Kugelmotor “Ball Motor” vs my favorite

OK, I was at my Czech Swiss mechanic ( Mom and Dad brought together by events in Europe last world war or so..) having my car looked at after the marathon cross country run… and I get shown this U-Tube of a ‘ball motor’.

The Ball Motor

It’s a wonderful bit of creativity. I can see some potential sealing issues. Lubrication could be a bit tough (especially for the little ‘swash balls’ that follow a serpentine grove and move the ‘piston’ wedges back and forth). There is also a fairly large quenching surface area on the ‘pistons’ that could provide cold areas with the potential for lowered combustion and higher smog (probably ‘fixable’ with appropriate fuel injection that keeps fuel off the surfaces). OK, so I’d like to see one running and find out what ‘issues’ it might have. (The Wankel is a great engine, that had sealing problems, smog problems, and fuel efficiency problems from just those kinds of seals and surfaces issues… but makes a load of power in a low weight, so survives in some niche uses that need that feature).

What does it look like?

The animation starts with the inside shaft parts and takes you through the whole process adding one layer of engine at a time. Nicely done.

The Deltic

FWIW, an engine that I’ve always liked for the minimal ‘issues’ with things like valves, surface quenching, etc. is the Deltic engine. This was used in some boats and locomotives. First off, the pistons are opposed, so there are no ‘heads’ or valves. Just ports uncovered at the end of the stroke. Second, it’s a two stroke, so lots of power per pound. Third, it has a huge load of pistons per linear foot. Why? Because 3 cylinders are arranged in a “Delta” with a crankshaft at each apex. Pistons from each are opposed in each cylinder, so 6 pistons per unit length. All geared together at a rather large and complicated flywheel type affair. But still, no heads? No valves? 6 pistons per unit of crankshaft length? A ‘6 cylinder’ crankshaft length would give 36 total pistons each giving a power stroke on each rotation. Like having a 72 piston 4 stroke engine. Yeah, impressive…

Napier Deltic Engine in National Railway Museum

Napier Deltic Engine in National Railway Museum

Original Image

From the Wiki:

Development began in 1947 and the first Deltic unit was produced in 1950. By January 1952 six engines were available, enough for full development and endurance trials. S212, a captured ex-German E-Boat powered by three Mercedes-Benz diesel engines, was selected for these trials, since its power units were of approximately equal power to the new 18-cylinder Deltic engines. Two of the three Mercedes-Benz engines were replaced with Napier Deltics, the compactness of the Deltic being graphically illustrated: they were half the size of the original engines. The Deltic weighed one fifth of its contemporaries of equivalent power.

Proving successful, Deltic diesel engines became a common powerplant in small and fast naval craft. The Royal Navy used them first in the Dark class fast attack craft. Subsequently they were used in a number of other smaller attack craft. The low magnetic signature lent itself to use in mine countermeasures vessels and the Deltic was selected to power the Ton class minesweeper. The Deltic engine is still in service in the Hunt class. These versions are de-rated to reduce engine stress.

Deltic diesels served in MTBs and PT Boats built for other navies. Particularly notable was the Norwegian Tjeld or Nasty class, which was also sold to Germany, Greece, and the United States Navy. Nasty class boats served in the Vietnam War, largely for covert operations.

Smaller nine-cylinder Deltic 9 engines were used as marine engines, notably by minesweepers. The Ton class vessels were powered by a pair of Deltic 18s and used an additional Deltic 9 for power generation for their magnetic influence sweep. The Hunt class used three Deltic 9s, two for propulsion and again one for power generation, but this time with a hydraulic pump integrated as well to power bow-thrusters for slow-speed manœuvring.

Just gotta love it. It’s a bit odd as one of the crankshafts has to run backwards relative to the others to get things to work out… I’d love to see a lightweight version made with high strength steels and aluminum (instead of iron castings) used in an airplane… You could run JP-4 instead of avgas and have a load of power too.

Here’s a schematic of how it looks in motion. (The wiki asserts the lower left side ports are reversed, that with rotational symmetry the exhaust and intake ought to be rotationally symmetric, not r/l symmetric with the lower right. So just imagine the purple and green swapped on that side.)

Napier Deltic Animation

Napier Deltic Animation

There is still room for development, especially in the area of a more fuel efficient alternative to the gas turbine. That path was explored some, but abandoned in the face of higher interest in turbines back when fuel cost was not much of an issue. Also from the wiki:

The E.185 or Compound Deltic turbo-compound variant was planned and a single prototype was built in 1956 and tested in 1957. This capitalised on Napier’s experience with both the Nomad and their increasing involvement with gas turbines. It used the Deltic as the gas generator inside a gas turbine, with both a twelve-stage axial compressor and a three stage gas turbine. Unlike the Nomad, this turbine was not mechanically coupled to the crankshaft but merely drove the compressor. It was hoped to produce 6,000 horsepower, with fuel economy and power-to-weight ratio “second to none”. Predictions by the engineers closely connected with it were that connecting rod failure would be the limit on this power, failing at around 5,300 bhp. On test it actually produced 5,600 bhp, before throwing a connecting rod through the crankcase just as predicted. Naval interest had waned by 1958 in favour of the pure gas turbine, despite its heavier fuel consumption, and no further development was carried out.

So I’m thinking that a ‘turbocharger’ like on the Mercedes Diesels applied to a bank of a small Deltic would give outrageous performance. It is, in essence, a coupled gas turbine / compressor. Put a small electrically powered or shaft driven blower on the intake for starting and ‘look out’… The biggest issue I see is finding a way to make one small enough to keep the power DOWN to the level of a 4 or 6 cylinder Lycoming ;-)

Ah, well. As it would take a fairly large company interested in a fairly small market to make one of those, it’s not likely to happen. Still, a fellow can dream … I suppose if you made it just one bank long, only 6 pistons, you could mount it on old radial engine mount points too ;-)

Now if I can just find a sugar daddy with a few $Million to spend on an aviation idea … An extraordinarily efficient, very smooth, high powered engine with great power to weight ratio and runs on Jet-A. Gotta be someone who would like it. Apply modern materials to the design and it ought to be a killer in the air. Rotating mass is a bit of an issue, but one third rotates opposite the rest. Gear the prop and flywheel to rotate in that counter direction and you could likely get low gyro impacts as well… Just saying…

(For those not familiar with the issue: Major oil companies would like to stop making aviation gasoline all together. There is just not much volume there and it’s a market of high regulatory and liability issues. They would like to just make jet fuel; and a lot of Jet-A / JP-4 / etc. is sold all over the world. There is a desire to make a Jet-A capable drop in replacement engine for private aircraft. A desire that has not quite managed to succeed in the USA. With high costs, mostly from regulations, and low potential sales, also from regulation killing off much of private aviation, it’s not a very attractive market. BTW, I’m one of those discouraged from flying by the regulatory burden, so I’m speaking from personal experience on that. Lots of ground school. Some flight time. Not nearly enough money. Where is the ‘Piper Cub’ or Taylorcraft of today? Killed by regulatory compliance costs for plane, pilot, and airports. The 4 cylinder Lycoming, for example, runs over $32,000 base price engine only. Why? It’s not the cost of making a 4 cylinder engine… The ‘ultralight’ movement is trying to fix that, but it’s just not a practical size for anything but ‘toy’ usage… by design. So I don’t expect to see any breakthrough soon. Most attempts are ‘mom and pop’ sized and fizzle on funding and /or compliance and acceptance testing.)

Subscribe to feed

About these ads

About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in Tech Bits and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to Kugelmotor “Ball Motor” vs my favorite

  1. George says:

    So I’m thinking that a ‘turbocharger’ like on the Mercedes Diesels applied to a bank of a small Deltic would give outrageous performance.

    That is exactly the thought that came immediately to my mind when I saw the animated picture.

    Ok, so look at those three crankshafts. Now imagine they aren’t shafts but are basically just a smallish flywheel. Now on the opposite side of that wheel is another connecting rod. Each of the three flywheels (for lack of a better term) then have a connecting rod to a crank in the center that has the real main flywheel.

    The quenching problem can probably be worked around using some material engineering. Ceramic pistons? There a company that makes ceramic pistons and cylinder inserts and guess what they also make?

    http://www.youtube.com/user/NiamaReisserLLC

  2. Jason Calley says:

    I had never seen that Napier Deltic before. Nice design, looks like very reasonable construction. On the other hand, the Kuglemotor…. looks like that might be quite a bit more expensive to manufacture. I was slightly reminded by it of a more current design, the so-called Massive-Yet-Tiny engine.

    http://www.rexresearch.com/morgado/morgado.htm

  3. peter geany says:

    Surprisingly a few months ago in the UK a Deltic powered locomotive was put back into service to makeup for a shortage of serviceable loco’s. 2 strokes have always promised much, and if power density is your only requirement they win hands down. However in todays world they struggle with meeting emission levels and fuel economy.

    Detroit Diesel has probably produced more 2 stroke diesels than all others combined and never really managed to leverage the 2 stroke advantage. Even as industrial engines that were not subject to emission regs the DD’s were eased out by the ever improving 4 strokes.

    Cummins Eng Co had an engine based on a std production 4 stroke that contained ceramic parts and required no water. This was built for the US army, the lack of water having obvious advantages.

    Cummins also purchased the rights to the Hyperbar engine (a french invention) which uses very high presser supercharging to increase power density. It does this by turning the turbo charger into a gas turbine that needs to be started before it generates the pressure to run the engine. I believe it turned a 1200hp 38 litre V12 into a 2500hp engine, or in this case a 1.5 MW generator.

    The thing that killed of both these engines was emissions, particularly NOx, and the complexity of the Hyperbar engine was challenging.

    I have written quite a lot on compliance costs with regards to commercial diesel engines. Todays EPA 2010 or forthcoming Euro 6 engines are virtually zero emission engines, and marvels of engineering. I believe we have gone far enough on emissions and that no public benefit would be gained reducing them further. (but this is exactly what the dim witted regulators intend to do) After all if these engines can operate underground in a mine, then above ground in the open air ???? I am ignoring that fact here that certain members of the human race think that CO2 is a pollutant. All engineering effort for the next 10 years should concentrate on fuel economy, and in reducing the complexity of the engines, as they use a combination of exhaust gas recirculation, catalytic converters with urea injection to control NOx and a particulate trap. Up until the end of the eighties diesels ran without the requirement for any external electrical input, now they require a computer.

    You maybe interested in this link, which is a modern version of the Detic idea

    http://ecomotors.com/videos/introduction-ecomotors-prof-peter-hofbauer

  4. Ralph B says:

    2 stroke, no head, opposed piston? First thing that came to my mind was Fairbanks Morse. All the subs I was on had one, and a nuke plant as well. They are great engines, use a blower on start up then switch to turbo under load. Many different locomotives did (and I would assume a few still do) use FM as their prime mover. In WW2 the Germans had designed a diesel airplane engine opposed piston, not sure if it was ever flight tested though. It was to be used on long range reconnaissance and cargo planes. Their coal to liquids plants produced more diesel than gas and the gas was only 87octane (EM covered that a couple months back)

  5. Adrian Camp says:

    That german diesel? The Junkers Jumo 205 was used fairly widely on Dornier and Arado flying boats. It was pretty much ideal for maritime patrol, for endurance. Endurance is not an important parameter in other applications, and the technology was not developed. The British Chieftain tank had an opposed-piston diesel. It was known as the best tank in the world provided it was in a good fire position when it (inevitably) broke down. The engine choice this time was for range and multi-fuel ability. We had Deltic diesel locomotives a while back, and very good they were, but the best is the enemy of the good, and cheaper normal piston engines replaced them.

    I love a good unconventional engine, and Napiers were your source for them all right. The W12 Lion and H24 Sabre aircraft engines, things of beauty if you are of an engineering bent. But it always seems that the dull old piston/poppet valve combination always wins. The Sabre had 24 cylinders, sleeve valves, two crankshafts, 4000rpm. Its US rival the P&W R2800 had eighteen boring cylinders, two poppet valves each, air cooling , 2700rpm and was tough as old boots. The R2800 powered dozens of fighters, bombers and transports. Many tens of thousands were built. The Sabre powered two fighter types, a few thousand examples, and gave trouble throughout its career

    I like an unconventional aircraft too. Canard, flying wing, blended fuselage, whatever. But it always seems that they cannot demonstrate a real advantage over the conventional types. Sad.

  6. Another Ian says:

    Re aircraft diesels.

    Check out Herschel Smith “A History of Aircraft Piston Engines”

    Junkers Jumo diesel first flew 1929, with only minor changes 1932 – 1944

    Used mainly in transport planes.

    Napier had a license for the Jumo 205, which was the basis for the Deltic.

    For added complexity check out the Napier Nomad “two stroke opposed 12 diesel turbo-compound with added jet thrust”

  7. peter geany says:

    The Jumo 207 flew in the Ju86P & R high flying reconnaissance craft. This caused consternation in the UK early in the war as no fighters could intercept these high flying reconnaissance craft. Otherwise the Ju86 was obsolete and very vulnerable and once the first one was successfully intercepted they were withdrawn.

    Napier had a licence to build the Jumo 204 and called it the Napier Culverin. Having built the opposed piston 2 stroke pre war it is interesting that their own design for a post war diesel was a more conventional 2 stroke flat 12 with sleeve valves and either turbo compounding as per the Wright Cyclone TS18 or with a complicated gas turbine using the high exhaust velocity to drive contra props.

    The story of the problems with the 36 litre H24 Sabre are often more misinformation and folklore than fact. It was a complicated engine, with huge power density. Development was necessarily rushed, and manufacturing issues caused most of the early issues. Once this was sorted it was training with service personnel that was often called into question. However once experience built up, and development was concentrated on improving and strengthening the engine it became very powerful and reliable with 3000hp available. Post war a std production engine was run for an hour at 4000hp, figures no other production piston engine achieved. It must be remembered the Sabre was a no compromise fighter engine, water cooled for good thermal shock load capability when the throttle was shoved to the wall. It also endowed the Tempest with a very fast cruise speed that made that aircraft extremely difficult to intercept in its primary role as air superiority fighter. The Sabre also powered the Tempest light fighter or Fury to 480mph making it the fastest British single engine fighter (but not the fastest piston engined fighter, that being the twin egined Hornet at 491mph) But as the RAF cancelled the Fury in favour of jets the fury then went on to be powered by the air cooled 53 litre 18 cylinder sleeve valve Centaurus.

    If people want a good yarn about engine development that went horribly wrong then the best candidate is the Wright Cyclone 18 developed for the B29. It nearly destroyed the whole B29 project and is a compelling story of engineers knowing whats wrong, service chiefs not wanting delays and corporate managers without a single clue. Colonel Paul Tibbitts refused to fly a certain mission in August 45 until the aircraft he was to use had 4 engines with all the updates and fixes, Even at the end of the war engine issues with the B29 were cronic, something glossed over in the telling of history. Even today the Last flying B29 FiFi has just gone through a program to remove the original military R3350’s and replace them with post war commercial versions as the cost of maintain the engines and risk to the aircraft was becoming to much.

    Anyway enough of this trivia.

  8. P.G. Sharrow says:

    Thanks to all for this interesting trivia. 8-) pg

  9. Another Ian says:

    While we are on engines – some time ago E.M. had a comment about a Lister genset.

    http://www.triplecmarine.com/14kwlister.html

    I span the era from pressure lights then 32volt and batteries to mains power (our ranch power comes via SWER – single wire earth return, which has some max hp limitations but works fine otherwise). With diesel power on most things along the way.

    My experience (Australia) was with both imported (e.g. Armstrong Siddley (aircooled from about 1931), Lister and Petter) and local produced (Southern Cross (perhaps better known for their windmills), Ronaldson Tippet, Kelly & Lewis) engines starting about 4 bhp, usually water cooled iron lumps. The Southern Cross ones were up to 4 cylinders of around 40 horsepower – described by a sawmiller friend as doing a magnificent job surrounded by sawdust and neglect.

    We have a single cylinder model made in 1940 and still pumping. I don’t have the relevant Southern Cross catalogue, but I recall that fuel consumption was to “BSS ??? at less than 0.45 pints per bhp per hour”. Our YC uses about 2 gallons to fill a 10,000 gallon water tank in about 8 hours which seems in that area.

    I have always wondered why the US was noticably lacking equivalent small industrial diesel engines. Around 1950’s Popular Mechanics had ads for some like this from Fairbanks Morse but that seemed to be it. And I wondered if fuel price had something to do with it

    A recent book on the Southern Cross engine side highlights the fuel price effect –

    In 1922 here petrol was around 35 cents a gallon, kerosene 20 cents a gallon and crude oil 6 cents a gallon

  10. Another Ian says:

    Re peter geany

    Re B29 engine problems

    Herschel Smith quote is ” – – the problem seems to have been with the installation rather than the engine per se. Post-war the same engine gave excellent service when put into the Lockheed L 1049 Super Constellation – – “

  11. napiersabre says:

    Another Ian

    Re B29 engine problems

    Herschel Smith quote is ” – – the problem seems to have been with the installation rather than the engine per se. Post-war the same engine gave excellent service when put into the Lockheed L 1049 Super Constellation – – “

    This is a common misconception that historians have repeated so often that it has become fact, except it couldn’t be further from the truth. It was what Wright Aeronautical were telling the Service chiefs, and because the B29 was an integral part of the Manhattan project they did not want to hear anything that was likely to delay production of the engine.

    The biggest issue was vibration and reduction gear failure. Wright changed the design they used in the R1820 (B17) and R2600 (B25, TBF) and used a design they were told would not work. The reason for this is lost to time, but as late as early 1944 B29’s could not fly a single training mission without an inflight shut-down. Compounding this issue was the cooling and lubrication issues.

    Boeing designed the cowlings to enable the B29 to cruise above 300mph and have a maximum speed of around 400mph. This would make it difficult to intercept. However the close cowlings highlighted (but were not the cause) cooling issues with the cylinder heads and lubrication issues with the valves. And remembering the B29 was to bomb from 30,000ft this put a strain on the engines as they strained for altitude. Inconsistent mixture control was a problem and a major contributor to some cylinders running cool and others hot. The fix was direct injection rather than a carburettor. Also external oil lines were used as an interim fix for the valves.

    The bombing campaign from China was a failure, but it did help highlight the issues, as if that was needed and it did get the senior fighting Generals involved which finally got some corrective action started. I don’t have my references to hand so I can’t list all the work a rounds that were finally put in place, but I can say that the 2200hp R3350-13 in the B29 bears little resemblance to the Post war commercial engines. This is why FiFi has finally been modified. Also I don’t think we would still have any Skyraiders about if they used the same engine as the B29.

  12. Adrian Camp says:

    Peter Geany, not trivia, very important stuff. Was I not fair to the Sabre? I know some sources make out that the problems were overcome, notably LJK Setright. The real problem was the size of Napier, compared to the ambition of that company. They could design sleeve valves, but they could not make them, needing Bristol to help. I love all those big pistons. One almost regrets the arrival of the turbine, because we did not see things like the RR Eagle H24 or the Corncob developed as far as they would go.

  13. peter geany says:

    Adrian Camp Napier was small but that was only part of the problem. Aero engine production in the UK in the 30’s was not production line oriented. Even Rolls Royce had issue ramping up production and was why so many promising projects came to nothing as the pressure of producing the Merlin took its toll. The early Sabres were produced by Napier in the manner of the Lion before it. Assembly was by skilled engine assemblers with skilled engineers on hand. The engine was not “hand made” but very close to it.

    The first service Typhoons appeared with “production engines from a Government shadow factory. Issues such as cleaning of parts before assembly that should never happen came to the fore as the assembly workers were not experienced and had to be trained and had little idea of the consequences of their actions. In an engine as complicated as the Sabre, cleanliness is second only to godliness as they say.

    Service personnel were miss-adjusting the throttle and boost controls on early engines and this lead to a number of failures that forced the RAF to issue strict instruction and severe penalties were put in place for transgressions.

    If developing the sabre took as long as that of the Merlin then it would never have made the war. So when we examine the development of the Sabre with our 20 20 hind sight we must understand all the pressures for results and the sense of backs to the wall that prevailed in the UK. As one who has spent 20 years of my life in and around large engines with a spot working for one of the world’s top manufacturers, I think the efforts to develop the Sabre were second to none, even if the end product was really only useful for one mission and had a short life. It had no commercial application, unlike the Hercules and Centaurus from Bristol or R2800 from Pratt & Whitney. Even the Merlin was not much of a commercial success, again being too small and highly stressed, perfect for the military but overtaken by the larger Air-cooled radials.

  14. Adrian Camp says:

    You are undoubtedly right. In fact. much of the UKs war effort was hindered by lack of depth in technical skills. The Centaurus, for example, hardly made it into wartime service at all. But we had three (or four?) genuine 2000hp engines in WW2, the US two, and the rest of the world nothing. (I don’t count desperate over-boosting or the doubled-up DBs). So we must have done something right. All the major engine manufacturers in the world had problems developing the existing range, never mind new engines. I guess I shouldn’t be too hard on Napier, a firm whose courage I have always admired.

