"Look guis! We took ideas from two strokes, rotaries, and diesels and guess what! It can produce *almost* the same power as any of those individual engines but with none of the reliability, or simplicity!"
Two levers are between the piston rod and the transmission. The second lever's range of motion is permanently less than 90 degrees. The transmission splits the force to drive two mechanisms (like you wrote.) Two sets of combustion seals (standard cylinder and the complex one where the cylinder bank shears the spark and valve ports.) 2:47 the illustration - pause and use period and comma to step forward and back frame by frame.
MrAstrojensen the valvetrain is the largest single friction source in a traditional engine. Desmodronic valves reduce the friction dramatically but come with their own complications.Electro/pnuematic control is probably the way forward.
+POVadventure I was wondering this very thing.. Seems like you would have exhaust leakage around the two rotating plates. But surely that is their "proprietary" design.
+POVadventure it's similar to the wankel rotary engine. it will have seals of some sort isolating each piston. similar also to piston rings only, on the top, vs on the side. I assume.
Following on from Macomber in Edwardian days the Redrup wobble plate engine was developed for British Bristol buses in 1936 or 1937 but the 2nd World War killed it. This in not new.
They call poppet valves 'complicated' but completely ignore the huge question, "What sort of insanely complicated arrangement will allow you to seal the cylinders and head/manifold when they are rotating relative to each other?" This system will inherit all the issues that make rotary valves impractical. NEXT!
If they can't hold manufacturing costs down and somehow beat the status quo wiht functionality and cost, what's the point? Weight reduction at what cost?
J.J. Lemstra Oh yes, amusement park rides are TERRIBLY unreliable. They require more maintenance than run time, fail regularly. People get killed on them almost every day!!! What the fuck are you smoking? Amusement park rides don't work, ANYTHING like this engine. It rotates and lifts each boom with air cylinders. It is not powered by one engine, or any engine. Its run off SEVERAL electric motors. You sir, are a fucking moron.
Well this spins in a circle right? So there's got to be some centripetal force 'squishing' the pistons to the outside. I'm wondering how much this will cause additional wear on items like the piston rings.
I like most of this design, my only real issue is that variable valve timing gives power and efficiency across a wide power band, it's one of the big reasons modern engines are so much more efficient than even 10 years ago.
@@zaryabz56 A/F ratio is not the same as compression ratio and doesn’t allow the same control as variable valve timing. Because there are no valves in this design you cannot change valve timing or compression. The ports and cylinder stroke are both non variable.
i doubt it will last 50k miles. the design looks just too strange and odd. boxer engine with subaru are good while they last untill they blow 50k miles (crack in cylinder block usualy)
Yah the reason valves are used is because the seals moving around are impossible to have much wear life to them. So why would the world retool itself to save a couple hunder pounds, when regulations make them add thousands of pounds else where? I guess a bunch of engineers need jobs and the gov needs to spend grant money.
Where did you came up what hype? Boxer engines (Subaru and Porsche) are notorious for going past 200K miles with minimal wear. They're inherently balanced, so there's NO destructuve shaking motion, unlike V engines which require heavy (power robbing) counterweights just to keep the engine from shaking out itself to pieces. You think that by slandering boxer engines it will further your case against a completely unrelated technology like this Duke thing? How old are you? 12?
It may actually have fewer parts, but it likely loses efficiency in sealing the cylinder. Similar to the Wankel engine in that way. May also be more angular momentum (flywheel effect) because the moving parts are at a large radius (figure skater effect, arms in vs out), and possibly more rotating mass too. If it was invented and tooled up in the 40s or 50s, it might be competitive with regular fixed cylinder & crankshaft engines, and maybe kept pace with them. Since the current widespread engines are kind of approaching theoretical limits of what you can do with exploding gasoline in a cylinder, "new paradigms" aren't all that great, unless it can be made massively cheaper.
I feel like with so many parts moving in such an awkward motion, this engine would fail quicker than a typical I4, I5, V6, or V8. In order for this to become on option they would really need to stress test many engines under powerful load over many years. I think it's going to be really hard for anyone to ever compete with the engines we've become accustomed to.
Korben Dallas Eh. Many people won't keep a car for that long anyways. My car has 190k miles and runs fine. Only reason I still have it is because I don't have money for a newer one with less miles.
Korben Dallas Fewer parts doesn't mean it will last longer. Look at the wankel engine for example(not saying they are the same) it has fewer parts as well but isn't as reliable.
***** Biggest problem the wankel has that this engine would have is the sealing for the top of the combustion chamber. A piston ring as it wears will expand outwards through natural spring force and from the combustion stroke applying an expansion force. However, the apex seals on the rotaries, and the seals for this would have to have an applied force constant due to a flat on flat sealing characteristic and even more, the seals having to move across a port. As said above, fewer moving parts does not mean less chance of failure. It is how things move that does alot, and how it is lubricated. Any part with an asymetrical action will wear faster because it relies entirely on oil pressure to provide lubrication. A spinning part will naturally create a fluid film to prevent wear. As long as it has fluid of proper viscosity, no contact will occur. Properly gapped bearings, cam followers, etc all work on this principle. With proper care, they will last a very long time with final mechanical failure of an engine usually only due to cylinder and piston wear in which this effect does not happen. This is where I see the weakness in this engine being. The joints for the conrod connection. There is no cyclical force to provide lubrication, as result, relies entirely on pressure to take the constant impact load over and over again, almost like a hip joint.If ran presurized, should be okay. Same with the central portion where it applies to the crankshaft.
***** And fewer parts doesn't necessarily mean it will be less expensive to manufacture. Problem with a lot of these axial engines is their low rotational speed make them harder to integrate into modern applications.And then there is the emissions issue which killed the Wankel. By the time it was made clean, it was costlier than a piston engine.
no valves, no camshaft, no timing belt, no pre-ignition, higher compresion on pump gas.. i really like the design, only uses a swash-plate to convert reciprocating energy into rotational.. i like this design a lot
Peter Šori no, you wouldnt be able to fire an engine that was 3D printed, not even when not under stress, the pressure required in the cylinder alone would burst the walls of something 3D printed which has significantly inferior shear strength
Limon, i think he is talking about 3D printed metal, while you and i thought he was referring to 3D printed plastic. Peter, 3D printed metal is usually for structural components that are not usually under immense pressures or heat.
Brett Carey Swash plate, used in hydraulics as well as AC for cars. Probably other things as well. I guess that is what inspired the engine idea. Cheers from John.
@@phoenixrc0074 Yeah saw that video too. I think they only use the acrylic head (see-through) just to demonstrate how the A/C compressor fires as an internal combustion engine.
The compressor for your automotive air conditioner has a similar piston arrangement on a lot of cars. It's a matter of time someone make a engine out of it. Nicely done who ever.
ikutoisahobo the smoothest engiges out there are in line 6... but anyway, this is a very silar design to rotary engines and those vibrate a lot like any other engine... diesel engines are the ones that vibrate the most so this engine should vibrate as much as a diesel engine or less... you could be right in vbrating like crazy if they were to build a diesel version, but then again there are rubber supports on the engine mounts for some reason right? you really think they would be smart enought to develop something so complex and forget about the vibrations?
I can see the thinking behind this and I genuinely believe that with the lower part count out could be far cheaper to produce, the problem is that production costs are one of the least concerns of any engine manufacturer, fuel efficiency, longevity, emissions, noise are all far greater concerns and no doubt why this engine hasn't been produced.
Rotaries are much more reliable than everyone bangs on about them. It's not uncommon for well built rotaries to run 100,000 km before needing mechanical attention....
I like it very much and can see many advantages of the small "footprint" as it can fit under very small cowlings (aviation, uav's etc). Less moving parts, same advantage as in the 'wankel' engine however less problems with the seals, lubrication, diluted intake mixture due to inefficient side ports, etc. Good work!
As usual, I see lots of pontificating on a technical youtube video from people with absolutely no idea what they are talking about. The sinusoidal reciprocator eliminates the crankshaft, which is a major cause of torque inefficiency in conventional internal combustion engines. It also eliminates the entire valve train, which is a major simplification. That and the greater space efficiency and power to weight ratio makes this a technically superior engine. I'd still rather have a Tesla with an electric motor, but still, it's a theoretical improvement over conventional engines.
I agree, but just seeing that big chunk of metal rotating around makes me think there are a lot of issues regarding wear. Also, I assume it can only have fixed timing for intake and exhaust, which is a big no-no these days. how is it lubricated and cooled?
alxcsb basicly all you need to do is make sure the crank-core doesn't fluctuate, so if you get the valve-timing aligned with the flux of the ignition-matrix (which is fairly easy to do using a combinatorial demuxer) most of the hard stuff will sort itself out.
