Comments by "H. " (@LocPH.) on "😍 Can you FIT 160Hp in 30 Pounds? This New Engine Can. The Omega 1" video.

  1. Power is the only important metric here - you get more torque less rpm by gearing. That being said I doubt it will come anywhere close to 160 hp.
    2
  2. Motorcycles with this and even more power already exist. Even if it turns out to just be 30 pounds, which they haven't proved and I doubt they will, it will still only be a 50-100 pound difference compared to a regular piston engine of same power. Not mcuh of a difference as bike + rider weight maybe 600+ pounds.
    2
  3.  @neutronalchemist3241  The LP engine has a lot of things wrong with it, actually. The company claims two major advatnages: effciency due to "HEHC cycle" and high power density. But both claims are extremely misleading. The thing is, they have NOT invented any new thermodynamic cycle at at all, that's just a publicity stunt nothing else. Their HEHC cycle is really just a gasoline engine with advanced timing (or decreased cut-off ratio for a diesel) comboned with atikinson/miller cycle BOTH of which are common strategies to increase efficiency. It is also possible to overexpand by using a turbocharger, that can be connected to the crankshaft, a practice that dates back to WW2 and is called turbocompounding. There is NOTHING unique about "their" thermodynamic cycle. It's really just the atkinson cycle paired with advanced ignition timing or low cut off ratio. In fact, I doubt there is much useful overexpansion in their engine, as the overexpansion chamber, which is in the rotor, has one end open (where the gas is finally exiting into the exhaust manifold) as the gas is expanding in the rotor. The surfaces that enclose expanding gases have to move relative to each other if you want to extract as much work as possible, and you really want to keep it enclosed. Otherwise you've only created an odd shaped nozzle, which is far less efficient at extracting work comapared to an enclosed chamber with a moving wall (like a piston). I think they claimed 8% theoretical increase in efficiency by overexpanding, but it would probably be way less than that. On top of all that, only the combustion happens in the claimed low surface area half sphere at the top, but gases stay hot after the combustion, of course, and as the engine rotates the shape quickly starts looking more like a high surface area wankel engine. There would be significant energy losses to the walls here, just like in a wankel. Maybe slightly better than a wankel, but definitely not better than a piston engine. When it comes to the power density or power to weight ratio, it is really easy to claim 10x power density if you compare to old, fully equiped, cast iron, 4 stroke diesel engines when you have a completely "naked" engine that is made of mostly aluminium. Instead compare it to a aluminum 2 stroke piston engine and that 10x figure pretty much disappears. I know, I know "but 2 stroke piston engines have bad emissions". Just use direct fuel injection and external scavenging, which has been used for decades, especially in large marine diesels. So they have no unique new thermodynamic cycle, and so no efficiency advantage (more like disadvantage due to shape) no power advantage if you compare to the right engines, as one should, and most of the disadvantages of wankel engines, mostly sealing. Yes, the fixed apex seals are better (wear less, need less oil) than a wankel but absolutely no match to o-rings in piston engines, especially considering those apex seals have combustion chambers on both sides, which means any oil scraped by them ends up in a combustion chamber. Seeing over ten years of development and still in the research phase, and efficiency figures not even close to the claimed figures (last i checked, they haven't even passed the base 30% TE that most piston engines already achieve) I think it's safe to say there really is no "revolutionary" future for this engine. It's just a slightly improved wankel.
    1
  4. titanium is way to expensive
    1
  5.  @ALSomthin  uhm...yes it is. Titanium costs several times more than steel. Titanium manufacturing is also considerably more expensive, primarly due to its ability to burn and form hard oxides easily. There is a reason we don't use it in engines other than expensive, high performace racing engines.
    1
  6.  @ALSomthin  Do you have trouble understanding raw titanium is much more expensive than steel/aluminium? Do you have trouble understanding sintering is just a manufacturing process, titanium is still a part of the alloy?
    1
  7.  @ALSomthin  Cermic is not cheap either. What you are describing is not economically viable. Get over it.
    1
  8.  @ALSomthin  you're so ignorant it hurts. Cermic and titanium are both significantly more expensive than steel and aluminium. Have you been living under rock? There's a reason your "idea" isn't used for engines. You think you're the first one to think of using titanium/ceramic? You're embarassing yourself. Educate yourself.
    1
  9. ​ @ALSomthin  at this point I think you're just trolling. You're horribly clueless. It's funny, actually. Cermic floor tiles have nothing to do with anything. We make billions of tons of steel and aluminium a year, so your argument here is just pathetic. Carbides, and perhaps very few nitrides - the only type of ceramics you would even consider putting in an engine - cost multiple times that of steel/aluminium. Usually by an order of magnitude, or more. Titanium - same story - usually 2-3 times the cost of steel. You worked in the industry and is pretending you know all about ceramics, when you probably don't even have a degree in anything. It would be even funnier if you actually did have a degree, as you can't even understand that ceramics that come anywhere near the strength of steel are prohibitively expensive. Not to mention the lack of toughness, which is an absolute must for engines. VAST difference between cermics (even alloys with them) and metals. In performance and primarily price. Must've cheated your way to that degree. I repeat, the automotive doesn't use them, and they have tried many times, but failed. Primarily due to cost. It's not rocket science.
    1
  10. exactly
    1
  11. no it's not
    1
  12. ...which is why it will fail. There is no advantage this engine has over a blown, direct injected 2 stroke piston engine, just disadvantages.
    1
  13. no, coatings prevent that, the issue is really cost
    1
  14. And? Torque x RPM = power. You want more of one or the other? Gearing is your answer.
    1
  15.  @yelwing  horsepower is a product of torque AND rpm. Gearboxes are mostly limited on torque, which makes higher rpm preferable for the SAME power (meaning, less torque at the input of gearbox). You cannot possibly "prefer" torque over horsepower, as horsepower literally IS torque times a rotationally speed/frequency, usually measured in rpm.
    1
  16.  @yelwing  horsepower is a product of torque AND rpm. Gearboxes are mostly limited on torque, which makes higher rpm preferable for the SAME power (meaning, less torque at the input of gearbox). You cannot possibly "prefer" torque over horsepower, as horsepower literally IS torque times a rotationally speed/frequency, usually measured in rpm.
    1
  17.  @ShuRugal  true, except they are an like an order of magnitude more expensive than piston engines. That is why large diesel generators and diesel ship engines are still very common. Those engines can last well over 100 000 hours, comparable or even exceeding many large turbines.
    1
  18. ​ @ShuRugal  There are major advantages of using PHEVs, and using a small engine to power the car if the battery runs out (longer trips) is a really good idea, while using the batteries, charged by electricity from the wall, for shorter trips. What is not a good idea is to use a turbine for that, though. It has neglibigle advantages, but huge disadvantages. MUCH more expensive (easily 10x more) and horrible fuel efficiency. Your second paragraph is not correct. The most efficient, single cycle engines in the world are large, 2 stroke marine diesels, slightly more than large gas turbines (about 55% thermal efficiency). As for combined cycle powerplants, the world record is for one reaching over 60% TE, using primarily a gas turbine and then a steam turbine powered by steam heated by the exhaust gas of the gas turbine. So, not a steam turbine by itself. "you don't have to take power out of the turbine output to power a compressor." - no, not true. I mean it's true that you need to power a compressor, but that energy isn't "wasted", part of it gets utilized in the expansion section downstreams, together with the added fuel energy. Also, all modern steam powerplants have pumps pushing liquid water though heat pipes. You might not pressurize the air, but you still need to pressurize a working fluid, because the boiling happens at very high temperatures.
    1
  19.  @brianhiles8164  You are completely wrong about hybrids. "not having a dual path of power to the driven wheels (aka, a hybrid configuration) saves weight, expense, mileage efficiency" is NOT true at all, it's the complete opposite. PHEVs and HEVs could have a small engine and small battery, the small battery would be enough for maybe 90% of trips and the remaining 10%, the long trips, would be engine powered. The hybrid vehicle's small battery means a lot less environmental impact and cost than a BEV, while the smaller engine means the same compared to larger pure ICE powered car. Overall, hybrids are much more energy efficient than ICEs and cost way less with MUCH smaller environmental impact comapared to BEVs.
    1
  20. ​ @brianhiles8164  "Your comment is problematic insofar as I never mentioned, and did not intend any relevance to, hybrid electric vehicles." - then why did you say this: "not having a dual path of power to the driven wheels (aka, a hybrid configuration) saves weight, expense, mileage efficiency, ... " You very clearly talk about disadvantages of hybrid vehicles, so there is clearly a relevance to them. You are obviously not just talking about BEVs. Have you forgotten what you yourself said? If you are refering to another type of hybrid, please elaborate. Further, " the point is all of the conventional power train to the wheels is dead weight if it doesn´t indeed need to be there." - did you not read my comment at all? The point is that the powertrain is smaller. Having dead weight is completely irrelevant when each part of the powertrain weighs much less in a HEV or PHEV. That includes the battery and range extender. Do you understand what a range extender engine is and how it differs from a pure ICE powered car engine? As for you last point, I do not think you understand that regardless of what technology we go with, trillions will be invested. New cars, and infrastructure, is built everyday. Do you not know that? Opposite to what you say, there are compelling technical papers that conclude that the best course of action is, in fact, widespread use of PHEVs. This takes into account the added power infrastructure, as the enormous efficiency gain more than makes up for this, due to a significantly smaller demand for fuel and all the infrastructure that entails.
    1
  21. more power yes, but less expansion, so less efficiency. But this is sort of counteracted by having less surface area.
    1