I hadn't heard of this, but I'm willing to bet that some of y'all have. I'm left to wonder if the benefits really do play out the way the video says, if they're minimal enough that changing the processes doesn't make sense or if there really aren't any.
In reply to Brett_Murphy (Agent of Chaos) :
I'm no engineer, but I suppose the million dollar question is whether the amount of friction lost by eliminating the side thrust load of the piston rings on the cylinder walls, is greater than the additional friction of the additional bearing per cylinder? Plus you're adding mass with the addition of the curved arm, which requires additional power. Plus I wonder if it limits max RPM?
Remember the Chev 348/409 with the odd angle on the deck? The one that was impossible to machine? "The simple curved boring machine" is where it all falls down.
Neat idea that doesn't really solve any problems, while making some significant ones of its own. The piston to bore clearance will have to be really large to accomodate the different expansion rates of the piston-piston pivot distance vs. the engine block, for one.
Reducing or eliminating piston thrust load isn't a bad thing. However, that looks to basically just be a more complicated and more expensive (less mass producible) way to take it a bit further than ideas like offsetting the cylinder bores and/or piston pins that have been known for at least 100 years now. Just about every other claim in that infomercial has holes that you could fly the last 747 through, which undermines their remaining credibility. Engine advancements since the invention of his engine would also seem to have surpassed his "30%" improvement over engines of the day anyway.
You'll need to log in to post.
