New 4 stroke engine (in English)

[bolt]

Hello inventor

What performance can be expected from such a system?

Super-squared engines are ideal for better filling and evacuation (compared to displacement) because they allow for larger valves (always with respect to the cylinder capacity), and another big advantage is the Lower piston linear speed (less wear), for the same power (still in relation to the cylinder capacity), (except that for cylinder capacity / linear speed the cylinders can be multiplied: V 12 for example)
But in the Formula1, it is probably used mainly to increase the engine speed.
Another advantage (probably minimal) is that it is less disadvantageous compared to the mass inertia of the combustion gases (which must less run after the piston to push it)

Among the disadvantages of the "super-square" motor, the principal is the heat exchange surface proportionally very large with respect to the combustion chamber, at the moment when it most needs to keep the heat to expand the gases
The 2eme disadvantage is the inevitably greater leaks in the segments compared to an engine with smaller diameter piston for the same power (but the segments used a little less quickly (linear speed), the high-stroke engine May catch up with him during his life

On your engine, inventor, what about the performance ?, how do you calculate the displacement?

In fact your engine joins the principle of diesel engine 2 time with lights as valves that have an offset between intake and exhaust created by the angular offset of the fasteners of the rods on the crankshaft (COMMER-ROOTES engine) (pistons vis- opposite, 2 per cylinder, each connected to the crankshaft via a connecting rod, a balance, then an 2eme rod)

The difference is that the 1 / 2 piston speed is used to occupy the lights at the right time, as in a 2 engine time (which could be a 2 engine time besides, if the 3eme piston was connected to a crankshaft at the same speed than the 2 aures) but as the 3eme piston rotates 2 times faster it cycles to 4 time for the latter

To see if the (combustion chamber surface) / displacement is not too excessive compared to a normal engine

bolt

[inventor]

Hello inventor

What performance can be expected from such a system?

bolt

The traditional combustion chamber had been developed through last 100 years, in this case, developing the combustion space will definitely a bit.
Right now, a lot of advantages of this idea can be seen - variable compression ratio, while changing the angle between crankshafts for all the cylinders in the engine, by adjusting only ONE mechanism. The adjustment of the angle will increase the torque. The valve also has a positive impact on the overall torque. Especially, the exhaust piston (It is smallest piston), which is affected by the maximum firing pressure on the maximum (shoulder) arm-crank.

Summing up all variable alternate coherent as:
1. Individual diameters of pistons, 3 part x 4 dim = 12
2. Strokes of particular pistons, 3 part x 4 dim = 12
3. Angles between crankshafts, 4 x 4 x 4 = 64
4. height of the connecting rod, 3 share x 2 dim = 6
5. deviations from king of cylinder, 3 part x 2 dim = 6
6. Slips of integrity of crushes outside or inside of main cylinder, 2 dim = 2
7. Distances of pivots of axes crankshafts, 2 dim = 2
8. The height of the intake / exhaust windows. 2 part x 3 dim = 6

If we can increase it, then give we about 8.000.000 possible combination of dimension of only geometric engine (!!!)

This shows the complicity of the basic design, so there is a great difficulty to choose the right geometry and design with the first engines, if the technology is rather simple and does not seem to be an issue here. The biggest challenge is for the designers, not for the technological engineers.
To cover the subject, starting from the combustion process, toxicity of the exhaust gases and fuel consumption will surely be time consuming, but I think it is worth the effort, because the overall physical efficiency of this engine is better (50% increase of volume capacity). To understand it better - take my prototype - it intakes a similar amount of air, as it was a 3 cylinder engine, but only 2 cylinder.
There are no reflexive masses of the third cylinder, and the power of inertia of the timing gear is smaller, because it's turning with a half of the piston speed (that gives as four times smaller inertia forces). Overall physical efficiency is certainly better than a few percent
The improvement in load exchange was worth mentioning too. There is much less aerodynamic defiance here, especially in the intake process. It is possible to improve the combustion process by making a special shape of the dynamic combustion area, arranging the flow, similar to diesel engines with a precombustion chamber.
You see this easy engine need to make it work better.
Andrew

[bolt]

I had translate language tool google, but I still have not got everything:
The traditional combustion chamber had been developed by the end that 100 years ago, in this case, developing the space of combustion will occupy because of the computers less time certainly a little.
Right now, many benefits of this idea can be seen - variable compression ratio, while changing the angle between the crankshafts for all own cylinders in the engine, adjusting only ONE mechanism. Adjusting the angle will instead increase the torque. The valve pistons also effect the rotary moment of effect also quite frankly on the overall torque. In particular, the exhaust piston (this is the smallest piston), which is affected by the maximum firing pressure on the maximum (shoulder) crank arm.

Summarizing all the alternating variable logic as:
1. Different diameters of the pistons, 3 parts X 4 weak = 12
2. races of particular pistons, 3 parts X 4 weak = 12
3. angles between the crankshafts, 4 x 4 x 4 = 64
4. size of the connecting rod, 3 parts X 2 weak = 6
5. Deviation of cylinder pivot, 3 parts X 2 weak = 6
6. Slips the integrity of crushing the outside more or inside the main cylinder, 2 weak = 2
7. distances of axle crankshaft pivots, 2 weak = 2
8. The size of the intake / exhaust windows. 2 parts X 3 weak = 6

If we will increase it, then give us about 8,000,000 the possible combination of the (only) geometric engine dimension

This shows the complicity of the basic design, so there is great difficulty in choosing the right geometry and designing with the first engines if the technology is rather simple and does not seem to be an issue here. The biggest challenge is for designers, not for technological engineers.
Covering the material, from the combustion process, exhaust gas toxicity and fuel consumption will surely take time, but I think it is worth the effort, because the overall physical efficiency Of this engine is better - due to it's geometric advantages (50% increase in volume capacity). To understand it better - take my prototype - it takes a similar amount of air, as it was a 3 cylinder engine, but it has only 2 cylinder.
There is no reflected mass of the third theoretical cylinder, and the power of the inertia of the synchronization speed is smaller, because it rotates with half the main piston speed (which gives as one Four times smaller inertia force). Overall physical effectiveness is surely better up to a few percent
Improving the exchange of load is worth mentioning too. There is much less aerodynamic defeat here, especially in the taking process than also affect the fuel consumption. It is possible to improve the combustion process with the manufacture of a special shape of the dynamic area of ​​combustion, arranging the flow, similar to diesel engines with a precombustion chamber injection, but without energy loss at the d Obstruction, so that the diesel could have operated at a much higher RPM.
You see this easy hard wery engine hard work to improve to do.
Andrew Très Heureux

[inventor]

Andrew Très Heureux

Yes, Yes, Yes
Thank you Bolt !!!! For active help. I think so translate are good.

I have google translate my page, maby easy read:

1. Ccm1: textpole1 = The biggest innovation and advantage, in the new moment gear is the expansion of the intake air and the cubic cylinder capacity. In this construction, cubic capacity is a function that varies dependig on the positions of all shaft pistons. The significant increase in cubic capacity - even at 50 percent - makes an improvement in the PHYSICAL EFFICIENCY of the combustion engine. The engine, with the crankshaft and the main piston alike, catches much more air, but the energy, needed to push the professional piston and the weight of the same system stays. Until now, in the history of the combustion engine, the cubic capacitance value seemed to be constant. How even people, who has expirience in engines, take it granted and they ask: what can it be, that cubic capacity is a variable? Are the cylinders made of rubber? ? ? The answer is: Only one pole can make 1 liter of an 0.5 liter .... The cubic capacity parameter is considered in many problems, including taxes. Mechanical / running sports / gathering people have troubles too.
2. ccm2 textpole2 = In this idea, an easy equation: the piston sector - the S xh - the stroke of the crankshaft, is replaced by the complicated calculation of a series of shaft cylinders , including the angles of conformity of the crankshafts between them. It seemed such a simple problem like cubic capacity would not be a problem yet it was the biggest difficulty while overcoming the concept and prototype. The inventor made some computer calculations - At right, an example of an algorithm from FORTRAN used in 1982 (done on punched cards).

3. Prototyp 1: textpole = The first prototype of a similar construction, was made in 1979. It was based on a small 101 Andoria cylinder motor. It had two moment crankshafts and the pistons were positioned as the valves, not exceeding the professional piston contour. It was the goal was to prove the theory of the new moment gear. The construction, suddenly started and worked easily, nevertheless it had many imperfections. Everything was done in the form of the private inventor's funds and it was all his own work (design, construction and trying). The prototype had measured 3.5 HP, while the original S101 had 5 HP.

4. Protot2: textpole = The second prototype was made in 1981-1984, based on the engine of a Polish Fiat 126p (two-cylinder, 600 cm ^ 3). The first step in designing the new construction was a computer simulation of the stroke of capacity and the positions of pistons. These calculations revealed the ability of a major change in the compression ratio, relating to the angle between the crankshafts. After an 3 year deals with the prototype, in 1984, the test has successfully completed. Everything also has own funds from the inventor. In the final test period, which lasted a half-year, the inventor came by many problems - fuel cards , Ignition turns blowned away by high untimely agitation in the combustion chamber, drains resonance, and hazardous safety measures cancel - 10000 TPMRIFICATIO, etc.

5.protyp3: textpole = After finishing the job, it was a surprise, even for the inventor, that the engine worked from very stable, easily and high TPMRIFICATIO quickly reached - it proclaimed that the Motor power was really high .. after getting in a few distributes, a lot of things came out. For ex. The fuel jets sector used the prototype, early in the carburettor BMW 2002 Dummies (2000 cm ^ 3) is almost four times smaller - 80 instead of 155. This means that the amount of take air is much larger than the quantity received a cylinder from the BMW engine (500 cm ^ 3). Specify the proportion of air to the fuel mass - Lambda - is very critical, because it defines when the mixture can be the cylinder of one of the similar prototype plugs of the d Air like four cylinders do in the BMW! While considering high TPMRIFICATIO, people of craft

6.protoyyp4: textpole = Could calculate theoretically possible power value of the engine. The prototype was made with an idea to put it in the racing / rally cars - the inventor was a second champion in the Polish Gathering, in 1975 (classifying 850 cm ^ 3, The group two) - while unfortunately building, it was compounded and was decomposed many times, which exerted all the joints and wires - Excluded to use the prototype under full load. The only measurement of torsional moment was in 2001 - a cylinder was working at 3500 TPMRIFICATIO - and it had 4.5 KGm. The twisting moment unfortunately too great was a killer thing to the main (126p) crankshaft that grabbed. Now the prototype is ready for the demonstrations, but without any loading, because the design has not anticipated such a great twisting moment and what comes next - such great forces.

It is free translates.
Andrew

[paotop]

if you do not like traditional valves there's also the rotary distribution head.

I was in contact with the inventor last year because I wanted to import the product ........ but it was not yet finished developing it.

[vttdechaine]

This engine reminds me somehow of the 2 DKW-MZ times of the great years with the compressor.
My biggest fear about this type of engine is the possibility of devlooping because the gases are drastically stirred before reaching the combustion chamber. However, I think that a direct straight-line feeding of the mixture makes it possible to improve significantly the yield (the Cosworth DFV and its predecessor to 4 cylinders of Cosworth had opened this way).
As for the different flows and refluxes at low, medium and high speeds of rotation of the engine (normally a lot of reflux on low speeds and very little on high speeds as on 2tps by "conventional" admission by piston skirt) ?
In the same principle, I naturally think of the engine without a valve.

To bring some water to the mill of the previous remarks.
I do not understand that inertia is the biggest worry on engines. A steady state (which is 80% of the use of an engine), this inertia is completely insensitive no?
For F1 engines, the biggest worries tend to increase the engine bore (it is close to the 100 mm diameter plates) to increase engine speed without reaching the fateful 20m / s. With the efficiency improving with the engine, you can increase the capacities of the engines thanks to this principle. The biggest difficulty was overcoming the rebound of the spring-loaded valve (towards 12000 rpm), hence the arrival of the pneumatic recoil (Renault in others) and the increase in engine speeds since that date With the help of the reduction of the cyclindrance all the same).

[Woodcutter]

[...] What we are looking for on an engine is torque, no torque, no power.
It's not for nothing that in formula 1 they try to make hyper square races, but they are very quickly limited by the angle taken by the connecting rod. [...]

We design a super-square engine to be able to take as many laps as possible ... Why? Because the power of an atmospheric engine is only obtained by increasing the speed, from the value of torque optimized by all the other means ... And that the average speed of the piston, limiting value in car mechanics, is directly dependent on the race and the diet ...

When you want to make a very coupled engine, it is rather a long race that is sought after.

[neant]

To bring some water to the mill of the previous remarks.
I do not understand that inertia is the biggest worry on engines. A steady state (which is 80% of the use of an engine), this inertia is completely insensitive no?

To understand the phenomenon of inertia one must do simulations on computer and see how a motor behaves by watching it work with slowed images.
I understood a lot by doing this and in any case, a parts like a rotating (heavy) crankshaft that is not perfectly balanced is a great big problem.
In addition it is hyperstatic when multiplying the number of pistons.
And then anyway, it's not and it will never with a classic crankshaft that the engines will be powerful.
What makes the power of an engine is the distance between the crankshaft and the connecting rod, and the greater the distance, the greater the output torque. The lever arm increases the force.
Greater Egypt understood this well before us.
Anyway, I'm not for the internal combustion engine. The external combustion engine is far superior to it in terms of efficiency, economy, and ecology (it makes less noise too)
Afterwards, one can always put a bunch of artifacts around a combustion engine to improve things, the path involved has been towards the ease of oil, and the complexity of the engines. We could have done otherwise.

[inventor]

To understand the phenomenon of inertia one has to do computer simulations and see how an engine behaves by watching it work with slow motion images.
I understood a lot of things doing this and in any case, parts like a rotating (heavy) crankshaft that is not perfectly balanced is a great big problem.
In addition it is hyperstatic when multiplying the number of pistons.
And then anyway, it's not and it will never with a classic crankshaft that the engines will be powerful.
What makes the strength of an engine, it is especially the distance between the axis of the crankshaft and the small end, and the more this distance is important, more the output torque is important. The lever arm multiplies the force.
Great Egypt understood this well before

The first prototype, based on a 1 cylinder engine, had 2 of them, connected with a chain. I had many doubts about resonance problems before I made it. Surprisingly it worked very smoothly, without any flirt or vibrate. Match worked stably exclusively and quietly. I have observed that only one change of part of the chain of tense before the firing of the engine. From timing crankshaft FOR hand crankshaft. I have had two "crankshaft timing"
There can be one or two crankshafts, but as I had been building the second prototype, I decided that one crankshaft would be a more elegant solution.
Egiptolog Andrew

[bolt]

Good evening
Here they also eliminated the valves, do they have no other disadvantages more difficult to solve? to be continued

http://www.rcvengines.com/pdf_files/pr/technologypack-feb06.pdf

bolt