100hp/100mpg/1 litre/2stroke
BryanUT
Steve Lusardi
limit unburned fuel in the exhaust aka Detroit Diesel, but using new mechanisms. I am afraid it will remain to be seen just how
durable these designs are and in that light, new material technology will be the key. It is also apparent that the complexity and
the new material requirement will do nothing for the cost of production and although sufficient detail is not offered, I believe
both lubrication and cooling will be a significant challenge. My guess is also that the efficient powerband will also be quite
narrow. In addition, these designs also require external means for exhaust scavenging, which has been the bane of the Detroit
Diesel and MTU designs. However, it is very encouraging to see new engine development and these 3 are only some of the newer
concepts being developed. I know of at least 2 other internal combustion designs being actively worked that use new forms of
rotary valve technology.
Steve
"BryanUT" <nest...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:224b78c1-af9d-402c...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Twibil
>
>
> Unfortunately, all three designs are low speed, low power designs. All three designs use separate exhaust and inlet timings to
> limit unburned fuel in the exhaust aka Detroit Diesel, but using new mechanisms. I am afraid it will remain to be seen just how
> durable these designs are and in that light, new material technology will be the key. It is also apparent that the complexity and
> the new material requirement will do nothing for the cost of production and although sufficient detail is not offered, I believe
> both lubrication and cooling will be a significant challenge. My guess is also that the efficient powerband will also be quite
> narrow. In addition, these designs also require external means for exhaust scavenging, which has been the bane of the Detroit
> Diesel and MTU designs. However, it is very encouraging to see new engine development and these 3 are only some of the newer
> concepts being developed. I know of at least 2 other internal combustion designs being actively worked that use new forms of
> rotary valve technology.
Good post, Steve.
Thanx.
~Pete
Bob Nixon
> Unfortunately, all three designs are low speed, low power designs. All three designs use separate exhaust and inlet timings to
> limit unburned fuel in the exhaust aka Detroit Diesel, but using new mechanisms. I am afraid it will remain to be seen just how
> durable these designs are and in that light, new material technology will be the key. It is also apparent that the complexity and
> the new material requirement will do nothing for the cost of production and although sufficient detail is not offered, I believe
> both lubrication and cooling will be a significant challenge. My guess is also that the efficient powerband will also be quite
> narrow. In addition, these designs also require external means for exhaust scavenging, which has been the bane of the Detroit
> Diesel and MTU designs. However, it is very encouraging to see new engine development and these 3 are only some of the newer
> concepts being developed. I know of at least 2 other internal combustion designs being actively worked that use new forms of
> rotary valve technology.
> Steve
>
So what's wrong with the Detroit Diesel model in this day and age
where roots blowers can be substituted with hybrid electric-for start/
idle/low speed operation then clutched out with mostly "non-parasitic"
turbo-charging taking over at boost pressures in Diesels up to 3 bars
or 45lbs boost or nearly as much as the pressure ratio in highly
parasitic axial flow compressors in jet engines. Also the Morse
Fairbanks and German WWII opposed piston designed that had no valves,
rather offset crankshafts to allow last closing of ports always being
intake that there may be boost rise in the cylinder. And dude, Detroit
Diesels,even in the huge 149 cu inches per cylinder design put out
more 1HP/cubic inch or higher than most push-rod or SOHC passenger car
four strokes but at a low 2100RPM and the little ones, like I've shown
here in the past or the 318 cu inch small footprint 60 degree V-6 with
versions for the Army that make 400 HP @ 2800RPM and still have to
prove that in lots running 600hours on a dyno at the rated output
power without breaking. Also, later 2 stroke DD buses ran hybrid
electric/turbo-chargers, also dual fuel buses with the diesel fuel
injection (@ idle proportions) acting as the spark plug for a late &
lean LNG injection that comprised >90% power of these 6V-92 & 8V-92
two stroke Detroit Diesels with a turbo-charger pushing unheard of
cylinder pressures (for non Diesel engines) than in a comparable
gasoline engines. Why did Detroit Diesel, Morse Fairbanks & Damlier
two stroke Diesels only run from 1935 in two exhaust valve DD
configuration with an output of 100,000 unis during the WWII until
1995 when two strokes became such a "non political correct word" that
only high volume & power densities & economical "military
applications" are still the last word in power generation. That's a 60
year success story dude. You name it, AC, Submarines, still used in
low speed 800RPM EMD trains, boats and on or off road trucking work.
Now to answer Bryan as I saw this post too late to read and post a
comprehensive answer. So to Bryan thanks for posting this 2 stroke
article as intuitively, anyone with an ounce of common sense would
realize that our increasingly complex and higher speed power
generation models of 4 stroke configuration are wasteful and have
spiraling manufacturing costs to the tune of nothing more than
ignoramus political correctness.
As "Steve Lusardi" stated these are all low speed designs. Well Steve,
guess what? In the gas turbine /jet engine current designs compressor/
turbine speeds have progressively gone slower with higher pressures
and Steve there lies the answer that you cannot see. Speed generally
(as in vacuum cleaner 1940's designed jet engines or centrifugal one
or two stage compressors running at >100,000RPM have long since been a
bygone means of Jet engine compression. Rather the 4,000 to10,000 RPM
max low speed axial fan/turbine compressors now rule the roost as high
speed = high heat and friction losses & catastrophic explosion in AC
engines. Hell Rolls Royce's next generation or the Trent 1000 series
of large passenger plane, high bypass turbofan engines in the
=>100,000lbs thrust class have a low speed gear driven Fan and RR has
maintained triple spooled engines for some 10+ years now. Sorry Brian
but Steve's idea that speed is the only answer to power generation is
dead wrong.
Now looking at the three new two stroke designs in those articles, not
much is exposed about the second or "omnivore" engine, but it sounds
like they are using baffling to maintain the internal scavenging thus
keeping the wet sump lube system from coming to the top of the engine
and thus it should have most of the advantages of the internally
scavenged two stroke (including Kadden exhaust supercharging) albeit
not a high speed race engine like the 400HP/liter 250 two stroke and
their poor reliability, fuel economy & emission problems. The 1st new
design or the OPOC is a variation of the old Daimler WWII opposed
piston Diesel AC two strokes that powered a passenger plane from
Germany to Rio non-stop way back in the forties. Also this resembles
the British Napier and Deltic triangular opposed piston three
crankshaft Delta engine still used in fast PT boats and trains to this
day. Also the American Fairbanks Morse Co. fully ported opposed piston
design used in Submarines and Diesel electric trains. The new engine
does require a hybrid clutched electric scavenge turbo, "for low
speed" and exhaust powered turbo-charger for normal operating speeds.
The old opposed piston designs did use a more parasitic mechanically
connected blower and had twin/triple crankshafts as opposed to this
ingenious outer rod coupling back to the center single crankshaft
design. The third design or the "Grail engine" is definitely a low
speed design with a huge intake valve in the center of the piston or
not unlike the WWI "Gnome Rhome" rotary radial cylinder engine with
the pistons stationary and the crankcase revolving. It really
resembles the Detroit Diesel model but with a piston valve instead of
the DD's ported roots "blower bottom intake system" and four exhaust
valves with the injector dead center pointing to the piston's steel
crown (skirts are aluminum). Then in the article it doesn't give much
information about the WAY that the intake valve opens and how it uses
lower piston motion to provide scavenging the exhaust & renewing the
fresh intake air charge but onr could imagine this quite simply.
Bob..
Bob Nixon
Pete you wouldn't know if it was or wasn't a good post given your WEAK
engineering background. NO???
Bob.
Twibil
>
>
> Pete you wouldn't know if it was or wasn't a good post given your WEAK
> engineering background. NO???
No, you sad little creep. But go right on dreaming that you own Usenet
and that it's your job to police it.
BTW: It makes you look *particularly* good when you try to slam
someone for politely saying "thank you".
You simply never learn.
Steve Lusardi
"Bob Nixon" <bigre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:96d91dd5-685a-4a0e...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Bob Nixon
> Pssst, Bob, your clutch is slipping......
>
Naw, your history and depth perception is just weak-:)
Bob..
Bob Nixon
Admittedly tact is not one of my strong points, Pete but you were so
clueless on this one that you jumped right in to compliment someone
who was just plain wrong due to his own weak background. Maybe that
sounds arrogant to you but you'll never catch me trying to tell
someone in this NG how to tune a guitar or violin;)
Regards to my anti me, Bob..
Twibil
>
>
> Admittedly tact is not one of my strong points, Pete but you were so
> clueless on this one that you jumped right in to compliment someone
> who was just plain wrong due to his own weak background.
Bob, as so many others have pointed out over the years, you're a
fucking idiot.
I merely thanked him for his post. I made no comment whatsoever about
the technology he was writing about, or whether I thought he got it
right or wrong.
> Maybe that Sounds arrogant to you but you'll never catch me trying to tell
> someone in this NG how to tune a guitar or violin;)
No, it just sounds stupid, self-centered, and twisted: pretty much
like most of your other posts.
Bob Nixon
Peter, don't you think others can see that your "personal attacks" in
calling me nasty little boy names is just YOU trying to compensate for
something that you're jealous of me about. Gee.I wonder what that
could be? Maybe a sense of frankness, rather than your glib & shallow
attempts at, one liner cleverness, and not sharing your near total
lack of a technical background in a group where it really does matter.
Not to mention your very vocal schizophrenic hatred of "some folks"
both in AMS & Reeky. Also being one of the few surviving riders our
age in this group one would think you would try to ally yourself with
another old dude who still have most of his marbles intact but your
history tells me you have such a fear of aging that you'll be the 1st
one to jump on other old timers of which you and others here have
successfully outed because you didn't like their style or aged
perspective. From this I feel I can extrapolate that you have a deep
seeded sense of self hatred of your own aging. Hell, if that saint
Brutus posted a bit more you'd find something about him you disdain
too. Peter, you're one of the worst bigots in the group but don't even
realize it & freely call others even on jested bigotry-:)
Bob..
Twibil
>
>
> > No, it just sounds stupid, self-centered, and twisted: pretty much
> > like most of your other posts.
>
> Peter, don't you think others can see that your "personal attacks" in
> calling me nasty little boy names is just YOU trying to compensate for
> something that you're jealous of me about.
Yup, that's our good old Bob, all right: never guilty of anything. And
to cover his ass even further he claims that anyone who's pointing out
one of his fuck-ups is indulging in an unwarrented "personal attack"!
So tell us, psycho-Bob, when it's *you* who've fucked up, exactly who
else should get the blame? Tim Morrow? Krusty? Jesus? (Not a good
idea: they're all a lot smarter than you; along with practically all
warm-blooded creatures, some dinosaurs, several insects, and more than
a few protozoans.)
Better yet, Bob's found a whole new rationale for why he's about as
popular as an Ebola infection: other posters are *jealous* of his
knowledge!
Yeah! That's the ticket! We're *jealous* of an old none-too-bright
net-nanny because we envy
his.................um.................er......................give me
a minute here.....................hell, there must be
*something*!............... OH! *I* SEE! It was a joke!
Good one Bob!
And here we thought you were just a humorless psychotic bitch all this
time!