All about the Taurozzi Pendulum Engine | Advantages, Working Principle, and Performance (100144.V1)

I would say, from a commercial standpoint, that any advantage of the 'low friction piston' would be offset by the difficult to machine bores, the balancing issues of the curved piston arms, connecting rods and crank all working in different planes, and it the extra reciprocating mass involved. Most modern engines have tiny pistons, with virtually no skirt on them, just a small pad with Teflon on it.

Almost every viable idea using piston engines has been tested already, but the claim of 30 percent reduction in friction if true would be phenomenal in racing engines and saving fuel. Great video. 👍

I wonder if this has benefits from the geometry the way an offset crank does? The original Prius had an offset crank which made the piston reach top dead center when the crank pin is already a little bit past the typical TDC which is straight up. When the power stroke happens, the crank is at an ideal leverage point to maximize torque output, instead of the maximum force being wasted pushing a crank pin straight down and trying to pry the crank away from the block. This design could go even farther.

The weight and inertia of the bent seem to have been overlooked.

How do they bore and hone a curved cylinder?

It eliminates lateral forces on the wrist pin, piston to cylinder wall friction, piston slap, heavy bore wear, power loss due to any of the latter…

@4:05 you animation shows the Con rod passing through the cylinder wall higher than the piston rings will drop too LOL.

The combustion chamber is difficult to manufacture.

GENIOO ! OJALA SE DEN CUENTA DE QUE ESTA SIMPLE MODIFICACION LES DA VIDA Y POTENCIA AL MOTOR( IGUAL QUE LOS VALANCINES DE DUCATI)

Si en Argentina Eduardo Taurozzi ..ahún a sus 80 años espera su reconocimiento si es posible en vida ...ya que cuando tenia 40 años lo patententó ...y ahora esta libre la patente de intento de este motor genial ¡¡¡¡¡

I think this high torque/low rpm design would be best suited as a stationary power source for temporary or emergency electrical generation or to operate a pump of some kind. Maybe to alleviate flooding. It's reduced requirement for cooling and lubrication Could allow it to sit dormant for extended periods of time. I think it will have it's place, just not in transportation.

How does one machine the curved cylinder bore with any degree of accuracy? How is the weight of that massive curved connecting rod balanced? What keeps the motor from shaking itself to pieces at 3500 rpm or higher? This a no-go concept for typical transportation vehicles.

There are some other solutions a bit better than this engine, like double piston (first is so called fire-piston, and second is a guide-piston) or another solution: shifted crankshaft - both significantly reducing piston-to-cylinder friction. Next, as mentioned at the end (why not earlier, when they were explaining lower mass of the piston?) mass, inertia of rotating parts is not smaller than in any other commercial engine! Additional curved guide arm compensates (in negative meaning) lower mass of the piston! Plus vibrations (a need to use something like Lanchester balancer). An interesting design, still with some drawbacks which make it not so impressive and not better than "a regular solutions". I always smile when I see a comparison to any "regular engine" or a commercial when efficiency of washing powder is compared to "a regular, normal washing powder"

This engine fits well inside a museum.

If you look close you at 4:02 you can see that the connecting rod is crossing over and into the bottom portion of the cylinder wall. This is a no go because the rings will be open to the crankcase and the oil. Over time the rings will become covered with crusty oil not allowing them to seal, plus you will have blow-by into the crankcase. Also you will be adding huge amount of reciprocating mass thus increasing stress at higher RPMs and keeping the motor from revving very high. I think you would be much better off with a conventional set-up using a large bore and short piston, long rod and a short through on the crank. His principle might make a good diesel engine.

Mazda had a variable compression engine that had an arm like this although a different mechanism and shape. Which I feel proved superior. Also there are counter balanced engines that have an arm much like Suzuki's New parallel twin 775cc engine, which balances the engine for smoothness although not perfect it's better and it's a more torquey engine having a longer stroke and smaller bore than it's competitor the Honda hornet 755cc. Which is a typical over square higher revving. I believe this engine is the typical give and take and not overly practical in terms of size Mass weight and production costs. Over all the answer is already out there and I don't believe big oil is only one reason it's not a popularized engine design.

AWESOME!! I have two engines concept, since 2004 at the University. One with rotor. Other with pistons and "crankshaft" but no rods.

Cost to manufacture and service would be too difficult for this to ever become a reality

The increased mass of the swing arm would more than cancel out any efficiency increase due to less side load on the pistons. This engine would never make the high RPMs of a modern piston engine because of the reciprocating mass of the swing arm. It might work for a low RPM diesel engine, but why would you need the extra complexity of the swing arm to eliminate frictional losses when the diesel fuel lubricates the cylinder walls to reduce friction?

The inefficient indirect rod-to-crankshaft force in conventional engines is still there. The reciprocating and rotating masses are significantly greater than a standard engine. The curved bores are very hard to machine, though may not require great precision with a skirtless piston.