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

[Revetec Raptor]

So .. the 52million odd "votes" ... how many people did that represent ?

Well if Brad has 32mill there may not have been to may shareholders there !

As yet we never seen any video or heard a sound tracks nor a count of hands from ANY previous AGM that I am aware of, so why would this one be any different, young Brad is still learning at the shareholders expense.

[jrobson]

Well well here we go again, some more bs, and more bs, and a little more bs... Story after story, and the cheerleaders are waiting in suspense... and keep waiting...

Btw, question, especially for the "investors":
What is the mechanical efficiency of the revetec engine?

[Matra et Alpine]

"cheerleaders" ??
Not aware of any of those .. cant' see them for all the whiny wanted-to-get-rich-through-someone-elses-efforts-and-stupid-enough-not-to-realise-what-investments-are ...

THAT 'bs' :) :)

SO please, let's jsut leave all the investment questions to another forum adn take it there. Post her on TECH information .. not speculation or general moaning

[stian1979]

Interesting how people blame the uneversety for all it's short commings, but are extremly eager to use there simulation showing the engine efficency:D

I remember honda did some experiments once where they build a engine leting the piston stop at top dead center for a longer time allowing bethe combustion. It did not work, it just caused more heat losses and I would not be suprised if the students forgot something like that in there simulation if this report is even true.

[Matra et Alpine]

stian, there is a HUGE diffrence betwen the developmetnand delivery of a simulation and the phsycial materials/tests.

RIGHT to balem em, and right to point out the simulation. ANY idiot though who took a simulation as gospel deserves to have every cente removed from their back pocket while they're not looking.

BY what "knowledge" do you base your "surprise" that they forgot something ?
Mechanical and intellectual are two VASTLY different skills.
To apply an experience ( without all the relevant facts either ) of the mechanical debacle to the software/modelling domain is a HUGE error.

[3yearsharehold]

Kozy,
This is the spin that's gone on for years .....

Revetec AGM report,
Prototype Testing
"The X4v2 engine was shipped to Germany, and I followed once the engine had arrived. On
my arrival I discovered the University was running behind schedule in completing the
testing of engines booked in prior to our engine"

A phone call would have saved this being added in AGM report.


"When I returned to the University a number of further difficulties arose and include:
Parts that were commissioned to be produced by the University had not been made;"


A phone call would have saved this early trip being added in AGM report.

The problem is Brad puts his ph number out, never answers a call !!!!!!!!!!
Also (Revetec Brad) was given a Golden opportunity, an Engine manufacture very verry keen to utilize revetecs technology, brad never ever phoned or returned an email. .
Before you say a word (Matra et Alpine), I know this for a FACT!

jrobson,
"Btw, question, especially for the "investors":
What is the mechanical efficiency of the revetec engine?"

This question is mute if engine not reliable ..

Matra et Alpine
"As an aside, let me ask 3yso what he wrote when he first bought into REvetec ?
Could it be the same mindset and words as the ones just posted on a copper/minerals geological compnay ??
That's the shitter about hindsight ... IT is always right"

?????
Well i do recall posted somthing about revetec should try raising more capital @ 3cents a couple of years ago!!
That was laugh at by Brad & more, Now his getting great deals from china for testing in a "PROMINENT UNI"
@ 1CENT......
BTW I still hold over 1% ov company, so in "hindsight" probable will work out ok righting it off against cudeco :)

[3yearsharehold]

Long time since last update!

The ABC contacted Brad REVETEC, ASIC, and their sponsoring brokers The Pritchard Group Accounting services, taxation, wealth management, Hamilton, NSW (http://www.pritchards.com.au), about THREE weeks ago, asking when the report from Germany test results would be available,as the testing was finished MONTHS AGO .Testing payed for by the shareholders once again!!!!

Revetec BRAD said one (1) week, that was (3)three weeks ago. ASIC will be part of the ABC story if Brad cannot lactate!!!!

A shareholder friend of mine spoke to Brad revetec Today!
Brad said .....
"Excellent news is going to be announced in ONE weeks time from Germany, don't worry about the report, excellent news is coming out in one weeks time and you wont have to worry about any report because its going to be excellent news excellent"
Apparently he could not stop laughing throughout the conversation !

Well he has one week my friends not two...

[Matra et Alpine]

A phone call would have saved this being added in AGM report.
Ever worked with third party suppliers/developers before ?

A phone call would have saved this early trip being added in AGM report.
I have, hindsight is giving you the knowledge that a phone call would make a differences.
AT the time however, you have to assume that any third party is meeting the commitments they gave ---- otherwise you'd have to do all the work yourself :)

Before you say a word (Matra et Alpine), I know this for a FACT!
OK ."word".
So what was offered, what would it have taken of Revetec, what commitment on patent protection, IP controls ? What guarantee of out comes were given ??
Sorry, man, been here and done it with lots of companies and know most of the issues that could produce the outcomes you're seeing.

well i do recall posted something about revetec should try raising more capital @ 3cents a couple of years ago!!
Was that so you could sell them before they completely tanked ? :)
AND who would buy with little practical information available ? (nobody :()

BTW I still hold over 1% ov company, so in "hindsight" probable will work out ok righting it off against cudeco :)
Sounds like you're needing to swallow lesson 101 of investing in innovative stocks.
Most of them don't' reach the financial/technical goals laid out at initial offering.
Sorry, mate, but either stop moaning and walk away or at least just stop moaning :)

It's not as if you're "protecting" potential investors being asked for millions or to buy shares in another public offering at 5c/share. The money you invested is lost, it was a bad bet. Move on.

[revetec]

There will be a news announcement coming out very soon, but I cannot give a actual date. I cannot say anything more about it, other than I view the news as excellent, and I expect everyone will do as well.

To 3yearsharehold: You have damaged the company enough through not understanding the types and amounts of hurdles the company has had to endure, then ignorantly posting slamming comments. The company has been doing well in Germany and an announcement is coming.

A guy from the ABC did ring me up on behalf of yourself, he asked me a lot of questions, which he said he understood and agreed with me, regarding delays, strategies, stock exchange strategy and the like. He said he was satisfied with everything and would contact you back to explain as much as he could to you.

He then sent me an email expressing interest in running a story on our announcement, as it maybe news worthy for the ABC.

To everyone reading this: Because of 3yearsharehold's hounding and deception to try and gain a market advantage from getting other shareholders to ask me questions that is of an insider trading nature, (which I did not reply to or divulge information), I'm sorry to say that I will not be taking any phone calls from shareholders directly, until at least the announcement is made. You can always email me.

[3yearsharehold]

Brad,
Your most taxing!
half the truth, quarter of the truth, or nothing resembling the truth .

"A shareholder friend of mine spoke to Brad revetec Today!

Brad said .....

"Excellent news is going to be announced in ONE weeks time from Germany, don't worry about the report, excellent news is coming out in one weeks time and you wont have to worry about any report because its going to be excellent news excellent"
Apparently he could not stop laughing throughout the conversation !"
Do you deny this ?

There will be a news announcement coming out very soon, but I cannot give a actual date. I cannot say anything more about it, other than I view the news as excellent, and I expect everyone will do as well.

So now its soon, not a week, you are time line about to delist ... Its one week two ..four ......"I cannot give a actual date."


I also contacted YOU personally on 3/3/10 & verified your statement, news coming out in one week,well its over a week!

Do you deny this ?

I haven't spoken to a ABC reporter in (work hours regarding Revetec or any other company)ever!

Too many assumptions in your post BRAD.

I was a shareholder over six years ago,well before Revetec listed on NSX & now NSXA , you said back then you would be listing on alternative stock exchange in London as well as the ASX ect, at AU$1.35, I didn't fall for that, many did!
Six odd years later you wont the share holders to have faith this will happen after being delisted for a period of six months or maybe six years.
I can cop losses , others have all sorts of family problems caused through your dead time line speeches.
Could you be kind enough to let the other share holders know where the $500 000.00 + spent on testing has gone .
"

Brad is travelling back to Munich on the 16th of August to modify the engine and have meetings with interested parties in Germany. The test cell will be available around the 15th of September, and the setup on the dynamometer should take approximately one week. Testing should take a further three weeks to finalise, then the report should be finalised and released four weeks later."

Its well over due date again & again & again , maybe your just trying your old tactics, until delisting ...try to keep the sp up.

"There will be a news announcement coming out very soon, but I cannot give a actual date. I cannot say anything more about it, other than I view the news as excellent, and I expect everyone will do as well."


Brad, I gave you contacts to the best steel makers in high quality alloy steel in Australia years ago , & you never contacted them.I asked my Father who went out on a string to discuss it with the CEO .The company said at the time they could do with extra costs as they had too much tax to pay anyway so would pay for any expenses to get the right strength for your product at there expense , no disclosure at all to any one about your product !
You never contacted them...!!!!!
I wont mention the capital raising !!!!!!!!!!

I will respond to your accusations as soon as I deal with rest of my commitments,back soon!

PS: Your accusations & comments aren't helpfully to say the least!
Kind regards
More than three years now!

[csl177]

^^^ Someone please ban this troll.

[Matra et Alpine]

Well I was close to doing as you requested.

Instead I will remind the person that he HAS BEEN WARNED to keep his stuff out of here.

Also, I'd point out that he shows little understanding of the markets worldwide and the turmoil in the last 4 years. Yes, those close new there were issues LONG before the much publicised "crash" of the banking. So only a fool woudl try to hold ANYONE to dates made before. And as for the BS line with "your father", that's even MORE speculative than any of the points you claim Rvetec are bad for. SERIOUSLY MAN, do not post on the company again or it will be a ban.

You have been reminded before that this is a car forum adn NOT a business one.
Take your lack of business acumen to a business forum where you wil be advised more often adn stronger than here. You want to talk CARS and engines then do so please, but you moan one more time on a personal level and you WILL be treated like the whining git you are coming across as :)

PS: THe above are my personal views adn do not necessarily represent UCP or the UCP community.

[Revetec Raptor]

Why did the Irish invent Whisky ? :confused:
So that Whisky soaked Scotsmen could only take over a Forum ! :p

[3yearsharehold]

"The Irish and the Scots have always argued about who first invented whisk(e)y. It is generally accepted the noble art of distillation from fermented grain and water had Celtic origins in the British Isles – but which particular brand of Celt was first involved? Well, the Irish have always stoutly maintained that it was almost certain that well-travelled early Christian Irish monks learnt the secrets of distillation in Arabia around about 500 to 600AD; and, on their returning to the ‘ould sod’, put their knowledge to good use in turning fermented mashes of grain and water into aqua vitae, or as the Gaels would say, uisge beatha – the water of life.

But the Scots will have none of it – pure speculation, typical Irish whimsy and myth. They point to the indisputable fact that, in the far off year of 1494 in Scotland, there is the well known written record of an entry in the Exchequer Rolls of ‘eight bolls of malt to Friar John Cor wherewith to make aqua vitae’. Fact, not fiction, and showing that whisky making was well established in Scotland in 1494. ‘Where is your Irish equivalent?’ they cry."

This is why the Muslims religion band drinking alcohol, after a few (dinks) ya start to post on www about your personal crap!

[Revetec Raptor]

"The Irish and the Scots have always argued about who first invented whisk(e)y. It is generally accepted the noble art of distillation from fermented grain and water had Celtic origins in the British Isles – but which particular brand of Celt was first involved? Well, the Irish have always stoutly maintained that it was almost certain that well-travelled early Christian Irish monks learnt the secrets of distillation in Arabia around about 500 to 600AD; and, on their returning to the ‘ould sod’, put their knowledge to good use in turning fermented mashes of grain and water into aqua vitae, or as the Gaels would say, uisge beatha – the water of life.

But the Scots will have none of it – pure speculation, typical Irish whimsy and myth. They point to the indisputable fact that, in the far off year of 1494 in Scotland, there is the well known written record of an entry in the Exchequer Rolls of ‘eight bolls of malt to Friar John Cor wherewith to make aqua vitae’. Fact, not fiction, and showing that whisky making was well established in Scotland in 1494. ‘Where is your Irish equivalent?’ they cry."

This is why the Muslims religion band drinking alcohol, after a few (dinks) ya start to post on www about your personal crap!

Well I got a Laugh & some Knowledge !

[Matra et Alpine]

Why did the Irish invent Whisky ? :confused:
So that Whisky soaked Scotsmen could only take over a Forum ! :p
Someone had to stand up to the clowns on the planet.
Yes, a Scottish tradition to be the font line shock troops who actually get the job done.
PS: None of was anything to do with whisky. If it's an allusion to my typing then that's adifferent medical condition :)

"This is why the Muslims religion band drinking alcohol, after a few (dinks) ya start to post on www about your personal crap!
ROFL .. and yet never a truer word spoken in jest.

SO KEEP YOUR PERSONAL CRAP OUT OF THIS THREAD.

zing :)

oh and we dont' actually argue over who invented it.
True whisky devotees know the only point in discussion is who does it BEST :)



SO .... can we please keep business complaints and personal issues and comments out of here and keep it on the tech

[3yearsharehold]

Sensational news out !
German company keen on Revetec generators!

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722602.PDF

Brad needs a pat on the butt!!


Well that's the news I was after, not we cant pay are bills!?
Shame we don't get a look at the testing results from MUNICH UNI!!

I noted a large volume of visitors to this thread at particularised times through last few weeks!
Matra et Alpine,
any input ???
Could it be the Chinese!

[3yearsharehold]

SHADOW BOXER ,THIS IS THE BEST
REVETEC -revolutionary horizontally opposed engine design to be used Chinese cars? - China Car Forums

Deal done years ago.

[3yearsharehold]

Question for REVETEC


"For instance, we can design a whole engine with bearings at a certain capacity and then increase the engine's capacity and Solid Edge will actually reselect new bearings and redesign components to take all the stress.We can design a new engine , from start to finish, in five to six weeks."
The link is in above post!

All aside!
Is Solid Edge working as well with X4?

[Matra et Alpine]

What TECHNICAL question are you alluding to ?

Coz that reads like you're just trying to score piss-poor-posturing-points.
And for them you'll get an infraction, you ahve been asked, told, cajoled into keeping the business gripes you have out of here.

[FireyB]

...you're just trying to score piss-poor-posturing-points...

Sniff sniff... I can smell a BANNNN ! ! ! Yawn.

-------------------------------------------------

It seems that the "Big, Exciting, Announcement" may be held off until RVC de-lists from the NSX... Next month.

Fingerssss crosssssed peeeeps.

[3yearsharehold]

"Matra et Alpine,
POSTED

"What TECHNICAL question are you alluding to ?

Coz that reads like you're just trying to score piss-poor-posturing-points.
And for them you'll get an infraction, you ahve been asked, told, cajoled into keeping the business gripes you have out of here.":(

It seems your getting a little paranoid Matra et Alpine, as to my last post!:eek:

"FireyB,
POSTED

Sniff sniff... I can smell a BANNNN ! ! ! Yawn.

-------------------------------------------------

It seems that the "Big, Exciting, Announcement" may be held off until RVC de-lists from the NSX... Next month.

Fingerssss crosssssed peeeeps.":confused:


So its OK for FireyB, BRAD to ramp UP the company in every post until delisting, but NOT OK to ask if the Solid Edge software he used on boxer mapping works as well as on the X4!
So what do you make of the post above?
Also, what's TEC about the last " TEN + posts" Revetec posted +FireyB......Nothing at all,or Hightower99 would be back to Question!:)

"Revetec
POSTED
To everyone reading this: Because of 3yearsharehold's hounding and deception to try and gain a market advantage from getting other shareholders to ask me questions that is of an insider trading nature, (which I did not reply to or divulge information), I'm sorry to say that I will not be taking any phone calls from shareholders directly, until at least the announcement is made. You can always email me.":o

What a load of BS! I also could take this to legal proceedings, as I have been advised, but declined for now as its only bs on a public forum!
Matra et Alpine, If you are a rvc shareholder now,I dont think its right for YOU to moderate these posts.
!!!!!!:eek:

[Matra et Alpine]

^ The issue with paranoia ... is sometimes they ARE out to get you :)

In this case you want to "score" personal points !

"ramp up in every post" :) Delusional.
Last post by "Revetec" made it VERY clear there woudl be an announcement and AVOIDED "hype" but had to respond to your childishness.

"I could take this to legal proceeings"... It's a public forum. The facts are there, I'd recommend if you BELIEVE what you write then you should. I'd love to see the lawyers advice on what grounds you have. "Barrack room lawyers" advice means nothing :(

I am not and never have been an RVC shareholder.
If I had I would NOT be posting as a car forum is NOT the place to air and discuss business as you've been advised many times.

What "advice" were you given ? It's piqued my interest on how Australian lawyers think ....

[FireyB]

APRIL 19, 2010.

Revetec News (http://www.revetec.com/news089.htm)

Revetec reaches agreement with Peus Testing to Develop Combined Heat and Power Generation Units

The Directors are pleased to announce that Revetec have agreed to assist Peus in the development and manufacture of a range of Combined heat and Power Generation Units based upon our current prototype.

Germany is the hub of the Cogeneration Industry and is the subject of significant government incentives. Currently 12% of all residential power is generated by Heat and Power generation Units. The German government has set a target to increase this percentage to 25 % by the year 2020 and to eventually peak at approximately 60% by 2050. Peus has a very distinguished client base which includes Ford, Renault, Porsche, Daimler, Seat, Volkswagen and Audi. We consider them to be an excellent partner as they have all the relevant technical and financial resources to bring a product range to the world market.

All terms including licensing fee rates have been discussed and agreed upon. We are now in the process of documenting the agreement and anticipate it will be signed by both parties within the next two weeks.

This contract represents a milestone for our shareholders. We propose to pursue several other opportunities in Germany, India and China during the course of the next 12 months as we prepare the company for relisting on a more appropriate stock exchange.

[3yearsharehold]

Posted last year by REVETEC
We have to de-list from NSX for six (6) months before relisting on OS exchange as required by potentional investor.

Todays posting,

DELISTING FROM NSX
We are no longer listed on the NSX, Revetec is now a publicly unlisted company. We propose to negotiate several commercial contracts this year prior to relisting the company at a suitable time preferably within 12-18 months on a more suitable stock exchange. The board felt it was important to delist from the NSX because it did not provide shareholders with a liquid market and did not enhance the profile of your company.

UUUMMM did you say 12-18 months????????????????????????

REVETEC'S update of website ...we need your email address...so we can sell more shares to you for 12cents!!!
We are currently requesting Shareholders who are not receiving company emails from Revetec, to request to be placed on our emailing list.

Over 40% of our Shareholders are already registered on our email database, leaving almost 60% of shareholders either have not yet registered, have changed their email address, have Shares under multiple entities or do not have access to the internet.
Revetec Homepage revetec.com (http://www.revetec.com/)

Woops now we delisted we have no exposure to investors..

FULL POST

Dear Shareholders,



We anticipate that 2010/2011 will be a very exciting year for your company.



DELISTING FROM NSX

We are no longer listed on the NSX, Revetec is now a publicly unlisted company. We propose to negotiate several commercial contracts this year prior to relisting the company at a suitable time preferably within 12-18 months on a more suitable stock exchange. The board felt it was important to delist from the NSX because it did not provide shareholders with a liquid market and did not enhance the profile of your company.



THE WAY AHEAD

The board is very pleased to have secured a development and licensing agreement with Peus Testing in the cogeneration market. Peus Testing have already commenced to optimise our existing prototype engine.

Peus will complete optimisation of our prototype engine, test it and then embark on rapid prototyping as well as endurance testing prior to arranging for certification where necessary.



SHARE VALUE

The board has sought the advice of a Consultant as to the value of the Peus agreement to Revetec’s shareholders. The conclusion was that the contract when considered in isolation was worth between 7 to 19 cents. We have excluded our contract with GTM Trikes from this calculation. The board considers this to be a conservative valuation. For example, KDSS sold its patented four wheel drive suspension system prior to fully proving the concept for approximately $55,000,000.00. Revetec’s patented technology has much wider market application and has been tested both in house and at Orbital, proving its efficiency. We await formal test results from Peus Testing to prove our product concept for a third time. If we assume Revetec’s technology was worth as much as the KDSS technology, it would have a market value of approximately 23 cents per share.



MARKETING

Under our agreement with Peus Testing, Revetec may upon giving Peus Testing reasonable notice bring prospective commercial clients to view the prototype during development and testing.

The board proposes to invite a number of companies to observe testing as part of our drive for more commercial contracts.



WHERE ARE WE LOOKING FOR OPPORTUNITIES ?

Having signed an agreement with a strong development partner in Germany, we propose to turn our attention towards India and China, and the United States of America in search of more commercial contracts. Our German consultant Dr Rolf Werner will also actively pursue several other German companies he has contacts with.



WHAT DO WE NEED TO FUNCTION ?

We need working capital to pay for patent renewal fees, salaries and other administrative expenses.



PURCHASING SHARES IN REVETEC

All shareholders are cordially invited to Purchase shares in Revetec at a discounted figure of 12 cents per share.

Please complete and return the attached share application form or contact Calvin by email at [email protected] to place your order.



Kind regards



Bradley Howell-Smith

Director

[3yearsharehold]

BTW wonder what happened to the within two week signing agreement!

"Revetec reaches agreement with Peus Testing to Develop Combined Heat and Power Generation Units - 19/04/2010
All terms including licensing fee rates have been discussed and agreed upon. We are now in the process of documenting the agreement and anticipate it will be signed by both parties within the next two weeks."

REVETEC will need a signature or two before a capital injection LOL!!

Sorry, know my last posts aren't TEC, just thought I would keep UCP readers upto date with REVETEC.

[3yearsharehold]

Revetec,

1. Has revetec a maximum amount of capital your trying to raise?

2. Does revetec have a minimum amount of capital needed to be an ongoing concern?
If so how long will this minimum keep revetec a going concern?

3. How much will this dilute the value of present shares?

4. Will this new capital be used to pay outstanding bills?

5. Revetec have announced " relisting the company at a suitable time preferably within 12-18 months on a more suitable stock exchange."
01/12/2009 "Technology and share price value are now a crucial issue for the future of our company.
While the company is listed on the NSXA, the share price will not only be a hindrance to negotiations with these companies due to a perceived lack of value, but will also inhibit any possibility for large financial input from financial institutions if needed. The board is of the view that our company will not be able to raise significant funds if required for any project whilst we are listed on the NSXA.For these reasons, the vote to delist is a critical decision to our company's future.
If the delisting vote is passed by the shareholders, we plan to relist on a stronger market in either the United Kingdom, Europe or the United States of America once a production contract is signed"
Revetec recently raised approx $230 000.00 whilst listed on NSXA.
Now unlisted Revetec struggle to raise enough capital to be a going concern.
Why did revetec report that delisting from NSX was needed when revetec are in arrears with current bills ?

6.Revetec has announced many potential clients over the years including ,Brazilian company,China, India, Germany,Motorcycle Company from the Philippine,
US Military, Lite Aircraft co,Trike co, etc etc etc..
Has revetec a set budget to follow up with any, all potential clients/companies ?

7. 19/04/2010 "All terms including licensing fee rates have been discussed and agreed upon. We are now in the process of documenting the agreement and anticipate it will be signed by both parties within the next two weeks."
Has any licensing fee been agreed upon,if so how much?

It seems critical for revetec to address the above issues asap, as the bullshit has gone on far to long!
Many shareholders are now inquiring about the possibility of selling their shares on Ebay at a large discount in response to the proposed 12 cent per share capital offering .
All of the above are concerns of many current shareholders and need to be addressed now.
There isn't anything" TEC " here at all.
We can start other forums up to discuss this as previous, although would rather have a competent person as a CEO address these matters so we can get back on TEC if this invention is good for it!
I pleaded with WAGGA to give revetec time, thinks will happen... Sorry Wagga !!!!

[Revetec Raptor]

Revetec,

1. Has revetec a maximum amount of capital your trying to raise?

2. Does revetec have a minimum amount of capital needed to be an ongoing concern?
If so how long will this minimum keep revetec a going concern?

3. How much will this dilute the value of present shares?

4. Will this new capital be used to pay outstanding bills?

5. Revetec have announced " relisting the company at a suitable time preferably within 12-18 months on a more suitable stock exchange."
01/12/2009 "Technology and share price value are now a crucial issue for the future of our company.
While the company is listed on the NSXA, the share price will not only be a hindrance to negotiations with these companies due to a perceived lack of value, but will also inhibit any possibility for large financial input from financial institutions if needed. The board is of the view that our company will not be able to raise significant funds if required for any project whilst we are listed on the NSXA.For these reasons, the vote to delist is a critical decision to our company's future.
If the delisting vote is passed by the shareholders, we plan to relist on a stronger market in either the United Kingdom, Europe or the United States of America once a production contract is signed"
Revetec recently raised approx $230 000.00 whilst listed on NSXA.
Now unlisted Revetec struggle to raise enough capital to be a going concern.
Why did revetec report that delisting from NSX was needed when revetec are in arrears with current bills ?

6.Revetec has announced many potential clients over the years including ,Brazilian company,China, India, Germany,Motorcycle Company from the Philippine,
US Military, Lite Aircraft co,Trike co, etc etc etc..
Has revetec a set budget to follow up with any, all potential clients/companies ?

7. 19/04/2010 "All terms including licensing fee rates have been discussed and agreed upon. We are now in the process of documenting the agreement and anticipate it will be signed by both parties within the next two weeks."
Has any licensing fee been agreed upon,if so how much?

It seems critical for revetec to address the above issues asap, as the bullshit has gone on far to long!
Many shareholders are now inquiring about the possibility of selling their shares on Ebay at a large discount in response to the proposed 12 cent per share capital offering .
All of the above are concerns of many current shareholders and need to be addressed now.
There isn't anything" TEC " here at all.
We can start other forums up to discuss this as previous, although would rather have a competent person as a CEO address these matters so we can get back on TEC if this invention is good for it!
I pleaded with WAGGA to give revetec time, thinks will happen... Sorry Wagga !!!!
God information ....a little too slow & too Late !!!

Don't forget all shares sold via eBay incur .6% Stamp duty via QLD gov legistlation !

[Matra et Alpine]

Hopefuly a ban on 3YSH will enable him to actually go and "start other forum" where all this crap can stay and we can keep this on the engine tech.

[csl177]

Hopefuly a ban on 3YSH will enable him to actually go and "start other forum" where all this crap can stay and we can keep this on the engine tech.

Oh! Oh! Oh! Great and omnipotent mods, say it is so, please say it is so!:D:D

[Matra et Alpine]

Check under his name :)
But it IS only a short-ish one so hopefully he will stick to the tech and other car stuff.

[3yearsharehold]

Matra et Alpine
Post 1215 11-04-2009, 02:51 AM

"Being listed is a great way of getting widespread investor take-up on IPO.

BUT, the restrictions placed on an organisation can be a real pain when trying to "move fast".

Also, being annoyed by thousands of investors on a daily basis who BY LAW you must respond to becomes a liability. One that those so-called investors don't appreciate.

And of course the consipracy theorists amongst us might suggest that it's a cheap way to acquire all the business before massive expansion/investment fro another source.

It all depends on what they propose in the de-listing.

Will be intersting to read the full proposal. Can a shareholder plase post as soon as published ? Thanks."

Your welcome:rolleyes:

[Revetec Raptor]

Dear Shareholder,

The directors are pleased to confirm that Revetec has today received the original counterpart agreement signed by the Managing Director of Peus Testing.

The prototype is currently being optimized. We will inform you of any significant developments as and when they arise.

Revetec Holdings Limited

Admin
07 5597 7377

[Revetec Raptor]

Death is Terminal.
Everything is transitional.
Revetec now appears to be out of the end of the tunnel and on a road, thanks to the Germans for resolving the component issue !
In the future if ahead what looks the end of road, may turn out to be a bend.

1. Has the size of the engine been change during Peus re-manufacturing ?
2. Any idea when an engine be available to the Public ?
3. Cost & Specifications ?
4. What is/was the issue with the part that kept on failing ?

[FireyB]

5. What are the details of the Peus agreement.
6. Put it in a car pleeeease :-)

[Revetec Raptor]

Dear Revetec Raptor,

3yearsharehold has just replied to a thread you have subscribed to entitled - A work of pure genius! - Brilliant "Revetec" Engine - in the Technical forums forum of Ultimatecarpage.com forums.

This thread is located at:
http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/technical-forums/2958-work-pure-genius-brilliant-revetec-engine-new-post.html

Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************
"We are now in the process of documenting the agreement and anticipate it will be signed by both parties within the next two weeks."
Revetec News (Revetec News (http://www.revetec.com/news089.htm))

Well it took 7 weeks. RVC "anticipated within 2 weeks", so if we add 250% too that we get 7 weeks!

I wonder if 250% should be calculated into" re-listing in 12 months", that would be 3.5 years!

I dont see many people investing in such a high risk R&D company with no real time frames!

It seems RVC are going to sit back hoping for the best, and hope that Peus dont do the same!

Still no news on licensing fee rates.I wonder why as any good deal could bring some serious investors aboard!

How long is it going to take RVC to change the invester details on web page,as anyone following rvc instructions will only find a blank page under RVC on the NSXA!!
Revetec Invest (Revetec Invest (http://www.revetec.com/invest.htm))

RVC Google search the web=Nothing resembling REVETEC
RVC Google search AU=Ringwood Veterinary Centre/ Ringwood Veterinary Centre | Vet Clinic, Animal Care, Pets, Dogs, Cats | Ringwood VIC (Ringwood Veterinary Centre | Vet Clinic, Animal Care, Pets, Dogs, Cats | Ringwood VIC (http://www.rvc.com.au))....... NSXA web page seven down.
Revetec Google search= Revetec Homepage revetec.com (Revetec Homepage revetec.com (http://www.revetec.com/)) first three, then .wikipedia ,nsxa ,next two ultimatecarpage.com,delisted.com.au

PS: Matra et Alpine.....If Revetec had no shareholders & NO Australian Tax Payers Monies there would be no REVETEC!!
***************


I got that via an email ....What happened to this post !

Question 7: Is there any information forthcoming from Revetec on the Financial agreement with Peus ?

As it is highlighted on there web site !
However, there should not be any secret as to the financial agreement, it fact it may be a good thing as it would show something for paying over AU$500'000 for the first flawed/failed testing.

I assume that now there is no way to contact most of the shareholders now we have been delisted.
I wonder if Brad has been told to stay off this site as unfortunately the spin gets him in more trouble that he anticipated.

Lets hope the Peus Agreement is GREAT for the shareholders & the technology !

[henk4]

I got that via an email ....What happened to this post !

in the interest of keeping this a TECHNICAL thread, we have regularly warned 3 years sharehold to refrain from posting the "business" parts of the Revetec story. In spite of these warnings 3YS continued to make these posts, and ia rather derogatary way, so it was decided to deny him further access. His last post was subsequently deleted. We trust that there are other ways besides Ultimatecarpage,com, where the business aspects of Revetec can be discussed, and obviously it works as you got informed through email.
Hope this is sufficient explanation and thank you for understanding.

[FireyB]

Who's been watching the Revetec website...??? Two interesting announcements all in one week... what does everyone think?

[RVC Shareholder]

Who's been watching the Revetec website...??? Two interesting announcements all in one week... what does everyone think?



I don't think too much of it. Heard it all before. In the past it was looking like going into production in China, Brazil, Germany, United States (Military) and now Turkey! (or should I say, another prototype is supposed to be going into production in Turkey)
I'm sure I have missed some other countries that have previously been mentioned. Frankly I'm tired of hearing about these announcements that end up amounting to nothing!
I've all but given hope of ever seeing any of my money again, or should I say a return on my money invested.

[revetec]

We have now signed two licensing agreements for engine development and Production. Sorry you are tired to hear about our company moving towards production. Anyway, nice to hear comments from you Paul.


I don't think too much of it. Heard it all before. In the past it was looking like going into production in China, Brazil, Germany, United States (Military) and now Turkey! (or should I say, another prototype is supposed to be going into production in Turkey)
I'm sure I have missed some other countries that have previously been mentioned. Frankly I'm tired of hearing about these announcements that end up amounting to nothing!
I've all but given hope of ever seeing any of my money again, or should I say a return on my money invested.

[revetec]

I came to this forum for technical explanation, and nothing more. Nothing more technical to explain as there has been no more technical questions, so I no longer need to come in and post here.

Utimatecarpage is a great website and as for the Technical forum, it has been a great place to discuss our technology, which I have enjoyed doing so. The Company mudslinging is not in the spirit of the forum, and it seems some people on here want to increase their ego publically on here instead of contacting me direct and asking specifically company orientated questions. Most company comments made on here from these people are made up from asumptions, instead of facts, and I'm sure people coming to a Technical forum is not looking for the current content which is being posted.

So Dennis, I wasn't told to stay off, there has just been no good valid technical questions to answer. I'm waiting for you guys to ring me on company questions :)


I wonder if Brad has been told to stay off this site as unfortunately the spin gets him in more trouble that he anticipated.

Lets hope the Peus Agreement is GREAT for the shareholders & the technology !

[revetec]

For your information...

Revetec has signed a engine Development and Licensing agreement with Atalan Makine - 17/07/2010

A few months back we were contacted by Atalan Makine in Turkey. Their technical Director, Hakan Atalan was very keen to talk to us about developing a Revetec engine and a Licensing Agreement. After months of conversing, setting out a development schedule, and negotiation, Company Director Steve Valtas travelled to Turkey to meet with Hakan to finalise an agreement.

The Directors are pleased to announce that we have signed a Development and Licensing Agreement with Atalan Makine and they will immediately start to design, develop and build CNG and Diesel prototype engines for production.

[FireyB]

... what does everyone think?

Hmm... I was expecting a more positive, technical discussion from everyone, rather than the standard whine about personal investment choices...


I've all but given hope of ever seeing any of my money again, or should I say a return on my money invested.

Not cool... Keep it to yourself.


... there has just been no good valid technical questions to answer. ...

Brad, it was mentioned somewhere (I can't seem to find where, possibly the AGM?) that PEUS would work towards endurance testing on the engine, can you give any indication to how things are progressing at PEUS and how far away they are from endurance tests?

Congrats on the latest developments too; it's good to see that all your hard work is producing more and more positive results as time goes on :)

[revetec]

Peus performed a great number of modifications. The engine is now running and the engine will be run in for 100 hours straight, probably within the next week.

Thanks for the congrats, stay tuned, more news to come.


Brad, it was mentioned somewhere (I can't seem to find where, possibly the AGM?) that PEUS would work towards endurance testing on the engine, can you give any indication to how things are progressing at PEUS and how far away they are from endurance tests?

Congrats on the latest developments too; it's good to see that all your hard work is producing more and more positive results as time goes on :)

[RVC Shareholder]

We have now signed two licensing agreements for engine development and Production. Sorry you are tired to hear about our company moving towards production. Anyway, nice to hear comments from you Paul.

Don't be like that Brad.

I'm just venting. I'm sure I have very little knowldege to what actually is or has been going on or what the licencing agreements actually mean to investors etc. Don't take things too seriously that are said here. Written text is one of the worst forms of communication and can be misinterpreted or misrepresented depending on the mood of the author or reader.

I'd be thrilled to see the engine go into definite production. It just feels like Ground Hog day sometimes. :)
I didn't even know you would be reading what I said. hehe

[RVC Shareholder]

Originally Posted by RVC Shareholder
I've all but given hope of ever seeing any of my money again, or should I say a return on my money invested.

Not cool... Keep it to yourself.




I'm as entitled to my opinion just as much as you are! How about you keep your personal attacks to yourself!
Stop trying to play the hero in charge. That's definitely NOT cool.
I hardly make comments on here and when I have in the past they have been supportive ones. The moment I make one comment that goes against the grain or general concensus 'people like you' jump on it.
It seems that everyone is entitled to their comment as long as it is something someone 'like you' agrees with.
You are not my keeper and if I have something to say, I'll damn well say it. If you don't like it,tough, that's your problem.

[Alastor]

Peus performed a great number of modifications. The engine is now running and the engine will be run in for 100 hours straight, probably within the next week.

Is that endurance testing or a break-in period? I ask because I am wondering what is involved with endurance or life testing an engine.

I would imagine it would involve running the engine continuously but while varying engine speed and load. As well as maybe varying the ambient temperature around the engine or maybe just the temperature of the coolant. Then perhaps running for an extended period of time at maximum engine speed. But that is all speculation.

[Revetec Raptor]

Brad It's good too see your still marching on, and have spare time to post here !

Also good too know Paul the LEGEND is still kick-en, its been a long time, several of us would love to see you back on the board !
(I think you & Alpine should swap Avatars :D)



Originally Posted by Revetec Raptor
I wonder if Brad has been told to stay off this site as unfortunately the spin gets him in more trouble that he anticipated.

Lets hope the Peus Agreement is GREAT for the shareholders & the technology ! I posted that remark because we hadn't heard anything significant since the WA testing years ago !
The testing in Germany & now two licensing agreements that haven't shown any clarity, the reason I'm sceptical is we have seen the same entrancements many times before.



Peus performed a great number of modifications. The engine is now running and the engine will be run in for 100 hours straight, probably within the next week.


Could you indulge more on the mods, or the Engine, is it the same size or much bigger, as most CHP units are quit large compared to the X4v2.

[Revetec Raptor]

Cogeneration (also combined heat and power, CHP) is the use of a heat engine or a power station to simultaneously generate both electricity and useful heat. It is one of the most common forms of energy recycling.

[Revetec Raptor]

(http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/member.php?u=25405) Ultimatecarpage.com forums - View Profile: hightower99@@AMEPARAM@@View Profile: hightower99</title>@@AMEPARAM@@hightower99
Enthusiast

post 432 31/1/07

I am still betting another friend (hopelessly in love with your idea :mad:)
100DK that you will be all but forgotten in less than 5 years.


post 1239 24/11/09

Unfortunately the wager wasn't between Brad and I. It was between a friend and myself. Basically I bet that Revetec wouldn't last 7 years... and that bet was made in late 2003 early 2004 (not quite sure).

Honourable mention for keeping it going for so long. I was getting worried I might lose :)

Not! :D

hightower99 must be getting nervy ....

[hightower99]

No nerves on my part really RR.

Honestly I give Brad alot of credit for running his business and for the useful insight into what it takes to try to bring a new engine technology from theory to product. I may not agree with his claims or the validity of the the actual product but that is besides the point.

As for the bet, it was very much focused on whether revetec engines would make it into cars, trucks, trikes, bikes, planes ect. in a decent production run. Key to the bet was a condition where world media would have a chance to review and critique the performance of a revetec engine as a valid alternative to conventional motors, like the Wankel engine is in the RX-8.

I see no indication that this will happen within the set timeframe (end of Feb. 2011) It seems that Revetec hasn't made the final step past prototyping to actual production runs either on their own or through affiliates.

I enjoyed the information that Brad shared with us and I understand that sharing more detailed (read: interesting) information is difficult to make public because of the current state of his business.

I still am not convinced that the Revectec design has anything to offer over conventional designs however, Should Revetec begin actual production runs and therefore be able to make more information public as well as further independent testing possible. I would very much enjoy reading and discussing that information.

I don't think that time will be soon though...

[revetec]

Hahahah.. C'mon... I have independently tested our engine and proved 39.5% efficiency 207g/(kW-h) on gasoline, with a 2 valve pushrod engine. With heaps of scope for increases in that result, and you say you are not convinced that the Revectec design has anything to offer over conventional designs?

Our problem since is convincing the engine industry, as prior to our result it has been believed that a gasoline internal combustion engine has a maximum possible thermal efficiency of 37%. Because we broke that barrier, it has been harder for the industry to believe and accept the result.

We now have two licensing agreements. One with Peus in Germany and Atalan Makine in Turkey. Both companies are working hard towards comercialisation.


I still am not convinced that the Revectec design has anything to offer over conventional designs however, Should Revetec begin actual production runs and therefore be able to make more information public as well as further independent testing possible. I would very much enjoy reading and discussing that information.

I don't think that time will be soon though...

[revetec]

Dennis, the CHP that Peus want to target is domestic units which central heat apartments and provide electricity, which are in the same range of capacity which the X4v2 engine is currently.


Could you indulge more on the mods, or the Engine, is it the same size or much bigger, as most CHP units are quit large compared to the X4v2.

[hightower99]

Hahahah.. C'mon... I have independently tested our engine and proved 39.5% efficiency 207g/(kW-h) on gasoline, with a 2 valve pushrod engine. With heaps of scope for increases in that result, and you say you are not convinced that the Revectec design has anything to offer over conventional designs?
Nope it doesn't convince me when a single company produces a single published result under odd conditions. The average efficiency wasn't explored over a wide range of conditions. I am 100% certain that a conventional engine could be designed to produce exactly the same result under the same conditions.



Our problem since is convincing the engine industry, as prior to our result it has been believed that a gasoline internal combustion engine has a maximum possible thermal efficiency of 37%. Because we broke that barrier, it has been harder for the industry to believe and accept the result.Sorry I don't buy that at all. The Diesel cycle is less efficient, given equal compression ratio, than modern Otto/Petrol cycle. Yet a diesel cycle engine has achieved 50% thermal efficiency. I don't believe an industry-wide unanimous agreement on an arbitrary 37% limit actually exists. Rather I would believe that some would find the results you are able to show to be insufficient/inconclusive. What could that limit possibly be based on? Who actually agrees with that limit?

[henk4]

The Diesel cycle is less efficient, given equal compression ratio, than modern Otto/Petrol cycle. Yet a diesel cycle engine has achieved 50% thermal efficiency.

I am sure the diesel engine (given equal compression ratio) will be much more efficient than a petrol engine (WITHOUT A SPARK PLUG), because the higher compression ratio in diesel causes the ignition....so if you take away the ignition option for a diesel, it is only fair to do that also for a petrol engine, isn't it?:)

[Revetec Raptor]

Brad, using the X4v2 are Peus looking at about 10 (units/apartments) per Engine?
Do you know what fuel they are testing or thinking of running on?

[revetec]

Nope it doesn't convince me when a single company produces a single published result under odd conditions.

Odd conditions?
It was tested at the normal speed and load an engine experiences at cruise up a slight gradient 18kW@2,000RPM which is the point where engines are at there most efficient on a BMEP chart, where fuel efficiency is most important to the end user, and where almost everyone quotes their highest efficiency.


The average efficiency wasn't explored over a wide range of conditions. I am 100% certain that a conventional engine could be designed to produce exactly the same result under the same conditions.

The cylinder heads were designed by me and built, all under 2 weeks with no analysis performed. We have never claimed our engine (especially our cylinder heads) is at peak efficiency at the moment, and this will be achieved in the near future.

If you are 100% certain that a conventional engine can be designed to produce this figure somone would have, so, post from any independent testing that a gasoline engine has achieved a better result in the tested range. It is simple to disprove me if you are correct.


Sorry I don't buy that at all. The Diesel cycle is less efficient, given equal compression ratio, than modern Otto/Petrol cycle. Yet a diesel cycle engine has achieved 50% thermal efficiency.

Great quote! So you are comparing a diesel engine with the same compression ratio as a gasoline engine. What is the point of that statement? A diesel is compression ignition which requires a higher compression ratio to generate enough compression heat to fire, and of course it won't operate efficiently at a compression ratio it was not designed to operate at. I am very suprised at the naivity of this quote.


I don't believe an industry-wide unanimous agreement on an arbitrary 37% limit actually exists. Rather I would believe that some would find the results you are able to show to be insufficient/inconclusive. What could that limit possibly be based on? Who actually agrees with that limit?

I think you should do some research on the theoretical thermal efficiency limits of gasoline engines matter and post them here with the reference website, rather than you opinion. I invite you to do so.

Achieving a BSFC of 207g/(kW-h) in actual independent testing is conclusive. Our engine achieved this result.

I invite you to post anything to back up your statements with references from any reputable source, if you can't do this, then everything you have stated is your own opinion.

BTW. What are your credentials in this area?

[revetec]

I am sure the diesel engine (given equal compression ratio) will be much more efficient than a petrol engine (WITHOUT A SPARK PLUG), because the higher compression ratio in diesel causes the ignition....so if you take away the ignition option for a diesel, it is only fair to do that also for a petrol engine, isn't it?:)

Great quote Henk4.

[revetec]

Brad, using the X4v2 are Peus looking at about 10 (units/apartments) per Engine?
Do you know what fuel they are testing or thinking of running on?

Yes, multiple apartments. VW has already announced it will enter this market using their Jetta engine.

The fuel available in this usage is natural gas.

[revetec]

I don't believe an industry-wide unanimous agreement on an arbitrary 37% limit actually exists.

Quote taken from Wikipedia - Subject: Internal Combustion Engines - Sub: Energy Efficiency

Quote:"Engine efficiency can be discussed in a number of ways but it usually involves a comparison of the total chemical energy in the fuels, and the useful energy extracted from the fuels in the form of kinetic energy. The most fundamental and abstract discussion of engine efficiency is the thermodynamic limit for extracting energy from the fuel defined by a thermodynamic cycle. The most comprehensive is the empirical fuel efficiency of the total engine system for accomplishing a desired task; for example, the miles per gallon accumulated.

Internal combustion engines are primarily heat engines and as such the phenomenon that limits their efficiency is described by thermodynamic cycles. None of these cycles exceed the limit defined by the Carnot cycle which states that the overall efficiency is dictated by the difference between the lower and upper operating temperatures of the engine. A terrestrial engine is usually and fundamentally limited by the upper thermal stability derived from the material used to make up the engine. All metals and alloys eventually melt or decompose and there is significant researching into ceramic materials that can be made with higher thermal stabilities and desirable structural properties. Higher thermal stability allows for greater temperature difference between the lower and upper operating temperatures — thus greater thermodynamic efficiency.

The thermodynamic limits assume that the engine is operating in ideal conditions: a frictionless world, ideal gases, perfect insulators, and operation at infinite time. The real world is substantially more complex and all the complexities reduce the efficiency. In addition, real engines run best at specific loads and rates as described by their power band. For example, a car cruising on a highway is usually operating significantly below its ideal load, because the engine is designed for the higher loads desired for rapid acceleration. The applications of engines are used as contributed drag on the total system reducing overall efficiency, such as wind resistance designs for vehicles. These and many other losses result in an engine's real-world fuel economy that is usually measured in the units of miles per gallon (or fuel consumption in liters per 100 kilometers) for automobiles. The miles in miles per gallon represents a meaningful amount of work and the volume of hydrocarbon implies a standard energy content.

Most steel engines have a thermodynamic limit of 37%"

[hightower99]

Odd conditions?The parameters you quoted are all fine I was talking specifically about the conditions that the claimed peak efficiency was measured at, namely the odd A/F ratio of 15.2:1. It would be interesting to know what other conventional engines could achieve if tested at that A/F ratio under the same conditions.


The cylinder heads were designed by me and built, all under 2 weeks with no analysis performed. Surely you performed some initial analysis of the engine and the conditions it would run during testing. Did you just guess all the dimensions?


If you are 100% certain that a conventional engine can be designed to produce this figure somone would have, so, post from any independent testing that a gasoline engine has achieved a better result in the tested range.You are missing the point. The range of testing your engine underwent was highly limited and the rapport shows that other than the one very specific point, your engine wasn't overly efficient at all. My point is that it is much easier to make an engine that is designed to achieve peak efficiency at one very specific point compared to making an engine that has to achieve a high average efficiency over a wide range of conditions. I have no doubt that a conventional engine could be designed to beat your mark in those specific conditions but it would be rubbish under all other conditions.


So you are comparing a diesel engine with the same compression ratio as a gasoline engine. What is the point of that statement?Unfortunately it seems both you and Henk4 missed my point. I will break it down for you: Diesel engines have achieved a thermal efficiency just over 50%; The modern Otto cycle is more efficient than the Diesel cycle at any given compression ratio, granted a diesel engine can run at a higher static compression ratio then a Otto cycle based engine at current time; Current static compression limits on Otto based engines is largely limited by octane value of fuel burned, however technological progress has allowed increases in static compression without raising octane value; Several variable compression concepts show static compression as high as 20:1 under low load (comparable to diesel engines), Where does the 37% limit come from?


I think you should do some research on the theoretical thermal efficiency limits of gasoline engines matter and post them here with the reference website, rather than you opinion. I invite you to do so. I have done research and I never ran into the 37% limit, not once. That is why I invited you to explain where you got the idea but your answer was that is was common knowledge and a worldwide business agreement. I disagree with those statements. I could understand if 37% was the current top efficiency achieved in testing but your statement was that 37% was the absolute limit.


Achieving a BSFC of 207g/(kW-h) in actual independent testing is conclusive. Our engine achieved this result.Ah but conclusive of what? Your engine achieved high efficiency under a single set of conditions, so what? the average efficiency over the range of conditions tested was not good at all and certainly not convincing enough to prove that the revetec design is better than conventional designs, designed for high average efficiency over a wide set of conditions.


I invite you to post anything to back up your statements with references from any reputable source, if you can't do this, then everything you have stated is your own opinion.I think you will find that I make statements of disbelief and give you questions to answer. What statements should I backup? that I don't believe you? That I haven't seen what you say is all around? As far as I have found in my own looking into the subject, the actual physical limit of Otto based internal combustion engines has not been set to any fixed value. It has been limited insofar as it cannot exceed Carnot efficiency between the same heat sinks.


What are your credentials in this area?I wasn't aware that I needed any to discuss this with you? What credentials should I have? Bare in mind that I have no intention of going into a lab and performing experiments solely to disprove anything you say at the present. What credentials does one need to discuss one's opinions of another's statements?


Most steel engines have a thermodynamic limit of 37%Really? So your proof of your statement is a single, unreferenced line in a wikipedia article that seems to be grammatically incorrect. Shouldn't it be "All steel engines..." as opposed to "Most steel engines" if it is talking about a limit? Does the limit only apply to "steel engines" and what exactly constitutes a "steel engine"? I thought you said this was pretty much common knowledge and that your...


problem since is convincing the engine industry, as prior to our result it has been believed that a gasoline internal combustion engine has a maximum possible thermal efficiency of 37%.

My questions stand.

[revetec]

I wasn't aware that I needed any to discuss this with you? What credentials should I have? Bare in mind that I have no intention of going into a lab and performing experiments solely to disprove anything you say at the present. What credentials does one need to discuss one's opinions of another's statements?

Well.. T.C. you are a Chinese/Australian 17yo school student that has very limited experience in what you are talking about.

When on a limited budget there is a structured way of testing we have to move through to prove our engine. We don't have $300 million to spend designing, prototyping, and testing like many large automotive companies do.

To move the project forward we had to prove how efficient could we get this engine, even though we were under budget and time constraints.

We picked the target point, I manually calculated the piston acceleration rates, torque application angles, cams, valve size and lift, and a whole other range of parameters, targeted at a mid sized car at 100kph under cruise and light load @2,000rpm.

I then designed the engine to meet this criteria. Bare in mind the budget for the calculation, design, build to run was around AUD$350k with only 7 months to complete with myself and a machinist. The goal I set myself was set at 238g/(kW-h).

We worked 16 hour days, and completed the engine in 6.5 months from start to finish. Inhouse testing proved the target figure under in-house testing. We then had to prove this figure under independent testing, so we sent the engine to Orbital.

After more tuning (We had only run this engine for under 10 hours up to the point we sent it to Orbital) we achieved a best fuel efficiency of 207g/(kW-h) in independent testing.

The next stage was to then seek a development partner with the right skills and equipment to then optimise the design to all operational ranges and conditions. Please bare in mind that the cylinder heads we designed purely "to fit". Now we are working with two specialist companies who are working on optimising the engines for production.

The funny thing is that through the struggle to prove this technology, and people like yourself trying to disprove the technology in the past, I proved that the efficiency levels are higher than a conventional engine, and posted the results. Then everyone turned around and started hammering our company's performance. We now have signed two development and licensing deals to move into production, and young kids like yourself are still trying to disprove our achievements to date in efficiency. Kinda funny really, as we are now progressing towards production.

