Would luv a breakdown on the TFG engine or LST transmission both are technical wonders with crazy outside the box thinking , luv the content so a def thumbs up and a join
In the weakness portion of the video, it says its not practical to stack multiple cylinders together because it would make it more complex. I agree with more complex, but if you took 4 of these engine "modules", and attached gearing to the output shaft, wouldn't that distribute the work to turn a driveshaft? Also if cylinder goes bad, this could lead to hot swapping the cylinders making it a bit more complex than removing a coil pack vs affecting the other good cylinders. I think this would be a fun little engine. Imagine making them the size small enough to make a new motorcycle/ATV and you pick how many cylinder engines you want. Each engine moving the driveshaft like rowers on a rowing team.
Interesting! Sooner or later, improvements to current tech will be found and improved to the point of commercial viability. But because sustainability will be demanded, it will take some more time. Still, I am encouraged by all this creative activity.
Probably not in order for the head to spin properly so that the exhaust valve still functions the plug needs be centered. Putting a shaft out to top would make that impossible. Through they could go to the other side of the output shaft with a counter rotating piston. Butt that still only leaves you two pistons. However if reciprocal motion is the goal they could mount them in banks synchronized with a chain but use a rack and pinion to get that motion. But the only application I can imagine needing that much relatively short strokes at that much torque would maybe be an air compressor.
@@horseblinderson4747 Place 2 engines tail-to-tail shaft with one engine built to run the reverse of the other with both pistons reaching TDC simultaneously tho 180 degrees out cycle sync... (intake=0=power) (compression=0=exhaust) (power=0=intake) (exhaust=0=compression0
my friend pls check omega engine which produces 150 hp at 1200 rpm can go upto 25000rpm max having 18kg weight with more than 50% heat efficiency ...... its literaly a breakthrough in automobile engine history ....
British and Japanese ( and the Trabant) have been using rotary valve systems for years in air cooled engines. Sleeve valve ( different concept) have also been used in aero engines for years. Bristol Hercules is a prime example. Sealing isn't difficult on rotary valves at all.
@@mattyb7736 Sleeve valve sealing was NOT an easy thing....took them years of experimentation to come up with alloys that would allow it to work. Even then...they have massive problems that will make any such design unworkable in a modern emission environment. Add in wear and combustion deposits and this over-complicated and overly expensive engine will never see production. Rotary valves work fine in a 2 stroke engine where it's constantly bathed in oil and only seals crankcase compression pressures and doesn't deal with combustion temperatures, pressures and deposits. The modern piston engine is a highly developed device with over a hundred thirty years of constant improvement. Any new engine design must be better in at least a couple areas of cost, performance, durability and efficiency while not being behind in any of them...or it's not an improvement and won't be successful.
@@mattyb7736. If the Technology was Efficient and trouble free we would still SEE disc valves in use . We don't . Disc Valves would have BIG problems from Soot in the Exhaust Gases . Two-Stroke crankcase induction Rotary Valves do offer a good Compression seal is true , but Reed Valves are just as efficient and far cheaper and more Robust . And the Bristol Hercules , eh , with its Sleeve Valves . Same Carbon problem as a Rotary Valve PLUS because there were Two sleeves , one inside the other , the set-up Blocks the Heat rejection path ESSENTIAL for not melting the Pistons . The Hercules was an extremely Unreliable unit . A Dog of an Engine . Just what you need in an Aeroplane Engine , eh ? We can all quote shit off RU-vid and Wikipedia as Gospel , but having SOME ACTUAL knowledge to Filter the information with surely helps .
The statement that it's valve train isn't as effective as standard valves because opening limitations is a little off. Standard valves may have the entire opening to work with, but the is still opening and closing effectively limiting the amount of exchange. Only electrically controlled valves, with instant open/close cycles, wouldn't.
The camahaft rotates at "half" the speed of the crankshaft in a 4stroke engine not "twice" as fast. And the secondary balance issues seem to be taken care of with a simple counterbalancer. That valve design has been tried in aircraft engines of the past but an alloy able to withstand the operating temps hasn't been found yet I don't believe. Current metallurgy tech may solve this but I'm unsure if it has been developed yet. Lastly piston side loading from the angular movement of the rods still exists in this engine but is now combined with rotary motion as well so I don't understand how it would decrease puston wear. In short this engine seems like the answer to a question that isn't being asked.
Since this engine is restricted for air intake flow, it would benefit greatly by using a turbo charger, to make up its loss by the design, giving this engine an incredible increase in power, the designer of this engine needs to seriously think about making a turbo part of its design function, which would allow this motor to be usable in more applications such as personal aircraft, motorcycles, snowmobiles, lawn mowers such as zero turns, etc. 😎👍
If you put one engine facing another at the crankshaft itself, and a sprocket between the two, he would have a two cylinder, which would scale it up a bit sort of like a BMW to use it for a motorcycle application
As illustrated, that engine cannot exist. The crankshaft would have to be split in the middle to allow the two pieces to counter-rotate. Way too much rotating mass and gear friction. It will never be used for anything except as an example of what not to do.
gears to make torque. what cheating. !!! That is not derived from the power produced by the engine. so its the same as calculating other engines post transmission.
Congratulations the world needs to use less elements for low costs on engines.(wise)looking forward to test or try one Avadi engine so compact in my point of view.
@@ThiagoMarquardt lmpact by power stroke act directly on crankshaft and resisted by inertia of crankshaft and flywheel. Hence impact on trasmission gears is diffused and not get damaged.
Using the rotating cylinder to expose inlet and exhaust ports means that this is a version of sleeve valves. Are the ports in the upper cylinder wall or the end of the cylinder?
Actually, In ANY reciprocating or Piston engine the speed of the reciprocating mass (Piston,connecting rod assembly) is constantly in a state of acceleration and deceleration. A property that is directly influenced by the 'Rod Ratio' (The length of the connection rod measured from wrist pin center to crankshaft journal center) Ideally this ratio is 1.9 (Rod Length) to 1 (crankshaft throw from top dead center to bottom dead center) As the crank rotates, the speed of the piston/rod assembly changes.
This has a lot in common with the RCV engine. I'm not sure the balancing advantages won't outweigh the torque that this concept applies to the conrods and their bearings.
@@ThiagoMarquardt The thrust force of each conrod at the gudgeon pin is offset from the piston axis so will cause a torque that will be reacted by the conrod bearing edges. Also the counterweights are not coplanar so they will generate a rotating couple.
I wonder weather if the two stroke engine is more suitable for a vehicle that's supposed to be destroyed after reaching a destination. I think 2 stroke engine contains less parts and less cost ?
In my humble opinion, the piston did not need to rotate with the connecting rods, it could have a bearing in which the connecting rods were on a platform and there would be less wear on the piston and cylinder!
All considered this has little advantages over conventional engines. As for twice the torque transmissions have been accomplishing that for a century. I will commend the effort. Sometimes we have to see where an idea goes. But there was little thought spent on the disadvantages. The applications of a single piston overly complicated engine are few. As for weight, better than a one cylinder conventional engine, but adding cylinders would make it much heavier than a comparable V8. This engine is not worth it's fabrication cost.
The tortional loads on the rod journals will hog the bearings out rapidly. Hard to build multi cylinders. I don't see an oiling system. It's very complex to machine
Nem említették a forgó henger csapágyazását és a csapágy élettartamát sem, pedig a hőterhelés miatt a henger csapágya jelentős igénybevételnek van kitéve. Csak az előnyökről volt szó.
single-axle boosted tesla turbine ice engine is much better. it uses external carburetor style burner and is boosted by tesla turbine intake and torque is generated in the same axle on a second tesla turbine stack. yep much simpler than normal axial turbine ice engines and better than wankel rotary ice engine. of course its not patented or patentable or locked down as anyone's ip.
1. Too heavy, the weight of the 2 connecting rods and all the gearing would make it a low rpm, low hp engine. 2. I can see scoring on the cylinder walls now, the same as a rotary. 3. 4 strokes suck...2 strokes truck....try and get 180hp from a 500cc 4 stroke without any massive amount of forced induction, there are many GP motorcycles that do this without any forced induction, even above 200hp.
A Multi cylinder 180 degrees opposing piston configuration is very much plausible on same shaft and with a pinion, which again can be arranged around a bigger toothed flywheel to tandem multiple such opposing twin cylinder combinations around the toothed flywheel shaft, which has been missed here I presume. A novel design indeed ❤
Maybe the crank/output shaft can be held stationary, with the case spinning. And line cylinders beside one another. With the gears connecting the cases. One with cw rotation, the next with ccw rotation. Put as many as needed together, with a bevel gear output, possibly on both ends.. with possibly 6 in a row, with 800cc per cylinder. Eq 4.8L and possibly another 6 can be added beside these 9.6L is plenty for any streetcar Especially running 2-3 bar of intercooled boost with a revised head incorporating a cam ring and poppet valves. Or use sleeve valve tech. Giving greater performance , having the cylinder spin with the head basically stationary could be something to figure out. However I think having a similar rod and crank could be used in a more traditional engine , I think the two piston in a single cylinder is the best configuration get that setup in a cross flow design to keep the cool cold , and the hot warm, prevent heat in the intake. I feel adding a sleeve valve, or slide valve to the design can improve it greatly. Allowing port timing to be changed for greater performance or economy .
This design still has reciprocating mass, I know of a rotary design ( not the wankel as used in Mazda's ) having 90 degree firing sequence, massive torque at low RPM, only 5 moving parts. Just need recognition, the piston engine as we know it will be ancient history
As the two connected rods are offset from centre, on explosion, the piston will be subjected to a torque and the two connected rods will twist trying wrapping themselves around each other. It is a novel design for academic research in geometrical linkage and structure and lubrication..
Los engranajes conicos chicos y la corona no estan ahí para aumentar el torque sinó para sincronizar las bielas para que no se despatarren. Porque la corona esta quieta como punto de referencia... ya que para que actue como caja reductora deberia girar.
Nice video and presentation. One think that pop in my mind is that angular momentum in the twin gears wanted a stationary axis and not steered by the gear arrangement. The design must deal with eddy forces in the system to address extra stress, mass, friction, wear and efficiency penalty.
All This Stuff is Fine Coming From a Rocket Scientist But No Matter How You Lay it Out You've Still Got The Same Ole Same Ole Same Ole Combustion Engine !!!! Until Y'all Can Show Me a Propulsion Unit That Don't Burn Gas or Use Electricity I Recon My Eyebrows Won't Be Raising Any plus This Engine Has Way To Many Moving Parts !!!!! 🇺🇸👍🏻
