RE: 4 Stroke Redesigned
Discussion
Feliks said:
Contrary to appearances, the force of pressure on the piston ring piston is small compared to this force, because it is in the pressure of relatively the small force coming from the bending of the piston ring, which, as you probably know, we can easily squeeze with fingers ... ..... So that the force in comparison to the force of lateral force is many times smaller, if the engine performs heavy work .. And is independent of the load of the engine, it has practically constant value ... independent of the engine load.
The problem is much more complex than your simplistic analysis suggests, and you've drawn a false conclusion. It is not simply a matter of knowing the coefficient of friction and calculating the friction force from the contact force. The piston / cylinder and ring/cylinder interfaces are oiled bearings, these can be modelled using the Stribeck curve to understand the various factors affecting friction. Engine designers and researchers have put a lot of effort into understanding this behaviour and it is reasonably well understood now, but not something you can expect to intuit from high school physics. In practice, ring packs do typically cause more friction than the piston itself.
In case you're interested, I understand that medical pumps sometimes use a pushrod design which avoids piston side loads, so that they can run without cylinder lubricant to avoid contamination. As a way to reduce power losses in an internal combustion engine it's hopelessly impractical. You're slowly reinventing designs that were well known and used during the steam age. The reason they aren't used any more isn't because nobody has thought of them; it's because they are not worth the weight, complexity and cost.
Greg Locock, on 09 May 2018 - 05:34, said:
"I'll take real data even though it is hard to understand, compared with cartoons, thanks."
because if they learned from such scientists, which draw their conclusions a bit, it's no wonder .. And then they do not know what to pay attention to, and they deal with matters that are not very important, not important.
Strength tensions piston rings is `5 KG, and the side force of the piston is 150 KG, For them it is" half "..
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/...
http://www.new4stroke.com/sily%20w%20cylindrze.pdf
It's good that you know someone who will lead you out of this error
Andrew
Eat here and imagine that this side force is one-tenth of this force which has been hit by a connecting rod ..
And in the era of steam engines, they did not know what the water cooling of the piston might be useful ... I know ...
"I'll take real data even though it is hard to understand, compared with cartoons, thanks."
because if they learned from such scientists, which draw their conclusions a bit, it's no wonder .. And then they do not know what to pay attention to, and they deal with matters that are not very important, not important.
Strength tensions piston rings is `5 KG, and the side force of the piston is 150 KG, For them it is" half "..
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/...
http://www.new4stroke.com/sily%20w%20cylindrze.pdf
It's good that you know someone who will lead you out of this error
Andrew
Eat here and imagine that this side force is one-tenth of this force which has been hit by a connecting rod ..
And in the era of steam engines, they did not know what the water cooling of the piston might be useful ... I know ...
GreenV8S said:
I appreciate that English is not your native language, but that post is incomprehensible.
text from the first link and the word "half" which in this comparison is far from reality ... and the article aspires to scientific ..." Increasing demand for reduced fuel consumption is driving the vehicle manufacturers towards more optimisation of their components and systems. Frictional losses in a heavy duty diesel engine (HDDE) significantly contribute to the fuel consumption of a truck. According to Holmberg et al. [1] 180 billion litres of fuel are used to overcome friction in heavy duty vehicles every year. Friction losses in the engine are responsible for 4–15% of the fuel consumption [2,3]. The losses from the power cylinder unit (PCU) are responsible for approximately half of those frictional losses. Included in the PCU are the piston with rings in contact with the cylinder liner and also the connecting rod. The piston with rings is responsible for approximately 75% of the losses, where the piston rings are responsible for more than half of those losses."
A little better ?
Andrew
I'm not sure what research the figures you're quoting are based on, but you seem to be putting them forward and then disputing them. Do you have figures which you believe are more accurate? What research are your own figures based on?
Of course it varies between engines and conditions, but the reports I've seen relating to car petrol engines suggest that friction losses typically account for about 20-30% of the overall energy, with piston assembly/bore friction accounting for about 25-30% of that, and friction from the piston itself accounting for slightly less than half of the friction of the piston assembly. In other words, the pistons alone contribute about 3% of the total engine losses. Since the engine is probably only 25% - 30% efficient, you could think of that as about 10% of the engine's useful power output if it makes you feel any better. You can argue about whether it's 5% or 20%, but either way it's a small amount and doesn't IMO justify a big increase in size, cost and complexity to reduce it. The mainstream engine manufacturers all seem to have come to a similar conclusion.
IMO the reason engines don't typically use any of the designs you're describing isn't because nobody has thought of them - it's because they would require significant compromises to size, cost, complexity for a small improvement in efficiency and it's simply not worth it.
Of course it varies between engines and conditions, but the reports I've seen relating to car petrol engines suggest that friction losses typically account for about 20-30% of the overall energy, with piston assembly/bore friction accounting for about 25-30% of that, and friction from the piston itself accounting for slightly less than half of the friction of the piston assembly. In other words, the pistons alone contribute about 3% of the total engine losses. Since the engine is probably only 25% - 30% efficient, you could think of that as about 10% of the engine's useful power output if it makes you feel any better. You can argue about whether it's 5% or 20%, but either way it's a small amount and doesn't IMO justify a big increase in size, cost and complexity to reduce it. The mainstream engine manufacturers all seem to have come to a similar conclusion.
IMO the reason engines don't typically use any of the designs you're describing isn't because nobody has thought of them - it's because they would require significant compromises to size, cost, complexity for a small improvement in efficiency and it's simply not worth it.
Edited by GreenV8S on Wednesday 9th May 20:50
GreenV8S said:
I'm not sure what research the figures you're quoting are based on, but you seem to be putting them forward and then disputing them. Do you have figures which you believe are more accurate? What research are your own figures based on?
Of course it varies between engines and conditions, but the reports I've seen relating to car petrol engines suggest that friction losses typically account for about 20-30% of the overall energy, with piston assembly/bore friction accounting for about 25-30% of that, and friction from the piston itself accounting for slightly less than half of the friction of the piston assembly. In other words, the pistons alone contribute about 3% of the total engine losses. Since the engine is probably only 25% - 30% efficient, you could think of that as about 10% of the engine's useful power output if it makes you feel any better. You can argue about whether it's 5% or 20%, but either way it's a small amount and doesn't IMO justify a big increase in size, cost and complexity to reduce it. The mainstream engine manufacturers all seem to have come to a similar conclusion.
IMO the reason engines don't typically use any of the designs you're describing isn't because nobody has thought of them - it's because they would require significant compromises to size, cost, complexity for a small improvement in efficiency and it's simply not worth it.
Yes, I'm just trying to get links on the forum that show off my numbers, and they are reliable for engineers, but also some of them. But they can draw conclusions that it is ... quite probably ..Of course it varies between engines and conditions, but the reports I've seen relating to car petrol engines suggest that friction losses typically account for about 20-30% of the overall energy, with piston assembly/bore friction accounting for about 25-30% of that, and friction from the piston itself accounting for slightly less than half of the friction of the piston assembly. In other words, the pistons alone contribute about 3% of the total engine losses. Since the engine is probably only 25% - 30% efficient, you could think of that as about 10% of the engine's useful power output if it makes you feel any better. You can argue about whether it's 5% or 20%, but either way it's a small amount and doesn't IMO justify a big increase in size, cost and complexity to reduce it. The mainstream engine manufacturers all seem to have come to a similar conclusion.
IMO the reason engines don't typically use any of the designs you're describing isn't because nobody has thought of them - it's because they would require significant compromises to size, cost, complexity for a small improvement in efficiency and it's simply not worth it.
Edited by GreenV8S on Wednesday 9th May 20:50
The projects are still very fresh, so few people know them and can relate to them. But most of them are conservatives, and they will not be easy to accept novelties ... especially that they can not design them well.
He publishes my projects, and I have never seen anyone like them before, that is, they were not known, as you suggest ...
About whether it is worth showing the future, but it seems to me that improvement of the ship's propellant yield by 15% has a meaningful meaning.
In smaller petrol engines it can be up to 25%.
Of course, design and design must be completely different and the cost of this type of revolution will depend on who will do it ...
