All:

Here's another interesting automotive techie gem.

http://youtu.be/lJ1kxbtsBSU


--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob

On Apr 17, 4:29*pm, BottleBob wrote:
All:

* * * * Here's another interesting automotive techie gem.

http://youtu.be/lJ1kxbtsBSU

--
BottleBobhttp://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob

Watching it now. Thanks for posting this.

On Apr 17, 4:29*pm, BottleBob wrote:
All:

* * * * Here's another interesting automotive techie gem.

http://youtu.be/lJ1kxbtsBSU

--
BottleBobhttp://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob


Badly underfunded. There doesn't seem to be a working prototype yet.

http://www.doylerotary.com/evolution.php

On 4/17/2013 4:29 PM, BottleBob wrote:
All:

Here's another interesting automotive techie gem.

http://youtu.be/lJ1kxbtsBSU


I must be missing something! How do they cool the thing in real life.
Computer animation, I know, doesn't require cooling.

Paul

On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 4:29:51 PM UTC-7, BottleBob wrote:



Here's another interesting automotive techie gem.



http://youtu.be/lJ1kxbtsBSU


All:

I found a vid (abysmal quality), of a test of a prototype of the Doyle engine.

==============================================
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6v-HugbwR0

Uploaded on Jun 26, 2010
This test occurred December 20, 2009. This was the most recent prototype of the Doyle Rotary Engine. We were breaking-in the engine by limiting it to 3000 RPM. During the test, Lonny squirted a little bit of oil into the carburetor to protect the seals during break-in.

Sorry for the quality; it was shot on a cell phone.

Shortly after the phone ran out of space for filming, the seals in the motor dug into the aluminum surfaces and the motor locked up.

We will begin working on the next prototype soon.
==============================================

--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob

On Apr 17, 7:46*pm, BottleBob wrote:
On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 4:29:51 PM UTC-7, BottleBob wrote:

* *Here's another interesting automotive techie gem.

http://youtu.be/lJ1kxbtsBSU

All:

* * * * I found a vid (abysmal quality), of a test of a prototype of the Doyle engine.

==============================================http ://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6v-HugbwR0

Uploaded on Jun 26, 2010
* * * * This test occurred December 20, 2009. This was the most recent prototype of the Doyle Rotary Engine. We were breaking-in the engine by limiting it to 3000 RPM. During the test, Lonny squirted a little bit of oil into the carburetor to protect the seals during break-in.

Sorry for the quality; it was shot on a cell phone.

Shortly after the phone ran out of space for filming, the seals in the motor dug into the aluminum surfaces and the motor locked up.

We will begin working on the next prototype soon.
==============================================

--
BottleBobhttp://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob

I like the sound and think it sounds much better than the Mazda rotary
engine. Never liked the sound that a Mazda rotary engine made.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSN3VQBmzUU

On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 16:29:51 -0700 (PDT), BottleBob
wrote:

All:

Here's another interesting automotive techie gem.

http://youtu.be/lJ1kxbtsBSU


How do they couple it to the drive line?

Gunner

On 04/18/2013 02:19 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 16:29:51 -0700 (PDT), BottleBob
wrote:

All:

Here's another interesting automotive techie gem.

http://youtu.be/lJ1kxbtsBSU


How do they couple it to the drive line?

How about attaching magnets around the outside and having it spin
inside coils to make a self-contained engine+alternator?

--
Bob Nichols AT comcast.net I am "RNichols42"

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 08:27:45 -0500, Robert Nichols
wrote:

On 04/18/2013 02:19 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 16:29:51 -0700 (PDT), BottleBob
wrote:

All:

Here's another interesting automotive techie gem.

http://youtu.be/lJ1kxbtsBSU


How do they couple it to the drive line?

How about attaching magnets around the outside and having it spin
inside coils to make a self-contained engine+alternator?

FWIW, it looks to me like this engine violates a basic point of IC
engine design for thermal efficiency. By using a separate combustion
chamber, it multiplies the surface area relative to the volume of
combusted gas. The result is a very high ratio of lost heat to useful
heat.

