OTish. New design Internal Combustion Engine

http://pixelbark.com/13045/how-the-duke-engines-increases-the-efficiency-of-the-internal-combustion-engine
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 23/04/2014 06:35, harryagain wrote:

One thing I noticed is that it has a single, asymmetric counterbalance weight, which must make it inherently unbalanced.
Colin Bignell
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 8:46:23 AM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:

I operated a very unbalanced engine for a few years, and it behaved fine. Imho the balance issue of reciprocating IC engines tends to be overstated.
NT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 23/04/2014 10:48, snipped-for-privacy@care2.com wrote:

Given that one of the features mentioned is the light weight, I presume that it is intended for applications where there will not be a lot of spare mass to soak up the vibrations; unlike the single cylinder diesel road roller I used to sometimes operate.
Colin Bignell
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 2:36:10 PM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:

All popular IC engine configurations produce large vibration forces internally. Its not normally a problem, its a manageable issue. 30% less weight will increase those a bit, but a bit is no big deal, especially in a multicylinder engine.
NT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 23/04/2014 14:36, Nightjar wrote:

However it runs with almost zero vibration ... so they must have fixed that ....... watch the coin balance on the vid on main page ... http://www.dukeengines.com/
The big advantage I think they have on balance is that the con rods only move off line by 3% ....
" An almost perfectly sinusoidal piston motion leads to a near absence of secondary and higher-order unbalanced piston/conrod forces.
• Counter-rotating cylinder groups and crankshart provide cancellation of torque reactions and gyroscopic forces during engine speed flutuations and vehicle maneuvers. " (sp)
Maybe it will never be adopted, I had a rotary engine in my RX8 .... fantastic piece of engineering, so small so powerful, incredible rev range, just just not taken off with anybody other than Mazda.
--
UK SelfBuild: http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/UK_Selfbuild/

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 25/04/2014 12:14, Rick Hughes wrote:

How efficient was it? What were service intervals like compared to a conventional engine? How long would it last before a rebuild? An engine needs to do well at these as well as size and power in order to be truly successful.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 25/04/14 12:24, Clive George wrote:

+1 TCO
Total Cost of Ownership.
And of course that includes tooling up to make them
--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 25/04/14 12:14, Rick Hughes wrote:

Ah hadnt seen that. That sorts that one out at the expense of turning a 5 cylinder into a 10 cylinder.
So expense, many wears surfaces more and many frictional; surfaces more are still left.
Still 10 x 10cc cylinders should make a compact road engine.

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 6:35:02 AM UTC+1, harry wrote:

of-the-internal-combustion-engine
There are lots of engine designs with advantages. But almost none of them s ee the light of mass production. After weeding out the 99% that have some s izeable downside, the level of investment and experience needed before a ca r manufacturer would trust their business to a new engine design is excessi vely large. Car engine design is not a good area to invent in.
NT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 23/04/2014 10:51, snipped-for-privacy@care2.com wrote:

The most important engine design for future of the car is the Honda FCX Clarity approach ... Hydrogen fuel cell ... has the benefits of hardly any noise, no batteries, zero emissions ... and 61mpg
Exists is in production and out with users in California ... Hydrogen is manufactured at point-of-sale pumps, just storing enough Hydrogen for next couple of fills ... so no bulk storage issues. Honda also developing home Generation stations for you to produce your own Hydrogen.
Fixes the problem of the benefit of electric drive and the problem of battery weight & charging - no charging & no batteries.
Hydrogen no longer needing to be stored as super cooled liquid, with insulation issues.
Government was in talks with Honda UK to subsidies installation of Hydrogen fuel filling points along M4 corridor ... to kick-start this, not sure of current status.
Hydrogen is the easiest gas to manufacture and is in unlimited supply (water) ... for the eco tree huggers, you could use wind/wave/solar to provide the electricity required for electrolysis.
Saw a programme on this car ... it's no concept now on sales, looks pretty similar to Civic, not like a milk float.
http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/
--
UK SelfBuild: http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/UK_Selfbuild/

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thursday, April 24, 2014 11:19:35 AM UTC+1, Rick Hughes wrote:

Hydrogen as car fuel has to be one of the most hopeless ideas out there.
Energywise, you go from oil to electricity at 40% efficiency, then electric ity to hydrogen with more losses, so the car uses triple the amount of ener gy for the same job.
Costwise, as well as the usual oil costs you pay for the elec gen plant tha t currently roughly triples the cost of the energy.
The whole thing's bonkers. Its not even green - you get to use triple the e nergy for the same result.
So what's the game? If Honda can get government to pay for their trial, the y make money on it, green consumers adore them, and the politicians can cla im theyre doing something for the environment. A win win win - except for u s who pay a big pile for all this pointless game. The country loses out a 2 nd time as all the people involved in the project could have been doing som ething constructive instead. Oh, and a lot of the money leaves the country.
NT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 24/04/2014 14:20, snipped-for-privacy@care2.com wrote:

One way to make it green would be to install one of the small modular reactors on site to generate the electricity, and pipe the water in.
I believe that the current method in common use, though, is to use heat to crack methane, using fossil fuel to generate the heat required.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thursday, April 24, 2014 3:27:51 PM UTC+1, John Williamson wrote:

However you generate it, you're still using high price electricity to replace low cost oil, you've still got 1 or 2 lossy conversion steps, and the extra costs of generation mean consumed energy. It so doesnt add up.
NT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 24/04/2014 20:01, snipped-for-privacy@care2.com wrote:

Granted, but as it's not recommended to fit nuclear reactors into road vehicles, it's a reasonably sensible way to transfer the power from the reactor to the wheels. About the same efficiency overall as batteries, but with less pollution as a by product.
An alternative is to use nuclear power to make hydrocarbon fuels from water and CO2. The pilot project is using wind turbines, and needs money to scale up as a proof of concept, but it does work and the heat cam come from any source.
It won't be economic though, until either nuclear becomes much cheaper, or fossil oil becomes much more expensive.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 24/04/2014 20:32, John Williamson wrote:

the last part is 100% given
--
UK SelfBuild: http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/UK_Selfbuild/

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thursday, April 24, 2014 8:32:53 PM UTC+1, John Williamson wrote:

It isnt sensible to use the output of nukes to run cars, its more cost. Much more.

Cost is the number 1 issue

oil's far cheaper

Anyone that thinks that remotely realistic is being taken in

Yes, in 2100 maybe it'll be the best bet
NT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 24/04/2014 14:20, snipped-for-privacy@care2.com wrote:

Who said anything about going form Oil to Hydrogen ? .... I didn't ... Electricity does not have to come from oil.
Hydro systems, wave, wind are capable of producing clean electricity and 'cheaper' could be Nuclear.
Do you think we should just carry on burning petrol or diesel in cars ? .... there will be increasing pressure to have zero emission cars.
In some places it is now law only zero emission cars can enter.
This 'could' be the future - it could allow Joe Public to continue to have his own transport ......
--
UK SelfBuild: http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/UK_Selfbuild/

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, April 25, 2014 10:25:41 AM UTC+1, Rick Hughes wrote:
.

tricity to hydrogen with more losses, so the car uses triple the amount of energy for the same job.

that currently roughly triples the cost of the energy.

he energy for the same result.

they make money on it, green consumers adore them, and the politicians can claim theyre doing something for the environment. A win win win - except f or us who pay a big pile for all this pointless game. The country loses out a 2nd time as all the people involved in the project could have been doing something constructive instead. Oh, and a lot of the money leaves the coun try.

oil/gas/coal

yes, at crazy prices in hopelessly inadequate amounts

No, it isnt.

Well, oil/coal/naturalgas are what we have in sufficient quantity and suffi ciently low cost. There is nothing else. Other options are sometimes usable for niche apps, but not for mass use.

political games. What can actually do the job is 1000x more important.

it'd make it unaffordable, and so take it away
NT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 25/04/14 12:32, snipped-for-privacy@care2.com wrote:

It isn't these days, but it was, and *could* be, again.
Once all the greens have been turned into biogas.
Base cost of nuclear could and should be around 4p/unit.
Comparable with gas.
Cheaper than oil/diesel/petrol.
In the end it will be batteries or synthetic fuel for portable power.
Once diesel prices rise above the cost of either.
--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.