How to raise money to build a prototype of a new engine design (Now with more PAINT)

[halik]

I have no clue about engine efficiency, but I'm fairly certain .2 * 3 = .6.

Ha wow, was still working on my coffee...

I still would wonder where you're gonna find those gains, given that a combustion engine with no moving parts is only ~.7 efficient.

 

[Lifted]

Here's a crude drawing I made of how it was explained to me that combustion engine efficiency is currently lacking. It makes sense to me, but I'm no expert. Feel free to explain it better if you know, or just lol at my paint skillz.

 

[Howard]

I have no clue about engine efficiency, but I'm fairly certain .2 * 3 = .6.

That's not 300% more, though. e.g. 100% more means x2

 

[Doggiedog]

I used to work in investment banking and worked with a lot of venture cap firms. What I suggest your friend do is come up with a pitch. Call up these venture cap firms. Tell them you have design for a new type of engine that can do so and so. Ask them if you meet with them for an hour. Most of these guys are always looking for good ideas. If your friend has a good idea, there's a good chance someone would be interested. If not, they could probably refer you to someone else.

 

[Bignate603]

Here's a crude drawing I made of how it was explained to me that combustion engine efficiency is currently lacking. It makes sense to me, but I'm no expert. Feel free to explain it better if you know, or just lol at my paint skillz.

So he's trying to get the maximum pressure to line up with the position that gives the maximum torque? I fail to see how that will help you get any extra work out of the combustion gases. Assuming that his engine has a compression stroke the same length as its exhaust stroke it will still have the same amount of work done for a conventionally designed engine with an equivalently combustion chamber (same displacement and compression) over the course of one expansion stroke.

 

[exdeath]

You can use a turbocharger or supercharger to solve the problem described in that picture. The average cylinder pressure under boost is more constant throughout the stroke when running forced induction. And it will be much simpler, cheaper, and more efficient than any complicated variable cylinder volume/variable compression ratio setup that would be required to produce the same pressure vs after TDC graph.

In fact turbochargers work on this exact principle, harnessing the still hot expanding gases that the piston is no longer able to capture due to the large increase in volume, in the exact same way a steam engine uses cascading and progressively smaller cylinders to capture the energy from the still hot steam that the larger piston is no longer able to capture.

And a turbine is orders of magnitude more efficient compressing air than a piston, so anything you can do to improve the function of the pistons/combustion chamber is still going to be in vain.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

I have no clue about engine efficiency, but I'm fairly certain .2 * 3 = .6.

20% --- 100% increase ---> 40%
20% --- 200% increase ---> 60%
20% --- 300% increase ---> 80%

??

 

[Lifted]

And a turbine is orders of magnitude more efficient compressing air than a piston, so anything you can do to improve the function of the pistons/combustion chamber is still going to be in vain.

I think my friend would agree with you.

 

[videogames101]

I think my friend would agree with you.

This is going places :awe:

 

[TruePaige]

This is completely serious:

Does your friend live in Virginia? I knew a fellow who hung out near my work and used to talk about this more efficient engine design he had a plan for but no money to build (got busted for running a meth house at some point I heard, likely to raise the startup capital).

 

[Lifted]

This is completely serious:

Does your friend live in Virginia? I knew a fellow who hung out near my work and used to talk about this more efficient engine design he had a plan for but no money to build (got busted for running a meth house at some point I heard, likely to raise the startup capital).

Nope.

http://www.bettercallsaul.com/

 

[TruePaige]

Nope.

http://www.bettercallsaul.com/

Haha, that's awesome.

 

[Safeway]

This guy sounds like a nut job. As for his $5,000,000 estimate, what the fuck is he smoking? Does he want to build an engine and also buy four Bugatti Veyrons to zoom around in once he realizes his engine is a failure? You can get a custom engine milled out of a solid damn block for less than $100,000.

And when you say "Patent Pending," has the application been examined? Is it a Provisional Application? You CANNOT get an apparatus claim approved without an invention. An INVENTION requires 1) conception, and 2) reduction to practice. Filing an application constitutes constructive reduction to practice, but full enablement is required. Basically, if your friend gets a patent before he builds anything, you can kiss that patent goodbye if it is ever litigated. Hell, if anyone even contests the validity of the patent after issuance, good luck keeping your claims.

Don't even get me started on possible issues he may run into regarding his "decades" of work.

I am a licensed patent agent with the USPTO and a practicing patent attorney. That said, I think that this guy is literally insane. I've seen quite a few mental patient inventors that will hold on to their 'inventions' to the day they die. Even if they bankrupt their families and destroy relationships in the process. Do you remember the show American Inventor? Some of those guys borrowed $500,000+ from family and friends and had practically nothing to show for it. Don't get sucked in!

And what's the deal with you guys and percentages?

50 -> 100% (50 x 1.00) -> 50
50 -> 200% (50 x 2.00) -> 100
50 -> 300% (50 x 3.00) -> 150

There is an issue when you say 100% MORE or 200% MORE:

50 -> 100% MORE (50 + 50 (1.00)) -> 100
50 -> 200% MORE (50 + 50 (2.00)) -> 150
50 -> 300% MORE (50 + 50 (3.00)) -> 200

To solve this problem, don't use percentages:

Twice as much
Three times as efficient

 

[Howard]

And what's the deal with you guys and percentages?

50 -> 100% (50 x 1.00) -> 50
50 -> 200% (50 x 2.00) -> 100
50 -> 300% (50 x 3.00) -> 150

There is an issue when you say 100% MORE or 200% MORE:

50 -> 100% MORE (50 + 50 (1.00)) -> 100
50 -> 200% MORE (50 + 50 (2.00)) -> 150
50 -> 300% MORE (50 + 50 (3.00)) -> 200

To solve this problem, don't use percentages:

Twice as much
Three times as efficient

Better yet, don't use percentages and don't use comparisons. 80% efficiency vs 30%, I can see the relationship between those two numbers without having you tell me how much more or less one is than the other, thank you very much.

 

[Safeway]

Better yet, don't use percentages and don't use comparisons. 80% efficiency vs 30%, I can see the relationship between those two numbers without having you tell me how much more or less one is than the other, thank you very much.

Boom. Good point. I was just addressing the situation that developed in the thread.

 

[SearchMaster]

venture capital, DoD proposals, DoE proposals, and i'm sure one of the big car MFR's would *love* to have a more efficient engine.

One of my college roommates had an uncle who was an inventor and supposedly had invented a much improved engine design. He had met with every major manufacturer but been turned down, supposedly because they just didn't want to invest in the infrastructure changes and the fact that his engine would last a lot longer without required maintenance.

Now this was 20 years ago, and I have no idea how much BS was involved (I trust my roommate but didn't know the uncle). It told an interesting "Tucker Torpedo" like story though.

 

[Lifted]

I am a licensed patent agent with the USPTO and a practicing patent attorney. That said, I think that this guy is literally insane.

You sound more like a giant tool.

You calling someone else insane is :biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:

 

[Zenmervolt]

He had met with every major manufacturer but been turned down, supposedly because they just didn't want to invest in the infrastructure changes and the fact that his engine would last a lot longer without required maintenance.

You know, inventors point to the idea of planned obsolescence all the time, but very few really stop to look at it. Think about all the things that have been done to cars today that reduce maintenance needs:

1) Platinum and iridium plugs. Slightly less performance than copper, but they last 100,000+ miles. Copper plugs were on a 15,000-30,000 mile replacement interval.

2) Oil change minders that don't indicate a change for 7,500 miles or more, cutting maintenance in half.

3) "Lubed for life" bearings and joints that typically never need servicing for 100,000 miles or more. People used to have wheel bearings re-packed almost yearly. Good luck finding zirk fittings on most modern suspension joints too.

4) "Sealed" transmissions and final drives. These things used to need servicing every 15,000 to 30,000 miles.

5) Pointless ignition systems. I'll bet that most people here are young enough that they've never had to deal with adjusting points so you can limp to a mechanic and have them replaced.

That's all just off the top of my head, but the actual history of the car shows a dramatic trend towards far less maintenance that just flies in the face of the "manufacturers don't want X because it would mean less maintenance and therefore less profit" claims from so many basement inventors.

This isn't directed at you, I just borrowed the post as a jumping-off point.

ZV

 

[MikeMike]

talk to this guy...

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?3386395-Half-rotate-engine

(thread will make head go boom)

 

[Throckmorton]

I have no clue about engine efficiency, but I'm fairly certain .2 * 3 = .6.

300% more efficient is 4x. 300% as efficient is 3x.

.2*4=80%

 

[Howard]

You sound more like a giant tool.

You calling someone else insane is :biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:

Looks like you weren't that serious about trying to help your buddy, then.

 

[drnickriviera]

Mfg's still do lifetime fluids in cars? After having a Lexus trans go boom and numerous complaints about BMW lifetime fluid. I'd say that isn't a bragging point for reduced maintenance. Yeah, it will last a lifetime. The lifetime of your transmission until it goes boom and you have to get a new one.

You know, inventors point to the idea of planned obsolescence all the time, but very few really stop to look at it. Think about all the things that have been done to cars today that reduce maintenance needs:

1) Platinum and iridium plugs. Slightly less performance than copper, but they last 100,000+ miles. Copper plugs were on a 15,000-30,000 mile replacement interval.

2) Oil change minders that don't indicate a change for 7,500 miles or more, cutting maintenance in half.

3) "Lubed for life" bearings and joints that typically never need servicing for 100,000 miles or more. People used to have wheel bearings re-packed almost yearly. Good luck finding zirk fittings on most modern suspension joints too.

4) "Sealed" transmissions and final drives. These things used to need servicing every 15,000 to 30,000 miles.

5) Pointless ignition systems. I'll bet that most people here are young enough that they've never had to deal with adjusting points so you can limp to a mechanic and have them replaced.

That's all just off the top of my head, but the actual history of the car shows a dramatic trend towards far less maintenance that just flies in the face of the "manufacturers don't want X because it would mean less maintenance and therefore less profit" claims from so many basement inventors.

This isn't directed at you, I just borrowed the post as a jumping-off point.

ZV

 

[Lifted]

Looks like you weren't that serious about trying to help your buddy, then.

Does it? UH OH!

 

[Safeway]

Does it? UH OH!

What a joke you are.

I offered REAL advice as a practicing patent attorney. If you want to help your friend, tell him that there is a substantial chance that he has already lost his rights to a patent. Without knowing what was disclosed in the patent and what your friend has actually reduced to practice, I cannot be certain. However, any deviation from total disclosure constitutes inequitable conduct.

Otherwise, move the fuck on and let him pipe dream continue.

 

[Lifted]

blah blah.

You started with some rather lame insults, then you assumed quite a bit. All of your assumptions were wrong BTW. But if you want to send me your contact info, I'm sure my friend would be much better off getting legal assistance from a hot head such as you than the professional he's currently working with.