OPOC Engine
  • Register
  • Help
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: OPOC Engine

  1. #1
    JBN
    JBN is offline
    1000+ Posts JBN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    8,181

    Default OPOC Engine

    Interesting video on an interesting engine design.

    Itís called OPOC (Opposed Piston Opposed Cylinder), and itís a turbocharged two-stroke, two-cylinder, with four pistons, two in each cylinder, that will run on gasoline, diesel or ethanol.

    The two pistons, inside a single cylinder, pump toward and away from each other, thus allowing a cycle to be completed twice as quickly as a conventional engine while balancing it's own loads.

    The heavy lifting for this unconventional concept was performed Prof. Peter Hofbauer. During his 20 years at VW, Hofbauer headed up, among other things, development of VWís first diesel engine and the VR6.

    The OPOC has been in development for several years, and the company claims itís 30 percent lighter, one quarter the size and achieves 50 percent better fuel economy than a conventional turbo diesel engine.
    Theyíre predicting 100 MPG in a conventional car!



    Advertisement


    http://www.engineeringtv.com/video/O...posed-Cylinder

    John

  2. #2
    Budding Architect ???? pugrambo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Parkes - N.S.W - Australia - Earth
    Posts
    12,256

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JBN View Post
    Interesting video on an interesting engine design.

    Itís called OPOC (Opposed Piston Opposed Cylinder), and itís a turbocharged two-stroke, two-cylinder, with four pistons, two in each cylinder, that will run on gasoline, diesel or ethanol.

    The two pistons, inside a single cylinder, pump toward and away from each other, thus allowing a cycle to be completed twice as quickly as a conventional engine while balancing it's own loads.

    The heavy lifting for this unconventional concept was performed Prof. Peter Hofbauer. During his 20 years at VW, Hofbauer headed up, among other things, development of VWís first diesel engine and the VR6.

    The OPOC has been in development for several years, and the company claims itís 30 percent lighter, one quarter the size and achieves 50 percent better fuel economy than a conventional turbo diesel engine.
    Theyíre predicting 100 MPG in a conventional car!



    http://www.engineeringtv.com/video/O...posed-Cylinder

    John
    sounds like a commer knocker

    the only thing with the knocker was that it had to be supercharged otherwise it didn't quite work as well
    3 x '78 604 SL

    1 x '98 306 GTi6

    1 x secret project

    1 x '98 406 STDT troop carrier and i don't care if it stinks, i don't sniff it's arse Death by wank tank

    1 x '99 406SV 5spd wagon, time to burn more fuel

    1 x 1994 605 SV3.0


    WTD long range fuel tank for 605

  3. #3
    Fellow Frogger!
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    444

    Default

    Or a Gobron Brillie (1898), first car to exceed 100mph, Doxford Marine, Junkers and Napier, etc.

    Most had one crank, Junkers had two, the Napier Deltic had three.

    A continuation of a long line of successful motors.

  4. #4
    Fellow Frogger! sideways_505's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Perth W.A
    Posts
    390

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pugrambo View Post
    sounds like a commer knocker

    the only thing with the knocker was that it had to be supercharged otherwise it didn't quite work as well
    Our speedway had one as a water truck, loudest vehicle I've ever heard! The sprint cars had nothing on that thing!

    Doc Scott in Yornup has a few, there's the engine from one on the back of an old truck. I've always wanted to offer him something for it, and maybe a few of his cars.

  5. #5
    1000+ Posts
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Newcastle
    Posts
    2,592

    Default Move foward to the past ??

    Quote Originally Posted by JBN View Post
    Interesting video on an interesting engine design.

    Itís called OPOC (Opposed Piston Opposed Cylinder), and itís a turbocharged two-stroke, two-cylinder, with four pistons, two in each cylinder, that will run on gasoline, diesel or ethanol.
    The two pistons, inside a single cylinder, pump toward and away from each other, thus allowing a cycle to be completed twice as quickly as a conventional engine while balancing it's own loads.
    The heavy lifting for this unconventional concept was performed Prof. Peter Hofbauer. During his 20 years at VW, Hofbauer headed up, among other things, development of VWís first diesel engine and the VR6.
    The OPOC has been in development for several years, and the company claims itís 30 percent lighter, one quarter the size and achieves 50 percent better fuel economy than a conventional turbo diesel engine.
    Theyíre predicting 100 MPG in a conventional car!
    http://www.engineeringtv.com/video/O...posed-Cylinder
    John
    Hi,
    As others have said its been done before. Perhaps not in the latest high tech specs. Now I would not suppose to argue with such an experienced man such as Prof. Peter Hofbauer but
    Why does he claim this "achieves 50 percent better fuel economy ". What is there to back this up. The configuration of the pistons and cylinders etc might give the benefits otherwise claimed, perhaps , but its hard to see how it achieves such an astonishing advance on all other engine designs . Sounds like the spin doctors have got hold of it and will milk the unsuspecting non technical punters for a motsa before it drifts into obscurity like all the other 'wonder' engine designs.
    jaahn

  6. #6
    1000+ Posts schlitzaugen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    loneliness capital of the world
    Posts
    8,863

    Default

    I am curious too how such a fuel efficiency can be achieved without breaking through the theoretical efficiency of the internal combustion engine. I expect we'll see some strategically placed asterisks and footnotes explaining that 50% better fuel efficiency as compared to "other direct competitors" never to be named, or to the last incarnation of the design fifty years ago when its efficiency was 50% lower. Kinda like a credit card I remember that gave double frequent flyer points, but these points converted to Qantas frequent flyer points by dividing to 2.

    I might sound cynical but such claims sound too good to be true.
    Last edited by schlitzaugen; 2nd April 2011 at 02:40 PM.
    ACHTUNG ALLES LOOKENPEEPERS

    Das computermachine is nicht fur gefingerpoken und mittengrabben. Ist easy schnappen der springenwerk, blowenfusen und poppencorken mit spitssparken. Ist nicht fur gewerken bei das dummkopfen. Das rubbernecken sightseeren keepen hands in das pockets-relaxen und watch das blinkenlights.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    sydney, australia
    Posts
    11,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by schlitzaugen View Post

    I might sound cynical but such claims sound too good to be true.
    i removed my silly post just above, but if you are referring to that, note that i was joking, and i dont think it is being cynical to have doubt here. i completely agree with what you and jaahn have said.

  8. #8
    Fellow Frogger!
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    444

    Default

    Claims as to the efficiency of the concept, and its ability to use various fuels, also date back to Gobron Brilie 1898, when the designer, M. Guichard, claimed that his engine would work on any fuel, including brandy and whisky!

    Currently these two options are being rapidly approached in cost by petroleum based fuels, so perhaps M. Guichard was right with relative costs.

    Now, would vintage Napoleon Brandy perform better than el cheapo Aussie hooch?

    Dunno, but the concept is an old one, and most being poorly scavenged two strokes any claim as to superior efficiency must be met with a touch of scepticism.

    Regards,

    fento

  9. #9
    Fellow Frogger!
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Coffs Harbour, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    616

    Default

    No scavenging two stroke problems with super charging & modern computer controlled direct injection. But what about emissions ?
    I well remember the old Commer "knockers", you could here them coming a mile away.

    Richard

  10. #10
    1000+ Posts Fordman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Perth/West Australia
    Posts
    1,383

    Default Commer Diagrams

    The concept of two opposing pistons is similar, but the overall similarity to the Commer Knocker is pretty remote. I like the principle of the outer con rods always being in tension on the "new" design. Having seen a "Knocker" in pieces years ago, doing away with the "rockers" would save about half the weight of a small car!! - they were nicely made but heavy lumps of steel to be carrying around.

    Link to Commer Knocker diagrams:

    http://www.oldengine.org/members/die...terTS3/TS3.htm

    Cheers.
    2004 Scenic I 2.0 auto (Hers)
    2016 Ford Territory (His)
    2004 WRX (Sunday car)

  11. #11
    Fellow Frogger!
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    444

    Icon7

    Fordman, so right - -

    Thanks for your diagrams, good stuff!

    So much mass that needed directional changes. However, as with Junkers aircraft engines a crank at each end reduced the amount of inert metal to resisted change, and so much lighter and much more efficient.

    In the case of the Napier Deltic a triangular arrangement of three cylinders, six pistons with cranks on each corner, was more efficient. The advent of the gas turbine scuttled the Deltic for small boat naval use, but it may have been the most efficient two stroke reciprocating format so far devised.

    I look forward to further developments of the reciprocating motor, of which there is one of interest that directs the exhaust from two cylinders into a third as a two stage internal combustion engine, similar to a two stage steam engine.

    Regards,

    fento

  12. #12
    1000+ Posts
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    5,069

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by schlitzaugen View Post
    I am curious too how such a fuel efficiency can be achieved without breaking through the theoretical efficiency of the internal combustion engine.
    Would indeed be interesting. Perhaps as the army man mentioned, the engine has lower heat rejection? Also, the 50% claim is with a two unit engine and one being shut down on part load.
    It seems way ahead in concept compared to the Commer. No valve gear and inherently balanced is a big plus in itself. Efficiency wise it's got to be better than the Wankel. Let's wait if they can solve the lublricating and hot spot problems?

    In the long run all these ICEs will be superceeded by fuel cells anyway.

    JB
    "The enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it's the illusion of knowledge"
    Stephen Hawking

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •