Author | Topic |
Location: Sydney
Registered: August 2004
|
Any engine builders / machinest out there heard of a Bourke Engine or a Very Lean Burn Engine?
|
Sun, 11 September 2005 19:53
|
|
Any engine builders / machinest out there heard of a Bourke Engine or a Very Lean Burn Engine? Have anyone here tried building one?
- its design claims to be able to run on any type of fuel
- it's a very lean burning engine (ie. using very low amount of fuel)
- claimed to have a way better power to weight ratio
- low amount of moving parts to reduce or completely remove the need for maintence, while decreasing the amount of heat generated, less load on cooling, greatly increasing efficiency
- almost no need to change oil!
- designed to run on lean fuel (or even detonation) as the piston are designed to be completely straight and no side movements as in the 4 stroke engine, thus completely immune to damages by detonation
- burns fuel completely and no pollution
- up to 20,000rpm???
main thing to note is the low operating temperture, and low pollution, and the low fuel consumption...
sounds too good to be true? I don't know, but the design seems simple enough to be built, and I think any engine builder + a machine place should be able to built an experimental one cheaply and prove if the theory is true (fuel efficiency + power), and if it is true, build a bigger copy for drag and circuit racing and blow everyone away?
Thus the question, have anyone heard of it? Have anyone here tried it?
[Updated on: Sun, 11 September 2005 19:58]
|
|
|
Location: Canberra
Registered: February 2004
|
|
|
Location: Sydney
Registered: August 2004
|
Re: Any engine builders / machinest out there heard of a Bourke Engine or a Very Lean Burn Engine?
|
Mon, 12 September 2005 05:52
|
|
yeah I know that homepage, but I don't have the skills or the equipment to build it...
|
|
|
Location: Brisbane
Registered: May 2002
|
Re: Any engine builders / machinest out there heard of a Bourke Engine or a Very Lean Burn Engine?
|
Mon, 12 September 2005 11:23
|
|
As far as I can tell from that badly put together web site, it's just a conventional 4-stroke engine with a scotch yoke instead of the more common crankshaft and connecting rod. This does have certain advantages but I fail to see how it can do all of those wonderful things listed above.
Quote: | the piston are designed to be completely straight and no side movements as in the 4 stroke engine, thus completely immune to damages by detonation
|
Sounds great, but what does piston side loading have to do with detonation? Hmmm let me see - nothing. It's the usual pseudo-science BS you see all over the internet.
|
|
|
Location: Sydney
Registered: August 2004
|
Re: Any engine builders / machinest out there heard of a Bourke Engine or a Very Lean Burn Engine?
|
Mon, 12 September 2005 11:51
|
|
Norbie wrote on Mon, 12 September 2005 21:23 | As far as I can tell from that badly put together web site, it's just a conventional 4-stroke engine with a scotch yoke instead of the more common crankshaft and connecting rod. This does have certain advantages but I fail to see how it can do all of those wonderful things listed above.
Quote: | the piston are designed to be completely straight and no side movements as in the 4 stroke engine, thus completely immune to damages by detonation
|
Sounds great, but what does piston side loading have to do with detonation? Hmmm let me see - nothing. It's the usual pseudo-science BS you see all over the internet.
|
the website is actually put together by one of many many people experimenting the concept, and is no representation of the Bourke engine, although at least the guy stayed with the name "Bourke" whereas so many other people invented their own name and gave no credit to the original inventor (Bourke) and pretended they've invented the engine!
This engine was actually designed in the early 1920s, and at that time it produced 50hp from 50cubic inches (about 460cc I think) which is something a 4 stroke engine can only dream about at that moment in time...
the movements behind the piston are straight, whereas the 4 stroke have a circular motion behind the piston (connecting rods), which if a detonation occur, would destroy the piston because the combined force of the side movement and vertical movements, (will put a hole through the piston at the right timing where the connecting rod is), but if the mechanical movement behind the piston is straight, all that happens if the detonation occured at the wrong timing, would be a slight lost of efficiency and/or rough running in that instance of time, therefore the engine can afford to run very very lean, together with the low parts count and low running temp., will give an incredible fuel consumption.
