The biggest problem with new engine designs is that you'll have to take it to a special place to get fixed. Every mechanic knows how to fix a standard engine.
Regardless of what kind of engine you have, that's not a big deal. How often does a car have problems that require anyone working on the engine whatsoever? If you properly change the oil, your engine will die from many other issues well before the engine has a problem. Electronics, suspension, cooling, and even transmissions typically fail well before engines have any issues.
I don't ever recall anyone I know, including myself, ever having a car problem where the repair required touching or even looking at the engine itself.
I'm cautiously enthusiastic, but to be honest when it comes to engines, the proof is in the pudding. Show me some working units in normal conditions, not just dyno mules, and I'll be a little keener.
And really, everyone's focusing on the advantages vs regular 4-stroke engines(over which there are a few advantages and disadvantages, it comes out about even), without considering that the reason these engines have sucked in the past is because they had a bad habit of self-destructing. If they've solved that problem, then while it may not completely replace regular motors, they have certainly made a smaller, lighter multi-fuel engine with similar performance to regular motors. Which is nothing to sneeze at, even if we're not putting them in all of our cars.
And of course, let's not forget that even proven technology can be applied poorly - For example, the electric motors in the Tesla are a long-proven technology, but it doesn't stop your car from killing your 15,000 dollar drive unit at about the 10,000 mile mark.
I don't ever recall anyone I know, including myself, ever having a car problem where the repair required touching or even looking at the engine itself.
Er, I'm pretty sure George has, and I know I have.
This design is not exactly revolutionary, however a very good innovation. Surprised it hasn't happened sooner.
The layout is similar to a radial engine, which in contrast are typically still bulky, because they're similar to a straight configuration in that each cylinder has its own dedicated spark and sets of valves.
With this configuration the cylinders share spark plugs and valves much like a wankel engine. Reducing the amount of components (weight) while not sacrificing torque. However like a wankel engine I can imagine there would be problems with sealing each chamber, and more wear on the internal engine components.
Having more cylinders in an engine may mean more power, but not better efficiency.
However I personally believe either hydrogen fusion or hydro fuel cells are the future energy solutions. No need for batteries, just super conducting capacitors. Combustion engines will become a redundancy.
I don't ever recall anyone I know, including myself, ever having a car problem where the repair required touching or even looking at the engine itself.
Just changing the spark plugs on the engine requires a specialized tool and working on the engine itself. Gaskets get blown o-rings get damaged, pistons get wear and tear, as well as the cylinders themselves. Now, probably you've never owned a car older than 10 years or shown real interest in the ones you've owned.
I don't ever recall anyone I know, including myself, ever having a car problem where the repair required touching or even looking at the engine itself.
Just changing the spark plugs on the engine requires a specialized tool and working on the engine itself. Gaskets get blown o-rings get damaged, pistons get wear and tear, as well as the cylinders themselves. Now, probably you've never owned a car older than 10 years or shown real interest in the ones you've owned.
Never mind that people like me like working on their cars themselves, let's talk about normal people. Let's assume those engines become mass produced and put into cars. Within the first 5-10 years, most people would be forced to go to a dealership for repairs. That's a lot more money than going to the local mechanic.
I don't think that's a valid point. For a start, there's very little chance they'll achieve that kind of market penetration in 5-10 years, and even if they could, it wouldn't happen fast enough to cause the situation you're describing. Plus, While it was certainly a challenge to get the engines to this point, It's a lot easier to work on an engine than design one.
I don't ever recall anyone I know, including myself, ever having a car problem where the repair required touching or even looking at the engine itself.
Er, I'm pretty sure George has, and I know I have.
I've actually had to do very little work inside the engine itself. I had to take the oil pan off my saab to clean the oil pick up which involved ripping apart most of the bottom of the car BECAUSE SAAB!!! >_< However I would have had serious engines problems had I not done that. My pickup that I owned for 3 months probably need real engine work, but I sold it before it could actually explode.
To all engineers wanting to revolutionize the world: Create a better battery!
Easier said than done, I'm afraid. From what I've read, most of the current limitations on battery technology are due to fundamental constraints imposed upon them by the laws of physics and chemistry. There will need to be some major scientific breakthroughs in these fields before engineers will be able to build a better battery.
Personally, I think, at least short term, the odds are better that there will be improvements in non-battery power technology like fuel cells, solar, etc., than improved batteries.
How to make a better battery. Get more energy, that weighs less into a smaller and less expensive space.
Problem 1: more energy weighs more. There are awesome nuclear batteries, and even boring old Lithium Ion batteries that are way better than what consumers are using. Ignoring other concerns, they are HEAVY.
Problem 2: more energy in less space is dangerous. Even now there are poorly made batteries exploding or spontaneously setting on fire. Those are batteries that power a phone for twelve hours. Imagine a battery that powers your phone for a week. That's 14 times the power when it explodes. And I'm not even talking about what would happen if someone intentionally got multiple such batteries together for nefarious purposes.
Problem 3: Trade-offs. It's actually not hard to make batteries that last longer or weigh less, but not without major tradeoffs. Maybe it won't recharge quickly. Maybe it won't hold the charge when it's not in use. Maybe it will only be able to be recharged a small number of times. Maybe it won't provide a consistent output voltage. Maybe it will work great in devices which use bursts of energy, like a camera flash, but poorly in devices that use a constant low amount of energy, like a wireless gamepad.
If there's something that people are working on like crazy, it's batteries. If there were answers, we would already have them. Pesky laws of physics are in the way.
I've actually had to do very little work inside the engine itself. I had to take the oil pan off my saab to clean the oil pick up which involved ripping apart most of the bottom of the car BECAUSE SAAB!!! >_< However I would have had serious engines problems had I not done that. My pickup that I owned for 3 months probably need real engine work, but I sold it before it could actually explode.
Really? Not even bashing on a carb with a rubber hammer to fix a stuck float? Gaskets?
I dunno, though, figure that pulling your oil pan off and cleaning the pick-up counts, even if it counts partially because Saab.
I've actually had to do very little work inside the engine itself. I had to take the oil pan off my saab to clean the oil pick up which involved ripping apart most of the bottom of the car BECAUSE SAAB!!! >_< However I would have had serious engines problems had I not done that. My pickup that I owned for 3 months probably need real engine work, but I sold it before it could actually explode.
Really? Not even bashing on a carb with a rubber hammer to fix a stuck float? Gaskets?
I dunno, though, figure that pulling your oil pan off and cleaning the pick-up counts, even if it counts partially because Saab.
Believe it or not I've never personally owned anything with a carb. I've poked at them, but I have the most experience with lawn mower carbs. My Saab was the most ornery vehicle I've ever owned. It needed new sensors all the time. The spark plugs had to be changed religiously and were $10 a pop. But yeah, if you need to troubleshoot bullshit sensor issues with a fuel injected vehicle, I've probably had them all at some point. :P
Also I don't know if it rolled this way in Australia, but in the USA we didn't go right to multi-port fuel injection like proper, logical people. We had this weird in between phase known as throttle body fuel injection. Basically pull off the carb and replace it with a throttle body and 1 (or 2) large injector(s) above it. It was lame, but worked surprisingly well on low powered things. I had two cars with that.
Nah, I'm familiar - we either called it Central injection or Single injection, depending on the number of injectors. I've had Carby, central and EFI cars. Just across a couple of standouts(he said before describing practically every car he's owned), the Datsun Pulsar Fastback coupe started out carbureted, but was changed to throttle body fuel injection before I owned it, the Clubman GT and The Mighty Van are both carbs, and the Carolla was Electronic fuel injection.
Comments
I don't ever recall anyone I know, including myself, ever having a car problem where the repair required touching or even looking at the engine itself.
And really, everyone's focusing on the advantages vs regular 4-stroke engines(over which there are a few advantages and disadvantages, it comes out about even), without considering that the reason these engines have sucked in the past is because they had a bad habit of self-destructing. If they've solved that problem, then while it may not completely replace regular motors, they have certainly made a smaller, lighter multi-fuel engine with similar performance to regular motors. Which is nothing to sneeze at, even if we're not putting them in all of our cars.
And of course, let's not forget that even proven technology can be applied poorly - For example, the electric motors in the Tesla are a long-proven technology, but it doesn't stop your car from killing your 15,000 dollar drive unit at about the 10,000 mile mark. Er, I'm pretty sure George has, and I know I have.
The layout is similar to a radial engine, which in contrast are typically still bulky, because they're similar to a straight configuration in that each cylinder has its own dedicated spark and sets of valves.
With this configuration the cylinders share spark plugs and valves much like a wankel engine. Reducing the amount of components (weight) while not sacrificing torque. However like a wankel engine I can imagine there would be problems with sealing each chamber, and more wear on the internal engine components.
Having more cylinders in an engine may mean more power, but not better efficiency.
However I personally believe either hydrogen fusion or hydro fuel cells are the future energy solutions. No need for batteries, just super conducting capacitors. Combustion engines will become a redundancy.
Personally, I think, at least short term, the odds are better that there will be improvements in non-battery power technology like fuel cells, solar, etc., than improved batteries.
Problem 1: more energy weighs more. There are awesome nuclear batteries, and even boring old Lithium Ion batteries that are way better than what consumers are using. Ignoring other concerns, they are HEAVY.
Problem 2: more energy in less space is dangerous. Even now there are poorly made batteries exploding or spontaneously setting on fire. Those are batteries that power a phone for twelve hours. Imagine a battery that powers your phone for a week. That's 14 times the power when it explodes. And I'm not even talking about what would happen if someone intentionally got multiple such batteries together for nefarious purposes.
Problem 3: Trade-offs. It's actually not hard to make batteries that last longer or weigh less, but not without major tradeoffs. Maybe it won't recharge quickly. Maybe it won't hold the charge when it's not in use. Maybe it will only be able to be recharged a small number of times. Maybe it won't provide a consistent output voltage. Maybe it will work great in devices which use bursts of energy, like a camera flash, but poorly in devices that use a constant low amount of energy, like a wireless gamepad.
If there's something that people are working on like crazy, it's batteries. If there were answers, we would already have them. Pesky laws of physics are in the way.
I dunno, though, figure that pulling your oil pan off and cleaning the pick-up counts, even if it counts partially because Saab.
I JUST WANT TO HUG YOUR FACE OKAY!?
Also I don't know if it rolled this way in Australia, but in the USA we didn't go right to multi-port fuel injection like proper, logical people. We had this weird in between phase known as throttle body fuel injection. Basically pull off the carb and replace it with a throttle body and 1 (or 2) large injector(s) above it. It was lame, but worked surprisingly well on low powered things. I had two cars with that.