ESE's works engine tuner

[Flettner]

Mostly efficiency is thrown into a statement to make a post seem more substantial than it would be

When you say IT IS Thermodynamically more efficient, it is something we CAN all be excited about with good reason


If the piston is thermally insulated (but possibly oil cooled in one of two scenarios) then it no longer sinks heat energy to the cooling system - so more work is done/extracted to rotation

I think Frits IS saying thermodynamiclly more efficient. Be excited.

Oil cooled piston is still sending heat off to a cooling system just not the water cooling system.

What kind of forum users would throw the word efficiency around just for effect?

Interesting thought about the logo though.

[Leed]

I did edit cooling to read lubricated piston while you were posting (if said arrangement had an actual gudgeon)
But it may have roller, perhaps at bottomend with cam(s)

A thermodynamic hermit is smarter than a hermit, right
A thermodynamically efficient hermit has a masters degree i suppose, or pretends to
We,re all grasping straws hoping for some sort points status reward/like when the details come to light
This isnt facebook
Shall we have something real to go on until then

[Lightbulb]

The logo looks to me to symbolize the new style of reed valves in the engine. If he uses 3 sets of reeds, in conjunction with HCCI, there is the key right there. I have seen lean of peak with glow plug engines when we were testing and looking at real time glow plug response in an engine. I think it was Lindberg that was teaching the US fighter and bomber crews how to run their aircraft at the lean of peak. It was the most economical point to be flying the plane. Anyway, hcci is almost spontaneous compared to spark ignition, it happens just so much faster and a more complete burn. With that comes the rapid expansion of the gasses for a very short period of time, a lot shorter than a conventional burn or a diesel burn. The result would be a cooler exhaust, cooler piston temp and a lower head temp. Of course it will require less radiator as less energy is being lost to the engine overall, and more is put into turning the crank around/ creating work. CO is a real killer of combustion, and surprisingly you do not need very much to even kill people with it. So by reducing the remaining amounts of CO in the cylinder or even better, prevent any from getting into the transfer ports as they open, now you have a game change in the cleanliness of the incoming mixture to be burnt. The other part has to be with the reeds making a better fuel fog than what has ever been created before. The other breakthrough has to be that tuned pipes do not work like the books all say. Proof is that the pipe can make max power at 17 k or so and still have an over rev of up to 30k. That alone tells me, that what I thought I knew about pipes from the books is wrong some where.
So now the cats out of the bag s to speak. I still have not solved the 30k rod not failing, but that may be a lot more simple than what my mind can process as well.
Neil

[Frits Overmars]

Smaller radiator? So the extra power is arriving from less energy being pushed into the head and cylinder and other parts.

Take a look at the radiator. It would be considered rather small for a regular 125 cc kart, yet it has no problem keeping the Ryger's coolant temperature below 50°C.
Really fast combustion does that for you.

Does the more efficient combustion (and cooler) mean that the piston (or whatever you'd call it now) doesn't require drastic cooling (from a rich mixture) anymore! (no skirt to seize perhaps?). Or am I way off track?

You're right in the middle of the road Will. And we still call the piston a piston (but it's like a dog I once had: you could call it whatever you wanted; it wouldn't come).

I dare say efficiency has been used a hundred times in the last 100 pages... all of which i am not about to read everything....
....If the piston is thermally insulated (but possibly oil pressure lubricated in one of two scenarios)...

I have repeatedly mentioned before that the piston is not thermally insulated, and that there is no oil pump.
I dare say that up till now I have answered several of your questions to which you could have found the answers yourself. But I'd rather use my time more efficiently.

[MotleyCrue]

In the 4 stroke world there are rumblings that the Ryger engine's fate will be no different than Smokey Yunicks Hot Vapor Engine from the 80s, both having miraculous claims, but either they encounter a serious stumbling block or big money will buy it up and bury it.

I would think part load emissions and part load fuel economy being anywhere near a 4 stroke level would take more than just the ideas I've been reading about on here. Kart racing at largely full throttle operation is different than the operating conditions that an OEM would see their engine at for emissions and economy testing. If the Ryger has some mechanism to physically prevent raw air fuel mixture from going out the exhaust pipe then maybe things look rosier.

The OEM market is more lucrative than the kart market so if the Ryger has to be sorted out for the OEM, before the general unveiling, to get a jump on anyone wanting to steal the technology, then that R&D and the unveiling could be a ways off, in my mind. No point spilling the beans to karting until ALL bases are covered.

[WilDun]

In the 4 stroke world there are rumblings that the Ryger engine's fate will be no different than Smokey Yunicks Hot Vapor Engine from the 80s, both having miraculous claims, but either they encounter a serious stumbling block or big money will buy it up and bury it.

They didn't make any fantastic claims, they simply built a different engine and when it was up and running they slowly introduced it to us. They told us that it developed a certain HP at 17,500 revs (also with good torque) and said that they took it to 30,000 just to see how far it could go. - they also said that there is more development to be done.

I'm sure Harry & co know the 'pro's & cons', and I'm sure they have gone into every detail (being Dutchmen) but they have already taken some huge strides (and some!) in the battle to bring the two stroke back to us.
So credit where credit is due.

Try to forget the big money scenario for now and savour the moment when two stroke technology is just leaving the ground and taking a great leap forward!! (and hope like hell that it lands on its feet!).

[Leed]

Quote Originally Posted by WilDun
Does the more efficient combustion (and cooler) mean that the piston (or whatever you'd call it now) doesn't require drastic cooling (from a rich mixture) anymore! (no skirt to seize perhaps?). Or am I way off track?

You're right in the middle of the road Will. And we still call the piston a piston (but it's like a dog I once had: you could call it whatever you wanted; it wouldn't come).

my Ryger only has 2 wheels and uses even LESS petrol
FROM PAGE xxxx


the fate of the combustion engine is an auxillary charging unit for an EV

[WilDun]

the fate of the combustion engine is an auxillary charging unit for an EV

No - definitely not what I was thinking of!
I have seen that one before of course, BMW, Merc (one or the other ) had problems running it even as a pump as I recall. - but then who knows, we can all be wrong!

[ken seeber]

Had a bit of a play with the spreadsheet looking at piston forces vs increasing rpm. Interesting is how the inertia forces dominate as the speed rises. Also interesting is the magnitude increase, either in tension or compression. Note I left the force scale constant so one can more easily compare the forces at each speed.

Clearly Harry has made things light OR stronger OR done something clever OR a combination of these.

[Flettner]

Quote Originally Posted by WilDun
Does the more efficient combustion (and cooler) mean that the piston (or whatever you'd call it now) doesn't require drastic cooling (from a rich mixture) anymore! (no skirt to seize perhaps?). Or am I way off track?



my Ryger only has 2 wheels and uses even LESS petrol
FROM PAGE xxxx


the fate of the combustion engine is an auxillary charging unit for an EV

We covered all this a long way back, might be a good idea to go back to where the Ryger first entered this forum and read from there. Someone will know what page.

[WilDun]

We covered all this a long way back, might be a good idea to go back to where the Ryger first entered this forum and read from there. Someone will know what page.

I believe it was covered in the "oddball" thread.

[2T Institute]

As an added bonus, they also had a bucket for you bucketeers:

Attachment 316514

made a few bits for that bike(not the pipe though), was one of the 5 or so 20 odd hp H 100's buckets

[Cheesy]

The oil pump thing is a bit of a red herring, the first Husaberg I rode didnt have one and that is a four stroke putting out something in the 60hp region, and in reality is probably no more unreliable than any of the new 450s.

How do needle roller big ends survive at 30k rpm?

[husaberg]

The oil pump thing is a bit of a red herring, the first Husaberg I rode didnt have one and that is a four stroke putting out something in the 60hp region, and in reality is probably no more unreliable than any of the new 450s.

How do needle roller big ends survive at 30k rpm?

Those first Bergs were based on a Husky 500 two stroke bottom end and relied on the cam chain and reed valves and cylinder pressure to splash the lube around.


Roller bearings are for Pussies
These rods have no bearings at all. yes no bearings and yet run a whole season not only that they are 1/2 the weight of a conventional rod and 25 % lighter than titanium
http://www.mxcomposites.com/faq.php
Reading the blub the Husaberg factory even used them for over 100 hours.

This should answer your question ZdenekK: http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...post1130908092

It amazes me too Kermit. But it's fun. If I were to give an explanation, it would probably be that I am excited about these new developments which I want to share as much as possible (which is not yet as much as I would like), and that I enjoy the flood of ludicrous wonderful ideas that are being put forward on this forum.

[WilDun]

Clearly Harry has made things light OR stronger OR done something clever OR a combination of these.

Ken, (bit of a long shot, opening myself up to ridicule here! ) - we are of course assuming that the number of 'cycles' as opposed to the number of 'strokes' of the piston (ie.one stroke up, one stroke down =1 cycle) will equal the number of revolutions of the crankshaft?
I believe that it is possible to double the piston cycle rate without recourse to rollers, cams etc.

So, question to Frits is :- are we talking crankshaft revolutions or piston cycles (or both) when we say 30,000.?
- just needed to eliminate that one.

I just said that because 30,000 (which I realise won't be used in practice) would take a very large primary reduction!)