Have any of you guys seen or heard anything about this new engine that they're working on? www.regtech.com Looks like it could be a pretty slick unit with a lot of applications! They're working on a 125 HP unit right now.

 

Yep this was posted about a year or so ago. Pretty cool stuff. Only a couple of moving parts. High HP to weight ratio. I'd like to see one built to power a car. So far as I remember they are using them primarily to power refer trucks.

 

I think it's one of those inventions designed to suck in investors and provide the designers with a good living until they ultimately fail and move on to the next invention. Kind of like cold fusion.

Edwin

 

Looks like it works to me. I'm sure there will be bugs to work out. I'm not willing to call it a scam yet. I'm not ready to invest my dollars either. I'll reserve judgement.

 

It's always interesting to see new designs but this one has a long way to go if the demonstraton means anything. That test was spun on a lathe and he tweaked it until there was combustion inside. No power was being produced, it only lit some fuel while pumping. It takes an effort like what Mazda put into the Wankel to bring a new technology to useful service.
I'd love a new concept that would do away with reciprocating parts, but dry rubbing seals on the end of long blades that must hold combustion pressures while sliding up and down ramps are, in my feeble mind, not going to make it happen.

Wetspirit

 

I have a video of their previous working prototype running on it's own power. The video on the site now is the new design that they were doing tests on. The previous version did work though. As far as longevity of seals etc. I'll just wait and see.

 

The problem with the rotary design comes with pressure spikes during combustion that devistate the side and apex seals. If they can pulse the fuel, and maybe use water/alcohol injection to slow the burn it will be successfull, especially if they incorporate ceramic surfaces to recycle the heat. I like the idea.

 

GM tried to develop a rotory diesel in the 70's. It wasn't too bad, if you compared it to the 5.7 they built. The only design that worked and held up was patent owned by Wankel. Design it outside the patent rights, and it never held up well. The one in the article doesn't say much, so I wont comment on it.

 

Seems like everything GM touches turns to poo.

 

Mazda has been using gas wankels for a while now. Perhaps a diesel isn't out of the question, but why? wankels are traditionally high reving (insanely high even for a gasser) engine.

 

It doesn't have to be a Wankel, but something light and compact that does away with all that reciprocating action in a piston engine would be nice. It doesn't have to be good for every application. Maybe good for light cars but not trucks for instance. The piston engine has a very long development history and it's a real common sense design, but it has severe drawbacks too. It is very inefficient, must have a cooling system and has a lot of busy parts (unless it's a single cylinder air cooled two stroke).
A lot of people are trying to think outside the box but it's hard to come up with anything better. Even simpliying the existing four stroke by throwing away the cams and valve train to go to electric valves would be a great thing. No throttle, much less hardware, infinitly variable valve timing, a nice efficiency improvement.

The reasons it's so important is because we are throwing away 60% to 70% of the energy we put into internal combuston engines. More and more cars are being sold worldwide, we are sending a huge amount of our fortune to other countries to support our need for fuel, the price will continue to rise to the point where consumption levels off or there will be an international situation where the price of fuel jumps so much that our economy goes into a recession. So much about our lifestyle and what we do is about the price of fuel and the price of fuel is governed by our consumption rate.

Here's an interesting statistic: I read the other day that if 35% of the vehicles in the US were diesels we could stop importing oil from Saudi Arabia. If that is true (and I don't know if it is) why aren't we heading in that direction? I would much rather drive diesels, and I do. Not just because of geopolitics but because the driving experience is so much better. Every time I hear someone say "you can't even tell it's a diesel", or "diesels are so stinky and smoky", or "they don't have enough power" or "where do you get fuel", it just Pi$$es me off.
There is no reason to give up our good lifestyle, there is no reason to stop using fuel, but why just dump it down the drain for nothing?


Wetspirit

 

The biggest problem with comming up with a more efficient design is the money and politics issues. The most efficient designs are all patented and put away for safe keeping. What would happen to this world if we all went to a vehicle that gave 40 to 100 mpg's? It would totally devastate the worlds economy. We, the americans, would have 60% more money in our bank accounts and have luxuries otherwise unatainable. and our poor middel eastern persion gulf countries would have all this oil that would be an overabundance of, that nobody would pay much for. They would go into a major depression and probably collapse. Our auto and oil companies can't let that happen. There is too much oil left to produce and sell. and they have the power to control all who depend upon it.
I think diesel is a by product from making gasoline. it has to be used. but now that diesel is so improtant for this country, sombody is cashing in. If more diesels are produced, the demand will go up and diesel fuel prices will go UP not down. and even if we do conserve on driving or get more fuel efficient cars to reduce our consumption, do you think the oil companies will import less??? or import more and pump less from our wells??? I seem to remember watching on TV last nov when the oil companies had to report their profits, a record almost 10 billion for the 3 rd quarter!!! That is money that their professional money spenders could not spend or allocate or hide!!! What happened to the 4th quarter profit reports??? If we actually reduced our oil consumption by 10% for 1 month, the oil companies would run out of ships to store the oil off shore cause there is no place left to put it.
Sorry about the rant

 

No it would crush the economy!
We would drive everywhere for no apparent reason... Take road trip every weekend... Drive to a friends house to talk because it would be cheaper than a phone call....
Everything would stay the same and the autoparts and tire industry would explode!

Oilguy

 

HemiCat,

I have designed and built a prototype high efficiency fuel processing system, and have done extensive research in this area.
It all boils down to this (and believe me, I hate it), the world economy is balanced on the oil barrel. If one of us were to somehow sneak an extreme efficiency system through the intentionally convoluted clean air act and EPA regs, the oil market would crash, and we would see starvation the likes of which the world has never seen.

I can tell you from personal experience the 100 or more MPG's are very attainable in a large vehicle.

Let me give one example: Electronic Fuel Injection is in wide use because of EPA requirements, but it is a dead end for fuel economy in gassers. If you were to put a Throttle Body Injector at eash end on a Chrysler long ram intakes, you would easily eclipse the fuel economy values attainable by any EFI system. As I said before, in 1976 Mother Mopar was scoring an EPA certified 36MPG on the Feather Duster and Dart Light. Those are large mid size cars by todays standards.

I have stacks of patents from the USPTO that are proven extreme efficiency devices that were bought by GM, TRW, etc. and buried. It's sick and wrong, but a fact of life. We live in the Matrix, not the real world!

Mark

p.s. GM is the most brazen offender in this, and they will NEVER get a dime from me EVER....

 

I hear ya Mark!!! I worked at GM engineering in the 70's. I saw first hand exactly what you said. I had to sign the little white card on a few projects. Those patents are sewed up tight and gone for a very long time. or at least until nobody can benifit from it. Yes the emmissions standards and fuel economy requirements were atainable in the early 70's with NO egr or aftertreatment that the EPA and fed gov set in the early 70's for 1995 standards before GM told the feds that the 78 standards were too strick and could not meet them and unless they reduced the standards to a cretain level and reduced the projected requirements, that they will shut down their production plants nationwide and put everyone on unemployment. The standards were reduced. This particular engine exceeded those requirements, and with egr and after treatment exceeded any projection that the feds had back in the early 70's. That design has never surfaced again that I am aware of. GM is in financial trouble, so they claim, and it doesn't hurt my feelings much. They have missappropriated money with their professional money spenders and really screwed their employees BIG time. Like, how could the largest auto co in the world (70's) that broke record sales in all divisions, give their employees the smallest profit sharing check of the big three? What a joke!!! The professional money spenders made it happen. Bought Hughes aircraft one year, and EDS the next, with the rest of the profits allocated for expansion. the gm profit check was $350. and Ford and Chrys getting $2500-3500 per employee. and the union just let it happen. Incredible. I was speechless in those years, and told why raises were unatainable.
Sorry about the rant.