Massive Yet Tiny - MYT engine

Looks fine in theory, but will probably suffer from the same type of seal problems found in a Wankel engine.

The power 'stroke' is an expansion between the two rotors, so something will be needed to stop that expansion forcing the 'back' rotor backwards, rather than the 'front' rotor forwards.

Not only that, but what keeps the "front" rotor from turning during the compression stage? Since the compression occurs between the two rotors, if they're both turning freely, there will be little or no compression.

"I came across this on you tube yesterday. Supposedly a new kind of engine. I was curious what people here thought about it."

It would be real problems from a maintenance stand point. Toroidal Cylinder creates sealing problems. Toroidal segments for pistons. Special Piston rings. Sealing inner and outer seams of toroidal cylinder.

A real R&D RATHOLE to throw tax dollars or one's lifetime savings into with no return!

As a scam it's fairly reasonable, as an investment it is a dead loser!

I remember this engine 50yrs ago, then there where only two lobs acting like a pair of scissors, with only one combution chamber. I remember articles in the popular science magazines, particulary about the drive mechanism. I believe the major companies built a proto type, and test ran it in african safaries races? not to sure of that. Anway its nice to see someone having a go, good luck to them.

"I remember this engine 50yrs ago, then there where only two lobs acting like a pair of scissors, with only one combution chamber."

jdretired: You were thinking of the Atkinson Differential Engine IIRC!

The Atkinson Cycle

Building the Atkinson Differential Engine

Makes a nice and different working model engine. Not much for commercial or home power plant.

This is a sketch of the engine I mean. Perhaps lob was not a good description. The drive was a planetary gear with an attached crank that gave the scissor action as they rotated.

Seems like it'd need some seriously stout one-way clutches, but I could imagine it'd work fine as long as the cylinders held their seal. But with heating/cooling, I imagine a big problem would be in what is essentially an endless split cylinder with different forces and thermodynamics working all around the seal. The pistons seem simple enough; it's the cylinder that'd be a problem in manufacturing and design.

Just for the sake of argument, let's say the engine functioned as advertised.

The fuel burn would be huge, you cant get 1400 horsepower from a combustion engine without some serious fuel consumption. (The economy of the engine has not been touted on the videos available) I was under the impression (correct me if I'm wrong) that we are all trying to find more efficient power sources. The Mazda rotary engine works quite well and is a simple engine, most of the problems, including seal problems have been dealt with years ago, yet it is not as fuel efficient as other (auto) engines. Much of this is due to EPA restrictions and the inability of the average Joe to tune the engine on the fly (it can be run "lean of peak) for better mileage. There have been working examples of this type of engine for years.

The other obstacle is that with the high combustion amount and frequency, there is also going to be a by product to deal with: Heat generation. It's a law of physics. Dealing with the heat issues from such a "Mighty Yet Tiny" engine would offset the only seeming advantage to it.

As a side issue, timing and torque. How is acceleration accomplshed? You also can't have the output of 1400 HP without having substantial mounting attachments and an output shaft that could handle the torque.

However, it is an interesting concept. If I wanted a small engine that developed high HP and I didn't care about fuel burn, I'd go with a turbine. They burn Kerosene not ga$.

But that's just me!

I see them doing something like GM did with their V8's in cutting out some of the fuel being delivered into the inlet ports as the power requirement went down, bleading off some of the compressed air to the intake port allowing it to run on less than the 4 segments that are in the design. Thus instead of producing 1400 HP the engine would only produce 325 HP . Still using a large amout of fuel but modulating instead of burning all the fuel all the time. I know most engines unless in a stationary power application only produce peak power for short times, with long periods of low power usage. My 454 in my pickup truck has only a few times in it's lifetime been at full power. But the reserve is there when I get the 38 foot trailer stuck and have to use brute force to get it out. Would think that the MTY would be designed for the loading factors of the use and not build a 1400 HP engine for application that 150 HP would cover. I can see these being built the size of coffee cans and being used in the light engine industry for small devices that current engines are too bulky and heavy for use in. Like in machinery used up north in the mining and oil industry. An artic cat would be a lot lighter and more powerful for pulling weight around in Alaska.

