Re: The Fluid Crankshaft Internal Combustion Engine.

rlbell.nsuid@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Jun 16, 12:44 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
rlbell.ns...@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.

It is merely a feature, not a 'loss', and it has been amply
addressedwith the addition of a flywheel.

The flywheel does not change the 4:1 ratio that it works off of
at all.
that is 4 bangs to 1 revolution.
It is a feature for "torque"
torque need not be close to that high to turn a generator.


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.

Why is it better than a conventional engine with a gearbox? The other
issue is that the reciprocating engine runs too fast for a particular
application, if the speed is actually a problem. While I am sure that
there are applications where an internal combustion engine does not
spin fast enough, I cannot think of any, offhand.

An engine with a gearbox is just more stuff that can break or
need oiling etc...
and If you want, you can also put a gearbox on this and gain
even more revs more than likely but why add gearing at all
if not necesary.

While you can get more turns out of each power, it is only by
shrinking the turbine. To get ten turns per bang, the pump must only
move a tenth of displacement with each turn. The problem is that the
losses get larger as he turbine shrinks.

"Blow-by" from tolerance clearance of the wheel is the only "loss"
that will get larger as the wheel gets bigger but that is very little loss
increase per size increase.


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.
:)

The mass is the total volume of the liquid, multiplied by its density,
plus the mass of the two pistons. The piston mass is the same, but
the fluid will greatly outmass the connecting rods of a conventional
engine.

Mass does not matter,
We are talking abotu a stationery on the ground electric production
for this engine,
It is not for a car and any auto except maybe large ocean ships
Where the mass hardly matter as long as you can make it float.
:)

Water pipes only have to deal with one way flows and water hammer is
dealt with by adding expansion chambers. Your design does not have
expansion chambers, and they would really lower the power output.

No expansion chamber is needed.
hammer effect is nothing compared to the explosion strength
of the cylinders needed already.
It will not be "pipes" of course.
;)

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.

The hydraulic clutch in an automatic transmissionis as good as it is,
only because there are no constrictions of the flow between the
impeller and the turbine. Your design has at least two constrictions,
and the larger multiplying effect you desire, the worse they become.

What constriction(s)?
The only constriction is the force needed to turn the generator wheel,.
what other constriction is there?


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.

You seemed to be giddily delighted that noone could find any flaw in
its operation. I was ointng out that it needed to actually have a
use, before you could praise it.

It has a use,
It is for producing electricity and we all love electricity.
:)

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: IC Engine Testing
    ... Looking at the piston design in the patent, I'd figure that a couple decent backyard mechanics that were living down the road from a decent wreckers yard could build up a car engine on the principle in short order. ... Given the example touted of reasearch proving bugs couldn't fly, I'll wager that the proof of concept ends up showing the same type results as the bug researchers had. ...
    (uk.rec.models.engineering)
  • Re: IC Engine Testing
    ... Looking at the piston design in the patent, I'd figure that a couple decent backyard mechanics that were living down the road from a decent wreckers yard could build up a car engine on the principle in short order. ... Given the example touted of reasearch proving bugs couldn't fly, I'll wager that the proof of concept ends up showing the same type results as the bug researchers had. ...
    (uk.rec.models.engineering)
  • 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: Unusual Aircraft Engine at Monino, Russia
    ... piston can be seen in the cut-away at upper left. ... The design is usually called a barrel engine. ... what Russian a/c was to use this type of engine? ...
    (rec.aviation.military)
  • Jewish inventor-genius, Dean Kamen, going Sterling Green.
    ... year-old engine nobody else thinks can work. ... But when I first meet him, Kamen takes me out to the car park at Deka ... in theory it can turn any source of heat into electricity, ... When the Segway Personal ...
    (soc.culture.german)
Quantcast