On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 14:45:44 +0200, Lonny
wrote:
'jon_banquer[_2_ Wrote:
;3050113']On Apr 20, 12:18*pm, Stanley Schaefer
wrote:-
On Apr 19, 10:11*am, Paul Drahn wrote:
-
On 4/19/2013 5:33 AM, Stanley Schaefer wrote: On Apr 18, 9:45 am, Ed
*wrote:
cut-
--
This one was dreamed up by somebody that had an idea, but didn't
know
I.C. engine history and has no way of knowing how to run the
numbers.
Another one for a later edition of "Unusual Engines".--
--
Stan--
-
I think I recognize the problem here. These people have the same
metal
problem that existed in my family for at least two generations. That
is
the perpetual motion idea. Dad played with various ideas all his life.
I
still have some of his drawings. He complained about his father's
fixation with perpetual motion even to the extent of letting his
family
starve while he worked with a neighbor developing the next machine.-
-
In all cases, the men were sure they could figure out how to make it
work without doing any research. Perhaps lack of education had
something
to do with it, but I don't think so.-
-
I recall describing some of Dad's machines to a fellow that worked
for
me. I had no more than begun when he laughed and finished the
explanation for me. His father was an engineer in Seattle and had
told
his son all about people designing and building such things.-
-
I believe the men working on the Doyle engine deeply believe everyone
else who has worked on such an engine has made some kind of
fundamental
error and these guys are smart enough to not make these mistakes, and
so
will get the engine to be a success.-
-
Perhaps they are German?-
-
Paul-
I call it the "This time for SURE!" effect. *Sometimes you can improve
upon past gadgets with modern materials or construction methods, but
the idea has to be sound to start with. *This usually happens with
smart guys that haven't had an engineering background and don't know
that you can't beat basic *thermodynamics, you can't even break even.
I wonder if they've even cycled it with a electric motor and figured
out how much friction they're trying to overcome? *Twice the friction
per working cylinder, half the power, doesn't seem like a winner to
me.
Stan-
They use SolidWorks and appear to be very good at using SolidWorks.
They could do advanced tests for friction in SolidWorks using a
SolidWorks FEA add-in.
'SolidWorks Simulations FEA' (http://www.conceptia.in/fea.htm)
"Study & optimize assemblies of all size. Evaluate forces & stresses
between contacting parts, including friction. Mesh both parts &
assemblies with custom meshing diagnostics tools, including mesh
transitioning and local mesh controls. Use Trend Tracker and Design
Insight Plots to drive optimal changes as you work. Automatically
optimize designs for minimum mass or volume as well as buckling and
frequency goals."
Hello all,
You guys seem to be very knowledgeable and I would like to have an
opportunity to address some of the concerns you have with my engine
design.
This would help me identify potential problems that I may have missed.
The prototype in the video has been obsoleted by two more prototypes,
the latest of which is a six cylinder with power and exhaust pistons
that are 37 percent larger than the intake and compression pistons. This
gives us a larger expansion ratio which allows us to use more of the
combustion pressure for power.
I do have an strong mechanical background but I am not infallible. The
fact that every time I finish a prototype I find areas that can be
improved upon proves this.
It is the "This time for sure" effect LOL
I worked for a race engine machine shop for 15 years in their research
and development department as their lead engineer.
I worked there until I started an aircraft cnc machine shop, this helps
keep the costs of prototypes down and I am able to take my prototypes to
the race machine shop
to do all of my testing.
I would enjoy answering any questions you may have.
Thanks
Lonny Doyle
First question, Lonny:
You have here a split-cycle engine, which has been around, sometimes
successfully, for over 100 years. But it's never stuck because its
inherently less thermodynamically efficient (it also involves a
multiple factor for friction loss, but that's less of an issue). Those
that have worked have done so, for the most part, because racing rules
allow a beneficial calculation in engine cylinder volume -- sometimes
because they've allowed an effective supercharging effect due to
relative cylinder volumes, without incurring a volume penalty.
But split-cycle engines transfer unburned, compressed fuel-air mixture
from the compression cylinder to the combustion/power cylinder,
directly. The only thermodynamic loss is the heat of compression lost
to the compression cylinder and the between-cylinder passage. The fuel
is burned conventionally in the combustion/power cylinder.
In your engine, you're burning the fuel in a separate,
between-cylinders combustion chamber. You've greatly increased the
wall area exposed to combustion heat, which necessarily involves a
heat loss -- something like the heat loss that occurs in a flathead
engine, with its attendant large combustion-chamber surface area.
There's a very large thermodynamic inefficiency inherent in that
design. How do you reconcile that?
I recognize that your new relative cyinder volumes can, potentially,
give you an Atkinson-cycle effect that could improve thermodynamic
efficiency. But the margins gained with the Atkinson cycle are fairly
small; the losses due to increased combustion-chamber surface area are
large.
Anyway, 'glad you stopped around. Your engine has provoked a lot of
interesting discussion. d8-)
--
Ed Huntress