Page 31 of 98 FirstFirst ... 2129303132334181 ... LastLast
Results 451 to 465 of 1461

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

  1. #451
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    99
    Strictly Technical, Balancing X4:

    “1stly is is advantageous to have the output shaft inline with the centre of the engine. Having a propeller or flywheel offset is not suitable for most applications, so your idea wont work, so stop going on about it.”

    So, the power shaft is not used as balancing shaft not because it is not possible but to have the output shaft inline with the centre of the X4 engine, in expense of the additional friction, weight, noise, cost etc the extra balancing shafts introduce.
    Revetec can rotate the X4 for a few degrees to have the output shaft acting as a balancing shaft and still be inline with the centre. Nothing changes, after all two of the four cylinders of X4 already “look” downwards. Only the second order vibrations will be slightly inclined.
    I do not care how Revetec will balance the 1st order inertia vibrations of their X4. I insisted on the balancing issue to see, and to show, their reasoning about their solutions.

    To accuse someone for not being an engineer is not clever. He maybe is.
    Either he is, or not, instead of counting his diplomas it is more correct to judge what he writes and to discover his mistakes. This is the challenge.

    Pneumatic, in a self defence post, said he is an engineer.
    From Revetec’s posts and mistakes I suppose Brad is not. Is he?
    Or the rules are different for Brad because he has already spend a few million dollars of Revetec’s share holders (call them innocent victims if you like) without having nothing to show yet?

    Revetec denies to comment simple and straight questions:

    Is the Boxer Revetec project phased out?
    It seems yes.

    Is there a car with a Revetec engine for tests?
    It seems no.

    Are all hopes on the X4 Revetec prototype?
    It seems yes.

    Is there a hope this X4 engine to get into wide use?
    Even if it was perfect in reliability and had low consumption, good partial load operation, wide rev range and flat torque, its shape does not fit to common applications. It is also the fact that it uses old cylinder heads with side cams. With four “state of the art” cylinder heads (four valves per cylinder, two camshafts nper head, four VVT systems etc) and a few timing belts, the shape and dimensions of the X4 becomes even worse.
    Revetec claims for airplane applications. Suppose X4 is so good to take the whole “small airplane” market. Is it enough? No.

    It is not a matter of belief. An engine will never work because I, and a few thousand others, believe it will. An engine will work if it is correctly designed and constructed.
    There is nothing magical in it.
    The magic is elsewhere:
    To persuade people, who have not the necessary technical background, to gamble their money on your dream.





    Strictly Technical, thrust loads:

    “About thrust loads....you constantly missing the point and I'm getting tiresome of your statements. I'm talking about deflected thrust from converting reciprocating motion into rotational motion. Go back and read previous threads. I posted a diagram.”

    Does anyone in this forum (especially the ones who “grew up and became ENGINEERS”) can explain why the trust loads of the X4 are smaller than those in the conventional engine.
    Revetec is tired of “explaining”.




    Strictly Technical, Long connecting rod:

    “Conrod ratios....Ho hum....This has been discussed before. Many companies have tried to run a sine wave piston plot. The most prominent is the scotch yoke engine....Guess what?....It's supercharged.....Why? Because with a sine wave plot the initial piston velocity is slow and has poor volumetric efficiency.
    You state that your Pattakon engine goes to 9,000rpm...?????????? Why so high in a production car? 9,000rpm is getting closer to better breathing efficiency. 9,000rpm means more fuel usage. You go on and on about it, why don't you post an analysis of volumetric efficiency of a normal conrod ratio and an infite on like your family's engine, and post the analysis. Make it and indepenent report from a reputable entity please. High revs doesn't mean efficiency.”

    An engine (like the Scotch Yoke) is supercharged not because it cannot breath as naturally aspirated, but because the designer decided so.
    Anyone can read the posts of Revetec on this specific subject.
    Revetec took a mistaken “piston motion versus crank angle” plot and explained why, as the con rod gets shorter, “suddenly” the engine loses its breathing efficiency, as it also does when the con rod gets too long. Then Revetec admitted the mistake. The posts are written and anybody can read them.
    Now we are going on a new round.
    Pattakon has a naturally aspirating engine with infinite con-rod length (this is what harmonic is) having “excellent” breathing at low / medium revs (this exactly means 3+ Kp*m torque on the flywheel at 3000 rpm, from 354cc single cylinder of 75mm Bore and 80 mm stroke).
    It simply proves Revetec’s “law for long con-rod” is fake.

    The Harmonic Pattakon engine ( www.pattakon.com/educ/harmonic.exe ) is a different project than the Variable Valve Actuation or VVA system of Pattakon ( www.pattakon.com/vts/VTS1.htm , www.pattakon.com/vvar/OnBoard/Vtec.htm and www.pattakon.com ), which is different than the Pulling Piston Engine of Pattakon (www.pattakon.com/ppe/index.html ), which is different than the Pattakon GRECO engine (www.pattakon.com/greco/index.html ), which is different than the Pulling Rod Engine of Pattakon ( www.pattakon.com/pre/index.html ), which is different than the Portable Flyer project of Pattakon ( www.pattakon.com/fly/index.html ).

    Only GRECO Pattakon engine has something in common with Revetec.
    Anybody can compare the two solutions.

    To have an engine capable for 9000 rpm does not mean you have to operate all the time the engine at these revs. It simply means that when you like (or need) you can operate the engine at these revs, with safety.
    To have an engine that falls apart at 4500 rpm means that it is to risky to rely on it. Just one wrong gear shift is enough.
    The Honda Civic VTEC production car has its max power at 7600 rpm and its rev limit is at 8000 rpm. Having the Pattakon VVA system on it, the rev limiter is set to 9000 rpm. The rev range extends at both ends.
    Just think how significant it is to have a small engine (i.e. with good mileage) capable to provide, when necessary, extreme power. Think also how often you actually use the maximum power output of your car.
    You can drive the Pattakon VVA prototype car with 5th in the gearbox and 800 to 2000 rpm into Athens traffic all day. And any moment you like, or need, you can just press deeply the gas pedal and operate the same engine at 7000 or 8000 or 9000 rpm.
    No one said that at 9000 rpm you get good fuel efficiency. What you get at 9000 rpm is TOP power output.
    The idea is to have an engine with wide rev range and optimised breathing every where.
    Installing (retrofitting) the VVA system on a sport car engine (i.e. an engine capable to rev reliably and to breath efficiently at high revs) what you get is an engine that combines driver friendly operation and fuel efficiency met only in soft family cars with power and torque and response met only in pure racing cars.




    Strictly Reality:

    ”My thinking is the only reason your posting here and being pissed off with this discussion is to pedal your families engine. Don't you think it's strange no one has started a topic on your engine?”

    Pattakon, without spending a single cent of share holders, has many more patents, projects in progress, working prototypes and cars for drive test than Revetec has. Search to find out.
    Pattakon has more engineers than Revetec ever imagine to have.

    If you were less arrogant, before writing you should make a web search to see in how many forums the Pattakon VVA project, and the rest Pattakon projects, are published.
    The Pattakon VVA project, alone, is published in more than 200 forums (engineering and car relative). Is it enough?

    In the forums the members are asked to say their objections and opinion regarding a specific Pattakon project. This is when a project starts. We focus on the objections because these are what really counts (and because the “fresh” eye is, sometimes, invaluable).

    After having a few good prototypes to measure, to test and to evaluate, the forums can offer nothing to Pattakon.
    Only if someone else asks details for a Pattakon project, Pattakon replies either to e-mails or to forum threads, as happened the last few months in the LS1 GM forums (regarding the side cam version of Pattakon VVA for big V8 engines), or in the Atlas F1 forum, or in the TDI forum etc etc.

    To confuse people in order to applause you, without they really understand the subject you talk about and without providing the necessary details to them, is not Pattakon’s policy.
    Pattakon is not “fishing” for fresh share holders’ money.


    PS1.
    I invited Revetec or even a fried of Revetec, or a Greek shareholder of Revetec, or whoever they want to sent, to come to see, to measure, to test and above all to drive himself, in real conditions, Pattakon’s prototypes.


