Thread Tools
Old 07-13-2010, 01:57 AM
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: In a handbasket.
Posts: 1,037
IRIS Engine: Hype or the real deal?

I recently found this article in the National Geographic about a new type of internal combustion engine called the Iris:

A Fuel-Saving Car Engine in the Blink of an IRIS

I was intrigued, so I looked further and found the corporate site and some YouTube videos:

Corporate site

Animation 1 (YouTube)

Animation 2 (YouTube)

I think this is a really novel design and I love that people are thinking outside the box. The folks at NASA were also sufficiently impressed as to give it an award. I have some doubts as to how viable it is, however.

First of all, I think it will suffer the same drawbacks as a Wankel engine:

Sealing: Rotary engines historically have had problems with the apex seal failing fairly early. They're also not cheap. A cursory search shows Mazda apex seals running over $200 (then you also need to buy side seals and corner seals). Compare that to $40-$80 for a set of piston rings for a Chevy 350.

Inefficient combustion: Due to the combustion chamber shape, I'm guessing that flame-front propagation won't be ideal and it'll result in a lot of NO2 and unburned hydrocarbons.

A couple of other things I noticed:

High compression ratio: Using the highly technical process of measuring screenshots, I calculated a very rough compression ratio of 23:1. This is way too high for pump gasoline. I think you can use E85 at that pressure, but I'm not sure. The website mentions spark plugs, so I'm assuming it's not supposed to run on diesel. I submit that I may be wrong on the compression ratio - I didn't check my work.

It looks too delicate: Yeah, I know. This isn't exactly scientific, but this machine looks more like a fine watch than something designed to harness the energy from controlled explosions.

I'd love to year some thoughts about it. Thanks.
Old 07-13-2010, 09:06 AM
zut zut is offline
Charter Member
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 3,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazlo View Post
A couple of other things I noticed:

High compression ratio: Using the highly technical process of measuring screenshots, I calculated a very rough compression ratio of 23:1. This is way too high for pump gasoline. I think you can use E85 at that pressure, but I'm not sure. The website mentions spark plugs, so I'm assuming it's not supposed to run on diesel. I submit that I may be wrong on the compression ratio - I didn't check my work.

It looks too delicate: Yeah, I know. This isn't exactly scientific, but this machine looks more like a fine watch than something designed to harness the energy from controlled explosions.

I'd love to year some thoughts about it. Thanks.
The first thing I noticed is that all the images on their site are drawings. In other words, no actual engines. It's fairly easy to claim that one can "ramp up [the efficiency of an IC engine] to 50 percent by shifting from a piston-driven engine design to an 'internally radiating impulse structure'." It's quite another thing to do it. Not that I think they're being dishonest, I should add; it's just that real systems always have more friction and blowby and heat losses than one optimistically projects.

This relates directly to your comment that "it looks too delicate." I suspect a real embodiment of this engine will require larger bearings and stiffer iris sections than they show in order to accurately position the iris structure and keep it robust. In addition, they'll need substantial seals. The added mass and friction will reduce efficiency.

The second thing I notice is their claim that the IRIS efficiency increase is due to increasing the "productive surface area. To wit: it "addresses a primary cause of inefficiency in ICEs by expanding in diameter rather than length, increasing the ratio of 'productive surface area' (area that does work) to 'passive surface area' (area that generates waste heat)." That is, to be blunt, way over-simplified. Minimizing heat loss is an important consideration, but this is not an either-or thing: heat is lost through pistons or irising structures also.

The third thing I notice is that this appears to be a two-stroke. That's cool and all, but then in the next breath they say "the design utilizes an innovative valve/vent system that also enables the engine to breathe far more effectively than traditional piston-in-cylinder mechanisms." How exactly does this work? Because it seems like the "innovative valve/vent system" is more important to overall efficiency than the "internally radiating impulse structure".

The fourth thing I notice (like you did) is that this seems to have a high compression ratio, or at least a high expansion ratio (note: "gasses... expand farther before their productive utility is overwhelmed by friction and other losses."). Upping the compression ratio is certainly a good way to improve efficiency, but it's hardly unique to "internally radiating impulse structures".