This is what kills the efficiency of flathead engines. This one looks
worse in that regard.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:


FWIW, it looks to me like this engine violates a basic point of IC
engine design for thermal efficiency. By using a separate combustion
chamber, it multiplies the surface area relative to the volume of
combusted gas. The result is a very high ratio of lost heat to useful
heat.
Yes, I was thinking the same thing as soon as somebody brought
up "how do you cool it?" So, is the combustion chamber in the
non-rotating center? it seems like it has an intake/compression
piston and a power/exhaust piston. If there's also a separate
combustion chamber, than that's THREE places for heat loss!

Jon

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 11:08:52 -0500, Jon Elson
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:


FWIW, it looks to me like this engine violates a basic point of IC
engine design for thermal efficiency. By using a separate combustion
chamber, it multiplies the surface area relative to the volume of
combusted gas. The result is a very high ratio of lost heat to useful
heat.
Yes, I was thinking the same thing as soon as somebody brought
up "how do you cool it?" So, is the combustion chamber in the
non-rotating center?

It appears to be.

it seems like it has an intake/compression
piston and a power/exhaust piston.

Yeah, it's a split-cycle engine. But it doesn't appear to transfer the
unburned mixture to the power-piston chambers. Apparently it burns the
mixture first, in a separate chamber, and then opens a port from there
to a power-piston cylinder.

It's like a turbine engine with pistons doing the compressing and
delivering the power, rather than turbines. Or so it appears.

If there's also a separate
combustion chamber, than that's THREE places for heat loss!

Jon

Yes, with the separate combustion chamber being by far the biggest
one, because it not only is losing compression heat; it's also losing
heat of combustion.

There have been numerous split-cycle engines, including a number of
two-cylinder split-cycle motorcycles, and some were very successful.
They can combine pre-compression with as much supercharging as you
want. But they compressed the mixture in one cylinder and transferred
it to the other, where it was burned. There must have been some
thermal loss inherent in the design but at least the *hot* gas was
confined to the power cylinder.

This one looks different. At first, when I read "split-cycle," I
thought is was really a conventional split-cycle with what amounts to
an external swash plate (there have been many swashplate and
wobble-plate engines, but they don't use an external cylinder to
handle the eccentric drive motion).

But the central combustion chamber make this one an entirely different
thing. I wonder why they do it that way? It may be necessary because
of the geometric relationships of the cylinders.

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 11:08:52 -0500, Jon Elson wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:


FWIW, it looks to me like this engine violates a basic point of IC
engine design for thermal efficiency. By using a separate combustion
chamber, it multiplies the surface area relative to the volume of
combusted gas. The result is a very high ratio of lost heat to useful
heat.
Yes, I was thinking the same thing as soon as somebody brought up "how
do you cool it?" So, is the combustion chamber in the non-rotating
center? it seems like it has an intake/compression piston and a
power/exhaust piston. If there's also a separate combustion chamber,
than that's THREE places for heat loss!

Not to mention the lost compression ratio, which in my understanding is
another theoretical limit to efficiency in IC engines. The compression
(well, expansion ratio, actually) looks pretty abysmal.

This thing looks like it combines the disadvantages of the Wankel rotary
and the various sleeve-valve engines with the disadvantages of a Ford
flathead, all in a package that's mechanically inconvenient.

--
Tim Wescott
Control system and signal processing consulting
www.wescottdesign.com

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 11:46:50 -0500, Tim Wescott
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 11:08:52 -0500, Jon Elson wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:


FWIW, it looks to me like this engine violates a basic point of IC
engine design for thermal efficiency. By using a separate combustion
chamber, it multiplies the surface area relative to the volume of
combusted gas. The result is a very high ratio of lost heat to useful
heat.
Yes, I was thinking the same thing as soon as somebody brought up "how
do you cool it?" So, is the combustion chamber in the non-rotating
center? it seems like it has an intake/compression piston and a
power/exhaust piston. If there's also a separate combustion chamber,
than that's THREE places for heat loss!

Not to mention the lost compression ratio, which in my understanding is
another theoretical limit to efficiency in IC engines. The compression
(well, expansion ratio, actually) looks pretty abysmal.

Yeah, it would be interesting to know what the compression was in the
combustion chamber. It *could* be as high as a normal IC engine, but
it looks like that would be very tricky to achieve -- it probably
would require that transfer begin well before TDC of the compression
stroke, and that the nominal compression ratio of the compression
cylinder(s) be a 'way high number.


This thing looks like it combines the disadvantages of the Wankel rotary
and the various sleeve-valve engines with the disadvantages of a Ford
flathead, all in a package that's mechanically inconvenient.

g I'm glad I'm not the only one who's skeptical about it.

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 12:35:44 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 11:08:52 -0500, Jon Elson
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:


FWIW, it looks to me like this engine violates a basic point of IC
engine design for thermal efficiency. By using a separate combustion
chamber, it multiplies the surface area relative to the volume of
combusted gas. The result is a very high ratio of lost heat to useful
heat.
Yes, I was thinking the same thing as soon as somebody brought up "how
do you cool it?" So, is the combustion chamber in the non-rotating
center?

It appears to be.

it seems like it has an intake/compression
piston and a power/exhaust piston.

Yeah, it's a split-cycle engine. But it doesn't appear to transfer the
unburned mixture to the power-piston chambers. Apparently it burns the
mixture first, in a separate chamber, and then opens a port from there
to a power-piston cylinder.

It's like a turbine engine with pistons doing the compressing and
delivering the power, rather than turbines. Or so it appears.

If there's also a separate
combustion chamber, than that's THREE places for heat loss!

Jon

Yes, with the separate combustion chamber being by far the biggest one,
because it not only is losing compression heat; it's also losing heat of
combustion.

There have been numerous split-cycle engines, including a number of
two-cylinder split-cycle motorcycles, and some were very successful.
They can combine pre-compression with as much supercharging as you want.
But they compressed the mixture in one cylinder and transferred it to
the other, where it was burned. There must have been some thermal loss
inherent in the design but at least the *hot* gas was confined to the
power cylinder.

This one looks different. At first, when I read "split-cycle," I thought
is was really a conventional split-cycle with what amounts to an
external swash plate (there have been many swashplate and wobble-plate
engines, but they don't use an external cylinder to handle the eccentric
drive motion).

But the central combustion chamber make this one an entirely different
thing. I wonder why they do it that way? It may be necessary because of
the geometric relationships of the cylinders.

I wonder which is the Grand Inspiration that led to everything else --
the cylinder arrangement, or the combustion chamber arrangement?

--
My liberal friends think I'm a conservative kook.
My conservative friends think I'm a liberal kook.
Why am I not happy that they have found common ground?

Tim Wescott, Communications, Control, Circuits & Software
http://www.wescottdesign.com

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 12:18:26 -0500, Tim Wescott
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 12:35:44 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 11:08:52 -0500, Jon Elson
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:


FWIW, it looks to me like this engine violates a basic point of IC
engine design for thermal efficiency. By using a separate combustion
chamber, it multiplies the surface area relative to the volume of
combusted gas. The result is a very high ratio of lost heat to useful
heat.
Yes, I was thinking the same thing as soon as somebody brought up "how
do you cool it?" So, is the combustion chamber in the non-rotating
center?

It appears to be.

it seems like it has an intake/compression
piston and a power/exhaust piston.

Yeah, it's a split-cycle engine. But it doesn't appear to transfer the
unburned mixture to the power-piston chambers. Apparently it burns the
mixture first, in a separate chamber, and then opens a port from there
to a power-piston cylinder.

It's like a turbine engine with pistons doing the compressing and
delivering the power, rather than turbines. Or so it appears.

If there's also a separate
combustion chamber, than that's THREE places for heat loss!

Jon

Yes, with the separate combustion chamber being by far the biggest one,
because it not only is losing compression heat; it's also losing heat of
combustion.

