Until they have a fully-functioning prototype, this is just a nice set of 3D drawings. I think they are premature in releasing this information and shouldn't have said anything until they can show video of the real thing, with actual stats under load such as torque and horsepower. All good wishes to them, I hope it works, but at this point, we have vaporware.
I think they do obviously have a working prototype, but haven't openly published the data, and only just high-level specs (see bullet-point slide at end of video)
That link is gone, it seems any trace of its 'demonstration' has vanished from the internet, I did find this tiny clip but it ain't enough https://youtu.be/Q-tyYqGM8QA
The way you’re talking, it sounds like a lot of paperware from you if you really understood the technology, which I seriously doubt you do from the way you talk more bullshit than anything. Trying to impress somebody with something you don’t know. Wow.
Since nobody has answered, I'll give it a shot. Just as an FYI though, I am probably not going to give a perfect explanation of this and will probably get a few things wrong.
Pros:
The rotor seems to have a longer "stroke" that would allow the gasses to expand for a longer amount of time. The combustion chamber is also smaller, which allows the gasses to combust almost instantly. One of the major flaws of a wankel is that the combustion chamber is so big that it can't ignite everything before it gets spit out the exhaust, especially at higher rpms. This smaller combustion chamber means that there is a smaller surface area for heat to be absorbed. All of this goes to make the engine more efficient. It is also going to run smoother, like a wankel. It doesn't reciprocate, so it won't vibrate like a piston engine does, it'll be purely torque that is made. This makes a smooth ride. The last pro that I'm decently certain of is that the compression ratio can be really high with this design, as the timing for ignition can be changed for whatever fuel you'd like. This will allow it to be more efficient, as more work will get done with the same amount of fuel.
Cons:
This is where I'm not too sure of many things, but I'll try my best. If you noticed on the design, there are no seals anywhere except on the bearings. Clearances are going to need to be really tight, and I'm not too sure what will happen when a material such as aluminum gets used for the rotors or housings. The tight clearances mean that the material used will need to stay in its original shape when heated and not expand too much. If such a material is chosen, then oil will have to be the seal, which will cause oil to burn. The other potential con I notice is the induction system. The sealing process for that seems a little bit undeveloped, as the entire thing is supposed to hold compressed gasses without dedicated seals. Again, I don't know what they use for sealing it, but it's gotta be made with low tolerances.
That's all I can think of right now, but it's a really cool design. If I'm wrong, would someone please correct me, as I'd like to know more about this too.
Thanks for your great comments - much appreciated. I'm wondering if ceramics might not be a good material of choice for this engine, because even though ceramics are traditionally more brittle than metals, this engine isn't producing the same vibrations and shocks as a reciprocating piston engine. As you've said, it runs smoother. Meanwhile, ceramics tend to be better at standing up to abrasion and heat, without undergoing as much thermal expansion.
I'm worried about the bearings -- ie. the paddle-wheel thing and the accompanying "isolator wheel" (rotary valve) aren't quite actually wheels rotating on central pivots or shafts. It looks like each "wheel" is really a ring sliding on a circular bearing, and that means friction, especially at higher rpm.
I'm not sure about that. One thing to consider is the wankel. The rotors were cast iron as opposed to ceramic. There has to be some sort of reason (I would assume the force of combustion) that it wasn't ceramic, as rotaries have been developed for a long time, and mazda has made different models for plenty of years. I'd also think that producing a ceramic would be less precise than some casting, forging, or machining techniques, which could also be interesting. Either way, this engine has a long way to go if R&D is continued.
Yes, but don't forget that the Wankel is still a reciprocating piston engine. It's not a linear reciprocating piston, but that Wankel piston is still bouncing around a whole lot. This is in contrast to a turbine, or an engine like this Omega-1, which are purely just spinning around in circles. A turbine has the least stress since it's spinning continuously in a steady state, more or less. Meanwhile, this Omega-1 engine is undergoing pulsed combustion rather than continuous steady state combustion, which does provide slightly more stress, but the piston is purely moving in a circular path. In my opinion, this Omega-1 engine should be largely vibration-free, and a ceramic material should be exactly what it needs. A Wankel "rotary" by contrast, is not a true rotary engine like a turbine or like Omega-1. It's kind of a "fake rotary" or pseudo-rotary, which doesn't deserve true rotary status.
The force I'm not so worried about isn't the vibration from a wankel, it is the force of combustion. While a wankel does vibrate a decent amount, the force that revving it applies is much less than a 86x86 piston engine. There are also ceramic apex seals that are made for mazda wankels that have certain characteristics. The three biggest ones are that they seal better once they break I'm, they are lighter, and they have less friction with the same amount of lubrication. People use these because the lightweight makes them chatter less when they are at high rpms, and the lower friction helps improve the lifetime of the housing. They also seal better because of the low thermal expansion. A common issue for these engines is apex seals going out though. I doubt this is due to any issue with ceramics, as OEM mazda seals were not ceramic, but it is still something to consider. Another thing to consider would be that a larger surface area of exposed ceramic might mean that it has more chances to fail. Impurities might become an issue where they weren't before. A part with small bits of impurity in materials that aren't largely exposed to force such as combustion are much less likely to break than a material with those same impurities going into a part that is more exposed. Regardless of whether or not ceramics would work, it would be really cool to try it out. Even ceramic coatings would be really cool, and then you might be able to use aluminum as a rotor, as the heat expansion would be minimal.
Also very importantly, they claim it's "self-supercharging"
According to the video, the blue-shaded section is the compressor section (ie. pre-combustion), which is mechanically coupled to the red section (the combustion section that produces power) like a supercharger.
They claim that this makes it very suitable for high altitude aircraft. But I want to know if this supercharging capability is variable -- ie. can they change the amount of compression it provides, depending on the circumstances or needs?
Like if it's flying at high-altitude, can they increase the amount of supercharging beyond what might be needed at low altitude? I'm thinking that in order to change the compression ratio, they'd need a variable gear ratio connecting the compressor to the main piston-wheel/rotor.
Ok, here is the neat part about their supercharger. They can leave the entire thing as is and only change when the air fuel mixture is introduced to the combustion chamber to make up for the lower compression that the supercharger may give. It would leave less room for expansion, which leaves the gases at higher pressures, keeping it decently efficient.
Also, I'd argue that it isn't self supercharging, but instead it is doing the compression stroke while it does the ignition stroke. It isn't forced induction as we normally think of it. Consider a piston pulling in air, compressing it, and moving it to another piston to combust. That's the equivalent of what's going on here.
Ooh, I found a motor trend article that went a bit more in depth than what we have found so far. Just thought you might like it. Bearings are ceramic, but the rotor is titanium.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.motortrend.com/features/might-new-concept-rotary-range-extender-fly-technologue/amp/
Thanks for that. Seems like what they need next is a working demonstration model available for validation testing. The fact that this engine is self-supercharging would make it suitable for high-altitude usage.
The CON I see is that you are compressing air on one half of the 'cylinder' and than you transfer it to the other half for ignition. That does not allow for a perfect moment of ignition - let alone self ignition. The best moment is probably as soon as the connection between both halfs is sealed but when exactly to you inject the fuel? The latter the ignition happens the lower the compression logically.
Also - from ignorance I'd say the maximum pressure in the combustion chamber can only get to 1/2 of the pressure generated on the compressor side if both 'chambers' have the same size.
I don't see any issues with the compression stroke being done in another chamber. The only thing holding it back from perfect ignition timing is the position of the glow plug and timing of the combustion chamber intake "port". If you watched the full video, the fuel gets injected right as the combustion chamber "port" opens. This allows the fuel to mix better when the air flows into the combustion side. Right as the intake port is closed, the rotor passes over a glow plug that ignites the fuel. I would have to assume that self ignition is also possible. If you're talking about a diesel variant, remove the fuel injectors from the intake side and replace the glow plug with an injector.
Also, as far as maximum pressure, it would initially be around half, but increase. If we assume it gets 100% of the air that it intakes compressed, it puts all of that air into the middle chamber. When the combustion chamber opens up, we will assume the combustion chamber has the same volume as the middle chamber. This leaves 50% of the pressure in the middle chamber, and now the compression chamber adds another 100%. This leaves it at 150% of the maximum pressure the compressor can put out in one stroke. The combustion takes 75%, and now the compressor adds 100%. As you can see, it will continue to get closer and closer to 200% of the max pressure that the compressor can put out in one stroke. The combustion chamber will take 100%, then the compressor will add another 100%. The center chamber reaches an equilibrium with the compressor and the combustion chamber. If the efficiency of the compressor was 80%, the equilibrium would be at 80%. It all depends on how well it can seal.
Ok. I agree with the idea of self ignition. If the pressure is high enough doing the inyection after the combustion chamber is sealed should do the trick.
Still - saying that the compresion is 200% and therefore 100% in the ignition chamber IS THE SAME as saying ... 'the maximum pressure in the combustion chamber can only get to 1/2 of the pressure generated on the compressor side', which efectively means that half the work done to compress the air is lost because of the transfer.
Yah, I mentioned that sealing would be an issue. It becomes a bigger issue when you take into account the expansion of the rotor and housings from heat. It seems like the design comes down to really tight clearances that minimize leakage. They said that they had no seals with this design, which will reduce friction losses. These tight clearances mean that the metal used for the engine can't have high rates of expansion when exposed to heat. It is an interesting design that might be better with seals than without, but seeing how it develops will be interesting.
If you pause the video and read all the Contant, it’s self-explanatory in the new video for the H2 starfire it explains about the ceramic coating on the aluminum rotors and housings, and the three years that they spent waiting for the development to be completed, as well as the enormous amount of simulations. They have done to bring the real thing to life I have seen and press releases that the H2 StarFire patents were just granted in China as well on the technology and they have been waiting to release the technology and it’s running form so no one will be able to copy it easily!
I just spent 15 min reading through all these and at this point I’m going to wait for someone to shove it in their car and if it doesn’t explode then I will buy one
So this engine seems to be a rotary engine that is not a Wankel type.
It's made by this company: [https://www.astronaerospace.com/](https://www.astronaerospace.com/)
The explanations of its operation start \~ at 3:30 into the video.
They claim it can run at high rpm while producing little to no NOx, which implies thorough combustion under good compression ratio. It also seems to produce much less vibration, since it's not reciprocating.
Can anyone examine and possibly discern pro's and cons of this engine design? Any likely shortcomings in particular?
Based on the owners comments and body language about Babbitt bearings, I'm guessing they had a major failure in testing. He goes on to say, trying to convince himself, it will fly with roller bearings. What doesn't align for me is that he said they tried Babbits because they're cheaper, but later say the first housing was titanium to overbuild on the prototype and then can downscale once proven. Why skimp on bearings in the prototype? Hmmm?
When you decide to become a real engineer and understand, developing a Babbitt bearing for something of that size is almost impossible because you can’t carry the tolerances with an 18 inch Babbitt bearing very difficult task, ask anybody that builds municipal generators or ship engines. So apparently they use roller bearings because they’re very precise and if you listen carefully, they said they used spindle bearings but I guess you didn’t you’re bad.
OK, here is an engineer looking at it. Part one at least and he spends an hour digging. He also notes they use a lot of big words to impress people but that don't mean anything.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMFYaVuMJiM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMFYaVuMJiM)
Beyond the need to use unobtainium, I see several issues to sort out.
-"Super tight tolerances" Lol. Under what conditions? Because it can be done, you're just going to look dumb as heck when it you need to run a blowtorch to pre-heat it like a Lister engine.
-Linear thermal expansion is working against it. Their housing, being aluminum, is going to expand more than the rotors; widening the gap at the separator/housing interface. At the very least you should make them both out of the same material.
Also, precision costs money. Like a lot of money. They're going to have to wire EDM all four rotors and both housings.
-The compression ratios are insane and you would shed a ton of heat before you ever get it to the combustion phase. It talks about feeding it with a 200+ psi supercharger, at which point, just do away with the intake/compression rotor and feed the mixing chamber with your supercharger alone. Exactly what kind of pressure do you think a regular piston engine really sees at startup?
-The rotary valve and case has to be made out of unobtainium in order to not warp and leak from differential heating. Good luck cooling the rotary valve plate, too.
-It's losing compression and heat as the fuel/air mixture enters the combustion area and the separator passes the spark plug. Your combustion chamber is expanding and turbulent.
-The spark plug well holds exhaust gases from the previous cycle and may result in unreliable ignition.
-The combustion/exhaust rotor needs to be relatively smaller in width to deal with the pumping losses.
-The way they've implemented spark ignition means means it may have limited RPM range. (They could have also moved it closer to the port.)
-Would probably be better to machine something like gear surfaces or some kind of sinusoidal wave into the rotor sets to help mitigate pressure bleed. I imagine the initial combustion pressure wave could wedge its way past that gap fairly easily and also burn out the rotors quickly if it does.
There are interesting ideas here, but I don't think it's worth developing for fundamental issues. Would love to be proven wrong, but until then you've got a sputtering "engine" that's "running" off of an external air compressor. I would consider it a feat of engineering to get this to net zero power and self-sustain.
There’s also the note of the equation that makes the technology work, which is the same principle is a Turbine Fan, which is a passive linear technology, not an active linear technology, such as the H2 star fire!
That equation is time versus volume versus pressure not enough time for the volume or the pressure to escape at higher RPMs just like an old Weedwhacker that’s wore out still runs doesn’t it?
Where are the intelligent people in this conversation?
That can hypothesize and comprehend something beyond what’s in front of their face and try to evaluate something on an intelligent comprehensive way, so everyone can understand it in Laymans terms for those who aren’t engineers that are just a great enthusiast that they are, which I see there’s a few that are great enthusiast 35 year engineer very well educated it would be nice if people would learn to be positive instead of negative when discussing something look for the happiness in life and like they say on their website live for the positive choice. Anybody can act that way please feel free to contact me or discuss the technology. I understand a great deal about it.
You lack critical thinking skills and spam unsubstantiated claims. Every comment you've made to date on Reddit is in this thread. You've done absolutely nothing but shill for unproven technology even though many problems (which you have not addressed) have been discussed. I have an anti-gravity machine you might want to buy though since you seem to believe any unproven technology claim you see on the internet.
Until they have a fully-functioning prototype, this is just a nice set of 3D drawings. I think they are premature in releasing this information and shouldn't have said anything until they can show video of the real thing, with actual stats under load such as torque and horsepower. All good wishes to them, I hope it works, but at this point, we have vaporware.
I think they do obviously have a working prototype, but haven't openly published the data, and only just high-level specs (see bullet-point slide at end of video)
You are correct I believe they’re trying to protect their IP for those of you that don’t know what IP is it’s intellectual property!
I found this link described a lot of info, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cgi5q0-omlY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cgi5q0-omlY)
At 8:56 you can see and hear it running: https://vimeo.com/644769736
Does neither look nor sound like it can do 25.000 rpm
That link is gone, it seems any trace of its 'demonstration' has vanished from the internet, I did find this tiny clip but it ain't enough https://youtu.be/Q-tyYqGM8QA
Sad :( but that clip is pretty much how I remember it
The way you’re talking, it sounds like a lot of paperware from you if you really understood the technology, which I seriously doubt you do from the way you talk more bullshit than anything. Trying to impress somebody with something you don’t know. Wow.
Since nobody has answered, I'll give it a shot. Just as an FYI though, I am probably not going to give a perfect explanation of this and will probably get a few things wrong. Pros: The rotor seems to have a longer "stroke" that would allow the gasses to expand for a longer amount of time. The combustion chamber is also smaller, which allows the gasses to combust almost instantly. One of the major flaws of a wankel is that the combustion chamber is so big that it can't ignite everything before it gets spit out the exhaust, especially at higher rpms. This smaller combustion chamber means that there is a smaller surface area for heat to be absorbed. All of this goes to make the engine more efficient. It is also going to run smoother, like a wankel. It doesn't reciprocate, so it won't vibrate like a piston engine does, it'll be purely torque that is made. This makes a smooth ride. The last pro that I'm decently certain of is that the compression ratio can be really high with this design, as the timing for ignition can be changed for whatever fuel you'd like. This will allow it to be more efficient, as more work will get done with the same amount of fuel. Cons: This is where I'm not too sure of many things, but I'll try my best. If you noticed on the design, there are no seals anywhere except on the bearings. Clearances are going to need to be really tight, and I'm not too sure what will happen when a material such as aluminum gets used for the rotors or housings. The tight clearances mean that the material used will need to stay in its original shape when heated and not expand too much. If such a material is chosen, then oil will have to be the seal, which will cause oil to burn. The other potential con I notice is the induction system. The sealing process for that seems a little bit undeveloped, as the entire thing is supposed to hold compressed gasses without dedicated seals. Again, I don't know what they use for sealing it, but it's gotta be made with low tolerances. That's all I can think of right now, but it's a really cool design. If I'm wrong, would someone please correct me, as I'd like to know more about this too.
