h a l f b a k e r yI think this would be a great thing to not do.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
As you probably know, presently formula 1 cars are restricted in engine size to 3 litres. It might be 3.5 litres I can't remember.
Why don't we ignite more fuel, in a different 'chamber' below the piston to push the piston back up, as well as igniting it to push the piston down (currently only
inertia essentially brings it back up) as we currently do?
Yes I know it would take twice as much petrol (gas), 2 exhaust pipes etc. but think of the power. And the FIA ain't got a lot to complain about it's within the rules.
Bourke Engine Animation
http://bourke-engine.com/ani.htm
Why not start from scratch? I'm not sure this would get past the rules though. I mean, they're there for a reason. [tiromancer, Dec 20 2004]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
Facinating idea. Essentially a four stroke with a two-stroke induction system but igniting in the crankcases rather than the cylinder bore. Wouldn't work at the same pressures and temperatures as in the cylinders proper, but as a low pressure "boom" to send the piston up, why not? |
|
| |
Wasn't someone else just asking that we limit Formula 1 speeds? |
|
| |
When you think about it, a rotary engine isn't that different from this in theory. Each "side" of the "piston" gets used for combustion. This is very interesting. I don't really see why it would be illegal or unworkable either. Hmm... (+) |
|
| |
they limit the engine size for safeties sake, the 3.5L is arbitrary. |
|
| |
//And the FIA ain't got a lot to complain about it's within the rules.//
No it's not. The rules specify a maximum of 3,000 cc swept volume (displacement). Your system would displace 3 litres above the cylinders and more beneath them. In any event, as [willien] states, the complications of additional lubrication and cooling would be enormous. |
|
| |
Plain and Simply this is the way a steam engine works. As the Piston moves down it trips a valve open which lets steam pressure blow the piston back up the cylinder, which trips open another valve that blows it back down. The only problem is there is no possible way to seal the bottom of the cylinders, without using a hydrualic type piston and connecting rod. Also Swept Volume is the amount of volume
an engine displaces using the folllowing formula 1/2 bore x 3.14 x 1/2 bore x stroke x # of cylinders. Take for example the 327 chevy
4.0" bore 3.25" stroke
2 x 3.14 = 6.28 x 2 = 12.56 x
3.25 = 40.82 (cubic inches swept volume per cylinder) x 8 = 326.56 or for practical purposes 327 cubic inches.
Also Positive crank case ventalation would be a nightmare! |
|
| |
This may work for a single-cylinder engine, however, in a multicylinder engine the area below the pistons is essentially shared. In order to work there would have to be a method of sealing each cylinder from the next. This would be heavy. The efficiency of the combusion would also be lower, meaning a lot more fuel for a little more horsepower. Out on the track the extra weight/pit stops may negate any power advantage. |
|
| |
The method of getting more power from an engine so far has just been to have more power strokes per unit time, i.e. get the engine to turn quicker. F1 engines are turning at 19,000rpm, so it seems to work. |
|
| |
Sorry to tell you this but there's a comp in Europe that already been there, done that. The annoying thing is that I've seen reports that the tracks cause excessive friction but the manufacturers claim the exact opposite. I'd love to see this in action though. |
|
| |
I calculate it will probably backfire. Large amount of fuel X powerful custom modded motor @ 280 mph = one hell of an explosion! I know it's cool, but it will probably be banned. |
|
| |
This idea was developed by two older gentlemen from British Columbia Canada, they had designed and built in their basement, The engine they had built had pistons on either end of a common connecting rod's there being two connecting rods having four pistons, directly opposed to each other.
The engine had a displacement of 2000cc's and fit in the space of an average samsonite briefcase.
I remember that they had brought their engine to a few technical universitys and tried to get the powers that be to look at their invention, only to be scoffed at.
They would show their engine running and mounted on the trailer behind their car to the disbelieving engineering geniuses, only to have them walk away shaking their heads.
