A work of pure genius! - Brilliant "Revetec" Engine

[revetec]

Technology and engine layouts will follow through to automotive as long as the layout will suit that market.

[pneumatic]

Originally Posted by revetec

So why are you one of the biggest posters on this thread? I have discussed features and benifit prior. You have not asked for any further explanations or diagrams, rather than shooting your mouth off. If your not interested visit the "Bolts: fine thread vs coarse" topic.

Perhaps your memory is a little short. Let me remind you what you said.

On page 9 you said

Originally Posted by revetec

We achieved in our last independent testing at full load: The same fuel consumption at 4,000rpm as at 2,000rpm and doubled the power. Our fuel map drops off with RPM and load which is a characteristic of our engine. We will release Fuel Map and Consumption figures around Xmas as this is currently confidential with the testing independently performed with a large manufacturer who is evaluating our technology.

I haven't seen those figures released yet, so at the moment the crazy claim that you use the same amount of fuel at 2,000rpm as you do at 4,000rpm making twice the power is complete fantasy and not backed up with any test data. Perhaps you are thinking in terms of kg fuel used per HP made (which you could keep constant, and conventional engines can too), rather than fuel consumption being a fuel flow rate like L/min. Until you post some facts we'll never know.

I said way back on page 10

Originally Posted by pneumatic

I guess we will have to wait until you release more test data. Arguing the theory side of things is pointless without some test data backing things up

And after the last 10 pages of this thread we are still waiting and you are still making claims that are not backed up by any test data in any way.

In fact the last time you attempted to show that your engine makes more power you did so by incorrectly trying to compare your engine dyno chart with a Mazda chassis dyno chart.

So spare me your insults, I have been the most neutral person in this thread. I am not out to get you, or prove your ideas to be wrong. I am just here as a reality check and to ensure false and unsubstantiated claims are not made.

[revetec]

Originally Posted by pneumatic

Perhaps your memory is a little short. Let me remind you what you said.

On page 9 you said

I haven't seen those figures released yet, so at the moment the crazy claim that you use the same amount of fuel at 2,000rpm as you do at 4,000rpm making twice the power is complete fantasy and not backed up with any test data. Perhaps you are thinking in terms of kg fuel used per HP made (which you could keep constant, and conventional engines can too), rather than fuel consumption being a fuel flow rate like L/min. Until you post some facts we'll never know.

We have achieved this through tested over seas by an independent automotive manufacturer.

It was achieved by piston position control providing more squish when fired at an earier ignition advance (at 4,000rpm). At this point the fuel molecules are closer together when fired providing a leaner mixture required to fire at this point. If we use a standard 14.7:1 mixture at 4,000rpm the fuel molecules are too close together causing the same effect as if the engine was running rich. Other companies have been researching this feature in other ways for eg. Toyota. A direct injection in the centre of a cylinder provides a mixture rich enough to fire yet the mixture is very lean towards the cylinder wall. Even though the overall mixture is lean it achieves a correct lambda reading.

Again what I am saying is rather than people being interested and asking questions like how do we achieve what we have (And we have) you want to make comments like "crazy claim" which is not correct because we have done it. Over the next couple of days I will post a fuel and ignition map from our engine so you can get a bit of an idea what is going on in the chamber.

If your interested that is........or maybe your not?

I'm not attacking you in anyway rather than trying to answer any questions you pose. The problem is that your not posing any questions, rather making statements about claims you don't understand. And believe me most people in automotive arenas don't now much about the technology we are developing. I have presented and trained at many major automotive manufacturers in Europe, the Middle East, Asia including Japan.

Look if you are really interested, ask me some questions. I'm under confidentiality regarding testing with other automotive parties which I can't breach but I can explain alot about special features of our engine.

Cheers

[revetec]

Don't pick this to pieces it is not accurate, just a guide to what happens in our engine as far as basic thrust theory.

[revetec]

Driving demonstration to Chinese Auto Manufacturers. (450cc - 2003 model)

[revetec]

http://s84.photobucket.com/albums/k6...Movie_0002.flv

Click the above link for the latest news report showing the new X4 engine and a blurb on our commercial ready grant.

A good video to see the scale of the engine.

[pneumatic]

Originally Posted by revetec

The problem is that your not posing any questions, rather making statements about claims you don't understand.

And I think your problem is your making claims that you haven't backed up in testing. So we will just go around and around in circles until you post some reliable test data.

For you to get twice the HP at 4000rpm as you do at 2000rpm using the SAME volume flow rate of fuel, means that the engine must be either running really really rich and twice as inefficient at 2000rpm, or really lean and twice as efficient at 4000rpm.

