Kansas - based Astron aerospace has developed the H2 starfire, a hydrogen - powered rotary engine with no pistons and only 82 total parts - nuts and bolts included.

"Only 82 parts!" The parts:

Mazda brought back the rotary in the NINETIES because it required very little modification to run on hydrogen. BMW and GM had production-ready hydrogen cars by the early 2000s. Obviously they were stopped by 'something'.

Hydrogen cannot be handled. Worst fuel choice in every aspect. Case in point: Germany bet the whole country on it and lost big time.

"Mister Wayne, I have something you might find useful."

Perfect. Now, reintroduce the 1978 Mazda RX-7 with this engine under the hood and I will be the first one in line to buy it !!

Great. Can't wait to never hear of it again👍

All of the information that is available could be a CGI scam - with which the world seems to abound these days. To be considered in reality the company must produce working prototypes and supply them to legitimate independent testing laboratories. Until then there is no way to tell the difference between reality and fiction.

Why Hydrogen? Why not Acetylene, the only obviously worse choice I can think of right now?

Can someone please explain this engine stroke phase design? Because if you watch the compression stroke animation, the engine would immediately seize.

120hp, and probably like 20 lb/ft of torque...

the number of times I hear about another potential advancement in tech or like an engine like this then never see or hear of it again.

the max. thermal efficiency can not exceed ~35% for the otto-cycle, or ~45% for the diesel-cycle. it'll always produce 50+% of the engine-power as HEAT.

Great concept - bad fuel. It should run on biodiesel instead. And - is it better than the LiquidPiston rotary? All new cars should be diesel-electrics, just like modern trains have. The first carmaker that reliably puts a rotary like this in a hybrid car will win the market.

Can I put this in an 87 Pontiac Fiero?

Like this one...

Hydrogen explodes more than it burns as it has a flame speed of 6.1 ft/s versus gasoline's 1.3 ft/s. Rotary engine thermal efficiency is reduced due to the large moving combustion area. LNG has the best cost economics versus hydrogen or gasoline.

@Clarsonimus Hydrogen has a low energy density.

RPM/HP sound good. Gonna take one helluva gearbox to get those RPM down to usable levels. And then what kinda torq are you gonna have left? Not saying it’s a bad concept, just that it would take some major modifications to use on anything currently ran with gas/diesel engines.

I’ve never heard of this company. I’m sure I’ll not hear of them again until somebody connects the dots in 20 years on a string of unsolved “multi-shot suicides to the back of the head.” Across several states. Killing all involved.

New development: horse shoes that help your horse and buggy go 20% farther on a bag of oats.

I've been developing something similar. 😆🤣

Hydrogen has such low energy density, though. Otherwise it's a great fuel, just not for mobile applications.

Burning hydrogen instead of using it on fuel cells? yeah, that's bullshit.

Sure, but where do you get the hydrogen? Answer: methane or coal. Breaking water is an inefficient use of electricity. What problem are you trying to solve?

Strange how this technology is emerging just when water rationing is on the distant horizon innit?

How does it play the violin at the same time?

How did they take care of the hydrogen embrittlement?

Curious the fuel efficiency. To carry hydrogen, we need high pressure cylinders. Weight and carrying capacity?

If you believe a rotary will keep your plane in the air, I have a 13B-REW with a 100k factory warranty to sell you.

But the problem remains... Hydrogen only produces half the energy it consumes from it's production.🤨 -so is this motor over twice as efficient than it's gasoline competitor?... I think not.

Couple that with @Toyota's H2 "intake" system (that produces just enough H2 & O2 for combustion, but not an excess for storage - to mitigate un-necessary boom-boom), and I'll stroke the check.

That's great, but it's hydrogen. Who wants to work with that shit. Kablooey

Supercrtical water reactor

I heard nothing on the subject of fuel efficiency...

Well that's nice, now if only there was a way to handle it that didn't require massively heavy tanks or ridiculously expensive and short lived adsorbents