In theory you could, it the engine is capable in taking higher rotational stresses from the higher force of compressed, or charged air on ignition, it could be possible. I wonder what this would sound like compared to a typical 5 cylinder engine.
I bet the Duke Engine has an Awsome, Interesting, Unique, Different, One of A Kind Sound to it, Just like all engines have there Unique sound to them! And Im really interested in Hearing this round Duke Engine
So not only are the pistons moving up and down like in a traditional engine, but now they've made them move laterally as well? What a great way to complicate a simple process.
but if u look at the prototype the pistons are not moving axially like in the 3d rendering... the whole block is moving around so lubrication issues and whit the seals to.
I remember a now retired collogue of mine describing working on a similar engine in the 60's. I believe the main issue that they had was the centripetal force that the pistons exerted on the cylinder bores increased with a square law relationship to the rotational velocity. Basically you couldn’t run it very fast and the pistons wore out fast. Back then the materials technology couldn't get around this and they only made a few working prototypes before the project got killed. They also had issues with the inlet and exhaust ports wearing out, however the technology developed for the Wankel engine in this respect will be directly transferable. I suspect the engine would likely therfore run quite slow, which would mean it may be able to drive a propeller directly without a gearbox, making it very useful for powering small unmanned aircraft. A market which is currently receiving lots of investment and at which I suspect is the application the engine is aimed at.
I think there's too much friction caused by rotating cylinders around the engine. Imagine the friction going on between the cylinder that's burning and the rotating plate. The other issue is that the back and forth motion is converted to rotary motion by an angled bearing, which again I think causes more friction than a classic 90 degree connection to a crankshaft. Imagine you are trying to push a car that's out of gas, but instead of pushing from the back, you are pushing at 45 degrees on the driver's door. 50% of the energy you apply to the car will be converted into forward movement. The other 50% will be wasted by trying to push the car sideways, and the tires won't let you. That's the same principle the angled bearing shaft achieves.
I agree that there's the only, albeit important, issue that made Rotary engines unsustainable: The impossibility to keep a traveling combustion chamber perfectly sealed without squirting (and burning) gallons of oil to keep it sliding smoothly. If perfectly smooth, hard, impossible to wear un-human unobtanium materials existed, Felix Wankel's idea would had worked. Until that magic sealing material comes along, it is a 200 hp engine with the comsumption of a a 350 hp engine with 8 lawmowers' worth of smoked oil to boot. And Mazda spent decades trying to solve that only one problem and failed.
Two more problems with the Wankel as I see it: it really needs dimensionally perfect and stable combustion chambers (piston rings adapt on the fly) and it suffers from the exponentially decreasing compression ratio as the rotor moves away after combustion reducing the time the fuel has to completely burn.
I've been watching for a full minute and I can honestly say this engine looks so unstable... I feel like parts are going to constantly fail due to excessive stress and wear.
Although there aren't any production cars with this engine design, this basic operation is like an axial piston pump, and those are widely used as "variable displacement pumps" in hydraulic systems.
Minigun works fine with similar design. Yes it is still different from this one but not very much in the end when you think about their basic functions.
MrBrander except the barrel only rotates on a minigun..this is like the barrel being inside another barrel all the while having a firing pin that rotates and shifts back and forth on its axis.
how exactly is it able to have a 14:1 compression ratio, what form of sealant can hold that pressure whilst rotating at speeds apparently higher than normal type engines?
This is cool, but it seems like it will have the same issues as the rotary. It will need to be able to seal the cylinders against the head while the cylinders are rotating/sliding along it. There is no good way to oil it, so it will likely have the same longevity issues as the apex seals on a rotary. Could try running oil in with the fuel like a 2-stroke and some rotary engine builders do that. But, you will never get that past emissions standards in a stock vehicle.
+WraithCommander42 Great points. Also, they'd have to think about cooling the massive rotating assembly housing the 5 cylinders - and sealing that all off as well.
Bio Power I grant you they are far more reliable then they used to be. But, compared to piston engine, they just don't last as long. When was the last time you heard of a rotary lasting 300,000 miles? Piston engine can do that, but rotaries just don't last that long. I'm not saying they are bad, they just don't last as long as piston engines.
+WraithCommander42 Bad owners not engines. mine is at 150,000 miles no issues at all. drive it hard, rev it high, it lasts. Counter intuitive to piston engine owners.