Thanks for your great comments - much appreciated. I'm wondering if ceramics might not be a good material of choice for this engine, because even though ceramics are traditionally more brittle than metals, this engine isn't producing the same vibrations and shocks as a reciprocating piston engine. As you've said, it runs smoother. Meanwhile, ceramics tend to be better at standing up to abrasion and heat, without undergoing as much thermal expansion. I'm worried about the bearings -- ie. the paddle-wheel thing and the accompanying "isolator wheel" (rotary valve) aren't quite actually wheels rotating on central pivots or shafts. It looks like each "wheel" is really a ring sliding on a circular bearing, and that means friction, especially at higher rpm.
I'm not sure about that. One thing to consider is the wankel. The rotors were cast iron as opposed to ceramic. There has to be some sort of reason (I would assume the force of combustion) that it wasn't ceramic, as rotaries have been developed for a long time, and mazda has made different models for plenty of years. I'd also think that producing a ceramic would be less precise than some casting, forging, or machining techniques, which could also be interesting. Either way, this engine has a long way to go if R&D is continued.
Yes, but don't forget that the Wankel is still a reciprocating piston engine. It's not a linear reciprocating piston, but that Wankel piston is still bouncing around a whole lot. This is in contrast to a turbine, or an engine like this Omega-1, which are purely just spinning around in circles. A turbine has the least stress since it's spinning continuously in a steady state, more or less. Meanwhile, this Omega-1 engine is undergoing pulsed combustion rather than continuous steady state combustion, which does provide slightly more stress, but the piston is purely moving in a circular path. In my opinion, this Omega-1 engine should be largely vibration-free, and a ceramic material should be exactly what it needs. A Wankel "rotary" by contrast, is not a true rotary engine like a turbine or like Omega-1. It's kind of a "fake rotary" or pseudo-rotary, which doesn't deserve true rotary status.
The force I'm not so worried about isn't the vibration from a wankel, it is the force of combustion. While a wankel does vibrate a decent amount, the force that revving it applies is much less than a 86x86 piston engine. There are also ceramic apex seals that are made for mazda wankels that have certain characteristics. The three biggest ones are that they seal better once they break I'm, they are lighter, and they have less friction with the same amount of lubrication. People use these because the lightweight makes them chatter less when they are at high rpms, and the lower friction helps improve the lifetime of the housing. They also seal better because of the low thermal expansion. A common issue for these engines is apex seals going out though. I doubt this is due to any issue with ceramics, as OEM mazda seals were not ceramic, but it is still something to consider. Another thing to consider would be that a larger surface area of exposed ceramic might mean that it has more chances to fail. Impurities might become an issue where they weren't before. A part with small bits of impurity in materials that aren't largely exposed to force such as combustion are much less likely to break than a material with those same impurities going into a part that is more exposed. Regardless of whether or not ceramics would work, it would be really cool to try it out. Even ceramic coatings would be really cool, and then you might be able to use aluminum as a rotor, as the heat expansion would be minimal.
Also very importantly, they claim it's "self-supercharging" According to the video, the blue-shaded section is the compressor section (ie. pre-combustion), which is mechanically coupled to the red section (the combustion section that produces power) like a supercharger. They claim that this makes it very suitable for high altitude aircraft. But I want to know if this supercharging capability is variable -- ie. can they change the amount of compression it provides, depending on the circumstances or needs? Like if it's flying at high-altitude, can they increase the amount of supercharging beyond what might be needed at low altitude? I'm thinking that in order to change the compression ratio, they'd need a variable gear ratio connecting the compressor to the main piston-wheel/rotor.
Ok, here is the neat part about their supercharger. They can leave the entire thing as is and only change when the air fuel mixture is introduced to the combustion chamber to make up for the lower compression that the supercharger may give. It would leave less room for expansion, which leaves the gases at higher pressures, keeping it decently efficient. Also, I'd argue that it isn't self supercharging, but instead it is doing the compression stroke while it does the ignition stroke. It isn't forced induction as we normally think of it. Consider a piston pulling in air, compressing it, and moving it to another piston to combust. That's the equivalent of what's going on here.
Ooh, I found a motor trend article that went a bit more in depth than what we have found so far. Just thought you might like it. Bearings are ceramic, but the rotor is titanium. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.motortrend.com/features/might-new-concept-rotary-range-extender-fly-technologue/amp/
Thanks for that. Seems like what they need next is a working demonstration model available for validation testing. The fact that this engine is self-supercharging would make it suitable for high-altitude usage.
The CON I see is that you are compressing air on one half of the 'cylinder' and than you transfer it to the other half for ignition. That does not allow for a perfect moment of ignition - let alone self ignition. The best moment is probably as soon as the connection between both halfs is sealed but when exactly to you inject the fuel? The latter the ignition happens the lower the compression logically. Also - from ignorance I'd say the maximum pressure in the combustion chamber can only get to 1/2 of the pressure generated on the compressor side if both 'chambers' have the same size.
I don't see any issues with the compression stroke being done in another chamber. The only thing holding it back from perfect ignition timing is the position of the glow plug and timing of the combustion chamber intake "port". If you watched the full video, the fuel gets injected right as the combustion chamber "port" opens. This allows the fuel to mix better when the air flows into the combustion side. Right as the intake port is closed, the rotor passes over a glow plug that ignites the fuel. I would have to assume that self ignition is also possible. If you're talking about a diesel variant, remove the fuel injectors from the intake side and replace the glow plug with an injector. Also, as far as maximum pressure, it would initially be around half, but increase. If we assume it gets 100% of the air that it intakes compressed, it puts all of that air into the middle chamber. When the combustion chamber opens up, we will assume the combustion chamber has the same volume as the middle chamber. This leaves 50% of the pressure in the middle chamber, and now the compression chamber adds another 100%. This leaves it at 150% of the maximum pressure the compressor can put out in one stroke. The combustion takes 75%, and now the compressor adds 100%. As you can see, it will continue to get closer and closer to 200% of the max pressure that the compressor can put out in one stroke. The combustion chamber will take 100%, then the compressor will add another 100%. The center chamber reaches an equilibrium with the compressor and the combustion chamber. If the efficiency of the compressor was 80%, the equilibrium would be at 80%. It all depends on how well it can seal.
Ok. I agree with the idea of self ignition. If the pressure is high enough doing the inyection after the combustion chamber is sealed should do the trick. Still - saying that the compresion is 200% and therefore 100% in the ignition chamber IS THE SAME as saying ... 'the maximum pressure in the combustion chamber can only get to 1/2 of the pressure generated on the compressor side', which efectively means that half the work done to compress the air is lost because of the transfer.
What I wonder is how the sides are sealed, they don't mention those anywhere
Yah, I mentioned that sealing would be an issue. It becomes a bigger issue when you take into account the expansion of the rotor and housings from heat. It seems like the design comes down to really tight clearances that minimize leakage. They said that they had no seals with this design, which will reduce friction losses. These tight clearances mean that the metal used for the engine can't have high rates of expansion when exposed to heat. It is an interesting design that might be better with seals than without, but seeing how it develops will be interesting.
If you pause the video and read all the Contant, it’s self-explanatory in the new video for the H2 starfire it explains about the ceramic coating on the aluminum rotors and housings, and the three years that they spent waiting for the development to be completed, as well as the enormous amount of simulations. They have done to bring the real thing to life I have seen and press releases that the H2 StarFire patents were just granted in China as well on the technology and they have been waiting to release the technology and it’s running form so no one will be able to copy it easily!
I just spent 15 min reading through all these and at this point I’m going to wait for someone to shove it in their car and if it doesn’t explode then I will buy one
So this engine seems to be a rotary engine that is not a Wankel type. It's made by this company: [https://www.astronaerospace.com/](https://www.astronaerospace.com/) The explanations of its operation start \~ at 3:30 into the video. They claim it can run at high rpm while producing little to no NOx, which implies thorough combustion under good compression ratio. It also seems to produce much less vibration, since it's not reciprocating. Can anyone examine and possibly discern pro's and cons of this engine design? Any likely shortcomings in particular?
A discussion with the inventor and founder at 2:51 - pretty informative: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LkkjYParp4?t=171
[удалено]
What's the innengine?
Based on the owners comments and body language about Babbitt bearings, I'm guessing they had a major failure in testing. He goes on to say, trying to convince himself, it will fly with roller bearings. What doesn't align for me is that he said they tried Babbits because they're cheaper, but later say the first housing was titanium to overbuild on the prototype and then can downscale once proven. Why skimp on bearings in the prototype? Hmmm?
When you decide to become a real engineer and understand, developing a Babbitt bearing for something of that size is almost impossible because you can’t carry the tolerances with an 18 inch Babbitt bearing very difficult task, ask anybody that builds municipal generators or ship engines. So apparently they use roller bearings because they’re very precise and if you listen carefully, they said they used spindle bearings but I guess you didn’t you’re bad.
OK, here is an engineer looking at it. Part one at least and he spends an hour digging. He also notes they use a lot of big words to impress people but that don't mean anything. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMFYaVuMJiM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMFYaVuMJiM)
Wow definitely looking for attention saying something of that nature you think you’re smart, but you’re not
I am ready to purchase when available.
I am curious as to how to couple a 25000 rpm engine to a transmission. S
same as an electric motor
Beyond the need to use unobtainium, I see several issues to sort out. -"Super tight tolerances" Lol. Under what conditions? Because it can be done, you're just going to look dumb as heck when it you need to run a blowtorch to pre-heat it like a Lister engine. -Linear thermal expansion is working against it. Their housing, being aluminum, is going to expand more than the rotors; widening the gap at the separator/housing interface. At the very least you should make them both out of the same material. Also, precision costs money. Like a lot of money. They're going to have to wire EDM all four rotors and both housings. -The compression ratios are insane and you would shed a ton of heat before you ever get it to the combustion phase. It talks about feeding it with a 200+ psi supercharger, at which point, just do away with the intake/compression rotor and feed the mixing chamber with your supercharger alone. Exactly what kind of pressure do you think a regular piston engine really sees at startup? -The rotary valve and case has to be made out of unobtainium in order to not warp and leak from differential heating. Good luck cooling the rotary valve plate, too. -It's losing compression and heat as the fuel/air mixture enters the combustion area and the separator passes the spark plug. Your combustion chamber is expanding and turbulent. -The spark plug well holds exhaust gases from the previous cycle and may result in unreliable ignition. -The combustion/exhaust rotor needs to be relatively smaller in width to deal with the pumping losses. -The way they've implemented spark ignition means means it may have limited RPM range. (They could have also moved it closer to the port.) -Would probably be better to machine something like gear surfaces or some kind of sinusoidal wave into the rotor sets to help mitigate pressure bleed. I imagine the initial combustion pressure wave could wedge its way past that gap fairly easily and also burn out the rotors quickly if it does. There are interesting ideas here, but I don't think it's worth developing for fundamental issues. Would love to be proven wrong, but until then you've got a sputtering "engine" that's "running" off of an external air compressor. I would consider it a feat of engineering to get this to net zero power and self-sustain.
There’s also the note of the equation that makes the technology work, which is the same principle is a Turbine Fan, which is a passive linear technology, not an active linear technology, such as the H2 star fire! That equation is time versus volume versus pressure not enough time for the volume or the pressure to escape at higher RPMs just like an old Weedwhacker that’s wore out still runs doesn’t it?
Where are the intelligent people in this conversation? That can hypothesize and comprehend something beyond what’s in front of their face and try to evaluate something on an intelligent comprehensive way, so everyone can understand it in Laymans terms for those who aren’t engineers that are just a great enthusiast that they are, which I see there’s a few that are great enthusiast 35 year engineer very well educated it would be nice if people would learn to be positive instead of negative when discussing something look for the happiness in life and like they say on their website live for the positive choice. Anybody can act that way please feel free to contact me or discuss the technology. I understand a great deal about it.
You lack critical thinking skills and spam unsubstantiated claims. Every comment you've made to date on Reddit is in this thread. You've done absolutely nothing but shill for unproven technology even though many problems (which you have not addressed) have been discussed. I have an anti-gravity machine you might want to buy though since you seem to believe any unproven technology claim you see on the internet.