Bill Gates Invests $23 Million in Opposing-Piston Engine

Compare with the Junkers Jumo 20x design -(one of?) the only succesful aircraft diesel engines:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Jumo_205

Also, this led to the development of the Napier Deltic which avoided having twice as many crankshafts as cylinders by arranging three cylinders in a triangle with a crankshaft at each corner:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napier_Deltic

These had extremely good power to weight ratios - eventually eclipsed by gas turbines.

"Previous two-stroke designs were quickly banished as emissions standards started to get tougher. The design is such that unburned fuel and lubricating oils are released through the exhaust, causing emissions to be much higher. However, EcoMotors believes its design has overcome this challenge."

The article seems woefully vague on the details here. How do they overcome this challenge? Having lived in a country where there were some two stroke cars allowed on the road, believe me it is no fun. A two stroke subcompact used to generate more smoke and fouler smell than a freaking 18 wheeler (and yes I am talking about the Trabant).

So one would have to be extra sure that they have overcome this challenge before believing any of their hype. I would be very suspicious of any car that actually burns lubricant.

I would be excited to see an engine based on solenoid and using magnets as springs. Has anyone ever tried to make a cylinder whose piston is composed of a highly durable magnet at one end, which is encased in a coil. The bottom is basically a magnet which repels the piston, and a mechanical spring is also used to keep the process going.

When the fuel will ignite and expand there will be a huge change in EMF, perhaps that could be used to charge a capacitor which can then offload it more slowly into a battery. In this way mechanical parts are reduced and frictional losses are kept at a minimum since I am not driving a crankshaft, which then feeds into a dynamo with gearing.

I've heard about solenoid engines, but has anyone ever undertaken something like this? I am sure that tons of people must have this in their heads, but has anyone also used a tesla coil with a variable AC to control the motion of the piston? That is we can also remove the bottom magnet and the mechanical spring. This would be something awesome to make, and I wonder if it is feasible to do so.

One of the biggest worries would be the lack of appropriate magnets. Neodymium (NdFeB) start losing magnetic strength above 60 C and it becomes completely demagnetized before 90 C. So, one of the reasons why someone hasn't done this might be lack of an cost effective alloy which can remain magnetized at those temperatures. I really can't think of another reason.

Two-stroke engines are what you find in lawnmowers (the non-riding kind), weed whackers, leaf blowers, chain saws, etc. because they're lighter than 4-stroke engines.

As mentioned in the article, the ones in those devices are terrible for the environment. They burn the oil as well as the gas, which for whatever reason means they emit way more pollution (not CO2, but stuff like carbon monoxide) than car engines. From Wikipedia:

> A 2001 study showed that some mowers emit the same amount of pollution (emissions other than carbon dioxide) in one hour as driving a 1992 model car for 650 miles

It sounds like this engine is a 2-stroke engine that does not do that, which has serious potential. Some of the fuel efficiency gains probably come from the fact that, as I said before, 2-stroke engines are lighter for a given desired power.

Unfortunately the article doesn't say why their design uses fewer moving parts. Opposing cylinders is not a new idea (look at any Porsche or Subaru), although on the picture the combustion chamber is located on crankshaft side... The lack of valves isn't new: diesels don't have them neither do 2-stroke motorcycles.

So I'm eager to see what's the secret ingredient here?

The horizontally opposed engine (aka flat N) is nothing new. More specifically I know it has been in Honda motorcycles since the 1970's. Cars and other devices likely too but I have no first hand knowledge of that.

Here they are giving it a new name and say they can reduce the amount of moving parts by 50%. There is no information on what "parts" they are removing which I would find to be the most interesting piece of information. The comparison of two and four strokes engines is also misleading.

After a quick dig: If you go to eco's website they specifically say this is a two stroke engine; the article linked has incorrect information.

They are reducing the amount of parts because they are using a two stroke instead of a four cycle.

It seems the only real cool part of this engine, to me, is that it is designed "modular," it should be more cost effective to add on additional cylinders instead of having multiple facilities dedicated to different configurations.

Flat configurations have been used in cars and motorcycles for decades.

There was a thread about Bill Gates applying for a patent on an Electronic Engine: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=561057

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_air_car also looks interesting

I'm rooting for the cyclone engine myself:

http://www.cyclonepower.com/better.html

Also known as 'The DDR Engine'

Video of the engine in action

http://www.endlessyoutube.com/watch?v=UesbkO3NvoY