I'm not sure what's more BS, you or the internet, but if you're not interested, just stay in your little world and dismiss everything that you wasn't "taught" as BS, there were many great experiments and inventions all documented on patents documents and newspaper, but all I was interested in is, if anyone here heard of it or tried building one from toymods, as I can't imagine it being an expensive project, there are many people in the world out there that have tried building it, some with great sucess, if you never heard of it Norbie, then certainly I don't care about what YOU think, and I don't want to know about your whinging either...
[Updated on: Mon, 12 September 2005 12:03]
|
|
|
Location: Brisbane
Registered: February 2003
|
Re: Any engine builders / machinest out there heard of a Bourke Engine or a Very Lean Burn Engine?
|
Mon, 12 September 2005 12:53
|
|
lets have a look at some of the bullshit on the site...
"0% harmful exhaust emissions." - as if!! it's combusting (or detonating if you run it lean) a complex hydrocarbon-based fuel - it will have all manner of combustion byproducts like a normal car engine - and if it can run lean, then probably a lot more nasty stuff that your average CAT would normally have to clean up.
"High HP To Weight Ratio." - why does it keep drawing attention to this when it power-output is more likely to be related to fuel consumption and engine capacity?
"No Oil Changes Needed." - sure? you think that scotch yoke is going to keep that huge center pin rotating with old oil? not a chance.
Nearly every page of the site directs you to an i8-hosted site that harvests email addresses.
Another purpose of the site appears to be to get you to purchase eBooks about the 'inventor' and his scotch yoke engine.
Why are you concentrating on the 'can run really lean and can cope with detonation' story? piston deck destruction has very little to do with the mechanics of the conrod - it's to do with the failed combustion event. The piston and/or head metal fails because it's tried to contain an explosion but has failed. Unless the engine uses diesel-engine pistons then it's not going to cope with super-hot lean combustion that regularly detonates.
How about you - 86TT - stay in your little world where every conspiracy theory about oil companies and engine manufacturers hiding wonderful inventions - perhaps you'll find enough time to learn how to cast and machine alloys, machine hard-steel and build your own little 50hp stationary engine?
Have you considered that norbie might actually know what he's talking about? or is everything on the internet the unassailable truth?
And seriously? who here would build their own engine from raw materials?
|
|
|
Location: Adelaide, SA
Registered: May 2002
|
Re: Any engine builders / machinest out there heard of a Bourke Engine or a Very Lean Burn Engine?
|
Mon, 12 September 2005 12:59
|
|
I want to build my next engine from scotch tape and post-it notes.
|
|
|
Location: Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Japan
Registered: January 2003
|
Re: Any engine builders / machinest out there heard of a Bourke Engine or a Very Lean Burn Engine?
|
Mon, 12 September 2005 13:59
|
|
actually, this site is a much better idea
is an aussie invention, they have excellent prototypes running etc etc...
http://www.revetec.com/website/
i met the inventor guy at one of the sydney motorshows....
with some decent R&D, they could be on to a good thing (and you don't have to PAY to se the videos on THIS site )
Cya, Stewart
|
|
|
Location: Montrose, VIC
Registered: May 2002
|
Re: Any engine builders / machinest out there heard of a Bourke Engine or a Very Lean Burn Engine?
|
Mon, 12 September 2005 14:01
|
|
Play nicely kiddies - offer facts, rather than redneckisms. Unless Bubbles comes along, of course
Say we use petrol as a fuel, and say it offers 34MJ/litre energy. This equates very roughly to 9.4 KWh per litre of fuel of energy potential. If we have an engine producing, say, 200Kw, then it has to use at least 21.2 litres every hour of fuel.
...oh, did I mention that would only happen if said engine was 100% efficient, i.e. 100% of the energy in the fuel came straight out the crankshaft. Said engine would have to have ambient exhaust gas temperature, would need no cooling system, and would generate no external heat. It would also have zero friction, vibration, etc.
