In this video we analyze the engine with a connecting rod and 4 pistons. Remember to subscribe. #pistons #conrod #ducati #3danimation #repairman22 #turbo #speed #motorbike #cars #engine
hey, have you seen that engine sound simulation software that your fellow peer AngeTheGreat made? if not, you can program some pretty accurate sounding engines with visuals too. for some of the more obscure engines out there, this could be a great tool for your use case here. it's just kinda tricky to learn the program.
Wow, that poor guy. What an innovative smart dude. It’s a shame he got hurt and disabled, but it is certainly admirable that he still made those motors and got them running!
guess happened when ass hit moving ground clothes grabbing ground so too muc force went up spine. so bike clothes need a padded slippery iron ass plate that can skid and pad takes shock kinda stiff dense foam mabe inch thick or two
@@orangestoneface The air bag jackets are the way to go I think. They protect your spline without being overly restrictive. Though this wreck he didn't leave the bike until he nearly hit the ground, so I am not sure how effective it would have been. It wasn't really the bad of a wreck, just some bad luck there. Most would have walked away with a few scrapes.
Here's an important consideration that has not been discussed here: One of the issues that increases friction in an engine is the sideloads on a piston when the crankshaft is anywhere other than top or bottom dead centre, and of course this also results in piston and cylinder wear over time. This friction against the sidewall of the cylinder is significant. The Comma van had a diesel engine that had a similar principle where the conrods with pistons at one end went to rocker arms instead of directly to the crankshaft, and at the other end of the rocker arms was a conrod that connected to the crankshaft. What this meant was that the sideloads were transferred to a rotary bearing rather than a sliding bearing (the piston in the cylinder) and that reduced friction. This could work a similar way if the con rods connecting each piston to its associated rocker arm were a bit longer so there was less side-loading of the pistons.
2&3 possible more 3&4 no worse than a Normal engine. I say possibly on 2&3 because the 1/4 cylinders moving the other direction connected by the teeter totter arm their connection rods are hooked too. I do not ever see this coming into production at least not in a big 4 stroke engine. That sid a small two stroke it might be okay and save enough weight to make it worth the change. One thing that could be interesting is if 1&4 set further away from 2&3. You could make those two cylinders taller and a longer stroke because the teeter totter fulcrum could be offset so the outside cylinders would have not only a longer stroke but more leverage than it it is centered. Do that in a 2 stroke and it might make pretty cool two stroke. It could have a short stroke and long stroke. Of course every other stroke would be more powerful. Don't take me too serious as I am going down a rabbit hole after a gummy several hours ago. 🤣🤣🤣🤣 But either way I don't think it would last as long as a traditional engine would be. But it is neat to see people build things with their hands that do work. For a guy to repurpose old engines into something different is pretty cool.
What a guy! While a simpler design is always preferable, nothing can beat the elegance and ingenuity of an overcomplicated mechanical solution. Even if it's not actually better, it's still a win for the fact he did this all himself. It's not a question of 'why' but rather 'why not'.
"...simpler design is always preferable..." Agreed, but this engine is not much more complicated then a conventiontal 4 cylinder: 2 additional Rockers + 4 Rods but only a Single Main-Rod (like in a Single cylinder) wich allows a shorter and much simpler crank. The pivot-points are an issue as each has to take full pressure but also take away power and effeciency, durability might be questionable.
This is a fun proof of concept for a mechanical geek who is enamored with unnecessary clockwork.... so I get it. I stop short of calling it a good design though, as durability will be lacking. This has all the potential power of a 4-banger without the biggest benefit of an actual 4-banger. The 4 position crank is the heart of the beast.... This has all the spirit without the strong heart. But kudos for getting it up and running, with good numbers!
This is one of those engines that will be almost forgotten but in like 100 years someone re-discovers it and brings it back 👏👏👍this is an amazing concept and inovation and the fact that he did it on his own is even more amazing
Not really, this is just classic german over engineering that doesn't actually make the performance any better.. If anything it just makes it more liable to break.
The most stressful point on a connecting rod is not the combustion stroke, it is the exhaust / intake transition, where the forces accelerating the piston are felt as tension across the cross section of the small end. This design moves the bulk of those stresses from the single con rod to the twin mini con rods. The real durability issue would be across the smaller cross section of the small end of these mini con rods. It can do nothing but lower the overall durability when compared to a conventional 4 stroke.
Exactly, metal is ALWAYS much weaker in tension than compression. Plus adding power strokes that transmit the force via tension is just asking for trouble.
How about the flex in the “side” rockers? If you run any compression the piston will his the head at TDC of the breathing strokes due to beam flex and rod stretch. This isn’t new and isn’t a good idea. It was called a walking beam engine a hundred years ago, it was a failure then and still a bad idea now. Also, anybody want to calculate the stress on that single big end? How strong it would have to be to pass all the power of a V-8 through one big end and one set of mains? The WWII radial aircraft engines passed all the power of a “row” of cylinders through a single rod, true, but they seldom spun over 3K rpm. Oh yeah, they also had guys like my father rebuilding them after (relatively to a street car) very few hours of operation.
The 2 problems i can see is the sound and vibrations of low end single cylinder engines... 4 cylinder engines always sound good.. and cancel out vibrations.
@@swapnilmankame Yes, but you could just make a four cylinder engine. I'm not sure it saves that much space, and if you're willing to go to such extremes because of packaging constraints, a 90° V4 is also balanced, and sounds incredible. I have a Honda Magna V30 I'm in the middle of fixing up and it has to have my favorite engine sound _of all time._ It makes me wish my four wheeled Honda felt half as alive... even if it meant requiring major engine repair to reach 230k. I would replace piston rings _myself_ for that beautiful little V4 to live on and make someone else happy for a while. If old ironsleeves loses compression, I'll dig its grave. You'd think the engine with a brain would act more alive. I guess a carburetor can't go senile.
@@Eluderatnight Exactly, it's not the number of surfaces, it's the surface feet per minute and also force. So the side-loading of the pistons is potentially significantly reduced (see my top-level comment) as another factor as well as reduced bearing area.
But less side friction between the piston and cylinder, less reciprocating mass and less loss to vibration. Declaring this design worse without tests and based on a single point at face value amongst many is in my opinion quite arrogant
I remember hearing about the Stern idea awhile back which was interesting but ultimately too complex for real usability. Somehow this one slipped under the radar for me, and at least as an engineering exercise goes, is the more interesting one to follow. Provided materials are up to par, the exciting bit is it's significantly smaller packaging envelope potential. I can't see it being equal regardless of cylinder count on torque potential, but having a full blown 8 cylinder engine in a bike that takes a portion of the room as an I4 with perhaps less material weight overall is intriguing to say the least.
Not great for packaging but long rods bring their own advantages like lower thrust forces on the piston and more equal acceleration of the piston at the top and bottom halves of the stroke.
This cylinder design basically changes a V8 to the crankshaft dynamics of a 2 cylinder steam engine. with power stokes acting on every extension and retreaction of the two con rods (a power stroke every quarter turn). Ultimatly I belive it didn't take off since it doesn't really provide any benifit over a standard V8 design, since it doesn't reduce the number of moving parts or the complexity of machining the engine block. it is an interesting mechanism, but not much more. Obvs props to the inventor, hopefully he continues his development, and will eventually create something that genuinly can be used to improve ICEs in the future.
I see high reciprocating mass gains, as well as total engine size, and an increase in parts. Neat, but not used because fewer parts = fewer failures, less weight, reduced production time, etc… I remember seeing an arrangement like that in b&w photos in a book…
The first rule in engineering is KISS , and most engineers know what that stands for! Great that the idea works, but just because you can, doesn't mean you should!!
@@kolsen6330 Agree, I have BMW motor bike, and it is definitely over engineered, but then again , all modern motor cycles are the same, far too much unnecessary and expensive technology in them. Can no one design something simple anymore? apparently not!
when the steam engine came up on the end of it's useful life, the engineers tried everything to keep them relevant. The ICE engine is at that point today. It was an amazing device when you think that it is a machine that moves us around by using explosive liquid and it does it so quietly that we do not think of the explosions but like steam, explosive propulsion is on it's last legs. We do not need any more iterations of the ICE. We are moving on from there. Steam was great and ICE was great and hats off to both of them. They both get a statue in the square.
Being in that wheelchair, part of his body is inactive, but that area between his ears is "climbing a mountain" and contributing to the world of ingenious mechanisms/machines...Very interesting what active minds come up with...So many minds have been paralyzed by passive entertainment...
I have total respect for what the guy has done, but I feel sorry for the neighbours, they have to listen to the loud motor noise. He should probably do it somewhere else.
Engines with rockers have been successful before, look at the Commer/Rootes TS3 3 cylinder 6 piston two stroke diesel from the 1950s. These engines really proved the concept but 2 strokes are too hard to comply with current emissions.
Two stroke petrols using crankcase compression yes, but two stroke diesels do not use crankcase compression so emissions are the same as four stroke diesels, they use a blower to push the air in so any overlap of intake/ exhaust timing its just air that gets blown out, which by diluting the gases reduces the measured emissions!, there have been petrol two stroke designs that use a secondary piston for air flow negating the need for oil in the fuel and these have emissions the same as four strokes, but at greater complexity and expense than a traditional two stroke design, whatever you do you never get something for nothing!.
to all rhose whining about too much stress on one rod, it was pointed out that since only one piston is ever firing, its not that much more stress than a regular setup.
one advantage is that there should be less friction between piston and cylinder since piston goes up and down and almost no other forces are involved (at least for outer cylinders). also i guess it could be lighter in a similar way like radial engines are lighter.
Depends on length of the rockers vs stroke length vs mini rod length. If the mini-rods and rockers are short then the angle of the mini-rod will be higher than a normal engine. Same for normal engine, short rods compared to stroke makes for a lot or piston wear and more non-linear piston travel speed, but makes for a smaller lighter engine. Everything is a trade off.
if you built the lower end of the engine much smaller since there is only 1 rod bearing journal to support and enclose with the engine block your saving a lot of weight from not having a full crankshaft and not having a full engines length of supporting metal on the engine block compared to a typical engine with four rod bearing journals. so honeslty this engine should be quite a bit lighter for its given power output similar to a rotory engine while still functioning mostly the same as a normal reciprocating piston engine. so in an application like aircraft where the weight of the engine might matter more than the absolute power of the engine this might be advantageous. and if a highly developed version of this engine did indeed have identical power to an equivelent engine with a normal crankshaft then this is superior due to lower weight.
The main issue with the engine from the thumbnail is that the power is being transferred through one single connecting rod instead of 4. It does make the rotating assembly much more simple, and probably more reliable due to less moving parts and simple to produce. And if there is a lubrication problem and your rod bearings get destroyed and it throws the rod, then you’re basically screwed because that’s the only rod
That certainly is a fascinating arrangement of the two outboard pistons and connecting rods. Maybe just being unconventional is enough to stop further development.
Seems like it would put a great deal of stress on that one or 2 crank bearings and would need to have them replaced often. It would probably be more practical for racing than daily drivers. I'd like to see how complicated those components are to maintenance.
lol, i dont have to imagine being that neighbor. i live by a lake in Texas, i have two neighbors with giant fanboats theyre always tinkering with. they are incredibly loud.
Interesting idea. On the geared cam drive for the radial: all the WWII radial aircraft engines that used cams to actuate valves* had reduction geared camshafts. Often they were geared to 1 turn to the 4 for the crankhshaft, 1:4. They could do this because the cam rings were quite large, and by spinning the cam so slowly, they could make use of really aggressive cam profiles. *the exception being the sleeve-valve engines, which didn't use cam-actuated poppet valves, at all. Reliable though being monstrously complex, they didn't offer any real adantages over poppet valves.
If I understood correctly the causes of second order vibration in a straight four, this design can solve it, since all the pistons have the same acceleration.
Got to be some vibration issues as the short rod cylinders have a different rod angle than the center main rod. Also piston dwell time at TDC and bdc are different between the cylinders. I admire his work but he hasn't really reduced the parts count just moved the outer rods from direct crankshaft connection to indirect via the main rod. In fact there are 2 added spots for wear and friction, those being the fulcrum between the outer cylinders.
People should really look at this motor. It is a work of art.. Who knows what this motor can really do . we might see this in years to come . I think he's really on to something big and better and cheaper than the other brands out there.
Actually their might be an advantage. I'd have to model it.. But it does look like 2nd order vibrations are cancelled out. Effectively the velocity of the pistons moving up the bore are directly tied to the pistons moving down negating the deceleration mismatch in the bottom 180 deg of crank rotation from the accelerating pistons in the top half of the bore ( top 180 deg ) of crank rotation... On bigger 4 piston engines this might negate the need for counter rotating balance shafts. However this might account for the power loss, as the burn rate on the outside pistons will have a different profile from the inner two pistons. Interesting never the less.
I would argue that the orange and intermediate grey parts are all connecting rods, so this 4-cylinder engine has a total of 11 connecting rods forming a linkage to a single crank pin.
Do a search on the amount of different designs it took to finally get an airplane off the ground safely. LIterally dozens and dozens of ideas that faild. However, in the end air flight is very common. This is how innovative change comes to be. A lot of people building their crazy ideas into what is hopefully a working model. When this happens our world changes forever. 😊
I like the neighbours window bit, He's doing gods work - now to the design - I like it, I know in aircraft you want More power but this is Light power. A single big end to Explode at 10,000 feet makes me feel just so much better, I mean if you build the crank right it's going to hang on and if you balance the 4 out by making it an 8 it's even better. I like the design and if we ever got to sit in a workshop for a week or two I think it would be exciting.
Be interesting to get some valve area from all that additional space that is now available, And having the push/pull should allow for an interesting power delivery. Looks like a lot of potential in that concept, for the automotive , snowmobile, even boat world. Simply because of all the additional area for moving air now available.
If this was combined with a Taurozzi pendulum engine design, like the type found in medical compressors, you could reduce friction and maybe increase power. For sure they’ll both wouldn’t suffer from piston slap.
@@MrUnderEstimated The bellcrank bearings are really only loaded as a piston is pushed down, which puts that into the weakest part of the bearing. The connecting rod bearings however, are loaded in both directions.
@@MrUnderEstimated Yes, but the bearings in the center of the bellcrank are being loaded downward during all stages of the cycle. The connecting rod bearing at the crankshaft is the one seeing forces in both directions.
Wow that's a very smart person. It's just so cool to have an idea and actually make the invention I'm sure you have to have money for that. So I'm glad this person had the brains and the money to do it so more power to you Mr. DIETER..
Amazing! Hopefully it is offered by Ducati or some company. I have to wonder if it isn’t progressing simply because electrics these days are undeniably great and are just going to takeover. This has great appeal but maybe too niche because the market is shrinking. RC industry serves as example of what will happen. Piston power once was king but now is niche.
I’m surprised the redline was so low. I would have thought that it would be well balanced due to the short crank, and with it’s over square, short travel pistons, travel speed shouldn’t be an issue. If they could make it rev as high as the original engine it would have made a lot more power.
Not that surprising considering in a normal V8 the pistons would all be off set to fire at different times.. This just has smaller pistons working in sets of two
@@SilvaDreams It’s very similar to a flat plane V8 in terms of the firing interval and order, though technically you’d probably call it a cross plane because there is only 90 degrees separation on the crank. It should be very smooth as there is a cylinder firing every 90 degrees with even spacing. I think the closest thing in terms of forces on the crank though would be a 4 cylinder, 2 stroke, 90 degree radial engine.
Has it ever struck anyone to stretch this design out to an inline 6? It would fix a lot of the harmonic issues I believe, and surely with a bottom end system that has less of a sharp innertial moment on a lot of its components, I would think it would be a matter of balancing or and putting on a good cylinder head? If it's more mechanically efficient, it should inherently make more power. I think ALL of his power loss comes down to cylinder head and valvetrain geometry
Would be interesting to see if it has less internal friction than conventional engine. With more funding to conrod geometry it could have lot less moving mass, better balance and harmonics, more efficient. It would be real nice to see large manufacturer put down a sum of money to develop this.
The issue I see with this design is that the Conrod would experience both compression and tension during combustion cycles which could accerate metal fatigue.
True, and finally someone else that knows that firing-stroke load isn't the greatest load a con-rod takes, and compression loads don't cause rod failures. It's the unloaded piston trying to fly out the top of the motor that overloads the rod in tension, and causes it to fracture.
