pallidin said:
Curious pics to be sure.
Would be nice to see a working prototype, or, FIRST, to perhaps have this properly computer simulated for power/efficiency numbers.
In any event nice job!
Once to my great invention new4stroke did a working prototype. It was in the mid 80s With very competent people saw his work, only my professor with whom I did once my thesis, and three people from the institute .. The prototype cost me three years of work and little money.
Many times I tried to invite other people from foreign universities or companies. Unfortunately, no one expressed willingness to view how his work, although that certainly would be an unforgettable impression. So I see no point in performing other prototypes of my invention, because anything that does not serve, that when they occur. On the performance of these prototypes takes time and money. I gave them some day to have something to prove. But nobody wants me to testifying. so it seems to me that if I'll do it virtually, that is enough. If anyone will be interested in the truth, then you can make a prototype. The most important is really the idea and that was it. Well, sometimes it does not need to prove, for example, that water will flow in the direction of the Earth ...Also, pumping water up, the Egyptians have already been dealt, and problems are solved.
john.phillip said:
I might be wrong, but I could not find where Andrew stated his design was better or revolutionary. Although we all know this is not the usual way products are developed, I think he is very creative and might one day come up with something really useful, until then, at least inventing is a very good exercise to the mind.
Also we don't know him or his background. The way he dropped pictures in this thread might mean he is desperate for attention, maybe for a reason. But posting pretty pictures and asking technical questions is harmless.
Many thanks for keeping me in spirit, because this is not universally replaced ...
Indeed, there may not the most important figures, why this design has to be better than the traditional...
In large scale are better see advantages or disadvantages
Star engines were characterized biggest always force density.
Below picture of the star half rotate around 10 (40) with "cylinders". for the transparency of the picture one can see only 3 additional "cylinders" more than is at the animated film.
One can also see dimensions of the whole of the engine in the assumption that every cylinder has such dimensions for the picture half rotate with the set connecting rod of the Sulzer D= engine of 900 mm and stroke 2500 mm .
However 10 (40) "cylindrical" engine half rotate about the same working capacity in comparing to the Sulzer 10 engine cylindrical on the picture below .
Sulzer: 10 Cylinders 20 m long , 15 m hight , 1500 Ton weight
Half rotate star : 10(40) "Cylinders" 4,5 m diameter , 4,5 m long
about 70 ton weight.
And most importantly.. Since in the engine half rotate mass innertia are several times Sulzer smaller than in the engine, engine half rotate can work with the much greater rotation speed.
Sulzer : 102 RPM 60 000 KW
Half rotate 250 RPM 150 000 KW
In same intake work volume .
Same properties would be the size of the attachment to the steam engine steam about 50 bars.
Engine with easy water cooling all its pistons.
Without that leaks in driving and from deducing of water half rotate "piston" . Elastic hose only several degrees twisted.
And yet you must add that the engine will not require grinding of cylinders, because the seals are working only on the "piston"
For all the deformation of cylinders have much less importance and do not require as precise as the existing structures performances.
If we add that the engine can be operated completely without oil, but the Teflon seals, then we already have a full picture of where the advantages.
Best Regards Andrew
Still have a link showing the stages of formation of this engine, which may be interesting for some.
http://www.new4stroke.com/images/Possible%20mutation%20pivot.htm"
Talk in complete sentences please.
