I don't know, but, I do see an extra connecting rod plus the connecting=20
link per cylinder that must be accelerated and decelerated for every=20
crank rotation. That's a lot of mass (weight) for F=3DMA, which means=20
power wasted. Also there are many more bearing surface where rotation is=20
occurring and that's more wasted power. Plus difficult to locate the=20
sparkplug for good flame spread and air/fuel/exhaust flow looks poor,=20
when thinking "Hemi" smooth flow. :)

On 8/24/2011 10:50 AM, RussellMc wrote:
> Radically new engine designs almost always aren't.
>
> Unusual&  highly promising engine implementations almost invariably fail =
to
> deliver.
>
> Even the most plausible designs almost always meet the above two "rules"
>
> All that said, this one *LOOKS* promising and new.
> TBD.
>
> One stroke multi fuel, pistons have no sideforces, conrods slide straight=
,
> smaller engine size and weight per swept volume  than conventional design=
s,
> aiming at about 5% energy efficiency gain over conventional engines.
>
>   Spokesman on video below sounded very cool calm and collected,&  *seeme=
d*
> to know his stuff. Whther it would actuually work as well as they claim I
> cannot tell. Murphy says no.
>
>                     http://www.monolithengines.com/
>
> Video
>
>      http://www.engineeringtv.com/video/Two-and-Four-Cylinder-Single-St
>
>
>
>      Russell
>   =20
--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.