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.
uniflow
uniflow
36
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 9:41 am

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

Post

Only true if you have the finance to defend it or if you can slide it through without anyone noticing.
Case in point, this TPI that I developed back in 2012 / 13 , the very same one KTM has taken up, was heavily discussed with photos and video on TSM web site.
Last year KTM tried to belatedly patent TPI, lucky a good freind of mine discovered the application and notified me. By this time TM were about to start selling TPI themselves because they understood TPI could not be patented, through my previous work, 'prior knowlage'.
It took TM time and money to get the application tossed out with input from me.
Had this not happened the patent may well have been granted, increasing the cost to TM substantially. Not everything with patenting is cut and dried. One thing is for certain, a big sack of money is required no matter what happens.
This sort of crap happens all the time.
Here we are 2013 running the original Transfer Port Injection.

manolis
manolis
101
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 9:00 am

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

Post

Hello all.

Uniflow wrote:
“One issue I do have is I must be careful on what I disclose, manolis is watching and might run off and patent my ideas. Thats his end game after all, make money out of something he has secured via patent for himself. Thats life I guess.”


?
!!
???


It seems that once again, I have to "prove I am not an elephant".


From time to time it is received (from somewhere around the world) an e-mail starting like:
“High pattakon. I have a great idea / invention and I want to share it with you . . .”

The reply is always like:
  • “Please do file a patent application for your idea, and only then reveal it.
    Until then, do keep it secret.
    If you reveal your idea before applying for a patent, you get in double risk: on one hand someone may steal it from you, on the other hand the patent offices may refuse to grant a patent because the idea was revealed before the application for a patent (it does not matter, at all, who revealed it, you (the inventor) or someone else) . . . ”.
    Then the reply continuous proposing some “good” (i.e. cost efficient) patent offices and giving an estimation for the patenting cost (in time and money).


When an adult decent serious person accuses somebody, he presents evidence.

Does uniflow have any?

Thanks
Manolis Pattakos
Last edited by manolis on Mon Oct 26, 2020 5:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

Rodak
Rodak
28
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:02 am

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

Post

Pretty cool Uniflow, an actual test! It's amazing what computers have done done for engine run parameters. Please post more stuff.

I also guess that manolis is reading your posts.....

manolis
manolis
101
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 9:00 am

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

Post

Hello NathanE

You write:
  • “Ok so this will embarrassingly show how far away I am from the days when, 30 years ago I got a decent degree in aero engineering and now I can't even do high school maths! I'm going to try to remember how to work this out from first principles. I will probably be wrong in how I calculate this but it will give others something to correct.
    . . .

    This intuitively feels low, but I guess thinking in "reverse" about skydive terminal velocity of 120mph maybe not. I guess the airflow is not columnar- more toroidal and if only 50% of the radius of the rotors gives true downdraft then this would be out by a factor of 4 so we could be talking up to c300mph which is going to be uncomfortable.

    What have I got wrong?”



The lift force is linearly proportional to the “working” area, but increases with air speed squared.

For a given lift force, if you decrease the “working” radius to half, the “working” area decreases to 1/4, and the air velocity has to double to compensate it (2^2=4).

Thanks
Manolis Pattakos

manolis
manolis
101
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 9:00 am

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

Post

Hello all.

Ten highly unconventional 2-stoke engine designs:


OPRE engine
Pulling Rod / crosshead architecture (30% additional time for efficient combustion of the Diesel fuel, four-stroke-like lubrication, lightweight, compact, high revving):




PatOP engine
Pulling-rod / crosshead architecture (as the OPRE), but with a single crankshaft:




OPRE Tilting
Pulling Rod / crosshead architecture, spark ignition, with Tilting valves on the back-ends of the pistons:

Image


PatPortLess engine:
Pulling-rod architecture / poppet valve(s) on the piston crown:

Image


PatPOC engine:
For narrow multicylinder single-crankshaft opposed pistons engines.

Image


PatAT
Asymmetric transfer for cleaner 2-strokes; here a Cross-Radial turbo-charged Diesel for airplanes etc:

Image


PatATi
Asymmetric transfer and intake:




PatTwo
A 2-stroke running on Attkinson / Miller:

Image


PatMar
A marine (and not only) 2-stoke with true-4-stroke lubrication:

Image


PatATE
Highly asymmetrical transfer and exhaust with one only piston per cylinder:

Image

For more: https://www.pattakon.com


Do not hesitate to ask for anything.

Thanks
Manolis Pattakos

Rodak
Rodak
28
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:02 am

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

Post

Do not hesitate to ask for anything.
Okay, how about answering the numerous basic questions I've asked? You know which ones, like how is the 'pilot' suspended from the motor unit? Really, you answer nothing, but keep posting pictures. I suspect you won't answer this.

uniflow
uniflow
36
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 9:41 am

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

Post

Here is something real, not new, a loose copy of a RR Crecy, but crank case charged sleeve valve engine. I dont have facts and figures on this but it does run up and down thd road, under real load.
Last edited by uniflow on Mon Oct 26, 2020 7:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

uniflow
uniflow
36
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 9:41 am

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

Post

here a walk around.

uniflow
uniflow
36
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 9:41 am

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

Post

So I wasn't blocked just ignored.

nzjrs
nzjrs
93
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:21 am
Location: Austria

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

Post

So given that manolis is a patent it before test it kind of guy, and given that he has claimed that the PF is just the engine, one would assume he tries to patent the PF engine. But I guess he would also want to patent the PF wholesale, or a key part of it. From this I think he might try to patent the harness or way the pilot is attached to the PF too - it's the kind of thing I could imagine getting through the patent process with a couple of drawing and not require practical testing. I mean there really is nothing else to the PF than the engine, the harness and the belief that it is controllable and stable.

