I have proven to all parties I have presented to that the thermal calculation is wrong. I have proven it in actual tests. I know it is hard to accept. When I first started presenting to a panel at QUT they thought I was mad. After the presentation they sent me a letter that stated that I could increase thermal efficiency of this engine to over 50%.Originally Posted by pneumatic
I thought it was opvious that a guy who has a patent on a heat exchanger would claim such high thermal losses. He is incorrect. At the time of writing his book it was probably accepted in the industry as being correct. Today a better knowledge of engines is known. I see it time and time again, people quoting from old information. The Universities and Tafe colleges still quote 100 year old theories. It has been taught for so long it must be right? It does relate to a certain extent to conventional engines but not all engines. For example: A rotary engine has far more thermal loss that a conventional engine but is has better mechanical efficiency because it doesn't have to stop/start a piston. So late model rotary engines are getting reasonable efficiencies these days. What would it do if the thermal losses could be brought in line with a conventional engine?
Our engine is no more radial than a V8 or VR6 engine. I don't mind you calling our X4 version a radial but it's not really a radial as such. Any engine acually has the cylinders radially from the crank.
As far as Shanes comments, The engine is injecting around half the fuel of a comparable engine and he has driven the trike on many occasions. He has told you how it feels to drive. My feelings is I would describe it like a steam train. Acceleration is almost consistant from a standing start to max revs. It feels very unusual and has an almost regular turbo boost feel to it, but it performs better down low.