666 and engine NUTS

[Route666]

D.Hearne, I think WORTH's idea was to make peak pressure at 90* ATDC, to get maximum work out of the energy in the cylinder. This most likely would occur near the end of the fuel burn cycle as nearly all the fuel is burning at once but in a conventional motor by the time it is all ablaze, the CR has dropped a lot so you don't get peak pressure there, it occurs earlier.

If you could use the moving cumbustion chamber to hold more pressure longer, you would get more work out of it.

Man could you imagine seeing the individual combustion chambers on a V8 going up and down. HAHAHA it'd be comical, they shake enough as they are without external bits going as well.

 

[WORTH]

Yes, in theory, but gasoline doesn't ignite instantaniously enough to do that, that's why ignition timing is advanced so far as engine speed goes up. The fuel needs more lead time to burn and have the maximum thrust on the crank at the right time. You're theory is fine, just not practical with gasoline. The fuel/air mixture is burning the whole time the piston is traveling down the bore, as proof of this, there is the unburned fuel/air mixture in the exhaust, even in a finely tuned motor, there is still some unburned fuel in the exhaust. As proof that your theory won't hold water, if you retard the ignition to where it fires the mixture when the crank is at mid stroke, or at 90 degrees in relation to the cylinder bore, which is what you're suggesting doing, the engine simply won't run. Now go hit the showers.

So you don't think your getting an explosion, you think your getting a slow burn? That would raise hell with my theory. Is this a fact or a guess?

 

[D.Hearne]

So you don't think your getting an explosion, you think your getting a slow burn? That would raise hell with my theory. Is this a fact or a guess?

If it did exploded like you say it would, then retarding the timing to where it explodes at mid stroke should make more power,right? But we all know that retarding the timing that far doesn't work. The fuel/air mixture just doesn't burn as fast as you think, again that's why your engine's timing is advanced as far as it is at higher rpms, to compensate for the burn rate. You encounter the same thing in reloading ammo. There are smokeless powders that "burn" faster than others. We're talking about milliseconds here in differences, but these milliseconds make huge differences on how an engine or bullet performs.

 

[WORTH]

If it did exploded like you say it would, then retarding the timing to where it explodes at mid stroke should make more power,right? But we all know that retarding the timing that far doesn't work. The fuel/air mixture just doesn't burn as fast as you think, again that's why your engine's timing is advanced as far as it is at higher rpms, to compensate for the burn rate. You encounter the same thing in reloading ammo. There are smokeless powders that "burn" faster than others. We're talking about milliseconds here in differences, but these milliseconds make huge differences on how an engine or bullet performs.

Ya, but we're talking about 2 completely different setups here, the conventional engine is igniting the fuel before it is fully compressed, with my design, you have 100% compression when you fire the fuel. The conventional engine is using the advance to "light a fuse" so when max compression is reached the fuel ignites. Or atleast that is my take on it. With my design we are firing the fuel at full compression.

The question is, does the fuel burn slow because it's not compressed enough in a conventional engine, or is it just inherently SLOW and the compression wont speed it up?

PS> if you light gasoline in an open container there is no explosion, mearly a burn, but if you enclose it, you get an explosion,ie; quicker burn, does it get quicker the more compression you have??

 

[D.Hearne]

I give up. Just retard your timing to zero degrees ( TDC) and see how well the engine runs. There's your proof.

 

[D.Hearne]

I gotta go haul some gas, so y'all can get to grandma's house.

 

[WORTH]

I give up. Just retard your timing to zero degrees ( TDC) and see how well the engine runs. There's your proof.

Your missing the whole concept, I'm not screwing with the timing, and I know you need advance, what I'm changing is when the explosion takes place. in a conventional engine you are starting your power stroke when the piston is near the top where it has no leverage on the crankshaft. I want to move this down some so the power stroke starts when the crank is at a better angle to produce more HP with the same fuel.

As far as the actual timing goes, that is yet to be determined, but it has nothing to do with the timing on a conventional engine. There will still have to be advance, I just don't know how much.

In effect, we are moving TDC by following the piston with the combustion chamber. So when I say it will fire after TDC, that is TDC of the piston not the floating assy. The theoretical TDC of this engine will be somewhere in the 45degree ATDC area, so we may be actually firing the plugs at 20 or 40 degrees before that.



Your argueing about a conventional setup, adn that isn't what we have.

 

[WORTH]

Dhearn, think of it this way. think of the engine not spinning. The piston is in one place and not moving.

in a conventional engine (and I'm not talking about spark timing I'm talking the actual explosion here) the fuel ignites near the top. If we set our piston just after tdc and ignite the fuel it will push the piston down, however becasue it has a bad angle to the centerline of the crank it has to push very hard to turn the crank.

now take the new design and place the piston at about 45 degrees past tdc, give it the same compression and fuel mixture as the conventional engine and ignite it here. with the same BANG, you will get a lot more power to the crank, because the angle is much better.

Your arguing that I am retarding the timing, but I'm not, I'm advancing TDC and the timing is coming along with it.

 

[HistoricMustang]

WORTH, you and dhearn are way above my head on this one.

Just curious if the Flat Head Ford V8 design would help you piston "angle" design?

HistoricMustang
www.historicmustang.com

 

[mdjay]

Good ideas can start this way, however I just see it as trying to re-invent the wheel. No offense...

 

[WORTH]

Good ideas can start this way, however I just see it as trying to re-invent the wheel. No offense...

Not trying to reinvent, just improve on the existing.

Hey I may be full of **** here, but ya have to start somewhere

From what I have witnessed in my life, the big boys haven't done us any favors over the last 30 years. In order to improve mileage and performance they have chopped the weight of the car and made the operating system terribly complicated and for what gain? a few HP and a couple of miles per gallon. And at the expense of the general public.

Maybe you have to step outside of the box to make a worthwhile improvement. If the wright brothers hadn't put wings on their bicycles we wouldn't be flying now.

 

[WORTH]

WORTH, you and dhearn are way above my head on this one.

Just curious if the Flat Head Ford V8 design would help you piston "angle" design?

HistoricMustang
www.historicmustang.com

a flathead is no different than an OHV engine as far as the 4 cycles are concerned. You still have intake,compression,power and exhaust, and the fuel is still ignited near TDC. The only difference is instead of the valve being in the head above the cylinder, it is in the block beside the cylinder.

A briggs and stratton is a flathead engine. The head is just a solid casting with a sparkplug hole in it, no moving parts in the head.

 

[krash kendall]

If you try to ignite the air/fuel charge at full compression around the 45 to 90 degree mark, the expanding gasses probably wouldn't be spent by the bottom of the greatly shortened power stroke. You would either be trying to recompress the still expanding charge (there's no way you could have exhaust valves/ports large enough to prevent this) on the exhaust stroke, or most likely the engine wouldn't turn over past the first spark. Also, all the added work in moving the extra mass in alternating directions probably wouldn't be overcome by the minor increase in theoretical power.

 

[HistoricMustang]

WORTH, I was thinking the Flathead was not a 90 degree design and might help the piston to crank problem that you are discussing. Could be wrong here.

Heck, NASA ain't got nothin' on this bunch!

HistoricMustang
www.historicmustang.com

 

[WORTH]

WORTH, you and dhearn are way above my head on this one.

Just curious if the Flat Head Ford V8 design would help you piston "angle" design?

HistoricMustang
www.historicmustang.com

http://www.vanpeltsales.com/FH_web/FH_images/FH_engine-pics/Flathead_Engine_completeblock_37-40_60hp.jpg

the holes over the pistons are the holes where the valves go in the block

 

[WORTH]

If you try to ignite the air/fuel charge at full compression around the 45 to 90 degree mark, the expanding gasses probably wouldn't be spent by the bottom of the greatly shortened power stroke. You would either be trying to recompress the still expanding charge (there's no way you could have exhaust valves/ports large enough to prevent this) on the exhaust stroke, or most likely the engine wouldn't turn over past the first spark. Also, all the added work in moving the extra mass in alternating directions probably wouldn't be overcome by the minor increase in theoretical power.

ya, I did think about that, may need a faster burning fuel if the already compressed mix doesnt' burn any faster than normal. Wont know that til you fire her up.

 

[krash kendall]

You will still only have half the stroke, which means very little torque.

If you wanted to make up the difference with horsepower then you will need to come up with a hypothetical operating RPM. Somewhere in the 12,000 to 15,000's I'd imagine.

What do you think?

 

[bnickel]

with enough compression a gasoline engine will run with no external spark much like a diesel so i don't understand what it is you are trying to say D.Hearne. try it some time, build a 13.5:1 smal block chevy and disconnect the distributor after the engine is running, the engine will continue to run and can even be accelerated though not very well and doubtfully under load but it will still run, so if you can keep the compression at 100% while still maintaining spark to start the combustion process on each individual cylinder it should work quite well. i think i have actually just proven both of you guys theories to some degree though. i think you guys are both on the same page but can't quite communicate what the other is trying to say

 

[WORTH]

You will still only have half the stroke, which means very little torque.

If you wanted to make up the difference with horsepower then you will need to come up with a hypothetical operating RPM. Somewhere in the 12,000 to 15,000's I'd imagine.

What do you think?

only if everything was equal, in my little mind, I'm thinking that by firing this thing at a better crank angle I will get much more power,
if we use simple #'s
and a conventional engine starts it's power stroke when the crank is 1/4" from centerline, and the new design starts it's power stroke 1" from the center line, the new design should do 4 times the power at that point, the question would be is that enough to overcome the longer stroke of the conventional engine. One may wash the other, I don't know. We may need to use a faster burning fuel in the new engine.

 

[D.Hearne]

with enough compression a gasoline engine will run with no external spark much like a diesel so i don't understand what it is you are trying to say D.Hearne. try it some time, build a 13.5:1 smal block chevy and disconnect the distributor after the engine is running, the engine will continue to run and can even be accelerated though not very well and doubtfully under load but it will still run, so if you can keep the compression at 100% while still maintaining spark to start the combustion process on each individual cylinder it should work quite well. i think i have actually just proven both of you guys theories to some degree though. i think you guys are both on the same page but can't quite communicate what the other is trying to say

The reason why your chevy with 13.5 to 1 comp won't run very well without the spark, isn't because the spark is missing, it's because the ignition of the fuel/air mixture isn't being controlled, as it is in a diesel. In a diesel, the fuel is injected at just the opportune moment when the air temperature is right to ignite it. With your carbed gas motor, the fuel's being lit at the wrong time. Worth's idea wouldn't be feasable even if it did work due also to the logistics in balancing all those moving parts, not to mention the extra friction created by said parts. The picture that comes to mind in trying to visualize such an engine is mass confusion.