Howdy Thomas,
There is a far step from an inventor and an engineer- design team. Mention
the word "inventor" and we run. Mention the inventors' work is patented and
we duck our head waiting for the noise sure to follow.
All engine designs that perform useful work are similar. The difference
between them are people. Some engines like Cummins diesel have what it
takes, Detroit diesel don't have it. It will take some real work to get
Cummins to change.
THe Wankel rotary is an example of designers that love to play smartypants.
They finally got a perfectly useless engine to work.
Down the road aways comes the battery operated jalopy made of bicycle
components... try applying this technology to high speed diesel motor trucks
and discover why we need new motor fuels that fuel 500-800 HP truck engines
and Cat dozers. Hoss power is horse manure.. torque is what a mule's got in
his rear. This world needs a whole new stable of advanced radical engine
designs for work engines just like we need energy efficent autos.
Richard
I corresponded with an inventor who had a patent on an engine design that
sounded similar to this.
R C Macaulay wrote:
Interesting thinking Jones. A proposed valveless, pistonless engine/motor
concept is being studied whereas the "engine" is ring shaped and drives a
cluster of embedded cavity discs positioned with the ring. The design
approach
Jones wrote,
The following suggestion, or a version of it, will be
implemented by some perceptive auto manufacturer in
the coming years.