[revetec]

Really? So your proof of your statement is a single, unreferenced line in a wikipedia article that seems to be grammatically incorrect. Shouldn't it be "All steel engines..." as opposed to "Most steel engines" if it is talking about a limit? Does the limit only apply to "steel engines" and what exactly constitutes a "steel engine"? I thought you said this was pretty much common knowledge and that your.

Why don't you read the whole article. I suppose that Most steel engines includes Revetec. Steel engine is defined as made from metals as opposed to ceramics. Why don't you quote me being wrong from another reference source? After all a 17yo kid's comments on this doesn't hold weight against some of the world's most experienced engine authorities.

Cheers

[hightower99]

Well.. T.C. you are a Chinese/Australian 17yo school student that has very limited experience in what you are talking about.Ummm I'm confused are you talking about me? What does T.C. stand for? I am a 22yo Caucasian Canadian living in Denmark, attending university... and my initials are not T.C. So far my experience is enough to not get lost in anything you have talked about.


We picked the target point, I manually calculated the piston acceleration rates, torque application angles, cams, valve size and lift, and a whole other range of parameters, targeted at a mid sized car at 100kph under cruise and light load @2,000rpm.

I then designed the engine to meet this criteria.So you did exactly what I suspected. You designed the engine to excel at this very specific set of conditions. I personally think that that was a mistake. Instead I would have designed the engine to be good under a wide set of conditions instead of excellent at one point FWIW. I believe that would be more easily and fairly comparable to conventional engines and show whether there is merit in the revetec design.


The funny thing is that through the struggle to prove this technology, and people like yourself trying to disprove the technology in the past, I proved that the efficiency levels are higher than a conventional engine, and posted the results. Then everyone turned around and started hammering our company's performance. We now have signed two development and licensing deals to move into production, and young kids like yourself are still trying to disprove our achievements to date in efficiency. Kinda funny really, as we are now progressing towards production.I am not trying to "disprove" your engine, simply stating that I have not been convinced. I wouldn't attack your work ethic or the resources you have put into the business. I still have doubts that revetec engines will make it into actual production (at least enough to not be worried about my wager:)).


Why don't you read the whole article. I suppose that Most steel engines includes Revetec. Steel engine is defined as made from metals as opposed to ceramics. Why don't you quote me being wrong from another reference source? After all a 17yo kid's comments on this doesn't hold weight against some of the world's most experienced engine authorities.Not only have I read that article some time ago I have also explored the references from the article.

I can't exactly quote you being wrong as you are the one claiming a set limit whereas I have only seen the limiting factors which don't give a set limit. Do you want me to get a quote from an "engine authority" that states a maximum efficiency above 37%?

I am not 17yo.

Why haven't you shown one single quote from one of these "experienced engine authorities" claiming a maximum of 37%???

[revetec]

So you did exactly what I suspected. You designed the engine to excel at this very specific set of conditions. I personally think that that was a mistake. Instead I would have designed the engine to be good under a wide set of conditions instead of excellent at one point FWIW. I believe that would be more easily and fairly comparable to conventional engines and show whether there is merit in the revetec design.

If I had the budget at the time to do, so I would have. It would have been great to have a larger capital budget and a longer timeframe to build that prototype, then we could have utilsed Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) in programs such as ANSYS to optimise the cylinder heads. Also we had to machine the heads on our 3 axis CNC mill. The original designs had the inlet ports at a different angle, but we could not physically machine the original design. So we compromised by changing the angle of the ports. In this next stage the heads will be redesigned using CFD and rapid prototyping, allowing us to optimise the heads to perform over a greater range of RPM and load conditions.

One thing you may not understand is that at a University or large companies you have the resources in the way of software and test equipment that small businesses like ourselves simply don't have.

One thing I am very proud of is that we made such an achievement on such a limited budget and equipment. The testing was a stepping stone towards attracting an experienced company in this field to take on the development of the engine to the next level it deserves. We have signed two licensing agreements and we are working on signing more at the moment. The more companies that get involved, the more experience and knowledge is poured into the development.


I am not trying to "disprove" your engine, simply stating that I have not been convinced. I wouldn't attack your work ethic or the resources you have put into the business. I still have doubts that revetec engines will make it into actual production (at least enough to not be worried about my wager:)).

We have signed two licensing agreements for engine production. These companies are now spending a lot of their own capital to develop and produce our engines. They wouldn't do this if the engine wasn't going into production. The engine is coming, and with the experience of Peus and Atalan Makine on board, the production engine will perform great in all areas you are identifying, and more.


Not only have I read that article some time ago I have also explored the references from the article.

I can't exactly quote you being wrong as you are the one claiming a set limit whereas I have only seen the limiting factors which don't give a set limit. Do you want me to get a quote from an "engine authority" that states a maximum efficiency above 37%?

Fuel has a potential energy. An engine has frictional and pumping losses which can be measured. Engines have combustion pressures than can be measured in analysis software and in physical BMEP tests with sensors in the combustion chambers. You can measure heat loss from an engine. You can measure parasitic losses from ancillaries. We hopefully all know the Carnot cycle theory. Given all these tests it is stated that with the energy that gasoline has, and the losses experienced in an engine, that it is possible to achieve 37% efficiency if everything was operating at maximum efficiency.

My theory is that the heat lost through the exhaust was not a total loss, and that the loss was the difference between heat lost in an engine minus the power produced.

To explain, the heat produced the power. If we deduct the heat loss, then we must deduct the power that was produced by that heat. Then if you graph a crankshaft against a cylinder pressure graph, you experience losses, such as when the cylinder pressure is at its highest, it is around 15-25deg ATDC where the torque lever of a crankshaft is not very good, creating mechanical losses which do not show up in cranking friction and pumping loss tests. If we were able to produce a design that the torque was applied at right angles to the shaft all the way though the stroke, then it would be 100% efficient as a mechanical device. Of course this can't be achieved, but we can calculate the losses experienced from a crankshaft even though 100% is not achieveable.

In the therory of engine thermal dynamics there is no room for the mechanical losses experienced from a crankshaft. This is why I challenged the theory. I designed an engine that has less mechanical losses than a crankshaft. When tested (and it doesn't matter what test conditions are used) we achieved 39.5%. Taking all engine losses as tested including friction, pumping and combustion losses we accounted for over 100% of losses+power in the equation. This means the thermal dynamic equation is wrong, as it is impossible to account for over 100% of fuels potential energy.

So lets look at a jet engine. Air is compressed (compression losses) fuel is injected and ignited. We can measure the losses through the exhaust blades (slippage/waste) and then most of the heat is expelled through the thrust. If we were to consider that the heat lost out of the exhaust as a loss then a jet engine (gas turbine) can produce little power, and we know that the thrust energy is huge and can lift a jet aeroplane. The heat has expanded the gas which produces thrust. No heat - No thrust.

The same thing happens in an internal combustion engine. Air is compressed, fuel is ignited. The difference is that instead of thrust, the pressure pushes on a piston. The heat lost out of the exhaust has already produced the pressure to push the piston, and produce power. No heat - No power.

So if an engine achieves 30% efficiency and 37% of heat is lost out of the exhaust and cooling system, then we have lost 7%, not 37%.

So take this 30% out of the equation and slot the 30% mechanical losses from the crankshaft into the equation and now it is correct. Now decrease the mechanical losses such as we have done and a greater than 37% efficiency is achieveable.


Why haven't you shown one single quote from one of these "experienced engine authorities" claiming a maximum of 37%???

Because I believe this to be incorrect, but for reasons that are different to yours.

Cheers

[revetec]

BTW. Many people have tried to recover energy lost through the exhaust through heat exchangers. MAN is one of the leading companies in this area. I personally have not seen any heat recovery system achieving 7% recovery. If 37% is lost through the exhaust then why cant anyone recover more energy. This gels in with my theory that the energy lost through the exhaust is not as high as commonly stated. And yes, this is a theory, but one I have proved there is a flaw in. To what degree of % is still unknown but I can theorise that it is close to what I have stated.

[revetec]

Ummm I'm confused are you talking about me? What does T.C. stand for? I am a 22yo Caucasian Canadian living in Denmark, attending university... and my initials are not T.C. So far my experience is enough to not get lost in anything you have talked about.

My mistake. There is a 17yo Chinese Australian student who's nickname is Hightower99 registered in deviantart website. What a coincident.

[hightower99]

We have signed two licensing agreements for engine production. These companies are now spending a lot of their own capital to develop and produce our engines. They wouldn't do this if the engine wasn't going into production. The engine is coming, and with the experience of Peus and Atalan Makine on board, the production engine will perform great in all areas you are identifying, and more.Firstly R&D by a company does not always lead to serial production, regardless of the licensing agreement. It does look like AM has manufacturing facilities as well as some partners in Turkey, however I still have doubts as to the possibility of actual serial production.


Fuel has a potential energy. An engine has frictional and pumping losses which can be measured. Engines have combustion pressures than can be measured in analysis software and in physical BMEP tests with sensors in the combustion chambers. You can measure heat loss from an engine. You can measure parasitic losses from ancillaries. We hopefully all know the Carnot cycle theory. Given all these tests it is stated that with the energy that gasoline has, and the losses experienced in an engine, that it is possible to achieve 37% efficiency if everything was operating at maximum efficiency.My question is where has this (specifically the 37%) been stated??? What are the specific maximums for the different parameters stated in order to achieve this magical 37%??? I have read about all the stated parameters and I have never seen anyone other than you claim that given their respective minimums a gas powered engine can only achieve 37% efficiency.


My theory is that the heat lost through the exhaust was not a total loss, and that the loss was the difference between heat lost in an engine minus the power produced.That is just plain wrong. Any heat out the exhaust which isn't subsequently used to generate power in some way is lost. Subtracting the power from exhaust heat is subtracting it twice from the equation.


To explain, the heat produced the power. If we deduct the heat loss, then we must deduct the power that was produced by that heat.But that heat is there because it didn't produce any power! If it had produced power then the heat would not be there! This statement makes me think you have completely misunderstand how a heat engine works.


Then if you graph a crankshaft against a cylinder pressure graph, you experience losses, such as when the cylinder pressure is at its highest, it is around 15-25deg ATDC where the torque lever of a crankshaft is not very good, creating mechanical losses which do not show up in cranking friction and pumping loss tests.That exact test should be part of the mechanical advantage testing.


If we were able to produce a design that the torque was applied at right angles to the shaft all the way though the stroke, then it would be 100% efficient as a mechanical device. Of course this can't be achieved, but we can calculate the losses experienced from a crankshaft even though 100% is not achieveable.Actually even if the force was always at a right angle and maintained the same lever arm length it wouldn't achieve 100% mechanical efficiency (still friction and sealing losses)it would have 100% mechanical advantage for any given pressure profile though. Also this feat is possible and has already been achieved (ever really thought about a turbine?). There are also other designs that achieve this feat including a design I am working on myself.


In the therory of engine thermal dynamics there is no room for the mechanical losses experienced from a crankshaft.Yes there is actually. It just isn't expressed as a direct relationship between mechanical advantage and thermal loss, because that isn't really possible. Rather the lower than 100% mechanical advantage will show increased losses in the other parameters, like cylinder wall heat losses.


This is why I challenged the theory. I designed an engine that has less mechanical losses than a crankshaft. When tested (and it doesn't matter what test conditions are used) we achieved 39.5%. Taking all engine losses as tested including friction, pumping and combustion losses we accounted for over 100% of losses+power in the equation. This means the thermal dynamic equation is wrong, as it is impossible to account for over 100% of fuels potential energy.I would look at your equation. Maybe a loss is accounted for twice? Or the value was incorrectly included (decimal point in the wrong place). Also I might not be understanding what you mean properly. Do you mean that when you added the total losses to the power output of your engine you achieved a value that was higher than the total energy input from fuel? If that is the case there are two possible answers: A: you created a second order perpetual motion machine or B:You screwed up you initial equation. Psst... you only really need to look at B :)


So lets look at a jet engine. Air is compressed (compression losses) fuel is injected and ignited. We can measure the losses through the exhaust blades (slippage/waste) and then most of the heat is expelled through the thrust. If we were to consider that the heat lost out of the exhaust as a loss then a jet engine (gas turbine) can produce little power, and we know that the thrust energy is huge and can lift a jet aeroplane. The heat has expanded the gas which produces thrust. No heat - No thrust.You are mixing two very different thing here. You either have a gas turbine which is optimized to produce power at the shaft and therefore very little thrust from the exhaust or you have a jet engine which is optimized to produce power as thrust and therefore very little excess power at the shaft. A gas turbine is very much like a piston engine where you would count the heat lost in the exhaust as a total loss (after the turbine section, mind). Whereas with a jet engine you count the power as thrust (not shaft HP) and the exhaust heat is only partially lost. Alot of it is used to produce thrust but still a large portion is dumped to atmosphere, this is the waste.


The heat lost out of the exhaust has already produced the pressure to push the piston, and produce power. No heat - No power.No. Heat coming out the exhaust didn't produce any power at all. The power was produced inside the cylinder by heat that has been removed from the working fluid via expansion. Power is produced by converting heat to mechanical motion (ie kinetic energy).


So if an engine achieves 30% efficiency and 37% of heat is lost out of the exhaust and cooling system, then we have lost 7%, not 37%.Nope you did lose all 37% of the potential energy in the fuel as waste heat in the exhaust. In your quote you have accounted for 67% of the fuels energy, leaving only the final 33% to find.


So take this 30% out of the equation and slot the 30% mechanical losses from the crankshaft into the equation and now it is correct. Now decrease the mechanical losses such as we have done and a greater than 37% efficiency is achieveable.Wow there is alot of funny math and physics going on in this quote. Firstly the 30% mechanical advantage loss (meaning the crankshaft has a mechanical advantage of 70%) is not directly equatable to a thermal loss. Any thermal losses have already been accounted for through the other parameters the lower mechanical advantage has just allowed those losses to be greater. Also this quote seems to show that you indeed believe in a maximum efficiency of 37% but only for engines using conventional crankshafts, is that correct?


Because I believe this to be incorrect, but for reasons that are different to yours.But we aren't discussing the validity of the actual 37% statement (it is plainly and blatantly incorrect). We are discussing whether anyone other than you ever said it. We are discussing whether or not it is an established view in the minds of engine authorities worldwide. In which case it should be exceedingly easy for you to show a quote from some established engine authority stating the theoretical maximum thermal efficiency of a gas powered four stroke engine is 37%. All I say is that you can't actually do that.


Many people have tried to recover energy lost through the exhaust through heat exchangers. MAN is one of the leading companies in this area. I personally have not seen any heat recovery system achieving 7% recovery. If 37% is lost through the exhaust then why cant anyone recover more energy.Ok a few questions for you: Where does this 37% value for heat lost through exhaust come from? Where do you think turbochargers get the energy required to compress intake air?

It looks like you have never looked into turbo-charging as it can be clearly shown in a myriad of setups that turbochargers use more than 7% of total energy input. Also I would point you to BMW's proposed concept for exhaust heat recovery called the turbosteamer I believe. Apparently it captures more than 80% of the waste heat in the exhaust so if the total waste was 37% then the turbosteamer gets 29.6% back again.
Here is a link: Here (http://www.autoweek.com/article/20060217/FREE/60213002)


This gels in with my theory that the energy lost through the exhaust is not as high as commonly stated. And yes, this is a theory, but one I have proved there is a flaw in. To what degree of % is still unknown but I can theorise that it is close to what I have stated.You haven't proved that there is a problem with the conventional laws and theories. You have proved you own misunderstanding of the conventional laws and theories governing heat engines.

Eh?

[revetec]

That is just plain wrong. Any heat out the exhaust which isn't subsequently used to generate power in some way is lost. Subtracting the power from exhaust heat is subtracting it twice from the equation.

But that heat is there because it didn't produce any power! If it had produced power then the heat would not be there! This statement makes me think you have completely misunderstand how a heat engine works.

I had a little time today to clarify the issue.

Pressure peaks in a cylinder at around 50bar and at a temp of around 2,100degC at the flame. As the piston moves down the gas expands. A expansion in vlume reduces heat (PV=C) Where as P=pressure, V=Volume and C=Temp. Just as the exhaust valve opens the pressure is around 5bar and the temp is around 700degC. Even though the heat is now about on third of the heat generated the pressure the heat created (which creates force on the piston is only 10%. If we are to take a reading at this point it is 700degC. But as the formulae goes, the heat is higher due to the pressure. As the gas flows down the manifiold we reach close to 1 bar with flow (if not restricted) which using the formula means the exhaust temperature drops to arouns 175degC. If it is restricted as a blocked muffler the temp is higher, but engine performance decreases. So at 175degC this is around 8% of the peak temp in the cylinder during combustion. Note than when the exhaust is driving a turbo, the manifold between the engine and turbo glows very hot due to the restriction of turning the turbo blades, and after the turbo the exhaust is much cooler (and it hasn't lost that much heat in radiation, rather than the gas is at a lower pressure and thus temperature.

This is why exhaust heat exchangers cannot recoup 30% heat as the exhaust would have to be restricted to around 5 bar to maintain the heat.

I sourced this information from NASA and MIT
Boyle's Law
Charles and Gay-Lussac's Law

[hightower99]

Pressure peaks in a cylinder at around 50bar and at a temp of around 2,100degC at the flame. As the piston moves down the gas expands. A expansion in vlume reduces heat (PV=C) Where as P=pressure, V=Volume and C=Temp.The math here is incorrect. The equation I think you tried to use is Boyle's law which is actually:
pV = k
Where (p) is pressure, (V) is volume, and (k) is a constant (not temperature). So in the case shown the volume would increase thus decreasing the pressure to maintain the constant k. I must say I am confused why you are trying to use Boyle's law here? Why not use the wonderful ideal gas law which is a combination of all the relevant gas laws.
However seeing as you seem to want to find the temperature I would suggest you look at the Isentropic process equation where the ratio known is the ratio between maximum and minimum volume, in which case the temperature is T2 = T1(V2/V1)^(1 − γ) where gamma is the heat capacity ratio (normally 1.4 for air and 1.3 for combustion processes)


Just as the exhaust valve opens the pressure is around 5bar and the temp is around 700degC. Even though the heat is now about on third of the heat generated the pressure the heat created (which creates force on the piston is only 10%. Actually 700degC is over 40% of the heat if the peak was 2100degC. Remember heat ratios need to be calculated from absolute temperature. If the pressures you have given are absolute then yes the pressure is now only 10% of peak, however if they are gauge readings (more likely) then 5bar is almost 12% of peak pressure. However all of this is really moot because the set of conditions and parameters you set can't co-exist...

If the given parameter for peak pressure is applied to a cylinder with a 10:1 static compression ratio then the exhaust temperature would be roughly 920degC. In order to achieve 700degC you would need a static compression ratio over 19.5:1. If you look at the pressure parameters you gave (peak: 50bar gauge, minimum: 5bar gauge) that only requires a static compression ratio just over 5:1 to achieve at which point the exhaust temperature would be almost 1200degC. At 10:1CR you would only measure 0.6bar gauge for exhaust pressure and at the 19.5:1CR required for the given exhaust temperature of 700degC you would only measure 0.07bar gauge for exhaust pressure. Just FYI...


If we are to take a reading at this point it is 700degC. But as the formulae goes, the heat is higher due to the pressure.Not sure what you mean by the heat being higher? higher than what?


As the gas flows down the manifiold we reach close to 1 bar with flow (if not restricted) which using the formula means the exhaust temperature drops to arouns 175degC. If it is restricted as a blocked muffler the temp is higher, but engine performance decreases. So at 175degC this is around 8% of the peak temp in the cylinder during combustion.What formula are using here? Also 175degC is still almost 19% of the peak temperature.


Note than when the exhaust is driving a turbo, the manifold between the engine and turbo glows very hot due to the restriction of turning the turbo blades, and after the turbo the exhaust is much cooler (and it hasn't lost that much heat in radiation, rather than the gas is at a lower pressure and thus temperature.Firstly turbo-chargers don't increase manifold temperature much by restriction, rather the turbo allows the engine to burn more fuel per cycle, this and the increased exhaust temperature when the exhaust valve opens contribute to manifold heating. Of course the exhaust is cooler after the turbo it was expanded in the turbine section of the charger and heat was extracted and converted to power which was subsequently used to spin the compressor and compress the intake air.


This is why exhaust heat exchangers cannot recoup 30% heat as the exhaust would have to be restricted to around 5 bar to maintain the heat.Massive leap of logic there Brad. There is a massive difference between a heat exchanger and a something like the turbine section of a turbocharger. Where do you think the heat went? Please read the article about BMW's turbosteamer!


I sourced this information from NASA and MIT
Boyle's Law
Charles and Gay-Lussac's LawWhat? You couldn't read a simple high school physics text book? Had trouble navigating Wikipedia? Seeing as you got most of it wrong I would seriously consider reviewing the credentials of the guy who told you he was from NASA/MIT :)

[revetec]

The math here is incorrect. The equation I think you tried to use is Boyle's law which is actually:
pV = k
Where (p) is pressure, (V) is volume, and (k) is a constant (not temperature). So in the case shown the volume would increase thus decreasing the pressure to maintain the constant k.

I was actually refering to Adiabatic cooling but I kind of posted two theories that related to it but not exact. My apologies :-)


If the given parameter for peak pressure is applied to a cylinder with a 10:1 static compression ratio then the exhaust temperature would be roughly 920degC. In order to achieve 700degC you would need a static compression ratio over 19.5:1. If you look at the pressure parameters you gave (peak: 50bar gauge, minimum: 5bar gauge) that only requires a static compression ratio just over 5:1 to achieve at which point the exhaust temperature would be almost 1200degC. At 10:1CR you would only measure 0.6bar gauge for exhaust pressure and at the 19.5:1CR required for the given exhaust temperature of 700degC you would only measure 0.07bar gauge for exhaust pressure.

I'm positive you have never actually tested a real engine. With a sensor in the cylinder head, the combustion temperature is around or just below 2300k or 2023degC. This 10:1 engine's exhaust port temp is around 600-700degC. The exhaust valves open around 50-60deg BBDC where there is still residual cylinder pressure of around 5bar, which you can see in a cylinder pressure graph using a piezo sensor in the chamber. This is not theory, it is actual tests on real engines. With the exhaust manifold heat wrap insulated, the collector temp is around 450deg and then decreases down the pipe.


Firstly turbo-chargers don't increase manifold temperature much by restriction, rather the turbo allows the engine to burn more fuel per cycle, this and the increased exhaust temperature when the exhaust valve opens contribute to manifold heating. Of course the exhaust is cooler after the turbo it was expanded in the turbine section of the charger and heat was extracted and converted to power which was subsequently used to spin the compressor and compress the intake air.

It was expanded in the turbo and heat was extracted and converted to power? The turbo was turned by gas flow and it requires to make a restriction to generate power to produce the intake pressure. Once the gas flows through the turbo, Adiabatic cooling applies to some extent.


Please read the article about BMW's turbosteamer!

Nice article, funny they say they can recoup 80% of exhaust heat and it makes a 15% improvement. So that's 18% exhaust heat losses?
I'm more interested in what they state as the second energy supply... "Most of the remaining residual heat is absorbed by the cooling circuit of the engine, which acts as the second energy supply for the Turbosteamer." This is what I'm intrigued with. It doesn't say how the secondary system works. I would like a complete overview of the system functions. Can you find it for me?

[revetec]

In the BMW Turbo steamer, I wish I could find out the manifold pressure and temp. Maybe they have found with very slight restiction that they increase exhaust temps which can be then recouped to provide higher overall efficiency. I'm very interested in this. Love to get my hands on it and test it.

[hightower99]

I was actually refering to Adiabatic cooling but I kind of posted two theories that related to it but not exact. My apologies :-) Well what you posted wasn't even close to adiabatic cooling, which is the formula I posted (after Boyle's law) ;)


I'm positive you have never actually tested a real engine. With a sensor in the cylinder head, the combustion temperature is around or just below 2300k or 2023degC. This 10:1 engine's exhaust port temp is around 600-700degC. The exhaust valves open around 50-60deg BBDC where there is still residual cylinder pressure of around 5bar, which you can see in a cylinder pressure graph using a piezo sensor in the chamber. This is not theory, it is actual tests on real engines. With the exhaust manifold heat wrap insulated, the collector temp is around 450deg and then decreases down the pipe.Actually I have been involved in real engine testing with all these parameters measured and another couple dozen parameters on top. I go to a university that has the equipment to do this sort of thing. My point with doing the quick calculations was that your example was not overly valid as you are assuming too much and therefore further points are invalid. For example you say that during real testing you see a residual pressure of 5bar gauge just as the exhaust valve opens and then state that this means there must be 5bar gauge in the exhaust manifold. Well that is plain wrong because the exhaust flowed through a poppet valve incurring a large pressure drop. Especially as there shouldn't be much residual pressure in the manifold when the exhaust valve opens. This is what drops the temperature to the measured 600-700degC range seen.

I am still trying to fathom your point. You seem to think that because the temperature and pressure drops in the exhaust system that it didn't contain as much energy as conventional theory says it started with? Conventional theory doesn't state that the exhaust maintains all that lost energy all the way to the tailpipe... Thats kinda why turbos tend to be placed as close as possible to the engine... :p


It was expanded in the turbo and heat was extracted and converted to power?Yes that is how it works... You mentioned adiabatic cooling... Read up on turbo theory please...


The turbo was turned by gas flow and it requires to make a restriction to generate power to produce the intake pressure. Once the gas flows through the turbo, Adiabatic cooling applies to some extent.In order for gas to flow there must be a pressure differential, this is created in the turbine section by expanding the exhaust gas as it flows through the turbine. As the gas is forced to expand exactly the same thing happens as when the gas was expanded in the cylinder, namely energy is extracted from the gas. Turbines are not like windmills which are dependant on the Bernoulli principle. If you blew cold air at 5bar gauge through a turbocharger it would not have enough power to produce boost on the intake air side.


Nice article, funny they say they can recoup 80% of exhaust heat and it makes a 15% improvement. So that's 18% exhaust heat losses?Not sure what you find funny? 80% of the heat lost from the engine is recovered and used to power a steam circuit. If we used your values then total heat lost via exhaust from the engine is 37% and the turbosteamer reclaims 29.6% of the total fuel energy (80% of 37%). Steam engines are like any other heat engine in that they can't be 100% efficient so only a portion of the recovered heat is converted to power. In the example BMW gave where the engine gains 15% improvement then the steam circuit must be just over 50% efficient. That means that the heat loss has been reduced from 37% to 22%. Certainly no problem with conventional theory here, unless you thought that there was only 7% heat lost :rolleyes:


I'm more interested in what they state as the second energy supply... "Most of the remaining residual heat is absorbed by the cooling circuit of the engine, which acts as the second energy supply for the Turbosteamer." This is what I'm intrigued with. It doesn't say how the secondary system works. I would like a complete overview of the system functions. Can you find it for me?Here is another article with all the images I have been able to find of the turbosteamer system: Here. (http://paultan.org/2005/12/11/bmw-turbosteamer/)
As you can see it gets waste heat from the exhaust as well as from the cooling circuit.


In the BMW Turbo steamer, I wish I could find out the manifold pressure and temp. Maybe they have found with very slight restiction that they increase exhaust temps which can be then recouped to provide higher overall efficiency. I'm very interested in this. Love to get my hands on it and test it. Well the images in the new article show manifold temperature of 800degC and the performance of the original engine is the same so if any extra restriction is present it is insignificant.

There are still many of my questions that remain unanswered! Can I assume from the lack of response, that I was correct on the relevant points?

[hightower99]

BTW Brad, I saw that you wrote a small section in the Technology Overview section of your website about the turbosteamer concept. It states:
Current development by BMW of their 'Turbosteamer' have claimed that they recover 80% of the exhaust heat which equates to a 15% gain. This means they have proved that 18% of the thermal energy is lost through the exhaust, not over 30%.
Unfortunately that would only be true if the entire turbosteamer system was running at 100% thermal efficiency. This is simply not possible as I have pointed out in my previous post. Maybe it would be prudent to remove this erroneous statement from your website before too many people read it and think you don't have the faintest idea how heat engines work :rolleyes:

You are welcome by the way ;)

Maybe I should take a close look at the rest of your website and help you out by making sure all statements are factual and correct...

PS: I was just looking through the Orbital testing report and I noticed that it made a few mentions of a so-called "world wide mapping point" before the actual results are shown then doesn't make mention of the fact that the engine only achieved 490g/kW/h (16.7% thermal efficiency)... Interesting. It looks like other conventional engines are achieving between 21% and 27% thermal efficiency at the world wide mapping point. Very interesting indeed...

[revetec]

Well what you posted wasn't even close to adiabatic cooling, which is the formula I posted (after Boyle's law) ;)

At the time I wasn't aware of your knowledge and was showing the volume temperature connection.


Actually I have been involved in real engine testing with all these parameters measured and another couple dozen parameters on top. I go to a university that has the equipment to do this sort of thing. My point with doing the quick calculations was that your example was not overly valid as you are assuming too much and therefore further points are invalid. For example you say that during real testing you see a residual pressure of 5bar gauge just as the exhaust valve opens and then state that this means there must be 5bar gauge in the exhaust manifold. Well that is plain wrong because the exhaust flowed through a poppet valve incurring a large pressure drop. Especially as there shouldn't be much residual pressure in the manifold when the exhaust valve opens. This is what drops the temperature to the measured 600-700degC range seen.

Haven't you seen an engine run with the exhaust manifold off. There is still residule burning (flames) where the gas is still heating and expanding.



I am still trying to fathom your point. You seem to think that because the temperature and pressure drops in the exhaust system that it didn't contain as much energy as conventional theory says it started with? Conventional theory doesn't state that the exhaust maintains all that lost energy all the way to the tailpipe... Thats kinda why turbos tend to be placed as close as possible to the engine...

That's not what I stated at all. Maybe you should read what I said again.


In order for gas to flow there must be a pressure differential, this is created in the turbine section by expanding the exhaust gas as it flows through the turbine. As the gas is forced to expand exactly the same thing happens as when the gas was expanded in the cylinder, namely energy is extracted from the gas. Turbines are not like windmills which are dependant on the Bernoulli principle. If you blew cold air at 5bar gauge through a turbocharger it would not have enough power to produce boost on the intake air side.

Keep in mind the relationship between heat, volume, and pressure when we talk about gasses. High heat, high pressure, and low volume are all high energy states, low heat, low pressure, and large volumes are low energy states.

The exhaust pulse exits the cylinder at high temperature and high pressure. It gets merged with other exhaust pulses, and enters the turbine inlet - a very small space. At this point, we have very high pressure and very high heat, so our gas has a very high energy level.

As it passes through the diffuser and into the turbine housing, it moves from a small space into a large one. Accordingly, it expands, cools, slows down, and dumps all that energy - into the turbine that we've so cleverly positioned in tho housing so that as the gas expands, it pushes against the turbine blades, causing it to rotate. We've just recovered some energy from the heat of the exhaust, that otherwise would have been lost.

We are agreeing on many points, and the arguement is a bit silly as we are agreeing on the same thing from different views. Mine pressure and yours, temperature, but they go hand in hand.


Not sure what you find funny? 80% of the heat lost from the engine is recovered and used to power a steam circuit. If we used your values then total heat lost via exhaust from the engine is 37% and the turbosteamer reclaims 29.6% of the total fuel energy (80% of 37%). Steam engines are like any other heat engine in that they can't be 100% efficient so only a portion of the recovered heat is converted to power. In the example BMW gave where the engine gains 15% improvement then the steam circuit must be just over 50% efficient. That means that the heat loss has been reduced from 37% to 22%. Certainly no problem with conventional theory here, unless you thought that there was only 7% heat lost :rolleyes:

Here's a quote for you... "Turbosteamer converts more than 80 percent of the heat energy in the exhaust into usable power, says Raymond Freymann, head of BMW's advanced research and development subsidiary."

Head of BMW's research and development states they convert 80% of the heat energy in the exhaust into usable power. He does not say they use 80% of the heat to produce 15% power gain. So I gather the system has 20% losses due to further exhaust heat not recouped and system inefficiencies.


There are still many of my questions that remain unanswered! Can I assume from the lack of response, that I was correct on the relevant points?

No. I actually work for a living, and I have limited time per day to post on here. Funny for you to think I have time to reply to everything, as this is the least important task I do. I do enjoy the mental stimulation, and I never stop learning as the research is beneficial to me. But I don't have the time to engross myself into it these days as I design, problem solve, correspond, travel, modify designs, calculate, run a business, negotiate, budget, promote, market etc... and I am involved in all aspects of the business.

[revetec]

Unfortunately that would only be true if the entire turbosteamer system was running at 100% thermal efficiency.

Read my previous response and quote from BMW.


BTW Brad, I saw that you wrote a small section in the Technology Overview section of your website about the turbosteamer concept. It states:
Unfortunately that would only be true if the entire turbosteamer system was running at 100% thermal efficiency. This is simply not possible as I have pointed out in my previous post. Maybe it would be prudent to remove this erroneous statement from your website before too many people read it and think you don't have the faintest idea how heat engines work :rolleyes:

You are welcome by the way ;)

Maybe I should take a close look at the rest of your website and help you out by making sure all statements are factual and correct...

PS: I was just looking through the Orbital testing report and I noticed that it made a few mentions of a so-called "world wide mapping point" before the actual results are shown then doesn't make mention of the fact that the engine only achieved 490g/kW/h (16.7% thermal efficiency)... Interesting. It looks like other conventional engines are achieving between 21% and 27% thermal efficiency at the world wide mapping point. Very interesting indeed...

The thing is that every engine is different and also when the engines are at different load and RPM conditions. You can easily map a cylinder pressure map against the mechanical design of a crankshaft connecting rod. You can see losses in the design on paper. Then graph and calculate our design and compare the two. You must agree that side and down forces on bearings and other engine components do not contribute to engine power. If you graph a crankshaft efficiency you will see that there is losses which are not included in the losses stated everywhere. These losses in the combustion cycle don't show up in a physical pumping loss tests. So what is wrong, and where does these mechanical losses sit in the losses equation?

We are doing better at this test point and others currently with engine mods and tuning. That testing was performed over 2 years ago. And at the time had only spent 2 hours tuning the engine in ignition and fuel maps.

[revetec]

Anyway off to work now. Have a great day :-)

[hightower99]

Haven't you seen an engine run with the exhaust manifold off. There is still residule burning (flames) where the gas is still heating and expanding.That depends entirely on the engine. Top Fuel dragsters will blow 1meter long flames out of 1 meter long open pipes, a Peugeot 107 won't blow any flames out the exhaust port unless you floor it past 4000RPM and then wildly feather the throttle (ask me how I know that) ;) I find it alittle hard to believe that your engine blows flames out the ports when running at 15.2:1 A/F and opening the exhaust valves at 130deg ATDC. Also testing with the manifold off introduces unburnt oxygen which normally allows excess fuel to maintain a flame when normally none would exist. Regardless there is still a massive pressure drop over the poppet valve.


That's not what I stated at all. Maybe you should read what I said again.I do read your posts but I am still confused as to what your actual theory is? I realize that you think there is less energy lost in the exhaust but I fail to understand your rationale.


Keep in mind the relationship between heat, volume, and pressure when we talk about gasses. High heat, high pressure, and low volume are all high energy states, low heat, low pressure, and large volumes are low energy states.Well you almost got that right. You switched the volume relation. Remember that pV = internal energy, the larger the volume, the more internal energy. I think we might have stumbled into your basic misunderstanding! :)


The exhaust pulse exits the cylinder at high temperature and high pressure. It gets merged with other exhaust pulses, and enters the turbine inlet - a very small space. At this point, we have very high pressure and very high heat, so our gas has a very high energy level. Remember that there is another energy involved, namely kinetic energy. When the gas is travelling through the manifold it is travelling relatively slowly. As it enters the turbine housing the volume decreases and that energy is converted to kinetic energy (speeding up the gas).


As it passes through the diffuser and into the turbine housing, it moves from a small space into a large one. Accordingly, it expands, cools, slows down, and dumps all that energy - into the turbine that we've so cleverly positioned in tho housing so that as the gas expands, it pushes against the turbine blades, causing it to rotate. We've just recovered some energy from the heat of the exhaust, that otherwise would have been lost.You got this completely right! Expansion, cooling, and slowing are the three main processes that release energy from the gas and are converted to mechanical motion by the turbine.


Here's a quote for you... "Turbosteamer converts more than 80 percent of the heat energy in the exhaust into usable power, says Raymond Freymann, head of BMW's advanced research and development subsidiary."
Head of BMW's research and development states they convert 80% of the heat energy in the exhaust into usable power. He does not say they use 80% of the heat to produce 15% power gain. So I gather the system has 20% losses due to further exhaust heat not recouped and system inefficiencies.We can't really infer anything more from Mr. Freymann's quote other than the fact that the turbosteamer captures 80% of the waste heat in the exhaust (he doesn't quantify "useable power"). It is stated in the article that this leads to a 15% increase in efficiency. This means that 20% of the waste heat is still lost.

However you state that this must mean that the total heat lost in the exhaust is only 18% of total fuel input. This is incorrect as it would only be true if the entire turbosteamer system was 100% efficient. In reality they would struggle to get a steam circuit to perform better than 40% which means total heat loss through the exhaust is closer to 47% of total fuel input. Do you understand???

BTW I appreciate that you are a busy man. I do enjoy the discussion and the fact that you have answered on a daily basis is impressive. However I don't mind waiting if it means you write a more complete response.


The thing is that every engine is different and also when the engines are at different load and RPM conditions.Yeah but I am talking about a very specific point, namely 2000RPM at 200kPa BMEP.


You can easily map a cylinder pressure map against the mechanical design of a crankshaft connecting rod. You can see losses in the design on paper. Then graph and calculate our design and compare the two. You must agree that side and down forces on bearings and other engine components do not contribute to engine power. If you graph a crankshaft efficiency you will see that there is losses which are not included in the losses stated everywhere. These losses in the combustion cycle don't show up in a physical pumping loss tests. So what is wrong, and where does these mechanical losses sit in the losses equation?I already addressed this but being the busy man you are I guess you missed it. No matter I will reiterate here.

Firstly the aspect of the mechanism you are talking about is called Mechanical Advantage. Basically mechanical advantage is the ratio between a force exerted and the resulting torque created. The first and most important thing to understand about mechanical advantage is that it is not directly equatable to thermal heat loss. Second what is important in engines is the integral of the mechanical advantage function from TDC to BDC. This means that an engine with 100% mechanical advantage has the maximum lever arm length from TDC to BDC.

Your question is how does the loss of mechanical advantage translate to thermal loss? The simple answer is that it increases losses in the other parameters.
For example at TDC in a conventional engine the lever arm is zero/non-existent and zero torque is produced by the force generated by the hot, high pressure gas in the combustion chamber. During this time at TDC the gas will lose heat by radiation and conduction but will not produce any power. If the engine had 100% mechanical advantage at TDC it would generate maximum torque at that moment and the heat losses via radiation and conduction would be less.
Again the important thing to remember is that a loss of mechanical advantage is not directly relative to thermal loss and certainly not on a one-to-one basis ie a 1% loss of mechanical advantage does not necessarily lead to a 1% increase in thermal loss. It could be more or less and is contingent on many other variables.


We are doing better at this test point and others currently with engine mods and tuning. That testing was performed over 2 years ago.Good to hear. You should definitely be making progress as the values I quoted are between 10 and 15 years old and you have quite a ways to go before you rival those results. It would be interesting to see how you engine stacks up against modern engines once you feel it is adequately modified and tuned.

[revetec]

That depends entirely on the engine. Top Fuel dragsters will blow 1meter long flames out of 1 meter long open pipes, a Peugeot 107 won't blow any flames out the exhaust port unless you floor it past 4000RPM and then wildly feather the throttle (ask me how I know that) ;) I find it alittle hard to believe that your engine blows flames out the ports when running at 15.2:1 A/F and opening the exhaust valves at 130deg ATDC. Also testing with the manifold off introduces unburnt oxygen which normally allows excess fuel to maintain a flame when normally none would exist. Regardless there is still a massive pressure drop over the poppet valve.

It all depends on each individual engine, and fuel used doesn't it. When the manifold is on an no extra oxygen in introduced and excess fuel is now thrown down the exhaust pipe would cause high HC to be eperienced in emission tests. True?


I do read your posts but I am still confused as to what your actual theory is? I realize that you think there is less energy lost in the exhaust but I fail to understand your rationale.

Review BMW's statement again


Well you almost got that right. You switched the volume relation. Remember that pV = internal energy, the larger the volume, the more internal energy. I think we might have stumbled into your basic misunderstanding! :)

Misunderstanding? Just explained differently to your understanding. No difference really. No work can be done without either pressure or volume.


Remember that there is another energy involved, namely kinetic energy. When the gas is travelling through the manifold it is travelling relatively slowly. As it enters the turbine housing the volume decreases and that energy is converted to kinetic energy (speeding up the gas).

Yes there is a kinetic energy created. but also to drive a turbo there has to be resistance. Resistance creates pressure.


You got this completely right! Expansion, cooling, and slowing are the three main processes that release energy from the gas and are converted to mechanical motion by the turbine.

Cool! we agree on one point.


We can't really infer anything more from Mr. Freymann's quote other than the fact that the turbosteamer captures 80% of the waste heat in the exhaust (he doesn't quantify "useable power"). It is stated in the article that this leads to a 15% increase in efficiency. This means that 20% of the waste heat is still lost.

Actually 80% of the heat from exhaust and he hasn't disclosed how much % of the cooling system. I would imagine that the cooling system transfer is used to bring the water close as they can to 100degC then use the exhaust temp to convert to superheated steam. I would try it this way, but I'm not familiar enough with their system. Yes 20% of the waste heat, but 80% equates to 15% increase to the engine system, so I assume 20% equates to under 4%. That does include heat energy from the cooling system as well... Quite interesting.


However you state that this must mean that the total heat lost in the exhaust is only 18% of total fuel input. This is incorrect as it would only be true if the entire turbosteamer system was 100% efficient. In reality they would struggle to get a steam circuit to perform better than 40% which means total heat loss through the exhaust is closer to 47% of total fuel input. Do you understand???

This is not what he claims. He says that they are able to convert 80 percent into usable power. Not - they use 80% of the exhaust heat energy to produce a 15% gain. So I would assume the 20% is heat lost from exhaust and system losses in efficiency. So 80% from exhaust and (what % of from th cooling system)

"Turbosteamer converts more than 80 percent of the heat energy in the exhaust into usable power, says Raymond Freymann, head of BMW's advanced research and development subsidiary.


BTW I appreciate that you are a busy man. I do enjoy the discussion and the fact that you have answered on a daily basis is impressive. However I don't mind waiting if it means you write a more complete response.

Sometimes if I wait it will never happen. I never say I know everything, I don't, but I know that you can increase mechanical efficiency in an engine. I have done it. The rest is working out how, and why. Unfortunetly people cannot even agree on a convention engine losses. Some websites state that 67% losses occur just from heat, while others quote far diffent figures. For this reason I am writing a comprehensive theory paper on the matter and try to rationalise theory and tests by myself and other parties.


Firstly the aspect of the mechanism you are talking about is called Mechanical Advantage. Basically mechanical advantage is the ratio between a force exerted and the resulting torque created. The first and most important thing to understand about mechanical advantage is that it is not directly equatable to thermal heat loss. Second what is important in engines is the integral of the mechanical advantage function from TDC to BDC. This means that an engine with 100% mechanical advantage has the maximum lever arm length from TDC to BDC.

I agree


Your question is how does the loss of mechanical advantage translate to thermal loss? The simple answer is that it increases losses in the other parameters.
For example at TDC in a conventional engine the lever arm is zero/non-existent and zero torque is produced by the force generated by the hot, high pressure gas in the combustion chamber. During this time at TDC the gas will lose heat by radiation and conduction but will not produce any power. If the engine had 100% mechanical advantage at TDC it would generate maximum torque at that moment and the heat losses via radiation and conduction would be less.

Not if the piston has the same velocity at a given RPM. The radiation and conduction would be the same under the same piston movement conditions. This would be controlled by applying more resistance to rotation, procucing more torque under the same conditions of RPM. More torque at the same RPM increases power with fuel consumption being almost a constant.


Again the important thing to remember is that a loss of mechanical advantage is not directly relative to thermal loss and certainly not on a one-to-one basis ie a 1% loss of mechanical advantage does not necessarily lead to a 1% increase in thermal loss. It could be more or less and is contingent on many other variables.

But it does relate to total efficiency by increasing output. I now know you agree that there is a variance in Mechanical Advantage. My arguement has always been, where is the mechanical losses in the losses equation, and if placed in the equation, what has to be removed or has been misstated? If you can graph the Mechanical Advantage of a crankshaft by applying a pressure map to it, can you quantify where it fits into engine losses? I would appreciate your help with this as I would love another persons quantification.


Good to hear. You should definitely be making progress as the values I quoted are between 10 and 15 years old and you have quite a ways to go before you rival those results. It would be interesting to see how you engine stacks up against modern engines once you feel it is adequately modified and tuned.

Atalan Makine are forging ahead with this one. They told me they will have a CNG and Diesel prototype up and running in approximately 8 months. :-)

[hightower99]

When the manifold is on an no extra oxygen in introduced and excess fuel is now thrown down the exhaust pipe would cause high HC to be eperienced in emission tests. True?Yes, if measured before a catalytic converter which would burn the left over fuel.


Review BMW's statement againI know that you think that it proves that there is 18% thermal losses through the exhaust but I have proved that this is not true and that it actually implies a much larger loss approaching 50%.


Misunderstanding? Just explained differently to your understanding. No difference really. No work can be done without either pressure or volume.What? you said that low volume is a high energy state and that high volume is a low energy state. This is plainly incorrect. You got the relation wrong. Low volume = low energy state, high volume = high energy state.


Resistance creates pressure.Nope. The pressure is already there in the exhaust system, it doesn't need to be created or increased. You really need to let go of your focus on pressure as it seems it is hindering your understanding. Pressure is just one of the relevant variables. The most important variable is heat.


Actually 80% of the heat from exhaust and he hasn't disclosed how much % of the cooling system. I would imagine that the cooling system transfer is used to bring the water close as they can to 100degC then use the exhaust temp to convert to superheated steam. I would try it this way, but I'm not familiar enough with their system. Yes 20% of the waste heat, but 80% equates to 15% increase to the engine system, so I assume 20% equates to under 4%. That does include heat energy from the cooling system as well... Quite interesting.I'm not quite sure how you continue to fail to see or even acknowledge my point.

Here is a simple question: If you are right and the total thermal loss via exhaust is only 18% How efficient most the turbosteamer system be to achieve the claimed results? <-this is the most important question in my post


He says that they are able to convert 80 percent into usable power. Not - they use 80% of the exhaust heat energy to produce a 15% gain. So I would assume the 20% is heat lost from exhaust and system losses in efficiency. So 80% from exhaust and (what % of from th cooling system) Again you infer way too much from a simple quote which doesn't have enough information in it.

My question stands: If you are right how efficient must the entire turbosteamer system be to achieve the claimed results???


Sometimes if I wait it will never happen.I know the feeling ;)


I never say I know everything, I don't, but I know that you can increase mechanical efficiency in an engine. I have done it. The rest is working out how, and why.Of course you can increase mechanical efficiency. So far you have increased the overall mechanical advantage of the engine, you have yet to prove an actual increase in mechanical efficiency. Remember: Mechanical Advantage =/= Mechanical Efficiency.


Unfortunetly people cannot even agree on a convention engine losses. Some websites state that 67% losses occur just from heat, while others quote far diffent figures. For this reason I am writing a comprehensive theory paper on the matter and try to rationalise theory and tests by myself and other parties.Well good luck with the paper. In my opinion it will be difficult and largely inconsequential to define a fixed convention for thermal losses. I believe they should always be measured as every engine is different. That and the fact that all losses already have nice equations to explain and are relatively easy to measure.


Not if the piston has the same velocity at a given RPM. The radiation and conduction would be the same under the same piston movement conditions. This would be controlled by applying more resistance to rotation, procucing more torque under the same conditions of RPM. More torque at the same RPM increases power with fuel consumption being almost a constant.A conventional crank at TDC has an effective velocity of zero. It is effectively standing still and the force exerted on the piston is not doing anything. Heat is only getting out via radiation and conduction. If the piston had 100% mechanical advantage at TDC it would not be standing still (it would no longer be a reciprocating piston). This means that heat is being converted to mechanical motion which lowers the heat and therefore the rate of loss through radiation and conduction is reduced.


But it does relate to total efficiency by increasing output.Yes and that increase in output is from energy that would normally be lost via radiation, conduction, or friction.


My arguement has always been, where is the mechanical losses in the losses equation, and if placed in the equation, what has to be removed or has been misstated?I am trying to tell you that the losses you are looking for are already included in the equation. Nothing has to be removed and nothing has been misstated. The loss of mechanical advantage leads to increased thermal losses via the conventional parameters.


If you can graph the Mechanical Advantage of a crankshaft by applying a pressure map to it, can you quantify where it fits into engine losses?Firstly you don't need to apply a pressure map to find mechanical advantage. It is found via a few simple geometric equations. Secondly the real difficulty lies in trying to determine how much thermal loss can be attributed to the lack of mechanical advantage. If it were me I would think that I would try to quantify the conventional losses at various points during the cycle and calculating the actual mechanical advantage at those points. Then compare that information to a theoretical engine that achieves 100% relative mechanical advantage at all times at those points and try to quantify the conventional thermal losses. The difference between the two sets of losses will show what fraction of overall thermal losses can be attributed to low mechanical advantage.


Atalan Makine are forging ahead with this one. They told me they will have a CNG and Diesel prototype up and running in approximately 8 months. :-)Good to hear. It means I win my wager with my mate as these prototypes won't be out until 2 months after the time limit of the wager. :D

Hopefully some performance information will be released about these prototypes when they come out and they can be compared to modern engines.

[revetec]

I know that you think that it proves that there is 18% thermal losses through the exhaust but I have proved that this is not true and that it actually implies a much larger loss approaching 50%.

I tend to believe a statement from BMW and it backs up to what I believe.


What? you said that low volume is a high energy state and that high volume is a low energy state. This is plainly incorrect. You got the relation wrong. Low volume = low energy state, high volume = high energy state.

I never said that. Just because the volume is high, without pressure or kinetic energy it can be low energy state.


Nope. The pressure is already there in the exhaust system, it doesn't need to be created or increased.

A few posts back you were saying once the valve opens there is no presssure. :-)

I'm not quite sure how you continue to fail to see or even acknowledge my point.


Here is a simple question: If you are right and the total thermal loss via exhaust is only 18% How efficient most the turbosteamer system be to achieve the claimed results? <-this is the most important question in my post

Read BMW's statement correctly.

"Turbosteamer converts more than 80 percent of the heat energy in the exhaust into usable power, says Raymond Freymann, head of BMW's advanced research and development subsidiary."

We don't know how efficient it is, but we do know the losses are part of the 20% not recouped. This is not my opinion, BMW have stated it. Attack them on it!


Of course you can increase mechanical efficiency. So far you have increased the overall mechanical advantage of the engine, you have yet to prove an actual increase in mechanical efficiency. Remember: Mechanical Advantage =/= Mechanical Efficiency.

Yes, We have increased the mechanical advantage which allowed us to achieve a good result. We had poor combustion lasting too long in time, we wasted more fuel out of the exhaust due to poor head design, our frictional losses were higher, but our total efficiency was higher. This proves the mechanical efficiency was higher. To what degree we don't know in tests, but analysing the CAD model we increased it by over 20%. We now are working on bringing the combustion and frictional values to the same or better of a modern conventional engine. After we test the mods, I will post the results.


Well good luck with the paper. In my opinion it will be difficult and largely inconsequential to define a fixed convention for thermal losses. I believe they should always be measured as every engine is different. That and the fact that all losses already have nice equations to explain and are relatively easy to measure.

Thanks, My opening statement says just that. "Every engine performs differently, and I will define the percentages of each loss as a generalisation."


A conventional crank at TDC has an effective velocity of zero. It is effectively standing still and the force exerted on the piston is not doing anything. Heat is only getting out via radiation and conduction. If the piston had 100% mechanical advantage at TDC it would not be standing still (it would no longer be a reciprocating piston). This means that heat is being converted to mechanical motion which lowers the heat and therefore the rate of loss through radiation and conduction is reduced.

