Feliks, tons of questions grew in my head as I read your web page. The idea seems very good.
3.In my design no need ,so far not taken into account weight hydraulic or mechanic lifter.
(could you please explain, English not my mothertongue, too
4.Same no need long heads bolts, becouse no have head gasket.This only one monoblock.
(it could be a monoblock, but your prototype is not, right?) Do you think it would be difficult to cast that kind of block? What about inner ducts finishing?
What are the mechanical losses (friction) compared to common valvetrain?
How did you solve the lubrication in the "valve piston" rings on the windows? Is that the same solution like in 2 stroke engines?
What about valve train dynamic balance? Can you correct that with a conventional flyweel, did you use a damper or flyweel in the valve train? Have you got some armonics at some rpm band?
I have got more questions but I think it´s better to go step by step, otherway you will go nuts trying to answer. I would like to help in anything I could, please feel free to mail me.
Yes Belatti. Right.
I thing , so public answer and discus are better, because no any books about this engine, and many people need good information about it.Our discus are give other people new information.
Add 3. In this design, no hydraulic or mechanical lifters requirement in old popped valve. Their weight =0
Add4Yes , right. My prototype i was made with my little own funds, and decrease cost of execution of prototypes .I was background engine an made only head piston valve .Obvious it belonged to execute prototype as one monoblock, as there is lack under head possible it .Advantages ,this solutions are lack head gasket and long head bolts. IT very important advantages.
I think , so this coast no very difficult. In today technology CNC is no problem technological. But very difficult are made good all geometrical parameters new engine. Because another one ,need made new prototype of block.
Mechanical losses are little in my engine. Why. In popped are very big losses are made springs, too more than piston oil sliding .Design forces in popped timing are need made 10% power engine. Gross made springs.
But , when engine no work in full power , this losses are largest .I think so in popped possible 60% actual using little power.( If using power e.g. 30 % full power). Because is it constant consumption, independent actual using power. Made a show- how long road are made 2 stroke motorcycle, with out opened throttle, and how long road made same engine in motorcycle , but 4 stroke. This largest brake in 4 stroke its ONLY of timing .
Yes, its same problem 2 stroke.
Its is a very important prototype (first). Why ? Red arrows are looking possible oscillations chains. but this oscillation are absolutely absents
Math advantages - in Down chain , when going electrical starter, one side are without oscillating. When engine running this oscillating are in other side. It means that force with on bottom axis to down axis, vice versa as at traditional timing
I am afraid too ,so this oscillations maybe big. But prototype say :NO
In next prototype ,are only one timing crankshaft, and this oscillations absent too more.
And obvisous ,cluth need put in TIMING crankshaft.