Export thread

Innovative OPOC Engine: Opposed Piston Opposed Cylinder Engine

Internal Combustion Engines are widely used in vehicles. It uses fuel in confined space. The engine has the portability and is more convenient over electricity, hybrid vehicles, etc. But the major drawback of these engines is pollution that they put out. Internal Combustion Engines creates air pollution in a large amount. To replace this engine, many engineers are working on new technologies like electric motors, hybrid power trains, hydrogen fuel cells, and even cars that run on compressed air. But none of these technologies are efficient. So, we need a better internal combustion engine.

Here is the good news: Better internal combustion engines are on the way.


A company called an Ecomotor developing the new Engine named as Opposed-Piston-Opposed-Cylinder Engine. Opposed- Piston-Opposed-Cylinder (OPOC) Engine is the most exciting new type of internal combustion engines.

Well the poppet valve engine has been around since 1890 and since the 1950's cities have been built around motor vehicles.
There is not enough copper, cobalt, nickel on the planet to replace all of the petrol powered engines with electric ones.
Each alternative technology has it's place.
The compresses air cars used for taxi transport between Delhi & it's airports works well there .
Compressed hydrogen will work as a replacement for heavy transport diesel engines and in particular in construction & earthmoving where the extra weight is an advantage .
Hydrogen turbine - electric motor is the go for rail .
The problem always is getting the individual industry to use the right technology
Unless you live in a communist country the idea of saying as of year 1234 all trucks have to be hydrogen powered is likely to have you shot in the USA & deposed anywhere else on the planet .
The big downside of capitalist economies is they will always waste what is cheapest rather than using what is best .
We could go back to UK styled vehicles ( small engines with big gearboxes ) in place of US styled vehicles ( Big engines with lazy gearboxes ) and that alone would save millions of gallons of fuel.
I bought a Nissan in 1984 with power steering , air con powered by a 1600cc engine
qw replaced in it 1992 with another one, the same model , the same weight but to get power steering & air con we had to buy the 2400cc engine
The sales rep said we could not get power & air on the smaller 1800cc engine because it does not have enough power .
New model was 60kg heavier than the earlier model, had the same running gear .
By 2010 the same model came with a 3000cc big engine and a 2600cc small "economy" engine
The first one got 60 mpg
it's replacement was pushing it to get 50 mpg

Here's a different design. It's a 2cycle also.

Well the Piper Tomahawk had a four cylinder opposed engine that I flew. Nothing new about the design other than they design it to fitted in a ground vehicle. The Tomahawk cruised at about 110 knots which bad an engine driven prop.

Before everything went electric the anchor chain winch on a lot of battle ships was an opposed piston engine started with a shot gun cartridge.
Lots of very cleaver designs out there
However the best environmentally was the turbine generator powering an electric motor.
Then there were things like water injection , that can triple the fuel economy & bump up the torque nearly 50%
Was used to get heavy bombers off the short decks of carriers during WWII .
But again capitalist systems waste whatever is abundant & cheap .
So the US got massive V 8's while socialist countries got tiny 2 cylinder engines .

Actually converting gasoline fuel into a vapor before it engine the combustion chamber can really drive up the fuel economy too. I have seen designs that claims up 100mpg in V8s.

Those figures sound a bit of an exaggeration .
On a carburettor engine you are looking at about 30 %
On a computer controlled fuel injected engine it should make no difference

What they was vaporize the fuel and suck it into the engine. It was a dangerous design as no back flow preventers and they just wanted folk to plain steel. I could where redirected exhaust heat could easy cause burn through in the pumping and then be a potential explosion hazard., though only a small amount oxygen was available. But figures would higher then atomized fuel mix if I can take a carbureted engine on a small V8 and make it get 32 mpg. Of the V8 I did was only a 265 CI engine. But even that was 30% increase the average mpg from the factory. I went from 16 mpg to 22.6 mpg average with a cruising highway mpg of 32 mpg.

