Return of the Split Cycle engine

Loading thread data ...
General statements regarding multiple technologies are not the best of ideas.
Certainly, the SplitCycle engine was a novel idea, and had many positive innovations. It also had voodoo (low compression, extremely short stroke) that would keep the engine from ever actually running.
However, the major development of the engine, the means to transfer reciprocating energy to geneva wheels, did and still does have promise. To use a similar power transmission device, then to be able to have a 32mm stroke with a 44mm bore (so it will actually run), to have an engine that displaces 1.3 litres while being small & compact, that shows promise.
Keep an eye on the site. Developments/prototypes/data are being uploaded on a daily basis. Feel free to rip it apart, make suggestions.
There is no doubt that the original 8-10 year run of the development of this engine turned into a stock selling frenzy/fraud. However, you will not see SCT-II selling stock, asking for money, or selling licenses. SCT-II is building a working engine.
Reply to
Canzie
Quote :'Eight years and over $100,000,000 million dollars spent, and there is nothing there -"
Well, I think we call that 100 trillion dollars. Con artists they were, but they weren't THAT good. I think he means 100 million dollars. Reasons they were able to raise that money : Sir Jack Brabham's endorsement, an Australian engineering magazine including their pack of fairytales, sorry, brochure with the magazine, and the general gullibility of the Australian public when it comes to engines.
What makes the new kid on the block so sure that it was a good idea that deserves a second look? It still defies all common sense for an engine design.
Cheers
Greg Locock
Reply to
Greg Locock

Site Timeline

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.