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

[hightower99]

Originally Posted by revetec

Come on.....The engine data images you posted were forced induction. (I assume the 1st one was even though I can't find data on it, the BMEP was 150?)

Nope only the full map of the Mercedes-benz M271 is FI and it is supercharged (supercharging always decreases overall thermal efficiency). here is the wiki page for it:
Mercedes-Benz M271 engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The other two engines are the R26B Le-Mans winning 4 rotor rotary engine (not FI, it is NA). As well as the venerable Jeep 6-230 Tornado engine (also NA).

Here is the wiki for the tornado: Jeep Tornado engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by revetec

The first image you posted above - The R26B engine is a turbocharged quad rotor, rotary race engine. Post something that is normally aspirated and in production for consumer use for comparison.

It is not turbocharged it is Naturally Aspirated. Also I posted those pics as just a sample to show that most of the stuff I have is about WOT BSFC not part throttle.

Originally Posted by revetec

Note: The supercharged Mercedes engine's best BSFC was around 250g/kW-h. Our best was 17% better or 6.8% better in total efficiency at our peak and normally aspirated. Forced induction decreases the total percentage lost in pumping losses as apposed to power gains.

First superchargers always decrease the overall thermal efficiency Second the graph show a relatively large patch which is 250g/kWh at the boundary. Peak BSFC is about 240g/kWh (34.09% efficient or only alittle under the 34.52% you achieved running stoichiometric, a good bit less than your 38.59% which you achieved running lean).

[revetec]

Originally Posted by hightower99

The other two engines are the R26B Le-Mans winning 4 rotor rotary engine (not FI, it is NA). As well as the venerable Jeep 6-230 Tornado engine (also NA).

Here is the wiki for the tornado: Jeep Tornado engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is not turbocharged it is Naturally Aspirated. Also I posted those pics as just a sample to show that most of the stuff I have is about WOT BSFC not part throttle.

The problem hightower99 there is great discrepancies of the graphs you posted and the information you have linked to. Just as an example: The graph you say is the Jeep engine and in the graph it shows the engine producing 155hp@4,000rpm and the the article you posted to back it up from Wikipedia shows the engine producing 140hp@4,000rpm and 133hp@4,000rpm. I should also point out that to quantify any of this data, you need to find the graph in a certified report which also shows things like air intake temperature, atmospheric pressure and coolant temperature as it was under that test.

Let me give you an example of how even a car manufacturer can fiddle the figures: I know someone who has worked in the development testing area for a very major European car company that until recently used to lean all mixtures off, ran the engine hotter than the engine was designed to run at, put dry ice around the intake and performed an economy test and logged the BSFC figure. They then richened the mixtures up and performed outright performance tests. Then all the data was put together as if the engine was tested without any modifications and did not disclose the modifications and/or true test conditions.

For this reason I only trust information and reports put out by independent testing from a reputable source and in a full report stating test conditions.

I should also point out to everyone at this point that any dyno can be corrected to read a higher reading whether it is a engine or chassis dyno. For this reason only a certified facility can be trusted for data and results. I'll give an example and a question to all: Is there anyone on here who uses a chassis dyno? Before you perform any tests, do you find out from a reliable source what the drive train losses are for that drivetrain/vehicle and put in the correction values before calculating flywheel power? I have talked to many dyno owners and they only estimate a figure like 20% for rear wheel drive and 15% for front wheel drive cars. So can anyone who has tested their vehicle on a chassis dyno actually quote an accurate figure of what the engine power is? I have visited some chassis dyno facilities that have had the drive line correction as high as 30%. Great for the customer's ego but does little to give an actual figure.

And as for comparing our engine to a Racing R26B Le-Mans 4 rotor rotary engine that is not available to the consumer, what was the point of that?

[hightower99]

Originally Posted by revetec

The problem hightower99 there is great discrepancies of the graphs you posted and the information you have linked to. Just as an example: The graph you say is the Jeep engine and in the graph it shows the engine producing 155hp@4,000rpm and the the article you posted to back it up from Wikipedia shows the engine producing 140hp@4,000rpm and 133hp@4,000rpm. I should also point out that to quantify any of this data, you need to find the graph in a certified report which also shows things like air intake temperature, atmospheric pressure and coolant temperature as it was under that test.

Here is the article that the picture is from:Off-Road Adventures Magazine It is a tornado engine it is also not FI. The BMEP is in PSI (150psi=10Bar). Second I am not comparing your engine to this. The picture is simply to show that most info I do have is taken at WOT.

Originally Posted by revetec

Is there anyone on here who uses a chassis dyno? Before you perform any tests, do you find out from a reliable source what the drive train losses are for that drivetrain/vehicle and put in the correction values before calculating flywheel power?

I have used a chassis dyno several times but I don't calculate flywheel power as I am more interested in the power that actually moves the car (wheel power).

Originally Posted by revetec

And as for comparing our engine to a Racing R26B Le-Mans 4 rotor rotary engine that is not available to the consumer, what was the point of that?

I didn't Again I posted that picture to show that the info I have is taken at WOT.

[revetec]

Hightower99: How about posting something relevant as a comparison. The more info I get the better

[hightower99]

Originally Posted by revetec

Hightower99: How about posting something relevant as a comparison. The more info I get the better

Technically you could compare WOT BSFC against any of the engines I posted but you don't have WOT BSFC info for your engine.

[revetec]

I'm not going to spend another $50,000 to get another test done for your info... You'll just have to find comparable figures.

[hightower99]

Originally Posted by revetec

I'm not going to spend another $50,000 to get another test done for your info... You'll just have to find comparable figures.

It is going to be extremely difficult to find comparable info...

You are basically asking me to find BSFC ratings for engines run at part throttle and I haven't been able to find anything like that except for your report.

[jrobson]

Originally Posted by revetec

I'm not going to spend another $50,000 to get another test done for your info... You'll just have to find comparable figures.

Well done for proving us wrong!

You should really spend that $50 000 though, because BSFC figures are most impressive at full load so you might just dip under 200! This the reason everyone else shows graphs at full load only, because that is when the consumption is lowest as you no longer have throttle losses.

Do yourself a favour and contact Mr. Pattakos about this valvetrain patent, you will increase your figures (at part throttle) significantly, as well as improve the overall response of your engine.

Regards,
Jonathan.

[Matra et Alpine]

Considering your comment then is it not obvious why everyone picks the point where it looks "best" and not "typical" or avergage ??

Where'd the Pattakos comment come from ?
Are you connected.
If so can you please explain why the patent was applied for in Europe and then WITHDRAWN ?
This is usually what happens when a decent patent office does it's work and researches the "innovation" and finds it not worthy of a patent Other "lazy" patent offices grant patents and then let patent lawyers fight it out later

[revetec]

Originally Posted by jrobson

Well done for proving us wrong!

You should really spend that $50 000 though, because BSFC figures are most impressive at full load so you might just dip under 200! This the reason everyone else shows graphs at full load only, because that is when the consumption is lowest as you no longer have throttle losses.

Do yourself a favour and contact Mr. Pattakos about this valvetrain patent, you will increase your figures (at part throttle) significantly, as well as improve the overall response of your engine.

Regards,
Jonathan.

For a start, BSFC figures are NOT most impressive or best at full throttle. That is like saying you are going to drive your car at full throttle everywhere to get your best fuel economy. Absolutely wrong. Most of the test points we picked are from the European drive cycle. When checking for fuel efficiency, all companies pick a point of most efficiency not their least. No engine I know of is most efficient at full throttle. Most engines are efficient at 75% manifold load. This is because it is the point where pumping losses as a percentage of output is at its lowest. Most uneducated people think 75% load is 75% throttle. It isn't. Our engine at 2,000rpm and 75% manifold load is about 10% throttle opening. At 4,000rpm and 75% manifold load it is about 40% throttle and so on... So you can see we tested at 2,000rpm and 10% throttle which is usually just above cruise at 100kph. This is where most vehicles are most economical.

Think about this: Why would a car company quote their fuel economy figures at full throttle? Do you know of any automotive manufacturer that does this? I didn't think so.

Just because Hightower99 can't find comparable data, doesn't mean he knows everything he has commented on. In Hightower99s defense, for his age he is the most knowledgeable person I have chatted to, and if he picks engines as his career, he will probably do very well. Orbital tests for many major automotive companies and we tested mainly under their advise and what is acceptable to quote when pitching to automotive companies.

