Returns Scroll Stop Automatic mode

Econology forum in EnglishNew 4 stroke engine (in English)

Topics about this forum and the econology speaking in English language for People Who are not not understanding french language.
User avatar
inventor
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 464
Registration: 02/03/05, 11:51
Location: Krakow, Poland
x 23
Contact :

New 4 stroke engine (in English)

Unread Messageby inventor » 07/04/06, 23:24

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
0 x

User avatar
PITMIX
Pantone engine Researcher
Pantone engine Researcher
posts: 2009
Registration: 17/09/05, 10:29
x 3

Unread Messageby PITMIX » 08/04/06, 12:10

Hello
If I understand correctly the valves are replaced not by the pistons.
It is more a camshaft in the head, it is a motor in the back in front.
I would be curious to see a motor like this
0 x
User avatar
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 47028
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 409
Contact :

Unread Messageby Christophe » 08/04/06, 12:48

OMG! ... A such engine seems very difficult to build ... :|

Shorty, what are the advantages of a such engine?
0 x
Was this forum helpful or advisable? Help him too so he can continue to do it! Articles, analyzes and downloads on the editorial part of the site, publish your own! Get out (part of) your savings from the banking system, buy crypto-currencies!
paotop
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 139
Registration: 15/11/05, 11:35
Location: South West
Contact :

Unread Messageby paotop » 08/04/06, 14:26

I do not grasp too much the interest of this system compared to a 4T has valves.
It's funny but there are more moving parts, and at the level of the ludrification of the intake and exhaust pistons it must be a special can ....
0 x
User avatar
inventor
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 464
Registration: 02/03/05, 11:51
Location: Krakow, Poland
x 23
Contact :

Unread Messageby inventor » 08/04/06, 14:32

= "Econology"] OMG! ... A such engine seems very difficult to build ... :|

Yes, first production and prototype are difficult you build.Right now we have a complex formula at this engine.But only design rght now 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 intake volume changes while 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 little in a range of possible work of the engine.
The minimal room volume could vary to 400%, which was a huge surprise. This calculations revealed the possibility of the compression ratio from 7 to 24 (!!). Minimal room is not 360 degrees of turns of main axes also, as we are acclimated for it. The minimal chamber volume is in a radically different point of the crankshaft rotation - not traditionally in 360 deg, but in 375 deg, the 15 deg after the TDC (UDC) where the torque of the (shoulder) arm-crank is much greater. This is a great idea for the future of the crank of the future.
DYNAMIC and VARIABLE â € œcombustion area.â €.
Temperature in burning area no hight, because pistons are made aluminum -temperature work about 350 deg Celsius. This advantages of 800 deg traditional popped exhaust valve. -Possible height compression ratio, and difficult made NOx -whose they emerge up from 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 the 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 - the power needed to operate the timing gear (- 10% in full power-in full power largest)
- possible changes of intake and exhaust angles (- 10%)
- mechanically forced combustion process (- 5%)
The geometrical and thermodynamically related issues are not so obvious, while considering such old construction. One of the most important advantages is that there are NO working percussively elements. The well lubricated, pistons are working silently and smoothly. Any crankshaft or timing gear failure does not cause any additional failure to the engine. This is a great improvement in reliability. In addition to this there is almost no limitation of rpm, while considering the timing gear. There is no validity and no service. The endurance of the set of the pistons is the only thing that limits the rpm. The power of the propeller, 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 advantageous eg in agrimotor.

The dynamic design of the engine can be very simple, because it can be made of only one block, eliminating the overhead, and complications that come with it. It is worth mentioning that the 15 deg after the TDC has the hand piston turn, which affects surely the torque, because the arm-crank is much greater then. The armature of the exhaust piston is 70-120 after the TDC, while the maximum combustion forces take place - it may 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 all these elements, we could even reach one trillion combinations. (!) The first thing to do is to calculate all of these elements, using rather a really powerful computer , To simulate the engine design 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 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
0 x

paotop
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 139
Registration: 15/11/05, 11:35
Location: South West
Contact :

Unread Messageby paotop » 08/04/06, 14:58

I understand better : Cheesy:

And in addition there is more energy lost to compress the springs of the valves .............. smooooth
0 x
User avatar
PITMIX
Pantone engine Researcher
Pantone engine Researcher
posts: 2009
Registration: 17/09/05, 10:29
x 3

Unread Messageby PITMIX » 08/04/06, 15:19

Ben for me is laborious to understand (technical English : Lol: ) But I think the system looks a bit like the engine with variable compression ratio. MCE-5 VCR.
http://www.mce-5.com
http://www.auto-innovations.com/site/dossier5/volumevar.html
But I have the impression that the inventor Is simpler.
It seems that the cylinder head is adaptable to a standard engine.
If somebody ask him the question.
But I am still convinced that the piston engine is not the most efficient solution in terms of efficiency. The rotary motor is more efficient.
In my work we used Scroll refrigeration compressors.
They are more powerful, smaller, less noisy, and much more resistant than reciprocating compressors.
Last edited by PITMIX the 08 / 04 / 06, 15: 34, 1 edited once.
0 x
neant
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 298
Registration: 12/02/06, 12:47

Unread Messageby neant » 08/04/06, 15:21

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 are limited to 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 big end and the axis of the crankshaft. So you can not have a large lever to print a significant torque to the crankshaft.
The larger the lever arm, the greater the torque and when a large lever arm is desired on a conventional crankshaft, the inertia of the pistons is necessarily met.

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

On the other hand, big disadvantage these fucking vilbrequin, in theory, it's beautiful, but in practice, to align everyone, good courage ...
It should not be forgotten that a classic crankshaft must follow a geometry almost perfect to be at the top, and in reality, it is never the case.
When making parts, always bear in mind the tolerances, geometric, dimensional, and roughness.

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

This is fine theory, but practice is another world.
0 x
User avatar
Former Oceano
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 1567
Registration: 04/06/05, 23:10
Location: Lorraine - France

Unread Messageby Former Oceano » 08/04/06, 15:51

According to what I saw on their site, we can indeed adapt this to a classic engine. It is necessary to remove the cylinder head and replace it by the 'piston heads'. It is still a big factory that risks hitting the hood ... Similarly for the synchro of the assembly, the distribution will be able to withstand the efforts necessary to move these pistons, especially when they go down during Of the explosion ...
0 x
User avatar
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 47028
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 409
Contact :

Unread Messageby Christophe » 08/04/06, 16:07

PITMIX wrote:The rotary motor is more efficient.
In my work we used Scroll refrigeration compressors.
They are more powerful, smaller, less noisy, and much more resistant than reciprocating compressors.


For the compressor yes but for the motors it is not true ... A wankel has a lower efficiency (largely) than a piston engine. Try to use your Scroll compressor in engine and you will see that the performance is catastrophic. As well as a rotary type air motor (the "feller" used in garages to dismantle the wheels).

But it is true that the improvements (and investment) made in the alternative engines have no comparison with those brought to the wankel ....
0 x
Was this forum helpful or advisable? Help him too so he can continue to do it! Articles, analyzes and downloads on the editorial part of the site, publish your own! Get out (part of) your savings from the banking system, buy crypto-currencies!


Back to "Econology forum in English"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and guest 1

Other pages that will certainly interest you: