PDA

View Full Version : ROLLS-ROYCE CRECY



THE DOCTOR
10-25-2002, 06:56 AM
according to the RRHT book No. 21, the 2 stroke, V-12,

direct injection, sleeve valve CRECY. had an amazing exhaust

note!!!

That right; 2-stroke!!!!


Da Doc

52eme
10-25-2002, 11:34 AM
the RR Crecy was indeed a beautiful piece of engineering.
V-12, 26.1Litre and.. 5000hp

it aparently had avery distinctive noise because the valves were set as to let the exhaust gaz exit the cylinder very rapidly and give additional thrust.

Click Here For Image (http://www.ricardo.com/images/histcrecys.jpg)

RR produced some pretty amazing engines in the 30s and 40s, the Exe and Pennine X-6 and Eagle H-24...

now Doc, what kind of power do you think you could get out of that Crecy ?


Regards
fred

(admin note *edited message to link to image rather than display image, which is a copyright violation*)

THE DOCTOR
10-28-2002, 08:36 PM
IS THIS THE FRED THAT OWNS THE ROLLS-ROYCE KESTREL

THAT WAS TAKEN TO PECIES AT THE HOLLISTER AIRPORT ????

REGUARDING HOTTING UP THE CRECY, SIR STANLEY HOOKER

RELATES IN HIS BOOK "NOT MUCH OF AN ENGINEER"

THE TWO STROKE CYCLE WAS CAUSING SEVERE PISTON

OVERHEATING PROBLEMS DURING THE TEST PROGRAM.

OF COURSE TODAY WE COULD MAKE A CERAMIC/XXXX

PISTON!!!!!

IF WE ONLY HAD DA MONEY; WE COULD GO REALLY FAST.........


DA DOC

52eme
10-30-2002, 10:11 AM
nope, not the good fred, sorry..
actually i'm the fred from paris, and Don B must have talked to you about me.. i hope you'll be able to join us for the SARH symposium next month..

fred

Peashooter
11-10-2002, 05:44 AM
Here's more on the Crecy and other famous RR Aero engines. Peas

http://www.stobbe.dk/industrial-products/technical-literature/combustion-engines/rolls-royce/Rolls-aircraft.html

Unregistered
03-24-2004, 12:10 AM
<< THE TWO STROKE CYCLE WAS CAUSING SEVERE PISTON

OVERHEATING PROBLEMS DURING THE TEST PROGRAM.>>

This engine set the absolute thermodynamic record for several decades for piston engines at over 20 HP/sq. in. of piston area. RPM, BMEP, and all other factors not withstanding, This figure represents a SEVERE thermodynamic load (heat flux) to and through the piston. This is independant of the cycle (two vs. four stroke) and more dependant on the obscene amount of power and heat.

Difficulties existed in sufficient cooling oil spray to the piston back side and top ring welding due to very high maximum combustion pressures. The sleave valve also inhibits piston heat transfer to the cylinder. However, it is a fascinating architecture and may have possibilities with the application of modern materials and methods. As a two stroke, it would have only 60 to 70% of the mechanical stress of a four stroke with the same power. This would lead to a 5000 HP engine suffering the same physical stresses as the latest Thorn Merlins at ~3400 HP.

Cooling those pistons would be a real -itch though...

Eric Ahlstrom

First time Juke
04-05-2004, 12:27 PM
Model engines are 90 % twostrokes. Some of them can do 28 000 rpm. Italian Rossi for example can put out ca. 2.5 hp with 3.6 ccm ( .20 cuin ) displacement. Fuel contains the lubricant ( 20 % ) and fuel is methanol + 10 to 20 % nitromethanol.
I did put an 1.4 hp producing engine on 900 gram ( flyweight ) model and it flew so fast that I was experiencing very unfamiliar feelings ( like will I survive this ordeal ). That was over 1 hp / kilo power to weight ratio...I have become a lot better flyer since that, but never dared to put that powerful engine again on my small models ( no flaps etc. ).

Well this is far away from the topic. :rolleyes:

AirDOGGe
04-06-2004, 11:52 PM
it would have only 60 to 70% of the mechanical stress of a four stroke with the same power.

The Napier Nomad was another impressive 2-stroker:


A 12-cylinder two-stroke turbo-compounded Diesel, the Nomad was one of the most complex and fuel-effecient engines ever built.

There's several large photos of the Napier on the NASM engines webpages...Check out the 36 cylinder Lycoming XR-7755 while you are there....what a beast!

http://www.enginehistory.org/nasm2.htm


.

matt
04-07-2004, 09:26 PM
i've heard that once a two stroke reaches a certain size in cu. in.'s it's ability to prduce more power than a four stroke dies, is this true?

if so, how did the crecy produce 5000 hp?

AAFO_WSagar
04-07-2004, 09:55 PM
i've heard that once a two stroke reaches a certain size in cu. in.'s it's ability to prduce more power than a four stroke dies, is this true?

if so, how did the crecy produce 5000 hp?Matt, I might be blowin smoke out of an orfice, but, likely, that forumla, if it's right, would apply on a per cylinder basis. If I'm not mistaken, the Crecy had a TON of cylinders. Maybe each of them did not exceed the size?

Wayne :dunno:

AirDOGGe
04-08-2004, 01:23 AM
5000hp / 12 cylinders = 416.666 hp per cyl.... Wow!

Considering that for an equal rpm the 2-stroker has twice as many power strokes most likely has something to do with it. Horsepower = torque x rpm. I'd like to find out what the max RPM of the Crecy was...

I haven't heard of the 2-cycle vs 4-cycle displacement problem, but it does state the 5000 hp horsepower rating at the RR engine website Peashooter posted:


Crecy – V12, 90°, sleeve-valve, liquid cooled, 26.1 litre, supercharged, two-stroke, mechanical fuel injection (from Focke Wolf 190) Otto-engine. The 1942 prototype had surprisingly low fuel consumption at the highest power output. In December of 1945, after eight years of development, work on the Crecy was terminated. At that time the Crecy was capable of double the horsepower of conventional 4-stroke designs of the same displacement. Only six Crecy engines were built, all with even serial numbers (2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12). This has led to confusion as to the numbers made. Crecy engine #10, achieved the highest test horsepower in December 1944, putting out the equivalent of 5,000 brake horsepower.

Type327unreg
04-12-2004, 04:22 PM
i've heard that once a two stroke reaches a certain size in cu. in.'s it's ability to prduce more power than a four stroke dies, is this true?

if so, how did the crecy produce 5000 hp?

Clearly you've been speaking to four-stroke bigots ;) Most, if not all, of the really big engines out there are two-stroke. I'm talking here of engines with displacements up into the thousands and even tens of thousands of cubic inches per cylinder. No, those aren't typos, tens of thousands, per cylinder. These units don't actually produce a lot of power for their size (it's hard to make a lot of power when your redline is at maybe 200 rpm), but that's not what they're built for, they're built for torque. Torque up in the millions of lb/ft for the really big ones. Two-strokes of this size are pretty much uniformly diesel units, and I believe in the early design stages the Crecy was going to be a diesel, I may be thinking of another experimental Rolls Royce from the period though. With two-strokes dominating in the arena of small engines too, it's really just the bit in the middle where four-strokes are, for now, allowed to pretend they're king :)

Type327, posting unregistered because I changed my email address and forgot my password, I'm so organised ;)

AAFO_WSagar
04-12-2004, 04:47 PM
Type327, posting unregistered because I changed my email address and forgot my password, I'm so organised ;)Three Two Seven... click on the contact us link on the bottom, send me an email with your username or reasonable facsimile, and or, your old email address, as well as, your new email addy and I'll get the board software to send you a reset notice. May have to wait till late tomorrow or the next day, as I'm gonna be in the air for a few hours comin up here tomorrow..

Wayne

AirDOGGe
04-13-2004, 12:28 AM
I'm talking here of engines with displacements up into the thousands and even tens of thousands of cubic inches per cylinder. No, those aren't typos, tens of thousands, per cylinder.

