
Bill Gates Invests $23 Million in Opposing-Piston Engine - bishvili
http://www.greencarreports.com/blog/1047122_bill-gates-backs-ecomotors-new-opoc-engine-with-23-5-million-investment
======
samlittlewood
Compare with the Junkers Jumo 20x design -(one of?) the only succesful
aircraft diesel engines:

<http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Jumo_205>

Also, this led to the development of the Napier Deltic which avoided having
twice as many crankshafts as cylinders by arranging three cylinders in a
triangle with a crankshaft at each corner:

<http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napier_Deltic>

These had extremely good power to weight ratios - eventually eclipsed by gas
turbines.

~~~
varjag
As to aircraft diesels, USSR had a few bombers in its fleet equipped with
diesels (TB-7). Some of them actually took bombing raids over Germany in
autumn of 1941.

------
hristov
"Previous two-stroke designs were quickly banished as emissions standards
started to get tougher. The design is such that unburned fuel and lubricating
oils are released through the exhaust, causing emissions to be much higher.
However, EcoMotors believes its design has overcome this challenge."

The article seems woefully vague on the details here. How do they overcome
this challenge? Having lived in a country where there were some two stroke
cars allowed on the road, believe me it is no fun. A two stroke subcompact
used to generate more smoke and fouler smell than a freaking 18 wheeler (and
yes I am talking about the Trabant).

So one would have to be extra sure that they have overcome this challenge
before believing any of their hype. I would be very suspicious of any car that
actually burns lubricant.

~~~
thefool
Exactly.

Color me skeptical.

------
todayiamme
I would be excited to see an engine based on solenoid and using magnets as
springs. Has anyone ever tried to make a cylinder whose piston is composed of
a highly durable magnet at one end, which is encased in a coil. The bottom is
basically a magnet which repels the piston, and a mechanical spring is also
used to keep the process going.

When the fuel will ignite and expand there will be a huge change in EMF,
perhaps that could be used to charge a capacitor which can then offload it
more slowly into a battery. In this way mechanical parts are reduced and
frictional losses are kept at a minimum since I am not driving a crankshaft,
which then feeds into a dynamo with gearing.

I've heard about solenoid engines, but has anyone ever undertaken something
like this? I am sure that tons of people must have this in their heads, but
has anyone also used a tesla coil with a variable AC to control the motion of
the piston? That is we can also remove the bottom magnet and the mechanical
spring. This would be something awesome to make, and I wonder if it is
feasible to do so.

One of the biggest worries would be the lack of appropriate magnets. Neodymium
(NdFeB) start losing magnetic strength above 60 C and it becomes completely
demagnetized before 90 C. So, one of the reasons why someone hasn't done this
might be lack of an cost effective alloy which can remain magnetized at those
temperatures. I really can't think of another reason.

~~~
jasongullickson
I'm working on a design in the same ballpark as this, and I found that NASA
has something similar as well (if not a bit more mechanically complicated than
my design); I couldn't find a nice overview but I did find a couple of links
to PDF's describing the test and analysis of their sterling-powered linear-
alternator design:

[http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/1994001...](http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19940019829_1994019829.pdf)
[http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/1992002...](http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19920022018_1992022018.pdf)

...and a bit of an overview on the sunpower site (partner)
[http://www.sunpower.com/lib/sitefiles/pdf/publications/Doc00...](http://www.sunpower.com/lib/sitefiles/pdf/publications/Doc0083.pdf)

~~~
todayiamme
Wow.

Thanks a lot for the links! They are awesome!

It will take me time to go through them properly as there are some concepts in
them which I don't know about. (I just graduated out of high school a few
months ago)

Do you mind if I email you questions about what I've read? I have lots and
lots of them.

Thanks again.

P.S. - I am quite dumb. I tend to ask stupid questions so please take that
into account. :)

~~~
jasongullickson
I'm no expert either, but you're welcome to drop me a line and I'll do my best
to help.

You can reach me using the contact form here:

<http://www.gullicksonlaboratories.com/about/>

------
jackowayed
Two-stroke engines are what you find in lawnmowers (the non-riding kind), weed
whackers, leaf blowers, chain saws, etc. because they're lighter than 4-stroke
engines.

As mentioned in the article, the ones in those devices are terrible for the
environment. They burn the oil as well as the gas, which for whatever reason
means they emit _way_ more pollution (not CO2, but stuff like carbon monoxide)
than car engines. From Wikipedia:

> _A 2001 study showed that some mowers emit the same amount of pollution
> (emissions other than carbon dioxide) in one hour as driving a 1992 model
> car for 650 miles_

It sounds like this engine is a 2-stroke engine that does not do that, which
has serious potential. Some of the fuel efficiency gains probably come from
the fact that, as I said before, 2-stroke engines are lighter for a given
desired power.

