| Author | Message | ||
| FAST FRED Rating: N/A |
While I usually post links to find those nice BIG! marine engines , that could fit a bus down one cylinder, here is a different concept. Small! http://www.angellabsllc.com/index.html FAST FRED | ||
| Donald Lee Schwanke (Dontx)
Rating: N/A |
I want one! | ||
| Jim (Skyslayer)
Rating: N/A |
Wait is it still April fools? ;) http://www.extremefamily.com/thebus.htm | ||
| Gary Stadler (Boogiethecat)
Rating: N/A |
Dunno... if it's april fools, the guy has sure spent a lot of time on it, including getting a patent (which checks out at the patent office site). Look thru his website- it actually looks pretty interesting! It's real... thanks Fred.. cool find. Maybe I'll put one in my Crown...  | ||
| JW Smythe (Jwsmythe)
Rating: N/A |
I can't make heads or tails of his design. I see what appear to be pistons, set up as what look like fan blades on the rotary part of the assembly. I see absolutely no method of compression or ignition, nor intake or exhaust ports. Somewhere in the site he says it's been tested with air only, so it hasn't actually operated as an engine. He has theory, and not much more. Getting a patent doesn't actually mean it works. There are some wild patents on things that would never work. I've seen patents on UFO technology. One guy got one for swinging on a rope swing sideways. It's up to how good the guy at the patent office is was when it was processed. That's a big problem in computer technology. People got patents for ideas years ago, and now they're trying to lay claim to current technology. For example, one company has several patents for the transmission of audio and video via digital means over data networks. They're making a living suing companies providing streaming audio or video. Either they pay a serious percentage of their income (not profit), or they risk spending years in court. | ||
| Craig (Ceieio)
Rating: N/A |
Let's see. If it was real, you could turn your engine bay into storage, pull the axle housing, and replace it with a couple of these babies in a frame with transmissions to drive the left and the right wheels. With the right computer control, you could manage both and even work on differential control for turns etc. You could even go gung-ho and do all wheel drive. Kind of fun to think of repackaging possibilities that something like this would bring if it could be made to work. I suppose a single one of of these with a tranny would do it if it did all he claimed. Maybe the best bet would be constant RPM with a generator and electric drive at the wheels. OK, back to reality for me now. Craig - MC7 Oregon | ||
| herman Rating: N/A |
Jeez, easy there, JW! Somewhere on the site there is a pair of end-on pics of the actual widget with the cover removed; it is tremendously illustrative. There are 2 sets of interleaved pistons, and a pair of intake & exhaust ports each at 3 and 9 o'clock. The way it works is that the rotary movement of the individual piston sets is discontinuous and out of phase. At either extreme (shown by one pic) you'd have 4 pairs of pistons (one from each set) right up against each other, with big gaps between pairs; at the midpoint between these extremes you have even spacing between all 8 pistons (shown by the other pic). First one set moves, away from the extreme position to the midpoint position, coming to a stop; then the other set moves, recreating the extreme position. As this occurs, half the pistons (in the vicinity of 3 and 9 o'clock) are sweeping by the ports, effecting intake and exhaust; the other half of the pistons, in the region of 6 and 12 o'clock, are effecting the compression and power strokes. And yes, it has been run on fuel; the reason they are continuing testing via air is to avoid wearing out their prototype. There is a very definite genius in the design, when you consider, in a traditional engine, that a) all connecting rod mass, along with well over 50% of crankshaft mass, and a considerable portion of overall block mass, exists solely to a) convey force from piston to crankshaft, b) to convert linear into rotary motion, and c) to contain the lateral forces of piston, connecting rod, and crankshaft. And all that results in a considerable volumetric overhead, as well. Oh, and he's eliminated the entire camshaft and valvetrain, as well... What I'm curious about is the loading on whatever linkage joins the 2 piston sets in such a way as to effect this funky motion (other pics show what offhand looks like crank throws and connecting rods in the middle section between the two circular sections), and the ability of the engine to avoid overheating in the face of such high power densities. | ||
| TomNPat
Rating: N/A |
Darned motor cars will never replace horses! Thanks, Fast Fred! TomNPat | ||
| Ross Carlisle (Rrc62)
Rating: N/A |
850HP and 150 lbs? If it's real it won't take long for it to appear in an airplane. I know guys who would pay BIG money for that kind of power to weight ratio. | ||
| Gary Stadler (Boogiethecat)
Rating: N/A |
Look at his site and find the "animation" & click on it. You'll instantly get the fact that it's an amazing design. Then if you clik on his patent, you can grokk how he seals the pistons and connects them to the output shaft. Again, genius... | ||
| R.C.Bishop
Rating: N/A |
Thanx, FF....as usual thought provoking!...and when you try it out, let us know....amazing! RCB | ||
| JW Smythe (Jwsmythe)
Rating: N/A |
I'm all for new technology. I'd *LOVE* to see a working one, operational, and in pieces so I can understand how it works. I'm sure there are much better ways to go the good old internal combustion engine, but I'm fond of seeing better non-oil technologies too. I know the rotary engine didn't see as much attention as it should have. I don't know if that was Mazda's fault or not. Rotaries has the problem of sounding like a riding lawnmower at idle, or at least the ones I heard. Most of them I've heard were set up for racing, which may have been the cause of that. I drove the next to last model RX-7 once. It moved like a bat out of hell, but felt like I was driving a go-kart. I know the fans of the rotary really love them. You gotta love a motor that turns over 15k RPM. My smallblock Chevy's (various models) turn up to about 6500 RPM as street cars, but I've worked with some that'll turn 8k RPM. I really hope that his engine sees production. Our good old piston motors are ancient, dating back to Fransois Isaac de Rivaz's invention in 1806. ... and the previous comment about dual engines. Sure, it's possible. That's how some tanks work, like the WWII M24. It may be a bit of a bastard to work on a bus, and not really worth it since buses typically push both wheels at the same speed. Unbalanced power is going to cause abnormal wear. My dad was in the infantry in WWII, and described "most" tanks as working that way. He got out of the military in the late 70's, so I'm sure plenty of things have changed since then. | ||
| Tim Strommen (Tim_strommen)
Rating: N/A |
Hmmm - neat engine... I'd think that if you paired this up with a Constantly Variable Planetary Transmission, you'd have a really cool setup. Cheers! -Tim | ||
| truthhunter@shaw.ca Rating: N/A |
I am still wondering what came of that linear piston design some German engineer had created back in the 80`s . It really seem to have potential and the power:weight claims were in this machines ballpark. It could be used to power only in the linear plain so it had potential as a compressor, pump or generator,with ultra high cycles , high thermal efficiency with minimal friction loss and wear as well as very simple with very few moving parts. Seem to me it could be perfected with the use of electronic direct injection technology available off the shelf these days. Anyone aware of what happened to this contraption? Hum maybe the oil companies bought it up !?! | ||
| niles steckbauer (Niles500)
Rating: N/A |
An acquaintance of mine claims some years ago he was involved in a project (I think at Oakridge) where they built and tested an adiabatic engine which weighed 20 ounces and produced 275 HP @ 250,000 RPM - he said that they ran it continuously for nine days straight - FWIW | ||
| truthhunter@shaw.ca Rating: N/A |
Did he tell you about that quarter of a million rpm on April 1st? | ||
| JW Smythe (Jwsmythe)
Rating: N/A |
Nick, I found two different engines with the adiabatic name on them. You are probably thinking of something more like the one Smokey Yunick did. http://schou.dk/hvce/ http://www.adiabatics.com/adiabatic%20engine.htm | ||
| niles steckbauer (Niles500)
Rating: N/A |
Nick??? - I'm guessing you meant Niles - JW - Not like those you referenced - I believe this was a ceramic engine, as he was working with ceramics at the time - Its hard to get too much info as most of his life he worked on classified government projects - either the info hasn't been de-classifed yet or will never be - He got his first patent when I think he was still a teen - He is currently working on mind blowing development of a process to change YOUR genome (nope - not stem cell research) which is in his actual field of Biology - He's an interesting guy to talk to - to say the least - if any of this kinda stuff gets to be placed into use, you can imagine what kind of world will evolve in the 21st Century - Hope I live long enough to see some of it - FWIW - Niles | ||
| JW Smythe (Jwsmythe)
Rating: N/A |
Niles, Sorry, I sometimes make mistakes in the early morning hours. I was doing work at the same time, so I was on here while long processes were running. Now that you mention the ceramic engine, my dad knew a guy who was doing something with that in the military. If I remember right, the specific one that he was working on was a hydrogen burning engine in the 60's. The problem with that one was that it would get red hot, too hot for a car. Aparently it worked well, but would melt the hood if they put one on. My dad did interesting work in government research. As a young kid, I got to see dry ice and liquid nitrogen. He had 6 books published by the gov't on the stuff he was working on. His work dated back to the early 60's, and we're just starting to see it show up more commonly, but it's not in the hands of the general public, unless you can afford a $50,000 unit. Some of his photos are on display at a NASA museum, but they're marked as from the gov't and a large contractor. The only way to know that they were his, were if you find them in his book where they were first published. | ||
| truthhunter@shaw.ca Rating: N/A |
There is no amazement like technological amazement. That linear piston engine I referred to did have several prototypes hitting upwards of 20,OOO cycles per minuet (not rpm as the double ended piston just went back and forth in the cylinder and in the center of the conecting rod was a much larger diameter piston & cylinder that acts as a "supercharger" to scavenge the 2 stroke cylinder, the compression/ignition at stoke end keeps the cylinder from bottoming out and the exposion returns it to compress the other end of the double piston. The cylinder was ported much lick on a Jimmie for both exhaust and induction ( I though a electomagnetic exhast valves might up volumetiric efficentcy if place in the cylinder "head/end". A pump could be created by adding additional cylinders on the connecting rod and permanent magnets could be added on the shaft and passed through a field coil to induce current and as a starter. They were reaching for adiabatic properties using ceramics much like Smokeys choices at the start of his adiabatic reciprocating experiments, as there were not a lot of choices that far back. This off course was what pushed it up to the 70 % heat efficient. I guess a surf of the West German Patent office might set on on course to see what happened with this remarkable simple innovation. The 250,000 rpm just doesn't strike me as feasible as that is moving air/fuel and the mechanisms at speed approaching light speed, so unless these were experiments going on in a magnetic containment like a tomahawk fusion reactor I need to remain sceptical and look for more data ( the smallest such magnetic containment engines can be be near mass-less but not the current massive infrastructure currently available to create such environments) but this is would be something I would relish on being wrong about! May your acquaintance dazzle us all some day, till then well just have to use our imagination to guess on how such a thing is possible with earth indiduous minerals. If only I had the resources I would certainly try and build one. Maybe someone out there will? | ||
| herman Rating: N/A |
TH, what _are_ you smoking? How do you get c, which is about 186,000 miles per second, out of 250K RPM? Oh, and, where can I get some? | ||
| JW Smythe (Jwsmythe)
Rating: N/A |
Google is so wonderful. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=convert+speed+of+light+to+feet+per+second&btnG=Google +Search the speed of light = 983,571,056 feet per second So, at 250k RPM, a component would need to travel 3,934 feet through it's cycle. Exactly how big is this engine again? ... and for the speed of light, we're all moving faster than the speed of light, relative to some other things. It's all a matter of your perspective. That's a topic not appropriate for a site talking about buses. | ||
| JW Smythe (Jwsmythe)
Rating: N/A |
Shit, I screwed up the math on that one. It's 236,057 feet per second. 983,571,056 feet per second = 59,014,263,360 feet per minute. 59,014,263,360/250,000 = 236,057 is: 1 revolution = 236,057 feet | ||
| niles steckbauer (Niles500)
Rating: N/A |
JW - no prob - just trying to make sure who it was you were talking to - your dad might know this guy if he were very young in the 60's - his grandpa has approximately 500 patents - I can't judge him on patents when you consider he worked the majority of is life on government projects (the gov doesn't do patents) - non published - he's most probably the smartest person I've ever conversed with - TH - yes 250k RPM is rotation and not shaft/piston (dependant on bore(x)stroke) speed - more like 4k cycles per second - 186k p/sec is speed of light - not correlative - but I understand where you're coming from - I wish I could give you more info, as your just as inquisitive as I - but alas I have to give it as I get it - $50k couldn't by his time for a millisecond - but an hour is a life time of knowledge - FWIW - Niles | ||
| niles steckbauer (Niles500)
Rating: N/A |
thats miles per second - sorry | ||
| JW Smythe (Jwsmythe)
Rating: N/A |
Well, my dad was born in 1919, but died in 1991, so I can't ask him about it now. I remember him telling me about it, probably in the late 80's. It's perfectly possible that they're two different people. There's been lots of government funded research that's been done. Much of it won't ever see the light of day. Consider that aircraft that I mentioned in another thread, that was developed out at Area 51. That's one of many projects, but it's only one of three that I've ever heard of coming from there. The only project that I know that he worked on was interesting, at least to me. He was doing thermal imaging. It was suppose to be non-destructive tire testing for aircraft. The government wanted to be able to test aircraft tires between flights, to ensure there wouldn't be a tire failure on takeoff or landing. With thermal imaging, you could see hot or cold spots, where the tread was weaker or no longer contacting the rest of the tire. His books were full of other pictures. Some were of old buildings where you could see the difference between original walls and bricked over windows. One that particularly stuck in my head was a thermal image of a handprint on a wall. It was a couple minutes after the wall was touched, but you could still clearly see the image. That kind of imaging hardware was cooled by liquid nitrogen, which is why he had it around. The earlier equipment had to be carried around by truck. By the time I was a kid, they had it down to fit on a fold up table. It was still far from portable. Now it's mounted in helicopters and military vehicles. You can buy some of the newer stuff, that can be hand held, attached to camcorders or still cameras. I've seen a couple companies with press releases for equipment that firefighters can carry, to see potential victims through smoke in building fires. I don't know that they're using it yet though. Equipment that's not liquid cooled is still outragously expensive. I know he worked on other stuff. He had laser parts. I remember trying to get an old helium-neon laser working, but there were too many broken parts on it to get anywhere with it. He had a gold mirror that was used with a laser, but he never went into what either piece went with. Some government project, and they needed the gold mirror because it reflected more accurately other metals. He also had part of a prototype weapon. It was similar in size to a "LAW", but had four tubes. It was fiberglass, so I doubt it was a working prototype. Oh ya, and part of a meteor. The lab was trying to cut it up. They broke a little chunk off the surface, but they couldn't cut it. It's kinda like all those UFO stories where they claim that the material was so advanced that it couldn't be cut by anything, but this was just a rock. They destroyed many drills and saws trying to cut it. Ideally, they wanted to see the cross-section. I believe it's now either at the Smithsonion, or a NASA museum. It's one of those boring exhibits, "this is a meteor, found at ....", the kind that rarely even get a second look. ... and some fossiziled dinosaur footprints, that he got when he was out in the desert in the 60's. Hmmmm.. Where's area 51 again? Damn, this once again makes me wonder, what the hell was he doing. I was only 18 when he died. It's a shame, I could ask him so many more educated questions now, and really understand what the hell he was talking about. Unfortunately, I know he couldn't tell me everything about everything, I'm sure much of it was/is still classified. At least I'd know what questions to ask, and what to really dig for. | ||
| Muddog16 (Muddog16)
Rating: N/A |
Jw, "He also had part of a prototype weapon. It was similar in size to a "LAW", but had four tubes. It was fiberglass, so I doubt it was a working prototype.", Do you remember when this was? When I was in vietnam, my unit was given a 4 tube Law type rocket launcher we used several of them, then they didn't supply any more, from what I remember they were to big and bulky, for the jungle, but they were neat looking, the unit I was in was given many experimental weapons to test in actuall combat, this was in mid 1969 when we tested them. May not even be the same thing, but I know they were not around very long! Pat | ||
| truthhunter@shaw.ca Rating: N/A |
opps sorry I forgot to put that saracium in " " on the matter moving at the speed of light. But you get the idea about behind the physics of 250,000 rpm? | ||
| Jack Conrad (Jackconrad)
Rating: N/A |
"equipment that firefighters can carry, to see potential victims through smoke in building fires. I don't know that they're using it yet though." Yes, these are being used. We have a hand held unit on each engine. I mean "They" have, I got to get used to being retired. LOL Jack | ||
| JW Smythe (Jwsmythe)
Rating: N/A |
Muddog, I have no clue when he got it or where it came from. It was in our barn from when I was a kid, and had to have been there since before 1978, because that's when he left the military and we moved. That's cool that you actually used one. I called my mom about it, to see if it was still around. She thinks it got trashed when she moved a few years ago. She does remember it though. She used to keep maps rolled up and stuffed in the tubes. This one wasn't much of a weapon, it was just the 4 tubes, with no other hardware. | ||
| JW Smythe (Jwsmythe)
Rating: N/A |
Jack, Cool. I'm not a fire fighter, and the closest I've been to a fire was when a neighbors house burned years ago. It was already burning hot by the time I got to it, and the fire department was 10 minutes behind me. That was way out rural nowhere, they actually made good time. I've seen prototypes of wearable models. The best one I've seen was a single semitransparent eyepiece, so you can see both the thermal imaging and what's really in front of you with one eye, and have the other one not obstructed at all. I always wanted to build something like that, except with two lenses. Both sides would be semitransparent, so any image would be overlayed over the real world. One lens would show light intensified, and the other thermal imaging. | ||
| FAST FRED Rating: N/A |
?But you get the idea about behind the physics of 250,000 rpm?" An engine only produces power on the power stroke , I guess 250,000rpm means lots of TINY power strokes which together gives useable work. FAST FRED | ||
| truthhunter@shaw.ca Rating: N/A |
Yes I see the "many tinys adds up to lots". Was directing my bafflement towards the friction and inertia involved in moving parts that fast < like a piston in the cylinder or bearings on a rotating shaft as well as moving air that fast and what happens to the atomized fuel in the stream. That many tinys add up lots" is what gave the incredibly high power to weight ration on that linear piston engine and also what makes a fuel hungry turbine so powerful,both very high speeds. In the case of the linear piston engine there was virtually only two major inertias to overcome and each energy is transferred (all except the cylinder friction) into compression force . If anyone has a collection of old popular science (or was it popular mechanics) from the early 80's or late 70's, I remember there was a short article about this innovation. I seem to remember the inventor/developer was named Shmit , but human names are so difficult for my memory so don't quote me on this part. I will try to make a scetch some day and scan get it scaned into the computer and figure out how to post that, and then you all can make a better opinion on this inovative and rather simple contraption. | ||
| niles steckbauer (Niles500)
Rating: N/A |
Your kinda on the right road - I don't know if it was a piston engine or not (why I referenced cycles) - I would assume not - I did get him to commit that it was an "internal combustion" engine - the other killer was 'no measurable heat rejection' - think about that for a minute - he has a patent for creating perfect ceramic parts - I'm pretty sure the engine (of whatever type it was) was constructed entirely of ceramics - some day I hope I get to see at least the specs - Niles | ||
| niles steckbauer (Niles500)
Rating: N/A |
By the way that test at 250k RPM for 9 days is 135 million cycles - thats equivilant to a series 60 cruising at 1400 RPM for over 96,000 non-stop minutes - If the mill that originated this topic can pass that test, I think they got something - FWIW | ||
| truthhunter@shaw.ca Rating: N/A |
ahw 250 K/rpm was the "the mileage" and not the red line speed of the engine then. I kind of thought that was what you may have meant as after "all was cut away" that was all that was left as likely engine specs. Just didn't want to believe a fusion engine of such small weights had been built here yet, unless there was more of that ultra dense meteorite (born in a different environment than earth) that was referenced by someone on this board being shaped into a magnetic containment sphere/engine block in the size range below 20 oz. producing 275 hp at 33.3 ft/lbs. | ||
| niles steckbauer (Niles500)
Rating: N/A |
Jeez - another correction - should check my math before I post - 250k x 60 x 24 x 9 = 3.24 billion cycles 3.24 billion / 1400 = 2.3+ million minutes or 1607 days of continuous operation for DD Reminder to Niles (read post before entering and show your math) |