But as the temperature decreases, the surface area exposed to the combustion increases. Different bore and stroke ratios make this variable, and also some of this conducted heat is transfered back into the following charge. Very hard to quantify the % of each process.


I am trying to tell you that the losses you are looking for are already included in the equation. Nothing has to be removed and nothing has been misstated. The loss of mechanical advantage leads to increased thermal losses via the conventional parameters.

Most of the frictional losses are also included in thermal losses. Parasitic losses and some of frictional losses are measured in Pumping losses. Some mechanical losses are measured in Pumping losses. Some mechanical losses are not included in thermal losses. There are many things in very grey areas to consider. This is why I'm writing a theory paper. I know I will not be able to quantify everything, and I don't know if it can be done. This is why it is a theory paper.



Firstly you don't need to apply a pressure map to find mechanical advantage. It is found via a few simple geometric equations.

You do need to as you need to know how much force is being applied at each calculated position to get a result.


Secondly the real difficulty lies in trying to determine how much thermal loss can be attributed to the lack of mechanical advantage. If it were me I would think that I would try to quantify the conventional losses at various points during the cycle and calculating the actual mechanical advantage at those points. Then compare that information to a theoretical engine that achieves 100% relative mechanical advantage at all times at those points and try to quantify the conventional thermal losses. The difference between the two sets of losses will show what fraction of overall thermal losses can be attributed to low mechanical advantage.

Do it!



Good to hear. It means I win my wager with my mate as these prototypes won't be out until 2 months after the time limit of the wager. :D

Good for you.... But we are coming regardless. :-)



Hopefully some performance information will be released about these prototypes when they come out and they can be compared to modern engines.

I will show them to you if you're nice to me. Hahahah

[revetec]

Hightower99: Your standard at the end of every posting "Power, whether measured as HP, PS, or KW is what accelerates cars and gets it up to top speed. Power also determines how far you take a wall when you hit it. Engine torque is an illusion."

When anyone makes a statement like this I also tell them to go drive their car and slowly bring the RPM to just below peak power, then floor it. How well does your car accelerate at this point? Then drive you car just below peak torque and do the same. You find it accelerates harder with far less power. No doubt that we need both, and they go hand in hand. We need torque and RPM to produce power from an engine.

[hightower99]

I tend to believe a statement from BMW and it backs up to what I believe.I have already said this several times: You are misunderstanding the quote! You are reading more information into the quote then exists and therefore your conclusion is invalid. "Useable power" is not defined or quantified in the quote.


A few posts back you were saying once the valve opens there is no presssure. :-)Yes I said there is little residual pressure in the manifold when the exhaust valve opens. But as you said yourself, there is 5bar gauge residual pressure in the cylinder when the exhaust valve opens. The pressure is already there. Kinda irrelevant though as it is the heat content of the exhaust that is important, not the pressure.


"Turbosteamer converts more than 80 percent of the heat energy in the exhaust into usable power, says Raymond Freymann, head of BMW's advanced research and development subsidiary."From this quote one can only conclude that 80% of the wasted heat energy in the exhaust is recovered and that it is this energy that is used as the input for the auxiliary power system.

Thats it!

You infer more than is possible with the given information if you read the quote to mean that 80% of total heat loss in the exhaust is equal to 15% total fuel energy input. This is what you are doing and it is quite simply an incorrect interpretation of the quote!

Think about it: The steam circuit makes 14hp. If 14hp is equal to 15% of the total fuel energy then total fuel energy input is only a little over 93hp... The stock engine makes 115hp and with the steam system total output is 129hp. Clearly you think that the whole engine is actually 138% thermally efficient!

Again I have no issues with what BMW says about their system. I take issue with your interpretation of the facts!


We don't know how efficient it is, but we do know the losses are part of the 20% not recouped. This is not my opinion, BMW have stated it.BMW has not stated this at all... This is only true given your false interpretation of the facts. Even given your incorrect interpretation you should be able to quickly and easily calculate the required efficiency of the system to achieve the given results. The problem is that if you did you would arrive at the fact that your version of the turbosteamer would have to be 100% thermally efficient in order for your interpretation to be correct. This is simply impossible, so you are wrong.


Thanks, My opening statement says just that. "Every engine performs differently, and I will define the percentages of each loss as a generalisation."The question then becomes: What exactly do you plan on using a set of generalized losses for?


But as the temperature decreases, the surface area exposed to the combustion increases. Different bore and stroke ratios make this variable, and also some of this conducted heat is transfered back into the following charge. Very hard to quantify the % of each process.Calculating the parameters at instantaneous points is not difficult at all. Calculating them over any spread is then a relatively simple calculus operation away really.


Most of the frictional losses are also included in thermal losses. Parasitic losses and some of frictional losses are measured in Pumping losses. Some mechanical losses are measured in Pumping losses. Some mechanical losses are not included in thermal losses. There are many things in very grey areas to consider. This is why I'm writing a theory paper. I know I will not be able to quantify everything, and I don't know if it can be done. This is why it is a theory paper.All losses eventually boil down to thermal losses. I am very much looking forward to reading your paper.


You do need to as you need to know how much force is being applied at each calculated position to get a result.No you don't. It all boils down to lever arm length. The longer the lever arm, the higher the mechanical advantage, regardless of the forces involved. A simple formula that calculates lever arm length by degrees of crank rotation is all you need to integrate to find the overall average mechanical advantage.

If you apply a pressure curve you get a composite torque curve which, when integrated from TDC to BDC, would give you a value more closely related to thermal efficiency than mechanical advantage. This could very well help with calculating the relationship between mechanical advantage and thermal efficiency. Hmmm I will take a look at a few equations...


Do it!You never know your luck ;)


I will show them to you if you're nice to me. HahahahHopefully you will settle for civil as opposed to overtly "nice" :p


When anyone makes a statement like this I also tell them to go drive their car and slowly bring the RPM to just below peak power, then floor it. How well does your car accelerate at this point? Then drive you car just below peak torque and do the same. You find it accelerates harder with far less power.Hahaha yes that is the old test that seems to confuse people who have no understanding of how kinetic energy works. In your given test I assume that both peak power and peak torque acceleration are to be tested in the same gear, correct? If that is true then the car accelerates relatively more quickly around peak torque for the same reason that 0-60 times tend to be far less than 100-160 acceleration times. Namely less power is required to accelerate at low speeds then at high speeds.

Try doing the same test but this time change gears so that you start accelerating from the same speed both from peak power and from peak torque. Peak power acceleration will win this fair test every time :cool:

The whole point is that thinking about engine torque is irrelevant for performance if you already know the power curve.

[revetec]

I have already said this several times: You are misunderstanding the quote! You are reading more information into the quote then exists and therefore your conclusion is invalid. "Useable power" is not defined or quantified in the quote.

I am reading the quote literally as it is written. You are the one who is modifying it.


Yes I said there is little residual pressure in the manifold when the exhaust valve opens. But as you said yourself, there is 5bar gauge residual pressure in the cylinder when the exhaust valve opens. The pressure is already there. Kinda irrelevant though as it is the heat content of the exhaust that is important, not the pressure.

Heat alone means nothing as energy contained, if volume and pressure are not included.


From this quote one can only conclude that 80% of the wasted heat energy in the exhaust is recovered and that it is this energy that is used as the input for the auxiliary power system.

That is not what was quoted and is your interpretation.

Thats it!


You infer more than is possible with the given information if you read the quote to mean that 80% of total heat loss in the exhaust is equal to 15% total fuel energy input. This is what you are doing and it is quite simply an incorrect interpretation of the quote!

If the quote is clear, and if BMW was incorrect in their statement you should ask them for clarification.


Think about it: The steam circuit makes 14hp. If 14hp is equal to 15% of the total fuel energy then total fuel energy input is only a little over 93hp... The stock engine makes 115hp and with the steam system total output is 129hp. Clearly you think that the whole engine is actually 138% thermally efficient!

Not if other quoted losses are incorrect. Such as friction being quoted as an extra loss which may be included in a pumping loss test and heat loss created by that friction. This is why I'm writing a paper on the inconsistancies of what is preached.


Again I have no issues with what BMW says about their system. I take issue with your interpretation of the facts!

I have made no interpretation other tha reading it literally. You are the one changing the quote. Read it carefully.

The question then becomes: What exactly do you plan on using a set of generalized losses for?


Calculating the parameters at instantaneous points is not difficult at all. Calculating them over any spread is then a relatively simple calculus operation away really.

Doubling up on losses, incorrect interpretation, unrealistic calculations, not taking into consideration of molecule buffers on surfaces against transfering heat.


No you don't. It all boils down to lever arm length. The longer the lever arm, the higher the mechanical advantage, regardless of the forces involved. A simple formula that calculates lever arm length by degrees of crank rotation is all you need to integrate to find the overall average mechanical advantage.

That's fair enough, but in the real world there are varing pressures on that lever arm, which are different under varying load and RPM conditions.


If you apply a pressure curve you get a composite torque curve which, when integrated from TDC to BDC, would give you a value more closely related to thermal efficiency than mechanical advantage. This could very well help with calculating the relationship between mechanical advantage and thermal efficiency. Hmmm I will take a look at a few equations...

This is what I did 14 years ago, do it.


Hahaha yes that is the old test that seems to confuse people who have no understanding of how kinetic energy works. In your given test I assume that both peak power and peak torque acceleration are to be tested in the same gear, correct? If that is true then the car accelerates relatively more quickly around peak torque for the same reason that 0-60 times tend to be far less than 100-160 acceleration times. Namely less power is required to accelerate at low speeds then at high speeds.

My point is that torque and power are related and no less important than the other.


Try doing the same test but this time change gears so that you start accelerating from the same speed both from peak power and from peak torque. Peak power acceleration will win this fair test every time :cool:

Changing to a lower gear to match RPM creates more torque. Like I say, they both are as important as each other, but your scenario uses a lot more fuel!


The whole point is that thinking about engine torque is irrelevant for performance if you already know the power curve.

And the power curve is provided by torque and RPM

[hightower99]

I am reading the quote literally as it is written. You are the one who is modifying it.No you aren't reading it literally and I'm not modifying it at all. Unfortunately I don't know how to prove how a quote should be understood other than testing the interpretation against the facts and relevant laws of physics. I don't know the laws of language that would prove your interpretation wrong directly, but I have already shown that your interpretation doesn't stand up to further analysis. You sole defence so far is that if you are wrong then BMW is, which is a highly arrogant position to take. I'm not sure how to proceed on this matter? Maybe a public poll to see how many see it your way in the hopes that a massive majority against your interpretation would convince you of your fault?


Heat alone means nothing as energy contained, if volume and pressure are not included.Remember that Heat =/= Temperature. Heat content is everything when it comes to energy. If you know that a system contains 100 Joules of heat energy then it is largely irrelevant what the volume, pressure, or temperature is as you can manipulate those 3 variables however you wish in accordance with gas laws.


That is not what was quoted and is your interpretation.It is the only literal and logical interpretation that can be drawn from the given quote. Your interpretation is neither literal nor logical as I have shown.


If the quote is clear, and if BMW was incorrect in their statement you should ask them for clarification.But I don't need clarification from BMW. My interpretation of their quote fits perfectly well with conventional laws of physics and the laws of logic. Your interpretation doesn't. I need clarification from you about your own interpretation. Other than your sole defence that you are reading the quote directly you have made no further clarification as to why your interpretation is correct! Your interpretation leads to a turbosteamer system that must be 100% efficient as well as an overall efficiency of 138% for the whole engine. There must be something wrong with your interpretation, not with BMW's quote.


I have made no interpretation other tha reading it literally. You are the one changing the quote. Read it carefully.This is your sole defence. It is a highly arrogant position. You should check your interpretation.


That's fair enough, but in the real world there are varing pressures on that lever arm, which are different under varying load and RPM conditions.So what? The mechanical advantage doesn't change from varying forces, only by lever arm length. The varying forces change the composite torque curve.


This is what I did 14 years ago, do it.Good for you. You certainly aren't the first and you won't be the last either.


My point is that torque and power are related and no less important than the other.But once you know the power, why would you need to know the torque? All performance parameters can be calculated from power...


Changing to a lower gear to match RPM creates more torque. Like I say, they both are as important as each other, but your scenario uses a lot more fuel!The point is to change gears to match speed not RPM. Your scenario took accelerating from two different starting speeds to be a fair comparison. This is blatantly false. If you accelerated from the same speed in both cases then peak power wins every time. There is no relation between torque and acceleration. If I ask you to estimate how quickly a car can accelerate with Xlbs/ft of torque from the engine, you couldn't possibly tell me without calculating power first, which is my point. BTW: My scenario involves lower speeds and the same usage of power as yours so my scenario uses the same of less fuel than your scenario. What exactly is the point of your scenario???


And the power curve is provided by torque and RPMSo what? Once you know the power curve the torque is irrelevant.

BTW: I have been looking at my own equations for composite torque that we have been talking about. Do you happen to have a pressure over crank angle graph that can be made public? The few that I have from testing aren't allowed to be made public unfortunately. I am trying to find a generic one to use in comparison with you. To see if we can figure out the relationship with thermal efficiency. Failing that I will construct a simple one.

[revetec]

No you aren't reading it literally and I'm not modifying it at all.

Maybe you should ask other people to read it for you, and explain it.


Remember that Heat =/= Temperature. Heat content is everything when it comes to energy. If you know that a system contains 100 Joules of heat energy then it is largely irrelevant what the volume, pressure, or temperature is as you can manipulate those 3 variables however you wish in accordance with gas laws.

You are talking about heat energy, fine! But temperature does not define heat energy, as you need to include into the equation, volume and pressure.


But I don't need clarification from BMW. My interpretation of their quote fits perfectly well with conventional laws of physics and the laws of logic. Your interpretation doesn't.

With your way of logic, it would have been impossible to achieve what I have. So my testing proves otherwise. It's not my arrogance, it's yours not to accept my acheivements from my in-house development and testing and in independent testing performed.


So what? The mechanical advantage doesn't change from varying forces, only by lever arm length. The varying forces change the composite torque curve.

This inturn provides more torque from a defined amount of heat energy.


But once you know the power, why would you need to know the torque? All performance parameters can be calculated from power...

Because with higher torque at lower RPM you produce higher power at that given RPM. This provides a lower RPM operational point. Lower RPM means less swept volume per minute, and saves fuel.


The point is to change gears to match speed not RPM. Your scenario took accelerating from two different starting speeds to be a fair comparison. This is blatantly false.

I guess you must have misread or misinterpreted my statement... Read it carefully again.


So what? Once you know the power curve the torque is irrelevant.

You needed to know the torque before you calculate power. Hahaha.. A dynamometer takes torque and RPM measurements, then calculates power, not the other way around. When you calibrate a dyno, what do you do? You place weights on a lever arm and correct the torque value. No torque, no power.


BTW: I have been looking at my own equations for composite torque that we have been talking about. Do you happen to have a pressure over crank angle graph that can be made public? The few that I have from testing aren't allowed to be made public unfortunately. I am trying to find a generic one to use in comparison with you. To see if we can figure out the relationship with thermal efficiency. Failing that I will construct a simple one.

Just google image seach; cylinder pressure graph and you'll find one.

[revetec]

We know the relationship with torque and power so let's show how they effect an engine in real life application....

We have two engines exactly the same. One we increase power without increasing torque by providing better breathing at higher RPMs. The other engine we will provide more torque down low by increasing the torque lever while not increasing the power at high RPM.

Now put the engines into two vehicles. How do they drive. The first engine providing more power performs better at higher RPMs and when driven at higher RPMs can do more work that the higher torque engine.

The higher torque engine accelerates more effortlessly from a standing start because the resulting power is higher at lower RPMs.

I hope we agree at this point?

Now for a race car, the ultimate importance is power and speed. So power is everything. For the average driver, good acceleration and economy is all important as we tend not to drive majorly at peak power RPMs.

Most of our driving is either stop start in traffic (city) or cruising (highway). Most of us drive at part throttle. In the city we majorly drive between 2,000RPM and 4,000 RPM. On the highway we majorly drive between 1,500RPM and 2,500RPM.

Power at higher RPM has more power strokes per minute, and this uses more fuel and emits more pollutants. If we look at a BMEP chart we see that the peak efficiency is usually around 2,000RPM.

http://www.techno-fandom.org/~hobbit/cars/bmep-Final_29.gif

When looking at cruising on the highway for ultimate economy, cars are usually geared to drive at 100kph and around 2,000RPM for this reason.

So the arguement is, for racing, peak power at high RPM is the ultimate performance, but is not the ultimate fuel economy for mainstream applications such as the normal motorist who is looking for economy.

This is why performance cars state a maximum speed rather than the fuel efficiency, and normal cars like to quote MPG highway and city cycles.

While we look for fuel economy, higher power provides us with higher top end speed and performance so both are important, but in a world of high fuel prices and trying to lower emissions, fuel economy is now at the highest of importance.

Also note that younger people who don't care about running costs prefer to say power is everything. Businesses, families and the world's environment have more importance towards fuel economy and emissions.

I met with the Development Managing Director of a major automotive company. He made this statement to me which was translated from Japanese to english through his interpreter was: "Torque is all important in the automotive industry, except for marketing."

So in summary, In vehicles: Power is most important to racing, people driving fast (mainly younger), and people going maximum speed on autobahns. Torque down low is most important to fuel economy, emissions and mainsteam drivers. Because of this we have different views of importance.

The world enviroment and resorces has only one view, at it isn't outright power.

Cheers

[hightower99]

Maybe you should ask other people to read it for you, and explain it.I have asked several other people. They have all come to the same interpretation as me. Of course this has little value on an internet forum, but honestly no-one I have talked to about the turbosteamer has made the same interpretation as you...
Have you asked anyone else about their interpretation? Has it always been the same as yours?


With your way of logic, it would have been impossible to achieve what I have.I assume you are talking about your engine? I don't think your engine breaks the laws of thermodynamics or stretches the barriers of logic at all. Remember I don't believe in the magic 37% rule. Why would you say this???


Because with higher torque at lower RPM you produce higher power at that given RPM. This provides a lower RPM operational point. Lower RPM means less swept volume per minute, and saves fuel.Agreed but why does one need to even mention torque? Higher power at low RPM = good <- not a difficult concept to understand.


You needed to know the torque before you calculate power. Hahaha.. A dynamometer takes torque and RPM measurements, then calculates power, not the other way around.Most dynamometers work this way, however inertia dynamometers measure power directly. Most hydraulic dynamometers also measure power directly as well (measuring oil flow). Even so I agree that you can use torque and RPM to calculate power. I see no other use for torque values once you have used them to calculate power. I am not arguing the concept of torque, simply it's usage as a performance parameter.

I can see from your last post that you might have misunderstood my point about power vs. torque. I was not talking about engine tuning. I would just rather people talked about low RPM Power as opposed to low RPM Torque if talking about economy engines. Instead of getting excited that an engine makes 300lbs/ft of torque by 1500RPM I would rather they got excited about 86hp at 1500RPM. I hope you understand my point now.
I always cringe when people trip themselves up when comparing engines by saying something like "Yeah it is 50hp down but it should still give a better kick because it is 50lbs/ft up on engine X".
Peak torque values are completely irrelevant as they could be replaced by a power figure.
Another huge misconception that I dislike is the whole "Peak torque RPM is the most efficient place for any engine" It is very rare that peak torque is even fairly close to peak efficiency. Look at the picture in your post. Peak efficiency is roughly at 30% power at 2000RPM whereas peak torque is at 70% power at >3000RPM.

[revetec]

Most dynamometers work this way, however inertia dynamometers measure power directly. Most hydraulic dynamometers also measure power directly as well (measuring oil flow). Even so I agree that you can use torque and RPM to calculate power. I see no other use for torque values once you have used them to calculate power. I am not arguing the concept of torque, simply it's usage as a performance parameter.

Measuring oil flow? OMG!

From your reference: eHow.com How Does a Dyno Work? | eHow.com (http://www.ehow.com/how-does_5183355_dyno-work_.html#ixzz0w4KYTWyy)

The dynamometer mechanism then uses either hydraulic fluid or water to create resistance to the engine's spinning force. This resistance is continued until the engine's maximum turning force is measured at every RPM, giving the tester an accurate reading of the engine's torque. A computer or the tester can then use the same equations to derive a horsepower number for the engine.

They don't measure oil or water flow, they are used as a brake. The brake creates a twisting motion which acts on a torque sensor. I used an electric brake dyno in house. This dyno also used the same type of system, braking the engine and using a torque sensor (Dyno Dynamics brand).


I can see from your previous post that you might have misunderstood my point about power vs. torque. I was not talking about engine tuning. I would just rather people talked about low RPM Power as opposed to low RPM Torque if talking about economy engines.

You would prefer to talk power? Ok!
But you state that torque is an illusion, which is just plain wrong.
Torque is the force that moves your vehicle, how far you move it, is work done which is power. No torque, no work done and no power.



Instead of getting excited that an engine makes 300lbs/ft of torque by 1500RPM I would rather they got excited about 86hp at 1500RPM. I hope you understand my point now.

If you would rather think of it that way, then that's your preference.

But I will tell you from experience, for an engine developer working on fuel efficiency it is easier to look at how flat a torque curve is, when it comes in and fades away, rather to try and interpret the changes in angles of a power curve. I'm sure that when you look at a power curve, you look straight towards the peak of the curve to see the engine's peak power. This is not what people look for when looking at fuel economy, we look at how early the torque comes in, and how long it is sustained for. A simple preference for the task at hand.



I always cringe when people trip themselves up when comparing engines by saying something like "Yeah it is 50hp down but it should still give a better kick because it is 50lbs/ft up on engine X".
Peak torque values are completely irrelevant when they could be replaced by a power figure.

You are correct in your way of thinking. the higher torque provides higher power at a lower RPM which creates more "kick" You like to know the power at this point because you can relate to it better. The people you talk to that make you cringe find it easier to relate to the torque curve. It's as simple as that in this case. No one is right or wrong. This doesn't make torque irrelevant at all, just you like to relate to power, and that is your preference.


Another huge misconception that I dislike is the whole "Peak torque RPM is the most efficient place for any engine" It is very rare that peak torque is even fairly close to peak efficiency. Look at the picture in your post. Peak efficiency is roughly at 30% power at 2000RPM whereas peak torque is at 70% power at >3000RPM.

True, this is due to at 2,000RPM and around 85-95% load the engine losses have the least amount of influence. Over 2,000RPM the influences from piston inertia are counteracted by the changes of point of maximum pressure on the piston cause by less timeframe of the stroke (with a not so variable burn time), induction pulses, exhaust pulses and flow etc. Notice the drop in fuel efficiency over 4,000RPM at heavier loads. Refering to the torque curve it is easier to relate the drop in torque to the drop in efficiency. Maybe you don't see this as easily as you like to relate to power. But again, it's someones preference to what you are looking for and understand more easily.

[revetec]

Here is a link: Here (http://paultan.org/2005/12/11/bmw-turbosteamer/)

Getting back to the BMW turbosteamer. Note that the exhaust temperature is 50degC at the tailpipe in the thermal image photo, and I would assume the temp of the air going into the engine may be around 25degC. So the increase in expelled gas temerature is around 25degC gain from ambient?

The system uses 80% of the exhaust's thermal heat energy from the exhaust.

And let's say that the turbosteamer system has 50% losses.

Calculate it for me considering their exhaust temp at the manifold is 800deg. I would like your view please.

I calculated it out and it has interesting results. I also noticed in the photo that it is a bit of a composite image, as I can see insulation around the system up to the second heat exchanger which I think has been removed for the image.

[hightower99]

They don't measure oil or water flow, they are used as a brake. The brake creates a twisting motion which acts on a torque sensor. I used an electric brake dyno in house. This dyno also used the same type of system, braking the engine and using a torque sensor (Dyno Dynamics brand).Note that I was talking about inertial dynamometers.


You would prefer to talk power? Ok!
But you state that torque is an illusion, which is just plain wrong.
Torque is the force that moves your vehicle, how far you move it, is work done which is power. No torque, no work done and no power.Torque isn't the force that moves the vehicle. Torque can't move anything, its static. As soon as movement is involved torque becomes power... Hence engine torque is an illusion (the concept is true and real but only for static systems). Measured torque from a running engine is also an illusion because in order to measure the true amount of torque you would have to stop the engine completely (not just brake its acceleration). The reason you measure torque is because the engine dissipates power into a static system. Once power loses its motion it turns back to torque. BTW Power =/= work done, Power = Rate of Work! Can you finally see my point? It isn't just my preference, Torque doesn't exist in dynamic systems...


If you would rather think of it that way, then that's your preference.Its also technically more accurate.


But I will tell you from experience, for an engine developer working on fuel efficiency it is easier to look at how flat a torque curve is, when it comes in and fades away, rather to try and interpret the changes in angles of a power curve. I'm sure that when you look at a power curve, you look straight towards the peak of the curve to see the engine's peak power. This is not what people look for when looking at fuel economy, we look at how early the torque comes in, and how long it is sustained for. A simple preference for the task at hand.Well I have no problems interpreting power curves. I don't look straight to the peak I am much more interested in the overall shape of the powercurve. Also do you think that the most efficient torque curve is a flat one?


You are correct in your way of thinking. the higher torque provides higher power at a lower RPM which creates more "kick"Look closely at my quote again. Only differences in peak power and torque are mentioned. The higher peak torque could happen at only a single RPM point with the rest of the curve being down exactly enough to be 50hp less than the more powerful engine. You cannot tell anything about performance solely from torque values.


True, this is due to at 2,000RPM and around 85-95% load the engine losses have the least amount of influence. Over 2,000RPM the influences from piston inertia are counteracted by the changes of point of maximum pressure on the piston cause by less timeframe of the stroke (with a not so variable burn time), induction pulses, exhaust pulses and flow etc. Notice the drop in fuel efficiency over 4,000RPM at heavier loads. Refering to the torque curve it is easier to relate the drop in torque to the drop in efficiency. Maybe you don't see this as easily as you like to relate to power. But again, it's someones preference to what you are looking for and understand more easily.I understand and "relate" to power and torque equally well. The people who make me cringe just don't understand what torque and power are.
I think you will find that it is difficult to find a relationship between torque and thermal efficiency. According to the graph you showed between 1000RPM and 3000RPM torque increased by 16% and the BSFC went from roughly 0.45 to 0.50 (11% increase) but from 4000RPM to 6000RPM the torque fell roughly 30% but BSFC only increased from 0.55 to 0.59 (7% increase).

[revetec]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque

Just read the link!

[henk4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque

Just read the link!

quite a number of substantial formulas, dealing with an "illusion" ;)
Apparently these are all wrong, starting with the use of Nm as the measurement unit for torque. That could never be used if the unit was static, as m would be equal to zero....

[hightower99]

quite a number of substantial formulas, dealing with an "illusion" ;)Please note that I have maintained that the concept of torque is real and that I understand it. The illusion is specifically engine torque values and their connection to movement.

Apparently these are all wrong, starting with the use of Nm as the measurement unit for torque. That could never be used if the unit was static, as m would be equal to zero....Ummm you do know that the m in Nm is for the length of the lever arm and not a distance travelled right???

Revetec: What part did you want me to read specifically? What exactly do you disagree with?

Do you not agree that torque is static?
Do you not agree that when movement is involved then it is work?
Do you not agree that work/time = Power?

[henk4]

To conclude this as far as I am concerned we just have to quote Carroll Shelby:

Horsepower sells car, torque wins races...

I think races do have to do with movement.

[Alastor]

To conclude this as far as I am concerned we just have to quote Carroll Shelby:

Horsepower sells car, torque wins races...

I think races do have to do with movement.

Did he even really say this? Is there some kind of legitimate citation that confirms this is an accurate quote?

Not that it matters, it is not like he pioneered the concepts of torque and power so I don't know why he is always quoted as though he did.


You needed to know the torque before you calculate power. Hahaha.. A dynamometer takes torque and RPM measurements, then calculates power, not the other way around.

This argument has been used before on UCP before and it is BS. What difference does it make how power or torque are measured? The concepts are and their relative importance are unchanged.

If it is really so important to measure something directly can you prove that what you call a ‘torque sensor’ really measures torque directly. I doubt it does since torque is no more a real quantity than power. I would guess it is actually measuring some physical quantity like strain and converts that back into some equivalent torque.

[hightower99]

Thank you Alastor.

Henk4: It turns out that when the vast majority of people talk about "torque" they either mean low rpm power (that causes that low down kick) or a wide power band (which helps win races). They are not normally talking directly about the concept of torque. Which is still static.

Revetec: I believe that Alastor has adequately pointed out one of the major faults in your reasoning. Have you ever really thought about how a brake dynamometer really works? The brake is static when you actually take a torque measurement.

It seems that this thread has gotten quite off topic. This thread is not for arguing the concepts of torque and power but the technical aspects of the revetec concept.

Honestly I am still more interested in Brad's interpretation of how the BMW turbosteamer works. I would ask how Henk4 and Alastor interpret the quote and the overall article???

Henk4: Do you think that the turbosteamer article proves (or even implies) a total thermal loss through the exhaust around 18%?

Alastor: ----ditto----?

The article in question is: Here. (http://paultan.org/2005/12/11/bmw-turbosteamer/)

[Alastor]

Alastor: ----ditto----?


First off both you and Revetec know way more about IC Engines then I ever will. However, if I put my ‘thinking hat’ on I would read it as follows:


The heat in the exhaust gas heats up some through a heat exchanger fluid and this fluid becomes steam. This steam is used to power the engine. More than 80 percent of heat in the exhaust gases can be converted back into usable energy this way.

I read that 80% of the total exhaust energy is extracted by the BMW system. However, the last few words are confusing.



…converted back into usable energy…

What does useable mean? Does that mean it is available to do work but when it used it will undergo additional losses. Or does that mean that after all the additional losses in the recovery system there is 80% of the exhaust energy available to do work?


For the information on the system output:


This results in reducing fuel consumption by 15 percent, and an additional 14 horsepower and 15 lb-ft of torque for BMW’s inline-4 1.8 liter engine.

I don’t know enough about IC engines to know how a reduction in fuel consumption really impacts efficiency. In other words does a 15% reduction in fuel consumption automatically mean a 15% improvement in efficiency?

Nevertheless, couldn’t you use the 14 HP to determine the system performance? Isn’t that a direct measure of the usable power recovered by the system from the exhaust?

[henk4]

Henk4: Do you think that the turbosteamer article proves (or even implies) a total thermal loss through the exhaust around 18%?


look, I graduated more than 30 years ago as an economist....I just drop in here for every once a while to enjoy your crusade against the use of torque figures. If they are that irrelevant, why would manufacturers quote them in the first place? Just to pamper what you call illusions?
And I agree that this thread should be about the Revetec concept (which is too difficult for me also), and we could reopen the old thread on the torque discussion from way back when. (some though might see the last ten days of this thread as a welcome change in the bickering of the Revetec finances...)

[revetec]

Honestly I am still more interested in Brad's interpretation of how the BMW turbosteamer works. I would ask how Henk4 and Alastor interpret the quote and the overall article???

Well start a topic on the BMW Turbosteamer then and I will be active in it.

[revetec]

Here is a question and response on a question of Torque at Ask.Cars.com:

Q:I know horsepower relates to how powerful a car is versus another, but what is torque? Why is it different than horsepower? Should I consider torque numbers when researching new cars? Is it more important for different types of vehicles?

A: As you know, an engine’s output is rated in horsepower and torque. Torque is pulling power, and it’s best demonstrated as the grunt that gets you moving, while horsepower is what keeps you going. Without sounding like your high-school physics teacher, torque is the twisting force created in an engine by rotating parts; horsepower is the measurement of how fast torque is being used. Horsepower and torque work hand-in-hand, as horsepower is calculated from torque. For the average buyer, torque shouldn’t be a deciding factor unless you know you’ll be towing or hauling heavy loads. And that’s where high-torque vehicles will thrive, driving while towing a trailer or maxing out cargo capacity. It will be easier to accelerate and sustain speed with a high-torque car in any situation, but especially with heavy loads. High-performance cars can also produce gobs of torque that greatly aid in acceleration. That feeling of your eyeballs being sucked into the back of your head in a fast car during heavy right-foot pounding is an example of excessive torque.

[revetec]

Another explanation of torque is the use of a transmission.

If you are driving and approach a very steep gradiant and put your foot down. The gradient is so steep that your maximum power cannot maintain speed and your speed drops. You downshift to a lower gear and then are able to accelerate. Your speed is less, but you can maintain that speed at the same RPM and load of the engine that you were previously at.

So what has happened? Power is the same, the same work is being done. A transmission takes that power and changes the RPM and torque values ie. Lower RPM output, and higher torque. Nothing has changed in Power.

A transmission is a torque multiplier, not a power multiplier.

Given a particular given top power rating, if an engine produces higher torque at a lower RPM then it reduces the need to gear down. Extra torque also reduces the throttle opening required to overcome the extra load given a certain speed. Lower throttle opening reduces engine breathing which reduces fuel consumption.

Here is a dyno graph of our X4v2 engine which provides this...

http://www.revetec.com/images/dev_dynograph_x4v2.jpg

Note: We have 90% of peak torque at 1,300RPM, Peak torque at 3,000RPM

[revetec]

This engine provides almost uniform acceleration from 1,300RPM to 3,500RPM (+/-10%). Power ranges from 25kW to 68kW

[hightower99]

Well start a topic on the BMW Turbosteamer then and I will be active in it. Done :p Here is the thread.

BTW the answer from the ask.cars.com article is exactly the type of incorrect information that I positively loath!

The second sentence:
Torque is pulling power, and it’s best demonstrated as the grunt that gets you moving, while horsepower is what keeps you going.is complete non-sense! The anecdotal response that implies that engine torque is the deciding factor for determining towing capacity is absolute rubbish! The whole answer is utterly incorrect in so many ways that it isn't even close to funny. The answer was apparently given by one Joe Bruzek who AFAIK is only an expert journalist, and not an actual engineering expert in any way or form.


If they are that irrelevant, why would manufacturers quote them in the first place? Just to pamper what you call illusions?Unfortunately just because a company talks about it doesn't actually mean that it is important in any way. You will notice that power is shown much more often than torque values. So by your own logic power must be more important :rolleyes: Also you should give yourself more credit. Having graduated as an economist and having more than 30 years of life experience after that, you are more than able to read the article and share your interpretation.

Alastor: Thank you for your effort. I have made another thread for discussing the turbosteamer if you are interested in continuing.

[revetec]

In vehicle testing, the engine did not provide 175% increase in acceleration at 3,500RPM as it did at 1,200RPM, it was almost constant. The vehicle accelerated at the same rate as the torque curve. No doubt that the power increased, which created more speed and more work done, but it's the torque curve which determined the acceleration rate.

[revetec]

Hightower99: Power and Torque will always be debated, but they have different characteristics in operation. It depends on your driving style, load of your vehicle, operational conditions, and whether or not you are looking for performance or economy.

Like I said, they are as important as each other.

[Alastor]

So what has happened? Power is the same, the same work is being done. A transmission takes that power and changes the RPM and torque values ie. Lower RPM output, and higher torque. Nothing has changed in Power.

A transmission is a torque multiplier, not a power multiplier.


This is exactly why torque at the engine is irrelevant. When I talk, and I am assuming this applies to hightower99 as well, is that torque at the wheel is what matters.

Torque at the engine is irrelevant because it can be multiplied as much as is desired using a transmission. So a small engine producing a small amount of torque can be geared to produce huge amounts of torque via a transmission at the 'wheel'.

However, power must always be conserved and thus is a more useful measure.

I think much of your augment has been for the value of understanding torque at the engine. Which certainly has merits in terms of IC engine design, but once you start talking about vehicle performance it become less important because of the transmission.


The vehicle accelerated at the same rate as the torque curve. No doubt that the power increased, which created more speed and more work done, but it's the torque curve which determined the acceleration rate.

This should be always true when using fixed gear ratios because the torque at the wheels is directly proportional to the torque at the engine. However, when you 'de-couple' the engine and wheel so that you can use a varying gear ratio (as opposed to a fixed gear ratio) the value of power becomes much more clear. Now instead of talking about torque&power and RPM we are talking about torque&power and road speed. Once you put things in terms of road speed it turns the 'traditional' view of torque and power upside down.

[hightower99]

If you are driving and approach a very steep gradiant and put your foot down. The gradient is so steep that your maximum power cannot maintain speed and your speed drops.So far so good...


You downshift to a lower gear and then are able to accelerate. Your speed is less, but you can maintain that speed at the same RPM and load of the engine that you were previously at.This is somewhat confusing. If you are able to accelerate then you would have been able to maintain your previous speed in the previous gear, but your example said that the maximum power was not enough for that particular speed. In which case you have slowed down and changed gears so that maximum power now occurs at a slower speed.


So what has happened? Power is the same,Yes it is. It is the maximum that the engine can produce (peak power).

the same work is being done.Yes but the rate of work has changed. You said that the car is now moving more slowly up the gradient hence a lower rate of work. Guess what the term for rate of work is???


Given a particular given top power rating, if an engine produces higher torque at a lower RPM then it reduces the need to gear down.Only because it is making more power at the lower RPM.


This engine provides almost uniform acceleration from 1,300RPM to 3,500RPM (+/-10%). Power ranges from 25kW to 68kWLook at it like this: From 1300RPM to 3500RPM is a factor 2.7 difference in speed for any given gear ratio. Guess what, the power increases by a factor 2.7 as well...

[revetec]

Also in engine development and testing we don't use Inertia Dynamometers, as Inertia dynos work properly under load only. It will not calculate your horsepower while holding steady at a fixed RPM. The barrels of an Inertia Dynamometer are spun as the vehicle accelerates, and the time that it takes to go from a set range of speeds determines the horsepower of the vehicle.

Because the hydraulic dyno has the ability to provide variable loads, it is able to provide a closer to "real-world" atmosphere for the vehicle than the inertial style dyno. The hydraulic dyno can also, as a result of its braking system, allow a vehicle to stay at a fixed RPM and still accurately measure the torque. This is critical for fuel and ignition tuning and fuel consumption measurement.

[revetec]

This is exactly why torque at the engine is irrelevant. When I talk, and I am assuming this applies to hightower99 as well, is that torque at the wheel is what matters.

You need torque at the flywheel so it can be applied at the rear wheels!


Torque at the engine is irrelevant because it can be multiplied as much as is desired using a transmission. So a small engine producing a small amount of torque can be geared to produce huge amounts of torque via a transmission at the 'wheel'.

You need torque in the first place to multiply it? If you multiply it too much, you don't have speed.


I think much of your augment has been for the value of understanding torque at the engine. Which certainly has merits in terms of IC engine design, but once you start talking about vehicle performance it become less important because of the transmission.

It really depends how fast you want to go. A tractor has low power, high ratio gearing providing high torque, but has a low top speed. So it does matter. If you can provide higher torque, you don't have to use such high ratio gearing, so provides higher speed.


This should be always true when using fixed gear ratios because the torque at the wheels is directly proportional to the torque at the engine. However, when you 'de-couple' the engine and wheel so that you can use a varying gear ratio (as opposed to a fixed gear ratio) the value of power becomes much more clear.

The torque curve is the same at the flywheel, just multiplied at the wheels.

[hightower99]

Hightower99: Power and Torque will always be debated, but they have different characteristics in operation. It depends on your driving style, load of your vehicle, operational conditions, and whether or not you are looking for performance or economy.No... there is really no debate about what torque or power is.

The discussion is about how each effects a vehicle. All properly educated engineers I have ever talked to (not nearly enough IMO) have never had to have this discussion. They simply see it in the same way, and that way happens to be the way I see it as well. I only ever encounter this apparent "debate" when talking to laymen or people who just haven't had any proper physics education. This is why I find it frustrating that I should have this debate with you. I thought you had a university engineering degree?

All of the characteristics you mentioned are contingent on engine power output.

BTW: Alastor I completely agree with what you write. It is all about torque at the wheels which is determined by power and the particular road speed.

[revetec]

Only because it is making more power at the lower RPM.

No its not, it's making more torque at the lower RPM. You know dropping the RPM reduces power (unless you were already over peak Power RPM)

[hightower99]

You need torque at the flywheel so it can be applied at the rear wheels!Yes of course you do but what is important is the power which determines how much you can multiply it for any given speed. Do some simple math if you don't believe me.


You need torque in the first place to multiply it? If you multiply it too much, you don't have speed.Exactly and the ratio of torque to speed is determined by power!!!


It really depends how fast you want to go. A tractor has low power, high ratio gearing providing high torque, but has a low top speed. So it does matter. If you can provide higher torque, you don't have to use such high ratio gearing, so provides higher speed.Again the ratio of torque to speed is determined by power. The more power the more torque you can make at any given speed.


No its not, it's making more torque at the lower RPM.If it is making more torque then it is making more power at that given RPM. More Torque = More Power.

[revetec]

The discussion is about how each effects a vehicle. All properly educated engineers I have ever talked to (not nearly enough IMO) have never had to have this discussion. They simply see it in the same way, and that way happens to be the way I see it as well. I only ever encounter this apparent "debate" when talking to laymen or people who just haven't had any proper physics education. at the wheels which is determined by power and the particular road speed.

Go and build yourself an F1 engine with high kW and no torque down low. Stick it in a heavy vehicle. See if you can drive it, and see how economical it is to drive.

F1 engines have heaps of kW and are lightweight. So why do they have problems taking off from a standing start, when my car which is twice as heavy does it with ease and using a fraction of the power? Answer: Torque!

Welcome to the real world!

[hightower99]

Go and build yourself an F1 engine with high kW and no torque down low. Stick it in a heavy vehicle. See if you can drive it, and see how economical it is to drive.If it has more power than the given truck engine and proper gearing it will outperform the original truck. It will use significantly more fuel as F1 engines aren't that efficient being designed for maximum specific power as opposed to efficiency. On the same token why don't you take a high torque truck engine and put it in a lightweight car. Shouldn't it out accelerate any equivalently powered small petrol engine?


F1 engines have heaps of kW and are lightweight. So why do they have problems taking off from a standing start, when my car which is twice as heavy does it with ease and using a fraction of the power? Answer: Torque!No you got this completely wrong. 1st gear in a F1 car is significantly higher than first gear in your heavy car. An F1 car has no trouble starting if you give it the beans but you end up leaving massive black stripes all over the road. The problem is easing away gracefully. This is hard to do in an F1 car because the clutches are very on/off in their operation, the first gear is much taller (think starting in 3rd in your car) and finally the engines have such little inertia due to the ridiculously light weight that there is no "wiggle room" when engaging the clutch. Either the engine is revving high enough and making enough power to move, or it isn't. Their is very little inertia to "save" you if you get it wrong. Add on top of this the fact that F1 engines are very free revving and very difficult to control and it is easy to see why it would be hard to start.

BTW: Welcome to the truly accurate real world :p

[revetec]

Answer honestly the following questions Yes or No.

Does increasing Torque at a given RPM increase the power at that RPM?

Does increasing Power increase the work done?

Does increasing Power = Increasing Performance?

Would this increase in power reduce fuel consumption compared with the lesser torque engine which requires to sweep higher volumes per minute to produce that power generally?

[hightower99]

Does increasing Torque at a given RPM increase the power at that RPM?Yes

Does increasing Power increase the work done?No, Increasing power increases the rate at which work can be done.

Does increasing Power = Increasing Performance?Yes

Would this increase in power reduce fuel consumption compared with the lesser torque engine which requires to sweep higher volumes per minute to produce that power generally?Yes, generally.

My turn, same rules apply (be honest, Yes or No answers):

Does power determine the ratio of torque to speed?

Is a time component/variable included in any definition of torque?

Is a movement component/variable included in any definition of torque?

Can something be dynamic if there is no time or movement component/variable involved?

[revetec]

If it has more power than the given truck engine and proper gearing it will outperform the original truck. It will use significantly more fuel as F1 engines aren't that efficient being designed for maximum specific power as opposed to efficiency.

It will use more fuel. Providing higher torque at lower RPMs is more efficient. This is why we see vehicle transmissions are employing more gears (some around 7 gears these days) Is this to make use of peak power more efficiently? No! It's to keep the RPM lower while driving normally. Lower RPMs means lower fuel consumption as long as the RPM don't drop to far and making the engine labour. Higher torque in lower RPM ranges provides more work or Power.

The goal is to drive around the RPM and load points where engines are most efficient. This isn't around peak power, although higher power is nice when we want to ignore ecomomy.

One thing you must understand is the market used to be about performance, now it is about efficiency and emissions. This is why younger drivers point more importance on Power as people like yourself want Power. The majority of the market look at their running costs and fuel economy.

While Power is important, so is Economy. It's hard these days to increase power without burning more fuel. Burning more fuel usually creates more emissions. Understand that if you provide more torque at lower RPMs then the efficiency increases, especially around 2,000RPM. Our project is all about doing this, as this is what drives the current market.

[hightower99]

Providing higher torque at lower RPMs is more efficient.Yes as this means there is more power being made while less is being wasted by friction (RPM).


This is why we see vehicle transmissions are employing more gears (some around 7 gears these days) Is this to make use of peak power more efficiently? No! It's to keep the RPM lower while driving normally.Actually having more gears (up to 8 and counting) means you can maintain lower cruising RPM (reducing friction losses) and maintain higher average power during acceleration which increases performance. So you really get the best of both worlds the more gears you have.

[revetec]

Does power determine the ratio of torque to speed?

No, if I interpreted that question right?


Is a time component/variable included in any definition of torque?

No


Is a movement component/variable included in any definition of torque?

No


Can something be dynamic if there is no time or movement component/variable involved?

No

But by increasing torque, potential energy is increased and can be realised by movement.

[Alastor]

You need torque in the first place to multiply it? If you multiply it too much, you don't have speed.

The emphasis is mine...but you have stated exactly what hightower and I are talking about. You can multiply torque easily with a transmission but at the sacrifice of road speed. An X increase in torque at the wheels means an 1/X decrease in speed at the wheels (i.e. road speed). So there has to be some balance between the torque multiplication and the corresponding speed 'division'.

How does one determine if an engine can produce a good balance of both torque and speed? The answer is power. Power is measure of 'force and velocity'. This can be summarized as:

Low Power = High Torque @ Low Speed or Low Torque @ High Speed
High Power = High Torque @ High Speed

[revetec]

Yes as this means there is more power being made while less is being wasted by friction (RPM).

friction as well as mechanical losses etc. We are looking for efficiency and so is the world.


Actually having more gears (up to 8 and counting) means you can maintain lower cruising RPM (reducing friction losses) and maintain higher average power during acceleration which increases performance. So you really get the best of both worlds the more gears you have.

Yes, and to increase power in Low RPMs when we have close to 100% volumetric efficiency can only be increased significantly by increasing torque or decreasing mechanical losses.

[revetec]

The emphasis is mine...but you have stated exactly what hightower and I are talking about. You can multiply torque easily with a transmission but at the sacrifice of road speed. An X increase in torque at the wheels means an 1/X decrease in speed at the wheels (i.e. road speed). So there has to be some balance between the torque multiplication and the corresponding speed 'division'.

How does one determine if an engine can produce a good balance of both torque and speed? The answer is power. Power is measure of 'force and velocity'. This can be summarized as:

Low Power = High Torque @ Low Speed or Low Torque @ High Speed
High Power = High Torque @ High Speed

And high speed means more fuel burnt and lower efficiency.

Our project is not about increasing power, but increasing efficiency.

[hightower99]

No, if I interpreted that question right?Ok to help explain the question: A gear ratio in a transmission determines the ratio between input speed and output speed and therefore between input torque and output torque. What determines the ratio between output torque and output speed?

The question was: Does power determine the ratio of (output) torque to (output) speed?



But by increasing torque, potential energy is increased and can be realised by movement.Not sure I understand what you mean? It must be a bit of a moot point anyways though as you have, through your own honest statements, stated that torque cannot be dynamic.

[Alastor]

And high speed means more fuel burnt and lower efficiency.

Our project is not about increasing power, but increasing efficiency.

I am referring to output shaft speed / wheel speed / road speed not the engine speed. As well, the torque vs power argument is not about efficiency it is about generating the maximum motive force to move the car.

Unless of course the discussion is moving back on topic in which case I will leave this alone.

[hightower99]

Our project is not about increasing power, but increasing efficiency.
By definition increasing efficiency is increasing power per unit fuel per unit time, right?

[revetec]

Ok to help explain the question: A gear ratio in a transmission determines the ratio between input speed and output speed and therefore between input torque and output torque. What determines the ratio between output torque and output speed?

Still a funny question... The ratio decreases speed and increases torque. At what ratio? Well it depends on the gear ratio and the losses of the gears.


The question was: Does power determine the ratio of (output) torque to (output) speed? No, the transmission does that.


Not sure I understand what you mean? It must be a bit of a moot point anyways though as you have, through your own honest statements, stated that torque cannot be dynamic.

Force isn't dynamic, but the greater the force when used increases the work done.

[revetec]

I am referring to output shaft speed / wheel speed / road speed not the engine speed. As well, the torque vs power argument is not about efficiency it is about generating the maximum motive force to move the car.

Unless of course the discussion is moving back on topic in which case I will leave this alone.

Increasing Power does not relate directly as regards to efficiency.

If we increase the volumetric efficiency of an engine at high RPMs then the power increases, but we use more fuel to do so.

Efficiency can be gained by decreasing mechanical losses such as an innefficient design of transmitting force. Decreasing losses of this type can increase the twisting force we call torque. During operation, this force is converted via RPM to higher work done, or Power, not the other way around.

[Alastor]

The question was: Does power determine the ratio of (output) torque to (output) speed?
No, the transmission does that.

Thats incorect. The transmission (gear ratios) determine the ratio between the input torque and output torque as well as the input speed and output speed. Power determines the ratio between output speed and output torque. It is a subtle but important difference.


Increasing Power does not relate directly as regards to efficiency.

If we increase the volumetric efficiency of an engine at high RPMs then the power increases, but we use more fuel to do so.

Efficiency can be gained by decreasing mechanical losses such as an innefficient design of transmitting force. Decreasing losses of this type can increase the twisting force we call torque. During operation, this force is converted via RPM to higher work done, or Power, not the other way around.
Again you are talking about what is going on at the engine. I am talking about what is going on at the wheels on the output side of the transmission. At that point there is little concern as to if the torque was made efficiently or not, “it is what it is”.

[revetec]

By definition increasing efficiency is increasing power per unit fuel per unit time, right?

I agree, because we are looking at how much fuel to do work.

I will explain something to you.
We have an engine that achieves 207g/(kW-h)
An conventional engine using this design of top end achieves around 320g/(kW-h)
So if this was true, you would agree that the engine uses 2/3s of the fuel to achieve the same work done. ok?
So now put in a vehicle.

Because the torque is higher at lower RPM due to a flatter torque curve (with higher torque at low RPMs) the driving characteristics change.

Due to this we can now drive the engine quite comforable at lower RPMs.

This reduces the amount of RPM we need to accelerate this vehicle due to higher power at lower RPMs.

In vehicle testing we have used less than 2/3s the fuel usage due to exploiting the driving characteristics created by the change in the torque curve.

Now, I do acknowledge what you both are saying. To you both, power is important to you, because it represents work done. Most of your arguements are valid except for not accepting the influence of torque.

When I was younger I had a high performance vehicle. I was not interested in efficiency rather how fast I could complete the quarter mile. My normally aspirated car could get 13.5 seconds on the quarter mile. To me, power was everything. Moving towards my thirties, I was married, I had two children and had quite a tight financial budget. Fuel economy played a big part in me selling this car and opt for a more economical one. At this point I played around with water injection, cams, turbos, manifolds, exhausts as I was still an enthusiast. Bottom line is the majority of people play big importance on fuel economy.

Quite frankly, many of us are not too interested in emissions of our own vehicles as it doesn't effect our financial bottom line. I have heard little of people putting emission reducing devices on their vehicles to reduce only emissions, rather they are chasing better fuel efficiency. The world environment at the moment is a major player in controlling emissions. Governments and regulatory parties drive emission standards tighter that the manufacturers strive to achieve this for the better of our environment.

We have several goals in the industry. Reduce emissions, increase efficiency and seek alternatives to current solutions. None of these include increasing power for our pleasure while disregarding the above stated goals.

Now you both being young like to Push Power, my goal is different as I'm trying to achieve the greatest efficiency I can. This is where we lock heads.

Getting back to my performance car when I was 17yo (1982) my car got 7MPG and the petrol price was AUD$0.32 a litre. I spent AUD$16 to fill my fuel tank which I could easily afford on my AUD$121.00 per week apprentice wage, as I was single and living at home. In less than 30 years the price has increased 500%. Aprentices now earn about AUD$340.00 which is an increase of 180%. Running costs have increased substantially compared to wage price increases.

I think you two should start to think economically as well as being power hungry.

[henk4]

I think you two should start to think economically as well as being power hungry.

just for the record: I am 61, (I have two children, one of whom owns this website), my car produces 468 NM of torque and 207 BHP and consumes on average 6.8 liters per 100 km. I think I use maximum torque every time I drive the car, and have never used maximum power.....

[hightower99]

No, the transmission does that.Sigh... you misunderstood the question again. Alastor has colour coded it for your convenience.


Force isn't dynamic, but the greater the force when used increases the work done.Remember that work = force x distance moved. If you increase force then normally you have decreased the distance moved (if using a transmission to increase force) ergo the same work is being done. Increasing torque in the engine = increased power = increasing the rate at which work can be done.

Really get this one point correct: Power = Rate of Work!


I will explain something to you.
We have an engine that achieves 207g/(kW-h)
An conventional engine using this design of top end achieves around 320g/(kW-h)
So if this was true, you would agree that the engine uses 2/3s of the fuel to achieve the same work done. ok?No not OK. Firstly was the conventional engine that achieved 320g/kWh a 4 cylinder 2.4L engine? What was it designed as?

The whole problem with making a comparison like this is that your engine only achieved this result once at a single set of conditions. The conventional engine is most likely tuned to run over a much wider range of conditions and therefore isn't as efficient at the single point. Since you wouldn't operate the engines at a single point you should look at the average efficiency over the range of conditions that you plan to use. In this case I would say that the revetec design falls behind even a conventional engine with the same top end.

You claim that I am just power hungry and that I don't except the influence of torque. This is incorrect. Yes I am power hungry but I would rather I get that power for the least amount of fuel possible. Petrol in Denmark costs about 2.30AUD per litre!!! Diesel isn't much better at roughly 1.94AUD per litre. I maintain that torque has no influence that isn't already explained by power. Again I am conscience of efficiency I simply do not like it when torque is mistakenly referenced where power is a more accurate. So my point is that you can push efficiency and only ever mention power and fuel. Engine torque is simply not needed except when discussing static situations (like the mechanical advantage at a certain crank angle).


just for the record: I am 61, (I have two children, one of whom owns this website), my car produces 468 NM of torque and 207 BHP and consumes on average 6.8 liters per 100 km. I think I use maximum torque every time I drive the car, and have never used maximum power..... Unless you drive around at WOT you haven't used peak torque either. So really you don't use peak torque or peak power and all that means is that you have too much engine for your needs.

[henk4]

Unless you drive around at WOT you haven't used peak torque either. So really you don't use peak torque or peak power and all that means is that you have too much engine for your needs.

I drive around at public roads:) and I do accelerate quite hefty in the 1500-1800 rev range from time to time....

[revetec]

Unless you drive around at WOT you haven't used peak torque either. So really you don't use peak torque or peak power and all that means is that you have too much engine for your needs.

Hahaha... At lower to mid RPMs it takes far less throttle opening to achieve almost full load. If it didn't it would not have enough flow at high RPM. Eg. if we assume that the volumetric efficiency is around 90% at 6,000RPM it requires to flow 440% more air under the same load as 100% volumetric efficiency at 1,000RPM at full load (as a generalisation). So at 1,000RPM it requires less throttle opening to achieve the same load. So you don't need WOT at lower RPMs to achieve close to your peak torque at that point, as the manifold pressure increases easier under throttle response at lower RPMs than at higher RPMs.

Anyone who has programed an engine fuel map knows this. By memory, our engine achieves full load at 1,200RPM at 60% throttle opening. at which time the fuel delivery becomes reasonably constant at higher throttle openings to maintain correct air/fuel ratio or lambda.

Every engine is different, but jump in you car, drive it under load, and you will notice at lower RPMs that the load isn't proportional to 0-100% throttle.

[hightower99]

At lower to mid RPMs it takes far less throttle opening to achieve almost full load. If it didn't it would not have enough flow at high RPM. Eg. if we assume that the volumetric efficiency is around 90% at 6,000RPM it requires to flow 440% more air under the same load as 100% volumetric efficiency at 1,000RPM at full load (as a generalisation).Nope you got that dead wrong. Firstly the peak torque is normally measured at WOT. Second any throttle angle less than WO is going to induce pumping losses, regardless of the actual flow across it.


So at 1,000RPM it requires less throttle opening to achieve the same load. So you don't need WOT at lower RPMs to achieve close to your peak torque at that point, as the manifold pressure increases easier under throttle response at lower RPMs than at higher RPMs.Clearly you have never worked with an Alpha-n control system.


Anyone who has programed an engine fuel map knows this. By memory, our engine achieves full load at 1,200RPM at 60% throttle opening.??? So absolutely nothing changes at higher than 60% throttle opening? You achieve peak power for that RPM at 60% throttle? Something is very wrong if that is the case.

[revetec]

Nope you got that dead wrong. Firstly the peak torque is normally measured at WOT. Second any throttle angle less than WO is going to induce pumping losses, regardless of the actual flow across it.

I doubt whether you haveactually tested an engine. You can reach maximum manifold load before WOT, especially at low RPMs. If you reach maximum manifold load, opening the throttle further cannot increase the manifold load past maximum.


??? So absolutely nothing changes at higher than 60% throttle opening? You achieve peak power for that RPM at 60% throttle? Something is very wrong if that is the case.

Not at that low RPM because you have maximum manifold load. So you have maximum manifold load, maximum torque and maximum power at that RPM.

At higher RPMs you need to open your throttle further to achieve maximum manifold load.

[henk4]

So really you don't use peak torque or peak power and all that means is that you have too much engine for your needs.

I forgot to add that this is a valid observation for 99% of car owners these days....but they like as spare capacity, for the 1% case.....

[Matra et Alpine]

oh GOD, I come back and STILL there are pointless discussions on torque versus power :(

Summary. YES in an ideal world you can use force multipliers ( ie gearboxes ) in the REAL world the losses incurred are a penalty, the time to change gears is a loss in performance, trying to pull heavier vehicles away from a standing start with low torque destroys clutches.

Stop the math-master on torque v power and remomber the REAL WORLD.
I wont be back in this thread. Had hoped the nonsense was gone with 3year whats-his-name banned :)

[hightower99]

oh GOD, I come back and STILL there are pointless discussions on torque versus power :(
Thats not all we have been discussing...

Topics:
-BMW Turbosteamer (now a separate thread)
-Mechanical advantage and it's relation to thermal losses
-Composite torque over a power stroke (composite torque being the result of a pressure graph and the mechanical advantage function)
-Considerations as to the real amount of thermal loss through exhaust
-Throttle/load variation by RPM

to name a few...

the power/torque thing has sorta gotten out of hand and should really be handled in the old thread as opposed to here.


I doubt whether you haveactually tested an engine. You can reach maximum manifold load before WOT, especially at low RPMs. If you reach maximum manifold load, opening the throttle further cannot increase the manifold load past maximum. What do you measure as maximum manifold load? I am assuming you measure pressure. If so then the maximum can only be achieved at WOT as anything less induces a pressure drop. In the testing I participated in we were only able to achieve maximum power (and torque) for any given RPM at WOT. Anything less resulted in significant decrease in power even at low RPM. This happened with and w/o the mandated restrictor, although the effect was more apparent with the restrictor.


Not at that low RPM because you have maximum manifold load. So you have maximum manifold load, maximum torque and maximum power at that RPM.

At higher RPMs you need to open your throttle further to achieve maximum manifold load.I would think there is something else wrong if this is the case. I haven't been involved in alot of engine testing but I certainly didn't see this effect in the testing I have experienced. I would agree that throttle position / load relationship isn't linear (at least not with a butterfly valve), but maximum power at any given RPM has always been achieved at WOT in my experience.

Surely you must agree that there is the least possible resistance at WOT then at any other throttle position.

Also a thought: If the maximum possible torque output of an engine is given, would it not be more efficient to move that torque output as high as possible in RPM to achieve maximum power output?

Say an engine can produce a maximum of 100lbs/ft of torque. Wouldn't you rather that occur at say 8000RPM instead of 2000RPM?

[Matra et Alpine]

^^^ oh sh*t. GLad I've been away :)
Max doesn't help much in REAL WORLD and why we enjoy many differing engine designs.
BREADTH of power/torque is MUCH more useful.

[hightower99]

Of course a wide power band is more useful. However it is very difficult to achieve a completely flat torque curve let alone one that follows the maximum torque at all RPM points (not a flat line).

Most engines that don't have an abundance of variable geometry systems have to be designed to achieve a peak torque at a specific RPM (possibly a small number of separate points) with torque being less than the possible maximum at all other RPM points. The question was then about where that peak torque should be aimed. Assuming that the maximum torque achievable at any given RPM is roughly equal, would it not be more efficient to aim for a higher RPM to achieve that torque at if you had to choose?

In reality the maximum possible torque falls as RPM increases (increased friction, increased piston velocity, decrease in influence of combustion on composite torque). But it doesn't fall all that quickly as other factors add positively to torque (decrease in cycle time, stronger pressure pulses, increased intake momentum). The general tendency is an overall decrease though.

[Matra et Alpine]

NO, because hi revs means you need variable transmission or clutches capable of handling slip AND hi torque - difficult :)
Of course all depends on what you mean and want by "flat" :) :)

[wwgkd]

Of course a wide power band is more useful. However it is very difficult to achieve a completely flat torque curve let alone one that follows the maximum torque at all RPM points (not a flat line).

Most engines that don't have an abundance of variable geometry systems have to be designed to achieve a peak torque at a specific RPM (possibly a small number of separate points) with torque being less than the possible maximum at all other RPM points. The question was then about where that peak torque should be aimed. Assuming that the maximum torque achievable at any given RPM is roughly equal, would it not be more efficient to aim for a higher RPM to achieve that torque at if you had to choose?

In reality the maximum possible torque falls as RPM increases (increased friction, increased piston velocity, decrease in influence of combustion on composite torque). But it doesn't fall all that quickly as other factors add positively to torque (decrease in cycle time, stronger pressure pulses, increased intake momentum). The general tendency is an overall decrease though.

That depends on what you're trying to do. Speaking as someone who does a lot of towing and offroading, it's generally pretty nice to have a lot of torque down low.

[hightower99]

NO, because hi revs means you need variable transmission or clutches capable of handling slip AND hi torque - difficult :) There are quite a few cars that have their peak torque up in the rev range while still using normal fixed ratio transmissions and completely normal clutch technology. In fact having the torque higher in the rev range allows you to use a smaller engine that makes less peak torque while maintaining the same peak power, meaning the torque requirement could be less. Clutch slip could be easily handled by using appropriate gear ratios.

The question is less about how to make either solution work but rather which solution actually provides for an increase in efficiency.


Of course all depends on what you mean and want by "flat" :) :)??? Not sure I follow?


That depends on what you're trying to do. Speaking as someone who does a lot of towing and offroading, it's generally pretty nice to have a lot of torque down low. Yes but to get sufficient low down torque and power, you need quite a large engine right... Maybe it would be more efficient with a smaller engine with less torque at a higher RPM to achieve the same power. This leads to questions concerning NVH of course.

The trend in the automotive industry has recently been to downsize the engines while trying to maintain overall power output. This is either achieved by using efficient forced induction to increase specific torque output or by raising the RPM that peak torque occurs. However, engine downsizing has only effected certain areas of the automotive industry. My basic question is why?

[wwgkd]

There are quite a few cars that have their peak torque up in the rev range while still using normal fixed ratio transmissions and completely normal clutch technology.

...

??? Not sure I follow?

Yes but to get sufficient low down torque and power, you need quite a large engine right... Maybe it would be more efficient with a smaller engine with less torque at a higher RPM to achieve the same power. This leads to questions concerning NVH of course.

...

Including his beloved RX-8. :D

I think he means how flat you require it. For instance there are some torque monsters out there that use very old technology, though a graph of their power curve doesn't show it as flat as some engines using more modern techniques are achieving.

Not necessarily. Some relatively small engines achive quite high levels of torque at low RPMs, but they sacrifice peak horsepower. Also, the ability to run at low RPMs can lead to the same fuel effeciency as the higher revving engines despite a difference in displacement. These days people are too addicted to using the displacement size to judge mileage. Often widely varied engines achieve similar effeciency when made to do the same work. And a high revving engine is pretty much always a bad idea when heavy towing or most kinds of fourwheeling (a major exception being baja style racing) is involved for numerous reasons beyond NVH. Cooling, fuel consumption and wear and tear on parts, among other things.

[hightower99]

Including his beloved RX-8. :DOh yeah. Forgot he had one. Great point! :)


I think he means how flat you require it. For instance there are some torque monsters out there that use very old technology, though a graph of their power curve doesn't show it as flat as some engines using more modern techniques are achieving. I would say that the importance of how flat the torque curve actually is, is definitely dependant on the actual amount of torque. If an engine is capable of pumping out 600lbs/ft of torque then it can swing up and down say 100lbs/ft or more and it wouldn't be overly noticeable. However if the engine can only put out 100lbs/ft of torque...


Not necessarily. Some relatively small engines achive quite high levels of torque at low RPMs, but they sacrifice peak horsepower. Also, the ability to run at low RPMs can lead to the same fuel effeciency as the higher revving engines despite a difference in displacement. These days people are too addicted to using the displacement size to judge mileage. Often widely varied engines achieve similar effeciency when made to do the same work. And a high revving engine is pretty much always a bad idea when heavy towing or most kinds of fourwheeling (a major exception being baja style racing) is involved for numerous reasons beyond NVH. Cooling, fuel consumption and wear and tear on parts, among other things. Ah but what if the comparable engine was designed for extended high RPM use? IMO 3 litres is getting big. I don't know what car/truck you use for towing and off-roading but I can imagine that it has an engine that would dwarf a 3L one. Also instead of high revs a smaller engine with forced induction could be used to make the same power at the same low revs. It would most likely be more expensive than the simpler larger engine though.

[wwgkd]

...
Ah but what if the comparable engine was designed for extended high RPM use? IMO 3 litres is getting big. I don't know what car/truck you use for towing and off-roading but I can imagine that it has an engine that would dwarf a 3L one. Also instead of high revs a smaller engine with forced induction could be used to make the same power at the same low revs. It would most likely be more expensive than the simpler larger engine though.

I drive a 4L that's naturally aspirated and makes 80% of max torque at idle. So, big for Europe but not here. Plus it dates back to the 50s, no VVT or any of that voodoo here. :)

Even purpose built engines have trouble running that high an RPM under heavy load at 3mph for extended periods of time. Why make trouble if you don't have to? And yeah the displacement route is usually cheaper, thus all the people running big blocks on budget builds.

[hightower99]

I drive a 4L that's naturally aspirated and makes 80% of max torque at idle. So, big for Europe but not here. Plus it dates back to the 50s, no VVT or any of that voodoo here. :)What engine exactly? 242?


Even purpose built engines have trouble running that high an RPM under heavy load at 3mph for extended periods of time. Why make trouble if you don't have to? And yeah the displacement route is usually cheaper, thus all the people running big blocks on budget builds.It is quite amazing what is possible with nowadays tech. :)

[wwgkd]

What engine exactly? 242?

It is quite amazing what is possible with nowadays tech. :)

It's the 4.0 I6 from a YJ Jeep.

[Revetec Raptor]

Still water is usually slow & runs deep, ARE WE ON TRACK TO RE-LIST ?

If the next AGM is held in Sydney I will get you (& Heidims) Free accommodation in one of several of our hotels in the city & possibly a corporate meeting room at the same or greatly reduced rates, thus saving our (the shareholders) funds !

Or is our company at a bend in the road and/or too conceited to hold the AGM meeting in Sydney ?

[Matra et Alpine]

Frankly I am disgusted at the phrase "conceited" :(
It saddens me that an adult uses such language regarding a business they are invested in.

Perhaps TRY to provide positive support rather than more personal sniping.

We've CONSTANLY REQUESTED you and others to NOT bring the politics to the forum.
If the company and idea are a bad investment then discuss it in investment forums and not car ones.

[Sting]

There are a couple of new videos up on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plfPdzD2qUc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMr8Y16ZEUQ

It looks like testing at Peus happened at the beginning of November. I'm sure that is Brad there in the red top. A thumbs up from one of the Peus reps (I assume). I can't find any more information. I contacted Revetec but Brad is overseas so he may still be there testing or hopefully stopped over in China on the way back showing them the results :D

According to the previous announcements, relisting is probably 6-12 months away. Testing must be completed and deals announced otherwise listing would be a waste of time like it was on the NSX. Licensing agreements have been signed off with Atalan Makine and Peus according to the website but no details as to unit numbers or how much revenue that could bring in and when. Probably pointless to announce those figures now anyway but if anyone is going to the AGM, maybe that is a decent question to ask.

Are they on track? If they are 12 months from relisting and have two signed licensing and development agreements and testing more than likely close to being finished then I think they are on track. News has been very scarce but there is a time and place to make the big announcements and for greatest impact that time is just before IPO. What's the point in announcing details of a big deal now apart from satisfying a few shareholders impatience? Hopefully the AGM will disclose hints on a few of those announcements.

I like the idea of an AGM in Sydney but somehow I doubt that will happen. If not, I hope those that can't get there get some decent feedback from the meeting (ie. chairman's address, minutes, Q&A). A live stream would also be handy. The company is located on the Gold Coast so why would they be conceited if they hold it there like they have the last few years?

If Brad reads this post, out of interest, as a shareholder can I buy shares now and for how much? If I am not a shareholder, can I buy shares now and for how much?

[Alegre]

this is a boxer engine like those of alfa romeo 80´s and porsches

[Matra et Alpine]

^^ not really.
http://www.revetec.com/images/x4.gif
Internals completely different. No traditional "crankshaft".
If trying to find the tech in this thread among all the investor commentaries is getting you down then go Revetec Homepage revetec.com (http://www.revetec.com)

[FireyB]

Is someone able to please explain what the measuring devices are measuring in the two videos and what they mean. Thanks.

[hightower99]

Looks like an air/fuel ratio meter and a timing light to me.

From what I saw in the short clips it looks like they are running quite lean (16:1 AFR)

[Matra et Alpine]

iirc ht, revetec had "discussion" with you MANY years ago in this thread where he pointed out the engine design can run lean.
Has study on your part increased your knowledge of the design trade-offs or by "lean" do you mean in comparison to standard engines.

[hightower99]

iirc ht, revetec had "discussion" with you MANY years ago in this thread where he pointed out the engine design can run lean.
Has study on your part increased your knowledge of the design trade-offs or by "lean" do you mean in comparison to standard engines.

Thats one interpretation. So far I have not been convinced that the revetec engine has any advantage for running lean compared to a normal engine.

BTW I meant "lean" compared to stoichiometric. The stoichiometric ratio isn't going to change because of the engine.

In the video you can see that the meter is reading around 16:1 which means about 9% excess air (by mass). Since the ability to run lean ratios is limited by it's ability to be ignited by the spark at low loads and by the knock limit at high loads, as long as you operate between those two limits you should be able to keep the engine going.

IIRC Brads sole explanation as to why he runs lean was because he didn't see an increase in performance when running at stoichiometric ratio. That fact would make me think something is wrong, but apparently Brad just excepts it as a "feature" of the engine. I still think that is a ridiculous thing to do.

[Matra et Alpine]

^^^ The impact of differing ratios though MAY be different in different engines.
Esp when you consider that the initial piston speeds are different.

The "problem" I have ht, is that you put up this argument to Brad about the lean ratio and yet here we see an engine on a test bed RUNNING lean and I just wonder at which point you've questioned the fundamentals of your belief system on lean run.

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

Remember that European engine designers were developing VERY lean burn engines to control emissions before the catalystic convertor was forced on us. So knowledge existed and possibly now forgotten, not shared on lean burn variables.

WHy not come at it from the other end and accept the lean running and then conjecture to why it works that way :) Just as an exercise !

After all it's equally possible the clip is from a time when they were testing the impact of running lean and may return to what you consider "correct" at other run. Just wondered if you've looked at it further.

[hightower99]

^^^ The impact of differing ratios though MAY be different in different engines.
Esp when you consider that the initial piston speeds are different. Of course this is the case with the majority of tuning variables. No two engines are the same.


The "problem" I have ht, is that you put up this argument to Brad about the lean ratio and yet here we see an engine on a test bed RUNNING lean and I just wonder at which point you've questioned the fundamentals of your belief system on lean run.I think you misunderstand where I stand on this issue. I have never said that an engine can't run at lambda values >1. I simply state that any given engine (within this class) should run best at lambda = 1.

I also take issue with an engine being tested at lambda >1 at low load and having the apparent increase in efficiency being solely attributed to the mechanical design.

I actually advocate running lean (lambda >1) at low loads and I am even working with a student group investigating control schemes for SI and HCCI engines that don't use air throttles.


"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Exactly and I don't think that Brad has eliminated enough of the impossibilities...


Remember that European engine designers were developing VERY lean burn engines to control emissions before the catalystic convertor was forced on us. So knowledge existed and possibly now forgotten, not shared on lean burn variables.A lot of that information is relatively easily accessed. That and they are still doing more research right now.


WHy not come at it from the other end and accept the lean running and then conjecture to why it works that way :) Just as an exercise ! That could be a good exercise. The real underlying question though is this: Why does the engine not perform better with stoichiometric AFRs? Wouldn't the answer to that question give a good indicator for your question?


After all it's equally possible the clip is from a time when they were testing the impact of running lean and may return to what you consider "correct" at other run. Just wondered if you've looked at it further.
Again I have no problem with them running lean AFRs. My problem is that they subsequently ignore performance when running stoichiometric ratios and they completely glaze over the actual effects of running lean ratios when showing off their results.

[hightower99]

I still see that Revetec has the dubious claim of being the "World's most efficient petrol engine" on the website.

How about Fiat's new Twin Air engine?

Quite an interesting engine. Only 900cc yet it can put out 85HP and a whopping 145NM at 1900RPM (which is what the 2.4L revetec could manage).

I wonder if Revetec would do the ethical, moral thing and change their label...

[Matra et Alpine]

talking of being ethical and moral :(

First, check out websites and you find it happens. At the time of writing true and CAN be legitimately left that way. Not ideal. But that's the internet for you :)

Next, rather than your BS in the latter part, why not be POSITIVE and engage in REAL discussion rather than challenging. After all they may have forgotten that was posted and woudl appreciate a reminder. Just try doing it in a better way than that above :(

As it is the post is drifting away from the techincal and we KEEP reminding that this isn't the forum for moaning and complaining. Take that aspect elsewhere or I'm in mood for a ban :) ( wont but DAMN I want to :) )

PS: you might want to fix the sig too. Power has NOTHING to do with the wall. That is inertia/momentum/mass and NOTHING to do with power. Just as accelreation has nought ott --- Traction and FORCE -- ie torque :) :) Just ins't a great reflection at the moment on your knowledge.

[hightower99]

Taking it a little harder then needed I think Matra...

A quick few points before I continue with a technical aspect discussion topic:

The Revetec was NEVER the most efficient petrol engine in the world... The best I can find is mention that it achieved the highest peak efficiency measured by Orbital

The words: "The World's Most Efficient Petrol Engine" are on the main page in a massive banner... They wouldn't have "missed" it or forgotten.

I brought up the TwinAir engine to actually lead INTO a technical discussion...

Finally as to your critique of my sig: It has all been covered in many other threads... Glad you got rid of your own formerly obtuse sig. and replaced it with one I quite like :)

On to the technical discussion that I was leading into...

The TwinAir engine is wholly designed to take maximum advantage of the MultiAir valve system. However the MultiAir system is wholly top-end technology and therefore there exists the possibility of marrying MultiAir with a revetec bottom-end.

Obviously the point would be to create an engine with even higher efficiency, however this brings a key point forward.

Do we actually have any proof that the revetec bottom-end is any more efficient than a classical design?

What sort of testing should be performed to achieve a definitive answer to this, most important, of questions?

I agree that the revetec offers several interesting aspects that can be tailored in ways that a classical system has trouble with, but we are interested in efficiency not novelty.

Not that I am the sole or most important person to convince but, to convince me of the merits of the system I would think that a proper BSFC map covering the whole range of operating points would do it. This could be compared to similar engines (not that I have found many that fit).

Another interesting tech I have been reading about lately is supercritical fuel injection...

Honestly I am still undecided if the revetec bottom-end actually does exhibit novel combustion characteristics but if it does, then it would be quite interesting to see how supercritical fuel injection effected the combustion process.

[Matra et Alpine]

Sersiously man, stop it :(

You think that a company ( esp a smallone ) is viewing it's web page daily ?
As I'd suggested, go look around t'internet. I guarantee it will take 1 minute to find an out of date quote not "replaced" :)

Thankfully Brad doens't have to convince you with theories and seems he's working on doing it practically. I'll always lay my money on a guy putting the theory in it's right place and building it to prove it. Theory debunking is too easy :(

So I think we've gone round the tech in this thread and abused Brad so much I doubt he'll bother to return and am happy to wait and see what comes from the current set of tests.

re supercritical , check out the work couple of years back at UCL in London, though that was diesel. Is it now coming up in petrol ??? WHy not go kick off a thread on that if you want discussion

[hightower99]

Seriously?

Of course the internet is not updated completely in real time... not the issue.

? Of course Brad doesn't have to convince me with theories... I'm convinced by data. But again I already mentioned the whole "I'm not the one who needs to be convinced" caveat. Simply an interested engineering student.

