# New engine

1872 replies to this topic

### #1651 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
• Member

• 5,713 posts
• Joined: March 03

Posted 06 May 2018 - 04:13

You think that 15% of the IMEP is absorbed in sidethrust on the pistons? Don't think so, most of the FMEP is piston rings.

### #1652 Feliks

Feliks
• Member

• 917 posts
• Joined: December 04

Posted 06 May 2018 - 10:46

You think that 15% of the IMEP is absorbed in sidethrust on the pistons? Don't think so, most of the FMEP is piston rings.

Well, unfortunately this is not true ... But so far people have thought so ... If you liked playing with a calculator, which I published a few posts above, then you probably already knew how much the reaction of the piston to the cylinder ... Publishes again with my setting value, and clearly see that this force reaches even 30% of the value of the force giving the torque .. derived from the combustion of fuel ..  Contrary to appearances, the force of pressure on the piston ring piston is small compared to this force, because it is in the pressure of relatively the small force coming from the bending of the piston ring, which, as you probably know, we can easily squeeze with fingers ... ..... So that the force in comparison to the force of lateral force is many times smaller, if the engine performs heavy work .. And is independent of the load of the engine, it has practically constant value ... independent of the engine load.
Here you have a screen shot in the picture, because as you can see, you do not like to play with calculators.

Andrew

Edited by Feliks, 06 May 2018 - 10:54.

### #1653 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
• Member

• 5,713 posts
• Joined: March 03

Posted 07 May 2018 - 07:51

Go out to the garage. Take the head off an engine. Turn it over with a torque wrench. Take the piston rings out. spin it over with your hand. Measure the torque. Get back to us.

I thought you'd actually worked on engines?

### #1654 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
• Member

• 5,713 posts
• Joined: March 03

Posted 07 May 2018 - 08:54

Or even more simply, drop a piston without rings through the cylinder, then try and push just  one ring down the cylinder.

To be fair neither of these shows the inertia and combustion related loads on the skirt,

Edited by Greg Locock, 07 May 2018 - 09:58.

### #1655 Feliks

Feliks
• Member

• 917 posts
• Joined: December 04

Posted 07 May 2018 - 13:01

Go out to the garage. Take the head off an engine. Turn it over with a torque wrench. Take the piston rings out. spin it over with your hand. Measure the torque. Get back to us.

I thought you'd actually worked on engines?

Or even more simply, drop a piston without rings through the cylinder, then try and push just  one ring down the cylinder.

To be fair neither of these shows the inertia and combustion related loads on the skirt,

You defend a lost case ... well in the next post you have a little thought ...
Yes, the piston in the cylinder itself, without the rings, if it is cold, it is not well-matched at all ... it's the stone you put into the hole ...
But if you heat it up from the temperature at which it works, it's not so easy ... it has a strong resistance ... I did it as I matched the pistons manually with a file, a cylinder ...

Now, if you put on rings, then only seemingly this strength increases ... it's a lot of strength at the start, because then it slides lightly and you can even push it out of the cylinder without caution ... It's just the moment you start, which is really big ... but then no longer ... Yes or no, all these activities are done calmly hands, that is, they are not bigger than a few pounds of strength .. ..

But as you have noticed in the conclusion of the second post, the power while running the engine with combustion, as well as without it, at high speed, coming from the forces of inertia, is already a completely different dimension ..

Let's say that the piston has a diameter of 80 mm, i.e. its surface is 50 cm square. The combustion power which produces pressure of about 50 kg / cm2 is on this surface. The total power is 50 x 50 = 2500 KG. this is 2, 5 TONS of pressure on the piston .. if we take the lateral part of this force, (pressing on the cylinder) even if we take these 15%, it will be a force with a piston with a cylinder of about 375 kG, which is many times more, than you can do it with your hand when pushing the rings ...

And getting rid of it has a significant impact on the real efficiency of the engine ..
Therefore, as you "overheat" the engine for high revolutions, in 2 seconds, its speed again drops to small ..

Andrew

come with me ..

Edited by Feliks, 07 May 2018 - 13:22.

### #1656 gruntguru

gruntguru
• Member

• 6,831 posts
• Joined: January 09

Posted 07 May 2018 - 21:44

Andrew, the lateral force on the piston is not a loss. The losses (friction) are due to force components "along" the cylinder axis - not across it. If the coefficient of friction between the piston and the cylinder is low, (which it is) the side force does not produce a lot of extra friction.

### #1657 Feliks

Feliks
• Member

• 917 posts
• Joined: December 04

Posted 07 May 2018 - 23:42

Andrew, the lateral force on the piston is not a loss. The losses (friction) are due to force components "along" the cylinder axis - not across it. If the coefficient of friction between the piston and the cylinder is low, (which it is) the side force does not produce a lot of extra friction.

So, exceptionally, because it's about a completely new novel, I'll explain what's here.
Here you have, step by step, how much this side force in the motor of the pump is. Note that for 90 deg  it is 50% of the main force and is 46 TON  (or 120 TON), i.e. oil will be 4, 6 tons. The work is done on the length 2, 5 meters at each stroke. So it is 4.6 TONS drawn on a distance of 2.5 meters, that is for 9 cylinders at a distance of 22.5 meters - without lubrication .. Multiplying this by the number of revolutions per minute 102 will give us 2,300 meters in each minute .. Repeat 4 , 7 TONS for a distance of 2.3 kilometers without any lubrication in a minute ... .. So much energy loses the ship's engine every minute of its work, due to the existence of this force ..
in such a low-speed engine of inertia they do not play a role  ...
But in an engine with a speed of 10,000 revolutions per minute, there are inertia forces that are three times higher than gas and play a leading role when it comes to friction.

Andrew

Edited by Feliks, 07 May 2018 - 23:47.

### #1658 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
• Member

• 5,713 posts
• Joined: March 03

Posted 08 May 2018 - 08:54

It certainly isn't straightforward but Heywood, figure 13-20 bears examination. It shows the axial friction as a function of angle. My take during the expansion phase the gas related friction is significant. During the other 3 strokes the rings are the main contributors. Averaged over the 4 strokes the rings are about 400 arbitrary units, the bare piston is  about 40, if that, and the gas related friction (including bashing the skirts about) is about 150.

That latter is on a running engine so i assume the piston was at its operating temp.

It's not a perfect experiment, as the motored bare piston will have a different temperature distribution to the running engine. But there is very little difference, apart from in the expansion stroke, in friction between a no load engine and a full load engine and a no compression ringed engine (ie motored), so the friction due to temperature must be quite small. Other explanations are possible, and that whole chapter raises more questions than it answers.

If my analysis is correct then a crosshead of whatever form will reduce fmep by a maximum of 30%, which OK is not nothing, but will introduce its own losses, directly, and change the cost/volume/weight/power compromise.

Your job is to quantify the additional losses due to the mechanism, and come up with a better idea of the actual improvement. Otherwise it is just silly cartoons.

### #1659 kikiturbo2

kikiturbo2
• Member

• 837 posts
• Joined: December 04

Posted 08 May 2018 - 10:15

Contrary to appearances, the force of pressure on the piston ring piston is small compared to this force, because it is in the pressure of relatively the small force coming from the bending of the piston ring, which, as you probably know, we can easily squeeze with fingers ... .....

Andrew

Rings are pushed into cyl wall not only by their tension but also by combustion pressure...

Edited by kikiturbo2, 08 May 2018 - 10:15.

### #1660 Feliks

Feliks
• Member

• 917 posts
• Joined: December 04

Posted 08 May 2018 - 15:53

Rings are pushed into cyl wall not only by their tension but also by combustion pressure...

yes, but through these 3 other strokes, the rings pratically only rub off only by their tension ... maybe during the working stroke they trash the 5 KG force pressed.

Now such an excuse to understand ...
complex engine without head and without rings on the piston ..
at the front of the engine, tightened to the crankshaft, the wheel from the bike  ... next to the same wheel in the bike .. using your hand you drive the same wheels .. Which will stop the first and how many times longer will the other wheel spin?

A wise head is enough silly cartoons.And these few explanations .. unless it is stubborn and not  ready to learn.

Andrew

Edited by Feliks, 08 May 2018 - 16:00.

### #1661 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
• Member

• 5,713 posts
• Joined: March 03

Posted 09 May 2018 - 03:34

I'll take real data even though it is hard to understand, compared with cartoons, thanks.

### #1662 Feliks

Feliks
• Member

• 917 posts
• Joined: December 04

Posted 09 May 2018 - 10:37

I'll take real data even though it is hard to understand, compared with cartoons, thanks.

because if they learned from such scientists, which draw their conclusions a bit, it's no wonder .. And then they do not know what to pay attention to, and they deal with matters that are not very important, not important.
Strength tensions piston rings is `5 KG, and the side force of the piston is 150 KG, For them it is" half "..

It's good that you know someone who will lead you out of this error

Andrew

Eat here and imagine that this side force is one-tenth of this force which has been hit by a connecting rod ..

### #1663 kikiturbo2

kikiturbo2
• Member

• 837 posts
• Joined: December 04

Posted 09 May 2018 - 11:08

hard to say from the pic, but there is great probability that this conrod was actually broken due to pulling it apart and not due to any compressive force that would require reactive force normal to cylinder wall.

### #1664 Feliks

Feliks
• Member

• 917 posts
• Joined: December 04

Posted 09 May 2018 - 12:06

hard to say from the pic, but there is great probability that this conrod was actually broken due to pulling it apart and not due to any compressive force that would require reactive force normal to cylinder wall.

Yes, the next "Swedish Scientist" .. I must say that the side reaction also occurs, under negative forces, i.e. the connecting rods are broken ... this results from the geometry of the crank system .. Mute smoke without fire .. as if he wished ...

Andrew

### #1665 Feliks

Feliks
• Member

• 917 posts
• Joined: December 04

Posted 15 May 2018 - 12:49

Well, here are the next experts "scientists" .. but no wonder, because they also try to quote the heard news of other "journalists."

We will start with the engine (table 1), which apparently perform tests .. it's like Diesel engine, 3, 3 liter capacity, single-piston and revolutions up to ... 7,000 rpm for a minute .. Like a trifle, but how much you enjoy .. because it already shows what is possible and what is not ..
But further, they are better than "Swedish scientists", at least they try to show the force of the inertia of the piston ... just that with those 7000 rpm, a little arrow in this Figure no. 5 ....
And to this F-skin arrow "they forgot" to add F inertial piston_y
Well, but "scientific" research must have a good result,
and in Figure 1, in a circle, they completely ignored this friction force F skin ..

In Fgure 12, they state that the total friction force of the rings is 10 KG, and almost does not differ even at 7,000 rpm per minute .. because apparently the engine has such a turnover ..
In my opinion, the engine, as if it were able to withstand the speed, the lateral force on the piston is some 1000 KG from the inertia of the piston ..
Maybe those "scientific elaborations" are enough, which only stir us in our heads ...

Andrew

Edited by Feliks, 15 May 2018 - 12:55.

### #1666 gruntguru

gruntguru
• Member

• 6,831 posts
• Joined: January 09

Posted 15 May 2018 - 22:01

It is interesting for sure that they claim they are running a single cylinder diesel research engine at a mean piston speed of 27.3 m/s. I think there is a mis-print there somewhere.

### #1667 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
• Member

• 5,713 posts
• Joined: March 03

Posted 15 May 2018 - 22:06

You do realise it is only concerned with piston rings, not inertial forces?

I'm not sure what you think that paper proves about sideskirt friction, but in my opinion absolutely nothing relevant to your cartoons.

### #1668 Feliks

Feliks
• Member

• 917 posts
• Joined: December 04

Posted 16 May 2018 - 01:22

It is interesting for sure that they claim they are running a single cylinder diesel research engine at a mean piston speed of 27.3 m/s. I think there is a mis-print there somewhere.

That is the mistake, but then, as if at the same speed, they also measured the friction of these rings .. Unfortunately, not credible .. well you noticed too ..

But I like my cartoons ... here is what the prototype apparently traveled over a million kilometers .. Well, but I would certainly do without 2/3 crankshaft and 4 connecting rods less ...

https://en.wikipedia...wiki/Commer_TS3

Andrew

### #1669 gruntguru

gruntguru
• Member

• 6,831 posts
• Joined: January 09

Posted 16 May 2018 - 04:11

But I like my cartoons ... here is what the prototype apparently traveled over a million kilometers .. Well, but I would certainly do without 2/3 crankshaft and 4 connecting rods less ...

You do know the Commer knocker has 12 connecting rods and 6 rockers?

### #1670 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
• Member

• 5,713 posts
• Joined: March 03

Posted 16 May 2018 - 08:29

Feliks I think you'll find the double knocker's primary design aim was to get rid of the cylinder head. It certainly doesn't get rid of side thrust on the piston.

Of course it was a bit of a half hearted effort, here's the proper one.

### #1671 Feliks

Feliks
• Member

• 917 posts
• Joined: December 04

Posted 16 May 2018 - 10:49

You do know the Commer knocker has 12 connecting rods and 6 rockers?

Yes, I know from 40 years ago ... but not all of them can be removed so that the engine will work ... so that there are 8 connecting rods and 6 rocker arms, but one-sided, connected to one mobile axis, instead of a constant .. so that the 2/3 crankshaft less ..
Of course, he has the lateral force of the pistons .. But I would at the ends of the rocker, he gave these "crosshead" Watt or Peaulicer, or Feliks crosshead. and then there would be no side force from the pistons .. I just show that the engine with rocker, is not such a stupid idea .. especially that in this case on the other side of the arms could be 3 cylinders to build (6 pistons).
And showing this Deltic to our topic is nothing ... because he has no arms or crosshead ...

Because my ideas can be applied to the knocker as well as to the "normal" one ..

And that's why these "scientists" manipulate this side force of the piston, because it can not measure it. Because it is very strongly dependent on the current rotational speed and in a square way from this speed, And of course also depends on the inert gas force acting on the piston ... Only the sum of these two values gives us the current value of the lateral force of the piston .. And it is from the minimum value, as the engine runs at idle, to extremely high, as the engine has full power at maximum revs ..

Andrew

### #1672 Feliks

Feliks
• Member

• 917 posts
• Joined: December 04

Posted 16 May 2018 - 20:23

and here, in this photograph, it is perfectly visible that if you replace these connecting rods and the crankshaft for these 3 additional cylinders 9 Next 6 pistons), for which you can clearly see that the place is, and outside put one crank with two connecting rods, then the strong , pratically with the same dimensional parameters and the same could be more likely to have TWO TIMES more power ... If like comon rail to use, then surely and the plane would be suitable with such parameters ..
One idea was enough.

Well, if we were to convert the Rootes T4 version, then it would be 400 Hp with a good speed for the propeller.

Here in the movie you can hear that when they "defraud" it's almost like Formula 1
And it would be twice as good ...

Andrew

### #1673 Feliks

Feliks
• Member

• 917 posts
• Joined: December 04

Posted 16 May 2018 - 21:47

Feliks Commer

### #1674 gruntguru

gruntguru
• Member

• 6,831 posts
• Joined: January 09

Posted 16 May 2018 - 22:28

And that's why these "scientists" manipulate this side force of the piston, because it can not measure it.

Manipulate is a strong word to use in this context. You underestimate the ability of researchers.

The side force on the piston doesn't need to be measured. Both its components - pressure and dynamic - can easily be calculated.

There are many systems in use to reduce its effect including desaxe, pin offset and crosshead systems. The benefits are small - even if the side force is completely eliminated. You are chasing rainbows.

### #1675 Feliks

Feliks
• Member

• 917 posts
• Joined: December 04

Posted 17 May 2018 - 00:33

Manipulate is a strong word .....You are chasing rainbows.

No, completely untrue ... these "appreciated scientists" (obviously they are true, underestimated as well) omit forces that are many times greater than the friction of rings. They quote a drawing that publishes.

Also in Figure 10, "quoted" work says strength the truce friction is not more than those 50 - 60 N ...

Viev full text

and here is more reliable work that says that the engine with a smaller piston, and has about 450 N hydrodynamic friction .. at 1500 rpm with the same piston would be those 20% more, or 550 N it is 10 times more than this friction ring .. Indrprndent what "scientists" you listen to. I am critical because once I spent two years studying Physics at the Jagiellonian University and calculating integral and derivative calculus, differential calculus does not get scared.

Andrew

Edited by Feliks, 17 May 2018 - 07:54.

### #1676 Feliks

Feliks
• Member

• 917 posts
• Joined: December 04

Posted 17 May 2018 - 17:35

A small crankshaft at the front and an additional lever ... I would have put in a good turbocharger yet, but I would leave mechanical roots, too...

Commer Feliks

Andrew

Edited by Feliks, 17 May 2018 - 17:36.

### #1677 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
• Member

• 5,713 posts
• Joined: March 03

Posted 18 May 2018 - 01:07

Given up on eliminating sidethrust then?

### #1678 Wuzak

Wuzak
• Member

• 6,946 posts
• Joined: September 00

Posted 18 May 2018 - 02:30

Couldn't you eliminate piston side thrust with a version of an axial piston engine?

http://russianpatent...30/2301896.html

### #1679 Feliks

Feliks
• Member

• 917 posts
• Joined: December 04

Posted 18 May 2018 - 12:57

Thanks for professional question.Its is no maximum excellent proposition. Its only "natural interesting detail ", for possible various design.
But by the way ,additional masses not very big problem , because valve crankshaft are going twice slowly, and forces are four little.One CH physicist elegant describes this advantages: intake / inertia is better for valve piston than main piston
Another "natural interesting detail " are crankshaft less design, right now see in other place.
At 1925 Polish designer Tadeusz Tanski describe six cylinder some one :

Onother way ??

Simile conception:

Couldn't you eliminate piston side thrust with a version of an axial piston engine?

http://russianpatent...30/2301896.html

No, not really. This is a kind of traditional crosshead ball version .. Friction is there ..

But now the most important thing is that I got rid of the crankshaft ... now even with this lateral friction is a well-proven, proven construction that can be TWO TIMES TAKE strong, and much easier to produce, and practically the same external dimensions and weight,

Andrew

### #1680 Feliks

Feliks
• Member

• 917 posts
• Joined: December 04

Posted 18 May 2018 - 15:05

Yes and in this even 8 cylinder engine (8 x 2 piston), only one crank and one "real" connecting rod .. ..

Do you know how many reciprocating masses less?

Andrew

### #1681 Feliks

Feliks
• Member

• 917 posts
• Joined: December 04

Posted 18 May 2018 - 22:13

Here is the solution for a normal 4 stroke engine ... it can be 2 x 8 cylinders with heads ... And this roller is common to everyone, it can have diameters ... clutch shaft ... .

Andrew

### #1682 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
• Member

• 1,544 posts
• Joined: October 10

Posted 19 May 2018 - 04:09

Here is the solution for a normal 4 stroke engine ... it can be 2 x 8 cylinders with heads ... And this roller is common to everyone, it can have diameters ... clutch shaft ... .

Andrew

Where is the crankshaft?

### #1683 Feliks

Feliks
• Member

• 917 posts
• Joined: December 04

Posted 19 May 2018 - 10:23

Where is the crankshaft?

I thought I was following my previous posts. it will be clear ..

ONE crank with ONE connecting rod is at the end of Felix Roller .. Such classic crankshaft no longer needs ...

Andrew

### #1684 Feliks

Feliks
• Member

• 917 posts
• Joined: December 04

Posted 19 May 2018 - 10:36

Of course, the levers are not turning on Feliks Roller anymore, but they are connected with it permanently. The entire Felix Roller is burning and only at the end it drives the one Connecting rod.
Here is a similar rule that I have for the half rotate of the "multi-cylinder"

Andrew

### #1685 Feliks

Feliks
• Member

• 917 posts
• Joined: December 04

Posted 19 May 2018 - 12:19

Here the shaft with a single crank, but the two-cylinder comes from the Fiat 126 engine, on which base I built my new4stroke .. A colleague of such a car drove 100,000 km without renovation. I can see one crank enough ...

The shaft is also fused on two bearing shells .. it was created due to the seizure of the engine dynamometer. I thought that at 3500 revs per min which was generated by the electric dynamometer on which I mounted my engine, nothing bad will happen .. but as a result of 3 times in most of the forces coming from the gaseous forces, the engine faded. In the second photo, the connecting rod, which was completely polished, that's why you can clearly see the change of colors in the sky, which occurred due to this seizure ..

Of course, I rebuilt the engine, but I will not put it on the brakes anymore ..

Andrew

### #1686 Feliks

Feliks
• Member

• 917 posts
• Joined: December 04

Posted 20 May 2018 - 01:14

My project Feliks Commer T4 engine will have about 500 hp, with a weight of about 500 KG, here you can make such a stellar version put together 10 engines (on the left and on the left side of the star) It will weigh about 6 tons and had 5,000 HP. .. It will be suitable for the propulsion of a small ship .. or for the production of 5 MW of electric energy .. with long durability and efficiency ..

In the whole engine there is only one bearing in the connecting rod. The rest are half-turn pins. So, the engine's failure will be significantly increased.

here's a discussion on how to match it to Formel 1

https://www.highpowe...-double-knocker

Andrew

### #1687 Feliks

Feliks
• Member

• 917 posts
• Joined: December 04

Posted 20 May 2018 - 10:13

Here are such radial engines a few ..

and here the "connecting rod" TS 3 and the lever to be welded to Feliks Roller

Andrew

Edited by Feliks, 20 May 2018 - 10:16.

### #1688 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
• Member

• 5,713 posts
• Joined: March 03

Posted 20 May 2018 - 22:52

Amazing to think that your hilarious photo can be replaced by one SGT5-8000H gas turbine https://www.siemens....gt5-8000h.html#!/

### #1689 Feliks

Feliks
• Member

• 917 posts
• Joined: December 04

Posted 20 May 2018 - 23:13

### #1690 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
• Member

• 1,544 posts
• Joined: October 10

Posted 21 May 2018 - 09:35

Back to the subject of straight-line piston motion/ no side thrust etc. : - the "Scotch Yoke" mechanism is probably the best arrangement:
http://www.autospeed...e-Engine&A=0948

Although the engine/car went well it has/had no apparent advantages over a "normal" Subaru.

How on Earth can you spend \$35 million on a project like this? Where would the money come from?

### #1691 Feliks

Feliks
• Member

• 917 posts
• Joined: December 04

Posted 21 May 2018 - 10:27

Here the red line is marked by the piston path associated with the lever. At 90 degrees the pressure of the piston on the cylinder wall is equal to 0, and with the traditional system the maximum .. And then we have virtually full torque ..

Andrew

### #1692 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
• Member

• 5,713 posts
• Joined: March 03

Posted 21 May 2018 - 21:48

I don't like scotch yokes because the roller hammers from top to bottom as the thrust reverses. Essentially that makes them more suitable for slow speed devices. I don't think that /any/ of the linkage approaches that have been suggested that zero the side thrust are really suitable for high speed engines.

### #1693 RogerGraham

RogerGraham
• Member

• 183 posts
• Joined: October 12

Posted 22 May 2018 - 01:43

I still don't understand this thread.

Regarding recent posts, is side thrust actually a big enough problem that it needs elaborate solutions that (presumaby) add weight, cost, complexity etc?  Or is Feliks latching onto a near-irrelevant issue and then getting lost in "solutions" that cause more problems than they're trying to solve?

More generally (and I'm trying to find the right words to use here), do the learned gentlemen that occasionally reply in here (Greg, gruntguru etc) actually think any of Feliks' points are reasonable, or are you just trying to gently explain reality to him?

### #1694 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
• Member

• 5,713 posts
• Joined: March 03

Posted 22 May 2018 - 05:22

Once, in a very long while, Feliks mentions something sensible. He doesn't bug me(*) because also, once in a very long while, he actually TESTS a real engine, which puts him far ahead of most internet cranks.

(*) In general. On the other hand the whole little propeller blades on a bicycle bit /Bett's law had me going, I'd admit. But I was glad to look into Bett's law, it is a brilliantly simple idea. if you take too much energy out of the incoming airstream then the exhaust doesn't have enough momentum to get out of the back of the turbine. That's it. Brilliant. I think the derivation of the actual number is first year engineering, once you've got that idea.

### #1695 Feliks

Feliks
• Member

• 917 posts
• Joined: December 04

Posted 22 May 2018 - 08:53

I still don't understand this thread.

Regarding recent posts, is side thrust actually a big enough problem that it needs elaborate solutions that (presumaby) add weight, cost, complexity etc?  Or is Feliks latching onto a near-irrelevant issue and then getting lost in "solutions" that cause more problems than they're trying to solve?

More generally (and I'm trying to find the right words to use here), do the learned gentlemen that occasionally reply in here (Greg, gruntguru etc) actually think any of Feliks' points are reasonable, or are you just trying to gently explain reality to him?

If you do not understand, who has something to explain? .

I think, on the occasion, it turned out that when trying to combine the power of a loaf, it turned out that you DO NOT NEED A CLASSIC CRANKSHAFT in engines ... and you try to skip this fact ...
Now I will explain that this is what it is all about ... remember Feliks Roller.

Andrew

Edited by Feliks, 22 May 2018 - 12:42.

### #1696 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
• Member

• 1,544 posts
• Joined: October 10

Posted 23 May 2018 - 03:34

What is a "Feliks Roller"?

### #1697 Feliks

Feliks
• Member

• 917 posts
• Joined: December 04

Posted 23 May 2018 - 08:18

What is a "Feliks Roller"?

this is the roller between the levers ... I let it be named ... I do not have to be about a larger diameter than a clutch shaft .

it's just a diagram that does not have to have a crosshead, but only a normal short connecting rod..

Andrew

### #1698 Feliks

Feliks
• Member

• 917 posts
• Joined: December 04

Posted 07 June 2018 - 03:56

Here, such a connecting rod of my idea .. For a semi-rotary shaft, it can be such, because all forces act by pushing the connecting rod to the lever .. only incidentally it is possible to act detachment parts from each other, so its protection can be negligible .. During normal engine operation, piston it is only pressed against the lever all the time ..
However, the cooperating surfaces are relatively large, and the connecting rod weight is smaller ..   Formy Feliks Commer ..

Andrew

### #1699 malbear

malbear
• Member

• 281 posts
• Joined: September 02

Posted 08 June 2018 - 23:26

I don't like scotch yokes because the roller hammers from top to bottom as the thrust reverses. Essentially that makes them more suitable for slow speed devices. I don't think that /any/ of the linkage approaches that have been suggested that zero the side thrust are really suitable for high speed engines.

Greg in my experience where I used the scotch yoke mechanism it was at half engine speed and a very short stroke . In my application there was definitely an issue with side thrust as one side of the piston would wear more than the other . I was able to address this issue by a redesign and test it in an actual engine . the redesign is new IP,  if just simple no rollers

### #1700 Feliks

Feliks
• Member

• 917 posts
• Joined: December 04

Posted 09 June 2018 - 01:34

In other forum :

Most interesting Andrew but you won't find the answer to my question in the workshop manual, you will only find it by experiences caused by working on this type of engine.

It was, as I said a very common occurrence caused solely by not decoking the engine.
The excessive backpressure, as shown by the gauge on the control panel clearly showed the fault.
The bar magnet was used to get the broken part of the engine out, when ground correctly this part, being made of carbon steel would make an excellent addition to your tool box.
A crosscut chisel f.o.c.
That crank, sure it's not a wrist watch crank?
Think about the back pressure load on parts caused by excessive carbon build up on two strokes. Qoute./

Yes Merlyn, you do not even know how much I appreciate your remarks. because I know that I will not find them in the workshop manual ... It's good that you want to work with me with your experience. As you know, I do not have too much, because I had to find these codes in music .. That's why your help is great .. I now add my cody and maybe something good will be ...
You have noticed the excessive accumulation of carbon. Now that we have a new type of engine Feliks Commer, where there is no classic crankshaft, only pins with a diameter of 30 mm, we can approach the issue in a different way, as it was so far. These small plates do not need such lubrication as large crankshaft bearings, besides they do not even turn round, and do semi-turn .., so the lubrication can be a little smaller .. I do not know if you remember that two-stroke engines for motorcycles, are lubricated only with oil in the fuel and in a ratio of 1: 50. And these engines, completely protruding .. so I thought that my Felix Commer can be lubricated with normal diesel fuel, also with the addition of this oil, let's also say 1; 50 as we will take into account that diesel fuel already has good lubrication in the sona .. Imone would be poured into the engine instead of lubricating oil. Well, when 10 liters of such fuel are needed for lubrication, the amount of oil added would be 0.2 liters .. No and I think that this quantity would not plug the windows, because the rest would be the same as the main fuel, it would be fired without coke .. And I think that this should solve the problem of this too nagar. Simply a new lubricant oil felix, i.e. diesel fuel plus 1:50 oil for two strokes ... .. poured into the engine, instead of lubricating oil ..
It would have such advantages that in the winter it would not be too dense, and in the summer too sparse ... ... and this price is not too high ..
So even with a large amount of "oil" you would not have to worry about ... because also coke would not be created ... because, from burning fuel, it does not arise ...
I just do not know what oil companies are doing ...
here, one bottle is enough to make 50 liters of "feliks oil"

And here the drift part of the watch, which I personally will do on an ordinary lathe. The material to do this crankshaft weighed 80 KG and the shaft lasts 4 KG. It lasted for a month ...
You know how you see the problems of crankshaft production, and that's why I know it's not a simple thing ...
Here are a few examples, however, that the crankshaft is not necessarily a successful construction .. and despite its thickness, sometimes it ends ... And I will ask if ever seen such a broken clutch shaft, despite the fact that it is much thinner than the crank ..

Andrew :

Edited by Feliks, 09 June 2018 - 01:38.