Re: The Fluid Crankshaft Internal Combustion Engine.

rlbell.nsuid@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
The first issue is that this is offered as a solution for an
unidentified problem. There is mention of the output shaft having
different frequency than the piston oscillation, but no explanation is
given for this being needed.

Oh, I am sorry,
Let me give a description of the biggest loss of energy output
of a regular 4 cyl engine.
The biggest waste is simply that for every bang of a 4 cyl,
the main crank will only turn 1/4 turn.
That means you will need 4 bangs just to turn the shaft once.
In generating high force, this is kinda OK,
but when it comes to just being needed to turn a generator,
It is a big waste of a lot of the force the bang actually creates.
In this design the single bang can turn a generator multiple
times from a single bang.
If the stroke can be long enough and fuel explosion is great
enough in pressure, it may even be able to turn the crank over
100 times compared to 1/4 revolution of the old ICE per bang.

A 4cyl at 1000 rpms needs 4000 bangs per minute.
A fluid crankshaft like this would need much less per minute
If it does 100 revs for 1 bang, we would be talking about a
gigantic savings in burned fuel per minute.
even if it does 10 revs per bang it would be better for
electrical generation.
Calculations for this engines bang per minute are under way
but of course will take a bit of time and more info on
how far pistons can be pushed in certain size bores.
Alone it will take me even longer.
That is why I posted it,
maybe people can help design it to be the best ICE ever built.

Anyone have any idea how far a piston will get pushed in a
3 in bore and 150psi compression and best fuel ratio,
and be creating the pressure on the other piston for combustion there?
so basically against 150 psi on the other side near the end
of the stroke?
That is the toughest math I see in the whole design.
:)


The amount of reciprocating mass is obscene. The fluid will posess a
huge amount of inertia.

It is not obscene really and..
It will have some inertia of course, but if it is used on the ground
for generating electricity it is not a problem at all and in fact helps
the multiple turning effect if anything.
Pipes with running water move this sort of inertia
every day in the world and handle it very well if designed to
handle the forces that are involved.
:)

Hydraulic drives are notoriously innefficient.

Right now almost every automatic transmission is
a basically a hydraulic drive.
When thought out correctly, they do not lose too much
efficiency at all.
And the design I have is not even for driving a car at all.
but could be adapted for use in a hybrid but would
not be as efficient as it would as a stationary power generator
of electricity.

It is not a good design for its lack of flaws, it is a bad design for
its lack of merit.

Lack of flaws?
I thought that is what you build stuff to have.
:)

lack of merit?
Blah!

Hydraulic drives are inefficient

Then we should get rid of automatic transmissions huh?
Ya sure..
It has nothing like the loss an automatic transmission
does have.
It is not "spinning and doing nothing"..ever.
:)
anyways, thanks for the thoughts, I hope I clarified some
of the functions of the design a bit more an why they are
more efficient for generation of electricity than a regular ICE
is of today.

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman







.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Fluid Crankshaft Internal Combustion Engine.
    ... different frequency than the piston oscillation, ... If it does 100 revs for 1 bang, we would be talking about a ... Why is it better than a conventional engine with a gearbox? ... That is the toughest math I see in the whole design. ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: The Fluid Crankshaft Internal Combustion Engine.
    ... allows the piston to move far enough to extract that energy. ... constraints imposed by where the engine will be set up and what it is ... So you want to ignore the "bang" that is still comign out of ... and then design something that uses those figures to fit the ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: The Reasonable Minority
    ... >I have yet to see any scientific explanation for Intelligent Design. ... Now if you asked for _evidence_, ... "Theoretical support for the Big Bang comes from mathematical models, ... which states that the properties of the universe should be ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Reasonable Minority
    ... >I have yet to see any scientific explanation for Intelligent Design. ... These models show that a Big Bang is ... which states that the properties of the universe should be ... Combined with the evidence that observers ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Reasonable Minority
    ... >I have yet to see any scientific explanation for Intelligent Design. ... Now if you asked for _evidence_, ... "Theoretical support for the Big Bang comes from mathematical models, ... which states that the properties of the universe should be ...
    (talk.origins)