i had to do a google on the scotch yoke (that IS whats pictured in the link...) just to reassure myself about what i said...
Internal combustion engine uses[edit]
Under ideal engineering conditions, force is applied directly in the line of travel of the assembly. The sinusoidal motion, cosinusoidal velocity, and sinusoidal acceleration (assuming constant angular velocity) results in smoother operation. The higher percentage of time spent at top dead center (dwell) improves theoretical engine efficiency of constant volume combustion cycles.[5] It allows the elimination of joints typically served by a wrist pin, and near elimination of piston skirts and cylinder scuffing, as side loading of piston due to sine of connecting rod angle is mitigated. The longer the distance between the piston and the yoke, the less wear that occurs, but greater the inertia, making such increases in the piston rod length realistically only suitable for lower RPM (but higher torque) applications.[6][7]
The Scotch Yoke is not used in most internal combustion engines because of the rapid wear of the slot in the yoke caused by sliding friction and high contact pressures[citation needed]. This is mitigated by a sliding block between the crank and the slot in the piston rod. Also, increased heat loss during combustion due to extended dwell at top dead center offsets any constant volume combustion improvements in real engines.[5] In an engine application, less percent of the time is spent at bottom dead center when compared to a conventional piston and crankshaft mechanism, which reduces blowdown time for two stroke engines. Experiments have shown that extended dwell time does not work well with constant volume combustion Otto Cycle Engines.[5] Gains might be more apparent in Otto Cycle Engines using a stratified direct injection (diesel or similar) cycle to reduce heat losses.[8]
READ IT.
now, consider that the piston does NOT move very fast at TDC or BDC... the time when it needs the most pressure in these "ring grooves"... and wouldnt the little vortices have to stop, and be created in the opposite direction each time the piston stops?
i dont know why, but i doubt this will go any further than a glorified CAD drawing.
i do like the idea, but the benefits are scanty, the disadvantages...numerous.
concentrate on REAL new engine technology.... fuel cells, converting hydrocarbon fuel (that does not have to be highly refined gasoline) directly into electricity, with the majority of by products being water and co2, due to the near "perfect" combustion.
just think, you could have a car like the delorean from back2the future! MARTY!!! we NEED MORE FUEL! just shove some banana peels in! and whats the old joke about butterflies and bees running out of fuel? it only runs on bee pee!
(some guy worked for one of the big car companies, circa 1970 and did develop a urine powered engine...he was promptly fired. nothing to do with the latest nigerian idea which may just be bollocks)
just like the efficiency of a diesel electric train is higher than a plain diesel truck...the engine runs at one steady speed (plus its really easy to plug another set of driving wheels in, rather than somehow drive a tailshaft down the length of a train, with all its associated losses)...combustion is as near as perfect as it can get in an internal combustion engine...(the giant cargo ship engines are the most efficient of internal engines) but...fuel cells dont produce waste heat, which is simply energy, being thrown out the window.
for every 4 dollars you spend on gas, 3 dollars is thrown out the window... the internal combustion engine is very very lucky to get 50% efficiency in ideal circumstances- that rarely occur. turn on the heater and some of that waste heat is directed into the cabin...leave the window open and its gone. bye bye pay-cheque!
ring friction probably accounts for, at most, 5% of the loss. just the cam shaft and springs alone add something around the 70% mark of losses. theres been plenty of moves to replace them with other methods, with little success(other than the early sleeve valved engines, that were commercially successful...but fallen out of favour now)
(using daltons law, they could use that waste heat to run an airconditioner that wouldnt add extra load to the engine...we all know how aircon sucks down the fuel!)
a fuel cell is closer to 98% efficient. shame thats only on hydrogen, but still...technology in some regards, does progress in amazing leaps and bounds.
coupled to electric motors with high efficency ratings, regenerative braking, and battery storage... i like the sound of using 3 dollars out of every four to produce motive power to the current 1 out of four (or worse when you plant the pedal)
no frictional losses due to gearboxes, churning oil, bearing after bearing after bearing....
the internal combustion engine of any type, will simply be a museum piece in 50 years time, most likely. probably need a license just to start one up, the way things are going... the only thing that might save it is that some people like the roar of an unmuffled V-12 ? but considering that some people like cigarettes and thats almost banned (here at least) and will probably need a license... not to mention other things people like that ARE banned!
back on the RC topic... nitro is being phased out, companies that were exclusively nitro are now producing electrics. (OS engines for instance) like honda has stopped making two strokes altogether... its commonly agreed that electric is now faster than nitro. yes, you can buy nitro engines...theyre getting cheaper. a few years time theyll start skyrocketing as tooling is removed, parts scrapped, spares sold off rather than sitting around gathering dust... just like the venerable cox .049 is now worth a fortune, when ten years ago they cost a few dollars...
im australian, i should be supporting this invention, but i just cant bring myself to do so...
oooh. last thing. (i dont know when to stop, do i?
feel free to tell me to shutup or ignore me
)
the bourke engine...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourke_engine
read the bit about "claimed" and "measured" efficiency... engineering critiques... i know its not EXACTLY the same as this design in question, but its very similar...
if it was as good as claimed...it would be in every car right now! other than mazdas with the bwap bwap motors
im going. stopped raining.