See also the discussion from when this was submitted 3 months ago:<p><a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2337237" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2337237</a><p>Also:<p><a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2422867" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2422867</a><p><a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2424987" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2424987</a>
"It has been estimated for the same horsepower, a Wave Disk Engine could weigh a thousand pounds less than a conventional engine."<p>Erm... are there any conventional engines that weigh 1000 pounds to begin with? Even high end V8s aren't that heavy. I wonder what they mean by that.
> The Wave Disk Generator uses 60 percent of its fuel for propulsion; standard car engines use just 15 percent. As a result, the generator is 3.5 times more fuel efficient than typical combustion engines.<p>I'm skeptical.<p>Thermodynamic limits apply. While piston engines aren't near the limits, I'm pretty sure that they're around 50% of the limit and would be very surprised if this engine is over 80% of carnot.<p>So, the only way this engine can be 2x as efficient is if it runs at a significantly higher temperature (which moves the limit).<p>And, the only way that it can run without a transmission is if it has a very wide operating range. That's hard to do with combustion. And, unless the engine is both reversible and has torque at zero RPM, they'll need both a clutch and a reverse gear.<p>If they use it to run a generator, they need to account for the electric motor, said generator, and maybe batteries. See diesel-electric locomotives. The prius combines the electric motor and the generator, but needs a transmission.
Description about how it works:<p><a href="http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Wave_Disk_Engine" rel="nofollow">http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Wave_Disk_Engine</a><p>Seems to be a new take on the Wankel rotary engine:<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wankel_engine" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wankel_engine</a><p>The rotary engine was found to be less efficient than piston engines. I think it's because the streamlined approach of intake an exhaust needs to be babysat, with a chamber and an object to (Make exhaust go away 100%) and (Make fresh air-fuel mixture come in) then a timed predictable ignite.<p>Is the wave disk engine just a modification of the Turbine engine?<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbine" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbine</a>