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

[CHOOK]

Thanks for the update Brad.

DIRECTORS ANNOUNCEMENT – 6TH JULY 2007

As previously advised the first round of testing of the X4 was completed. The test results were published with a comparison to a competitor's engine. Our report showed we produced higher power and torque with less fuel. We have calculated that our Brake Mean Effective Pressure or "BMEP" figure, which is an average of pressure produced throughout the four strokes as 10.67 bar. The higher the bar figures the better the result. As a note, The Mercedes AMG 6.3 litre engine has a reading of 10.5 bar and GM's 6 litre engine has a reading of 9.3 bar.

We entered the next stage of development two months ago. This stage of development involves further perform enhancements including, durability, drivability testing and independent assessment of the testing. Many parties who are interested in our technology require us to have completed independent testing before progressing to the next stage of our relationship.

To work through this next stage we are modifying the X4 engine to enable it to be mounted into a vehicle. We are currently making major upgrades to the engine including fitting Electronic Fuel Injection and Direct Fire Ignition as well as mechanical modifications including a more rigid engine block, up graded internal components, varying the camshaft profiles for higher operational RPM.

We expect to complete these modifications and fit the engine into the vehicle by the end of August 2007. After initial testing, the engine will be fitted back on to the dynamometer for fine tuning and independent assessment. Once an independent assessment has been completed we will be inviting two overseas manufacturers to travel to Australia to view the testing and then place the engine back in to the vehicle for testing with them.

We will report further after the Independent testing is completed.

Issued: 6 July 2007

Charles Chan

Managing Director

[hightower99]

Thanks for the update Brad.

DIRECTORS ANNOUNCEMENT – 6TH JULY 2007

As previously advised the first round of testing of the X4 was completed. The test results were published with a comparison to a competitor's engine. Our report showed we produced higher power and torque with less fuel. We have calculated that our Brake Mean Effective Pressure or "BMEP" figure, which is an average of pressure produced throughout the four strokes as 10.67 bar. The higher the bar figures the better the result. As a note, The Mercedes AMG 6.3 litre engine has a reading of 10.5 bar and GM's 6 litre engine has a reading of 9.3 bar.

We entered the next stage of development two months ago. This stage of development involves further perform enhancements including, durability, drivability testing and independent assessment of the testing. Many parties who are interested in our technology require us to have completed independent testing before progressing to the next stage of our relationship.

To work through this next stage we are modifying the X4 engine to enable it to be mounted into a vehicle. We are currently making major upgrades to the engine including fitting Electronic Fuel Injection and Direct Fire Ignition as well as mechanical modifications including a more rigid engine block, up graded internal components, varying the camshaft profiles for higher operational RPM.

We expect to complete these modifications and fit the engine into the vehicle by the end of August 2007. After initial testing, the engine will be fitted back on to the dynamometer for fine tuning and independent assessment. Once an independent assessment has been completed we will be inviting two overseas manufacturers to travel to Australia to view the testing and then place the engine back in to the vehicle for testing with them.

We will report further after the Independent testing is completed.

Issued: 6 July 2007

Charles Chan

Managing Director

What do I have to do to read the actual report?


And why is revetec comparing it's BMEP against two 6L+ V8 engines? big engines don't need high BMEP figures to produce more than enough power...

[revetec]

Almost over the Flu, and glad to be back at work.

What do I have to do to read the actual report?


And why is revetec comparing it's BMEP against two 6L+ V8 engines? big engines don't need high BMEP figures to produce more than enough power...

BMEP is the Average Cylinder Pressure throughout the four strokes. A lot comes into play to produce a good figure. Combustion chamber shape ans efficiency, Intake design, Mechanical efficiency, frictional losses, thermal losses, etc etc. I could go on and on. The X4 engine was set up as an aircraft engine. So we used two valves per cylinder, fixed/static ignition timing, Carburettors etc.

I am saying to you not only is it unfair to us to compare the results in BMEP to the Merc or GM engines but it would be also unfair to compare it's tested configuration with a multi-valve higher revving engine.

So I compared it to 6 and 8 cylinder engines from major automotive companies. You don't think this is a good achievement, bearing in mind we used roughly 30% less fuel to do it?

Our very first setup as and aircraft engine achieved a 10.67 BMEP. Wait till our next tests next month.

