ICE's

[h20power]

Back,

When looking at any rociprecating engine it is not the fuel that actrually turns the crankshaft but the flywheel's abiltily to store recipercating motion that makes the crankshaft go round. Take off the flywheel and most likely you will snap the crankshaft in two.

When I hear someone that refuses to read or take the nessary classes so they can understand these things I hear the same old tired excuses. " Oh taking the needed class would take too long." That is the wrong answer to the question as time is not the issue but ones personal improvement is the issue. For after the time has passed the person that took the needed classes will have improved themselves and the person that refused to read and/or take the needed classes will be in the same place as if nothing ever happened to them, I call it stuck on stupid.

What is needed with all of this is a full understanding of chemistry, good physics and math skills. If you are lacking in any of these areas then please stop right now and take the needed classes to improve yourself, for time is not the issue but where you will be when that time comes around. Take a few engine concept classes, machine shop classes, strength & matireal classes, anything to improve your mind. This way everything becomes clear as you will understand why engines are built the way that they are.

One thing is clear though, the automotive industry doesn't want this technology, but why? Learn to first start off by following the money.
1. What happens if you invent something that cuts down the carbon build-up in an ICE buy 50% to the bottom line of the automotive industry's profits?
2. What about something that cuts carbon build-up by 100%?
Well, no carbon build up means the engine would loose the primary thing that causes them to breakdown. That would mean a big loss in maintenance revenues, some 35-60% of their bottom line. So now you know why hho adding and water for fuel technologies are not wanted by the automotive industries.

Now a lot of the people that rise up against me are ones that a suck in a perpetrio motion wheel of stupidity, in that they refuse to seek out self improvement so that they could start to understand the concepts found in this site. I have watched them fail time and time again only to repeat the same mistakes all over again. Then they give up only to return without ever improving themselves and make the same and even new mistakes all over again.
I ask people to strive for understanding but most refuse to leave their confort zones just ignore me. Anyway, engines have a lot of room for improvement, but you first have to fully understand them before you can make changes to them. The oval pistons is just one of many such improvements that could do the trick, look it up, and know it was band from racing due to the others where just so far behind that improvement.

h2opower.

[Stealth]

Aaron, H2O power, both are good reads. I have been exerimenting and building engines all my life. I have built and rebuilt almost all makes and models of engines from the 50's up to present. All have lots of room for improvement. I have achieved double MPG's on most all my vehicles. My 4 wheel drive Bronco II is now getting 40 plus MPG. Not bad for a 4 wheel drive,huh. No, what I am looking at is getting quadruple that mileage. Total fuel vaporization and utilization.Liquid gasoline will not burn, only the vapor from gasoline is ignitable. You can extenquish a match in pail of gasoline without igniting it. Gasoline and alcohol are refrigerants.They also have many additives to prevent vaporization. I have achieved over 50 MPG on a V8 thunderbird drivng 450 miles to the beach in 1990. I know how to achieve fuel mileage. I have been following the H2O threads with interest. I have all the Meyer patents to convert it.I have studied them extensively, but there are too many(deliberately?) info missing to replicate one. I hope you do. But we are governed to use petrol, until fossil fuels are deplinished. I am a CNC machinist, but right now don't have a machine shop set up.Good Luck. Stealth

[Stealth]

If it were not for the flywheel, an ICE would not pull an automobile out of it's tracks. ICE haven't much torque to begin with, eliminate the flywheel and you have killed an ICE. I have taken a Briggs and Stratton 5 HP engine, made a bigger flywheel, and smoked the competition when I used to race go carts.
In racing circles most call it cheating. In 1980, Ford motor company did an experiment to try utilizing a 4 cylinder engine to power school buses. They modified a 4 cylinder engine and added a flywheel 5 feet in diameter. It was made of fiberglass with weights on the perimeter. They reved it up and popped the clutch. It turned that school bus on it's side with the massive torque from the flywheel. They abandonded the idea, claiming it was too dangerous. The only reason todays vehicles get better fuel mileage than older ehicles is the fact that todays engines are pulling an overdrive and running on the torque side of the power curve,instead of the power side. Using less hp to drive down the highways. Where HP and torque cross is where most try to use. It may even involve using different sized tires to change RPM's to achieve best MPG.Good Luck.. Stealth

