If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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)." |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Sport Pilot wrote:
Yep, a perfect green engine. Infinitely efficent, cause it doesn't run. It must have been invented by Al Gore. Tony |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Proposals for air breathing hypersonic craft. I | Robert Clark | Military Aviation | 2 | May 26th 04 06:42 PM |
Emergency Procedures | RD | Piloting | 13 | April 11th 04 08:25 PM |
Autorotation ? R22 for the Experts | Eric D | Rotorcraft | 22 | March 5th 04 06:11 AM |
Real stats on engine failures? | Captain Wubba | Piloting | 127 | December 8th 03 04:09 PM |
Corky's engine choice | Corky Scott | Home Built | 39 | August 8th 03 04:29 AM |