Opposing piston engine
 

http://engineeringtv.com/blogs/etv/archive/2008/07/01/opposed-piston-opposed-cylinder-engine.aspx

Very cool. New type of piston engine.

The CEO said 40% efficiency? Is that gonna work in the long run? The second chap said 3 HP per cu. foot? I hope he meant per cu in. ;)

gotta love the first question from the reporter after a rather technical description:

"sooo you have one cylinder for two pistons, right?"


:D

Junkers tried this with a 2 stroke diesel engine in the 40's

My former company has 2 compressor designs which has horizontal opposed cylinders, to reduce the force couple. It used a 3 rod design, of which 2 were split. They were considering going to a 4 rod, double split design, so that more of the parts would be common.

The real savings is in the foundation for a compressor, since you don't have to deal with that force couple from the offset crank. It would also help in a car engine, with the reduction in weight of the block and in the less vibration transmitted to the frame. I'm not sure why they think the design would be 40% thermally efficient.

Looks like a cool idea if they can keep it funded and get it more maistream. Add some fins to that baby and make an aircooled Diesel!

I still don't like engines whos parts have to stop and change directions.

I believe Fairbanks-Morse had an opposed piston, two cycle diesel locomotive engine back in the '50's.

Really?

Like a two stroke or a four stoke engine where the pistons instantaneously change direction? The piston reaches apogee, then changes direction at some point the pistons motion did stop... even if for micro seconds..

Flywheels and multiple cylinders smooth things out..

I have seen that... I also seem to remember some tri engine with opposed pistons... may have been a marine app.. drawing a big crs blank now

"extremely lightweight"

yes!

This is the one I like::

http://www.animatedengines.com/img/gnome.gif

http://www.rotoblock.com/howitworks.shtml

ROTOBLOCK FTW!

Yeah, he meant per CID. :-P

Internal combustion engine efficiency is WAY less than 40% today.

The RX-7 fanbois call them "boingers".

For pure simplicity, adaptability, and power per pound, you don't get more better than a rotary turbo. Want more power? Add a rotor.

Or...go newfangled:
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/quasiturbine.htm

I wonder how they are going to deal with the unburned fuel and cylinder lube in the exhaust, which is why the 2 stroke died in the first place?

HP per pound, it is hard to beat a turbine. Making a turbine work well in a car is another matter.

But then again, on a thurst per lb of weight basis, it's hard to beat a ram jet!

yeh

I also wonder about those super long conn. rods on the outboard pistons...

well, we'll see what happens with it

Dodge tried in a Monaco about 1966........guess it worked out not LOL
At least they tried