25% power increase and double gas mileage...read on

Just from the quick read over it looks like its been a paper evaluation only at this point. Has it been tried?
 
I can't see it helping.

Two things: First, the arm adds friction at the pivot point. Second, the sliding action of the crank and the device increases total "bearing" surface far greater than the insert and piston rod alone.
 
"double" the gas mileage? So how in the world does it increase the efficiency of the combustion engine from 35-40 to 70-80% even solid fuel rockets aren't that efficient.

Total bull.

Combustion engines are inherently inefficient. Look at the wankel engine, no pistons, no nothing 60% less parts than a comparable piston engine, yet gets worse MPG.

Lots of energy lost into heat... during the whole 4 stroke process.
 
95blklsc said:
Just from the quick read over it looks like its been a paper evaluation only at this point. Has it been tried?
Click to expand...

They have stated that dyno runs have proven out the results...and in fact that is how they arrived at their mileage and power numbers.

Before the dyno, they had no clue what the increases might be.
 
HOTLNC said:
I can't see it helping.

Two things: First, the arm adds friction at the pivot point. Second, the sliding action of the crank and the device increases total "bearing" surface far greater than the insert and piston rod alone.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the increased dwell time more than compensates.

In layman's terms, it allows the piston to be pushed down for a much longer period of time, taking more advantage of the pressurized gas.
 
maxmk8 said:
"double" the gas mileage? So how in the world does it increase the efficiency of the combustion engine from 35-40 to 70-80% even solid fuel rockets aren't that efficient.

Total bull.

Combustion engines are inherently inefficient. Look at the wankel engine, no pistons, no nothing 60% less parts than a comparable piston engine, yet gets worse MPG.

Lots of energy lost into heat... during the whole 4 stroke process.
Click to expand...

I would agree on the fact that combustion engines are inherently inefficient, however my dad, who built his own orbital engine back in the 70's, looked over the design and he feels it has much merit.

And it is not doubling the efficiency of the chemical process, it is merely increasing the duration that the crank is able to harvest the compression energy from the downward force of the piston. In effect, it is like a 2 gear transmission inside the engine, shifting the stroke angles halfway through the compression cycle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top