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

[jediali]

please elaborate, with as many details as possible and technical specifications

i am intereseted in this design too.

[Matra et Alpine]

i am intereseted in this design too.

See http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum...ad.php?t=21997 for the initial thoughts posted.

[hightower99]

See http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum...ad.php?t=21997 for the initial thoughts posted.

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...

[Matra et Alpine]

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

Leave here for the Revetec

[santostripoli]

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...

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!!!

[revetec]

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.

[revetec]

I have a better design anyways...

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

[jediali]

one for pm?

[clutch-monkey]

Mate no offence but you sound like a real wanker

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.

[hightower99]

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!!!

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.

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.

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!

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?

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...

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.

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...

[Matra et Alpine]

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% ..

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 ?

[manolis]

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 (http://www.pattakon.com/greco/index.html).

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

[hightower99]

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 ?

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.

[Matra et Alpine]

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.

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

[hightower99]

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

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.