ESE's works engine tuner

[Frits Overmars]

https://www.google.com/patents/US2612749

I was pleasantly surprised to see how mr. Tenney controlled flow direction in his pulse jet. Looks familiar .
https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/s...post1130985512

[katinas]

I see a couple of my fathers patents have shown up on this thread. It was interesting growing up in the Tenney house. Rather than talking sports or politics, we discussed 2 cycle engines. He had many patents in 3 disciplines.....2 cycle engines, Pulse jet engines and fog generation. During WW-2 my father was stationed at Curtis-Wright field in Dayton, Ohio. While there, the airbase received some parts from a V-1 Buzz bomb engine and my father was given the task of building a US version....which he did successfully.

Post the war he sold a model pulse jet engine under the Dynajet brand name. As you would imagine the demand for tis type of product is not too large. At the same time my father figured out that you could actually use the Pulse jet engine to create fog...fog that could be used for carrying insecticides and for a smoke screen. Building pulsejet based foggers and engine powered foggers became a primary business for 40 plus years.

In addition, to building foggers my father was extremely active in boat racing. In the late 50"s he began importing the British Anzani race motor to the US. These motors, running megaphones and up to 40-50 percent nitro were monsters in their day. The test tank for the outboards was outside of the kitchen of our family home. You can imagine the noise. It is a good thing that we lived in the country.

In addition to foggers, my fathers other main line of business was 2 cycle R&D work. The "eye brow" port patents referred to above are an example of that. To showcase the effectiveness of the ports, my father built a single cylinder engine where the "eye brow" ports could be opened and closed manually on the dyno. The results were dramatic. He spent many years defending his "eye brow" patent versus the big Japanese companies, but the amount of legal resources they had simply dwarfed the legal resources he cold muster. Thus, in the end the patent was sold to Yamaha for a relatively small sum of money.

Lesson learned...patents are nice but are very hard to defend.

It is great to see that this web site is helping to keep 2 cycle engines relevant in todays world. The content of this thread is amazing.

In the US I race boats where we use 2 cycle engines and the only rules are bore and stroke based. This is a great play ground for those that like to develop and race 2 cycle engines. Special thanks to Guiseppe Rossi and Carlo Verona(VRP) for helping to keep our sport of Pro(Alky) boat racing alive. They build engines that dominate the sport today.

I read your story six times, and briefly moved to those times. So interesting and informative.
Thank you very much.

[F5 Dave]

Real world Ryger dabbled and part time Time Lord. Your powers are impressive Katrina's.

[Lightbulb]

I see a couple of my fathers patents have shown up on this thread. It was interesting growing up in the Tenney house. Rather than talking sports or politics, we discussed 2 cycle engines. He had many patents in 3 disciplines.....2 cycle engines, Pulse jet engines and fog generation. During WW-2 my father was stationed at Curtis-Wright field in Dayton, Ohio. While there, the airbase received some parts from a V-1 Buzz bomb engine and my father was given the task of building a US version....which he did successfully.

Post the war he sold a model pulse jet engine under the Dynajet brand name. As you would imagine the demand for tis type of product is not too large. At the same time my father figured out that you could actually use the Pulse jet engine to create fog...fog that could be used for carrying insecticides and for a smoke screen. Building pulsejet based foggers and engine powered foggers became a primary business for 40 plus years.

In addition, to building foggers my father was extremely active in boat racing. In the late 50"s he began importing the British Anzani race motor to the US. These motors, running megaphones and up to 40-50 percent nitro were monsters in their day. The test tank for the outboards was outside of the kitchen of our family home. You can imagine the noise. It is a good thing that we lived in the country.

In addition to foggers, my fathers other main line of business was 2 cycle R&D work. The "eye brow" port patents referred to above are an example of that. To showcase the effectiveness of the ports, my father built a single cylinder engine where the "eye brow" ports could be opened and closed manually on the dyno. The results were dramatic. He spent many years defending his "eye brow" patent versus the big Japanese companies, but the amount of legal resources they had simply dwarfed the legal resources he cold muster. Thus, in the end the patent was sold to Yamaha for a relatively small sum of money.

Lesson learned...patents are nice but are very hard to defend.

It is great to see that this web site is helping to keep 2 cycle engines relevant in todays world. The content of this thread is amazing.

In the US I race boats where we use 2 cycle engines and the only rules are bore and stroke based. This is a great play ground for those that like to develop and race 2 cycle engines. Special thanks to Guiseppe Rossi and Carlo Verona(VRP) for helping to keep our sport of Pro(Alky) boat racing alive. They build engines that dominate the sport today.

Did you turn up at a model speed plane meeting in Dayton Ohio with a pulsejet on the back of a trailer and did a demo of the fog machine unit that your family used to make. At the same competition, they were flying the Dynajet pulse jet speed models. This was back in like 05 or 06 or some where around that time frame.
Neil Lickfold

[lohring]

I fondly remember Dynajet control line speed models in my youth (1950s). The definitely rivaled the megaphone exhaust outboards' noise.

Lohring Miller

[F5 Dave]

I remember my Dad talking about control line planes. My uncle had one with the engine slightly offset but moved into rc as it evolved. Was too young to remember much.

Sound like an efficient way of killing bystanders .

[TZ350]

As a kid I don't remember seeing one fly but I do remember being fascinated by talk about them and how they worked.

[peewee]

I remember my Dad talking about control line planes. My uncle had one with the engine slightly offset but moved into rc as it evolved. Was too young to remember much.

Sound like an efficient way of killing bystanders .

as a kid i had a control line plane with small cox engine. it must of been some 30yrs ago. i vaguely remember it using some kind of fuel from a small metal can like a liquor flask. to start it, it seemed like there was a spring on the back side of the prop and you would put the hook of the spring on one of the blades and turn it backwards to wind the spring. once you let go it spun the engine forward and would start

[lodgernz]

On my 50 engine, now fitted with a disc valve inlet, the transfers open at 114º ATDC, which means they close at 114º BTDC. My disc valve opens at 135º BTDC, so there is only a tiny window of 21º where the negative pulse from the exhaust diffusers can communicate directly with the carb.
We usually target this negative pulse to coincide roughly around BDC at peak power revs, so presumably this negative pulse, reflecting through the transfers, adds to the negative pressure caused by the rising piston to significantly reduce the crankcase pressure BEFORE the RV opens, so that when it does open, there is a burst of flow through the carb, which then quickly reduces to just the flow caused by the still-rising piston as the transfer ports close. I would have thought this uneven flow could cause difficulties with carburetion, compared with a reed setup that presumably allows a more consistent gas flow, starting as soon as the negative crankcase pressure is sufficient to open the reeds.

It seems to me then, that the additional flow through the carb resulting from the tuned exhaust should be longer in a reed engine, with less fluctuation than in an RV engine, so why does a disk valve generally enable more power?
Is that initial burst of flow through the carb actually beneficial rather than problematic?
Or is the better power perhaps more to do with better control of the closing point of the inlet offered by an RV?

So many questions, so little time...

[Ocean1]

I remember my Dad talking about control line planes. My uncle had one with the engine slightly offset but moved into rc as it evolved. Was too young to remember much.

Sound like an efficient way of killing bystanders .

A friend of the old man's went the same way, very early on, he was a bit of a radio boffin anyway and he got the old man to make servos for his projects.

I remember standing in the middle of the airstrip at Frankton while he run a new 1:32 scale Lancaster, (seriously) up and down the runway. He wasn't planning an actual flight, just a control test, but things looked so good. Last seen still climbing up towards the Remarkables.

"Can't we go find it, dad?"

"No son, shutup and get in the car."

[F5 Dave]

Hahahaha, oh dear!

Like the first flight of my Christmas pull to launch plane. It went a lot further than I thought. Shouldn't have aimed in the trees direction. Never seen again.

And the first flight of my rc plane 20 years later when I should have known better, but I blame my wife who gets excited as a Labrador and just wanted to see it fly, - launched the plane away from me instead of towards. Arrgh, it'll get out of range. Um, quick, turn thinks brain. Bang. More enormous pine trees

[lohring]

I flew control line a lot with some friends before I went away to high school. We attended the AMA Nationals in 1957 and 1958. They were held at navy air stations and we were really impressed at being treated like we were navy airmen in the barracks and chow hall. My friend was 4th in junior combat (an event where you cut the streamer off the tail of your opponent). He destroyed the three planes I designed so we had to build a new plane over night for the fly off. My control line speed planes were less impressive.

Lohring Miller

[katinas]

Bruce Anstey wins Lightweight TT, new record on Honda RS 250. Interesting for RS airbox intake on right side.

[Frits Overmars]

Interesting for RS airbox intake on right side.

I can hardly imagine that this small rectangle is the only airbox intake. With such a small cross flow area the necessary flow velocity will nearly always be higher than the bike's riding speed. It would mean that the engine has to pull its air through the intake, rather than experiencing some useful ram air pressure.
The only remaining advantage would be that it receives air that hasn't gone through the radiator. But the same would be true for a bigger air intake...

[katinas]

I can hardly imagine that this small rectangle is the only airbox intake. With such a small cross flow area the necessary flow velocity will nearly always be higher than the bike's riding speed. It would mean that the engine has to pull its air through the intake, rather than experiencing some useful ram air pressure.
The only remaining advantage would be that it receives air that hasn't gone through the radiator. But the same would be true for a bigger air intake...

I did not find another picture, but maybe same intake is located on left side. Last year they won with nose style intake