Hybrids as mentioned will not take over the world for lack of raw materials. To bad cause it with the proper drive train has great advantages. static hybrids that continue to charge a larger battery bank and use a engine just able to get the car moving when battery storage is drained and have gear ranges as well as motor drives provide peak efficiency. The gas engine can be improved for more efficiency but it has a limit unless the heat is recovered for energy for use as the heat loses are the biggest loss and are significant. Fuel cells could be used to charge battery banks, heat to electric cycle systems, efficient combustion designs and more still need fuels, Total electric vehicles will not overtake the market until super fast "refill" and refill stations and available electric grid power can sustain the continued use on quick refills plentifully available. Soooo, we need gas!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And we need it for many years of further development unless a miracle design and new power source is developed. THEN we can cut back on gasoline used, not till then. Will somebody - hell everybody tell Biden this.

VRR.DYNDNS>BIZ said:

Will somebody - hell everybody tell Biden this.

Click to expand...

You got to remember every president has 535 bosses. There are a total of 535 Members of Congress. 100 serve in the U.S. Senate and 435 serve in the U.S. House of Representatives. The president can only ask for things to done it is these 535 bosses that say yea or nay to every idea he has. And right now with the Senate evenly split so nothing is getting done that benefits us.

It is like you thinking your are the boss of your family when in fact they are your bosses, only when everyone agrees things moves along smoothly. Right the Republicians are hell bent on preventing anything getting done if the president asks for it. It would be just about as bad if we had Republican president and the Democrats were the roadblock. We got to elect people that actually works for us instead themselves. Terms limits on Congress would be a big help. Two six year terms is enough and then new ideas can come to life.

Yes,
Reps need to be longer term
Mid terms need to go because you are just about always in election ( give them lollies ) mode .
We elect 1/2 the senate at the same time as reps are elected & it works very well .
Your big problem is no one will vote for a minor party so you only have 2 choices . greedy mean & spiteful or spiteful mean & greedy .
People get the government they vote for in most western democratically elected governments .

Here we elect 1/3 our congressional reps every two years [be it reelection or new members] for six year terms. Here what they mid term elections here is those elections that happen in the middle of the four presidential term.

And you got it on that as it is very to hard to get Independent in to office. People is always trying to pin down which I pledge to. I won't as I vote the one that I think can do the best or has the best proven record.

yes 2 years between elections is too short so you are always in election ( throw money at everyone ) mode which makes long term changes impossible to do
I am part of a group trying to change our system to 5 years in reps & 10 years in the Senate and recognisisng that the electorate elect a party not a person
So senate vaccancies to be filled with the people who were on the ticket for the party but failed to get a quota
Reps go to runner up if the elected person quits the party or resigns or leaves for any reason other than death or dissability.
This should cause the parties to have a much closer look at who they nominate .
Thus if they pick a crook who gets elected then ends up being prosecuted thus is no longer able to be "the Honorable Member for ......" then they could actually loose power .
We have had some very poor choices , often as a reward for sweeping naughty things under the carpet ,

As the man in the street can no longer talk to their representative any more, the only real chance anyone has to tell the government what they think of policy is at election time
Because we have prefferential voting that means I can cast votes for every minor party who has policies I like before the least worst of the majors and know that the policy makers will be looking very closely at which minor groups get increasing number of votes .

And yes I vote on policy & always have .
The only 2 times I voted a major No 1 was the Hawke government ( because Hawk had visions & was a consolidator ) and the Rudd government because they promised fibre to the door internet.
Hawk was a good idea , Rudd was a disaster as we now have the worst internet on the planet and with it the worst telephone connection in the first world .

I don't remember saying that opposed twins was a new concept. But putting them into cars and trucks is pretty cool.

Like this engine, all technology now strives to get energy from an infinite source or organically. Technology in solar power is constantly evolving, and improvements will be made in the future. Innovations could potentially increase the efficiency of solar panels and double or even triple the electrical output of solar energy systems. Which means they could even charge cars. Wouldn't that be nice? But they also need care. You might want to consult the experts at dragonsbreathsolar.co.uk. I think I will buy another batch for the country house. What do you say?

zachbauer said:

Like this engine, all technology now strives to get energy from an infinite source or organically. Technology in solar power is constantly evolving, and improvements will be made in the future.

Click to expand...

The elephant in the room is the sheer number of people on the planet and the amount of resources they consume.
No matter what we do for a power source there is a finite limit to the number of people the planet can support .
The war in the Ukrane looks like it will cause thousands of Africans to die from starvation .

The opposed piston conceipt has been around for decades and this variation has the same problem as all piston ported engines
it is near impossible to scavenge all of the exhaust out .
Injecting overcomes the problem of fresh charge escaping out the exhaust and lubricating the bores would be interesting .
I would assume the intake air would be pressurised thus overcoming the requirement of 2 stroke rings to be double acting .

However unless the makers do a "Musk" and provide a fleet of them to a country / government free of charge the conceipt will remain just that, another clever idea that never got off the ground .
Those who control the money supply will never ever back any new technology for fear of loosing their money .
This is one reason why EV's never caught on despite them being worked on since WWII
It took some one with an unlimited of money that they could afford to loose & did not care if they did ( Musk ) to get it happening.
Now he has started the snow ball rolling then plenty more will grab onto the coat tails & be dragged along.

However we still have the resources problem .
VW canned a whole high performance model range because they could not get a secure supply of cobalt for the expected life of the range .

zachbauer said:

Like this engine, all technology now strives to get energy from an infinite source or organically. Technology in solar power is constantly evolving, and improvements will be made in the future.

Click to expand...

Look how many years it's taken the car & engine manufacturers to come up with a powerful small engine that gets 40mpg. Renewables will be the same way. in 50 years, there will be very few combustible engines on the road. And people will wonder why it took so long to make the switch.

PTmowerMech said:

Look how many years it's taken the car & engine manufacturers to come up with a powerful small engine that gets 40mpg. Renewables will be the same way. in 50 years, there will be very few combustible engines on the road. And people will wonder why it took so long to make the switch.

Click to expand...

Not really so PT
It is all about energy density
No matter what technology advances happen you still need a certain amount of energy to move forward & push the air away from you
Reducing that energy requirement is what streamlining is all about
Small engines that will push a car along & get 40 mpg have been around since WWII
It is just the USA car companies did not want to make them
A 1000 cc flat 4 VW engine will push almost any small car along very economically and did so for 50 years till US passed laws that made them uneconomical
What has happened with the auto industry is the architypical failing of the capitalist free market economy where what is cheap & readily available is wasted for the purpose of maximizing profits or plain old squandering a plentiful resource till it is gone.
and this applies to just about everything you buy .
In the case of cars, it was the US makers deciding to produce massive vehicles , near twice the size of any other country on the planet because THE USA had plenty of space to ( again ) waste by making very wide roads and huge car parks , a guarranteed source of very cheap petrol and cheap steel .
Really big vehicles are very cheaper to make and because they are big they appear to be good value for money , so an investors dream , cheap to make with massive profits .
In Europe where roads were narrow and built out so can not be widened and space for car parks is very hard to come by, cars are smaller and far more economical .

For EV's to advance we will need substantially stronger magnets and batteries that can both store more energy and discharge at a higher rate .
I spent a while at Sims metal who were a major battery maker at the time.
The car makers continually pushed us for smaller lighter batteries to make their cars lighter & more fuel efficient while at the same time adding 5 kg of electric motors to move the two front seats around .

The love affair with EV's created my Elon Musk, ( for his own financial gain ) will go sour very quickly when you start getting daily reports of people being roasted to death inside their mobile bombs because something has caused the batteries to ignite .
Their is mot a more dangerous source of energy than a Lithium battery which is basically a bomb that we try to explode slowly to drive the car forward .

As a side note . on a per mile driven basis, Tesla is the most dangerous vehicle on the road with 3 times the fatality per mile rate than any other brand .
And the self driving cars as a group have 5 times the fatalities per mile than the "dumb" cars do

Now both of these are skewed because there are small numbers of both of them .

Li batteries have an iltelligent use, small hand held devices where the energy stored in them is not enough to kill or blow the item apart
And of course they are small & light
However for a car / truck they are plain old stupid and over time this will be borne out .

For now the P T Barnam reincarnation ( Musk ) has us all convinced that we can solve all of the problems we have created by over consumption buy consuming more .
The solution is leave the car at home , ride a bike or walk or use public transport .

But the government has to pay for public transport infrastructure where as they profit from the taxes on you buying a new very expensive car .
And remember the TESLA uses the same amount of roads as your 10 Litre 12 cylinder SUV but generates 2 to 3 time the amount of tax revenue .
So governments will encourage you to buy a new electric car .