interesting engine
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 22 Jul 2010 11:29 http://www.ecomotors.com/technology John
From: Nunya on 22 Jul 2010 12:10 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.
From: John Larkin on 22 Jul 2010 12:28 On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 09:10:11 -0700 (PDT), Nunya <jack_shephard(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
From: Tim Wescott on 22 Jul 2010 12:30 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. -- 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: Tim Wescott on 22 Jul 2010 12:53
On 07/22/2010 09:28 AM, John Larkin wrote: > On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 09:10:11 -0700 (PDT), Nunya > <jack_shephard(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. IOW it's the Junkers Jumo concept with the twin cranks and their difficult mechanical coupling replaced by a single crank and a difficult mechanical linkage to the outer pistons. And it has the added feature that the linkage to the outer pistons is placed in a way that makes it hard to add two more cylinders, and damn near impossible to add more than that. Ooh -- clever. _Not_ a thrilling new idea. Just a rehash of an old one. Maybe a good rehash of a good old idea (the opposed-piston engines had a long and successful run in the marketplace), maybe a bad one, but a rehash none the less. -- 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 |