    PS2.
    If there is interest in any of Pattakon projects by the members of the UltimateCarPage forum, I will be glad to reply.
    For the Pattakon VVA I suggest, after an initial surf along the VVA topics, to read the www.pattakon.com/vva/VVA_Idle/VVA_Idle.htm and post their questions.


    Thanks
    Manolis Pattakos

  2. #452
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    nr Edinburgh, Whisky-soaked Scotland
    Posts
    27,776
    Manolis, you have been asked to take it to a thread on the Pattakon.
    Stop getting personal in here.
    Revetec has been responding to wannabee-engineers who've read a bit about the THEORY and wrongly apply it.
    It is often in advancement of designs that others "get confused" NOT because the designer is trygin to but because they have identified a unique concept that others dont' see because they are "stuck" in "old thinking". Trust me, I've been there in R&D for 30 years -- AND I've patents -- AND I've defended those patents successfully AND every one on UCP is experiencing my teams solutions !!
    So, the thread on the Patakon is there. GO there to answer questions. Come to this thread to ask questions but don't get personall. We're not here to give a forum for two kids to say whose dad is biggest !!!!!
    Your comment on other forums made me smile as you had pissed off many people in those forums with "challenges" and not listening to them. Your battles in the "Temple of VTEC" forum was a classic all those years ago
    Last edited by Matra et Alpine; 02-02-2007 at 03:07 AM.
    "A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'

  3. #453
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney, Down Under
    Posts
    8,833
    Quote Originally Posted by revetec
    We have trialed our 450cc engine in a trike replacing a 1600cc engine with the same torque.
    We have been concentrating on dyno testing and tuning as well as dyno endurance testing. We plan to fit the X4 into a vehicle over the coming months.
    Bloody hell, that's pretty good! I'm assuming it was a HD 1600 motor? How does the power compare? You should get on Buell, I'd hit a Firebolt with an X4
    Faster, faster, faster, until the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death...
    – Hunter Thompson

  4. #454
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    59
    Ahhh Manolis strikes again.

    Every time I read one of your posts, you make me laugh. Not with you but AT you.

    You have tried to discredit the REVETEC engine from the moment you joined this thread. All to no avail. Actually, each time you reply, your credibility and that of the Pattakon theory gets lower and lower. I sense a tone of envy more than anything in your responses to Brad. You have asked for explanations of the engine which Brad has addressed yet when asked about your engine, you solely defend any critism and come up with unsubstantiated numbers and links to fantasy animations and pictures that are supposed to prove your theory. Yes, you come up with numbers but no proof, yet you question Brad's proof as well. A touch of hypocracy. You are also desperate enough to BEG people to come over to drive some apparent car that contains some prototype engine. Hardly a sign a professional company. Has your company heard of marketing? Maybe targeting those that will actually potentially manufacture an engine rather than someone who reads a forum.

    It seems that REVETEC are so far ahead of your Pattakon theory at the moment. But I have given you an opportunity to sell your theory on another thread. One which you obviously did not have the courage to start yourself after repeated requests. Here is the link, so please answer the questions I have asked in it.

    http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum...ad.php?t=31037

    I will repeat the questions here but please answer them in the dedicated thread for others to read.

    Quote Originally Posted by CHOOK
    How long has this engine been in design phase?
    How close are you to production of this engine?
    Can you provide us with some independant third party results on power torque and fuel consumption or are the figures just your own theory?
    Can you advise whether you are in discussions with auto manufacturers?
    Have you presented the engine on a world stage?
    The thread was posted over 12 hours ago, yet you distance yourself from it. Could it be because of the point Matra et Alpine made.

    Quote Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine
    Your comment on other forums made me smile as you had pissed off many people in those forums with "challenges" and not listening to them. Your battles in the "Temple of VTEC" forum was a classic all those years ago
    As for those questions you asked of Brad, get a greek translator to go over the last 31 pages and you will see that he answered them many times. I'll give you a clue. Each of your assumed answers seems wrong.


    Now let's tackle some of your all time best humourous quotes.

    Quote Originally Posted by manolis
    Pattakon has more engineers than Revetec ever imagine to have.
    Yeah yeah and my Dad is stronger than your Dad. Even if that is the case (which is so obviously false), have you ever heard of the saying that quality is always far better than quantity

    Either way, with all those professional resources at your disposal, can any of them develop a web page? Your front door is where first impressions come from. Someone with business know-how, that you so clearly portray yourself to have, should be aware of that. Fair dinkum mate, your web site attempt would fail my son's computer studies and he is only 13 years old. I tell you what, pay for my first class air fare and accommodation that you regularly generously offer and I will bring my son over and he can teach one of your many technical engineers how to develop a professional business web page.

    http://www.pattakon.com for those interested.


    Quote Originally Posted by manolis
    To persuade people, who have not the necessary technical background, to gamble their money on your dream.
    I suppose the MOU's and interest shown from some of the world's largest auto manufacturers, airplane manufacturers, boat manufacturers, shipping manufacturers and militaries (I am sure Brad can add to the list) that Brad has fooled every one of their engineers. Maybe they just don't have the technical expertise that you and your many many engineers have
    And of course the Australian Government throws $1,000,000 grants at anyone who asks for it. Did you also fool Johnny Howard Brad?

    Quote Originally Posted by manolis
    Pattakon, without spending a single cent of share holders, has many more patents, projects in progress, working prototypes and cars for drive test than Revetec has.
    HUH????? So if someone buys shares issued by your company, where does the money go? Some Swiss Bank account under the name Manolis? The shares are free? Please correct my understanding of buying into a company share issue.


    Quote Originally Posted by manolis
    I declare publicly today, to any one of pattakon’s investors to brink me their shares and I will buy them - immediately - a million times their initial price in US dollars (i.e. for each dollar the investor – any investor – gave, he will take a million dollars in return).
    Sorry I had to throw that one in from back on Page 9 (#125). Best quote I have EVER heard from a company director. Has anyone got any free shares. One share. That is all I want. Please brink me one share. I'll even fly you over for free to give it to me.

    Strictly Technical, Photo:

    Finally, with all those animations and pictures of someone holding some Pattakon Human Helicopter (great invention that.....it will sell millions ), can you so kindly post a picture of yourself? Because each time I see your posts, I picture a man with a big red nose, curly orange hair, big blue shoes while juggling two balls and wipes his mouth with toilet paper every time he speaks (think about that one ).

    I am sorry to other members that I have had to stoop this low but this guy is just a goose and it appears he has proven it over and over again over the years.
    Last edited by CHOOK; 02-02-2007 at 06:02 AM.

  5. #455
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    nr Edinburgh, Whisky-soaked Scotland
    Posts
    27,776
    Chook, please limit discussion in this thread to teh revetec engine. Thanks
    "A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'

  6. #456
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine
    Chook, please limit discussion in this thread to teh revetec engine. Thanks
    It was a one off Matra. Sometimes frustrations are best out and the truth be known.


    So Manolis - well over 24 hours and no response. Please visit your Pattakon thread and answer some questions on your theory. There are already some interesting comments that people have made. A bit different to your quote above.

    Quote Originally Posted by manolis
    After having a few good prototypes to measure, to test and to evaluate, the forums can offer nothing to Pattakon.
    Only if someone else asks details for a Pattakon project, Pattakon replies either to e-mails or to forum threads.
    The comments seem a little opposite to what you stated but let's see the Pattakon replies.

    BTW I will be interested in the expert views of pneumatic and hightower99 as well. A genuine interest. No sarcasm intened.

    So what say you manolis. Let's start dissecting this magnificent invention of yours.

    Once again, here is the link in case you missed it the first couple of times:

    http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum...ad.php?t=31037

  7. #457
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    99
    The only thing I did not heard is an answer to my strictly technical questions:

    Is the Boxer Revetec project phased out?

    Is there a car with a Revetec engine for tests?

    Are all hopes on the X4 Revetec prototype?

    I am technically interested more than you may think, because Pattakon’s GRECO I3 project is frozen ( http://www.pattakon.com/greco/Grecoi3.exe ).

    Thanks
    Manolis Pattakos
    Last edited by manolis; 02-03-2007 at 09:24 PM.

  8. #458
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    nr Edinburgh, Whisky-soaked Scotland
    Posts
    27,776
    well the answer to number 2 is given and you've seen the trike too.

    NO company in their right mind will release that options are "phased out" and that "all hopes" lie with one design. That's burring bridges they may need to recross So silly to ask really if you understood business.

    and on 4 your link is broken so fix the post out in the pattakon thread.
    "A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'

  9. #459
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,200
    Quote Originally Posted by revetec
    http://www.mazda.com.au/rx8/specifications.aspx?ID=43http://www.mazda.com.au/rx8/specifications.aspx?ID=43

    From Mazda themselves.......1,308cc not 3.9 litre

    You think you know but you don't!
    Sorry I didn't think that I was dealing with an idiot.

    at least not of this calibre

    Anyways: Yes the Wankel rotary engine used in the RX-8 is indeed 1.308L displacement. I even quoted it from the official brochure that you can see online if you wanted to buy one (which is just as good a source as their website). I have never said that it wasn't a 1.308L engine I said that based on the fact that your company called a 600cc engine a 1.8L motor based on the fact that the pistons made 6 strokes per output shaft revolution (and you therefore multiplied the real displacement by 3) that according to that logic the wankel should be classed as a 3.924L engine by you(which is incorrect). The point being that you are classing engines incorrectly. Now from your information so far I can only conclude that the X4 does in fact displace 2.4L but you can understand that I had to ask because of the former incident.

    I have another question about revetec in general.

    What is with the total focus on torque?
    You claim that the revetec engine that was used in the trike "produced the same torque" as the 1600cc engine you replaced. Can you explain what the means? I mean if you are purely comparing peak torque values then I would assume that the 1600cc engine would in actual fact be more powerful, due to higher RPM limit?

    Why doesn't revetec show any comparisons between a power curve generated compared to the power curve of another normal engine? Surely with all the dyno testing you have done you have a viable power curve?

    Or does revetec not believe that the power curve of an engine is important?
    maybe peak torque is what really matters eh?
    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.

  10. #460
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Gold Coast, Australia
    Posts
    581
    Manolis: Again you're making yourself look like an utter idiot. I have stated before why we have the balance shafts where we have them. Go back and read previous posts.

    I am an Automotive Mechanical Engineer with over 25 years experience. I specialise in Engine design, Automatic transmissions, Engine management, Emmission Control, Vibration. I have done over 30 courses.

    I have posted pictures of a vehicle with our engine. One of my clients as posted a testimonial supporting our engine. We have displayed the engine in a vehicle at Automechanica with many large automotive manufacturers present.

    We have used multi-valve heads on our previous engines and we have gone back to 2 valve and pushrod for the aviation X4 engine due to the fact that the market does not like belts or chains for valve operation due to the safety issue. You would know this if you had any knowledge in this area.

    Just because we have produced a compact new prototype, doesn't mean anything has been phased out.

    The X4 can be used in many applications, you state not suitable because of it's shape? You're a real dummy.....It's hasthe same width as most engines fully dressed and it is 1/2 to 1/3 the depth. I've been in and still are in talks with many automotive companies.

    Again you show you don't know jack. Getting an engine into production is all about cost. If an engine doesn't require a supercharger then why use one with the extra expense. It's all about production costs. I've performed calculations and hard tests in this area, and I know the result. You haven't posted any modern materials and/or articles to backup your silly claims as of yet.

    Come on Manolis...post information from a reputable entity regarding conrod ratios.....vibration wise, piston dwell and side thrust losses a endless conrod is good....for breathing at lower RPMs it is a different story. The problem is that with a conventional engine these things cannot be singled out in hard testing. As an example: A longer rod provides lower side thrusts (which increases mechanical transfer) and a longer piston dwell which aids combustion. Unfortunately it gives a slower piston speed, so the initial intake gas is slower. We have been able to single these out with our engine.

    By the Way.....What are your qualifications and experience?

