WOW, look at this engine

Shin Gou wrote:
http://www.greenengtech.com/index.htm

Click on the "English" button on the left.

The company claims it's a revolutionary six-stroke rotary engine.
120hp, 60lbs. Are they kidding me or what?

Actually, the answer to that question is helpfully provided in their
FAQ, question 5, "What will consultants probably say when I ask them
about the Green Engine?" With answer "They will say we are smoking
crack."

Well, actually, their answer is a bit more long-winded:

There is an engineering phenomenon that most all consultants disagree
with each other, and there is a great deal of prejudice or competition
between any of the various technologies. (I.E. Turbine specialists
discount piston technology and vice versa). Furthermore, few
consultants will give a positive report on any technology they are not
directly involved with because of liability. Also, any consultant has a
limited expertise dependent on their actual "hands on" experience, and
outside experts can only get very limited basic information about a new
technology which is being under development (Normally the most
important technology would never be showed by owner). It seems that you
ask a steam engine expert for questions about the jet engine.

Anthony W wrote:

Richard Isakson wrote:

"Richard Riley" wrote ...

I wonder how the thousands of employees at
Stavatti Aerospace are doing... http://www.stavatti.com/



But Richard, they MUST be real. They have a way cool website.

Rich


They remind me a lot of Moller...

Tony

They even have have a picture of Moller's sky car.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired.

wrote in message
oups.com...
I hope this is for real, but I somehow doubt it, it's probably one of
those neverending development projects. Also, with that little weight
compared to comprable powered engines, unless an aircraft is
specifically designed for this engine just for weight and balance's
sake you'd have to put at least 100 pounds of dead weight on the nose
or move the engine forward a good couple of feet.

Shoot, if that is the only problem, just stack the rotors, and make an
engine with 4 times the power, or whatever is needed for it to weigh the
same as the engine it is replacing. More power is seldom a BIG problem, if
it does not weigh too much.

I hope this engine is for real, and it comes to market. It does look
interesting, and possible, to me.
--
Jim in NC

Shin Gou wrote:
http://www.greenengtech.com/index.htm

Click on the "English" button on the left.

The company claims it's a revolutionary six-stroke rotary engine.
120hp, 60lbs. Are they kidding me or what?


I'm not sure, but I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume
that is a redundant question?

Look at what they are proposing. A long sliding vane in a tight slot.
This sliding vane composes one entire side of the combustion chamber.
Can you imagine the side load placed on that cantilevered beam? How
thick would the vane have to be to not bend under such loads? And now
that you've made it thicker (and heavier), what are you going to make
the sidewalls out of to withstand the centifugal loads and sliding
friction? And now it has to slide in and out of slot while loaded.
Ever tried to put a side load and a beam and slide it in a slot? And did
you look at the steep curve in the sidewall that will force the vane in?
Is there any doubt in your mind that the vane will simply be sheared off?

They're not trying to kid anyone. Either they are totally honest, and
completely ignorant of what the inside of an engineering class looks
like, or they are looking to scam some venture capitalist.

--
This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against
instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make
mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their
decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)."

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired wrote:

They remind me a lot of Moller...

Tony


They even have have a picture of Moller's sky car.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired.

Maybe zoomer will tast fly it. ;o)

Tony

Anthony W wrote:

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired wrote:

They remind me a lot of Moller...

Tony



They even have have a picture of Moller's sky car.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired.


Maybe zoomer will tast fly it. ;o)

Tony

If he hasn't already.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Richard Isakson wrote:
"Shin Gou" wrote ...
http://www.greenengtech.com/index.htm

Click on the "English" button on the left.

The company claims it's a revolutionary six-stroke rotary engine.
120hp, 60lbs. Are they kidding me or what?


Why would you believe *anything* this company tells you? Here you have an
engine that hasn't even run, that can't be lighter or more efficient than a
fourstroke and who's principale are seeking investors and customers to send
them money for an idea that doesn't exist, yet you're ready endorse them?
Magic engines come and go but they never work. From an engineering point of
view, the world is the way the world is for a reason. You can push at the
side box but you can't jump out of it.

This unpopular viewpoint brought to you by:
Rich

Yep, a perfect green engine. Infinitely efficent, cause it doesn't run.

Sport Pilot wrote:


Yep, a perfect green engine. Infinitely efficent, cause it doesn't run.

It must have been invented by Al Gore.

Tony

Anthony W wrote:
Sport Pilot wrote:


Yep, a perfect green engine. Infinitely efficent, cause it doesn't run.

It must have been invented by Al Gore.

Tony

Are you sure it's not an invention of mr. George dubbleU B.
A big hoax.

ower wrote:
Anthony W wrote:

Sport Pilot wrote:


Yep, a perfect green engine. Infinitely efficent, cause it doesn't run.

It must have been invented by Al Gore.

Tony


Are you sure it's not an invention of mr. George dubbleU B.
A big hoax.

No, I'm sure it has more to do with the guy that wrote a environmental
book full of junk science and said he invented the Internet.

Tony