So, bottom line: high-CR two-stroke with radial sealing issues and unknown additional losses.
Old 07-13-2010, 12:21 PM
Charter Member
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 73,369
I'd also like to see how they convert the back-and-forth motion of the iris panels to smooth rotational motion. Camshafts are a pretty mature technology, but it looks to me like you'd need something new for this.
Old 07-13-2010, 01:00 PM
Guest
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,889
Meh. Looks like all the face sealing problems of a Wankel (with tappet valves on one of the faces to add to the joy) and only twice as many apexs to seal...what could possibly go wrong?
Old 07-13-2010, 01:01 PM
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: In a handbasket.
Posts: 1,037
Chronos: From the looks of the crank assembly, each "chordon" is attached to a shaft which in turn has an individual crank arm attached to it. The end of this crank arm approximates the up-down motion of a piston. A connecting rod is pinned to the end of the crank arm and drives a shaft much like a normal piston engine.

This does bring up a good question though: Is the arc movement of the chordon crank more inefficient than the pure linear motion of a piston?

Kevbo: I laughed. And "face" is the name for those seals. Thanks for reminding me! I called 'em side seals.

ETA: Kevbo snuck a post in while I was composing.

Last edited by Lazlo; 07-13-2010 at 01:04 PM.
Old 07-13-2010, 01:04 PM
zut zut is offline
Charter Member
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 3,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
I'd also like to see how they convert the back-and-forth motion of the iris panels to smooth rotational motion. Camshafts are a pretty mature technology, but it looks to me like you'd need something new for this.
The second video shows the mechanism: each iris panel is connected to a rocker, which is in turn joined to a standard-looking standard con rod and crankshaft. Kinematically sound, I think, but an assload of bearings for a single-cylinder engine.
Old 07-15-2010, 09:31 AM
Member
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: A Brit in 'Stralia
Posts: 1,964
It's not the first funky engine design that would be all but impossible to realise in practice, and it won't be the last.

Quasiturbine - neat concept, similar problems - http://quasiturbine.promci.qc.ca/

I don't get excited about these things anymore until somebody actually builds one that burns fuel and runs for a while. Like this guy's engine, which I think is actually rather neat:

http://new4stroke.com/
Old 08-21-2012, 07:28 AM
BANNED
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Krakow
Posts: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by matt View Post
It's not the first funky engine design that would be all but impossible to realise in practice, and it won't be the last.


I don't get excited about these things anymore until somebody actually builds one that burns fuel and runs for a while. Like this guy's engine, which I think is actually rather neat:

http://new4stroke.com/
Thanks Matt...


One Greek inventor also was fond of this solution and did me such a nice animation.
But even I don't know the extent to which this programme made.


http://new4stroke.com/new4strokegreek2.gif

Andrew
Old 08-21-2012, 11:03 AM
Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Under Oveur & over Unger
Posts: 10,434
I wouldn't be surprised if this concept works; there are a number of other novel designs (rotary vane, Rand Cam) that have been developed.

the devil in the details is actually taking it to the point where you can manufacture a lot of them, and have them last relatively problem-free for 150,000 miles. That's the big part, new designs are competing with the piston engine's 100 years of refinement.

Last edited by jz78817; 08-21-2012 at 11:03 AM.
Old 08-21-2012, 01:01 PM
BANNED
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Krakow
Posts: 24
But these new models, only natural curiosity, but no serious competition....: D

My 6 cylindrer boxer

http://new4stroke.com/6cilinder.jpg

But what about this, as even the total cylinder capacity can't count ...
And only talk about the design of the engine... : Rolleyes:

but nothing worry. Here you have something simpler for the next 100 years.
And it does not need oil lubrication...

http://new4stroke.com/halfrotate400.gif
http://forums.autosport.com/index.ph...c=74960&st=520

Andrew

Last edited by Feliks; 08-21-2012 at 01:04 PM.
Old 08-21-2012, 06:35 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Silicon valley
Posts: 1,299
I'm no engineer, but there seems to be waaay too much going on there to be efficient. You've got the "chordons", attached to very very long shafts, attached to a connecting rod, attached to another connecting rod, attached to a crank. Thats a ton of reciprocating mass all moving in sync, lots of bearings and lots of seals. Most of those parts are transmitting power via wierd angles that look very prone to twisting and bending. If this is meant to be a single, its going to need a massive flywheel to give it any hope of running smoothly.

They seem to have taken the worst of 3 different types of engines. They combined the inefficiencies of a two stroke, added the sealing problems of a rotary, and made it as complicated as a multicylinder.
Old 08-21-2012, 08:23 PM
BANNED
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Krakow
Posts: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedSwinglineOne View Post
I'm no engineer, but there seems to be waaay too much going on there to be efficient. You've got the "chordons", attached to very very long shafts, attached to a connecting rod, attached to another connecting rod, attached to a crank. Thats a ton of reciprocating mass all moving in sync, lots of bearings and lots of seals. Most of those parts are transmitting power via wierd angles that look very prone to twisting and bending. If this is meant to be a single, its going to need a massive flywheel to give it any hope of running smoothly.

They seem to have taken the worst of 3 different types of engines. They combined the inefficiencies of a two stroke, added the sealing problems of a rotary, and made it as complicated as a multicylinder.
As you are an engineer, you should not speak on topics enginering. 'Cause you don't know even the basics of enginering . Talking, for example, that big weight of reciprocating mass back.Not true, but unless you do not have noticed that the bottom of the shaft (with four piston) rotates teh two times slower, so the force from the weight of the reciprocating mass callback is 4 times smaller, because it is the square of the speed trap. But can this pistons comes 60% capacity cylinder, which also does not have noticed., so minus four times force from reciprocating mass feedback.
One of the physicists of the Swiss so nicely wrote:

Daniel, CH physicist elegant describe efficiency:

------------------- Mass - RPM - inertial forces---- intake cm^3--- intake/inertia
1 main piston --- 2 ------ 2 ---- 2 * 2^2 =8 ------- 600 ------ 75
2 valve pistons - 2*1 ---- 1 --- 2 * 1 * 1^2= 2 --- 360 ----- 1 80

===> intake / inertia is better for valve piston than main piston.
Of course in sensible borders .

Besides, it's good to know how to really is an engineer, why is heavier..

http://new4stroke.com/weight4.jpg

Weight popped 75 mm 1000 G
weight piston & rod 76.5 mm 850 G

Besides, with the second prototype, the curiosity I and i want to say that this is the best acting I have seen how the engine in my life ...
Although the issue that could that could not necessarily so as to be
But is the best ... However, I have a little bit of luck....

Andrew: D

Last edited by Feliks; 08-21-2012 at 08:27 PM.
Old 08-21-2012, 11:46 PM
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 420
We seem to have wandered off the map...
Old 08-22-2012, 06:25 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Silicon valley
Posts: 1,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feliks View Post
Besides, it's good to know how to really is an engineer, why is heavier..

Andrew: D
I'm going to assume that somehow all the engineering was lost in translation...
Old 08-22-2012, 07:36 PM
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Dreaming
Posts: 21,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feliks View Post
As you are an engineer, you should not speak on topics enginering. 'Cause you don't know even the basics of enginering .
You will find that such admonitions carry little weight on this board. You are quite welcome to debunk other posters suppositions and incorrect information, but attempting to silence other posters is not cool.

And all I can say about the engine is that if it's rotary.., Well, if Mazda couldn't get everything working at maximum efficiency given all the time and money they've sunk into them, I doubt someone with mere animations can prove otherwise.

Last edited by Chimera; 08-22-2012 at 07:38 PM.
Old 08-22-2012, 08:08 PM
Charter Member
Charter Member
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 53,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimera View Post
You will find that such admonitions carry little weight on this board. You are quite welcome to debunk other posters suppositions and incorrect information, but attempting to silence other posters is not cool.

And all I can say about the engine is that if it's rotary.., Well, if Mazda couldn't get everything working at maximum efficiency given all the time and money they've sunk into them, I doubt someone with mere animations can prove otherwise.
I went to his website, and noticed a few things:
1. On his qualifications he lists that he was a sound engineer that traveled with many famous Polish bands, was a Rally driver, and produced dimmer switches.
2. His first prototype was made in 1978.
3. Lots of diagrams, drawings and black-and-white photos of engine parts, but no live action movies of engine working.
Is there an estimated date for when we will get to see this thing in action?
Old 08-22-2012, 08:28 PM
BANNED
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Krakow
Posts: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimera View Post
I doubt someone with mere animations can prove otherwise.
http://new4stroke.com/1A.jpg
Daily, for 3 years I took the engine. i.e. the 1000 days. How can earn a good mechanic for 1 day?
So much prototype this. But somehow it does not want anyone to watch,Despite the fact that each invite.
Could it be that nobody wanted to see how to work with real four stroke engine . ??
The easiest way is to write something on the forum, maybe not so ...
Besides, how do you know that I'm not the next prototype? Not everything can be improved and I gotta publish ...


Mazda wants to spend money on as Sisyphys the work, let the issue ... at least is to advertisement, which you quote someone else 's.
And just such a figure to know that this Sisyphys work ...

http://new4stroke.com/wankiel.jpg



I think that the Stephenson engine was enough for understanding the value that this animation.

http://new4stroke.com/halfsteam6.gif

Andrew: D

Last edited by Feliks; 08-22-2012 at 08:29 PM.
Old 08-22-2012, 08:44 PM
Charter Member
Charter Member
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 53,453
No combine the photo of the real thing and the movie of the cartoon thing, and give us a movie of the real thing in action.
Old 08-23-2012, 01:50 AM
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Nanaimo, BC
Posts: 1,965
No idea if this will work or not but I have to give it props for being invented by a man named Timber Dick.
Old 08-23-2012, 04:18 AM
BANNED
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Krakow
Posts: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
No combine the photo of the real thing and the movie of the cartoon thing, and give us a movie of the real thing in action.
is such a film, but here is the sound was dubbed... : Rolleyes:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=kJ3Pohh502E

Andrew


By the way, are you see ever antygravity ??

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Fb8IFfnbjY8

: D
Old 08-23-2012, 04:29 AM
Charter Member
Join Date: May 2001
Location: England
Posts: 56,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWMarch View Post
No idea if this will work or not but I have to give it props for being invented by a man named Timber Dick.
I heard he has some impressive wood.

Last edited by Mangetout; 08-23-2012 at 04:29 AM.
Old 08-23-2012, 07:49 AM
Charter Member
Charter Member
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 53,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feliks View Post
is such a film, but here is the sound was dubbed... : Rolleyes:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=kJ3Pohh502E

Andrew


By the way, are you see ever antygravity ??

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Fb8IFfnbjY8

: D
1. I wanted to see a movie of your engine in action, not a walkaround of an old car engine sitting on a bench.
2. What does that second video have to do with what we're talking about?

Can you show us a video of your engine while it is running?
Old 08-23-2012, 08:23 AM
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Challenger Deep
Posts: 10,445
They're never really clear about why this engine is supposed to be more efficient than conventional reciprocating-piston engines. There are several steps in a conventional engine at which energy is lost or discarded:

Pumping Losses. Energy is spent trying to suck air into the engine and trying to blow exhaust out of the engine. These losses are actually pretty modest at wide-open-throttle conditions in a conventional gasoline engine. They are higher at part-load, when you are trying to suck air past a partially-closed throttle plate; the same would be true of the IRIS engine, unless they're using variable valve timing to control engine breathing (and VVT can be used to control breathing on a conventional engine too; nothing special there for the IRIS).

Blow-by. On a conventional engine, gases leak past the piston rings. Whether it's raw fuel-air mixture or combustion products, that represents energy that won't be converted to work. These losses aren't likely to be lower on the IRIS engine, which appears to have far more linear inches of seal per unit-volume of displacement.

Thermal losses. Your car's engine needs a radiator because the hot combustion gases lose heat to the cylinder walls, and those walls need to be kept cool enough so that the oil can maintain its lubricative function. The IRIS engine will have the same issues.

Compression ratio. Or more specifically, expansion ratio. This sets an upper bound on engine efficiency. Modern production gasoline engines typically operate at around 11 or 12 to 1, which caps overall efficiency at less than 50% (see chart here). The fuel chemistry limits the allowable compression ratio, but the important thing for efficiency is the expansion ratio; the latter can be held high in a conventional engine by using the Atkinson cycle, as is done on the Toyota Prius. The IRIS engine may have a high expansion ratio, but as noted, this is not something that's unique to the IRIS.

They make some claim about increased "working surface area," but why exactly does this matter? They don't say.

So why, exactly, is the IRIS claimed to be more efficient????
Old 08-23-2012, 08:45 AM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Land of Cheese Coneys
Posts: 16,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feliks View Post
As you are an engineer, you should not speak on topics enginering. 'Cause you don't know even the basics of enginering . Talking, for example, that big weight of reciprocating mass back.Not true, but unless you do not have noticed that the bottom of the shaft (with four piston) rotates teh two times slower, so the force from the weight of the reciprocating mass callback is 4 times smaller, because it is the square of the speed trap. But can this pistons comes 60% capacity cylinder, which also does not have noticed., so minus four times force from reciprocating mass feedback.
One of the physicists of the Swiss so nicely wrote:

Daniel, CH physicist elegant describe efficiency:

------------------- Mass - RPM - inertial forces---- intake cm^3--- intake/inertia
1 main piston --- 2 ------ 2 ---- 2 * 2^2 =8 ------- 600 ------ 75
2 valve pistons - 2*1 ---- 1 --- 2 * 1 * 1^2= 2 --- 360 ----- 1 80

===> intake / inertia is better for valve piston than main piston.
Of course in sensible borders .

Besides, it's good to know how to really is an engineer, why is heavier..

http://new4stroke.com/weight4.jpg

Weight popped 75 mm 1000 G
weight piston & rod 76.5 mm 850 G

Besides, with the second prototype, the curiosity I and i want to say that this is the best acting I have seen how the engine in my life ...
Although the issue that could that could not necessarily so as to be
But is the best ... However, I have a little bit of luck....

Andrew: D

Didn't you mean to join in July?
Old 08-23-2012, 09:07 AM
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 37,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machine Elf View Post
They make some claim about increased "working surface area," but why exactly does this matter? They don't say.

So why, exactly, is the IRIS claimed to be more efficient????
I couldn't figure anything out from the sources supplied. They seem to be saying the force of combustion applied over a larger surface are is more efficient. This is true in a conventional piston engine with wider shallower piston in the conversion to of energy to a shorter stroke. But that simplifies the mechanical design of an engine while this one makes it much more complex. It's hard to believe with that weird mechansim to transfer the linear motion to rotary that any advantage can be obtained.
Old 08-23-2012, 10:24 AM
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Challenger Deep
Posts: 10,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
I couldn't figure anything out from the sources supplied. They seem to be saying the force of combustion applied over a larger surface are is more efficient. This is true in a conventional piston engine with wider shallower piston in the conversion to of energy to a shorter stroke.
It's not true that a wider piston (and shorter stroke) inherently makes for more efficient conversion of heat to work in a conventional engine. As in any other engine, the expansion ratio limits peak efficiency, and unless you change that, the theoretical limit will still be the same. Moreover, in an oversquare engine, there may be reduced piston/ring friction, but the increase in combustion chamber surface area results in higher thermal losses than would otherwise occur; the net result is typically lower efficiency.

Quote:
But that simplifies the mechanical design of an engine
An oversquare engine is no simpler (or more complex) than an engine with a different bore-to-stroke ratio; it still has the same number of parts.
Old 08-23-2012, 10:35 AM
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 37,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machine Elf View Post

An oversquare engine is no simpler (or more complex) than an engine with a different bore-to-stroke ratio; it still has the same number of parts.
Simpler was the wrong word. It has a shorter stroke reducing the length of motion of the piston and rod, but putting more force into the bearing. That's all I meant. You're description of the efficiency difference sounds right. I was just picking that as an example of a case where greater surface area has some advantage. I don't see it carrying over to the Iris design at all. As a matter of fact it's so much more complicated with so much more bearing area it doesn't make sense to expect any advantage from it.
Old 08-23-2012, 05:33 PM
Charter Member
Charter Member
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 53,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feliks View Post
is such a film, but here is the sound was dubbed... : Rolleyes:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=kJ3Pohh502E
I'm not very knowledgeable about what a new prototype engine should look like, but this looks alot like something pulled from an auto junkyard.

Last edited by Czarcasm; 08-23-2012 at 05:37 PM. Reason: spelingg
Old 08-23-2012, 06:21 PM
BANNED
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Krakow
Posts: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
I'm not very knowledgeable about what a new prototype engine should look like, but this looks alot like something pulled from an auto junkyard.
Not the gold, which is lit...
Our ration, quite enough chromium on this engine ...

But how is the sound.I am sure that you escaped from garage, when I start it...

And not look ...