If you want to compare Revetec's BMEP to a multi-valve engine, our 1350cc engine achieved a BMEP of 11.65bar. The Honda Type R engine which is the most efficient engine (highest BMEP) on the market to my knowledge, has produced a BMEP figure of 11.9bar. It also has much technology derived from Honda's F1 development. It has variable valve timing and other features we have not incorporated as yet, and when we adopt this on our engine, I expect to beat that figure.

I have a question if anyone can answer it....Can anyone tell me when the Honda 2002 Type-R engine project started (How long did it take to develop), the resources in staff and capital it took to achieve the 11.9bar BMEP result. Ive been trying to find it out with no luck.

Dear Jrobson: If you read back through the thread properly, I stated that we can achieve higher torque to the 3X with cam design as well as engine setup. That doesn't mean we are using that type of setup at the moment as we are not (in the future we may). Current engine requirements and transmissions have limits in torque loadings as they have been designed to take a conventional engine. We are producing an engine at the moment to improve on torque and power, but not to the point that it cannot be currently used in any application. So we are designing the engine to produce a bit more power and torque while being very fuel efficient and low emission. This is what the market is demanding, and this is what we are designing.

Our next setup which we are completing at the moment will be more automotive than aircraft for our on road endurance testing. We are fitting EFI, and new camshafts as well as many other modifications to increase engine RPM to a normal automotive rev range for fitment into a road vehicle. The higher revs will produce more power. Again....the figures released were for an aircraft setup which requires no more than 3,000rpm as a propeller cavitates over this RPM.

After we fit EFI and independently certify the fuel consumption, the BSFC figures will be released. Stay tuned to our NSXA announcements.

Kind regards

[jrobson]

Hi

"So I compared it to 6 and 8 cylinder engines from major automotive companies. You don't think this is a good achievement, bearing in mind we used roughly 30% less fuel to do it?"

30% less fuel than what? It sounds to me like you are trying to say that you are using 30% less fuel than these 6-8 cylinder engines?

Look forward for the BSFC figures...

[revetec]

30% less fuel than what? It sounds to me like you are trying to say that you are using 30% less fuel than these 6-8 cylinder engines?

30% less fuel than the benchmarked conventional engine of the same capacity. I don't know why it is necessary for questions like this to be asked. Please let common sense prevail.

With the BMEP figures, it doesn't matter what size or type of of engine it is to get a BMEP. BMEP is the average pressure throughout all for strokes showing an overall efficiency. Engine type, Capacity or Configuration has little bearing on it. This is why BMEP figures are good because it does allow you to make a comparison between two vastly different engines in the way of total efficiency.

If we are talking fuel usage, then of course we would compare it with an engine of similar capacity and application as a base comparison. Who would compare a 2 litre with a 6 litre engine regarding fuel economy? The question doesn't really need to be asked does it?

[jrobson]

The benchmark production engine is 11.9Bar as we have established and you know that so common sense would suggest you compare to the highest figures available, so by comparing your engine to engines with lower figures you are just trying to make it look better than it is, it is easy to say you are using 30% less fuel, but again to what, to a Geely 1.4l to a Mahindra 1.4l? Common sense says that not all 1.4l engines have the same fuel consumption or power output. So yes the question does really need to be asked.

If you are claiming 30% less fuel then you also have BSFC figures? Right?

[Matra et Alpine]

The benchmark production engine is 11.9Bar as we have established and you know that so common sense would suggest you compare to the highest figures available

hmmmm "common sense" doesn'ty seem bery "COMMON"
Earlier you had said ....

Thank you, I won't post much more and add negative posts to this thread, while I am sceptical I also believe that anything is possible

Seems like you do NOT
Care to give some personal background ? You're sounding like a competitor or investor and should reasonably declare your interest if expecting Revetec to give detailed answers !!

PS: "common sense" in marketing means you do NOT compare to the "highest" and any fool who did that doesn't deserve to be entrusted with others money If he is using an average or "equivalent" then can't blame Revetec for trying. Nothing wrong or immoral about that

[hightower99]

BMEP is...

Thanks but I know what BMEP is.

I am saying to you not only is it unfair to us to compare the results in BMEP to the Merc or GM engines but it would be also unfair to compare it's tested configuration with a multi-valve higher revving engine.

