ESE's works engine tuner

[breezy]

It's a real pity that development of a new concept has to be hampered by rules (ie as in the competition environment) when in the everyday world environment it could be seen as a great breakthrough (with unrestricted development)! -ie. unrestricted except for the pollution thing of course!

this patent also includes the term " prior art"... which i think means there has been an idea patented before using this idea, but that its now been improved, changed in some way . also read about changing height of the cylinder which could be the variation of a theme. maybe this was the original idea which( ryger) has improved upon . if the stepped piston is not usually allowed then the less emissions claim could perhaps sway that rule with cik..

[WilDun]

this patent also includes the term " prior art"... which i think means there has been an idea patented before using this idea, but that its now been improved, changed in some way . also read about changing height of the cylinder which could be the variation of a theme. maybe this was the original idea which( ryger) has improved upon . if the stepped piston is not usually allowed then the less emissions claim could perhaps sway that rule with cik..

Were the rules around 'stepped pistons' intended to prevent the use of the type of piston employed in the Hooper/Favill 'Wulf' motorcycle engine of the sixties? ie. with the charging part being the larger diameter part of the piston which is at the bottom.
If we are talking about a 'stepped piston' - when does it become a 'stepped piston' ? Obviously the one in that old patent drawing could be called that, but if the piston is just a disc with a reasonably substantial piston rod,(with straight line motion and sliding through a seal on a baseplate) - would that also be considered a stepped piston? ie. in Karting rules etc.

[mr bucketracer]

this patent also includes the term " prior art"... which i think means there has been an idea patented before using this idea, but that its now been improved, changed in some way . also read about changing height of the cylinder which could be the variation of a theme. maybe this was the original idea which( ryger) has improved upon . if the stepped piston is not usually allowed then the less emissions claim could perhaps sway that rule with cik..

the old man said its prombly a steped piston think the step pistion the other way around was the band one ? prombley the use of modern day materals and some changes has made it work way better so was a good re visit by them. well done

[wobbly]

All patents must make reference to " prior art " to establish that the new idea is actually new.
Just a detail change to an existing item can of course be protested as an infringement of an issued patent, but its a very murky area of law
and usually doomed to failure.
If the new idea is detailed to the last degree as being a significant improvement over what has gone before - then the patent is watertight and can
be protected with instant threat of lawsuit.

[speedpro]

No one seems to have latched on to the significance of what the Ryger system might mean to multi-cylinder 2-strokes. If the crankshaft cavity takes no part in the induction then there is nothing stopping cylinders on a "V" sharing the crankpin. The rods can be side by side on a common pin with no regard for primary compression and which cylinder is where in the stroke. There would be no need for a twin crank, apart from gyroscopic issues and other such things. The width would still be defined by the width of the transfer passages and bore dimensions but in other ways the engine could be smaller.

[husaberg]

No one seems to have latched on to the significance of what the Ryger system might mean to multi-cylinder 2-strokes. If the crankshaft cavity takes no part in the induction then there is nothing stopping cylinders on a "V" sharing the crankpin. The rods can be side by side on a common pin with no regard for primary compression and which cylinder is where in the stroke. There would be no need for a twin crank, apart from gyroscopic issues and other such things. The width would still be defined by the width of the transfer passages and bore dimensions but in other ways the engine could be smaller.

Great spotting In a v they would be overlapping so the width increase would be only the conrod plus a few mms.

[tjbw]

Were the rules around 'stepped pistons' intended to prevent the use of the type of piston employed in the Hooper/Favill 'Wulf' motorcycle engine of the sixties? ie. with the charging part being the larger diameter part of the piston which is at the bottom.
If we are talking about a 'stepped piston' - when does it become a 'stepped piston' ? Obviously the one in that old patent drawing could be called that, but if the piston is just a disc with a reasonably substantial piston rod,(with straight line motion and sliding through a seal on a baseplate) - would that also be considered a stepped piston? ie. in Karting rules etc.

I had a quick look at CIK-FIA kart regulations.

Supercharging is not permitted. Didn't see any mention of stepped piston.

The piston, shown on the Gerrits patent drawing, does not supercharge.

It seems CIK-FIA like smoke, so you have to add some two-stroke oil to the fuel.

[Dutch Fisher]

What is the CIK-FIA definition of supercharging?

Is a primary CR ratio of 1:1 or greater considered supercharging?

[Frits Overmars]

No one seems to have latched on to the significance of what the Ryger system might mean to multi-cylinder 2-strokes. If the crankshaft cavity takes no part in the induction then there is nothing stopping cylinders on a "V" sharing the crankpin. The rods can be side by side on a common pin with no regard for primary compression.

No one? Well, we have. There are two V-twins on the Ryger drawing board.

What is the CIK-FIA definition of supercharging? Is a primary CR ratio of 1:1 or greater considered supercharging?

A compression ratio of 1:1 means that the minimum volume is equal to the maximum volume, so no compression at all. I wouldn't exactly call that supercharging.
And fortunately the CIK doesn't either, otherwise all two-strokes would be illegal.

[yesyes]

No one? Well, we have. There are two V-twins on the Ryger drawing board.

A compression ratio of 1:1 means that the minimum volume is equal to the maximum volume, so no compression at all. I wouldn't exactly call that supercharging.
And fortunately the CIK doesn't either, otherwise all two-strokes would be illegal.

what a funny post

[Lightbulb]

No one seems to have latched on to the significance of what the Ryger system might mean to multi-cylinder 2-strokes. If the crankshaft cavity takes no part in the induction then there is nothing stopping cylinders on a "V" sharing the crankpin. The rods can be side by side on a common pin with no regard for primary compression and which cylinder is where in the stroke. There would be no need for a twin crank, apart from gyroscopic issues and other such things. The width would still be defined by the width of the transfer passages and bore dimensions but in other ways the engine could be smaller.

It is clear that the limit of the spacing both radially and linear is the area required to fit the appropriate manifolds and ducting. It can not be made easily as compact as a conventional radial engine. But with supercharging/turbo charging, there is a real possibility that this type of engine will replace 4stroke engines in the future. It is very exciting indeed.
Neil

[tjbw]

What is the CIK-FIA definition of supercharging?

Is a primary CR ratio of 1:1 or greater considered supercharging?

I didn't see any definition of supercharging in the CIK-FIA karting regulations.

In a conventional crankcase compression two-stroke the volume of mixture transferred to the cylinder at BDC is no greater than the cylinder swept volume, irrespective of primary compression ratio. The pressure in cylinder at BDC is same as pressure under piston at TDC, so no supercharging.

Now convert this engine as shown on the Gerrits patent, the volume of mixture transferred to the cylinder is reduced to no more than the swept volume from the annular primary compression space. There is no supercharging, more like choking?

This is ignoring dynamic effects.

[WilDun]

It is clear that the limit of the spacing both radially and linear is the area required to fit the appropriate manifolds and ducting. It can not be made easily as compact as a conventional radial engine. But with supercharging/turbo charging, there is a real possibility that this type of engine will replace 4stroke engines in the future. It is very exciting indeed.
Neil

Neil, I guess slightly 'skewed' cylinders (as on the old T500 Suzukis - all skewed in the same direction of course) would work well in the case of a radial, but unless we are able to go back to straight pipes, ( which may be possible- I dunno) then plumbing exhausts might be a bit of a nightmare with an exhaust system twice as big as the engine itself, plus turbochargers, intercoolers and all the associated plumbing! - I think I now see why they changed to turbines!
Maybe we should get this single cylinder idea resolved first! - look how the other Neil has simplified the very complicated 'Crecy' by using only one cylinder!

[wobbly]

Quote " the volume of mixture transferred to the cylinder at BDC is no greater than the cylinder swept volume " .
WRONG.
I posted a few pages back answering a question about how much volume is going thru the transfer ducts into the cylinder.
There have been cases I have seen of a Delivery Ratio number of 1.3, this indicates 30% more volume is being inducted and deposited in the
cylinder than the numeric swept volume.
But as the scavenging and trapping efficiency are both less than unity, some of this ends up as pollution in the Ex duct - despite the stuffing
effect of the rear cone area contraction.

Quote " The pressure in cylinder at BDC is same as pressure under piston at TDC, so no supercharging."
WRONG AGAIN.
The pipe diffuser is pulling a huge depression on the Ex port at BDC, thus the pressure in the cylinder is LOWER than the case pressure or we would have no flow
due to no pressure ratio delta - we have pipe effect induced supercharging if you like.
Only lawnmowers use the case pressure to transfer A/F into the cylinder.

[crbbt]

No one? Well, we have. There are two V-twins on the Ryger drawing board.

Does the wet crankcase prevent the cylinders pointing downwards?