Bio Power What i am saying is that most rotary engine failures are caused by the owners, not the engine design. Not a single Mazda 767, 767B, 787 or 787B ever suffered engine failure while racing in endurance series. Why? Because they were being driven hard, hard premixed gas and were being revved to 10,500. Its the owners, not the cars.
14:1 at 91! That is fantastic! Is this direct port injection without a valve since there is no cam? What is the peak RPM you have experienced? This is such a cool design!
An upscale version (like 15 litre displacement) may find home in aircraft or boats, but I highly doubt this can be used in cars. The fundamental design of having the pistons/con-rods rotating a central axis will generate a strong momentum that will be hard to balance. Furthermore, the vibration front to back will also be a factor. I like the principle which feels like implementing a Wankel Rotary with pistons. In theory this design is compact & rather simplistic as it eliminates the energy sapping parts like valve-train & crankshaft, but NVH will be an issue.
The combustion engine is doomed, no matter how one tries to reinvent it. It's inevitable. Like the steam engine was for trains, boats, cranes and even factories.
+David Orchard I would agree. They show 9 seconds of an engine appearing to be the Duke design, and only 7 of those with it hooked up to diagnostic equipment under the appearance of it running. The missing design facets that others here in the comments are calling out are important: how is this thing lubricated, and how are they accounting for cylinder compression in a moving-cylinder design? Granted this video is 4 minutes, but those are fundamentally important checkboxes when explaining how this engine works, which is why it's supposedly better. The other problem with this design is displacement. If it needs to be made larger, the circumference of the engine grows. The same thing happens if you want to add more cylinders. And since this video is comparing this design to conventional reciprocating inline-4s, the industry already knows what it can achieve for MPG results with those kinds of engines. This duke design is untested, does not appear to save any more space (though it is compelling for how much it saves in parts), is not being demonstrated while hooked to a conventional automatic transmission in a real car on a real road, we see no MPG results, nothing. After searching here on YT for 'duke engine', I see only 5 videos on the first page talking about it, a couple of which are recycles of this video, and another of someone building a 3D model of this engine in AutoDesk software. Not enough backing to become feasible reality.
with the centripetal force occurring as the engine rotates, won't that cause uneven wear in the cylinders? plus with the "big end" of the piston attaching to the crank with one connection at a 45 degree angle (or there about's, i don't know for sure) wouldn't that create a big danger for over revving causing the crankshaft to bend? Also with no apparent sump, I have no idea how it's lubricating itself.
I thought about this when i was studying for car mechanics 15 years ago, we had a model of an car airco compressor on a deskstand and the first thing that came up to me was, hey would this work as a combustion engine too. Nice to see this vid now!
Fewer parts overall, but more parts in the most crucial areas. In the standard piston engine, the connecting rod pivots about the crankshaft in one axis. In this Duke engine, it connects to the crankshaft via universal joint. One has to wonder how well that will hold up when the engine is operated under load, such as when accelerating a 4000lb car day after day for years. Universal joints are obviously suitable for drive shafts, but the demands placed on a drive shaft are radically different than those of an engine's connecting rod.
The real doktorbimmer Mazda didn't have any problems. Americans who refuse to follow basic instructions had problems, However anyone with half a brain could easily get over 100k without significant problems, something no American engine seems able to accomplish.
Floyd Wilson You seem extremely naive and uninformed buy the scope and seriousness of Mazda notorious premature engine failures. The RX-8 was the cause of one of the largest engine recalls in the automotive industry.
lol. I've got a '97 Astro with the 4.3 v6. 351,000 miles on original engine/trans. Maint. is key. Been through 5 fuel pumps and 2 spider injectors though. BTW this is a motor built at the low point in American quality.
I have a hunch that all the counter-rotating parts (especially the entire cylinder block, yikes!) will cause problems. Easier, i think, to have normal valves and spark plugs.
Depending on different manufacturer's design's and who owns the car. My Beater 95 Toyota Camry has 334,000 miles so far carried over from my father, then my older brother and now me and it's still going. Idk about a lot of other cars reaching the 300,000 mile mark but any car made today should be able to last at least 200,000 miles. Even sports cars like the Nissan 350Z, 370Z and GTR Nissan specifically state that they want them to go up to 200k or beyond.
sharpemang I agree, cars should be able to get that kind of mileage, I wonder about planned obsolescence though. does anyone know if they have a more recent video about this? I just saw this on Car Throttle and apparently its 2 years old.
Bill Hamilton General motors is notorious especially in the late 90s to late 2000s purposely designing cars to fail so people would keep buying. Too bad it didn't work out too well for them when sales dropped and people started buying other cars. Part of the reason why I steer clear far from American cars is their scumbag CEOs trying to squeeze every last drop of money out of people and horrible corporate practices that specialize in screwing people over.
As an old mechanic I love to HATE the wobble motor, my only real experience I've had is with Air-condition compressors, years back we ran axial compressors, heavy-reliable-powerful. now we run wobble plate designs such as this, Modern-Complex working angels Always lead to failure, this engine will run fine if Completely maintained and clean, Ahhh But once a little dirt or any other "real-world" condition pops up your done.
This the same movement found in an axial piston pump. If the angle between swash plate and the main shaft can be adjusted while the engine is running, it would be able to change its compression ratio on the fly.
its been 10+ years, any update video for us? I've been watching this since I was a kid and now I'm a fully grown adult. Hope to see traditional piston engines being destroyed in market by these innovative piston engines and of course the legendary rotary engines.
To research engineers worldwide. I have a far better idea. Use this concept to build world's largest motor with 10,000 cylinders. Skip the spark plugs and ignition and fuel. At the drive-shaft, attach a 30 meter long bar running 90 degrees to the drive-shaft. At the end of that shaft place a drive animal such as 2 oxen and have them walk in a circle. The pistons would compress air only. The air could be used to function in a variety of ways.
+parapobabam I looked it up and have observed the 2nd definition on the internet and found it very annoying. Now I know what to call it when experts give incomplete instructions on how to do something on your computer making the instructions useless to laypersons who can follow clear instructions but cannot follow these instructions because they lack the knowledge the person giving the instructions has.
Wouldnt it just be better if you had the cylinders non-rotating and have it direct injected and by having it rotating you take up more space in the engine room
They never did completely solve the sealing of the Wankel. If a theoretically perfectly shaped combustion chamber could be machined, and a perfectly shaped rotor seal could be constructed, then it would have been a better engine. The unsolvable problem with the Wankel is the offset motion of the rotor after combustion and it's non-linear compression ratio as the rotor moves away.
The first thought that occurred to me is this is like a mix of the technologies between a Wankel engine and a Vulcan rotary cannon. Amazing engineering vision in true non linear 3D.
How the fuck does it seal the combustion chamber?? And if it can seal, how much friction does that create, considering its moving? Wouldn't that always be the weak point?
totszwai dude you are the on that's an idiot here "how does your piston moves up and down and can still seal? Same idea." because a conventional piston has rubber sealings around the piston head which seal the cylinder but still allow it to move by lubricating with oil. the piston in this engine IS ROTATING through the engine so it isn't in one place going up and down but is moving to the left aswell and that is a problem since you still need to have a seal to have compression from the explosion to get up and down movement which drives the crack shaft.
***** Simply because any other car manufactures don't own the patent? DUH. Mika_012397 Wow, RUBBER SEAL. LOOOOOOL! Mika, go own and work on a car before replying please. Is no rubber. In fact is usually cast iron or steel. And the fact that this piston in this engine is rotating (like you said it yourself), is actually even better than a piston that is traveling up and down. The way they seal this rotating piston "block" will be exactly the same way they seal traditional pistons with the piston ring, just that there will be one extra "seal ring" between the rotating block and the mating surface.
The internal combustion engine will be with us for along time yet. The Duke engine, like many other new designs in the works are very much a product of of our new found and constantly evolving ability to conceptualize and model new technology. These are very exciting times. I hope I live long enough to see some of this new technology become reality.
I see ports instead of valves. Historically we know that engines with ports only operate well at a narrow rpm range, outside of which they have deplorable efficiency.
Nessaj Nothing to do with how high they can rev. Problem is you make a two stroke that revs to 10k, and it'll have 100% of max torque from 8k to 9k, 40% of it at 3-7k, uses twice as much fuel and throws out ten times as much harmful emissions as a four stroke with the same power. It's useless for a road vehicle.
With rotating cylinders, how does the combustion seal? Surely it doesn't use rubber seals, I wouldn't think that'd hold up to the heat, and each cylinder would have to seal independent of each other, so... what the heck?
