64 replies to this topic

[manolis]

Strictly technical.

A few days ago,
the United States patent office (US-PTO) granted to Toyota the US8,985,070 patent for a Variable Compression Ratio ( VCR ) system for Vee-engines:





The complete patent of Toyota, in PDF format, is at http://www.pattakon...._Toyota_Vee.pdf



The following animation has been added at the bottom of the http://www.pattakon....pattakonVCR.htm web page (wherein it is presented the Pat-Head VCR):



The animation shows the Pat-Head VCR applied on a Vee-engine.

I see several disadvantages in the VCR of Toyota as compared to the Pat-Head VCR.

Do you see any advantages?

Thanks
Manolis Pattakos

[gruntguru]

No I can't.

 

Approximately what would your license fee be to a company like Toyota to build VCR engines incorporating your patent?

[manolis]

Approximately what would your license fee be to a company like Toyota to build VCR engines incorporating your patent?

Hello Gruntguru and thanks for your question.


For the fist big carmaker (like, say, Toyota) asking for the Pat-Head VCR, the offer is:

Without exclusivity,
US1$ (one US dollar) per engine,
with a label on the engine-top writing “pattakon VCR”,
and a minimum annual production of 100,000 pieces.

The first big carmaker takes the risk to put – for the first time ever – a VCR in mass production;
for the rest carmakers, the price goes to 50$ per engine.


Imagine the 3-cylinder 1,000cc engine of Toyota Aygo / Yaris with the Pat-Head VCR on it.
Preferably with the cylinder head intergraded with the cylinder block (no head gasket).
The engine gets neither bigger, nor heavier, nor more expensive. Almost.
Externally it would be difficult to say whether there is a VCR inside, or not.
The optimized compression ratio increases the mileage and covers, in less than 1,000 miles, the slightly increased manufacturing cost.

Or imagine the Ford EcoBoost 1,000cc turbo, making even more peak power, and having a substantially better mileage at normal conditions.

Or imagine the improvement on any big displacement Vee-engine.

Thanks
Manolis Pattakos

[Wuzak]

For an in-line engine, like a triple, would Saab's variable CR solution be better?

 

http://www.spannerhe.../Saab_SVC_2.jpg

[MatsNorway]

For an in-line engine, like a triple, would Saab's variable CR solution be better?

 

http://www.spannerhe.../Saab_SVC_2.jpg

Probably. But you get a issue with sealing the sides. Kinda.. It sertainly is cheaper. That Patent is stil owned by GM btw. When they sold SAAB the cept the designs.

Edited by MatsNorway, 18 April 2015 - 09:58.

[manolis]

Hello Wuzak.

Read at http://www.pattakon....Adv.htm#vcrHead the “SAAB SVC versus pat-head VCR”.

Then look again at SAAB’s VCR:



and compare it with the Pat-Head VCR:





Here are some important differences:




SAAB’s VCR does solve the Variable Compression Ratio problem.
But if you think deeper, the side effects it introduces are more difficult to be solved than the initial problem itself.
This is why after the initial patent of SAAB, SAAB’s engineers filed a series of patent applications dealing with the reinforcement of the structure of crankcase and cylinder block in order to soften the problems from the heavy bending loads and the inevitable oscillations of the cylinder block (oscillations caused by the way it depends on the crankcase).
These problems do not exist in normal, non-VCR, engines; they also do not exist in the Pat-Head VCR.


Let me give another example in the following.

Here is a gymnast performing the Iron Cross:



Only few gymnasts can stay at “Iron Cross” for more than a few seconds.

SAAB’s VCR (and Toyota’s VCR, which is an evolution of SAAB’s VCR) operates in a similar way.

In both cases, in order to take a central force (the combustion force in the one case, the weight of the gymnast in the other case), they are generated extreme bending loads.

Now Imagine a gymnast hanged with his hands from the rings, like:



This is how the Pat-Head works.
It receives directly (in the most straight way) the heavy combustion loads.
At the same time the PatHead VCR cancels any tendency of the cylinder block / cylinder head to oscillate.

As you see, there are several weaknesses / problems in the architecture of the SAAB VCR; are there any advantages?

Thanks
Manolis Pattakos

[jpf]

My naive take is that the Toyota system looks like it essentially moves the whole engine around on top of a fixed crankshaft, whereas your system introduces relative motion among the more complex moving assemblies within the heads.  The crankcase seems less critical in terms of sealing and strength needs so that seems like a plus to me.  On the other hand, I had not considered the loads of combustion events on the adjustment mechanism.  Also, I don't really have any meaningful experience with engines… 

[imaginesix]

How do you connect the crankshaft to the camshafts without altering the valve timing as the CR changes?

[manolis]

Hello Jpf

Take a look at the drawing in post #6.

There are three basic subassemblies:
The crankcase (2),
the cylinder head together with the cylinder block (7),
and the control shaft (13) with the small connecting rods (15).

The crankcase (2) has projections (6) comprising pillars and bridges.
The pillars enter, through proper openings, into the cylinder head. The bridges couple the free ends of the pillars to strengthen the structure and to provide supports to a control shaft:
The control shaft (13) is pivotally mounted on the cylinder head above the combustion chambers and, by 'small connecting rods' (15), it is supported on the bridges.
The narrowing between neighboring cylinders, typical in conventional cylinder blocks, is an available free area for the pillars to pass and an available free surface for sliders (10).

So, in both cases (Toyota VCR and pattakon VCR) you have a movable cylinder head – cylinder block assembly that has to move relatively to the crankcase.

A main difference is that in the pattakon VCR the crankcase / casing extends inside the cylinder head, above and around each combustion chamber:



Look at the arrangement of the pillars (5 / 6) and of the horizontal beams (6).
They form, inside the engine, a robust crane capable to receive extreme loads at the cylinder axes direction, i.e. at the direction the heavy combustion forces act on the cylinder head.
Take a cylinder; when the pressure inside the cylinder is high (combustion, expansion), the force acting on the surface of the cylinder head above the piston (wherein the intake and exhaust valves seat, and wherein the spark plug and/or the injector are) passes initially to the control shaft, then, through the two small connecting rods, to the horizontal bridges and finally to the crankshaft bearing caps (3) through four pillars around the cylinder:



This lightweight and compact “crane arrangement” is capable to pass extreme tension loads from the cylinder head to the bottom of the crankcase, without affecting the cylinder block.
With the cylinder liner (and the material around them) completely free of heavy loads along the cylinder axes, the cylinder liners remain round / circular. They receive the thrust forces (a small percentage of the forces along the cylinder axes), which pass to the casing though sliders / supports (10).

How Toyota and SAAB VCR’s receive the heavy combustion forces applied on the bottom of the cylinder head (above the pistons)?

These heavy forces (a few tons in a typical engine) travel into the material of the cylinder head and of the cylinder block and are received at the two sides of the engine.
Forget the bending loads, forget the vibrations, forget everything else and focus on the deformation caused on the cylinder liners as the heavy forces pass through the cylinder block (by the way, in the conventional engines, even the tightening of the cylinder head onto the cylinder block causes deformation on the cylinder liners; there are articles in the Internet wherein the cylinder liners are measured with the cylinder head secured on it; it would be great if the honing could be done with the cylinder head (or something like the cylinder head) secured on the cylinder block; some racing team do this).


