0
   

Revival of the Splitcycle Engine idea?

 
 
Reply Sun 16 Jan, 2005 10:22 pm
There appears to have been an effort to revive the splitcycle engine idea in 04:

http://www.splitcycle.com.au/

http://www.splitcycle.com.au/Thumbs/images/image057.jpg

This appeared to be the brightest idea for a new engine technology ever to have come down the road around the mid 90s and then disappeared off the radar screen for reasons which never really made much sense.

Anybody know anything about this one?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,015 • Replies: 8
No top replies

 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Jan, 2005 12:07 am
Did you read the site disclaimer?:



DISCLAIMER: This site is not intended for use by anyone, for any reason whatsoever. Use of, reading of, or reliance upon, or making a decision based upon what is contained herein, or missing from same, is at the viewers own risk. The entirety of past SplitCycle content has been obtained from public databases, be it libraries, the world-wide-web, newsgroup postings, news archives, archived public websites, etc. The author of this site has absolutely no connection personally, financially, corporately, or otherwise with Split-Cycle Technology, Qven LTD., Rick Maynes, Lamborghini, the City of Geneva, Osama BinLaden, JetFan Technologies, Ford Motor Company, God, or your sister. The URL www.splitcycle.com.au has been legally and correctly registered by this site's designer, abandoned by previous registrant. Batteries not included. There are valid patents/trademarks, etc with regards to SplitCycle Technology, for which we have no intention whatsoever of violating - please immediately advise if we have inadvertently done so, and the matter will immediately be corrected. Your mileage may vary. The purpose of this site is the development/continuation of the valid portions of previously disclosed technology, and the discarding of previous voodoo (small stroke, low compression). There is not now and will not be any attempt at profiting from this technology without the express written consent of those owning the technology. May cause sexual side-effects. Any and all statements, opinions, or ramblings with regards to SCT-II, the failure of SCT, or obnoxious remarks about anything are opinions of the Author only, and have no connection whatsoever with anyone. Can you hear me now? Good!
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Jan, 2005 01:08 am
Here is why the original (SCT) failed:

http://www.splitcycle.com.au/failure.html

Quote:
Original design defied the known laws of physics/thermodynamics -

Ask any second semester engineering student to read the original description of the SplitCycle engine. The performance claims made using the original design are not physically possible, and that is a fact now as it was a fact then. No speaking ability, no salesmanship, no force of will can change physical laws. I can certainly understand, in the beginning, people throwing money at this. However, after a few years, something should have clicked. For the Multi-Level-Marketing stock sellers to have the ability to continue to sell after years of non-performance is strictly greed overcoming good sense, both on the part of the sellers and the buyers. This brings me to;

Raising of Capital became paramount over development of technology -

I have to believe that, at the beginning, Rick Maynes believed in his idea, his invention. I also must believe that, at some point early on, he realized that he was good at raising money. And I truly believe that, at some point very early on, Mr. Maynes decided to spend a fraction of the $100,000,000 plus raised to keep up the window dressing, and keep the balance for himself and his associates. I believe that at some point, he made the decision that raising the capital and taking it was a hell of alot easier than taking the money, developing an engine, and throwing the dice. Why not just skip a few steps and just pocket the money? Early on, it was pointed out that a low compression ratio and short stroke simply had no chance of succeeding, it was a physical impossibility. And the reason this design was not changed at any point was simple - he was no longer interested in developing the engine, he was interested in selling shares and raising money.

Where did the money go? -

A ton of examples here, which can all be summed up with one; Rick Maynes purchased a $700,000 Lamborghini to drive to work. There should have been a full revolt 20 minutes after everyone saw him drive to work in it. How additional investors were found after the news articles relating to this were published, I have no idea.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Jan, 2005 03:45 am
I DID read all of the above. Nonetheless, for anybody to want to try to resurrect such an idea after a failure that spectacular, the basic idea must have been a hell of a thing and, in my estimation, it was. Granted nobody's going to reverse the laws of thermodynamics, it would surprise me if a substantial gain in efficiency over today's IC engines was not achievable via this idea and you'd definitely end up with engines which were much smaller per unit of power output than present engines, as opposed to a vehicle which was 100 lbs HEAVIER than our present ones which is what appears to be necessary with the new hybrids.

Like I say, if somebody has any real info on this project, I'd like to hear it.
0 Replies
 
Einherjar
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Jan, 2005 05:58 am
How was this supposed to be an improvement over traditional engines?
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Jan, 2005 06:50 am
Einherjar wrote:
How was this supposed to be an improvement over traditional engines?


Take a look at the picture. Those pistons are riding up and down on the cam lobes of what are called "Geneva wheels" as opposed to the usual crankshaft and connecting rod configuration.

The pistons fire twelve times per rpm of the flywheel, drastically increasing torque and power output for a given size engine. Aside from that, the piston is not being pulled away from the charge exploding over it by a connecting rod, which is the main cause of inefficiency in normal engines. There is a sharp rise, and then a long, slow power stroke as the pistom comes down the slope side of the Geneva-wheel cam.

That is basically the most interesting idea for an engine I have ever seen, at least in theory.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Jan, 2005 11:27 am
Gunga,

I suspect that this is a spoof, not an actual attempt to revive a (scientifically invalid) technology.

Feel free to send them your money, however.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Jan, 2005 12:04 pm
DrewDad wrote:
Gunga,

I suspect that this is a spoof, not an actual attempt to revive a (scientifically invalid) technology.

Feel free to send them your money, however.


Based on past history I wouldn't send money to this one. But it doesn't sound like a spoof.
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Jan, 2005 02:31 pm
Thanks for trying to explain it - I don't think I'm mechanical enough to understand.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Revival of the Splitcycle Engine idea?
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/21/2019 at 02:25:50