The "Massive Yet Tiny" engine promises big power in a small package
An outfit called Angel Labs has come up with the Massive Yet Tiny (MYT) engine, an innovative internal-combustion configuration that it claims "will spawn the next industrial revolution." Um, okay... so exactly what is it that inspires such hyperbole? Keep reading, as we'll try to find out.
To start, let's examine the operating principle. The MYT uses a single toroidal cylinder/combustion chamber, in which rides a total of eight "pistons," arranged in two pairs of four each. Located at the periphery is a set of two intake and exhaust ports (each located 180 degrees from each other), with two spark devices also located 180 apart ,and clocked 90 degrees relative to the ports. The two pairs of pistons use indexed motion to provide the typical four strokes of combustion. Confused? Just check out the animation.
The system packs a large amount of displacement and combustion cycles into a small package, which means that the engine looks to be capable of producing incredible power for its size - hence the name. The engine produces that power by providing large amounts of torque at a very low speed, which has the potential to significantly reduce drivetrain complexity.
There appear to be some significant issues that could stand between it and mass production, however. First, forming the toroidal "cylinder" doesn't look to be a trivial task, as the toroid must be split in two to allow for engine. Getting the two halves to form a perfect circular cross-section would seem to be quite a feat. There's also the issue of producing the indexed motion of the two piston pairs, which is certainly not a straightforward affair. Combine this with the claimed output torque of over 800 ft-lbs., and we see a potential durability problem.
The size of the engine also yields its own problem, in that there does not appear to be sufficient material to support the type of output that the inventors claim. There are good reasons that every other engine appears monstrous in comparison to the MYT, and we don't think it's because current engine designers lack an understanding of material characteristics. It's not just important to understand the ultimate strength of the material and construction something to withstand a single cycle, but fatigue must also be accounted for in any design that's expected to withstand literally billions of cycles. While there are several high-strength materials that may be able to provide adequate strength, they are typically not used in internal-combustion applications. Then there's the matter of lubrication and cooling, both of which seem problematic given the "cylinder" configuration.
None of this commentary is intended to disparage the work that Raphial Morgado and his team have put into this engine, of course. We here at Autoblog prefer to take an optimistic view of the internal combustion engine's future. Certainly, we'll all benefit if indeed Morgado can make his invention work in a cost-effective manner that allows it to be brought to market.
[Source: Angel Labs]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
narcszm 11:07AM (4/24/2006)
Looks like a variant on the ball-piston engine. These are usually very compact, but if you look a how load from combustion will be applied to those paddles, you can see that it will not be an exceptionally powerful motor. Further, engines of this design, like rotary engines, have constant sealing / leaking problems which makes them fail or require rebuilding after a relatively short operating duration. Best of luck to Angel, but I'm not investing.
Reply
Hank 11:10AM (4/24/2006)
What's with the Soviet-like propoganda music in the background of the illustration?
Reply
taipeileviathan 11:34AM (4/24/2006)
regardless of how viable this engine is, i doubt it will ever make it to the mass market just cuz the automotive world is waaaay too entrenched in its development of the traditional IC engine which virtually every manufacturer has been making, developing, researching, and refining ever since their individual inceptions, and for many companies, that's over 100 years. the rotary engine is a tragic example of one such victim of economics: even tho mazda was able to develop a fantastic motor in the renesis engine all on themselves, wenkel motors are fated to never get anywhere. i truly believe that if the wenkel rotor has received half the time and money that went into developing the otto-cycle engine, they'd be as reliable, cheap, and just overall economical as otto engines are. hence... even if this MYT engine proves to be theoretically a better platform on which to build consumer vehicles... it's got over a century and probably a trillion dollars' worth of R&D to get caught up on.
my $0.02...
Reply
Steve C. 11:42AM (4/24/2006)
Sounds like the same sort of high-tech machining and metallurgy you'd expect in F1.
How you bring that down to an assembly-line built, $25,000 sedan is the practical question. Oh yes, and it needs to last long than 90 minutes.
Reply
Jason 11:49AM (4/24/2006)
Gotta love the music for the animation...
In communist Russia, Massive But Tiny would be called Massive But Titanic!
Reply
Jimmy Flink 11:53AM (4/24/2006)
I think I read Massive YET Tiny (MYT) engine on their website.
Reply
RossL 11:56AM (4/24/2006)
A new type of automobile engine? Who cares! If you poke around the Angel Labs website, you'll see that they're also planning to introduce (and I quote) "the Angel's Flight Pack (personal flying backpack, and a new personal transportation)."
Man, I've been waiting for one those things since the 1960s. Bring it on, baby!