[everwiser]

Flywheels store energy and "smooth" out the torque/power fluctuations caused by the pulsed nature of the engine's firing cycle. They do not add to torque nor do they add to horsepower. They actually rob horsepower which is why race cars lighten them as much as possible. Think of how a motorcycle moves down the road. It revs high and gets there fast because there's no heavy flywheel to slow it down and it decelerates quickly because there's no stored momentum trying to keep the engine turning at speed. If all you're building is a highway gas mileage queen then a heavy flywheel is the way to go but if you try to drive it through city traffic it will waste your fuel because you have to get it turning and then immediately burn up its momentum in the cars brakes to slow it down for the next light. It's a compromise.

Something to think about with Smokey's mods is that they were concerned with overall power but the reason is so that cars could be fitted with much smaller engines. They built a 1 liter engine that had the power of a 2 liter and got 60-70 mpg. This was with carburetors and no electronic controls! Take the same concepts and apply modern fuel injectors, sensors, engine management systems, and a non-racing driving style and you'll probably see well over 100 mpg without breaking a sweat and have a car that will go down the road with the same conveniences as what we do today. Efficiency estimates had the hot vapor engine somewhere around 70%.

This is by no means the only show in town but it is worthy of consideration. What if this was applied to the little 1 liter three cylinders that came in some of the GEO Metros from the 90's? It would increase its mileage while actually making the car safe to merge onto the interstate in. This is all via proper mixing and vaporization. I know the Pogue claimed 200 mpg but all of the reports I've ever found said that its driveability was atrocious. This wasn't an issue with Smokey's car except during warm up which will be the case with any engine requiring the fuel to be vaporized via exhaust gases.

[h20power]

I agree in that the flywheel won't add power but if the math is done right it will optimize the engines performance. My point was without the flywheel the engine will not run for it needs the energy storage to work. The gains in torque and losses in aceleration has to always be taken into concideration.

But my other point about people wanting argue with people but nowingly not have the required smarts having been their own choice is just not a good idea. And it these people that mess up anyones real research with bogus information they themselves have no idea about. They call you names and just attack the person. HMS-776 is a good example of someone that strives to imrove himself as he right now taking some classes on circuits to improve his mind. Yet others have told me they need more chemistry but in over two years time have done nothing to improve their situation. And they are the ones telling me I don't know what I am doing.

Like Stealth, I too have rebuilt countless engines, engines with turbos, blowers, turbos over blowers, and more. Right now I need to take a circuits class to impove myself but during the time when the other person did nothing with their time I went and took more classes in physics. I like energy content calculations as they show the real power one can expect with the reactions, but people seem to go out of their way to not give energy content calculations of the work they are basing their theories on. But those same people just brush my energy calculations off to the side as if they don't mean anything. That is what type of ignorance I find myself running into over and over again.

Someone close by has made this new type of engine that is very small but has the power of an engine more than 5 or 10 times it's weight. But again the automotive industry once again shows zero interest. Just like the video, "Run from the Cure" the industry wants now part of improving themselves. I've seen flat fours and sixes made in such a way that most of the friction was taken out by design, but the industry is just not interested. So the best we can do is make something in a spare time and hope the automotive industry fails so new ideas can get out. The water for fuel project has also been planned for in that most newer cars will not accept the technology without a system made to fully by-pass the whole system. For most don't even have destributers now days and trying to get a hold of the cable and reprograming software is next to impossible. The recent call to get rid of the older cars that would except the technology is suspicous to say the least. In any case if I have a say in all of this, this will be the year Meyer technologies makes it out to the world.


h2opower.

[sucahyo]

Thanks for the video link. Smokey was into race cars and as such was as much interested in horsepower as fuel economy. Pogue was more involved with fuel economy. While Smokey's 51 MPG was good, Pogue's 200 MPG was better. But it has been proven that a V8 engine is capabale of getting over 400 MPG. This is what I am looking in to

It isn't always more horsepower and less fuel economy isn't it? Many hydroxy booster, GEET add on (not replacement) get more mileage AND more power at the same time.

