Or you can just run your two-stroke on carbon neutral fuels. Saves the fuel cell, no need for an electric motor either, and comes with that beautiful sound already out of the box!![]()
Or you can just run your two-stroke on carbon neutral fuels. Saves the fuel cell, no need for an electric motor either, and comes with that beautiful sound already out of the box!![]()
You might want to read into this a bit more before putting it into the bullshit corner.
I was talking about carbon neutral fuels, not biofuels. Carbon neutral fuels take CO2 out of the atmosphere during production, which is later re-released into it by being burned in e.g. internal combustion engines.
No its simplified version of Parson-Balandin engine. I believe simplification makes stuff better.
I want create test inline 2-cylinder engine and educate its behavior.
Exactly. I want avoud use gears, just essentrics. Saw Japan patent for compressor like this.
A question, Anyone have experience with intake valve without petals like on this picture?
![]()
So far cost is the issue of fuel cells versus batteries. We are barely getting battery costs low enough to make electric vehicles competitive in price with luxury IC cars. So far fuel cells look good for larger vehicles. We'll see what happens with trucks. Of course batteries require a clean electric generating system. That's easier to do on a large scale than in a car size plant. Quite a few people are using solar cells with batteries to generate power for their houses and cars. That works best in the US southwest and is more expensive than conventional power generation so far.
Lohring Miller
This looks like
http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/P...C.htm#esscross
If You make thepiston connectors round there can be a stuffing box round each (like crosshead engines)
True but i was pointing out the geared crank, The Wankel does have issues with the combustion shape but its perfect for forced induction also it capable of burning Hydrogen raw as its cumbustion is carried out in a seperate place than its induction and compression.
Personally i dont see electricity as being an answer
Why think of a plane it takes of with a larger load of fuel but the further it flys the lighter the fuel load gets which allows a greater range.
It it was electric it would weigh the same at take off as landing. a real great self sustaining fuel cell might work but i cant see that happening
The USA experimented with Nuclear planes in the 50's but gave up.
here is the old test reactors for them.
They even built a nuclear ramjet using the heat from the reactors to power the plane.
Not sure why they never thought off powering the props direct.
That said NASA now have some tiny tiny reactors.
15cm chunk of uranium-235 lasts 10 years at 10KW.
![]()
Kinky is using a feather. Perverted is using the whole chicken
Work is pleasure if you do it right Niels![]()
Would not this type of reed offer less turbulance and resistance?
Yes, I was thinking the petals maybe look like this or be of varying thickness.
If we are going to open/close things electromagnetically why not do away with the rotary valve and adapt push pull voice coil servos to Flettners flying gib idea and have totally asymmetric and variable inlet timing and when the engine is truly on the boil. Hold them both open for Frits's 24-7 timing.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
There are currently 6 users browsing this thread. (1 members and 5 guests)
Bookmarks