have had this concept for years, since first coming across an article on "the beare head". actually started building one, except i have a different method of actuating those piston valves. a big issue is the ratio of open to closed times produced by a simple crank. 90 degrees open and 270 degrees closed, at the "cam-crank". makes for a lot of dead-stroke, and a large swept volume, with the ports only opening/closing near the end of the stroke. you need the opposite, really. need to drive the piston valve another way. one of methods ive contemplated is whitworth quick returns. can "dwell" in the closed phase, only travel a small distance despite the "cam crank" performing 270 degrees of rotation... then rapidly snap open, then closed through the other 90. allowing the ports to occupy far more of the stroke. be hell to balance then :)
beautiful. shame about the low resolution and lack of end shots, or his linear to rotary method... lamplough sure loved his sleeve valves... but i didnt realise this particular engine uses them.
Uma explicação simples e difícil de achar, dias tô tentando entender como funciona a polia secundária e aprendi agora num vídeo de segundos, mt obrigado
Mano a ideia eh dahora mas nesse formato ele meio q simula um motor 2 tempos, dá pra melhorar um pouco fazendo uma bobina em volta do pistão q poderia ser um imã de neodimio, e também poderia mudar a polaridade na subida pra aproveitar o sobe/desce do pistão, mas de prima a ideia é interessante👍
супер двс! за ним будущее однако есть огромные проблемы с герметизацией поршня и его охлаждением - это достигается точным изготовлением на чпу -точность должна быть 0,25мкм с учётом процесов теплового расширения поэтому цилиндр должен быть изготовлен из алюминия а поршень только из нержавеющей стали !
I invented the same engine I've been working on for a long time since 2015 and now I just found out that it was there before, I was so shocked that I suspected someone had stolen it from me :(
Why do all animations of these engines go so fast? I'd like to see it at at most 1/10 this speed. (And then showing what is in effect a 3 or 4 second video repeatedly for 2 minutes just adds to the irritation.) If shown slowly enough that you could understand what's going on better, I'm sure a lot more people would be interested. (I'm also wondering if a Diesel - i. e. compression-ignition - version can be implemented; if it can, one less thing to go wrong!)
Hello . My Lord Boss and I invented a super revolutionary engine for any type of fuel, including synthetic methanol for negative CO2 emissions and HYDROGEN for ZERO emissions, obtaining much more efficiency than a current engine and greater than batteries and also fuel cells. fuel that are used with hydrogen and electric engines, a novel thermodynamic cycle with more than 75% efficiency, only two main moving parts, a power / weight ratio greater than 13 KW / Kilo, everything can be aluminum except main shaft and screws, uses no liquid coolant only air, uses very little lubricant that can be used from the center through the seals to lubricate everything, the speed of the seals or segments is 7 times less than in any engine, can be extrapolated to any power without losing any features, is under international PCT patent process. Very easy to manufacture 100% with current basic technology, all its main moving parts mounted on commercial bearings, the useful life is up to 30,000 hours with very low maintenance, almost zero and more than 70 additional advantages.... As an example: Motors of 60 kilos of 1000 Kw can be made very compact without useless space. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-5WBoIzC0azY.html
TUBOS ADUTORAS ACO HELICOIDAL COM ABRACADEIRA ENGATE FLANGES P IRRIGAÇÃO PIVO SANEAMENTO MINERAÇÃO DRAGAGEM HIDRELETRICA TRANSPOSIÇÃO SÃO FCO contato na foto a esq
I think it's more like a 6 cylinder engine, because a 6 cylinder engine fires 3 cylinders per revolution, but this fires all three lobes every revolution.
@@ArbitraryConstant But one revolution of the rotary piston takes two revolutions of the eccentric shaft, so it takes two revolutions of the shaft to take all chambers (like cylinders) through a full cycle, producing three power pulses. It's just like a three-cylinder 4-stroke reciprocating piston engine in both number of working chambers and pulses per shaft rotation.
looks correct to me. the trick is, the rotor is not symmetrical. one side of the peanut rotor always does compression/expansion strokes, the other side with the inlet/outlet apertures always does intake/exhaust strokes. so it's correct that each pocket is ignited for every complete revolution of the rotor, because the rotor does all 4 strokes for each pocket on every revolution. that's probably part of why they're able to achieve such a good power to weight.
