mighty yet tiny ?
Discussion
I love it when people "invent" new world beating engines without doing any homework first.....
namely poor:
Surface area to volume ratio
Crevice volume control
Dynamic compression ratio limits
No obvious possibility for variable cycle (intake/exhaust events)
Difficult high speed chamber dynamic sealing
In 2013, the power output of a conventional modern ICE is NOT the issue (lets face it, F1 engines can make better than 10bhp/kg). The issues are with emissions, noise, durability, and most most important of all, cost & fuel economy.
By the time they have that engine any where near an OEM level of capability, pretty much every single car in the world will have an electrical traction system.........
(it's a dinosaur before it's even been build!)
Also, to say it is potentially more powerful in terms of bhp/kg than a jet engine seems foolhardy. A basic grasp of thermodynamics would seriously suggest otherwise. The compete lack of any facts, test results, and even any Maths by the inventor also tells me it's a dud.
It's a bit like inventing super lightweight high performance horse shoes in 1920. Great, but a little late ;-)
namely poor:
Surface area to volume ratio
Crevice volume control
Dynamic compression ratio limits
No obvious possibility for variable cycle (intake/exhaust events)
Difficult high speed chamber dynamic sealing
In 2013, the power output of a conventional modern ICE is NOT the issue (lets face it, F1 engines can make better than 10bhp/kg). The issues are with emissions, noise, durability, and most most important of all, cost & fuel economy.
By the time they have that engine any where near an OEM level of capability, pretty much every single car in the world will have an electrical traction system.........
(it's a dinosaur before it's even been build!)
Also, to say it is potentially more powerful in terms of bhp/kg than a jet engine seems foolhardy. A basic grasp of thermodynamics would seriously suggest otherwise. The compete lack of any facts, test results, and even any Maths by the inventor also tells me it's a dud.
It's a bit like inventing super lightweight high performance horse shoes in 1920. Great, but a little late ;-)
Max_Torque said:
By the time they have that engine any where near an OEM level of capability, pretty much every single car in the world will have an electrical traction system.........
When they invent wireless power transfer maybe. Because until there is a miracle with battery technology or some other power source, they are pretty much useless unless you dont actually drive any miles and intend to leave the car plugged in and charging all the timeHell, even mobile phone batteries are s
t !stevieturbo said:
Max_Torque said:
By the time they have that engine any where near an OEM level of capability, pretty much every single car in the world will have an electrical traction system.........
When they invent wireless power transfer maybe. Because until there is a miracle with battery technology or some other power source, they are pretty much useless unless you dont actually drive any miles and intend to leave the car plugged in and charging all the timeHell, even mobile phone batteries are s
t !Looks strangely similar to all those 'alternatives' to poppet valves that turn out to be inflexible and/or inefficient in other ways.
I only see massive wiping-seal problem here, and I doubt those tiny planet gears will actually deal with the torque reversals needed to make exhibit A work at all to any extent - let alone approach the 1hp/cui effectively boasted about in the video - no, wait, that was surpassed in conventional engines c.80yrs+ ago...
(Go on, show us some BMEP... I bet H.Ricardo is giggling aloud somewhere.)
I only see massive wiping-seal problem here, and I doubt those tiny planet gears will actually deal with the torque reversals needed to make exhibit A work at all to any extent - let alone approach the 1hp/cui effectively boasted about in the video - no, wait, that was surpassed in conventional engines c.80yrs+ ago...
(Go on, show us some BMEP... I bet H.Ricardo is giggling aloud somewhere.)
stevieturbo said:
When they invent wireless power transfer maybe. Because until there is a miracle with battery technology or some other power source, they are pretty much useless unless you dont actually drive any miles and intend to leave the car plugged in and charging all the time
Hell, even mobile phone batteries are st !
Doesn't the Tesla S get 300 or so miles per charge?Hell, even mobile phone batteries are s
t !That's significantly better than the amount of miles I get from a tank of fuel in my MX5 (circa 240). Communing that 300 miles will last me roughly 10 days of commuting and pleasure driving.
Granted it takes a lot longer to 'fill the tank', however an overnight charge once every week isn't exactly a hassle is it?
Fail to see how that's poor unless I'm missing something?
Richyvrlimited said:
Doesn't the Tesla S get 300 or so miles per charge?
That's significantly better than the amount of miles I get from a tank of fuel in my MX5 (circa 240). Communing that 300 miles will last me roughly 10 days of commuting and pleasure driving.
Granted it takes a lot longer to 'fill the tank', however an overnight charge once every week isn't exactly a hassle is it?
Fail to see how that's poor unless I'm missing something?
Didn't Top Gear only get 50 miles out of one?That's significantly better than the amount of miles I get from a tank of fuel in my MX5 (circa 240). Communing that 300 miles will last me roughly 10 days of commuting and pleasure driving.
Granted it takes a lot longer to 'fill the tank', however an overnight charge once every week isn't exactly a hassle is it?
Fail to see how that's poor unless I'm missing something?
Whilst I am not suggesting that either are truly representative, obviously it will be somewhere between the 2.
So let's split the difference & say 200 miles.
How do you then do a journey of 150 miles & back in 1 day like a normal car?
Richyvrlimited said:
Doesn't the Tesla S get 300 or so miles per charge?
That's significantly better than the amount of miles I get from a tank of fuel in my MX5 (circa 240). Communing that 300 miles will last me roughly 10 days of commuting and pleasure driving.
Granted it takes a lot longer to 'fill the tank', however an overnight charge once every week isn't exactly a hassle is it?
Fail to see how that's poor unless I'm missing something?
Google suggests more like 240 miles. So 240 miles for a several hour charge in an extremely small 2 seater that costs high 5 figures ? or is it 6 figures ?That's significantly better than the amount of miles I get from a tank of fuel in my MX5 (circa 240). Communing that 300 miles will last me roughly 10 days of commuting and pleasure driving.
Granted it takes a lot longer to 'fill the tank', however an overnight charge once every week isn't exactly a hassle is it?
Fail to see how that's poor unless I'm missing something?
How many MX5's could you buy for that ?
As I said, battery cars may be fine for a small few who dont really drive very often. But for people who actually use their cars, and dont drive everywhere solo....nope, batteries are still s
t.Ive nothing against electric vehicles, in fact I'd love an electric van. But having the battery run flat 2-3 hours into the day would make it rather impractical.
Max_Torque said:
I think you are missing an irrational hatred of anything you don't understand........... ;-)
Which bit do I not understand ?Batteries are s
t, they offer poor mileage and poor value. I certainly have no hatred of them.But it is certainly irrational at this time to consider them a viable option for a vehicle that gets used on a regular basis, unless there is another power source ready to take over when they go flat.
andyiley said:
Didn't Top Gear only get 50 miles out of one?
Top Gear tested the Tesla Roadster, a modified Lotus Elise, not the Model S, Tesla's ground-up electric car. And they said that it would do 55 miles on track, not on road (how does your trackday mpg compare to what you get day to day?). And Tesla sued, although they lost their case on the basis that the judge did not believe that they could show any quantifiable loss as a result of the statements. http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/mar/05/top-g...
Gassing Station | Engines & Drivetrain | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff