RE: 4 Stroke Redesigned
Discussion
Feliks said:
If don't like a" short valve", put at valve "square" valve piston:
View Square Valve Piston :[url]www.pivotalengine.com/PivotalPiston.pdf[/url]
Most advantages this conception :easy water coled piston (especial exhaust) , eliminates piston rocking ,roller bearings slide piston , etc.
View Pivotal piston:[url]www.pivotalengine.com/gallery.html[/url]
Colling water piston made very low NOx,;Please, use from catalysts platinum for electrolyze
Sorry , I live 30 years in "piston valve reality"
Regards Andrew
View Square Valve Piston :[url]www.pivotalengine.com/PivotalPiston.pdf[/url]
Most advantages this conception :easy water coled piston (especial exhaust) , eliminates piston rocking ,roller bearings slide piston , etc.
View Pivotal piston:[url]www.pivotalengine.com/gallery.html[/url]
Colling water piston made very low NOx,;Please, use from catalysts platinum for electrolyze
Sorry , I live 30 years in "piston valve reality"
Regards Andrew
Not that my opinion is worth very much, but I like that one!
Edited to add;
Mainly because of the cooling. I guess it's not going to be quite as good from the perspective of getting the gasses to mix and burn evenly.
Edited by dilbert on Friday 8th September 00:42
dilbert
said:
said:Not that my opinion is worth very much, but I like that one!
Edited by dilbert on Friday 8th September 00:42
Possible mutation:
Pivot piston little modification. Using in four-stroke “piston “ square valve.
One big advantage have “piston Pivot”. Pistons not have force: Nm !!!
This reaction is only in bearing piston !!
Another, piston no need lubrication, lubrication only need “Rings” (sliding seals)
Next my modification: sliding seals put no in piston. This seals put in cylinder!!
Advantages: cylinder are LIFETIME , maby building only aluminum cast.
Because on cylinder no sliding piston and seals, made aluminum, excellent conduct heat !!
But piston must make steel cast. (Or steel surface)
Then piston and seals only need change at refit engine, without any mechanical enginery.
Theoretical, only need to change part to repair engine!
In this version lubrications are need only seals, sure much little in conventional piston.
Ecology are happy,when seals made Teflon (with water cool pipe)and engine no need oil.
Are you like square pistons now ??
Edited by Feliks on Monday 25th September 23:17
Edited by Feliks on Monday 25th September 23:22
Edited by Feliks on Wednesday 27th September 10:03
Edited by Feliks on Wednesday 27th September 23:24
Edited by Feliks on Thursday 28th September 19:19
Sorry to come into this one at such a late stage and with such a sweeping generalisation but this is looking hideously complex. Surly for reliability a better way forward would be less moving parts not more? I give you the jet engine
To follow the line of discussion a little less tangentially could this "4 Stroke Redesigned" be ported to a rotary engine, which would hopefully cut the parts count?
My 2d
To follow the line of discussion a little less tangentially could this "4 Stroke Redesigned" be ported to a rotary engine, which would hopefully cut the parts count?
My 2d
leorest said:
... but this is looking hideously complex. Surly for reliability a better way forward would be less moving parts not more? I give you the jet engine
Very nice , so this complex are hidden
What you thing ,how much "hidden" innovation in my head?? ( about four stroke engine) 30 years are log time...
Jet engine are dominante [url]www.aoxj32.dsl.pipex.com/NewFiles/FrankWhittle.html[/url]
Regards Andrew
I heard that Rover(X Power?) had a running K series without camshafts, I guestimate that it used either solenoid or hydraulic rams to operate, the valves, If the two technologies were combined, ie solenoids operating those piston Jobbies, the weight issue would cease?
F1 cars have had air operated valve gear for ten years at least.(FIIK how they work though!)
Mark
F1 cars have had air operated valve gear for ten years at least.(FIIK how they work though!)
Mark
shirley temple said:
I heard that Rover(X Power?) had a running K series without camshafts, I guestimate that it used either solenoid or hydraulic rams to operate, the valves, If the two technologies were combined, ie solenoids operating those piston Jobbies, the weight issue would cease?
F1 cars have had air operated valve gear for ten years at least.(FIIK how they work though!)
Mark
F1 cars have had air operated valve gear for ten years at least.(FIIK how they work though!)
Mark
Yes of course ,Mark, this interesting possible mutation.
But we lost very important advantages: upper valve crankshaft are made big torque plus. Little piston (exhaust) are made big torque, because maximum pressure at this piston made about 90 deg postT.D.C.
The arm crank of the exhaust piston is 70-120 deg after the T.D.C, while the greatest combustion forces take place - it may cause a strange effect - the maximum torque can be taken from the smallest piston (!!).
Another, one cylinder engine with piston valve, work same two cylinder normal engine.
When we put hydraulic or pneumatic drive we lost it.
Don’t afraid, my prototype engine work very stability and don’t have any friction { I too afraid so ma-by any problem, but prototype surprise me in plus}
Thanks you so thing and find new wave.
regards Andrew
Edited by Feliks on Tuesday 26th September 22:17
But all he is doing is using a cylinder in place of a valve to block airflow, in fact the system is kind of like a desmodromic valve. It’s clever but not as clever as that design where the camshaft lobs cover/open the valves without any other reciprocating assembly.
I still think two stroke is the way to go because you can get rediculously high power/displacement ratios in an engine that can be reliable.
Speaking of valves that are independantly actuated didn’t Fiat have an engine where the valves where actuated through hydraulic pressure?
I still think two stroke is the way to go because you can get rediculously high power/displacement ratios in an engine that can be reliable.
Speaking of valves that are independantly actuated didn’t Fiat have an engine where the valves where actuated through hydraulic pressure?
I'm surprised no-one has gone nanotechnology with this.
I'm thinking maybe some sort of chemical reaction that involves two cells of an undefined material. The cells are square, and the walls are made from three materials. Two walls of each square are inert, and the remaining ones made from the other two materials. The other two materials have polar properties. One allows the products of the reaction to pass through, and the other material allows the constituents of the reaction to pass through.
You put two cells adjacent and have the mating walls made from the inert material. The polar materials are on the same side. So you have fuel mix on one side, and byproduct on the other.
Hey presto, you've built an oscillating muscle!
I'm thinking maybe some sort of chemical reaction that involves two cells of an undefined material. The cells are square, and the walls are made from three materials. Two walls of each square are inert, and the remaining ones made from the other two materials. The other two materials have polar properties. One allows the products of the reaction to pass through, and the other material allows the constituents of the reaction to pass through.
You put two cells adjacent and have the mating walls made from the inert material. The polar materials are on the same side. So you have fuel mix on one side, and byproduct on the other.
Hey presto, you've built an oscillating muscle!
Something looks familiar about that. Problem: seals.
Have you read "Some Unusual Engines" by LJK Setright, or the mechanical pages on Douglas Self's site?
Have you read "Some Unusual Engines" by LJK Setright, or the mechanical pages on Douglas Self's site?
dilbert said:
As it happens I quite like Status Quo, sometimes!
Sometimes , but no always
Two stroke mutation:
Base animation:
[url]
www.pivotalengine.com/solutions.html#animation [/url]
A small note about pollution!
So lets move onto supercars destroying the planet more than micro-cars. Lets take an example of a supercar that does 1MPG and a micro-car that does 100MPG, driven over a year. Which one does the most damage?
No, wrong. It is the one that burns the most petrol in the year. Thats it.
Saying Governments could tax also pre-supposes that they don't already. Of course they do - it's called petrol tax, which you may recall is rather high. If you move so your journey is half the distance, I can guarantee that you'll pay half the tax for your journeys.
These daft people (not saying you are one of them!) who want £2000 road tax for gas-guzzling cars completely fail to realise that these cars are hardly every driven high mileages - look at some Ferrari adverts and you'll see the tiny mileages for yourself. The real culprits are the people who buy regular sized cars, the mondeos and 3 series of this world, and do 20,000-30,000 miles a year, when someones big bad school-run 4x4 probably does about 3,000 as a second car. A 3 series is not 10 times as efficient as a 4x4!!
We are already taxed almost 75% on petrol - and therefore energy used, this is the perfect green tax.
You use more, you pay more tax. It's simple.
If a 'gas-guzzler' is going to be taxed a high road tax each year then he'll do what I do: get better value for money by driving it as hard and as far as possible, to bring down the tax %age paid. Every time my road tax arrives now, I have to make sure I'm using the car enough to warrant paying for it, the relative cost of petrol being pretty cheap. For example, £200 road tax gives me 4 tanks of fun juice, so that's just covering the cost of the tax - i.e. I view them as free smile miles, probably averaging about 10mpg. I still burn far less than next doors 'sensible' 3 series who at 30,000 miles will use about 1000gallons that year, as opposed to my 100.
So scientifically and rationally, the pious small car driver peering over at your interesting/powerful car - chances are they are damaging the planet significantly more than you are!!
