MYT engine - is this genuine?
Chris
A friend has just sent me the link, and I thought this was the place to
come for some informed comments.
Is it a scam?
Or does it have real potential?
--
Chris
Duncan Wood
Well without a torque curve, emissions spec or a clue how the cooling
works it's impossible to tell.
Adrian
saying:
I'm sceptical. But that's not news.
From that article you linked to, there's a link to their own site, with a
lot more information -
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Massive_Yet_Tiny_(MYT)
_Engine#How_it_Works
( http://snipurl.com/a61xo )
They don't exactly start off well, since they're immediately frigging the
figures - a single cylinder of capacity x firing 16 times per rotation
does not make it equivalent to a 32-cylinder engine with capacity 32x,
any more than a Wankel rotary is "equivalent" to a six-pot with six times
the capacity of a single rotor chamber.
The first video seems to be the most useful in showing the basics -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZI1JLbnW3Sg
It really just seems to be a slight twist on the existing diesel, closer
to a two-stroke than a four, despite two-smokes having noise & emissions
against them. Looks like it's air-cooled, which has all but died out for
drive-by noise reasons.
We'll see. But I'm sceptical.
Ian
> We'll see. But I'm sceptical.
Me too. Several reasons:
1. They claim that it's non-reciprocating. But the pistons have to
start and stop (and are shown starting and stopping) many times per
revolution. How's that managed? How is the consequent reaction torque
handled?
2. The pistons travel round a toroidal "cylinder". How is the slot for
the drive sealed when the piston isn't there? How is the drive flange
sealed when the piston is there? The problems here look like those of
the NSU rotary and Brunel's atmospheric railway combined.
and finally, the simplest one of all ...
3. Why. Don't. They. Ever. Show. One. Working? If it's so great, show
us one using real fuel, attached to a real dynamometer and producing
real power. At an independent test site, of course.
I'm filing this under "misguided stupidity" but I am keeping space for
it in the "malevolent scam" section.
Ian
Duncan Wood
Yup, ala the mayflower engine. If it's as good as it's claimed to be then
it'll clean up in racing & make building smart cars etc. trivial, so why
not sell the rights or engines to a real car manufacturer? Or stick it in
a superbike.
Mrcheerful
"Duncan Wood" <nntp...@dmx512.co.uk> wrote in message
news:op.unuup...@lucy.adc-theatre.cam.ac.uk...
film of one running here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5433553047018998659&hl=en
Alex Buell
magically appears in front of Mrcheerful:
> > Yup, ala the mayflower engine. If it's as good as it's claimed to
> > be then it'll clean up in racing & make building smart cars etc.
> > trivial, so why not sell the rights or engines to a real car
> > manufacturer? Or stick it in a superbike.
>
> film of one running here:
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5433553047018998659&hl=en
It's quite clever how the piston caps rotate around (you can see this
in the first few seconds of the film)
--
http://www.munted.org.uk
Fearsome grindings.
Elder
@hotmail.com says...No it isn't, it is being pushed by an outside power source.
--
Carl Robson
Get cashback on your purchases
Topcashback http://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/skraggy_uk/ref/index.htm
Greasypalm http://www.greasypalm.co.uk/r/?l=1006553
Tim Downie
Ahem, a film of "aliens landing" noises and fuzzy views of the engine
behind. I think the sound track got mangled but there's no way that you
can be sure that the engine is "running".
This one is a bit better
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/365068/myt_motor_run/
I'd be more inclined to believe that this one is actually running. Curious
about the digital display, could it be rpm? Certainly on compressed air
they talked about it turning over as low as 40 rpm so it may be that it's an
intrisically "low rpm/high torque engine"
Tim
johannes
Maybe the figures are optimistic, but even if it is just twice as good as
a conventional engine, it is still amazing.
Yes, it is a bit like a wankel, but without the problem of 1-dimensional
seal surfaces. All friction surfaces are 2-dimensional, like in a conventional
engine. Since it is small, water cooling can be added as on outer shell.
The geometry of the pistons are mind boggling, something which could never
be made by hand e.g. on a classical lathe.
I am sure it will take off.
Colin Wilson
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZI1JLbnW3Sg
Or this, probably the best of the few i've looked at
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7238800781365222249&hl=en
Duncan Wood
A bit like gas turbines did?
johannes
Gas turbines weren't suitable for car engines; not good for variable power
delivery such as necessary in city traffic. Very inefficient outside their
power band. Maybe they could be used in hybrid cars for charging batteries?
Duncan Wood
Wheras this engine so far has no numbers for torque curve or effeciency.
It could be a good idea but so far there's no evidence that it actually
works anywhere near as well as it claims.
Peter Hill
<nntp...@dmx512.co.uk> wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:39:45 -0000, Ian <ian.g...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> On 16 Jan, 13:25, Adrian <toomany2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> We'll see. But I'm sceptical.
>>
>> Me too. Several reasons:
>>
>> 1. They claim that it's non-reciprocating. But the pistons have to
>> start and stop (and are shown starting and stopping) many times per
>> revolution. How's that managed? How is the consequent reaction torque
>> handled?
>>
>> 2. The pistons travel round a toroidal "cylinder". How is the slot for
>> the drive sealed when the piston isn't there? How is the drive flange
>> sealed when the piston is there? The problems here look like those of
>> the NSU rotary and Brunel's atmospheric railway combined.
>>
>> and finally, the simplest one of all ...
>>
>> 3. Why. Don't. They. Ever. Show. One. Working? If it's so great, show
>> us one using real fuel, attached to a real dynamometer and producing
>> real power. At an independent test site, of course.
>>
>> I'm filing this under "misguided stupidity" but I am keeping space for
>> it in the "malevolent scam" section.
>>
>> Ian
<http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Massive_Yet_Tiny_(MYT)_Engine>
Bet he hasn't worked out the loads and effects of leverage in the
linkage during combustion. The life of the phasing gear may be very
short under loads imparted from an internal combustion process.
Demonstrates naivety of a layman in claim that's it's vibration free,
the intermittent motion does cause vibration.
Air motors produce good torque even when stalled. Torque is high as
cylinder pressure can be kept at line pressure though whole of power
stroke and there is no compression stroke to work against. While an
IC has a pressure peak at or near TDC which then reducuces rapidly as
expansion takes place on power stroke, it takes some effort to
compress the charge and on a 4 stroke 1/2 the cycle is lightly loaded.
He's mistaken when he says the other half of the engine is "loading"
it up, compressing air and then expanding it works like a spring, much
of the energy taken to compress it is returned during expansion.
Power demand on an air engine always means high air consumption.
>Yup, ala the mayflower engine. If it's as good as it's claimed to be then
>it'll clean up in racing & make building smart cars etc. trivial, so why
>not sell the rights or engines to a real car manufacturer? Or stick it in
>a superbike.
Nissan are working on something very similar to Mayflower, articulated
con rod with control link to adjust compression. First look suggests
both will suffer from backlash in control, very high forces at link
pivots due to lever ratios and could have fatigue (HCF) issues in the
control mechanism. Possibly to the extent they will need to make parts
from unobtainium or so massive they can't be fitted in the space
available.
If you want real crackpot engines look up six stroke on the Wiki. All
suffer from incomplete analysis, student error or layman's naivety. At
least 2 rely on "instant" heat transfer from one working fluid to a
2nd. One fails to comprehend problem of heat transfer to air from a
cylinder head, which is well known and documented from work on air
cooled engines. Others just don't appreciate that air is compressible
and has inertia and thus don't understand valve timing.
For outright scam, Scuderi Split-Cycle "Air Hybrid" Engine takes the
prize. The prize fund stands at $8m USA Department of Defence + $6m
from private investors + $?m. Initial premise was that air could be
transferred between 2 chambers instantly and without loss either of
air to dead space, or in state as it passed though valves and
interchamber port. The cycle, which is physically impossible to
achieve using device described in patent, was analysed by a research
institute, the result was proclaimed to the world and used to raise
funds. It seems they still haven't analysed the true efficiency,
taking finite transfer time and losses into account but they are well
aware of the issue. Every subsequent patent demonstrates a frantic and
hopeless attempt to overcome their inablity to transfer matter
instantly. They now seem to think (mistakenly) that some degree of
supercharge (yet also claim the benefit of a Miller cycle) will negate
the losses and clearly believe in the "Free Lunch" (well they have
been eating one every day for years). Then they compounded this by
demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of dynamics and
mechanical systems with a laughable cam guided big end. The velocity
diagram presented in the patent application shows a discontinuity and
thus has highly destructive impact events at any feasibly useful
operational speed. Everyone of their patents lacks merit as a feasible
engine yielding the claimed efficiency gains.
Scuderi are followed closely by various "air" engines, all the ones
that make claim to overall ZERO emission.
--
Peter Hill
Spamtrap reply domain as per NNTP-Posting-Host in header
Can of worms - what every fisherman wants.
Can of worms - what every PC owner gets!
johannes
True, although they make some claims in the video based on the lower internal
friction and the many compartments (cylinders) around the torus. One could
imagine that it is difficult to make a complete prototype, at the same time
keep it secret before the patent application is ready.
Duncan Wood
<jo...@sizef4467898898itter.com> wrote:
But if you haven't built a working one you don't know that there's lower
internal friction. You can build a 2 stroke with very few parts but it
won't be very effecient.
johannes
Yes, there is a lot that we don't know. But the pistons chasing one way
round in the torus looked quite interesting. The problem is then the
valving and the crankshaft connection. Somehow they have solved it.
Duncan Wood
<jo...@sizef4467898898itter.com> wrote:
Well maybe.Until it burns fuel we don't know & they don't either.
johannes
I can't imagine that there will be an ignition system. the position of the
combustions around the torus will be quite random. Hence it's probably some
form of a diesel. This tally with the mentioning that all kinds of liquid
fuel or gas could be used.
Duncan Wood
<jo...@sizef4467898898itter.com> wrote:
At the moment it's a compressed air engine.
johannes
Here are some more specs http://www.angellabsllc.com/mytengine.html
Duncan Wood
<jo...@sizef4467898898itter.com> wrote:
>
>
> Duncan Wood wrote:
Well
"5. On a dynamometer, an engine’s combustion temperatures is typically
measured 2” from the exhaust ports, on the premise that the combustion
temperature is very close to exhaust temperature. This is due to the zero
degree duration @ TDC and the 360 degrees running duration of a standard
engine. However, if @TDC, the piston is allowed to stay for a longer
duration, it will burn a greater percentage of the fuel and air mixture in
the combustion chamber until oxygen or fuel theoretically runs out at the
end of the power stroke, thereby totally completing the combustion process
and drastically lowering the exhaust temperature at the end of the exhaust
stroke."
is utter bollocks. Only Diesels don't burn essentially all the fuel at the
top of the stroke & even they burn most of it, 100% fuel burn is the norm
in an engine & combustion temperature is much higher than exhaust
temperature or you wouldn't actually be able to generate any work.
johannes
It takes many years to perfect an engine. Hence we still see progress on
the 100 year old 4-stroke engine. The power output of modern engines is
really amazing, considering the same mechanical layout as a Ford T engine.
Duncan Wood
<jo...@sizef4467898898itter.com> wrote:
>
>
> Duncan Wood wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 19:22:55 -0000, johannes
>> <jo...@sizef4467898898itter.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Duncan Wood wrote:
>>
>> >> At the moment it's a compressed air engine.
>> >
>> > Here are some more specs http://www.angellabsllc.com/mytengine.html
>>
>> Well
>> "5. On a dynamometer, an engine’s combustion temperatures is typically
>> measured 2� from the exhaust ports, on the premise that the combustion
>> temperature is very close to exhaust temperature. This is due to the
>> zero
>> degree duration @ TDC and the 360 degrees running duration of a standard
>> engine. However, if @TDC, the piston is allowed to stay for a longer
>> duration, it will burn a greater percentage of the fuel and air mixture
>> in
>> the combustion chamber until oxygen or fuel theoretically runs out at
>> the
>> end of the power stroke, thereby totally completing the combustion
>> process
>> and drastically lowering the exhaust temperature at the end of the
>> exhaust
>> stroke."
>>
>> is utter bollocks. Only Diesels don't burn essentially all the fuel at
>> the
>> top of the stroke & even they burn most of it, 100% fuel burn is the
>> norm
>> in an engine & combustion temperature is much higher than exhaust
>> temperature or you wouldn't actually be able to generate any work.
>
> It takes many years to perfect an engine. Hence we still see progress on
> the 100 year old 4-stroke engine. The power output of modern engines is
> really amazing, considering the same mechanical layout as a Ford T
> engine.
& they all still run on wheels :-)
johannes
I am a bit annoyed that the land speed record allows the use of jet engines,
the vehicles are really nothing more that an aircraft trapped to the ground;
no power goes through the wheels. I only recognise the last wheel powered
car as the true record holder (John Cobb, ~400mph, 1947!). Wouldn't such
wheel powered land speed records be much more interesting & relevant?
Ian
Of course it is. What's not clear are how they cope (a) with the
colossal vibrational torque required to speed up and slow down the
pistons and (b) how they seal the piston drives.
Incidentally, I think that demonstration is one of their compressed
air runs.
