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

[QUOTE=pneumatic]I know how large companies work, I work for one of the worlds largest engineering consultancies.

Well it looks like we are back where we were on page 10, there is nothing to discuss until you release some testing figures. Back then you said you were going to release the info at xmas, but I guess there have been delays. The data I am asking for isn't exactly going to give your design away.

One minute the article from QUT is a letter, the next it is a report that you have to pay to show people, yet you put it in the prospectus. So you say it is in the 1999 version of the prospectus, hmmm, that is strange, because in 2002 you said (reference - [URL="http://autospeed.drive.com.au/cms/article.html?&A=1500"]http://autospeed.drive.com.au/cms/article.html?&A=1500[/URL]);

[b]"The first thing I did was go to Queensland Institute of Technology. I'd come up with the concept but I wanted someone else to verify what I was doing. I presented (the idea) to them and, first off, I said that I was going to increase the level of thermodynamic efficiency beyond 50 percent. They laughed at me. They laughed, so I said 'well, I'll prove it to you.'"[/b]

I believe that they are still waiting for you to prove it to them, and so are we...[/QUOTE]

Heheheh! I presented to a panel of professors with the concept and calculations. (Something I doubt you have done) and went over the concept in detail including thermal expansion, mechanical efficiency, thermal losses etc. I did prove it to them in that presentation on all areas they quized me on and they put in writing that it was possible to achieve what I was claiming with this design.

I'm not going to disclose anything more as you have to pay to publicly disclose it.

I did make those coments in Autospeed but I didn't disclose any written response from QUT.

Pneumatic: You're getting a bit like a scratched record now. You still haven't asked me any questions regarding our technology, so I guess you don't really want to know anything......just a bit of stirring eh? So tell me a bit of what you do as a mechanical engineer. Invented or innovated anything? What area of engineering are you in? I'm actually interested in your work. What is your claim to fame? What design software do you use? How about showing off some of your design work!

For everyone, here's an 800X600 wallpaper of a render of our new X4....Cheers

[IMG]http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k6/revetec/X4800wall.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE][QUOTE=pneumatic]I know how large companies work, I work for one of the worlds largest engineering consultancies.

The data I am asking for isn't exactly going to give your design away. So it looks like we are back where we were on page 10, there is nothing to discuss until you release some testing figures. Back then you said you were going to release the info at xmas, but I guess there have been delays. It is probably the delay detailed below, which explains that you probably don't have the test data at this stage;


One minute the article from QUT is a letter, the next it is a report that you have to pay to show people, yet you put it in the prospectus. So you say it is in the 1999 version of the prospectus, hmmm, that is strange, because in 2002 you said (reference - [URL="http://autospeed.drive.com.au/cms/article.html?&A=1500"]http://autospeed.drive.com.au/cms/article.html?&A=1500[/URL]);

[b]"The first thing I did was go to Queensland Institute of Technology. I'd come up with the concept but I wanted someone else to verify what I was doing. I presented (the idea) to them and, first off, I said that I was going to increase the level of thermodynamic efficiency beyond 50 percent. They laughed at me. They laughed, so I said 'well, I'll prove it to you.'"[/b]

I believe that they are still waiting for you to prove it to them, and so are we...[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]


Buddy, if you do really work for a large engineering consultancy then how can you possibly argue that releasing competitive test data is not confidential. If you were Mahindra you would be a tad upset if Revetec was supplying results from a prototype engine to an open market. Mahindra have spent time and resources with Revetec. Brad would be a complete fool releasing the data to you or me or anyone else monitoring these forums (i.e. potentially competitors). That’s why there are things called MOU's and confidentiality agreements, the idea is to fend of any of your competitors at all costs.

As for your nit picking of what happened between QUT & Brad; mate honestly, do you have anything better to do? Brad has potentially designed an engine that will REVOLUTIONISE the engine industry, reduce our dependence on fossil fuels; and save us all money. When was the last time you developed something as important as this? But of course, working for a large engineering consultancy in BRISBANE, I am sure you have developed innovative technology.

One thing that annoys me is that you are happy to nit pick this technology, knowing full well that he cant disclose all information. The guy is busy building an engine and he does not have the luxury of time to sit there and assess everything he says and has said in the past. But of course you can and you do.
[COLOR="Red"]
So, lets all be adults, lets wait till Feb/March and then you can either stick it up his bott bott or we can all stick it up your bott bott.[/COLOR]

I'm a specialist in the area of machine design. I model equipment in Solid Edge and analyse the stresses in ANSYS (finite element analysis). I design large industrial equipment, the automotive area is just a personal interest.

You make theoretically claims which all seem plausible, but you don't quantify anything, and don't back anything up with test data.

We have asked specific questions. Is your engine 36% efficient at 2000rpm and 72% efficient at 4000rpm, or is it 18% efficient at 2000rpm and 36% efficient at 4000rpm. The answer will be somewhere in between, I and others have asked where exactly in between.

I know some of the QUT guys, and last time I spoke to them there wasn't any promising new engine technologies out there. They get heaps of crazy ideas every year and suprisingly none of them make significant improvements on the current internal combustion engine technology.

I have said numerous times that your engine looks good, and has some interesting aspects. But without test data some of your claims seem a bit hard to believe. If you were looking at someone else's engine making the same claims you would doubt the results too.

[QUOTE=santostripoli]If you were Mahindra you would be a tad upset if Revetec was supplying results from a prototype engine to an open market. [/QUOTE]

There is obviously a fine line he has to tread there. He has made the claim about the same fuel consumption at 2000 and 4000rpm. We have simply asked what exactly does he mean by that. Does that mean he has doubled the efficiency at 4000rpm, or just halved it at 2000rpm.

It is a pretty simple question, and wouldn't violate any more confidentiality agreements than what his initial claim would.

Render of our Cylinder heads before we made them. Cheers

santostripoli: It's falling on deaf ears. Pneumatic is just an argumentive person by nature. Not that that is bad, it's just this type of person is hard to have a conversation with. Don't bother, I'm not worried, I'm making history as I go and I love what I do. There are people who winge and whine about everything everyone else is doing, instead of learning and innovating themselves.

After all the conversation about particular points of interest, he has not once asked me "how do you do that?" instead just show me the figures. He's not even trying to understand our technology so I think he's actually funny....Hehehhe.

[IMG]http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k6/revetec/X4headsweb.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=pneumatic]There is obviously a fine line he has to tread there. He has made the claim about the same fuel consumption at 2000 and 4000rpm. We have simply asked what exactly does he mean by that. Does that mean he has doubled the efficiency at 4000rpm, or just halved it at 2000rpm.

It is a pretty simple question, and wouldn't violate any more confidentiality agreements than what his initial claim would.[/QUOTE]

I've already stated that I'm using half the fuel at 4,000rpm as a lean mixture and explained how we do it!

[SIZE="5"]HA HA HA HA HA HA........STOP writing and actually read and absorb it[/SIZE]

OK.... Once more for Pneumatic...We are using a similar amount of fuel as a conventional engine at 2,000rpm at full throttle of the same capacity but with higher torque. We are using the same amount of fuel at 4,000rpm full throttle with twice the power as we were at 2,000rpm. I have explained some theory about what is going on a couple of pages back. I'm not going to disclose fine detail as this is part of our intellectual property. OK? We have released this on our website.

You still haven't come out and said "Our engine is twice as efficient as a conventional engine when operating at 4000rpm". This is what you imply, but have not said. This would imply your engine operates in the 60-70% efficiency range. But you won't say that.

That is all I ask. You dance around the question, and say how it runs with a lean mixture and how it's better, but you will not quantify how much better.

And I have said we need to wait for test data since page 10!, so I know very well you can't release all the info yet. I am not an idiot, and I am not the one that said you were going to release the data at xmas.

[QUOTE=pneumatic]You still haven't come out and said "Our engine is twice as efficient as a conventional engine when operating at 4000rpm". This is what you imply, but have not said. This would imply your engine operates in the 60-70% efficiency range. But you won't say that.

That is all I ask. You dance around the question, and say how it runs with a lean mixture and how it's better, but you will not quantify how much better.

And I have said we need to wait for test data since page 10!, so I know very well you can't release all the info yet. I am not and idiot, and I am not the one that said you were going to release the data at xmas.[/QUOTE]

And I said You or no one outside of our confidential agreement will get an figures until we release them to the public. This will happen when both parties agree it is time to do so. You can see by the video posted that we are almost there because it showed the X4 almost completed. We had delays from some supliers closed down over Xmas and you get the usual delays from tooling requirements etc. The delay is very short lived given the size of the project at hand.

I only started to design the X4 in concept form on July 10th 2006. It took me less than 4 months to design 300 components including complex cam shapes, liquid cooled heads, Piston assemblies, oil pump and system, actually almost everything. Because I had to CAD the starter, alternator, waterpump etc. Since then we have been building. Do you know anyone else who can concept a new engine design and do this with one designer and one machinist to running and test stage in 6 months? If you can, I want to employ them.


[COLOR="Blue"][SIZE="6"][URL="http://s84.photobucket.com/albums/k6/revetec/?action=view&current=Movie_0002.flv"][B]REVETEC NEWS VIDEO THIS WEEK NBN[/B][/URL][/SIZE][/COLOR]

[QUOTE][QUOTE=pneumatic]You still haven't come out and said "Our engine is twice as efficient as a conventional engine when operating at 4000rpm". This is what you imply, but have not said. This would imply your engine operates in the 60-70% efficiency range. But you won't say that.

That is all I ask. You dance around the question, and say how it runs with a lean mixture and how it's better, but you will not quantify how much better.

And I have said we need to wait for test data since page 10!, so I know very well you can't release all the info yet. I am not an idiot, and I am not the one that said you were going to release the data at xmas.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Mate, are you sure you have worked on a project of any significance before? Since when do projects, especially prototype projects, run on time? When dealing with innovation and limited resources unfortunately problems pop-up and as a result, milestones are missed and timings delayed. If Apple & Microsoft & NASA can have delays (and not fulfil timing promises) then Revetec I think should be pardoned.

So we are back to what I have said a million times, we just have to be patient and wait until you are able to release the test data. That is fine :)

I will say this. If you do achieve 60-70% efficiency, I will be the first to congratulate you.

You will become a very very rich man along with all the investors. Your engine will become the only economic engine to run (because it will raise the benchmark far above anything we have today), and will make the internal combustion crank engine extinct. You will become incredibly famous and will be an automotive god.

[QUOTE=pneumatic]So we are back to what I have said a million times, we just have to be patient and wait until you are able to release the test data. That is fine :)

I will say this. If you do achieve 60-70% efficiency, I will be the first to congratulate you.

You will become a very very rich man along with all the investors. Your engine will become the only economic engine to run (because it will raise the benchmark far above anything we have today), and will make the internal combustion crank engine extinct. You will become incredibly famous and will be an automotive god.[/QUOTE]

Actually the maximum efficiency that can be achieved is 53% with current unleaded fuel with current head and injection designs. (We have stated a conservative 50% increase at the moment, not 100% increase (not Double)). Most engines can achieve around 28-30% (Upto 35% on diesels and petrol hybrids, but this is a very narrow band of operation where it is this high in efficiency. The only thing is, this only happens when the engine is pretty much at constant speed like a hybrid where the engine is this efficient. Lower and Higher RPMs usually it is not. If you look at average driving, the efficiency is anywhere from 12-25% roughly to the wheels. So our goal is to try and get to the theoretical maximum under more driving conditions. This is why a very flat torque curve is so important.

Cheers

I haven't read all the way through the thread so forgive me if my questions have already been answered.

1) Are these engines able to be used with any type of gearbox, manual, auto, CVT etc.?

2) and how well would it work with a hybrid drivetrain?

[quote=pneumatic]I know how large companies work, I work for one of the worlds largest engineering consultancies.[/quote]
Please tell us who as I never want to emply them.

I've been granted and had to defend patents for and against some of the largest corporations in the US. Revetec has already "implied" things that are testing the limits of acceptabel public disclosure for the patent office and the financial institutes.
[quote]The data I am asking for isn't exactly going to give your design away.[/quote]
That's irrelevant .,... IF in the future it can be shown that it MIGHT have given it away then it can mean the loss of a patent fight or a stock exchange investigation.

[quote] So it looks like we are back where we were on page 10, there is nothing to discuss until you release some testing figures.[/quote]
So please shut up and stop asking for somethign he's said he can't./won't release and either accept his word or get out fo the thread.
[quote] Back then you said you were going to release the info at xmas, but I guess there have been delays.[/quote]
Or the data gave too much info and enabled a "competent engineer" to determine operational details OR the data wasn['t as good and they want to work on it OR (most liekly) he over-stepped the mark in sayign it would be released and his lawyers (legal, financial and patent ) have given him a warning.
[quote]I believe that they are still waiting for you to prove it to them, and so are we...[/quote]
Thankfully he doesn't HAVE to prove it to you and the open-minded interested UCPers hope he continues to keep us updated and most of us are willing to take pre-announcement for what they are and await real figures.

[QUOTE=Matra et Alpine]
To answer your question .... consider this ..... if YOU provide a TORQUE of 1Nm for an hour it will barely move the car. If now provide a TORQUE of 3600Nm for one second it will launch forward. DO the calculation that is BOTH the same "power" :)
[/QUOTE]

I am sorry but this is totally wrong...

1Nm for an hour does produce 3600J of energy but it does so at a power of only 1Watt

3600Nm for 1 second also produces 3600J of energy but does so at 3.6kW

So no they are not the same power:cool:

I was originally intrigued by the design of the revetec but unfotunately I see too many faults... too many things that don't fulfill a perfect effect. It is interesting to know that it is one of the first reciprocating piston engines that can survive photo-detonation (probably because of the overly short stroke and long dwell time).

I personally cast my vote that this will never make it past a niche engine. I will even go so far as to say that it won't even surpass the wankel.

I am not worried...

I have a better design anyways...

[QUOTE=hightower99]I have a better design anyways...[/QUOTE]
please elaborate, with as many details as possible and technical specifications :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=clutch-monkey]please elaborate, with as many details as possible and technical specifications :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
i am intereseted in this design too.

[quote=jediali]i am intereseted in this design too.[/quote]
See [URL="http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21997"]http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21997[/URL] for the initial thoughts posted.

[QUOTE=Matra et Alpine]See [URL="http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21997"]http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21997[/URL] for the initial thoughts posted.[/QUOTE]

That was back when I liked the revetec design (before I was shown a few of the flaws) And back when I had access to a machine shop and a job for money to play with...

things change...

Anyways I have thought up something very different.

Only 3 moving parts but a stationary gear is also needed.
The lever arm is at max length at all times and from TDC to BDC. Meaning technically it is mechanically 100% efficient, Full mechanical advantage from 0-180 degrees. Longer dwell time then normal piston engine, but not ridiculously long. No reciprecating motion all the moving parts move in circle orbits. No vibration, but it would still twist due to torque. Of the physical volume of the engine 70-75% is used for the combustion cycle, meaning it is really compact. It is a constant expansion engine, not to be confused with a constant combustion engine. Basically just as the exhaust opens, combustion in the next chamber is finished and it starts expanding.

I haven't built any models yet and no CAD drawings...

just some (relatively) detailed pencil drawings...

Well create a thread on it and let the discussion continue.

Leave here for the Revetec

[QUOTE][QUOTE][QUOTE=hightower99]I am sorry but this is totally wrong...

1Nm for an hour does produce 3600J of energy but it does so at a power of only 1Watt

3600Nm for 1 second also produces 3600J of energy but does so at 3.6kW

So no they are not the same power:cool:

I was originally intrigued by the design of the revetec but unfotunately I see too many faults... too many things that don't fulfill a perfect effect. It is interesting to know that it is one of the first reciprocating piston engines that can survive photo-detonation (probably because of the overly short stroke and long dwell time).

I personally cast my vote that this will never make it past a niche engine. I will even go so far as to say that it won't even surpass the wankel.

I am not worried...

I have a better design anyways...[/QUOTE][/QUOTE][/QUOTE]


Mate no offence but you sound like a real wanker with a comment like that. You obviously earn no more than $80k/year for a second rate engineering firm and you think that you can simply pass judgement on an innovative piece of technology based on the limited information you have been given. You are a fool, you are a disgrace and mate go and give you self an upper cut, while you are at it, give yourself a second one in case the first one didn't hurt too much, in fact give it a third go!!!

You keep browsing over the issue. I can speak about my experience going to QUT but not what QUT supplied back. I'm not going to say it again.

[QUOTE=hightower99]I have a better design anyways...[/QUOTE]

Good to see your thoughts on engines. But your comment about your engine being better is unfounded and quite an unsubstanciated statement. Where is your design and test figures?

You take your time out to make comments about our technology not knowing the full picture. You may see flaws, but because you don't know how to solve what you think you see. I'm not going to disclose everything, just some theory. Our engines have successfully ran and have ben tested. You are about 10 years behind me in development. Most people cannot raise money for their projects and often turn to people like me to help them with their technology. I have raised alot of money over the years to fund the project. Many people don't have the skills to do that. If your idea is good enough I could have helped you, but with your attitude on here, anyone reading your posts will see that you are very stuborn and will not accept advice and you will not get on with the task at hand.

A bit of friendly business advice...Don't burn your bridges and contacts in a field you want to go into.

Cheers
Brad

one for pm?

[QUOTE=santostripoli]Mate no offence but you sound like a real wanker[/QUOTE]
he is a wanker. iirc about a year back he was making some ridiculous claims about gaining 40hp by putting some plastic filler in the intake of his V6 mustang or something equally ridiculous.

