Page 25 of 98 FirstFirst ... 1523242526273575 ... LastLast
Results 361 to 375 of 1461

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

  1. #361
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Gold Coast, Australia
    Posts
    581
    Quote Originally Posted by 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 - http://autospeed.drive.com.au/cms/article.html?&A=1500);

    "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.'"

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

    Last edited by revetec; 01-17-2007 at 11:29 PM.

  2. #362
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by 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 - http://autospeed.drive.com.au/cms/article.html?&A=1500);

    "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.'"

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

    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.

    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.
    Last edited by santostripoli; 01-17-2007 at 11:36 PM.

  3. #363
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Brisbane - Australia
    Posts
    69
    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.

  4. #364
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Brisbane - Australia
    Posts
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by santostripoli
    If you were Mahindra you would be a tad upset if Revetec was supplying results from a prototype engine to an open market.
    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.

  5. #365
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Gold Coast, Australia
    Posts
    581
    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.


  6. #366
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Gold Coast, Australia
    Posts
    581
    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    I've already stated that I'm using half the fuel at 4,000rpm as a lean mixture and explained how we do it!

    HA HA HA HA HA HA........STOP writing and actually read and absorb it

    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.
    Last edited by revetec; 01-17-2007 at 11:54 PM.

  7. #367
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Brisbane - Australia
    Posts
    69
    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.
    Last edited by pneumatic; 01-17-2007 at 11:59 PM.

  8. #368
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Gold Coast, Australia
    Posts
    581
    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    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.


    REVETEC NEWS VIDEO THIS WEEK NBN
    Last edited by revetec; 01-18-2007 at 12:12 AM.

  9. #369
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    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.

  10. #370
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Brisbane - Australia
    Posts
    69
    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.

  11. #371
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Gold Coast, Australia
    Posts
    581
    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    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
    Last edited by revetec; 01-18-2007 at 12:32 AM.

  12. #372
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney, Down Under
    Posts
    8,833
    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?
    Faster, faster, faster, until the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death...
    Hunter Thompson

  13. #373
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    nr Edinburgh, Whisky-soaked Scotland
    Posts
    27,776
    Quote Originally Posted by pneumatic
    I know how large companies work, I work for one of the worlds largest engineering consultancies.
    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.
    The data I am asking for isn't exactly going to give your design away.
    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.

    So it looks like we are back where we were on page 10, there is nothing to discuss until you release some testing figures.
    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.
    Back then you said you were going to release the info at xmas, but I guess there have been delays.
    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.
    I believe that they are still waiting for you to prove it to them, and so are we...
    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.
    "A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'

  14. #374
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,200
    Quote Originally Posted by 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"
    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

    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...
    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.

  15. #375
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    brisbane - sub-tropical land of mangoes
    Posts
    16,251
    Quote Originally Posted by hightower99
    I have a better design anyways...
    please elaborate, with as many details as possible and technical specifications
    Andreas Preuninger, Manager of Porsche High Performance Cars: "Grandmas can use paddles. They aren't challenging."

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •