31–40 of 66 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
why I feel like this would put pressure on one side of cylinder block due to non-linear force against bottom wave-plate and cause wear and tear?
Agreed. Also, how does it get started? Seems like the only force pushing the piston against the axial cam is the fuel explosion. (Perhaps extra springs to retract the piston for intake?)
Would this be good in a bike? Would it likely be more power than say my R1?
I don't think it'd be very good. It has no torque on the low end so you'd have to set idle really high to get useful low range performance. This type of engine is great for its intended application though: A steady-state range extender/generator. Now, at higher revs, it might be pretty sweet.
“Now, here's the thing: this motor isn't a one-stroke engine. It has a compression stroke and exhaust stroke, making it a two-stroke cycle. INNengine acknowledges this and has said that it brands the motor as such because people would assume that a two-stroke engine would need to have oil mixed in along with fuel. Most two-strokes do. The company says that the one-stroke name was suggested by an ‘external ICE institution’ and they found it to be ‘catchy,’ so INNengine stuck with it.”
(From close to he bottom of the article)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
'old' may have something to do with it here, engine tech has seen all kinds of improvements over the last two decades resulting in tiny engines with ridiculous levels of output while still having reasonable life span. A pretty common small car engine that has .9 L displacement and a turbo yields 105 HP, that's 120 HP/L, vs 67 HP/L for your bike. A few years ago I had a 660 CC 4 cylinder engine in a car that did 67 HP…
We should probably call a spade a spade here. This is a 2-stroke motor. In today's powersports world it's normal for a factory 650cc motor to be putting out over 135HP. It's not impressive in terms of the performance to engine size and, as I mentioned in another comment, this engine will be extremely weak on the torque side of the equation which will make those ponies virtually useless.
That's one reason why specialty generator engines tend to run with very sharp cams on the camshafts: they only need to work in a very narrow RPM range and opening them earlier or later is just going to waste fuel so for maximum efficiency you want the valves to be open just long enough to take in enough air or to exhaust the expended fuel/air mixture.
edit: apparently this engine also has a super charger, which isn't quite 'atmospheric'.
That's neat. This is a type of axial engine, a cam engine.[1] People have been trying designs along this line since at least 1926. A recent version was from Axial Vector Engine, which was pushing their stock around 2006 and is now gone.[2] The problem with this class of designs is that they apply large forces to small parts. The most likely source of trouble is the bearings of those little wheels at the base of each…
also noted, that they don't have that lever like standard pistons do, so torque is an issue.
The idea that torque and power represent different qualities out of an engine comes from manufacturers quoting just peak torque and peak power, giving you two different points on the torque and power curve. A complete torque or power curve is much more useful. Either works and which is just a matter of preference as you can just calculate the other from the same data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
also noted, that they don't have that lever like standard pistons do, so torque is an issue.
Torque isn’t an issue if it isn’t pushing a drivetrain, but an inverter generator to charge the electric drivetrain. That would also lower the forces applied to the piston roller bearings, which should greatly improve reliability.
I wonder if this would be a good engine for an airplane?
In case you’re wondering: “Now, here's the thing: this motor isn't a one-stroke engine. It has a compression stroke and exhaust stroke, making it a two-stroke cycle. INNengine acknowledges this and has said that it brands the motor as such because people would assume that a two-stroke engine would need to have oil mixed in along with fuel. Most two-strokes do. The company says that the one-stroke name was suggested b…
That suggests most people don't know about 2-stroke diesels, although I suspect much of the older population (at least in North America) have probably heard or been on a vehicle that uses one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed. My old bike had 1400cc and was rated at only 94 hp.
'old' may have something to do with it here, engine tech has seen all kinds of improvements over the last two decades resulting in tiny engines with ridiculous levels of output while still having reasonable life span. A pretty common small car engine that has .9 L displacement and a turbo yields 105 HP, that's 120 HP/L, vs 67 HP/L for your bike. A few years ago I had a 660 CC 4 cylinder engine in a car that did 67 HP…
I'm sure its pretty high strung, but its also older and more "conventional" than exotic supercar engines.