What the heck did they send me then?? It was a brochure about the engine, etc. They made mention of "oportunities" at least. I don't remember for sure, I thought there was an opp to buy into?? Guess I was wrong.

 

Looks very promising.

I should add that I am a stock holder in a company that holds a patent and manufacturing rights to a similarly designed engine. It is a rotary design, that is multi-fuel, much smaller and lighter, and has a military contract to supply UAV engines.

The web site has marketing releases, videos of tests, and interviews with company executives.

Here is the web site.

www.regtech.com

It is a traded stock already. The symbol is RGUS.OB

I don't own a diesel truck, just a little VW Jetta TDI, so I am also interested in diesel tecnology. Can you say 48 mpg?

Regards,

 

Here is another similar design that I have been watching for a couple of year. Multifuel engine or air compressor.
http://www.quasiturbine.com
Sounds like the next few years are going to be pretty cool!
Oilguy

 

Is anyone working on a timing/fueling box for this thing? How about a turbo?

Seriously, I wish them the best of luck and really hope to see it brought to market in a reasonable amount of time.

 

yarddog, You will not need a turbo with this engine.
The problem is that the MYT Engine is not 20 % improvement, nor
200% improvement, but rather 2,000% (back2back it is 4,000%) improvement to
current architecture (reciprocating, or turbine). At this level, people's
typical response is, "Too good to be true."
Well, what can they do? They can not reduce the expected outputs because even those numbers are conservative. e.g. The output horsepower, 3,000hp, is based on 4 hps per cubic inches displacement of conventional engines. With virtually no friction, and long duration on the TDC, plus there is no valve, cams, etc., they know that they will be even far higher than that. Their Dyno data of 814 lb.ft. extrapolates into 4,000 lbft. of torque. Unbelievable.
It is a matter of getting it certified road worthy and that involves more testing and more dollars.. That certification will happen.

 

I'm disappointed.

I can't find anything obviously wrong with it...



Hmm...

 

email me at wwwater@telus.net

 

Graphics on the mechanics of the MYT Engine

 

Colored rendering of the mechanics of the engine

 

WOW I like this thing already....

 

Looking at how small the device is vs how much power potential is there, I could see material strength being a major issue when it comes to longevity. If you compare the crank size of a diesel engine capable of 4000lbs to the mechanism of a comparable MYT engine, the MYT components are so much smaller, how could it handle the torque, especially with no transmission to reduce shock loads? Just curious, thanks.

 

The material used for the internals are Titinium and Stainless Steel Alloys. These materials can withstand about 300,000 psi of various stress after properly heat treated. Being 2", the main shaft can withstand more than 4,000 lb.ft. of torque and other stresses, the expected maximum. An 18 wheeler truck engine may be 5" thick, but you need to have a keen eye and deep understandings for the followiing facts.
1. By the time it connects to transmission, it's downsized to mere couple of inches thick.
2. The length is 5' long vs. MYT Engine's 14" (slightly longer than 1').. Do you realize that torsional stress is (linearly or squared) proportional to the length of the shaft?
3. It has the cranks instead of straight which is MYT case. Enormous difference here.

So far MYT have tested the MYT Engine up to 814 lb.ft. of torque, and for it's size, it exceeded the torques of an engine about 5-10 times bigger.

 

Hmmm rotary of some sort. Well the Wankel would be a better motor but there are issues with having too wide of a combustion chamber... Also the rotary motor had issues with wear.

Interesting though. Rotary is a much more efficient way of doing things. I've always thought the next big IC engine would be a rotary/2 stroke. For a while they were testing out some pretty tough little 2 strokes that were supposedly better for the environment.

 

Rotary technology is old news. Increased wear due to rotational friction and high fuel consumption. Compare the mazda rotary power to fuel use ratios? How much money did you invest in this undertaking? You know this is a Dodge Cummins tried and true six banger 359 cu. in. forum. Good luck to you if this proves out, I'm not interested in investing. If it sounds to good to be true>>>>>>>>>>>>> .