Guess somebody's gonna post next that sleeve valves don't work either.......
BCjohnny wrote:Guess somebody's gonna post next that sleeve valves don't work either.......
Silverback wrote:SchmidtMotorWorks wrote:powered by pure hydrogen and oxegen derived from an on board water source
Sounds good but what power source will seperate the water in to H and O?
Nuke Power? In that case you could do without the conversion and just steam the water like powerplants do.
A bank of batteries that weighs a couple of hundred lbs and is charged by plugging it in in your garage and using electricity generated by a coal fired powerplant. Hey, it’s zero or at least low emissions as long as I don’t have to see it, right?
Why all the extra steps? If you want electric motors then just run them off of the batteries used for the electrolysis, and save yourself the weight of the water tank, electrolysis equipment, generating equipment… if you want to build a hydrogen powered zeplin then just leave the electrolysis setup at home and save all the weight and multiple energy conversions.
But do us all a favor, unless you run the electrolysis setup at home off of batteries charged by solar cells on your roof don’t try to sell it to us as the eco friendly solution. Oh, and don’t do it in my neighborhood unless you’re going to burry the whole setup in a bomb proof bunker far enough underground not to hit my house with the shrapnel when your setup blows up.
Darin Morgan wrote:BCjohnny wrote:Guess somebody's gonna post next that sleeve valves don't work either.......
The Napier Sabre Sleeve Valve engine was a bad ass design in WWII and they do work, but it is limited to a very low rpm range due to the kinetic energies associated with the mass of the cylinder sleeves and the friction power losses associated with the overall surface area of the sleeves themselves. A sleeve valve engine has ten times the surface area so frictional power losses skyrocket almost exponentially at higher and higher RPMs. Very cool and innovative design but not a high RPM power maker. High VE at low RPM (Torque), that is what they are good for. At an amazing 1.36hp/cid they where the most efficient engines of WWII. The Merlin and Allison engines made .98hp/cid
http://www.eagle.ca/~harry/aircraft/tem ... /index.htm
I personally like the P5 design for two valve and the pent roof four valve for over head cam engines. If I could do ANYTHING I wanted,,,,,,,,,, I would have to evaluate the situation and pick the best design to fit the needs of that situation. The engines intended purpose will be the ultimate deciding factor not how many valves or where you put the cams. For ultra high RPM ultimate power, four valve pent roof with dual over head cams with a rocker follower at 1.35 to 1.4 ratio would be the most efficient in my opinion. Pneumatic valve return system mandatory. A 500 cid engine could make about (estimating here based on HP/cid and rpm gain for peak TQ) 1550 to 1600 horsepower at 10800 to 11000rpm with a shift piont of 11500rpm. I can dream cant I? I don't think we could push the piston speeds much higher than that.
Windsor377 wrote:Darin Morgan wrote:BCjohnny wrote:
PS, do you mind if I ask what you see in the P5 that you don't see in the Splayed Valve?