I'll try to dig up some info on this for you,,,it's been twenty years now. |
|
| |
engines already do this. rather than having a compustion chamber at either end of a cylinder though, cylinders are connected in pairs such that when one goes down, it pushes the other up. that's why engines have an even number of cylinders. |
|
| |
Does the displacement measure intake displacement or power displacement? Would the extra cylinders on a compound engine be counted against it? |
|
| |
seanbo, engines don't come in even number of cylinders though you do have the concept correct, a small portion of energy that pushes the cylinders down does push them back up, |
|
| |
one cylinder engines are used on countless garden and yard tools geo metro uses a 3 cylinder motor - Audi and Volvo use a five cylinder gm is looking at using one. an engine arraignment known as a radial engine uses an odd number of cylinders per bank almost exclusively |
|
| |
//geo metro uses a 3 cylinder motor// |
|
| |
As does the honda insight. The problem with odd numbers of cylinders is that, because you can't get perfect cancellation of the engine vibrations (in an even-numbered car, the math works out so that effectively one goes up for each that comes down), the engine vibrates and shakes. If you're (un)lucky you can set up a low-RPM standing wave that can get a light car bouncing. |
|
| |
FWIW, the Insight eliminates this with carefully timed bursts from the IMA electric motor -- absorbing extra energy from the two "dominant" cylinders, and adding a bit of momentum to the stroke of the "subordinate". I"m not sure what volvo and the like do with their five-cylinder systems. |
|
| |
Unless the number of cylinders is a multiple of four, there won't be two pistons acting directly opposite each other. On a V6, two pistons will start their downward stroke simultaneously while two pistons are 2/3 of the way through it and the remaining two pistons are 1/3 of the way through the upstroke. |
|
| |
This is because car engines run one power stroke every two revolutions. So in a V6, there's one power stroke every 1/3 of a revolution. |
|
| |
Have you heard of a 6 stroke engine? They (generally speaking - there are other ways of creating a 6 stroke cycle) have the regular 4 strokes, plus an extra 2 after the exhaust stroke thus. Stroke 5 is created by squirting a little water into the hot cylinder, causing it (the water) to rapidly expand, pushing the piston back down. Stroke 6 is another exhaust stroke, releasing the water vapour. |
|
| |
These engines require petrol (or deisel, or ethenol, or icecream and rainbows, whatever) _and_ water for fuel, but they run very cool. Because they run cool, you might be able to get away with not having a huge sump full of oil. You'd still need some oil, but in small amounts that could probably be applied with the fuel, or the water, or through the cylinder casing somehow. |
|
| |
With this 6 stroke engine, having a push at both ends of a cylinder sounds kind of feasable. |
|
| |
Holy shite! This isn't a steam engine people! Shame on you! In short order the things that make this entirely pointless and impossible. |
|
| |
1) The crankcase isn't under compression and cannot be due to it's natural size. Gasoline here would not ignite. |
|
| |
2) The lubrication system would not be able to function |
|
| |
3) FIA already prohibits 2 stroke. Already prohibits everything, this would be prohibited in 1 nanosecond (if the FIA survives......) |
|
| |
4) the connecting rods would fail due to the heat. The pistons would fail due to the double heating, the oil would fail due to the heat. |
|
| |
5) at 15000 rpms precise combustion in very small chambers is the only way to make more power (not happening here) |
|
| |
6) The oil would be pressurized to 1000psi |
|
| |
7) There is no efficient way to add a second induction, injection, ignition and exhaust to a F1 car. Nor would it be worthwhile. |
|
| |
so you're saying no then ? :) |
|
| |
already pointless because that's what every engine except a 1cyl *does*, albeit the other pistons are doing the pushing. |
|
| |
I don't know of any engine that uses combustion on the crank side of the piston. |
|
| |
no but the other cylinders turn the crank which pushes the other pistons through their compression stroke. |
|
| |
re: Crower (et al) 6-stroke... I wonder if you could squish all that into 2-strokes: after the combustion spray water in. |
|
| |
//friction losses could be reduced running the cars on rails// |
|
| |
You could also reduce emissions by using electric cars attached to powered rails, and reduce weight by allowing the driver to sit outside the car... wait, I think that's been done before, just ignore me. |
|
| |