+3Right. The Wankel engine, especially, showed us that anything else is just ridiculous.
        • wolferz, on 06/27/2008, -0/+6@spectre

          The Wankel is actually less fuel efficient compare to a conventional piston driven engine of equivalent output and size.
      • ralphthemagi, on 06/27/2008, -1/+9Do you realize how insanely little $1m is terms of capital? YouTube clones raise more than that. If this company was actually onto something, capital investors would be throwing money at them.

        The reality is that there is more to an engine than just cheaper, lighter, lower emissions. It has to be not only cheaper to manufacture, but capable of being mass manufactured using existing infrastructure. It has to be reliable to the end user. Moreover, you have to be at least six sigma in terms of manufacturing reliability. It has to be viable over the long term. If the industry does start to shift away from the ICE, do market leaders really want to adopt a strategy with a new kind of ICE at the center - when everyone else is doing electric of hydrogen?

        It may not be a "hoax," per se, but even snake oil often does something.
        • Scaryclouds, on 06/27/2008, -0/+4It's practically impossible to get over six sigma in production quality and I seriously doubt many current engines are six sigma.
        • empraptor, on 06/27/2008, -0/+4Snake oil does what it's supposed to do (back pain relief?), if it comes from the right snake. Problem was unscrupulous hacks sold bad oil.

          That's what I remember about the origin of the term anyway.
      • jerrycurley, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2Really? A MILLION DOLLARS, Dr. Evil? There is no way they could get such a HUGE Amount of money in a grant unless it was definitely real!

        Actually, the very fact that they only got $1 million is a pretty damn good indicator that the Australian government doesn't think it will ever amount to anything, but that they will give it a shot with a tiny investment just in case.
  • 80hd, on 06/27/2008, -0/+5It's been said that the bearings between the piston (rod?) and drive shaft are a real Achilles heel and have reliability issues.
    any seconds or substantiation on that rumor?
    • bigboy101011, on 06/27/2008, -2/+6if it's true there are a range of high strength space age materials that could be used.
      • Fratz, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1I understand what you're saying, but "space age" means anything made after 1957, so you may want to use a narrower term.
    • cannabrain, on 06/27/2008, -2/+1The entire design of the engine looks impractical and non-intuitive.
    • mojotooth, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1It's all ball-bearings, these days.
  • SpaceDreamer, on 06/27/2008, -4/+50The title is wrong.
    They raised the maximum efficiency of a gasoline engine from 32% to 39.5% (according to their website).
    That is not doubling.
    And they don't compare it to diesel or anything, just to basic gas engines.

    Still, it's some interesting tech. They have a PDF that explains why they gain efficiency:
    http://www.revetec.com/pdf/X4v2_testing_update_nov ...
    • JimmyRyan, on 06/27/2008, -2/+3I'd like to thank you SpaceDreamer.. Its because of diggers like you that we get our facts straightened out, and because of loads of alcohol.. that this fellow digger appreciates it.

      Kudos!
    • scy1192, on 06/27/2008, -2/+9the fuel economy is how many miles per gallon you get out of it.
    • niccha, on 06/27/2008, -3/+9I wrote the article. I can assure the title is not wrong. I even triple checked my facts with the inventor Brad Howell-Smith. The efficiency rating of the of the engine is only a part of what determines fuel economy. According to Mr. Howell-Smith the engine uses 50% less fuel which is a doubling of fuel economy. Also, there is mention in the article about how it would compare if the engine were converted to run on diesel.
      • feliks2, on 06/27/2008, -1/+4First of all he would obviosuly be interested in saying that the engine uses 50% less fuel. But even if he is not outright lying, you can twist statistics to say something like this easily. Did he say if the engine was mated to a car while the tests were being run? If so, what kind of car? How fast was the engine spinning? What engine was he comparring it to (I have a feeling this holds a big part of the answer to why this is BS)? Was the engine tested at optimal, unrealistic conditions?
        • niccha, on 06/27/2008, -1/+4You'll have to ask him. His contact info is on the Revetec website. All I know is what he wrote in his very detailed email to me. I'm not going to defend his claims past my knowledge of his testing procedures.
      • SpaceDreamer, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2and what is that other factor that determines the fuel economy, for an engine?
        ( it can't be power, since "of the same power" was specified, )

        Also, the independent tests only indicate the engine performance and efficiency.
        There is no sign of the doubling of fuel economy.

