Business History Books » Business Plans » Australian Split Cycle Engine?
Australian Split Cycle Engine?
Question:
I read an interesting article on the split cycle engine in "the Independent" a british newspaper, and have always hoped it would be followed up by more later, has no one got the tech specs? — Hugh McGovern
Response:
> Are any auto manufacturers planning on putting Orbital’s engine into >production? How are the emissions relative to required standards? What >is the wear rate like in this engine? Well its a start… Greg…
Naturally I could not preempt any of our publicly known licensees (Ford, Fiat, or GM) by releasing their future plans for our technology. I think it is sufficient to say that we have the engine running in many cars here, have completed a fleet trial in the UK and Germany with Ford and are at a stage where there should be no impediment to licensees introducing our technology to the market. I think that whether they do is completely a competitive/business decision. From my point of view we have a product that is market ready. There is scuttlebut in some of the automotive journals that something could be released in limited production somewhere in the world next year but unfortunately I am unable to confirm or deny this. I can however bring your attention to OMC’s (Johnson and Evinrude Outboards) recent announcement that they would be producing with Orbital’s technology to meet future outboard emissions. This system is substantially the same as the automotive system. To the best of my knowledge we have demonstrated compliance with Californian ULEV on our three cylinder 60kW 1.2 litre ‘X’ engine. This is one of the toughest emissions requirements around (with the exception of the ZEV mandate) and it can be argued that an IC engine at these levels gives electric vehicles a run for their money when all the power station pollution issues are considered. Meeting these targets has not been a one off achievement, but has been repeated many times. It has been achieved only at low mileages so far not (as we were recently misquoted in the press) at 50 000 miles. My opinion on this is that we are better off than competing technology as our engine out emissions are lower and more durable meaning that catalyst degradation is not as large of a factor in emissions increase. Engine durability is one area that we have made great improvements in since the early days. Certainly OMC announcing their intention to produce would indicate some measure of happiness with durability issues of the system. The fleet trials subjected the engines to very high mileage and tough driving conditions (police vehicles in the UK for instance). The anecdotal evidence I have heard suggests that the Orbital vehicles were preferred by the police who had the choice of vehicle. Our own trials with the general public has also shown a good level of customer acceptance of the performance and driveability. The other area of current great interest is the small engine area (which I primarily work in). We have simplified our automotive system and removed cost to make the system low cost for small engine (scooter, small outboards, industrial and recreational engines etc). When converting small two-strokes over to SEFIS (Small Engine Fuel Injection System) we have achieved great savings in fuel economy and great improvements in emissions capable of meeting the toughest foreseen legislation for these applications while keeping the cost increment for this technology competitive with the cost of conversion to four stroke (without the encumbent product disadvantages that four strokes have for these applications). I hope this answers your questions. As usual none of the answers given here should be construed to be the official position of the Orbital Engine Company. They are simply my personal interpretation of the facts about our product. I also disclaim being an emissions and engine guru; although real time control of two stroke direct injected engines- that’s a different teapot of minnows. — Martin Cebis, Electronic Engineer, Orbital Engine Company, Perth, Australia
Response:
: I’d be happy to field any questions about our technology or post some : general info if anyone is interested. : However opinions will certainly be my own and not necessarily the : companies -as the standard disclaimer goes (I do like working here). : — : Martin Cebis, Electronic Engineer, Orbital Engine Company, Perth, Australia Are any auto manufacturers planning on putting Orbital’s engine into production? How are the emissions relative to required standards? What is the wear rate like in this engine? Well its a start… Greg… — "The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality." George Bernard Shaw
Response:
>Split Cycle is a totally different company from Orbital Engine Company. >It was set up in Australia by a NZer called Rick Mayne. AFAIK there is >absolutely no connection between Split Cycle and OEC. OEC is a >recognised research company based around the Sarich family and >they are known for their knowledgeable engineering and rigorous >dyno testing and technical evaluations of their products.