Could that be the reason he doesnt answer that simple and key question?

I also think the lack of any testing is manolis choice, as it would only slow down his patent aspirations. I guess that's why he doesn't see it as as necessary as we do.

Dr. Acula
Dr. Acula
49
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2018 12:23 pm

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

Post

nzjrs wrote:
Mon Oct 26, 2020 9:17 am
So given that manolis is a patent it before test it kind of guy, and given that he has claimed that the PF is just the engine, one would assume he tries to patent the PF engine. But I guess he would also want to patent the PF wholesale, or a key part of it. From this I think he might try to patent the harness or way the pilot is attached to the PF too - it's the kind of thing I could imagine getting through the patent process with a couple of drawing and not require practical testing. I mean there really is nothing else to the PF than the engine, the harness and the belief that it is controllable and stable.
You don't have to prove that a concept actually works, to patent it. You basically patent the idea. If the idea works or not has also a lot to do with its execution.
Also you have to know that a patent doesn't mean something will ever work. This is especially true with the US patent law, where you basically can patent every BS imaginable. In theory even a machine which produces unicorns while running on pixie dust. For instance, the "The government can control the weather" conspiracy theory came to be, because there are some US patents which discribes a machine which is supposedly able to do that. The patent though doesn't discribe on which effects or Scientific laws the machine is based on.

J.A.W.
J.A.W.
92
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 4:10 am
Location: Altair IV.

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

Post

Dr. Acula wrote:
Mon Oct 26, 2020 10:16 am
nzjrs wrote:
Mon Oct 26, 2020 9:17 am
So given that manolis is a patent it before test it kind of guy, and given that he has claimed that the PF is just the engine, one would assume he tries to patent the PF engine. But I guess he would also want to patent the PF wholesale, or a key part of it. From this I think he might try to patent the harness or way the pilot is attached to the PF too - it's the kind of thing I could imagine getting through the patent process with a couple of drawing and not require practical testing. I mean there really is nothing else to the PF than the engine, the harness and the belief that it is controllable and stable.
You don't have to prove that a concept actually works, to patent it. You basically patent the idea. If the idea works or not has also a lot to do with its execution.
Also you have to know that a patent doesn't mean something will ever work. This is especially true with the US patent law, where you basically can patent every BS imaginable. In theory even a machine which produces unicorns while running on pixie dust. For instance, the "The government can control the weather" conspiracy theory came to be, because there are some US patents which discribes a machine which is supposedly able to do that. The patent though doesn't discribe on which effects or Scientific laws the machine is based on.
Nah Dr. Acular, don't try & sell the mighty USA short, any realistic patents which trigger NSA
interest may either get a DARPA (or HAARP, in the case of 'weather control') subsidy for study,
or if glaringly useful, be 'classified' tout suite, & kept 'dark' for 'security' reasons - unless of course,
there are 'real big bucks' to be made by the private sector (per military-industrial complex) - obviously.
Dr Moreau sez..
"Who breaks the law... goes back to the House of Pain!"

nzjrs
nzjrs
93
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:21 am
Location: Austria

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

Post

Dr. Acula wrote:
Mon Oct 26, 2020 10:16 am
nzjrs wrote:
Mon Oct 26, 2020 9:17 am
So given that manolis is a patent it before test it kind of guy, and given that he has claimed that the PF is just the engine, one would assume he tries to patent the PF engine. But I guess he would also want to patent the PF wholesale, or a key part of it. From this I think he might try to patent the harness or way the pilot is attached to the PF too - it's the kind of thing I could imagine getting through the patent process with a couple of drawing and not require practical testing. I mean there really is nothing else to the PF than the engine, the harness and the belief that it is controllable and stable.
You don't have to prove that a concept actually works, to patent it. You basically patent the idea. If the idea works or not has also a lot to do with its execution.
Also you have to know that a patent doesn't mean something will ever work. This is especially true with the US patent law, where you basically can patent every BS imaginable. In theory even a machine which produces unicorns while running on pixie dust. For instance, the "The government can control the weather" conspiracy theory came to be, because there are some US patents which discribes a machine which is supposedly able to do that. The patent though doesn't discribe on which effects or Scientific laws the machine is based on.
Sadly yes. You are correct - don't even get me started on software patents! (closer to my 9-5 job these days).

gruntguru
gruntguru
465
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:43 am

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

Post

manolis wrote:
Mon Oct 26, 2020 5:35 am
Hello NathanE

You write:
  • “ . . . I guess the airflow is not columnar- more toroidal and if only 50% of the radius of the rotors gives true downdraft then this would be out by a factor of 4 so we could be talking up to c300mph which is going to be uncomfortable.

    What have I got wrong?”



The lift force is linearly proportional to the “working” area, but increases with air speed squared.

For a given lift force, if you decrease the “working” radius to half, the “working” area decreases to 1/4, and the air velocity has to double to compensate it (2^2=4).
Thanks
Manolis Pattakos
If the airflow is "toroidal" or "annular" the working area will be 3/4. The "hole" of lost flow in the middle is 1/4 of the area.
je suis charlie

manolis
manolis
101
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 9:00 am

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

Post

Thanks Gruntguru.

You write:
"If the airflow is "toroidal" or "annular" the working area will be 3/4. The "hole" of lost flow in the middle is 1/4 of the area."


Reducing the "working area" to 3/4 of the "disk area" of the propeller, the 72mph of the initial approach of NathanE for the velocity of the air "hitting" the pilot increases to 72/(3/4)^.5 = 83mph = 133Km/h

The NASA approach gives 160Km/h, not too different.

With the body parallel to downstream, the pilot will feel nice and enjoy the hovering.

Thanks
Manolis Pattakos