        If the inventor dreams about it, good for him, but don't mix that up with the actual facts.
  • clarkd, on 06/27/2008, -0/+16This is nice and all, but maybe when it's available to the public and proven I'll start to get excited. Until then, this is all just hype to me.
  • TheRealToma, on 06/27/2008, -9/+4Aussie Aussie Aussie!
  • Dan11023, on 06/27/2008, -13/+8it will cost $1,000,000... so who gives a *****?
    • clarkd, on 06/27/2008, -4/+1Well, if it does what they say it can do then it will have the potential to save you quite a bit of money on gas and food while lessening the impact of general transportation on the environment...duh.

      Come on, just because you are on the Internet doesn't mean you are banned from using your common sense.
      • Dan11023, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2People > Environment
      • Sagags, on 06/27/2008, -1/+2so your saying the million dollar price is worth it because it will pay for itself in gas savings?

        I doubt my whole family combined has spent a million dollars on gas their whole life.
        • Dan11023, on 06/27/2008, -0/+3I was kinda being sarcastic on the number. I think this is gonna be like most hybrid cars where it takes you years to break even for saving gas................. u kno
      • gl77, on 06/27/2008, -2/+2but at what cost, sir? at what cost?
    • Jonez176, on 06/27/2008, -1/+4The article says the engine is cheaper than a normal engine FYI
    • xexx, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1And a floppy drive used to cost like $5,000... now it costs $5
  • KaiSe7eN, on 06/27/2008, -2/+10Possible through the sacrificial blood of wallabies.
  • BarryAllen, on 06/27/2008, -8/+3Maybe Chevrolet will buy the idea and call it their own. Just like they did with the GTO body style that was originally Australian.
    • Tenlow, on 06/27/2008, -1/+5Yeah, so much different then what they did with the Tahoe and Yukon or the Chevy Suburban and the GMC Suburban. Or what just about every car company has done with every car they've ever made. They didn't "buy" a design for the GTO. They used a Holden Monaro (Or Vauxhall if you're in the EU). Just like the new G8 is a Holden Commodore with Pontiac badges. If you want to go even further into that, the G8 is a 4 door GTO, as the Monaro was a coupe version of the Commodore.

      They already owned all the designs. All they did was rebadge the cars they already made. Just like they did with the Pontiac Tempest when they made the original GTO.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badge_engineering
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontiac_GTO
      • blackhappy, on 06/27/2008, -0/+3Its only known as Vauxhall in the UK and Opel in the rest of Europe.
    • aussieNickuss, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1The GTO and Pontiac G8 (Zeta) platforms were DESIGNED in Australia, by Aussie engineers, but it's still owned by GM so that they can use it across all there wide wheel base brands if they wanted to.
    • blackhappy, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Its called ownership, once you buy it it is your own!
    • feliks2, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2Thanks for pointing it out. I think its so funny when Americans say how they love these new "all American" cars.
  • jbird32275, on 06/27/2008, -0/+4Interesting. It doesn't look as if it would take a lot of room in an engine compartment either. I wonder how easily it could be mated to an electric motor to form a hybrid?
  • niner9, on 06/27/2008, -10/+11Waiting for GM or Ford or ? to get the patent and then sit on it.
    • mjw2025, on 06/27/2008, -3/+4Why would they want to sit on it? They are in the business of selling vehicles and more efficient cars a what customers want.
      • lordgibbon, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Ford's sitting on the Detroit Lions.
    • niner9, on 06/27/2008, -3/+6Kickbacks from the oil companies. Lower mpg means more $$$ for oil companies.
      • CC440, on 06/27/2008, -2/+4Yup and oil companies are going to pay the car companies for this when transportation only makes up 17% of oil use and cars only 2-5% of that? Real genius there. I hope the price of tinfoil doesn't skyrocket soon.
        • cheule, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1CC440 I agree, the reasons cars are as efficient/inefficent as they are is due to basic physics.

          There never was a car that ran on water. There never was a 500mpg carburetor.

          People like to think there is some magical technology that will defy the laws of physics and make it magically take less energy to move a ton of material. They're wrong. It's one of the reasons that you can put all the high tech hybrid systems you like in a Toyota Highlander, and it still only gets 24 MPG. You can't argue with physics.
      • hokie47, on 06/27/2008, -1/+3Last time I checked GM and Ford have been in the *****. If they are getting oil kickbacks they should ask for a lot more.
    • AndreiOttawa, on 06/27/2008, -1/+2I don't think that GM and Ford are now in a position to buy a patent and sit on it.
  • PopcornDave, on 06/27/2008, -1/+4This is a fantastic step in the right direction, but I really wish someone would start looking in to something for a larger vehicle like a big rig so that we could maybe cut some transportation costs and help the environment at the same time.
    • McGrude, on 06/27/2008, -1/+4What prevents them from just scaling this up? Perhaps a row of two or three of these for an 8 or 12 cylinder engine, or larger displacement combustion chambers.
      • PopcornDave, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Hopefully nothing, but all the "green" cars that I see are small to tiny. Build something in a normal to large size car and you'll have people flocking to buy them.

        I just don't see a push towards a larger, green oriented auto - or at least I haven't yet.
        • whatever01, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2Because the ICE is fairly optimized, so the easiest path to higher efficiency is by decreasing weight, and the highest efficiency will always be in the lighter vehicles.

          Also, people who are most willing to pay a higher price for a more environmentally friendly car are more willing to make other trade-offs, have more education and more disposable income. Not only does this market segment not mind appearing different, they appreciate it. Bells and whistles were added to the Prius to make it a geeks car.

          When Toyota introduced the Prius, they didn't evenly distribute them across the US, they brought them to the coasts, where the demographics indicated the most accepting populations.
      • barnett25, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2Because the diesel engines in big rigs can run for a million miles with only minimal maintenance. I like this engine design, but having the entire force of the combustion ride on the rod bearings (for lack of a better term) is likely to make this a rather short lived engine. A cushion is created by the compression of the opposite cylinder (which is genius really), but the wear on the drive cams and bearings should still be fairly severe. Not to mention you still have all of the problems of a normal engine top-end (I assume, I didn't see their design for this part).
  • TheMachine1, on 06/27/2008, -2/+14http://www.nsxa.com.au/ RVC

    Statistics Summary:
    Total Trades: 361
    Average Price: $0.04
    Total Volume: 27,927,346 securities
    Total Value: $1,224,178.68
    Cancelled Trades: 5

    Shocking that such an "amazing" technology is merely valued at $1.2 million. And I hope thats not just the $1 million grant that they supposable got. How is it that
    "big money" never finds these great investment opportunity before us suckers on Digg?

    • Aeaus, on 06/27/2008, -4/+2*suckers on Digg*

      *suckers*


    • wogfella, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1You are right in that the total value of the company over the share price is $1.2 million and that includes every asset on their books (including $$ in the bank). The share price is currently 1.5 cents averaged 4cents over the time it's traded. But the startup capital says over $3million which means that the share price has dropped out the arse (just like every other stock at the moment) so yes they are in the *****.

      Yeah, I know, I'm a sucker on Digg...digg me down for being money nerd instead of fap fap fapping over Far Cry 2 videos.

  • krnldmp, on 06/27/2008, -2/+950% more? It looks like a mechanical nightmare to me. No thanks. I'm looking forward to Subaru's flat four diesel.
    • nycmac247, on 06/27/2008, -2/+2"a mechanical nightmare to me"
      you must think F1 engines are crap, too, right?
      • krnldmp, on 06/27/2008, -0/+3Why, hell no! F1 engines are the neatest ***** there is that only runs 1000 miles before blowing up!
      • CC440, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1The neat thing is an F1 engine is a convention 90 degree 32 valve V8. It just has impossibly amazing materials that it do what it does.
  • speakafreaka, on 06/27/2008, -0/+8its a reverse rotary!
  • SkateItsGreat, on 06/27/2008, -7/+1The countdown until the creator is either bought out or shut out by the big players in the market has begun.
  • Ne007, on 06/27/2008, -0/+15All this...just 10 years away.....10 years from now it will still be 10 years from now....always....
    • gquaglia, on 06/27/2008, -1/+2Yup, I remember hearing about HDTV 20 years ago, and only recently has it been a reality.
    • TypeEE, on 06/27/2008, -0/+110 years away and the gas price will be triple from now, and we will still be scramming for help.
  • magus_melchior, on 06/27/2008, -0/+3I'll just say this: Mechanics will either love this engine because of its performance and low cost, or they'll absolutely despise it because that looks like a beast to maintain.
    • krnldmp, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2I'd be real surprised to see any engine based around some kind of desmodromic piston arrangement supported by ball bearings go 50,000 miles without a complete rebuild.
  • KLowD9x, on 06/27/2008, -1/+6"Controlled combustion engine"

    Yeah, because the complex engine management systems on every car sold today are there to run an engine that operates on uncontrolled combustion.

    The only new engine design I can see actually working is the Crower Six Stroke gas/steam hybrid engine.
    • Slovenian6474, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1I've been pretty impressed with his 6-stroke engine.
  • datagod, on 06/27/2008, -9/+4Sadly, it will never come to North America in any big way because it doesn't require as many jobs to build and maintain them.
    • IronDonut, on 06/27/2008, -1/+0What in the hell are you talking about?
    • datagod, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1The North American economy...it is built around milllions of people being employed by the auto industry building and maintaining complicated 4 stroke gas and diesel engines. Simpler engines = fewer jobs.
  • RichM12345, on 06/27/2008, -4/+0Tonneau covers also help with gas mileage http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox- ...
  • Pitstopper, on 06/27/2008, -3/+1Ok.
  • carterx, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1May say cheaper, but if a big company gets ahold of the rights .... will be just like it is now. If you want a really good fuel efficient car right now, your pays a fair amount more money to buy. Take 3 years of saving money on gas to be at par with what you spent extra to buy the car.
    • whatever01, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1The free market system is a bitch, isn't it?
  • gquaglia, on 06/27/2008, -0/+4I hear so much about revolutionary technology that is suppose to increase gas mileage 2 fold, yet cars still seem to be using the same gas guzzling engines as always. Until I see a main line vehicle with this new tech, its just unrealized *****.
  • shortyjacobs, on 06/27/2008, -0/+15The first ***** to tout "HHO" or "Water4gas" gets cold cocked.
    • niccha, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1Ha... Ha... Ha... Good one :)

      ROFLMFAO

      It will happen though, I guarantee it... either here or in the article comments.
    • nycmac247, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1with an emphasis on "*****" !!!11!!
  • FrankTheTank17, on 06/27/2008, -5/+150% smaller isn't too important in my opinion. I'd rather have the engine bigger with easy access to all parts, at least most parts, of the engine for easy maintenance. That thing looks like it may be a pain to just change the oil in, and I refuse to pay for an oil change when it's a simple job that one should do themselves.
    • Quaterni0n, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2Yeah lets sacrifice efficiency just so the average Joe can fix his own engine and do his own oil change, because that's what's really important.
      • FrankTheTank17, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Please point out to me where I said to lower efficiency. I think the more efficient engine is great, I just want the parts to be a little more spread out. Elcyion makes a valid point that it makes the car smaller but if the car has an extra 100lbs of metal from the frame and larger fenders, hood, etc, your fuel mileage isn't going to suffer greatly, not if you're getting 50+mpg anyways.

        Are you seriously bashing me because I choose to change my own oil as opposed to paying somebody to do it for me? What has come of Digg when the people who work hard to do regular maintenance get ridiculed by people like you who expect me to pay for an oil change? Sorry if I want to work on my car myself, I didn't realize it was a crime against nature to actually get dirty and do common tasks such as change oil.

        Oh ya, and aren't companies supposed to meet demand of its consumers? I mean, you even stated yourself that the average Joe works on his own engine. So therefore, wouldn't it make sense for the makers of the engine to try to design the engine to be friendly with "the average Joe?"
        • remccain, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2no, Frank, that's not what he's saying. He's saying that only a lunkhead would bitch and moan about spending $150 a year on oil changes when the engine will save you over $1,200 a year in fuel costs. That's what he said, Frank. Do you get it now?
        • whatever01, on 06/27/2008, -0/+3"What has come of Digg...?" Jeeeezzzz you say that like it's a hallowed institution dating back to the time of Charlemagne or at least Lincoln.

          For the most part, you're dealing with a bunch of twenty somethings and younger who don't remember a president before George HW Bush and believe that a hopped up Supra can take a fully blown 1960's GTO in a quarter mile.
        • buddyfarr, on 06/27/2008, -0/+0@whatever01 -
          actually digg came around just around the time of the Pilgrims. The Pilgrims and the Indians used to comment on digg while they were sitting around eating their thanksgiving turkeys together. Man, didn't you ever take a history class?
        • FrankTheTank17, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1It's not just that, there is so much more maintenance than that. I just used oil change since it's the most common and simple maintenance somebody would do for their engine. What am I supposed to do? Go to a mechanic every year just to change hoses and the belt? Just look at the belt, it looks like you need a jack and stands along with a creeper just to change it. I know everybody doesn't have that but everybody should be able to change their own belt. Then on top of that the mechanic is going to make up reasons for why you should come back for more maintenance. You wouldn't even be saving money because the money you'd save on fuel, you'd lose to the mechanic.
        • Quaterni0n, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1I get what you're saying Frank, but most people agree that the small, efficient, but more complex engine is much preferable than the big, inefficient, but simple engine. We're all just guessing at this point. Maybe it's not as complicated and a pain in the ass to work with than it looks. Even if it is, I'll take the complex engineering marvel over the one I can maintain myself any day. MPG is higher priority for me.
    • ElcyionCoire, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1I agree with you in principle, but smaller engine could mean a smaller car, which would further increase your mileage.

      And a lot of people don't want to work on their own cars; can you fix your own PC when something breaks? How many people are even willing to take the cover off their PC case and look inside?
    • Abomonog, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1Except changing your own oil on many newer cars voids the warranty.

      Home oil changes are not logged into any service network so there is no proof that they were ever done. Without those logs or the service receipts your warranty is void.
      • JQP123, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1"Without those logs or the service receipts your warranty is void."

        Make your own log/receipt. Keep the receipt when you purchase the oil and filter and write the mileage on it. Normally, a receipt already contains the date. Anyone asks for proof, you've got it.
  • liuite, on 06/27/2008, -1/+2I would like to see their light aircraft version of the engine for general aviation. high fuel prices are killing the private aircraft sector. Only rich people can afford to own and fly a plane these days.
    • ace144, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2I was under the impression that rich people were always the only people able to afford to own and fly a plane.
      • whatever01, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Piper Cub, baby!!
      • liuite, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1not really, many who learned to fly while serving in military service continued to fly by belonging to clubs or timeshare. some even built their own homebuilt. the high fuel cost has driven alot of these pilots from flying.
  • gaoshan, on 06/27/2008, -0/+23"Innovation..."
    "Doubles Fuel Economy"
    "...a little known company..."
    "...may be on to something huge"
    "50% smaller..."
    "...50% lighter..."
    "...50% lower emissions..."
    "...cheaper to manufacture"

    Add a dash of hope, some really smart ideas, throw in 10 times the promises with 100% more ***** and you have what this sort of article is.

    You know, I've seen some variation of these sorts of claims repeated over and over for a nearly infinite number of technologies practically every day for the past few years. And it never quite happens. "Oh, but THIS one is sooooo almost there." "Don't be a cynic... this time next year (or maybe the year after... 2010 tops) you'll be eating your words". Uh huh. Sure. You know what I say to that? B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T!

    Just make it frickin' happen and then you can crow about it all you want. I'll rush out and buy one, no... TWO, of whatever is made from whoever can get it to me. Just shut the hell up and produce it. Until then, expect a heavy dose of cynicism from the likes of me.
    • gl77, on 06/27/2008, -0/+4exactly....the same snake oil ***** people have been peddling for ages. and there are always suckers believing this ***** too. if i had a quarter for ever hair brained idea that someone swears is the next best thing that made it to the front page of digg, i would be a ***** millionaire. buried as a scam until i see actual physical proof or until the thing hits the market.
      • B1663r, on 06/27/2008, -3/+1Yes, because there is no possible improvement to the current otto and diesel cycle engines...

        • gl77, on 06/27/2008, -1/+3oh im sure there's vast improvements out there and this may very well be one of them, but i dont need to hear about every time a guy in his mother's basement thinks about a new way to get higher gas mileage or a new way to redesign an engine. it doesnt need to make the front page of digg every time. either give us some new about something that currently exists and is proven, or dont submit the ***** story at all.
        • B1663r, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1Um, the whole purpose of digg is to do what the hive mind wants, and not what you want. Right now the hive mind is interested in any promising looking fuel technology and since oil crossed $140 a barrel I'd say it is quite topical.

          Its not like this is a fuel from water device or a permanent magnet motor...
      • BradHAWK, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Old issues of Popular Mechanics and Popular Science are practically a museum of various wonder engines, such as Smokey Yunic's homogonized V-twin, and Ford's plastic engine (they're not always from unknown entities) and various others. Some are surely scams, others are just over optimistic and aren't as great as initially claimed/thought or have significant problems. Nevertheless, some may have some merit but the auto companies are so stuck on what they're used to that we rarely see anything other than inline or V 4, 6, and 8 cylinder engines, even within the context of reciprocating piston poppet valved gasoline engines.
      • buddyfarr, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1well I have my car running off of a diamond/water engine. It works great. I have a 35MW laser that shoots through a 1 carat diamond that sits in a tank of water. It splits the water into hydrogen, the engine burns the hydrogen and then it turns back into water and is used all over again. I haven't put water in it for 17 years. All I do is put oil in it during regular oil changes. Hey! what are these guys in black suits breaking into my house?? HELP!!! GET THE WORD OUT!! SOMEONE GO TO MY SECRET CAVE IN THE MOJAVE AND GET THE PLANS OUT TO THE PEOPLE!!! AHHHHHHH!!!!!!!
    • tiraid, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1"expect a heavy dose of cynicism from the likes of me."

      You and your ilk!
  • aimhelix, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1I like that blog but why the hell does everything have to be in bold.
  • F9Phoenix, on 06/27/2008, -0/+6Is there a reason this blog is featured on Digg everyday? Is this some new side project by the Digg creators or something? Did Ron Paul fund it? Anyone?
    • niccha, on 06/27/2008, -0/+3Nope and nope. It's just got a large Digg following. There are several websites that make it to the front page of Digg everyday. There's no conspiracy to dig up here.
      • F9Phoenix, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2Thanks, I was just curious. Not knocking the site at all. I actually like it.
  • jvredpath, on 06/27/2008, -0/+4Let's get an independent lab to test the actual claims rather then the author being "in communication" with the inventor CAD designer. On it's face value, it looks like an investor scam. Let's see if they float stock next week. And don't you think that Toyota or GM would have this technology already. Honestly. Oh wait a minute, I forgot. The big oil companies bought the patents and buried it. Stupid me. It's funny how big oil always beats the car manufacturers to the 200 mpg carburetor.
    • niccha, on 06/27/2008, -0/+4According to the article, they did have it tested by an independent lab in Australia. True, the author was in communication with the inventor.... but as most journalists will tell you, the "interview" is a pretty common way of obtaining information.
  • MadOgre, on 06/27/2008, -2/+1Awesome. Make an 8 cylinder version with at least 500 horses and I'll buy it right now.
    • krnldmp, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1It'd be a little like driving a semi truck. I don't think a double piston that makes 3 cycles per revolution is going to turn safely much past 2,000 rpm. If you got it to go much faster it would probably wipe that bearing right off the side of the connecting rod.
    • andy314159pi, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1how about a nice schwinn
    • MadOgre, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1I was thinking for my full sized Ford Bronco. Schwinns can't pull boats, deary.
  • andy314159pi, on 06/27/2008, -0/+4guys at top notch institutions are scrounging for 3-5% improvement in ICE performance so this seems a little iffy
    • MasterMWL, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1True, but this IS a massive redesign versus the standard V6 or Inline-4, etc.
      • whatever01, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2And guys at top notch institutions with massive resources don't think big, or are they not capable of massive redesign?

        Oh, that's right, all progress is made by the lone inventor in his garage. /sarcasm
  • madetosink, on 06/27/2008, -0/+4Does it come in a turbo model?
  • videographer, on 06/27/2008, -0/+3Believe it when I see it in a Yaris. Still uese gasoline, though...in the meantime, let's go electric.
  • rowlodge, on 06/27/2008, -0/+4what happened to the miracle cold fusion stories?
  • Ribbys, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2This has been floating on car forums for a few years but they seemed to have some trouble getting buy in from bigger players IIRC.
  • IronDonut, on 06/27/2008, -2/+4Hey everyone this is a complete scam... the only difference between this engine and a conventional engine is that they replaced the crankshaft with cam arrangement.

    The only energy losses incurred converting linear piston motion to rotary motion are in the crankshaft bearings which are actually quite small. So this engine replaces the crankshaft with some cams for the linear to rotary conversion. How exactly is that going to count for a 50% increase in thermal efficiency? It's simply not.

    Here are some obvious problems with this design;

    1. The reciprocating mass of this engine is much larger than a conventional piston engine. The connecting rod and piston assembly is very light the arrangement on this engine looked heavy.

    2. More moving parts. This engine uses exactly the same combustion process as a conventional engine. But it uses many more parts to do the same job. I doubt it will last as long.

    3. Oil in the cylinders. This is the same problem as the old school radial aircraft engines. The lower cylinders collected oil because of their position and required that you "clear" the oil before starting the engine.

    This whole thing is a scam trying to find some investor sucker money.
    • krnldmp, on 06/27/2008, -0/+3I would guess that the increase in efficiency is mainly due to the deviation from a sinusoidal piston velocity curve. I don't think the bearing losses would be much different. However I have serious reservations that this arrangement is nearly as robust and maintenance free as an old fasioned pressure oiled plain bearing on a crankshaft.
      • IronDonut, on 06/27/2008, -0/+0I think the only efficiency gain is in their marketing materials.

        If their claim of 50% was correct that would mean that a conventional piston engine was losing as much energy in the bottom end of the engine as it was producing at the output shaft. 100KW engine would be losing 100KW to frictional losses in the crankshaft. Well... energy can't be created or destroyed so that loss would turn up as heat in the connecting rods and crankshaft. Of course if there was that much heat being dissipated into the crankshaft it would burst into flames inside of a minute.

        Besides a conventional engine doesn't lose 50% of it's energy to mechanical losses. If it doesn't lose 50% to mechanical losses how can you gain 50%

        The only way you are going to get that kind of eff gain with a conventional engine is to figure out how to convert the waste heat in the coolent and exhaust to rotational energy.

        This whole thing has ***** written all over it.
        • krnldmp, on 06/27/2008, -0/+3It has to do with causing the piston to dwell longer at a higher pressure near TDC rather than letting it fall off into heat as quickly as forced by normal sinusoidal motion. The problem has been understood for a while and much more deeply than I do, but I can see how a cam profile can be selected to help a lot while a simple rotating crank pin doesn't give you very much freedom, though I think offset connecting rods are being used now for this reason.
    • TheMachine1, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1The 10:1 compression ratio and high efficiency claim does not ring true to me. Ultimately the invention claim diesel like efficiency from a gasoline engine all while not increasing the compression ratio like a diesel.

      .
      • IronDonut, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1The reason a diesal is more eff than a gasoline engine is because diesal fuel contains more heat energy than gasoline. The compression ratio doesn't have a lot to do with it.

        1 gallon of diesal contains approx 133,000BTU/gal. 1 gallon of gasoline contains approx 115,000BTU/gal. Gasoline is more volitile for sure but it contains less energy.

        This is the same reason that an identical spark engine running on an alcohol fuel goes fewer miles than the same engine running on gasoline. Alcohol contains much less heat energy.
      • Abomonog, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Diesel engines use higher compression ratios because they rely on molecular instability for ignition. They compress the fuel so much it spontaneously combusts just like nitroglycerin. Compression in gasoline engines is only there to increase the force of the gasoline explosion that would have happened anyways because of the spark ignition.


        IronDonut: Despite diesel having a higher BTU rating it actually has a lower burning temperature than gasoline under compression and goes poof a lot faster. It's efficiency comes not from it's BTU rating (High BTU ratings are bad for engines) but from it's combustion rate under pressure. The exhaust manifold of a diesel engine typically hovers around 300f (Loggers actually use them as stove tops) while you can typically light a cigarette off of the exhaust manifold of a gasoline engine.)

        More BTUs do not mean more energy. If it did ethanol would rule. It burns at over a thousand degrees. Hot enough to where a 85% gas/ 15% ethanol mixture will damage some older cars but we all know what happens to gas mileage if we use the mixture.

        If you want efficiency then you want fast burning fuel. If you want power you go for slower burning stuff. This is why top fuel cars run ethanol (raw vroom) and heavy diesel motors are always ponied to a hydrolic or electrical drive system (maximum efficiency).
        • IronDonut, on 06/27/2008, -1/+0You use a lot of fancy words but you really don't know what you're talking about. Not one thing that you said is correct. It's all complete and total non-sense.

          Diesel exhaust is in the 1200-1400 range not the 300F range.

          The reason diesels go further on a gallon has nothing to do with what you said see this article;

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel#Burning_effien ...

          BTUs are everything. BTU = British Thermal Unit is a measure of energy content in fuels. A BTU translates to the ability to raise one pound of water one degree F.

          And ethanol has the lowest energy content;

          http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/28/automobiles/28FU ...

          Completely contradicting what you said. T

          Top fuel cars run on nitromethane and a small amount of methanol not ethanol.

          Last ethanol has a much lower energy content than gasoline but a higher octane. With higher octane you can have higher compression which produces more horsepower out of the same size engine but it doesn't do more work per gallon of fuel. Two totally separate things.

          You should seriously consider getting some more education in science. A good understanding of science will only help your understanding of the world.

  • DarknessGP, on 06/27/2008, -0/+8... Even if everyone (and I mean everyone) switched to Priuses or these small engines, we'd still be dependent on oil which is the main issue. All this is doing is helping to slow us down from reaching whatever it is we do after oil.
    • jabberwolf, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2PHEVs in 2009 and 2010 will double or triple the mileage of the prius. How does that sound now?
      And if we have nuclear plants to power those instead of fossil fuels, and grew switch grass instead of corn for ethanol, that sounding like more of a plan?
    • gdehms, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1It isn't possible to simply throw away the way we have been doing things for a century and just start over. It's a gradual process, and we are seeing more improvements every year. Hybrids were the first step, and electric cars are coming closer and closer. However, until coal plants are shutdown all together, electric cars will still pollute the environment. Which is where the Hydrogen fuel cell comes in. Solar cars also exist. Who knows where we will be in 10 years.
      But for right now, we should try making the most out of each barrel of oil we use anyways.
      • whatever01, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Hydrogen fuel comes from some place, is compressed some how. It requires a lot of energy to do that. Right now, hydrogen is produced using fossil fuel feedstocks. Until you can generate, compress and store hydrogen cleanly, it is pretty close to environmental snake oil, too.

        Thermal solar generation makes much more sense than slapping ultra efficient solar cells on cars.

        But your final point is correct. To quote the Police - "When the world is running down, you make the best of what's still around."
  • charlietuna, on 06/27/2008, -0/+3Video of it humming along:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m2q8Jgm-oE
  • adammalay, on 06/27/2008, -1/+0better using NGV compare with petrol so it can save the world zone..

    cheers,
    http://nicheproblog.com/best-contract-deal-mobile- ...
  • yoda17, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Looks like one of these

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourke_engine
  • diggingaround, on 06/27/2008, -2/+2Buried as ultra-lame "new" combustion engine, comparing to this: http://www.angellabsllc.com/index.html
    or this:
    http://www.rotoblock.com

    Anyway... the future is in electric motor and high capacity battery storage.
  • oneeyejeff, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2This never solves our long-term energy crisis for future economical and environmental survival. Eventually, we will exterminate ourselves by exhausting our non-renewable resources with over time of petroleum-dependent technologies and infrastructures in the near future. These will crumble as the energy requirements outstrip available resources. The collapse of industrial society will be results of high population demands from increasing scarcity of petroleum and all its products and byproducts.

    Forget about the innovation of high miles per gallon! Forget about hydrogen power because it requires us to refuel at gas stations when tanks are empty. Forget about electric cars because it requires us to plug on electric outlets as long as electricity is running. Get rid of petroleum-running engines because they require us to dependences of petroleum to survive. Search and invent new innovative technologies without energy dependences such as fossil fuels. Renewable resources as a plentiful of air, winds and bright daylights to power engines without using any petroleum and other energy dependences are the ideal for our green future. For example, vacuum air into the compression to boost the engine to run the power without any petroleum uses and gas station dependences.

    Unfortunately, powerful oil lobby-influenced politicians prevent new innovative opportunity for the development of alternative energy innovations without petroleum dependences and monopoly. Bush and the Congress never want to abandon our consumers dependence of gas stations and utilities because we paid them from gas pumps and electric lines in order to keep flowing of profit revenues to support oil and utilities companies and government taxes. Oil, automakers and utilities companies often bought out of various energy alternative innovators with their patents rights in order to mainstay on profits and prolong companies’ survivals to preserve the monopoly. As you know that President Bush and his cabinet members are oil people and of course, they secretly care about oil prices going up! Their main motive is the greed.
  • Infidelcastr0, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1I remember reading about this a while back, neat stuff. There's a bunch of new internal combustion engine designs starting to show up, the next few years should be interesting (assuming sports cars aren't legislated out of existence).
  • stack3r, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1rofl. I love how just about everyone knew about this engine except people from digg.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 64 of 64 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.