|
Let me repeat, the concept started as an engine, which I still believe is a valid option to any reciprocating engine. I also used a historical comparison to the state of the art in a comparison of an original rotary aircraft engine and a Mercedes grand prix engine of the same era (1913).
The realization that the cost to develop a practical and reliable version of an IC engine met with much resistance and the eventual cost would be into the many millions of dollars. After a 4 year battle with the patent office and their refusal to accept the concept as being "novel and not a combination of existing technologies", I decided to change course and focus on an Infinitely Variable in Wheel Drive, with the whole assembly contained in a sealed vessel with the only seal needed in the low pressure circuit.
Even after almost 3 years I found a design that was so close to my own I thought it would be the source of another rejection by the Patent Office, and by law I was required to disclose the long forgotten water engine of the late 1800's developed by a gentleman in England named Arthur Rigg who was once the head of the Royal Society of Engineers.
This is after the working model in the utube video was built, with the total cost of the whole effort exceeding $40,000 of my personal funds.
The design was investigated by a group of Engineering students at Virginia Tech who confirmed its practicality as a design that could provide efficiency competitive with any current hybrid configuration.
The linked Innas design was also thoroughly researched by qualified experts. You refer to claims of absolute figures, which I have never made. If you can reference them I would like to see the links provided. Projections are based on the current state of the art as quoted to me by an individual at Next Energy in Detroit Michigan as being 78% efficient. The used bent axis pumps running at prop shaft speed while I used in wheel drives at about 1/3 the RPM which eliminates the high speed inefficiency of bent axis pumps.
This design addresses the issues pointed out in the earlier EPA documents and prototypes they built including a 3800 pounds test mule that averaged 80 MPG, using the much less efficient bent axis pump at better than 3 times the RPM of any in wheel drive.
UPS has operational vehicles, and the head of the EPA's cooperative research and development stated that the hydraulic hybrid would be as revolutionary as the assembly line when it comes to the effect on the auto industry.
Why should I spend any more time trying to convince anyone who wishes to reject any potential path to the end result of the reduction of fuel consumption by 50% initially and possible much more with future development.
The next step for those who are involved in the process for my design is to find a corporation that will carry this to the next level of development. The confirmation of any claims will require a functional vehicle which would involve considerable expense.
Considering the INNAS design as very similar, but requiring transformers to control the pressures to fixed stroke in wheel drives the efficiency calculations should be very similar.
Moving in that direction today I see the Chinese are working on a similar design to the Innas Chiron free piston engine. You can bet they will look ahead and finance the development of any system that saves them the cost of oil importation, without worrying about me or my patent or any financial benefit to me.
If they do this the US will once again fall behind the R&D of other countries that consider better efficiency as their goal instead of trying to force development in any particular pathway.
Oh and by the way, if you are idling at all, or operating any engine with a throttle restriction of any kind, you are doing it wrong. Look at the Innas link that shows the area of BSFC operation of the engine using their system.
regards
Mech
|