Ok, little chromium specjaly for YOU :

http://new4stroke.com/images/muffler.jpg
And such clutter you will not see you never...

http://new4stroke.com/images/Uff.jpg

Andrew: D

Last edited by Feliks; 08-23-2012 at 06:23 PM.
Old 08-23-2012, 06:57 PM
Charter Member
Charter Member
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 53,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feliks View Post
Not the gold, which is lit...
Our ration, quite enough chromium on this engine ...

But how is the sound.I am sure that you escaped from garage, when I start it...

And not look ...

Ok, little chromium specjaly for YOU :

http://new4stroke.com/images/muffler.jpg
And such clutter you will not see you never...

http://new4stroke.com/images/Uff.jpg

Andrew: D
For the last time: Can you or can you not show us a video of your prototype engine in action?
NO photographs of engine pieces.
NO simplistic animations.
JUST your engine, operating.
Old 08-23-2012, 07:38 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago Il
Posts: 9,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
I went to his website, and noticed a few things:
1. On his qualifications he lists that he was a sound engineer that traveled with many famous Polish bands, was a Rally driver, and produced dimmer switches.
2. His first prototype was made in 1978.
3. Lots of diagrams, drawings and black-and-white photos of engine parts, but no live action movies of engine working.
Is there an estimated date for when we will get to see this thing in action?
A sound engineer? Well now I'm convinced
Old 08-23-2012, 07:45 PM
BANNED
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Krakow
Posts: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
For the last time: Can you or can you not show us a video of your prototype engine in action?
NO photographs of engine pieces.
NO simplistic animations.
JUST your engine, operating.
Not because I do not have such a movie. It would be a purpose.
Open the mask of his car, start the engine and make the film.
Then extinguish engine and also make the movie.
I think that the only sound you know whether the engine is working as expected, or not ...

and you're not the first, which calls for teh video ... post 10

http://nogripracing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2613
Old 08-23-2012, 09:02 PM
Member
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Cloud Cuckoo Land
Posts: 28,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feliks View Post
And it does not need oil lubrication...
Why not?
Old 08-23-2012, 10:04 PM
Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Under Oveur & over Unger
Posts: 10,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by dropzone View Post
Why not?
Because its a complete fabrication.
Old 08-23-2012, 10:16 PM
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 2,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machine Elf View Post
Thermal losses. Your car's engine needs a radiator because the hot combustion gases lose heat to the cylinder walls, and those walls need to be kept cool enough so that the oil can maintain its lubricative function. The IRIS engine will have the same issues.
It might even have them to a worse degree. Looking at the animation, I can't see how those flapping petal things are supposed to be kept cool. Oil sprayed on the outside? Cooling channels run through the shafts somehow? Or has that issue simply not been thought of at all?
Old 08-23-2012, 11:00 PM
Member
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Cloud Cuckoo Land
Posts: 28,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by jz78817 View Post
Because its a complete fabrication.
Well, that's obvious, but I have a sado-masochistic desire to fight my way through his explanation in fractured English.
Old 08-23-2012, 11:14 PM
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,700
From the thread he last linked to:

http://new4stroke.com/WaterRedBaron.jpg

Tells me pretty much what I need to know about his "engineering".
Old 08-24-2012, 04:37 AM
BANNED
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Krakow
Posts: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlainJain View Post
From the thread he last linked to:

http://new4stroke.com/WaterRedBaron.jpg

Tells me pretty much what I need to know about his "engineering".
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Fb8IFfnbjY8

And my applied in industry movie you skip? can you against the film for an Oscar ??

And here you see that you can replace a small ball in a little water....

But, I think that so far you know not of such science fiction.

But I also did not knew about such achievements "engineering"
http://img847.imageshack.us/img847/2...clearpower.jpg

Most importantly, you are felt later safely....

Regards Andrew: D
Old 08-24-2012, 04:49 AM
BANNED
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Krakow
Posts: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by dropzone View Post
Why not?
Therefore, that "piston" not of the cylinder friction ..
And the seals are made of Teflon
May be with Teflon. because i "piston" and cylinder water cooled jesy, causing the temperature of the items is not higher than 120 degrees Celsius.

Will sell its shares of oil company?


Quote:
Originally Posted by dropzone View Post
Well, that's obvious, but I have a sado-masochistic desire to fight my way through his explanation in fractured English.
I'm doing, see carefully to my mouth....

: D: D
Old 08-24-2012, 10:15 AM
Charter Member
Charter Member
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 53,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feliks View Post
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Fb8IFfnbjY8

And my applied in industry movie you skip? can you against the film for an Oscar ??

And here you see that you can replace a small ball in a little water....

But, I think that so far you know not of such science fiction.

But I also did not knew about such achievements "engineering"
http://img847.imageshack.us/img847/2...clearpower.jpg

Most importantly, you are felt later safely....

Regards Andrew: D
No more random movies and pictures of other people's stuff, please. When will you have a working model of your engine available for inspection?
Old 08-24-2012, 12:23 PM
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 37,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
No more random movies and pictures of other people's stuff, please. When will you have a working model of your engine available for inspection?
I also have some engines that I can't show you. Would you like to not see videos of those too?
Old 08-24-2012, 12:31 PM
Guest
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 8,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlainJain View Post
From the thread he last linked to:

http://new4stroke.com/WaterRedBaron.jpg

Tells me pretty much what I need to know about his "engineering".
To be fair, it's not a perpetual motion machine, if that's what you're thinking. Those blue arrows presumably represent wind, pulling the water up the columns.



There was a two-stroke engine design I saw online a few years back, which had pistons in pairs, with the four strokes of a four stroke engine divided between the two pistons. One piston produced power each stroke, and the other piston was responsible for compressing the air-fuel mixture before passing it the first piston. The author/inventor claimed some kind of thermodynamic efficiency because the compression piston didn't get as hot as the power piston. Maybe the power piston could stay hotter to extract more useful energy from each explosion, I don't recall exactly.

Anyone else ever see this, who can comment on whether there's any possible benefit there?
Old 08-24-2012, 12:36 PM
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 37,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZenBeam View Post
Anyone else ever see this, who can comment on whether there's any possible benefit there?
Are you talking about the Twingle?
Old 08-24-2012, 05:41 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Silicon valley
Posts: 1,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewL View Post
It might even have them to a worse degree. Looking at the animation, I can't see how those flapping petal things are supposed to be kept cool. Oil sprayed on the outside?
Good point. Those chordons (flappy things) are going to get very hot. They are going to have exhaust gasses on both sides and passing through them. Oil jets won't work because the back of the chordons is not in a separate crankcase like the back of a piston is. All the oil would be blown out the exhaust.

I also notice that the swept area of the chordons is a very large percentage of the chamber's area. This would seem to cause some seriouse pumping action within the chamber. Exhaust gasses are going to be getting pumped in and out behind the chordons. Traditional two strokes use the pumping action of the piston to pressurize the air in the case, and this pressurized air is forced into the combustion chamber. The IRIS design seems to waste that energy.
Old 08-24-2012, 05:51 PM
BANNED
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Krakow
Posts: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
Are you talking about the Twingle?
o Yes, this was an important step....

http://home.sprynet.com/~inniss/sears.htm

http://images.forum-auto.com/mesimages/113653/dkw.jpg

http://motohistory.net/images/OPOC2.jpg
Old 10-24-2012, 04:18 AM
BANNED
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Krakow
Posts: 24
Here, the photo of the engine and Abart, for those who have doubts about the hight engine of my..

http://new4stroke.com/myabart.jpg

Andrew
Old 10-24-2012, 04:31 AM
Guest
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Miskatonic University
Posts: 10,269
Quote:
Originally Posted by zut View Post
it's just that real systems always have more friction and blowby and heat losses than one optimistically projects.
Wait just a gosh darned minute! You mean all engines don't run at Carnot efficiency!?


Old 10-24-2012, 05:27 PM
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Missoula, Montana, USA
Posts: 19,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jragon View Post
Wait just a gosh darned minute! You mean all engines don't run at Carnot efficiency!?


Not only that, but they can't even run at Car-nut efficiency!

(That is, their motion is less efficient than the flapping of a car-nut's jaws while he talks up the good points of his favored design.)
Old 01-10-2013, 05:23 PM
BANNED
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Krakow
Posts: 24
A little about the efficiency of engines...

So interesting what you can find in my archives. The oldest Radioamator I found in my ...

http://new4stroke.com/radioamator.jpg

Google translated :
"According to information published in one of the writings of English - has been developed by researchers at the concept of electricity generation by passage of ions and electrons with very high speed through a magnetic field
The practical implementation of this method that was based on Plasma gas forcing by the strong magnetic field. Electrical power of 1000 KW can be obtained by passing the said plasma at 3 times the speed of sound, the magnetic field of 1 meter long between the poles of a magnet at a distance from each other by about 15 cm. No, you would need the boilers and steam turbines. Previous experiments have generated so far a small amount of electrical energy. Achieving the full effect expected after several years of further intensive tests conducted"..

Maybe the exhaust manifold to the F1 wear a magnet and additional energy (electricity) have?
Do not give me those numbers alone ... When linearly decreased as the amount of energy ... it
5 cm in diameter and 1 meter length of pipe that is 10 times less that is = 100 KW
The flow rate is not 900 m / s just say 200 m / s that is to say 4, 5 fold less = 22KW ... For each cylinder?

How can I bypass the statutory 20 mm in diameter ... and we have a little more air in the engine intake manifold

http://sae.wsu.edu/media/0708car/08-03-10/

http://sae.wsu.edu/media/0708car/08-...s/IMG_3301.jpg


And here, if the exhaust pipe wrap neodymium magnets .... I have a small MHD...

http://sae.wsu.edu/media/engine/target0.html

http://sae.wsu.edu/media/engine/images/img_3629.jpg

Some experience with Palasma. In the film, the plasma is formed, even when the current is flowing in the nano-amperes...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=t7s3cvm6CfY

And here is video showing that you can do in addition to current, lovely music, which instead of ordinary hum, will be extracted out muffler...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ISA4sXOyyQI

http://youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=...ture=endscreen

http://youtube.com/watch?v=xXskcNwXIHA


Even serious business, what comes out of mufler treat seriously"
" Designing any exhaust system today is a challenge – especially when it is for an iconic sports car with a famous sound signature. Ricardo’s WAVE software was used by Porsche engineers in the development of the latest 911 model"

Another way of getting electricity from hot exhaust pipes. Termionic generator, such as the electron tube. Current density obtained is about 10 watts of 1 cm square area of ??the outlet pipe

http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep602/SPRING00/lecture9.pdf

http://new4stroke.com/termionic.jpg


Of course, the acquisition of the MHD generator, which has electrodes inside..

To assist the electron reactions, a high voltage can be applied, as in TIG welding machines,..

Andrew
Old 02-21-2013, 03:55 PM
BANNED
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Krakow
Posts: 24
But nothing to prevent the high temperature of the inner cathode acquired using shale gas, or coal.
if we pipe with a radius of 10 cm heated, it will receive its length 1cm, 600 watts, which is enough for the house to its length of 20 cm or 12 KW .... ....
Extremely small heating stove diameter 20 x 20 cm, and everything we have in the house for electricity, including heating ..
In this case, the inner tube should have fins to really depriving heat of combustion.

Andrew: D
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:01 AM.

Copyright © 2017
Best Topics: cassandra troy smart beep pager kosher sandwiches one click distance alcohol and antihistamines free lumber scraps mexican war movies dent in thigh wildebeest meat prepopik vs suprep boom box antenna pilgrims beer niger pronounced giant booger extraction inherently funny vinegar and plastic fire nets freedom turbotax gene roddenberry communist curing leather diplomacy game pieces overdose on lsd workbench finish cali california mike bloomfield telecaster milk farts 104 octane gas yoga studio name ventura jury duty drink vanilla extract down's syndrome iq shes lump how to open envelope what just flew over my house stadium seat cup holder why is fifth third bank called that how to transfer answering machine messages to computer how to tell if white powder is coke steer into the skid meaning what does a backwards k in baseball mean gus grissom liberty bell 7 mens facial hair removal cream astro van rear end noise how to go from dental hygienist to dentist gifts from usa to uk is the stomach virus airborne how long can you let a cavity go what does whiskey taste like can i go to niagara falls canada without a passport selling your fur coat why do you mount a horse on the left how much time passes between star wars movies canned tuna in oil how to remove burnt sugar from a pan flies with maggots inside how much tylenol will kill me golden age of arcade games what is the iron cross what vegetables go with meatloaf why are stockings so sexy jobs that accept any bachelor's degree why does the day start at midnight what if carthage won the punic wars why do eyes water in the morning