[QUOTE=santostripoli]Mate no offence but you sound like a real wanker with a comment like that. You obviously earn no more than $80k/year for a second rate engineering firm and you think that you can simply pass judgement on an innovative piece of technology based on the limited information you have been given. You are a fool, you are a disgrace and mate go and give you self an upper cut, while you are at it, give yourself a second one in case the first one didn't hurt too much, in fact give it a third go!!![/QUOTE]


Hahaha

No offence taken "mate" thing is you are very wrong...

I wish I made 80K/year but I am still in school so just a part time job and school support checks from the government for me...

You can probably guess that working part time means I dont work for a engineering firm at all.

I don't see myself as passing a judgement on revetec...

I have simply concluded that it won't go anywhere for my own thoughts... I see several flaws that will hold it back.

Calling me a disgrace is funnny coming from you though... Just because I dont jump on the revetec band wagon when I can see some vital faults and because I have seen no true or usefull information from them and because I still read the article "lets Torque" when i need a laugh.. doesn't make me a disgrace. By all means if the major european and north american auto marques adopt the revetec technology for all their engines at any point during my life I will consider myself a disgrace...

But I am feeling pretty safe.

By the way...

You are a blind revetec fanboy Wanker...

no offence.:rolleyes:

[QUOTE=clutch-monkey]he is a wanker. iirc about a year back he was making some ridiculous claims about gaining 40hp by putting some plastic filler in the intake of his V6 mustang or something equally ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
It was a taurus and 46.something HP and Epoxy in the intake and exhaust ports. But that is totally irrelevant to this discussion if you want to bad mouth me do it over the PM system.
Idiot!

[QUOTE=revetec]Good to see your thoughts on engines. But your comment about your engine being better is unfounded and quite an unsubstanciated statement. Where is your design and test figures?[/QUOTE] I could ask the same of you but it seems we both suffer from problems in the same general area... You have a patent and a company on the stock market therefore you need to be caustious when giving information. I dont even have a patent so I am even more in the open if I let any vital information go public...

Anyways I dont need to test mechanical efficiency it is easily calculated... and in this aspect alone my design trounces revetec... Other than that I can't tell much...

[QUOTE=revetec]You take your time out to make comments about our technology not knowing the full picture. You may see flaws, but because you don't know how to solve what you think you see. I'm not going to disclose everything, just some theory. Our engines have successfully ran and have ben tested. You are about 10 years behind me in development. Most people cannot raise money for their projects and often turn to people like me to help them with their technology. I have raised alot of money over the years to fund the project. Many people don't have the skills to do that. If your idea is good enough I could have helped you, but with your attitude on here, anyone reading your posts will see that you are very stuborn and will not accept advice and you will not get on with the task at hand.

A bit of friendly business advice...Don't burn your bridges and contacts in a field you want to go into.[/QUOTE]
But I can see the whole picture, or at least I can see how the revetec system works mechanically. Your claims of running on photo-detonation are a bit hard to swallow but I will wait until you decide to make the information public before I figure that out. I can solve the problems I see in the revetec system, thing is, the solution is a completely different mechanism. I certainly think you have come a long ways and I am not going to be someone who says you have done nothing as I have an idea of what it takes to get to where you are and I respect your hard work. My problem is with the system you have designed not you personally. The design I have started on is one that I think is at least poitning in the right direction. You are right about me being behind you in developement, you have already gone through the many trails and found new better designs yourself (the X4) all I have is the primary idea and a design that could exist in reality. I still have alot to do and it is going to cost alot but I won't bring mine out until it is ready. I think it is pretty big of you to think that I will certainly need you help and that you have decided that I am not the person who would listen anyways. I have my contacts and I will gain more. I will achieve my goals through hard work (like you have).

Thanks for the advice about not burning bridges...

Here is some advice for you:

Choose the bridges you cross wisely.






Seeing as this thread is supposed to be about the revetec engine I would like to ask a question that should be an easy answer that couldn't be illegal in anyway...

On the website revetec makes the claim that current piston engine bottom ends are 64% mechanically efficient and that the revetec achieves 87%...

Thing is I can't seem to get current bottom end designs to get more than 58% over 180 degrees during power stroke (and I have done the math for con-rod/stroke ratios from 1:1 to 3:1... and strokes from 60mm to 100mm) I would just like to see the math used to get to 64%

I am also highly interested in the math used to achieve the 87% for the revetec design as I believe you would have to use a different set of formulas...

So This is a polite request for math
I hope you can get this for me.
Thanks in advance...

