I made a small but comical mistake @ 4:15. This ironically may be more realistic numbers once this engine is used in a car & it's April Fools Day anyways :P . Once again, thanks for watching!
what kind of torque can the v six sterling make? could it be used to run a generator? i can imagine, in a sunny location like the desert or Hawaii, running the sterling with a parabolic reflector or even a frenzel lens
What about the Brittain from new Zealand. He not only built a v twin engine but also built a bike around the engine that won races in rhe bears (British.,European, American racing series ).
*@Tech Planet* I very much appreciate you presenting homemade engines, because how else would we find out about them? Most people don't have the time to spend on the phone, & managing email to locate engine builders or the time to travel the country to meet them & to film their creations. Without videos like yours we would never know At the same time I hope you're mature enough for just a little constructive criticism... because the in-line 16 is featured in the thumbnail it is what drew my interest. But there is only about 15 seconds of footage with a narrative for it. So, the camera just does a rush scan of this engine, making us unable to see & to identify its construction. Had you spent so much as 30 to 45" gradually spanning it's length, we can make out things such as cooling system construction, fuel system, & ignition system (if any) This is just food for thought. I'm not here to shoot down what is otherwise a fine video presentation. Not at all. So Thank You, nevertheless. I've been involved in complete engine rebuilding & remanufacture for 20 years now. But because your camera view is too rapid & too brief, I was unable to answer the most basic question of all: is it gas or diesel?? And it's very frustrating being left unable to identify other essential engine systems 🚜 🚛 🚐 🚗
"8 Cylinder Radial" hmm, everything I was taught in school was that radials were ALWAYS odd numbered, do to the fireing sequence. Maybe air engines don't have this limitation.
Yes, a true radial engine will always have an odd number of cylinders per bank because of the slave rods master rod design only when two or more banks are used like 2 banks of 9 cylinders do you get an even number of cylinders.
www.topspeed.com/cars/car-news/the-5000-hp-devel-sixteen-debuts-next-week-can-it-live-up-to-the-hype-ar178296.html More like 3,519 (almost 3600) in torque, I think he may have misread the script.
Ck out old Cummins diesel info ,when I first started as a mechanic in the trucking industry , Cummins had already been working on a porcelain engine for years ,and that was 1984.
How about an engine that doesn't sound possible. Continues stroke, no valves, crank, no reciprocation or oscillations. 12 combustion per rotation on a single stack configuration. The specifications are off the chart!
Your #9 is a water piston engine - here are two installed as irrigation pumps in South Australia. Only one is still operational on demonstration days. It can pump 250,000 gallons per hour to a head of 35 feet. It is called a Humphrey Pump - ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-j8ov1D5j6eQ.html
@@oldhillbillybuckkowalski i agree it was a spinning mess of metal the only decent example was a motorcycle with no brakes and the engine was in the wheel so if it was running it was moving
@@patrickdean9797 I actually saw old movie footage of a motorcycle race in France where a guy crashed the hell out of one, and I think he died. But that was also the era of Boardtrack Motorcycle racing, 100 plus MPH on bikes with no brakes or even a throttle control in the early days, only a momentary switch to ground the magneto when the race was finished. No clutch on many of them, push start only and if it's running its going and going full send. Tracks impaled people with huge fatal splinters. Boards came loose and left 10 inch wide 8 foot long holes 5-6 feet above the ground. Some kids got killed sticking their heads up through the holes to watch the approaching riders, didn't know they were already there. Yeah motorcycle racing, and car racing was crazy dangerous, fatalities occurred regularly and they didn't even stop the races. It was definitely a different time.
I hope you realize that is not possible and anyone that tells you they have one is a scammer. You've been watching too many Indian hoax videos. 12-25-2019.
The above comment is spot on, and I'll add that what you are talking about, if possible, would be a motor not an engine. An engine utilizes combustion,whether internal, external, or both to create movement in mechanical parts to create kinetic energy from thermal energy. If it does not operate on combustion (burning fuel) it is a motor not an engine. Electric/magnets= motor, jet, piston, rotary, rocket, steam,sterling, and other engines all use a fuel source that is burned to produce power.
Most of these like the Sterling have been around for a century or more and are not used because the power output vs fuel consumed is so low that even early 1900s gasoline or 1800s kerosene engines dramatically outperformed them in power output and used much less fuel to do so.
Relatively large Hp numbers with poor low-end torque, poor fuel efficiency and terrible thermal efficiency. For certain lightweight applications they work great and if fuel efficiency is not important they can perform well but they are slaves to their cooling system, and any issue with it causes a meltdown second only to Cherynobl or 3 mile Island. If you see the temp gage start to climb in a regular we'll designed piston engine you hope to make the next exit before damage occurs, with a Wankel Rotary engine you hope you can pull to the shoulder and shut off the ignition before damage occurs.
