Ringless engine technology
- Thread starter Fabian
- Start date
HeadSmess
Well-Known Member
- Local time
- 6:22 PM
- Joined
- May 17, 2010
- Messages
- 3,048
naaaah....
been doing it for years on RC... bit different but.
noticed hydraulic spool valves dont require rings, and dont leak...but then straight oil is pretty viscous.
wonder how it copes with blowby? and obviously, this swirling air effect takes a certain piston velocity...what happens at TDC when it stops, experiences the maximum pressure, and or at low cranking speeds?
pistons still going to touch the wall at times unless...it was using a scotch yoke, wasnt it? so piston can go straight up and down with (almost) no side thrust... they then have problems with the "dwell" at TDC and BDC. a lot of crank movement for very little piston movement.
the action is symmetrical, so balancing is much easier. the planes of vibration are distinct, and are easily controlled. piston only goes up and down, crankshaft only rotates. no con rod swinging side to side...
cant recall its name, but theres a high compression petrol engine that works (almost) on the diesel cycle (no spark!) using the same "scotch yoke" principle...
acceleration forces on piston are increased, despite mean piston velocity being decreased. due to the dwell times, it has a lot less stroking time to achieve full speed then slow back down again.
the sliding block also produces a lot of friction. the yoke has been around just as long as the conrod, yet isnt in common use...for a reason.
anyway!
i thought engines had cooling systems because of the fact they combust a fuel and use heat to expand air that then produces pressure on the working parts? apparently not, all that heat is from the ring friction, now im being informed
what i particularly like is that theres not even a working model of the concept. just a few "simulations".
at least ralph sarichs managed to make several of his orbital engines with no CAD or huge funding!! just in his back shed, in his spare time.
still - it didnt work!
once again...wish i could find someone super rich that would just throw money at something and not even require a working result!
maybe i should get into politics? multi million dollar feasibility studies to work out whether to blow a few million on another study or just add it to the "slush fund"... with a nice superannuation for when i retire (which will be way before the 70 yrs age theyre thinking of instigating)
been doing it for years on RC... bit different but.
noticed hydraulic spool valves dont require rings, and dont leak...but then straight oil is pretty viscous.
wonder how it copes with blowby? and obviously, this swirling air effect takes a certain piston velocity...what happens at TDC when it stops, experiences the maximum pressure, and or at low cranking speeds?
pistons still going to touch the wall at times unless...it was using a scotch yoke, wasnt it? so piston can go straight up and down with (almost) no side thrust... they then have problems with the "dwell" at TDC and BDC. a lot of crank movement for very little piston movement.
the action is symmetrical, so balancing is much easier. the planes of vibration are distinct, and are easily controlled. piston only goes up and down, crankshaft only rotates. no con rod swinging side to side...
cant recall its name, but theres a high compression petrol engine that works (almost) on the diesel cycle (no spark!) using the same "scotch yoke" principle...
acceleration forces on piston are increased, despite mean piston velocity being decreased. due to the dwell times, it has a lot less stroking time to achieve full speed then slow back down again.
the sliding block also produces a lot of friction. the yoke has been around just as long as the conrod, yet isnt in common use...for a reason.
anyway!
i thought engines had cooling systems because of the fact they combust a fuel and use heat to expand air that then produces pressure on the working parts? apparently not, all that heat is from the ring friction, now im being informed
what i particularly like is that theres not even a working model of the concept. just a few "simulations".
at least ralph sarichs managed to make several of his orbital engines with no CAD or huge funding!! just in his back shed, in his spare time.
still - it didnt work!
once again...wish i could find someone super rich that would just throw money at something and not even require a working result!
maybe i should get into politics?
multi million dollar feasibility studies to work out whether to blow a few million on another study or just add it to the "slush fund"... with a nice superannuation for when i retire (which will be way before the 70 yrs age theyre thinking of instigating)
grinningremlin
Active Member
Yup,... old hat.Cox/Webra/Fox/Testors/Enya/ among many others, just use straight castor glow mix and who needs rings, though you have to scour the shellac off the cylinder walls occasionally.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 12676
Guest
If the cylinder compression is 120 psi then they have to generate that much air pressure at the piston grooves to counteract cylinder pressure. Comparing the energy loss to generate that pressure compared to the energy loss of ring friction I think the old design will come out ahead.
butterbean
Well-Known Member
- Local time
- 4:22 AM
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,011
That **** blows my mind! If you read the whole article, the movement of the piston generates the air pressure, so energy loss would be negligible. And even if there is comparable energy loss (which I doubt), there are several other benefits to be considered here. If an engine could run cooler, be smaller and lighter and have higher volumetric efficiency (I'm thinking same hp at 1/2 the size, maybe even better), then why wouldn't it be better? It's definitely worth exploring, because it's way past time to be developing new engine technology. Sticking with what we know has gas at almost $4 a gallon U.S. And $4 for 20 miles is crap. I'm going to be following this development.
HeadSmess
Well-Known Member
- Local time
- 6:22 PM
- Joined
- May 17, 2010
- Messages
- 3,048
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.
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.
Last edited:
HeadSmess
Well-Known Member
- Local time
- 6:22 PM
- Joined
- May 17, 2010
- Messages
- 3,048
and thats only cranking pressure...not actual dynamic operating pressure peaking upwards of 1000psi in a stock engine, over 1500 in a racing engine...
keatonx
Member
That idea... With the grooves... I thought that was my invention
Seriously though, I couldn't find anything similar when I did patent searches!
Anyways at first I was messing with directing the combustion pressure around from the head to the cylinder walls, where it meets up with corresponding grooves in the piston that are angled to direct the gas flow upward towards the combustion chamber. It wouldn't operate on constant pressure; it required the bursts of pressure from combustion to make the turbulence required. All the passageways were covered/uncovered by the piston at the right timing so passageways met up with the big groove in my piston when the pressure was released.
View attachment 51486
Piston groove
Some old pics of some of the passageways (there were a lot), which were made out of brakeline and took hours upon hours to bend and position them through the holes I made in the fins. (there were some tricky ones!)
That motor didn't end up building enough compression due to excessive piston/cyl clearance, the compression ratio being slightly reduced by the volume inside of the brakeline, and the compression being slowly released by another new design I had put on this same engine (it ran of cylinder pressure, and leaked. A lot). I just haven't got around to getting it fixed up. I had multiple ideas implemented on that motor, and it's a pain to get it all working right.
Yeah, just look at it. Too much going on, too many things to go wrong! But I never expected it to magically start up and run great like this one did-
So up until, well, a few minutes ago, I've been thinking up a new idea a lot like the one in the article; with specially shaped grooves (as many as possible) on the piston that causes turbulence in the blowby, which makes it swirl upward to make a high-pressure spot on the combustion chamber side of the groove.
Like it said in the article, these designs wouldn't require lubrication because of the flow of blowby between the cyl and piston, acting like an air bearing. But it would likely only work correctly on a 2-stroke, because it is the only piston engine that has constant pressure above the piston. This is needed to keep the gases in the grooves pressurized and flowing.
Good thing i saw this article tho, now I can stop wasting time on this idea and get working on some other, more feasible 2 stroke ideas I'm working on. Maybe even this messed up idea for a new kind of orbital engine that I have???
Seriously though, I couldn't find anything similar when I did patent searches!
Anyways at first I was messing with directing the combustion pressure around from the head to the cylinder walls, where it meets up with corresponding grooves in the piston that are angled to direct the gas flow upward towards the combustion chamber. It wouldn't operate on constant pressure; it required the bursts of pressure from combustion to make the turbulence required. All the passageways were covered/uncovered by the piston at the right timing so passageways met up with the big groove in my piston when the pressure was released.
View attachment 51486
Piston groove
Some old pics of some of the passageways (there were a lot), which were made out of brakeline and took hours upon hours to bend and position them through the holes I made in the fins. (there were some tricky ones!)
That motor didn't end up building enough compression due to excessive piston/cyl clearance, the compression ratio being slightly reduced by the volume inside of the brakeline, and the compression being slowly released by another new design I had put on this same engine (it ran of cylinder pressure, and leaked. A lot). I just haven't got around to getting it fixed up. I had multiple ideas implemented on that motor, and it's a pain to get it all working right.
Yeah, just look at it. Too much going on, too many things to go wrong! But I never expected it to magically start up and run great like this one did-
So up until, well, a few minutes ago, I've been thinking up a new idea a lot like the one in the article; with specially shaped grooves (as many as possible) on the piston that causes turbulence in the blowby, which makes it swirl upward to make a high-pressure spot on the combustion chamber side of the groove.
Like it said in the article, these designs wouldn't require lubrication because of the flow of blowby between the cyl and piston, acting like an air bearing. But it would likely only work correctly on a 2-stroke, because it is the only piston engine that has constant pressure above the piston. This is needed to keep the gases in the grooves pressurized and flowing.
Good thing i saw this article tho, now I can stop wasting time on this idea and get working on some other, more feasible 2 stroke ideas I'm working on. Maybe even this messed up idea for a new kind of orbital engine that I have???
Last edited:
keatonx
Member
You guys want to see a pretty cool engine, search up the Hossack engine. Allows for asymmetrical port timing, which is what we need for
2 strokes
2 strokes
butterbean
Well-Known Member
- Local time
- 4:22 AM
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,011
I seriously doubt that there would be any reason this idea could not work on a 4 stroke. Simply based on the idea that they are marketing this concept to the automotive industry, and for the funding they seek they would absolutely have to have the R&D to support it. These guys have engineering degrees and experience, and they're paid to figure these things out correctly. If there were any reason this wouldn't work, I'm sure they would have found it before seeking funding. Sounds like they are well into the testing phase to me.
