h a l f b a k e r yChewable.
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,
|
|
|
The idea is having an even amount of cylinders. all which have rods that are connected to a u-joints type connection.
and the u-joint is connected to and round plate. theres a shaft in the center with an arm sticking out with two rollers.
the rollers on the arm are underneath the plate. The plate would
always be on an angle because its riding on the rollers on one side. as the arm comes around the plate gets pushed up therefore pushing the cylinder up as it passes under the cylinder it fires and pushes down on the plate squeezing the arm along. the next cylinder instead of compressing is pushing out the exaust. then as it passes by sucks air in. the engine would lay pistons forward.
its like a plastic plate when you drop it. I think it might work I'm thinking about buying the parts and building it.
If you have any questions ask.
I added a link
the pistons would push down on the plate right as the rollers pass. pic two is how it turns the shaft. It just does it in a circular motion.
the shaft would have a roller on top and bottum. one to roll against the plate and the other to roll against the bottum.
Wankel engine
http://travel.howst.../rotary-engine2.htm
This is _not_ an "adult" site. [Mayfly, Oct 04 2004]
Piston type rotary engine
http://www.starklite.com/planemotor2.jpg
I'm not an aviation buff so there are probably better resources for this [half, Oct 04 2004]
(?) PowerRing (2)
http://www.cci-29pa...html/powerring.html
[half, Oct 04 2004]
(?) round engine
http://images.cardo.../282859_22_full.jpg
quick pic [marcus18, Oct 04 2004]
(?) round motor pic 2
http://images.cardo...82999/282859_23.jpg
pic 2 [marcus18, Oct 04 2004]
(?) Compressor with configuration proposed in this idea as an engine.
http://www.maintena...ry/Pumps/wobble.htm
"wobble plate" was the term that was escaping me [half, Oct 04 2004]
Rotary (Wankel) powerplants for aviation
http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/
A page by enthusiats of the rotary engine for homebuilt/experimental aircraft. [bristolz, Oct 04 2004]
Another interesting link
http://www.mcmaster...r.com/technical.htm
Not like the proposed idea, but interesting. [half, Oct 04 2004]
Ye Olde version of the aviation "rotary" engine
http://www.wikipedi.../wiki/Rotary_engine
While having a radial array of cylinders, the crankshaft did NOT rotate and was attached to the airframe. [bristolz, Oct 04 2004]
(?) A decent radial engine FAQ
http://www.radialengines.com/faq.asp
Radial with rotary crankshaft and fixed cylinders à la Pratt & Whitney, Jacobs, etc. [bristolz, Oct 04 2004]
How Radials Work
http://travel.howst...m/radial-engine.htm
Kackhucka Kackhucka Kackhucka Kackhucka Ka-BRRRRR [FloridaManatee, Oct 04 2004]
Aircraft Rotary Animation
http://www.keveney.com/gnome.html
It's pretty easy to figure out how they worked by looking at this. [rapid transit, Oct 04 2004]
OX2 ENGINE website.
http://www.ox2engine.com/index.html
I don't understand this idea, and the pics he made don't work, and I don't want to read all of the annotations, but this idea seemed similar to the OX2 engine. [BJS, Sep 27 2007]
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.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
I have a question - is this a rotary engine similar to a Wankel (no cheap jokes please)? |
|
| |
It's not similar to a Wankel rotary engine as I read it. It sounds like it has pistons (cylinders). But, I'm not really sure that I understand this one so I could be wrong. |
|
| |
I think this might be vaguely like an engine I've read about. I think it was a "3 cycle" engine. Well, maybe not. (link) |
|
| |
Though it's not a Wankel, it does sound like a rotary engine of sorts (link). Except, vs. the linked drawing, the pistons would be oriented differently and not attached to a conventional crankshaft. Am I way off? I'm not quite grasping the "plate" thing yet. |
|
| |
Many prop-driven airplanes use rotary engines, though the cam shaft is connected to the pistons (or vice versa) in that design. [marcus18]'s design seems to disconnect those two parts, but I'm unclear as to the overall operation. |
|
| |
[half] Neither of those two links work. |
|
| |
Hmm...they work for me...
The PowerRing one is a bit suspect though. It was quite slow. Two of us hitting it might have overloaded the server. I'll see if I can find another... |
|
| |
Not too many planes use rotary engines but they do use radial engines. Some very early aircraft, like the Sopwith Camel, used "rotary" radial engines where the crankshaft remained stationary, fixed to the firewall and airframe, but the cylinders revolved with the propellor. Utter nightmares to fly, the torque problems, not unexpectedly, put those designs out of business fairly quickly. |
|
| |
Yeah . . . rotary/radial. I stuck with rotary given all the Wankeling going on around this place lately. |
|
| |
Heh. Ditto with the rotary/radial. |
|
| |
[half] Now your first link works, but your second still doesn't. |
|
| |
I once saw a plate/roller set up like that in a proposed coupling for a submarine propellor shaft. The plate part was actually flexible, and there were rollers on both sides of it. Made it a lot easier to seal. Never heard how it worked in practice. |
|
| |
Note that you can't actually "squeeze" the driven roller - it would need to slide on one side. Perhaps if the shaft carries two rollers, one of which is smaller diameter and rides on a ring, allowing it to turn the opposite way. |
|
| |
Ok, now that my third link is now my second, my second link now works since the third link always worked and since the first link now works, all my links are now working. I think. |
|
| |
Ah, now I grasp the general concept. Man, that looks like something tough to make work. Some automobile A/C compressors work a lot like this. I'll link if I find good representative pictures. |
|
| |
Okay, I get it. Yeah, you'd hafta make two rollers or something for it to work.
bristolz, as I recall, the cylinders don't actually revolve with the propeller in a radial engine, but almost the opposite. See half's link. |
|
| |
That power ring thing sounds good, really. |
|
| |
From the little exposure I've had:
Radial engine: crankshaft turns, cylinders stay put, prop attached to crankshaft.
Rotary engine: crankshaft is stationary, crankcase/cylinders rotate, prop attached to crankcase. |
|
| |
(I could be WAY off though) |
|
| |
Ahhh! Your illustrations [marcus18] did the trick. I understand, I think. The pistons apply force to a swash plate that squeezes a roller just "ahead" of the "wave," yes? The roller is attached to an arm that transmits the rotary forces out of the engine and to a place where work can be done. |
|
| |
Maybe a little impractical but quite original + |
|
| |
That's exactly correct, [half]. Not sure why [galukalock] interpreted my comment backwards but he did. |
|
| |
After viewing the drawing, I stand enlightened. I have to wonder how badly the engine would want to wobble though, as the cylinders will have to fire sequentially. |
|
| |
In re: "The PoweRRing 3 Cycle Engine"
Am I the only one who gets images cropped in half (if they're present at all)? I reminds me of an anti-gravity device which sounds good in discussion but doesn't hold up under scrutiny. If you don't want me to know how the thing works (and I don't), why mention it? |
|
| |
Wull, you said the cylinders rotated with the propeller, that's how. |
|
| |
half, you've got the radial part. The rotary needs work though. Rotary: crankcase stationary, piston (rotor), crankshaft rotate. Prop attached to crankshaft. |
|
| |
We're talking (still aside, tangentially) now about a radial rotary piston engine, right? The pistons and cylinders do rotate while the crankshaft remains fixed. It's ugly and I believe I first heard of them in a conversation about nightmares with delivering the air-fuel mixture to the cylinders. |
|
| |
Meanwhile, back at the original idea . . . (link) to compressor that I mentioned earlier. The proposed concept, used as an engine is likely not original to this posting since compressors with a very similar configuration are common. But, I haven't found any evidence of the engine being baked. |
|
| |
[galukalock] - you're thinking of a Wankel type rotary. The engines being discussed as "rotary" here are the aircraft engines circa WWI produced by Le Rhone, Oberursel, and Hispano-Suiza which did, indeed, rotate the *entire* engine case with the propellor. |
|
| |
In a rotary radial engine, the cylinders and crankcase DO rotate with the propellor. They weren't used for a very long time as the rotational mass (p-factor) was very hard to contend with and particularly in craft that had very light wing loadings as the early biplanes did. |
|
| |
I may not know much but my aviation knowledge is okay, usually . . . well, sometimes, anyway. |
|
| |
//my aviation knowledge is okay// On par with your gift for understatement. |
|
| |
//The crankshaft did NOT rorate and was attacked to the airframe// |
|
| |
Thay is to say, the prop was fixed to the (rotating) cylinders... and they used to propstart those monsters??? |
|
| |
Ah, but they had the advantage of low compression and the flywheel efffect of all that engine weight to smooth out the hand-propping. Radials, up to a point, say a P&W R985, are not that hard to prop start, either. An opposed engine of decent displacement, anything above an O-360 or so, though, is hard and dangerous to prop. |
|
| |
Wow...if I ever saw a rotary radial, I forgot years ago. You're right. |
|
| |
Yes, I get chopped images too. |
|
| |
And I was talking about a radial engine and a Wankel engine. I was not aware of a rotary radial engine. |
|
| |
would work(possibly) but would be lost to inefficiency,size,power,ect. i would however like you to prove me wrong |
|
| |
this is a great design for an engine a smoother running and possible more effciant motor as both stokes of the engine are providing power as well as being a lighter package with fewer parts. efficiantcy should be better than a coventional piston rod motor as there would not be as many frictional losses. remeber that in a conventional motor you are making vertical movement in to a rotational one. |
|
| |
the only down fall on this i can see is that to increase horse power would mean larger cylinder bores and hence a much larger engine, as stroke would be limited, as the wave plate can only get so steep befor you start pulling pistons apart. the apex of the plate has to accept the rollers on both sides an the material supporting the rollers if the apex it too steep the rollers will have to be smaller (more loading on the rollers) and there will have to be less material supporting the rollers as well |
|
| |
as for aircraft radials they came in both configurations. fixed crank rotating cylinders (fokker triplanes used this style of engine) and fixed cylinders rotating crank. |
|
| |
This design has been very well baked I remember Popular Science running an article on this very design in 1991 or 1992 and they already were testing full sized models in cars. They had a very high power output but had serious problems with wear and friction if I remember correctly. |
|
| |
I believe the Hispano-Suiza engine, as used in the SPAD aircraft, was a water-cooled Vee or Inline engine- just the radiator was round.
Radial engines have lots of advantages, which is why they were so widely used in piston-engine aircraft until jets came along and spoiled all our fun. Ferdinand Porsche even considered a 3-cylinder radial engine for his VW Beetle until settling on the "Boxer" four. Can you imagine a Chevy powered by a 7 or 9 cylinder radial???
The ultimate aircraft radial engines were monster, four-row, watercooled, 54 cylinder (FIFTY-FOUR!!!) jobs. The B-36 had six of them... imagine having to change the plugs after every 100 hours of operation... |
|
| |