I believe you are either mis-interpreting the results, or you are just explaining yourself in a misleading way. It may come down to your definition of fuel consumption. Either way, there is no point asking questions until you have facts and data to answer it with.

[revetec]

The fuel map leans off to half of the fuel injected at 2,000rpm. Normally an engine cannot fire on such a lean mixture, although through our research we have found a way to do it while keeping the amount of fuel molecules between the plug gap consistant with a conventional engine at 4,000rpm. Combustion ends up amost complete giving a consistant lambda reading as if it was 14.7:1 proving that combustion is complete. We have demonstrated this overseas in a world class independent facility owned by a large automotive group who has 7 dyno test cells. The details are confidential due to a disclosure agreement between the two companies. I'd like to tell or show you more but our automotive relationships must be respected. I have proved this fact to them so I guess at this stage you will either have to accept the fact that it was tested by them and we are continuing the relationship with them visiting us as soon as the X4 is ready to demonstrate.....or don't accept it even though we have performed the testing.

I'm not going to repeat it again as I'm on here to answer questions from people interested in the research area we are in, rather than repeating myself and people making judgement without understanding all our technology, even though the automotive sector are genuinely interested in our technology.

Also please visit the video link a few posts above. Everyone doubting or compactness will see how small our new X4 is. And it will end up even smaller in production.

[hightower99]

Revetec:

The problem is not whether or not you have managed to maintain the same fuel flow rate at 2000 and 4000rpm and doubled the output power. But whether or not you did so in a way that is an advantage or not.

See if you engine is running overly rich and only generating a low amount of power and you have found that with the same fuel flow rate at twice the rpm gives twice the power then you haven't done anything special.

If you are claiming that you where running a good fuel ratio (not very rich or even abit lean) and that you where producing good power at 2000rpm. and that you have somehow defeated basic laws of physics to produce twice the power with the same amount of fuel then we are calling BS... and you would Have to break some basic laws of thermodynamics to achieve this...

The only way you can prove any advantage is to show numbers and values. Just saying your general result isn't worth anything.

The bottom line is that if you can produce twice the power at 4000rpm with the same amount of fuel then you are using twice as much fuel as you need to to make the power you do at 2000rpm and there isn't anything special about that in fact it just make you look like amatuers...

[Matra et Alpine]

Guys you are fools if you really expect confidential infromation about the engine to be published in detail.

So far I can see revetec is trying to give enough details to satisfy without compromisng confidentiality or company commercial secrets.

So... PLEASE stop asking for the stupid details. Accept at face value the general nu,bers and sit on your hands on the negative thoughts until the copmany DOES publish numbers.

It's too easy to pick holes in an idea when only parts of it can reasonably be commented on in public. They can't defend it and as has been seen you're only frustrating a person who is posting as much as he can about a new engine development.

Persoanlly I'd rather hear the 10% of possible truth from inside a dev team than the 99% of BS anti based on ASSumptions.

Go create another thread call the "crap Revetec engine" and have your brainwanks there.

[hightower99]

Originally Posted by revetec

The fuel map leans off to half of the fuel injected at 2,000rpm. Normally an engine cannot fire on such a lean mixture, although through our research we have found a way to do it while keeping the amount of fuel molecules between the plug gap consistant with a conventional engine at 4,000rpm. Combustion ends up amost complete giving a consistant lambda reading as if it was 14.7:1 proving that combustion is complete. We have demonstrated this overseas in a world class independent facility owned by a large automotive group who has 7 dyno test cells. The details are confidential due to a disclosure agreement between the two companies. I'd like to tell or show you more but our automotive relationships must be respected. I have proved this fact to them so I guess at this stage you will either have to accept the fact that it was tested by them and we are continuing the relationship with them visiting us as soon as the X4 is ready to demonstrate.....or don't accept it even though we have performed the testing.

I'm not going to repeat it again as I'm on here to answer questions from people interested in the research area we are in, rather than repeating myself and people making judgement without understanding all our technology, even though the automotive sector are genuinely interested in our technology.

Also please visit the video link a few posts above. Everyone doubting or compactness will see how small our new X4 is. And it will end up even smaller in production.

I would like to point out that if you are making twice the power at 4000rpm that you where making at 2000rpm then you need to be making the same amount of torque. Running lean produces less torque than running slightly rich which means either your engine has problems running at 2000rpm or you have misunderstood some of the information (fuel flow rates probably)

[revetec]

I think you guys are not reading my posts properly. I have stated that the Lambda was reading a mixture of 14.7:1 air/fuel mixture in both RPM ranges. The tests were performed without any lean burn built into the program also. The fuel consumption was measured by a metering system into the Dyno test cell. So the total fuel consumption/usage was actually measured, not just from the fuel maps and compared to power/torque output to get an overall efficiency. So we did have "The Same Fuel Flow Rate" in Hightower99's words.

So no it was not running rich at 2,000rpm.. Jeeesh....Because if it was, the emissions would be through the roof.

Matra et Alpine: You are right...I'm not going to disclose information on this forum which is confidential. Sorry guys...I would love to post everything to satisfy you....but I can't.

Did you guys watch the news video. I expected comments like "The engine is compact" not the same old comments and negativity. Did you also note I have recieved a Federal Government Grant? They don't just give those away. We gave full disclosure of information and data, and the specialised panel of experts were satified with our data enough to give us over $1 million dollars (Dollar for Dollar) in a federal government commercial ready grant.

BTW Hightower: I read your signature comments and I think you should talk to Mazda. I met with the Managing Director of the Research and Development department in Hiroshima, Japan last year. One of his first comments to us was he was not interested in power, he stated that torque is the all important thing. This guy is in charge of the development of the engine rotary engine your making coments about. I'm not trying to stir you up, just telling you the facts of what was said.

[pneumatic]

Originally Posted by hightower99

and you would Have to break some basic laws of thermodynamics to achieve this...

The only way you can prove any advantage is to show numbers and values. Just saying your general result isn't worth anything.

It's good to see someone agrees.

If you are making twice the power with a certain amount of fuel at one rpm compared to another then one rpm must be burning it twice as efficiently than the other. Fuel only has a certain amount of energy per volume you know. Major manufacturers that use lean burn technology talk in incremental improvements, not 200% improvements.

I know certain aspects are confidential, but Revetec did say they will be releasing fuel maps and consumption figures around xmas. That obviously didn't happen, and until it does nothing is proven.

I have no doubt the engine has some advantages, and that's why there is interest in it. But some of the claimed advantages are a little bit extreme to believe without any test data.

[revetec]

Originally Posted by pneumatic

It's good to see someone agrees.

If you are making twice the power with a certain amount of fuel at one rpm compared to another then one rpm must be burning it twice as efficiently than the other. Fuel only has a certain amount of energy per volume you know. Major manufacturers that use lean burn technology talk in incremental improvements, not 200% improvements.

Toyota have proven 5 years ago that if you provide a rich mixture around the spark plug so it fires correctly that a leaner mixture will burn away from the plug dramatically reducing fuel consumption. We are just exploiting this fact via a different way. If you are able to compress the mixture to half the volume at the same degrees, then twice the fuel molecules are placed between the plug gap allowing it to fire correctly.

Originally we tried to fire our engine on a standard fuel map but it ran rich and flooded. It wasn't until we leaned the mixture right off and had the engine running correctly that we realised how much beneficial that our technology really was. I was actually a very exciting day for us.

Note: Peak thermal efficiency of the Prius engine is 36% (One of the best).
So is there room for improvement?
What is a breakdown of the losses?

[pneumatic]

Originally Posted by revetec

Note: Peak thermal efficiency of the Prius engine is 36% (One of the best).
So is there room for improvement?
What is a breakdown of the losses?

As a rule of thumb, roughly 1/3 of the energy makes it through as power (similar to your Prius quote), 1/3 is lost out the exhaust and 1/3 is lost through the cooling system.

It is because an engine only harnesses the pressure created when the air/fuel is ignited. The heat produced is an inefficiency that is lost (through the exhaust and cooling).

So the actual internal combustion engine process as a whole is roughly 33% efficient.

The actual mechanical efficiency of an internal combustion engine is much higher. If you use a cathrode-ray oscilloscope (CRO) or similar pressure trace device you can generate a pressure-volume diagram for your engine. This tells you the Indicated Power, or how much power it should generate if it is mechanically 100% efficient.

Then you just measure the actual brake power produced on a dyno, and the difference between the indicated power and the brake power is the mechanical efficiency. This is generally between 80 and 90%. This is the inefficiency of the crank, plus the valve train, plus friction losses etc.

So I don't see where you could make such significant improvements. If you went from a 36% efficient engine to a 72% efficient engine the whole world would be amazed and every car manufacturer would be on your door step. you could also throw the cooling system away as you would be producing very little heat if you were running that efficient.