RE: 4 Stroke Redesigned
Discussion
rev-erend said:
Feliks - sorry but I really don't understand what you are trying to say ?
Maybe I am not good translate, or not good trying to say.
I know so revolutions in technique made some big trouble for big companies and his natural way is made status quo , because is impossible change fast.IF revolution are much fundamental, changes Unfortunately, very long time.in databases inventions I see many innovations which no name "innovations" but only replace idea known innovations.I read article Mr Dyson about innovations, and other articcles.Many Innovations are only need new right patents ,on the same inventions. All this factcts are not very nice situation on innovations market.Unfortunately.
Right Rev_erend?
ps.
My friend, live in US 30 years , and work on university, say so in scentific discus everyone have It scants language .
I say so different culture same not good in discuss.
Andrew
GreenV8S said:
Well your English is better than my Polish, but to be honest I haven't a clue what your post meant!
Ok GreenV8S !
When I have 6 years old, I was with my Parents in visit my Uncle in Glasgow.Unfortunately,I am was very ill- ignition of of bony marrow my left hand .I must was in children's hospital by three weeks, and English doctor must made surgery off my hand.When I was in hospital , other chilndren cry only one word: mammy! ,mammy!,.I am start too learn English and cry: mammy !mammy!.By three weeks.But we are excellent understand.
This was in 1957, and when I am bringing to Poland , doctor says ,so in Poland no made surgery of ignition of of bony marrow ....
And I start learn little English.
>> Edited by Feliks on Thursday 11th May 01:39
Got to say - the 'world' in general does not give anywhere near the amount of investment to new engine development that it should.
We all know (but like to ignore) that it's a big problem for climate change.
Seriously there are many thinks that could help.
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.
Help fund new engine idea's..
Set-up a company like Ricardo Eng. but with the aim of development over profit. For a couple of million £'s - you could set-up a world class company.
For far too long - we have just been refining 4 stroke petrol and diesel engines. For all the small advances in the last 50 year's this has always need off set by greater vehicle weight (especially in the last 20 years) .. that gaules me more than anything..
could not possibly make a car with out a motor to movethe seat 1 cm and it gets used once a year
The biggest problem to face all engine designers is always driveability - many engines work fine in principle but are in effect good steady state engines (like the jet engine) - as soon
as you thrown in stop start traffic - it pits the good idea back to the drawing board.
We all know (but like to ignore) that it's a big problem for climate change.
Seriously there are many thinks that could help.
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.
Help fund new engine idea's..
Set-up a company like Ricardo Eng. but with the aim of development over profit. For a couple of million £'s - you could set-up a world class company.
For far too long - we have just been refining 4 stroke petrol and diesel engines. For all the small advances in the last 50 year's this has always need off set by greater vehicle weight (especially in the last 20 years) .. that gaules me more than anything..
could not possibly make a car with out a motor to movethe seat 1 cm and it gets used once a year
The biggest problem to face all engine designers is always driveability - many engines work fine in principle but are in effect good steady state engines (like the jet engine) - as soon
as you thrown in stop start traffic - it pits the good idea back to the drawing board.
rev-erend said:
The biggest problem to face all engine designers is always driveability - many engines work fine in principle but are in effect good steady state engines (like the jet engine) - as soon as you thrown in stop start traffic - it pits the good idea back to the drawing board.
I think the solution to that problem will be a hybrid system which uses a highly optimised constant load generator and an accumulator/final drive of some sort (fuel cell/electric motors, for example).
GreenV8S said:
I think the solution to that problem will be a hybrid system which uses a highly optimised constant load generator and an accumulator/final drive of some sort (fuel cell/electric motors, for example).
I think so one with principal problem at passenger car is problem HEATING ( or cooling} inside car.At other countries (Sweden,Canada etc) is fundamental need a HEAT.This HEAT, right now is made in normal engine, who's work ALL time, when we going.When we using a hybrid, I think ,so we need external heating in car.I don't know efficient all this equipment?
Regards Andrew
Sorry to keep on distracting from Feliks's thread of his new 4-stroke engine (I wish you the best of luck with progressing this further Feliks).
Here's another engine design
www.liquidpiston.com/LPAnimation.asp
Here's another engine design
www.liquidpiston.com/LPAnimation.asp
i don't know if anybody else has pointed a few potential innefficiencies in Andrew's design. Firstly, I would have thought it would be very difficult to get a nice smooth inlet and exhaust flow through the ports. Secondly, part of the engine power is now lost through turning the timing shaft and I would have thought the pressure on the valve pistons would mean that the timing crank and conrods would need to be quite substantial, ie heavy.
piston valve timing/overlap/lift could be quite easily altered by offset grinding journals on uper crank,increasing stroke with crank and using variable drive like most vvt/vvc systems.
somebody stated that the pistons would be affected by gravity.The fact that the upper pistons are affected by gravity also applies to the main pistons.
But the smaller conrods/bearings/crank would be under similar forces/loads to the main conrods which usually are just sufficient for the job because of weight issues,
this is a big problem when trying to improve performance,i.e:,increased weight of reciprocating masses,(probably vibrates at certain r.p.m`s).forced air would probably cause rapid wear.
increasing size in friction area increases heat,bearings/piston rings and skirt must create more friction than valve stem and cam follower.
Still needs a drive system from main crank which would have to be pretty heavy duty especially if you want to rev the nuts off it and expect it to last.
surely the upsidedown pistons must be full of oil all the time splashing about affecting weight/balance,
plus when stopped this oil will cook in the piston like a saucepan and coat it very quickly thus clogging feed to gudgeon pin cooking the rod and seizing the bearings.
IMAGINE a 4-5" conrod coming through your BONNET!.
somebody stated that the pistons would be affected by gravity.The fact that the upper pistons are affected by gravity also applies to the main pistons.
But the smaller conrods/bearings/crank would be under similar forces/loads to the main conrods which usually are just sufficient for the job because of weight issues,
this is a big problem when trying to improve performance,i.e:,increased weight of reciprocating masses,(probably vibrates at certain r.p.m`s).forced air would probably cause rapid wear.
increasing size in friction area increases heat,bearings/piston rings and skirt must create more friction than valve stem and cam follower.
Still needs a drive system from main crank which would have to be pretty heavy duty especially if you want to rev the nuts off it and expect it to last.
surely the upsidedown pistons must be full of oil all the time splashing about affecting weight/balance,
plus when stopped this oil will cook in the piston like a saucepan and coat it very quickly thus clogging feed to gudgeon pin cooking the rod and seizing the bearings.
IMAGINE a 4-5" conrod coming through your BONNET!.
mondeohdear said:
Andrew, new picture shows that the timing con rods can be in tension rather than compression so lighter but presumably you'd need two rods per valve. ie more weight.
Yes, right! Mondeohdear.
But fundamental question in this engine, are, so "Valve" crankshaft and piston, rods ,going N/2 RPM engine..Forced about this weight are four smallest cases, because are square turn RPM
Mayby ,this weight are not very important in this mutation.?
Regards Andrew
mondeohdear said:
Andrew, I take it another reason you've proposed the twin timing shaft setup is to potentially allow variable valve timing?
Yes of course!!
Variable Valve Control are possible ,but in this setup are In same momentchange compression ratio.
This good upper setup needed ,a very nice computer simulation (eg.for nuclear simulation
) Some text:As You can see, the construction is very simple and is an "ocean of new ideas", as one reviewer said. While working on it, I really came up with a same conclusion as I had to overcome many new and sometimes unexpected issues in order to make the work prototype. Choice of amount was one of basic problem „ crankshaft gear” two or one has turned out
One of the fundamental issues is the choice - how many crankshafts do I use?
The first prototype, based on a 1 cylinder engine, had 2 of them, connected with a chain. I had many doubts about resonance problems before I made it. Surprisingly it worked very smoothly, without any flirt or vibrate. Match worked stably exclusively and quietly. I have observed it only that change of part of tension of indirect chain one part of chain was tense before firing of engine - pulling opposite side when started This chain have been transmitted after firing in active time on other part tense , showing that rotary moment proceeds from timing crankshaft FOR main crankshaft. I have concluded from observation of work of engine, that match quietly CAN have two "crankshaft timing"
There can be either one or two crankshafts ,but as I had been building the second prototype, I decided that one crankshaft would be a more elegant solution.
Here comes also a very fundamental issue - to choose an angle between arm-cranks. It's a timing crankshaft, and must have not necessarily that 90 degree So what should it be?
In this construction, revealing of many unexpected things starts from here. At least You ought to know what is the compression ratio in the designed engine.
It occurred to me, that the fundamental calculation of the intake volume and minimal chamber volume would be a difficulty and getting the compression ratio will be more complicated than I thought. This calculation depends on diameter of pistons, stroke, height of the intake and exhaust windows, and what is more on the angle between crankshafts. So we have many variables here, depending on each other - not so easy to calculate. At that time I didn't have the means necessary to easily calculate them, even grading precision by 10 deg would be a disaster to calculate without a computer.
So I did a special FORTRAN program, it was 1982 so it had to be on perforated cards - very time consuming too - and I received, although many constant assumptions, a big family of results. It has given family of result at many constant which me jumping capacities, minimal capacities, degree of compressing and we achieve maximum for that corner and minimum of above-mentioned value.
After analyzing the results, I was surprised that the intake volume changes while the angle between the crankshafts changes (!!). This change, as the parameters and sizes of the diameters and strokes of all three pistons is constant, is little - but in a range of possible work of the engine - can reach few percent.
The minimal chamber volume can vary about to 400%, which was a huge surprise. This calculations revealed the possibility of the compression ratio change from 7 to 24 (!!).Minimal room is not 360 degrees of turns of main axes also, as we are acclimated for it. The minimal chamber volume is in radically other point of the crankshaft rotation - not traditionally in 360 deg, but in 375 deg, 15 deg after the T.D.C. (U.D.C.) where the torque of the (shoulder) arm-crank is much greater. This several degrees takes a stand after external expression of main crush which minimum surely big increase of rotary moment will cause that - maximum gas power acts on greatest shoulder of crank of axis.
I cannot exactly say, what it would incorporate in combustion process, because it is a very new, DYNAMIC and VARIABLE “combustion area.”
Those diagrams present that we deal with a new, VARIABLE combustion area ( If it could be named a "combustion space", because it's dynamic )
The traditional combustion chamber had been developed through last 100 years, in this case, developing the combustion space will occupy due to computers less time definitely a bit.
Right now, a lot of advantages of this idea can be seen - variable compression ratio, while changing the angle between crankshafts for all own cylinders in the engine, by adjusting only ONE mechanism. The adjustment of the angle will rather increase the torque. The valve pistons also impact effect rotary moment also positively rather on the overall torque. Especially, the exhaust piston (It is smallest piston), which is affected by the maximum firing pressure on the maximum (shoulder) arm-crank.
Summing up all variable alternate coherent as:
1. Individual diameters of pistons, 3 part x 4 dim = 12
2. strokes of particular pistons, 3 part x 4 dim = 12
3. angles between crankshafts, 4 x 4 x 4 = 64
4. height of the connecting rod, 3 part x 2 dim = 6
5. deviations from pivot of cylinder, 3 part x 2 dim = 6
6. slips of integrity of crushes outside more
or inside of main cylinder, 2 dim = 2
7. distances of pivots of axes crankshafts, 2 dim = 2
8. the height of the intake/exhaust windows. 2 part x 3 dim = 6
If we will increase it , then give we about 8.000.000 possible combination of dimension of geometric engine (!!!)
This shows the complicity of the basic design, so there's a great difficulty to choose the right geometry and design with the first engines, whether the technology is rather simple and doesn't seem to be an issue here. The biggest challenge is for the designers, not for the technological engineers.
Regards Andrew
Gassing Station | Engines & Drivetrain | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff