Why can't engines use two-way ports that open during intake and close during combustion?

[Thomasprice]

Why can't u make two way port opens when it sucks in air and fuel but closes when combustion happens eliminating 2 stroke and even 4 stroke design

 

[FactChecker]

You may want to expand on your idea. Exactly when would intake, compression, combustion, and exhaust happen in a single cycle?

 

[sophiecentaur]

A flat twin would do the job - see Citroen 2CV. But each half would need to be a two stroke. That would give you a power stroke every 180°.

 

[rootone]

Why can't u make two way port opens when it sucks in air and fuel but closes when combustion happens eliminating 2 stroke and even 4 stroke design

Jet engines do that.

 

[FactChecker]

Jet engines do that.

Good point. I guess that jet engines don't really have a cycle. The pulsejet (buzz bomb) engines do (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsejet ). Pulsejet engines were also tried in cars and a boat ( see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb#Power_plant )

 

[rootone]

Not great for personal transport ( like a car} though, messy for anyone else wanting to drive the same route.

 

[russ_watters]

Why can't u make two way port opens when it sucks in air and fuel but closes when combustion happens eliminating 2 stroke and even 4 stroke design

A one stroke engine would never return to where it started. The shaft would rotate 180 degrees and then stop. The strokes have to be multiples of 2.

In any case, your idea is too vague to critique further and as others said, you'll need to describe it in more detail.

 

[sophiecentaur]

A one stroke engine would never return to where it started.

Absolutely. The 'stroke number' refers to a reciprocating engine. A Wankel Engine, although it doesn't actually have a crank and reciprocating piston etc., still goes through four strokes on the way round. The two stroke engine still has the four functions of induction, compression, ignition and exhaust, and each 'stroke' involves two functions.

 

[rumborak]

Classic designs wouldn't work, but if you incorporated some kind of "flywheel" that gets accelerated on the downstroke and whose inertia would carry it through the upstroke, I don't see why that couldn't work at least theoretically. It would be like riding a bike but only ever pushing on one of the pedals, which obviously works as I've done it many times.

 

[russ_watters]

Classic designs wouldn't work, but if you incorporated some kind of "flywheel" that gets accelerated on the downstroke and whose inertia would carry it through the upstroke, I don't see why that couldn't work at least theoretically. It would be like riding a bike but only ever pushing on one of the pedals, which obviously works as I've done it many times.

That is how the classic designs work. I suspect the OP is confused about what happens and needs to happen during the strokes.

 

[FactChecker]

The fundamental phases that add a second stroke to the intake/exhaust cycle is the compression/burn cycle. If you omit those by squeezing them somewhere into one cycle, you almost certainly lose efficiency and increase pollution emissions.