h a l f b a k e r yYeah, I wish it made more sense too.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, best, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
I rather like the idea of compression ignition. In my Linear Piston idea, this was acheived by having one piston on each end of the rack. The one piston would continue to push the rack until it compressed the gas enough on the other side to make it ignite and repeat the effect. The problem was that there
would almost certainly be gear lash from the gears on the rack to transmit the power, and the engine would probably last a matter of minutes. So I thought of something different.
For starters, the engine is a two cylinder two-stroke. Instead of a crankshaft, a rocker arm-type thing is used. There are two pistons side by side. The connecting rod of the left piston is mounted to the left side of the "rocker arm" on a bearing that allows it to turn somwhat, and likewise of the connecting rod on the right piston. When the "rocker arm" is completely level, both pistons are in mid-cycle. When it is turned up on the right, the right piston is at TDC. When it is turned up on the left, the left piston is at TDC. So that's pretty much how the engine opperates, it sort of wiggles.
But unlike a normal rocker arm, the axle is connected to the rocker arm itself, so that every action turns the axle. The only thing is that the axle is constantly changing direction everytime the other piston fires. But this is remedied the same way it was on the Linear Piston Engine: two freewheels. On one side it transfers power when the axle spins clockwise, on the other it transfers power when the axle spins counter-clockwise. The gearing to mesh these two freewheels together would be complicated but do-able.
So now the advantages. Well, there would be no large and heavy lump of metal known as the crankshaft. There would be no side-loading on the cylinder walls due to the changing angle of the connecting rod (since there are bearings on the "rocker arm" itself, the connecting rods can be fixed to the piston. But the biggest advantage is that the combusting piston will continue to push the opposing piston up until the charge combusts. This means a fuel like alcohol can be used for a very clean burning yet very fuel efficient engine.
Commer TS3
http://www.oldengin...l/technical/TS3.htm Not quite the same thing at all, but you might enjoy it if you're thinking that way [Ned_Ludd, Nov 12 2007]
Pivotal Engines
http://www.pivotale....com/solutions.html [Klaatu, Nov 12 2007]
The H2 version
http://www.greencar...ivotal_piston_.html [Klaatu, Nov 12 2007]
Illustration
http://i210.photobu...fan07/drawing-1.jpg A little late I s'pose [acurafan07, Nov 15 2007, last modified Nov 19 2007]
[link]
|
| |
There is an engine similar to this but I can't remember the name so can't find it. |
|
| |
// no large and heavy lump of metal known as the crankshaft // Just large and heavy lumps of metal known as the rocker arm, freewheels and drive shaft. |
|
| |
// no side-loading on the cylinder walls // A crank arm also has bearings. The rocker arm is still travelling in a curve, it is only a bigger shallower curve if the rocker arm is longer. |
|
| |
Completely baked as a "pivotal Engine" <link> |
|
| |
The Pivotal engine doesn't seem to be the same thing at all, either. |
|
| |
Not that I'd call the Pivotal baked. It belongs here, among the sillier ideas... |
|
| |
I agree, the Pivotal Engine doesn't sound much like this at all; i'll try to get an illustration up soon. |
|
| |
My engine would be loud, un-smooth, not much more efficient in power delivery than a crankshaft design, and a bloody headache to try and start and stop (if it is not stopped correctly the piston would smash right through the head). The only thing it really has going for it is that variable stroke. Unlike any other engine I've ever heard of, the piston will compress the gas until it ignites. None of the injecting fuel when it needs to combust, forcing it to mix with the air on the spot and making combustion less efficient, or having a low compression ratio (and therefore lower combustion efficiency) to prevent the fuel from igniting before the crankshaft will allow it to go down. This would, in my mind, be the best and most efficient method of combustion. |
|
| |
Thanks [Ned_Ludd] for the link, I'd seen some opposed piston engines before, but none that actually linked the pistons through a single true crankshaft. Neat. |
|
| |