The inventor claims over 100mpg, and says that it works the best on bio-diesel - the fuel also acts as a lubricant. Part of the fuel economy is due to the engine, part due to it's light weight.

Maybe with enough investors to fiddle with it, this could be a great engine. But I'm no investor (sadly), and I'll believe it when I see it.

I find it hard to imagine that the "cylinder" halves won't leak as the castings warp from heat/cooling.

Time will tell, I suppose.

Although the race is on to see if we can replace internal combustion entirely!

Good point - if it's producing 1400hp shaft power then it'll produce over 1400hp in heat (1MW). That's gonna require a crazy cooling system. And a crankshaft that can handle that amount of power and torque would have to be stupidly thick - surely it would need some kind of bulldozer-style clutch and gearbox (at least an extra half-tonne of steel), thereby drastically reducing the claimed power to weight ratio. Even a 500hp lorry box is massive. Apart from that though I'd be very interested to see what happens with this design - we haven't had anything really new happen with ICEs for a while.

- Mike, Glasgow, Scotland.

I am very excited about this engine. The statement about the piston movement and keeping the pistons moving in the correct direction is achieved by the placement of the cranks and the timing of the cranks. It is simple physics that if a crank is at 0 or 180 degrees it is very resistive to movement from pressure applied at the connecting rod while if it is between 45 and 140 degrees it will move with more ease while turning the crank from the applied pressure. Couple this with the displacement cranks turning on an internal gear that is fixed while connected to the main rotational shaft, we get the transmission of the power to the main shaft.

Much thought has gone into this design and I think that this is more in the way of something that can be used in many many applications from automotive, aviation and marine applications. I can see this being used as a single unit aircompressor with 1/2 of the engine developing power while the other half is suppling compressed air for mine use and any application that requires compressed air for tools. years ago we used to take 6 cylinder engines and ran them on 3 while compressing air with the other 3 cyclinders. This engine would produce much more air with the larger displacement of using multistages without having such a big footprint.

Will continue following the development and design changes of this engine. I was very interested in the barrel engines and the MYT appears to be more efficient than that old design.

Ric

finally! some one with a real brain and a good positive attitude, I agree with you and I hope to be a part of the company as I actually talked with Raphial by phone yesterday and glad to hear from hem that he want to put this in the hands of the public and didn't sell out to big companies just wanting to buy him out. Thanks Bill

billbyrdauto@yahoo.com

Looks like just a showroom demo, better would have been to install in an actual application or install one in a running car. How does it compare to the Wankel Engine or the Renesis rotary engine of Mazda?

And the Australian Sarich Orbital Engine?

http://www.angellabsllc.com/video/animation.xls

Here is an animation that shows how the engine works in detail. Up at the top you can hit the right arrow and run the animation continuously.

Also, the engine has piston rings just like a standard gas engine so the rings and seals should not be a major problem. I do see the the intermediate gears as being a high wear item.

I have some questions too. Why the spark plug if it runs at 25/1 compression. At that compression you will get burn just from the compression.

I'd have no concern about the rings and pistons by themselves...it's the cylinder. Imagine if you split a 4 cylinder engine block lengthwise, bolted the halves back together again, and tried to make it work for a few thousand miles. Yikes; we worry about head gasket sealing and head warping. Imagine if it's the block/cylinders we're talking about...

You could split the engine block into two semi circular halves rather than circular sections. You would still have to worry about the seals between ring edges and the block .

"Here is an animation that shows how the engine works in detail. Up at the top you can hit the right arrow and run the animation continuously."

Now that everyone can be on the SAME PAGE and discuss the one and only MYT engine we MAY be able to carry on intelligently.

The engine 'block' if that is what you wish to call it is a TORUS or doughnut shape. The pistons are sections of a solid torus. Flat ends and dually curved sides which are require special machine tool capabilities to produce.