Reply
Ron T. Brown 12:17PM (4/24/2006)
Just search for Russel Bourke and see how difficult it is for an outragously simple and effective design to be embraced by the automotive community. Mr Bourke designed and built a two stroke engine with three moving parts per bank of two opposed cylinders. Incredible torque and economy. This was in the middle fiftys. I have been told that he sold out and became a Ford exec in Australia, but have no way to check.
Good luck to the "tiny", but don't hold your breath unless you want to match the blue outfit.
Reply
andy 12:32PM (4/24/2006)
WWII warplanes used this engine setup. It's not something new. The prop was directly connected to the engine and it would follow the pistons firing order. If you remember seeing old footage of guys manually cranking their propellers, they were actually moving the pistons in order to induce combustion.
Reply
ian 12:41PM (4/24/2006)
"ww2 airplanes" did not use this kind of motor. This is not a readial engine.
Reply
RickDom 12:42PM (4/24/2006)
#7....you're joking, right? Or are you that dumb. I think you're talking about WWI. Those are piston engines with the cylinders in a circle instead of a line (most WWII planes used V engines). And with that last comment, anyone who knows anything about IC engines or automobiles already knows that. Hench why starting a car is called cranking, because you had to start cars with one back in the day.
Reply
Jason 12:54PM (4/24/2006)
I also like to see new designs, however I also doubt this will make into production cars. As for Airplanes of WW2 - they used piston engines - not this design, feel free to disagree (though I don't know why) or better yet - and to save time arguing give examples of planes used in combat that used this style of engine - I would like to see them.
Reply
Chad 12:58PM (4/24/2006)
Andy- You *may* be mistaken. IIRC, WWI (not WWII) engines were radial. The cylinders were around the prop shaft, but they stroked in the radial direction (outward).
WWII were more conventional, ie, the 12 cylinder Merlin in the P51. -Chad
Reply
Mike 1:18PM (4/24/2006)
Actually radial engines were still in use even into the Vietnam War (A-1 Skyraider), in WWII they were used in P-47 Thunderbolts, F-4U Corsairs, and most bombers.
http://www.aviation-history.com/engines/radial.htm
Of course this doesn't really matter to what this post is about, but I just wanted to clear up what I perceive as some mis-conceptions.
Reply
Matt 1:38PM (4/24/2006)
Pump and dump scheme. Happens every 4 or 5 years.
Reply
Britt 1:51PM (4/24/2006)
As for the MBT engine, I guess we'll all have to wait and see.
As for the airplane engines of WWI and WWII, there are no fast and hard rules.
In WWI the Sopwith Camel and Vickers were powered by a radial engine.
The Fokkers were using Mercedes and BMW inline engines.
In WWII both the radial and V-12s were used. Radials were used almost exclusivly in bombers. (US and Allied)
Fighters were a good mix of the round and straight engines.
Round engine fighters: F4U Corsair, P-47 Thunderbolt, F8F Bearcat
Inline engine fighers: P-51 Mustang, P-40 Warhawk, P-38 Lightning
Reply
Alejandro 2:01PM (4/24/2006)
During WW1 rotary engines were used. Their crankshaft was fixed to the airplane structure, it's the engine block that turns.
One problem is the giroscopic effect produced by the turn of the engine block.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_engine
Reply
z 2:14PM (4/24/2006)
Aircraft engines: there were radials, and there were also "rotaries": not like Wankels, but like radials where the crankshaft was bolted to the airframe and the cylinders rotated around, attached to the prop. Advantages:
1)all the air cooling you would ever need
2)no need for a flywheel, save a lot of weight
For a while, these were the biggest and most powerful engines.
Disadvantage:
1) gyroscopic effects like you wouldn't believe.
So they died out after WWI. Radials stayed alive, though. Corsair had 2,000 HP.
Trivia: if you look at/play with/think about it, you'll see that in these rotaries, what's really happening is that the pistons and the cylinders are rotating in perfect circles, but with the centers separated by the stroke. Therefore no shake, just perfect circular flywheel motion.
Reply
stan 2:43PM (4/24/2006)
At the turn of the century when IC engines were first becomming popular, they (for lack of a better word) sucked. Sure, now that they have been around for 100 years, and very smart people have spent their lives and company's have spent billions of dollars to make them as good as they are today. Now, with fuel scarcity, they are becomming almost obsolete, so there needs to be a replacement. Just because these new style IC engines are not as good as the typicle style, does not mean they are not a superior technology.
Reply
Seabass 3:03PM (4/24/2006)
Did anyone else notice that the music in the animation was ripped form The Lion King soundtrack? Maybe the "circle of life" is appropriate for the "circle of pistons".
Reply