[Stealth]

I think there are many ways to boost the mileage on our vehicles. The problem these days is that computers control all functions of the air fuel ratio and keeps it at 14.7-1 ratio.It is hard to make the oxygen sensor lie to the computer to make it adjust this ratio.I think this is one reason Meyer's used an older vw engine, without computer control. Also he used a light weight body, so he woudn't need much HP. Another plus is that the VW engine is aluminum, which also would work good with a water vapor engine. I think a water vapor engine would work great using it as a stationary generator for home use. Also it would work good for a lawnmower or motorcycle engine application. But with the DOT laws the way they are, if you live in a state with a yearly state inspection, they would not allow you to run this on the road. The inspection was started to insure that no modifications were done to the engines.You can't change the intake, exhaust, or remove any pollution equipment(smog pump,EGR valve,catalytic converter,oxygen sensor).They are always one step ahead.We are forced to use petrol. But we can boost our economy. Good Luck.. Stealth

[Stealth]

I was in the Bourke engine site as an insider for a while, and still recieve their newsletter monthly. It seems they want $100 for capitol. each time a newsletter comes out. In the 1960's AMC decided to build the Bourke engines
and put them in their autos to keep from going under. They built several engines as prototypes. Their enginerrs tried to make them run like the Otto cycle engines and were unsuccessful. When they abandoned the idea, asmall group bought the engines and have been trying to resurrect them ever since. I still like the design but lacking capitol, it will be hard to bring these engines up to par. They are in the same boat as many other researchers and experimenter groups working on pet projects. They keep promising a breakthrough every year, but have yet to make it. I have been involved in several groups who claimed a revolutionary breakthrough of one kind or another, which never happened. I built and tested a Meyer's WFC about 10 years ago and tested it. It worked,but I could not get enough to run my engine. Sometimes things work, but not well enough to use full time or everyday. Good Luck.. Stealth

[Aaron]

Bourke Engine

It seems there are several groups that have their Bourke engine projects.
Some just sell blueprints, etc...

At least it is a proven engine when run as intended and I'm sure there is no
patent protection anymore. It would definitely take a lot to get them into
production. That is interesting that AMC had put them in some cars. I see
the reference on one of the sites 15:1 air:fuel is what they tried to run it
on.

When I first learned about it, I thought it was the perfect engine for water.
High compression, high efficiency, etc...

I'd like to see a Bob Teal motor run with the Bourke geometry.

[Stealth]

ICE's

I don't think AMC ever put one into any of their automobiles. I think they scrapped the idea before actually doing it. The patents are expired, I'm sure.
The Bourke design is unique in that it can run on a lower fuel to air ratio, and still produce lots of power. I do think maybe one day some group will
resurrect that engine from obscurity. I had correspondence with an individual last year who wanted help sitting up an engine to generate power for his house. He was using a large inline 6 cylinder engine of 80's vintage, He had completely rebuilt it back to factory specs. I gave him some ideas and helped him as best I could,since we lived in different states. With my knowledge and his combined, he was able to run a 20KW generator with that engine. The last I heard from him, he was burning a tablespoon of gasoline every 15-18 minutes. It was a stationary engine housed in a garage outside and powered his house and garage. It ran at an idle of 1200 RPM steady rate to pull the generator. Once he had it finished, he changed his EMail address and I lost contact with him.Oh well. Good Luck. Stealth

[everwiser]

I think there are many ways to boost the mileage on our vehicles. The problem these days is that computers control all functions of the air fuel ratio and keeps it at 14.7-1 ratio.It is hard to make the oxygen sensor lie to the computer to make it adjust this ratio.I think this is one reason Meyer's used an older vw engine, without computer control. Also he used a light weight body, so he woudn't need much HP. Another plus is that the VW engine is aluminum, which also would work good with a water vapor engine. I think a water vapor engine would work great using it as a stationary generator for home use. Also it would work good for a lawnmower or motorcycle engine application. But with the DOT laws the way they are, if you live in a state with a yearly state inspection, they would not allow you to run this on the road. The inspection was started to insure that no modifications were done to the engines.You can't change the intake, exhaust, or remove any pollution equipment(smog pump,EGR valve,catalytic converter,oxygen sensor).They are always one step ahead.We are forced to use petrol. But we can boost our economy. Good Luck.. Stealth