I think you mean dismissing theories is too easy... Debunking/disproving hypotheses and theories is what science is all about (at least from one philosophical point of view, anyways).

I too disagreed with the ridiculous economics/whining phase... I liked the actual technical stuff although we didn't exactly get anywhere. Still looking forward to Brad's white-paper whenever that gets finished.

Unfortunately I can't enough info about the whole supercritical fuel injection idea to start a new thread. Chemical engineering isn't one of my strengths and while I think I grasp the general premises of why supercritical fuel injection might be advantageous, it mostly goes straight over my head at the moment... :o

Still as for technical discussion. You have taken on quite a defencive position but knowing you (however little I do) I think you have your own reservations about the mechanical design.

It would be interesting to see your biggest reservations.

[Kozy]

HT, are you familiar with this graph?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v314/Quicksilver4000/Untitled-1-3.jpg

[hightower99]

Nope can't say that I am Kozy, should I be?

Some sort of torque or acceleration graph?

[csl177]

I'm guessing hydrocarbon emissions, but would be interested if it pertains to the Revtec in any way.

[Matra et Alpine]

ht, you got my points on theory the wrong way round.
It was your theory based posting over the years that has worn me down :)
Brad seemed to try to give practical info on what he could share and you were using theories based on classic otto derived info to try to attack him and his designs.
But putting that aside, my reservations are as they always have been.
That there is a corner condition happening ( maybe even a chaos-theory-surface ) and whilst points and small regions can show the real benefit the application across the wider solutoin may show up it's limitations.
As I said, tho', I am a resaerch and development supporter and prefer practical attempts rather than theoritcal blockages. Spending 30 years in HP research does that to you. Saw many products that fundamentally changed electronics and measurement that started out ignoring current theory and plugging away on the wild idea !!

[hightower99]

"Theory based posting"?

The problem was that Brad didn't just give practical data that could then be discussed. He gave theoretical explanations for the anomalous behaviour and didn't encourage open discussion of those theories. At least that is what I experienced.

I am pretty sure that when I tried to argue something for a theoretical point of view that I was using the basic laws of thermodynamics and not classical Otto theory...

It seems that you think I am anti-innovation or that I am stuck in the 1900's when it comes to ICE-theory, but that couldn't be further from the truth. I'm all about innovation. Why would I be trying to make my own engine if I wasn't?

My problem is with some of the explanations and theories that Brad is using to explain the novel behaviour of his invention. I don't agree with them because of what I consider to be a lack of compelling evidence, not because I am anti-innovation.


That there is a corner condition happening ( maybe even a chaos-theory-surface ) and whilst points and small regions can show the real benefit the application across the wider solutoin may show up it's limitations.
That is the total sum of your reservations? I'm not quite sure what you mean by "corner condition" (subsequently "chaos-theory surface" makes no sense to me either). I assume that the later part of this quote means that you acknowledge that even though a single point of testing shows remarkable merit, a larger set of test conditions may find limitations.

No reservations about any of the claims? mechanical design? Brad's thermodynamics theory?

[Matra et Alpine]

ht, by the terms I am referring to the sudden change nature of many near closed loop systems and they underpin all modern improvements as we've reached an end point in classic math application in theory and practice. Read any of the chaos theory tratise academic books -- damn I've lent mine out and cant give ISBN.
Basically that the world is not running to linear relatioinships but may LOOK as if it is, but only because we've not seen/experienced the interation of the linear elements coming into a combination which introduces an anomoly.
Some of these are only "corner conditions" eg the appear in one place, have one outcome.
MANY hoever are turning out to be "chaotic" but using new math can be "semi" predictable.
Best simpel explanation in the early books is think of a mathemtaical curve, now add third dimension and we have a plane of outcomes. Now rather than jsut introducing peaks and troughs across that plane, BEND it so that now it in some way folds over/above/below in certain regions. NOW when a soltuion space stays away from the edges of the fold it's very predictable. BUT at the fold the solutions show rapid change and at some point "drop" off the curved edge and in classic math/analysis seems random.
IN chaos-theory math you can follow the path of solutions along the lower end of the fold. It requires multi-dimensional math theory AND is mind blowing. Ex colleague was in a math research group in HP and used to try to explain to us how 7th dimensional math worked as it was half way to the domain his research was in. SCAREY PEOPLE :) :)

Anyway, get a proper academinc book on chaos theory math and I think it'll be clearer as my explanation is far too simplistic and in terms *I* understood it by which mate kept telling me that I "wasnt quite right, but close enough to now go the the 5th dimension math". He WAS a smug bar steward :) :)

re the last Q and Brad's then no I think we covered the issues well on the mechanical design and the possible weak areas and esp friction surfaces ( remembering it off the top of my head I'm NOT going reading back the history ) but on his thermo theory I coudl see analogies with other domains where multi-dimension math has shown our limitations of thinking in our own classic ways and the info presented was valid in the context given. NOT that I want to go back over it all again as we'd all really like this thread to go quiet till we get info from Brad or others who are usign te Revetec design base and have insights based on real rather than guess or opinion or application of classic theories without mind-expanding drugs :) :)

[Kozy]

Nope can't say that I am Kozy, should I be?



If you're not familiar with it and the way it is derived, then I'm afraid you are not qualified enough to shoot down Brads design.

I studied this engine design for my dissertation project at university 3 years ago, completely independant of any results Brad has posted and based purely on the geometry of the bottom end and it's effect on the adiabatic cycle and I can say that the calculated results indicated that Brads findings are entirely plausible. Compared to a crankshaft engine of the same bore and stroke, this design is theoretically capable of a big increase in effeciency.

What I can only prove on paper, Brad appears to have proved in practice.

It's been a while since I have posted here, but from what I recall, you can offer NO weight to your arguments against this design, only armchair theory.

[Matra et Alpine]

:whathesaid: :)

[hightower99]

If you're not familiar with it and the way it is derived, then I'm afraid you are not qualified enough to shoot down Brads design. Seeing as it is just a graph with no title or axis values what exactly did you expect from me? Did you expect that I could visually match the shape to a function in an ICE and then from the unnamed axises determine what exactly the graph showed?


I studied this engine design for my dissertation project at university 3 years ago, completely independant of any results Brad has posted and based purely on the geometry of the bottom end and it's effect on the adiabatic cycle and I can say that the calculated results indicated that Brads findings are entirely plausible. Compared to a crankshaft engine of the same bore and stroke, this design is theoretically capable of a big increase in effeciency. First what do you mean "Brad's findings"?

Secondly the geometry of the bottom-end is highly variable within any given set of design conditions leading to highly variable effects on the thermal cycle. So unless you proved that some more efficient movement form is possible with a revetec style bottom-end whilst being impossible to achieve with a classic bottom-end, I don't see the point.

Thirdly when comparing efficiency between two different bottom-ends you need to look at more than just the geometry and theoretical torque output. One of my biggest concerns is the increased complexity, friction area, gears ect. of the revetec design compared to the classical design. Hopefully you included those factors and more in your consideration.


What I can only prove on paper, Brad appears to have proved in practice.So far only at a single specific point though...

My arguements against the design are purely mechanical. As for Brad's theories about combustion engine efficiency I'll have to wait until his white-paper is available.

Are you able to share your dissertation project? Privately perhaps?

[Kozy]

Seeing as it is just a graph with no title or axis values what exactly did you expect from me? Did you expect that I could visually match the shape to a function in an ICE and then from the unnamed axises determine what exactly the graph showed?

Yes I did. The whole purpose of posting the graph, which I made especially without any labels, was to assess your level of understanding.



First what do you mean "Brad's findings"?

It's been a few years since I paid any attention to this stuff, so it may be out of date now, but I recall he was claiming an increase in efficiency of around 30% over a traditional design. The results of my analysis showed that this was entirely possible.




Secondly the geometry of the bottom-end is highly variable within any given set of design conditions leading to highly variable effects on the thermal cycle.

I don't understand the point you are making here.



So unless you proved that some more efficient movement form is possible with a revetec style bottom-end whilst being impossible to achieve with a classic bottom-end, I don't see the point.

That's pretty much what I did.



Thirdly when comparing efficiency between two different bottom-ends you need to look at more than just the geometry and theoretical torque output.
One of my biggest concerns is the increased complexity, friction area, gears ect. of the revetec design compared to the classical design. Hopefully you included those factors and more in your consideration.

You are of course completely right here, however this was beyond the scope of my project, I was simply analysing the design with respect to its affect on the thermodynamic cycle. I would have liked to have gone further but time constraints tend to restrain how far you can go with these things.



My arguements against the design are purely mechanical. As for Brad's theories about combustion engine efficiency I'll have to wait until his white-paper is available.

You may have some good points, but as far as I am concerned, with the gains Brads design is theoretically capable of producing in terms of combustion efficiency, he can afford some extra mechanical losses, so long as the the gains exceed the losses, then it is still a valid design. If you are going to put an argument up then you're going to need to start backing up your theories. Calculate some theoretical friction losses, some bearing loads, rotational masses and engine harmonics, and compare them to a classical design. Prove to yourself that this doesn't stack up, then put your argument forwards.



Are you able to share your dissertation project? Privately perhaps?

Sorry but I am not prepared to share it, not only does it contain specific design information about the trilobes granted to me personally by Brad, but it also represents a year of hard work sat infront of speadsheets and CAD programs designing and analysing the concept. I hope you can understand that its not something I am willing to give up to someone on the internet.

Now maybe if you come back having calculated the theoretical mechanical losses, then we could have a proper techincal discussion about the gains versus the losses... ;)

[Matra et Alpine]

ziiiiing ........

[hightower99]

Yes I did. The whole purpose of posting the graph, which I made especially without any labels, was to assess your level of understanding. Ok but being unlabeled there is next to no chance for me to give a complete explaination of what the graph shows... I guessed it had something to do with composite torque (i.e pressure times area times lever arm length combined with harmonic effects). I'm guessing it shows that for a single cylinder. Would you mind revealing what it actually is?


It's been a few years since I paid any attention to this stuff, so it may be out of date now, but I recall he was claiming an increase in efficiency of around 30% over a traditional design. The results of my analysis showed that this was entirely possible.OK so you are talking about claims of total thermal efficiency. I thought maybe you were talking about some of the novel combustion characteristics.


I don't understand the point you are making here.
My point was that because both the classical design and the revetec design are highly variable, finding some movement that is more efficient for one doesn't prove that the other isn't also capable of same.


That's pretty much what I did.Interesting, very interesting indeed.


You are of course completely right here, however this was beyond the scope of my project, I was simply analysing the design with respect to its affect on the thermodynamic cycle. I would have liked to have gone further but time constraints tend to restrain how far you can go with these things. Trust me I understand how depressing time-constraints can be to the scope of a university project. ;)


You may have some good points, but as far as I am concerned, with the gains Brads design is theoretically capable of producing in terms of combustion efficiency, he can afford some extra mechanical losses, so long as the the gains exceed the losses, then it is still a valid design. If you are going to put an argument up then you're going to need to start backing up your theories. Calculate some theoretical friction losses, some bearing loads, rotational masses and engine harmonics, and compare them to a classical design. Prove to yourself that this doesn't stack up, then put your argument forwards. OK so we agree that at the moment the discussion would have to be kept theoretical (niether of us is going to build a model for practical testing at the moment). You never know your luck. However calculating thermal losses due to friction as well as bearing loads and harmonics would have to be relatively simple due to lack of data. Still I guess I could whip up some theoretical values...


Sorry but I am not prepared to share it, not only does it contain specific design information about the trilobes granted to me personally by Brad, but it also represents a year of hard work sat infront of speadsheets and CAD programs designing and analysing the concept. I hope you can understand that its not something I am willing to give up to someone on the internet. Personally I haven't done anything larger than semester projects so far (looking forwards to the bigger project coming up). I understand that you are reluctant to share so much work, with what is essentially a stranger.


Now maybe if you come back having calculated the theoretical mechanical losses, then we could have a proper technical discussion about the gains versus the losses... ;)Hmmm... So if I do some calculations you would be willing to show some of the results of your hard work? I guess I could use that as an incentive. As I said though, due to lack of data I doubt my appoximations will concur with your data. Hopefully you can help out once I post the first draft :)

[fdv]

Oh my, is this post almost 7 years old ?

[henk4]

Oh my, is this post almost 7 years old ?

never ending story....but I am sure it will continue for a while..

[fdv]

I know of some old cam driven aviation engines.
The Farchaild-Caminez engine;

[fdv]

never ending story....but I am sure it will continue for a while..
:p
Hello upper neighbour.

[stian1979]

The title on this thread was changed wrongfully once.
It should be A work of pure genius? instead of A work of pure genius!.

Slowly the debate has turned into something more critical.
From day one revetec has claims things of doubtful nature.
3 times the torque with the same power and so on.
Claiming 3 times the efficiency since they could produce 3 times the torque using the same fuel, but when having a look at the kW vs fuel usage it was worse than a normal gasoline engine.
Brad has newer came up with anything useful in discussions and only refereed to he's magical design rather than having a healthy discussion about thermodynamical laws.

I'm still highly critical to the packing since the crank have to be two times the diameter of the stroke while a normal crank will have the same diameter as the stroke.

Now they claim to be the world most efficient engine, but under what conditions?

[Matra et Alpine]

Under the conditions they claim it to be confirmed in test :)

The rest is mental masturbation on all fronts :(

[FireyB]

I spy with my little eye.....

Some Revetec Videos on YouTube.....

Revetec Promo Video in 720P HD
Posted on March 29, 2011.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXmsVecTs_M

Revetec Technology Presentation:
All added on April 3, 2011.
Part 1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBPYde8EnTE
Part 2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjH2I076agQ
Part 3 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUPLb6hmhLE
Part 4 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQVxZF1dfz8
Part 5 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE-4H13zUQA

Most of the content is just a collage of past photos, video and information, but the point is...
Why has it been created?

In the last announcement on the Revetec website (on 13/12/2010), they stated that:
"...we expect to travel overseas very early in 2011 to meet with the Board of Directors, Financiers and for Brad to present a technical presentation to a large number of staff in their auditorium."

Could these videos be part or all of the presentation?

[Matra et Alpine]

I'd say just the usual "awakening" to social media that companies get to at some point.

But I'd agree, no coincidence and so suspect the company got some advice on how to do better at communicating to a much wider audience and to counter the numerous other "best engine design" animations that are widespread on social networks :)

[good710]

Thanks for information and I will try to follow the instructions.
-----------------
spam.... spam.... spam ... wonderful spam !! (http://www.ultimatecarpage.com)

[csl177]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anwy2MPT5RE

[Annagyijjk]

It seems that Australians come with some good ideas. I read in the newspaper about a weekend in South Australia has a new concept for the electric motors that are much more effective. Ill see if I can find more information.

[murphyboy1000]

Im new to this site!..
Just wanted to check in with the thoughts of everyone regarding the Revetec Engine. I'm a share holder in the company and cant wait for this take off.....So sorry, I cant join in with the Technical Stuff,,,,,some of you guys really know your stuff.

All the best
;)

[henk4]

Im new to this site!..
Just wanted to check in with the thoughts of everyone regarding the Revetec Engine. I'm a share holder in the company and cant wait for this take off.....So sorry, I cant join in with the Technical Stuff,,,,,some of you guys really know your stuff.

All the best
;)

Welcome. I hope you will have at least a week to read all the discussions here., some of which are relevant, others less so. :D

[FireyB]

Soooooo................................

[Matra et Alpine]

Soooooo................................Did you look on their web site ?

ver the last 22 months Revetec has been in constant discussions with a large automotive manufacturer in India, to develop a range of engines using our patented technology.

We have had to keep much of this project and program confidential. The Directors apologise for the lack of information being available and appreciated our shareholder's patience during this period.

We travelled to India in late January 2011 and met with the prominent manufacturer to discuss planning and the road map forward. We were informed by our Indian consultants that in order to form a joint venture partnership in India pursuant to local law we required 26% Indian participation. We were introduced to Mr Raja Murugan an influential & sophisticated Indian investor who through his close relationship with Mr V Manoj Vice President of MCA Management Consultants Limited assisted us to form Revetec Technologies India Private Limited (RTIPL).

RTIPL is 74% owned by Revetec Holdings Limited. Mr R Murugan has been assisting us to negotiate and finalise a Customization contract with the manufacturer and is supplying supportive funding for RHL.

We recently submitted final documentation needed to move forward and anticipate final Board approval from the Manufacturer's Board in the coming weeks.



This week, the "Head of Projects" Manager of the Manufacturer, travelled to Australia to meet with our Directors and discussed the final details of the Development Project. Mr R Murugan and Mr V Manoj also travelled to Australia this weekend to meet with our Directors and finalise all documentation and reports.

The Development Program will be fully funded by the Manufacturer and will involve up to 60 specialist personnel and management at the commencement. This will ramp up very significantly over an eight year period. The project will commence in Turkey then move to India after 6 months. The Manufacturer plans to establish a dedicated Development facility in India to carry out further Development work for future projects with RTIPL. The Project details are currently confidential.

Our Managing Director Mr B Howell-Smith has been appointed as Technical Director of the Projects and will be relocating with our Director Mr P Kelly to Turkey for a six month period and thereafter continue the project in India. Our Director Steve Valtas has been appointed Joint Managing Director of RTIPL alongside Mr Raja Murugan. Mr Valtas will remain in Australia to manage RHL. Mr Raja Murugan has been appointed to the board of RHL.

The manufacturer has conveyed their intention to spend in excess of USD$2 Billion over the next eight year period, adopt our technology to its engine product range. Together we are planning a full range of engines in their most lucrative markets. The initial customization program is set to take 18 months. The Manufacturer plans to set up multiple international manufacturing facilities.

Our percentage share of RTIPL profits from licensing will be returned back to RHL, from which we will pay dividends to shareholders.

[FireyB]

Did you look on their web site ?

Yes.

Thoughts?

[SonyAD]

It seems they're trying/have managed to con some Indians (Tata?) into leasing their patent.

[Matra et Alpine]

DId yuou read the press release ?
"con" ? India has more intelligent, betrer educated, harder working entrepreneurs and engineers than the rest of us :(

[Revetec Raptor]

Our Managing Director Mr B Howell-Smith has been appointed as Technical Director of the Projects and will be relocating with our Director Mr P Kelly to Turkey for a six month period !

Anyone know what Technical/work is being done in Turkey ?

[ndance]

I just stumbled on this thread (and site) while looking up something completely different on Google, but got interested.

Now, I'm no engineer, so be gentle, but had a couple of observations and questions.

. It's cool that someone built yet another variation on how crankshafts work, but is there enough there to get anyone to retool? Usually, a fairly big capital investment would only be done for obvious improvements, not just a marginal one.

. How do you oil the contact points on everything? Since there looks to be a fairly large surface, you don't get the nicety of how the big end of con rod works.

. Any clue how those guys deal with the inevitable changes in dimension of everything with heat and slinging stuff back and forth? At least with a crank throw/rod/piston setup, if it all stretches in length, the result is the piston goes a bit higher. In the case of this engine it looks to me like those lobes have to maintain a dimension with the rod that connects the two pistons.

I suppose that one thing you do get is the ability to change the motion curve of the piston rather like cam profiles.

My gut tells me that improvements in piston engines are not to be found in short blocks, but in making heat do more work, valve actuation design (or something besides valves), and monkeying with the flow of gases through the top end.

[FireyB]

Interesting email today. Now's everyones chance to have some input....

[Matra et Alpine]

post the gist of email ?

[FireyB]

Revetec are seeking funding from share holders so that they can meet their requirements of renewing the patents. They are looking for $100,000 AUD.

Atalan Makine are making a Diesel version, expected to be completed within 60days... Then they will test it and showcase it to prospective manufacturers.

AND....

Due to what stage the company is at, Brad has stepped down as Managing Director and the company is now seeking expressions of interest for a new MD, preferably one with
"significant experience and talent in the areas of manufacturing, capital raising, marketing and corporate finance" However due to the current financial state of the company, the person either has to volunteer, or be paid in shares, so that all the money can go towards keeping the patents up to date. That means that there are now no paid staff.

[Donald727]

This is really noting new. Just a rearrangement of ideas. Check out "Fairchild Caminez engines" on Google.

[Revetec Raptor]

As Shareholders have been told by Revetec that;Atalan Makine (http://www.atalangroup.com/) are building several protptype engines.

Many shareholders are hoping for Production & Re-listing on a stock exchange as there is no use having shares that can not be traded/sold, read more on the Revetec Forum (http://www.forum.revetec.com.au/forum/).

[Revetec Raptor]

Shareholders have been told by Revetec that; "We confirm our Turkish partner Atalan Makine (http://www.atalangroup.com/) believes the diesel prototype will be assembled within 8 weeks." :rolleyes:
The above site has been upgraded ...but there was no new images etc. at the time of this post, but manufacturing may be happening soon.

So, from Revetec's news on approximately the 10th June 2012 we SHOULD :D get our First engine ...that may go into Production.
Shareholders should be given an update around then or we should ALL call & ask for an update on the matter !

Lets hope this will be the start of big things to come.
http://www.poweredparagliders.com.au/images/Buttons/Faces/Animated/Fart.gif
Read more on the Latest News (http://www.forum.revetec.com.au/forum/).

[Revetec Raptor]

Turkey – Diesel Prototype


Atalan Makine has sourced the camshaft from Britain and assembly of the diesel engine is in progress.

The process has been slow and tedious because they have been attempting to set appropriate tolerances for sensitive parts, and are modifying parts as the assembly continues.
Atalan Makine have kindly provided us with a link to a U Tube video (See below) so that shareholders can view the current stage of assembly and preliminary testing of our bottom end
mechanical device.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q57ugVBMEeg&feature=plcp
The diesel prototype has been intentionally .....read more (http://forum.revetec.com.au/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=186&sid=7d05d63dfaba87cc98ffa8664e58abdd)

[Revetec Raptor]

Patents

In order for Revetec to successfully enter into a commercial agreement with any manufacturer, it is critical that we maintain patent coverage.

We have recently been granted a patent in the USA and NZ for ....read more (http://forum.revetec.com.au/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=198&sid=7d05d63dfaba87cc98ffa8664e58abdd)

[stian1979]

Without yet see any independent study they claim on there webpage to be the most efficient gasoline engine in the world with 39.5%

What about this people?
Technology | Scuderi Engine (http://www.scuderiengine.com/technology/)

They claim nearly 50%

[Matra et Alpine]

Couldn't see their claim, can you cite it please ?

Not in marketing hype but in engineering evaluation.
( Because in marketing they are tempted to say anything between 26% and 49.9% is "nearly 50%" :) )

Has gone quiet on revetec front and so in all likelihood it's being overtaken by new material sciences and flamefront/gasflow understanding :(

[Revetec Raptor]

DId yuou read the press release ?
"con" ? India has more intelligent, betrer educated, harder working entrepreneurs and engineers than the rest of us :(
Alpine, I ASSume the way you were writing you are either piSsEd or taking the micky out a SonyAd :D

WoW has it been almost 2 yrs since we had some intelligent thoughts on this forum !
CON ...well most of us would probably not be here if our fathers had not Conned your mothers into bed all those years ago. :D

A Con is a part of every day life, unless you are a Sheep, then you just follow the brain dead mob.

Most of you that are employed will have conned someone or yourself into that position or job you hold.
Did you Con the wife that you needed that Vehicle ?
To purchase purchase the X-Box for the kids so you could really use it ?

There are really ONLY two Cons the Short Con & the Long Con, both are the same separated by time! :cool:
A Con simply put is "Convincing" or persuading, used in so many ways & I do NOT mean Conning as in a fraudulent manner! :eek:

Brad is Drafting a 120° V4, 1.2lt Diesel Genset engine for our India arm.

We also have a Canadian engine manufacturer currently looking into the viability of manufacturing a small lightweight 4 stroke PPG engine.

We are also offering other manufactures a JV to model out Technology into there existing production line.

So, in short our R&D has virtually been completed, it's now just a matter of time before someone will finalise the development of our CCE technology.

[Matra et Alpine]

The opposite Revetec Raptor ... Go back and read it again and consider if you may wish to then edit the nonsense diatribe :)
pmsl today, best laugh I've had and sadly that post has reduced the average of "intelligent thoughts" in the last 2 years !!

You misunderstood the point I was challenging SonyAd on, NOT pissed or taking the mickey, just pointing out that despite what the likes of Foxnews may convey there are millions of better educated and trained engineers in India ( and China ) than we now have :(

[Feliks]

hello after a long break .. what does it mean that a good engineer of engine invented When designing your very wrong .. I designed and dreamed of teeth engine had 100 hp at 10,000 rpm. It turned out that the engine has 250 hp .. really with so much could be mistaking? Then be yourself asking the question where it came from so much .. slowly, slowly comes to that whence it .. sa case that the happy coincidence of circumstances to have found, but so far it was not their traditional designs .. Even I constructor of I did not know them .. here the Coalition of more or less everything that has been published ..

http://www.crankshaftcoalition.com/wiki/New_4_stroke

Andrew:D

[spiderman]

Without yet see any independent study they claim on there webpage to be the most efficient gasoline engine in the world with 39.5%

What about this people?
Technology | Scuderi Engine (http://www.scuderiengine.com/technology/)

They claim nearly 50%
The most efficient gasoline engine in the world is probably the current Mercedes F1 with well over 40% thermal efficiency. For engines designed for mass production (as opposed to research "mules"), Toyota has some contenders (not to mention the 40% TE claimed for the next generation Prius - a production engine you can buy soon)

Toyota targets 45% thermal efficiency for engines in next-gen hybrids (http://www.autoblog.com/2011/04/24/toyota-targets-45-thermal-efficiency-for-engines-in-next-gen-hy/)

One quote from the above link.
So far, Nakata claims that the engine development team has achieved a 42.4 percent thermal efficiency with Concept 1 and 43.7 percent thermal efficiency using the turbocharged, lean-burning Concept 2 design.

Any claim that an altenative mechanism for pushing the pistons up and down can increase thermal efficiency by more than one or two percent are just rubbish (as pointed out by Manolis and others long ago, only to be shouted down by all the experts here).