The design seems valid. In essence a 4 stroke engine reminiscent of the wankel rotary. It may well have the same seal problems that are the limiting factors in the Wankel. Diesels, like the Cummins, are made for millions of miles of running. Can this reach that level of endurance?

That is the question.

Like the Wankel it seems to have higher power density than conventional machines.

It may also be capable of being made very small and can fill a need there

I have seen this design some years ago and have yet to see it in production. The Wankel eliminates the reciprocal forces inherent in a piston engine, this engine appears to do the same on the surface but it still suffers from each "piston" coming to a stop even though it does not have to reverse direction.

Efficiency can be directly linked to number of cylinders, more cylinders = less efficiency due to greater surface area, this design may have higher surface area than an equivalently displaced piston engine.

This engine, at first glance, appears complex, with more complicated machining/assembly and the seals! I would hate to see how they compare to simple piston rings.

Explain to me how you can precision machine two halves of a torus in mass production and why as the motor heats up under air pressure operation the rpms slowly drop. Maybe not enough oil in the air mix. There doesn't seem to be enough material in the motor itself to hold it in position when making power. There is no mention of how much power can be made. How complicated must the transmisson gearing be to allow the motor to spin up to operating efficiency? Conventional engines can produce massive amounts of torque simply because the wide ignition pulses allow an impact wrench effect on the crankshaft.

I think it is worth some optimization in the lab. Remember our first diesels and gas engines had their problems. Experience with those should allow them to find the limits of this type of approach. Once these limuts are found, the future, or lack of it will be clear

Wonderful concept.

Sealing could be real challenge.

A cylindrical shafts/rods rotating or reciprocating can be well sealed with present technologies. But sealing the areas around rotating elements entering tubular chamber could be a real challenge.

Will 'Magnetic Drive' an option for this application? 'Mag Drives' are getting more and more popular these days even for heavy torque demands.

There are a lot of similar concepts with patents to them. All suffer from seal issues. A standard straight piston is a good way to seal. The web page has a discussion group and one guy named kkersey in the string "fatal flaw" basically has it correct. http://www.angellabsllc.com/forum/posts/list/6.page

Follow the discussion and you will see that Kkersey knows what he is talking about. He ends by wishing them luck. In short the claims are way overstated, and the engine would be about like a Wankel in size and weight when all said and done, but with a lot more problems.

This engine, like most I have read about, does nothing about the fundamental thermodynamics, which is the key. Once the fundamentals are solved, the weight of a car is not that important. If an engine can recapture a high percentage of inertia, say 80-90%, the losses are mostly rolling and aerodynamics, not inertia changes. In other words, an engine can be twice as heavy and not matter. A 5,000 lb car is not much worse than a 2,500 lb car when it comes to fuel economy as recapture approaches 100%.

The key is crash safety first, then economy. There are "cars" that can get 12,666 miles/gallon at 20 mph, but in a crash you are dead. When you take standard structural strategies of a car in a crash, weight is very important in the crash. For example, a car that is twice as heavy than the car it hits will be 1/8 as likely to injure the occupant. Weight is very important, and it basically comes down to hitting a car that is lighter than what you drive.

To truly take advantage of a light car based on a light-weight and high power-density engine that is implied with the mytengine concept, an entirely new structural system is needed in a car, including not having the engine in the front where it destroys the proper crash pulse signature. (Way beyond this discussion…)

The key to a successful engine in a car is not what the mtyengine is focused on. The key is in high recovery rates that approach 90-95% and efficiency power development. Most "hybrid electric" cars only get 25% recovery. Drive a Prius and watch the green charge meter. It maxes out with only a light push on the brake, which is not how most driving is done. A car can brake at near 1 G, but most can accelerate no more than .3-.5 Gs, with a Corvette maxing out at .75 Gs. That means that recovery must be about as large as the acceleration power, or in the case of a Corvette, the charging system needs to absorb 350-400 hp. Ah…that ain't going to happen in a battery system in part because a 400 hp generator is some serious iron. Now you see the fundamental flaw in electrics and how an entire industry can be wasting a lot of R&D funds on a dead end.

Since the mytengine has no recovery and no new thermodynamics, it really does nothing for the market. To brake into auto engines one would have to have an engine that would deliver 2-4 times the fuel economy (100+ mpg), and no risks. Imagine having to change out engines that don't work long term? An auto company would go bankrupt.

Ive just watched this engine and its speech on it and in my terms it is not feasable or theretorcally correct. how would it accelerate? for one increase in fuel shouldnt do much for it as for increasing its rpm's along with torque. we all know loss of initial torque can pull down a motor for a slight second this will pull the mytengine down so much as to lose its momentum, when uses air for test run it slowly slows down never did it speed up which means there is a loss by accumilative gain or domino effect present compression is limited as for displasment one piston fighting the other so on and so on. i still believe the "quasiturbine" is a better approach at what we on earth need no emissions and burns all fuel