@@ArbitraryConstant no matter what liquid piston will never compete power wise. The regular wankel, on the 3 sided rotor it firing on everyside everytime it goes by and the e shaft makes 3 revolutions to the rotors 1 revolution with 3 fires. That's why it's compared to a 2 stroke.
@@ArbitraryConstant It's basically a three-cylinder radial reciprocating piston with an eccentric instead of a crank, so it doesn't have much if any advantage. Evaluating power-to-weight would require the actual power output of actual weight of a production-worthy engine, which doesn't exist.
Thanks for this ... it makes it clear to understand and the animation is great! However am I right to suppose that if a pressure tank is not used, and the permeate was discharged at atmospheric pressure (say to an open vessel on the counter top), that a permeate pump would not yield any benefit in that case?
Estava pesquisando sobre motores afim de aprimorar um novo conceito de motor hidráulico que estou desenvolvendo à alguns anos e Deus me direcionou para este vídeo. De imediato gostei muito da ideia e se possível ,poderíamos ajuntar algumas pessoas de boa vontade e tentar desenvolver está tecnica, com o consentimento do autor da matéria.
It is a known fact that rotary engines main advantages are the fewer moving parts, and the small weight comparing to the cylinder ones. I have seen many engine animations, now this, and I've just found out, or understood 2 more facts - cleanly visible on the animation: 1 - every rotary engine is a 4 stroke engine, 2 - single rotor versions of them have so many power strokes per rotation like the number of the combustion chambers per rotor. I mean: single rotor liquid piston engine have so many power strokes per rotation like a 3 rotor wankel, and also it fires evenly, so in comparison with the piston engines it have so many power strokes at the same timing like a 2-stroke i3, or a 4 stroke i6. So furthermore, when we take into account the engine displacement(s), and let the compression ratio to be the same, in conclusion a single rotor liquid piston engine with 0.5 liter combustion chambers (1.5 liters total) theoretically can be as powerful as a 3 liter i6 (for example a 2jz), and it will have also many-many-many times less weight. - Am I right? - If not, please correct me.
No, none of your conclusions are correct, although it was a good effort. This engine (as a single-rotor) produces three power pulses per rotor revolution, which means three power pulses for every two shaft revolutions... just like any three-cylinder four-stroke engine. The power pulses have the same duration, so the gaps between power pulses is the same as a conventional three-cylinder four-stroke reciprocating engine. It would be lighter than a conventional crank-and-piston engine with valves, but not "many-many-many times less weight"... perhaps half the weight?
The only thing that might be problem for new rotary is you couldn't add more rotor like wankle since the intake and exhaust both are pararel with the shaft, not from side of the engine.
@@wayney.4299 True. But if you want more power but still rev happy, you have to add more rotor. Otherwise this kind of engine would only run small vehicle or kind of equipment like chainsaw.
If you want more rotors then I think it can be done. There would just need to be gas separation between each unit, only joining them by the center shaft (I know it's not a crankshaft I just forget what it's called in rotary engines). When you look at IRL units, they don't have the airflow actually open to the world like in the models, they have pipes/ a manifold leading into and out of the engine. You would just need a master manifold that leads into/ out of the smaller gas inlets and outlets. Though it seems more likely that they will scale with larger single rotor units before increasing the complexity like that.
@@Kevin-jb2pv In various videos they talk about scaling it for ~200hp which was exactly my thoughts in regards to it being useful for general aviation. I'm just left wondering why they haven't done it yet. To only show a go-cart and RC plane in what I believe is 7 years of development is disappointing. They really need to scale it up and put it in some test vehicles that can really showcase the capability.
In this version, both intake and exhaust ports are through the side housings, not the shaft, so rotors could be stacked just like a Wankel. LiquidPiston has shown other versions with intake through a hollow shaft, which would work poorly for multiple rotors.
Per revolution of what? The rotor has to turn through one full rotation to fire every chamber, but the shaft turns twice for each full rotation of the rotor (they're geared together, much like a Wankel rotary engine).