  15. R. de Haan says:

    Other nteresting and not so interesting engine and aero engine developments:

    Aero Diesels:
    Most promising project but killed by lack of budget
    http://www.zoche.de/

    Certified 4stroke Jet A1engine
    Thielert Centurion (based on the Mercedes A class diesel engine)
    http://www.airframer.com/direct_detail.html?company=119700

    Certified Jet A1 Rotary engines
    http://www.mistral-engines.com/content/view/full/226/item/764/offset/0

    http://www.austroengine.at/?changelang=2

    Split Cycle Scuderi engine
    http://www.scuderigroup.com/

    I personally think the eco engine project by Prof. Peter Hofbauer is most promising but it will take years before these engines will come available.
    http://ecomotors.com/videos/introduction-ecomotors-prof-peter-hofbauer

    I now use an 80 Hp Rotax 912 4 stroke boxer engine to propel my home build canard two seater. It runs on led free car fuel or propane.

    For the moment I am having a closer look at the new 2.0 ltr. Subaru turbo diesel boxer engine to replace the rotax engine.

    Pusher aircraft however come with specific cooling issues which require a a well designed cooling system. That’s when the weight issues kick in.
    But who knows I get lucky this time.

  16. R. de Haan says:

    The ball engine has been tested in a scooter.
    Now the project has been taken over by another company
    So if you want to follow the development, here is the information.
    http://www.monotracer.ch/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=55&Itemid=137&lang=de

  17. R. de Haan says:

    E.M, I did a posting that didn’t appear in the comments.
    I think I have posted one link too much.

    Please have a look at it.

    [ Fished it out. E.M.Smith]

  18. adolfogiurfa says:

    My guess is that it would be possible to try again, with new materials and technology, the simplest device: a turbine.

  19. E.M.Smith says:

    @Adolfo:

    Most turbines take a lot of parts and exotic materials.
    Then there is this one:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_turbine

    biggest problem being weak metals letting it pull apart at high powers…So if we used modern steels?…

    (Edge velocity, so forces, become high at large diameters and rpm… Small ones are much easier to build.)

  20. E.M.Smith says:

    Well…

    Everything old is new again…

    http://www.aqpl43.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/POWER/tower/tower.htm

    a very old spherical steam engine that was used for generating electricity in some minor applications.

    Looks like the general idea of a spherical engine with a couple of wobbling bits has been kicking around rather a long time… though this one has the ‘plate’ in the middle wobbling rather than the quarter sphere wedges…

    There are rather a lot of rotary steam engines, with illustrations and animations here:

    http://www.aqpl43.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/POWER/rotaryengines/rotaryeng6.htm#hult

  21. R. de Haan says:

    adolfogiurfa (17:28:01) :
    My guess is that it would be possible to try again, with new materials and technology, the simplest device: a turbine.

    I love turbines.
    But the fuel consumption….

    Even the smallest turbines on the market today are thirsty little bastards.

    Maybe Boeings new pulse jet offers a new opportunity.
    – no moving parts
    – cheap to produce
    – modular application
    – VTOL capability

    Unfortunately not available at this moment in time
    http://gizmodo.com/5824430/boeing-millennium-falcon+style-pulse-jet-plane-was-of-course-invented-by-bloody-nazis

  22. Pingback: Spherical Flying Machine « Musings from the Chiefio

  23. Another Ian says:

    E.M.

    Maybe you should find a copy of Herschel Smith’s ” A History of Aeronautical Piston Engines” and read Chapter 11 ” Lost causes, oddballs and unconventional engines”

    Not that this is one, but includes the quote “The US Army Air Corps looked into so many barrel engines that, by the time they gave up on them in the early thirties, there was a stack of blueprints of unsuccessful engines that reached the rafters in a hanger at Wright Field”

  24. j ferguson says:

    E.M. and All,
    A wonderful book on engines may be available through your local library, Romance of Engines, by Tadahashi Suzuki, retired director of deisel engine design for Diahatsu (IIRC). It’s well illustrated and contains detailed analyses of various engine designs stating with the newcomen, through ww1 rotaries, radial engines, and of course diesels. He has two chapters on the DB601 series and they are fascinating.

    romance is the right word – the guy loves engines. you would never believe what people have tried over the years and what has been made to work although not becoming part of the present-day design vernacular.

