Engineering TV

I like the balanced concept, the engineering seems simple but very interesting. Good luck with the tests.

I know a secret. I know how to achive firing at top-dead-center with the crank at what ever angle you choose to acheive 15 to 35% increase in efficiency and reduction of exhaust gas temperature eliminating Nitrogen products. The design allows a flat engine made of ceramics. A side benefit is the crank lubrication system is closed and isolated from combustion products.

Great site.  

I fear that the engine would be balanced in the horizontal plane but not in the vertical plane.  My company used a horizontal piston compressor but had to add a great deal of concrete to absorb the vertical forced, to balance the compressor.

After having thought out the design carefully, I think that they will have a problem with the fact that all of the intake ports are on one side, and the exhaust ports are on the other side. Conventional two strokes are as efficient in producing power as they are because the intake and the exhaust ports work together to induct a fresh charge and to evacuate the burned charge. I am very curious whether they have done any dynamic state flow tests to see how their port layout would work.

Best of luck

Paul K

We should put one in an M1 Abrams

Wow, now that is very fascinating indeed. Well done!

RT

This engine configuration has been developed and manufactured successfully in the past.  The Rootes Group fitted their TS3 engine into Commer and Karrier trucks in the late 50s and throughout the 60s.  Known as the Commer Knocker engine due to their unique sound.

Oh what new technology!...

Wait...

(Subaru "Boxer" engine)

Two-Stroke - it will never pass emissions.

no no no subaru is opposed but that's not the point, this has two pistons per cylinder. those long connecting rods are a little scary though.  if you want to see a scary engine with two pistons per clynder look up a deltic engine on youtube. this came out about eighty years ago, its a two stroke with three crankshafts.

en.wikipedia.org/.../Opposed_piston_engine

I don't understand what is new?

This isnt New. Opposed Cylinder 2 strokes were used back in the 40's and 50's on stationary power plants and trains except they used 2 cranks to get the opposed effect. maybe with new tech this idea can florish. i thing is isnt 40% effieceny normal on a diesel? 300hp with turbochargers isnt that impressive

Fairbanks & Morse developed an opposed piston engine in the 1940's. It is still being built today. These supercharged two strokes have powered locomotives and submarines and continue to provide primary ships propulsion.

The opposed cylinder arrangement is even older making this an amalgam of two rather ancient technologies. It may even be a stretch to call this particular design new or novel without research but the outboard connecting rod arrangement is rather intriguing if not a mechanical weak point as demonstrated.

Given a common crankshaft with vastly dissimilar rod lengths, it would be interesting to see the composite torque curve across the rpm range.

Alternatively, interested parties might wish to check out a cam driven four stroke deign by Revetec.

ps: look for the animation

www.revetec.com/gallery_render_031.htm

This is nothing like a Subaru boxer engine (or a Porsche/VW/BMW boxer engine) or the opposed piston engine design used in the 40s. This design uses a piston that performs half the travel and the "head" performing the other half of the travel, with the two meeting in the middle. It's not simply two pistons traveling in opposite directions.

Adam... yeah that's the OP part... now let's do the OC...

O_o

elegant

Post-war examples include the highly-successful Rootes TS3 used in Commer trucks 1953-1969, when Chrysler (who also had shares in Cummings) took over Rootes & killed it (this had one crankshaft and a rocker-linkage); also the more-fragile Napier Deltic engines (3 crankshafts) for marine and rail use. A petrol motor was the British "Dolphin Marine" 8 hp by Johnsons - this used 2 crankshafts with chain-drive. The WW2 Junkers diesel aero-engine used in the Ju86 long-range bomber and Bv138 patrol-seaplane had 6 cylinders, 12 pistons and two crankshafts in a vertical layout.

The Rootes scheme eliminated the need for gearing having to withstand engine-output loading; also it gave greatly reduced side-thrust on the pistons because the primary con-rods moved through only a very small deflection angle. The nickname "Knocker Commer' did not arise from mechanical sounds, it merely referred to the layout. But they were a noisy engine due to the rapid opening of ports, added to the music of the Wade Roots-type blower.

One of the goals in two stroke opposed piston designs was the asymmetric opening of inlet and exhaust ports and the better gas flow possible. To reduce the complexity of two crankshafts, Puch and some other motorcycle engine designs more or less bended the straight cylinder into a U and used two pistons + an Y shaped piston rod. In the end the gain was less than expected.  Rotary disc and membrane inlets allowed the same asymmetry with less complexity.

I do not see a fundamental difference in the stroke length with this design compared to double cranks. But the frequency per crank cycle is doubled in this case.

Where do the intake and exhaust go, if they are opposite, they have to be on the top and the bottom of the cylinder, since the external rods would block the flow on the sides. So part of the engine is horizontal, part is vertical. Would make a gasoline motor difficult to be efficient.

Also, the two "equal and opposite forces" on the crankshaft is really no different then an even cylinder car. Two are on a combustion stroke when two are on an intake stroke, two are "pulling" while two are being pushed... Whats the difference??

When is the big block version going to be in play. HaHa. Maybe it will make some hp, who cares,and what about the torque.Did they mention tq values at what rpms. Nitrous.Yea !!!!!!

Bow down in awe at the mighty Napier Deltic 18 cylinder

opposed piston diesel!

www.ptfnasty.com/.../ptfengcutaway.jpg

anybody have any info on "AENG" engines. I bought stock.

With the opposed cylinders, the vertical force is also balanced. It should be extremely smooth as reciprocating engines go.

Thanks for the Napier link. I always wondered how a Deltic worked.

start with a marine diesel - with that flat design their prayers will be answered!

The work to be rapidly marketed for generating savings of fuel, generating employment, conserving clean environment, etc.

Porsche engines are not technically "Boxer" engines... the firing sequence is different.

Nothing new here.  locamotives and some Coast Guard ships have been using engines like this sense the 1960's

Yes but they all used more than one Crankshaft....

I like this new design however, i dont think you could get enough horse power to be useful for a large size vehicle(cars, trucks, SUVs, ect..).  The design is amazing its well balanced and a simple design for its functions, but it is a two stroke which are great fro producing high RPM and not much torque.

Keep up the great work!   I look forward to seeing this engine being put to use!

Napier Deltic engines were installed on a minesweeper I went on sea trials with. Started by cartridge, index and fired like a gun VERY LOUD. very powerful. No on board repairs. Repairs by replacement only.

The external pistons of the OPOC engine do not touch the cylinder wall, only rings touch the cylinder.

This fact enables the cylinder being a little tapered/conical towards the combustion dead center CDC, thereby:

-nor the rings touch the ports and the port bridges any longer.

- the ring friction is reduced, rings seal only where necessary.

-the lubricant film needs not extend over the ports and

the bridges where, otherewise, will get burned

-the oil film on the bore has to serve only the rings.

-it seems that the uniflow/through-scavenging of the OPOC engine eliminates the gases flow problems  of this tepered/conical cylinder

Will such a compression-release cycle reduce the longevity of the rings?

Great!  I am waiting for the opoc medium for light aircraft applications.

Tucker's engine Patent #2184820 there is no development here. The DOD has  Tucker's engines from the 1930's.

Also Levi ,Lee Bowman built for DOD radial form back in 1918.

And Pittman before that, for mining drill in the 1890's to balance torque.

    I like the accent, it makes be feel like he is smart.

All that needs to be done is to bring back suppressed technologies and fund them with large backing.

By the way, DOD does not have emissions controls.

Is it just me or are the exhaust and intake ports both left open for a short period of time. I know direct injection doesn`t allow that, but when you see him turn the crank...you can see both ports open for a short time. I guess that makes it inefficient as unburnt fuel can espace through the exhaust port.

Im wrong actually

please, don't suggest that subaru invented ANYTHING.

Again nothing new.  the Doxford engines and the B&W engines has this exact same layout with one crankshaft and one set of pistons with short connecting rods and the opposed pistons with t long set of connecting rods.

WRONG Massey did this for trains, and placed in submarines

Currently we have the A1 Abrams tank which is electric drive (like a diesel train) but with a turbine engine to turn the generator. (same as super fast trains in Europe & Japan) I have high hopes for a large improvement in fuel cell size and efficiencies to eliminate the need for fossil fuel burning engines. (like the Hinda) This looks promising as an interim time frame driver for the generator. It would be under constant loan and using the higher rpm capability to turn a generator and provide a constant flow of electricity to the main electric drive motors. That offers great fuel efficiency.  It is simpler than a clutch & transmission drive.

Why dont we spend all the money we are spending on this to end wars and thereby remove the need for new tech engines to power tanks

I got my Master Degree in Internal combustion engines from the university of Romania in 1951.  In the Laboratory we had almost the same engine, taken from a German airplane.

Theoretically (Rankin Cycle) a two stroke engine is not as efficient as a four stroke.

The weight of such an engine would be prohibitive; see that the outer piston has two connecting rods.

The examples of people trying to resucitate old (and failed) designs is quite long.

I remember sketching an opposed piston engine in my 7th grade school notebook.  The whole powertrain would fit inside the track of a snowmobile.  Ahh memories.  

Mr_fluffi, you are an Obama supporter, aren't you?   Just an innocent question.

This engine is alot different, it solves alot of problems of normal 2 strokes.  First of all your tubo is going  to be more efficent , exhaust port open and charge air ports closed.  Next, you can pressurise the cyclinder with the intake charge. And most important,  Low amount of ring drag. To get the same amount of power with a 4 stroke, the amount of dead piston movement would be measure in feet..Detroit diesel stated that on their engine that just .5 inches longer stroke  would kill efficiency.

It may be able to be timed to let one set of con rods work at the point of ignition with more leverage than normal? as in the Scuderi S/C engine

See also the Burmeister and Wain marine diesel engine from the 1950's

it is good disign but not perfact.

I will build a engine , much better than opposed piston opposed cylinder (OPOC) engine .

The only weak point I see in this design is the intake and exhause ports adding to inefficiency of the 2-stroke engine.

Why not build a radial head for this engine to control flow or air/gas mixture and exhause flow and make it a 4-stroke rather than 2-stroke engine? just a thought!

Looks more like a doubled up version of the old Doxford marine engine without the crossheads than any of the the other comparisons.

Nothing new!

I'm no engineer. But If you can find a WWII issue of the U.S. Navy's "Blue Jackets Manual". You will find reference to opposed piston diesel engines.

If my memory is correct it was a 2 cycle diesel supercharged powerplant with two synchronized crankshafts.

To me this looks like a rather practical engine. I'm not entirely sure it would make a huge difference, but there is twice the piston surface, and it would push and pull on the crank at the same time, balancing the forces. More energy from combustion would be transfered into the mechanical components as opposed to the cylinder head.  Also, with two strokes you're not losing the extra energy it takes a 4-stroke to push out the fuel, and all the extra drag.

And for anyone who says 2-strokes don't have enough torque are wrong. A 2-stroke depending on how the fuel is controlled can be designed to have a lot of low end torque, a mild range throughout, or and insane top end. I see this a lot with 2 stroke atvs. You can buy a pipe for low end, mild power througout, or a racing pipe which screams at high RPMs. With two strokes it's all about controling the exhuast.  

As far as power comparision goes you can't compare a 50cc motor to a 500cc motor (generally speaking). Or for that fact a single cylinder to a v-8. And I didn't see anything where the bore was mentioned in this article.

I'd like to see it in action first though.