F1technical.net

ringo wrote: ↑

09 May 2018, 23:47

This crazy thread still lives?

Yes, but in a parallel universe of which most folk are unaware.

gruntguru wrote: ↑

10 May 2018, 06:37

Andrew, pumping loss and sliding friction are the only significant sources of mechanical loss in a piston engine. You should provide your calculation of friction losses as suggested by Mudflap - this would fix the communication problem that is preventing any chance of credibility for this thread.

You can count ? then count yourself ..., maybe then most people will believe you ...

Andrew

So let me understand:

You dismiss published technical papers that have been peer reviewed by highly qualified engineers.
You fail to produce any calculations to support your claim that skirt friction is higher than ring friction even though several members have demonstrated the opposite.
You propose a ridiculous experiment that does not involve piston rings at all arguing that somehow it will prove your point.

How do you think other users rate your credibility ?

By the way, such a precise 90 degree angle gear

with Sarrus element ..



Andrew

What's the point of that? Larger, heavier, weaker and more friction than a bevel gear.

PhillipM wrote: ↑

11 May 2018, 03:22

What's the point of that? ......

To get to know your professional opinion on this subject ...

Andrew

Unfortunately it doesn't do what a bevel gear will do.

gruntguru wrote: ↑

11 May 2018, 05:27

Unfortunately it doesn't do what a bevel gear will do.

So sometimes it's hard to understand silly cartoons ...




PLUS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crankshaft

Andrew

But I like my cartoons ... here is what the prototype apparently traveled over a million kilometers .. Well, but I would certainly do without 2/3 crankshaft and 4 connecting rods less ...





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commer_TS3

and here, in this photograph, it is perfectly visible that if you replace these connecting rods and the crankshaft for these 3 additional cylinders 9 Next 6 pistons), for which you can clearly see that the place is, and outside put one crank with two connecting rods, then the strong , pratically with the same dimensional parameters and the same could be more likely to have TWO TIMES more power ... If like comon rail to use, then surely and the plane would be suitable with such parameters ..
One idea was enough.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/31486821@ ... 8527/?rb=1

http://www.commer.co.nz/history

Well, if we were to convert the Rootes T4 version, then it would be 400 Hp with a good speed for the propeller.

Here in the movie you can hear that when they "defraud" it's almost like Formula 1 rolleyes
And it would be twice as good ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5xOA53 ... e=youtu.be





A small crankshaft at the front and an additional lever ... I would have put in a good turbocharger yet, but I would leave mechanical roots, too... :love:



Commer Feliks





Andrew

Yes and in this even 8 cylinder engine (8 x 2 piston), only one crank and one "real" connecting rod .. ..

Do you know how many reciprocating masses less?



Andrew

Here is the solution for a normal 4 stroke engine ... it can be 2 x 8 cylinders with heads ... And this roller is common to everyone, it can have diameters ... clutch shaft ... .




Andrew

Quote " Kelpiecross, on 19 May 2018 - 06:09, said:

Where is the crankshaft ? "/ Quote

I thought I was following my previous posts. it will be clear ..

ONE crank with ONE connecting rod is at the end of Felix Roller .. Such classic crankshaft no longer needs ...

Of course, the levers are not turning on Feliks Roller anymore, but they are connected with it permanently. The entire Felix Roller is burning and only at the end it drives the one Connecting rod.
Here is a similar rule that I have for the half rotate of the "multi-cylinder"




Andrew

Who is Kelpiecross?

Dunno.. mayhaps yet another figment of Felix's wacky ideation.. or even an actual - 'wacky' character?

gruntguru wrote: ↑

21 May 2018, 05:54

Who is Kelpiecross?

Apparently Geologist ...

Andrew