Re: [Biofuel] Multi Fuel Engines
My unit ran our duce and a half out of go juice in Korea and we ran it on sojue . It ran well but it was hard to pour good liquor in a fuel tank. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of jason Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 11:38 PM To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Multi Fuel Engines y'know, all this jabber about multi-fuel engines has got meremebering something i saw when i was a kid. those old US army deuce-and-a-half trucks that have been around since the dawn of time can run on just about any combustible slop you can feed them. they were designed with diesel in mind, but can be easily manipulated via levers and switches to burn propane, methane, heating oil, ethanol, kerosene, petrol, diesel, and a handful of other fuels i can't think of right now. would one of those be handy to have around in a fuel crunch?(i betcha a dollar it would...) ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Multi Fuel Engines
y'know, all this jabber about multi-fuel engines has got meremebering something i saw when i was a kid. those old US army "deuce-and-a-half" trucks that have been around since the dawn of time can run on just about any combustible slop you can feed them. they were designed with diesel in mind, but can be easily manipulated via levers and switches to burn propane, methane, heating oil, ethanol, kerosene, petrol, diesel, and a handful of other fuels i can't think of right now. would one of those be handy to have around in a fuel crunch?(i betcha a dollar it would...) ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Multi Fuel Engines
can be easily manipulated via levers and switches to burn propane, methane, heating oil, ethanol, kerosene, petrol, diesel, and a handful of other fuels i can't think of right now. would one of those be handy to have around in a fuel crunch? Any older type diesel will run on just about anything if you mix it sensibly, I fed my old 60s Landrover diesel anything I could find except neat petrol and still got 30 to 35 milesto the uk gallon. It had twin tanks so I could start and stop on diesel and run on gunk when the engine was hot. Those 5 bearing ex army engines were tough but they ran rather hot if I had too much petrol in the mix.Those multi fuel engines did very few miles to the gallon from what I was told by an armydriver. Chris. Wessex Ferret Club www.wessexferretclub.co.uk ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Multi Fuel Engines
The theory on them is alluring. Modifying the compression/expansion cycle to - for example - expand the combustion gases quickly and thereby reduce pollution seems like a great potential. Another would be to halt the piston at/just beyond top dead center and let combustion finish. Those both have some pretty serious issues when it comes to actual implementation. Another that's intriguing is the ability to have the expansion stroke longer than the intake stroke for more efficiency. You are so very right it's alluring, but not even touching stroke lengths and related phases of the cycle, but just to reduce the sheer number of /moving parts/ in the engine itself is a big draw for me. Simpler tends to translate to more durable, and with fewer moving parts there should be less work lost to friction, less to need lubrication (Which could lead to a less complicated lubrication system, also a plus), and so on. I think the reason they never caught on is complexity, which translates into cost. It's easier to make a matching block and head when all the cylinders line up, and the valve gear required in a barrel engine is just awful. And the manifolding. the list goes on. You end up with an engine that's small in theory but has stuff sticking out all over. Well, from what I've read, the OP engine design doesn't have valves; At least none that I could see in the layout drawings. Seemed simpler to me, more in common with the two-stroke (Clark?) cycle than the Otto cycle. So your valve timing would be taken care of by your piston timing.. which is in turn controlled by your drive cams. The injector could be a DI-style sensor-fired high pressure injector; like I said, this one in particular seemed to lend itself well to a diesel process. With compression coming from both ends, it should be possible to ramp up the compression ratios even higher than normal, and the solid one-piece cams secured in the same direction as the piston force should be able to take the load much better than a perpendicularly secured crankshaft. What I see in my mind is almost a cylinder of tubes (The cylinders), with smaller tubes carring the intake air running in the front and smaller tubes for the exhaust running out the back end. (This would have to be changed for a turbocharged engine). Another wild idea; what if you put this barrel engine (The OP one) in place of the combustion chamber on a gas turbine? Exhaust flow turns a power turbine, which runs up a common shaft to turn a compressor to ramp up air pressure going into the cylinders. Might work, and make it easier to run it on a turbocharger without ducting and manifolding the airflows all over the place. The only place where that one runs into problems is when you try to figure out how to get the driveshaft power out through the turbine shaft. :p Which is where my poor tired brain breaks down. Peace out. -Kurt ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Multi Fuel Engines
engine turbine power is used in lots of vehicles from ships to helicopters, They use a planetary gearbox to step down from 60 - 70,000 rpm to anywhere between 2000- 1 rpm, these are not simple devices anyone can look after if your really interested in efficient piston engines, check out the single listeriods! http://www.otherpower.com/fuking.html these are up 5 - 12 hp power singles that generate there power at around 500 - 650 rpm, can run on diesel or any dirty oil you can findand can be made to get up to 45 - 55% of the energy they burn! also there have very very few moving parts can be looked after by any bush mechanic and have been around for over a hundred years. i could go on, but take a look around google, there's lots of info Bede -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Kurt NolteSent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 2:51 PMTo: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSubject: Re: [Biofuel] Multi Fuel Engines"The theory on them is alluring. Modifying the compression/expansioncycle to - for example - expand the combustion gases quickly andthereby reduce pollution seems like a great potential. Another would beto halt the piston at/just beyond top dead center and let combustionfinish. Those both have some pretty serious issues when it comes toactual implementation. Another that's intriguing is the ability to havethe expansion stroke longer than the intake stroke for more efficiency."You are so very right it's alluring, but not even touching stroke lengths and related phases of the cycle, but just to reduce the sheer number of /moving parts/ in the engine itself is a big draw for me. Simpler tends to translate to more durable, and with fewer moving parts there should be less work lost to friction, less to need lubrication (Which could lead to a less complicated lubrication system, also a plus), and so on. "I think the reason they never caught on is complexity, which translatesinto cost. It's easier to make a matching block and head when all thecylinders line up, and the valve gear required in a barrel engine isjust awful. And the manifolding. the list goes on. You end up withan engine that's small in theory but has stuff sticking out all over."Well, from what I've read, the OP engine design doesn't have valves; At least none that I could see in the layout drawings. Seemed simpler to me, more in common with the two-stroke (Clark?) cycle than the Otto cycle. So your "valve timing" would be taken care of by your piston timing.. which is in turn controlled by your drive cams. The injector could be a DI-style sensor-fired high pressure injector; like I said, this one in particular seemed to lend itself well to a diesel process. With compression coming from both ends, it should be possible to ramp up the compression ratios even higher than normal, and the solid one-piece cams secured in the same direction as the piston force should be able to take the load much better than a perpendicularly secured crankshaft. What I see in my mind is almost a cylinder of tubes (The cylinders), with smaller tubes carring the intake air running in the front and smaller tubes for the exhaust running out the back end. (This would have to be changed for a turbocharged engine).Another wild idea; what if you put this barrel engine (The OP one) in place of the combustion chamber on a gas turbine? Exhaust flow turns a power turbine, which runs up a common shaft to turn a compressor to ramp up air pressure going into the cylinders. Might work, and make it easier to run it on a turbocharger without ducting and manifolding the airflows all over the place. The only place where that one runs into problems is when you try to figure out how to get the driveshaft power out through the turbine shaft. :p Which is where my poor tired brain breaks down. Peace out.-Kurt ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Multi Fuel Engines
Kurt Nolte wrote: On 10/16/05, *Jeromie Reeves* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How about a rotary engine that doest take those delicate graphite seals? Long story short I had one via my lil brother that only had 1 working cell and still put out enough HP to go 85mph. Jeromie From what I understand, a rotary engine is actually a step /down/ in thermal efficiency; maybe it's just the materials used, but I seem to hear something about how they may have more power density, but their thermal efficiency suffers too much to really make them widespread. It's not the materials used, it's that there is so much surface area per unit of volume. All the extra surface area absorbs heat, which is wasted out the cooling system, and quenches the flame which increases pollutants. Rotaries (wankels, at least) are well suited for aircraft use in some ways - they're light, powerful, smooth, and reliable. Their failure mode tends to be losing power gradually, as opposed to piston engines that fail catestrophically when they seize up or break a piston or swallow a valve or the timing belt breaks. Unless you have something like an airplane, however, they're usually too thirsty to take seriously. Maybe when rotaries have more research put into them like the piston engine has they'll meet and even exceed the efficiency and power density of reciprocating piston engines, but right now I don't believe they're there yet. Besides which they are, as you have just implied, rather delicate as opposed to the near brash ruggedness of a RP engine. Unless research leads to materials that simply don't need to be cooled (the adiabatic diesel is a long time dream in the military) I wouldn't get my hopes up. I also wouldn't get my hopes up on the other rotary and unconventional designs with cam-type camshafts. I'm a little surprised no one mentioned the dynacam (http://www.dynacam.com) which has been six months from the market for several decades IIRC. Internal combustion and sliding vanes present seal problems that aren't going to be fixed by a shade-tree mechanic of any kind. Sorry, but that's life. Opposed piston engines, OTOH, have some real advantages. Getting rid of the head and valve train simplifies things somewhat, and having hot pistons facing each other eliminates two heads and the heat loss associated with them. The Germans used opposed piston diesels in Junkers transport aircraft and could fly all the way to Brazil without refueling. Fairbanks Morse still makes them - see http://www.fairbanksmorse.com/engines/commercial/op/op_data.htm Personally I'm a gas turbine fan, but I don't see them overtaking everything and replacing all other engines anytime soon, so I figured I might as well get with something people are a little more familiar with. ;p Simple rotating devices have a big attraction:) The biggest drawback with turbines is that major parts of the engine that are under severe stress must operate at the peak combustion temperature. Unfortunately this guy named Carnot passed a law that said lower peak temps would operate at lower efficiency, so they won't be able to match diesels for efficiency until we make some, uhh, remarkable advances in materials:) Hope someone finds this interesting. I know a lot more about engine design than making biodiesel so far. --- David ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Multi Fuel Engines
Ok here's another one for you. Still in research but looks promising. http://www.limtechnology.com/ Joe Greg and April wrote: Prototype 42 hp Engine 6 inches dia. 6 inches long 42 hp at 7000 rpm 40lbs. Tested at NAVAIR PSEF Oct. 2003 http://www.regtech.com/18.html Greg H. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Multi Fuel Engines
And another - http://www.axialvectorengine.com/ Joe Street wrote: Ok here's another one for you. Still in research but looks promising. http://www.limtechnology.com/ Joe Greg and April wrote: Prototype 42 hp Engine 6 inches dia. 6 inches long 42 hp at 7000 rpm 40lbs. Tested at NAVAIR PSEF Oct. 2003 http://www.regtech.com/18.html Greg H. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Multi Fuel Engines
I've been looking at this one for a long time: http://www.freedom-motors.com/ Apparently, it can run as a gen set with externally mixed diesel fuel and the engine puts out very little in the way of pollution. Unlike some of the other manufacturers we've discussed on this list, Freedom Motors is actually producing units for sale. It looks like it would be a good fit for a hybrid / electric vehicle, as the engine is very compact and high powered. robert luis rabello The Edge of Justice Adventure for Your Mind http://www.newadventure.ca Ranger Supercharger Project Page http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Multi Fuel Engines
robert luis rabello wrote: I've been looking at this one for a long time: http://www.freedom-motors.com/ Apparently, it can run as a gen set with externally mixed diesel fuel and the engine puts out very little in the way of pollution. Unlike some of the other manufacturers we've discussed on this list, Freedom Motors is actually producing units for sale. It looks like it would be a good fit for a hybrid / electric vehicle, as the engine is very compact and high powered. I love looking at new engines:) How'd that old mazda commercial go? Engines that go h ? I didn't see the bit about genset usage. The diesel usage looked like it just adjusts the mixture some, uses a high pressure injector, and spark ignition. The biggest drawback to this engine would seem to be the efficiency - the faq lists its best case as .47 lb per horsepower hour, and .55 or more was pretty typical. By comparison, an efficient piston diesel will be down in the low .3's. In other words it would use about 50% more fuel for the same HP output. --- David ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Multi Fuel Engines
David Miller wrote: I love looking at new engines:) How'd that old mazda commercial go? Engines that go h ? You're dating yourself, now! (And me, too!) I didn't see the bit about genset usage. The diesel usage looked like it just adjusts the mixture some, uses a high pressure injector, and spark ignition. Somewhere on the site, they mention that using diesel fuel with this engine is best suited for constant rpm applications. The only constant rpm application I can think of involves using the engine in a gen set. The biggest drawback to this engine would seem to be the efficiency - the faq lists its best case as .47 lb per horsepower hour, and .55 or more was pretty typical. By comparison, an efficient piston diesel will be down in the low .3's. In other words it would use about 50% more fuel for the same HP output. How would this compare to a typical Otto cycle piston engine? robert luis rabello The Edge of Justice Adventure for Your Mind http://www.newadventure.ca Ranger Supercharger Project Page http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Multi Fuel Engines
From what I understand, a rotary engine is actually a step /down/ in thermal efficiency; maybe it's just the materials used, but I seem to hear something about how they may have more power density, but their thermal efficiency suffers too much to really make them widespread.It's not the materials used, it's that there is so much surface area per unit of volume.All the extra surface area absorbs heat, which iswasted out the cooling system, and quenches the flame which increasespollutants.Rotaries (wankels, at least) are well suited for aircraft use in some ways - they're light, powerful, smooth, and reliable.Their failuremode tends to be losing power gradually, as opposed to piston enginesthat fail catestrophically when they seize up or break a piston orswallow a valve or the timing belt breaks. Unless you have something like an airplane, however, they're usually toothirsty to take seriously. Ahh, I see now. I knew they had some major disadvantage going against them, but couldn't remember what. Just out of curiousity, what's the hangup with cam-shafted engines? You put them in the same class as sliding vane engines (seal problems I can understand, those would have to wear out faster than more traditional arrangements), but I'm not really seeing a seal problem with the cam-cranked engines. Is there just something I'm missing? -K ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Multi Fuel Engines
Kurt Nolte wrote: From what I understand, a rotary engine is actually a step /down/ in thermal efficiency; maybe it's just the materials used, but I seem to hear something about how they may have more power density, but their thermal efficiency suffers too much to really make them widespread. It's not the materials used, it's that there is so much surface area per unit of volume. All the extra surface area absorbs heat, which is wasted out the cooling system, and quenches the flame which increases pollutants. Rotaries (wankels, at least) are well suited for aircraft use in some ways - they're light, powerful, smooth, and reliable. Their failure mode tends to be losing power gradually, as opposed to piston engines that fail catestrophically when they seize up or break a piston or swallow a valve or the timing belt breaks. Unless you have something like an airplane, however, they're usually too thirsty to take seriously. Ahh, I see now. I knew they had some major disadvantage going against them, but couldn't remember what. Just out of curiousity, what's the hangup with cam-shafted engines? You put them in the same class as sliding vane engines (seal problems I can understand, those would have to wear out faster than more traditional arrangements), but I'm not really seeing a seal problem with the cam-cranked engines. Is there just something I'm missing? I put them in the same category because there have been so many to get - at best - to the prototype stage, and always seem to stall out at the just looking for the investor to start mass production, but we'll take a deposit on your engine now stage. They've all seemed like scams. The theory on them is alluring. Modifying the compression/expansion cycle to - for example - expand the combustion gases quickly and thereby reduce pollution seems like a great potential. Another would be to halt the piston at/just beyond top dead center and let combustion finish. Those both have some pretty serious issues when it comes to actual implementation. Another that's intriguing is the ability to have the expansion stroke longer than the intake stroke for more efficiency. I think the reason they never caught on is complexity, which translates into cost. It's easier to make a matching block and head when all the cylinders line up, and the valve gear required in a barrel engine is just awful. And the manifolding. the list goes on. You end up with an engine that's small in theory but has stuff sticking out all over. My dream for a long while was to combine the barrel (cam) engine with a cam at each end driving opposed pistons and a two stroke diesel. Needless to say, my RD budget and machining abilities never got me to the prototype stage:( --- David ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Multi Fuel Engines
robert luis rabello wrote: David Miller wrote: I love looking at new engines:) How'd that old mazda commercial go? Engines that go h ? You're dating yourself, now! (And me, too!) Hey, I can remember Coke I'd like to teach the world to sing commercial. I was pretty young then though, so that does help date me:) The biggest drawback to this engine would seem to be the efficiency - the faq lists its best case as .47 lb per horsepower hour, and .55 or more was pretty typical. By comparison, an efficient piston diesel will be down in the low .3's. In other words it would use about 50% more fuel for the same HP output. How would this compare to a typical Otto cycle piston engine? Typical 4 stroke otto cycle (OK, that's redundant:) engines usually run in the .4 to .5 lbs/hp-hour. This engine is pretty typical for a wankel. It's interesting that the airplane crowd has to take special precautions with wankels because the exhaust is so hot. Obviously this is because a mark of its inefficiency - the higher the efficiency the lower the exhaust temperature. --- David ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Multi Fuel Engines
David Miller wrote: Hey, I can remember Coke I'd like to teach the world to sing commercial. I was pretty young then though, so that does help date me:) I was born during the Kennedy administration . . . Typical 4 stroke otto cycle (OK, that's redundant:) engines usually run in the .4 to .5 lbs/hp-hour. This engine is pretty typical for a wankel. But its power to weight ratio makes it ideal for personal watercraft, which is the market for which it is intended. I guess that makes sense! It's interesting that the airplane crowd has to take special precautions with wankels because the exhaust is so hot. Obviously this is because a mark of its inefficiency - the higher the efficiency the lower the exhaust temperature. Interesting! We have a fairly well developed understanding of fuel management now. I'd like to see engines purpose built with electro-hydraulic rotary valves that can be computer controlled as well. This would enable compound expansion (short intake, long exhaust) for maximized fuel economy. robert luis rabello The Edge of Justice Adventure for Your Mind http://www.newadventure.ca Ranger Supercharger Project Page http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Multi Fuel Engines
How about a rotary engine that doest take those delicate graphite seals? Long story short I had one via my lil brother that only had 1 working cell and still put out enough HP to go 85mph. Jeromie Kurt Nolte wrote: You know, reading that and several other concepts and proven designs has put an idea into my head. I was doing some library research earlier today, and stumbled across the Deltic opposed piston engines. I looked into those, and was just utterly floored. Like, whoa. is what the guy sitting beside me in the library told me I said. Those things rocked in some serious ways, with only a really complicated crankshaft balancing system keeping them from being really workable on a widespread basis. Ideas immediately started pouring through my head on how to revive the OP engine design. Then I log on to check my e-mail, and see this. Like, whoa all over again. I read everything they have on their site. And the thought hits me. A cam-driven opposed cylinder engine. Cam at one end, cam at the other, 12 cylinders in a round block, 24 pistons riding the two cams. Utterly and completely removes the crankshaft synching issues inherent to the OP design. Low/No exhaust pulse, no valve rattle, no valve timing, drastic moving parts reduction, size reduction, no flywheel needed; with all the reciprocation operating in a front-back orientation, there wouldn't really be any piston pulse to deaden; the mass of the car would do it just fine. Smooth, even rotations, approximately 12 power strokes per revolution to even out the power application. Use small bore/long throw pistons in your cylinders and it would probably even be more incredibly efficient than an inline 3-cylinder. It would be perfect for that slow burn combustion of compression ignition engines. Perfect for diesel. Even more perfect for BD. I want to build it. I ineed/i to build this. And all I can think now is God I'm a geek :p -Kurt On 10/15/05, *Greg and April* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: *Prototype 42 hp Engine* * 6 inches dia. * 6 inches long * 42 hp at 7000 rpm * 40lbs. * Tested at NAVAIR PSEF Oct. 2003 http://www.regtech.com/18.html Greg H. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org mailto:Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Multi Fuel Engines
On 10/16/05, Jeromie Reeves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How about a rotary engine that doest take those delicate graphite seals?Long story shortI had one via my lil brother that only had 1 working cell and still putout enough HP to go85mph.Jeromie From what I understand, a rotary engine is actually a step down in thermal efficiency; maybe it's just the materials used, but I seem to hear something about how they may have more power density, but their thermal efficiency suffers too much to really make them widespread. Maybe when rotaries have more research put into them like the piston engine has they'll meet and even exceed the efficiency and power density of reciprocating piston engines, but right now I don't believe they're there yet. Besides which they are, as you have just implied, rather delicate as opposed to the near brash ruggedness of a RP engine. Personally I'm a gas turbine fan, but I don't see them overtaking everything and replacing all other engines anytime soon, so I figured I might as well get with something people are a little more familiar with. ;p -Kurt ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Multi Fuel Engines
You know, reading that and several other concepts and proven designs has put an idea into my head. I was doing some library research earlier today, and stumbled across the Deltic opposed piston engines. I looked into those, and was just utterly floored. Like, whoa. is what the guy sitting beside me in the library told me I said. Those things rocked in some serious ways, with only a really complicated crankshaft balancing system keeping them from being really workable on a widespread basis. Ideas immediately started pouring through my head on how to revive the OP engine design. Then I log on to check my e-mail, and see this. Like, whoa all over again. I read everything they have on their site. And the thought hits me. A cam-driven opposed cylinder engine. Cam at one end, cam at the other, 12 cylinders in a round block, 24 pistons riding the two cams. Utterly and completely removes the crankshaft synching issues inherent to the OP design. Low/No exhaust pulse, no valve rattle, no valve timing, drastic moving parts reduction, size reduction, no flywheel needed; with all the reciprocation operating in a front-back orientation, there wouldn't really be any piston pulse to deaden; the mass of the car would do it just fine. Smooth, even rotations, approximately 12 power strokes per revolution to even out the power application. Use small bore/long throw pistons in your cylinders and it would probably even be more incredibly efficient than an inline 3-cylinder. It would be perfect for that slow burn combustion of compression ignition engines. Perfect for diesel. Even more perfect for BD. I want to build it. I ineed/i to build this. And all I can think now is God I'm a geek :p -Kurt On 10/15/05, Greg and April [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Prototype 42 hp Engine 6 inches dia. 6 inches long 42 hp at 7000 rpm 40lbs. Tested at NAVAIR PSEF Oct. 2003 http://www.regtech.com/18.html Greg H. ___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Multi Fuel Engines
Geek on! http://www.intertrader.net/ptfdeltic.htm kirk On Oct 15, 2005, at 9:28 PM, Kurt Nolte wrote: You know, reading that and several other concepts and proven designs has put an idea into my head. I was doing some library research earlier today, and stumbled across the Deltic opposed piston engines. I looked into those, and was just utterly floored. Like, whoa. is what the guy sitting beside me in the library told me I said. Those things rocked in some serious ways, with only a really complicated crankshaft balancing system keeping them from being really workable on a widespread basis. Ideas immediately started pouring through my head on how to revive the OP engine design. Then I log on to check my e-mail, and see this. Like, whoa all over again. I read everything they have on their site. And the thought hits me. A cam-driven opposed cylinder engine. Cam at one end, cam at the other, 12 cylinders in a round block, 24 pistons riding the two cams. Utterly and completely removes the crankshaft synching issues inherent to the OP design. Low/No exhaust pulse, no valve rattle, no valve timing, drastic moving parts reduction, size reduction, no flywheel needed; with all the reciprocation operating in a front- back orientation, there wouldn't really be any piston pulse to deaden; the mass of the car would do it just fine. Smooth, even rotations, approximately 12 power strokes per revolution to even out the power application. Use small bore/long throw pistons in your cylinders and it would probably even be more incredibly efficient than an inline 3-cylinder. It would be perfect for that slow burn combustion of compression ignition engines. Perfect for diesel. Even more perfect for BD. I want to build it. I ineed/i to build this. And all I can think now is God I'm a geek :p -Kurt ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Multi Fuel Engines
http://www.dair.co.uk/ Two cylinder, four piston, horizontally opposed diesel engine for airplanes. I want one of these for my car, but they're too pricey as of yet. On 10/15/05, Kirk Thibault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Geek on! http://www.intertrader.net/ptfdeltic.htm kirk On Oct 15, 2005, at 9:28 PM, Kurt Nolte wrote: You know, reading that and several other concepts and proven designs has put an idea into my head. I was doing some library research earlier today, and stumbled across the Deltic opposed piston engines. I looked into those, and was just utterly floored. Like, whoa. is what the guy sitting beside me in the library told me I said. Those things rocked in some serious ways, with only a really complicated crankshaft balancing system keeping them from being really workable on a widespread basis. Ideas immediately started pouring through my head on how to revive the OP engine design. Then I log on to check my e-mail, and see this. Like, whoa all over again. I read everything they have on their site. And the thought hits me. A cam-driven opposed cylinder engine. Cam at one end, cam at the other, 12 cylinders in a round block, 24 pistons riding the two cams. Utterly and completely removes the crankshaft synching issues inherent to the OP design. Low/No exhaust pulse, no valve rattle, no valve timing, drastic moving parts reduction, size reduction, no flywheel needed; with all the reciprocation operating in a front- back orientation, there wouldn't really be any piston pulse to deaden; the mass of the car would do it just fine. Smooth, even rotations, approximately 12 power strokes per revolution to even out the power application. Use small bore/long throw pistons in your cylinders and it would probably even be more incredibly efficient than an inline 3-cylinder. It would be perfect for that slow burn combustion of compression ignition engines. Perfect for diesel. Even more perfect for BD. I want to build it. I ineed/i to build this. And all I can think now is God I'm a geek :p -Kurt ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
