h a l f b a k e r y
What was the question again?
idea:
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, best, random
meta:
news, help, about, links, report a problem
account:
Browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
Login
Create account.
|
|
| Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
| |
It would be a modified 2-stroke? |
|
| |
No, this would be a four-stroke. Although you could probably make a two-stroke version too. |
|
| |
Simply a matter of messing with the valve actuation system, and timing the separation of the intake and exhaust manifolds, by mechanical means. |
|
| |
How you could control intake and exhaust, without adding complex and failure-prone mechanical devices, is going to be the major problem. |
|
| |
I don't think this idea will result in greater fuel efficiency. |
|
| |
True, exhaust blowback will actually decrease efficiency, with less oxygen you will have more unburned fuel in the exhaust gases. |
|
| |
Wouldn't you have trouble with ignition timing? All that fuel-air mixture flowing over hot exhaust valves would surely lead to some nasty pre-ignition. |
|
| |
It's direct-injection, so you would only inject fuel when you wanted to have a power stroke. |
|
| |
OK sorry missed that bit. But having heated (and thus expanded) air might not be such a good thing. |
|
| |
On second thought, I don't think this
would work at all. Or if it did, it would just
be the same as a two-stroke, many of
which use the elasticity of air to control
exhaust flow. |
|
| |
After reading this again, I realized that pulse jets really have no compression phase. If this was ever a well-though-out idea, I don't remember how it worked. |
|
| |