|
|  |
| |
|
| | The Innovation Network Network is not currently active and cannot accept new posts | | MYT Engine | Views: 400 | | Nov 25, 2009 4:06 am | | MYT Engine | # | 
Ron Sam | | MYT engine to be demonstrated to Society of Automotive Engineers International (SAE)
Inventor Raphial Morgado has been invited as a guest speaker a the Oregon chapter of SAE to discuss and demonstrate his Massive Yet Tiny (MYT) engine. Also working on building 5.5-inch versions to demonstrate this 40x power-to-weight ratio engine.
by Sterling D. Allan
Pure Energy Systems News
Copyright © 2009
continues here:
http://pesn.com/2009/11/18/9501588_MYT_engine_SAE_guest/
This looks very promising to me. Small engines with high output work well with hybrids. My 3rd gen Prius has about 150 ft. lbs. torque with the electric motors (2) and the ICE only has about 100 ft. lbs of torque. Getting more torque out of a small lightweight package would be an improvement.
Looking at Morgado's engine with the pistons moving in succession with the charge squeezed between the pistons is a clever design. Valve timing (positions) could be a limiting factor with a small format. Or how to program the intake and exhaust phases like modern engines that have electronic controls to vary timing depending on load sensors could really make this engine efficient.
ronPrivate Reply to Ron Sam | | Nov 25, 2009 4:55 am | | re: MYT Engine | # | 
Thomas Holford | | Looks like an interesting concept. I have no idea if it will work or not.
That was probably me in the background yelling "NO! NO! NO!" when he was talking about his product introduction strategy.
It makes NO sense to me to retrofit engines in SUV's with a smaller engine of the same price and performance. That's five or ten thousand dollars of cost for no added value.
Morgado may be a technology genius, but he looks to me like one of those clueless social dreamers who is going to jam a square peg in a round hole. I'm sure he will drive a lot of potential investors or business partners nuts, and delay the widespread use of his engine by years. By that time, there will be a better mousetrap.
T. Holford
Private Reply to Thomas Holford | | Nov 25, 2009 2:52 pm | | re: re: MYT Engine | # | 
Ken Hilving | | The engine looks promising.
Forget the retrofit business aspect for a moment. While this is a step towards getting a better engine in an existing vehicle, and proving the value of the better engine, the goal ought to be getting better engines in new vehicles.
The best approach might be as a stand alone engine manufacturer. The precedents for this include Briggs & Stratton, Cummins, and in the computing environment Intel and AMD.Private Reply to Ken Hilving | | Nov 25, 2009 5:50 pm | | re: re: re: MYT Engine | # |
Thomas Holford | | Ken Hilving sayeth:
> The engine looks promising.
> Forget the retrofit business aspect for a moment. While this is a step towards getting a better engine in an existing vehicle, and proving the value of the better engine, the goal ought to be getting better engines in new vehicles.
> The best approach might be as a stand alone engine manufacturer. The precedents for this include Briggs & Stratton, Cummins, and in the computing environment Intel and AMD.
I don't disagree.
I was just responding to the inventor's statement that he wanted to use his invention "to create jobs". An attitude like that is sure to lead to a business diasaster, force fit the technology to an inappropriate application, and maybe tarnish the technology as a "flop" for the rest of history.
My point is: find the best possible application for the technology where it will add the greatest value and have the greatest chance for success. Let others admire the success of the technology and come up with other suitable applications for adapting the technology. Let the application of the technology grow naturally and organically, based on the motivation of businesses and entrepreneurs to solve problems and make profits.
WHEN this happens, an abundance of jobs will be created.
It is utter folly and vanity for politicians and social theorists to dream up pointless schemes to "create jobs" unrelated to any consideration of "value added" or "profit enabled" by the jobs.
"Jobs" can by created by governments over-taxing productive people and paying under-performers to dig holes and fill them up. The politicians crow about the "jobs created" but never account for the "jobs destroyed."Private Reply to Thomas Holford | | |
| |
| |
