guess its just same system as in the engine making same movement of drill

That machine cost 20 billion dollars and take a day to do one block...😂😂😂

Nothing modern CNC machining can't accomplish. Obviously the compressor manufacturers have it all figured out.

@@magnusatheos7301 Maybe so, I still want to see it!

@@upsidedowndog1256 LOL so do I

For some reason toilet came to mind too when I seen it

Same 😂

#metoo, the potty engine...

Me too.

😂😂😂😂 me too

the only practical way to achieve decent tolerance I can think of is through edm, but thats not going to be mass production friendly

@@toshinakae6397 I doubt that

You'd use the rod pivot to pivot the block in the tooling and a boring head with a radiused tool exactly on the center of the pivot. But you do have to come up with some way to advance the block smoothly

@@danieldimitri6133 i can think of several ways to do just that, and having worked in places with machine shops dedicated to research and dev.. its shocking how easy some preatty complex jobs can be done when put in skilled hands.. i have seen air and fluid channels that changed direction going threw test blocks made from aluminum that were curved in multi directions and, i was informed if they went to production they coud have 30 machines at one facility pumping them out night and day with minimal human interaction.. it was just their job to find the best way to get any given job done, done... also why they more then once came looking for me and made me figure out WTF they couldnt... engineers are funny in that they often are so hyper focused on their niche that they have trouble looking at something and seeing for example, a valve is installed backwards.. LOL

@@danieldimitri6133 Nothing CNC couldn't accomplish.

Go look at variable compression ratio engines

@@goosenotmaverick1156 I remember seeing these but they called them something else. Have you seen how vtec works?

What rpm they run at? I believe they won't wind out, the internal harmon ics will destroy it's self. Looks great for low rpm power and a lightweight unit. I do know great people built some great devices but had 1 default and gone. 56 327i , red Barron snowmobile,69 model wave runners ...

@@congerthomas1812 they run at same rpm as standard. there are many models of compresors. i ve seen up to 70hp to feed a train braking system.

@@repairman22 did he create a Diesel version of his engine ?

@@craigalston2208 no

Do they run very fast?

Nascar engines have different ....eras....of design, supposedly the THIN piston ring was a new era, ... i THINK this may be a video that talks about it at some point, kzfaq.info/get/bejne/e5uBY5mb3Z6snnU.html

Yeah, there are a lot of claims in this video that don't quite make sense. The added bearings of the arm will wear, and will wear quite violently, the movement of the piston will distort the arm over time, the list goes on. This is fine in compression systems because you're not submitting it to a ridiculous amount of heat or violent explosions, but in an engine? Yeah, I question whether or not that would actually work in reality, so yeah. If Mercedes says the test was fraudulent, chances are the test was fraudulent.

@@TacComControl I don't see why the bearings would wear violently, very little non angular forces are acting on them,, because of the lever they have over the piston, even better if you have an active oiling system running some oil through them. The distortion over time might be an interesting thing to test out with long use. Again, the arm has very little forces working on it, since it only guides the piston in a certain direction, without being forced into a different one. Pressure on the piston head is normal to the surface of the piston head, which is on a tangent with the circle of rotation. Especially in the expansion stroke, since the rod is in line with the tangent. The main issue I see is at the compression stroke, especially when breaking with the engine, the force direction of the rod is not at all aligned with the tangent, and might bend some things, or make the piston run into the top surface of the curved cylinder. As to heat, as long as you cool the head and the chamber, heat shouldn't get too ridiculous, since the sliding friction in the cylinder walls is out of the equitation. The main source of heat is the fuel burning, which is not directly on the system below the piston.

where can someone find one of these engines today?

Using needle bearings is a little strange in what is analogous to the wrist pin, I would think that a journal bearing with a lubricant groove would do better there. Separately, if there was a massive increase in performance sitting on the table, and it only took the changes noted in this video, it would be in cars today. The economic value of a “frictionless engine” is so incredibly high that at least one automaker would have it on the market. If not for fuel economy purposes, these could just as easily be used for higher power engines in more expensive vehicles, but they aren’t. There’s likely a good reason, and some of the best engineers in the world at engine design said it was fraudulent. There is unlikely to be a conspiracy here.

Magnets... truly friction-less engine

While others had negative comments, my first thought was using it as a small diesel power plant. I think there is real merit to the design.

@@matthewpeterson3329 Especially the problem of resource consumption in today's world when we have a new impending oil crisis, especially in the EU countries, I think consuming less oil with higher performance at the same gasoline/diesel whilst having a lot less toxic gasses could be HIGHLY beneficial. That said the world is going from the "black gold" that is oil to the "Grey Gold" that is Lithium metal. 😑 Hopefully Formula 1 in 2026 can change things by building an engine like this, but... engine regulation constraints from the FIA probably won't allow it.

I think a Honda bike use it one time to run in a race to test it

Especially considering a V engine where you can connect the pendulums across the banks - halving the connecting rods and making the engine even lighter and lower friction. You could also move the connecting rod's mounting point closer to the pivot, allowing for smaller conrods and crankshaft.

I've had a lot of theory work on an engine similar to this at mu uni and, in short, when devenoped further this design should cause fuel consumption to fall by around 53.4%(edit: in close-to-ideal conditions and with perfect machine manufacturing precision) , wich in my friend's words is "simply too cost-effective for oil companies".

I think you nailed it. Thermal expansion is going to be side to side and not even. The toroidal bore is expensive and slow to cut and hone. And while lightly addressed it does seem like there is more mass moving than a conventional piston. The skirts don’t weigh much. There is now also an additional bearing to machine at the end of the arc arm.

@@Thatdavemarsh The piston mass consideration is interesting to consider - despite the video claiming it was equal I doubt that. Likewise that curved arm looks like a failure point - being curved like that is structurally far less efficient than a straight rod, will be loaded in bending rather than pure tension/compression, likely to result in fatigue issues, necessitating it be even heavier to last a useful amount of time without breaking, or the engine would have to have a finite lifespan before those parts are replaced to prevent catastrophic failure. Normal engines suffer from mechanical wear on sliding surfaces, but I'm not aware of components on normal engines where fatigue is usually an issue, the wear surfaces (bearing shells, cylinder walls, pistons) can usually be re-machined or replaced quite easily and the main components of the engine have infinite lifespan, allowing the engine to be rebuilt pretty much indefinitely. But if these parts have to be replaced regularly that wouldn't work so well. A good question about this guy's prototypes is how long they were run for in testing - they worked and were quite efficient, but did he test them for 200,000+ miles that engines are usually expected to last? The extra bearing probably isn't a huge deal, looks like the same type and size as the wrist pin bearing, but still with some drawbacks. Particularly in that it's reciprocating rather than full rotations, I've heard that's harder to design and have last a long time. Particularly in that the bearing will be stationary twice per cycle, which prevents it from "floating" on oil and will result in metal-on-metal contact avoided by fully rotating bearings on the crankshaft. This is an issue with wrist pin bearings, which I've heard are some of the most highly loaded bearings in an engine, but they also have a smaller angle of movement.

Yeah. Just looks to me like a huge increase in manufacturing complexity, and to a lesser extent bulk, for a rather modest efficiency gain. Like a lot of alternative engine designs, I just don't see any net advantage.

@@quillmaurer6563 The force of the combustion chamber is driven down onto the crank and the arm attached to it, the pivot arm bears no force

@@thesollys9540 And what's with the lateral force from the con rod under combustion pressure? That for what the pivot arm mainly is for? It's not just to gently guide the piston so it doesn't fall over. 😂 Also all the centrifugal force from all the crap hanging on the end of the arm moving in a circular path rather then linear, plus the inertia from the con rod when the crank changes its direction. There is alot of force on that arm! Would it be straight and it's axis straight true the center of mass of the piston that would be less of a concern. But that's not possible, in engenering it's called a drawback. This engine is damned to run relatively low rpm's.

Piston and engine block are all aluminium nowaways... None has to bore a curved hole, one has just to bore a pre-moulded curved hole, since the block-mould generated blocks with the cylinders already there, and only the inner-cylinder-surfaces have to be re-bore again, so, just to finish the surfaces.

@@klausbrinck2137 That's a far-fetched statement.. But to clarify, the majority of engine blocks are cast from CAST IRON not Steel. Aluminium is quite a bit more expensive to use. To aid in the excessive costs and keep the traditional cast iron usage some engines, like Ford's twin turbo are cast using CGI(Compact Graphite Iron) or vermicular graphite iron. So it's silly to say that all pistons and engine blocks are aluminum nowadays cause that is pretty far from fact. Also the comment you were replying to was talking about the drilling of the engine block in the video, not the ones nowadays..

@@THOTHvii I´m not sure the comment was talking about the drilling in the video, and not more generally... And anyway, none would drill holes, the holes would be ready-there (out-of-the-mould), and would only have to become surface-finished, even if it´s cast-iron, and not soft aluminium. And for surface-finishing, one can even use contact-less ECM or EDM. The blades of turbojets also aren´t CNCed, they are ECMed.

Boring machine on a big cam would've done it, or fixed boring machine and the work-piece on a cam.

The block itself can be built from half-pieces. The half-toroids are machined easily, then bolted together. Then, the actual sleeve can be made from a pipe. Curved pipe, that is press-inserted in the block curved channel. The pipe can be made out of special steel with high friction resistance and can be treated rolled and heat treated. Such sleeves can be changed if necessary.... I noticed, no one commented (or I did not see anyone) on the short piston with no skirts. such smaller lighter piston generates less inertial forces at top dead and bottom dead centers. Less inertial loads on connecting roads. This may increase the upper limit of the revolutions. Of course, the banana "tail" also participates in the weight, and you need to integrated each small section of the banana to get the total effective inertial weight. I am not exactly an engineer, just a curious enthusiast, please forgive me for using non-standard expressions, or even for talking nonsense.

×

Did you not see it done? We watched video of a man making it by hand... FFs lol. We can make a motor would of doritos inside an oval but a curved cylinder is too difficult.

@@Khaynizzle7 Which makes it insanely expensive. All prototypes are made by hand, but the benefits of the industrial revolution was carried on the back of automated production, not by a thousand blokes milling endlessly

The piston fits, so a cutter the same shape but smaller in diameter with extended teeth will also fit. The blocks are cast so only the inner surface has to be milled and honed. Rotary tables are common in machine shops so the setup is also quite simple.

Yeah - dying from accident is simply the natural result of lunatics that drive a gocart on a highway....

@@ABaumstumpf true :D nevertheless, that thing somehow had to be advertised... And IMO world was better without most of those idiotic safety regulations and protocols. Don't get me wrong, I do not advise to ride a gocart on highway :P

At the end of the day, regular automakers aren't looking for the best engine, they are looking for the most profitable engine. This was especially true back when the developer of this engine was marketing it, which was before the super strict emission regulations of today. Automakers also don't want to make cars that last forever. They want the cars to last exactly long enough to not annoy the owners, but such a short time that people will need to buy a new car eventually. Selling official spare parts is also very good business. All changes in the production, tools/machines required, teaching employees, and R&D are also additional costs. But yeah, it would be interesting to know if any car manufacturer studied this at all beyond initial paperwork and engineer opinions. Supercars/sports cars would also be a totally different thing because in that category performance is the most important thing, along with reliability, price doesn't matter that much.

Who said anything about very small pistons?

@@wingracer1614 Just look up "secondary balance". Once you know what that term means you'll realize why this engine was never put into production.

@@glennchartrand5411 I am well aware of secondary balance. I used to build single cylinder racing engines which are nightmares in both primary and secondary balance. In fact I even made a post on this video about how the design as shown missed a golden opportunity to improve balance by putting a counterweight on the opposite end of the pendulum arm to balance out the arm, piston, rings, small end of conrod and wrist pins. There is no reason this engine can't use large pistons. In fact, since it will have a limited stroke length, it HAS to have relatively large pistons.

@@wingracer1614 The piston moves in two different directions.( up/down and side to side) So as the piston moves through its curved path you get the imbalance caused by the crank and push rod causing the piston to accelerate unevevenly ( regular secondary imbalance) and the centripetal force of the piston moving in an arc...if you counter balance that you wind up with a larger secondary imbalance. So you can either live with an imbalance caused by centripetal force , or you can have larger than normal seconday imbalance caused by the weight of extra components and counterweights.. So its a damned if you do and damned if you dont situation. The only solution is to either build tiny cylinders, or keep the engine rpm low Thats not an issue for medical compressors but its an insurmountable problem for car engines.

@@glennchartrand5411 What side to side? It moves in an arc which can easily be balanced. Far more easily than straight line reciprocal can be.

The conrod/crankshaft-initial-angle after ignition is (normally) always 0°, instead of the ideal 75°-80° (1/4th turn for ideal leverage) .... Here the initial angle is, very soon, much higher than in a normal engine, thus extracting more torque from each combustion.

I'm highly doubting the 30% claim.

It would benefit manufactures though if they could say there engines use 30% less fuel. Everyone would want that engine to save money. But that's just another reason to not trust the 30% figure.

In reality the rings would need to be of the same spec for the same bore/stroke/compression as any other engine. Also the claim of this massive friction loss in the piston of a normal engine is nonsense. Any modern engine uses cross hatching to hold a film of oil between the piston and cylinder wall - which is why they can usually run 200k miles or more if looked after. If there was any meaningful friction in use they certainly wouldn't be lasting anywhere near that long - infact engines before that idea only used to last 20-40k miles before needing a rebuild. So its possibly an improvement if you're in the 1930's. Then you have to take into account all the added drag from the extra weight of the internals, the extra bearing surfaces, the extra oil it would have to pump to feed those bearings and so on - if this could even match a normal engine on an even playing field it would be amazing. Of course it can't which is why - even almost 30 years after the patents ran out - no maker has picked it up. With emissions regs the weay they are even if a maker could get 3% less friction this would be in production tomorrow. 30% is just a nonsense.

i've just got a new variant of this engine in the suggested by a very young boy with zero subscrubers. it is like a toroidal boxer channel "interesting -Tech"

@@sillysad3198 I'll have to check that out, thanks for the heads up.

@@sillysad3198 can you give the video title name? I can’t find the channel

@@Panin2001oca "A new type of Engine"

I'll bet the engine might be designed without pushrods

Nope. They lie about everything. They take anything good, and ruin or hide it

Well it's like two stroke, if the technology was constantly developed it could be great, but since it's easier to keep the same tech than reinvent the wheel why would they?

@Mark345 who is they? If it was any good someone would be making them even if it's not mainstream.

​@@deckum23You heard the news after making Cyber truck Elon musk sent a manual to all car manufacturers of why to use a 48 Volt system over a 12V in cars so they can reduce the weight and cost of the car significantly? We still use a 12 V system which was made back in the 1930s, because they are just lazy to make a change. It's not as complicated as you might think. They just never tried. in this case, there may be some issue, but still if Russia considered his engine to be good in 2015. It should have something.

Have you ever seen a Commer TS3 engine?

@@erroneousbosh I have not but I shall look.

I'd go a step further and combine both concepts with spherical valves and place the valves at the center of the combustion chambers. This would allow an opposed piston engine to operate as a four stroke so you could drop the supercharger out of the equation and take back the power losses.

The piston rings still need oil. The guy who made this video isn't terribly well informed...

The piston rings still need oil. The guy who made this video isn't terribly well informed...

Videos like this that propagandize concepts and make huge claims of 30% efficiency are fake guesses. If it really was so much better, every major company would use the design regardless of cost to license. The reason it's not common is because manufacturing costs and efficiency claims are worse than typical 4-stroke engines. Every time.

@@mact.26 I took the 30% thing with a grain of salt. Even if it's "on-par" I can see a one-off coming out with a motorcycle with it. The success of a real world trial sets it apart from other "experimental" designs of historical note, which is all I'm comparing it to.

@@mact.26 I doubt that it is that simple. And you ignore the enormous influence of conservatism in engineering

"This is a machine with low thermal losses since there is very little friction". There. One sentence that is very telling that the author of this video does not know what he is talking about, friction and thermal losses are 2 very different things! I don't see *any* advantage with current normal engines, the bent combustion chamber increases the thermal losses and decreases the mechanical efficiency because of the angle of piston pressure vs. conrad angle, and there is one added joint, increasing friction, not decreasing. It's an alternative engine design that absolutely can work, but there is simply nothing better about it.

@@davidcolin6519 I guess that you don't trust in engineering? While it is certainly true that the percentage of engineers that can properly evaluate an engine design is very limited, there is one very good reason while we don't see any big changes to the established current engine design: The best design has survived. All competing designs, that were tried during the 20th century, simply weren't as good. Current engines evolution is a product of engineers, not inventors. If you lack proper education (like inventors typically do) you can come up with an alternative design that can be made to work, but lack the skills to properly judge it. That being said, there are also certainly examples of bad decisions made by engineers, leading to developments that took the wrong path. One such example is the Honda's oval piston engine. Here it was prestige standing in the way of proper engineering judgement.

A dual inline 4 cylinder Would not be as wide as a 90 degree V-8 OHC engine. What is happening today is build it as cheap as possible. Make it pass emissions and MPG standards. Then there is the tooling costs. Basically a engine in a Trax is not a economic engine when you need it rebuilt. Besides that it may last too long. Forney would not like a 1980 engine still polluting the highway even if it met 2020 standards with simple modifications. Just think about all those missed opportunities for those annual plate taxes based on the selling prices. Oh and don't forget the sales tax. It just boils down to one thing money.

and they would need to increase the displacement a lot due to the vibration harmonics hampering high speed operation

It is the same as a normal engine.

@Keit Hammleter When the piston is at TDC, the crank is past TDC. It's a mechanical advantage like an offset bore build, but even more accentuated. Then, as the piston comes down, it moves over towards that side of the crank, keeping this advantage. The rod stays more straight & this puts more of the power stroke into the crank for rotation.

@@keithpeterson6108 zing

I'm confused aswell TDC is always going to be TDC, wich is always determined by the crank

@@Twiggieh when the PISTON is at tdc. The CONROD and CRANKSHAFT have a few degrees of rotation before the piston starts to come back down on a traditional engine. Look up a video of a cut open engine and put the video at 0.25x speed

Why?

I think Toyota produced a series of this 3 years ago. Or Nissan? With variable compression.

@@ArneChristianRosenfeldt That was Nissan and it was nothing like this design. That was a seperate guide which could alter the throw of the crank to vary compression. The bores and so on were normal.

@@siraff4461 normal bore and cantilever from the side to relief the lateral force. Best of both worlds.

imagine this engine with hydrogen, it would be so nice

I am pretty sure that it does not cut friction that much. An ICE is heating up mostly because of the heat of the burning fuel, not due to cylinder wall friction. If the friction on the cylinder walls were that huge then engines wouldn't last for 2-300000 km or more without any internal overhaul. But for comparison, piston air compressors use the same arrangement, yet they require many times less cooling power. The only difference is that they do not burn fuel.

@@gabiold I used to own a Toyota truck in the 90's and I changed all lubricants to full synthetic and the friction reduction was dramatic and so was the mileage. The friction reduction in this engine and its design and current use makes it a natural for a gaseous hydrogen engine 🤔

"A lot of wear can be caused by different thermal expansion.." At first I thought "yeah, right, a problem conventional ICE don't have, or what?" But then I realized that the radius of the piston movement is going to change. And starting at let's say 30cm, that makes for quite a bit of expansion.

@@gstutje exactly!

30% is nonsense.

Yes, it works as a compressor due to the lack of heat from combustion. Modern inline 4 cylinders go 200K miles without a rebuild. I doubt this could make it 20K, otherwise we would have them in the market.

yeah, i wanna know how they came up with the 30% number, and 30% compared to what?

Another problem: The curved “cylinders” aren’t cylindrical. They are cutouts of a toroid - think about the difference between an “I” and a “C”. While in a classic engine the whole surface of an o-ring travels the same distance, in the toroidal motor the surface of the o-ring facing the inside of the toroid / “C” travels a shorter distance than the part facing the outside. I’m not an engineer, but at least the wear on the o-rings isn’t even, if there aren’t other consequences as well. Considering expansion and shrinking due to a warm vs. cold engine, a cylinder expands evenly, while in a toroid motor the outside expands more than the inside. Again no engineer here, but this complicates matters as well. But the main problem I see: Efficient combustion with a minimum of emissions and running stable under all sorts of circumstances - humidity, air pressure, engine temperature, rpm, power demand, etc. - has been studied ad nauseam to comply with rising emission standards. In a toroid combustion engine you have to start all over, because the shape of the combustion volume follows also a curve. On the outside of the toroid the room for the combustion expands faster than on the inside. The pressure varies accordingly - so the combustion develops and behaves completely different from a standard engine. Not to mention that you have to put serious research into the compression as well, to get a desired mix of air and gas droplets.

All valid points of concern. However, one could argue that the differential shape/volume of the combustion chamber could be used to advantage to preferentially direct the incoming fresh charge VS the outgoing exhaust.

Just need to bring back the Rootes Ts3 or ts4 engine's, they were very efficient.

Cuting wouldnt be much more expensive we would just cast the general shape and use cnc to refine the rough cylinder which would reduce wear on tool and make it far faster to machine than cuting out a whole block and would allow mass production

@@yeet3071 They only use CNC milling for more expensive engine blocks, Your cheap car engine has had its rough block milled in a more simple setup where the cylinders are cut out on the same time in a single move.

Nah. You're right. Car companies love to turn a profit and if this engine was something they could've turned a profit with, they would've done it.

@@orangejjay In theory yes, in practice they are huge companies wtih a huge network of suppliers and they probably tend to suffer from some of the same issues as bureaucracies. Who and why would take upon himself the monumental task of enacting such a drastic change (only to have it copied soon if it proves to work, because there is no patent)

It would have to be calculated as a rotational inertial mass, since each mass unit along its length moves less as you go from piston to pivot. But I agree, I would have to see that actual calculation.

The reduced height would make up for a significant portion push as mentioned above, it on an arc to the closer the the pivot, the less inertia

An increased mass of an arm is duly compensated by a decreased mass of a piston though

Its actually less mass and less friction, your imagination is poor

You weren't paying attention. In the video it is said that the weight is the same.

The main benefit I see is better angles on the connecting rod and crankshaft during the power stroke.

@@Mrshotshell But how would you machine a curved cylinder?

@@Dont_Gnaw_on_the_Kitty He made running engines and some compressors are made with the design so it's definitely possible. But no where near as cheap and easy to manufacture and refinish as a straight bore which is one of the reasons it isn't widely used.

@@Dont_Gnaw_on_the_Kitty same system as in engine but with drill instead of piston

@@orangestoneface Do you mean the curved cylinder is made using the same principle as a spiral ground onto the outside of a drill bit? Sorry but I can't see how this would work, the cylinder is inside a block of aluminium?

It wouldnt let for that to happen at all. Didnt you watch the video?

@@divinehatred6021 I certainly watched the video. What stops the pendulum arm expanding and contracting? It's metal isn't it?

@@ColinWatters its a metal that doesnt have to heat up/cool down because it doesnt contact with the walls of the bore to begin with. To the point where it doesnt need much oil to work. Or doesnt need it at all

@@ColinWatters basically, the piston is on the rails.

@@divinehatred6021 OK so I calculated the thermal expansion assuming a steel 0.2m wide arm and a 100C temperature range and its about 0.1 mm. Typical piston bore clearance in a conventional engine is about 5 thou or 0.15mm so it's ok/marginal. The main issue might be making those arms a consistently the correct width (to within 0.1mm) to prevent rubbing.

He stated in the video, that the piston doesn't touch the sides, beacuse all the stress and friction is transferred into the banana Conrod and it's associated mounting support bearing design. Also the power force directed straight down onto the crankshaft.

@@stanmeyer9770 If the piston doesn't touch the sides, you get no compression. The rings at least contact it. Otherwise it'd have no rings. Also, the uploader hearted that guy's comment.

Why less? The rings need the same pressure to seat under the same load so for the same bore/stroke/compression they would need to be the same.

@@stanmeyer9770 Thats the snake oil claim by the maker. In reality the rings would need to be of the same spec for the same bore/stroke/compression as any other engine. Also the claim of this massive friction loss in the piston of a normal engine is nonsense. Any modern engine uses cross hatching to hold a film of oil between the piston and cylinder wall - which is why they can usually run 200k miles or more if looked after. If there was any meaningful friction in use they certainly wouldn't be lasting anywhere near that long - infact engines before that idea only used to last 20-40k miles before needing a rebuild. So its possibly an improvement if you're in the 1930's. Then you have to take into account all the added drag from the extra weight of the internals, the extra bearing surfaces, the extra oil it would have to pump to feed those bearings and so on - if this could even match a normal engine on an even playing field it would be amazing. Of course it can't which is why - even almost 30 years after the patents ran out - no maker has picked it up. With emissions regs the weay they are even if a maker could get 3% less friction this would be in production tomorrow. 30% is just a nonsense.

@@siraff4461 piston rings need to be able to compensate for the Piston moving around in the bore, in this case that wouldn't be a problem.

I'd bet the torque is limited.

@@brantgaspard9748 possibly but it could be better that most engines at lower rpm due to each power stroke being slightly after tdc

I wouldn't compare the second axle with a crankshaft. For one it can be a simple straight axle, no complex offsets. Secondly they bear very little force, so they don't need to have complex metallurgy care that a crankshaft need. and the bearings don't have to support that. You could even run a small straight oil line through the shaft, to provide each bearing with a little oil if you really wanted to reduce wear to basically nothing

@@DrTheRich Yeah, yeah... I called it "crankshaft" ... on quotes, because I didn't really knew how to call it. But whatever it is, makes the engine more complex...

@@framegrace1 a little bit yes, but complexity and efficiency go hand in hand. I drive a Ford Model A from 1929 that has a simple engine, but it eats fuel like a mother. Modern engines are many times more complex than mine, but are 4 to 5 times more efficient. complexity in itself is not a deal breaker, if it comes with a substantial enough benefit. Not to mention, complexity for a home made engine, is a different story than complexity for a mass produced factory engine. Modern complex computer calculated casting shapes are easy for factories to produce, but hard for a hand engine builder at home. All this engine needs over a normal similar one is a few extra holes in the casting, an extra axle and some bearings. easy peasy for a modern engine factory to make.

efficiency and reliability are two different things. Even automakers that don't want reliability still want efficiency. And it would be really, really easy to make one of these unreliable.

