Engines no image

Published on June 26th, 2008 | by Nick Chambers

215

Low Cost Gas Engine Innovation Doubles Fuel Economy

June 26th, 2008 by  
 

X4v2 Engine Picture

[social_buttons]

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. Oh yeah, did I mention that it doubles the fuel economy too.

What that means is a car like the 2007 Toyota Yaris, which is rated at 40 mpg on the highway, would get 80 mpg with a Revetec engine.

This isn’t some hoax… They have a prototype which has been attached to an actual vehicle and independently tested to substantiate their claims.

In personal communication with Mr. Brad Howell-Smith, the Chairman, Inventor and CAD Designer for Revetec, he says “road tests have estimated that [the engine] uses around 50% less fuel than a conventional engine” and if it were converted to run on diesel, that performance gain could be much higher.

Also, because the engine delivers higher torque, and can perform and operate well at much lower rpm’s than a conventional one, the noise levels are lower.

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.

X4v2 SchematicThe current prototype engine, the X4v2, is what Revetec calls a “controlled combustion engine.” The meat of the engine comprises two counter rotating multilobate cams, which are acted upon by two pairs of diametrically opposed pistons which are rigidly interlinked by connecting rods.

If that sounds like complete gibberish to you, you’re not alone. Which is why I included an animation of the process to the left. A more simplified animation of the general motion of an engine of this sort is also included below.

Mr. Howell-Smith said that “if [the engine] uses 50% less fuel given that it has the same top end as a conventional engine, emissions would be reduced by 50% if the bottom end was utilized.”

Revetec AnimationWhat does all that stuff about “bottom end” and “top end” mean? The X4v2 has a huge amount of torque over a much larger range of rpm’s than a conventional internal combustion engine.

If a person were to drive a vehicle fitted with this engine in a non-aggressive fashion and keep the rpm’s at the “bottom end” (meaning no “jack-rabbit” starts) they could expect to see a 50% reduction in emissions.

Alternatively, according to Mr. Howell-Smith, a person could see a 30% reduction in fuel use and a 30% reduction in emissions if they used the full acceleration power of the X4v2 all the time. This would provide a 20% increase in acceleration capabilities.

We could debate about whether or not the internal combustion engine has a place in the future of transportation or whether it’s going to be all-electric or fuel cell or whatever… but in the meantime, Revetec has a product that could revolutionize the the transportation industry now, and provide a much needed large reduction in fuel consumption and emissions.

Just imagine a bunch of 80 mpg Toyota Yarises (Yarisi??) running around all over the place. A little scary, I know, but… an 80 mpg conventional automobile? I must be dreaming, wake me up before I get too excited.

Posts Related to Engines and Fuel Economy:

Image Credits: Revetec


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


About the Author

Not your traditional car guy.



  • Ronald Orr

    http://www.rexresearch.com/caminez/1caminez.htm

    This is very much like the Caminez Aircraft engine of the 1920s.

    Popular Science Magazine (August 1926)

    “Amazing New Motor Runs without Crankshaft or Gears”

    Possible revolutionizing of the production of gasoline motors is seen in the invention of an amazing type of engine that recently made a successful airplane test flight at Farmingdale, LI. Its inventor is Harold Caminez, formerly of the Engine Design Section, US Army Air Service.

    Internally, the novel motor is constructed along radically different lines from other aircraft engines. There is no crankshaft. Nor are there timing gears.

    In place of the usual crankshaft there a plain, straight shaft on which is mounted a large steel cam that is shaped like a figure 8. It is placed directly in line with the centers of the cylinders so that it engages with roller bearings mounted in each piston. These roller bearings are specially built with large diameter outer races. Four lightweight connecting rods or links are so arranged on bearings in each piston that when the cam pushes the pistons in two of the cylinders toward the cylinder head, the links pull the other two pistons down and keep the roller bearings in them in contact with the cam. These links are far lighter than the connecting rods in the ordinary engine, because their only function is to pull the piston down on the intake stroke and they consequently do not have to bear any of the strain of the power stroke.

    Gasoline engines of the modern type develop the most power when they are run at high speed, higher in fact than is desirable for best efficiency with an airplane propeller. The new Caminez engine takes care of this difficulty in a most ingenious way. Because the cam is made like a figure 8 the pistons make two complete strokes up and down for each revolution of the shaft on which the cam is mounted. In an ordinary engine, the pistons make one stroke up and down for each revolution of the crankshaft. In other words, the shaft of the new engine revolves at half the usual speed. This means high and efficient speed for the pistons combined with the most desirable speed for the air propeller.

    Incidentally, this doubling up of the piston strokes means that no gears are needed to run a camshaft to operate the overhead valves. The main shaft of the Caminez engine turns at the same speed in relation to the piston movements as does the camshaft in the ordinary motor. He new engine therefore gets along without camshaft or gears to drive it.

    But of still more importance from the point of view of durability and smoothness of running is the fact that the new engine is the first four-cylinder motor that is inherently balanced mechanically so that there is no vibration caused by the moving parts.

  • Ronald Orr

    http://www.rexresearch.com/caminez/1caminez.htm

    This is very much like the Caminez Aircraft engine of the 1920s.

    Popular Science Magazine (August 1926)

    “Amazing New Motor Runs without Crankshaft or Gears”

    Possible revolutionizing of the production of gasoline motors is seen in the invention of an amazing type of engine that recently made a successful airplane test flight at Farmingdale, LI. Its inventor is Harold Caminez, formerly of the Engine Design Section, US Army Air Service.

    Internally, the novel motor is constructed along radically different lines from other aircraft engines. There is no crankshaft. Nor are there timing gears.

    In place of the usual crankshaft there a plain, straight shaft on which is mounted a large steel cam that is shaped like a figure 8. It is placed directly in line with the centers of the cylinders so that it engages with roller bearings mounted in each piston. These roller bearings are specially built with large diameter outer races. Four lightweight connecting rods or links are so arranged on bearings in each piston that when the cam pushes the pistons in two of the cylinders toward the cylinder head, the links pull the other two pistons down and keep the roller bearings in them in contact with the cam. These links are far lighter than the connecting rods in the ordinary engine, because their only function is to pull the piston down on the intake stroke and they consequently do not have to bear any of the strain of the power stroke.

    Gasoline engines of the modern type develop the most power when they are run at high speed, higher in fact than is desirable for best efficiency with an airplane propeller. The new Caminez engine takes care of this difficulty in a most ingenious way. Because the cam is made like a figure 8 the pistons make two complete strokes up and down for each revolution of the shaft on which the cam is mounted. In an ordinary engine, the pistons make one stroke up and down for each revolution of the crankshaft. In other words, the shaft of the new engine revolves at half the usual speed. This means high and efficient speed for the pistons combined with the most desirable speed for the air propeller.

    Incidentally, this doubling up of the piston strokes means that no gears are needed to run a camshaft to operate the overhead valves. The main shaft of the Caminez engine turns at the same speed in relation to the piston movements as does the camshaft in the ordinary motor. He new engine therefore gets along without camshaft or gears to drive it.

    But of still more importance from the point of view of durability and smoothness of running is the fact that the new engine is the first four-cylinder motor that is inherently balanced mechanically so that there is no vibration caused by the moving parts.

  • Steve

    Why do I think this is a little fishy? Revetec’s stock trades at less than $.02 per share and the company has a market cap of around $3 million. If this company had anything really interesting, I somehow think someone would have bought an interesting amount of the stock.

  • Steve

    Why do I think this is a little fishy? Revetec’s stock trades at less than $.02 per share and the company has a market cap of around $3 million. If this company had anything really interesting, I somehow think someone would have bought an interesting amount of the stock.

  • Nick Chambers

    @ Steve

    Perhaps you’re right, but perhaps it’s only a matter of time before their stock takes off…

  • panic

    Why is there a lack of empirical evidence? This sounds a lot like the “50 mpg carburetor” to me. Just a bunch of fluff. Prove it to me.

  • panic

    Why is there a lack of empirical evidence? This sounds a lot like the “50 mpg carburetor” to me. Just a bunch of fluff. Prove it to me.

  • Nick Chambers

    @ panic

    Did you follow the links in the article to their testing pages?

    http://www.revetec.com/news097.htm

    http://www.revetec.com/news096.htm

    Do a little digging around in there and you’ll find independent testing results.

  • bragster

    Take a guess why everyone in Europe drives a diesel. A 1.4 liter D-4D diesel Yaris can get you as much as 64 mpg (in a fucking city traffic), with quite a lot of torque to go around (since it’s still a freaking diesel). A far cry from its pathetic 1.0 liter petrol brethren or any over-hyped hybrid for that matter… aaand unlike this wanna be tech it’s been around for quite a while now and is quite inexpensive.

    Still, I have my fingers crossed for Revetec to make this marketable.

  • bragster

    Take a guess why everyone in Europe drives a diesel. A 1.4 liter D-4D diesel Yaris can get you as much as 64 mpg (in a fucking city traffic), with quite a lot of torque to go around (since it’s still a freaking diesel). A far cry from its pathetic 1.0 liter petrol brethren or any over-hyped hybrid for that matter… aaand unlike this wanna be tech it’s been around for quite a while now and is quite inexpensive.

    Still, I have my fingers crossed for Revetec to make this marketable.

  • Space

    I had a look at their website

    and they claim an efficiency improvement from 32% to 39.5% (compared to regular gas engines)

    Where does that “doubles fuel economy” come from ?

    Do they claim it, or did you, Nick Chambers, make it up?

  • Space

    I had a look at their website

    and they claim an efficiency improvement from 32% to 39.5% (compared to regular gas engines)

    Where does that “doubles fuel economy” come from ?

    Do they claim it, or did you, Nick Chambers, make it up?

  • Nick Chambers

    @ Space

    I most definitely didn’t make it up, why would I do that? I even double checked my facts with the inventor, Brad Howell-Smith, to be sure I wasn’t misrepresenting his claims. I know it sounds crazy. The quote in the article from Mr. Howell-Smith clearly states it will use 50% less fuel, which, as confirmed with Mr. Howell-Smith, means a doubling of the fuel economy. I have an email from him to prove that he is indeed claiming that.

    Apparently, the mechanical efficiency of an engine only accounts for a portion of the fuel economy. In real on-road tests they have achieved a doubling of the fuel economy.

  • Justin

    How about just scrapping the conventional gas driven engine all together???

    Start assembling the infrastructure for hydrogen to take over. Then forget our dependence on foreign oil forever.

  • Justin

    How about just scrapping the conventional gas driven engine all together???

    Start assembling the infrastructure for hydrogen to take over. Then forget our dependence on foreign oil forever.

  • goober

    That engine in the picture most definately DOES have a f*cking cam shaft, 2 actually.

  • goober

    That engine in the picture most definately DOES have a f*cking cam shaft, 2 actually.

  • BJ

    I was wondering where I’ve heard about this before, then it hit me: http://autospeed.com/cms/A_1500/article.html

    This AutoSpeed article shed light on this technology six years ago. Too bad nobody has taken them up on it.

  • BJ

    I was wondering where I’ve heard about this before, then it hit me: http://autospeed.com/cms/A_1500/article.html

    This AutoSpeed article shed light on this technology six years ago. Too bad nobody has taken them up on it.

  • goobsaywhat

    *crank*shaft goober, and there is only 1 *actually*, and then 4 multilobe cams attached to said shaft.

  • goobsaywhat

    *crank*shaft goober, and there is only 1 *actually*, and then 4 multilobe cams attached to said shaft.

  • jabberwolf

    Justin – hydrogen idea doesnt work.

    It takes electricity to create hydrogen.

    With the amount of electricity to create X amount of hydrogen you get the equivilent of 20-30 MPG at best.

    And that electricity comes from powerplants that use fossil fuels.

    It would be more efficient to use PHEVs in the future to use that electricity to get about 100-150MPG.

  • jabberwolf

    Justin – hydrogen idea doesnt work.

    It takes electricity to create hydrogen.

    With the amount of electricity to create X amount of hydrogen you get the equivilent of 20-30 MPG at best.

    And that electricity comes from powerplants that use fossil fuels.

    It would be more efficient to use PHEVs in the future to use that electricity to get about 100-150MPG.

  • John

    @goober

    you’re confusing the pop sci comment with the article, nice one.

    ****

    interesting post, I hope their data and testing holds up and this results in something.

  • John

    @goober

    you’re confusing the pop sci comment with the article, nice one.

    ****

    interesting post, I hope their data and testing holds up and this results in something.

  • Ryd

    Go buy a Lupo, you will get that 80 mpg today.

  • Ryd

    Go buy a Lupo, you will get that 80 mpg today.

  • sanjosemike

    ROTARY ENGINES HAVE A HISTORY

    The Wankel Rotary Engine, developed in the 1960’s was marketed by Mazda. It never caught on because gas prices got cheap again. All Rotary engines produce greater power and use less fuel than “standard” combustion engines. It is obviously possible to “tweak” a rotary engine to get better mileage.

    This particular engine is not “exactly” a rotary, but very similar to it. It’s not a matter of technology folks, it’s a matter of stupid auto-makers….

    I have ZERO respect for Detroit. The Detroit manufacturers are over-paid and under-brained idiots. I was raised in Detroit and witnessed Japan taking over the auto industry, resulting in huge unemployment and terrible bust economies. Our family were victims of those economies.

    Those miserably stupid imbeciles who ran the auto companies just “retired” on their golden parachutes, leaving Detroit in shambles.

    Hear it loud and clear: “DON’T EXPECT ANYTHING FROM DETROIT!”

    I have a Prius and a standard Camry, both of which get better mileage than almost any American car, with the exception of a very, very few. I would NEVER purchase an American car…ever.

    I hope Detroit rots on the vine. And the last time I was there, it actually had.

    sanjosemike

  • sanjosemike

    ROTARY ENGINES HAVE A HISTORY

    The Wankel Rotary Engine, developed in the 1960’s was marketed by Mazda. It never caught on because gas prices got cheap again. All Rotary engines produce greater power and use less fuel than “standard” combustion engines. It is obviously possible to “tweak” a rotary engine to get better mileage.

    This particular engine is not “exactly” a rotary, but very similar to it. It’s not a matter of technology folks, it’s a matter of stupid auto-makers….

    I have ZERO respect for Detroit. The Detroit manufacturers are over-paid and under-brained idiots. I was raised in Detroit and witnessed Japan taking over the auto industry, resulting in huge unemployment and terrible bust economies. Our family were victims of those economies.

    Those miserably stupid imbeciles who ran the auto companies just “retired” on their golden parachutes, leaving Detroit in shambles.

    Hear it loud and clear: “DON’T EXPECT ANYTHING FROM DETROIT!”

    I have a Prius and a standard Camry, both of which get better mileage than almost any American car, with the exception of a very, very few. I would NEVER purchase an American car…ever.

    I hope Detroit rots on the vine. And the last time I was there, it actually had.

    sanjosemike

  • sanjosemike

    ROTARY ENGINES HAVE A HISTORY

    The Wankel Rotary Engine, developed in the 1960’s was marketed by Mazda. It never caught on because gas prices got cheap again. All Rotary engines produce greater power and use less fuel than “standard” combustion engines. It is obviously possible to “tweak” a rotary engine to get better mileage.

    This particular engine is not “exactly” a rotary, but very similar to it. It’s not a matter of technology folks, it’s a matter of stupid auto-makers….

    I have ZERO respect for Detroit. The Detroit manufacturers are over-paid and under-brained idiots. I was raised in Detroit and witnessed Japan taking over the auto industry, resulting in huge unemployment and terrible bust economies. Our family were victims of those economies.

    Those miserably stupid imbeciles who ran the auto companies just “retired” on their golden parachutes, leaving Detroit in shambles.

    Hear it loud and clear: “DON’T EXPECT ANYTHING FROM DETROIT!”

    I have a Prius and a standard Camry, both of which get better mileage than almost any American car, with the exception of a very, very few. I would NEVER purchase an American car…ever.

    I hope Detroit rots on the vine. And the last time I was there, it actually had.

    sanjosemike

  • sanjosemike

    ROTARY ENGINES HAVE A HISTORY

    The Wankel Rotary Engine, developed in the 1960’s was marketed by Mazda. It never caught on because gas prices got cheap again. All Rotary engines produce greater power and use less fuel than “standard” combustion engines. It is obviously possible to “tweak” a rotary engine to get better mileage.

    This particular engine is not “exactly” a rotary, but very similar to it. It’s not a matter of technology folks, it’s a matter of stupid auto-makers….

    I have ZERO respect for Detroit. The Detroit manufacturers are over-paid and under-brained idiots. I was raised in Detroit and witnessed Japan taking over the auto industry, resulting in huge unemployment and terrible bust economies. Our family were victims of those economies.

    Those miserably stupid imbeciles who ran the auto companies just “retired” on their golden parachutes, leaving Detroit in shambles.

    Hear it loud and clear: “DON’T EXPECT ANYTHING FROM DETROIT!”

    I have a Prius and a standard Camry, both of which get better mileage than almost any American car, with the exception of a very, very few. I would NEVER purchase an American car…ever.

    I hope Detroit rots on the vine. And the last time I was there, it actually had.

    sanjosemike

  • Pingback: An interesting engine « Wondering & Pondering’s Weblog()

  • Bob Lawblaw

    I get the concept but I see alot of twisting stress on the connecting rods between the pistons due to the counterrotating crank/cam shafts. It needs some measures to keep the pistons from turning and putting the stress on the connecting rod.

  • Bob Lawblaw

    I get the concept but I see alot of twisting stress on the connecting rods between the pistons due to the counterrotating crank/cam shafts. It needs some measures to keep the pistons from turning and putting the stress on the connecting rod.

  • Goober, no one said that the engine in the picture DOESN’T have a camshaft… the engine with no camshaft comment was talking about an engine designed in the 1920s.

  • Goober, no one said that the engine in the picture DOESN’T have a camshaft… the engine with no camshaft comment was talking about an engine designed in the 1920s.

  • Pingback: Low cost gas engine doubles fuel economy - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum()

  • Jeffrey

    This 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.

  • Jeffrey

    This 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.

  • Jeffrey

    This 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.

  • Matt in Eugene

    Actually, the “crankshaft” is really a camshaft, as it is a shaft with cams on it…

  • Matt in Eugene

    Actually, the “crankshaft” is really a camshaft, as it is a shaft with cams on it…

  • Matt in Eugene

    Actually, the “crankshaft” is really a camshaft, as it is a shaft with cams on it…

  • velton

    All of this new science is great ,but most of the poor can’t afford this stuff. what about them??

  • velton

    All of this new science is great ,but most of the poor can’t afford this stuff. what about them??

  • velton

    All of this new science is great ,but most of the poor can’t afford this stuff. what about them??

  • andrew

    “Apparently, the mechanical efficiency of an engine only accounts for a portion of the fuel economy. In real on-road tests they have achieved a doubling of the fuel economy.”

    Yes, of course. The 50% reduction in weight would also help bump up fuel mileage. The smaller size could also mean smaller cars (or at least smaller engine compartments) which would further cut down on weight.

  • andrew

    “Apparently, the mechanical efficiency of an engine only accounts for a portion of the fuel economy. In real on-road tests they have achieved a doubling of the fuel economy.”

    Yes, of course. The 50% reduction in weight would also help bump up fuel mileage. The smaller size could also mean smaller cars (or at least smaller engine compartments) which would further cut down on weight.

  • andrew

    “Apparently, the mechanical efficiency of an engine only accounts for a portion of the fuel economy. In real on-road tests they have achieved a doubling of the fuel economy.”

    Yes, of course. The 50% reduction in weight would also help bump up fuel mileage. The smaller size could also mean smaller cars (or at least smaller engine compartments) which would further cut down on weight.

  • Brian

    Diesels are not in the US because the government does not subsidize the cost of diesel, like in Euro Land and because the US and state governments believe diesels pollute too much.

  • Brian

    Diesels are not in the US because the government does not subsidize the cost of diesel, like in Euro Land and because the US and state governments believe diesels pollute too much.

  • Brian

    Diesels are not in the US because the government does not subsidize the cost of diesel, like in Euro Land and because the US and state governments believe diesels pollute too much.

  • Brian

    It is more energy to create the hydrogen then to just use oil.

  • Brian

    It is more energy to create the hydrogen then to just use oil.

  • Brian

    It is more energy to create the hydrogen then to just use oil.

  • Brian

    It is more energy to create the hydrogen then to just use oil.

  • Brian

    It is more energy to create the hydrogen then to just use oil.

  • @Space, the engine’s rate of fuel consumption dropped much more than compared to its rate of power production. So it was still pushing out, but using much less gas compared to the control car.

    From: http://www.revetec.com/news097.htm

    “Brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC) is a measure of an engine’s efficiency. It is the rate of fuel consumption divided by the rate of power production. BSFC is specific for the reciprocating engine.”

    “A typical cycle average value of BSFC for a gasoline engine is 322 g/(kW•h). This means the average efficiency of a gasoline engine is only 25%. A reciprocating engine achieves maximum efficiency when the intake air is unthrottled and the engine power is high enough to overcome its internal losses. For a gasoline engine, the most efficient BSFC is approximately 256 g/(kW•h) or an efficiency of 32%.

    Efficiency is lower at other operating conditions. As seen above, lower values of BSFC mean higher engine efficiency.”

    —-

    Although, in the “Official” report, is this normal when testing an engine? 5 seconds?

    From: http://www.revetec.com/pdf/REVETEC%20X4V2%20Engine%20Evaluation%20Report_final.pdf page 5

    “During the full load engine testing, the engine was only operated for approximately 5 seconds at each engine speed, fuel flow and exhaust gas emissions were therefore not measured. The power and torque measured at full load were corrected for atmospheric conditions according to ISO 1585.”

    -b

  • @Space, the engine’s rate of fuel consumption dropped much more than compared to its rate of power production. So it was still pushing out, but using much less gas compared to the control car.

    From: http://www.revetec.com/news097.htm

    “Brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC) is a measure of an engine’s efficiency. It is the rate of fuel consumption divided by the rate of power production. BSFC is specific for the reciprocating engine.”

    “A typical cycle average value of BSFC for a gasoline engine is 322 g/(kW•h). This means the average efficiency of a gasoline engine is only 25%. A reciprocating engine achieves maximum efficiency when the intake air is unthrottled and the engine power is high enough to overcome its internal losses. For a gasoline engine, the most efficient BSFC is approximately 256 g/(kW•h) or an efficiency of 32%.

    Efficiency is lower at other operating conditions. As seen above, lower values of BSFC mean higher engine efficiency.”

    —-

    Although, in the “Official” report, is this normal when testing an engine? 5 seconds?

    From: http://www.revetec.com/pdf/REVETEC%20X4V2%20Engine%20Evaluation%20Report_final.pdf page 5

    “During the full load engine testing, the engine was only operated for approximately 5 seconds at each engine speed, fuel flow and exhaust gas emissions were therefore not measured. The power and torque measured at full load were corrected for atmospheric conditions according to ISO 1585.”

    -b

  • @Space, the engine’s rate of fuel consumption dropped much more than compared to its rate of power production. So it was still pushing out, but using much less gas compared to the control car.

    From: http://www.revetec.com/news097.htm

    “Brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC) is a measure of an engine’s efficiency. It is the rate of fuel consumption divided by the rate of power production. BSFC is specific for the reciprocating engine.”

    “A typical cycle average value of BSFC for a gasoline engine is 322 g/(kW•h). This means the average efficiency of a gasoline engine is only 25%. A reciprocating engine achieves maximum efficiency when the intake air is unthrottled and the engine power is high enough to overcome its internal losses. For a gasoline engine, the most efficient BSFC is approximately 256 g/(kW•h) or an efficiency of 32%.

    Efficiency is lower at other operating conditions. As seen above, lower values of BSFC mean higher engine efficiency.”

    —-

    Although, in the “Official” report, is this normal when testing an engine? 5 seconds?

    From: http://www.revetec.com/pdf/REVETEC%20X4V2%20Engine%20Evaluation%20Report_final.pdf page 5

    “During the full load engine testing, the engine was only operated for approximately 5 seconds at each engine speed, fuel flow and exhaust gas emissions were therefore not measured. The power and torque measured at full load were corrected for atmospheric conditions according to ISO 1585.”

    -b

  • rueben

    From the cad designs it does look like this engine operates well at lower speeds with good torque but there are inherent flaws in the initial design which can probably looked at further into the process. Such things as space, for essentially a 4-banger it takes up quite a bit of space. It would do better to do a 8 or 16 cylinder version as a diesel engine for the trucking industry. The current engine designs today maximize space savings in the v formation or in straight inline versions which isn’t necessarily the most efficient design but is cost effective to make.

    Also this engine would be alot more expensive to build inherent in it’s overall design. It seems to have a central engine housing (block) with 4 seperate chambers housing the pistons which seem to be made of aluminum alloy. So a good bit more metal is used for essentially a 4-cylinder. With a compression ratio of 10:1 I can see where some of the extra torque comes from. But as a diesel it would definitely need to be beefed up to handle a copression ratio of probably 22:1 for this engine design.(meaning more metal used)

    Although I like the design of using straight pushing and pulling vs angular momentum to gain efficiency the flaws of using a rotary mechanism are wear and tear on the rotary part and adjacent part can seriously hinder performance, which was the downfall of the original mazda rx-7. If the parts are made of hardened materials then I can see some hope for this.

    A long running 100,000 mile or more stress wear and tear test on this engine will truly show if these issues have been addressed but only time will tell if this design has hope. I wish them the best of luck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • rueben

    From the cad designs it does look like this engine operates well at lower speeds with good torque but there are inherent flaws in the initial design which can probably looked at further into the process. Such things as space, for essentially a 4-banger it takes up quite a bit of space. It would do better to do a 8 or 16 cylinder version as a diesel engine for the trucking industry. The current engine designs today maximize space savings in the v formation or in straight inline versions which isn’t necessarily the most efficient design but is cost effective to make.

    Also this engine would be alot more expensive to build inherent in it’s overall design. It seems to have a central engine housing (block) with 4 seperate chambers housing the pistons which seem to be made of aluminum alloy. So a good bit more metal is used for essentially a 4-cylinder. With a compression ratio of 10:1 I can see where some of the extra torque comes from. But as a diesel it would definitely need to be beefed up to handle a copression ratio of probably 22:1 for this engine design.(meaning more metal used)

    Although I like the design of using straight pushing and pulling vs angular momentum to gain efficiency the flaws of using a rotary mechanism are wear and tear on the rotary part and adjacent part can seriously hinder performance, which was the downfall of the original mazda rx-7. If the parts are made of hardened materials then I can see some hope for this.

    A long running 100,000 mile or more stress wear and tear test on this engine will truly show if these issues have been addressed but only time will tell if this design has hope. I wish them the best of luck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • I hope this technology doesn’t get bought up by Exxon and shelved like all the others.

  • I hope this technology doesn’t get bought up by Exxon and shelved like all the others.

  • I hope this technology doesn’t get bought up by Exxon and shelved like all the others.

  • I hope this technology doesn’t get bought up by Exxon and shelved like all the others.

  • Pingback: A nice article for the mechanically minded - The Biker Forum()

  • Ralph

    “Forget about electric cars because it requires us to plug on electric outlets as long as electricity is running.”

    You can produce you own electricity Via windmills, solar panels.

  • Ralph

    “Forget about electric cars because it requires us to plug on electric outlets as long as electricity is running.”

    You can produce you own electricity Via windmills, solar panels.

  • Ralph

    “Forget about electric cars because it requires us to plug on electric outlets as long as electricity is running.”

    You can produce you own electricity Via windmills, solar panels.

  • @velton:

    “Let them eat cake” – Marie Antoinette

  • @velton:

    “Let them eat cake” – Marie Antoinette

  • @velton:

    “Let them eat cake” – Marie Antoinette

  • Dereck

    that thing looks almost like a cross between a rotary/wankel engine and a aircooled volkswagen engine. it definitely looks real to me, but I don’t see how it could be more fuel efficient than a conventional 4 cylinder engine. it has the same amount of valve train. the only real difference is the cylinder layout, use of a central “rod” for each pair of pistons, and 2 huge triangle crank counterweight cam lobe type things. it definitely looks cool. It would be called an X4 instead of an I4 or inline 4, right? I have no idea how that would fit inside a toyota prius though. I think it would fit inside my ’68 vw bug 🙂 .

  • Dereck

    that thing looks almost like a cross between a rotary/wankel engine and a aircooled volkswagen engine. it definitely looks real to me, but I don’t see how it could be more fuel efficient than a conventional 4 cylinder engine. it has the same amount of valve train. the only real difference is the cylinder layout, use of a central “rod” for each pair of pistons, and 2 huge triangle crank counterweight cam lobe type things. it definitely looks cool. It would be called an X4 instead of an I4 or inline 4, right? I have no idea how that would fit inside a toyota prius though. I think it would fit inside my ’68 vw bug 🙂 .

  • Dereck

    that thing looks almost like a cross between a rotary/wankel engine and a aircooled volkswagen engine. it definitely looks real to me, but I don’t see how it could be more fuel efficient than a conventional 4 cylinder engine. it has the same amount of valve train. the only real difference is the cylinder layout, use of a central “rod” for each pair of pistons, and 2 huge triangle crank counterweight cam lobe type things. it definitely looks cool. It would be called an X4 instead of an I4 or inline 4, right? I have no idea how that would fit inside a toyota prius though. I think it would fit inside my ’68 vw bug 🙂 .

  • @nick

    Claims published on manufacturers != claims published elsewhere.

    Nevertheless, it sounds like an interesting concept. Wenkel pitched his rotary engine to numerous car manufacturers before Mazda actually moved on it. I think this engine shows promise, though I’m also suspicious of the mileage claims.

  • @nick

    Claims published on manufacturers != claims published elsewhere.

    Nevertheless, it sounds like an interesting concept. Wenkel pitched his rotary engine to numerous car manufacturers before Mazda actually moved on it. I think this engine shows promise, though I’m also suspicious of the mileage claims.

  • @nick

    Claims published on manufacturers != claims published elsewhere.

    Nevertheless, it sounds like an interesting concept. Wenkel pitched his rotary engine to numerous car manufacturers before Mazda actually moved on it. I think this engine shows promise, though I’m also suspicious of the mileage claims.

  • @nick

    Claims published on manufacturers != claims published elsewhere.

    Nevertheless, it sounds like an interesting concept. Wenkel pitched his rotary engine to numerous car manufacturers before Mazda actually moved on it. I think this engine shows promise, though I’m also suspicious of the mileage claims.

  • john

    Well the claimed efficiency only comes from the reduced engine weight and assuming no car body or something. More on it on the offical site. Smaller/lighter engine == good, but not really a miracle. I personally like to see how stable it is, it would appear to cause far less vibrations than a normal engine would.

  • john

    Well the claimed efficiency only comes from the reduced engine weight and assuming no car body or something. More on it on the offical site. Smaller/lighter engine == good, but not really a miracle. I personally like to see how stable it is, it would appear to cause far less vibrations than a normal engine would.

  • john

    Well the claimed efficiency only comes from the reduced engine weight and assuming no car body or something. More on it on the offical site. Smaller/lighter engine == good, but not really a miracle. I personally like to see how stable it is, it would appear to cause far less vibrations than a normal engine would.

  • JimmyDoLItt

    Wow, that is pretty radical. Reminds me of the Mazda Rotary engine.

    JT

    http://www.Ultimate-Anonymity.com

  • JimmyDoLItt

    Wow, that is pretty radical. Reminds me of the Mazda Rotary engine.

    JT

    http://www.Ultimate-Anonymity.com

  • JimmyDoLItt

    Wow, that is pretty radical. Reminds me of the Mazda Rotary engine.

    JT

    http://www.Ultimate-Anonymity.com

  • JimmyDoLItt

    Wow, that is pretty radical. Reminds me of the Mazda Rotary engine.

    JT

    http://www.Ultimate-Anonymity.com

  • JimmyDoLItt

    Wow, that is pretty radical. Reminds me of the Mazda Rotary engine.

    JT

    http://www.Ultimate-Anonymity.com

  • GeeWhizBang

    The engine looks very badly designed to my engineering-trained eye. Their design appears to have way too much reciprocating weight, requiring incredibly heavy connecting rods, which would really make it very hard for the engine to rev freely.

    It looks like it is designed to look complicated and impressive to unknowlegeable investors. There is absolutely no advantage to having so many heavy parts move instead of just using conventional pistons that move inside the engine.

    It doesn’t matter that it has been “independently” investigated, which is a common ploy of fly-by-nigth or even fraudulent companies.

  • GeeWhizBang

    The engine looks very badly designed to my engineering-trained eye. Their design appears to have way too much reciprocating weight, requiring incredibly heavy connecting rods, which would really make it very hard for the engine to rev freely.

    It looks like it is designed to look complicated and impressive to unknowlegeable investors. There is absolutely no advantage to having so many heavy parts move instead of just using conventional pistons that move inside the engine.

    It doesn’t matter that it has been “independently” investigated, which is a common ploy of fly-by-nigth or even fraudulent companies.

  • GeeWhizBang

    The engine looks very badly designed to my engineering-trained eye. Their design appears to have way too much reciprocating weight, requiring incredibly heavy connecting rods, which would really make it very hard for the engine to rev freely.

    It looks like it is designed to look complicated and impressive to unknowlegeable investors. There is absolutely no advantage to having so many heavy parts move instead of just using conventional pistons that move inside the engine.

    It doesn’t matter that it has been “independently” investigated, which is a common ploy of fly-by-nigth or even fraudulent companies.

  • xcherokeej

    Why the language? What is so wrong with somebody trying to get a new idea out there that will revolutionize the automobile industry?

    I would love to see this engine actually used in the industry and hopefully be able to put into older cars.

  • xcherokeej

    Why the language? What is so wrong with somebody trying to get a new idea out there that will revolutionize the automobile industry?

    I would love to see this engine actually used in the industry and hopefully be able to put into older cars.

  • xcherokeej

    Why the language? What is so wrong with somebody trying to get a new idea out there that will revolutionize the automobile industry?

    I would love to see this engine actually used in the industry and hopefully be able to put into older cars.

  • xcherokeej

    Why the language? What is so wrong with somebody trying to get a new idea out there that will revolutionize the automobile industry?

    I would love to see this engine actually used in the industry and hopefully be able to put into older cars.

  • xcherokeej

    Why the language? What is so wrong with somebody trying to get a new idea out there that will revolutionize the automobile industry?

    I would love to see this engine actually used in the industry and hopefully be able to put into older cars.

  • xcherokeej

    Why the language? What is so wrong with somebody trying to get a new idea out there that will revolutionize the automobile industry?

    I would love to see this engine actually used in the industry and hopefully be able to put into older cars.

  • I wonder what you would get if you combine this engine with the Elsbett multifuel engine, primarily with the Elsbett piston heads, what kind of fuel efficiency you would get then?

  • I wonder what you would get if you combine this engine with the Elsbett multifuel engine, primarily with the Elsbett piston heads, what kind of fuel efficiency you would get then?

  • Berk

    Ah, the inevitable conspiracy theories….

    If the technology was even marginally viable like, say, the Miller-cycle engine or rotary, investors would be over it like flies. In the information age you cannot simply supress information like you could 50 years ago. Perhaps the flaws will be overcome. I certainly hope so. But instead of posting silly conspiracy theories or dismissing the design out of hand, let the engineers and investors play their parts. We’ll see if it’s fluff or substance in the long run.

  • Berk

    Ah, the inevitable conspiracy theories….

    If the technology was even marginally viable like, say, the Miller-cycle engine or rotary, investors would be over it like flies. In the information age you cannot simply supress information like you could 50 years ago. Perhaps the flaws will be overcome. I certainly hope so. But instead of posting silly conspiracy theories or dismissing the design out of hand, let the engineers and investors play their parts. We’ll see if it’s fluff or substance in the long run.

  • Berk

    Ah, the inevitable conspiracy theories….

    If the technology was even marginally viable like, say, the Miller-cycle engine or rotary, investors would be over it like flies. In the information age you cannot simply supress information like you could 50 years ago. Perhaps the flaws will be overcome. I certainly hope so. But instead of posting silly conspiracy theories or dismissing the design out of hand, let the engineers and investors play their parts. We’ll see if it’s fluff or substance in the long run.

  • From the pictures/description this looks very similar to a Wankel engine (rotary type found in some Mazdas). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wankel_engine except that pistons are driving the lobes instead of fuel/exhaust directly.

  • From the pictures/description this looks very similar to a Wankel engine (rotary type found in some Mazdas). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wankel_engine except that pistons are driving the lobes instead of fuel/exhaust directly.

  • From the pictures/description this looks very similar to a Wankel engine (rotary type found in some Mazdas). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wankel_engine except that pistons are driving the lobes instead of fuel/exhaust directly.

  • From the pictures/description this looks very similar to a Wankel engine (rotary type found in some Mazdas). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wankel_engine except that pistons are driving the lobes instead of fuel/exhaust directly.

  • From the pictures/description this looks very similar to a Wankel engine (rotary type found in some Mazdas). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wankel_engine except that pistons are driving the lobes instead of fuel/exhaust directly.

  • sanjosemike

    HYDROGEN FUEL REQUIRES NUCLEAR REACTORS TO CREATE IT

    Hydrogen as a fuel requires nuclear power to create it, because the hydrogen/oxygen bond is probably the strongest chemical bond in nature.

    Using fossil fuel to create hydrogen is idiocy. It would create more pollution and greenhouse gasses than just doing what we are now.

    However, nuclear reactors have the power to do this, and create no greenhouse gasses. The newest designs produce VERY little nuclear waste.

    Hydrogen is far from a “perfect” fuel. It is hard to package and requires special care in handling. I still feel that a well modified “hybrid” kind of vehicle would work in our real world now.

    All we need to do to jettison foreign oil is get between 35-40 mpg on all our cars, like the Europeans do now. But like a number of posters mentioned, it is not the best solution to future personal transportation.

    sanjosemike

  • sanjosemike

    HYDROGEN FUEL REQUIRES NUCLEAR REACTORS TO CREATE IT

    Hydrogen as a fuel requires nuclear power to create it, because the hydrogen/oxygen bond is probably the strongest chemical bond in nature.

    Using fossil fuel to create hydrogen is idiocy. It would create more pollution and greenhouse gasses than just doing what we are now.

    However, nuclear reactors have the power to do this, and create no greenhouse gasses. The newest designs produce VERY little nuclear waste.

    Hydrogen is far from a “perfect” fuel. It is hard to package and requires special care in handling. I still feel that a well modified “hybrid” kind of vehicle would work in our real world now.

    All we need to do to jettison foreign oil is get between 35-40 mpg on all our cars, like the Europeans do now. But like a number of posters mentioned, it is not the best solution to future personal transportation.

    sanjosemike

  • sanjosemike

    HYDROGEN FUEL REQUIRES NUCLEAR REACTORS TO CREATE IT

    Hydrogen as a fuel requires nuclear power to create it, because the hydrogen/oxygen bond is probably the strongest chemical bond in nature.

    Using fossil fuel to create hydrogen is idiocy. It would create more pollution and greenhouse gasses than just doing what we are now.

    However, nuclear reactors have the power to do this, and create no greenhouse gasses. The newest designs produce VERY little nuclear waste.

    Hydrogen is far from a “perfect” fuel. It is hard to package and requires special care in handling. I still feel that a well modified “hybrid” kind of vehicle would work in our real world now.

    All we need to do to jettison foreign oil is get between 35-40 mpg on all our cars, like the Europeans do now. But like a number of posters mentioned, it is not the best solution to future personal transportation.

    sanjosemike

  • sanjosemike

    HYDROGEN FUEL REQUIRES NUCLEAR REACTORS TO CREATE IT

    Hydrogen as a fuel requires nuclear power to create it, because the hydrogen/oxygen bond is probably the strongest chemical bond in nature.

    Using fossil fuel to create hydrogen is idiocy. It would create more pollution and greenhouse gasses than just doing what we are now.

    However, nuclear reactors have the power to do this, and create no greenhouse gasses. The newest designs produce VERY little nuclear waste.

    Hydrogen is far from a “perfect” fuel. It is hard to package and requires special care in handling. I still feel that a well modified “hybrid” kind of vehicle would work in our real world now.

    All we need to do to jettison foreign oil is get between 35-40 mpg on all our cars, like the Europeans do now. But like a number of posters mentioned, it is not the best solution to future personal transportation.

    sanjosemike

  • sanjosemike

    HYDROGEN FUEL REQUIRES NUCLEAR REACTORS TO CREATE IT

    Hydrogen as a fuel requires nuclear power to create it, because the hydrogen/oxygen bond is probably the strongest chemical bond in nature.

    Using fossil fuel to create hydrogen is idiocy. It would create more pollution and greenhouse gasses than just doing what we are now.

    However, nuclear reactors have the power to do this, and create no greenhouse gasses. The newest designs produce VERY little nuclear waste.

    Hydrogen is far from a “perfect” fuel. It is hard to package and requires special care in handling. I still feel that a well modified “hybrid” kind of vehicle would work in our real world now.

    All we need to do to jettison foreign oil is get between 35-40 mpg on all our cars, like the Europeans do now. But like a number of posters mentioned, it is not the best solution to future personal transportation.

    sanjosemike

  • Pingback: Energy, Fuel, Power & Consumption « g є α я н є α ∂ . å ñ ö m å £ î ™ . « ๑۩۞۩๑ » ஜ()

  • desmond

    I still think Tesla motor has the right idea. http://www.teslamotors.com/ Electric is the answer. Buy this car and get enough solar panels to offset your electricity consumption. Hook up your solar panels to the grid, sell your electricity when the rates are at its highest and your utility company might even pay you for the car you’re driving! 🙂 There is no performance comprise with Tesla’s specs as well like using compressed air to run a car.

  • desmond

    I still think Tesla motor has the right idea. http://www.teslamotors.com/ Electric is the answer. Buy this car and get enough solar panels to offset your electricity consumption. Hook up your solar panels to the grid, sell your electricity when the rates are at its highest and your utility company might even pay you for the car you’re driving! 🙂 There is no performance comprise with Tesla’s specs as well like using compressed air to run a car.

  • desmond

    I still think Tesla motor has the right idea. http://www.teslamotors.com/ Electric is the answer. Buy this car and get enough solar panels to offset your electricity consumption. Hook up your solar panels to the grid, sell your electricity when the rates are at its highest and your utility company might even pay you for the car you’re driving! 🙂 There is no performance comprise with Tesla’s specs as well like using compressed air to run a car.

  • jpf

    This along with thousands of other inventions will be shelved by the oil companies and the US government. Did you see where this company is involved with the head of the US military R&D? Their sole purpose is to shelve any invention that gets in the way of big oil and their profits.

    The gas engine in cars was invented over a 100 years ago. They sprinkle microprocessors around it but it is still the same engine, with carefully controlled gas milage standards. Cars are like horse and buggy carts with radar…..

  • jpf

    This along with thousands of other inventions will be shelved by the oil companies and the US government. Did you see where this company is involved with the head of the US military R&D? Their sole purpose is to shelve any invention that gets in the way of big oil and their profits.

    The gas engine in cars was invented over a 100 years ago. They sprinkle microprocessors around it but it is still the same engine, with carefully controlled gas milage standards. Cars are like horse and buggy carts with radar…..

  • jpf

    This along with thousands of other inventions will be shelved by the oil companies and the US government. Did you see where this company is involved with the head of the US military R&D? Their sole purpose is to shelve any invention that gets in the way of big oil and their profits.

    The gas engine in cars was invented over a 100 years ago. They sprinkle microprocessors around it but it is still the same engine, with carefully controlled gas milage standards. Cars are like horse and buggy carts with radar…..

  • jpf

    This along with thousands of other inventions will be shelved by the oil companies and the US government. Did you see where this company is involved with the head of the US military R&D? Their sole purpose is to shelve any invention that gets in the way of big oil and their profits.

    The gas engine in cars was invented over a 100 years ago. They sprinkle microprocessors around it but it is still the same engine, with carefully controlled gas milage standards. Cars are like horse and buggy carts with radar…..

  • Jerabek

    I will piss myself when the Co gathers more interest, and its shares go through the roof….

  • Jerabek

    I will piss myself when the Co gathers more interest, and its shares go through the roof….

  • Jerabek

    I will piss myself when the Co gathers more interest, and its shares go through the roof….

  • Bob

    Im sure if it has a chance of really working, there company will get bought out and shut down, the prototypes and designs destroyed and the patents never licensed.

  • Bob

    Im sure if it has a chance of really working, there company will get bought out and shut down, the prototypes and designs destroyed and the patents never licensed.

  • Bob

    Im sure if it has a chance of really working, there company will get bought out and shut down, the prototypes and designs destroyed and the patents never licensed.

  • gotrootdude

    That Lupo looks alot like my Festiva. I’m getting 55mpg out of my festiva with much more trunk space. Wonder if I can lose some weight and get up to Lupo standards.

  • gotrootdude

    That Lupo looks alot like my Festiva. I’m getting 55mpg out of my festiva with much more trunk space. Wonder if I can lose some weight and get up to Lupo standards.

  • gotrootdude

    That Lupo looks alot like my Festiva. I’m getting 55mpg out of my festiva with much more trunk space. Wonder if I can lose some weight and get up to Lupo standards.

  • Pingback: vBharat.com » Low Cost Gas Engine Innovation Doubles Fuel Economy()

  • jpm100

    I liked the story and glad it was posted. However, a little touch of skepticism is probably warranted as many of us are eager for solutions.

    I’m skeptical, but even failed ideas can give food for thought that lead to good ones.

  • jpm100

    I liked the story and glad it was posted. However, a little touch of skepticism is probably warranted as many of us are eager for solutions.

    I’m skeptical, but even failed ideas can give food for thought that lead to good ones.

  • jpm100

    I liked the story and glad it was posted. However, a little touch of skepticism is probably warranted as many of us are eager for solutions.

    I’m skeptical, but even failed ideas can give food for thought that lead to good ones.

  • Andy Eppink

    It’s mechanically fascinating, but, thermodynamically, where’s the claimed efficiency to come from?

  • Andy Eppink

    It’s mechanically fascinating, but, thermodynamically, where’s the claimed efficiency to come from?

  • Andy Eppink

    It’s mechanically fascinating, but, thermodynamically, where’s the claimed efficiency to come from?

  • Andy Eppink

    It’s mechanically fascinating, but, thermodynamically, where’s the claimed efficiency to come from?

  • Andy Eppink

    It’s mechanically fascinating, but, thermodynamically, where’s the claimed efficiency to come from?

  • Tiny Tim

    Gober,

    I think Ronald Orr said “In place of the usual crankshaft” not camshaft

    2/10

    Must try harder. Pay attention at the back please!

  • Tiny Tim

    Gober,

    I think Ronald Orr said “In place of the usual crankshaft” not camshaft

    2/10

    Must try harder. Pay attention at the back please!

  • Tiny Tim

    Gober,

    I think Ronald Orr said “In place of the usual crankshaft” not camshaft

    2/10

    Must try harder. Pay attention at the back please!

  • If it has increased dwell at TDC, it could be better than a crank and rod.

    The Orbital test report was very surprising, the Revetec

    seems to be much better than I would have thought.

    I coined the trademarked name “Revtech” for Custom Chrome’s answer to Harley’s “Screamin’ Eagle” line ’91.

  • If it has increased dwell at TDC, it could be better than a crank and rod.

    The Orbital test report was very surprising, the Revetec

    seems to be much better than I would have thought.

    I coined the trademarked name “Revtech” for Custom Chrome’s answer to Harley’s “Screamin’ Eagle” line ’91.

  • If it has increased dwell at TDC, it could be better than a crank and rod.

    The Orbital test report was very surprising, the Revetec

    seems to be much better than I would have thought.

    I coined the trademarked name “Revtech” for Custom Chrome’s answer to Harley’s “Screamin’ Eagle” line ’91.

  • If it has increased dwell at TDC, it could be better than a crank and rod.

    The Orbital test report was very surprising, the Revetec

    seems to be much better than I would have thought.

    I coined the trademarked name “Revtech” for Custom Chrome’s answer to Harley’s “Screamin’ Eagle” line ’91.

  • If it has increased dwell at TDC, it could be better than a crank and rod.

    The Orbital test report was very surprising, the Revetec

    seems to be much better than I would have thought.

    I coined the trademarked name “Revtech” for Custom Chrome’s answer to Harley’s “Screamin’ Eagle” line ’91.

  • To me this engine looks like it follows the principle of the Bourke engine. The idea there was to hold the piston at TDC longer and utilizing the hydrogen component of the fuel. This is where the efficiency of the engine can go from 30% to 60+%. I didn’t see anything said about the operating temperature either engine cooling or EGT. The Bourke engine runs cool, thus less wasted energy. The cam profile operating the connecting rod provides much more control over the combustion cycle, thus providing a way to optimize the engines performance. This looks like it would be more robust than the English Yoke of the Bourke Engine.

  • To me this engine looks like it follows the principle of the Bourke engine. The idea there was to hold the piston at TDC longer and utilizing the hydrogen component of the fuel. This is where the efficiency of the engine can go from 30% to 60+%. I didn’t see anything said about the operating temperature either engine cooling or EGT. The Bourke engine runs cool, thus less wasted energy. The cam profile operating the connecting rod provides much more control over the combustion cycle, thus providing a way to optimize the engines performance. This looks like it would be more robust than the English Yoke of the Bourke Engine.

  • ssj2ander

    @sanjosemike – Ever heard of electrolysis? Look it up in Wikipedia…nuklear reactors are hardly required to generate hydrogen.

    And for all those hydrogen nay-sayers…it may indeed take more electricity to generate hydrogen then what may be considered “efficient”. However, a hydrogen-powered engine is MUCH lighter then a comperable battery-powered engine would be(taking fuel tanks vs batteries into consideration. Not only that, but electric motors have VERY poor torque and poor performance at high speeds, often generating damaging sparks/arcs of electricity between components and generating a lot of unusable/wasted heat in the process.

    Now actually on-topic…this engine looks interesting to me. Interesting, but worrisome. I also have engineering degrees(yes, as in plural), and mechanically/thermodynamically speaking this engine does not look very efficient. As has been stated before, there is a lot of mass moving around–which would cause a lot of vibration with just 4 cylinders…vibrations and gyroscopic twisting, putting added stress on the driveshaft. A V8 or V12 configuration it might be more efficient in this aspect. Additionally, I’m sceptical of this engines ability to perform over prolonged periods of time. The counter-rotating cam concept is interesting, but as with Rotary Engines, there is a lot of unnecessary surface contact. Surface contact = greater friction and wear/tear on components. Sure it looks good in theory, and on paper should be more efficient…but I doubt its realistic performing ability.

  • ssj2ander

    @sanjosemike – Ever heard of electrolysis? Look it up in Wikipedia…nuklear reactors are hardly required to generate hydrogen.

    And for all those hydrogen nay-sayers…it may indeed take more electricity to generate hydrogen then what may be considered “efficient”. However, a hydrogen-powered engine is MUCH lighter then a comperable battery-powered engine would be(taking fuel tanks vs batteries into consideration. Not only that, but electric motors have VERY poor torque and poor performance at high speeds, often generating damaging sparks/arcs of electricity between components and generating a lot of unusable/wasted heat in the process.

    Now actually on-topic…this engine looks interesting to me. Interesting, but worrisome. I also have engineering degrees(yes, as in plural), and mechanically/thermodynamically speaking this engine does not look very efficient. As has been stated before, there is a lot of mass moving around–which would cause a lot of vibration with just 4 cylinders…vibrations and gyroscopic twisting, putting added stress on the driveshaft. A V8 or V12 configuration it might be more efficient in this aspect. Additionally, I’m sceptical of this engines ability to perform over prolonged periods of time. The counter-rotating cam concept is interesting, but as with Rotary Engines, there is a lot of unnecessary surface contact. Surface contact = greater friction and wear/tear on components. Sure it looks good in theory, and on paper should be more efficient…but I doubt its realistic performing ability.

  • ssj2ander

    @sanjosemike – Ever heard of electrolysis? Look it up in Wikipedia…nuklear reactors are hardly required to generate hydrogen.

    And for all those hydrogen nay-sayers…it may indeed take more electricity to generate hydrogen then what may be considered “efficient”. However, a hydrogen-powered engine is MUCH lighter then a comperable battery-powered engine would be(taking fuel tanks vs batteries into consideration. Not only that, but electric motors have VERY poor torque and poor performance at high speeds, often generating damaging sparks/arcs of electricity between components and generating a lot of unusable/wasted heat in the process.

    Now actually on-topic…this engine looks interesting to me. Interesting, but worrisome. I also have engineering degrees(yes, as in plural), and mechanically/thermodynamically speaking this engine does not look very efficient. As has been stated before, there is a lot of mass moving around–which would cause a lot of vibration with just 4 cylinders…vibrations and gyroscopic twisting, putting added stress on the driveshaft. A V8 or V12 configuration it might be more efficient in this aspect. Additionally, I’m sceptical of this engines ability to perform over prolonged periods of time. The counter-rotating cam concept is interesting, but as with Rotary Engines, there is a lot of unnecessary surface contact. Surface contact = greater friction and wear/tear on components. Sure it looks good in theory, and on paper should be more efficient…but I doubt its realistic performing ability.

  • ssj2ander

    @sanjosemike – Ever heard of electrolysis? Look it up in Wikipedia…nuklear reactors are hardly required to generate hydrogen.

    And for all those hydrogen nay-sayers…it may indeed take more electricity to generate hydrogen then what may be considered “efficient”. However, a hydrogen-powered engine is MUCH lighter then a comperable battery-powered engine would be(taking fuel tanks vs batteries into consideration. Not only that, but electric motors have VERY poor torque and poor performance at high speeds, often generating damaging sparks/arcs of electricity between components and generating a lot of unusable/wasted heat in the process.

    Now actually on-topic…this engine looks interesting to me. Interesting, but worrisome. I also have engineering degrees(yes, as in plural), and mechanically/thermodynamically speaking this engine does not look very efficient. As has been stated before, there is a lot of mass moving around–which would cause a lot of vibration with just 4 cylinders…vibrations and gyroscopic twisting, putting added stress on the driveshaft. A V8 or V12 configuration it might be more efficient in this aspect. Additionally, I’m sceptical of this engines ability to perform over prolonged periods of time. The counter-rotating cam concept is interesting, but as with Rotary Engines, there is a lot of unnecessary surface contact. Surface contact = greater friction and wear/tear on components. Sure it looks good in theory, and on paper should be more efficient…but I doubt its realistic performing ability.

  • ssj2ander

    @sanjosemike – Ever heard of electrolysis? Look it up in Wikipedia…nuklear reactors are hardly required to generate hydrogen.

    And for all those hydrogen nay-sayers…it may indeed take more electricity to generate hydrogen then what may be considered “efficient”. However, a hydrogen-powered engine is MUCH lighter then a comperable battery-powered engine would be(taking fuel tanks vs batteries into consideration. Not only that, but electric motors have VERY poor torque and poor performance at high speeds, often generating damaging sparks/arcs of electricity between components and generating a lot of unusable/wasted heat in the process.

    Now actually on-topic…this engine looks interesting to me. Interesting, but worrisome. I also have engineering degrees(yes, as in plural), and mechanically/thermodynamically speaking this engine does not look very efficient. As has been stated before, there is a lot of mass moving around–which would cause a lot of vibration with just 4 cylinders…vibrations and gyroscopic twisting, putting added stress on the driveshaft. A V8 or V12 configuration it might be more efficient in this aspect. Additionally, I’m sceptical of this engines ability to perform over prolonged periods of time. The counter-rotating cam concept is interesting, but as with Rotary Engines, there is a lot of unnecessary surface contact. Surface contact = greater friction and wear/tear on components. Sure it looks good in theory, and on paper should be more efficient…but I doubt its realistic performing ability.

  • ssj2ander

    @sanjosemike – Ever heard of electrolysis? Look it up in Wikipedia…nuklear reactors are hardly required to generate hydrogen.

    And for all those hydrogen nay-sayers…it may indeed take more electricity to generate hydrogen then what may be considered “efficient”. However, a hydrogen-powered engine is MUCH lighter then a comperable battery-powered engine would be(taking fuel tanks vs batteries into consideration. Not only that, but electric motors have VERY poor torque and poor performance at high speeds, often generating damaging sparks/arcs of electricity between components and generating a lot of unusable/wasted heat in the process.

    Now actually on-topic…this engine looks interesting to me. Interesting, but worrisome. I also have engineering degrees(yes, as in plural), and mechanically/thermodynamically speaking this engine does not look very efficient. As has been stated before, there is a lot of mass moving around–which would cause a lot of vibration with just 4 cylinders…vibrations and gyroscopic twisting, putting added stress on the driveshaft. A V8 or V12 configuration it might be more efficient in this aspect. Additionally, I’m sceptical of this engines ability to perform over prolonged periods of time. The counter-rotating cam concept is interesting, but as with Rotary Engines, there is a lot of unnecessary surface contact. Surface contact = greater friction and wear/tear on components. Sure it looks good in theory, and on paper should be more efficient…but I doubt its realistic performing ability.

  • ssj2ander

    @sanjosemike – Ever heard of electrolysis? Look it up in Wikipedia…nuklear reactors are hardly required to generate hydrogen.

    And for all those hydrogen nay-sayers…it may indeed take more electricity to generate hydrogen then what may be considered “efficient”. However, a hydrogen-powered engine is MUCH lighter then a comperable battery-powered engine would be(taking fuel tanks vs batteries into consideration. Not only that, but electric motors have VERY poor torque and poor performance at high speeds, often generating damaging sparks/arcs of electricity between components and generating a lot of unusable/wasted heat in the process.

    Now actually on-topic…this engine looks interesting to me. Interesting, but worrisome. I also have engineering degrees(yes, as in plural), and mechanically/thermodynamically speaking this engine does not look very efficient. As has been stated before, there is a lot of mass moving around–which would cause a lot of vibration with just 4 cylinders…vibrations and gyroscopic twisting, putting added stress on the driveshaft. A V8 or V12 configuration it might be more efficient in this aspect. Additionally, I’m sceptical of this engines ability to perform over prolonged periods of time. The counter-rotating cam concept is interesting, but as with Rotary Engines, there is a lot of unnecessary surface contact. Surface contact = greater friction and wear/tear on components. Sure it looks good in theory, and on paper should be more efficient…but I doubt its realistic performing ability.

  • John

    If the VW Luppo can get 80 mpg, this Revetec engine in a Luppo can get 160 mpg.

    The design is sound in eliminating the heavy, space consuming, power sapping crankshaft. The engine is light and small and the power/weight ratio of a vehicle engine is very important as the vehicle has to cart around its own weight.

    The piston is double ended with a normal 4-stoke combustion chamber/valves at each end, with the power take-off in the centre of the piston – in effect a two-stroke. But as these cam lobes can be three or five, or whatever, shaped, meaning the stroking per rev of the output shaft can be designed to suit applications. Put a 2-stroke arrangement at the end of each piston and this design is a real winner. 2-stroke inefficiencies have virtually gone to what they were 20 years ago. Orbital in Australia and Chrysler did some intensive research into this and came out wit the goods with major makers ready to produce with factories tooled up ready – but never when they found the Japanese were not going to introduce a 2-stoke for cars – sop back to the status quo. The Chrysler Neon car was designed to take a 2-stoke engine and 2-stoke prototypes run in the car before launch.

    What does all this mean? It is the knock-on effects that makes this engine a winner. It means a vehicle:

    1. Need not have a power sapping, heavy transmission as torque can be given at the require levels.

    2. Can have a smaller engine lower bay.

    3. Can be lighter.

    4. Better air resistance as the car body designer has a freer hand in air resistance.

    5. More passenger/luggage carrying capacity for no larger a vehicle.

    6. Using a 2-stoke arrangement at the piston top-ends, the efficiency, which cascades into mpg and emissions, rises substantially.

    7. Less moving parts in the engine mean more reliability.

    8. Less moving parts means longer service intervals.

    These people are going the right way. Look at the electric Mini:

    http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/08/the_hybrid_mini.php

    http://www.pmlflightlink.com/archive/news_mini.html

    Put one of these small, light, efficient Revetec engines as the genny for the electric Mini and maybe a real winner.

    They can clearly be used in hybrids to great success, say using the Toyota hybrid system, which is clearly the best of the bunch.

    The main auto makers will not take up the Revetec as they would need to pay royalties. If they did not have too, they may be looking into the this design. If it takes off by a small manufacturers and may a Malaysia company uses it, then the others will have to follow, if they have not introduced electric by then, as battery technology improves.

    The Revetec may keep the Internal combustion engine going for longer – a design that should have been cast into history over 50 years ago.

  • John

    If the VW Luppo can get 80 mpg, this Revetec engine in a Luppo can get 160 mpg.

    The design is sound in eliminating the heavy, space consuming, power sapping crankshaft. The engine is light and small and the power/weight ratio of a vehicle engine is very important as the vehicle has to cart around its own weight.

    The piston is double ended with a normal 4-stoke combustion chamber/valves at each end, with the power take-off in the centre of the piston – in effect a two-stroke. But as these cam lobes can be three or five, or whatever, shaped, meaning the stroking per rev of the output shaft can be designed to suit applications. Put a 2-stroke arrangement at the end of each piston and this design is a real winner. 2-stroke inefficiencies have virtually gone to what they were 20 years ago. Orbital in Australia and Chrysler did some intensive research into this and came out wit the goods with major makers ready to produce with factories tooled up ready – but never when they found the Japanese were not going to introduce a 2-stoke for cars – sop back to the status quo. The Chrysler Neon car was designed to take a 2-stoke engine and 2-stoke prototypes run in the car before launch.

    What does all this mean? It is the knock-on effects that makes this engine a winner. It means a vehicle:

    1. Need not have a power sapping, heavy transmission as torque can be given at the require levels.

    2. Can have a smaller engine lower bay.

    3. Can be lighter.

    4. Better air resistance as the car body designer has a freer hand in air resistance.

    5. More passenger/luggage carrying capacity for no larger a vehicle.

    6. Using a 2-stoke arrangement at the piston top-ends, the efficiency, which cascades into mpg and emissions, rises substantially.

    7. Less moving parts in the engine mean more reliability.

    8. Less moving parts means longer service intervals.

    These people are going the right way. Look at the electric Mini:

    http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/08/the_hybrid_mini.php

    http://www.pmlflightlink.com/archive/news_mini.html

    Put one of these small, light, efficient Revetec engines as the genny for the electric Mini and maybe a real winner.

    They can clearly be used in hybrids to great success, say using the Toyota hybrid system, which is clearly the best of the bunch.

    The main auto makers will not take up the Revetec as they would need to pay royalties. If they did not have too, they may be looking into the this design. If it takes off by a small manufacturers and may a Malaysia company uses it, then the others will have to follow, if they have not introduced electric by then, as battery technology improves.

    The Revetec may keep the Internal combustion engine going for longer – a design that should have been cast into history over 50 years ago.

  • John

    If the VW Luppo can get 80 mpg, this Revetec engine in a Luppo can get 160 mpg.

    The design is sound in eliminating the heavy, space consuming, power sapping crankshaft. The engine is light and small and the power/weight ratio of a vehicle engine is very important as the vehicle has to cart around its own weight.

    The piston is double ended with a normal 4-stoke combustion chamber/valves at each end, with the power take-off in the centre of the piston – in effect a two-stroke. But as these cam lobes can be three or five, or whatever, shaped, meaning the stroking per rev of the output shaft can be designed to suit applications. Put a 2-stroke arrangement at the end of each piston and this design is a real winner. 2-stroke inefficiencies have virtually gone to what they were 20 years ago. Orbital in Australia and Chrysler did some intensive research into this and came out wit the goods with major makers ready to produce with factories tooled up ready – but never when they found the Japanese were not going to introduce a 2-stoke for cars – sop back to the status quo. The Chrysler Neon car was designed to take a 2-stoke engine and 2-stoke prototypes run in the car before launch.

    What does all this mean? It is the knock-on effects that makes this engine a winner. It means a vehicle:

    1. Need not have a power sapping, heavy transmission as torque can be given at the require levels.

    2. Can have a smaller engine lower bay.

    3. Can be lighter.

    4. Better air resistance as the car body designer has a freer hand in air resistance.

    5. More passenger/luggage carrying capacity for no larger a vehicle.

    6. Using a 2-stoke arrangement at the piston top-ends, the efficiency, which cascades into mpg and emissions, rises substantially.

    7. Less moving parts in the engine mean more reliability.

    8. Less moving parts means longer service intervals.

    These people are going the right way. Look at the electric Mini:

    http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/08/the_hybrid_mini.php

    http://www.pmlflightlink.com/archive/news_mini.html

    Put one of these small, light, efficient Revetec engines as the genny for the electric Mini and maybe a real winner.

    They can clearly be used in hybrids to great success, say using the Toyota hybrid system, which is clearly the best of the bunch.

    The main auto makers will not take up the Revetec as they would need to pay royalties. If they did not have too, they may be looking into the this design. If it takes off by a small manufacturers and may a Malaysia company uses it, then the others will have to follow, if they have not introduced electric by then, as battery technology improves.

    The Revetec may keep the Internal combustion engine going for longer – a design that should have been cast into history over 50 years ago.

  • Jim

    Thats cool, sort of like a combination of Wankel/rotary and conventional engines. The wankel is a neat design but fuel consumption is a problem.

    an X8 (or X4v2 in the diagram).. good marketing, I mean an X8 is gotta be better than a V8…dude !

    Over more recent years nobody has really changed the bottom end arrangements, in mass production (Wankel excepted) but there are variations going back a few more years, eg; a cut-away swash plate engine was in the London science museum back in 1962 or 4 when I saw it .. my dad was impressed anyway. this is an angled disk/plate on the crank that the piston pushes up against; its like when a screwdriver is pressed hard on a dinner plate and the thing whizzes off to the side or spins (or breaks) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swashplate_engine

    A nice feature of the swash plate engine is that its all in-line, very good for aircraft engines.

    There was a model aircraft engine that used a sort of dogleg conrod to connect a piston/cylinder in line and over the crankshaft, it was practical, mass produced but expensive; circa 1960, Aero35 I think.

    I dont know how the X4v2 can be made cheaper, I see a lot of bearings and precision machined parts replacing the humble conrod + I dont get that the bearing under the piston would be a ball bearing (I think that it would be a plain bearing ?).

    I think wear could be a problem, all those precision bearings and cams, recip weight, so any play or ignition error (pinking etc) would blow the thing up….

    Low revs makes sense, there is quite a lot of reciprocating weight (but balanced). They could save costs by not having such extream/expensive emmision control stuff.

    The thing that is puzzling is the reason for it getting 50% better fuel economy with the same top end as a conventional engine. I guess that the power from the piston going down is much better matched to the crank than a simple conrod linkage; because of that drive cam. Still… if one can better control the combustion to match the conventional conrod-crank load then that would be nice; but thats probably what everyone has been doing the past x years….

    It would look cool on a Harley tho, would that be an X2 ?? (ok I2) rubber mounted of course !

  • Jim

    Thats cool, sort of like a combination of Wankel/rotary and conventional engines. The wankel is a neat design but fuel consumption is a problem.

    an X8 (or X4v2 in the diagram).. good marketing, I mean an X8 is gotta be better than a V8…dude !

    Over more recent years nobody has really changed the bottom end arrangements, in mass production (Wankel excepted) but there are variations going back a few more years, eg; a cut-away swash plate engine was in the London science museum back in 1962 or 4 when I saw it .. my dad was impressed anyway. this is an angled disk/plate on the crank that the piston pushes up against; its like when a screwdriver is pressed hard on a dinner plate and the thing whizzes off to the side or spins (or breaks) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swashplate_engine

    A nice feature of the swash plate engine is that its all in-line, very good for aircraft engines.

    There was a model aircraft engine that used a sort of dogleg conrod to connect a piston/cylinder in line and over the crankshaft, it was practical, mass produced but expensive; circa 1960, Aero35 I think.

    I dont know how the X4v2 can be made cheaper, I see a lot of bearings and precision machined parts replacing the humble conrod + I dont get that the bearing under the piston would be a ball bearing (I think that it would be a plain bearing ?).

    I think wear could be a problem, all those precision bearings and cams, recip weight, so any play or ignition error (pinking etc) would blow the thing up….

    Low revs makes sense, there is quite a lot of reciprocating weight (but balanced). They could save costs by not having such extream/expensive emmision control stuff.

    The thing that is puzzling is the reason for it getting 50% better fuel economy with the same top end as a conventional engine. I guess that the power from the piston going down is much better matched to the crank than a simple conrod linkage; because of that drive cam. Still… if one can better control the combustion to match the conventional conrod-crank load then that would be nice; but thats probably what everyone has been doing the past x years….

    It would look cool on a Harley tho, would that be an X2 ?? (ok I2) rubber mounted of course !

  • Jim

    Thats cool, sort of like a combination of Wankel/rotary and conventional engines. The wankel is a neat design but fuel consumption is a problem.

    an X8 (or X4v2 in the diagram).. good marketing, I mean an X8 is gotta be better than a V8…dude !

    Over more recent years nobody has really changed the bottom end arrangements, in mass production (Wankel excepted) but there are variations going back a few more years, eg; a cut-away swash plate engine was in the London science museum back in 1962 or 4 when I saw it .. my dad was impressed anyway. this is an angled disk/plate on the crank that the piston pushes up against; its like when a screwdriver is pressed hard on a dinner plate and the thing whizzes off to the side or spins (or breaks) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swashplate_engine

    A nice feature of the swash plate engine is that its all in-line, very good for aircraft engines.

    There was a model aircraft engine that used a sort of dogleg conrod to connect a piston/cylinder in line and over the crankshaft, it was practical, mass produced but expensive; circa 1960, Aero35 I think.

    I dont know how the X4v2 can be made cheaper, I see a lot of bearings and precision machined parts replacing the humble conrod + I dont get that the bearing under the piston would be a ball bearing (I think that it would be a plain bearing ?).

    I think wear could be a problem, all those precision bearings and cams, recip weight, so any play or ignition error (pinking etc) would blow the thing up….

    Low revs makes sense, there is quite a lot of reciprocating weight (but balanced). They could save costs by not having such extream/expensive emmision control stuff.

    The thing that is puzzling is the reason for it getting 50% better fuel economy with the same top end as a conventional engine. I guess that the power from the piston going down is much better matched to the crank than a simple conrod linkage; because of that drive cam. Still… if one can better control the combustion to match the conventional conrod-crank load then that would be nice; but thats probably what everyone has been doing the past x years….

    It would look cool on a Harley tho, would that be an X2 ?? (ok I2) rubber mounted of course !

  • John

    “Thats cool, sort of like a combination of Wankel/rotary and conventional engines.”

    It is a reciprocating piston engine and nothing like a rotary Wankel.

    “I think wear could be a problem, all those precision bearings and cams,”

    Two cam lobes and few rollers that’s all. High quality hardened metal can be used on the cam lobes and rollers. The cylinder bores will last and last as there is no piston side thrust

    “there is quite a lot of reciprocating weight ”

    Not so. The opposed pistons are all one unit (a double ended piston) with a cut out in the middle for the take off to the cam lobe. The cam lobes are not reciprocating.

    The conventional con-rod swivels at both ends which is far from ideal – in fact a liability. The Revetec has cracked it. Once introduced, many years after much fine tuning would be done improving the unit substantially. Many variations would emerge too.

    However I am glad eclectic cars will push it into the background for vehicles as a genny or whatever. It has uses other than vehicles: pumps, portable gennys, marine, etc.

    The cam lobe mechanism shows much promise in a Stirling engine unit.

    Highly tuned to power in-wheel hub electric motors with a battery buffer in between. A hybrid. Powerful enough to drive the vehicle normally via the electric motors, when the battery does not have enough charge. Cutting out when the battery is charged enough going onto full electric drive. That means when not on full power driving the car, the engine can be revving higher to charge the batteries as well. Using the fast charge Toshiba batteries would be a good match.

  • John

    “Thats cool, sort of like a combination of Wankel/rotary and conventional engines.”

    It is a reciprocating piston engine and nothing like a rotary Wankel.

    “I think wear could be a problem, all those precision bearings and cams,”

    Two cam lobes and few rollers that’s all. High quality hardened metal can be used on the cam lobes and rollers. The cylinder bores will last and last as there is no piston side thrust

    “there is quite a lot of reciprocating weight ”

    Not so. The opposed pistons are all one unit (a double ended piston) with a cut out in the middle for the take off to the cam lobe. The cam lobes are not reciprocating.

    The conventional con-rod swivels at both ends which is far from ideal – in fact a liability. The Revetec has cracked it. Once introduced, many years after much fine tuning would be done improving the unit substantially. Many variations would emerge too.

    However I am glad eclectic cars will push it into the background for vehicles as a genny or whatever. It has uses other than vehicles: pumps, portable gennys, marine, etc.

    The cam lobe mechanism shows much promise in a Stirling engine unit.

    Highly tuned to power in-wheel hub electric motors with a battery buffer in between. A hybrid. Powerful enough to drive the vehicle normally via the electric motors, when the battery does not have enough charge. Cutting out when the battery is charged enough going onto full electric drive. That means when not on full power driving the car, the engine can be revving higher to charge the batteries as well. Using the fast charge Toshiba batteries would be a good match.

  • John

    “Thats cool, sort of like a combination of Wankel/rotary and conventional engines.”

    It is a reciprocating piston engine and nothing like a rotary Wankel.

    “I think wear could be a problem, all those precision bearings and cams,”

    Two cam lobes and few rollers that’s all. High quality hardened metal can be used on the cam lobes and rollers. The cylinder bores will last and last as there is no piston side thrust

    “there is quite a lot of reciprocating weight ”

    Not so. The opposed pistons are all one unit (a double ended piston) with a cut out in the middle for the take off to the cam lobe. The cam lobes are not reciprocating.

    The conventional con-rod swivels at both ends which is far from ideal – in fact a liability. The Revetec has cracked it. Once introduced, many years after much fine tuning would be done improving the unit substantially. Many variations would emerge too.

    However I am glad eclectic cars will push it into the background for vehicles as a genny or whatever. It has uses other than vehicles: pumps, portable gennys, marine, etc.

    The cam lobe mechanism shows much promise in a Stirling engine unit.

    Highly tuned to power in-wheel hub electric motors with a battery buffer in between. A hybrid. Powerful enough to drive the vehicle normally via the electric motors, when the battery does not have enough charge. Cutting out when the battery is charged enough going onto full electric drive. That means when not on full power driving the car, the engine can be revving higher to charge the batteries as well. Using the fast charge Toshiba batteries would be a good match.

  • Pingback: Revetec Controlled Combustion Engine: 50% less fuel, 100% power()

  • HOW DO I CONTACT THIS COMPANY REVTEC ??

    MAHALO

  • HOW DO I CONTACT THIS COMPANY REVTEC ??

    MAHALO

  • HOW DO I CONTACT THIS COMPANY REVTEC ??

    MAHALO

  • HOW DO I CONTACT THIS COMPANY REVTEC ??

    MAHALO

  • HOW DO I CONTACT THIS COMPANY REVTEC ??

    MAHALO

  • Richard Cownie

    I like the cam-drive trick. But I think once you’ve greatly

    reduced piston side force, you could use a simple sleeve-valve

    instead of poppets. And also a suitable cam shape allows

    different compression and expansion ratios – e.g. 10x

    compression, 20x expansion would recover about 1.2x more work.

    I’m also toying with the idea of a single-cylinder cam-drive

    engine – with suitable counterweights on the counter-rotating

    cam shafts you can balance the piston mass without introducing

    a side-to-side net force, leaving only some torsional

    vibration.

    I agree with the commenter who said torsion on the conrod

    looks like possible problem. That could be avoided with a

    three-cam ABA arrangement (A=clockwise, B=counterclockwise).

    Hmmm … maybe that can also eliminate the twisting

    vibration.

  • Richard Cownie

    I like the cam-drive trick. But I think once you’ve greatly

    reduced piston side force, you could use a simple sleeve-valve

    instead of poppets. And also a suitable cam shape allows

    different compression and expansion ratios – e.g. 10x

    compression, 20x expansion would recover about 1.2x more work.

    I’m also toying with the idea of a single-cylinder cam-drive

    engine – with suitable counterweights on the counter-rotating

    cam shafts you can balance the piston mass without introducing

    a side-to-side net force, leaving only some torsional

    vibration.

    I agree with the commenter who said torsion on the conrod

    looks like possible problem. That could be avoided with a

    three-cam ABA arrangement (A=clockwise, B=counterclockwise).

    Hmmm … maybe that can also eliminate the twisting

    vibration.

  • Richard Cownie

    I like the cam-drive trick. But I think once you’ve greatly

    reduced piston side force, you could use a simple sleeve-valve

    instead of poppets. And also a suitable cam shape allows

    different compression and expansion ratios – e.g. 10x

    compression, 20x expansion would recover about 1.2x more work.

    I’m also toying with the idea of a single-cylinder cam-drive

    engine – with suitable counterweights on the counter-rotating

    cam shafts you can balance the piston mass without introducing

    a side-to-side net force, leaving only some torsional

    vibration.

    I agree with the commenter who said torsion on the conrod

    looks like possible problem. That could be avoided with a

    three-cam ABA arrangement (A=clockwise, B=counterclockwise).

    Hmmm … maybe that can also eliminate the twisting

    vibration.

  • Richard Cownie

    I like the cam-drive trick. But I think once you’ve greatly

    reduced piston side force, you could use a simple sleeve-valve

    instead of poppets. And also a suitable cam shape allows

    different compression and expansion ratios – e.g. 10x

    compression, 20x expansion would recover about 1.2x more work.

    I’m also toying with the idea of a single-cylinder cam-drive

    engine – with suitable counterweights on the counter-rotating

    cam shafts you can balance the piston mass without introducing

    a side-to-side net force, leaving only some torsional

    vibration.

    I agree with the commenter who said torsion on the conrod

    looks like possible problem. That could be avoided with a

    three-cam ABA arrangement (A=clockwise, B=counterclockwise).

    Hmmm … maybe that can also eliminate the twisting

    vibration.

  • Even doubling the fuel efficiency doesn’t sound like a permanent solution to our fuel crisis. Given that the price of oil has increased to 10 times of what it was in the beginning of this decade, the bottom-line is, we need to come up with an alternate fuel source.

    Justin, hydrogen is not the best solution to this problem. Apart from the obvious risks that would come from its explosive nature, manufacturing pure hydrogen (by hydrolysis) requires electricity which in turn comes from petroleum.

  • Even doubling the fuel efficiency doesn’t sound like a permanent solution to our fuel crisis. Given that the price of oil has increased to 10 times of what it was in the beginning of this decade, the bottom-line is, we need to come up with an alternate fuel source.

    Justin, hydrogen is not the best solution to this problem. Apart from the obvious risks that would come from its explosive nature, manufacturing pure hydrogen (by hydrolysis) requires electricity which in turn comes from petroleum.

  • Even doubling the fuel efficiency doesn’t sound like a permanent solution to our fuel crisis. Given that the price of oil has increased to 10 times of what it was in the beginning of this decade, the bottom-line is, we need to come up with an alternate fuel source.

    Justin, hydrogen is not the best solution to this problem. Apart from the obvious risks that would come from its explosive nature, manufacturing pure hydrogen (by hydrolysis) requires electricity which in turn comes from petroleum.

  • Pingback: Low Cost engine doubles fuel Economey, Makes same power! - Sportbikes.net()

  • EdisRaf

    I have a friend that races Mazda’s with rotary engines. I’ve done some wrenching on them with him over the years and help out in the pits. Displacement is restricted in his class of racing. The rotary engine is the least fuel efficient of the engines in the class. Take that for what it’s worth.

  • EdisRaf

    I have a friend that races Mazda’s with rotary engines. I’ve done some wrenching on them with him over the years and help out in the pits. Displacement is restricted in his class of racing. The rotary engine is the least fuel efficient of the engines in the class. Take that for what it’s worth.

  • Pingback: Top Nuclear Stories (June 27th - 30th) | The Energy Net()

  • Check out this free calculator that will determine whether high(er) octane fuel will save you money, in the long run. http://tinyurl.com/57zdz5

  • Check out this free calculator that will determine whether high(er) octane fuel will save you money, in the long run. http://tinyurl.com/57zdz5

  • Check out this free calculator that will determine whether high(er) octane fuel will save you money, in the long run. http://tinyurl.com/57zdz5

  • Check out this free calculator that will determine whether high(er) octane fuel will save you money, in the long run. http://tinyurl.com/57zdz5

  • Check out this free calculator that will determine whether high(er) octane fuel will save you money, in the long run. http://tinyurl.com/57zdz5

  • Pingback: New Engine. X4V2 - darkmesa()

  • About the Caminez /Revtec engine

    I think less foul negative language and more positive reinforcemnt/i.e contributing ideas to enhance further development and improvements would likely serve us all better as the “fuel’ that canbe used in it can vary to almost anything the mechanical efficiency is inherently obvious as it maximizes the use of distance travelled. plus the ‘cam shaft’ is technically a cam plate.I say this guy deserves some credit because I didn’t see any ‘new’ ideas coming out of canada or the USA lately that could be transferred to the market as quickly and cheaply. I for one would throw a few million at it and help it grow.

  • Jim

    Hi John

    re my reference to a combo with a Wankel I meant with regard to closely machined radial shapes controlling combustion and torque transfer, and removing the conrod – not a very good comparison in retrospect

    On;-

    “there is quite a lot of reciprocating weight ”

    you say

    “Not so. The opposed pistons are all one unit (a double ended piston)”

    But thats my point, a double ended piston is double the reciprocating weight compared with a twin boxer where the pistons go in opposite directions. You make a very good point about no side forces on the piston/bore, I hadnt considered that. With no side load then the piston can be made lighter and the whole assembly could very well be made to have less reciprocating weight !

    On Electric, it will have to happen now that the technology is really there, but I doubt that the IC engine will dissapear from vehicles compleletly. But the IC engine in small vehicles will diminish to where the total enviromental effect will not matter. Large engines in big trucks, busses etc are probably as efficient as need be but proper use of propane and diesel make these engines less of an issue — provided they are not worn out as per all LA “exempt” vehicles !!!

  • Jim

    Hi John

    re my reference to a combo with a Wankel I meant with regard to closely machined radial shapes controlling combustion and torque transfer, and removing the conrod – not a very good comparison in retrospect

    On;-

    “there is quite a lot of reciprocating weight ”

    you say

    “Not so. The opposed pistons are all one unit (a double ended piston)”

    But thats my point, a double ended piston is double the reciprocating weight compared with a twin boxer where the pistons go in opposite directions. You make a very good point about no side forces on the piston/bore, I hadnt considered that. With no side load then the piston can be made lighter and the whole assembly could very well be made to have less reciprocating weight !

    On Electric, it will have to happen now that the technology is really there, but I doubt that the IC engine will dissapear from vehicles compleletly. But the IC engine in small vehicles will diminish to where the total enviromental effect will not matter. Large engines in big trucks, busses etc are probably as efficient as need be but proper use of propane and diesel make these engines less of an issue — provided they are not worn out as per all LA “exempt” vehicles !!!

  • orazio pietri

    1st: can be atached to my car? fiat uno 1300cc transverse engine, . 2nd. the engine size of your engine, horse power, total weigth, fuel sistem and

    ignition. 3rd.the dimensions of this.

    At last, how many kmts. per liter can obtain for this in a 850 kgs car? please show in wath car you tested the engine to obtain this %.

  • orazio pietri

    1st: can be atached to my car? fiat uno 1300cc transverse engine, . 2nd. the engine size of your engine, horse power, total weigth, fuel sistem and

    ignition. 3rd.the dimensions of this.

    At last, how many kmts. per liter can obtain for this in a 850 kgs car? please show in wath car you tested the engine to obtain this %.

  • Tad

    How long does the engine last, as many miles or more than a conventional engine?

  • Tad

    How long does the engine last, as many miles or more than a conventional engine?

  • John W.

    Philip, July 8th comment – page 7, has hit the nail on the head!! The engine has “spoken for itself” now that Orbital has made its report on 38-to-39% efficiencies without any high-tech top-end refinements to Brad’s engine.

    It’s time to consider the business side of getting the REVETEC Engine to its next level:

    Funding is required. So, who among us can help Brad get this modern marvel into a new high-milage factory-new car so that a real comparison to the best mass-marketed 2008&09 car can be used as a current market comparitor?

    And, who among us can contribute funds and exertise for the top-end refinements that are required in order to complete a “whole package” for Brad to apply his talents on?

    After all, even though the bottom end is spectacular, the market place (OEM car manufacurers) are undoubtedly wanting to wait so they can commit to a complete engine system which has been tested and demonstrated to out perform the new competion.

    It’s time for us to “network” this challenge to any and all who are enthusiastic about REVETEC and might be or might know who could be substancially helpful to this promising innovation’s advancement to market.

    “Enough said. Now let’s get with it.” Network this challenge and if you can actually help Brad “move this along” (as opposed to loading him with technical challenges, then email him.

  • John W.

    Philip, July 8th comment – page 7, has hit the nail on the head!! The engine has “spoken for itself” now that Orbital has made its report on 38-to-39% efficiencies without any high-tech top-end refinements to Brad’s engine.

    It’s time to consider the business side of getting the REVETEC Engine to its next level:

    Funding is required. So, who among us can help Brad get this modern marvel into a new high-milage factory-new car so that a real comparison to the best mass-marketed 2008&09 car can be used as a current market comparitor?

    And, who among us can contribute funds and exertise for the top-end refinements that are required in order to complete a “whole package” for Brad to apply his talents on?

    After all, even though the bottom end is spectacular, the market place (OEM car manufacurers) are undoubtedly wanting to wait so they can commit to a complete engine system which has been tested and demonstrated to out perform the new competion.

    It’s time for us to “network” this challenge to any and all who are enthusiastic about REVETEC and might be or might know who could be substancially helpful to this promising innovation’s advancement to market.

    “Enough said. Now let’s get with it.” Network this challenge and if you can actually help Brad “move this along” (as opposed to loading him with technical challenges, then email him.

  • Devon

    Interesting design, would love to see this in my Excursion, which would mean I get a whopping 20-24mpg, I love it and won’t be getting rid of it for a while.

  • Devon

    Interesting design, would love to see this in my Excursion, which would mean I get a whopping 20-24mpg, I love it and won’t be getting rid of it for a while.

  • Jim

    I agree with John; lets get it moving.

    For those of us with funds.. invest! invest!

    But there is no need to drop the discussion; technical challenges whatever, that doesnt stop anything and can bring useful ideas to the forefront. Its not “negative” thinking. Early problems can kill a project dead, a problem spotted early can save everything.

    An example of a new idea, Devon wanting to see it in his Excursion.. can it ? – or the basic short engine – be retrofitted to an existing car? It seems to be compact enough and uses the same top end — the advantages would seem to make it worthwhile!

    I mean private owners doing this via a garage — like aftermarket turbo chargers and propane conversions. It would be a start and would get market confidence

    That idea would also provide an ‘in’ if the main manufacturers are slow on the take up.

    The main manufacturers resistance to change and risk — or worse open hostility — I see as a real potential problem. I believe there are precedents in history; if nothing else the possibility would make investors wary. It also needs some goverment support, the goverments blessing as it were, since it would be sad if the development failed due to some regulatory problem (real or percieved)

    And then there is racing — this isnt a race engine, but maybe it could be? Racing “improved the breed” in older times and a 24-hour le Mans win would be great publicity — and hey.. less pit stops !!! (now theres a thought)

  • Jim

    I agree with John; lets get it moving.

    For those of us with funds.. invest! invest!

    But there is no need to drop the discussion; technical challenges whatever, that doesnt stop anything and can bring useful ideas to the forefront. Its not “negative” thinking. Early problems can kill a project dead, a problem spotted early can save everything.

    An example of a new idea, Devon wanting to see it in his Excursion.. can it ? – or the basic short engine – be retrofitted to an existing car? It seems to be compact enough and uses the same top end — the advantages would seem to make it worthwhile!

    I mean private owners doing this via a garage — like aftermarket turbo chargers and propane conversions. It would be a start and would get market confidence

    That idea would also provide an ‘in’ if the main manufacturers are slow on the take up.

    The main manufacturers resistance to change and risk — or worse open hostility — I see as a real potential problem. I believe there are precedents in history; if nothing else the possibility would make investors wary. It also needs some goverment support, the goverments blessing as it were, since it would be sad if the development failed due to some regulatory problem (real or percieved)

    And then there is racing — this isnt a race engine, but maybe it could be? Racing “improved the breed” in older times and a 24-hour le Mans win would be great publicity — and hey.. less pit stops !!! (now theres a thought)

  • Pingback: Obama Campaign Seeks to Make Oil Prices Irrelevant : Red, Green, and Blue()

  • praveen

    please tell me more about differential gearing used here to rotate the output shaft in the same direction.

  • praveen

    please tell me more about differential gearing used here to rotate the output shaft in the same direction.

  • Paddy

    The engine is very interesting. There are about 80 patented rotary engines of one sort or another that I have examined and this one has many similarities to a couple of them. The Revetec still hasn’t overcome the inherent problem of excessive heat loss, read energy loss of pretty much all combustion engines.

    Like Mr. Howell-Smith, I have patented and built a prototype combustion engine which is highly asymmetric (the intake volume is far less than the expansion volume) which means that the engine is thermodynamically very efficient. The concept of asymmetry is not new but this engine (the DPATS for Double Piston Asymmetric Two Stroke) is simple and does not have all the accompanying cam shafts etc which complicates things so much. The aim of this engine is to run on CWS (coal water slurry) fuels as done in Detroit a year or two ago and drive rail, transport and electricity generators. Most people don’t realize that it is possible to combust coal without producing CO2 as shown by chemical thermodynamics. We just have to get the reaction fine tuned for combustion engines.

    Congratulations to Mr. Howell-Smith for getting this far with his engine. I have found with my invention that the world is chockers with skeptics and nay sayers. Wish me luck!

  • Paddy

    The engine is very interesting. There are about 80 patented rotary engines of one sort or another that I have examined and this one has many similarities to a couple of them. The Revetec still hasn’t overcome the inherent problem of excessive heat loss, read energy loss of pretty much all combustion engines.

    Like Mr. Howell-Smith, I have patented and built a prototype combustion engine which is highly asymmetric (the intake volume is far less than the expansion volume) which means that the engine is thermodynamically very efficient. The concept of asymmetry is not new but this engine (the DPATS for Double Piston Asymmetric Two Stroke) is simple and does not have all the accompanying cam shafts etc which complicates things so much. The aim of this engine is to run on CWS (coal water slurry) fuels as done in Detroit a year or two ago and drive rail, transport and electricity generators. Most people don’t realize that it is possible to combust coal without producing CO2 as shown by chemical thermodynamics. We just have to get the reaction fine tuned for combustion engines.

    Congratulations to Mr. Howell-Smith for getting this far with his engine. I have found with my invention that the world is chockers with skeptics and nay sayers. Wish me luck!

  • Hi guys and gals,

    Thank you for the comments on the article on our engine.

    First I might mention Orbital. Orbital has a world class testing facility that test and optimise engines for clients such as: GM, Ford, Toyota, Mazda, Renault etc. They have very accurate test equipment and are highly respected in the engine testing field.

    During testing, they checked and recalibrated their equipment 3 times during the testing, as they didn’t believe at first the fuel efficiency the X4v2 engine was delivering. In fact they were very careful in the testing, because if they didn’t have enough data and had the correct procedures performed to back up our results, they would come under attack from other companies who had tested at their facility.

    The efficiency figures are correct, and are consistent with our in-house testing figures.

    Moving on to crankshaft efficiency, peak combustion pressure occurs around 15deg ATDC. At this point the con-rod has a small amount of torque lever applied to the crankshaft. Maximum leverage from the con-rod to crankshaft occurs around 70-80deg (depending on the length of the con-rod) at which point the combustion pressure is around a half of the peak pressure. When I first designed this engine concept, I calculated cylinder pressure VS torque lever on our engine and a conventional engine. I calculated it every 1/3 of a degree of rotation. The calculation clearly shows a 35% loss in transfer (please calculate it for yourselves). We have reduced this to 15% losses.

    I know some people won’t understand this fully, but if you provide higher leverage and maintain that lever longer, the pressure from combustion is converted to crank torque more efficiently.

    Now let’s look at torque.

    Torque is what accelerates your vehicle. I always tell ask people how much power does your car engine have. Let’s say 100kW@6,000rpm. If you drive your engine up to 5,500rpm slowly, then stamp 100% on the gas pedal, how hard does it accelerate? No too good. Now do the same test at 2,500rpm, the acceleration is far better. Look at a dyno graph of you engine, and you will notice you have around half the power at 2,500rpm than at 6,000rpm, yet the car accelerates at least twice as good. So power doesn’t give you the performance you think it’s giving. If you put an accelerometer in your vehicle, you will notice that the acceleration matches your torque curve. Peak torque is generally between 3,500rpm and 4,500rpm on a normally aspirated engine, and this is the rev range you feel the most acceleration. Higher torque in the lower rev ranges and maintaining it over the rev range provides a higher efficient engine. We have proven it.

    Over the years there have been a lot of knockers, but we have independently tested and produced the figures to back up our claims. There has been a huge amount of engines been developed out there who claim huge gains in efficiency. We are the only company to my knowledge that has proven their claims.

    Thanks again for your interest and comments… keep them coming.

    Regards

    Brad Howell-Smith

    Chairman/Inventor

    Revetec Holdings Limited

  • Hi guys and gals,

    Thank you for the comments on the article on our engine.

    First I might mention Orbital. Orbital has a world class testing facility that test and optimise engines for clients such as: GM, Ford, Toyota, Mazda, Renault etc. They have very accurate test equipment and are highly respected in the engine testing field.

    During testing, they checked and recalibrated their equipment 3 times during the testing, as they didn’t believe at first the fuel efficiency the X4v2 engine was delivering. In fact they were very careful in the testing, because if they didn’t have enough data and had the correct procedures performed to back up our results, they would come under attack from other companies who had tested at their facility.

    The efficiency figures are correct, and are consistent with our in-house testing figures.

    Moving on to crankshaft efficiency, peak combustion pressure occurs around 15deg ATDC. At this point the con-rod has a small amount of torque lever applied to the crankshaft. Maximum leverage from the con-rod to crankshaft occurs around 70-80deg (depending on the length of the con-rod) at which point the combustion pressure is around a half of the peak pressure. When I first designed this engine concept, I calculated cylinder pressure VS torque lever on our engine and a conventional engine. I calculated it every 1/3 of a degree of rotation. The calculation clearly shows a 35% loss in transfer (please calculate it for yourselves). We have reduced this to 15% losses.

    I know some people won’t understand this fully, but if you provide higher leverage and maintain that lever longer, the pressure from combustion is converted to crank torque more efficiently.

    Now let’s look at torque.

    Torque is what accelerates your vehicle. I always tell ask people how much power does your car engine have. Let’s say 100kW@6,000rpm. If you drive your engine up to 5,500rpm slowly, then stamp 100% on the gas pedal, how hard does it accelerate? No too good. Now do the same test at 2,500rpm, the acceleration is far better. Look at a dyno graph of you engine, and you will notice you have around half the power at 2,500rpm than at 6,000rpm, yet the car accelerates at least twice as good. So power doesn’t give you the performance you think it’s giving. If you put an accelerometer in your vehicle, you will notice that the acceleration matches your torque curve. Peak torque is generally between 3,500rpm and 4,500rpm on a normally aspirated engine, and this is the rev range you feel the most acceleration. Higher torque in the lower rev ranges and maintaining it over the rev range provides a higher efficient engine. We have proven it.

    Over the years there have been a lot of knockers, but we have independently tested and produced the figures to back up our claims. There has been a huge amount of engines been developed out there who claim huge gains in efficiency. We are the only company to my knowledge that has proven their claims.

    Thanks again for your interest and comments… keep them coming.

    Regards

    Brad Howell-Smith

    Chairman/Inventor

    Revetec Holdings Limited

  • Oh yeah, I forgot to mention the fuel economy. Even though our engine provides incredible fuel efficiency of 207g/(kW-h) or 39%, the engine’s increased low down torque enables you to accelerate the same as a conventional engine, but at lower rpms. The lower the rpms, the less fuel being used (less volume swept per minute). In tests we proved this.

    Regards

    Brad Howell-Smith

    Chairman/Inventor

    Revetec Holdings Limited

  • Oh yeah, I forgot to mention the fuel economy. Even though our engine provides incredible fuel efficiency of 207g/(kW-h) or 39%, the engine’s increased low down torque enables you to accelerate the same as a conventional engine, but at lower rpms. The lower the rpms, the less fuel being used (less volume swept per minute). In tests we proved this.

    Regards

    Brad Howell-Smith

    Chairman/Inventor

    Revetec Holdings Limited

  • Chris

    The Revetec engine design doesn’t go far enough! Where is the variable compression, the electric motor/generator, the electromagnetic valve actuators and the turbo compounding? Seriously they could do much better!!!! I know I can.

  • Chris

    The Revetec engine design doesn’t go far enough! Where is the variable compression, the electric motor/generator, the electromagnetic valve actuators and the turbo compounding? Seriously they could do much better!!!! I know I can.

  • Uncle B

    Asia is hungry for fuel, America increases its fuel consumption each year. The world has in it, a fixed amount of fuel! Time to look for different fuels! The only way we see to use our vast nuclear fuel deposits is to fission-react them to heat, then electricity. H2 and O2 from newer better electrolysis methods, using a urine (reclaimed sewage anybody?) have been developed at MIT and other American schools! Now, storage of the almost free from fission fires H2 and O2 presents a problem, but not for long! We know how to convert H2, O2, and CO2 with some sunlight into a fuel much like diesel oil! We also know how to make diesel oil from Algae! Adaptation of Euro-diesel engines in the U.S.A. by law in one year can resolve the current import situation by 40 %! Mandating “Fuel Farms” using current Algae technologies can have the same effect! Simply mandating all bio-gasable effluents to gas can reduce oil imports by a very large factor! We don’t do any of these! We enjoy the “Status Quo” and await “Better Times” We will not change until absolutely forced by economics to do so! Possibly, somewhere in the 2030’s or 2040’s we will make some progress, but for now, the “Status Quo” has enough momentum to maintain the current situation, and as the few, pooer among us are sloughed off, and newer smarter younger, and more energetic folks replace them in the mad dash towards mediocracy, America and its dreams will fade from view, as Asia takes the well deserved lead and brings the world into the twenty-first century with astounding technologies produced by their equally astounding scholars, who have epoched American schools many times over in the last few generations! Put on your Cowboy hat, Yankee Doodle, mount your Harley Davidson, you are on your last ride, into the sunset of history, radical engines be damned, up the “status quo”!

  • Uncle B

    Asia is hungry for fuel, America increases its fuel consumption each year. The world has in it, a fixed amount of fuel! Time to look for different fuels! The only way we see to use our vast nuclear fuel deposits is to fission-react them to heat, then electricity. H2 and O2 from newer better electrolysis methods, using a urine (reclaimed sewage anybody?) have been developed at MIT and other American schools! Now, storage of the almost free from fission fires H2 and O2 presents a problem, but not for long! We know how to convert H2, O2, and CO2 with some sunlight into a fuel much like diesel oil! We also know how to make diesel oil from Algae! Adaptation of Euro-diesel engines in the U.S.A. by law in one year can resolve the current import situation by 40 %! Mandating “Fuel Farms” using current Algae technologies can have the same effect! Simply mandating all bio-gasable effluents to gas can reduce oil imports by a very large factor! We don’t do any of these! We enjoy the “Status Quo” and await “Better Times” We will not change until absolutely forced by economics to do so! Possibly, somewhere in the 2030’s or 2040’s we will make some progress, but for now, the “Status Quo” has enough momentum to maintain the current situation, and as the few, pooer among us are sloughed off, and newer smarter younger, and more energetic folks replace them in the mad dash towards mediocracy, America and its dreams will fade from view, as Asia takes the well deserved lead and brings the world into the twenty-first century with astounding technologies produced by their equally astounding scholars, who have epoched American schools many times over in the last few generations! Put on your Cowboy hat, Yankee Doodle, mount your Harley Davidson, you are on your last ride, into the sunset of history, radical engines be damned, up the “status quo”!

  • kmetz

    Yeah, but I bet I can’t get one for a reasonable price to replace the engine in my Honda. Gimme a break, if it’s not going to happen then it’s not going to happen. Go bug some spoiled, rich people.

  • kmetz

    Yeah, but I bet I can’t get one for a reasonable price to replace the engine in my Honda. Gimme a break, if it’s not going to happen then it’s not going to happen. Go bug some spoiled, rich people.

Back to Top ↑

Shares