Re-reading Terry's original post I have a couple of other thoughts (apart from remembering my initial reaction which was to check whether it was 1st April and wonder when he was going to announce that the device ran on water)
He's given a clear description of its salient features and it might make sense to move on to identifying some useful initial applications based on technical suitability and the marketplace. That might enable the inventor to identify potential partners who might be suitable to approach with a non-disclosure agreement (I know he has a patent but that's of limited value these days)
Also, coming back the other way, it would be useful to identify the social and political concerns that might favour or work against an engine like this. For example I don't think anybody is very interested in developing technically innovative CD or vinyl players for the mass market but there is definitely a specialist market for excellent vinyl players for very discerning buyers. Similarly we might not see much future for a technology to be used in elaborate, material-intensive plastic retail packaging but we might value the same technology for protecting fragile and valuable commodities in transit.
At a glance Terry's description indicates an engine for lightweight transport devices, like small motorbikes or scooters. As well as being light and compact you may not need much of a gearbox, it seems to be very suitable for a variable load / variable speed application. However it will be competing with electric traction which is very attractive to local authorities and legal frameworks often favour electric over internal combustion (obviously the environmental benefits are only local unless you solve the clean generation problem). On the other hand if it could use relatively "clean" fuels effectively it might overcome some of these objections sufficiently to win some market share.
and so on.
Best wishes from SheffieldChris
.........................Chris RustDriver, Nether Edge [log in to unmask]
> Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 03:02:27 -0800
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Advice needed
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Dear Terry,
>
> I think there are 2 dimensions to be clarified.
>
> 1. Invention
> Trying to protect a complete engine would be an exhausting and expensive attempt (probably half of the patent literature is about the engine and its sub components)
> I think they need to concentrate on what is specifically new on this engine for intellectual property right protection.
>
> 2. Innovation [Value Creation]
> If they suppose to propose their prototype to someone, I think they need to manifest some technical details including;
> - Power (in kW, etc)
> - Torque (in Nm, etc)
> - Fuel consumption (in l/h, etc.)
> - Emission (in g/kWh, etc.)
> - Weight in (kg, etc.)
> - Durability (under how severe temperature, vibration, time conditions it could perform)
> - Cost
>
> As Schumpeter pointed out decades ago, not all inventions are valuable, marketable or successful.
> Therefore cost versus potential benefits should be clarified first.
>
> I hope it helps.
>
> Arif
> An engineer who had invented and patented a product but failed to innovate and commercialize.
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Tue, 11/26/13, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Subject: Advice needed
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Tuesday, November 26, 2013, 4:35 AM
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
> Over the weekend as part of some work for the IMechE,
> I was asked to visit
> an older gentleman who has developed and
> patented a new type of petrol
> engine. The gentleman is a highly skilled craftsperson.
>
>
>
> As an engine and vehicle designer, I've never seen
> anything like this
> engine (and I know a lot of engine
> configurations).
>
>
>
> His prototype engine (which I have seen running)
> is a four stroke petrol
> engine and appears to have several unusual features:
>
>
>
> Can run very slowly
>
> Has a very large range of angular speed
>
> Has high torque
>
> Is extremely easy to start
>
> Has smooth power delivery (doesn't require a flywheel)
>
> Can vary power by varying fuel-air mixture (operates happily
> in lean burn)
>
> Has an unusually compact layout
>
> Has primary, secondary (and possibly tertiary)
> balance
>
> Is relatively insensitive to manufacturing tolerances and
> material quality
> and uses very conventional manufacturing methods
>
>
>
> I'm being asked to recommend a way forward and I welcome
> advice.
>
>
>
> Best wishes ,
>
> Terry
>
>
>
> ---
>
> Dr Terence Love
>
> PhD(UWA), BA(Hons) Engin. PGCEd, FDRS, AMIMechE, PMACM,
> MISI
>
>
>
> Honorary Fellow
>
> IEED, Management School
>
> Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
>
>
>
> Director,
>
> Love Services Pty Ltd
>
> PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks
>
> Western Australia 6030
>
> Tel: +61 (0)4 3497 5848
>
> Fax:+61 (0)8 9305 7629
>
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
> --
>
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
> Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
> Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|