~~~
sliverstorm
Lawn mowers are mostly 4 stroke now.

Weed whackers, leaf blowers, and ESPECIALLY chain saws remain two stroke for a
special reason- they can be operated at virtually any angle. This is because
the lubricating oil is carried in the air/fuel mix; if you turn a 4 stroke on
it's side during operation, it will become oil starved and quickly seize.

~~~
cma
There are 4-strokes that can operate at any orientation:

[http://www.hondapowerequipment.com/products/trimmers/content...](http://www.hondapowerequipment.com/products/trimmers/content.aspx?asset=tb_4StrokeEngineAdvantage)

~~~
sliverstorm
I haven't any evidence, but I suspect those motors use a dry sump, which
results in significant added complexity. You are right, it can be done, but
it's usually reserved for racing engines.

------
unboxed-value
Unfortunately the article doesn't say _why_ their design uses fewer moving
parts. Opposing cylinders is not a new idea (look at any Porsche or Subaru),
although on the picture the combustion chamber is located on crankshaft
side... The lack of valves isn't new: diesels don't have them neither do
2-stroke motorcycles.

So I'm eager to see what's the secret ingredient here?

~~~
stretchwithme
Maybe the new design solves the problem traditional 2 strokes have that makes
them pollute so much. The intake and exhaust valves are both open at the same
time, which puts part of the fuel right into the air.

I can't really tell from the flash movie on the ecomotors site whats happening
with the valves. I do see some slits that could serve as the intake port when
the cylinder is fully open. And a tiny round thing which could be the exhaust
port sits at the center of the cylinders length. Maybe the exhaust port is
electronically operated and is closed by the time the 2 cylinders open as far
as the intake ports?

~~~
sliverstorm
Actually, making a 2-stroke that doesn't require both valves be open solves
_two_ problems. There's the fresh gas flowing right out the exhaust, and
there's the limitations in compression ratio. Higher compression ratios result
in higher efficiency, but the 2-stroke doesn't work right at high enough
compression ratios.

Observe:

2 stroke: [http://www.yamaha-
motor.com/sport/products/modelspecs/30/0/s...](http://www.yamaha-
motor.com/sport/products/modelspecs/30/0/specs.aspx)

4 stroke: [http://www.yamaha-
motor.com/sport/products/modelspecs/12/0/s...](http://www.yamaha-
motor.com/sport/products/modelspecs/12/0/specs.aspx)

As a side note, do not conclude overlap (both valves open) is inherently bad.
A little bit of overlap is sometimes used even in passenger cars.

------
ewams
The horizontally opposed engine (aka flat N) is nothing new. More specifically
I know it has been in Honda motorcycles since the 1970's. Cars and other
devices likely too but I have no first hand knowledge of that.

Here they are giving it a new name and say they can reduce the amount of
moving parts by 50%. There is no information on what "parts" they are removing
which I would find to be the most interesting piece of information. The
comparison of two and four strokes engines is also misleading.

After a quick dig: If you go to eco's website they specifically say this is a
two stroke engine; the article linked has incorrect information.

They are reducing the amount of parts because they are using a two stroke
instead of a four cycle.

It seems the only real cool part of this engine, to me, is that it is designed
"modular," it should be more cost effective to add on additional cylinders
instead of having multiple facilities dedicated to different configurations.

Flat configurations have been used in cars and motorcycles for decades.

~~~
jacquesm
The type of engine you are referring to is called a 'boxer', and it has been
in use in many other places from well before Honda ever used it.

Most notably in motorcycles probably the BMW brand, in car engines there was
the Citroen 2CV and the VW beetle as well as many others, but that's not the
same kind of engine as the one depicted in the article.

~~~
VBprogrammer
Not to mention the majority of light aircraft engines made in the last 40
years.

------
ccarpenterg
There was a thread about Bill Gates applying for a patent on an Electronic
Engine: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=561057>

------
known
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_air_car> also looks interesting

------
DennisP
I'm rooting for the cyclone engine myself:

<http://www.cyclonepower.com/better.html>

------
knarf_navillus
Also known as 'The DDR Engine'

------
Devilboy
Video of the engine in action

<http://www.endlessyoutube.com/watch?v=UesbkO3NvoY>