Some say that only electric ..
My new4stroke project, thanks to the latter my ideas, also gained a lot ..
from my bottoms, obtained from the second prototype of my engine, it resulted 200 horsepower 1000cc at 5000 rpm. Now it can be up to 300hp, because it has 3 piston systems ..
I do not know if such an increase is profitable, but it seems to me that it is unrivaled, but it requires a lot of new knowledge, which I try to share .. Because these numbers do not result from the fact that only the type of spark plug in the traditional engine will be replaced. ... if you could wish for it to be so ...
Andrew
GreenV8S said:
.... something you can expect to intuit from high school physics.
In practice, ring packs do typically cause more friction than the piston itself. ....
Here you can see what scientists you support and now I know why for 100 years of any progress significant in engines ...In practice, ring packs do typically cause more friction than the piston itself. ....
http://www.oetg.at/fileadmin/Dokumente/oetg/Procee...
"gruntguru, on 16 May 2018 - 00:01, said:
It is interesting for sure that they claim they are running a single cylinder diesel research engine at a mean piston speed of 27.3 m/s. I think there is a mis-print there somewhere.
That is the mistake, but then, as if at the same speed, they also measured the friction of these rings .. Unfortunately, not credible .. well you noticed too .. :wave:"
But I like my cartoons ... here is what the prototype apparently traveled over a million kilometers .. Well, but I would certainly do without 2/3 crankshaft and 4 connecting rods less ...
.jpg)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commer_TS3
and here, in this photograph, it is perfectly visible that if you replace these connecting rods and the crankshaft for these 3 additional cylinders 9 Next 6 pistons), for which you can clearly see that the place is, and outside put one crank with two connecting rods, then the strong , pratically with the same dimensional parameters and the same could be more likely to have TWO TIMES more power ... If like comon rail to use, then surely and the plane would be suitable with such parameters ..
One idea was enough.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/31486821@N02/galleri...
http://www.commer.co.nz/history
Well, if we were to convert the Rootes T4 version, then it would be 400 Hp with a good speed for the propeller.
Here in the movie you can hear that when they "defraud" it's almost like Formula 1
And it would be twice as good ...
https://youtu.be/m5xOA53YX4s
Andrew
But I like my cartoons ... here is what the prototype apparently traveled over a million kilometers .. Well, but I would certainly do without 2/3 crankshaft and 4 connecting rods less ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commer_TS3
and here, in this photograph, it is perfectly visible that if you replace these connecting rods and the crankshaft for these 3 additional cylinders 9 Next 6 pistons), for which you can clearly see that the place is, and outside put one crank with two connecting rods, then the strong , pratically with the same dimensional parameters and the same could be more likely to have TWO TIMES more power ... If like comon rail to use, then surely and the plane would be suitable with such parameters ..
One idea was enough.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/31486821@N02/galleri...
http://www.commer.co.nz/history
Well, if we were to convert the Rootes T4 version, then it would be 400 Hp with a good speed for the propeller.
Here in the movie you can hear that when they "defraud" it's almost like Formula 1 rolleyes
And it would be twice as good ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5xOA53YX4s&fe...
A small crankshaft at the front and an additional lever ... I would have put in a good turbocharger yet, but I would leave mechanical roots, too...
Commer Feliks
Andrew
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commer_TS3
and here, in this photograph, it is perfectly visible that if you replace these connecting rods and the crankshaft for these 3 additional cylinders 9 Next 6 pistons), for which you can clearly see that the place is, and outside put one crank with two connecting rods, then the strong , pratically with the same dimensional parameters and the same could be more likely to have TWO TIMES more power ... If like comon rail to use, then surely and the plane would be suitable with such parameters ..
One idea was enough.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/31486821@N02/galleri...
http://www.commer.co.nz/history
Well, if we were to convert the Rootes T4 version, then it would be 400 Hp with a good speed for the propeller.
Here in the movie you can hear that when they "defraud" it's almost like Formula 1 rolleyes
And it would be twice as good ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5xOA53YX4s&fe...
A small crankshaft at the front and an additional lever ... I would have put in a good turbocharger yet, but I would leave mechanical roots, too...
Commer Feliks
Andrew
Edited by Feliks on Sunday 20th May 10:46
Quote " Kelpiecross, on 19 May 2018 - 06:09, said:
Where is the crankshaft ? "/ Quote
I thought I was following my previous posts. it will be clear ..
ONE crank with ONE connecting rod is at the end of Felix Roller .. Such classic crankshaft no longer needs ...
Of course, the levers are not turning on Feliks Roller anymore, but they are connected with it permanently. The entire Felix Roller is burning and only at the end it drives the one Connecting rod.
Here is a similar rule that I have for the half rotate of the "multi-cylinder"
Andrew
Where is the crankshaft ? "/ Quote
I thought I was following my previous posts. it will be clear ..
ONE crank with ONE connecting rod is at the end of Felix Roller .. Such classic crankshaft no longer needs ...
Of course, the levers are not turning on Feliks Roller anymore, but they are connected with it permanently. The entire Felix Roller is burning and only at the end it drives the one Connecting rod.
Here is a similar rule that I have for the half rotate of the "multi-cylinder"
Andrew
Here the shaft with a single crank, but the two-cylinder comes from the Fiat 126 engine, on which base I built my new4stroke .. A colleague of such a car drove 100,000 km without renovation. I can see one crank enough ...
The shaft is also fused on two bearing shells .. it was created due to the seizure of the engine dynamometer. I thought that at 3500 revs per min which was generated by the electric dynamometer on which I mounted my engine, nothing bad will happen .. but as a result of 3 times in most of the forces coming from the gaseous forces, the engine faded. In the second photo, the connecting rod, which was completely polished, that's why you can clearly see the change of colors in the sky, which occurred due to this seizure ..
Of course, I rebuilt the engine, but I will not put it on the brakes anymore ..
My project Feliks Commer T4 engine will have about 500 hp, with a weight of about 500 KG, here you can make such a stellar version put together 10 engines (on the left and on the left side of the star) It will weigh about 6 tons and had 5,000 HP. .. It will be suitable for the propulsion of a small ship .. or for the production of 5 MW of electric energy .. with long durability and efficiency ..
In the whole engine there is only one bearing in the connecting rod. The rest are half-turn pins. So, the engine's failure will be significantly increased.
here's a discussion on how to match it to Formel 1 :grinpimp:
https://www.highpowermedia.com/RET-Monitor/3944/th...
Andrew
The shaft is also fused on two bearing shells .. it was created due to the seizure of the engine dynamometer. I thought that at 3500 revs per min which was generated by the electric dynamometer on which I mounted my engine, nothing bad will happen .. but as a result of 3 times in most of the forces coming from the gaseous forces, the engine faded. In the second photo, the connecting rod, which was completely polished, that's why you can clearly see the change of colors in the sky, which occurred due to this seizure ..
Of course, I rebuilt the engine, but I will not put it on the brakes anymore ..
My project Feliks Commer T4 engine will have about 500 hp, with a weight of about 500 KG, here you can make such a stellar version put together 10 engines (on the left and on the left side of the star) It will weigh about 6 tons and had 5,000 HP. .. It will be suitable for the propulsion of a small ship .. or for the production of 5 MW of electric energy .. with long durability and efficiency ..
In the whole engine there is only one bearing in the connecting rod. The rest are half-turn pins. So, the engine's failure will be significantly increased.
here's a discussion on how to match it to Formel 1 :grinpimp:
https://www.highpowermedia.com/RET-Monitor/3944/th...
Andrew
and here the "connecting rod" TS 3 and the lever to be welded to Feliks Roller
Here the red line is marked by the piston path associated with the lever. At 90 degrees the pressure of the piston on the cylinder wall is equal to 0, and with the traditional system the maximum .. And then we have virtually full torque ..
Andrew
Here, such a connecting rod of my idea .. For a semi-rotary shaft, it can be such, because all forces act by pushing the connecting rod to the lever .. only incidentally it is possible to act detachment parts from each other, so its protection can be negligible .. During normal engine operation, piston it is only pressed against the lever all the time ..
However, the cooperating surfaces are relatively large, and the connecting rod weight is smaller ..
Andrew
However, the cooperating surfaces are relatively large, and the connecting rod weight is smaller ..
Andrew
Edited by Feliks on Tuesday 5th June 03:57
Feliks said:
Here the shaft with a single crank, but the two-cylinder comes from the Fiat 126 engine, on which base I built my new4stroke .. A colleague of such a car drove 100,000 km without renovation. I can see one crank enough ...
The shaft is also fused on two bearing shells .. it was created due to the seizure of the engine dynamometer. I thought that at 3500 revs per min which was generated by the electric dynamometer on which I mounted my engine, nothing bad will happen .. but as a result of 3 times in most of the forces coming from the gaseous forces, the engine faded. In the second photo, the connecting rod, which was completely polished, that's why you can clearly see the change of colors in the sky, which occurred due to this seizure ..
Of course, I rebuilt the engine, but I will not put it on the brakes anymore ..
My project Feliks Commer T4 engine will have about 500 hp, with a weight of about 500 KG, here you can make such a stellar version put together 10 engines (on the left and on the left side of the star) It will weigh about 6 tons and had 5,000 HP. .. It will be suitable for the propulsion of a small ship .. or for the production of 5 MW of electric energy .. with long durability and efficiency ..
In the whole engine there is only one bearing in the connecting rod. The rest are half-turn pins. So, the engine's failure will be significantly increased.
here's a discussion on how to match it to Formel 1 :grinpimp:
https://www.highpowermedia.com/RET-Monitor/3944/th...
Andrew
This topic is one of the best, i wish I had more time to read through it allThe shaft is also fused on two bearing shells .. it was created due to the seizure of the engine dynamometer. I thought that at 3500 revs per min which was generated by the electric dynamometer on which I mounted my engine, nothing bad will happen .. but as a result of 3 times in most of the forces coming from the gaseous forces, the engine faded. In the second photo, the connecting rod, which was completely polished, that's why you can clearly see the change of colors in the sky, which occurred due to this seizure ..
Of course, I rebuilt the engine, but I will not put it on the brakes anymore ..
My project Feliks Commer T4 engine will have about 500 hp, with a weight of about 500 KG, here you can make such a stellar version put together 10 engines (on the left and on the left side of the star) It will weigh about 6 tons and had 5,000 HP. .. It will be suitable for the propulsion of a small ship .. or for the production of 5 MW of electric energy .. with long durability and efficiency ..
In the whole engine there is only one bearing in the connecting rod. The rest are half-turn pins. So, the engine's failure will be significantly increased.
here's a discussion on how to match it to Formel 1 :grinpimp:
https://www.highpowermedia.com/RET-Monitor/3944/th...
Andrew
Feliks, it looks like you have nearly achieved your final design, have you?
Keep going with your amazing design work and good luck
Greg Locock, on 09 Jun 2018 - 06:12, said:
So since all of your designs rely on crank-like linkages, how are you going to prevent those failures? /Quote
Here in my hand the engine shaft from my new4 stroke ..
And because of the fatal mechanical distribution of the crankshaft forces, several cases of failure of the same shaft
A 8 times greater torque (first gear and differential transmission), they transfer to the wheels of the half-axle, which can be seen in the picture of the gearbox with the diverter, from the engine of which the shaft comes ...
they have a diameter of 25 mm and a long length ..
I have never seen a failure in these half-axes.
That is, to transfer 8 times more torque, this dimension is enough ..
The title is an explanation of why the classic crankshaft is a fatal construction and despite the large dimensions it bursts .. as seen in the pictures .. Here a little about the crush of such shafts, which even without load, under their own weight can be bent.
http://www.mechanik.media.pl/pliki/do_pobrania/art...
This is called the springing of the crankshaft.
On this link, how are you measuring this springs when the engine is standing. As a result of these crushing, the shafts are breaking up in the middle of their life, despite the fact that they are relatively thick ...
This causes a fatal rule of the "crankshaft" in its very construction.
http://www.full-ahead.net/Silownia/silniki_glowne/...
