|11-27-2019 08:39 PM|
Well, after developing my historical program in Fortan in 1982, and choosing the right form of printing, despite the fact that most of the crankshaft revolutions were every 10 degrees of orot, I received as many as 100 tables as per the attached drawings. Unfortunately, even the degree of compression was not calculated by the program and I had to manually calculate on the calculator, which was not difficult, because I had the maximum and minimum volume of the system calculated by the computer. I entered in this table with a pen this degree of compression, and it turned out that I have a hundred different degrees of compression depending on the position of the crankshafts between them ..
And here the very important advantage of this engine turned out, that when we change the angle between the shafts, also we will have in the ENTIRE engine, regardless of the number of cylinders, this change available for energy ... despite a very simple device for changing this angle between the shafts. From these tables it appeared that the range of variable compression ratio obtainable is from 7 to 27, i.e. in a very wide range, generally not needed for good operation of the engine with variable compression ratio. And all this is geometric data that is not subject to any discussion. ..
It surprised me a bit, but at least, very roughly, I could decide what settings I could take into account. And I had to decide, but not the computer, which only showed me only the options available .. And my decision was very important, because I had to choose the settings family but for one type of crankshaft for camshafts .. Because if I wanted more setting options for testing, I would have to make 10 different crankshafts with different angles between cranks. But that would be too expensive, and I had to stop at one .. But for research purposes, probably these 10 different shafts should be done, Because not only pure geometry, but also practice, can have a big impact on engine efficiency, for these different settings. .But I did one engine ...
Well, these are just tables from the computer, but I also had to decide on the timing angles that this system should have ... Initially, I assumed 3 versions of these angles, namely 290 degrees, 320 degrees and 360 degrees of rotation of the main crankshaft .. I wanted to start with the smallest light of 290 degrees, and possibly later, be able to saw through the windows, move to the next, with a larger angle - that is, the height of the window .. Because I guilty burned out, I would have to guilty with 3 head blocks available ..
But life plays tricks, and immediately, inadvertently, I sawed the windows in the finished block of the head to the height of the largest angle, i.e. 360 degrees .. Well, it had to stay, because after all, it would be impossible to weld it ...
But it turned out that such a large angle of 360 degrees is very desirable due to the fairly sharp occurrence of gasodynamic phenomena. The rate of occurrence of these phenomena is also associated with the fact that opening and closing the inlet and outlet windows is at the maximum speed of the pistons, which causes very rapid opening and closing of windows, much quicker than that of a classic motor. Therefore, gasodynamic phenomena are several times greater ... And it turned out that with such a large angle of 360 degrees, they are so large that they can triple the actual amount of air sucked .. And hence this unexpected power ...
But these settings, in a computer simulation, are hard to describe properly, and yet the decisions and experience of engine builders will still be the most important.
And of course these are the only settings described, but after all, there may be settings for different shafts, different piston diameters, different connecting rod lengths, different cylinder distances, and different torques. However, having this data or dependency graphs available, it is only the engineer, the constructor, who will be able to make truly rational decisions. The computer can only help him significantly, because we are going to the very unexplored field of engine design.
I already have a bit of experience, and I determined it this way, for today, I could design an engine for Formula One, which would win races, in accordance with the applicable restrictions on the displacement of the main piston, and it would be diesel ..
So I think that it is really worth going this way, despite the fact that it seems very unknown for now ... But I have shared a few things to make it easier ...
My histoc table
Here is a film showing how huge the inlet windows are to a 300 ccm capacity cylinder
|11-18-2019 06:45 PM|
|Realsquash||I had an idea for an engine that runs on unicorn farts, but I couldn't convince anyone to just design and test it for me. Fuckers just ignored my wealth of knowledge and brilliant documentation.|
|11-18-2019 05:57 PM|
Wow, I'm delighted that someone finally understands what is going on in my engine and proposes a substantive discussion when standing on the ground ..
So yes: I designed my second prototype so that the engine speaks for me .. I have some experience in motor sport, and I thought that I would make a prototype, put it in the car, go to the races and show whose engine was really better ... this my number 77
14 Rajd Warszawski „Polskiego Fiata”. 4 eliminacja. 5-7.11.1976r.
I planned that I could devote a year to it, because I didn't have my musical work, because in Poland martial law was settled and it was impossible to move between cities ... So I had time to build it ... I made a computer program and made a prototype, which unfortunately lasted two years .. And of course I did not protect myself from the first errors, and because of this the prototype was dismantled and folded several times, which already overloaded its constructions ..
I assumed that if I get 100 HP at 10,000 RPM, I would be able to win this class of car race ..
But here is another big surprise ... It turned out that my engine has 250 hp at these 10,000 RPM. I was very surprised, but I had to accept this reality .. it all lasted another year .. I knew that with such power, and already strained design, the engine could not last from one minute from the old in the race, because it is demolished on a very poor basis Fiat 126, which factory has 23 HP .. so 100 HP for a moment would probably last, but 250 I knew it was not built enough ...
I did not want more experts with measurements, but I have a ready engine to demonstrate his work, which is also extremely fascinating ... I just couldn't afford to repeat these 2 years of independent production ...
regarding this Solid Works, I also see that it is unfortunately not enough .. for such serious work ..
I think you should make such a program available in the Cloud, which will use a good hardware base and gradually improve .. Anyway, such a version of Solid Works, under the name ONSHAPE, we have available in the Internet ..
It can also be distributed on special cards, even with appropriate FPGAs on board. The program does not have to draw pistons and shafts nicely, it is enough to provide us with good figures regarding the dimensions and position of these parts. Then every engineer, today knows put the dimensions in your favorite Solid Works, PTC or Catia program ...
Now the question is is it worth it? Of course, yes ... that's why I can persuade professionals to convince to the project ... and only gives reliable data ...
in my opinion, the power at 10,000RPM can be achieved 400KM from each liter of the displacement of the main piston .. of course in the naturally aspirated version I say .. And here the size and weight of the engine is unrivaled. They add such features as easy to implement variable compression ratio and a few more advantages, possible REAL fuel consumption by HALF ..
Super exhaust purity, because NOx is not produced, as in the engine with counter-pistons eg. Achates ...
Extremely simple and reliable construction, not requiring special materials, possible to series production with small overlaps, not requiring any technical service during the whole life of the engine ..
Here are the most basic benefits it provides, and they are undisputed FOR DEVELOPMENT ..
Then, all these matters should be taught at universities, without a period of unnecessary caution in this case.
That's it for tonight ..
|11-17-2019 07:55 PM|
This has been fascinating.
Not only the design, but all the reaction - qualified and not.
This is also a good example of how good ideas are often slaughtered by hyenas of thought. Sir Isaac Newton had his share, too. Experts and sycophants, alike.
My takeaway is simple pragmatism.
Okay, it runs. Sure. It runs. You've got one running. Fine. Now what? Lots of designs can run. Now what?
The Stirling Engine runs. Now what? It was the next big thing, but it turned out being a niche powerplant hardly above a lab experiment. But it runs and does some stuff that no one else can. But then, it can't do other stuff everyone else can.
So what does this Feliks Engine do? Because that's all anyone cares about. What does it do so well that it's worth my time to consider it over any conventional Otto, Diesel, or Wankel Cycle engine? Okay, sure it runs. No argument. But what does it do?
Because before any claims are made, data must be shown. Sure, everyone builds a multi-physics simulation before running cutter on metal. But that's not data. That's risk mitigation. We still build the product and test it to death, several times over. Then go back and correlate data to simulation and see if there's anything else to extrapolate.
[For the record, I do a lot of FEA work and Solidworks Flow products are middling software at-best; suitable for marketing displays and occasional systems with known components. Entirely useless for a job like this.]
Do these engines last longer? Run cooler? Take more abuse? Better power-to-weight?
A tremendous amount of piston engine knowledge is centered around somewhat arbitrary regulations imposed on the technology. Likewise, the legal team is always nearby. So even after all the longevity and abuse data is known, the emissions, reliability, and failure scenarios also have to be understood.
THEN, once all that is done, a good engine decision can be made. 98% of the time, the Feliks Engine won't be the choice simply because that's just how the world is. But maybe, for that 1 or 2% of the time, it might be the greatest thing ever - undoubtedly beyond our purview on this list. But all the above work has to be done first, IMO.
I for one congratulate you, Feliks, on your progress thus far. Most of the members here have likewise been congratulatory and have shown it by being been patient and engaged. It's an interesting and possibly profound idea that might have significant implications that many will emulate.
Or it might be a flop.
But most likely, it'll be somewhere in-between. But rather than waste your time defending it around here, maybe it's time to simply do whatever it takes to move some serious metal and make some more engines. Difficult, yes. Of course it is. Hey, all the easy stuff has been done since long ago.
Let your engines do your talking. All you're gonna do by talking about it is frustrate the knowledgeable, enrage the ignorant, and attract heckling.
But I'm glad you told us about it. I'm really hoping something comes of this just because it's time for things to be less-stale than powerplant designs have become.
|11-17-2019 03:04 PM|
And here, as if someone wants to calculate the displacement of a new engine ... and thus everything you need then, is different from the current engine ..
and the first weld, which you will not see on the animation ... that the minimum volume of the combustion chamber is 370 degrees of rotation of the main crankshaft ..
|11-16-2019 02:38 PM|
flow simulation programs are indeed expensive. here such Ricardo programs and they are for about $ 40,000 ... From his point of view they are useless in this form, as well as not 75% of knowledge about old engines in books .. But 75% of knowledge must replace other knowledge, a new one , with a new type of 4 stroke engine and it must have a minimum size of 75%, and even more .. Well, and such software could cost those $ 100,000, and be bought by 100 companies that produce engines ..
And here you are right, that at least the grant is due ... But I think something else, that it would be necessary to open a new faculty at the Universities, teaching this new engine .. But here is the problem that would pass by lecturing them .. I have I am already 69 years old, and for 5 years I have had a serious illness, acquired from high stress. Myasthenia gravis
But maybe I could still, somehow record on video lectures that could be disseminated by lecturers in these faculties ... I am even very surprised that today I could write so much text ... In Poland it is no chance , because the professors are still from giving previous parties, and further Polish universities in about 500 places in world rankings .. even I help myself, they do it soyly, with mistakes .. Here is the animation of my engine, drawn in PTC by a student graduation, but with a mistake, crypt. - twice too small stroke of the upper crankshaft and in the description also a few errors and simplifications (on the subject of displacement), but he thought at the end that he could not consult me because has the support of the "party" .. The rest of Poland is now no longer producing any four-stroke engine of Polish design ..
strange that you write that you can't get to my excell. here is a screenshot from my site where you can save it and they also files .. I also sent a link here in the forum directly to this file ..
But if it is not, then after writing an e-mail to my e-mail with the note "wants", I will always send anyone for free ..
Here, also from 2005, such a text as it was for publication in a scientific journal, but "something" disappears along the way ... it can now be disseminated and published as such an initial knowledge base.
The most important thing is that I have a working prototype of this engine, for demonstration ..
|11-16-2019 08:38 AM|
2) The airflow needs specialized software (like FLOW-3D) and I can't speak to calculating the "gas forces, torques", but I know for a fact that SolidWorks (or Pro-E or CATIA) can handle the basic physical engine modeling. I could definitely "build" the complete working assembly in SolidWorks if it can be built in reality.
SolidWorks can handle modeling all of the engine components (if you can actually make the part, I know I can model it) and I believe you know that part. What you may not know is that all the components can be put into an assembly model with 100% accurate physical mating relationships (i.e., components can only be moved within their actual degrees of freedom, and moving one component will move all the other components exactly as they would move on a physically built engine).
"cylinder diameters, connecting rod lengths, strokes, cylinder spacing, window height, piston height" all can be modeled parametrically (i.e., dimensions driven by equations - update the value in the table and the model will update). Seriously: that shit is all possible for someone at my level to do, and "easy" for a full-on CAD guru. Times have changed radically in the last 5-10 years.
3) I wasn't proposing looking at every thousandth of a degree, merely pointing out that it's entirely possible on a modern high-end desktop computer with commercially available CAD software.
4) Yes, I've looked your Excel file - I honestly have no interest in it. I would prefer to model it in SolidWorks and visualize all the relationships while taking measurements rather than verify that your Excel is not miscalculating anything. So, with all due respect, fuck your Excel file
5) Bullshit. I don't know what software would be best to simulate your engine running under power (though I suspect [email protected] does), but as a cycling air pump, I know that FLOW-3D and similar software can handle it on a high-end desktop computer. Now, the proper seat of FLOW-3D is tens of thousands of dollars, so I suggest finding a friend in industry or a college with access to good flow simulation software and asking for help. If you're not just jerking off, go partner with a university to apply for a grant to research your great idea.
You're either out of touch with the abilities of current software technology or you're bullshitting.
|11-16-2019 07:51 AM|
But only the angle on the piston small is fantastic about 70 degrees after the external turn .. And nothing is the piston has the smallest surface ... .. because thanks to this, however, the greatest torque is added ..
that's why this cad computer simulation will have a lot of difficulty. but necessary ..
|11-16-2019 07:09 AM|
|[email protected]||370 degrees? That IS amazing!|
|11-16-2019 06:19 AM|
So some to your points, answers ...
Ad.1. Of course, but I'm still not sure if such a project that they are able to make all possible variables ..
Ad.2. But of course .. Only because of these many possible settings and a large number of combinations, and additionally it is all to the third power, because we have like 3 unreliable systems, the number of these possible solutions reaches BILLIONS, and of course without a computer it is not it is possible to find out about all these most favorable parameters .. Nawek sometime in 2005, I asked for access to a computer that also solves simulations of atomic weapons ...
and this is only about very basic matters, such as cylinder diameters, connecting rod lengths, strokes, cylinder spacing, window height, piston height, gas forces, torques, and all in mutual dependence ... and it should be a CAD program similar to Solid Works, only special for this engine .. Well, it could be a special overlay for Solid Works, for example, such as for molds (but it's much more complicated).
ad 3. of course, it is possible, but I think that accuracy of one degree would practically be sufficient, because with such large divisions, it could have a problem with computer performance .. fortunately, this is not a cam roller cam and there is no need for such a large accuracy .. but you can make it look nice,
at, 4. Well, it shows my simple program in EXCEL. it even shows that the minimum chamber volume is not in 360 degrees of crankshaft rotation but in 370 degrees .. (!!)
Ad.5, You can certainly simulate, but all these computer simulations of the flow, do not show exactly what and how, because they do not take into account all gas phenomena, which have an increased role here, and are dependent on additional external elements. well I was wrong (but it turned out in favor) regarding the estimation of this flow, up to 3 times ..
Well ... how can you find the weather here, who could write such a CAD? Of course, I serve my experiences and thoughts ... And I hope that if such a CAD was already created, many manufacturers would already be able to design such an engine, because they drill three holes in a piece of iron, everyone can, provided they know where and how ..
here is a screenshot of my EXCEL program screen and a link to it again
|11-16-2019 02:42 AM|
|11-15-2019 11:35 PM|
If you want to prove your design, find someone with access to decent CAD and flow simulation software.
It's not simple, but "it's not rocket science" - work smarter, not harder
You've been jerking off in this thread for years - shit or get off the pot already..
|11-15-2019 08:30 PM|
|11-15-2019 07:30 PM|
|11-15-2019 02:57 PM|
On the shaft, I like to stick with myself for now, and I will not be easy to buy ... for that I can publish something again ...
First of all, as I did in 1981, unfortunately there were no computers and excel in every home ... .. And what [email protected] seems simple and only multiplied by 3, can and is, provided that ... ... you know the angular ratio between these 3 pistons exactly ... it's just about the swept volume ... because when it comes to their exact paths to know where to cut the inlet and outlet windows, it's more complicated, taking into account this angular ratio between the 3 pistons ..... so it's as easy as you suggest and you wish, it's not ... no, but I had to use a computer, because there is no program in the books to write it, write it in Fortran and give it to the Punched Card to eat the computer .. Well, what turned out - but with different piston angular settings, we have different levels of compression, which your books do not write about ... And here begins the start of completely new books ..
Of course, I also came up with this simple idea, how can I do this software in Excel and as freeware has been available for download from my site for 15 years ... on my page. But, after all, such a professional as [email protected] is not interested, because he read a few books available in the library from the last century ... and still makes me look at such nonsense ... here is this chart of variable degree of compression and download zziped Excel, with four tabs of explanations ..
|11-15-2019 11:47 AM|
|11-15-2019 10:49 AM|
You'll use the equation 3 times. Once for each piston, and the top pistons will use some offset+theta/2 for theta. Multiply the surface area of the piston by the stroke, sum them together paying attention to signs, and you can plot the displacement from 1 to 720 degrees. Plotting in Excel will work fine if you don't want to do the calculus to find the min and max. Find the difference in the maxima and minima of the instantaneous volume and you've got total displacement. You can also use this model to get compression and expansion ratios and other interesting info.
TLDR is that you'd be finding the volume trace for 3 different engines, time them correctly to your main crankshaft, adding them together, and finding the min and max of the sum.
I would think you could do this in GTPower pretty quickly if you have access to it.
|11-15-2019 10:28 AM|
Anyway, at near zero RPM the cam is going to have spots that it feels difficult to turn because you are going to have to apply torque to push against the springs to open them up. On the closing side of the lobe you get most of that energy back. Spinning the engine over at nearly zero RPM by hand it isn't going to be possible to separate the torque from opening/closing valves and friction. Of course there is some friction in a valve train, that FMEP plot you posted (yet discounted) is a good start to seeing where parasitic losses go, in general. But even with a DOHC engine there is no where near the friction you are thinking there is based on that youtube video of the IVCT ecoboost 3.5 (I think that's the engine anyway, if it is I've got a pretty intimate relationship with that engine, in fact it's what I used for a lot of my masters work).
What you should look at on that plot is how much friction is lost to the shortblock parts (piston, crank,rods, rings, windage, etc.) and you are talking about doubling/tripping these losses for no gain.
If valve trains lost as much energy you are implying they do, then a traditional piston ported two stroke would have astounding BSFC numbers.
|11-15-2019 04:14 AM|
Here, I remember this video with an American engine
And here are two new ones that will allow you to learn something "not very cultural, pseudo professionals" ..
Here is another film showing how lightly the crank mechanism with pistons turns the hand
And here in 7.48 time, how hard it is to turn the timing gear ... They will not overturn the rack. And you can see for yourself the magnitude of this force, while replacing spark plugs try to rotate the engine so lightly. then certainly there will be no compression.
in 8.50, is just starting to mount spark plugs, so there was no compression...
|11-14-2019 09:33 PM|
Congratulations, I guess.
|11-14-2019 09:25 PM|
Fuck you because I proved your ridiculous comparison of my engine to engine, not my doctoral dissertation on Atkinson 1882 ..
|11-14-2019 07:30 PM|
|11-14-2019 07:27 PM|
EDIT: wait, is it not his? OK, fuck that guy
|11-14-2019 05:51 PM|
|11-14-2019 05:14 PM|
You quoted the bullshitting part of my post, but not the difficult part:
Try addressing that^ or, more importantly, address the technical aspects of what [email protected] took time to type out for you. I don't know him at all, but I've read enough on Pirate to know that you should take his engine performance feedback seriously. It appears he is giving you the insight of an industry veteran and you are the example of
Or not - this is just another bullshit thread in Chit Chat, after all
|This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|