Facebook
Google
GitHub
Linkedin
ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) technologies
- Thread starter cmartinez
- Start date
60% efficiency for an electric motor? Haven't they heard of BLDC?
The Marketing Droids that make this sort of hogs slop? No.
Thanks for that.
A 6-year-old Patent "application" means nothing except that they are buying up as many expiring Patents
as they can, having to do with the type of products they build,
so that their competitors can't claim them, or anything resembling them.
This is a CYA tactic employed by most manufacturers.
The Engine design presented is grossly inefficient,
( if it will actually run at all under it's own power ),
and can't pass any emissions requirements.
General-Motors, ( Detroit-Diesel ), figured-out 2-Stroke-Diesels many, many decades ago,
but they don't produce them anymore because of emissions requirements,
and,
the fact that HPR ( High-Pressure-Rail ), 4-Stroke-Diesels are much more quiet, and much more fuel-efficient.
.
.
.
as they can, having to do with the type of products they build,
so that their competitors can't claim them, or anything resembling them.
This is a CYA tactic employed by most manufacturers.
The Engine design presented is grossly inefficient,
( if it will actually run at all under it's own power ),
and can't pass any emissions requirements.
General-Motors, ( Detroit-Diesel ), figured-out 2-Stroke-Diesels many, many decades ago,
but they don't produce them anymore because of emissions requirements,
and,
the fact that HPR ( High-Pressure-Rail ), 4-Stroke-Diesels are much more quiet, and much more fuel-efficient.
.
.
.
You can’t “buy up” a patent. It gets assigned to the inventor(s) and usually their employer becomes the owner. After that it can be licensed but it never gets reassigned.
But, most patents don’t lead to viable commercial products the way people think they do. In fact a lot of patents get written as cleanup when a company turns away from a technology.
But, most patents don’t lead to viable commercial products the way people think they do. In fact a lot of patents get written as cleanup when a company turns away from a technology.
Patents can be sold and assigned.
Only an assignee has rights to a patent. Those rights can be delegated to a licensee.
This was my understanding, too, though I've never looking into it in detail.
Supercharged two-stroke diesels with valves are widely used in enormous marine engines. Outside of coastal waters there are no emissions regulations.
At some point there must be a crossover in efficiency where four-stroke takes over from two as size is reduced.
If a patent expires or is abandoned (say, by failure to make required periodic maintenance payments), the invention is no longer protected an becomes public domain.
Edit: it would make no sense for 3rd parties to purchase abandoned intellectual property. That would make me an infringer if I continued to ship my invention after I abandoned the patent.
.
All conventional Supercharged 2-Stroke-Diesels use "Ports" around the circumference,
and at the bottom of the Cylinder, which are uncovered by the Piston at Bottom-Dead-Center,
and, some use as many as 4 Exhaust-Valves in the Cylinder-Head.
This makes the flow in the Cylinder "one-way", from the bottom up.
No 2-Stroke Diesel designs use Intake-Valves in the Head for very good reasons.
Intake-Valves in the Cylinder-Head is the entire "gimmick" of the above referenced Engine design.
This will leave behind a completely unacceptable amount of Exhaust-Gases which in turn creates
tremendous amounts of "Un-Burned-Hydrocarbons", ( un-burned-Fuel ), in the Exhaust.
This can also create out-right misfiring,
which may also be called "4-Cycling" in a 2-Stroke Engine,
where the Cylinder will only steadily fire every-other rotation, instead of every rotation,
this "usually" only occurs during low-RPM operation.
.
.
.
Agreed. Uniflow does make more sense than poppet valves for intake.
It needs to leave just the right amount of exhaust gas in the cylinder, so that new intake contains just enough oxygen to burn the amount of fuel injected. That stops the spare oxygen reacting with the atmospheric nitrogen, yet keeps the gas volume correct to keep the compression ratio high.
Normally it is done by the EGR valve which re-routes the exhaust back to the intake, but varying the exhaust valve timing should work.
The most bizarre thing about this design is that it seems to be a petrol engine run as a diesel. It needs the same high pressure injection pump as a diesel, but petrol lacks the lubricity to be able to run that type of pump.
Correct. I muddied the distinction between the inventor, which cannot change, and the owner, which can. My bad.
My point was just that this patent is not a case of changed ownership. It originated within Mazda and hasn’t issued yet as far as I can tell. The litigation history would reveal that and any problems with the claims. It’s a crowded field.
Here's an interesting 2-stroke design having two-pistons sharing one combustion chamber, with the intake at one cylinder and the exhaust at the other.
The purpose is to get better scavenging of the exhaust with less mixing of the exhaust with the intake,
Versions of it was built by several companies in the past, particularly for motorcycles.
The purpose is to get better scavenging of the exhaust with less mixing of the exhaust with the intake,
Versions of it was built by several companies in the past, particularly for motorcycles.
