2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

All that has to do with the power train, gearbox, clutch, fuels and lubricants, etc. Generally the mechanical side of Formula One.
manolis
74
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 9:00 am

Re: 2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

Post by manolis » Fri May 19, 2017 4:15 am

Hello J.A.W.

You write:
“Another way of dealing with such concerns could be with a horizontal-3D semi dome shaped rotary valve seated above,
& opening a port directly into the combustion chamber, delivering a timed pressure charged swirl/vortex input.
& once the piston had swept up past the exhaust port.. after the cylinder had duly accepted the sonic pulse from its tuned exhaust chamber, ( any turbo being situated downstream from the pulse chamber).
A variable-tuned sonic nozzle-type exhaust could function as the 'throttle'.. along with variable pulsed fuel injection .”


But then, the simplicity of the 2-stroke is gone.




You also write:
“Perhaps visualized as similar to the diagram shown here: https://www.pureburnengines.co.uk/two-s ... pplication
but with the added 'active' valving on inlet & exhaust which predicate flow control.”


I think Evinrude E-TEC G2:

Image

does the same without “doubling” the surface of the cylinder walls.




You also write:

”This would also allow the choice of a typical crankcase scavenged 2T, plus turbo, -for smaller units.
.. or a '4T type' plain-bearing bottom-end with compound compressor/turbo - for larger machines..”


Here is a PatATeco turbo-charged indirectly-injected:

Image

The same, stereoscopically from various view points:

Image

The above arrangement has '4T type' plain-bearing bottom-end: the crankcase is not pressurized, the bearings are plain bearings lubricated by lubricant under pressure, an oil scraper ring scraps the oil from the cylinder liner as in the 4-strokes, at the BDC the lower pressure ring of the piston abuts whereon the scraper ring was abutting 180 degrees earlier).


The engine is spark ignition and has indirect injection without compromising with the emissions:

In the “flat” animation there are 24 slides (one slide per 15 crank degrees).

On the cylinder liner there is an exhaust port, at left, there are also three “filling” ports.

Follow the piston leaving the TDC.

Through the left “filling” ports and the long openings at the left side of the piston, the space underside the piston crown (which is isolated from the crankcase) fills with compressed air from the turbocharger (not shown).

Some 60 degrees after the TDC the connecting rod closes the holes / passageways of the asymmetric transfer at the right side of the piston.

Then, say though the left “filling” port or otherwise, a fuel injector injects fuel towards the upper right end of the space underside the piston crown, wherein it forms a rich mixture with the air.

Later the exhaust starts and the pressure in the cylinder drops.

Later the scavenging start: compressed air from the turbocharger, through the “filling” ports (which are now above the piston top), enters into the cylinder and sweeps the burned gas to the exhaust.

Later the “filling” ports close by the upwards moving piston, while the exhaust is still open.

Later the asymmetric transfer ports open by the upwards moving piston and the exhaust port closes. The compressed air in the space underside the piston crown pushes the rich mixture to pass into the cylinder through the asymmetric ports, over-filling the cylinder, while fresh compressed air enters in the space underside the piston crown through the left “filling ports (which are now “below” the piston crown). A little before the closing of the asymmetric transfer ports, a gust of compressed air from the space underside the piston crown enters into the cylinder cleaning the asymmetric transfer ports.


There are only three moving parts (as much as in the simplest conventional 2-strokes).


Bu the way, the animations are to show the principle of operation, are to show the difference from the prior art.
For instance, the asymmetric transfer can close substantially after, or a little after, or simultaneously, or a little before the exhaust.

Thanks
Manolis Pattakos

J.A.W.
49
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 4:10 am
Location: Altair IV.

Re: 2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

Post by J.A.W. » Fri May 19, 2017 5:35 am

manolis wrote:
Fri May 19, 2017 4:15 am
Hello J.A.W.

You write:
“Another way of dealing with such concerns could be with a horizontal-3D semi dome shaped rotary valve seated above,
& opening a port directly into the combustion chamber, delivering a timed pressure charged swirl/vortex input.
& once the piston had swept up past the exhaust port.. after the cylinder had duly accepted the sonic pulse from its tuned exhaust chamber, ( any turbo being situated downstream from the pulse chamber).
A variable-tuned sonic nozzle-type exhaust could function as the 'throttle'.. along with variable pulsed fuel injection .”


