New 4 stroke engine (en anglais)

[Flytox]

Le moteur pivotant Australien de la vidéo ci dessus:

Je ne vois pas très bien son intérêt.
Je ne vois pas où il corrigerait des défauts inhérents au moteur deux temps (balayage "perfectible", mauvais remplissage à bas régime, course du piston mal utilisée (échappement ouvert pendant le début de compression etc...)
Il est plus compliqué (cylindre courbe, piston pivotant), plus difficile et plus cher à usiner.
Le piston est plus lourd (limitation de la vitesse de rotation du moteur) et certainement plus compliqué à refroidir (risque d'auto-allumage), avec une longueur de segmentation / joint nettement accrue, d'où une probable étanchéité cylindre / piston inférieure au 2 temps "traditionnel".
Une surface d'échange de température plus importante, donc rendement plus faible à cylindrée égale.
Pour l'équilibrage ...cela doit être bizarre avec le piston qui fait un arc de cercle au lieu de rester sur le même axe .
AMHA cela ressemble à un exercice de style pour faire différent à tout prix....mais sans faire mieux.

[inventor]

Le moteur pivotant Australien de la vidéo ci dessus:

Je ne vois pas très bien son intérêt.
Je ne vois pas où il corrigerait des défauts inhérents au moteur deux temps (balayage "perfectible", mauvais remplissage à bas régime, course du piston mal utilisée (échappement ouvert pendant le début de compression etc...)
Il est plus compliqué (cylindre courbe, piston pivotant), plus difficile et plus cher à usiner.
Le piston est plus lourd (limitation de la vitesse de rotation du moteur) et certainement plus compliqué à refroidir (risque d'auto-allumage), avec une longueur de segmentation / joint nettement accrue, d'où une probable étanchéité cylindre / piston inférieure au 2 temps "traditionnel".
Une surface d'échange de température plus importante, donc rendement plus faible à cylindrée égale.
Pour l'équilibrage ...cela doit être bizarre avec le piston qui fait un arc de cercle au lieu de rester sur le même axe .
AMHA cela ressemble à un exercice de style pour faire différent à tout prix....mais sans faire mieux.

Well, at all costs, you want to demonstrate your knowledge of engines .. I am not saying that the engine is perfect, only that it was an inspiration for my research ..
However, you criticized it too lightly ... This engine does not have a heavy piston at all, as the prototypes reach 11,000 rpm.
Besides, not every engine needs to drive a Boild F1. It could be a twin-line ship engine with a rotational speed of 102 revolutions per minute.
There is no wrongly selected stroke of the piston, because there are gasodynamic phenomena in the engine, which such a valve co-opening is beneficial .. but you can see that you do not understand it very well .. (open exhaust). besides, it's just an animation, in fact it can be a bit different, so you have to dream up here too.
In addition, the piston is not more expensive to process, and maybe even cheaper, because it does not rub against the cylinder, so it does not have to be that precise.
The advantage of this engine is the very good and failure-free method of cooling through the coolant inlet through the pin on which it sways ..
(Besides, diesel self-ignition is beneficial)
The heat exchange surface is basically not a disadvantage, because the lower valve engines had a huge size and somehow worked ... with this heat, these are the wishful postulates of not quite practicing theorists .. As can be seen by amateurs taken into account ..
With this balance, this is also not quite right, because it is only practically possible to check .. Theorists and computer scientists also calculated normal shafts, which, due to vibrations, broke after a few hours ...
Oh, practicing criticism in style, at all costs, to show that you know something ", but not entirely ..

https://web.archive.org/web/20200225031 ... llery.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20200225031 ... tions.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20190718124 ... ewater.doc

https://www.new4stroke.com/images/pivot1.pdf

Andrew

[Flytox]

C'est quoi la consommation spécifique de ce moteur (de la vidéo dont on parle) ?

[Obamot]

Would the purpose of this thread be the performance of an engine? But I hear that your comment is based on a real question Flytox, it's not that...

It seemed to me that this thread had become a bit of a "safe place of quiet discussion", where we discussed "openly" and intelligently, including meetings of researchers, looking for other inventions, anecdotes from the world of inventions, with sometimes a bit of irony about the academic approach that superbly ignores certain outlines (and paths that do exist though). For true research, it does not exclude trial and errors. Discussions on the creative process and many more (which brought us back to the very origin of the forum. And finally the discussions can reach another dimension of science, honest but more open, without falling into demagogy or fraud.

That's how I would sum it up (but everyone will see it as they want).

__________________

La raison d’être de ce fil, se résume-t-elle à la performance d’un moteur? Mais j’entends bien que ton propos repose sur une question fondée Flytox, c’est pas ça...

Il me semblait que ce fil râtissait plus large au fil du temps, il était devenu un peu un “havre de paix”, où l’on discutait “à bâtons rompus” et en bonne intelligence, notamment de réunions de chercheurs, d’autres inventions, d’anecdotes du monde des inventions, avec parfois quelque ironie sur l’approche académique qui ignore superbement certains contours (et chemins qui existent néanmoins). Car la vraie recherche n’exclu pas essais et tâtonnements. Sur le processus créatif et tas d’autres choses (qui nous ramenaient un peu plus à l’origine même du fo-fo. Et finalement les discussions peuvent accéder à une autre dimension de la science, qui se veut honnête mais plus ouverte, sans tomber dans la démagogie ni la fraude.

C’est ainsi que je le résumerai (mais chacun le verra comme y veut).

[inventor]

Would the purpose of this thread be the performance of an engine? But I hear that your comment is based on a real question Flytox, it's not that...

It seemed to me that this thread had become a bit of a "safe place of quiet discussion", where we discussed "openly" and intelligently, including meetings of researchers, looking for other inventions, anecdotes from the world of inventions, with sometimes a bit of irony about the academic approach that superbly ignores certain outlines (and paths that do exist though). For true research, it does not exclude trial and errors. Discussions on the creative process and many more (which brought us back to the very origin of the forum. And finally the discussions can reach another dimension of science, honest but more open, without falling into demagogy or fraud.

That's how I would sum it up (but everyone will see it as they want).

__________________



La raison d’être de ce fil, se résume-t-elle à la performance d’un moteur? Mais j’entends bien que ton propos repose sur une question fondée Flytox, c’est pas ça...

Il me semblait que ce fil râtissait plus large au fil du temps, il était devenu un peu un “havre de paix”, où l’on discutait “à bâtons rompus” et en bonne intelligence, notamment de réunions de chercheurs, d’autres inventions, d’anecdotes du monde des inventions, avec parfois quelque ironie sur l’approche académique qui ignore superbement certains contours (et chemins qui existent néanmoins). Car la vraie recherche n’exclu pas essais et tâtonnements. Sur le processus créatif et tas d’autres choses (qui nous ramenaient un peu plus à l’origine même du fo-fo. Et finalement les discussions peuvent accéder à une autre dimension de la science, qui se veut honnête mais plus ouverte, sans tomber dans la démagogie ni la fraude.

C’est ainsi que je le résumerai (mais chacun le verra comme y veut).

Yes, I myself do not change the world, .. at my age and myasthenia gravis disease, I can only show my thoughts and hopes .. Well, for example, in the last film about an oeltier with a peach of ice, it's a little new knowledge with a pickup .. But this is just the beginning, because, for example, you can still build a Stirling engine that will run on pieces of ice .. or generally cold ...

Andrew

[inventor]

Yes, I myself do not change the world, .. at my age and myasthenia gravis disease, I can only show my thoughts and hopes .. Well, for example, in the last film about an oeltier with a peach of ice, it's a little new knowledge with a pickup .. But this is just the beginning, because, for example, you can still build a Stirling engine that will run on pieces of ice .. or generally cold ...

Andrew

Yes, I already knew a little earlier that you can get energy from cold .. Peltier is such a spectacular show that you can really .. You only need to build an engine that will work well and efficiently under vacuum .. it can also be a ROOTS to which we will connect this negative pressure .. Contrary to appearances, negative pressure has a relatively high power ..
Here is an earlier film that shows the simple experience that you can get this negative pressure from the cold.

Andrew

[inventor]

Well, all the Great Politicians give their opinion on energy .. But I also published such a film .. It follows that the first, second and third Principles of Thermodynamics are NOT TRUE .. Because its basic equation that the efficiency of the engine = T1-T2 / T1, it would have to be negative .. it follows from this experience in the video .. So when are we melting the ice of Greenland to get an electric current? They too have now become renewable energy ..

Andrew

And this ice has a lot of this latent heat .. only half the steam ..
Well, if you convert it into watts, 250 kg of ice can theoretically give as much "heat" as a 25KWh battery of a small electric car .. Except that during its download, its weight drops, and the battery does not ..
Here is an explanation of what it is like




Andrew

[inventor]

Published by Yamaha, this month of the monthly "Powertrain Technology Internacional", a thermoelectric module for generating electricity from the heat of exhaust gases .. maybe knowledge, but not too much .. Very expensive and ineffective product ..
Page 60-61, 1-2.

https://www.ukimediaevents.com/publication/f503b03c/1





Andrew

[inventor]

So we have to go back to 1712 and learn the science of warm and cold again ...

Here is my example animation, how such a cold ice engine can work .. And we have 300 years to develop my concept .. I have already traveled a few years ..

Andrew

[inventor]

In other Forum:
[quote=GreenV8S]

Maybe you do.

Stirling engines are well known. That drawing shows an extremely crude one. Even very well designed ones have a hopelessly low power density and have no practical application.
[/quote]

But maybe so ...
We are already complicating the drawing. You understand this prowess the old way, and here the new has come.
You close all this business in a box of gas with a pressure of 100 atmospheres, and you take electricity from it, for 100 times better efficiency than you think .. This is also for low-temperature geothermal (50-80 degrees Celsius) and cold water, it is suitable ..
And by the way, it's very similar to my Haf Rotate engine, You can also give up round pistons .. and they can have large dimensions easily .. And then the power density will be rightly high, because everything works on Teflon seals. we deliver ice, ambient heat and we get electricity from this magic box .. of course, no emission of any by-products ..

Andrew