So I had an idea.
WHy not have a piston that has compression on both strokes? So when it compresses on one side, it is intaking on the other, and when it is detonated, it is exhausting the other.
This could, technically, be done with a low pressure oil path through the piston for lubrication, and one or two crankshafts (because you could also *pull* on the piston.
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
google.com
twitter.com
How are you sealing the conrod through the head you fuckwit.
What I described is a double acting piston.
Why don't we use those in modern cars?
The connecting rod is a solid rod sealed by a piston-ring style arrangement in the header.
You know, the same way a piston seals itself from the crankcase.
OP here.
fuckwit
Tell us how it works, from air intake to exhaust, with everything in between.
And how does the rod seal itself against the wall with an angular approach, seeing as it's attached to a rotating crankshaft?
Holy shit. You are mentally retarded. Think about the angle a rod goes through to turn linear motion into circular. Christ you are thick.
I really really wish I could punch you in the face right now, then make you sit in the corner with a pointy hat while you think about what you've said.
IMO, mouthbreathing or no, it's a bit rude to just tell someone they're dragging knuckles.
Then again, constructive criticism...
Single, double sided piston head in a cylinder with a set of intake and exhaust valves at either side.
Directly in the center of the piston, and the heads of the cylinders is a solid connecting rod that does not move, sealed by a piston-ring type arrangement.
Through that connecting rod would be an oil flow passage so the cylinder head can receive lubrication (it would be one directional, won't think of mechanism behind it now.)
Let's call the heads A and B.
So A intakes.
A compresses
A ignites
A exhausts.
Same for be.
The order would be
Each of these pairs occurs simultaneously.
A intake
B exhaust
A compression
B Intake
A Ignition
B compression
A exhaust
B intake.
--
With two crankshafts on either end, you can run the cams basically off of the crankshaft, if needed. Or, like old double-acting steam engines, there can be one crankshaft at one end that acts on both a push, and a pull stroke.
There is no constructive criticism for this idea because it is literally impossible retarded. People who literally do not think one step ahead from their moronic idea deserve to be ridiculed
Are you stupid? The moving part of the connecting rod would be outside of the cylinder."
Wasn't that obvious?
Granted, but at least they're thinking.
What? Moving part of the connecting rod? Connecting rods move by design, they join the piston to the crank. You can't have a non-moving connecting rod.
OP here.
The issue you pointed out isn't an issue--if you weren't inept you'd know that. Here's one example.
Solid rod off of piston goes to outside of cylinder--connecting rod connects to that.
Maybe I should have coined a new term or used steam-engine terminology.
Indeed, but then there will be two pivots between the piston and crank.
You're close op
So you want to do this, with two crankshafts, a tilting fucking cylinder, somehow operate the camshafts while the entire block and head is tilting, and keep the whole lot constantly in synch and balance. And then fit this retarded abomination in a car.
Cool motor Ahmed.
>Through that connecting rod would be an oil flow passage so the cylinder head can rec
There would be the same number of pivots. You're merely extending where the connecting rod interacts with the piston with a pipe.
If there is one joint where the connecting rod meets the piston, and one where the connecting rod meets the crankshaft, that won't change here. It's still up and down movement being converted to angular motion.
So how do you secure the intake and exhaust manifolds against something doing >1RPM?
Also, the mass of piston acting against the cylinder walls would be extreme, especially for seals that rely on cylinder pressure to seal.
>ou want to do this, with two crankshafts...
Are you stupid? Are you literally stupid? The tilting cylinder was an example of a solid rod in a piston, not the design of the cylinder.
You intentionally misunderstood that.
Either I am genuinely obtuse, or you're missing the part where the kinetic energy from a piston is directly relayed to the crankshaft and has nowhere else to go. Piston
You said above you wanted to use two crankshafts. At any rate, everything else stands. How do you operate the valves when the whole fucking head and block is moving in relation to the crank? Why in God's name would you want so.much mass flapping around constantly? How are you going to hook up the intake and exhaust with a flapping fucking engine. This shitbox will take up at least 3 times the space of a regular engine of the same size. You have no crankshaft lubrication at all. I can come up.with more issues of you want? Or you could do some critical thinking yourself perhaps.
You are being obtuse. THink, how does a normal piston work?
Now keep that motion the same, just add a solid rod that doesn't move between the piston and connecting rod.
Same motion.
The mass acting against the cylinder walls would be identical to a normal engine.
You guys seem to be missing how a normal piston transforms linear motion into circular motion.
You literally misunderstood what I just told you that you intentionally misunderstood.
The point of that gif was to show that you can have a stationary rod int he cylinder--nothing is moving but the same parts that move in a normal engine.
Its just gonna pivot around between solid rod and crank without a full 360 motion like suspension does. That's why conrods bolt directly to the crank.
Mmm. The pressure on that vertical-only conrod would laterally astronomical if the 2nd con rod was short enough to allow a full rotation, but then the 2nd half of the return rotation wouldn't pressurize the cylinder for the next cycle anyway if it runs 4t.
How are you misunderstanding this?
See how the piston rod connects to a normal connecting rod, that connects, normally, to a crank in this example?
Is there a video/.gif of this idea working outside of paper, as an internal combustion engine and not a crank-driven pump?
You can use Adobe ForceEffect Motion to create a functional demo of what the hell you have in your head
Let's try this one more time with you guys.
See this:
No, I think I'm done. You're smarter than all of us and have everything figured out, enjoy your patent.
You don't understand how linear motion is transformed into circular motion.
So, I'm done here too. You're pretty fucking smart.
Stay calm OP, I'm coming for the rescue
I'm not sure that's possible when someone is intentionally misunderstanding something.
Ok fuck that, I'm too high to use ForceEffect or WorkingModel. OP you're right, you can do that, but there is one technical problem: the sealing between the two combustion chambers, because you need a piston that can slides well in the cylinder and two very isolated comb. chambers; without these requirements the total efficiency of your thermal engine would be absolutely rubbish. Also, having two crankshaft is not a smart idea
>There's only one way to build piston ICEs
You could always use marine style connecting rods. You give up some rpm and it makes for a taller engine, but in the end it could work.
Two crankshafts is optional, but since the cams would be integrated into the crankshaft, it wouldn't be a large trade-off.
A few extra piston rings ought to isolate the chambers. But anyway, this thread is dead.l
Seriously people?
Are we that deep into summer?
Its called a 2 stroke engine.
Your just making it over complicated.
You're fucking retarded.
Wew lad.
You still think there is going to be no side loading on that central rod? You also now have an additional pivot point. Also, how are you lubricating these things?
If high speed engines could be made to work with no side loading of the piston, theyd be doing it. Noone wants two fucking con rods flapping about. It's also going to be tall as shit, and packaging this abortion is going to be fucked. So, so many issues.
You're also fucking retarded.
Didn't Rolls Royce make an engine like this for the FV432?
Or am I misunderstanding OP's idea?9
You're retarded.
No you.
...
M80, you design engines like my son designs jetpacks.
>be kid
>"dad, I'm going to make a jetpack"
>me - "how you do this?"
>"strap rockets to my back, and use joysticks to control it"
>applies for patent.
This is you. This is the amount of thought you have put into this.
/thread
You're all retarded.
What you're thinking of is this:
en.wikipedia.org
Which is what those retards up there are thinking of.
Look at this google.com
This is what you want to do, but with a different energy source
Just do up a 3d model of your fucking engine then. Fuck.
You know one of the basic laws of physics, every action has an equal and opposite reaction? Well, think about that, and how your sliding conrod with extra conrod to crankshaft will work. You will have side loading on the linear rod where it goes through the head, quite a lot actually. So not only do you need to be able to seal this adequately, you also need a bearing of some sort to take this side load.
People are trying to make engines smaller, lighter and more efficient, you are trying to make them, larger, heavier, less efficient and with more moving parts and failure points.
I need to go take some valium after this thread.
Fuck, now I want to hit this guy too. Why use something as simple as an electric motor, when you can use this stupid fucking thing with a million more pieces and friction points? Why even live without magnetic pistons and twin crankshafts?
The patent is stupid per se, I want to know if this is what you was thinking about. Chill out and see pic related.
Imagine this with a fucking combustion chamber in the middle
Its like a boxer engine, but more retarded
I understand that, it's still retarded. How will lubrication work? Will we use an antigravity device in the upper "cylinder" so that the oil doesn't pool on top of the "bottom" of the piston?
Are we happy with having many more failure points, many more friction points? How are we designing efficient heads for this, where will the plug go?
How are we lubricating the ridiculous synchronising mechanism? Just fling that shit out everywhere like a hit and miss?
Why do Subaru and Porsche so their opposed engines with a central crankshaft? Don't they want these fantastic design features? Are they retarded?
So many questions.
I know it is fucking impossibile to realize (I'm not OP), but I was trying to understand what the hell is going on in OP's head
some a bowl and you will get it
Ever done LSD and pingers at the same time? I'd say this would be an accurate representation of what's going on in ops head.
OP Here.
You guys are still all misunderstanding what I was doing and thinking of this:
>en.wikipedia.org
Which is not at all like what I was proposing.
Not going to bother explaining any further to you imbeciles.
That's a steam engine, fuckwit. External combustion, not internal.
If you're trying to make an internal combustion version of a steam engine, then you would need to have a separate engine running and using the exhaust gases to drive the steam portion of it.
All of these systems you're linking are the opposite of what you're trying to do. These systems work because the crank is powering the piston, and are running at low speeds because they have parts that move long distances. Engines turn really fast so you need to keep the distances short, and the parts really strong.
Because you need strong parts, that will be more material in the combustion chamber, and less space for it to occur.
How will spark plugs fit in? You can't put them at the top of the cylinder because that's where the cranks are.
You'll eventually need to unite the crankshafts to a single output.
This is all way too much trouble for what it's worth mang
All this.
No, noone thinks you are talking about opposed piston. Everyone thinks you are talking about your own retarded idea.