AWESOME. Please pack a parachute and let me know if you need any help. 14 000 hours divided by 70 is approximately 4 years of 10 hour days. Medal of honour matey well done.
The Devel 16 is, was, and will always be vapor-ware. The engine was actually built, but failed miserably due to internal limitations. There was never an actual test that produced the desired 5000 horsepower without self-destructing. All development was ceased due to removal of funding by the original backers.🙄 Despite all the hype behind the project, there was *NEVER* an actual Devel built that incorporated the mysterious '5000 horsepower quad-turbo V-16'. Any and all tests and 'reveal' videos were carried out with a turbo-charged 6.0L Chevrolet LS V8, or in fact, no engine at all. Any videos of the car actually driving were done with the same Chevy LS engine and a specialized exhaust to make the engine sound 'fuller'. *Just an FYI, a V8 and an even fire V16 sound almost identical, since the V16 actually has 2 cylinders firing simultaneously.* 😉
8 cylinder radial? Radial engines have an odd number of cylinders, per row. 8 cylinders won't work. (Yes, 2 or 4 row radial engines DO have an even number of cylinders, but each row has an odd number. steve
The Bentley is a 9-cyl. rotary. You are correct about the cylinders; rotaries, like a radial, need an uneven number of cylinders, but in a rotary, the whole engine spins around the crankshaft.
Leland, when I was in high school, many decades ago, my metal shop teacher had us cast blanks for making carburetors on the Le Rhone Gnome. I new back then, the difference of rotary and radial engines. I still think it is weird to bolt a crankshaft to the firewall. steve
@@steveskouson9620, I guess being the first aeroplanes, they hadn't figured out the best way for everything. With it all being cast iron, the engine would make a good flywheel, but, I would think the centrifugal forces would be working against the incoming fuel and air mixture though. The good ol' Gnome; tough as nails. lol Funny thing; I once had an encyclopedia set from 1921and it took me a while to find airplane in it; it was under "flying machine". lol
"It has over 5,000 HP and 37 Foot Pounds of torque." Based on the accepted methodology and formula for determining HP ( HP is a notional number that is derived from entering Torque, which is an actual number derived from the amount of force available from the twisting or motion of an engines crankshaft or output shaft, the output shaft of a transmission being driven by an engine or motor, or from the spinning tire(s) or tracks on a vehicle when measuring the amount of torque available at the point where that torque is applied to the surface the vehicle will be driven on and the engines RPM) The term Horsepower was first used by a tractor salesman in the early 1900s while trying to explain how much work the tractors he was selling could do to farmers who understood how much work they could expect out of their horses in a given amount of time. To do this he simply grabbed a number with no actual basis in fact, more of complete guess, and said this one Tractor can accomplish the same amount of work in a single day that normally would require ______ number of horses to do in the same amount of time. If the number of horses he used in his sales pitch was 4 then it would be a 4 horsepower tractor. This was the birth of horsepower, a notional number used to describe the amount of theoretical work a machine was capable of performing within a given amount of time, and comparing that theoretical work capability to animals that are by nature themselves not equal to rate a machines theoretical output was obviously problematic. Whose horses, what kind of horses, Clydesdales are obviously stronger than miniature horses and can pull heavier wagons but Thoroughbred horses are faster while Quarterhorses are quicker over a quarter mile.... A standard based on something that can actually be measured was needed, and then using that number and the number of revolutions per minute that the engine is producing at the point in operation where the "horsepower" number is being calculated for uses the formula: Horsepower = Torque × RPM/ 5252 This is the formula used to extrapolate HP from torque and RPM and is the currently accepted SAE standard, and is used all around the globe by companies who manufacture internal combustion engines other than pulse jet, ram jet, or turbofan/jet engines, as well as rocket engines as power output is measured in pounds of thrust. An exception can be made in jet engine applications where the engine is coupled to a gearbox/transmission or hydraulic drive system that allows torque to be measured off of the output shaft of the coupled drive system. An example of this would be the original M1 Abrams tank had a jet engine ( same one used in early UH 60 Blackhawk helicopters) and was rated at 1500 horsepower as measured at it's coupled gearbox. Note the number 5252 that the SAE formula uses. The use of this number means that Horsepower and Torque are always equal at 5,252 RPM, assuming the engine is capable of achieving 5,252 RPM, keep in mind many very large long stroke engines and diesel engines max out well below this RPM due to mechanical limitations based on their design principles. The HP output of an engine can be changed by simply choosing a different number than 5252 . For example an engine making 550 Ftlbs of Torque at 5500 RPM using the 5252 variable will generate 575 Horsepower at 5,500 RPM. If we use 4545 for our variable but still have 550 ftlbs of torque at 5,500 RPM we now get 665 HP at 5,500 RPM. The engine did not make more power but the changed variable gives a different value to our notional HP number that's significantly different. Also the methodology used to extrapolate the torque numbers can be changed. In the 60s and early 70s carmaker used a gross HP rating. This was derived by measuring torque at the crankshaft under Ideal conditions without intake or exhaust flow restrictions like fully enclosed aircleaner housings, restrictive filter elements, and mufflers that caused excessive back pressure, and no accessories like power steering , air conditioning, alternators/generators or other belt driven equipment was in use while the engine was on the dynamometer and this led to higher torque and corresponding HP numbers. In the early 70s the SAE implementation of Net HP numbers that ran the engine with all belt driven accessories, production aircleaner and housing, and full factory exhaust was required which dropped torque and HP numbers by as much as 25% or more in some cases. Then add in the number you see on a dynamometer printout is SAE corrected for atmospheres conditions. Due to air density an engine can make more power in cooler air or at sea level than it would in a hotter environment or at high altitude. Humidity and barometric pressure also play a role. The dynamometer operator must enter in figures for temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, and altitude before testing. The test is then run and the actual output under these conditions is converted to what it would have produced at sea level, 70° with ideal humidity and barometric pressure (determined by SAE and the printout gives the SAE corrected Torque and HP numbers. This is done to prevent engine manufacturers from doing all there testing at facilities with ideal conditions like Northern California coastal cities in November vs Detroit MI in July. With SAE Corrected numbers there is no advantage to cherry picking a time and place to test. But the dynamometer operator can always fudge the numbers, add 10° of temperature, 20% in humidity, drop the barometric pressure and add 500 feet in elevation and you'll see a higher actual number and therefore a higher SAE corrected number. This has often been a trick used by shady dynamometer tuners for their before and after tuning results your before test showed 425Hp and after he tuned it you had 485 Hp but in reality he did nothing significant and changed the atmospheric conditions being input into the computer to justify charging a large fee for "dyno tuning" your engine. Always read those inputs as they should be on the printout. Also, if possible, be there watching the test and pay attention to the throttle opening ( I mark mine with wide open throttle indexes in a bright color so if he lifts off the throttle or doesn't open it all the way on the baseline runs to lower the numbers I'll see it. A lot of shady folks use these techniques to pad their "gains" and charge more money. I hope this has been helpful in defining what Horsepower and Torque actually mean and explains how 5,000 HP and 37 Foot Pounds of Torque from an engine is a mathematical impossibility if using accepted formulas and methodology for measuring these numbers. Also, if you really want to see impressive Home built engines checkout Dennis Franz RU-vid channel as he has 5 or more engines that he homebuilt that are more impressive than all but the last two engines you listed and he actually uses his in real world applications.
all i see is the same thing the prinsipe of a pistón en gine nothig else were is the novelty trully the new ingeners are just acouple of retrógradas no imaginación at all what a future we have they really go to scholl to lern waht. i am 67 year old i never be in higt scholl but i can tech to all of thatemptys mind
Not ALL ARE ENGINES. Most are MOTORS!!! AS matter of fact only #2 and #1 are engine's. It amazes me how many people say motor when they mean engine and engine when they mean motor!!!
There is no agreement at all as to what the difference is. In other languages there are no such differences. Both engine and motor refer to a device used to convert some form of energy into mechanical motion. The difference was invented by frustrated auto shop teachers that would rather have gone fishing.
+Bruce Boschek There is a huge difference between an engine and a motor. A motor is driven by an outside power supply. An engine is internal combustion!!! You never hear someone call a motor a engine, but for some reason people call an engine a motor. Motors are electric, pneumatic, or hydraulic. Engines are piston, jet turbine, and rocket. Motors are driven by stored pressure from an outside source. Volts=pressure, compressed air =pressure, compressed oil=pressure, all power sources supplied by another machine. An engine is SELF POWERED!!! Internal combustion =engine!!!!!!!!
The misunderstanding here is that you assume language is objective and everyone understands the same thing when they use a word. Alone, your misunderstanding that an internal combustion machine is an engine, thus ruling out steam engines (steam motors?) shows how wrong this is. You have a definition that you understand and that is fine, but you cannot expect anyone else to agree with you about it, unless they decide to do so. What you are describing is not an engine per se, but a "heat engine," which converts chemical energy stored in a carbonaceous fuel (or solar?) into useful work. The term heat engine is a technical term understood by engineers. Whether someone refers to such a machine as an engine or a motor is irrelevant because everyone knows what is meant in context. If this were not the case there would be the same terminology in other languages, which there is not. In French, German, Italian, Spanish, etc. a motor is a motor, whether a heat engine or an electric or pneumatic motor. BTW, the word engine is used in many other senses, such as a "graphic engine," or a "modelling engine." Semantics is worth thinking about.
+Bruce Boschek A cake is a cake and a pie is a pie!!! They are NOT the same!!! And we DON'T call them the same!!! And yes a steam engine is NOT AN ENGINE, it IS a motor and works under the same principles as a MOTOR!!!
