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

They were banned in racing, so little development occured.

in other news, AT&T plans to convert its entire fleet to CNG

and the NYT has a story out on how the IC engine in hybrids will shrink over the years and be tuned for a very narro rpm range

Now, suppose we took this ultra-light engine and ran it on CNG or something and used it to recharge hybrid batteries a la Chevy Volt??

i just lov it (hate it) when they feel challenged they out law a better concept
The Cummings Diesel eng. almost won the Indy 500 once
They outlawed it

I have been amazed that the Wankel has not been more popular.
Seems like a great idea ESP for aircraft ..less parts jump in around

CUMMINS!!!! There is no G. sorry but that is one of my pet peeves....
And yes it is a shame that our society is afraid of a break from conventional gas burners.

Blame my spell check............