I am new at this site. Being an avid creator of new design constantly through usage of existing products I have pondered the 4 stroke engine for the past thirty years and have asked myself numerous times when a change will happen. And yes some have happened, and yet we still utilize the design of yesteryear w/ even more computer chips to justify its existance. Last year I was struck with an idea, and a year later I have challenged this idea with a handful of engineers seeking the truth of possibility and thus far they all agree it can and will work. My key interest behind this was fewer parts. My other other interest was more power. The fewer parts has been accomplished along with greater power. A typical 4 stroke has about 20 + moving parts per cylinder and precisely 1/2 combustion per revolution per cylinder. This new design offers 3 parts per cylinder with 2 combustions per revolution. The model has 4 cylinders, you do the math, 4 * that of a v-8 or == v-32. imagine; 24" wide, 11" deep and 7" high. CID == 169. It does not have a crank shaft, hence 3 parts per cylinder. This project has been alive for 15 months and in the process of prototyping a working model. The goal was less parts for greater return on energy made. It boggles me the amount of energy spent on the 4 stroke engine moving parts to get energy from it. I am most likely looking at another two + years until this comes to reality. any body out there with engine ideas my heart goes to you, its a cruel world to engage good ideas with those who have the capacity to make them happen.
Do you have any schematics or mathematics?
I'm afraid most of the people here will simply call you a delusional liar unless you can show (with schematics) that you truly have such a design, and that (with mathematics) it will work as you claim.
I'm one of those "most people," by the way, but I like to be sure the person I'm calling a delusional liar is, in fact, a delusional liar before I do so.
If you have them, then please show us.
I'm afraid most of the people here will simply call you a delusional liar unless you can show (with schematics) that you truly have such a design, and that (with mathematics) it will work as you claim.
I'm one of those "most people," by the way, but I like to be sure the person I'm calling a delusional liar is, in fact, a delusional liar before I do so.
If you have them, then please show us.
sevenar,
I too would love to see drawings. I have been working with engines all of my life. I have worked on small ones that would fit in the palm of your hand, car engines of all types and ship's engines that are the size of a greyhound bus. all of them are the same on the inside. You are right the inside has not changed much at all.
You said your design doesn't have a crankshaft. ???? This I gota see.
@BDW,
At the risk of being put on your crank list.
Here is one of my day dreams. (from years ago)
Very crude drawing, no math and no I will never build it. Only for crude concept. lots of bugs. but with a bit of real engineering,,,, well ...
[img=http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/604/electromagneticengine00je7.th.jpg]
I too would love to see drawings. I have been working with engines all of my life. I have worked on small ones that would fit in the palm of your hand, car engines of all types and ship's engines that are the size of a greyhound bus. all of them are the same on the inside. You are right the inside has not changed much at all.
You said your design doesn't have a crankshaft. ???? This I gota see.
@BDW,
At the risk of being put on your crank list.
Here is one of my day dreams. (from years ago)
Very crude drawing, no math and no I will never build it. Only for crude concept. lots of bugs. but with a bit of real engineering,,,, well ...
[img=http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/604/electromagneticengine00je7.th.jpg]
Hello sevenar, et al.
Is your design anything like the Larsen RADAX engine.
Here is another link.
This design also has no crankshaft.
Is your design anything like the Larsen RADAX engine.
Here is another link.
This design also has no crankshaft.
QUOTE (paul h+Mar 25 2008, 04:02 PM)
@BDW,
At the risk of being put on your crank list.
Here is one of my day dreams. (from years ago)
Very crude drawing, no math and no I will never build it. Only for crude concept. lots of bugs. but with a bit of real engineering,,,, well ...
[img=http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/604/electromagneticengine00je7.th.jpg]
I can tell you right now that your engine would work. Just add A/C current.
I own one that runs like it (although it dispenses with the mechanical conversion to rotary power) in a couple of tattoo guns I own.
That doesn't add you to my crank list. I've bolded the reason why it wouldn't, even if this design would never have worked.
User posted image: User posted image
At the risk of being put on your crank list.
Here is one of my day dreams. (from years ago)
Very crude drawing, no math and no I will never build it. Only for crude concept. lots of bugs. but with a bit of real engineering,,,, well ...
[img=http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/604/electromagneticengine00je7.th.jpg]
I can tell you right now that your engine would work. Just add A/C current.
I own one that runs like it (although it dispenses with the mechanical conversion to rotary power) in a couple of tattoo guns I own.
That doesn't add you to my crank list. I've bolded the reason why it wouldn't, even if this design would never have worked.
User posted image: User posted image
QUOTE (sevenar+Mar 25 2008, 08:10 PM)
I am new at this site. Being an avid creator of new design constantly through usage of existing products I have pondered the 4 stroke engine for the past thirty years and have asked myself numerous times when a change will happen. And yes some have happened, and yet we still utilize the design of yesteryear w/ even more computer chips to justify its existance. Last year I was struck with an idea, and a year later I have challenged this idea with a handful of engineers seeking the truth of possibility and thus far they all agree it can and will work. My key interest behind this was fewer parts. My other other interest was more power. The fewer parts has been accomplished along with greater power. A typical 4 stroke has about 20 + moving parts per cylinder and precisely 1/2 combustion per revolution per cylinder. This new design offers 3 parts per cylinder with 2 combustions per revolution. The model has 4 cylinders, you do the math, 4 * that of a v-8 or == v-32. imagine; 24" wide, 11" deep and 7" high. CID == 169. It does not have a crank shaft, hence 3 parts per cylinder. This project has been alive for 15 months and in the process of prototyping a working model. The goal was less parts for greater return on energy made. It boggles me the amount of energy spent on the 4 stroke engine moving parts to get energy from it. I am most likely looking at another two + years until this comes to reality. any body out there with engine ideas my heart goes to you, its a cruel world to engage good ideas with those who have the capacity to make them happen.
it has been less than 24 hrs. on this site and in very short time I have received some less than welcoming comments. In time I will share with you the steps taken behind what the initial engine description I have presented. The process has gone through a handful of revisions, sharing the beginning steps I have to nothing to lose. Understand though this will be done with words, any mechanical mind ought to envision the concepts behind this. For starters, the first design constructed in a cylindrical housing like a jet turbine. The pistons/cylinders were positioned inside an inverted cam. This inverted cam had turbine blades on the outside of it near the housing. When combustion happened with a standsitll piston the cylinder moved, in turn it moved the inverted cam. Because the cylinder moved around the piston this enabled the process to have two combustion chambers, at each end of the piston. The means of a standstill piston incorporated the fuel injection and ignition. The intake and exhaust ports are situated in the cylinder and cylinder wall (thin block around the cylinder) The postion of these two opened and closed the ports. The turbine blades created air pressure to cool the unit as well as cause a difference in air pressure to assist the intake and exhaust. The outside of the inverted cams were geared/toothed to engage the motion created to a PTO or drive shaft. The lubrication was achieved through the inverted cam beneath the piston/cylinder with a pulse pump cycling oil through the piston to the cylinder and the cylinder wall. The drawback I eventually concluded was the size of it, too big. It was about 24" dia. by 24" length. This was the first design.....and please, to those out there on a mission to belittle others, I doubt this site was designed for that purpose. My intention to be here on this site is hopefully to engage in a conversation with others on a similar level. good day
it has been less than 24 hrs. on this site and in very short time I have received some less than welcoming comments. In time I will share with you the steps taken behind what the initial engine description I have presented. The process has gone through a handful of revisions, sharing the beginning steps I have to nothing to lose. Understand though this will be done with words, any mechanical mind ought to envision the concepts behind this. For starters, the first design constructed in a cylindrical housing like a jet turbine. The pistons/cylinders were positioned inside an inverted cam. This inverted cam had turbine blades on the outside of it near the housing. When combustion happened with a standsitll piston the cylinder moved, in turn it moved the inverted cam. Because the cylinder moved around the piston this enabled the process to have two combustion chambers, at each end of the piston. The means of a standstill piston incorporated the fuel injection and ignition. The intake and exhaust ports are situated in the cylinder and cylinder wall (thin block around the cylinder) The postion of these two opened and closed the ports. The turbine blades created air pressure to cool the unit as well as cause a difference in air pressure to assist the intake and exhaust. The outside of the inverted cams were geared/toothed to engage the motion created to a PTO or drive shaft. The lubrication was achieved through the inverted cam beneath the piston/cylinder with a pulse pump cycling oil through the piston to the cylinder and the cylinder wall. The drawback I eventually concluded was the size of it, too big. It was about 24" dia. by 24" length. This was the first design.....and please, to those out there on a mission to belittle others, I doubt this site was designed for that purpose. My intention to be here on this site is hopefully to engage in a conversation with others on a similar level. good day
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Mar 26 2008, 01:38 PM)
I can tell you right now that your engine would work. Just add A/C current.
I own one that runs like it (although it dispenses with the mechanical conversion to rotary power) in a couple of tattoo guns I own.
That doesn't add you to my crank list. I've bolded the reason why it wouldn't, even if this design would never have worked.
User posted image: <a target='_blank' href='http://tattooindia.net/images/tattoo_machine_by_zombiebe10u.jpg'>User posted image</a>
Good reference BDW,
The first thing I thought was how would you get the torque required to turn a crankshaft! It makes sense for high RPM, low torque, but do you agree that moving say a car with that idea would require way too much coil to move?
Peace,
Ron
I own one that runs like it (although it dispenses with the mechanical conversion to rotary power) in a couple of tattoo guns I own.
That doesn't add you to my crank list. I've bolded the reason why it wouldn't, even if this design would never have worked.
User posted image: <a target='_blank' href='http://tattooindia.net/images/tattoo_machine_by_zombiebe10u.jpg'>User posted image</a>
Good reference BDW,
The first thing I thought was how would you get the torque required to turn a crankshaft! It makes sense for high RPM, low torque, but do you agree that moving say a car with that idea would require way too much coil to move?
Peace,
Ron
QUOTE (Ron+Mar 26 2008, 11:48 AM)
Good reference BDW,
The first thing I thought was how would you get the torque required to turn a crankshaft! It makes sense for high RPM, low torque, but do you agree that moving say a car with that idea would require way too much coil to move?
Peace,
Ron
You're absolutely right. That's why there's so few pure electric cars. The kind of transmission needed to convert the high RPMs of an electric motor to the high torque of an internal combustion motor is incredibly heavy, inefficient and bulky. That's why hybrids are so cool. They have an IC motor that provides the torque needed to get the car moving, then shut it off and keep the car moving along with the electric motors.
The first thing I thought was how would you get the torque required to turn a crankshaft! It makes sense for high RPM, low torque, but do you agree that moving say a car with that idea would require way too much coil to move?
Peace,
Ron
You're absolutely right. That's why there's so few pure electric cars. The kind of transmission needed to convert the high RPMs of an electric motor to the high torque of an internal combustion motor is incredibly heavy, inefficient and bulky. That's why hybrids are so cool. They have an IC motor that provides the torque needed to get the car moving, then shut it off and keep the car moving along with the electric motors.
It's hard to picture what your describing. However the typical piston engine has been replaced quite some time ago. It just hasn't been replaced in cars and trucks. The replacement is the turbine engine (jet engine) which replaced the piston engines in aircraft. Placing a scaled down variation of the turbine engine into a car/truck would work very well. No pistons at all. The thrusting power can be used to run a turbine which in turn can power a high horsepower electric motor. Combine that with the torque of the shaft in the engine itself and you would have no problem moving a wheeled vehicle. Tuned well and it wouldn't even consume any more fuel than a piston engine.
The "Electromagnetic Oscillating Engine" Paul drew up would be problematic as is. The rapid accelerating and decelerating of the magnetic mass at the end of the vertical rod would not only limit how fast you could run it but would create too massive of a vibration. It could very well shake itself apart. Try having the horizontal rod that turns the shaft closer to the magnetic mass at the end. This will better keep the inertia under control. I also imagine that you will have more than just one going back and forth. You will need an even number in line helping to turn the same shaft working at odds. So as one travels one way, the next will travel the other.
As for the no crankshaft claim. Anytime you convert reciprocating motion into rotary motion you will use a crank by definition. Thus the shaft that is turned by such a crank is a crankshaft.
The "Electromagnetic Oscillating Engine" Paul drew up would be problematic as is. The rapid accelerating and decelerating of the magnetic mass at the end of the vertical rod would not only limit how fast you could run it but would create too massive of a vibration. It could very well shake itself apart. Try having the horizontal rod that turns the shaft closer to the magnetic mass at the end. This will better keep the inertia under control. I also imagine that you will have more than just one going back and forth. You will need an even number in line helping to turn the same shaft working at odds. So as one travels one way, the next will travel the other.
As for the no crankshaft claim. Anytime you convert reciprocating motion into rotary motion you will use a crank by definition. Thus the shaft that is turned by such a crank is a crankshaft.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Mar 26 2008, 06:47 PM)
However the typical piston engine has been replaced quite some time ago. It just hasn't been replaced in cars and trucks. The replacement is the turbine engine (jet engine) which replaced the piston engines in aircraft.
Piston engines still operate in generators, motorcycles, pumps, lawn mowers, etc, etc, etc...
No, it really wouldn't. At least not on a large scale, with one jet and one turbine. Why do you think no-one's done this before?
Logistics. Such setups are fine for generators which don't move (see microturbines), but when you install such a complicated system in a moving vehicle that bumbs and shakes and moves, you get lots of issues, some of which can result in highly unfavorable conditions for the driver. The jet and the turbine each are fine to install on vehicles, but when you combine the two, you have lots of issues. Not to mention the fact that you'd be converting chemical energy to mechanical energy to electrical energy to mechanical energy. It's just not efficient. You're talking about a setup even less efficient than battery-fueled electric car.
Now, if you scale this system down and use a reciprocating shaft to directly produce mechanical energy instead of a turbine to produce electrical energy? Well, that's called a "Fuel-injected internal combustion engine," and it's been around for quite some time. If you DON'T use a reciprocating shaft, and instead simply turn a tubine to produce mechanical energy, you've got a "Rotary Engine."
Wikipedia - Gas Turbines for Electrical Generation (AKA Microturbines)
Wikipedia - Fuel Injection
(Admittedly, the fuel injected engine bears more resemblance to a rocket than a jet, but in this case, it's all about efficiency.)
Wikipedia - Rotary Engine
Piston engines still operate in generators, motorcycles, pumps, lawn mowers, etc, etc, etc...
QUOTE
Placing a scaled down variation of the turbine engine into a car/truck would work very well.
No, it really wouldn't. At least not on a large scale, with one jet and one turbine. Why do you think no-one's done this before?
Logistics. Such setups are fine for generators which don't move (see microturbines), but when you install such a complicated system in a moving vehicle that bumbs and shakes and moves, you get lots of issues, some of which can result in highly unfavorable conditions for the driver. The jet and the turbine each are fine to install on vehicles, but when you combine the two, you have lots of issues. Not to mention the fact that you'd be converting chemical energy to mechanical energy to electrical energy to mechanical energy. It's just not efficient. You're talking about a setup even less efficient than battery-fueled electric car.
Now, if you scale this system down and use a reciprocating shaft to directly produce mechanical energy instead of a turbine to produce electrical energy? Well, that's called a "Fuel-injected internal combustion engine," and it's been around for quite some time. If you DON'T use a reciprocating shaft, and instead simply turn a tubine to produce mechanical energy, you've got a "Rotary Engine."
Wikipedia - Gas Turbines for Electrical Generation (AKA Microturbines)
Wikipedia - Fuel Injection
(Admittedly, the fuel injected engine bears more resemblance to a rocket than a jet, but in this case, it's all about efficiency.)
Wikipedia - Rotary Engine
Yes it would actually. A turbine engine/generator setup would be far more efficient. Most piston engines have a lot of wasted energy as heat and even exhaust pressure (although certain engine configurations utilize the exhaust pressure). As the link you provided stated, a turbine/generator setup would be over 90% while I can tell you that the piston engine is not even 90% efficient.
If more efficient, why is it not being used today? The answer is simple. Money. Jet engines (even if scaled down to fit under a car's hood) would still cost more than the engines used today which means that the price of cars would be higher.
It's the reason why a lot of things are made more cheaply than they have to be. Lower prices means better sales which means more profit. Also more moving parts means more wear which means a shorter life of the engine. Again that means more profit.
Not quite.
A jet engine run impellers to compress the incoming air. These impellers move because they are attached to a shaft that spins. This shaft has torque that can be connected to an automatic/manual transmission then to the axle. That's not really any different than a piston engine. It direct chemical to mechanical. In addition to that, the hot exhaust can be used to operate a turbine to generate enough electricity to run a high horsepower motor to assist the torque from the shaft.
I didn't describe a chemical to mechanical to electrical to mechanical system. I described a chemical to mechanical system with a pneumatic to electrical to mechanical boost.
This even leaves the option for a thermal to electrical to mechanical boost as well.
Just to clarify, when I say turbine engine I am referring to a turbojet engine.
If more efficient, why is it not being used today? The answer is simple. Money. Jet engines (even if scaled down to fit under a car's hood) would still cost more than the engines used today which means that the price of cars would be higher.
It's the reason why a lot of things are made more cheaply than they have to be. Lower prices means better sales which means more profit. Also more moving parts means more wear which means a shorter life of the engine. Again that means more profit.
QUOTE
Not to mention the fact that you'd be converting chemical energy to mechanical energy to electrical energy to mechanical energy.
Not quite.
A jet engine run impellers to compress the incoming air. These impellers move because they are attached to a shaft that spins. This shaft has torque that can be connected to an automatic/manual transmission then to the axle. That's not really any different than a piston engine. It direct chemical to mechanical. In addition to that, the hot exhaust can be used to operate a turbine to generate enough electricity to run a high horsepower motor to assist the torque from the shaft.
I didn't describe a chemical to mechanical to electrical to mechanical system. I described a chemical to mechanical system with a pneumatic to electrical to mechanical boost.
This even leaves the option for a thermal to electrical to mechanical boost as well.
Just to clarify, when I say turbine engine I am referring to a turbojet engine.
I remember turbine engines used in the early 60's (I think Dodge or Plymouth). They failed quickly, 1 the high rpm engine didn't make enough torque and 2 it sucked fuel so badly that even back then at 18 cents per gal. it was unacceptable.
However today it would be better used to power a recharge generator for an electric car.
(my Electromagnetic Oscillating Engine)
As for the poor drawing I posted ,,I never have thought it would compete with an electric motor. But it is fun to discuss. Keep in mind the oscillator rod could be fixed on a center pivot and the coil packs could be powering both ends at the same time and as for vibration. if used for multi throw crank ( IE: 4 cyl) and properly balanced (timing) that may improve it some.
However today it would be better used to power a recharge generator for an electric car.
(my Electromagnetic Oscillating Engine)
As for the poor drawing I posted ,,I never have thought it would compete with an electric motor. But it is fun to discuss. Keep in mind the oscillator rod could be fixed on a center pivot and the coil packs could be powering both ends at the same time and as for vibration. if used for multi throw crank ( IE: 4 cyl) and properly balanced (timing) that may improve it some.
QUOTE
I remember turbine engines used in the early 60's (I think Dodge or Plymouth). They failed quickly, 1 the high rpm engine didn't make enough torque and 2 it sucked fuel so badly that even back then at 18 cents per gal. it was unacceptable.
Yeah, the problem there was that it was still new technology. The airliners and airforce didn't really care about fuel efficiency like the general public did. Jet engines have come a long way since then in both design and efficiency.
18 cents per gallon, I wish fuel cost that much today.
Precursor562,
>18 cents per gallon, I wish fuel cost that much today.
Yea but I was working for 94 cents per hour back then.
Did you get the impression that sevenar's design was some type of turbine?
Or were you just thinking about turbines?
>18 cents per gallon, I wish fuel cost that much today.
Yea but I was working for 94 cents per hour back then.
Did you get the impression that sevenar's design was some type of turbine?
Or were you just thinking about turbines?
It was just how he talked of a design with fewer moving parts to replace the piston engine. I thought of the turbine engine as it has fewer moving parts (if you consider the blades as a single moving entity) and was to replace the piston engine.
It just didn't fly with the general public.
I'm not sure if what I'm picturing in my mind is indeed what he is describing. I'm hoping for pictures of any kind.
It just didn't fly with the general public.
I'm not sure if what I'm picturing in my mind is indeed what he is describing. I'm hoping for pictures of any kind.
Due to point 12 of the Baez index I don't think that we will ever get those pics.
SEVENAR
Never give up, there will be thousands who await to tell you why it wont work.
Not that long ago a bicycle maker built the first prototype for Boeing's new Airbus, his name was Wright.
Today's combustion engine is a glorified steam engine and no where near as efficient.
From personal experience a belief in oneself will get you through.
Having constructed a going combustion engine that operates purely on the movement of a floating ball and a recycling hydro turbine, your work with a turbine in place of crankshaft and all the other moving bits is possible.
Don't be afraid to think outside the square, sometimes as I found it can help if you abandon that now in use as your base model, and in fact not so much rev invent the wheel consider what is the purpose of the wheel and think of other ways to do what it does, and that is makes it easier to moves things.
Never give up, there will be thousands who await to tell you why it wont work.
Not that long ago a bicycle maker built the first prototype for Boeing's new Airbus, his name was Wright.
Today's combustion engine is a glorified steam engine and no where near as efficient.
From personal experience a belief in oneself will get you through.
Having constructed a going combustion engine that operates purely on the movement of a floating ball and a recycling hydro turbine, your work with a turbine in place of crankshaft and all the other moving bits is possible.
Don't be afraid to think outside the square, sometimes as I found it can help if you abandon that now in use as your base model, and in fact not so much rev invent the wheel consider what is the purpose of the wheel and think of other ways to do what it does, and that is makes it easier to moves things.
QUOTE
Today's combustion engine is a glorified steam engine and no where near as efficient.
That's a bit much don't ya think. The only water used in a combustion engine is for cooling and it stays a liquid. Also some engines use coolant and not water or a mix.
As for the rest of your post. Hell yeah. I'm all about going against the grain as it is something that is often necessary to ensure what is right is in fact right. It also leads to things that would never have otherwise been discovered. Almost all of the great discoveries of all time were initially told that it was a 'crank idea' (or a variation there of for the times).
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.