Now think about the realistic BSFC of a 200Kw engine. And keep all this in mind when you look at 'amazing!' engines.
|
|
|
Location: Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Japan
Registered: January 2003
|
Re: Any engine builders / machinest out there heard of a Bourke Engine or a Very Lean Burn Engine?
|
Mon, 12 September 2005 14:37
|
|
Quote: | BOURKE ENGINE COM
Special Revamp Ebook Bundle!
Save big for a limited time on our best selling ebooks! Jam packed with over 200 pages of information, pictures and diagrams, blueprints and more!
You can purchase The Bourke Engine Documentary And The Bourke 30 Cubic Inch Blueprint Set
For Only $24.95!
Receive two more information packed Ebooks absolutely FREE with your purchase!
|
Quote: | High pressure pre-charge from underneath piston to
combustion chamber during transfer cycle.
|
like a two stroke?? just like bikes and model planes and and...
Quote: | Cylinders sealed off from crankcase
|
by??? pistons has to connect to the moving parts in the crank case somehow... does it seal better than the piston rings?
in fact, if it wasn't sealed, they could only use a single piston setup...
do they ever mention the pumping losses of having to compress the mixture twice?
Quote: | Fuel Air Ratio: 30:1 to 50:1
|
ooh.. so they are using stratified charge techniques with direct injection?
Quote: | No Emission Control Devices Needed.
|
acording to who?
this is a funny read about the bourke engine no idea if it'S legit or not
http://www.niquette.com/books/sophmag/bourke.htm
and did anyone mention that increased inertia of the lump of metal connecting the two pistons...
|
|
|
Location: Brisbane / Gold Coast
Registered: May 2002
|
|
|
Location: Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Japan
Registered: January 2003
|
Re: Any engine builders / machinest out there heard of a Bourke Engine or a Very Lean Burn Engine?
|
Mon, 12 September 2005 16:51
|
|
hmmm, inneresting...
i like it when ppl ACTUALLY do a thermodynamic analysis.. at least they then have a basis to work from..
as opposed to the bourke engine where the guy said it did stuff.... isn't that how mormons came around?? (maybe i was too influenced by that south park episode)
anyway..
for those that don't follow links
Quote: | The unmuffled clatter of The Bourke Engine would demolish your hearing. Good thing I took Homer's advice about the cotton. I can feel the detonations against my chest. Smoke swirls around the test-stand and stings my nostrils.
A canister of gasoline dangles overhead like an oversized I/V bottle.
Quote: | Reality is two. Two-point-zero, to be precise. When it comes to "specific horsepower," that's it. Two-point-zero is about the limit for any engine: Two-point-zero horsepower for every pound of fuel consumed in an hour.
Doesn't matter about size. Big engines, little engines. That 18-wheel truck passing you on the expressway: two-point-zero. Your lawn mower: the same. Airplanes in the sky, ships at sea -- two horsepower for every pound-per-hour. Not much more than that, anyway. Specific horsepower has a limit: two-point-zero.
|
Ed, the youngest member of the team, is well into his sixties. He taps the spark advance just so. The engine rattles its mounts, half a hundred horses inside, oil-soaked and stomping at the gate, shirking their bridles. I can feel their hot breath. So can Luke. His job is the cooling system, a maze of leaky hoses. Once ruddy and freckled, now beyond senior years, "Cool Hand Luke" toggles his petcock and grins at me. We already laughed about that. Rusty water dribbles onto the concrete floor.
Old Man Neilsen, the team leader, reclines in his director's chair in front of the dynamometer waiting for a signal from Ed. The fourth member of the team is Homer, a rough-hewn octogenarian with silver tufts for sideburns. He squats before the driveshaft, tachometer in hand.
Quote: | Take your car. It has an engine rated for, say, a hundred horsepower -- but only when you really put your foot into it. Imagine all those restless steeds heaving and rearing in their harnesses, all compressed inside a metal box the size of -- well, the size of an automobile engine. You keep them reined in mostly. Around town you throttle back to 25 miles per hour, the effort of only about a dozen metallic nags.
