Page 1 on 84

New 4 stroke engine (in English)

published: 07/04/06, 23:24
by inventor
Hello!

Please visit http://www.new4stroke.com
:D
temperatur in engine is very low -are possible NO NOx


Image

Are unfortunatelly drawing - need 3D Drawig first engine whos impossible drawig in 2D right.

Other :D :D

published: 08/04/06, 12:10
by PITMIX
Hello
If I understand correctly the valves are replaced not pistons.
It's more of a camshaft in the head, it's an upside-down engine.
I would be curious to see a motor running like this

published: 08/04/06, 12:48
by Christophe
OMG! ... Such engine seems very difficult to build ... :|

You have to get a very high efficiency if you want to get a chance to industrialize your engine .... Shortly, what are the advantages of a such engine?

published: 08/04/06, 14:26
by paotop
I do not really understand the interest of this system compared to a 4T has valves.
it's funny but there are more moving parts, and level ludrification of the intake and exhaust pistons it must be a special can ....

published: 08/04/06, 14:32
by inventor
= "Econology"] OMG! ... To such an engine seems very difficult to build ... :|

Yes, first production and prototype are difficult to build.Right now we have a complex formula at this engine.But only design is difficult. In factory this engine need serial elements -piston -rods-crankshaft combination in a new block engine.
Advantages-1 .No collision elements (ask pilots, but on road blocked popped with pistons made too dangerous situation)

As you can see, the construction is very simple and is an "ocean of new ideas", as one reviewer said.
I made two going prototypes, and have a little expirens

After analyzing the results, I was surprised that the volume changes the angle between the crankshafts changes (!!). This change, as the parameters and sizes of the diameters and strokes of all three pistons is constant, is small - but in a range of possible work of the engine - can reach few percent.
The minimum chamber volume can be compared to 400%, which was a huge surprise. This calculations reveals the possibility of the compression ratio change from 7 to 24 (!). Minimal room is not 360. The minimal chamber volume in the crankshaft rotation - not traditionally in 360 deg, but in 375 deg, 15 deg after the TDC (UDC) where the torque of the arm-crank is much greater. This is one of the most important steps in the evolution of the market.
I can not exactly say, what it would be in combustion process, because it is a new, DYNAMIC and VARIABLE â € œcombustion area.â € ???
Temperature in combustion area no hight, because pistons are made of aluminum -temperature work about 350 deg Celsius. This benefits of 800 traditional popped exhaust valve. -Possible height compression ratio, and difficult made NOx -whose they emerge up to 600 deg Celsius.
Right now, a lot of advantages of this idea can be seen - variable compression ratio, while changing the angle between crankshafts for all cylinders in the engine, by adjusting only ONE mechanism.
I estimate that the fuel consumption would be affected with:
- Bigger volume capacity - better efficiency (- 20%)
- variable compression ratio (- 10%)
- lack of the valve springs - less power needed to operate the timing gear (- 10% in full power-in
- possible changes of intake and exhaust angles (- 10%)
- mechanically forced combustion process (- 5%)
The geometrical and thermodynamically issues are not so obvious, while considering such old construction. One of the most important is that there are NO elements working percussively. The well lubricated, pistons are working silently and smoothly. Any crankshaft or timing gear does not cause any additional failure to the engine. This is a big improvement in reliability. In addition to this, it is almost no limitation of rpm, while considering the timing gear. There is no valve and no service, no such a thing in here. The endurance of the set of pistons is the only thing that limits the rpm. The power can be used for timing engines, which is important, for eg, for aircraft engines - where the rpm should be rather low, because of the propeller. In other construction this â € œlow rpmâ € ??? power will be able eg in agrimotor.

The design of the engine could be very simple, because it eliminates the overhead, and complications that come with it (gasket, eg) The dynamic and combustion forces are relatively different to a popped valve engine. It is worth mentioning that the minimum volume is about the piston turn, which affects the torque, because the arm-crank is much greater then. The arm crank of the piston is 15-70 deg after the TDC, while the greatest combustion forces take place - it can cause a strange effect - the maximum torque can be taken from the smallest piston (!!). The concept of receiving power from the timing gear can be really interesting and improving.
While we consider the possible combinations of these elements, we could consider the possibility of using a very powerful computer. , to simulate the engine behavior and make the first design easier. Perhaps this invention, because of its unique features, will be a start of a new internal combustion science division.

May be these advantages will be enough to start design new engine. I have a little expires, and I can help.
Please translate this text to France if possible.
Regards Andrew :D :D

published: 08/04/06, 14:58
by paotop
I understand better : Cheesy:

and in addition there is more energy lost to compress the resstres of the valves .............. smooooth

published: 08/04/06, 15:19
by PITMIX
Ben for me is hard to understand (technical English : Lol: ) but I think the system looks a bit like the variable compression engine. MCE-5 VCR.
http://www.mce-5.com
http://www.auto-innovations.com/site/dossier5/volumevar.html
But I have the impression that the system of inventor is simpler.
It seems that the cylinder head is adaptable to a standard engine.
If anyone can ask him the question.
But I remain convinced that the piston engine is not the most efficient solution in terms of efficiency. The rotary engine is more efficient.
In my work we use Scroll refrigeration compressors.
They are more powerful, smaller, less noisy, and much more resistant than piston compressors.

published: 08/04/06, 15:21
by neant
Upright, the energy to compress the springs of the valves is never lost, since it is returned when the springs decompress. And then it does not mean much in loss, it's ridiculous.

Where there is the most loss in an engine is in the inertia of the pistons and the crankshaft and as long as we only make the classic crankshaft we never make much progress, because we always have this rule immutable which wants the piston stroke to be directly proportional to the distance between the small end and the crankshaft axis. Therefore you can not have a large lever to print a significant torque to the crankshaft.
The bigger the lever arm, the more torque you have and when you want a big lever on a classic crankshaft, you inevitably come up against the inertia of the pistons.

So, it is beautiful as a principle, but I prefer the valves to master the flow, the only advantage of this system is that it allows to have a big admission. (I do not know if it is a benefit of 'elsewhere...)

By cons, big disadvantage these fucking crankshaft, in theory, it's beautiful, but in practice, to align everyone, good luck ...
We must not forget that a classic crankshaft must follow a geometry almost perfect to be on top, and in reality, this is never the case.
When making parts, always bear in mind tolerances, geometric, dimensional, and roughness.

The roughness tolerances (surface condition) must be within the dimensional tolerances, which must themselves be within the geomeric tolerances.

It's beautiful theory, but the practice is another world.

published: 08/04/06, 15:51
by Former Oceano
From what I saw on their site, we can indeed adapt this to a conventional engine. The bolt must be removed and replaced by the 'piston heads'. It's still a big factory that may bang in the hood ... Similarly for the sync of the whole, the distribution will be able to support the efforts necessary to move these pistons, especially when they go down during of the explosion ...

published: 08/04/06, 16:07
by Christophe
PITMIX wrote:The rotary engine is more efficient.
In my work we use Scroll refrigeration compressors.
They are more powerful, smaller, less noisy, and much more resistant than piston compressors.


For the compressor yes but for the engines it is not true ... A wankel has a less good performance (largely) than a piston engine. Try using your Scroll compressor as a motor and you'll see that the performance is catastrophic. As well as a rotary type air motor (the "sparkling" used in garages to disassemble the wheels).

But it is true that the improvements (and investment) brought in the alternative engines have no possible comparison with those brought to the wankel ....