Analyzing The Split Piston Engine in 3D. 🤯 Dual Cycle D // 2 and 4 Strokes Combined // 3D Animation
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 дек 2024
- In this video we see how the dual cycle engine works, or D cycle, which has already been tested in a Ford Fiesta and in a US military truck.
This engine combines the advantages of a 2 and 4 stroke engine, making it very powerful and economical. Let's see what are its advantages and disadvantages!
#Dcycle #engine #repairman22 #power #turbo #speed #ford #yanengines
#car #cars #dual #cycle #3danimation #3d #animation
Normally a piston completes an up-down movement in 360 degrees. With this setup the top of the piston has an additional up-down movement in approx 60 degrees. So with the engine running at just above idle at 1000rpm this piston top will be moving back and forth as quickly as if it were 6000rpm on a conventional engine. It won't be able to rev up without *enormous* forces and consequent breakages to contend with.
Typical redline limits are often due to valve float and we have conventional engines that have a redline of 12,000 rpm. So the lighter/reduced mass piston that isn't under load - no power stroke - theoretically should be fine.
i agree that the redline would be lower- the crown would have to accelerate so fast even if it it pretty light it would still produce enormous forces. you may call these secondary primary forces, which means more balancing and forces.
@@killer2600 the problem isn't the mass, is the mean velocity of the Piston. Above 25m/s of mean velocity the oil film just won't be able to form until the Piston rings pass again on the cylinder walls. In a conventional 4 stroke, that'd be 9400rpm with 80mm of stroke. That's insane already. But as already stated, if you put the crown Piston on a smaller windownof time, its speed will but a lot higher. Without considering the forces like you sad, even if it's very light.
And yes, there are modified engines with higher mean piston speed, but the wear is guaranteed and won't have a long life span.
This honestly looks pretty viable for low revving engines. I can recall one old model diesel that has an idle RPM of around 500, it could work a treat in an engine like that.
@@LM_Camssounds like a wet dream for Ford engineers
Those bits of metal banging together will be quite spectacular.
Feel like that cam pushing the piston back up will have some massive wear with such a big leverage and pushing the piston up so quick.
The ball bearing should help with that.
It could still have useful applications, where high speed is not a requirement; like water pumps, or other engines that spend most of their time doing "slow-but-steady" jobs over a long period of time. You point is valid, though, and will have to be considered going forward, if this engine is to replace a normal piston engine in vehicles used for personal or general freight transportation (i.e. cars & 18 wheel highway trucks.)
@paulhollier6382
Yeah, maybe like a single piston range extender
@@24681359Davidjust adds a failure point and a shit one to fix.
Although the piston moves faster during part of the cycle, during this period the piston is not loaded significantly as it only exhausts the spent gases and pulls in the fresh air. It is only when the main cylinder rod is engaged that the piston is under the heavy load of compression and expansion!
It may last longer than expected, but keeping revolution speed lower should extend life.
Cool idea but adding so much complexity to an engine is rarely worth it. Simplicity is king
This is true of all engineering, and is the end goal - "do more, and with less".
From the writings of Golden Age of Science Fiction author, Robert A. Heinlein's classic novel, The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress:
"How does one design an electric motor? Would you attach a bathtub to it, simply because one was available? Would a bouquet of flowers help? A heap of rocks? No, you would use just those elements necessary to its purpose and make it no larger than needed--and you would incorporate safety factors. Function controls design."
Yeah i was thinking this engine looks like a maintenance and repair nightmare.
Pretty much, plus don’t fix what isn’t broke.
@apollo7557
It's still nice that they're trying.
Modern engines are more complex. Simplicity is nice, but you don’t get more with less when it comes to engine innovation. VW Beetle engines are nice and simple, but nobody is going to go back to using those engines.
Making a 4 stroke combust twice as often is a good idea, theres a reason 2 strokes and Wankels have such good power to weight and power to displacement ratios.
But with all of the added parts, the friction and intertia losses would sadly reduce those gains again.
This thing bangs twice as often but only gets 20% more power. That doesn't sound efficient to me.
@@WeighedWilson tru, frictions is a bitch
@@WeighedWilson It does not bang twice. It has limits on revolutions. It achieves characteristic of two-stroke engine by different way to a certain extent.
just use the second power stroke to power accessories
Wankel engines have a calamitous efficiency and specific power !
Just big displacement in low volume.
Excellent video. My gut tells me this wouldn’t last in the long term. You’ve basically built piston slap into the system. With it firing like a 2 stroke it’s going to generate heat like a two stroke. I reckon it will make good power. But I don’t see it lasting 200,000 miles without expensive maintenance inbetween.
TBQH the entire video I was thinking that the crown piston wouldn't be very eager to move down on its own, which you addressed in disadvantage #11, including a desmo-like solution. Oh well, it seems that the standard 4-stroke Otto-cycle engine sits really in the Goldilocks zone for what regards complexity and performance/efficiency. With a Wankel or 2-stroke you get simplicity and performance, but not efficiency. With complex post-Otto designs you get better efficiency and power at the cost of complexity. Otto is just about good enough in all three departments.
true
@@lurch789 because 2 strokes aren't as efficient as 4 strokes, so if you really care for mpg, why bother?
@Lurch Even 2-strokes with separate oilers burn _some_ oil by design. Maybe less than agas-oil mix system, but still more than any 4-stroke. They even managed to release a few Euro 2 compliant scooters, but it's doubtful they could have gone much beyond that. But I wasn't discussing emissions in the first place, only efficiency. But since you brought it up... 2-strokes have higher specific power, but lower thermodynamic efficiency, and that in that sense they also have higher emissions due to higher consumption, even if you manage to avoid burning oil altogether.
I see a lot of added complexity and points of failure. It looks great on paper, and for very short term ownership I bet it works great. I bet I won't see too many of them with 300k miles on the odometer.
Another Wankel effect. Interesting.
fits well to the in-oil-running timing belt of the normal EcoBoost Engines..
Truck engines need to last 1 million between rebuilds
@@PD-yd3fr I need my work van to last 1 million.
Finally something interesting for heavy duty low revving diesel engines. Interested to see a huge-ass naval engine with this tech.
It's hard to call the ball on this one since it needs a lot of development and materials selection/testing. I believe that the mating surface between the two pistons is going to be very difficult to achieve. I'd like to hear one of these guys running and watch hp and torque numbers on a dyno.
It’s been achieved 😂, if you refer to the multiple references of the Ford Fiesta that has one of these engines. The real problem is the US government, they don’t want anything that puts the oil industry at risk. And innovative engines do exactly that.
There are going to be major wear problems on the rings. The mean piston speed will be twice that of a conventional engine.
@JBeamGT3 the government is forcing more and more regulated MPG across all makes and models, but that would cause the oil industry to take a hit, no?
no, its not. this is stupid and anyone with even the most elementary mind should be able to see that. Dyno...lmao the piston speeds alone will destroy this thing at idle.
@@JBeamGT3 What's preventing China and other countries around the world from building these engines if they are as reliable as you imply?
Finally a good and critical video on an experimental engine
Kudos for covering the disadvantages so well
The fact that we use the design of the 4-stroke as it is for a century now without major modifications speaks for itself.
Maybe its simply that good.
For civioian use, but for military this gives more power which is more important than efficiency and parts replacement, or for other cases where the extra power and thus cost to maintain/repair is worth the work it will do for you while keeping things small in size, a CBA would have to be done comparing it to conventional engine that is larger but delivers same power
Yes, but the attitude of we can’t improve anything ignores the fact that the four cycle engine has been improved greatly over the past hundred years.
Or we follow the herd ...
A turbocharger provides the same kind of increase in power without all the additional wear surfaces.
A modern two stroke uses direct injection which avoids the oil burning, and you can avoid it completely with a blower (detroit diesel) or even a turbocharger if you have a way to start it a blower or saved air pressure.
that's that!
An incredibly complex solution to a fairly simple problem. as you state the modern two stroke designs with electronic fuel injection, closed sump lubrication and and controlled blown induction, produce an engine with fewer moving parts and simpler construction, however it's good to see that the Heath Robinson approach to engineering isn't dead yet. 😂😂
Now give the dual cycle engine a turbo.
This is the problem with engineers: They never stop engineering
This 'problem' is also how your modern 4 cylinder sedan can put out 200+ hp even while getting choked off by emissions standards.
Now thats what i call a one stroke engine
I would love to see this idea with a more realistic less aggressive lobe on the crown piston
The bearing on my 150cc camshaft rocker arm need replacing every 40k km which takes about 30minutes to be done. In that crown rod bearing needs an overhaul.
Maybe it was just me but the pro vs con ratio was definitely slanted against, I hope decision-making isn't based solely on 20% increase in HP. Sounds like this needs more tweaking before being practical.
I see another couple of problems:
One is the lack of skirt in the crown will increase the wear on the bore. As it ovalizes, piston will go in sideways.
Second is balancing issues. It already has a secondary shaft than can be used as a counterbalancing shaft, like 3 cylinders engines already have.
I think a better solution than the spring would be replacing the entire cam concept by a linking mechanism. It is the most efficient and also prevents the piston from going rogue on the mechanism. However, that would have the most parts, not to mention a lot more points to lube. It would also need to be very precisely sinchronized or the linking mechanism would takes the entire force of the combustion stroke. Kinda similar to the Atkinson cycle tbh.
The upper piston and crown piston constantly collide with each other so those are gonna need to be changed way more often. Also the upper piston might not compress the intake gases efficiently because it has no skirts so a slight tilt will increase friction and decrease compression
A better solution in my opinion is to have compressed air (maybe supplied by a auxiliary pump) blow out the exhaust fumes right after the combustion
And at that point you don't need the piston to split and move up and down rapidly since compressed charge air does the job of forcing the exhaust out of the cylinder. So you can remove the entire mechanism, and then you get a turbo 2-stroke. Which means this whole system is just a needlessly complicated version of thereof.
I assume you mean the upper piston alone isn't compressing the EXHAUST gases because that's all it's doing. Because of the higher cylinder pressure most of the exhaust is escaping the moment the valve opens. The exhaust stroke simply keeps this up so in theory it shouldn't rock like it would during combustion, making the lack of the skirt less significant.
That said, I agree with most of your points. As it's shown, the inherent flaws are hard to ignore but the principle concept is pretty sound.
Hi, Repairman22, Thanks for your discussion on the split piston ICE. The main idea for it is the huge differences between the gas pumping exhaust and intake strokes and the heavy compression and power strokes for the ICEs. If we split these two functions the engine can run at 1/2 of the rpm for the same work otherwise it will produce 2x (actually 2.5 to 3 times torque). So the crawn section can be redesigned to run at somewhat higher speed with lighter system, since it just pump gases around. Basically, this design make an different hybrid of different kind. Other issues such as: 1. windows in the skirt is not away needed or just a litter cut is enough. 2. the cooling is much easier when stronger and thinner crown is used. 3.there is no oil leak issue if the piston rings are OK, 5. the "extra moving parts basically is the extra cylinder, i.e. i4 becomes v8 (or 2.5 to 3 time output), 6. The engines would run at half rpm, not the 1000rpm, 11. the push-down spring has the help by the the cylinder press at high rpm when the engine is loaded. The crown (piston-train) has about just a little high speed or the same depending upon what differential strokes are designed. The crown section is only to pump the gases around, which much, much lighter than the pushing the whole vehicle around.
I see all the working parts of an ordinary engine and turn a bunch more parts that need to move. More moving parts means friction and inertial resistance. I can see the belt or chain drive and the lobed kicker that pushes the piston top wearing a lot and quickly.
The idea is to remove as much parts and weight as possible resulting in more faster acceleration, more speed and smooth balanced operation.
the ratling, noise and unrealibility of such desing is remarkable
It seems to me that the piston will hammer itself into oblivion the moment that any wear changes min distance between the top and bottom part of the piston. Also the inertia forces inside the engine will be tremendous. Fuel injected two stroke is the future. Simple ,light and powerful.
Excellent video. The discussion of pro- and con- adds so much to the visuals 😃 Really sets your hard work apart from other creators
This look ridiculous but it's kind of genius.
The engine will be heavier than a normal 4 stroke, but it has potential to achieve 2 times the power at low RPMs at least. Balancing might also be a nightmare.
The thing that strikes me about this design is the number of moving parts. Yes, it is far more efficient, but at what cost? I can see maintenance issues galore here.
This looks pretty promising. Nothing too fragile.
This is brilliant and I have faith in it , providing few modifications such as; offsetting the crank , hydraulic tensioner for the ( ring piston), xtra oil galleries and better bearing for rod
I'd love to know how high they revved those test engines up, and what problems they came across out of so many potential extra problems. The two piston halves clapping eachother, the sheer amount of force being put on that arm and its tiny roller bearing, piston slap from that pancake-flat crown piston, flex in that split con rod, extra balancing issues, etc etc.
Also the gas is exerting all it's force on the piston in a fraction of it's stroke length before it is expelled, so the transfer of force to the piston is probably less efficient
I really had doubts about the title, because there are a lot of RUclips channels like "Here’s the techonology of the future!!! OMG [Emote]", also during the 3d animation at the beginning, I suspected that there was more stress on some pieces.
But as a result, I’ve really been a hundred years that you’ve been talking about these points, with executably the same skills I thought.
This video was really a good surprise, it’s exactly the guy I’m looking for.
I’ll follow you and wait patiently for your next videos.
I don't think this design would work for vehicles, due to the wider RPM band needed. The challenge with the double stroke is getting the crown piston to drop to bottom dead center on intake. In order to achieve higher RPMs, something has to bring the crown piston down hard and fast, and that is going to take a lot of force that is never returned. It would end up working like jake brakes. Additional force is required by the crown piston to expel gas, then additional force is required by the crown piston to draw gas in. Low RPM generators might be an application.
The government must come up with this one
The cam arm moves the crown piston under exhaust and intake - the easiest of the 4 strokes and so the lightest loading .. really interesting idea .. by changing the timing of the “hop” (the cam timing on the crown piston lifter arm) it would be easy to short stroke the intake (create an Atkinson cycle for better fuel economy) .. hoping development pans out !!
This could work well on a stationary diesel that aims for constant rpm like a generator but you'd have to adhere to runtime maintenance intervals or scheduled services, whichever comes first. Big diesel generators can spend a long time un-started so they need to be test started on an interval (back up generators) but they can also do constant runtime in service (locomotive).
Large boats in the other hand generally can tolerate having at least one generator out of service and ships usually double that (redundancy while one is being serviced by the ship's engineer).
Could this engine be a good candidate for "free valve" technology? Seems reasonable to me, as this would solve the cam issues completely.
Free valve alone increases power by 30 ish %
3:25 im loving the idea but that lobe on that cam wont last very long
6:00
5k miles
Fascinating ! I love things like this. Thanks for showing us.🌞
More moving parts means more points of failure, just a common rule of thumb
How high will the acceleration of that piston be? Maybe works at low revs, but never at higher revs.
I was going to say this too. It will break down after not too long due to this sharp cam producing such high stress. And the vibration would probably be high as well. Of course it is going to get more horsepower due to half the cycles, but it will surely be offset by the lower RPM and higher fail rate
Although I do not think this idea will go anywhere, I do applaud the people who divised it. I like seeing outside the box thinking and ways to improve the internal combustion engine. The light bulb did not work on its first attempt either.
Looks like the crown piston should be made of a ceramic material, to withstand the high heat problem w/o the need for extra oil to cool it. Ceramics not only withstand heat but also are insulators, preventing as much heat transfer (vs. a metal crown piston) from the combustion chamber to the crankcase.
but could it withstand the "clash" when the two parts of this one piston re-connect
It seems to be made for diesels. There the speed problem is greatly reduced, since diesels can't rev high anyway, due to the time required for diesel fuel to burn. Diesel combustion is colder than gasoline one (higher decompression of combustion gasses cools them) so solving the heating problem, direct injection works better for diesels than for gasoline engines, and blow by is less of a problem.
Gonna be some scard up cylnder walls from that crown pistion rocking like a mofo.
A supercharged direct injected 2 stroke with inlet ports in the lower cylinder walls is a MUCH more elegant solution than this abomination. It keeps the lubricating oil in the sump in the same way with 4 exhaust valves in the head for excellent exhaust scavenging. Detroit deisel had it nailed all those years ago. Imagine if you brought 2020s technology to the Detroit diesel design!
yep,
Exactly this. This engine is unnecessaryly complicated. Actual investigations were done in Europe with 2 stroke diesels and modern combustion control due to the potential it has for CO2 reduction, numbers looked good but then the diesel scandal came...
Maybe it is difficult to be realized, because of acceleration concerns and lubrication. But it is a BRILLIANT creation!!!
I see why they made a diesel version, because they rev less. I've been thinking of making a wall that helps move the gasses like this, i wouldn't have imagine f1 speeds. Interesting that it's essentially a valve :).
What I love is that you assume that the upper part of the piston will come down by itself, which at that point in the 4T cycle is impossible. It's not the atmospheric pressure that's going to make it come down; on the contrary, it's the piston that sucks the fresh gases into the engine, and there are no mechanical parts to make it come down. With a desmodromic operating principle on the cam that allows this to work, it could work, but certainly not in this configuration.
7:26 Ahh… yeah. Piston return springs are needed.
Seems like this engineer went a long way to make that joke a reality
instead of running it off the crank there should be a smaller cylinder and piston (50-100cc) that pushes the exhaust stroke arm thing in sync with the actual piston.
(no spark plug needed, just put a small channel from one of the normal cylinders to allow some hot gas in when it fires).
What if it was a 4 cylinder engine, two cylinders on 2 cycle and 2 on 4 cycle for balance. If you were to use the same crank
This engine is essentially a four stroke, but with an asymmetric motion so that the two lower-effort strokes are performed via cam instead of via crank. The intake stroke is only low effort at wide open throttle, however. On a gasoline engine, closing down the throttle would make it necessary to have a spring that's stiff enough to draw vacuum (negating some of the other advantages) or else using delayed intake closure as a means of controlling power.
( Notes for D-cycle - following are not obvious, call to discuss:
1. Most piston skirts need not be windowed.
2. Ring sections can be made of stronger thin steel just to hold rings and oil to cool.
3. The same rings stop the oil leaking.
4. The piston-train can run directly from the crankshaft.
5. Crown doesn’t run at higher speed and having Atkinson cycle. The full air intake can be provided via an air 2x pump.
6. Valves don’t run at higher speed, except for fewer cylinder engines.
7. Piston-train spring is compressed during intake. )
This may hit a roadblock: the cam/follower arrangement simply can't turn very fast before the return stroke on the piston crown starts reducing. The cam would just eject the piston crown
You don't need the second cam to lift the crown piston. You could just have the rocker arm on the second cam ride the crankshaft with a second lobe attached to the crankshaft for the rocker arm on the second cam to ride along
It would be a big cam. The return spring would be concentric on the cap rod, and a cap needed on the skirt to seat the spring. But the cap lifting lever, a high stress part, would be eliminated.
It looks like the extra power output is coming from essentially tweaking the engine to put out more power (like street racers do). As noted by others, this drastically reduces the longevity of the engine wear items. Once the design has been balanced for longevity and desired power output, then we can determine the advantage of the split piston.
The turbocharger is a good way to harness the energy dumped by the exhaust stroke to return it to the intake stroke. It is not clear to me whether this is a better solution for energy conservation than the current EcoBoost system that Ford has for the Fiesta and other engines.
Ultimately, it's a balance between power output, durability and mass.
All of that said, I would love to test this in real world conditions, with or without a turbo!😃😃
Although there are some issues with this engine design, I still like it since it is kind of like a 2-stroke engine since I love those engines and that this engine would be better than a regular 2-stroke engine. Also bhecause of the engine's design, it can be more powerful with the same displacement of a regular 4-stroke engine but unfortunately I don't think this design will come into main production since I don't think it ever had the time to shine in any production cars yet.
Még egy hiba lehetőség 🤌 gratulálok, biztosan nem fog kopogni mint az állat
One point: there is enough place to increase the mass (=thermal capacity) of the piston itself, so that point can be easily improved. But still - the main question is if we really need this technology and is it financially reasonable, not only in the development ohase but also in repairing costs.
Much respect to the people who came up with this and all the work they have done. But if you want a car to make 20% more power you dont need to reinvent the whole internal combustion engines production chain. You just make a slightly larger convetional engine.
With this said thumbs up and keep thinking outside the box. Thats how innovation is achieved 👍
In essence, this design splits the pistons into two parts:
One part (crank, camshaft, and piston skirt) that all run at same speed.
A second part (piston top) runs at twice the speed.
It is evident from the animation that the piston skirt makes its trip once every crank revolution. But the piston top makes its trip twice during that time.
So at 1000 rpm the piston skirt moves 1000 times, crank runs at 1000 rpm, and camshafts runs at 1000 (instead of 500 as in conventional engines), while the piston top moves 2000 times.
The reduction in spinning inertia (mass @ speed) is basically the source of its advantage.
However, complication & added reciprocating parts are its main enemy.
An extended test over time is needed to clearly identify pros & cons of this new design, not just building a testing sample and demonstrating that it runs.
I think the piston clashing so fast would demolish the "upper" piston in no time.
you must not think often
ChrisFix: *makes piston return springs joke
D cycle engine: "Am I a joke to you?!"
haha I remember that video. At t he beginning I was like 🤔
This definitely wouldn’t be a reliability nightmare 😅
As mentioned in the video and in comments, the accelerations and thus forces required to actuate the auxiliary piston are enormous. There’s probably a better trajectory (displacement vs time) than what’s illustrated in the video. Decades ago Mercedes Benz raced a car with a desmodromic mechanism driven by a circular cam lobe - eliminating jerk and higher order accelerations. But that mechanism had serious overlap which meant the engine could not run well at low rpm. It won races, though.
It is an interesting concept and I think it has merit. There are some kinks which need to be ironed out, but I could see this being used commercially.
Even though this seems highly unrealiable, I would still enjoy very much to see a working engine with this setup.
This will create nightmares tonight!
I imagine this added complexity and subsequent additional moving parts will add to wear and tear significantly. Interestingly though, it might be useful in race and drag engines where engines are typically rebuilt after each use.
Looks to me there are more negatives than positives, great getting more power for the same fuel consumption but the reliability could be the kicker, nobody wants the risk of catastrophic failure
This is the first time I am hearing of this technology. Great presentation! I wonder how it would do in large, slow turning applications such as Marine Diesel propulsion systems? I know most of the largest engines are already two stroke. Perhaps it would just be unnecessarily complex for any gains to be had.
That's exactly the problem with all of those modified post-Otto cycles, including Atkinson: they don't translate well to smaller displacements,/powers because of the added weight, and where weight is of no concern (like large marine diesels) they likely won't offer any significant efficiency or power gains. They only make sense in s very specific HP/weight/rpm zone occupied by economy/high efficiency passenger vehicles, and only when emissions/fuel economy goals must be met with absolute priority.
what if they did the same thing to the 5-stroke engine? could it make the 5 stroke viable?
There are so many six stroke engine types that also try to combine the benefits of 2 and 4 strokes and they need less parts like the Griffin, Färber, Bajulaz, Velozeta, NIYKADO or Crower engine. Can you show the difference? Thanks, love the channel.
Connecting rod peak load is actually at top dead centre - the tension needed to bring the piston to a screeching halt and pull it back down the barrel. Its worse on the exhaust stroke (of a 4 stroke) with little gas pressure above the piston to assist the process.
Developer: it is not durable but...
Cars manufacturers: shut up and take my money
With no skirt on the upper piston, it will want to twist and roll in the bore. I can't see it lasting very long.
perfect application for the scotch yoke
My first question is why? We had a 2 stroke engine decades ago already that didn't utilize a total loss oil system. The Detroit Diesel. It needed a supercharger to force air through the cylinder at a fraction of a bar over atmospheric (some used turbos as well in the later years to introduce true forced induction), but was a 2 stroke combustion cycle with 4 stroke valves, crankcase, and combustion chambers. Especially with direct gasoline injection and modern turbos and superchargers, this could very easily be implemented on modern gasoline engines rather than this overly complicated destined to fail design.
i feel like some form of super charger would get about the same effect with less vibration.
funky idea though.
I appreciate your analysis.
Why not just have an exhaust pump and direct injection? The exhaust pump vacuums out exhaust and makes vacuum allowing the intake and exhaust valves to open at the end of the power stroke. Every time the piston travels upward it would be a compression stroke and every downward stroke would be power.
oi! we will be having no references to antique engines made here!
"melhuish" aka "gothic oil engine". exactly that. a stepped piston, with one section creating a vacuum to scavenge the exhaust gases from the cylinder.
once again, nothing is new. peoples memories are short and books are easily removed from libraries and shelves.
@@paradiselost9946, I was thinking more along the lines of a centrifugal supercharger on the exhaust side. Rather than a whole other piston pumping. Maybe even run a compressor side, so it looks like a turbo but it's actually a supercharger that's forcing and extracting the charges.
Also they didn't have modern direct injection or materials that could handle that kind of heat for long periods of time.
I can't exactly remember something I never knew of to begin with.
@@hibs5516 lol, just saying... theres a lot of designs from a last century that have been long forgotten by all.
so your suggestion was amusing, and also intriguing as it shows the first bit of imagination regards engine design ive come across in years... sadly its already been done. doesnt mean it doesnt work, they were a successful and popular engine for 50+ years.
what could be achieved with some new thinking rather than the same old...
they didnt have turbochargers when etienne lenoir first modified a steam engine to run on "petrol" and puttered around paris in 1860... (screw benz, another myth... he was also preceded by siegfried marcus in 1880... and his car is still on display in vienna. the original one, not a replica.)
but i often wonder what may have happened if they did.
"rather than a whole other piston pumping".
keep that in mind at all times ;)
unlike the two stroke diesel, lenoir cycle doesnt require a blower to run. it also has no pumping losses.
whats a turbocharger do again?
and, well... different tack. give you something else to research if you want...
"humphrey pump".
theres a video of one running here somewhere. not great but hey, they exist. its huge, its a pumping station, but they dont _have_ to be huge...
claimed to be the most efficient of any ICE.
WWI got in the way and they were forgotten as well...
think ram pump with a carburettor and spark plug.
seem useless too... until you consider what you could do with water at high pressures in a closed loop.
@@paradiselost9946, I can probably make a protype with an old Honda D17 engine I have. I have to have a custom crank sprocket made so the cam and crank rotate the same speed. I need to make a bracket for a centrifugal supercharger transmission. I need to make an impeller shaft that can connect through the front of a turbocharger with a modified compressor housing. Use an Arduino ECU and possibly modify the crank trigger so I have double triggers for injection and ignition. Direct injection is where it'll get expensive, but the head probably can be tapped to accept the injectors.
This thing would idle at 375-400rpm
@@hibs5516 you get it. bit different but much what ive been toying over.
junkyard 4 cylinder. for some reason... really hard to find now a days. used to be dead cars everywhere...
recam for ~180 exhaust and ~30 intake. maybe variable intake. deck out for as little clearance volume as possible. it doesnt have a "compression ratio". wanna sweep all that gas out.
triple compound. thinking vz21 per cylinder to rhf4-5/pair, to a single t20 sort of thing.
compounds can hit 130 psi or better on just a pair... never seen a triple stage. outside of an actual turbine engine. whats an average pressure reading on a piston engine? 130ish... about 8:1. why bother with the "squeeze" of the fourstroke if youve already done it?! in some ways, supercharging has always left me vaguely puzzled...
turbines melt themselves if they try running those types of pressures though. can compress silly high, but cant use it...
ignition occurring immediately as intake closes, 30 atdc.
maximum pressure on crank at best time geometrically. much like desaxe without the offset.
plenty of heat wasted out the exhaust.
expanding gas in cylinder is cooling as performs work. piston extracts the best bit, leaving plenty to power turbos, delayed ignition helping here as well. no bypass air like a traditional turbine to keep temps in check. its expanded instead.
just like steam... pistons work on high pressures, turbines like them low. they did the old reciprocator compound turbine into condensor with good results. then swept the idea under the rug and yeah... history.
the swept volume has no bearing on air consumption. at idle, its got no boost, virtually no air with no throttling or pumping losses, using what little fuel is required to overcome friction.
a CSC may help... may not be necessary. the original lenoir ran fine without forced induction.
it still has a "suck" part.
an "orange cannon" shows you dont NEED compression for a good thump. you need it for the thermal efficiency.
start pumping in the fuel aka heat, boost builds, more air, more fuel, more heat...
probably throttle via the wastegates. rather than restrict flow, simply control the work being done in the turbine side of things.
thats where the arduino will be handy...
no detonation. and pushing final air temps as high as possible is actually beneficial as its heat being pushed into the air to expand, recycled, rather than dumped out of an intercooler... spontaneous ignition may be of benefit... but thats also compressor wheel destroying territory...
maybe reverse intercooler? after heater! final heat of exhaust passing through an exchange to heat air entering cylinders...
with enough heat recovery there would be times you can simply cut fuel altogether. air passing through simply cooling things down and expanding as it does so.
even your incoming pressurised charge is acting on the piston during that intake portion... no pumping losses... other than forcing gas out of the cylinder through the turbines. thats another kettle of fish, a dark art... expansion ratios and the like.
everything contrary to popular wisdom :D tradition sucks. people say the ICE is dead, but i think theyre just brainwashed, technology is at the point that it can actually do something and people are still ignorant pigs fascinated by the mundane...
all the pieces of the puzzle are there...
anyway!
i suspect a lot of lag as its more about the way a turbine runs than a piston runs. steady state genset seems a better use.
virtually no changes required to existing engines.
but then... im just getting my head around CAD and modelling another idea ive been chasing on an atkinson cycle. long exhaust, short intake & compression (modifiable to simply dwell and no compression at TDC, ties to everything above...) long expansion, with maximum combustion pressure at 30 ATDC... without "desaxe" again. and leverage gives it a nice logarithmic expansion following ideal gas laws. "murray hypocycloidal" is sort of the approach...
sigh. some of us get bogged down in life and some of us figure out how to make money by inventing "the juicero"...
ffs.
This probably would suit a diesel as a diesel will get by on low revs and already has stronger built engines that because it's built for higher compression ,ied love to see this engine built and tried out , surly it's better than electric right now because there no cheeper to run than conventional fuel if you do a lot of miles like I do
what a challenging design for mechanist.👍
What exactly forces the piston top back down after the exhaust stroke? Gravity?😅😅😅
Considera bene le forze di inerzia del pistone superiore: un collegamento desmodromico sarebbe meglio con relativa complessità.
I really like your 3D animation style, the thumbnails always catch my eye scrolling through RUclips. Do you model everything yourself? What kind of software do you use to animate and render everything?
Apart from the other issues mentioned in comments, i feel that synching the piston and it's skirt can be difficult and can easily lead to collisions.
Very interesting. Be cool to more on alternative engines 😊
The piston speed on the cam driven lobe is going to be insane. Not to mention the lobe wear. The engine would have to have a lower rpm limit.
Excellent analysis of a fascinating concept.
Please support me by pressing the like button ⬆👍
I understand! More parts to be broken 😁
It's surprising, that this concept makes more Power, even with the added Camshaft for the Piston...
It will be interesting to see where this goes and if it ever goes into production. Then, the real testing will happen. Can this engine stand up to the rigors of real people driving every day?
I bet it sounds amazing
Qué maravilla de producto! Ojalá algún día podamos hacerte llegar uno de nuestros equipos para que los evalúes así. Abrazo grande!
now is the time to talk about the infernal noise that this engine would make
So you double the power strokes, which increases the power - obviously - but you say you don't burn any aditional fuel compared to a four stroke? The math ain't mathin'.
A very intresting engine design. Right now I dont think it would be able to be sold in cars but maybe in the future when its more developed.
Timing belt: **jumps**
Engine: **fucking explodes**
Who ever came up with this doesn't know why the skirt was put there to begin with.