ESE's works engine tuner

[Larry Wiechman]

I find it hard to believe there is no side view of the piston; only a top view.

[tjbw]

Another observation from the homologation documents regarding the piston. There is a 1.0 mm radial drilling between the two piston rings that connects to the cavity within the 36 shaft or rod of the piston, which is also connected to the wet sump. This might mean that they use some suitable 2 stroke oil in the sump, which would then be a consumable, albeit very small (maybe).
Has anyone thought about the assembly sequence? Maybe the piston is of a passive 2 piece design.
Can't believe the CIK approved documents with the various inconsistencies or errors between the drawings and the pics.

The piston has a gudgeon pin cover, retained by two screws. Not sure what they to at other end of gudgeon pin, but another cover there would make sense to me, though no screw holes are shown for one on the drawing.

[Leed]

dia 15mm pin is covered, rod bearing diameter 19mm

Piston crown drawing

[monkeyfumi]

Good to see people are honouring Frits' request to not repost the images he inadvertantly posted....

Hope that little error didn't cost him too much per his NDA

[ken seeber]

The piston has a gudgeon pin cover, retained by two screws. Not sure what they to at other end of gudgeon pin, but another cover there would make sense to me, though no screw holes are shown for one on the drawing.

Yep, we can see what you have said, but how would you tighten the 2 screws (M3,4 or 5) if these were under the spacer plate which can't be raised high enough. Maybe it can, dunno. I guess we'll have to wait for the real doccos so we can have some accurate drawings to scale off. Unfortunately we might not get the full piston drawings as these traditionally are never included in previous CIK doccos.

[Grumph]

Another observation from the homologation documents regarding the piston. There is a 1.0 mm radial drilling between the two piston rings that connects to the cavity within the 36 shaft or rod of the piston, which is also connected to the wet sump. This might mean that they use some suitable 2 stroke oil in the sump, which would then be a consumable, albeit very small (maybe).
Has anyone thought about the assembly sequence? Maybe the piston is of a passive 2 piece design.
Can't believe the CIK approved documents with the various inconsistencies or errors between the drawings and the pics.

I take your earlier point about the gear ratios and pipe being unchanged for all intents from the motor it's based on. You're inferring that this version isn't intended for 30,000rpm...
Assembly sequence ain't difficult. Put the plate onto the piston and push it as far up as it will go. Offer that lot onto the top end of the rod and insert pin. I'd point out here that the unseen other end of the pin bore may actually be blind...Insert whatever retainer is used and put the slide cover on. Lower plate into top of cases. Barrel should then go on as per conventional assembly.
I'd assume that the piston lubrication provision you point out should allow a much reduced oil content in the fuel....

Edit - posts crossed Ken, looking at the pics I reckon the plate will go high enough.

[2005bully]

Nothing here

[Grumph]

In regards to the piston construction. In the bottom picture the piston appears to be machined from a single billet. In the top picture where the piston is installed in an engine, the inner tubular part of the of the piston that extends into the spacer plate looks to be of a different material. Or is it just plating giving it a different appearance? It would make for simpler top end rebuilds if the top of the piston was separate and removable from the bottom. Kermit Buller

I note the inner "tube" part of the piston has two rings running on it. Any colour difference i'd hope is plating.

[Larry Wiechman]

My guess is Teflon rings.

[Martin1981]

It is getting a little big bit silly now....

"Image protected by non disclosure agreement"

The homologatin papers are there so one should stop that secrecy shit now. it is ridiculous.

[d2t]

So it seems that the posted homologation forms don't reveal much. As others have stated, this is probably not the ultimate version of the Ryger's developments. There are several things missing from ideas we saw in the original patent. Most notably, the "lower cylinder" now lacks the circular reed petals and instead uses a more traditional reed block on the "upper?" cylinder. Of course, many ideas could have been improved upon or scrapped in the nine years since it was originally published. We'll see if there is more information to come in the near future. I guess we'll have to just wait and see.

Some things I noticed on the homologation form:
Although the piston's top is a standard 54mm with two rings, the lower piston comes in at 36mm and no ring grooves. Instead, the lower seal is made by two continuous rings (no break at one end) that are clamped into the lower cylinder. These rings transition very smoothly into the lower cylinders' bore (36.00mm rings, 36.15mm bore).


The purpose of the lower set of ports is lost to me in this configuration as there are no ports in the lower cylinder to allow passage of air through these ports. The illustration doesn't match the photo as there are no secondary exhaust ports in this cylinder (as the shape in the exhaust cutaway would indicate) and the cylinder doesn't sit in a stepped groove on the lower cylinder (as is depicted in the illustration).


Several of the other pictures do not resemble their illustrations as well. The cylinder, for example:

Extra C-port? Spacing?

I'm starting to wonder if this is the actual homologation paper or some elaborate hoax just to troll us. These pictures maybe range from several periods of the development cycle or the illustrations are just crazy (then what's the point of having them?!?). As for the original (deleted) pictures, I'm sure I'd have a lot to comment on but out of respect for Frits and the Ryger group, I think I'll forget them. We should probably focus on the engine currently being presented.

[Flettner]

I hope Ryger is not too hard on Frits (NDA) as Ryger has done very well out of Frit's involvement, without him, this would just be a big joke, ie pictures contradicting themselves.

I challange Luk F to show us this engine (in these Homologation papers) to do 30,000 RPM AND 70HP AND 80% less emissions than a normal twostroke. I don't think he can. The main engine is being held back and clearly some technology, for whatever reason?

But like everyone else here I WANT TO BELIEVE also.

[F5 Dave]

And noe one has discussed the ignition, HCCIWTF (guess for yourself) or how this engine starts below a million revs.

[jonny quest]

The limited amount of trying to figure this out by pics, it appears the biggest "new" technology is an almost 0 crankcase volume.

That appears to be the "magic"

[jfn2]

jonny quest:
I agree with you. I finally figured it out, even the oil separator. The very small crankcase, or should I say ,
lower cylinder volume must be the key. I'm sure the HCCI has alot to do with it also. My question is about the small oil hole in the piston? If that is what it is.
Wobbly, this could be your grandson's new lawnmower engine.