You have such a poor imagination, though. Every of your statement is wrong, or perhaps a lie

This engine is less mass and less friction than a "normal". It also wont wear down. Thats why it wasnt adopted.

@@divinehatred6021 I'm sure it was more efficient than a conventional engine. But there's more complexity to manufacture and produce a lot in a timely fashion. They might still use it in low-production stuff. But on a mass-production scale, I don't think it would be practical. Is why I said what I said. I wasn't dogging on the engine. Just saying that its' design works better but takes more effort to produce

@@richardwilliams9181 it wasnt produced because 1: margin profits wouild be lower 2: planned obsolescence wouldnt work on a engine like that because its way more durable and safe

@@divinehatred6021 True true

In this engine the force on the rings is instead put on the moving arm bearing.

This. If there was that much upside to it, someone (likely everyone) would be doing it.

That was its Achilles heel, the rings only lasted a few thousand miles, and where on earth does the 30% come from?

@@steverushforth7009 Probably from running massive tolerances, very thin oil, total loss electrics, electric water pump, etc. Its easy to make something look really efficient if you're really just palming some of the load off onto another system - which is pretty much what the car makers said if you read between the lines. Pistons don't run against cylinder walls and haven't for a very long time - thats why cross hatching and oil films are a thing. Rings touch but even they generally have a very thin layer of oil on them too. Simply pumping oil to the arm's bearings on this design would more than negate any gain - if there were any in the first place because I can't see much there at all. Then there are the extra losses from moving the extra internal weight, the extra pumping losses from it moving through oil/air, the extra bearing surfaces which need to be lubricated and the extra oil pump load that would require. Lets be honest here - most modern engines will run 200k miles so long as they are looked after. Thats a lot of times for a piston to go up and down a bore so if there were any meaningful friction it wouldn't last long at all. 30% is nonsense. I would be amazed if this could even match a normal engine once its on a level playing field. Thats probably why none of the makers have jumped on it even almost 30 years after the patents ran out.

@@siraff4461 material sciences have changed a lot since the 60s and early 1970s ,,gotta remember something , in 1974 american automakers were not interested in new technology and argentina is a long ways from the rest of anywhere, ,at the same time this was being developed US makers were fucking with the WANKEL engine which if you wanna talk about a piece of crap , thats what it is ,, this particular engine design actually could be produced and despite the curved cylinders with the fixed piston arms is just another conventional engine and could be made to pass emissions , unlike a 2 stroke engine or the rotary which is what eventually killed the MAZDA rotary engine , it couldn't meet EPA standards you missed something too ,, they said he was putting it in his cars so that means it was operating ,not under laboratory conditions and they showed pictures of it running in a car too and it looked just like any other engine complete with fanbelts and other devices

@@wildcoyote34 maybe someone should show this engine design to snowmobile manufacturers, they have historically seemed more open to crazy ideas. Arctic Cat even made some Wankel powered designs.

@@wildcoyote34 Obvious differences being the rotary was mass produced and put in cars for decades until it couldn't meet emissions. The claims for this engine being better on emissions mean any maker would snap it up it that were true. The makers sighted his testing as unfair and based on what I read about it they are correct. He was running one piston ring, very thin oil, hardly any oil pressure and total loss electrics - with it lasting very short spans between rebuilds thanks to excessive ring wear - no surprise there then. Thats quite a long way from it being a production ready engine or even testing it to production standards. Infact there are usually more stringent tests for the engines used in remote controlled toys. Anyone can make an engine that runs for a short video and make silly claims but this simply doesn't stand up to even basic engineering scrutiny. Even without doing full tests its obvious to anyone with even a basic engineering degree that his claims can't be anywhere near accurate - infact its much more likely to use more fuel than a normal engine on an even playing field and thats if we give him the benefit of the doubt on being able to machine the rings into a shape to match the curvature of the bore - something he didn't do which is likely the largest reason the engines never lasted.

Especially since it doesn't have oil control rings.