Alan,
I get your point. Yes, it should run theoretically, but would be very
ineffective and uneconomical.
Eric
Eric -
Since his only objective here is to get the motor running (i.e. there's no
power rating needed), he could simply time the intake and exhaust valves to
approximate a standard two stroke cycle. All he'd need to do is get in just
enough fuel on the downstroke to keep the engine turning. The cycle would be
upstroke > spark > fire > TDC > piston starts going down > exhaust opens ~ 20
deg ATDC and then closes shortly thereafter, then intake opens in the last bit
to get just enough fuel in before going back up on the upstroke. If you note,
the flywheel is quite big for this motor which suggests it might need the
inertia to keep the engine running because it is too week.
Alan
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 5:30 PM, lists <lists@brits-n-pieces.com> wrote:
Alan, that's right, but there shouldn't be 2 valves per cylinder. Two-stroke
diesel engines only have 1 (exhaust-)valve per cylinder, AFAIK.
Eric
Brits 'n' Pieces (Germany)
I'm not so sure.... the easiest motor to build and run would be to make a
two stroke diesel, which if done in this case would mean you'd have a one
to one gear between the crank and the cam.
with enough spinning of the motor, you wouldn't even need glow plugs to get
the engine running..... which is easy to do with a electric drill on
something this small.
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Andrew Thorp <bce257@yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
> As neat as this is, it is not an engine. The clue is at 3:50 where you can
> see
> the camshafts are driven at the same speed as the crankshaft. It is an air
> motor.
>
> Andy.
_______________________________________________
Archive: http://www.team.net/archive
Healeys@autox.team.net
http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/healeys
|