    If you wonder why someone might have done an engine detail in a particular way, then this is a worthwhile book.

    SAE had a bunch of them printed up a few years back and you may be able to find one on amazon.

    I cannot recommend this book too highly to those who are fascinated by machinery.

    as an example, I would never have realized that valve timing on rotary engines was positively affected by centripetal force such that the timing was advanced as the engines reached operating speed – pretty slick, no?

  25. Check this one; Novel Rotary-Turbo-InFlow Tech / Gearturbine Project – Featured Development

    *GEARTURBINE PROJECT:
    Atypical InFlow Thermodynamic
    Technology Proposal Submission
    Innovative [TURBO-ROTARY]
    Novel (Fueled) Motor Engine Type
    -The Gearturbine comes from the contemporary ecological essential global needs of an efficient power plant fueled motor engine. -Power thrust by bar (tube); air, sea, land and power generation, work use application.
    *Have the similar simple basic system of the “Aelopilie” Heron´s Steam Turbine device from Alexandria, [10-70 AD] one thousand nine hundred years ago. Because; the circular dynamic motion, with 2/Two Opposites power [polar position] lever, and is feeds from his axis center.
    YouTube Video/10.30 min; * Atypical New • GEARTURBINE / Retrodynamic = DextroRPM=> VS to <=front; "Collision-Interaction Type" – inflow vs. blades-gear-move. Technical unique dynamic innovative motion mode. [Retrodynamic Reaction = When the inflow have more velocity the rotor have more RPM Acceleration, with high (XY Position) Momentum] Which the internal flow (and rotor) duplicate its speed, when activated being in a rotor (and inflow) with [inverse] opposite Turns. A very strong Novel concept of torque power thrust. At field explanatory example with a metaphor is like if a sailboat take the wind from his prow front to move; wind/inflow + knots/rpm + wind/inflow + knots/rpm + wind/inflow + knots/rpm + etc… = Acceleration x Acceleration = Exponential Acceleration. Whereas it has more movements forwards, it receives a frontal impulse still but to move more forwards. A present example of the implementation of the Retrodynamic effect is in the application in the accelerator (and collider) of particles that this in the border of Switzerland and France.
    -Shape-Mass + Rotary-Motion = Inertia-Dynamic / Form-Function Wide [Flat] Cylindrical shape + positive dynamic rotary mass = continue Inertia kinetic positive tendency motion / all the complete Rotary motor mass weight is going with the power thrust move circular direction.
    -Non-waste parasitic looses system for cooling, lubrication & combustion; -Lubrication & Combustion, inside a conduit radial position, out way direction, activated by Centrifugal Force-Fueled Injected. -Cooling; a) IN-Thermomix flow, & b) OUT-Air Thermo transference.
    -Combustion 2Two [Inside-Rotary-Dynamic] continue circular [Rockets] flames. Like two dragons trying to bite the tail of the [ying yang] opposite other.-Increase the first compression by going of flow reduction of one big circumference blades going pass to 2TWO reduced, very long distance (total captive compression) INFLOW [inside propulsion] CONDUITS [long flow interaction] [like a digestive system] Start were ends, in perfect shape balance in perfect equilibrium well balanced, like a snake bite his own tale. -4 TURBOS Rotary [inside-rotary-active] [In-Flow, Out-Flow] Total Thrust-Power Regeneration [Complete] Power System. -Mechanical direct 2two [Small] "Planetary Gears" at polar position. Like the Ying Yang Symbol/Concept. Wide out the Rotor circumference were have much more lever [HIGH Torque] POWER THRUST. -Military benefits, No blade erosion by sand & very low heat target profile.-3 stages of inflow turbo compression before combustion; 1)1-Turbine, 2)2-Turbos 3)2-Turbos. -And 3 points of power thrust; 1-flow way, 2-gear, 3-turbine.
    *The most innovative power plant motor engine project today. Higher efficient % percent. Next trend wave toward global technological coming change.
    Patent; Dic. 1991 IMPI Mexico #197187 – Carlos Barrera. – Individual Designer – Inventor and project owner. / All Rights Reserved. – Monterrey NL Mexico.

Comments are closed.