Massive Yet Tiny (MYT) engine

[flynfrog]

At the risk of appearing to question the motives of MYT Engine nay sayers who've posted to this forum, I believe Mr. Morgado and Angel Labs are up against some of the most well-healed lobbies in the world, all of whom stand to be relegated to 'also rans' if they have to compete against the MYT engine in all of its many potential applications.

To those who claim 'it won't work', I only need refer you to the Russians who have copied the idea and are introducing it as a powerplant in a new automobile. I doubt that they would have invested so much in an unproved concept.

so you have a running one then. What Russian car has this engine?

[RL Gumm]

For a look at the Russian car with their version of the MYT engine, just go Google "Russia claims Raphial's MYT engine design its own". How long do you think it will be before China will be turning out its version? Americans need to get behind Morgado and support his efforts.

[flynfrog]

For a look at the Russian car with their version of the MYT engine, just go Google "Russia claims Raphial's MYT engine design its own". How long do you think it will be before China will be turning out its version? Americans need to get behind Morgado and support his efforts.

I find two videos of cad models running no running motors. Three websites that all link back to each other probably put up by who ever you are working for.

Like I said show me a running engine with proof its any better than a piston engine and ill be happy to eat crow.

[mep]

Even when there is a running engine it still doesn’t change the thermodynamic principle and therefore efficiency.
Sorry.

[flyboy2160]

if that little thing is equivalent in power to the giant engine shown for comparison, it's going to generate the same amount of heat. how are they getting rid of all that heat? certainly not through those wussy little fins on those aluminum housings. that finning looks about what is on a 125cc or 250cc air cooled motocross engine.

[piast9]

You forgot about the outstanding efficiency of that engine It wouldn't heat up at all.

[mep]

Haa haaa
It might run but it doesn't improve thermodynamic efficency.
You don't even need to watch all of those videos to realize that.

[RL Gumm]

As I said before, there are a lot of people with deep pockets and their own reasons to try and dissuade interest in the MYT. There are several photos of the Russian version of the MYT installed in a new car. Just read the posts, keep current on the progress of Angel Labs in bringing their engine to market, sit back and continue to dream of how you might kill it off. For my part, I think it is going to be a phenomenal success, to the benefit of the entire world.

[mep]

Having deep pockets doesn't mean they are smart at all.
Somehow it reminds me of the Cargolifter case.
Better show some of your links and don't just tell us what to type into google.
Anyways don't think we are dreaming we are just down to earth. I can write it a third time if you like. The problem with IC engines is their limited efficiency due to the thermodynamic principle. This fact is not changed when your piston is rotating instead of moving up and down. So flyboy is absolutely correct there is still the same amount of wasted heat that has to pass through a much smaller area.
The engine might run, fine but I can't see any serious improvement coming from it. Those engines might be much smaller but that's not our main interest at the moment. Currently we are looking for improved efficiency or even better something that doesn't consume oil resources at all. The MYT engine is old fashion in that regards and probably can't even reach the efficiency of current engines.
I recommend you not to invest any money into this but it's your choice.

[donskar]

I'm sure the MYT engine will be an epoch-making, historical success as soon as it is fitted with the 100 mile per gallon carburetor that nefarious Detroit interests have ruthlessly suppressed. I swear this is true because the voice in my head told me so. Now where did I put my tinfoil hat? Ahh, here it is, on my perpetual motion machine (patent pending).

[flynfrog]

As I said before, there are a lot of people with deep pockets and their own reasons to try and dissuade interest in the MYT. There are several photos of the Russian version of the MYT installed in a new car. Just read the posts, keep current on the progress of Angel Labs in bringing their engine to market, sit back and continue to dream of how you might kill it off. For my part, I think it is going to be a phenomenal success, to the benefit of the entire world.

name one last I checked there is no such thing as a piston engine lobby. Its pretty obvious you are a shill for the MYT engine.

[Gatecrasher]

The only rotary car I have owned was a 2nd Gen RX7 turbo. The fuel economy was non-existent for the amount of power that was produced. It is also easy to get roped in on the mathematics similar to the MYT concept.

It had 654cc cylinders, three per rotor and the engine had two rotors. Thus 654*3*2 gives a 3.9L engine which is compact, add the turbo and power should be high, unfortunately it was NOT, getting the fuel to fully combust for maximum efficiency was a pain.

Wankel designed and patented this back in 1929 and it took many years to get it to it’s present state. A lot of the sealing issues that have been solved on the Wankel would also be the same on the MYT.

From an engineering standpoint the numbers he is quoting are all based on his theory, no science to back it up. Even if it did work, which I do not believe, the casings and drive mechanisms would all have to be upsized to accommodate the torque and temperatures thus negating most of what was stated. The fuel economy numbers for me are the dead giveaway that he does not fully understand all of the problems. Calculating less weight to economy is a no brainer compared to developing a new engine concept.

[richard_leeds]

While I agree with the naysayer posts above, it is frustrating that we can only extract 35% of the energy we put into our cars.
So it is natural to think that the reciprocating piston engines have taken us down a cul-de-sac. Why do we insist on carrying around all these silly inefficient power stations in our vehicles?

The more efficient method is to consolidate energy capture into a central place running at maybe 75 or 80% efficiency and add in some “free” energy from the sun & tides to give you say 90%. Then distribute the captured energy to automobiles with hydrogen or electricity, say 50% transmission losses. That’ll mean oil to car efficiency of say 45%.

OK that’s a bunch of guessed numbers, but the technology exists and I can demonstrate it without the need for compressed air.

[flynfrog]

short answer Richard battery tech still isn't there yet. Its easier to top off a tank and keep going than it is to wait 15 hours for a batter charge.

[richard_leeds]

I was wanting to talk about the efficiency of converting oil to forward motion of a vehicle.

Yes the conventional ICE is rather convenient, but it is embarrassing that 65% of that energy you put into the car is wasted. Inventors are motivated to keep trying new ways to convert that energy because the current ICE conversion losses are terrible.

Even a steam engine can do up to 50% http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency#Steam