As for the Pattakon technologies...Matra et Alpine is correct.

Why was the patent withdrawn?
Either:
The patent wasn't novel, or
They couldn't get the capital to pursue it ($15,000 I think is the amount it cost for Europe when I did it), or
They didn't get the result they thought they would get and decided to drop it, or
Maybe they came up with a better patentable solution?

Maybe Manolis can get on his topic again and post the reason why. Hehehehe...Sorry Matra et Alpine!

I went to their website over a year ago and I was not impressed by their engineering skills. Go look at their images of the head mods they performed. Most of which was done by hand with a die grinder. Sorry but I don't think I'll be contacting Pattakon in a hurry...

[Matra et Alpine]

re European Patens, Brad.

THe EPO are very proud of the limited number of patents they now award
If it's not innovative, it doesn't happen
EPO grants fewer patents despite rise in applications

Originally Posted by EPO President Alison Brimelow

believes priority has to be given to patent quality. "The purpose of patents is to support the generation of economic benefits for society. However, large patent numbers are not necessarily indicative of growing R&D activity," she said. "What we therefore need is not more patents, but more good patents."

[revetec]

Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine

re European Patens, Brad.

THe EPO are very proud of the limited number of patents they now award
If it's not innovative, it doesn't happen
EPO grants fewer patents despite rise in applications

I know the patent system and it is getting more difficult to get a patent passed these days. Anyone can apply for a patent on anything and say "patent pending" but when it come down to actually passing the patent, it is a different story. I'm lucky in the fact that in all the countries I applied to only two had a problem with it. USA didn't like my drawings and I had to resubmit ones to their liking, and Japan who didn't like all my claims being separate, and wanted me to collate them into one big claim. It isn't easy getting a patent these days, but I'm fortunate enough to get mine through in every country I applied in successfully.

[Matra et Alpine]

Yeah, I (unfortunately) became our HP site de-facto patent expert and not only got mine awarded, but ended up assisting the preparation of others for my staff and colleagues. I also spent 6 months defending ourselves against a so-called patent awarded by the US patent office. As well as our own, I was able to demonstrate 4 other prior-art patents and publications INCLUDING one pre-dating the so-called patent by ONE YEAR !!
Sadly in the end an agreement was reached -- paying patent lawyers to fight it out in court just wasn't worth it It's the way the US patent office seems to prefer to work, spend an hour searchign prio-art and if none, then grant it and let it be challenged !

The European patent office would have discarded it on first reading

[revetec]

I hear you loud and clear.
Have a look at our company logo (we've had for over 10years which is trademarked) verses adobe's new logo for "adobe air".

And there is nothing we can do about it.

logo_rip_off_by_adobe.jpg

[jrobson]

Hi

Yes they are best at 100%, everyone knows or should know that, your post shocks me, especially where you have the throttle at both 40% and 10% and still have 75% load!! SFC has nothing to do with real world driving, it means the engine create X amount of power for Y amount of fuel used, when you are at 10% throttle you lose power to the suction forces due to the partial vacuum created between the thottle and valves, the engine has to work to overcome that(work requires fuel), not applicable to engines with infinately variable valvetrains as almost all the energy is returned, when you add a manifold thats where the problem comes in.

RE: Patakos's patent, no matter what the patent office says, try and find a similar system ever used on a engine before him, he should be awarded that patent, don't knock the efforts either, we don't know their socio economic position perhaps the reason for not being able to pursue the patent is a lack of funding, and not everyone has access to high tech CNC machines, maybe I should offer my services to him for free and his idea might seem more impressive (but I scratch my head at why that is important for anyone except an end user, I thought you were an engineer that can see past all that ), look at the coates website, crock of shit but the pictures look oh so nice, doesn't mean anything but a lot of investors fell for it.

Honda did slightly better with their latest Vtec I believe called A-Vtec where instead of just adjusting lift it also adjusts timing, forget about ever getting a license though.

Think you can do better than Pattakos or Honda, now there is a challenge for you. Btw, can anyone see any faults with the system(excluding the manual machining/parts used) I mean with the function?

Oh, wait, um ... ah ... here you go... tada ... and from a AU website too.