“I did not realize you were doing the order of 2T engines in the order more like a theoretician rather than an experimentalist (to borrow the Physics terms). I think if you are moving from your domain of expertise, and as you nicely explained it, in patenting an engine you write it up and patent it before ever really testing it practically, then I think those with flight experience (uniflo, autogyro, others on other forums I saw you on) would suggest that you prioritize actual progressive flight testing. It's easier for a flying craft to kill you than an engine on a bench. This seems like an uncontroversial point???”
Another reading of the above is:
The core ideas of the pattakon projects are so right / solid / correct, that the experiments / the testing just confirmed the theory.
For the PatVRA, for instance:
it was calculated theoretically the inertia torque using the pattakon balance program.
And the inertia (or idling) torque was so strong that it was a problem.
The invention solves this problem by preventing the inertia torque from passing to the transmission.
I didn’t know if the PatVRA or some similar idea was already proposed. According the Search Report of the UK Patent Office, it was not.
So, based exclusively on theory and calculations, the problem was analyzed and solved. Practically nothing (nothing at all) has been done to test the PatVRA.
Yet the solution is good because not only solves the problem, but it is also simple, strong, compact, cheap and easily applicable.
An engineer should be able to easily see it.
See the clever question of Gruntguru
; I had to put some numbers to show there is no problem.
Some engine experts find a different solution to the same problem: they sacrificed the even firing, they also added an external balance shaft, they also compromise with the tune exhaust (the invention and patent started by Kawasaki, the application was done several years later by Yamaha with their R1, the permanent winner for several years of the motoGP).
An engineer can compare the two solutions. Without making models.
The theory comes first, and only if the theory says so, parts have to be manufactured for tests.
THREE CYLINDER VUIBRATIONS
See how straightly Tommy Cookers
asked about the vibrations of the flat crank three cylinder as compared to the conventional three: “I want something more than feeling and similar nonsense”.
According your approach, someone expert should make a series of models to see, in practice, their vibrations.
Another approach is the theory:
My practical experience with three cylinder engines: a couple of decades ago I drove for some hours a rent OPEL car powered by a three cylinder engine.
The pattakon VVA’s were, initially, theoretical designs.
Later they were made proof of concept prototypes and confirmed on the road what the theory predicted. Everything worked better than expected (the following is a test run on the road of a 1600cc four cylinder Honda VTEC car modified to pattakon-VVA-roller) :
In the International Engine Expo of 2008, Stuttgart Germany, a guy (former world champion, as he said, and manufacturer of 2-stroke racing engines and motorcycles) was playing with this handmade poor-quality DVVA prototype:
as a boy plays with his new toy. He was happy because he saw the solution of the problem, he was miserable – at the same time – because despite he tried to find a similar solution for decades, he failed.
Almost the same mechanism of the PatVRA is used for the PatVVD:
a continuously variable valve duration system that competes the CVVD of Rover/Hyundai.
No working prototype has been done so far.
So, so far it is just “thin air”.
Yet I am sure it works.
You doubt? Let’s bet to make it more interesting.
LONG EXPERIENCED vs OUTSIDERS
For those having long experience in making something (engines? airplanes? helicopters? . . .) it is more difficult to “think out of the box”.
The “outsider” has the luxury to doubt about everything, has also the advantage of the “fresh look” (clear eye) on everything.
ASTRONAUT RECOVERY FROM VERTICAL DIVE, again
As for the astronaut and his control, it would be the beginning for the explanation of the Portable Flyer control.
When the astronaut uses only his tongue to control his flight, obviously
the control will be slow, yet it will be a full control; the astronaut can adjust his speed to be so slow that the corrections made with his tongue to be adequate, say to avoid an obstacle, or to land vertically, or to take off vertically, or . . .
Yet, it takes some “good will” to follow the reasoning and get the way the Portable Flyer is to be controlled.
In another post I will explain it by numbers for those who are interested to listen.