From this you seem to be telling me that:

A: it is an unfair (ie. misleading) comparison to compare the BMEP values of your engine to 6L+ V8s

B: It is also unfair (in your opinion also misleading?) to compare the BMEP values of your engine to more developed multi-valve higher revving and more importantly smaller engines (ie. >2L).

one question comes to mind: if you think both are unfair comparisons then why did you compare it at all... Why not try to find an engine that can be fairly compared to yours?

So I compared it to 6 and 8 cylinder engines from major automotive companies. You don't think this is a good achievement, bearing in mind we used roughly 30% less fuel to do it?

This quote is confusing. according to this I think you mean that you achieved a higher BMEP then the Merc and GM engines while using 30% less fuel...

That in itself isn't a good achievement if you ask me.

It amounts to claiming a higher specific power (the dreaded HP/L but more appropriately lbs-ft./L or Nm/L) while saying nothing of actual power, torque, or relative fuel consumption...

If you want to compare Revetec's BMEP to a multi-valve engine, our 1350cc engine achieved a BMEP of 11.65bar. The Honda Type R engine which is the most efficient engine (highest BMEP) on the market to my knowledge, has produced a BMEP figure of 11.9bar. It also has much technology derived from Honda's F1 development. It has variable valve timing and other features we have not incorporated as yet, and when we adopt this on our engine, I expect to beat that figure.

First BMEP values have little to do with fuel efficiency. THe most efficient engines on planet earth actually have relatively low BMEP values (compared to your engine anyways) and the least efficient engines tend to have really high BMEP figures. Therefore high BMEP does not equal a fuel efficient engine.

Now about your comparison: You seem to be very defensive... making excuses as to why your engine doesn't quite stack up... If I was you I would be more positive. It seems that you bottom end design is almost making up for the lack of top end design in your engines.

Also: For high BMEP figures take a look at the Honda S2000's original engine, the F20C. It has a BMEP figure of 13.03bar!!! So you still have a ways to go before you take top honours...

[jrobson]

I have no financial interest in Revetec and am not involved with any competitor, I study all failed engine concepts and alternative engine concepts which all end up doing nothing more than be a bottomless money pit for investors to lose their money in. There is a very long list of these concepts.

I have modelled many engine concepts and there are maybe one or two that actually have a chance of working. Currently my opinion is that at best this engine is another way to burn fuel, at worst it is uneconomic and will also fail after a reasonably short run, what happend to the test engine from over a year ago?

Even though I would be extremely happy to be proved wrong, it is no engine of the future either. The last combustion engines will use very little metal in them, be very small and light and compact and use less fuel for the same output unless we run out of oil before then. So far there is nothing here that suggests this engine is the future.

Not negative, just asking some innocent questions . But yeah I said that before the "Directors Announcement" which if you read it without a technical frame of mind is very misleading, but this is my opinion since I don't have common sense, so it would be nice to get actual facts, but doubtful.

If the product is as good as it is claimed to be it would not require marketing spin, since the BMEP sucks compared to some production engines and it really is using 30% less fuel then surely they would rather be quoting BSFC figures? That way nobody gets any suspicion and immediately you can claim it's the best in the world. Common sense again, and I have to point out again I don't have any, sorry, so if my assumptions and questions sound stupid you know what they say, no stupid questions, only stupid answers.

[revetec]

one question comes to mind: if you think both are unfair comparisons then why did you compare it at all... Why not try to find an engine that can be fairly compared to yours?

OK hightower99, Most people don't relate to aircraft engines due to the lower revs required, hence lower bhp. One leading aircraft engine which has similar features as the tested X4 has a BMEP of 10.45bar. Our first test we got 10.67bar and we will do much better on the next test this coming month.

On the same engine we performed a fuel consumption test loaded at 40kW@3,000rpm and then performed the same test on the X4. At the same power and RPM loading, we used 29% less fuel to achieve the same output. This is consistent with all previous tests we have performed with other Revetec engine versions.

First BMEP values have little to do with fuel efficiency. THe most efficient engines on planet earth actually have relatively low BMEP values (compared to your engine anyways) and the least efficient engines tend to have really high BMEP figures. Therefore high BMEP does not equal a fuel efficient engine.

BMEP is the average pressure in the cylinder throughout 4 strokes. I suppose we could say that a blocked exhaust could cause a falsely high BMEP figure, although the performance would drop below optimum of what the engine is capable of. So I suppose there are a few grey areas here.

You have hit the nail on the head when you commented about the bottom end making up for the top end inefficiencies. We are working on this now.

[revetec]

I have no financial interest in Revetec and am not involved with any competitor, I study all failed engine concepts and alternative engine concepts which all end up doing nothing more than be a bottomless money pit for investors to lose their money in. There is a very long list of these concepts.

Most of the alternative engines I have seen show no value in taking them further. This is why I originally looked at my concept critically. Most engine concepts try to hide the fact that they wont work and try and raise development capital on a concept that has no way of making it to market. I didn't want to fall into this category and originally I was apprehensive to raise money of any decent amount until I had built a prototype to prove it could run.

This is also why we show running engines on our website to show that our engines work. Many websites will show the concepts running as air motors and such, but it is very rare to see one actually run. I have not found another concept engine development website that actually shows a video of an engine run. Why is this? Because most of them don't have a product that works, or runs badly.

If you go to our website you will see videos of all our engines running.

As far as the fuel consumption figures go, after we test the new X4v2 EFI engine we will publish the fuel consumption figures. Even though we used far less fuel, the aircraft carburettors used on the initial X4 aircraft setup were not flexible enough to provide the correct mixtures throughout the RPM range with the jets modified. So after we fit the EFI and test, you will get the figures.

[jrobson]

Okay thanks for responding, good luck to you. I don't know anything about Aircraft engines so no idea how effecient they are but the standard to use is BSFC that way you can compare anything no matter size/make/stoke/cylinders/application/etc

[hightower99]

OK hightower99, Most people don't relate to aircraft engines due to the lower revs required, hence lower bhp.

So you decided to confuse them even more by comparing your engine to 6L+ V8s? it looks like you actually do know how to make a proper fair comparison... stick to that from now on eh?

One leading aircraft engine which has similar features as the tested X4 has a BMEP of 10.45bar. Our first test we got 10.67bar and we will do much better on the next test this coming month.

On the same engine we performed a fuel consumption test loaded at 40kW@3,000rpm and then performed the same test on the X4. At the same power and RPM loading, we used 29% less fuel to achieve the same output. This is consistent with all previous tests we have performed with other Revetec engine versions.

Certainly sounds good for you... Hopefully "similar features" means that the tested engine was close to the same displacement ect. as your engine?

BMEP is.....

Again: I know what BMEP is.... no need to repeat it.

I suppose we could say that a blocked exhaust could cause a falsely high BMEP figure, although the performance would drop below optimum of what the engine is capable of. So I suppose there are a few grey areas here.

Actually about high BMEP on inefficient engines I was thinking top fuel dragster... only 20% of injected fuel burns in the cylinder the rest burns in the exhaust.... They have very high BMEP values and they have completly open exhausts and performance is close to the optimum...

You are going to have to use BMEP sparingly as it doesn't really mean that much....

BSFC does.

You have hit the nail on the head when you commented about the bottom end making up for the top end inefficiencies. We are working on this now.

certainly looks like that but as many american engine tuners would remind you... "ain't nuthin' wrong wit' having 2 valve heads and one cam..."

Course I have always been a multi-valve man myself (even though ironically I will be working with a 2VPC engine for my next project)

[Matra et Alpine]

Certainly sounds good for you... Hopefully "similar features" means that the tested engine was close to the same displacement ect. as your engine?

grow up please

Actually about high BMEP on inefficient engines I was thinking top fuel dragster... only 20% of injected fuel burns in the cylinder the rest burns in the exhaust.... They have very high BMEP values and they have completly open exhausts and performance is close to the optimum...

For someone complaining about equivalent comparisons you've just taken the discussion WAY off the scale !!!

will be working with a 2VPC engine for my next project

We await the "ht engine" engine thread with bated breath .............

[hightower99]

grow up please

come on based on past experience that was a valid question/statement...

For someone complaining about equivalent comparisons you've just taken the discussion WAY off the scale !!!

ummm it wasn't a comparison it was an example of a high BMEP figure being produced by an inefficeint engine... pointing out the pointlessness of making such a scene about his engine having higher BMEP values... the news is in the fact that he used less fuel to do it and that (might) be shown by BSFC values.

We await the "ht engine" engine thread with bated breath .............

I am talking about the M70 I will be working on soon...

....jerk....