"Also, the engine has piston rings just like a standard gas engine so the rings and seals should not be a major problem."

To the contrary I see the piston rings as a nightmare to manufacture, apply to the pistons and maintain adequate sealing since they are NOT simple cylindrical shapes as in a normal ICE.

IF the MYT engine had any real advantage over standard ICE's it should have grabbed it's market share long before now. It had faded into near oblivion and was rescued to intrigue the unwary.

"IF the MYT engine had any real advantage over standard ICE's it should have grabbed it's market share long before now. It had faded into near oblivion and was rescued to intrigue the unwary."

Either that, or all of the previous patents leading up to this were bought up and sat on, so oil could make profit.

Nonetheless, I have serious doubts about a 4x7 in. engine powering me down the street, unless its run on nuclear power.

"Either that, or all of the previous patents leading up to this were bought up and sat on, so oil could make profit."

Same old excuse. Patents can be circumvented when and if warranted. From an engineering and manufacturing stand point it is a miserable design and subject to excess wear and other complications due to the toroidal 'cylinder and pistons. That is a 'wheel' that doesn't need to be reinvented.

"Nonetheless, I have serious doubts about a 4x7 in. engine powering me down the street, unless its run on nuclear power."

The smallest isotope powered Stirling engine is made by Infinia for NASA and is not inexpen$ive.

A nuclear reactor is NOT going anywhere on wheels any time soon.

I suggest you take a course in the realities of engineering and life.

my father is a specialist in 30 degrees/areas of engineering (manages oxy chem) my grandfather worked at NASA among other things and i am extremely smart too. i thought i was crazy so i showed them. they think somethings wrong with some of you. I'm not here to criticise promote or showboat.

I'm just saying that some of you are either lazy, and are deliberately overlooking research criteria (like what the videos actually say witch is hard) in hopes that no one else puts effort into it the reasons for this are wide some being that maybe you heard about it from someone already and are just basically quoting them or you watched the video for about 6 ins and started posting based on what you understood

already saw it and jumped the gun on the engine based on what's already out there witch couldn't be true because we all know (if we put any kind of effort into it) that it is not trying to replicate any kind or variation of any current technology because it stated that it abnormal technology thus theory's based on current applications/technology's are useless!

i did about 20 Min's of research on specifically this engine first of all you people need to quote...... he said "this and this " but instead, this is, what and ,why, ......

the simple dissections and negatives that some of you stated so far are actually concerns that this man for-saw and answers himself in videos.

MY OPENION SUMERISED...

heat.....fine not a problem

fuel eco.....plausable

size..... is related to the eco and is relevant in design and functonability

design ...... the design (like i was saying above is pretty much "the" invention... that being said the guy probably knows about the same engines that you guys know about so him calling it new design/invention means exactly that, new.)

suspension.....this is just deductive reasoning but given the physical layout of the engine what holds it in place would be much like an x Axel rigged with heat displacement the torque would on every side witch to me would jut naturally just require an x shape frame or engine mount

parts ....once again! stated by the man, there are practically none, i mean what are there like 24 total including screws block?? (adds to my laziness theory)

reference to another engine was made ...a look alike, or similar, i was going to take a look at them until the man himself made a mention at them in reference to the amount of valves on the engine witch was correcting this.

rotations.....also i suggest researching (as i did) a classification of this specific engines' 1 rotation i reference to heat and reliability, 1 rotation has unprecedented ware on the engine compared to anything else currently functional.

some of you made statement that it couldn't be good because motor companies have not bought one/ them and that you would See them everywhere by now. there is an awesome car that can drive on the interstate and has great acceleration that has already been made and is very affordable comparativly...... the difference with this car is that is completely and utterly powered by air and also fills up it's own air while it's driving so that would make it renewable .....unlimited gas mileage and eco friendly and it has been around for the same amount of time as the myt engine. now, with your superstar reasoning and infinite knowledge, tell me why that car is not around and everywhere as yo so call it.

We have added this interview today at Massive Yet Tiny Engine to Production

From the above referenced Free Energy Systems web site: ''Rather than wait for a huge contract to build new vehicles from the ground up, Morgado's company, Angel Labs LLC, finally decided to just forge ahead with a retrofit paradigm. They are looking for someone with $10 million to head up the franchising of retrofit garages that would replace existing engines with their engine. Morgado would handle the production -- something he's done before, with some 150 inventions to his name. The $10 million is needed for building the production plant.'' AKA 'Fishing for Finance.'

In production? NO. Ready to go into production? YES, or so it is claimed. Also the same goes for retrofitting garages. The only impediment is a measly total of $20 Million.

When will see the first of many production engines? Got 20 mil? Calling all fat cats and big rollers!

Anyone taking bets?

I dont understand how this can be so much more efficient than any other internal combustion engine. When gas is ignited there is only so much force with which it expands right?

I feel like it doesnt matter how the chamber is oriented, whether its cylindrical, trochoidial, or a donut. While different orientations may be more or less efficient depending upon the application. How can a 14x14 cylinder be as powerful as 4 v8's? unless of course the fuel pushes with a greater force. But again, im just saying this because i dont understand, which doesnt mean i'm right.

"I dont understand how this can be so much more efficient than any other internal combustion engine. When gas is ignited there is only so much force with which it expands right?"

You are absolutely right. You can not extract more energy from the fuel consumed than is available therein. In fact you can only extract less due to inefficiencies of mechanical heat engines.

Any engineer or physicist will tell you the the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the operating temperatures limit the output power.

I pity the inventor who expects to get rich and/or investors who put money into a failed device from the git-go!

While it is true that you can only get so much energy out of a given amount of fuel, you can use the energy produced more efficiently. The theoretical maximum efficiency for conventional gasoline engines is about 33%, in most engines it is closer to 15%. This means that only 1/3 of the heat produced goes to moving the piston, another 1/3 goes straight out the exhaust, and the last 1/3 just heats up the engine block, which then needs to be cooled. Another thing that helps, is that in a conventional engine, the piston moves in a reciprocating motion (up and down), and the crankshaft moves in a rotational motion. It is the job of the connecting rod to turn the reciprocating motion into rotational motion, but you will lose some efficiency when you do that. Now you can only apply the maximum amount of force to turn something when the force is at a right angle to the shortest distance from the center of the object, this only happens once per power stroke in a conventional engine. In the MYT engine, the force is always at 90˚ during the power stroke. Another thing I just thought of, is that a conventional engine has to use its own momentum to push out the exhaust gasses, whereas in this engine, the piston pushing the gasses out, is being directly pushed by the power stroke. Finally, to clear some things up, in a conventional engine, one power stroke occurs per piston, every 2 revolutions of the crankshaft. In the MYT engine, there are 32 power strokes every 2 rotations of the crankshaft (animation showing this: http://www.angellabsllc.com/video/mytengine3d.wmv ). This is why he makes the comparison of his engine to a 32 cylinder engine. There are probably some other confusions I could clear up, but it's 2 AM and I'm tired. Hope that helps -Mr. EyeQueue

The Unbehend rotary with similar design layout to Mighty Engine. 1898.

Thanks for that picture, duckinthepond; I've been working on inventing a rotary engine and as I've just discovered, two of my ideas have already been invented - that being one of them.

As for the MYT engine - I don't see how an engine so small can be strong enough to deliver the amount of power it suggests. the casing would have to be a lot bigger to stop it ripping itself off its engine mounts. also, the pistons themselves are connected by a part of their sides; Wouldn't they end up bending under the pressures?

The engine they demonstrate with makes it look reasonable but if you imagine the size of the one that would be replacing your 400bhp V8 and the fact that this is made up of tiny parts; I seriously doubt it'll work.

however, if it were changed to be able to handle the stresses put upon it and to deal with the heat problem, I could see it possibly working but the power to weight ratio wouldn't be as good as they claim (not even half) but it would still be better than what we have today.

I won't be investing though.

http://www.enginemuseum.org/links.html

Some interesting engine museums