interesting engine
in [Design]
|
From: Nunya on 22 Jul 2010 13:39 On Jul 22, 9:28 am, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 09:10:11 -0700 (PDT), Nunya > > > > <jack_sheph...(a)cox.net> wrote: > >On Jul 22, 8:29 am, John Larkin > ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>http://www.ecomotors.com/technology > > >> John > > > Sorry, but the reciprocating engine has enough moving parts already. > >This is overkill, and would have some serious losses, I would think. > >Gimmie a single piston per journal/per jug any day. > > > The wankel is the epitome of internal combustion engine. That is, > >of course, unless you can get jet turbine engines in miniature form. > > > I'd like to see this engine maxed out for a drag race motor. Then > >see how long the thing would last. I'll bet that it has a high > >maintenance schedule. Way overkill. Way expensive. Likely be > >way problematic too. > > The upper piston thing eliminates the valve train, so it's a wash at > least on complexity. It's intended for efficiency, not drag racing. > Drag engines aren't efficient and they don't last long. > > John Sorry, but the opposing piston mechanics far outweighs valve train mechanics, and I could make it a two stroke diesel for that matter. As far as the darg race engine remark goes, you refer to top fuel classes where engines last less than ten runs. I refer to the PEOPLE's classes of drag racing where they PROVE or DISPROVE a car makers capacity to build efficacious, long lasting motors. I'll take one-slug-per-jug any day over that re-hashed, overkill 'implementation'. It was great for large,fixed industrial applications, which had maitenance teams behind them, and I do consider the submarine platform to be 'fixed' in that sense. Consumer motor vehicle applications would never support such a motor design unless it can do 100,000 low maintenance miles, which is the current warranty standard. Then give it to the drag race boys for final proofing.
From: Nunya on 22 Jul 2010 13:46 On Jul 22, 9:30 am, Tim Wescott <t...(a)seemywebsite.com> wrote: > On 07/22/2010 08:29 AM, John Larkin wrote: > snip > Once you get past "suck squeeze pop phooey" there's not much fundamental > change you can make to an internal combustion engine. > > * Or that spectacularly failed in the open market. > I like 'One-Slug-Per-Jug'. The expansion is only good for slightly less than half a crank rotation anyway. I do not see the extra slug doubling performance on a per cubic inch/per cylinder rule. It seems to me that there is actually a cost in reciprocating mass alone that rules it out. We strive to make that as low as possible. Doubling it (or more) without a coinciding doubling of the power stroke's output seems counter-productive to me. He (the site)also mis-defined what a two stroke engine function is.
From: Tim Wescott on 22 Jul 2010 13:49 On 07/22/2010 10:39 AM, Nunya wrote: > On Jul 22, 9:28 am, John Larkin > <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 09:10:11 -0700 (PDT), Nunya >> >> >> >> <jack_sheph...(a)cox.net> wrote: >>> On Jul 22, 8:29 am, John Larkin >>> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>> http://www.ecomotors.com/technology >> >>>> John >> >>> Sorry, but the reciprocating engine has enough moving parts already. >>> This is overkill, and would have some serious losses, I would think. >>> Gimmie a single piston per journal/per jug any day. >> >>> The wankel is the epitome of internal combustion engine. That is, >>> of course, unless you can get jet turbine engines in miniature form. >> >>> I'd like to see this engine maxed out for a drag race motor. Then >>> see how long the thing would last. I'll bet that it has a high >>> maintenance schedule. Way overkill. Way expensive. Likely be >>> way problematic too. >> >> The upper piston thing eliminates the valve train, so it's a wash at >> least on complexity. It's intended for efficiency, not drag racing. >> Drag engines aren't efficient and they don't last long. >> >> John > > Sorry, but the opposing piston mechanics far outweighs valve > train mechanics, and I could make it a two stroke diesel for > that matter. As far as the darg race engine remark goes, you > refer to top fuel classes where engines last less than ten > runs. I refer to the PEOPLE's classes of drag racing where > they PROVE or DISPROVE a car makers capacity to build > efficacious, long lasting motors. > > I'll take one-slug-per-jug any day over that re-hashed, > overkill 'implementation'. It was great for large,fixed > industrial applications, which had maitenance teams > behind them, and I do consider the submarine platform > to be 'fixed' in that sense. > > Consumer motor vehicle applications would never > support such a motor design unless it can do > 100,000 low maintenance miles, which is the current > warranty standard. The Junkers Jumo went into a number of successful airplanes. But of course they also had those maintenance teams. It's amazing what you can do with a piston engine when complexity is no barrier. -- Tim Wescott Wescott Design Services http://www.wescottdesign.com Do you need to implement control loops in software? "Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" was written for you. See details at http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html
From: John Larkin on 22 Jul 2010 13:49 On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 09:30:00 -0700, Tim Wescott <tim(a)seemywebsite.com> wrote: >On 07/22/2010 08:29 AM, John Larkin wrote: >> >> http://www.ecomotors.com/technology > >Few of those "new and innovative" "green" engines are doing anything >newer than rehashes of basic concepts that were tried and abandoned* >before 1910. > >You could probably make an industry out of resurrecting old patents for >engines, painting the prototypes green, and extracting investment money >(not to mention government grants) from starry-eyed rich people with too >much cash, not enough grounding in basic mechanics, and feelings of >environmental guilt. > >Once you get past "suck squeeze pop phooey" there's not much fundamental >change you can make to an internal combustion engine. > >* Or that spectacularly failed in the open market. Two-cycle engines have always interested me, although this one isn't simple like my Yamaha 250 was. John
From: Tim Wescott on 22 Jul 2010 14:01
On 07/22/2010 10:49 AM, John Larkin wrote: > On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 09:30:00 -0700, Tim Wescott<tim(a)seemywebsite.com> > wrote: > >> On 07/22/2010 08:29 AM, John Larkin wrote: >>> >>> http://www.ecomotors.com/technology >> >> Few of those "new and innovative" "green" engines are doing anything >> newer than rehashes of basic concepts that were tried and abandoned* >> before 1910. >> >> You could probably make an industry out of resurrecting old patents for >> engines, painting the prototypes green, and extracting investment money >> (not to mention government grants) from starry-eyed rich people with too >> much cash, not enough grounding in basic mechanics, and feelings of >> environmental guilt. >> >> Once you get past "suck squeeze pop phooey" there's not much fundamental >> change you can make to an internal combustion engine. >> >> * Or that spectacularly failed in the open market. > > Two-cycle engines have always interested me, although this one isn't > simple like my Yamaha 250 was. At least the ones that use the Day cycle* are. They're kind of like regenerative receivers in the RF world -- very few components at heart, with each component carrying out more than one task. The design is superficially simple, but because of the interaction of all the parts actually wringing good performance from the system involves a lot of hard thought and outright tinkering. * Day was the one who invented the crankcase-pumped 2-stroke engine. -- Tim Wescott Wescott Design Services http://www.wescottdesign.com Do you need to implement control loops in software? "Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" was written for you. See details at http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html |