Pollution is directly proportional to quantity of petrol burnt, and that's before we get onto economic questions like 'how much pollution is caused by diverting money from petrol into buying other stuff in the shops'?
rev-erend said:
Governments could give tax consessions to those that 'move' to live nearer work (say 7 mile radius) - this would cut the weekly fuel used enormously.
Put a large tax on the 4 * 4 's not used by falmers : house wives taking little charlie to school - only on new vehicles - no point penalising someone who has bought one before the change.
This is a common misconception of people - that a 4x4 used more fuel than anything else. Firstly, the lowest MPG ratings are supercars - not 4x4s. 4x4s are annoying because they are too big and you cannot see around them, not because of economy. Put a large tax on the 4 * 4 's not used by falmers : house wives taking little charlie to school - only on new vehicles - no point penalising someone who has bought one before the change.
So lets move onto supercars destroying the planet more than micro-cars. Lets take an example of a supercar that does 1MPG and a micro-car that does 100MPG, driven over a year. Which one does the most damage?
No, wrong. It is the one that burns the most petrol in the year. Thats it.
Saying Governments could tax also pre-supposes that they don't already. Of course they do - it's called petrol tax, which you may recall is rather high. If you move so your journey is half the distance, I can guarantee that you'll pay half the tax for your journeys.
These daft people (not saying you are one of them!) who want £2000 road tax for gas-guzzling cars completely fail to realise that these cars are hardly every driven high mileages - look at some Ferrari adverts and you'll see the tiny mileages for yourself. The real culprits are the people who buy regular sized cars, the mondeos and 3 series of this world, and do 20,000-30,000 miles a year, when someones big bad school-run 4x4 probably does about 3,000 as a second car. A 3 series is not 10 times as efficient as a 4x4!!
We are already taxed almost 75% on petrol - and therefore energy used, this is the perfect green tax.
You use more, you pay more tax. It's simple.
If a 'gas-guzzler' is going to be taxed a high road tax each year then he'll do what I do: get better value for money by driving it as hard and as far as possible, to bring down the tax %age paid. Every time my road tax arrives now, I have to make sure I'm using the car enough to warrant paying for it, the relative cost of petrol being pretty cheap. For example, £200 road tax gives me 4 tanks of fun juice, so that's just covering the cost of the tax - i.e. I view them as free smile miles, probably averaging about 10mpg. I still burn far less than next doors 'sensible' 3 series who at 30,000 miles will use about 1000gallons that year, as opposed to my 100.
So scientifically and rationally, the pious small car driver peering over at your interesting/powerful car - chances are they are damaging the planet significantly more than you are!!
Pollution is directly proportional to quantity of petrol burnt, and that's before we get onto economic questions like 'how much pollution is caused by diverting money from petrol into buying other stuff in the shops'?
Feliks said:
Pigeon said:
Something looks familiar about that. Problem: seals.
....
....
Example seals: no oil, Teflon or VITON® :
Three problems that I can see:
1) Piston rings seal harder as the gas pressure they're trying to seal against increaes, due to the pressure acting on the inner face of the ring pushing it out against the cylinder wall. This method won't do that. The springs will have to be sized to exert a constant force equivalent to the maximum force due to gas pressure on a conventional ring setup, which will result in increased friction and wear relative to a sealing-force-applied-on-demand setup.
2) Not convinced that PTFE will stand up to combustion chamber temperatures/gases. AFAIK the seals in Wankel engines use materials like sintered metal or graphite, and they're probably operating under less severe conditions than these would be.
3) What happens at the corners? Straight edges are one thing, corners are something else...
Not trying to pick nits, just pointing out what I see as difficulties.
I remember good music -Middle of the Road 
This engine are no sliding piston.
This engine are no rotary piston.
This engine are "Half rotary piston"
3 D Half rotary piston URL
[url]www.new4stroke.com/images/33.htm[/url]
Regards Andrew
This engine are no sliding piston.
This engine are no rotary piston.
This engine are "Half rotary piston"
3 D Half rotary piston URL
[url]www.new4stroke.com/images/33.htm[/url]
Regards Andrew
Edited by Feliks on Sunday 29th October 16:23
Edited by Feliks on Sunday 29th October 21:40
One Grek man , help me and free make some pretty animations: when coursor up -Hi PPM when down Low RPM.
[url]www.new4stroke.com/images/new4stroke.exe[/url]
[url]www.new4stroke.com/images/new4stroke_around.exe[/url]
Regards Andrew
[url]www.new4stroke.com/images/new4stroke.exe[/url]
[url]www.new4stroke.com/images/new4stroke_around.exe[/url]
Regards Andrew
Gassing Station | Engines & Drivetrain | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff