I often find thing on the internet that are interesting but rarely do I find something that is so different that it boggles the mind somewhat.

At one time I was a mechanic and I have a deep knowledge of many mechanical things but the way this engine works is rather amazing.

It is called a Massive Yet Tiny Engine (MYT)

The inventor is Raphial Morgado

He looks to have several patents and he has formed a working group called Angel Labs

His web site is here.

http://www.angellabsllc.com

From his web site this is a picture of his engine.

Click to view attachment

And a drawing.

Click to view attachment

He has a lot of movies on his web site that are worth watching too.

This is a Youtube video of a cutaway engine turning.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZI1JLbnW3Sg

To get a real idea of how the gear system controls the piston movement you need to have Excel and down load the moving Excel spreadsheet.

http://www.angellabsllc.com/video/animation.xls

There are two arrows at the top left that will make the engine rotate through it's strokes.

There are two tabs at the bottom that will let you change to the piston to crankshaft angle view.

There is a video of the engine on the dyno too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Itl9ipaIJ_o

I don't know why the engine slows down and makes less power but it may be that the dyno was increasing the load and the engine just slows down until it stops. He did not publish any torque curves.

I'm not sure why I even care about this because I don't expect anyone to put one in a car because it is so new and different.

He makes some big claims on gas millage but I'm not to sure how much better it might be. The engine is a piston port diesel which should produce great power and the dwell time is long on the power stroke and the port timing is long so you will get most of the energy from each pulse.

The thermal efficiency should be much higher. The pistons are at both ends of the cylinder so there is no head to cool and more heat will be turned into moving mass.

The heat load on the pistons and the cylinders will be vary high and may require some special cooling or material.

I understand the sun gear setup. (watch the power point demo) it operates on a 4 to 1 ratio and this creates 4 dwell times for port timing. I don't know if a 6 to 1 ratio would allow for a 6 piston setup or if a 3 to 1 ratio would let you have a three piston engine setup. It look like it might work like that.

Any comments welcome.

Interesting design. It looks like a cross between a WW1 rotary airplane engine and a Mazda rotary engine.

DJ

Sent this to my brother-in-law. He's going to hate me for making him lose a few days of his life as he frets over this!!!

I've seen this on the web a few times; it gets a lot of pings on StumbleUpon. Its an interesting idea, but the claims about fuel efficiency appear outrageous.

One thing about a normal 4 stroke is the fact that the exhaust valve must open too early just to fill the exhaust pipe and create suction for the intake charge. This wast a lot of heat and pressure. It looks like the MTE has a much longer dwell and will self purge better. This could make much better use of the charge.

How much we don't know but I do know that a normal 4 stroke opens the exhaust valve around 32deg ATDC and it looks like the MTE has a dwell of 90deg - the port size, so perhaps 70deg or so, that is almost twice the dwell time.

There's also a lot of friction between the piston and cylinder in a standard engine. And the fact that a conversion from linear force (piston motion) to rotational force (crankshaft) is very inefficient.

I'm sure it won't be as efficient as your standard 4 cyl. Of course, those engines don't make 850hp and 4000 ft-lbs of torque, which they claim the MYT engine does.

Very innovative. I see durability as a problem, especially for the piston (or whatever he calls them) seals.

The piston speed in a 4 stroke can be quite high. As the crank reaches 90deg. Piston speed is one of the main problems of vary high RPM long stroke moters. It looks like the MTE may have a more constant piston speed which might allow for a higher performance factor.

The stability of having the rotor/piston fixed will allow for better piston stability but expansion will have to be planed on.

One problem I see is with blow by, any blow by will contaminate the charge in the next cylinder, it looks like the exhaust is next to the intake stroke so the exhaust could mess up the intake charge.

"I'm sure it won't be as efficient as your standard 4 cyl. Of course, those engines don't make 850hp and 4000 ft-lbs of torque, which they claim the MYT engine does."



Power is just displacement. He does not give any real fuel usage.

We could guess on how big a 160hp engine would be. A 160HP 800fp torque would be 1/5 the size of the demo model or about the size of a cantaloupe!

IF that worked as promissed, we would all be abel to buy it in cars.
-but it looks very smart., a have to take a better look, when i have the time.

here is a COOL WORKING ENGINE, like totally WITHOUT PISTONS.

http://simjet.com/C1256F6600773F26/0/420B9...4600457023?open
http://simjet.com/C1256F6600773F26/0/FFEFC...C6003D157D?open

i want 2, for a Tomcat F14.
and a bunce for my car, "TURBO, knight rider style"

Half the battle is containing the gases, which seams hard in this type of setup. Sealing those vanes that make up the sides of the combustion chamber seems difficult and high wear. With the angles fixed for the intake and exaust I wonder how well it runs at different rpms, its easy to make an engine efficent at one RPM but much harder to make it run well over a wide range. This design seems to be a lot loke the wankel (Mazda rotary) which did make a lot of HP for its weight but you couldn't re built the engine it would last maybe 100K and then you needed a replacement. The wankel seems like it is a simpiler design and much more likely to be reliable than this complex mechanism, those gears that move the vaves would be under extreme pressure and opperate at high speeds. The marketing seem to be making a case that its 4 times more powerful than a large V8, the world doesn't need more powerful engines, it needs power efficent ones we need an engine 25% of a cylinder that makes equal power and that would be a huge advance. They mostly talk about power production but remeber that there are drag racing motors that produce 5000-7000hp, just don't ask about MPG's, cost or life time. It looks like this maybe more like a drag motor than an commute care replacement.

The Wankle was an amazing engine for its time. My frend had one and after the rev limiter was removed it would go over 9000 RPM! The motor did have a shot life with that kind of use.

The rotor seal was Teflon and was prone to failure. The MBT has the pistons fixed and could use standard steel alloy rings so I don't see why ring seal would be any worse than any other engine.

The efficiency is hard to pin down because he gave no info on fuel usage.

Efficiency is really a function of how well you can turn pressure into movement. The longer dwell time of the MBT should be more efficient but more testing would let us know.

It is smaller so it would be lighter for the same power so for auto use it might prove a better fit. It might be a great airplane engen but that would take many years of pre-flight testing.

The main flaw I see is the heat loading of the cylinder, all that heat may be a problem.

But there is always the internal water cooling system.

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/technology/c1...ecbccdrcrd.html

This is also a great idea for any internal combustion engine, A chance of about 40% increase in MPG and no cooling needed.

This is the same Crower that founded and still is active in Crower Camshafts.

For auto efficiency electric may be the best way in the short term. There is some new electric cars coming out soon. The Chevy volt.

http://www.gm-volt.com/

and the Tesla

http://www.teslamotors.com/

and the Phoenix

http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/index.html

The deal breaker is the batteries. GM picked two makers LG and A123 systems. The A123 is a much better idea if it works,

http://www.a123systems.com/

I don't know about GW but I do know my gas money goes to the House of Saud and Hugo.

Perhaps some cool solar cells might be needed too.

http://www.nanosolar.com/

Hmmmmm 1/10 the cost?

2008 is going to be a fun year.

It is so bloody simple. Why didn't I think of that?

Look at the forums on the Angel Labs site. They closed over a year ago when the "inventor" (it's not an original design - merely an improvement over a previous one) was shown to be essentially making the figures up for his claims of increased bhp and fuel efficiency. I think he got a bit fed up of a lot of people disproving his claims in the forums, so he simply shut them down.

I know the forum is closed.

You say that the idea is not original so can you provide a link to the original design? Most engines are a improvements over the older designs. Have you ever seen a radial 12?

It does look like he made a working prototype. It does look like it was running on a real dyno and making around 850 HP. Do you have any info that would prove otherwise?

I followed the forum on Angel Labs for over 12 months before they shut it down under the guise of a site move. The only time it was tested was when it was run on compressed air. They could not get it to run on fuel as the design was flawed and the engine would not have been able to withstand the mechanical stresses of a fuel burn. Notice that he 'claims' he has run it on fuel, but all the videos show only compressed air. There was an admission as I recall, that they could not build a working engine capable of a proper sustained fuel burn as it would either disintegrate or melt owing to severe cooling problems.

I am not 'dissing' the inventor at all, merely pointing out that most of his claims were unsubstantiated and, as was pointed out a number of times to him, his claims concerning the abilities of the engine were somewhat overstated.

As for other designs, the original design was called a Kreislauf engine and invented by the Germans during the last world war. Also look for The Rotoblock (http://www.rotoblock.com/) and the Roundengine (http://www.roundengine.com/) as further examples of small toroidal engines.

Deadmonty:

So the Dyno test video is fake or is the engine running on compressed air?

They do look like some jokers but it did take a lot of work to make the prototype.

I will look up the other engine to see how they work.

I looked at the Rotoblock and the VGT engine. The Rotoblock looks to function almost exactly like the MYT but has a crankshaft instead of sun gears. The outside housing is the output shaft in the Rotoblock design which I consider to be a real problem with all that mass spinning.

The cylinder heat load should be the same for both the MYT and the Rotoblock so if the Rotoblock will work then the MYT should also work.

I like the sun gear setup of the MYT a little better but the crankshaft system might be more durable.

The VGT is just strange and I need to look at it some more to understand how it works.

The Rotoblock website did say there was 1300 patents for round engines.

Do you see a lot of difference between the MYT and the Rotoblock?