Topic: Need some help

[maxqtime]

As I am new to skepticism, and there is probably someone here way smarter than I am. I ask for help in explaining how the theory behind this revolutionary engine is flawed, or if it isn't.

http://www.angellabsllc.com/

So this guy invented a cyclical motor, that hugely increases the amount of compression and combustion during each rotation. He makes the claim that this basically puts the power of a semi truck engine, into a system that is lightweight and small. The claim is a 7inch version of this engine could drive a car.

So anyone who wants to add their expertise to this, I look forward to hearing.

I was unable to find this during a forum search, so my apologies if this has been posted before.

[EhJayArr]

The site certainly set off my skeptical alarm bells... first thing I noticed is that the site is mainly comprised of vague claims about the engine's amazing abilities. Second thing I noticed is that there hasn't been any news in years. I also wonder that if the design is as simple and amazing as the claims make it out to be why the big car companies aren't cranking them out.

Wikipedia to the rescue.

The basic concept is very similar to the Wankel engine, the "traditional" rotary, but predates it by some time. It also shares a strong lineage with the free-piston engine. Like those designs, the swing-piston cylinder has to be open on one side to connect to the crankshaft, and is thus subject to the same sorts of sealing problems as other rotary designs. In addition, the swing-piston design retains a reciprocating motion and all the disadvantages that entails, namely the need for vibration damping and balancing. If the design oscillates around a fixed point, it also requires some sort of crank system to convert the motion into a rotary one. For these reasons, it has been said that the swing-piston design combines all the disadvantages of the rotary with all the disadvantages of the reciprocating

It is unclear whether or not any internal combustion swing-piston engine has ever reached production, but the closest attempt appears to be the German World War II-era design by Otto Lutz

More recently, starting in the 1990s, a number of inventors have re-introduced the concept as if it were new. Examples include Angel Labs' "Massive Yet Tiny" engine, the Rotoblock, the Roundengine, the Trochilic Engine and designs by Tschudi and Hoose.

So... the design is plausible (but not novel), and impractical, as evidenced by over one hundred years of exploration and testing... and I can't help but expect that dearth of updates about the MYT is due to it not actually working.