SINGLE-supported cranks have no faults. Here is an example, from a locomotive, such a one-way crank in addition, on springs, which causes additional wheel movement. The power transferred is some couple of thousand horsepower ...
I have never seen damage ...
I have never seen damage ...
So a single-sided crankshaft is no longer so emergency, because it does not have this bending, as well as its design must be sufficiently strong.
And here is my design lever, to Feliks Roller, which is basically quadruple, and can be supported on the bearing in the cylinder axis, without causing any bending of my shaft ...
Only at the ends will be full bearings determining Feliks Roller
Andrew
So since all of your designs rely on crank-like linkages, how are you going to prevent those failures? /Quote
Here in my hand the engine shaft from my new4 stroke ..
And because of the fatal mechanical distribution of the crankshaft forces, several cases of failure of the same shaft
A 8 times greater torque (first gear and differential transmission), they transfer to the wheels of the half-axle, which can be seen in the picture of the gearbox with the diverter, from the engine of which the shaft comes ...
they have a diameter of 25 mm and a long length ..
I have never seen a failure in these half-axes.
That is, to transfer 8 times more torque, this dimension is enough ..
The title is an explanation of why the classic crankshaft is a fatal construction and despite the large dimensions it bursts .. as seen in the pictures .. Here a little about the crush of such shafts, which even without load, under their own weight can be bent.
http://www.mechanik.media.pl/pliki/do_pobrania/art...
This is called the springing of the crankshaft.
On this link, how are you measuring this springs when the engine is standing. As a result of these crushing, the shafts are breaking up in the middle of their life, despite the fact that they are relatively thick ...
This causes a fatal rule of the "crankshaft" in its very construction.
http://www.full-ahead.net/Silownia/silniki_glowne/...
SINGLE-supported cranks have no faults. Here is an example, from a locomotive, such a one-way crank in addition, on springs, which causes additional wheel movement. The power transferred is some couple of thousand horsepower ...
I have never seen damage ...
I have never seen damage ...
So a single-sided crankshaft is no longer so emergency, because it does not have this bending, as well as its design must be sufficiently strong.
And here is my design lever, to Feliks Roller, which is basically quadruple, and can be supported on the bearing in the cylinder axis, without causing any bending of my shaft ...
Only at the ends will be full bearings determining Feliks Roller
Andrew
[quote="Merlyn"]Most interesting Andrew but you won't find the answer to my question in the workshop manual, you will only find it by experiences caused by working on this type of engine.
It was, as I said a very common occurrence caused solely by not decoking the engine.
The excessive backpressure, as shown by the gauge on the control panel clearly showed the fault.
The bar magnet was used to get the broken part of the engine out, when ground correctly this part, being made of carbon steel would make an excellent addition to your tool box.
A crosscut chisel f.o.c.
That crank, sure it's not a wrist watch crank?
Think about the back pressure load on parts caused by excessive carbon build up on two strokes.
[/quote]
Yes Merlyn, you do not even know how much I appreciate your remarks. because I know that I will not find them in the workshop manual ... It's good that you want to work with me with your experience. As you know, I do not have too much, because I had to find these codes in music .. That's why your help is great .. I now add my cody and maybe something good will be ...
You have noticed the excessive accumulation of carbon. Now that we have a new type of engine Feliks Commer, where there is no classic crankshaft, only pins with a diameter of 30 mm, we can approach the issue in a different way, as it was so far. These small plates do not need such lubrication as large crankshaft bearings, besides they do not even turn round, and do semi-turn .., so the lubrication can be a little smaller .. I do not know if you remember that two-stroke engines for motorcycles, are lubricated only with oil in the fuel and in a ratio of 1: 50. And these engines, completely protruding .. so I thought that my Felix Commer can be lubricated with normal diesel fuel, also with the addition of this oil, let's also say 1; 50 as we will take into account that diesel fuel already has good lubrication in the sona .. Imone would be poured into the engine instead of lubricating oil. Well, when 10 liters of such fuel are needed for lubrication, the amount of oil added would be 0.2 liters .. No and I think that this quantity would not plug the windows, because the rest would be the same as the main fuel, it would be fired without coke .. And I think that this should solve the problem of this too nagar. Simply a new lubricant oil felix, i.e. diesel fuel plus 1:50 oil for two strokes ... .. poured into the engine, instead of lubricating oil ..
It would have such advantages that in the winter it would not be too dense, and in the summer too sparse ... ... and this price is not too high ..
So even with a large amount of "oil" you would not have to worry about ... because also coke would not be created ... because, from burning fuel, it does not arise ...
I just do not know what oil companies are doing ...
here, one bottle is enough to make 50 liters of "feliks oil"
https://www.mobil.com/English-PL/Passenger-Vehicle...
And here the drift part of the watch, which I personally will do on an ordinary lathe. The material to do this crankshaft weighed 80 KG and the shaft lasts 4 KG. It lasted for a month ...
You know how you see the problems of crankshaft production, and that's why I know it's not a simple thing ...
Here are a few examples, however, that the crankshaft is not necessarily a successful construction .. and despite its thickness, sometimes it ends ... And I will ask if ever seen such a broken clutch shaft, despite the fact that it is much thinner than the crank ..
http://new4stroke.com/rootes%20diesel%20engine%20w...
Andrew
It was, as I said a very common occurrence caused solely by not decoking the engine.
The excessive backpressure, as shown by the gauge on the control panel clearly showed the fault.
The bar magnet was used to get the broken part of the engine out, when ground correctly this part, being made of carbon steel would make an excellent addition to your tool box.
A crosscut chisel f.o.c.
That crank, sure it's not a wrist watch crank?
Think about the back pressure load on parts caused by excessive carbon build up on two strokes.
[/quote]
Yes Merlyn, you do not even know how much I appreciate your remarks. because I know that I will not find them in the workshop manual ... It's good that you want to work with me with your experience. As you know, I do not have too much, because I had to find these codes in music .. That's why your help is great .. I now add my cody and maybe something good will be ...
You have noticed the excessive accumulation of carbon. Now that we have a new type of engine Feliks Commer, where there is no classic crankshaft, only pins with a diameter of 30 mm, we can approach the issue in a different way, as it was so far. These small plates do not need such lubrication as large crankshaft bearings, besides they do not even turn round, and do semi-turn .., so the lubrication can be a little smaller .. I do not know if you remember that two-stroke engines for motorcycles, are lubricated only with oil in the fuel and in a ratio of 1: 50. And these engines, completely protruding .. so I thought that my Felix Commer can be lubricated with normal diesel fuel, also with the addition of this oil, let's also say 1; 50 as we will take into account that diesel fuel already has good lubrication in the sona .. Imone would be poured into the engine instead of lubricating oil. Well, when 10 liters of such fuel are needed for lubrication, the amount of oil added would be 0.2 liters .. No and I think that this quantity would not plug the windows, because the rest would be the same as the main fuel, it would be fired without coke .. And I think that this should solve the problem of this too nagar. Simply a new lubricant oil felix, i.e. diesel fuel plus 1:50 oil for two strokes ... .. poured into the engine, instead of lubricating oil ..
It would have such advantages that in the winter it would not be too dense, and in the summer too sparse ... ... and this price is not too high ..
So even with a large amount of "oil" you would not have to worry about ... because also coke would not be created ... because, from burning fuel, it does not arise ...
I just do not know what oil companies are doing ...
here, one bottle is enough to make 50 liters of "feliks oil"
https://www.mobil.com/English-PL/Passenger-Vehicle...
And here the drift part of the watch, which I personally will do on an ordinary lathe. The material to do this crankshaft weighed 80 KG and the shaft lasts 4 KG. It lasted for a month ...
You know how you see the problems of crankshaft production, and that's why I know it's not a simple thing ...
Here are a few examples, however, that the crankshaft is not necessarily a successful construction .. and despite its thickness, sometimes it ends ... And I will ask if ever seen such a broken clutch shaft, despite the fact that it is much thinner than the crank ..
http://new4stroke.com/rootes%20diesel%20engine%20w...
Andrew
Gassing Station | Engines & Drivetrain | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff