In this half rotate the piston or slider does not rubbing the cylinder ... Because after erasure this may look like ... Here pivot also must be of adequate strength, ...




Andrew

Originally Posted by Feliks

Ok Aussiesteve

The effectiveness of capacity depends on the geometry and can not be disputed. With thick taking the geometric usable capacity is about half the capacity of a cylinder with a diameter of the butterfly and its lengths .. Well, for example, the capacity of the cylinder with a capacity of 4 liters j (the so-liter four-pot your mom in the kitchen ) on hold 2 liters capacity suction (to use) Watch yourself that we have the pot and you will know what will be the big engine with a capacity of 2 liters ....

Andrew

My question was not whether or not it ran - it was regarding the claimed volumetric efficiency.

Whilst you are correct about the surface area being a driver, unless that surface area can be utilised efficiently, the engine will not be efficient with regard to fuel usage. If you are looking at steam, pneumatic or hydraulic power into the chamber, then the simple pressure equation will (mostly) agree with your thoughts, however if there is a flame front to be generated within the chamber to create the pressure, then that flame front needs to be able to cover the full area in order to have reasonable efficiency. This is why we use round pistons in reciprocating internal combustion engines. The flame front propogates radially from the source.

The reason such engines as the ones you are showing have not made a big impact is that lack of efficiency.

As for weaknesses in items such as the rocker assembly, they can simply be engineered out.

+1

But also here is a thought about the "expansion chamber" when it comes to combustion. Being that it is the explosive force bearing down on a piston the design of the cylinder head itself and piston crown can take geometric advantage such as a hemisphere. Steam and fluid power will be most efficient with a flat surface. The cylinder wall keeps the Steam and fluid directing most of its force directly down on the piston. In an "explosion" the force is generated equally outwardly in all directions and the cylinder wall absorbs some of this energy thus loosing efficiency. The key word is "generated".

So if you think about the high-speed engines, it is different it can be. The low turnover does not matter. Besides, as we talk about the effectiveness of the fundamental importance here friction .. The shape of the secondary chamber is completely .. Because if we have one rod and not four rods with four cylinders is known that the forces of inertia are about 3/4 smaller and therefore much greater efficiency, the lack of friction on the wall, turned into a rotary friction in ball bearings is much smaller. Summing up the shape of the chamber can have impact, say, about 3% of the performance, and the case of friction 40%
Also placed four spark plugs can solve this problem...


Well, the fundamental issue total weight of 1,500 tons of engine and 70 tonnes where the reciprocating mass is about 30% ...

Andrew

Mac Leod
[quote]Thank you for responding to my posting- there are a few things that I am not sure about still. The rotating mass and the reciprocating mass of your 'valve train' will still be greater than the standard cam shaft and valves setup (especially for an engine with an overhead cam)- wouldn't it?[/qote]

I am very happy that so quickly you understood my arguments, and you are already ready for next discussion,
Yeah I just wanted to clarify this matter of the weight "be greater" for my solution.
She is very often raised, as the lack of the advantage of my engine.
And it is of course the untrue, but intellectual ‘box’ are ordering to think so, that it is a truth.
As a token of it I did taking off the weight on which I put the valve with the spring and spring retainer(witout retainer locks) diametef full phi 32 mm ( diameter canal 30 mm),
And I other side Piston , rod, pin,and two rings diameter 38 mm , what is a greater dimension than a valve has him considerably.
In spite of it, in the photograph done by me clearly one can see, that much he is heavier unite the valve.
If not you believe, go to scrap, find and take the piston with the connecting rod from the old lawnmower and about the same diameter valve with the spring from some car engine.. I think that you will be not having to use scales, because after taken into one hand piston, and into second of valve, you will be sure knew what was heavier.

If now will add to the moving weight of valve ( the reciprocating mass) rocker arm, mecanical regulations of clearance valve (or very heavy hydraulic valve lifter( tappet)) taped (ewentualy push rod). it sure it will turn out that the weight of the valve is twice as bigger from set piston –rod same diameter.

However, that's not all in relation to the weight.
He/she is reaching jescze to valves static weight so things like valve quide in heads, and rocker arm shaft.
One should also add the weight not chosen materials of the head, about the diameter piston. and lengths of his cylinder.
For lowering static mass of the engine one should add the lack bolts for screwing the head, since altogether cylinders around wit cylinder valves it is possible easily to make one-piece steel out, and then aren't needed bolts to the head together with threaded with their nests.
Adding this static reducing the weight, we receive altogether the piston valve is three times lighter than the traditional valve.!!

And greatest loss of engine mass.Piston valves mass, at the same diameter like valves, they cause that he is arriving about 15 % of jumping volume of the engine. That is mass of the engine is also reducing about 15 %.

In net part all about termal efficiency.I am only attention, so most important in combustion chamber, are TEMPERATURE elements.





Here, the pictures, if someone does not know what is heavier ..

Andrew

Quote:
Originally Posted by chris beauvais View Post
That is VERY cool! It'll probably be a little heavier because of the extra crank shaft, connecting rods, and pistons in the "head".

Are you sure??



So that you get rid of the doubt next photographs with accurate data :



Diameter popped 75 mm , diameter piston 76.5 mm

Right now are you shure ?? Any washes.



Weight popped 75 mm 1000 G
weight piston & rod 76.5 mm 850 G
weight popped 62 mm 400 G
weight piston & rod 62 mm 370 G

But the window of the flight of the valve of 75 mm is only 64 mm, what is very similar to the window of the flight piston 62 mm .

That is it results from it that the valve of 75 mm is giving the same flight as the piston 62 mm that is 1000 G to 370 G !!!!!

==~~ 2.5 more weight popped to piston& rod !!

It only looks impossibly. but this way is.



In principle ,for them greater popped/piston diameter, it is this difference in weight will be to the benefit of pistons.

Andrew

And here is my version, but strangely drawn ..



The wikipedia is written with the maximum degree of pairing can get a 7: 1 And this is the fundamental flaw in the solution. Therefore, this low level of compression is because the valves need to have a place in the head to be able to go in and open up. In my constructs, valves (pistons) opening up, regress to the crankcase, so the head can be completely flat, without going into the notches on the valves. With a completely flat head, the compression ratio we receive in my design, possible 27: 1 It is a circuit are adequate for spontaneous combustion - diesel engine, which takes about 18: 1 compression ratio. So you can make the First Diesel Engine in the World with flat head ....



Also will not need to divide the block and heads, because my valves (pistons) can be loaded also from the crankcase, rather than the traditional valves from the head, so when the engine submission is possible in this way, the division heads and engine block becomes redundant. You can perform when the engine entirely from one piece, except for very an emergency head gasket and bolt heads that secure critical










http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/...onesearch&tt=b


So more or less look like the block of the world's first diesel ...






Andrew

And if so the nozzle still has a small venturi with a propeller ...
You only need to do some brake to be able to land safely ..
..

Epic Self Powered Plane (0 min 48 sec)

Andrew

Red Baron Windmill (2 min 24 sec)

Now not just a wing equipped with NACA-FELIKS profile and you can drive the turbine that is small, around larger propeller for propelling the aircraft .. (For some small gears sure) I think these two films, for people who have enough imagination to understand the principles and authenticate the actual work of such a system, which is probably exempt me of the need for prototyping ..
All the praise can enter below ...
Andrew

To the boat like this make my fan to driven even further screw in the water ...

Red Wing sail nº1 (1 min 6 sec)

It is precisely against the wind to sail the boat to .. here about sailing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sailing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sailing..._than_the_wind
and if not faster than the wind .. hydrofoil is that it can be ...

A Hoj boaters .. A sailors feet of water under the keel ..:wave:

Andrew

Such a thing you have to use the Windmill Red Baron .. It is much more effective and efficient than a fan, which I used in my prototype .. because I used it because I wanted it to be seen from fast shakes due to the negative pressure produced .. Also each vane pump can be used, even with the water ring seal.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_pump

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pump

Roots Pump Two Lobe (1 min 13 sec)

http://www.powervacinc.com/blowers.html

It is obviously too can drive the propeller


Andrew

Well again, some of the atom. .. It seems to me that Joseph Rotblat was the inventor of the atomic bomb and the first I became aware of the horrific possibilities. Because even as a foreigner was attached to the project Manchatan, after arranging the required formalities .. The truth value of this claim due to the following publications and videos:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Rotblat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Chadwick

http://www.wiley-vch.de/books/sample/3527406905_c01.pdf


http://www.nfb.ca/film/strangest_dream

And some

Andrew : 198:

What oil ratio is used in a Nuclear powered 2 stroke?

Originally Posted by aussiesteve

What oil ratio is used in a Nuclear powered 2 stroke?

The figure says "MIXTURE", but in order to understand that this is a two-stroke cycle (because we are accustomed to).
But after using Teflon seals, no "mixture". Engine will run on clean fuel, without any oil ....



Because the ratio of oil to fuel will be 1: 0, 0 falls under the nuclear firepower is probably why the case falls under the Treaty on nuclear non-proliferation .. I think that modelers are changing, because the vision of a clean and not greasy their models .. Is that what they dreamed for a long time..

Andrew

I'm lost

Originally Posted by RTK

I'm lost

I'm sorry I really did not want you to feel like this. But unfortunately there is no other way, nk of all post .. I think that for some time you should become familiar with these ideas .. And then absorb all the information that are available,, It should allow you to myself all over again placed in the head and be able to design new real design follows these principles ... But I can ensure you that it will be good in every aspect .. I think on some issues already 30 years and I can see that everything goes really good representation of the..

little handle:
http://nowy4suw.republika.pl/Music/Take%20Five.mp3

Andrew: 198: