Hi Shaz, glad to see you back. I have not posted on this thread for a long time mainly because of all the BS that it put up for everyone to read. I decided a long time ago that life was too short for me to spend a lot of time with the nonsense that has been posted.
A lot has ben said about the engine and the design. All of this analysis has been done on the dimensions offered by the OXTWO web site. As I mentioned early on, I saw a demonstration of this engine in California at Shelby's shop. The engine I saw was very small, and, as has been said here, more resembles a motorcycle engine. The inventor and the crew with the engine at the demonstration made clear that the engine shown was a concept engine. I see nothing in the design that would limit the size of the engine. I fully concur that if the engine were turned at 2500 RPM, the piston speed would equal that of an automotive engine turning 10,000 RPM. Remember, this engine is only twelve inches in diameter, what would keep an engine of larger physical size from being manufactured that would produce the necessary torque and horsepower required of its particular application? I don't believe anyone would disagree that an engine of larger size and low RPM might be an effective and economical way to proceed with this design. I also believe that your analysis of the friction of this design as compared to a conventional engine is correct. I am told the pistons have very small (if any) skirts, which, in itself, would produce less friction than a conventional design. I am told, and I believe, that work on this engine is continuing at Shelby's. I also believe that the company is being very quiet about what they are doing. The main things that interested me in this engine from the start are yet to be proved, ie, fuel consumption, emissions, and cost of manufacture. We shall see.
Again, welcome back. |