You have to feed each pair of horses a pound of fuel -- an armful of alfalfa -- six pounds total for a dozen horsepower. An hour later, they are ready to quit. To keep those 12 ponies pulling for another hour, you have to pump in six more pounds of fuel. That's the minimum wage of thermodynamics.
By the way, a gallon of gasoline happens to weigh six pounds. So your engine guzzles a gallon of gasoline per hour at 25 miles per hour. You're getting about 25 miles per gallon. Not bad. If anybody's car gets better mileage than that, it must be smaller and lighter: For the same speed, fewer horses to feed.
|
Taking unsteady aim with a screwdriver, Ed trims the butterfly valve. The change in mixture brings on a clamoring stampede, the steady pounding of mechanical hooves. Time for me to climb onto the footstool. The fuel level moves down the glass toward the first mark. I'm poised to punch my stopwatch.
This first experiment at partial throttle will take about a dozen minutes. Longer, we hope. The way I have it figured, 12 minutes to burn two quarts means a certifiable breakthrough -- an encyclopedic event!
Quote: | Nobody knows how to build an engine with a specific horsepower more than two-point-zero. More than two-point-zero would give new meaning to motorized efficiency.
Make that happen and you have beaten today's best engines with their extra valves and plugs and stratified charge. You have defeated Diesel and Otto and Wankel. Whatever you have there, patent the thing! Detroit is your oyster. And Tokyo and Munich. More than two-point-zero horsepower for every pound-per-hour of fuel consumed and you deserve the Medal of Freedom, the Nobel Prize. You will leave financial empires for your progeny.
The Bourke Engine operates at three-point-three.
|
Incessant vibrations tickled my ankles and knees. Within the engine, 50 horses were at full gallop. For several minutes I let my eyes take in the Bourke Engine and its dedicated research team.
Quote: | The agreement calls for me to make a careful audit of Homer's tachometer readings along with the engine load, which is being controlled by Old Man Neilsen's dynamometer. Both men were born about the turn of the century. Same for Cool Hand Luke. The three of them have been working on the Bourke Engine for half their lives. Call that determination.
The dynamometer is a steel bar clamped to a brake drum, water cooled. Handcrafted originally by Russell Bourke himself, the instrument was bolted to the floor alongside the test-stand. An industrial grade V-belt wrapped on pulleys delivers the horsepower from the engine's flywheel to the steaming drum on the dynamometer.
Old Man Neilsen, his head tilted for bifocalling, controls the load with a crescent wrench. He squints at a spring-scale attached to the bar exactly 34 inches off-axis, a measurement I confirmed with a yardstick before the start of the experiment. Knowing that particular distance is crucial, since it determines the torque.
The objective for Old Man Neilsen is to keep the force on the arm reading 30 pounds. That, together with Homer's 3,150 RPM, means 50.9 horsepower. I cannot help wondering how many hours of wrench-time this man has accumulated -- possibly years in that exact pose -- contemplating the tributes of a grateful nation and dreaming of those royalty checks, the monetary obligations of a grumpy industry.
|
Ed braces his knee against the test-stand and tweaks the mixture. His coveralls were once either blue or gray. Homer's tachometer, which looks much like an oversized pocketwatch, is pressed against the driveshaft. He is bowed over its face, sweat streaming from his own. The flywheel fans the smoky air inches beyond his knuckles.
Homer is wearing a lab coat. I wonder if that's for my benefit.
It was Homer who greeted me in Old Man Neilsen's driveway that Sunday morning in 1979. Remember 1979 and the embargo? The odd/even days? The "moral equivalent of war"? My consulting business was taken up with technical reviews of gas-saving gadgets and gizmos on behalf of investors being pursued by inventors. Due diligence, it's called. I found scams, mostly. And errors. I met plenty of dreamers.
Homer led me into what was once a garage. "Neighbors complain if we fire up the engine much before noon," said he. Homer gestured with his thumb. "Meet Ed."
"Hi, Ed." I took a quadrilled pad out of my briefcase and followed Homer along a row of machines: lathe, mill, precision grinder -- a toolmaker's dream shop.
"That old fogey is Cool Hand Luke over there with his water hoses. Come shake hands with this guy, Luke." A bald, bespectacled fellow greeted me with a smile." And here's the boss," continued Homer. "We call him Old Man Neilsen. Luke calls him something else."
"Only when I'm not around." Old Man Neilsen stood up from his director's chair, arms akimbo. He studied me warily through drugstore spectacles. A lifetime of calluses gripped my hand. The boss was ordinary in stature and paunch, unremarkable in every way -- except for his garments: golf cap worn backwards, dress shirt tucked into Bermuda shorts, dark socks and sandals. He exchanged glances with the others one by one.
Each nodded solemnly. I was OK.
Luke lifted a tarp. The Bourke Engine, too, was undistinguished -- from the outside. The machine quite plainly boasted four cylinders, horizontally opposed, the same size and form factor as a VW engine. Homer opened a notebook full of hand-ruled data sheets and a yellowing copy of the Bourke patent, which had expired a dozen years earlier. I cleared my throat.
"Mr. Neilsen, to what do you attribute the high efficiency?"
"Runs smooth," he shrugged. "Getting rid of vibration is the whole idea. That way you turn high RPMs, get more pick-up."
Homer explained that Bourke died in 1968, leaving the engine to his friend Neilsen, who promised to continue its development. He and his chums retired and moved with their wives to Nevada. The three of them all lived in the same neighborhood in North Las Vegas. They worked on the Bourke Engine during the week then ran horsepower experiments on Sundays.
"While our wives are in church," said Homer. "We needed a machinist that would work cheap. We found Ed here. This young fella was souping up drag boats on Lake Mead. Gave him a few beers and he rebuilt the combustion chambers."
"Ordinary connecting-rods are all wrong," Luke volunteered. He was the only member of the team who permitted his face to smile. "Rods flap back and forth, side-to-side." He pointed a greasy finger at Figure 1 in the patent. "The Scotch Yoke here gives you a nice even piston motion."
Homer raised his silvery eyebrows. "Sinusoidal," said he.
I put the notebook back on the bench. "You will excuse me for saying so, but whatever you do in the crankcase simply cannot have much effect on fuel economy."
Homer's jaw jutted. "You ain't seen the data!"
Old Man Neilsen, held up his hand. "I don't mind telling you, nobody was more surprised about getting three-point-three than Russell Bourke himself."
"But Mr. Neilsen," I said, "there are a lot of dreamers out there. Imagine how many of them show up on the doorstep of GM and Ford -- especially right now, with everyone talking about gas mileage. My recommendation of your technology is predicated on confirming the measurements."
"Data speaks for itself," said Homer.
Whether he knew it or not, Homer had proclaimed the most fundamental principle in science.
The fuel level is only an inch above the mark, two quarts down. Eleven minutes and running. Far as I can tell, everything is in order. Heat and haze, oily stench, bellowing chorus of combustion, screaming V-belt. Solemn, intense men, hoping.
If I live to be a hundred, I'll never forget the earnest expectations of this moment. Coming up on 12 minutes. Anything beyond that time will confirm the Bourke Engine's place in history: Three-point-three horsepower-per-goddam-pound-per-hour!
Now I see it. Something is wrong: The pulleys!
Quote: | Reality. There's nothing quite like it. For some of us, to catch a glimpse of reality is fulfillment. To measure, to analyze a real thing, to understand it -- why, that's all we ask of life. The more we encounter reality, though, the more barriers we bang up against. Makes you wonder sometimes: What's so all-fired great about reality, anyway!
Experimental error can produce an amazement if not a miracle. You can stumble into a place beyond reality and more: You have the data to prove it. The more subtle the fallacy, the more confounding the breakthrough -- the more vulgar the error.
|
"Shut it down!" I hollered.
My first reaction was to terminate the experiment, as if there were some kind of an emergency taking place instead of merely a reality attack.
Ed stopped his tweaking of the carburetor and cupped his hand behind his ear.
No doubt whatsoever: Experimental error has been caught. Reality prevails. I wanted to climb down from the footstool and explain. Homer freed one hand from his tachometer and waved insistently. He pointed at the fuel bottle. I glanced up and saw that the level had passed the bottom mark. I felt my thumb click the button on the stopwatch.
Ed closed the throttle. Old Man Neilsen released the brake. Suddenly silence. I removed the cotton from my ears.
Homer was first to speak. "What did you get?"
"Twelve minutes. However -- "
"Twelve minutes and what, for crying out loud!"
"A little over 24 seconds, but I gotta say something, here."
Luke beamed. "Best we ever done." He clapped Old Man Neilsen on the shoulder.
Ed tossed his screwdriver in the air and gave out a cheer. "Knuckle-yoke! That new shape slams them fuel charges real good."
Old Man Neilsen, face crimson, opened the refrigerator in the corner of the shop. He offered me the first beer.
Homer cocked his head toward me. "What you got to say now?"
I shook my head. "It's the pulleys."
Luke and Ed linked arms and danced a jig, kicking water on Homer's lab coat. Old Man Neilsen lifted his beer to salute the Bourke Engine. Homer popped a can-top. "Figured you'd see them pulleys."
"You know then!" I exclaimed, utterly astonished.
"Sure," said Homer, after taking a long swig. "Only makes our data better."
"How do you figure that?"
"The friction -- that's what you're worried about -- friction from the belt scrubbing those pulleys. Belt drag. Hell, that only means a little horsepower lost on the way from the engine to the dynamometer. We figured that out more'n twenty years ago, didn't we, Luke?"
Luke put down his beer. He was not smiling.
"No," I said. "That's not the problem. Look here, the pulley on the brake is bigger than the one on the engine."
"Horsepower don't care about pulleys," Homer snorted, holding up his tachometer. "Only RPMs."
Old Man Neilsen strolled to the workbench and flipped through the pages of a dilapidated shop manual. He handed it to me. A smudged page told how to calculate horsepower.
Quote: | As every freshman physics student knows, to calculate horsepower, you take torque in foot-pounds and multiply it by rotational speed in revolutions per minute and divide the result by 5,262.
But these measurements on the Bourke engine were flawed. Experimental error. A moment of pondering, however, and I might have kept the matter to myself. Sophistication can be kind. But no.
My ego and I, flushed with victory over error, indulged a primitive reflex: to disabuse these guys of their misconception. Dreams be damned.
|
Luke had backed up against the far wall, face ashen. He caught my eye and shook his head slowly. I watched him cross his lips with his index finger.
"The RPMs," I blurted, "have to be measured on the same shaft as the torque." I reached for the yardstick. Then, having finally caught Luke's drift, I drew back. Cool Hand Luke nodded his appreciation, but it was too late.
"Pulleys don't mean nothin'!" protested Homer. "Luke, tell 'im. This son of a bitch got no business coming in here mouthin' off about pulleys."
Luke made no reply.
Suddenly I didn't want to be right. It was for a time like this that the word 'shit' was invented. I studied the tops of my shoes.
Luke mopped his brow with a shop rag. His eyes were glistening. For a long minute, the only sound was the clicking of the Bourke Engine cooling down.
t was Ed who broke the silence this time. "He's right." Taking the yardstick in hand, Ed held it up to the pulley on the engine and marked the measurement with his thumb. He stepped over to the dynamometer. "See? This one is three times bigger."
Old Man Neilsen, face drawn, leafed absently through the notebook. "I was afraid this would happen."
"So we're not exactly getting three-point-three," Homer said. "Can't we just use a correction factor?"
"I was afraid this would happen," repeated Old Man Neilsen. "The horsepower isn't what we thought."
"Our data is off by one-third is all!" Homer protested. "Two-point-two, then. That's what we're gettin'. Nobody else ever did any better than two-point-zero!"
Ed checked the pulleys again. "The engine," he said, "is delivering only one-third as much as -- "
"Which means exactly what!"
"Homer, it means we're gettin' less than twenty horsepower."
Old Man Neilsen shook his head. "All those damned years! Why didn't we ever think about the pulleys?"
Cool Hand Luke folded his arms. I watched a grim smile tremble across his face. He knew about the pulleys -- for decades. For hundreds of Sundays, Cool Hand Luke showed up to monitor his gauges and toggle his petcock, to nourish old men's dreams. Greater love hath no man than this, that he should lay down his reality for his friends.
Charity work, Luke might have told himself. Not much good at golf anyway.
Homer took a shuddering breath. "Ed, that damned thing's running at only one-point-one!"
|
|
|
|
Location: Sydney
Registered: August 2004
|
Re: Any engine builders / machinest out there heard of a Bourke Engine or a Very Lean Burn Engine?
|
Tue, 13 September 2005 05:49
|
|
who really cares about what bullshit this and that eh? The thread was asking if anyone have heard and/or tried building one, someone with some time on their hands can machine a prototype with steel & aluminium etc. and if someone did it, and connect it up to a microtech or something, it will prove if the theory works or not, but it's just incredible the amount of idiots on this site, if you don't believe in it, then piss off, if you like experimenting and have the required machine and material, try building on for fun, as a hobby~ some people are just plain assholes eh?
thechuckster wrote on Mon, 12 September 2005 22:53 | lets have a look at some of the bullshit on the site...
"0% harmful exhaust emissions." - as if!! it's combusting (or detonating if you run it lean) a complex hydrocarbon-based fuel - it will have all manner of combustion byproducts like a normal car engine - and if it can run lean, then probably a lot more nasty stuff that your average CAT would normally have to clean up.
|
I wouldn't know the credibility, but if the exhaust temp. is lowered to what they claimed, then there's a good possibility many harmful gas will be prevented...
thechuckster | "High HP To Weight Ratio." - why does it keep drawing attention to this when it power-output is more likely to be related to fuel consumption and engine capacity?
|
wouldn't power to weight ratio be related to the amount of junk inside the engine and its efficiency??
thechuckster | "No Oil Changes Needed." - sure? you think that scotch yoke is going to keep that huge center pin rotating with old oil? not a chance.
|
if the operating temp. is low, and not many moving parts, I would suspect the oil life will be 4-10 times longer than any other 4 stroke engine
thechuckster | Nearly every page of the site directs you to an i8-hosted site that harvests email addresses.
|
maybe I direct your attention to the first post when I never even posted any web site address? And may I direct your attention again to my second post which mentions these websites are written by third party, this Bourke guy I assume is long dead because may I direct your attention to my second post again which mentions this engine was invented in the early 20s??
thechuckster | Another purpose of the site appears to be to get you to purchase eBooks about the 'inventor' and his scotch yoke engine.
|
that's the website's author's choice if he wants to make some quick bucks or do what ever with his time
thechuckster | Why are you concentrating on the 'can run really lean and can cope with detonation' story? piston deck destruction has very little to do with the mechanics of the conrod - it's to do with the failed combustion event. The piston and/or head metal fails because it's tried to contain an explosion but has failed. Unless the engine uses diesel-engine pistons then it's not going to cope with super-hot lean combustion that regularly detonates.
|
the reason why convention engine won't be able to contain the detonation is because the weakest link is at the connecting rods where it blows a hole, I'm sure metal can put up with those little explosions
thechuckster | How about you - 86TT - stay in your little world where every conspiracy theory about oil companies and engine manufacturers hiding wonderful inventions - perhaps you'll find enough time to learn how to cast and machine alloys, machine hard-steel and build your own little 50hp stationary engine?
Have you considered that norbie might actually know what he's talking about? or is everything on the internet the unassailable truth?
|
i'm not even here to debate if there's any sort of con theories, and not here to debate which knows what they're talking about, because everyone thinks they're the smartest person on earth don't they?
thechuckster | And seriously? who here would build their own engine from raw materials?
|
It won't be you for sure, but it doesn't mean no one else would, duh!
mrshin | Say we use petrol as a fuel, and say it offers 34MJ/litre energy. This equates very roughly to 9.4 KWh per litre of fuel of energy potential. If we have an engine producing, say, 200Kw, then it has to use at least 21.2 litres every hour of fuel.
|
What's this got to do with a 460cc engine producing 50hp in the early 1920s?? what's the current efficiency of today's engine? Why can't another efficient design that is completely different to the 4-stroke be 2-3 times more efficient?
|
|
|
Location: Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Japan
Registered: January 2003
|
Re: Any engine builders / machinest out there heard of a Bourke Engine or a Very Lean Burn Engine?
|
Tue, 13 September 2005 07:07
|
|
86tt wrote on Tue, 13 September 2005 15:49 | i'm not even here to debate if there's any sort of con theories, and not here to debate which knows what they're talking about, because everyone thinks they're the smartest person on earth don't they?
|
and i didn't even need to fix it
|
|
|
Location: Brisbane
Registered: May 2002
|
Re: Any engine builders / machinest out there heard of a Bourke Engine or a Very Lean Burn Engine?
|
Tue, 13 September 2005 07:28
|
|
Oh god, well where to start with you eh chump?!
Not only have you called a number of highly respected people on the forum idiots (or similar), some of which happen to be personally known to me (and I would like to think friends, norbie, thechuckster), but you won't listen to their advice!
86tt wrote on Tue, 13 September 2005 15:49 |
thechuckster | Why are you concentrating on the 'can run really lean and can cope with detonation' story? piston deck destruction has very little to do with the mechanics of the conrod - it's to do with the failed combustion event. The piston and/or head metal fails because it's tried to contain an explosion but has failed. Unless the engine uses diesel-engine pistons then it's not going to cope with super-hot lean combustion that regularly detonates.
|
the reason why convention engine won't be able to contain the detonation is because the weakest link is at the connecting rods where it blows a hole, I'm sure metal can put up with those little explosions
|
*sigh*....in an engine that has suffered large amounts of detonation it is the TOPS OF THE PISTONS that have holes in them, not the con rods.
86tt wrote on Tue, 13 September 2005 15:49 |
mrshin | Say we use petrol as a fuel, and say it offers 34MJ/litre energy. This equates very roughly to 9.4 KWh per litre of fuel of energy potential. If we have an engine producing, say, 200Kw, then it has to use at least 21.2 litres every hour of fuel.
|
What's this got to do with a 460cc engine producing 50hp in the early 1920s?? what's the current efficiency of today's engine? Why can't another efficient design that is completely different to the 4-stroke be 2-3 times more efficient?
|
Umm well it is simple physics mate, the three basic laws are...
*you cannot win
*you can't break even
*you always loose
Basically you want to get more energy out of the fuel than exists in it....and you wounder why we have trouble grasping how you expect to do this (the current laws of physics still standing ).
Umm if I could be arsed I would check to see what you have listed as your birth date (I suspect it may even be school holidays )..
Cheers
Wilbo
|
|
|
Location: Sydney
Registered: August 2004
|
|
|
Location: Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Japan
Registered: January 2003
|
Re: Any engine builders / machinest out there heard of a Bourke Engine or a Very Lean Burn Engine?
|
Wed, 14 September 2005 15:29
|
|
wow, that "[ignore all posts by this user]" button works really well
|
|
|
Location: Sydney
Registered: August 2004
|
Re: Any engine builders / machinest out there heard of a Bourke Engine or a Very Lean Burn Engine?
|
Wed, 14 September 2005 15:39
|
|
oldcorollas wrote on Thu, 15 September 2005 01:29 | wow, that "[ignore all posts by this user]" button works really well
|
did it really work? What caused you to reply then? It's really smart of you to use the [ignore all posts] button on a thread which I started, didn't know you liked looking at a screen of post that doesn't make sense, no wonder you're addicted into reading my messages!!!
|
|
|
Location: Brisbane
Registered: February 2003
|
Re: Any engine builders / machinest out there heard of a Bourke Engine or a Very Lean Burn Engine?
|
Wed, 14 September 2005 21:48
|
|
wow - stu, you're right - the thread is so much cleaner now
|
|
|
Current Time:
Thu Jan 2 06:49:07 UTC 2025 |
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.0067970752716064 seconds |