[quote=hightower99]Thing is I can't seem to get current bottom end designs to get more than 58% over 180 degrees during power stroke (and I have done the math for con-rod/stroke ratios from 1:1 to 3:1... and strokes from 60mm to 100mm) I would just like to see the math used to get to 64% ..[/quote]
What load are you assuming on the engine ?
It makes a difference to the mechanical efficiency.
Also how are you calculating the fuel energy ?
Different flame front burn rates make big differences in the pressures and alter the mechanical efficiency too. This was a big point in lean burn technology in EUreop 20 yearsa go with multiple chambers to generate different fuel atmisation at different points in the ignition cycle. Sounds liek Revetc have adopted this concept ( even if by chance ) through their fule mapping choices ?

A friend (thanks) sent me the following e-mail today:

“Revetec are making some pretty bold claims now. Thought you might want to check it out.”

I read the new (last two months) posts. Nothing really new.

Revetec, as usual, keeps their precious secrets.
I still don’t know the bore and the stroke of their new X4 prototype, nor the external dimensions (only the width), nor the piston motion profile.

The new X4 prototype is based on two counter-rotating tri-lobe-cams (just like the previous Revetec prototypes).
There is a problem with the “offset” of the two tri-lobe-cams: their reaction to the piston creates a pair of forces that pushes the piston to rotate around its cylinder axis.
Somehow these thrust loads must be taken. The way applied in the previous Revetec prototypes was not good (at least as it was presented in the photos and the figures). I hope in X4 things are better.


Given the piston motion profile used in a Revetec engine, the same exactly piston motion profile can be achieved by the Pattakon GRECO engine with the single cam lobe ([URL="http://www.pattakon.com/greco/index.html"]http://www.pattakon.com/greco/index.html[/URL]).

The plot is simple:
As soon as Revetec’s first successful engine is available in the market, I will immediately buy one.
The first step is to measure the piston motion profile.
The second step is to takeaway the piston rollers (because we cannot find the right rollers for the Pattakon GRECO in the market).
The third step is to make a single cylinder, single lobe Pattakon GRECO involving just one pair of synchronizing gears. Depending on the piston motion profile of Revetec, it will be from absolutely (case of harmonic/sinusoidal piston motion) to acceptably balanced, without any balancing shafts.
The next step is to dyno it and publish the results.
Note: besides the small height, weight, simplicity etc of the GRECO, there is no torsional moment on the piston (i.e. truly thrust-free engine), because of its geometry.

I am looking forward to hearing about Revetec’s quick success.

Thanks
Manolis Pattakos

[QUOTE=Matra et Alpine]What load are you assuming on the engine ?
It makes a difference to the mechanical efficiency.
Also how are you calculating the fuel energy ?
Different flame front burn rates make big differences in the pressures and alter the mechanical efficiency too. This was a big point in lean burn technology in EUreop 20 yearsa go with multiple chambers to generate different fuel atmisation at different points in the ignition cycle. Sounds liek Revetc have adopted this concept ( even if by chance ) through their fule mapping choices ?[/QUOTE]
Ok I believe we are talking about different things...

I am doing simple calculations to figure out how much the average lever arm (over the whole power stroke) compares to the maximum length achievable witht the system. I am doing so because this information can be used to see how well you can produce rotational motion from the force on the piston. I guess you can call it the cranking efficiency. It is a pretty important value as the closer to 100% you get the more stable the engine becomes.

Anyways I still want to see what revetec used to get the values (which I now know aren't for the same thing) because I am interested in the math.

[quote=hightower99]Ok I believe we are talking about different things...
..........
I Anyways I still want to see what revetec used to get the values (which I now know aren't for the same thing) because I am interested in the math.[/quote]
Sounds like a wee apology to Revetec is in order if you've been questioning his math based on your less-than-accurate simplification of the system :)

[QUOTE=Matra et Alpine]Sounds like a wee apology to Revetec is in order if you've been questioning his math based on your less-than-accurate simplification of the system :)[/QUOTE]

I never questioned it I didn't quite know what his 64% and 87% where referring to and I am interested in the math anyways...

It isn't a less-than-accurate simplification of the system, it is one important part which can be (and should be) included in the combined mechanical efficiency.

[QUOTE][QUOTE=hightower99]Hahaha

No offence taken "mate" thing is you are very wrong...

I wish I made 80K/year but I am still in school so just a part time job and school support checks from the government for me...

You can probably guess that working part time means I dont work for a engineering firm at all.

I don't see myself as passing a judgement on revetec...

I have simply concluded that it won't go anywhere for my own thoughts... I see several flaws that will hold it back.

Calling me a disgrace is funnny coming from you though... Just because I dont jump on the revetec band wagon when I can see some vital faults and because I have seen no true or usefull information from them and because I still read the article "lets Torque" when i need a laugh.. doesn't make me a disgrace. By all means if the major european and north american auto marques adopt the revetec technology for all their engines at any point during my life I will consider myself a disgrace...

But I am feeling pretty safe.

By the way...

You are a blind revetec fanboy Wanker...[/QUOTE]

[COLOR="Red"]You obviously didn't listen to me, I specifically said 3 upper cuts, you are still talking gibberish so I am assuming you cant count past 1 and therfore only hit yourself once. No worries, perhaps we can meet up and I can extend the favour to you.

To all yee on the forum, we are blessed as we have a genius by the name of hightower amongst us. Thanks for your mis-guided wisdom, but I must say, it's a hoot having you on this forum, you make me laugh boy... you make me laugh.

And by the way, you are a misguided, confused air head wonna be wanker boy (how are them apples pretty boy).[/COLOR]:D

[quote=santostripoli][COLOR=red]
And by the way, you are a misguided, confused air head wonna be wanker boy (how are them apples pretty boy).[/COLOR]:D[/quote]
are you drunk or are you allways like this (how about them apples wanker)

[QUOTE][QUOTE=acemotorsport]are you drunk or are you allways like this (how about them apples wanker)[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

No not drunk, sober and full of life.

I find it annoying when people pass judgements unfairly. Hightower needs to learn some basic fundamentals of business and the fine line between intellectual property and what can/cant be disclosed to the open market. There are so many complexities involved in what Revetec are doing and various contributors to this forum have made it clear that Brad is restricted in what he can and can't release.

[QUOTE=santostripoli][QUOTE]

[COLOR="Red"]You obviously didn't listen to me, I specifically said 3 upper cuts, you are still talking gibberish so I am assuming you cant count past 1 and therfore only hit yourself once. No worries, perhaps we can meet up and I can extend the favour to you.

To all yee on the forum, we are blessed as we have a genius by the name of hightower amongst us. Thanks for your mis-guided wisdom, but I must say, it's a hoot having you on this forum, you make me laugh boy... you make me laugh.

And by the way, you are a misguided, confused air head wonna be wanker boy (how are them apples pretty boy).[/COLOR]:D[/QUOTE]

You are being ridiculous...

Listen if you want to continue with this you are going to have to use the PM system otherwise you risk getting banned because this sort of behavior is not allowed....

By the way you assume too much.

You are assuming that
-I would listen to any sort of commands that you make
-That I am dumb enough to inflict physical harm on myself
-and lastly you are assuming that you could stand a chance against me in a fight... (you wouldn't ;) )

Lets try to get this thread back on topic instead of making it a showcase for showing off how stupid you really are...

I am fully aware he can't disclose certain details but when the results are public property then the math used to achieve the results should also be public.

So I will watch this thread to see if revetec posts the math. Other than that I don't see anything else to comment on.

[QUOTE][QUOTE=hightower99][QUOTE=santostripoli]

You are being ridiculous...[/QUOTE]

[COLOR="Red"]True but only to highlight your inept ability to be a silly little person. [/COLOR]

[QUOTE]Listen if you want to continue with this you are going to have to use the PM system otherwise you risk getting banned because this sort of behavior is not allowed....[/QUOTE]

[COLOR="red"]You have said much worse then me sweetie, you have been warned by the moderator, not me. [/COLOR]

[QUOTE]By the way you assume too much.

You are assuming that
-I would listen to any sort of commands that you make
-That I am dumb enough to inflict physical harm on myself
-and lastly you are assuming that you could stand a chance against me in a fight... (you wouldn't ;) )[/QUOTE]

To assume is to make and [COLOR="red"]ass [/COLOR]out of [COLOR="red"]you[/COLOR] and [COLOR="red"]me[/COLOR]. You seem to be doing a great job of this yourself.

[COLOR="red"]Regarding a fignt against mate, hey man, make love not war. I will call you Bruce Lee from now on cause I am scared of the pain that you could inflict upon me, oh damn I just shat myself thinking about all the terrible things you would do to me, oopss, there I go again!!! [/COLOR]

[QUOTE]Lets try to get this thread back on topic instead of making it a showcase for showing off how stupid you really are...[/QUOTE]

[COLOR="red"]So you did give yourself an upper-cut, we all thank you for this. [/COLOR]

[QUOTE]I am fully aware he can't disclose certain details but when the results are public property then the math used to achieve the results should also be public.

[QUOTE]So I will watch this thread to see if revetec posts the math. Other than that I don't see anything else to comment on.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

[COLOR="red"]Your great wisdom, philisophy and philanthropic endeavours make me just want to give you a big hug.

So, now that you have grown up and realised your errors we can discuss things in some orderly manner. (Dont forget to take your tablets tonight before mummy tucks you into bed and gives you milk and cookies). [/COLOR]

Let's begin the forum on a positive note,

Revetec have a compact engine (improved pwer to weight ratio)
Power & Torque figures are still to be confirmed (1-2 months)
General specifications to be confirmed within 1-2 months
Cross-platform application
Potential to be integrated within a Hybrid system (making Toyota's Hybrid system look weak)
Greenhouse emmissions to be cut in 2
There is a bright future portntially !!!

typically the only part of your post that made sense or was useful at all was the only part not written in red... :rolleyes:

Anyways as to your summary:

I haven't seen any information about revetec having a better power to weight...
No proof at all.

I would like to see it because the basics point the revetec design as being heavier and be less compact.

Saying that power and torque figures need to be confirmed goes to proof of my first comment... (its hard to prove better power to weight when the power outpput hasn't been proved)

General specifications still need to be confirmed yes we know...

"Cross-platform application" I am not quite sure what the advantage here is? I think the common crank system has shown to be pretty good at being a cross platform application...

Yeah about the hybrid system... almost any ICE can be used in connection with a hybrid system what are the special qualities that are needed for an ICE to be used with a hybrid system?

Greenhouse emissions to be cut in half is alittle optimistic when almost everything about the engine is corporate secrets...

I don't see this bright future but I am going to wait until I get the information before I decide if this system has any potential...

[quote=hightower99]I am going to [B][SIZE=4]wait[/SIZE][/B] until I get the information before I decide if this system has any potential...[/quote]
Please, please .... please .....puh-lease do that. Thanks

Shares currently in pre-open.

News item on Channel 7 tonight.

Many people have bagged Brad and the engine over the last few months. I want to thank Brad for openly discussing the engine on a public forum. For those that have invested in public listed companies, you should know that there is a limit to what Brad can say without breaching any laws. Pushing him for things that he says he can't disclose shows how little some of you know regarding these laws. I excuse the school kid but I can't understand why some of you have made such a big deal over some of his/her comments.

Brad - believe me, there are more people reading this thread for what you have to say without involving themselves in discussions. I hope you continue to provide information on progress of the engine and not be discouraged by the minority of the baggers. I wish many other heads of companies on the stock exchange would be as willing to discuss what their companies are doing with their shareholders and others interested.

Cheers and best of success.

[QUOTE][QUOTE=CHOOK]Shares currently in pre-open.

News item on Channel 7 tonight.

Many people have bagged Brad and the engine over the last few months. I want to thank Brad for openly discussing the engine on a public forum. For those that have invested in public listed companies, you should know that there is a limit to what Brad can say without breaching any laws. Pushing him for things that he says he can't disclose shows how little some of you know regarding these laws. I excuse the school kid but I can't understand why some of you have made such a big deal over some of his/her comments.

Brad - believe me, there are more people reading this thread for what you have to say without involving themselves in discussions. I hope you continue to provide information on progress of the engine and not be discouraged by the minority of the baggers. I wish many other heads of companies on the stock exchange would be as willing to discuss what their companies are doing with their shareholders and others interested.

Cheers and best of success.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Well spoken Chookie, and I hope that Brad does continue his flow of information to this forum. We should feel privileged about the one-on-one interaction that we have had with him. It is arguably unprecedented behaviour from a managing director; especially given the sensitivity of the project and the potential impact of this engine from a holistic scale.

Hybrids: Did I mention that revetec holds 50% of the marketing rights to a hybrid system that is 97% efficient as a drive motor and 98% efficient as a generator (tested by Brisbane Uni). This system is currently being fitted to a Lotus Elise. I presented it to auto manufacturers at Automechanica in a seminar I ran there. More about that coming mid year.

In a hybrid system the "Special qualities" as Hightower puts it is matching the maximum efficiency of the engine at an RPM that matches the best efficiency of an electric motor for automotive use. In all the test data I have seen on many hybrid systems as well as our own is around 1,800rpm. This is a good match for one of our engine test setups.

BTW: Multi platform is quite correct. With minimal changes, the characteristics are altered greatly for different applications and fuels which is more easily done than a conventional engines mods.

I think that many comments are made from people with engine ideas of their own. It's good to see other people trying to improve the Internal combustion engine. But you guys are in early stages, much of where I was 10 years ago. I think you should build and test your engines before you comment that yours is better as we are further ahead in development than you probably think.

Anyway,
The news report on channel 7 will air within this next week. Channel 7 Qld News 6pm. Watch out for it.

Cheers