91slownotch Well, the cylinders along with what looks like a drum the cylinders are bored into, all rotate against a stationary part the plugs and the ports are apart of, so I still don't see how the top of the cylinders seal against that stationary part, and this video didn't mention it either. The top of those cylinders would have to seal but with what... rubber, steel, carbon... ? Whatever they used to make that seal, I'd think it would need a continues supply of lubrication, otherwise it would wear really fast, and wouldn't be worth a crap... this still is considered a combustible engine relying on compression. In my opinion, the ingenuity is very creative, but for practicality, it's not worth the drawing board.
It probably works using a system (not shown for tech protection) similar to the wankel rotary where it has a consumable seal. On the rotary known as the apex seal. A set of these concentrically could function similar to that of a conventional piston ring. However, like the rotary, having a seal move over a port means it has to inherently burn oil. No way around it. A sealed lubricated surface is moving over an opening. The questions I would have in regards to this system is the actual overall efficiency. Displacement really isn't relevant overall because all that matters is how much energy you get out of the fuel combusted. Usually most effected by airflow efficiency for proper combustion, followed by frictional losses in the drivetrain. The point of sealing does bring up a big question, does the advantage of this design offset the frictional loss of the non power stroke of the conventional 4 stroke? Multi axial joints, two points of combustion sealing, etc all bring up the wonder of dramatic increases in this loss. The compact design is a clear advantage, and it can work with existing technologies of power delivery from turbocharging to fuel injection, and piston design. This would offset integration costs alot. Weight savings? Would need to see numbers. The internal block, mechanisms and outer casings look to be adding up in weight. Engine cooling is a problem, see a comment from a few days ago will put a reply and comment on that. Lastly, the biggest concern probably can be longevity some might consider, and I had to ponder it as well. There is side-loading on the pistons with this design. With the pistons moving like that, it will wear out one side of the cylinders extremely fast. Lets say center of mass is 10 cm from the outside of the center of rotation. A performance lightweight piston for an economy 4 cylinder is approx 300g. Lets put the engine at an economic average rpm of 2000 rpm assuming that the piston velocity is equal to the higher rpm of a conventional engine in at top speed and the rotational speed of the monoblock is 1/3 that. Possibly there is some revolutions conversion I am missing. That gives 31.4 cm per revolution or 62.8m/min. Close enough to call it 1 m/s compared to 9.81m/s for the force of gravity. If we did conversion, 300g*1/9.8= and equivalent force of 30.6 grams of counterforce. Now, I don't know, but that mass sliding thousands of time on a ? point load, I would think could cause an effect, but after crunching the numbers, that is still less force than a "boxer" engine would have just from gravity. They do fine.
***** Alien seal technology... lol. If that's the case, I don't see them getting this engine off the floor they built it on any time soon. The force that's required to hold back 14:1 compression ratio like this video claims, is way too much for a design like this. The typical engine with stationary heads over the cylinders, takes a massive amount of down force to hold the average 11:1 compression ratio. So that seal you said they're using, would have to be under extreme pressure, so much that it couldn't possibly last, you can't have that kind of pressure with this design. The more I think about this, the more I can see how ridicules this engine really is, and I've only been focused on one part of it... how bad is the rest of the design?
***** What's the gap between the bores have to do with it?... go back and re-read my post, I wasn't even debating the gap between the bores or the port holes, of coarse its got ports. Perhaps you should watch this video very closely again, and study hard on the concept of this engine? Those cylinders are moving against a part that doesn't move. That's metal to metal parts and those parts have to be tight against each other, and perfectly flat in order to hold back 14:1 compression ratio like this video claims if they're not using some kind of seal, otherwise the friction between those parts would be so high, it couldn't it possibly rotate. Somehow I get the feeling you're not up on the concept of what it takes to hold back compression... ?
dosbox907 High fuel prices and a brain drain problem make Australia and New Zealand a hot spot for fuel saving gimmicks and "breakthrough engine technology" vaporware scams.. Duke exhibits all the red flag warning signs of other vaporware scams of this type like.. Revetech, Orbital, etc. Inflated and unverified performance claims, irregular financial practices, and unfulfilled investor promises... Noel Duke hasn't filled any orders for his engines or shown any return on investments... but does have brand new mega yacht.. Check-out Cyclone Steam Technologies.. this guy had a great scam going.. the companies stock is now completely worthless but he is currently building a mega yacht too!!!
I do believe steam is a very promising field to pursue for alternative engines though. after checking out what doble did with his cars back in the ( 20s?), I dont understand why we couldn't try and tackle it these days with all of the modern machining, computing and what have ya. you ever checked out doble steam cars?
