Engine Concepts...

The Buck stops here!!!!!!!!

Finally you are contributing to the discussion. Anyone who has had an engine tested on a dyno knows that there are reams of information. I have all of that. It sits on hard drives on computers in storage. Maybe the problem here is that I have been working with this so long, what is obvious to me isn't obvious to newcomers. You say that I failed to produce evidence of anything. What are all those pictures on the web site and the two videos and the animation? Are they nothing? One video shows the running engine for over four minutes. It is obvious to me that the RPM is changing and it is also obvious that it is running in a proper test cell. Not in a tank (in the back yard maybe) as Olderboater so sarcastically put it. There is a picture on the site of the crankshaft. To a machinist it is obvious that this is a billet crankshaft. A huge achievement. (milled from a 800 pound billet rod down to 167 pounds actual). I suppose for someone who knows nothing about machining it is just a picture, for anyone who knows engines, it means much more. All of the thousands of hours require to tool up and fixture CNC machines to be ready to make thousands of engines and not just one. And I would also think it would be obvious to anyone that if I don't get the designs to the market that all of the work is for naught.

I have stated many times that everything was stopped in 2008 except that I continued to improve the designs and added patents. I would think anyone who would read that statement could take it at face value. I also stated that in the final design the crankshaft is installed from the top. Having made that statement, it is obvious to any engine knowledgeable person that the engine in the videos and the pictures, is an engine that uses a conventional crankshaft installation and not installed from the top. Having said this, if the designs have all changed, why would I or anyone else for that matter, even care about the so called data from the first modular prototype testing that was done. The first modular prototype design (which is the one I built from scratch and not the modified production engine that I modified and made the .28 with. SEE PREVIOUS POST) will never be offered to the market, so to publish the data would be counter productive. For me to say that it made close to 400 horsepower is enough. For any new engine producer to publish any performance data, for what will be the production engine, that isn't third party verified would be negligent as a new engine manufacturer. If all you guys are looking for are some irrelevant numbers, from in house dyno runs of a prototype, that will never be produced, to use to beat me up some more, then no thanks. I caught enough hell over the .28 BSFC number. In due time, all the SMOKE (thank you Marmot for your sarcasm as well) will clear and the final production design will be built. It will be thoroughly tested and test data verified by a third party. That way Marmot and Olderboater and you can call them if you question the results.

You have stated in your post that you have no idea if the concept is great. There in is where the problem lies. A knowledgeable engine person is able to quickly separate what is concept and what is reality. The modular engine is certainly reality. If you think that statement is still presumptuous of me, then Google the largest diesel engine in the world and take a look. I think that you will find that the crankshaft installs from the top, on that engine as well. Mechanical things for some people are easy to grasp and maybe for other people, not so much.

You are absolutely right that patents don't last forever, that is why patent applications for this type of product should be ongoing. R&D should be a continuing part of any engine producers plan. Patents last for 20 years but that time starts when you file them. It takes 3 to 4 years to get one issued.

If I have been assuming too much about any of your engine, machining or production knowledge, let me apologize now. Sometime for me, due to my longtime involvement with this, I am three moves ahead.

As for contacting other manufacturers, yes I have. I had a Cat rep in my test cell in 2008. He watched the engine run and expressed his amazement at what we had accomplished. He was suppose to take the designs to the people above him. I tried to contact him later without success. I left voice mails and I sent emails with no response. I have also contacted Cummins several times. Cummins marine engines are built only 60 miles from me (they were being marinized in Charleston). I'm told that the Whiticars plant produces more than 800 engines a day. At a point in the production process, engines are taken off the primary line and routed over to the marinization plant. The last report I had was that Cummins marine engine production was about 3% of it's total engine production. I have also contacted Volvo in Sweden, conference calls and such.

The primary issue when it comes to engine production is that a new, from scratch engine design, requires tooling up an entire plant. If Cummins is selling every engine it can produce and if they have been producing the same designs for 75 years, and lets face it, except for fuel systems and other hang- ons, the engines haven't changed much, why would you look at anything else? All of their competition is producing the same thing so don't rock the boat. Large companies also have a NOT INVENTED HERE mentality. If it doesn't come from the in-house R&D department, they aren't interested. Another big concern for companies is patent infringement. If you remember the intermittent windshield wiper case from years back, you can see what I mean. That one case caused companies to turn inward for design improvements and shut the doors to outside innovation.

One other thing to think about when it comes to selling this idea to Cummins, Cat or anyone else. If your distributors and dealers livelihoods depend a great deal on their revenue from repairs, how is shortening the repair time by 80% going to help them. If you see this on the horizon, you slam the door and hope that it goes away.

As for Shark Tank, can you imagine me trying to transfer all of this to anyone, in four minutes? My post are so long because I am trying to bring the reader to a level of understanding that it has taken me more than 10 years to achieve.

Your other questions

How many engines have you made that are in existence? Complete and running engines, one. I have stated this several times. I produced a lot of castings for other engines but didn't get the opportunity to complete them. I did put together a big portion of a three cylinder, before we stopped. It was the next one to be tested.

Why can you not produce any dyno test results, sheets or anything? Asked and answered but to state it again, the info is on hard drives in storage but since the data is irrelevant it is a mute point. Once you read that the testing stopped in 2008 and once you read that the current designs are different, that should have been enough to move on.

Why does all of your information seem to be all mixed up? It isn't mixed up. What my intern, Tim Brownell, posted on a site in 2008, isn't relevant at all to this conversation today. To be honest, this is the first time I have even read his post. At the time he was a 22 year old college student. I remember him mentioning that he was on-line talking about the engine but I certainly didn't proof his post (there were only 4 of us working on this). Tim is a good guy and I am certain that he didn't intend to mislead anyone or to post anything that would be harmful to the project.

I'm sorry that this post is so long but education takes time and a lot of words.

I respect that you have assembled an engine and watched it run on the dyno. I know it must have been exciting to watch it start for the first time. When we built race engines we worked with a lot of Chevy big and small blocks. All the whistles and bells. Blower motors running on alcohol and such. That work is quite different from building an engine from scratch. You bolted on a water pump. I designed and built from scratch a water pump. I did the pattern and mold work, cast the castings (at a prototype foundry in Indianapolis), machined the parts, assembled the water pump and tested it. I integrated the pump designs into the engine designs and when ready, I bolted it on the engine and ran it. This happened with oil pumps, raw water pumps, gear sets, bell housings, front covers oil seal carriers and so on. Except for bolts, starters, turbochargers and fuel pumps and fuel injectors, I built almost everything. If you found starting your first engine was exciting, imagine what it was like for me to hit the switch on something I had worked on for more than three years.

Concepts

If everyone is in agreement I would like to move the conversation forward with a few questions of my own about marine engine concepts.

Engine belts- yes or no
An engine that weighs half as much- yes or no
Easy repair or does anyone care- yes or no

Enough to start with

Yes it does as we have failed to educate you one bit in all this. Oh and so Tim Brownell isn't relevant as he was just a 22 year old college student. Well, you do list him on your web site as "Engineering". What about your VP, David McQueen? Oh I forget your website isn't your responsibility.

You didn't think enough of this project to save any of your work you're saying now. Just let it go on an old computer. Let's see, add that to couldn't get your dyno working. Oh, and now the engine has totally changed. So guess that means the previous test and engine isn't relevant either but you sure toss them around when convenient. And that means the one engine that once existed isn't relevant so that reduces you to ZERO relevant engines and nothing but an empty concept you continue to try to push.

Then you wonder why no funding coming forward to you. CAT took one look and had no more interest. Oh, but we blame it on them not wanting anything they didn't develop. Bull. If you had something exciting they'd pay you instantly. Cummins is 60 miles from you and has no interest. I've been in manufacturing and if someone had some revolutionary idea we looked and followed through.

You continue to try to insult any and everyone who doesn't agree with your drivel. Yet you talk about improving designs. Where is the evidence anything is improved. Could be you changed but they are in fact worse. For you to say it's close to 400 hp is enough. Ok, then I'll say I have a design of one close to 500 hp. I win.

Your arrogance to claim you're three moves ahead of everyone else. I admit no engine knowledge. But others here have knowledge you can only dream of. And I have more business knowledge than you do.

You can use all the words you want but the reality is you have nothing but a thin unmarketable concept. No more than the college student you now disclaim might have. So insult your detractors and post lots more words. Yes, that's really the way to build a company. No wonder you can't get investors or persons interested. They ask hard pointed questions too.

Concepts

I'm sorry but you readily admit that you have no engine knowledge yet you continue posting on a thread about Engine Concepts. You understand nothing about how the engine development process works yet you keep ranting. Enough said.

Concepts

I posted three questions earlier and the post disappeared. What's up?

I understand plenty about product development, equipment development. Through my previous employment, I've been a prototype and development and demo site for manufacturers often. I've financed equipment development and improvement. I've bought companies. I've brought new products into production. And I depend on others for the technical aspects. I do not consider this thread solely without your other posts including the closed thread. You're not here to discuss design concepts, only to discuss your failed product that never got beyond a concept. You may know a lot about concepts but nothing about taking something from a concept to reality. I will continue to point this out as long as you continue to try to use this forum to promote your self interests. And all concepts can be reasonably challenged on the basis of viability and whether they can or will actually ever be produced. The point isn't just having concepts. It's having ones that might actually make it into use one day.

I also know how to read your posts and website and quickly filter through your propensity to present things as fait accompli when they are nothing but very preliminary concepts. It took a while here until you admitted that in fact that's all it is. You can't disclaim responsibility for your website.

Well written OB.

The truth can be very painful but it's better than going completely broke and having to live in a used car because of chasing a dream too far.

Modular engines have been around for ages.

Bedplate engines are rarely used on small engines because the disadvantages far outweigh what might be seen as benefits. It is better to rotate the block to remove the crank than have bearings fail because lightweight castings move around too much.

There is simply nothing new or revolutionary in the Buck design that contributes to reliability, performance, economy of use or manufacture of an engine of that size.

Billet cranks for a production engine that is supposed to operate at moderate loads in a marine application might look nice and dazzle the natives but a good old fashioned forged or cast crank will do quite nicely and last just as long for a lot less money.

If you look around the "home machinist" sites you will find dozens of incredibly beautiful engine projects in small scale. They run, they look like little jewels but they don't represent any engineering breakthroughs other than delighting us with the skill and craftsmanship of their builders. This project is just larger example.

There are far too many contradictions and excuses for those contradictions to garner much confidence for this cynical old mechanic. The dog ate my computer doesn't cut it after claims of what can only be interpreted as multiple prototypes running for at least a thousand hours with world record class BSFC numbers.

I feel your pain, believe me I know the frustration of having the best idea in the world rejected for some less attractive alternative just because that alternative has a history.

As a buyer and user of complex equipment I do the same thing - I am very leery of being an early adapter but as an inventor/integrator/tinkerer/designer/builder I don't call the people who buy the other guy's product a half full glass or an idiot. Sooner or later value and performance will garner a good share of the market but it won't happen any faster by trashing potential customers.

It is not easy, inexpensive, or always satisfying to try and bring an idea to market but, geez man, stop shooting yourself in the foot by insulting the people you are trying to impress. Build the hardware, put it in some kind of service and show the benefits, collect the data (keep the dog away from it next time) and dazzle us with brilliance, don't try to baffle us with BS.

And I think that last sentence brings us full circle ... hope to see you at FLIBS.

Oh, before I go ... let me know if you want to integrate exhaust treatment in your generator version, I know some people who can make that happen.

Hi,

I have no idea what happened to your posts, don't feel special it happens to me too sometimes.

Here is the post:

If everyone is in agreement I would like to move the conversation forward with a few questions of my own about marine engine concepts.

Engine belts- yes or no
An engine that weighs half as much- yes or no
Easy repair or does anyone care- yes or no

Enough to start with

My answers to all those would be yes.

If you have one operable engine why don't you look around the NC area for a workboat operator who is repowering with around the same horsepower and see if he could use your engine for 2- 3000 hrs a year.

If you whacked it in the boat and it runs that long trouble free this will be an amazing and reasonably cheap way to get the word out to the masses.

I know a guy who could use a single 400/425 on a Hamilton Jet on an upcoming project who is always willing to take a gamble on things, his setup unfortunately will do around 3 to 400 as year and could be in any corner of the globe so not such a good test bench as one that will work it hard and can be looked at and after locally.

Concepts

One last attempt at rationality. Do you really see no difference between a concept and a running engine that you can put your hands on? For engine producers there is about 25 million dollars worth of difference. Engine development is a process. You don't build an engine, place it directly in an application and everything works perfectly. Engines are many times, years in development before they are introduced to the market. Nothing has failed, it has only been delayed. Everything is a building process, even this thread. Naysayers have existed for all time and will continue to exist for all time to come. Something as simple as the train car automatic coupler took 17 years from patent to commercialization. A lot of fingers and hands were lost in the mean time. You and Marmot should send me an email, when I have the final design running in a boat, I'll drop you a line.

I have no interest in your final design. When you have an engine in a boat, then let me know. You've been many years and not yet progressed even to a prototype. I've been involved with machinery development that was far more expensive than your engine. But the developer didn't try to sell anyone on it until he could show a prototype.

You talk about all the years in development but you present no resume of every having developed anything. Oh and your attempt at rationality failed. Somehow you ventured off into train cars and lost fingers and hands.

I will say this. Anything that takes 17 years in this industry today to develop will no longer be leading edge when it hits the market. People with the means are developing every day. You mentioned common rail as being new when you started. Now it's just a standard product.

Your three questions are silly. Of course everyone would like better, lighter, less expensive. That's how the Snake Oil Salesman always worked. Magic Elixir. I'd like a 125' yacht that could cross oceans at 30 knots using 30 gallons of fuel an hour with a range of 10,000 miles and all for $5 million. But I wouldn't buy it from a concept.

Hi,

Have you considered a cast off Americas Cup yacht?

Until you have a prototype running in a boat for quite a while how in the world are you supposed to come up with a "final" design?

If your videos are to be believed, you already have a running prototype that puts out close to 400 HP and only burns .28 lb/hp-hr. Put that thing in a boat and run it. How else do you expect to come up with a "final" design if you don't even know if the prototype works?

Stop wasting time and money through analysis paralysis while waiting for some angel investor to show up at your doorstep ... it ain't gonna happen. Take your better mousetrap out in the field and show us the mice.

Concepts

Please go back and read the post where I explained that the 4 cylinder 5 liter production engine that I first modified was the one that I made the .28 with and not the modular from scratch prototype.

Concepts

When the final design application engines are ready, I will be pleased to discuss it.

Concepts

I would like to move the conversation forward with a few questions of my own about marine engine concepts. I have no idea where Olderboater came up with his three questions but here are mine.

Engine belts- yes or no
An engine that weighs half as much- yes or no
Easy repair or does anyone care- yes or no

Please go back and look at the video you claim is a running prototype. You know, the one with the 7.5 minute cylinders.

Is there some reason you can't drop that into a boat? Surely there is some fisherman or somebody in NC who needs a new engine but can't afford to buy one ... there must be a few dozen crabbers on the Chesapeake who would take up your offer in a heartbeat.

Or is that one in the other test cell and you can't find the key? Sorry for the sarcasm but geez, this is getting beyond ridiculous.

Engine belts. Depends. I have no major issues with them so the alternative would have to be proven.

Weighs half as much. I would immediately be skeptical of durability. Would have to see proof through very extended and long term testing. You remove weight, generally you remove strength.

Easy repair. Nice, but not instead of other attributes. I'm far more interested in the need for repairs than the ease of them. I put a lot of hours on engines and durability is a key. My engine room has good room for repairs. If a cylinder is bad, there are likely additional issues to be addressed too. Plug and play only interests me if nothing is sacrificed in getting there.

Concepts

The prototype that is in the video is the engine I built from scratch. In my previous post I explained that before I made the decision to design and build my own engine, I heavily modified a 4 cylinder 5 liter production engine that I made 340 horsepower with at 2800 rpm. The computer said, indicated, presented or displayed, that the BSFC was .28. I ran this engine at full power (340) for 8 solid hours non stop, to see how it would manage the heat and hold up. When my modifications proved out I initially intended to marinize that production engine. When I was told by the production engine producer, that they would not guarantee me a supply of base engines, I made the decision to design and build from scratch. The engine on the site and in the video is the one I built from scratch. Since the designs have changed, now the crankshaft is installed from the top, using wet sleeves and different injectors, to place and test in a boat, anything other than what I intend to produce and offer to the market would be counter productive.

Concepts

Your concerns are legitimate but for the moment assume that durability is not an issue.