Nutating disk engine perspectives

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stanley514
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Disk Engine
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the nutating disk engine, a type of engine currently being developed by the military, with participants exploring its potential advantages, such as higher power density and low friction, as well as its feasibility compared to traditional reciprocating engines. The conversation also touches on alternative engine designs and their efficiencies.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism about the nutating disk engine's claims of low friction and high efficiency, with one participant stating that such claims are often exaggerated.
  • There is a suggestion that materials like carbon fiber or ceramics could enhance the efficiency of the nutating disk engine, particularly if it could operate without cooling.
  • One participant inquires about alternative engine types that might outperform reciprocating engines, specifically those with fewer moving parts and low friction, mentioning rotary pulse jets and rocket engines as potential candidates.
  • Another participant critiques rotary pulse jets, claiming their efficiency is poor and expressing a general disdain for many unconventional engine designs, asserting that most are ineffective.
  • One participant argues that the piston design remains superior due to its simplicity and effectiveness in achieving volume change, citing issues with sealing and friction in other designs.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit significant disagreement regarding the viability and efficiency of the nutating disk engine and other alternative engine designs. There is no consensus on the merits of these engines, with strong opposing views on their effectiveness and practicality.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the actual performance metrics of the nutating disk engine and alternative designs, highlighting a lack of definitive evidence to support claims of efficiency and low friction. The discussion also reflects varying definitions of efficiency and performance across different engine types.

Who May Find This Useful

Individuals interested in engine design, alternative propulsion systems, and the comparative analysis of engine efficiencies may find this discussion relevant.

Stanley514
Messages
404
Reaction score
2
Recently there was information that military is developing a nutating disk engine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutating_disc_engine"
which, as they hope, will have higher power density, than reciprocating engine.Also some people say,that this is low friction design.
Does anyone know what is pro and contra of this engine type and if it really does have low friction,could it be made of carbon fiber or ceramics,to work with no cooling and have greater efficiency?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Engineering news on Phys.org
I've seen this before. Personally I think the design is crap, there's no way it has "low friction" and the compression ratio sucks. Everyone makes stuff up about their design, like "more efficient, lighter, low friction" etc. Most of the time its garbage.
 
Do you know something about other types of engines which could be better than reciprocating?Especially those which have few moving parts and low friction?
As I see, one of main problems of reciprocating engine is unability to make it from ceramics or other heat resistant materials which are presently available.
What do you think about rotary pulse jet or rocket engine similar to this design?
http://conceptengine.tripod.com/conceptengine/id2.html"
Rocket engines have high efficiency,up to 70%.If we will enforce it to rotate around an
axle at optimal RPMs and produce electricity,will it be more efficient than gas turbine?
Or such design is nowhere close to reality?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've seen the rotary pulse jet and its garbage. The efficiency on those is horrific. There are also about 30 rotary engines out there, most of them are also garbage.

I've seen probably 100+ unique designs of engines, both rotary and reciprocating. Most of them are trash, only a handful impressed me. For me the best design is the diesel and perhaps the two stroke diesel. Its probably the simplest design, everything else has problems with sealing/compression/friction, etc.

The truth is, there is no better way to get a volume change than a piston, its the easiest to seal and its linear and the friction only comes from piston rings which is low. Anything else will screw it up.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
5K
Replies
7
Views
5K
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
10K
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K