The opposing pistons in one cylinder Engine - 80% Efficient!!!

[sykavy]

I found this video on You Tube ( link below). I couldn't find anything about it it on Rex Research.

It doesn't seem to have much buzz, when in fact it seems so amazing !!

The brains behind it are very qualified. So I thought I would share it here. It was a little difficult to find this info.

Dr. Marius Paul, an American engineer having Romanian origin. In Romania he was the director of National Thermal Engine Institute from Bucharest (a very prestigious institution designing tank, marine and locomotive engines).

After his arrival in USA, Dr. Paul created a company named Engine Corporation of America which began to develop the first variants of the Paul Engine.

The US Army was immediately interested by his concept and funded an intensive development.The results were so impressive that the concept remained top secret for 20 years. Now his patents are available for civil development.

Mainly the Paul engine uses an innovative arrangement of the connecting rod – crankshaft mechanism having opposite-pistons, without cylinder head.


Back ground on Prof. Fred Major who is speaking in the video (below)

Professor Fred Major was the CEO of Energy Dynamics Corp.

His background is in aerospace missiles, he started working on that in 1975 developing the Air continental missile called the Atlas missile.

Helped in the Development of the missile technology in the USA.He talks in this video about lots of stuff including his work on the Dr.Marius Ana Paul engine. Really interesting stuff.

VIDEO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5xXBb_mrYc


__________________________________________________ _____


The Dr. Paul Internal Combustion Engine – 80% Efficient!!!

Here is a time track verses subject matter Dr Fred Major address so you can jump to the juice parts.
__________________________________________________ ________

Timing
2:35 I want to talk about engines
2:43 in 1988 we won a contract from us Government DARPA agency
2:51-3:00 the challenge was to see if we can build and engine the is 50% efficient
3:00 the most efficient engine built is 30%.
7:40 the engine is a pressure vessel, poor pressure vessel.
9:20 End plate 39 engine head, 46 tear the bolts. Blew the engine stress
10:38 the problem is the way engine itself is built.
15:27 the problem is this head, very heavy especially on diesel, 20:1 pressure ratio 294 PSI. will break the engine.
17:00 head problem flat surface
17:30 all we did is solve the problem.
17:36 -18:00 we cut the head off , two pistons are opposed to each other .each piston acting as the compression port for the other, since the piston isn’t attached to the side walls you eliminated all of those stresses. You can pressurize it all what you want to pressurize it.
18:02 compression ratios (10:1 is actually 147 PSI ) while ( CR 30:1 is 4410 PSI ) , doesn’t fall apart since all pressure is on moving pistons.
19:28 eliminate the head
19:32 another problem connecting rods piston side friction
19:58 piston side friction pushes on side walls of the cylinder
20:10 elliptical cylinders
20:24 what we did two connecting rod to one piston, no pressure on cylinder.
21:08 to 21:25 single cylinder one liter 900 horse power
21:30 Normal engine 5 liter engine 300 horse power.
24:25 normal engine tank engine is about 11% Efficiency.
24:34 designed an engine uses all of the fuel ,
25:46 maximum horse powers not just 50% we got 80%
25:50 maximum thermo dynamics
26:25 the muscle car of the 70 where more Efficient than the engine of today
26:43 today’s engine is less Efficient
26:45 the car has become more efficient
27:20 car is more efficient but engine is less efficient
27:28 companies lies
27:41 catch 21 about engines they can’t get more out of it
29:35 trying to promote lets redesign the engine.
31:00 no pollution
32:07 Promoting cold exhaust so no infra red detection missile can target track it , too cooled.
_________________________________

Here is the patent
https://www.google.com/patents/US4872433

[Duncan]

It often amazes me that working systems (very old proved working systems) are consistently regurgitated as 'new' or 'revolutionary' usually by some American or another (in order to ring a patent? .) The whole area of so called 'free energy' is simply binary that is – it either is or isn't . (I know it is and I suggest most readers here know that to be true ) The conjecture then is caused by smoke, mirrors and propaganda the subject of information and technical suppression is a subject well covered on other threads.
The subject you consider – horizontally opposed pistons for great efficiency – is subject to this same suppression, one of the first moves is to ring the patent that is produce a patent something similar and contest and destroy any attempt at production by any other individual or company .
Could you for instance contest the wealth of Bill Gates (who is involved in this area) regarding the commercial production of a horizontally opposed engine ?
what research on the history of this subject ?
During the second world war an extremely efficient engine was very important to the Nazi U boat efforts. (light weight and extremely frugal obviously) and they turned to a phenomenally efficient horizontally opposed Swiss engine initially conceived in the early 1900s

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulzer_ZG9

The Opposed-Piston Gas Engine by ET Westbury

It is not surprising that after WW2 the horizontally opposed very frugal engine was manufactured 'under licence' in the USA and the UK.
It saw service in all the fuel starved colonies as the Roots Lister TS3. It was loved for its miserly fuel requirements.

http://www.oldengine.org/members/die...terts3/ts3.htm

of course your observation that twice the bang for your buck is pretty accurate and not what the TPTB (the powers that be) want to see developed in any way . So take a look at the date this video was uploaded ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHoNVdgiQ_0

Its clear (to anyone that doesn't have the brain of a crushed ant) that this ' new' 'revolutionary' 100 year old very fuel efficient system is not going anywhere simply because like so many other very energy efficient areas – It does work and so is blocked

meanwhile back at the ranch – here's a few TS3 blower machines for your enjoyment

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqysOBJgnBA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wol_U4mkjs

could it be rehashed and become a very efficient prime mover for family cars ? I can't see why not. can you?
Will it be allowed to happen ? Of course not it isn't in the planned scheme of things .

[sykavy]

It amazes me how some people can't just be interested in the information without insulting the person who presents it, or the country they come from.

Most of engineering is perfecting the old or seeing something to improve the old. The water screw was used in ancient Babylon and steam the engine was discovered in ancient Greece. They are both more than 2000 years old, but these two items changed the world in the industrial revolution.

What I think was unique in the above design in the video was that of fuel injection.

While a certain pressure will automatically ignite the diesel; they could go past that pressure and would not put the diesel in until required pressure for desired effect. This I think is unique and interesting.

So there would be maximum burn and torque at different levels of pressure.

[citfta]

sykavy,

Thank you for presenting the video. I watched some of it. And I will admit it makes a good presentation. IF you didn't already know something about engines. I have worked on almost any type of modern engine and have studied a lot of the old ones. The guy doing all the talking doesn't know what he is talking about. I lost interest after I heard several misstatements. For instance he said that ethanol was only 50% as efficient as gasoline. That is flat out wrong. Most ethanol is over 80% as efficient as gasoline. He also said that the pressure on an engine head reaches in infinite value. That is clearly impossible. After several other things he said that were just as wrong I quit watching.

You said you were impressed with the idea that they raised the pressure above the pressure needed to ignite diesel fuel and then injected the fuel to get maximum burn and torque. But that also is exactly what is done in a modern diesel engine. After the piston compresses the air to a value much higher than is needed to ignite the fuel and just as the piston passes top dead center of the stroke then the fuel in injected to start the burn process. The timing and control of the injection pump is one of the modern marvels of the diesel engine. And now that they are controlled by computers we are starting to see very clean burning diesel engines.

I appreciate you sharing what you thought was a major breakthrough but it is actually a very misleading video especially to those that don't have a good background in modern engine design. Unfortunately for whatever reason more and more of these kinds of videos are showing up and being spread around as if they were true.

JUST BECAUSE IT IS ON YOUTUBE DOES NOT MAKE IT REAL!!

Respectfully,
Carroll

[sykavy]

Well he is a professor in rocket technology. So he might know what he is talking about.

He wasn't speaking of efficiency but energy contained in different fuels.

Efficiency can vary on a number of factors on how it is used but the energy contained in the substance of alcohol and gasoline varies a little but not as great as can be efficiency.

One US gallon of gasoline contains about 114,000 BTU of energy, depending on the blend, it can go as high as 116,000.

ethanol only has about 76,100 BTU's of energy per gallon, depending on the blend.

He may have been remembering alcohol as roughly 70 K not 76K and Gasoline roughly 116k this is pretty close to 50% less energy, not efficiency, obviously he was not being exact just speaking in generalities.


To disregard the man for an oblivious generality, is being a little scrupulous imho.

It is shame you didn't continue watching it. It is really interesting to me.

The Opposed-Piston technology is really interesting.

BTW Duncan thank you for all those links They made me even more of a fan of this technology. Also sorry if my response was a little curt.

[mbrownn]

Ivor Walklet of Ginetta cars designed a straight six engine with 12 pistons and 2 crankshafts for racing about 20 or 30 years ago, but it was never built to my knowledge. It is an interesting design concept but remember this. internal combustion engines are very inefficient. Most manufacturers dream of 40% efficiency.