But then, the simplicity of the 2-stroke is gone...

Thanks
Manolis Pattakos
Hi Manolis,

The "simplicity is gone?"

Well, we've seen your illustrations many times, including the 3D rotary valves - for which you claim 'simplicity' as
a merit, so I'd hardly think that - essential - simplicity is lost.. by utilizing one, with a sufficient port-time area..

As for the 'pureburnengine' - I agree, the drawing shown requires improvement, hence a suggested rotary valve
which allows a combustion chamber form similar to the G2 Evinrude - except that a port/window opens in it,
& blows in an intake charge, timed to best accomplish volumetric efficacy..

The inadequacy/complexity of poppet valves trialled in 4T SI engines converted to run at X2 speed for 2T operation..
..shows the inherent limitations with which the Ducati Panigale still struggles - as a large N/A SI 4T cylinder..
( Incidentally, the Ducati Moto GP V4s are more highly developed than the Panegale, as it happens).

Again, as to simplicity..

BRP/Evinrude continue to add features ( & thus losing 'simplicity') with their E-TEC mills - which are to improve function,
& needfully so.... since 'simplicity' is not such an over-riding virtue - in itself.. if it also means unacceptable crudity..

I would be impressed to see the promise of your 'simple' 2T units realized - in metal, to validate the interesting ideas..
Sturmbannfuehrer Dr von Braun sez..
"Oberste Prioritat hat es Londoner Terror zu vergelten. Und danach, der Mondflug!"

manolis
74
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 9:00 am

Re: 2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

Post by manolis » Fri May 19, 2017 5:35 am

Hello Pinger.

You write:
“Manolis:
In the above data, in the lower right hand corner are listed timings. What does the last row (BOA and BCA) relate to?

The fuel is listed as 'paraffin'. Is this a 'diesel' (HCCI to be more precise) not glow plug motor?

Any idea if the fuel is 100% paraffin (I'd expect equal thirds of ether, paraffin and castor oil)?”


Reasonably the BOA and BCA refer to the timing of the boost port (while the TOA and TCA is the timing of the other transfer ports (Schnuerle) pots).


Reasonably it is a compression ignition model engine (but not a “true” Diesel since the fuel is not injected into the hot air at the end of the compression).


The plots are from the http://www.jhis.co.uk/ICE/ web site. They may refer to the fuel / oil mixture they use.

Thanks
Manolis Pattakos

manolis
74
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 9:00 am

Re: 2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

Post by manolis » Fri May 19, 2017 11:45 am

Hello J.A.W.

You write:

“The "simplicity is gone?"
Well, we've seen your illustrations many times, including the 3D rotary valves - for which you claim 'simplicity' as
a merit, so I'd hardly think that - essential - simplicity is lost.. by utilizing one, with a sufficient port-time area..”


The PatRoVa rotary valve is simple.

So simple that in mass production it will be several times cheaper (5 times? 10 time?) than a Desmo cylinder head of Ducati (yet it would allow way higher revs in the cylinder head and more power if the underneath engine can stand the “punishment”).

If you replace the cylinder head of a 4-stroke by a PatRoVa cylinder head, the engine gets undoubtedly simpler and shorter and more lightweight.

However if in a 2-stroke you add a “rotary valve” on the top of the engine, and a synchronizing gearing to drive it, the simplicity is not as before with the only three moving parts of the conventional 2-stroke.

If the improvement of the operation justifies the added parts / complexity / cost, OK.




You also write:

”I would be impressed to see the promise of your 'simple' 2T units realized - in metal, to validate the interesting ideas..”


The Opposed Piston PatATi prototype engine (youtube video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXvRaVqiHxs )

is “realized in metal” and works on gasoline.


To modify it from PatATi to PatATeco (previous posts) all you have to do is to turn the injectors to inject towards the piston crowns and to lubricate independently the bearings of the crankshafts.

800cc,
80mm bore,
80mm stroke (combined stroke: 80+80=160mm)
asymmetrical intake (without reed valves or disk valves),
asymmetrical transfer,
compact / fatty combustion chamber (loop scavenging),
perfectly balanced,
etc.

Here are a few photos of it.

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image



The priority is on the PatRoVa rotary valve 4-stroke engine.

In the mean time, if someone wants to get involved (whatever way) my e-mail is man@pattakon.com

Thanks
Manolis Pattakos

Pinger
8
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 4:28 pm

Re: 2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

Post by Pinger » Fri May 19, 2017 11:59 am

manolis wrote:
Fri May 19, 2017 5:35 am
Reasonably the BOA and BCA refer to the timing of the boost port (while the TOA and TCA is the timing of the other transfer ports (Schnuerle) pots).


Reasonably it is a compression ignition model engine (but not a “true” Diesel since the fuel is not injected into the hot air at the end of the compression).


The plots are from the http://www.jhis.co.uk/ICE/ web site. They may refer to the fuel / oil mixture they use.

Thanks
Manolis Pattakos
Thanks Manolis, much appreciated.

Pinger
8
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 4:28 pm

Re: 2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

Post by Pinger » Fri May 19, 2017 12:03 pm

Pinger wrote:
Wed May 17, 2017 1:39 pm

manolis wrote:
Wed May 17, 2017 1:21 pm
“Question: On the design of yours you showed with the last of the transfer occurring after exhaust port closure. How so with no remaining crankcase pressure and a rising piston? I'm thinking, the flow will reverse back into the crankcase - as happens with conventional porting even.”


For low rpm the timing shown in the animation is aggressive.

But for high revving, wherein the inertia of the air gets in play, the timing should be even wilder.


On the other hand, with the asymmetric timing, the duration of the exhaust can be substantially shorter, shifting all the ports lower on the cylinder.
I suspect your inertia will be in the lower port.
The prospect of lower ex' duration with asymmetric transfer timing is - or could be - welcome. How far back though before high rpm breathing is stifled? (My current conundrum with my asymmetric transfer timing endeavours).
Apologies Manolis. When I look again I realise you are opening the upper transfer port around BDC - thus establishing flow earlier than I had thought and facilitating an inertial column.

Muniix
-3
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 12:29 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: 2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

Post by Muniix » Sat May 20, 2017 11:02 pm

J.A.W. wrote:
Thu May 18, 2017 8:24 am
Muniix wrote:
Wed May 17, 2017 1:14 pm
... that's ok the FIM has banned my valve gear anyway...
When did the FIM do that Marc?
I know the FIA has stipulated poppet valve 4T piston engines only - for F1.. & has bans on 2Ts/rotary pistons & valves..
.. but AFAIR, while the FIM regs do also require cylindrical piston 4Ts, they actually don't mention valve gear..
It's ​in the EU formal complaint for the competition commissioner. investigation.

Both FIA and FIM stopped its use. I don't know where some people thought it wasn't banned from MotoGP.

I've had a Gold Walkley award winning journalist look into it. I've held his award in my hand.

They tried to use the BRV in the FIM & were obstructed.

Try the major keywords in a search.

I'm too tired. Across three continents.

"The initial complaint charged that the two- and four-wheeled federations' decision to ban the use of Bishop Rotary Valves in engines in both championships violated Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), as it effectively locked BRV out of both sports in favour of technology in use by existing manufacturers."

&

"
Elsewhere in the document it said that the lack of a proven impact on consumers of Formula One - fans largely being unaware of, or unconcerned with, the type of valves used in F1 engines - was further grounds for the Competition Commission's decision to close the complaint. The impact on BRV and on engine suppliers with a possible future interest in using rotary valve technology was not reason enough to begin an investigation with minimal consumer impact.
Last edited by Muniix on Sun May 21, 2017 5:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

J.A.W.
49
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 4:10 am
Location: Altair IV.

Re: 2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

Post by J.A.W. » Sun May 21, 2017 2:28 am

OK,
a quick squiz at the FIM Moto GP tech regs shows a ban on all but N/A 'round' piston recip' 4 cyl 4T engines..
.. but makes no comment about valve types 'cept allowing pneumatics..
& specifically notes "free" use in regard to "all actuators"...

Hence Ducati still uses their longstanding 'desmodromic' mechanical system.

www.fim-live.com/en/sport/regulations-a ... rand-prix/
Sturmbannfuehrer Dr von Braun sez..
"Oberste Prioritat hat es Londoner Terror zu vergelten. Und danach, der Mondflug!"

Muniix
-3
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 12:29 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: 2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

Post by Muniix » Sun May 21, 2017 5:35 am

J.A.W. wrote:
Sun May 21, 2017 2:28 am
OK,
a quick squiz at the FIM Moto GP tech regs shows a ban on all but N/A 'round' piston recip' 4 cyl 4T engines..
.. but makes no comment about valve types 'cept allowing pneumatics..
& specifically notes "free" use in regard to "all actuators"...

Hence Ducati still uses their longstanding 'desmodromic' mechanical system.

www.fim-live.com/en/sport/regulations-a ... rand-prix/
Your assuming they're​ rational and not humans making decisions.

Was heavily investigated by the EU Commission and the FIM had acted to effectively ban it. It's all well documented.

I've had it investigated independently​ to identify a method to work around
the ban, so it can be successful opposed. Standing on the shoulders of giants, being Tony Wallis of BRV, Bishop, Cosworth, etc.

I've trained my thinking to minimise confirmation bias. Based on latest techniques from research on how the fight flight centre initialises the rational part of the brain, any developer who works on the craft does this so they can develop software that interacts with people more effectively.
Last edited by Muniix on Sun May 21, 2017 6:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

J.A.W.
49
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 4:10 am
Location: Altair IV.

Re: 2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

Post by J.A.W. » Sun May 21, 2017 6:10 am

Muniix wrote:
Sun May 21, 2017 5:35 am

Your assuming they're​ rational and not humans making decisions.

Was heavily investigated by the EU Commission and the FIM had acted to effectively ban it. It's all well documented.
No Marc, no "assuming" at all..
FIM has an explicitly specific ban on racing a 2T design in Moto GP, & per reg's - does not concern itself with 4T valve-gear..
..other than as noted..

But as for your supposed "thinking training", & putatively proposing "that ( helps you) interacts with people more effectively",
then.. I'd suggest you 'go back to the drawing board' - as the old saw aptly puts it.. 'cause it surely don't 'fly' here..
Sturmbannfuehrer Dr von Braun sez..
"Oberste Prioritat hat es Londoner Terror zu vergelten. Und danach, der Mondflug!"

Pinger
8
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 4:28 pm

Re: 2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

Post by Pinger » Sun May 21, 2017 9:22 am

Muniix wrote:
Sat May 20, 2017 11:02 pm


"The initial complaint charged that the two- and four-wheeled federations' decision to ban the use of Bishop Rotary Valves in engines in both championships violated Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), as it effectively locked BRV out of both sports in favour of technology in use by existing manufacturers."
That's it, right there, highlighted in bold.
This is what I keep banging on about re prejudice. Manufacturer's do not want to change from the technology they know and are making money from. The more money involved, the less interlopers are welcome. When an adaption to 4T is eschewed - what chance of 2T ever progressing?
This, dangerously, also feeds into what is happening across the western world. A feeling that major corporations make the rules to the exclusion of newcomers. An absolute insult to the concept of 'free markets'. It is protectionism of the worst kind. Sporting bodies such as the FIA and FIM should be above this.

As an aside, I don't know how well this next point is known globally but in the UK the VW 'dieselgate' issue was known of by the UK government several years ago - at the same time as the EU was for limiting bonus payments bankers were awarding themselves. A cosy deal whereby Germany saw to it that the issue of banker's pay was kicked into the long grass in return for the UK government keeping schtum on VW's activities saw it buried. In the end, the USA blew the lid off the diesel scandal - and the UK government were so sheepish in their response that it should have been obvious to all something was amiss. Americans who bought VWs were compensated - UK buyers were not. I hate having to air politics on motoring/tech forums but inescapably, we are all affected. Quashing new technology as in the case of BRV is sinful.

Tommy Cookers
369
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: 2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

Post by Tommy Cookers » Sun May 21, 2017 10:25 am

VW hasn't broken any EU laws so the UK has nothing to suppress
Renault is in the same boat (small engines have platinum catalysts and so all go the VW way)
yes we could do with a bit of activity in the that thread

Moto GP constrains fuel consumption, cylinder count, bore and stroke, electronic aids, etc etc for a reason
stifling novel valve systems is consistent with that
given that it has forced a retraction of works-team electronics to help keep in being the lesser teams
remember the slumps of such racing following 'golden ages' ie late 50s, the late 60s etc

anyway Ilmor found their rotary valve performance was emulated by the poppet valve version when its stroke was shortened
Last edited by Tommy Cookers on Sun May 21, 2017 10:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

Pinger
8
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 4:28 pm

Re: 2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

Post by Pinger » Sun May 21, 2017 10:51 am

Tommy Cookers wrote:
Sun May 21, 2017 10:25 am
VW hasn't broken any EU laws so the UK has nothing to suppress
Technically maybe not, but there is a not unreasonable expectation that the lab results would at least be replicated in road use (when driven in the same manner) and with the emission controls programmed to turn off once out of the lab, and city pollution at record levels - it can hardly be the case that there was nothing to suppress. Why else the cosy deal?
Tommy Cookers wrote:
Sun May 21, 2017 10:25 am
(though we could do with a bit of activity in the appropriate thread)
There is a thread on this topic? (Agreed, this thread isn't the appropriate one.

Tommy Cookers
369
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: 2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

Post by Tommy Cookers » Sun May 21, 2017 11:05 am

@ Pinger
under Automotive News and Technology (part of the Automotive section)
thread titled 'VW cheat emissions etc' currently on p2 of AN&T

and city air pollution in Europe is at record low levels - what has changed is that the NOx limit has been summarily halved
by old data from Canada showing worse outcomes due to air quality only by assuming poor people otherwise have the same outcomes as the rest


btw/note to self regarding .....
180 deg exhaust action - I see now that (60 years ago) a few Villiers twins eg Greeves & Panther used such 2-1 exhaust systems
'TPI equivalent' - 4 strokes eg Vanwall (and 1958-on road cars) used the Bosch timed PI version that is largely written out of 'internet history' except here
https://autouniversum.wordpress.com/201 ... injection/
similarly a timed system was the Lucas system that won thousands of races and was also widely used in road cars
http://www.lucasinjection.com/HISTORY.htm
Last edited by Tommy Cookers on Sun May 21, 2017 4:16 pm, edited 4 times in total.

FW17
188
User avatar
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:56 am

Re: 2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

Post by FW17 » Sun May 21, 2017 12:41 pm

Pinger wrote:
Sun May 21, 2017 9:22 am
Muniix wrote:
Sat May 20, 2017 11:02 pm


"The initial complaint charged that the two- and four-wheeled federations' decision to ban the use of Bishop Rotary Valves in engines in both championships violated Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), as it effectively locked BRV out of both sports in favour of technology in use by existing manufacturers."
That's it, right there, highlighted in bold.
This is what I keep banging on about re prejudice. Manufacturer's do not want to change from the technology they know and are making money from. The more money involved, the less interlopers are welcome. When an adaption to 4T is eschewed - what chance of 2T ever progressing?
This, dangerously, also feeds into what is happening across the western world. A feeling that major corporations make the rules to the exclusion of newcomers. An absolute insult to the concept of 'free markets'. It is protectionism of the worst kind. Sporting bodies such as the FIA and FIM should be above this.

............. Quashing new technology as in the case of BRV is sinful.

Is BRV banned at AOC too?

If not, and VW and Toyota stick to the known tech, why is it that AER, Cosworth, Zytek, Ricardo or Judd have not tried to race the superior tech at the 24 hr?

BRV probably is a dead end.



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AMG.Tzan, CCBot [Bot], Frank_, Mattdk, ringo and 15 guests