Ian
Ian
> Only Diesels don't burn essentially all the fuel at the
Indeed. That's the whole point of diesels. They aim to burn the fuel
at constant pressure rather than at constant volume as in an Otto
cycle. Since flame fronts move faster than pistons, the only way to
get a progressive burn is to omit the sparking plug and add the fuel
gradually, hence the need for a higher compression rato to ignite the
fuel.
Ian
Ian
> It takes many years to perfect an engine. Hence we still see progress on
> the 100 year old 4-stroke engine. The power output of modern engines is
> really amazing, considering the same mechanical layout as a Ford T engine.
It doesn't have to take long. Look at the power increase in the Gnome
Rotary between 1914 and 1918, or in the Rolls-Royce Merlin between
1939 and 1945.
However, that doesn't mean that every crackpot idea will in due course
be a winner. Some ducklings are ugly.
Ian
Peter Hill
wrote:
>Thus spake johannes (jo...@sizef4467898898itter.com) unto the assembled multitudes:
>
>> I am a bit annoyed that the land speed record allows the use of jet engines,
>> the vehicles are really nothing more that an aircraft trapped to the ground;
>> no power goes through the wheels. I only recognise the last wheel powered
>> car as the true record holder (John Cobb, ~400mph, 1947!). Wouldn't such
>> wheel powered land speed records be much more interesting & relevant?
>
>Errmmm... Donald Campbell in Bluebird, 17 July 1964, 403.1 mph?
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluebird-Proteus_CN7>
>
>I agree with your sentiment, though.
FIM later ratified the Jet powered 3 wheeler "Sprit of America" as a
valid record and it thus lay claim to the outright LSR. As it had made
the LSR run before Bluebird, which had been built to FIA wheel driven
rules using a turboSHAFT engine, Bluebird lost the record. FIM had no
rules on "wheel driven", just outright speed with wheels in contact
with ground (this is/was contentious). It became clear to the FIA that
the outright fastest LSR (which they thought they owned) would always
be held by a goddamn "bike" and be ratified by the FIM for all time
hence unless they changed their rules to allow thrust. So they changed
the rules.
Wheel driven turbine powered record is held by Don Vesco in his
Turbinator. FIA flying mile 458.443mph
Wheel driven piston engine record for Flying Mile is held by Tom
Burkland in The Burkland streamliner. FIA 415.896mph (has recorded
417.020mph to SCTA/BNI regs).
Wheel driven piston engine Flying Kilometer is still held by Al
Teague at 425.05mph.
Non of it's relevent, non of them are useable on road, turning circle
being a major issue. 300.788mph agerage with a stock body is where
it's at.
http://www.kugelkomponents.com/bonneville/bonneville.html
leo
<nbk...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>>
>> Yup, ala the mayflower engine. If it's as good as it's claimed to be then
>> it'll clean up in racing & make building smart cars etc. trivial, so why
>> not sell the rights or engines to a real car manufacturer? Or stick it in
>> a superbike.
>
>film of one running here:
>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5433553047018998659&hl=en
Erm - it's a *very* blurry video of one being driven by a compressed air
supply. This is a long way from a successful internal combustion test
--
leo
Grimly Curmudgeon
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Mrcheerful" <nbk...@hotmail.com>
saying something like:
>film of one running here:
>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5433553047018998659&hl=en
Well, that was shit. And what the fuck was up with the soundtrack.
Grimly Curmudgeon
something like:
>MYT engine - is this genuine?
>
>http://tinyurl.com/74opln
>
>A friend has just sent me the link, and I thought this was the place to
>come for some informed comments.
>Is it a scam?
>Or does it have real potential?
It's not new. I recall an exactly same design some thirty years ago and
it sunk without trace. Not only that type either, similar ones have been
dreamed up, come and gone and it's usually some fundamental difficulty
with making the damn things work over time - even a short time.
Cooling difficulties usually rear their heads, of course, along with
sealing and metallurgical problems.
Grimly Curmudgeon
<timdow...@obvious.yahoo.co.uk> saying something like:
>This one is a bit better
>
>http://www.metacafe.com/watch/365068/myt_motor_run/
I like the way it starts with a scream then gets slower and slower.
Just as if it's losing power because of pick-up in the bores/pistons. Oh
no, it couldn't be seizing up, could it?
I think he stopped it just in time.
Ian
wrote:
> Cooling difficulties usually rear their heads, of course, along with
> sealing and metallurgical problems.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is generally pretty brutal to these
inventors as well.
Ian
Colin Wilson
> Just as if it's losing power because of pick-up in the bores/pistons. Oh
> no, it couldn't be seizing up, could it?
> I think he stopped it just in time.
That was due to the air pressure dropping IIRC in the video (he didn't
leave the compressor running)