Interesting. It might work OK, but I can see a few possible problems. The pendulum piston (more like a door) doesn't look like it would be as robust as a conventional piston. Pressure on the piston will tend to stress the base back and forth, causing metal fatigue. Getting a good seal between the piston and chamber would be difficult. Any hot gas slipping past the piston might prematurely ignite the mixture in the ajoining chamber. Cooling the piston would also be tricky. Good luck.

Thanks for the comment. The pendulum is presented in ideologically. Piston may be thicker, you may have a different profile (thicker at the shaft). Then will be much more durable. The piston seal is a problem only when the piston has the shape of a rectangle (but it is not impossible). When the piston has an oval seal can be used similar to conventional. In addition, the piston can be cooled from the inside. This will eliminate the risk of premature ignition.(sorry for the electronic translation:) I know well, only Polish language)

Although like Dwane, I believe that this engine probably can work, I see it as being similar to a Dynacam engine, but with a hinge. And I think about the method of turning the reciprocating rotational motion to pure rotational motion and I'm not so sure it would be efficient. It may have torque peaks that would wear out the hinge and the rotate-mechanism.

It is interesting. I wonder if there would be a better shape for the 'piston', rather than a flat slab.

Thank you for your attention. Our engine is different from the engine dynacam, that is a better proportion of the size of the work of the entire volume of the engine. In our case, an engine combustion chamber is used twice in the same time (on both sides). This increases the working space twice.Peak point in the pendulum motion device on the shuttle rotary motion would be "dragged" inertia (flywheel, or other matter). Solution similar to that in a classical engine. After a normal engine and has a peak point at which the movement could go back, and does not do this.Of course we think also that the shape of the piston shown here is not optimal. We believe that the best will be round, thicker, where contact with the shaft, thinner at the apex.But are all details. The key is to find a company that buys the idea, and together they make all the technical details.The introduction of this engine on the market of the huge savings in production costs (more than 4 times less material), a reduction in combustion (reduced weight of the engine), the construction of hybrid systems, without taking up extra space (our hybrid engine will take less space than a conventional engine). It is still a lot of advantages. Simply, that each of you look to your car and your engine can imagine the same power but the 4 or even 6 times less than that in a vehicle mounted.(sorry for the electronic translation:)

Real solution. Simple. I think the best solution is with two blades.Is your patent only applies to the engine, or to the element for conversion of a swinging motion into a rotational motion?I think this is a revolutionary idea. Great. If it sold, it will be a lot of money.

It may indeed, this is a revolution in engines?

I think so. This revolutionary solution. And, as always with revolutions, the biggest problem to start it. Still looking for an investor. Maybe someone from GM? from Ford? I have no idea how to reach them.