The Bucket Foundry

[Pursang]

Stopping the beam from bending would mean it need to be pretty heavy.

Or at least well designed, plenty of room between the flywheels to triangulate the beam.

Plus the conrods, flywheels & bearings can be 1/2 the size/mass/strength of regular ones.

The central rod simplifies sealing a transfer case between the sump & the piston.

I like this one cos it's pretty simple and I could build it in my workshop or adegnes'

Cheers, Daryl

[Frits Overmars]

I don't believe It needs to have a beam at all, imagine it, as being the skirt of a piston.

Like so Husa?

You could even use a forked small end on one of the con rods and fit a regular piston.

[tjbw]

Like so Husa?

You could even use a forked small end on one of the con rods and fit a regular piston.

Snap - Neander engine, actually is yours a Neander prototype too Frits?

[ken seeber]

The pic that Frits showed clearly shows two “piston pins”. Note that these seem to operate within a horizontal sleeve as per this pic.



I can think that one reason they have used the horizontal sleeve is to allow for geometric mismatching of components that could result in some serious unwanted motion of the piston during its travels. The cost of this is weight. Another reason for the twin pin layout is that it serves to lessen the extreme angles of the rods that can be seen in the classic Lanchester twin /single pin layout. Could be other reasons though. Obviously the engine design and mfg are not old.

[tjbw]

The pic that Frits showed clearly shows two “piston pins”. Note that these seem to operate within a horizontal sleeve as per this pic.



I can think that one reason they have used the horizontal sleeve is to allow for geometric mismatching of components that could result in some serious unwanted motion of the piston during its travels. The cost of this is weight. Another reason for the twin pin layout is that it serves to lessen the extreme angles of the rods that can be seen in the classic Lanchester twin /single pin layout. Could be other reasons though. Obviously the engine design and mfg are not old.

I think I prefer your patent to this one:

[Drew]

Or at least well designed, plenty of room between the flywheels to triangulate the beam.

Plus the conrods, flywheels & bearings can be 1/2 the size/mass/strength of regular ones.

The central rod simplifies sealing a transfer case between the sump & the piston.

I like this one cos it's pretty simple and I could build it in my workshop or adegnes'

Cheers, Daryl

Both conrods can connect straight to the post coming off the bottom of the piston. The beam isn't required.

Same result.

[Hemi Makutu]

www.pattakon.com/pattakonPatTwo.htm

[Pursang]

Both conrods can connect straight to the post coming off the bottom of the piston. The beam isn't required.

Same result.

"Depending on the pivot positions, link lengths and direction of rotation you could play with asymmetrical stroke rates & dwells."

Similar perhaps. The motion would be different.
More dwell at the top or bottom or both? Fast up & Slow down or visa versa? Good or bad?

Rods will be angled when piston is TDC & BDC.
(Could be a good thing if point of max cyl pressure corresponds with max rod/crank leverage angle. Or not.)

I suspect that the Rods will need more beam strength and bigger eyes as the load is not purely tension/compression when approaching T&BDC (Full Stop)
(perhaps the other rod will balance this? Or not)

The perfect(ish) balance situation will change. A problem? Probably similar to a regular engine.

Lots to consider.

Cheers, Daryl

[Brett S]

Twin cranks, common pin.
Here's a pic of a graph from early Ryger thoughts hence the silly 90mm conrod length.
It works out to be roughly Ø46mm stroke per crank to achieve the Ø54mm piston stroke.

[Frits Overmars]

Manolis also has a curious 'Miller cycle' valve-in-tall-piston 2T design. www.pattakon.com/pattakonPatTwo.htm

I'm afraid Manolis redefined pumping losses here; the mass of air or mixture moving in and out of the upper sub-piston volume won't cooperate without a struggle.
And I wonder how he plans to operate that valve in the piston. Hire a very small Japanese gentleman?
I'll gladly admit that some of Manolis' ideas are brilliant but I fear that he is completely unaware of (or ignoring) thermal, leakage and flow issues.

Twin cranks, common pin.
Here's a pic of a graph from early Ryger thoughts hence the silly 90mm conrod length. It works out to be roughly Ø46mm stroke per crank to achieve the Ø54mm piston stroke.

Good job Brett .

[Pursang]

Twin cranks, common pin.
.....
It works out to be roughly Ø46mm stroke per crank to achieve the Ø54mm piston stroke.

Is this a Good thing or a Bad thing?

Cheers, Daryl

[WilDun]

Is this a Good thing or a Bad thing?

Cheers, Daryl

Probably the important thing is whether the power stroke (ie downstroke) is on the inner part of the crank(s) or the outer.
The inner route would be best from the point of view of power stroke because of the fact that the force would more in line with the piston, but then this might be incompatible with port timing.
If this route were to be used on the compression stroke however it would achieve quick return to TDC and perhaps asymetric port timing? (early closing). However, the outer (slower) route for the power stroke would then involve having high angular forces on the rod.
So,as I see it, conditions with this twin crank layout are really opposite to what is required for two stroke operation!

And ........ Of course, as always, I could be wrong!

[ken seeber]

Slider exhausts. Finally getting some time.

This is the newly devised Oz cone forming method, called Hindenburging.

Testing (nil) so far reveals:
• Better low end power
• Better top end
• More over-rev
• Improved midrange power. Comes off berms much stronger than 4 strokes.
• Less smoke and lower emissions
• Reduced fuel consumption at all speeds
• Less exhaust noise
• Increased durability of engine
• Longer reed valve life
• Easier to install
• Easier starting
• Lower cost
• Prompt delivery from factory

[Flettner]

Progress, perhaps.

[Frits Overmars]

This is the newly devised Oz cone forming method, called Hindenburging.

Yes, I see what you mean, Ken. When building the Hindenburg, they did not have a mandrel with sufficient diameter at hand, so the outside shape ended up forty-agonal instead of smoothly circular. What's your excuse?