There have been numerous split-cycle engines, including a number of
two-cylinder split-cycle motorcycles, and some were very successful.
They can combine pre-compression with as much supercharging as you want.
But they compressed the mixture in one cylinder and transferred it to
the other, where it was burned. There must have been some thermal loss
inherent in the design but at least the *hot* gas was confined to the
power cylinder.

This one looks different. At first, when I read "split-cycle," I thought
is was really a conventional split-cycle with what amounts to an
external swash plate (there have been many swashplate and wobble-plate
engines, but they don't use an external cylinder to handle the eccentric
drive motion).

But the central combustion chamber make this one an entirely different
thing. I wonder why they do it that way? It may be necessary because of
the geometric relationships of the cylinders.

I wonder which is the Grand Inspiration that led to everything else --
the cylinder arrangement, or the combustion chamber arrangement?

Just guessing here, but I'd guess it was the balance and compactness
enabled by the radial configuration with the external cylinder for
transmitting power.

A rotary swashplate engine is more compact, but there is a rotating
rocking couple in the balance. I can't do the balance in my head on
this radial engine, but, at first glance, it does look inherently
balanced.

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 08:27:45 -0500, Robert Nichols
wrote:

On 04/18/2013 02:19 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 16:29:51 -0700 (PDT), BottleBob
wrote:

All:

Here's another interesting automotive techie gem.

http://youtu.be/lJ1kxbtsBSU


How do they couple it to the drive line?

How about attaching magnets around the outside and having it spin
inside coils to make a self-contained engine+alternator?

That..is not a bad idea!! I like it!!

Gunner

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 13:33:01 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 12:18:26 -0500, Tim Wescott
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 12:35:44 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 11:08:52 -0500, Jon Elson
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:


FWIW, it looks to me like this engine violates a basic point of IC
engine design for thermal efficiency. By using a separate combustion
chamber, it multiplies the surface area relative to the volume of
combusted gas. The result is a very high ratio of lost heat to
useful heat.
Yes, I was thinking the same thing as soon as somebody brought up "how
do you cool it?" So, is the combustion chamber in the non-rotating
center?

It appears to be.

it seems like it has an intake/compression
piston and a power/exhaust piston.

Yeah, it's a split-cycle engine. But it doesn't appear to transfer the
unburned mixture to the power-piston chambers. Apparently it burns the
mixture first, in a separate chamber, and then opens a port from there
to a power-piston cylinder.

It's like a turbine engine with pistons doing the compressing and
delivering the power, rather than turbines. Or so it appears.

If there's also a separate combustion chamber, than that's THREE
places for heat loss!

Jon

Yes, with the separate combustion chamber being by far the biggest
one, because it not only is losing compression heat; it's also losing
heat of combustion.

There have been numerous split-cycle engines, including a number of
two-cylinder split-cycle motorcycles, and some were very successful.
They can combine pre-compression with as much supercharging as you
want.
But they compressed the mixture in one cylinder and transferred it to
the other, where it was burned. There must have been some thermal loss
inherent in the design but at least the *hot* gas was confined to the
power cylinder.

This one looks different. At first, when I read "split-cycle," I
thought is was really a conventional split-cycle with what amounts to
an external swash plate (there have been many swashplate and
wobble-plate engines, but they don't use an external cylinder to
handle the eccentric drive motion).

But the central combustion chamber make this one an entirely different
thing. I wonder why they do it that way? It may be necessary because
of the geometric relationships of the cylinders.

I wonder which is the Grand Inspiration that led to everything else --
the cylinder arrangement, or the combustion chamber arrangement?

Just guessing here, but I'd guess it was the balance and compactness
enabled by the radial configuration with the external cylinder for
transmitting power.

A rotary swashplate engine is more compact, but there is a rotating
rocking couple in the balance. I can't do the balance in my head on this
radial engine, but, at first glance, it does look inherently balanced.

I couldn't do the balance in my head either. I suspect that each
individual cylinder isn't perfectly balanced, but that the whole shebang
comes pretty close.

--
Tim Wescott
Control system and signal processing consulting
www.wescottdesign.com

On Apr 18, 9:45*am, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 08:27:45 -0500, Robert Nichols





wrote:
On 04/18/2013 02:19 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 16:29:51 -0700 (PDT), BottleBob
wrote:

All:

* *Here's another interesting automotive techie gem.

http://youtu.be/lJ1kxbtsBSU

How do they couple it to the drive line?

How about attaching magnets around the outside and having it spin
inside coils to make a self-contained engine+alternator?

FWIW, it looks to me like this engine violates a basic point of IC
engine design for thermal efficiency. By using a separate combustion
chamber, it multiplies the surface area relative to the volume of
combusted gas. The result is a very high ratio of lost heat to useful
heat.

This is what kills the efficiency of flathead engines. This one looks
worse in that regard.

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This is an inside-out version of the Gnome rotary aircraft engine
circa 1915 or so with the added idea, from much earlier, of a pumping
cylinder. To eliminate the crank, they've got a much larger mass of
metal spinning. Power to weight ratio has to be dismal, plus you've a
hell of a gyroscopic effect. And you're right, to do this, they've
completely thrown away 100 years of combustion chamber shape
development.

These engines show up from time to time, going to be the next Best
Thing. They usually die because they can't be lubed, can't be cooled
and/or suck fuel like demons. Ths one looks like it will probably do
all three. About all they're good for, if the promoters are any good,
is successfully separating money from the wallets of backers. Just
because you can get a 3-D animation cheap these days doesn't mean it's
efficient, buildable or durable.

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

On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 05:33:09 -0700 (PDT), Stanley Schaefer
wrote:

On Apr 18, 9:45*am, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 08:27:45 -0500, Robert Nichols





wrote:
On 04/18/2013 02:19 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 16:29:51 -0700 (PDT), BottleBob
wrote:

All:

* *Here's another interesting automotive techie gem.

http://youtu.be/lJ1kxbtsBSU

How do they couple it to the drive line?

How about attaching magnets around the outside and having it spin
inside coils to make a self-contained engine+alternator?

FWIW, it looks to me like this engine violates a basic point of IC
engine design for thermal efficiency. By using a separate combustion
chamber, it multiplies the surface area relative to the volume of
combusted gas. The result is a very high ratio of lost heat to useful
heat.

This is what kills the efficiency of flathead engines. This one looks
worse in that regard.

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This is an inside-out version of the Gnome rotary aircraft engine
circa 1915 or so with the added idea, from much earlier, of a pumping
cylinder. To eliminate the crank, they've got a much larger mass of
metal spinning. Power to weight ratio has to be dismal, plus you've a
hell of a gyroscopic effect. And you're right, to do this, they've
completely thrown away 100 years of combustion chamber shape
development.

These engines show up from time to time, going to be the next Best
Thing. They usually die because they can't be lubed, can't be cooled
and/or suck fuel like demons. Ths one looks like it will probably do
all three. About all they're good for, if the promoters are any good,
is successfully separating money from the wallets of backers. Just
because you can get a 3-D animation cheap these days doesn't mean it's
efficient, buildable or durable.

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

Right. I re-wound that video several times because I couldn't believe
what I saw. Was this thing really designed by engineers who understand
the Carnot cycle and basic heat transfer??

It looks like a potentially interesting way to make an air pump -- why
anyone needs a new pump design, though, I can't imagine. There must be
a hundred effective ones already.

Next up: An all-new engine that burns water! g

--
Ed Huntress

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

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

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.

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

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

I agree that we have increased thermal losses due to the increased surface area over a conventional engine and we also have losses from compressing our fresh air volume into the combustion chamber and again we have losses when we open our combustion chamber to the power piston.

We have minimized the thermal losses in our combustion chamber by using a water based ceramic coating that we spray on our racing pistons and in our combustion chambers. This coating not only resist heat transfer it also reflects the heat back into the combustion chamber.

We have minimized flow losses as much as possible by optimizing our port size, shape and timing. Our intake port has a constant uninterrupted flow and due to the centrifugal effect of the rotating pistons we are able to delay the closing of the intake port. This allows us to use a smaller intake piston which helps to reduce ring and skirt drag.

In a conventional engine it is estimated that 30 percent of lost efficiency is from unused combustion being wasted through exhaust. This is a very substantial amount of wasted energy.

An efficient car engine is only about 33 percent efficient. If you could create an engine that was even a few percent higher it would be huge. To do this one of our goals was to try and recover some of the unused exhaust energy.

In a conventional Otto cycle the sound you hear from the exhaust is not the fuel being combusted, it is the exhaust valve being opened approximately 40 degrees before BDC while there is several hundreds of pounds of pressure still in the cylinder. Because they were not able to use this pressure for power they have to open the exhaust valve early to try and get rid of it so they don't have to work against it when the piston starts to travel back to TDC.

Another waste is the fact that you have to completely fill and completely empty the combustion chamber on every cycle. This is why using a higher compression ratio will give you better efficiency.

A 9 to 1 engine loses 1/9 of its energy just filling and emptying the combustion chamber.

A 12 to 1 only loses 1/12 to its combustion chamber.

Some other losses are from firing as much as 40 degrees BTDC and expansion BTDC from the residual heat from the previous power stroke heating the cool air during the intake and compression stroke.

In the DRE we have been able to change how the combustion pressure is distributed and used.

By using a split cycle we are able to keep our intake cylinder relatively cool and our combustion chamber and power cylinder are able to stay relatively hot.

This means that during our intake and compression strokes we are not working against pre expanding air from residual heat from a combustion and power cycle. We also do not ignite our fuel mixture until after TDC of the compression stroke. Our engine is not trying to run backwards.

Two things happen in the combustion chamber before the power stroke starts. First the cool air is able to absorb some of the heat that was left over from the previous combustion. This allows us to use leftover heat in a positive direction. Second is we allow the flame front to propagate for 60 degrees before it is open to the power stroke. This means we have nearly 100 percent of our available energy ready to use at TDC of our power stroke.

We open the combustion chamber to the power piston at TDC but only for about 100 degrees of rotation. And because we are using larger power pistons, which allows us to over expand, when our power pistons reaches BDC the net pressure is near zero which means we used as much of our combustion pressure for work as possible.

The other huge efficiency gain is that when we closed off the combustion chamber to the power stroke it left the unused combustion pressure and heat in the combustion chamber and did not dump it out of the exhaust. We get to use this toward the next power stroke.

So to maintain our necessary power level we do not have to start from zero on every cycle, we just need to add enough air and fuel to the residual pressure that was left in the combustion chamber to make up the difference of what was used for the 100 degrees of rotation that the combustion chamber was open to the power stroke.

Also our rotary layout cuts down on windage because we do not have a crank traveling through oil and air. We also do not experience the pressure/vacuum wave that is formed under a reciprocating piston. We also do not lose the estimated four percent of efficiency that is lost to opening and closing the valves of a cylinder head.

Our combustion temperatures are lower which helps with NoX and our longer burn duration helps with hydrocarbon emissions.

I hope this helps explain our engine a little better. We are close to finishing another prototype, maybe late July. We feel this one might be the first to make it off of the dyno and into a car.

I was 18 years old when I first started trying to build a better engine, I am now 46. I am glad this is just an expensive hobby because if I was trying to make a living off of it I would have starved by now.

Thanks for your interest and time,

Lonny Doyle

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 05:17:45 +0200, Lonny
wrote:
[color=blue][i]

Ed Huntress;3053110 Wrote: [color=green][i]
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:





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

I agree that we have increased thermal losses due to the increased
surface area over a conventional engine and we also have losses from
compressing our fresh air volume into the combustion chamber and again
we have losses when we open our combustion chamber to the power piston.

We have minimized the thermal losses in our combustion chamber by using
a water based ceramic coating that we spray on our racing pistons and in
our combustion chambers. This coating not only resist heat transfer it
also reflects the heat back into the combustion chamber.