Stoichiometric for gasoline is 14.7:1. It is the ideal ratio of air to fuel so that the available fuel is completely consumed. The computer trying to keep the ratio to this is the right thing to do. The problem is with the fuel. Only a portion of the fuel injected actually vaporizes due to the cool intake air, lack of manifold heating, and fuel additives that prevent easy vaporization. This creates a situation whereby the computer has to inject excess fuel to get enough of the fuel vaporized to burn at stoichiometric. The catalytic converter is there to "convert" the unburned fuel to less volatile compounds before exiting the exhaust pipe. If you've ever monitored your gas mileage on your computer-controlled fuel-injected car you know that your mileage is better during the heat of summer than it is in the winter and this IMO is due to the better vaporization taking place in your much hotter engine bay. Computer controls are the best way to take control of your process and to eke out the most gains. We just need to make sure that we are introducing vapor; not liquid.

You can run your engine on leaner mixtures but you shouldn't be doing it when the engine is under increased load (passing, climbing a hill, towing, etc) as this can lead to engine destroying knock and exceptionally high exhaust temps which will eventually fry your exhaust valves.

[Matthew Jones]

But with the DOT laws the way they are, if you live in a state with a yearly state inspection, they would not allow you to run this on the road. The inspection was started to insure that no modifications were done to the engines.You can't change the intake, exhaust, or remove any pollution equipment(smog pump,EGR valve,catalytic converter,oxygen sensor).They are always one step ahead.We are forced to use petrol. But we can boost our economy. Good Luck.. Stealth

All states have a waiver, as far as I have read. You have to usually pay for independent test results of the pollution content and have the results certified as below factory output by some kind of enviromental authority
.
But bureaucracy is the mother of all frustration, I wouldn't expect it to be easy, but it is possible to waive an auto from an emission test.

You are also allowed by law to build a car and have VIN placed on it. This would require the proper safety equipment and reinforcement and would again have to be certified for its emissions. The car can consist of parts from other cars. This I have seen done first hand.

Matt

[Stealth]

The Bob Teal motor with Bourke geometry is interesting. Combining two different designs to accomplish one technological breakthrough. I can see where there would be promise in that combination. Radical engine designs is what we are discussing here, and that sure certifies as one. There are many such combinations to be explored. It only takes time and a little imagination to realize what may be possible. Sometimes we need to go back to square one and question everything along the way. In our attempt to build the perfect ICE, we may have strayed from the path and taken one of lesser resistance. It would require thinking outside the box to realize a fresh new approach to things we hadn't noticed along the way. In focusing on a certain aspect of working machinery, we may be overlooking the most important part.
We have been programed to think a certain way, not to question whether there is a better way, to accept these things as fact. Maybe I'm just a dreamer, but I happen to think there is a better way. Maybe the states laws on pollution controls have been modified.Good Luck. Stealth

[Aaron]

Bob Teal Scottish Yoke

I won't go toooooo off topic lol, but when I saw the solenoid design of
Bob Teal, I drew this based on learning about the Scottish Yoke from the
Bourke Engine:

[Stealth]

ICE's

Aaron, looks good. I think there is good potential in building an engine using this geometry. Now, if I only had the time to build it. Theoretically, it has a much greater potential than an Otto ICE. It would take some blueprinting to get all the components correctly engineered, but it could prove to be a winner, as far a operating efficiency goes. In 1968 Ford motor company announced that they had designed and tested a 430CI engine tha ran on a 26-1 air-fuel ratio. They claimed it ran very efficiently and that they were going to install this engine into their 1985 model cars and trucks. Another suppressed invention that was shelved, I guess. By going public with these claims, it is easy to understand that we don't have to live with a 14.7-1 air to fuel ratio in an ICE. I had a friend who claimed he installed solenoids on the valves, and eliminated the valve springs to increase RPM. The limiting RPM factor in an ICE is the valve springs. That engine could turn 15,000 easily. I don't know how well it performed over a long period, though, as his garage burned and he never built another engine like that. Good Luck. Stealth