And since the thread is about Toyota’s VCR for Vee engines,
think how the cylinder block of Toyota’s VCR-Vee engine is supported:
On an eccentric shaft at the one side of the crankshaft (inevitably away from the crankshaft), and – through connecting rods – on another eccentric shaft (inevitably away from the crankshaft) at the other side of the crankshaft.
Two independent servo-motors control the two eccentric shafts.
The slightest clearance allows oscillations to start.
The cylinder head / cylinder block assembly cannot be supported anywhere else (only on the one eccentric shaft, at one side, and on the set of the connecting rods at the other side).

As in the case of the original VCR of SAAB / GM , also in the Toyota VCR-Vee the cylinder block and the crankcase must be substantially reinforced (which means heavy, massive, expensive etc).
Just compare, relative to the piston size, the size of the cylinder block and of the crankcase of the SAAB VCR in post #6, with the size of the cylinder block and of the crankcase of the pattakon VCR in the same post #6.


The pattakon VCR brings a true solution, i.e. a solution rid of side effects, to the VCR problem, being way simpler, cheaper, quieter, more compact, more lightweight and more robust.


According the previous, there are several -and significant- disadvantages in the VCR’s of Toyota / SAAB / GM as compared to the Pat-Head VCR.
Do you see any advantage?

Thanks
Manolis Pattakos

[manolis]

How do you connect the crankshaft to the camshafts without altering the valve timing as the CR changes?

Hello Imanginesix.

Quote from http://www.pattakon....Adv.htm#vcrHead

"The synchronization between crankshaft and camshafts is simple and accurate:

A free roller (the red one, near the camshaft sprockets, shown in the http://www.pattakon.com/vcr/VCR.wmv video-animation) has its center secured on the crankcase, i.e. its center remains immovable when the cylinder head moves up or down to change the compression ratio.
This free roller changes the direction of the belt / chain, coming from the crankshaft sprocket, for about 90 degrees before it meshes with the first camshaft sprocket.
Another free roller, beside the crankshaft sprocket, is the tensioner that takes the lash of the belt / chain (the conventional lash and the lash resulting from the approach of the camshafts to the crankshaft).
This simple geometry keeps the timing between crankshaft and camshaft unchanged, no matter what the compression ratio is, i.e. the valves open and close at the same crankshaft degrees either at 20:1, or at 7:1 or at any other available compression ratio."



Thanks
Manolis Pattakos

[Joe Bosworth]

Are there any thermodynamically valid reasons to alter the comprerssion ratio while running an IC engine?

 

Or even better are there any valid test results from dyno runss or road test that support the value of altering the CR?

 

Regards

[gruntguru]

Yes there are Joe. There are plenty of papers out there.

 

CR is typically established by the knock limit at full load. This means that part load efficiency is significantly compromised. The effect is worst on engines with very wide dynamic range eg downsize turbocharged. Such an engine might operate best at 10:1 CR at full boost and 18:1 at light load. In the light load case, 18:1 represents the expansion ratio - compression being limited by throttling (or LIVC in the future)

[Wuzak]

Yes there are Joe. There are plenty of papers out there.

 

CR is typically established by the knock limit at full load. This means that part load efficiency is significantly compromised. The effect is worst on engines with very wide dynamic range eg downsize turbocharged. Such an engine might operate best at 10:1 CR at full boost and 18:1 at light load. In the light load case, 18:1 represents the expansion ratio - compression being limited by throttling (or LIVC in the future)

 

With electric turbochargers could that be done by controlling boost pressure instead?

[Kelpiecross]

As the GG says - there are distinct thermodynamic advantages with VCR. However I think the added complexity and expense of VCR probably outweigh any advantages. Things not mentioned are the fact that the cylinder water jackets move about with CR variation and it would be tricky to arrange a connection through the outer structure to the inner sliding bits. The intake and exhaust manifolds also have to move and this would add complexity as well. The whole Pattakon engine structure I suspect would be quite weighty compared to a conventional engine to get the same rigidity of the block etc. The SAAB hinged-block engine layout would probably be a better solution to a VCR design. It would not weigh as much as a Pattakon and the cam drive can be arranged so as to drive the cam from a pulley coaxial with the hinge point - likewise the exhaust joint can also be coaxial with the hinge.
Probably the most important point about the SAAB engine is that it was built and thoroughly tested and yet SAAB never used it (as far as I know) in a production vehicle. Presumably they found that the complexity and cost penalties etc. outweighed any thermodynamic advantages.

[gruntguru]

Seriously? IMO the Pattakon unit would be smaller and lighter.

 

Movement is a few mm - not too difficult to organise manifold and coolant connections. All of the jacketed components move together.

[manolis]

Hello Kelpiecross.

You write:
“Things not mentioned are the fact that the cylinder water jackets move about with CR variation and it would be tricky to arrange a connection through the outer structure to the inner sliding bits.”
“The intake and exhaust manifolds also have to move and this would add complexity as well.”

Take a conventional engine with 80mm stroke (for instance, 4-cylinder, 1,600cc, square: bore 80mm, stroke 80mm).
If h is the effective height of the dead volume, for a 10:1 compression ratio the h is:
(h+80)/h=10, i.e. h=80/9, i.e. h=8.9mm,

for 20:1 compression ratio, the effective height of the dead volume is h=4.2mm,

I.e. in order to vary the compression ratio from 10:1 to 20:1, the required displacement along the cylinder axes of the cylinder block together with the cylinder head is 8.9-4.2=4.7mm relative to the crankcase.

Think of a 5mm displacement.

Now think, or check, how much the conventional engine moves, relative to the car frame, every time you press the gas pedal increasing the load.

The engine moves and turns on its supports, with the elastic mounts of the engine enabling a much bigger displacement than 5mm.

The connection of the radiator (which, typically, is secured on the car frame) with the cylinder block of a conventional engine is elastic (rubber pipes) to allow this displacement.

Similarly, the elastic supports of the exhaust pipes on the car frame allow the oscillation of the engine on its elastic supports to happen without any damage.

Similarly, the connection of the air filter (which, typically, is secured on the car frame) with the intake manifold (which, typically, is secured on the cylinder head) is not rigid, allowing the oscillation of the engine on its elastic supports at various directions.

So, a linear displacement for 5mm of the cylinder head and cylinder block relative to the crankcase (or relative to the casing of the engine) is anything but a problem.
The elastic pipes from the radiator are connected directly on the cylinder head.
The intake manifold is secured to the cylinder head.
The exhaust manifold is also secured to the cylinder head, with the exhaust pipes being secured to the exhaust manifold and being elastically supported on the car frame the conventional way.


You also write:
“the added complexity and expense of VCR probably outweigh any advantages.”

Quote from http://www.mackborin...s_Features.aspx

Advanced Monoblock Design

In the STEYR MOTORS Monoblock engine design, the traditional engine block and cylinder head are made as a single casting, using a special high tensile alloy. By eliminating high torque cylinder head bolts and the gasket, cylinder roundness is not compromised. Additionally, stress is reduced by elimination of temperature variations caused by “hot spots” around cylinder head bolt locations.



The engine Monoblock is completely encased in an aluminum housing which reduces stress, allows more uniform cooling and also reduces noise and vibration transmission throughout the boat. The aluminum shell, not the engine block, support auxiliaries such as the starter, intake and exhaust manifolds, making it easier to adapt the engine to unique applications.

End of quote


Quote from http://blogs.dieselp...teyr-monoblock/

The Steyr Monoblock combines the block and cylinder combustion chamber in one casting.



The Monoblock design allows this engine to have a coolant jacket where the traditional headgasket would be. As an added bonus the combustion chamber does not have to be clamped together with bolts which distort the roundness of the cylinders. A drawback would be not being able to get the valves out as easily.

The cam shaft housing of the Steyr is like a normal head split in half with the combustion chamber portion being cast as one with the block and the part that houses the cam, valves and unit injectors being removable. The unit injector found in many vehicles today is produced by Bosch etc, but is Steyr's design and patent.



End of quote


It seems the monoblock design has significant advantages even for a non-VCR engine.

Think of the differences between the monoblock of Steyr and the monoblock of the pattakon VCR:
instead of securing the bottom of the monoblock (i.e. the bottom of the assembly of the cylinder head with the cylinder block) on the crankcase,
in the pattakon VCR the crankcase extends (by pillars and bridges) inside the cylinder head, above the combustion chambers, forming a robust – yet lightweight – crane structure wherein it is supported the cylinder head.

Think a little more about this:
in Styer the heavy combustion loads travel through the structure of the cylinder head to the cylinder block, and then they pass to the crankcase,
in the pattakon VCR the heavy combustion loads are taken directly by the crankcase leaving the cylinder block free.

To put it differently:
I think that the support of the "cylinder head - cylinder block" assembly onto the crankcase is so good in the pattakon VCR that even in non-VCR engines the same architecture should be followed.

Besides improving cylinder roundness, the pattakon VCR allows a more lightweight structure, too.

An engine with the pattakon VCR on it, is not necessarily heavier than a similar non-VCR conventional engine.

In comparison, an engine with the SAAB SVC (or the Toyota VCR) on it, has many reasons to be substantially heavier than a similar non-VCR engine.



You also write:
“The SAAB hinged-block engine layout would probably be a better solution to a VCR design. It would not weigh as much as a Pattakon and the cam drive can be arranged so as to drive the cam from a pulley coaxial with the hinge point - likewise the exhaust joint can also be coaxial with the hinge.”

Did you understand the way the pattakon VCR keeps the synchronization of crankshaft / camshafts?
It is quite simple and accurate.
Please take another read at post #10.

As for support of the exhaust pipes on the exhaust manifold of the SAAB VCR, things are not at all easy. You have a set of long pipes secured at one end on the exhaust manifold. They rotate about the pivot together with the cylinder head and cylinder block by up to 4 degrees. Take a 4m long pipe and rotate it, about its one end, for 4 degrees. The other end moves for more than ten inches (254mm).
You need a substantially flexible connection of the exhaust pipes with the exhaust manifold of the SAAB SVC, otherwise the VCR is not functional. A flexible or pivotal connection in the hot exhaust pipes is inevitably heavy, expensive and noisy.

In comparison, the displacement of the free end (at the back of the car) of the exhaust pipes of the pattacon VCR is less than 5mm. The elastic supports of the exhaust pipe in any conventional car allow way more than such a small displacement.

Besides the problems on the exhaust, the hinge architecture of the SAAB SVC makes the sealing (or lubricant and of noise) difficult, heavy and expensive. While an elastic cover can keep the lubricant into the crankcase allowing the pivotal motion of the cylinder head / cylinder block relative to the crankcase, it is not good for the noise.


If you add in the previous the structural problem of the SAAB SVC (huge bending loads, oscillations of the cylinder head / cylinder block, “out of round” deformation of the cylinder liners etc), it seems there were good reasons for not putting it in production.

As I wrote again, SAAB solution of the VCR problem creates others, much more difficult to be solved, problems.

Some of these problems, but not the significant ones, are addressed by Toyota’s VCR’s.


So, please take another look at the pattakon VCR and get beck with your justified technical objections.

By the way, what I think is that the manufacturing cost (and the weight) of the pattakon VCR is the same with the manufacturing cost (and weight) of a similar conventional engine.

As for the licensing cost (post #3),
if the one US dollar per engine offered to the first big car maker that will ask to put the pattakon VCR in mass production (with, at least, 100,000 pieces per year) is considered expensive, a discount can be offered after demand.

By the way,
think the cost, so far, of the patents (lawyers, engineers, fees, etc etc) for VCR’s filed by Toyota; and for the moment in Toyota they still have not a technically good VCR (a viable VCR) to put in production. Or they have?

Thanks
Manolis Pattakos

Edited by manolis, 21 April 2015 - 05:22.

[Kelpiecross]

Seriously? IMO the Pattakon unit would be smaller and lighter.
 
Movement is a few mm - not too difficult to organise manifold and coolant connections. All of the jacketed components move together.

How could it possibly be smaller and lighter? Where would the savings in weight and size be in the Pattakon?

[gruntguru]

Both engines have two pieces, one that supports the crankshaft and one that supports everything else. Changing the relative vertical position of these two pieces changes the CR.

 

There is a significant force trying to seperate these two pieces vertically. This force acts at the centreline of each bore so it needs to be constrained at several locations along the crank to avoid bending. The simplest and most efficient method would be a tension rod down the centreline of each bore (obviously impossible). Next best would be the Pattakon solution with tension rods between the bores. The SAAB solution directs the load path outwards to connections on either side of the crankshaft - increasing the bulk of the engine, transverse stresses on the cylinder assy and the mass of the structure carring the load.

 

It is also obvious that sealing the crankcase is much simpler in the Pattakon system where the joint between the two assemblies is linear sliding.

[Kelpiecross]

My intended meaning was that a Pattakon VCR engine would be heavier than a conventional (non-VCR) engine. How the weight of a Pattakon VCR would compare to the weight of SAAB VCR is a bit debatable - much the same I would think.
The basic Pattakon method of achieving VCR is well known and is used in various VCR research engines (one being the Lotus Omnivore two-stroke engine). So SAAB would certainly have been aware of this VCR method - but they chose the hinged-block method - so they must have thought it was a better method. This is not to say that they were right in their choice - some of the other big car companies suggested ideas of various odd crankshaft and conrod arrangements just appear to be silly.

[bigleagueslider]

The Toyota concept appears to shift the single piece V6 block and two attached heads vertically in relation to the crankshaft center and crankcase structure. This will alter the crank/conrod kinematics slightly, but probably not enough to cause a problem.

 

I don't think Toyota is serious about this concept. There are far easier and less costly methods available to achieve VCR/VVT. It's just one of hundreds of patents they have filed over the past few years. The fact that the US patent office approved the claims it contained does not really mean much.

[manolis]

Hello Kelpiecross.

You write:
“My intended meaning was that a Pattakon VCR engine would be heavier than a conventional (non-VCR) engine.
How the weight of a Pattakon VCR would compare to the weight of SAAB VCR is a bit debatable - much the same I would think.”

The cylinder head of the conventional engine needs to be strong all the way, form above the combustion chamber to its side ends wherein the tightening bolts pass. It also needs a flat strong bottom surface, substantially wider than the cylinder bore, wherein the cylinder head gasket abuts on. The openings, necessary for the coolant, “push” the tightening bolts away from the cylinder axis.

The cylinder head of the 1600cc Honda V-TEC (B16-A2) non-VCR sport engine (this engine was used as the basis for the pattakon VVA-roller prototype, presented at http://www.pattakon....takonRoller.htm ) weighs 23Kp (50lb). The four bolts around each cylinder are at the apexes of a 106mm x 90mm rectangle (for an 81mm cylinder bore).

In comparison, the 635cc PatOP opposed piston diesel prototype engine (at http://www.pattakon....ttakonPatOP.htm ) weighs 20Kp (44lb).

The cylinder block ends, at its top, at a wide flat surface wherein the head gasket abuts on. The threads for the tightening bolts must leave space for the coolant. They also need a lot of mass around and below them, otherwise the tightening spoils the roundness of the cylinder liners.

In the pattakon VCR the cylinder head needs to be strong only from above the combustion chamber of each cylinder till the bearings of the VCR control shaft. The rest structure of the monoblock “cylinder head – cylinder block” is actually unloaded and can be, by far, more lightweight.

On one side of the scale is the weight of the pillars and bridges added to the crankcase, and the weight of the VCR control shaft with the small connecting rods,
On the other side of the scale is the weight saving from the cylinder head, the weight saving from the cylinder block and the weight saving from the elimination of the tightening bolts of the cylinder head onto the cylinder block of the conventional engine.

So, the pattakon VCR adds some weight, but it also removes a lot of weight from the conventional engine. This is how the pattakon VCR is not necessarily heavier than the original non-VCR engine.

In comparison, the SAAB VCR adds a lot of weight on both, the crankcase and the cylinder block.


You also write:
“The basic Pattakon method of achieving VCR is well known and is used in various VCR research engines (one being the Lotus Omnivore two-stroke engine). So SAAB would certainly have been aware of this VCR method - but they chose the hinged-block method - so they must have thought it was a better method. This is not to say that they were right in their choice - some of the other big car companies suggested ideas of various odd crankshaft and conrod arrangements just appear to be silly.”

It seems the US Patent Office examiners (specialized in this specific field), as well as the United Kingdom Patent Office examiners (also specialized in this specific field) never heard anything about the “well known and used in various VCR research engines” arrangement, and granted the US8,166,929 and the GB2,468,763 patents to the pattakon VCR.

It also seems that SAAB never heard about the “well known” VCR (unless they wanted to put in production a complicated, heavy and not really functional alternative).

It also seems that Toyota prefers to put two control shafts at the sides of the engine, to use expensive synchronizing mechanisms and multi-servo-motors, to add a lot of mass at the sides of the engine etc, etc in order to avoid using the “well known” VCR.


On the other hand, in a technical discussion it doesn’t matter who owns what.
For a moment please forget who is the owner of the pattakon VCR and compare it to any VCR you know and like.


Worth to mention that in each country there is one only patent office, which is the only authorized organization in the country to search, examine and decide about the intellectual property (i.e. about the ownership of an idea or invention).


By the way, Lotus Omnivore VCR is only for two stroke engines and it adds a lot of complexity.
If they were using the pattakon VCR in the place of the Omnivore VCR, they would save a lot of cost and complication. For instance:
They would eliminate the secondary cylinder on the cylinder head above the normal cylinder, they would also avoid the secondary piston and the set of secondary piston rings, they would also avoid the leakage of compressed gas towards the cylinder head and the mechanism that displaces the secondary piston.
Is there any real advantage – besides the name of Lotus and the publicity it received in the press – of the Omnivore VCR?

Thanks
Manolis Pattakos

[manolis]

Hello Bigleaqueslider.

You write:
“The Toyota concept appears to shift the single piece V6 block and two attached heads vertically in relation to the crankshaft center and crankcase structure. This will alter the crank/conrod kinematics slightly, but probably not enough to cause a problem.”

This is a minor problem.
The real problem is the way the Vee-block depends on the crankcase.
Any lash / clearance can cause severe problems.
Even without lash, the slightest elasticity of the parts in-between the crankcase and the cylinder block (and there are many of them) can cause severe oscillation of the top part of the engine relative to the bottom part (crankcase).


You also write:
“I don't think Toyota is serious about this concept. There are far easier and less costly methods available to achieve VCR/VVT. It's just one of hundreds of patents they have filed over the past few years”

Isn’t Toyota serious when patenting?

At http://www.pattakon....R_Vee_USPTO.pdf (15MB) you can see the communication of Toyota with the USPTO for the US8,985,070
Patent this thread starts with.
It is an interesting reading about he proceeding of a patent in the biggest patent office of the world.
A good think is that all patent applications, from those of the biggest companies (like Toyota) to those of the independent inventors from small countries, undergo the same rules and are examined by the same examiners.

Toyota’s invention was repeatedly rejected “over Kamiyama (7,036,468), in view of Pattakos (2011/0048383)” (count how many times this phrase is referred in the communication) until Toyota added more limitations (i.e. until Toyota constrained its intellectual property in a narrower range) and a US patent was finally granted.
By the way, the owner (assignee) of Kamiyama’s US7,036,468 patent referred above is Toyota.


You also write:
“The fact that the US patent office approved the claims it contained does not really mean much.”

The fact that USPTO office approved the claims contained in Toyota’s patent means a lot: if anybody inside the USA tries to make or use or sell a VCR having the characteristics disclosed in Toyota’s patent claims, the USA courts will punish him.

Remember when Samsung was forced to pay to Apple a billion dollars for infringement of a couple of Apple’s US patents? (no matter how obvious, or well known, etc, these patents were).

The young members of this forum must understand that there is no other option to protect their intellectual property than taking a National Patent in the country they want to be protected.

There are not international patents.

The WIPO (world intellectual Property Organization) does not grant patents.
You can file an application for a patent in the WIPO, the WIPO will make a search and examination of your application and will provide an official opinion about the novelty, about “having or not an inventive step” and about the industrial applicability of your idea. But this is all. No patent is granted.
Then you can proceed independently with the National Phase in any country, like the USA. Then the examiners of the national patent office of the country (say the USPTO) will search and examine your application independently, no matter what the opinion of WIPO was. At the end of the process, the invention is either rejected or a national patent is granted for it.

If anybody wants to ask anything, please do.

Thanks
Manolis Pattakos

[bigleagueslider]

Manolis-

 

The big auto OEMs like Toyota have hundreds of attorneys in their US operations on salary, and many of them spend 40 hours per week working on patent applications. Toyota is paying lots of money for these attorneys so they are available if a legal problem comes up. But in the mean time they have them work on patent applications to keep them busy, even if the patent subject appears to have no commercial value. The cost of filing a couple hundred patents each year is insignificant for a company like Toyota.

 

Consider what recourse would you have if you felt your VCR patent claims had priority over Toyota's patent claims? Has Toyota's commercial activities related to this patent caused you any financial loss? If so, do you have the huge legal and financial resources needed to litigate this claim against Toyota in civil court? As far as I can tell, Toyota has no intention of using the IP contained in this patent for a commercial product.

 

The Toyota patent application was submitted in 2009 and wasn't granted until 2015. So you had over 5 years to submit an objection to the USPTO examiners regarding claims contained in the Toyota patent application. It wouldn't have cost you anything to do so. But now that the US patent has been granted to Toyota, your only recourse is to file a civil lawsuit for finanical damages in US federal court.

 

You also have the right to request all correspondence between the USPTO and Toyota regarding the issuance of this patent. If you're serious about it, this would be a great place to start.

[manolis]

Hello Bigleagueslider.

You write:
“The big auto OEMs like Toyota have hundreds of attorneys in their US operations on salary, and many of them spend 40 hours per week working on patent applications. Toyota is paying lots of money for these attorneys so they are available if a legal problem comes up. But in the mean time they have them work on patent applications to keep them busy, even if the patent subject appears to have no commercial value. The cost of filing a couple hundred patents each year is insignificant for a company like Toyota.”

The engineers of Toyota’a R&D invent the new ideas. For the patent this thread starts with, these engineers are the:
Manabu Tateno (Shizuoka Japan),
Eiichi Kamiyiama (Mishima Japan),
and Naoto Hisaminato (Sunono Japan).

The patent lawyers deal with the proceeding, having as back-up for technical issues the engineers / inventors.


You also write:
"Consider what recourse would you have if you felt your VCR patent claims had priority over Toyota's patent claims? Has Toyota's commercial activities related to this patent caused you any financial loss? If so, do you have the huge legal and financial resources needed to litigate this claim against Toyota in civil court? As far as I can tell, Toyota has no intention of using the IP contained in this patent for a commercial product."

How can you tell about Toyota’s intention?

From what I can tell, this VCR patent of Toyota (US8,985,070) has significant issues to address before getting, if ever (I doubt a lot), into production.
This is what this thread explains: the drawbacks of Toyota’s (and SAAB’s) design relative to pattakon VCR.

Gruntguru (in post #18) explains in a few lines the basic technical differences / advantages of the pattakon VCR (PatHead VCR).
If you want to help this discussion, instead of dealing with “financial losses, legal and financial resources needed to litigate claims against Toyota, etc, etc”, do focus on the strictly technical part of the discussion.


By the way, and only because you mention it, in case a big company does infringe the patent rights of an independent inventor, several "Intellectual Property Firms" would be happy to participate in the rights-fight on a percentage basis (Brockovich’s like, Antonov against Toyota for Prius hybrid, like, etc).


You also write:
"The Toyota patent application was submitted in 2009 and wasn't granted until 2015. So you had over 5 years to submit an objection to the USPTO examiners regarding claims contained in the Toyota patent application. It wouldn't have cost you anything to do so. But now that the US patent has been granted to Toyota, your only recourse is to file a civil lawsuit for finanical damages in US federal court."

It seems you misunderstood my posts.

The patent document 2011/0048383A1 (of Pattakos et al) referred in the first page of the US8,985,070 patent of Toyota concerns not the pattakon VCR (that with the pillars and bridges forming a "crane structure", see post #1 of this thread), but the patcrank VCR:



presented analytically at http://www.pattakon....konCrankVCR.htm

The originally filed claims of Toyota were repeatedly rejected by the USPTO examiner "over Kaniyama (of Toyota) in view of Pattakos (patcrank VCR)".


You also write:
"You also have the right to request all correspondence between the USPTO and Toyota regarding the issuance of this patent. If you're serious about it, this would be a great place to start."

But I already gave you (post #22) the link of all the correspondence between Toyota and the USPTO regarding the US8,985,070 patent (PDF file at http://www.pattakon....R_Vee_USPTO.pdf 15MB) and is an interesting reading for anyone who wants to see the proceeding (letters, dates, forms, fees etc) of a patent of a big company by US Patent and Trademark Office...


As I wrote to Kelpiecross (who, by mistake, thinks that the Omnivore VCR of Lotus is similar with the pattakon VCR), please forget the ownership of the pattakon VCR and focus on the technical part, write for instance a technical advantage of the SAAB (or Toyota)VCR as compared to pattakon VCR.

Thanks
Manolis Pattakos

[Kelpiecross]

You are correct - KC was mistaken about the Omnivore.

However my main contention was that SAAB must have been well aware of VCR engines of the Pattakon VCR layout. The USPTO has a separate classification for VCR by moving the cylinder or sleeve (or both). It is CCL/123/78C. Note this class also includes VCR by tilting the cylinder SAAB-style - but there are plenty of the "parallel movement" types - some dating from the 1920s.

Also if you Google generally for methods of VCR the parallel movement of the cylinder is often listed first.

I am still inclined to think that the tilting-cylinder method of VCR is the best.

[manolis]

Hello Kelpiecross.

Having a wider view of the proposed, so far, VCR mechanisms, you are “still inclined that the tilting-cylinder method of VCR is the best”.

Why?

I mentioned in the previous posts several technical disadvantages of this VCR type. There are more.
What are the advantages you see?

If it helps, this:



is the solution of Toyota for a VCR with linear movement (or parallel movement) of the cylinder block (the complete patent application is at http://www.pattakon....008153192A1.pdf )

Thanks
Manolis Pattakos

[bigleagueslider]

Manolis-

 

The discussion of the particular technical merits of one concept versus the other is interesting, but mostly subjective. In reality, the only monetary value of any IP is what someone is willing to pay you to use it. You may well have a valid technical argument for the superiority of your (or some other) concept versus Toyota's. But if no one is willing to pay for the right to use it commercially or assume ownership of the IP, then it has no monetary value.

 

Thanks for the link to the correspondence between the USPTO and Toyota's US legal representation for the patent in question. One thing of note is that there were four claims allowed in the final US patent, versus just 3 claims in the initial US application. So the efforts of Toyota's lawyers helped improve their IP position regarding the number of claims. But after reading the text of the patent claims, it seems like they have very limited scope. On the other hand, the other sections of the patent are quite extensive in what they cover, and this is a common tactic used to establish prior art/public disclosure and prevent competitors from obtaining IP over related subject matter.

[Kelpiecross]

The main advantage of the tilting block variety of VCR engine is that it is very simple in comparison with the Pattakon type of layout. It would seem to me that with the Pattakon engine the outside surface of the block/head unit and the matching inside surface of the crankcase would have to be very accurately (and expensively) machined to achieve a good sliding fit. On the other hand the SAAB type of arrangement can just use the normal standard of casting as a conventional engine block and head. The only accurate machining needed with the SAAB type is the boring of the pivot points for the pivoting mechanism - a similar operation to the boring of camshaft and main bearing tunnels etc.
I am somewhat influenced by seeing a tilting block engine made by a research group - it was surprisingly simple. A Charade 3-cylinder engine cut in half just below the water jackets and pivoted externally by bolted-on and welded on lugs on the sides of the block with appropriate oil supply connections made for the camshaft/rocker area of the engine. And that was basically that - a VCR engine.
In contrast I suspect you will find the Pattakon type of engine very difficult to make.
I am not saying SAAB VCR would be better in a performance sense than a Pattakon VCR but there wouldn't be much difference between the engines - but the SAAB VCR is much, much simpler. I imagine this why SAAB chose the tilting block layout - not because they didn't think of the sliding block Pattakon style of VCR engine.

From what I can decipher of the Toyota VCR patent - it doesn't rely on a sliding fit between the block/head and the crankcase either - so it would also be simpler to manufacture than a Pattakon VCR - and thus the Toyota VCR is also probably more practical than the Pattakon VCR.

[MatsNorway]

I see usage for this in higher performance cars. (at first) You can use high Comp mode for fuelsavings and emittions as well as adjusting to the fuel type. Keeping the engine closer to optimum at all times. Then when you hit the track you can insert the power key that for some reason has become a thing. And add some massive turbo boost and voila.. ridicoulus hp levels.

[manolis]

Hello Bigleagueslider.

You are right: the monetary value of something is what someone is willing to pay for it.

An inventor pays the annual maintenance fees to keep alive his patent (for, at most, 20 years; then the patent belongs to everyone).

As for the number of claims, what really matters in a patent is the wideness of the independent claim or claims allowed.
The specific patent of Toyota for a VCR for Vee engines has one only independent claim that comprises several limitations.
The rest three dependent claims add more limitations to the first claim.

Thanks
Manolis Pattakos

[gruntguru]

And now Porsche's offering. http://www.gizmag.co...e-patent/37186/

 

(Horrid looking conrod with eccentric small end actuated by two hydraulic pushrods.) Doesn't look like a high rpm component Porsche would put in one of their cars.

[manolis]

Hello Kelpiecross

You write:
“It would seem to me that with the Pattakon engine the outside surface of the block/head unit and the matching inside surface of the crankcase would have to be very accurately (and expensively) machined to achieve a good sliding fit”

So the question is whether the machining of the inner flat surfaces of the pillars and the machining of the respective mating flat surfaces on the cylinder block (wherein the inner flat surface of the pillars abut on) is more expensive than the machining of a series of coaxial holes along the one side extension of the cylinder block, the machining of a series of coaxial holes along the one side extension of the crankcase and the machining of a strong and long pivot axis interconnecting the two parts at the one side of the engine.

I am trying to figure out where you see the difficulty (or higher machining cost) in cutting a flat surface, which is the simplest milling work.


On the other hand, the tight fit of the above-mentioned flat surfaces (on the inner side of the pillars and on the outer side of the cylinder block) prevents any tendency of oscillations of the assembly of the block together with the cylinder head relative to the crankcase.
And the central support of the heavy combustion forces, directly above the cylinders, liberates the cylinder head / cylinder block from “serious problems”, keeping the roundness of the cylinder liners.

In comparison, think what happens, at operation, in the SAAB VCR engine (or in Toyota’s Vee VCR engine):
A central force of a few tons (for 80mm cylinder bore the surface of the piston is 50cm2, which means that with a 100bars peak pressure during the combustion, a 5 tons force is applied upwards on the cylinder head / cylinder block, at the middle of the distance from the pivot shaft at one side of the engine to the side “crankshaft” at the other side of the engine) and loads locally, and bends, the cylinder head / cylinder block. The cylinder liners roundness must not be affected. You need a several times stronger structure (which means substantially heavier and expensive).
Suppose you put the cylinder head / cylinder block assembly of SAAB VCR in a press machine, that you support it only at its two sides where the shafts are and that you apply at a cylinder top center a 5tons force. Imagine the resulting elastic deformation.

To put it in a different way:
Suppose you have a conventional four-in-line engine and you decide to secure the cylinder head on the cylinder block omitting the two central head bolts (those between the cylinders 2 and 3). Theoretically you can; but the cylinder head needs a several times stronger structure (and material, i.e. weight) to eliminate the bending.

The guy performing the Iron Cross (post #6) is at his limits.
But the other guy hanged from the rings (same post #6) can keep easily two or three times his weight.


There are other, minor, problems in the hinge VCR’s, like the support of the exhaust pipes (additional cost, noise), the slightly different geometry of the basic kinematic mechanism at different compression ratios (think, for instance, of the offset between the cylinder axes and the crankshaft axis), the need for special sealing means between the crankcase and the cylinder block (if you want similar quality of fit and sealing of noise and oil, you need cylindrical mating surfaces to be machined (with centers at the pivot shaft axis) etc. All these increase substantially the cost and decrease the functionality and the long term reliability.


According the previous, I still can’t see an advantage of the hinge VCR.

Thanks
Manolis Pattakos

Edited by manolis, 27 April 2015 - 04:32.

[manolis]

Hello MatsNorway

You write:
“I see usage for this in higher performance cars. (at first) You can use high Comp mode for fuelsavings and emittions as well as adjusting to the fuel type. Keeping the engine closer to optimum at all times. Then when you hit the track you can insert the power key that for some reason has become a thing. And add some massive turbo boost and voila.. ridicoulus hp levels.”

Exactly.

You can have it all in one engine.
Top fuel efficiency / mileage / green (at urban cycle, for instance); and at the same time the performance / peak power of a racing engine in the open road.

Even better if you combine the VCR with a good VVA (Variable Valve Actuation).


Quote from http://www.pattakon....pattakonVCR.htm :

Besides the VCR control shaft, the cylinder head can also host a Variable Valve Actuation, or VVA, system (like the DVVA, the HyDesmo and the rest pattakon VVAs).

The light load operation (down-town traffic, for instance) fits the high compression ratios (VCR) and the short valve lift / short valve duration / zero valve overlap (VVA). This combination protects the valves from the piston and allows a well shaped combustion chamber.
The high turbulence and swirl (VVA) cause fast flame propagation that improves the thermal efficiency. The reduced pumping loss (VVA) and the high compression ratio (VCR) also improve the thermal efficiency. The thermal efficiency further improves by the shape of the combustion chamber (smooth piston crowns without deep valve pockets, as in the animation above, reduced wall surface).

The heavy load operation, on the other hand, fits the medium-low compression ratios (VCR) and the long valve lift / extensive overlap (VVA), allowing high or extreme specific power and downsizing.

End of quote.

Thanks
Manolis Pattakos

[manolis]

And now Porsche's offering. http://www.gizmag.co...e-patent/37186/
(Horrid looking conrod with eccentric small end actuated by two hydraulic pushrods.) Doesn't look like a high rpm component Porsche would put in one of their cars.

Hello Gruntguru.

I suppose that if an independent inventor was proposing this



VCR of Porsche, everybody would laugh at him.

Thanks
Manolis Pattakos

[Greg Locock]

Bear in mind that in big OEMs there is a bit of a pissing contest with young up-coming technical supervisors to see who can get patents granted. For example you'll find many totally useless (commercially) suspension geometry patents are filed by OEMs for no real reason at all, since they are obvious in concept to practitioners of the art. But they pass the low (non existent?) level of scrutiny offered by the patent office, and since they are never put into manufacture they are never challenged.Somebody gets a plaque on their wall and a few thousand bucks.

 

Since you didn't ask, yes I have a concept for a suspension system....

[gruntguru]

 . . and a plaque and the money?

[Greg Locock]

Nah, haven't bothered. You're more likely to see it on a car first. 

[manolis]

Bear in mind that in big OEMs there is a bit of a pissing contest with young up-coming technical supervisors to see who can get patents granted. For example you'll find many totally useless (commercially) suspension geometry patents are filed by OEMs for no real reason at all, since they are obvious in concept to practitioners of the art. But they pass the low (non existent?) level of scrutiny offered by the patent office, and since they are never put into manufacture they are never challenged.Somebody gets a plaque on their wall and a few thousand bucks.
Since you didn't ask, yes I have a concept for a suspension system....

Hello Greg Locock.

This is why an invention, or idea, should be evaluated according its functionality, applicability and usefulness. Also by the side effects it causes.

For instance,
the con-rod VCR of Porsche provides only two discrete compression ratios, a high one (say 15:1) and a low one (say 7:1), which is a compromise: what if the ideal compression ratio for the specific operational conditions is 12:1?

A continuously variable VCR is better, especially if it is also simpler.

Porsche’s VCR is like the VTEC of Honda with the two distinct valve lift profiles, one for low revs, another for high revs. The modern continuously variable VVA's (Variable Valve Actuation systems) with the infinite modes do a lot more than the old VTEC with the two modes:



Unless I am wrong, Porsche's con-rod two-mode VCR requires a solenoid within a high revving / reciprocating connecting rod and "remote" actuation of the solenoid.
An other issue is the strength of the connecting rod.
The operation at only two modes will create, by the time, a pair of steps on the top of the cylinder liner. Passing over the lower step (at the high compression ratio mode) the piston rings will undergo impact loads.

Porsche’s con-rod VCR and Honda’s VTEC are like "a shoe shop having only two sizes of shoes".

Thanks
Manolis Pattakos

Edited by manolis, 27 April 2015 - 10:57.

[bigleagueslider]

I have a couple US patents that I paid for out of my own pocket. The attorney that worked on my most recent patent offered a bit of frank advice to me. He said in today's world where technology advances at a very rapid pace, rather than spending huge amounts of money pursuing patents, it is usually better to keep quiet about your invention and try to get it to market as quickly as possible. Make as much profit from the invention as you can before other companies start selling a similar product.

 

Even for huge companies like Toyota with massive financial resources, it is rarely worthwhile to spend the time and money to pursue patent infringement litigation against some other company with similar resources. A perfect example of this is how Tesla offered any other auto OEM to use their existing patents free of charge.

[Greg Locock]

it is usually better to keep quiet about your invention and try to get it to market as quickly as possible. Make as much profit from the invention as you can before other companies start selling a similar product.

 

I was given that same advice many years ago. If you have the advantage of having developed the product you are already better placed to know its weaknesses than the late comers, so you should be able to get the jump when it comes to improvements over the copy cats. -this implies you'll be continuously developing the product once it is in manufacture.

[desmo]

Or maybe Google would be interested...

http://techcrunch.co...s/#.ndsidi:X9GT

[manolis]

Hello.

The engineers / mechanics / inventors should know the cost for patenting an invention and decide, by themselves, if it is worthy to risk or not.


UK-IPO

If you file on-line a patent application in the United Kingdom Patent Office (UK-IPO), the total cost from the filing of the application to the granting of the patent is 230 pounds (320 Euro, US350$).

After the granting of the UK patent (the procedure takes about two years), and in order to keep it in-force (alive), the applicant pays maintenance fees (the first maintenance fee is paid the fourth year after the filing and is 70 pounds; the annual maintenance fee increases progressively for the fifth, sixth etc years).

Provided the maintenance fees are paid, the duration of the patent is 20 years from the filing of the application.

From the filing of the application, the invention is regarded as patent pending, which means the inventor / applicant can freely reveal it and talk about it. That is, after the filing date the invention is protected.

If the applicant likes so, he/she can use the patent application as priority for filling the same invention in another patent office / country. This can happen not later than 12 months after the filing date of the initial application.
In order to extend this 12 months period, the applicant can file a PCT international application (WIPO / World Intellectual Property Office), which costs some US3,000$. Having a PCT application, the applicant can enter into the National Phase, in any country, not later than 30 months from the fist priority date.

Quote from the 1st communication of the UK-IPO with the applicant:
“Only 4-6% of the patent applications which are filed without the help of an IP advisor successfully reach grant.”
(IP advisor: patent lawyer / patent agent).
So, if it is to file a patent by yourself, you have to take it seriously and study it in depth.


US-PTO

If you file on-line a patent application in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), the total cost for an independent inventor, from the filing to the granting of the patent, is US1,210$. For companies this cost doubles.

Three years after the granting of a patent, and in order the patent to remain in-force (alive) for the next three years, the first maintenance fee (US800$) must be paid (i.e. some US270$ per year for the 51 states of the USA). After another three years, another maintenance fee must be paid, and so on until the end of the life of the patent (20 years from the filling or from the filing of the priority.
If a delay of the granting of the patent is cause by the US-PTO, then the life of the patent is extended by this time delay!

The procedure from filing to granting takes some 2 to 3 years.

Using the Internet, the engineer / mechanic / inventor can study hundreds of granted patents and applications of his field, as well as the complete communication of the patent office with the inventor / applicant / lawyer.
If he feels sure, he can try alone.
If not, he has to pay the advisor / lawyer / agent, which means a several times higher cost.

Important: the patents are equal; either for a big company (like GM, Daimler, VW) or for an independent inventor from a poor country, the same rules and time limits are applied, the same examiners do the search and examination, the same procedure is followed.


IP Australia

The procedure is similar with the UK-IPO.
Unfortunately, the maintenance cost of a patent in Australia is comparable with the maintenance cost of the same patent in the USA! They should be some ten times cheaper (according population and size of markets).


EPO

For a European patent the cost is substantially higher (some 2,500Euro paid with the initial application, plus some 800Euro at granting, plus some 400Euro annual maintenance fee payable even before the granting (if ever) of the patent (no matter how crazy it sounds, it is the rule: if the EPO delays the procedure, the applicant is punished to pay maintenance fees for a patent which is not certain that will ever be granted).
After the granting of a European patent, the applicant has to pay annual fees in every European country he wants protection. In the USA the applicant pays every three years 800$ as maintenance fee for all the 51 states.
Obviously the European Patent Office is in its own world and has to learn a lot from the USPTO.


As you see, the cost for taking and maintaining a patent is not so huge (try to make a prototype, to understand what I mean; with a part of the cost of a prototype the inventor can protect his intellectual property).


And why an inventor needs a patent?

Because with a patent in his hands, the inventor has something to offer. Something that nobody else can use, or make or sell without his permission.
Because without a patent the inventor has actually nothing.


Your choice.

Thanks
Manolis Pattakos

[Kelpiecross]

To return to the Pattakon VCR engine - maybe instead of a flat-sided cylinder block sliding into a flat-sided hole you could have separate circular cylinder sleeves sliding into circular holes bored in the crankcase - probably more accurate and easier to do. Might be tricky arranging water passages though.

Also won't the VCR operating bits get in the way of the valve gear and spark plugs etc?

[gruntguru]

Not to mention the VVA, DI etc etc.

[Wuzak]

Does the mechanism improve the engine performance sufficiently to overcome its extra weight and cost?

Edited by Wuzak, 30 April 2015 - 01:37.

[bigleagueslider]

manolis-

 

In the US, the first patent maintenance fee at 3-1/2 years for a small entity is currently $1200, the second fee at 7-1/2 years for a small entity is $2200, and the third fee at 11-1/2 years for a small entity is $4100. Then multiply that by the number of patents you are trying to maintain with the USPTO. Not exactly pocket change for most people.

 

You are also required to use an attorney practicing in the country where you are filing the patent in some places like Japan. And then there are significant related costs when filing in foreign countries for things like having your patent application text accurately transcribed to the national language. A few years back I got a quote from a patent attorney for the initial cost of submitting an application of my pending US patent in Japan. The application fees, transcription, and retainer fee for the Japanese attorney was over $10K, which had to be paid upfront.

[manolis]

Hello Kelpiecross.

You write:
“To return to the Pattakon VCR engine - maybe instead of a flat-sided cylinder block sliding into a flat-sided hole you could have separate circular cylinder sleeves sliding into circular holes bored in the crankcase - probably more accurate and easier to do. Might be tricky arranging water passages though.”

If, in order to achieve a VCR mechanism, you are ready to go to
“circular cylinder sleeves sliding into circular holes bored in the crankcase”,
why not to go directly to a rotary engine like the PatRE (at http://www.pattakon....takonRotary.htm )
By changing the inclination of the power shaft for a few degrees, you have a Variable Compression Mechanism.

Even if it was possible and affordable, what about the bending loads and the deformation they cause?


You also write:
“Also won't the VCR operating bits get in the way of the valve gear and spark plugs etc?”

The series of drawings in the http://www.pattakon....pattakonVCR.htm answer to your question, for instance:





Quote from the above link:

“The crankcase projections (i.e. the pillars and bridges) neither restrict the size of the intake and exhaust ports, as compared to the conventional engine, nor restrict the coolant passage areas along the cylinder head.
The spark remains at the center of the combustion chamber.”

End of Quote.

Thanks
Manolis Pattakos

Edited by manolis, 30 April 2015 - 05:39.

[manolis]

Hello Wuzak.

You write:
“Does the mechanism improve the engine performance sufficiently to overcome its extra weight and cost?”

Yes it does.
As MatsNorway wrote (post #29) the engine performance can improve a lot (low compression ratio, turbocharged, high revs) while the fuel efficiency and the green character of the engine at low / medium revs and partial loads improves a lot, too.

If you combine a good VVA, too, like:



(a continuously-Variable-Compression-Ratio mechanism (pat-head VCR, compression ratio from 7:1 to 20:1) together with a continuously-variable-valve-lift mechanism (VVA-rod-version, valve lift from 0mm to 10+mm) into a "Renault-1.4-Energy" cylinder-head)

things get even better.

Thanks
Manolis Pattakos

[manolis]

Hello Biglequeslider.

You write:
“In the US, the first patent maintenance fee at 3-1/2 years for a small entity is currently $1200, the second fee at 7-1/2 years for a small entity is $2200, and the third fee at 11-1/2 years for a small entity is $4100. Then multiply that by the number of patents you are trying to maintain with the USPTO. Not exactly pocket change for most people.”

You are wrong.

Quote from
http://www.uspto.gov...to-fee-schedule

US-PTO
Effective January 1, 2014 (Last Revised on April 1, 2015)
Patent Maintenance Fees for Small Entity:

Due at 3.5 years US800.00$
Due at 7.5 years US1,800.00$
Due at 11.5 years US3,700.00$

(this means a mean annual maintenance fee of US315$ for the 20 years period the patent can stay in force)

Did you pay the US1,200$ directly to the USPTO, or through your patent lawyer?


You also write:
“You are also required to use an attorney practicing in the country where you are filing the patent in some places like Japan. And then there are significant related costs when filing in foreign countries for things like having your patent application text accurately transcribed to the national language. A few years back I got a quote from a patent attorney for the initial cost of submitting an application of my pending US patent in Japan. The application fees, transcription, and retainer fee for the Japanese attorney was over $10K, which had to be paid upfront.”

You are right.

In countries wherein a patent attorney is required, and in countries requiring translation of the application in the national language and the proceeding is in the national language, the cost is high.

Worse even, the cost is undefined.

Every time the local patent office communicates with you (always through your authorized local patent attorney) the letter is translated in English by your patent attorney, your response is translated in the local language by your patent attorney, and you pay the bill (per letter you are charge more-or-less as much as it costs to get a patent in the UK-IPO).

Worse even,
while for delicate technical issues you can communicate by mail or by e-mail or by phone with the examiner of an “English Speaking” patent Office (USPTO, UKIPO, Australian IP, EPO),
in the case of the Japan Patent Office, of the China Patent Office, of the Korean Patent Office (and the similar) you can communicate with the examiner of your patent only through your authorized patent attorney. And the patent attorney is not (cannot be) specialized in the field of your patent. No matter how well you can explain to your patent attorney your arguments in English, the examiner will receive a text from your patent attorney with what the attorney understood.
It is like a vicious-circle.
The only sure is that you will pay a lot of money, the amount of which is completely unknown when you get into the “play”.


Quote from wikipedia:

There is some evidence that some form of patent rights was recognized in Ancient Greece. In 500 BCE, in the Greek city of Sybaris (located in what is now southern Italy), "encouragement was held out to all who should discover any new refinement in luxury, the profits arising from which were secured to the inventor by patent for the space of a year. Athenaeus, writing in the third century CE, cites Phylarchus in saying that in Sybaris exclusive rights were granted for one year to creators of unique culinary dishes).”

End of quote

It’s a shame for the modern world that the countries around the earth have not yet agreed on an International Patent.

As it is now the patenting system, the independent inventor who wants to protect his Intellectual Property worldwide is actually punished for his “crime” to invent. Before taking a profit from his patent (if ever) he has to pay lots of money to the various patent offices.
This is not at all a problem for the companies with the big money.



Some patents do not really need international protection.
Take, for instance, the PatMar engine presented at http://www.pattakon....takonPatMar.htm (and protected by the US8,662,031 patent and the GB2,493,571 patent).



If a marine-engine-manufacturer uses, without a license (i.e. without permission from the inventor), the PatMar technology in a ship, this ship cannot approach the harbors of USA or of Britain.



From time to time a potential inventor asks my advise.

An independent inventor with limited funds has to compromise.

For an English Speaking inventor the US-PTO seems the most cost efficient: a huge market with a reasonable overall cost of patenting.

Even better, the independent inventor can start with the British Patent Office (UK-IPO) and after receiving the Search and Examination report (it takes 4-5 months from the filing) he can decide to proceed or not in the US-PTO.
He has 12 months after the first filing to decide if it is worthy to proceed in other countries, too, or in the WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) wherein he “buys” – for some US3,000$ - another 18 months "grace" period.

Thanks
Manolis Pattakos

[bigleagueslider]

Manolis-

 

Thanks for the relpy. You are correct about the US patent maintenance fees. I was quoting numbers from a letter I received a few weeks ago from my patent attorney. The way the letter was worded it gave the impression the fees were what I needed to pay to the USPTO. Stupid me for trusting my patent attorney!

 

Regarding the situation you describe about a cargo ship using a device that infringes on your IP entering US territorial waters, that is very interesting. First you would need to present sufficient evidence to a US federal judge so that he will issue a writ directing some federal law enforcement agency to impound the ship. You would then need to engage in further actions to take possession of the property in dispute, which in this case would be parts of the ship's engine. Without these engine parts the ship would not be able to move under its own power, and would need to be towed. What would likely happen is that the ship owner would offer to pay you the amount of money they would lose by having the ship inoperable, having to tow it thousands of miles to the nearest overhaul facility, and having to replace the engine parts you seized. That would probably work out to a couple million dollars.