We have minimized flow losses as much as possible by optimizing our port
size, shape and timing. Our intake port has a constant uninterrupted
flow and due to the centrifugal effect of the rotating pistons we are
able to delay the closing of the intake port. This allows us to use a
smaller intake piston which helps to reduce ring and skirt drag.

In a conventional engine it is estimated that 30 percent of lost
efficiency is from unused combustion being wasted through exhaust. This
is a very substantial amount of wasted energy.

An efficient car engine is only about 33 percent efficient. If you could
create an engine that was even a few percent higher it would be huge. To
do this one of our goals was to try and recover some of the unused
exhaust energy.

In a conventional Otto cycle the sound you hear from the exhaust is not
the fuel being combusted, it is the exhaust valve being opened
approximately 40 degrees before BDC while there is several hundreds of
pounds of pressure still in the cylinder. Because they were not able to
use this pressure for power they have to open the exhaust valve early to
try and get rid of it so they don't have to work against it when the
piston starts to travel back to TDC.

Another waste is the fact that you have to completely fill and
completely empty the combustion chamber on every cycle. This is why
using a higher compression ratio will give you better efficiency.

A 9 to 1 engine loses 1/9 of its energy just filling and emptying the
combustion chamber.

A 12 to 1 only loses 1/12 to its combustion chamber.

Some other losses are from firing as much as 40 degrees BTDC and
expansion BTDC from the residual heat from the previous power stroke
heating the cool air during the intake and compression stroke.

In the DRE we have been able to change how the combustion pressure is
distributed and used.

By using a split cycle we are able to keep our intake cylinder
relatively cool and our combustion chamber and power cylinder are able
to stay relatively hot.

This means that during our intake and compression strokes we are not
working against pre expanding air from residual heat from a combustion
and power cycle. We also do not ignite our fuel mixture until after TDC
of the compression stroke. Our engine is not trying to run backwards.

Two things happen in the combustion chamber before the power stroke
starts. First the cool air is able to absorb some of the heat that was
left over from the previous combustion. This allows us to use leftover
heat in a positive direction. Second is we allow the flame front to
propagate for 60 degrees before it is open to the power stroke. This
means we have nearly 100 percent of our available energy ready to use at
TDC of our power stroke.

We open the combustion chamber to the power piston at TDC but only for
about 100 degrees of rotation. And because we are using larger power
pistons, which allows us to over expand, when our power pistons reaches
BDC the net pressure is near zero which means we used as much of our
combustion pressure for work as possible.

The other huge efficiency gain is that when we closed off the combustion
chamber to the power stroke it left the unused combustion pressure and
heat in the combustion chamber and did not dump it out of the exhaust.
We get to use this toward the next power stroke.

So to maintain our necessary power level we do not have to start from
zero on every cycle, we just need to add enough air and fuel to the
residual pressure that was left in the combustion chamber to make up the
difference of what was used for the 100 degrees of rotation that the
combustion chamber was open to the power stroke.

Also our rotary layout cuts down on windage because we do not have a
crank traveling through oil and air. We also do not experience the
pressure/vacuum wave that is formed under a reciprocating piston. We
also do not lose the estimated four percent of efficiency that is lost
to opening and closing the valves of a cylinder head.

Our combustion temperatures are lower which helps with NoX and our
longer burn duration helps with hydrocarbon emissions.

I hope this helps explain our engine a little better. We are close to
finishing another prototype, maybe late July. We feel this one might be
the first to make it off of the dyno and into a car.

I was 18 years old when I first started trying to build a better engine,
I am now 46. I am glad this is just an expensive hobby because if I was
trying to make a living off of it I would have starved by now.

Thanks for your interest and time,

Lonny Doyle

Wow, there is so much thermodynamic engineering going on there that I
couldn't ask enough questions to sort it all out.

But there is one that really intrigues me: After you close the intake
valve to a power cylinder, how much pressure is left in the combustion
chamber? I just mean in relative terms, not pounds per square inch.

--
Ed Huntress