http://engineeringtv.com/blogs/etv/a...er-engine.aspx

Thought this was very interesting in diesel design

 

interesting...
have to think about that for a bit. I suspect its not as good as they say...

 

thats different! but i like the idea! like fronty owner said it might not be as good as they say...

 

My concern is more moving parts and the fact that its a 2 stroke which dont tend to be efficient in the lower rpm range and its gonna be a tough sell for people to drive around at a high RPM and claim its efficient.

 

2-stroke will never pass that emissions crap

 

Well he is not going to stand there and say look at my piece of crap engine i designed haha. It looks like a good idea really, maybe for special purpose industry stuff. I would be suprised if it passed any type of emission standards for U.S.
Think about it, 2-stroke diesel engine will require oil injection to run right? How can that be allowed to happen after the change to ULSD? The old diesel was lubricant/oil enough for this set up, but i dont think ULSD would make it.

 

Larger 2 stroke engines (gas and diesel) do not need oil injection. Smaller engines, like chainsaws and dirtbikes burn their oil as it greatly simplifies the engines design and production. No need for an oil pump, oil passages, bearings, etc.

Remember, the old 2 stroke Detroit Diesel engines, they did not burn their oil with the fuel.

 

"Ya, it haas chets dat loobricate da peestuns." It looks like their main focus is military, so I doubt if emissions is any concern. I like the basic idea of it tho. 3.5HP for each cubic foot of mass is pretty good.

Here's something else to look over; http://www.revetec.com/gallery_render_031.htm

chaikwa.

 

No, they leaked it instead!



chaikwa.

 

LOL so true !

IMHO it is a very interesting design just imagine if they added 6 more cylinders to it.

 

I think the high compression turbo charged ethanol engine holds more promise.

 

the old school 2 stroke diesels didnt require oil injection because the diesel fuel back in the day was sufficent enough to lubricate. but these were still very "dirty" smog emissions engines. i highly doubt with ULSD that this fuel can provide much lube without oil injection.

 

It was not the fuel that lubed the engine. The 2 stroke diesels like the ones Detroit Diesel made, had a separate oil supply, pump, etc. Just like our Cummins engines, and any other 4 stroke engine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_pan#Oil_circulation

The main reason smaller two strokes burn the oil is all in their design. They don't need a sump, oil pump, oil passages, etc. It saves on production costs, weight, size, and greatly simplifies the engine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-str...ne#Lubrication

 

maybe I am missing something... opposed piston diesel is not new.

The 637 class sumbarine I was on had a Fairbanks Morse opposed piston diesel.

We called it the "rock crusher".

Bryan

 

I've seen that engine design before, I'll have to look through some old books. I don't think it was a diesel, I think it ran on blast furnace or coal gas.

It looks to be heavily influenced by the Junkers Jumo aircraft diesel, but those had a crank for each piston (cranks top and bottom).