    VVA or VVT is not new Manolis. Many companies use it and the systems work well (Such as the Honda you are quoting) and are easy and cheap to produce. So take your comments on you family's (And I'll enforce the fact that it is not your idea, so that doesn't mean at any stage you have knowledge and eperience in this area in any way) to your own topic and we can hammer it there.

    I also urge all readers of this forum to go look at his family's flying machine on their website. I was laughing for a week over it. Any serious company would not try to promote such a rediculous design. Just that design makes a joke of the whole website. I have also pointed out failure points of many of the designs and you have not addressed my questions with solutions. Why? Because there maynot be solutions.
    Last edited by revetec; 02-07-2007 at 12:06 AM.

  11. #461
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Gold Coast, Australia
    Posts
    581
    Quote Originally Posted by hightower99
    I said that based on the fact that your company called a 600cc engine a 1.8L motor based on the fact that the pistons made 6 strokes per output shaft revolution
    --------------------------------------------
    What is with the total focus on torque?
    You claim that the revetec engine that was used in the trike "produced the same torque" as the 1600cc engine you replaced.
    --------------------------------------------
    Why doesn't revetec show any comparisons between a power curve generated compared to the power curve of another normal engine? Surely with all the dyno testing you have done you have a viable power curve?

    Or does revetec not believe that the power curve of an engine is important?
    maybe peak torque is what really matters eh?
    The prototype you are referring to was stated as being a 1.8 litre swept volume engine.

    A previous posting by GTM trikes was made regarding the drivability of the trike as well as its performance on the road. GO READ IT!

    Power is a calculation resulting from torque over time/revs. If you have a good flat torque curve over a given RPM then the power is good. This has also been previously discussed in this topic. GO READ IT!

    How about answering questions posed to you on your topic?
    Last edited by revetec; 02-04-2007 at 04:06 PM.

  12. #462
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,200
    Quote Originally Posted by revetec
    The prototype you are referring to was stated as being a 1.8 litre swept volume engine.
    even though it was in fact a 600cc engine?

    Quote Originally Posted by revetec
    A previous posting by GTM trikes was made regarding the drivability of the trike as well as its performance on the road. GO READ IT!
    I have read it and it was useless. He describes things that he can't possibly feel... I mean sure it is all good that he thinks that it felt more powerful... but some of that could be attributed to lower weight. I want to know which engine in actual fact had a better power curve. I would guess that your engine has better low end power but that the 1600c manages better top end.

    Quote Originally Posted by revetec
    Power is a calculation resulting from torque over time/revs. If you have a good flat torque curve over a given RPM then the power is good. This has also been previously discussed in this topic. GO READ IT!
    That depends. if your torque curve is flat but low then the engine will produce low but linear power. The one factor that holds you back is the RPM limit of your engine. I would guess that the used rev range is from idle to 4500 on yours and idle to >6000 for the 1600cc. that means that you have to make a good deal more torque at 4500rpm to beat the power produced by the 1600cc at over 6000rpm. I just want to know if in fact you where able to do this? I mean for every 1lbs-ft. made at 4500rpm only gives you 0.857hp but at 6000rpm every 1lbs-ft. of torque produces 1.142hp. I mean if the 1600cc engine could make 100lbs-ft. of torque at 6000 then your engine would have to make 133.33lbs-ft. of torque to make the same power. How did the peak power outputs of the two engines compare?
    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.

  13. #463
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    99
    For the balance shafts, let the audience judge who is what.

    I did wrote:
    “Pneumatic, in a self defence post, said he is an engineer.
    From Revetec’s posts and mistakes I suppose Brad is not. Is he?”

    Revetec’s reply:
    I am an Automotive Mechanical Engineer with over 25 years experience. I specialise in Engine design, Automatic transmissions, Engine management, Emmission Control, Vibration. I have done over 30 courses. So go blow.


    I have first to apologize for my hypothesis. I am sorry.

    On the other hand I wonder how an automotive engineer with these qualifications makes such clumsy mistakes.
    In Revetecs main web page what was really claimed was a three times more power output and three times more torque output compared to a conventional of same capacity, based on the “innocent” hypothesis of same main shaft revs (i.e. three times more reciprocations of the pistons in case of Revetec).

    Audience, please correct me If I am wrong.

    It took many years and many investor’s money until Revetec to provide, as their best power/torque plot, one with the rev limiter at 4600 rpm ! (i.e. main output shaft revs 1550 rpm): the pistons of Revetec engine reciprocate not at 300% of the rhythms the pistons reciprocate into the conventional engine (where the 6000 rpm is a typical rev limit) but at only 75% of them.
    Revetec’s initial “core” hypothesis – on which Revetec fame was built - was 400% overestimated compared to the reality. It’s a “false” factor 4.0, doesn’t it?
    Things are not too different as regards fuel consumption hypothesis.

    Was it incapability? But then the incapable has not the right to talk.
    Or was it a deliberate deceive of the investors?

    Your choice.


    As for the “vehicle” they are proud for applying their engine, congratulations. It was the best application to compare Revetec engine to conventional. Especially if the VW boxers they refer are the ones from the Beetles (side cam, two valves per cylinder, air-cooled and basic design coming before 1940).

    As the boxer Revetec design is not phased out, I expect to hear from Mahindra and Revetec soon what is the final evaluation of the tested engine.




    Laughing is a healthy thing.
    Those who want to laugh along with the genius, here are the links he forgotten to give:

    www.pattakon.com/fly/Flyer4.exe and www.pattakon.com/fly/Flyer4.gif and www.pattakon.com/fly/Flyer1.exe and www.pattakon.com/fly/Flyer5.exe and
    www.pattakon.com/pre/PRE14.exe and www.pattakon.com/pre/PRE14.gif

    and here is the in line three GRECO engine which is inferior to the engine of the genius: www.pattakon.com/greco/Grecoi3.exe . Its cams carry one third of the torque from the piston (combustion and inertia) in comparison to X4, because its cams rotate at 1:1 relation to the pistons. Let alone the side loads. And nobody restricts the distance between the two shafts (for the strength). And nothing limits the size and type of the rollers used (needle rollers, yoke rollers etc).
    As for the machining process to create the shafts, it is not a secret nor difficult. The cutting (and then the grinding) tool performs the desirable piston motion as the shaft is rotated, creating the cam profile. I wish everything else was so easy.
    Read the patent, ask for details.

    As for my qualifications and experience, I am completely illiterate.

    Thanks
    Manolis Pattakos

  14. #464
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Gold Coast, Australia
    Posts
    581
    Quote Originally Posted by hightower99
    even though it was in fact a 600cc engine?
    We haven't built just one engine. We have built several engines with different setups for interested parties/markets. The 1.8 litre swept engine was approximately 600cc.

    Quote Originally Posted by hightower99
    I have read it and it was useless. He describes things that he can't possibly feel... I mean sure it is all good that he thinks that it felt more powerful... but some of that could be attributed to lower weight. I want to know which engine in actual fact had a better power curve. I would guess that your engine has better low end power but that the 1600c manages better top end.
    Mr Subloo posted a statement about the driveability of our engine in his product and was making an opinion on our engine compared with the 1,600cc conventional engine he is currently using. He gave the statement to give everyone an opinion on how our engines feel like to drive because not many people have the opportunity at the moment to drive a vehicle with our engine. Before we went into testing with Mahindra, they came to Australia and I took them for a ride on the trike. When I told them it was a 450cc engine, they thought I said it was a 1,450cc engine. They were quite suprised when I again told them "No, it is a 450cc engine". The torque is quite high at lower RPM ranges, and this provided very fast acceleration.

    Quote Originally Posted by hightower99
    That depends. if your torque curve is flat but low then the engine will produce low but linear power.
    The torque curve is very high at low RPMs and then maintains an almost flat torque curve through the Rev range. It produces good low down torque and stays almost constant through the range. So power is the same, very linear. This provides an engine that feels like the acceleration is the same no matter what rev range you are in.
    Last edited by revetec; 02-05-2007 at 02:09 PM.

  15. #465
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Gold Coast, Australia
    Posts
    581
    Quote Originally Posted by manolis
    For the balance shafts, let the audience judge who is what.
    I'm the designer, I think I know about my own balance shafts

    Quote Originally Posted by manolis
    I did wrote:
    “Pneumatic, in a self defence post, said he is an engineer.
    From Revetec’s posts and mistakes I suppose Brad is not. Is he?”

    Revetec’s reply:
    I am an Automotive Mechanical Engineer with over 25 years experience. I specialise in Engine design, Automatic transmissions, Engine management, Emmission Control, Vibration. I have done over 30 courses. So go blow.


    I have first to apologize for my hypothesis. I am sorry.
    Do you think for a moment I would be doing all this if I had no experience? Apology accepted.

    Quote Originally Posted by manolis
    On the other hand I wonder how an automotive engineer with these qualifications makes such clumsy mistakes.
    In Revetecs main web page what was really claimed was a three times more power output and three times more torque output compared to a conventional of same capacity, based on the “innocent” hypothesis of same main shaft revs (i.e. three times more reciprocations of the pistons in case of Revetec).

    Audience, please correct me If I am wrong.
    I am working between 12 and 16 hours a day on this project. I try to squeeze in time to reply on here. I don't have the luxury of being able to spend time researching and proof reading all my posts over and over again to make sure they make sense and in a way all can understand. Remember I started to design the X4 concept on July 10 2006. I came to this forum and at the same time over the following four months designed 300 components to a complete engine stage. Like I have the time or make it my priority to post here properly. But I wanted to answer some technical questions that were posed. Mistakes do happen under this type of situation. Did I not rectify or apologize for any mistakes made from hasty posts?

    Quote Originally Posted by manolis
    It took many years and many investor’s money until Revetec to provide, as their best power/torque plot, one with the rev limiter at 4600 rpm !
    Who said anything about a Rev limit of 4,600rpm? Currently we have tested up to 6,000rpm and will go higher. No use taking it over that RPM though because selecting a higher gear provides good acceleration so why waste the fuel. It takes many years to perfect a new design. In earlier years we spent all our efforts into investigating all the possible layouts of this design for ease and cheap manufacture and to evaluate any short comings and make modifications. This was also required to provide a product with good reliability and driveability. It is the same for any engine development program. Most car companies built up to 30 prototypes before the engine is set for production. Only recently we have settled on a design layout and have been working on the performance and tuning area.

    [QUOTE=manolis](i.e. main output shaft revs 1550 rpm): the pistons of Revetec engine reciprocate not at 300% of the rhythms the pistons reciprocate into the conventional engine (where the 6000 rpm is a typical rev limit) but at only 75% of them. [QUOTE]

    Again look at my Avatar. It shows where the output shaft is. The pistons make two strokes per output shaft rotation the same as a conventional engine. Again we have built many prototypes with different features and layouts. You keep on referring to one that was an evaluation engine for a specialized market. We haven't used that setup since. It maybe used as a gen-set engine in the future if needed or a specialized aviation engine.


    Quote Originally Posted by manolis
    Revetec’s initial “core” hypothesis – on which Revetec fame was built - was 400% overestimated compared to the reality. It’s a “false” factor 4.0, doesn’t it?
    Things are not too different as regards fuel consumption hypothesis.
    Again: Our last fuel consumption test was carried out on an engine that has two strokes of the piston to one rotation of the output shaft. I think you should review the whole thread again. You keep bringing up the same stuff over and over again. Do you understand how our engine is set up, because by your posts I don't think you understand.

    Quote Originally Posted by manolis
    As for the “vehicle” they are proud for applying their engine, congratulations. It was the best application to compare Revetec engine to conventional. Especially if the VW boxers they refer are the ones from the Beetles (side cam, two valves per cylinder, air-cooled and basic design coming before 1940).
    Yes, and our engine was only 450cc compared with the VW 1600cc. So what point are you trying to make?

    Quote Originally Posted by manolis
    Laughing is a healthy thing.
    Those who want to laugh along with the genius, here are the links he forgotten to give:

    As for my qualifications and experience, I am completely illiterate.

    Thanks
    Manolis Pattakos
    Well that says it!
    Last edited by revetec; 02-05-2007 at 02:42 PM.

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
  •