I would like to confirm that to the best of my knowledge there is no connection between Rick Mayne/ the Split Cycle Engine and our company (The Orbital Engine Company). (My upper management might word that in even stronger terms). I must confess to being ignorant about the Split Cycle engine although I am using my company’s resources to find out more. There have been and will be a lot of people chasing the dream of building a better internal combustion engine because there is a lure of instant riches. I will not publicly try to discredit anyone’s attempt to innovate or build a better engine however I will say that in my company’s case the improvements are verifiable and soundly based in the science of internal combustion engines. Our major benefits come from taking the advantages that two strokes have (power to weight ratio, efficiency, size and simplicity) when compared to four strokes and removing the problems caused by pollutants (mainly unburnt hydrocarbons) that these engines have. It is fairly obvious to anyone who deals with IC engines that by more completely using the fuel in a two stroke, gains in efficiency and fuel consumption will follow and that the major pollution problems will be solved. Other engines (if they are to be successful) must be based on similar scientific reasoning in looking for efficiency and not just holding up the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Regards, Martin As usual none of this is company policy or thought, only my own. — Martin Cebis, Electronic Engineer, Orbital Engine Company, Perth, Australia
Response:
> Anyone have any news of the Australian split cycle engine? > Including, what is it, how does it differ from conventional, what are the > advantages/disadvantages and what is the stage of development for mass > production if desirable? H.W. Spencer
I think you’re referring to a motor designed by the orbital engine company of Western Australia, not to be confused with their orbital engine. The motor has most of the components of a four stroke motor with fuel injection. The fuel is injected into the cylinder on the compression stroke. The exhaust outlet valve is at or near the bottom of the cylinder and thus the exhaust is released at either the end of the combustion stroke or beginning of the compression stroke. This makes it similar to a two stroke engine with the following difference. In a standard two stroke exhaust stroke is combined with the compression strokes, and the combustion with the intake strokes. In this motor the compression and intake of fuel are combined, as there is no need for an intake stroke with fuel injection, and the combustion and exhaust strokes are combined. This makes it a much cleaner burning motor, and thus more efficient than a standard two stroke and of course has a higher power to weight ration than a four stroke. In my mind I can’t see why it wont completely replace the standard four stroke motor. I know of the motor because of a TV article a few years back saying the they had sold the rights to a US car manufacturer. Brad Starkie
Response:
>> Anyone have any news of the Australian split cycle engine? > Including, what is it, how does it differ from conventional, what are the > advantages/disadvantages and what is the stage of development for mass > production if desirable? H.W. Spencer >I think you’re referring to a motor designed by the orbital >engine company of Western Australia, not to be confused with their >orbital engine. The motor has most of the components
I’d be happy to field any questions about our technology or post some general info if anyone is interested. However opinions will certainly be my own and not necessarily the companies -as the standard disclaimer goes (I do like working here). — Martin Cebis, Electronic Engineer, Orbital Engine Company, Perth, Australia
Response:
>> Anyone have any news of the Australian split cycle engine? > Including, what is it, how does it differ from conventional, what are the > advantages/disadvantages and what is the stage of development for mass > production if desirable? H.W. Spencer >I think you’re referring to a motor designed by the orbital >engine company of Western Australia, not to be confused with their >orbital engine.
I was hoping somebody else would respond, but the good intentions of theabove poster need to be clarified before he has lawyers from Orbital Engine Company at his doors. Split Cycle is a totally different company from Orbital Engine Company. It was set up in Australia by a NZer called Rick Mayne. AFAIK there is absolutely no connection between Split Cycle and OEC. OEC is a recognised research company based around the Sarich family and they are known for their knowledgeable engineering and rigorous dyno testing and technical evaluations of their products. Rick Mayne was a NZer who had previously been detained at Her Majesty’s pleasure for various exploits. He set up a small engineering business in the South Island, but when the tax inspectors arrived to inquire about a missing $500,000 in tax, he skipped to Australia. He set up Split Cycle to build a visually complex, but compact engine that he thought of during a previous incarceration. There are plenty of moving parts with small combustion areas, yet he claims it will outperform all existing ICs, and is ideal for future cars. He managed to convince some East Europeans to front up with several millions for the european rights last year. He also bought a Lamborgini Diablo/Muira ( which AFAIK doesn’t have a Split Cycle Engine in it 
). He also mounted major publicity campaigns against the inhumane NZ tax collectors who would not let him visit his dying mum in NZ without fronting up with some of the missing money. Not a very successful campaign, most NZer seemed to believe that he could sell the car and pay the tax. His next triumph was to get former Grand Prix ace Sir Jack Brabham to joint the board of Split Cycle and tour through the US promoting the engine. This has recently resulted in a cluster of Heads of US University Mechanical and Automotive Engineering departments ( one of which has links with a US car maker – GM, I think ) appearing outside Split Cycle saying they are going to invest, investigate, and develop the engine. Good Luck. Early this year Rick had to come back to NZ – his mother was dying/died. The nasty tax men arrested him at the border ( coming or going – I can’t remember ), but they allowed him to attend the funeral, and then had serious discussions with him about his future plans and their future plans. He fronted up with a considerable sum of money and everybody was happy that the world would be able to appreciate his true genius. You will note a considerable lack of the technical detail that readers of sci.energy justifiably expect posters to provide. I have somewhere a couple of news and car magazine articles on Rick Mayne and the Split Cycle engine, and I may trip over them again in a pile. But they show little drawings of small four-pointed stars and pistons pointing outwards to hour positions on a clock. Which reminds me I really must do some work. One day I might see a full technical assessment of the Split Cycle engine, and I might see pictures of appropriately instrumented test cells at Split Cycle, as we always have seen in Orbital Engine Company pictures. Till then, I remain highly sceptical that the suggested engine configuration offers sufficient thermodynamic advantages to provide an overall significant improvement in efficiency to overcome losses due to surface area/volume ratios and friction of all those neat little moving parts. There apparently is no new materials in the engine to improve efficiency by higher combustion temperatures. Maybe the leopard can change its spots. [ nice details of the OEC deleted ] >I know of the motor because of a TV article a few years back saying the >they had sold the rights to a US car manufacturer.
The plant has actually started producing engines for smaller applications, and it was a version of an OEC engine that was used in the GM Ultralite prototype. An OEC staffer occassionally posts to sci.energy/sci.engr.mech -maybe they have performed an assessment of the Split Cycle engine?. I haven’t seen a technical or dyno test of one, just pictures of one running on an uninstrumented stand, along with parting pictures of Rick Mayne driving his Lambo away. . Bruce Hamilton Disclaimer ( As I’m posting from my employer’s address, and we have a team that occassionally contracts to evaluate engines for prospective investors.) The above are my own opinions only. Who else would want them?.