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

[Lifted]

That doesn't really add up either. If he already has it designed, why does he need a team of 15 engineers? If he already has it designed, all he needs is a couple of machinists to build a prototype. The only reason he'd need engineers would be if he hasn't actually designed anything but only has a general theory.

I think that's where everyone's seeing a disconnect between what is claimed and what is being requested.

ZV

I see. I haven't gone into the particulars with him in any detail, but I do know there are areas that require specialists such as the ignition system, fuel injection, etc., that would require too much time for a single person to get working. Again, 15 years alone vs. 2 years with a team. As it's a new idea for an ICE, there will obviously be a lot of trial and error involved in just about every part of the engine. It's still no guarantee that the design will work as it may require more time and money than anyone is willing to commit, or the prototype may reveal unforeseen issues that make it unfeasible for any number of reasons.

 

[LordMorpheus]

There will not be any benefit in efficiency from delaying combustion like that. The mechanical energy coming out of that cylinder is going to be equal to the pressure integrated over the stroke - it's true you have low torque at your highest pressure, but it doesn't matter as far as the total energy coming out of that system is concerned. Basically any time the piston is moving down without high pressure over it is a waste - if you fire at the halfway point you've just wasted half of your stroke.

If you could get 3x better mileage by retarding your timing 90 degrees, people would have been doing it for years.

 

[Lifted]

I think it's in the "90% done, 90% left to go" stage, where much of the engineering is detail work. Granted the devil is in the details, and it could kill the project if there is one little thing that won't line up. Fully detailing an engine, like designing the oil pump, oil passages, making an ECM solution, detailing, dimensioning, and tolerancing every drawing of every part, etc takes a lot of engineering hours, but are all solved problems other than the novel engine. 5 mil might be overkill, but not by a whole lot (now that I've actually thought about it).

I wasn't even thinking about the ECU. That would be way out of this guys area of expertise.

 

[Lifted]

The mechanical energy coming out of that cylinder

I'm amazed that after describing what my friend saw as the major problem with the design of current ICE's (i.e. the piston in my sketch above), everyone is still working on the assumption that the engine is based on that design. It's not. That's all I can share here.

 

[Howard]

There will not be any benefit in efficiency from delaying combustion like that. The mechanical energy coming out of that cylinder is going to be equal to the pressure integrated over the stroke - it's true you have low torque at your highest pressure, but it doesn't matter as far as the total energy coming out of that system is concerned. Basically any time the piston is moving down without high pressure over it is a waste - if you fire at the halfway point you've just wasted half of your stroke.

If you could get 3x better mileage by retarding your timing 90 degrees, people would have been doing it for years.

Well, you might not get better mileage but your turbo will certainly never lag.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

"Incredible claims require incredible proof." --Carl Sagan

 

[Zenmervolt]

I think it's in the "90% done, 90% left to go" stage, where much of the engineering is detail work. Granted the devil is in the details, and it could kill the project if there is one little thing that won't line up. Fully detailing an engine, like designing the oil pump, oil passages, making an ECM solution, detailing, dimensioning, and tolerancing every drawing of every part, etc takes a lot of engineering hours, but are all solved problems other than the novel engine. 5 mil might be overkill, but not by a whole lot (now that I've actually thought about it).

Less than 100% done may as well not be done at all.

I understand what you're saying, and I'm more familiar than I'd like to be with projects where the first 90% of the work takes 90% of the time and the last 10% of the work takes the other 90% of the time. However, if the inventor is at a place where the process flow diagram still contains the "and then a miracle happens" step (or a substantively similar one), then the cold, hard reality of the situation is that this "inventor" has not actually invented anything at all, hell, he doesn't even have a coherent design.

If that's the case, then what he's asking for isn't funding to build a new design, he's asking for research grants to pursue a hypothesis. Very different arena.

It's one thing to have gaps in knowledge (e.g. hiring someone to program a custom ECU because while you know the functional specs you don't know the programming to make it operate on those specs), but it's another entirely for a design to assume that someone else will be able to invent a critical component that currently doesn't exist at all. If unrealized product "A" requires, as part of its design, nonexistent products "B" and "C", then I don't see how "A" can truly be said to have actually been designed.

I mean, if we can "invent" something that depends on someone else to invent another item, then I've just "invented" a way to fly, all I need is someone else to invent pixie dust.

ZV

 

[Bignate603]

I think it's in the "90% done, 90% left to go" stage, where much of the engineering is detail work. Granted the devil is in the details, and it could kill the project if there is one little thing that won't line up. Fully detailing an engine, like designing the oil pump, oil passages, making an ECM solution, detailing, dimensioning, and tolerancing every drawing of every part, etc takes a lot of engineering hours, but are all solved problems other than the novel engine. 5 mil might be overkill, but not by a whole lot (now that I've actually thought about it).

For a prototype you're going for proof of concept, not production. You'll use commercial off the shelf products for everything you possibly can and the majority will not be engine driven. IE you'd use an electrically driven pumps that are seperate from the engine, the fuel will be controlled by a stand alone system, and everything will be machined rather than cast. You don't want to have to go through the whole design process on the details until you've figured out if the main idea has a hope of working, that's a very typical mistake of independent inventors.

 

[JCH13]

For a prototype you're going for proof of concept, not production. You'll use commercial off the shelf products for everything you possibly can and the majority will not be engine driven. IE you'd use an electrically driven pumps that are seperate from the engine, the fuel will be controlled by a stand alone system, and everything will be machined rather than cast. You don't want to have to go through the whole design process on the details until you've figured out if the main idea has a hope of working, that's a very typical mistake of independent inventors.

I get your point, but there is still a large amount of engineering and design work that would go into making even a proof-of-concept engine, and I agree that it is always better to go proof-of-concept before a full-blown prototype.

ZV - I am giving him the benefit of the doubt that the underlying principle is sound. Your points are well taken, but you do assume that this guy has his head completely up his ass (which is possible).

In related news: http://www.ecomotors.com/power-density

 

[Bignate603]

I get your point, but there is still a large amount of engineering and design work that would go into making even a proof-of-concept engine, and I agree that it is always better to go proof-of-concept before a full-blown prototype.

There will be some work, but not nearly enough to require $5 million.

 

[child of wonder]

Everyone is always suggesting hookers and blow.

Just this time you get to be the hooker and blow.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Less than 100% done may as well not be done at all.

I understand what you're saying, and I'm more familiar than I'd like to be with projects where the first 90% of the work takes 90% of the time and the last 10% of the work takes the other 90% of the time. However, if the inventor is at a place where the process flow diagram still contains the "and then a miracle happens" step (or a substantively similar one), then the cold, hard reality of the situation is that this "inventor" has not actually invented anything at all, hell, he doesn't even have a coherent design.

If that's the case, then what he's asking for isn't funding to build a new design, he's asking for research grants to pursue a hypothesis. Very different arena.

It's one thing to have gaps in knowledge (e.g. hiring someone to program a custom ECU because while you know the functional specs you don't know the programming to make it operate on those specs), but it's another entirely for a design to assume that someone else will be able to invent a critical component that currently doesn't exist at all. If unrealized product "A" requires, as part of its design, nonexistent products "B" and "C", then I don't see how "A" can truly be said to have actually been designed.

I mean, if we can "invent" something that depends on someone else to invent another item, then I've just "invented" a way to fly, all I need is someone else to invent pixie dust.

ZV

This is very true with many "inventions". Especially magnet motors. They just need to solve one little thing and that's the point that makes the whole concept fall apart. Most every alternative-to-piston ICE design I see seems to lack means of sealing the combustion chamber. That one thing is why cylinders reign with almost a monopoly. It's really easy to seal a cylindrical shape. Honda had a sport bike with oval pistons (basically a DOHC V8 turned into a V4), but given it's very limited history and high cost, you can see why it didn't catch on.

So even if you can make an idea happen, feasibility is a major concern.

 

[Zenmervolt]

ZV - I am giving him the benefit of the doubt that the underlying principle is sound. Your points are well taken, but you do assume that this guy has his head completely up his ass (which is possible).

In related news: http://www.ecomotors.com/power-density

Historically speaking, you have to admit that my position has better chance of being right.

Even if you're right, it still shouldn't cost $5 million to build a proof-of-concept. The Wright brothers' first powered aircraft, complete with an engine built and designed entirely by the Wrights, cost $1,000 in 1903. Even accounting for inflation, that's still less than $25,000 in today's money.

I can see it costing $5 million to design something, but there's not supposed to be any real designing left at the proof-of-concept stage. It should be straightforward building and machining. The only way I can see $5 million being a legitimate price tag is if this guy is attempting to use others to work on the engineering issues that he cannot solve himself and if that's the case, then he's asking for someone else to do the design work for him.

From that link: "One of our goals is to demonstrate, in 2010, the automobile industry's first 5-passenger car capable of 100 mpg on the EPA highway cycle."

Hmmm, they're running out of time on that one.

Honda had a sport bike with oval pistons (basically a DOHC V8 turned into a V4), but given it's very limited history and high cost, you can see why it didn't catch on.

Those NR engines were something else. They were basically a way around racing rules though and not a true attempt at something to advance engines as a whole. Basically, racing rules limited engines to "4 combustion chambers" and the NR engines were the only way Honda could get their 4-strokes to match the power output of the 2-stroke competition because Honda couldn't fit large enough valves in circular combustion chambers to get the flow to work properly.

ZV

 

[Bignate603]

Those NR engines were something else. They were basically a way around racing rules though and not a true attempt at something to advance engines as a whole. Basically, racing rules limited engines to "4 combustion chambers" and the NR engines were the only way Honda could get their 4-strokes to match the power output of the 2-stroke competition because Honda couldn't fit large enough valves in circular combustion chambers to get the flow to work properly.

ZV

And if I remember right they were not trouble free either.

I mentioned I had worked with a group trying to design a better engine before because a higher up at my company thought it sounded like a good idea. One of the largest problems that was intrinsic to their engine was because they had to have square combustion chambers. It was a sealing nightmare and I don't even know if they'll get enough compression to get ignition (it's supposed to be a diesel) because it's going to leak so much.

Circular piston rings are extremely hard to beat. They're cheap, and they don't have any difficult to seal shapes.

 

[JCH13]

Historically speaking, you have to admit that my position has better chance of being right.

ZV

Hehe, quite possibly.

And if I remember right they were not trouble free either.

I mentioned I had worked with a group trying to design a better engine before because a higher up at my company thought it sounded like a good idea. One of the largest problems that was intrinsic to their engine was because they had to have square combustion chambers. It was a sealing nightmare and I don't even know if they'll get enough compression to get ignition (it's supposed to be a diesel) because it's going to leak so much.

Circular piston rings are extremely hard to beat. They're cheap, and they don't have any difficult to seal shapes.

And even if they could seal properly the corners of each square piston head would build up heat and likely cause detonation. They are bad news.