You mean like this house-size monster? (2-story house, that is...)

http://www.bath.ac.uk/~ccsshb/12cyl/ <--click here to see it!

-----------------------------------------------------------------

The Most Powerful Diesel Engine in the World!

"The Wartsila-Sulzer RTA96-C turbocharged two-stroke diesel engine is the most powerful and most efficient prime-mover in the world today. "

"The cylinder bore is just under 38" and the stroke is just over 98". Each cylinder displaces 111,143 cubic inches (1820 liters) and produces 7780 horsepower."

"14 cylinder version:
Total engine weight: 2300 tons (The crankshaft alone weighs 300 tons.)
Length: 89 feet
Height: 44 feet
Maximum power: 108,920 hp at 102 rpm
Maximum torque: 5,608,312 lb/ft at 102rpm
"

Type327unreg
04-13-2004, 09:09 AM
Three Two Seven... click on the contact us link on the bottom, send me an email with your username or reasonable facsimile, and or, your old email address, as well as, your new email addy and I'll get the board software to send you a reset notice. May have to wait till late tomorrow or the next day, as I'm gonna be in the air for a few hours comin up here tomorrow..

Wayne

Cheers Wayne :) email sent.

Eddie

Unregistered
10-25-2004, 03:55 AM
None of this is true, marine diesels put out around 80-100 bhp per 1000 rmp and litre displacement, i.e. about 5 times a turbocharged formula one car :-) .. thus big two strokes are the worlds highest performing engines.

B.t.w. the Crecy was to some extent built to compete against the turbojet's since rollsroyce didn't have control of the patent, however they managed to screw Whittle over so he didn't get nothing for his contributions .. thus the crecy died.

But if you look at the power to wheight, it can match most of the modern bypass engines and certainly has better fuel economy !


i've heard that once a two stroke reaches a certain size in cu. in.'s it's ability to prduce more power than a four stroke dies, is this true?

if so, how did the crecy produce 5000 hp?

Unregistered
10-30-2004, 12:32 AM
You mean like this house-size monster? (2-story house, that is...)

http://www.bath.ac.uk/~ccsshb/12cyl/ <--click here to see it!

-----------------------------------------------------------------

The Most Powerful Diesel Engine in the World!

"The Wartsila-Sulzer RTA96-C turbocharged two-stroke diesel engine is the most powerful and most efficient prime-mover in the world today. "

"The cylinder bore is just under 38" and the stroke is just over 98". Each cylinder displaces 111,143 cubic inches (1820 liters) and produces 7780 horsepower."

"14 cylinder version:
Total engine weight: 2300 tons (The crankshaft alone weighs 300 tons.)
Length: 89 feet
Height: 44 feet
Maximum power: 108,920 hp at 102 rpm
Maximum torque: 5,608,312 lb/ft at 102rpm
"

That's a BMEP of 544 psi!!!!!!

Welcome to the wonderful world of two strokes. Four strokes are doomed... <LOL>

Truth is, the 4S has one (and ONLY one) advantage over the direct injected 2S: operating range. In every other respect the 2S wins out. SFC, power density, power to weight, TBO, etc. Name it, except for wide operating range and widely varying load conditions, and the 2S beats the 4S every time. 2S engines got their bad rep from carburation and poor fuel-air management. In the real world of engines that have to make money for their manufacturers, 2S are equal or superior to their 4S brethren and mostly win out.

I myself was a 4S snob until about two years ago. I had studied enough and done enough engine development that when a person I repsected said "why NOT a 2S?", I set out to show him and came up with an answer that I didn't expect. Knowing the thermodynamics of tubine engines as well, I didn't expect the next answer.

The most efficient engine on the face of the earth is a "combined cycle" using a Brayton compression and expansion cycle on either side of an Otto cycle 2S piston engine. Whether compounded (Brayton cycle coupled to the power shaft) or free (Brayton cycle un-coupled), the efficiency and power density blows every other option to bits.

The issue that keeps 2S engines in the background of 4S is simple. We need engines with wide operating ranges for most uses in our everyday life. Cars, trucks, motorcycles, boats, etc. all need engines that function well under a 10:1 or greater idle to max power range. Our average car produces ~5 HP in stop and go traffic at an SFC of <.45 and still manages 200 HP at under .50! No 2S can do this.

Take that idle-to-max HP requirement to less than 5:1 and the 2S shines. Over a narrow operating range, the combined cycle 2S can achieve 50% or more improvement over the 4S in SFC and power density.

So who uses narrow operating range engines? Aircraft.

Because props on any aircraft function at a very narrow range of RPM and the power levels from take off to cruise do not vary more than 2:1, aircraft are an excellent cnadidate for highly efficient, high power density, narro operating range 2S technology. The average GA aircraft sees 2700 to 2300 RPM from takeoff to climb to cruise to descent. That's only a 16% variance in RPM and a 50% variance in power. Less than one fourth that of the worst car engine.

In load range, the aircraft engine uses 75 to 100% of the air available at any time (for a given altitude) unless we are descending. The car engine uses as little as 10%, but still must be able to operate efficiently at 100%.

Clearly, the aircraft (and air racing ) world screams for a 2S engine. The problem is that no one else does and aircraft are a small market. Hopefully, the market has and will continue to expand enough to make development of a superior 2S engine viable.

Eric Ahlstrom

Peashooter
01-16-2007, 05:19 PM
In load range, the aircraft engine uses 75 to 100% of the air available at any time (for a given altitude) unless we are descending. The car engine uses as little as 10%, but still must be able to operate efficiently at 100%.

Clearly, the aircraft (and air racing ) world screams for a 2S engine. The problem is that no one else does and aircraft are a small market. Hopefully, the market has and will continue to expand enough to make development of a superior 2S engine viable. Eric Ahlstrom

Perhas the introduction of a "Superbore" class can enable such development. The IO-12 is a great start and OEMs like Lycoming and Thielert are at Reno to develop, then deploy new technologies! (At least new to Gen-Av.) To that end, I hope that the rule makers don't stifle development.

Bill Marsh
01-22-2007, 06:14 PM
HEY PISTON HEAT

look at all those big prime movers..... marine and stationaey...... with gaggles of oil injection tubes w/underside honeycombs to cold soak all that piston heat away...... on other away i guess

BMarsh

Bill Marsh
01-25-2007, 04:26 PM
SUGGESTION TO MODERATOR


Move this to the regular board for more action


this thread is "lost in space" at the bottom of the web site menu!!!!

BMarsh

First time Juke
01-31-2007, 07:13 AM
You mean like this house-size monster? (2-story house, that is...)

http://www.bath.ac.uk/~ccsshb/12cyl/ <--click here to see it!

-----------------------------------------------------------------

The Most Powerful Diesel Engine in the World!

"[i]The Wartsila-Sulzer RTA96-C turbocharged two-stroke diesel engine is the most powerful and most efficient prime-mover in the world today. "


That is a finnish engine...Wartsila makes those Caribbean Cruise liners a lot.

Feliks
07-19-2010, 05:20 PM
Crecy was half way.

This is next part

http://www.new4stroke.com/new4stroke.gif

http://www.new4stroke.com/new4strokegreek2.gif

http://www.new4stroke.com

Regards Andrew:D

Feliks
07-28-2010, 01:50 AM
That is a finnish engine...Wartsila makes those Caribbean Cruise liners a lot.

And so the engine can be replaced Crecy its second half and the engine of the Caribean lines?

http://www.new4stroke.com/images/Halfrotate1.gif

http://www.new4stroke.com/walki.jpg

Are You know engine named Twin Feliks ? :rolleyes:
http://www.new4stroke.com/tloki.jpg

http://www.new4stroke.com/starhalfrotate5.gif



So 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.
http://www.new4stroke.com/sulzer1.jpg

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 .

Regards Andrew:D

First time Juke
07-29-2010, 07:53 AM
Andrew I am not sure what you are after, but the axial vector engine is the most efficient in size / output.

Do a google search.

Many Caribbean Cruise liners are made in Finland ( Oasis of the Seas, Freedom of the Seas etc ) but most are labelled STX yard ships of South-Korea.

Feliks
07-30-2010, 01:37 AM
Andrew I am not sure what you are after, but the axial vector engine is the most efficient in size / output.

Do a google search.

Many Caribbean Cruise liners are made in Finland ( Oasis of the Seas, Freedom of the Seas etc ) but most are labelled STX yard ships of South-Korea.

If You not shure , put in Google Andrew Feliks :)

I am confident that my design of the valves is lighter than traditional.

http://www.new4stroke.com/weight4.jpg

Diameter popped 75 mm , diameter piston 76.5 mm


http://www.new4stroke.com/twopistons.jpg

Weight popped 75 mm 1000 G
weight piston & rod 76.5 mm 850 G
weight popped 62 mm 400 G
weight piston & rod 62 mm 370 G

But the window of the flight of the valve of 75 mm is only 64 mm, what is very similar to the window of the flight piston 62 mm .

That is it results from it that the valve of 75 mm is giving the same flight as the piston 62 mm that is 1000 G to 370 G !!!!!

==~~ 2.5 more weight popped to piston& rod !!

It only looks impossibly. but this way is.:D


http://www.new4stroke.com/poped.jpg


In principle ,for them greater popped/piston diameter, it is this difference in weight will be to the benefit of pistons.

Regards Andrew:D

First time Juke
08-03-2010, 12:27 AM
Andrew Feliks !

Isn't that engine of yours quite complicated and difficult to cool down in an aeroplane like Dart where E.Ahlstrom originally dreamed this Crecy in to propel a pusher fan like mr.Lear did some 35 year ago ( Learfan 2100 ).

I saw your site...the new cellphone without rechargeable traditional batteries looks cool. I applied a patent also for such a thing in 2003...no one here was interested back then. Also your ideas to close the oil spill in the Caribbean seemed interesting.

I think there is a much simpler engine with mucho hp:s and twinengine reliability doable for a contraprop pusherfan..much like the Mixmaster in 1948...unlike the looks of it..a real speedster...maybe the p-75 Fisher Eagle could give some interesting glues to go forward. One thing is certain..it takes a lot of money to develop a plane and engine to go 560-600 mph with a piston engine reliably ( and extremely economically ) and carry 10-16 passengers...and still go to airport if the other engine quits ( isn't this that partially ended Learfan project...FAI did not allow it to operate with just one prop and two engines ).

Later,

Juke

Feliks
08-07-2010, 03:15 PM
Beautiful simple new 4 stroke kinematics animation made at the
King Soud University.


http://www.new4stroke.com/KingSoud600.gif

And a little faster

http://www.new4stroke.com/KingSoud200f.gif

Regards Andrew:)

Feliks
08-15-2010, 03:31 AM
Well, who would have thought that Newcomen was so close to an adequate solution :blink:

http://www.new4stroke.com/images/Newcomen.gif


http://www.new4stroke.com/images/Halfrotate1.gif

Regards Andrew :)

Feliks
08-25-2010, 09:27 AM
I also very close to the Technology
http://www.new4stroke.com/handcar1.jpg

Regards Andrew :D:D

Exhaustgases
09-19-2010, 07:52 PM
Most of those alternative engines look good in photo's, but in actuality most all of them would suffer from heat loss, through all the extra area.
Its a surface area to volume deal, and that is where the huge marine and stationary Diesel engines shine. One of the reasons they are so effcient.
Also with the alternative engine designs, the cost and complication of the parts manufacture, is a huge point against them. Just look at the complexity of the Wankel type engine as far as the rotor and sealing goes.

Exhaustgases
09-20-2010, 11:04 AM
Its been about a day and my post still not here????

AAFO_WSagar
09-20-2010, 11:48 PM
Its been about a day and my post still not here????If we allow new members who sign up to have their posts shown immediately, we get a TON of SPAM messages.. linking to sites which promote things like VIAGRA to teen porn websites..

This is just how we have to do it....

Of course, we usually can get to filtering this stuff right away but in case you have not noticed, it's race week and we're all a little busy..

Bear with us....

First time Juke
09-21-2010, 05:52 AM
I recently saw a document on Discovery channel about engine efficiency and early car engines produced 1 hp per one liter of cubature ( 1000 ccm ). Best F-1 turbo engine did 1 hp pro one cubic centimeter !!!

Lately I have been drawing a plane with 2 x 22 hp model engines ( also used in Cri Cri ) of 210 ccm..so roughly 10 cubic centimeters produce 1 hp. This is not a turbo engine. Very cheap and has same twin reliability as Cri Cri does.

First time Juke
10-07-2010, 04:43 AM
BTW: Those huge marine engines have rpm of 100 and are 2 -stroke !

Feliks
10-15-2010, 04:01 PM
The first windmills pumped water in America. To sustain this good tradition, I developed a little more modern sytem for the production of electric current in a similar way of pumping water.Whether American landscape views, are water sphere.I decided to add this view to the next shot where the water will be collected water so that it could give electrical energy when draining it back into the lower reservoir.

http://www.new4stroke.com/komplet.jpg


This water will be pumped sphery as in the first versions of windmills, wind.
The wind turbine will move a small diameter, but it is a multi-blade, placed together with the hydraulic pump in the middle of a specially constructed balloon. Balloon will be tethered, as previously barrage balloons.
Only that will go along the line, hydraulic pipes, the hydraulic motor, which will be driven water pump located in the lower reservoir.The water pump will continuously pump water to sphery. Now the water falling from the lower reservoir back to the shery, will do an electric current through hydrogenerator.

http://www.new4stroke.com/balloon.jpg

http://www.new4stroke.com/Turbine.jpg


Every so water sphere about the capacity of 2000 m 3, and the height 100 m can give power 10 MW for 3 minutes. If filling pumps water with the one I believe loss is managing to fill waters up, we will have it 10 MW driven with wind turbine in balloons.
Of course, the balloons could be filled up by hydrogen, because today we have very good material on the shell.
This system could be installed in any place where electricity is needed, and thus would have limited losses on the transfer.
Also low noise, and the invisibility of the rotating blades, not to interfere in coexistence with the environment.Balloons can be affixed to a height of 150 to 200 meters, where the wind is always blowing on the ground even when there is absolute silence.
some links:
http://media.primezone.com/cache/189/int/8385.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mu2glpmRXIs&feature=player_embedded#!

http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/21/northrop-grumman-wins-contract-to-build-us-armys-long-endurance/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3n5cUaG5fg&feature=player_embedded

http://www.new4stroke.com/4turbines.jpg
Of course, two rotate in one direction and two in the opposite direction.
You must use a very light hydraulic oil. If it were not frozen in winter.
Hydraulic pump in the balloon has the best power to weight ratio. All the airlines are working on the hydraulic actuators.
Of course, all of the balloon must be tested in the wind tunnel aerodynamic, in order to fully match the efficiency of the 21st century
Some pictures of how to create a balloon from the inside :rolleyes:

http://www.new4stroke.com/images/turbo.jpg

http://www.new4stroke.com/images/windtunnel.jpg


and NASCAR wind tunnel

http://www.new4stroke.com/images/NASCAR.jpg

There is a way to shorten a bit of flexible hydraulic tube...

http://www.new4stroke.com/uwiaz.jpg

Well, if it accidentally escaped gas from the balloon and so it can be

http://www.new4stroke.com/Gass.jpg

Name : Jazz Big Band

http://www.new4stroke.com/JazzBigBand.jpg
Rotating Dixieland Yoda.


http://www.new4stroke.com/Dixieland.jpg


Next Dixieland :


http://www.new4stroke.com/building.jpg

To those dixielnds can efficiently drive Hydraulic, it may have, no peaks of specialized software, use the links below.

http://www.hippocampus.org/homework-help/Physics-B/Fluid%20Mechanics_Venturi%20Tube%20-%20Simulation.html




A new way of sailing through a balloon which has the wind, and transmits energy to the propeller using hydraulics

http://www.new4stroke.com/balloonsailing.jpg


And sailing version of the Venturi jets

http://www.new4stroke.com/Jazzsailing.jpg

Regards Andrew :)

Feliks
10-19-2010, 03:11 PM
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/08/ddwfttw/all/1

My version of car wind.Solo of trumpet

Will test whether it could be faster than the wind... Boat too....

http://www.new4stroke.com/carwind.jpg

You never know what is beyond the present ... :rolleyes:

Ice boat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_boat)

But faster than the wind, it is possible ....

But perhaps the experience of the Ice Race can to help you change the aerodynamics in F1?
But in F1, there are winds above 300 km / h !
Fighter aircraft F-104 starts at a similar velocity. Right then, about 700 KG per 1 square meter load.
If using a well-sculpted are did the 700 KG used to accelerate boild F1 ......

I think that not everything has been said in the aerodynamics of F1.....

700 KG at 1 m^2 - 70 KG forward at 10 dcm^2 aditional F1 wings....

http://www.new4stroke.com/Racecar.jpg

Regards Andrew

Can it save fuel by using the wings ??

It all depends on how clever way it uses the wing...

Ice Boat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_boat)
Sailing_faster_than_the_wind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sailing_faster_than_the_wind)


Or, the cyclist can get speed of 200 km / h?
And they like to ride in the peleton?

The Phisics of sailing (http://www.physics.unsw.edu.au/~jw/sailing.html)

Regards Andrew:D

Feliks
10-23-2010, 05:17 PM
It should be approached with great reverence for history...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6Zw1_NiSWg


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJcxpFTFJPA&NR=1
At this film see why Crecy was in the half of the road. Simply moving the heat from the cylinder is very difficult way to get to the fins ...


But my engine, as befits the end of the road ,a little better light, even though this is only the second prototype.:)

Regards Andrew:D

Feliks
02-14-2011, 03:09 AM
This problem ereting widmill towers ,
can be resolved with Jazz Big Band. Just half of the turbine rotates in one direction and half in another page.

I did this study in the Venturi nozzle turbine and the calculations have a rather surprising results. Back to front.;)

http://www.new4stroke.com/Venturi1000.jpg







Well, energy is the same at the entrance, like a normal windmill. Only I noticed that the amount of energy produced by the windmill, the third power (cube)depends on the speed of the wind.
Windmill depends on the diameter of the second power (sqare).
So I started with a lot of it is better to improve the efficiency of wind turbine using wind speed increases, and not via increasing the diameter of the fan.
Serves to increase the velocity venturi nozzle

V^3 , D ^2

As curiosity I enter the number of Hp has the arrangement of 15 m / sec. = 270 Hp


You probably use a turbine engine derived from a helicopter, to generate such energy

Regards Andrew:D

Feliks
02-14-2011, 03:10 AM
http://www.new4stroke.com/Venturi%20100m.jpg


Compare the speed with which the headrest will swim to the surface of the sail of 10 m ^ 2 and the wind of 5 m / s.

And now a windmill with a diameter D = 3m and also velocity of 5 m / s, which gives the power of 0.3 Hp.
and serve to drive the screw boat.
Now compare that with the boat that run much faster ???

It seems to me that, however, by usin 'the wind turbines are inefficient and primitive.

But surely the best helicopter pilots know that the strength of fast-rotating propellers is huge ..




Try to follow the logic in my post. If you keep making the venturi constriction smaller the power goes up and up. Wrong! You cannot get something for nothing. There is only so much power in the wind flowing through a given cross section area and conservation of energy says the power will not increase as you move along a venturi. A good windmill will extract 50% of the available energy from a given cross section area of wind. There is no magic that will increase that by a factor greater than 2, in fact 59% is the (Betz's Law) limit for wind turbines of any type so modern wind turbines can achieve over 80% of the theoretical limit.

Oh yes, this theoretical limit of 80%, but for the most primitive machinery ?
And there is an error in assuming that we count the most primitive machine.
Plain sail is much more perfect than a windmill.
And here we see that the wind has a lot more energy than even 100% of the energy windmill

See how high can the waves rush in, only at the surface, blowing. The waves are also wind energy

The nozzle wenturi use all surfaces of the input, multiplied by the weight of the wind (the amount of air flow in kilograms)
And it is this mass air flow causes the nozzle is formed in high speed. Even after leaving the nozzle cone is longer than the cone input. The air mass of his "draws even more through the nozzles

This is just like a sports car exchaust tubes . When calculating the length and diameter, are taken into account also the mass of gas flowing.

And there is no mass flow of great importance in the calculation of the weight just pulls out their remnant gas from the cylinder, and even causes an inflow of fresh air. Without any widmil.
Note that in my last example, is given by the mass flow entrusted Venturi. And it amounts to 48 tonnes per second. It is the burden of two wagons loaded in 1 second.

A pipe with a length of 500 meters and a diameter of 100m, at a speed of 15 m / s
there is a 1600 tons of air, which has its energy.

This is the weight of two freight trains. Try to stop them. Ride at 50 km / h

http://www.new4stroke.com/venturi%2011%2020000%20MW.jpg
New widmil theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_equations)

And new dixieland:
http://www.new4stroke.com/GreenToothYoda.jpg


Regards Andrew:D

Feliks
02-14-2011, 03:21 AM
New animations half rotate engine:

http://www.new4stroke.com/halfrotate400.gif




http://www.new4stroke.com/halfrotate400fazy.gif




And in scale 1:1 350 ccm intake volume:


http://www.new4stroke.com/halfrotatedxf.dxf Save file


http://www.new4stroke.com/walki.jpg

or" Twin Feliks "



http://www.new4stroke.com/platehalfrotate.jpg


http://www.new4stroke.com/fullhalfrotate.jpg

or other new idea...

The cylinder can be made from an aluminum extrude...


http://www.new4stroke.com/elastic%20hose.jpg

Regards Andrew:D

AirDOGGe
02-17-2011, 06:31 PM
If you like unique powerplants, vehicles and other unusual machines, then you'll LOVE this site. There's even a 'vibratory' steam engine that resembles that 'half-rotate' engine in your animation:

The Museum Of Retro-Technology
http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/museum.htm


:)

Feliks
02-18-2011, 12:34 AM
If you like unique powerplants, vehicles and other unusual machines, then you'll LOVE this site. There's even a 'vibratory' steam engine that resembles that 'half-rotate' engine in your animation:

The Museum Of Retro-Technology
http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/museum.htm


:)

Thanks for the link. Good place. Each inventor must know the story well.

"Twin Feliks"

http://www.new4stroke.com/tloki.jpg


Big air cooled
http://www.new4stroke.com/images/bigair.jpg


Small air cooled


http://www.new4stroke.com/images/smallair.jpg



And "Stephenson second"


http://www.new4stroke.com/halfsteam6.gif



And story this inventions "step by step"
Story half rotate engine (http://www.new4stroke.com/images/Possible%20mutation%20pivot.htm)

Save these PDF files on your computer and print. These are drawings of the 2-liter engine on a scale of 1: 1


http://www.new4stroke.com/section.pdf

http://www.new4stroke.com/long.pdf

No coments.....


Regards Andrew:D

Feliks
05-19-2011, 02:56 PM
he wind energy. Harrier is driven by the wind, the helicopter also...In order to receive a flow venturi nozzle which is in the engine Harier ( 200 KG / sec ), then you need only 6 meters in diameter and 25 length.... and 5 m / sec wind...


http://www.new4stroke.com/Venturi%206000.jpg

http://www.new4stroke.com/Venturi%206000a.jpg

With the movement of 200 Kg / sec Harrier has a string of 10 000 KG....




Another way to go. The narrowest point is less Venturiego nozzle pressure. It's like found in the center of the lowlands of atmospheric ( weather ). This causes larger than hurricanes weather.
Except that here we have a much shorter way from the boom to the lowlands....
Huricane flows from areas of high pressure to areas of low pressure.


Andrew:)

Feliks
05-20-2011, 05:46 PM
The Underground Windmill.

Underground windmills will be an really new alternative to the Atom

http://www.new4stroke.com/ground700.gif

Regards Andrew :D

Feliks
05-23-2011, 12:07 PM
"The Non-Undergroud Windmill"


http://www.new4stroke.com/non.gif


http://www.new4stroke.com/hom600.gif

This is Homer. Now you can safely drink, because he knows the underground fan will give him a lot cheaper green energy.
It can use an underground windmill used an old engine, for example, the Harrier. Or the same fan.

http://www.new4stroke.com/Pegasus%20Fan01.jpg

Regards Andrew:D:D

First time Juke
05-27-2011, 06:02 AM
What would this solve better than the normal windmill ?

Feliks
05-27-2011, 12:49 PM
What would this solve better than the normal windmill ?

"The gain in kinetic energy resulting from the increased linear velocity in the throat is offset (i.e., balanced) by the decrease of pressure in the throat. The reduction in pressure which occurs when the fluid flows through the throat is called the Venturi effect and is named after the Italian physicist Giovanni Battista Venturi (1746 - 1822) who first observed the effect."

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Venturi_effect
http://www.hippocampus.org/homework-help/P...Simulation.html (http://www.hippocampus.org/homework-help/Physics-B/Fluid%20Mechanics_Venturi%20Tube%20-%20Simulation.html)



Animation showing how using venturi nozzle drives the gyroscope to the flight instruments. Historically, the aircraft was not an electric current...
But now, if we do the jets in the right size, we thus also powered electric generator...


http://www.new4stroke.com/airdriveindicator.gif



Even used a double Venturi nozzle, in order to increase the vacuum to best drive "turbine"


http://www.new4stroke.com/Venturigauge.jpg
Andrew:D

Feliks
05-28-2011, 01:30 PM
Lesson Two: in terms of fundamental historical

Venturitubes 1937.pdf (http://www.new4stroke.com/Venturitubes1937.pdf)

On the pictures below you can see how small the venturi nozzle is to drive the gyroscopes in the strands. My finger and applied on the next hand, illustrate the size of the venturi tube. It is almost equal to the diameter of my finger. Now, please imagine how much energy to give the fan with the same diameter of my finger...

http://www.new4stroke.com/ventfing.jpg



http://www.new4stroke.com/venthand.jpg


Since the narrowest point of the venturi tube, we can easily get up to 10 times higher air velocity, we can mount the engine behind the jet frame, which at high speeds the inlet has a good performance.
For example, you can mount an engine on an Tourist Plane, which reaches 200 km / h at the entrance to the RAM JET would be about 2000 km / h....
This will generate additional good sequence, using a very simple engine ( or two )


http://www.new4stroke.com/ventjet.jpg

Regards Andrew :D:D

Feliks
05-31-2011, 09:26 AM
Originally posted by Feliks


On the pictures below you can see how small the venturi nozzle is to drive the gyroscopes in the strands. My finger and applied on the next hand, illustrate the size of the venturi tube. It is almost equal to the diameter of my finger. Now, please imagine how much energy to give the fan with the same diameter of my finger...


Regards Andrew

A venturi tube so small as my finger is able to propel a large heavy rotating disk gyroscope air to 10 000 RPM, and even walk through the air filter....


http://www.new4stroke.com/airdriveindicator.gif


Since the gyroscope can be power, relatively high compared to the diameter of the venturi tubes (1 ") and he has the 2 ", then maybe you can do in F1 KERS Venturi "?
The air sucked into the engine can be sucked through a venturi tube so, resulting in a negative pressure to drive the gyroscope, which will keep energy....:tsk

That would be something like a turbine gives energy, but the intake pipe. Turbo :D

http://www.new4stroke.com/ventf11.jpg

Regards Andrew:D:D

Feliks
06-03-2011, 02:16 PM
http://www.pilotfriend.com/training/flight_training/fxd_wing/gyro.htm

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/1982636.pdf

Andrew:D

AirDOGGe
06-04-2011, 11:53 PM
I understand the venturi principle clearly, and I see what the drawings are representing.

What I don't see is some form of evidence that this would be more efficient than a standard 2 or 3 blade windmill.


Resistance of the wind to flow into and through the venturi rather than around it, and the drag of the walls within the long tapered tube will make it less efficient. Further resistance/drag will result from the air being drawn through that long"tube" from the generator turbine to the venturi device.


Also, the smaller diameter generator turbine fan won't be nearly as efficient as a modern windmill propeller, whose blades aren't all that dis-similar to that in form (long span, short chord) and materials) carbon fiber) of a very efficient thermal competition glider. I'm sure technology learned by the wings of the latter has gone into the former.


What makes the venturi "windmill" superior? I can see that it would be safer for predatory birds, many of which are dying from being struck while hunting around windmill farms, but I don't think it would be more efficient than a modern 'mill.


Just my thoughts. I'm not trying to offend anyone. Have anyone tried placing a large venturi out in the open breezes and measured the results yet under real world conditions?


.



I don't know about the RAMJET-IN-A-VENTURI idea either. Sure, the airflow at the narrowest point is increased in velocity, but there's also that significant drop in pressure, negating any benefits of the former for the internally mounted engine. The airflow reaching the front of the ramjet would be moving faster, but at a lower pressure and so will not result in more air being compressed into the engine. It might even lose power.

Ramjets rely on the air being forced and compressed under pressure into it's inlet for proper operation. Lower air pressure, such as that encountered at higher altitudes (or at the venturi's throat) result in less jet engine power output. Said aircraft jet engines have to fly faster in thinner air to achieve the same power. There is no power gain.


.

Feliks
06-05-2011, 06:53 AM
Your doubt in both cases, virtually the same properties are for a venturi tube.Maybe start from the second issue of ramjet.
Indeed you are right, the pressure decreases. But it is by how much. Venturi type into the calculator, which gives a link, such values ​​.1000 mm and 500 mm in diameter. You'll see that the pressure falls by only 3 mmHg, as much as a small change in the weather. So very little. But the speed in the narrowest place is as much as 6 times greater... and it is known that the jet must have a framework for high speed input, because only then is a good efficient....

http://www.flowmeterdirectory.com/flowmeter_venturi_calc.html

As regards the first issue, that of efficiency in relation to the traditional windmill is to present two part.
The most important thing is a wind speed that is achieved at the narrowest point.
In the formula for the power of the windmill, there are two variables. Wind speed and diameter of the fan. the fact that the speed, power depends on the third power, and the diameter only in the second... So there will generally follows the model that is appropriate to increase the velocity of wind, and reducing the diameter of the fan. Thanks to this we get greater power.

http://www.new4stroke.com/Venturi1000.jpg







http://www.new4stroke.com/Venturi%20100m.jpg




Conclusion. The venturi tube, the energy involved produkcjii WHOLE air mass at a given time as there is a venturi tube inside. This follows from the Bernoulli's principle that there must be continuity in the flow. A pipe can have a length and 500 meters...
A traditional windmill, at most, the air mass, multiplied by max disk windmill , say 1 - 3 m.
From here you receive such a big difference of power, with the same input speed of the wind. Just a whole mass of work has been hectic

Ideal can see the difference in energy received in a gauge air -powered vacuum with a venturi tube. which is diameter 3 / 4 inch, hard disk drives and up to 8000 RPM gyroscope, which has a diameter of 2 inches.
Imagine now that such energies would produce a windmill with a diameter of 3 / 4 inches..
And no, even the most modern building of a traditional windmill, he can not s Compare and contrast this...

regards Andrew:D

AirDOGGe
06-05-2011, 10:20 AM
None of this addresses my question of drag and resistance reducing efficiency. The wind will want to go around rather than through such a device.


Because of this and other factors, it sounds like such a device would have to be several times larger then a equivalent-output standard windmill, and occupy a MUCH larger footprint on the ground (500 meters you say?).


What DOES make sense is to combine the two systems. Place a very efficient propeller-type turbine within the narrowest point of a venturi.

You'd achieve a faster airflow with the venturi, AND capture more energy, the best of both worlds.

(searching the net...)


Looks like someone has already taken that path:

http://www.energysense.ie/Windmill.html


.

Feliks
06-05-2011, 01:14 PM
None of this addresses my question of drag and resistance reducing efficiency. The wind will want to go around rather than through such a device.


Because of this and other factors, it sounds like such a device would have to be several times larger then a equivalent-output standard windmill, and occupy a MUCH larger footprint on the ground (500 meters you say?).


What DOES make sense is to combine the two systems. Place a very efficient propeller-type turbine within the narrowest point of a venturi.

You'd achieve a faster airflow with the venturi, AND capture more energy, the best of both worlds.

.

None of this addresses my question of drag and resistance reducing efficiency. The wind will want to go around rather than through such a device.
No, I will want to go around. It just so it looks at first glance.
Why not? Sent because the in narovest place occurs during movement of vacuum that will suck the wind to the venturi tube. Of course condition is laminar flow through the cones, tubes, or do not occur turbolent. It's a little like an airplane wing. If there is no laminar flow, the lift force disappears and the plane falls. Here, too, will disappear if the laminar flow venturi tube, not give us a profit on what we expect. To maintain the flow laminar, cones are not allowed to have larger angles than those resulting from the calculation. Therefore, they must have adequate length, the relatively large for its diameter. The plane did not fall then = ( expected to give a venturi tube laminar undisturbed flow ) and gain velocity and pressure drop.

This link, which I received from you, thank you for that, it is only a substitute and the name of a venturi tube.

So the truth, this is just only enclosed propeller...

That is made ​​that not only you have doubt. I had already dissipated before it, and historical perspective on the forum are Autosport.
http://forums.autosport.com/index.php?showtopic=74960&st=440 (http://forums.autosport.com/index.php?
showtopic=74960&st=440) start post 461

Regards Andrew:D

AirDOGGe
06-08-2011, 09:07 PM
Well, it's more than just a ducted windmill. The "duct" is venturi shaped and does what a venturi suppose to, increase airflow velocity at it's narrowest point. They don't make use of any drop in pressure at the throat, but this particular design isn't intended to use any.

Quote from the website:

"The venturi duct unique design accelerates light winds by up to 50%....Thanks to the venturi's high efficiency when other windmills are producing negligeable current the "donQi" offers useable power. "


Your design uses air flow produced by reduced pressure at the throat to rotate a turbine, and theirs places an efficiently designed windmill within the throat to make use of the increased air velocity there. Formulas and lab tests tell us a lot, but they don'[t always prove correct when taken outdoors and placed in a real environment.

In truth, I think your design would do better using something like their windmill instead of a multi-bladed turbine wheel. The latter usually need very high air flow velocities to prove efficient, while the former work better with slower moving air.


Only time and real-world experiments will tell which is the better path. Are you going to build a scale model for tests?

Feliks
06-21-2011, 03:21 PM
Maybe ...

Another animation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tz2rQvCxp44

Regards Andrew: D

AirDOGGe
06-22-2011, 02:52 AM
Looking at the 2 concepts has given me an idea to improve performance.

Why not use the capabilities of BOTH designs in one unit. Use the wind to force more air through the turbine intake, supplementing what airflow the venturi is producing via lower pressure downstream:

http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/3627/boostedventuri001.jpg


Really, the best layout of this concept would be to relocate the turbine vertically so that the intake is short in length for less drag losses, similar to those fan-venturi's I posted earlier. I didn't have time to draw all that right now (it's late and I'm heading to bed).


Look do-able?


.

Apteryx
06-22-2011, 10:36 AM
This thread is NINE years old, and has nothing to do with the original content. Maybe it's time to let it go....or...heck, start a new one.

:D

Feliks
06-29-2011, 06:50 AM
Looking at the 2 concepts has given me an idea to improve performance.

Why not use the capabilities of BOTH designs in one unit. Use the wind to force more air through the turbine intake, supplementing what airflow the venturi is producing via lower pressure downstream:

http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/3627/boostedventuri001.jpg


Really, the best layout of this concept would be to relocate the turbine vertically so that the intake is short in length for less drag losses, similar to those fan-venturi's I posted earlier. I didn't have time to draw all that right now (it's late and I'm heading to bed).


Look do-able?


.

Very well that you understood the idea, and now you can develop it further. Thanks to such people, shure will serve others.:hi:

But, ideas and further improvements must be thought out.

For example, this " Bost ", the first would always be directed to the wind, which would very coplicate structures. Besides, can you imagine, " Bost ", " Katrina or the tornadoes? Because I did not really..
Therefore, it would not be a significant expansion of efficiency but only complication.

And the variance is the one who just shows the possibilities. Other variants had already been published. Accept that in practice, time will show



The first windmills pumped water in America. To sustain this good tradition, I developed a little more modern sytem for the production of electric current in a similar way of pumping water.Whether American landscape views, are water sphere.I decided to add this view to the next shot where the water will be collected water so that it could give electrical energy when draining it back into the lower reservoir.

http://www.new4stroke.com/komplet.jpg


This water will be pumped sphery as in the first versions of windmills, wind.
The wind turbine will move a small diameter, but it is a multi-blade, placed together with the hydraulic pump in the middle of a specially constructed balloon. Balloon will be tethered, as previously barrage balloons.
Only that will go along the line, hydraulic pipes, the hydraulic motor, which will be driven water pump located in the lower reservoir.The water pump will continuously pump water to sphery. Now the water falling from the lower reservoir back to the shery, will do an electric current through hydrogenerator.

http://www.new4stroke.com/balloon.jpg

http://www.new4stroke.com/Turbine.jpg


Every so water sphere about the capacity of 2000 m 3, and the height 100 m can give power 10 MW for 3 minutes. If filling pumps water with the one I believe loss is managing to fill waters up, we will have it 10 MW driven with wind turbine in balloons.
Of course, the balloons could be filled up by hydrogen, because today we have very good material on the shell.
This system could be installed in any place where electricity is needed, and thus would have limited losses on the transfer.
Also low noise, and the invisibility of the rotating blades, not to interfere in coexistence with the environment.Balloons can be affixed to a height of 150 to 200 meters, where the wind is always blowing on the ground even when there is absolute silence.
some links:
http://media.primezone.com/cache/189/int/8385.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mu2glpmRXIs&feature=player_embedded#!

http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/21/northrop-grumman-wins-contract-to-build-us-armys-long-endurance/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3n5cUaG5fg&feature=player_embedded

http://www.new4stroke.com/4turbines.jpg
Of course, two rotate in one direction and two in the opposite direction.
You must use a very light hydraulic oil. If it were not frozen in winter.
Hydraulic pump in the balloon has the best power to weight ratio. All the airlines are working on the hydraulic actuators.
Of course, all of the balloon must be tested in the wind tunnel aerodynamic, in order to fully match the efficiency of the 21st century
Some pictures of how to create a balloon from the inside :rolleyes:

http://www.new4stroke.com/images/turbo.jpg

http://www.new4stroke.com/images/windtunnel.jpg


and NASCAR wind tunnel

http://www.new4stroke.com/images/NASCAR.jpg

There is a way to shorten a bit of flexible hydraulic tube...

http://www.new4stroke.com/uwiaz.jpg

Well, if it accidentally escaped gas from the balloon and so it can be

http://www.new4stroke.com/Gass.jpg

Name : Jazz Big Band

http://www.new4stroke.com/JazzBigBand.jpg
Rotating Dixieland Yoda.


http://www.new4stroke.com/Dixieland.jpg


Next Dixieland :


http://www.new4stroke.com/building.jpg

To those dixielnds can efficiently drive Hydraulic, it may have, no peaks of specialized software, use the links below.

http://www.hippocampus.org/homework-help/Physics-B/Fluid%20Mechanics_Venturi%20Tube%20-%20Simulation.html




A new way of sailing through a balloon which has the wind, and transmits energy to the propeller using hydraulics

http://www.new4stroke.com/balloonsailing.jpg


And sailing version of the Venturi jets

http://www.new4stroke.com/Jazzsailing.jpg

Regards Andrew :)


Andrew:thumbsup:

Feliks
07-01-2011, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by monkeysandbearspants
Having digested the content of the thread i conclude that the answer could be one of these !!

However weight may be an issue and mostly certainly there would need to to be some boot modifications!




http://www.new4stroke.com/litlleengine.jpg


http://www.full-ahead.net/Silownia/silniki_pomocnicze/sp_index_ang.htm

http://www.full-ahead.net/Silownia/silniki_pomocnicze/remont_sp/awarie_remont/glowica_urw_zaw_isadora/glow_urw_zawor.htm

http://www.full-ahead.net/Silownia/silniki_glowne/sg_index_ang.htm

double bottom fo foam
http://www.youtube.com/user/pawielus?gl=PL&hl=pl#p/u/53/Cfp0BWKwdgY dno (http://www.youtube.com/user/pawielus?gl=PL&hl=pl#p/u/53/Cfp0BWKwdgY%20dno)


large swimmer:
http://www.youtube.com/user/pawielus?gl=PL&hl=pl#p/u/92/mnxWu3oWghs

Regards Andrew:D

3dWrightBrother
07-02-2011, 06:40 PM
Properly cowled it just might work:dunno:
Russ

Feliks
07-03-2011, 02:32 AM
The Red Baron Windmill:

Due to the vacuum created by the wing, over which the wind flows, wind turbines in the channels of collective spin vacuum and provide energy....

http://www.new4stroke.com/Redbaron700.gif

Here you can see demonstrations of the film that created a vacuum at the top of the wing when the wind blows on him.
The resulting vacuum can suck the ball into the pipe passing through the wing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fb8IFfnbjY8

By placing many of the holes on the top of the wing, use the vacuum on the entire surface of the wing. The Assembly shall meet in two sustaining supports and drives the suction fans to them with normal air pressure.
This will of course be used to produce energy,
and its amount will depend on the size of the system...

Regards Andrew:D:D

Feliks
07-05-2011, 04:49 PM
Well, some developing:

Of course, you must use the entire art of loving wing aerodynamics.
And How companies grow one way: speed amplifier in the form of air intake venturi nozzle.


http://www.new4stroke.com/redbaronventuri.jpg

Well, and a new kind of wings...
Venturi nozzle flat... After all the two wings made ​​contrary to each other..
http://www.new4stroke.com/Flatventuri.jpg



Regards Andrew:D

Feliks
07-08-2011, 04:32 AM
In other forum :


Those wings need endplates.

Seriously - using the flow in a secondary device means that a lot of the wind power is wasted, because the mass flow through the turbines is much less than the wind mass flow captured by the machine.

I have seen some interesting and original ideas in this thread, but you are wasting YOUR energy trying to improve on the efficiency of a modern wind turbine.


All of this, I waste my energy ,you able to understand that there are other, much more efficient ways of using wind energy.

I know your great love for modern wind turbine, but you must remember that any excessive love sent your eyes, and impossible for an objective view of reality.

Besides, is not just about the same efficiency, but also for it to be able to build a very simple structure that even the next 4,000 years will exist. I makes sense to build on the sea, because they almost always wind blows from one direction - from the sea. And so it will probably still over the next 4000 years...
* In such a structure may be, for example, 100 such horizontal " flat venturi " and long for 300 meters. Constructed channels will lead to negative pressure turbines which generate much electricity. And the only element consuming to be turbine generators. The rest should survive 4000 years without repairs...

So with these issues will be decisive, not only we can improve the efficiency of Venturi amplifier.

Well unless the people have lost the ability to build such structures ...

http://www.new4stroke.com/All_Gizah_Pyramids.jpg

And here in a better resolution though you wanted to see more details:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/All_Gizah_Pyramids.jpg

But who will be Pharaoh?? :rolleyes:

Regards Andrew :)

Feliks
07-10-2011, 05:30 PM
And here's the picture of Homer family watching the Red Baron Windmill prototype with flat Venturi nozzles.
If you meet all expectations, this is a prototype of Homer performs with Stone, as Pharaoh himself had wished.
And it will be a very durable building, well, for example, compared to the ridiculously short life of nuclear reactors...

http://www.new4stroke.com/homerf.jpg



Best Regards Andrew:D

Feliks
07-12-2011, 02:51 AM
With a dash of fantasy.

Oh yes, a little bit of you have, then a little knowledge and work reliably over the idea and new invention ready.....

Here you can see perfectly that we can get plenty of potential energy generated by the aerodynamics, without any propellers....
It allows a range of up to 3000 km by glider...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliding


Andrew:D

Feliks
07-18-2011, 03:42 AM
In other forum

Oh yes, a little bit of you have, then a little knowledge and work reliably over the idea and new invention ready.....

Here you can see perfectly that we can get plenty of potential energy generated by the aerodynamics, without any propellers....
It allows a range of up to 3000 km by glider...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliding


Andrew:stir:

The main energies supplied to a glider is gravity and convection(solar) energy. Even a glider has to be able to change it's vector to operate at a gain. At the end of the day, a glider has produced very little work. If you were to try to power the world on the work performed levels of a glider, it would be a herculean task.[/QUOTE]


You know perfectly well, with new ideas about the rank of the fundamental, very difficult to penetrate to the use of mass...

But thanks to people like you, we can slowly try to..
Another, although not looking as Hekules, we have on video..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fb8IFfnbjY8

Instead, we can build an automatic flow of balls so that they can be sucked into the pipe.
A falling ball (or WATER) with wings, they can hit their way back after a shoulder wheel, similar to a water wheel, giving him his potential energy ..

Well, the automatic circuit, will cause the "Hercules" he can rest.
This is just an example of how we can use another way of generating energy this way.

Regards Andrew:D

Feliks
07-19-2011, 02:20 AM
Instead, we can build an automatic flow of balls so that they can be sucked into the pipe.
A falling ball (or WATER) with wings, they can hit their way back after a shoulder wheel, similar to a water wheel, giving him his potential energy ..

Well, the automatic circuit, will cause the "Hercules" he can rest.
This is just an example of how we can use another way of generating energy this way.


"The Water Wind Power Plant"



Love for "tuning" not gone...


http://www.new4stroke.com/redbarontung.jpg


Andrew:D

Feliks
07-20-2011, 04:21 PM
http://mainhg.demotywatory.pl/uploads/201003/1268596992_by_bratpitt_500.jpg


http://www.1-famous-quotes.com/quote/1378398


Andrew:D

Feliks
07-22-2011, 03:25 AM
In other forum:

Correct if you calulate based on single lift pulse per wing cycle. Bees get 2 lifts per wing cycle. People used to think the earth was flat and at the the center too.

Please to let us know how to make complex structures that are both strong enough to self suport and to resist 4000 years of storms? We simple people can see how a simple shape pile of rocks could last in an area that does not see sub 0C temps. Now all you need to do is figure out how to make electricity from a pile of rocks.

The pile of rocks:

http://www.new4stroke.com/piramidanaca.jpg



Hmmm, as someone with a structural engineering background, I see potential problems with that structure :lol:


Needs more rocks.


No, I think it needs less air.

And I have hope that over the last 4,000 years we have learned, to build something more than just the pyramids and the pyramids.... ;)

Andrew:D

Feliks
07-24-2011, 05:04 PM
Well, with that lovely airfoil texture, I'm sure that that will start producing usable amounts of energy any time it's within the eyewall of a hurricane....

Also such a pile of stones, and a dangerous element of water, politely puts 2000 MW....


http://www.new4stroke.com/HooverDam.jpg


Andrew:D

Feliks
07-25-2011, 01:54 AM
Not stones, Concrete with much steel and piping in it. Well under 100 years old and under constant care, maintenance and upgrades. Nothing polite about this project. Read up a bit and you will find it was made out of men and material. 0.0 % clever, 100% brute force and slide rule engineering.

Concrete is a pile of stones, only a tiny...

If we use the design of computers, calculators to calculate the type,
http://www.flowmeterdirectory.com/flowmeter_venturi_calc.html
http://www.hanleyinnovations.com/vf50.html

It can be 100% clean design
And even more politely 'll gain energy. And then it will be possible, for the next 4000 years.

Andrew:D

Feliks
07-30-2011, 10:23 AM
Snoopy inspired me.. :)

First, the architects built the pyramids, then the rectangular houses. Now for the houses in the shape of airfoil ;)


http://www.new4stroke.com/snoopy.jpg



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ak4JgrNPwIc&feature=related


Regards Andrew :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJtYvsDKQV8&NR=1 ;)

Feliks
08-01-2011, 09:42 AM
As if someone is not loved music, it can be so..

&#x202a;Snoopy And The Red Barron (Peanuts)&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdljMhUQWyQ&feature=related)


But you should see that Snoopy House can ...fly

&#x202a;ANGEL GUADIANIA Snoopy VS the Red Baron&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9r9WuQMJ_aM&NR=1)

Andrew:D

Feliks
08-05-2011, 06:01 AM
http://www.new4stroke.com/multisnoopy.jpg



Andrew:D

Feliks
08-06-2011, 03:40 AM
Indeed it is

http://bucket.usastra.com/gallery/Gifs/multisnoopy.gif


The Multisnoopy Ship

This is Beautiful.. :thumbsup:

This is the modern variant of a sailing ship... so that the sails are not torn...

Regards Andrew :D

Feliks
08-09-2011, 02:27 AM
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/06/downwind-faster-than-the-wind


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNbNNSDljGI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPOqlkzW8KU&feature=related

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sailing_faster_than_the_wind#Sailing_dead_downwind _faster_than_the_wind

http://www.new4stroke.com/snoopy1.jpg

Aerodynamic coefficient Cx is very small. It is certainly much smaller than in the traditional ship...

This is not a traditional sail 2D, but the full 3D structure. Energy is processed and used to drive water propeller. Why can swim backwards and forwards. Like a film with 2D fan.
So many of Snoopy Ship has a much higher efficiency due to 3D

Andrew:D

Exhaustgases
08-21-2011, 04:06 PM
wow! talk about off topic.

Apteryx
08-22-2011, 09:08 AM
wow! talk about off topic.

...and REALLY annoying to have to wade through, when you're searching through threads for information...:screwy:

Feliks
08-22-2011, 11:21 AM
http://www.new4stroke.com/heron600.gif

Regards Andrew:D

AAFO_WSagar
08-22-2011, 01:20 PM
wow! talk about off topic.Yea guys... I usually don't monitor this section of the forum very closely, other than to briefly scan the email digest to watch out for flaming SPAM and such...

Regular users of this section, please feel free to notify myself or one of the other forum moderators and we'll do our best to keep this sort of thing out of here..

Don't have time right now to clean this this thread of the BS... hopefully we can have everyone get back on topic.

Warning... doing stuff repeatedly that annoys the users here can get yer butt deleted... You are warned...OK??? Please!!

Feliks
09-06-2011, 02:03 AM
Old ideas in new study:
This gear drive in a helicopter that is bothering me. Another way to get rid of her. By the way, turned out that the rear propeller and also you can get rid of , because the helicopter does not have the torque of the main propeller.
The helicopter had already been built. But it had drawbacks: no, for example, could not take full advantage of autorotation, because the propeller with a hole through the center did not have good aerodynamic properties....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sud-Ouest_Djinn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Helicopter_Djinn_rotor_mast_and_blade.jpg
I missed this problem and the propeller is as it is most optimal.
Also today after assuming control of the helicopter adjustable nozzle (vectoring nozzle) on the outlet gases from the turbine driven, will be very precise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbomeca_Palouste

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0e/Engine_of_F-35.jpg
In summary the lack of a gear transmission and rear propeller helicopter will certainly reduce weight.





http://www.new4stroke.com/Heronsapacheb700.gif



http://www.new4stroke.com/sshot-1500.jpg



http://www.new4stroke.com/sshot-6.jpg

Andrew :D

Feliks
09-08-2011, 04:27 AM
Here PhotoStream proposal, which has improved aerodynamics and a little stiffness to the system add..



http://www.new4stroke.com/sshot-2000.jpg


some histo:


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cc/SFF_002-1055526_Fairey_Rotodyne.jpg/800px-SFF_002-1055526_Fairey_Rotodyne.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9633v6U0wo

http://www.new4stroke.com/percival.pdf

http://www.new4stroke.com/AIAA-Presentation.pdf


Originally posted by Chopper
Welcome back Andrew.

One day it will fly

:eureka

http://tipjet.com/tj_pho_gallry.htm


Andrew:D:D

Feliks
09-11-2011, 03:53 AM
Green Engineering in strongbox bank...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPWH5TlbloU

Andrew:rolleyes:

Feliks
09-14-2011, 02:47 AM
Poles at all it goes something like this to tinker with helicopters...

Andrew :smoking: :smoking:

Is Igor Sikorski, Poland had a soul? Because his father was a Pole, which the Russians took him for taking part in the January Uprising....? :rolleyes:

http://www.frankpiasecki.muzeumlotnictwa.pl/piasecki.php?w=a

http://www.frankpiasecki.muzeumlotnictwa.pl/ciastula.php?w=a Lynx

Regards Andrew:D

Feliks
09-15-2011, 02:12 AM
Is marriage Underground Windmill of Tesla's Turbine is the optimum solution?


http://www.new4stroke.com/Tesla.jpg


several cases that support the solution

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zdix_i-f4Tc&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7nFga2BpGU&feature=related

http://www.imp.gda.pl/en/research-centres/centre-for-thermomechanics-of-fluids/turbine-aerodynamics-department/research/tesla-type-bladeless-turbines/

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7695242.pdf


Andrew:D

Feliks
09-22-2011, 05:23 PM
If you do not want to lose a large diameter fan operating in the Venturi nozzle, you should use " internal Venturi nozzles ".
These are just two cones inside a circular tube
Their convergence must be in accordance with the Bernoulli's principle, just like a normal venturi nozzle. So must be kept laminar flow. But we gain a large diameter fan. Theoretically, the energy gain obtained is 10 times larger in relation to the windmill in a narrow place of the normal venturi nozzle....
Field cross-sections must be changed in the same function as in classical venturi

http://www.new4stroke.com/Venturiinner.jpg

Andrew:)

Feliks
09-27-2011, 01:25 PM
Wind and water have long been a very liked.
So I think that such a solution, consistent with their preferences, will be most effective

It is a Venturi vidmil that drives large enough vane pump with sealing ring via water.
Thanks to such a seal, which is not consumed, and it is tight, you can use all the energy that gives us a venturi nozzle of the vacuum produced.. Because the turbine does not have any leaks.So theoretically, this will be the most efficient use of wind...

We can thus take advantage of the vacuum energy, what we get in other ways to obtain it from the wind.

New "turbine" is Liquid Ring Vaccum Pumps


http://www.new4stroke.com/waterventuri.jpg


http://www.gd-nash.com/uploadedImages/Nash/Products/Flash_Images/liquid%20ring%20how%20it%20works%20extended%20leng th%20nl.swf

http://www.new4stroke.com/2BE4%20CPD%20sheet.pdf

Regards Andrew:)

Feliks
09-28-2011, 06:42 PM
Heron's Apache my be need this engine:

http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorjet

http://www.new4stroke.com/sshot-2000.jpg

Heron's apache to drive propellers you may use electrically driven motors Motorjet. Then you can harness the power of their relatively high..

http://www.angelfire.com/art/jetengine/
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=777461

Well if he gave such ichyba two engines to the Hero's apache model, it is even quite good size, it could be...

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=302250&pp=15&page=11

May be person size??
The first hybrid helicopter??

Regards Andrew :D

Feliks
09-29-2011, 03:03 PM
Thanks to the new Heron's Apache we can build a pretty good quality helicopter
http://www.new4stroke.com/Heronsapacheb500.gif
When we begin to design a small personal helicopter similar to this:
http://rotorfx.com/mosquito_experimental_ultralight_helicopters_for_s ale/mosquito_experimental_ultralight_helicopters_for_s ale.htm
We see the need to drive to the main rotor diameter of 18 feet (5.5 meter)
We see the need to drive to the main rotor diameter of 18 feet (5.5 meter) and 540 rpm rotational speeds. To achieve such a speed we could use a torque 800 Nm ( ~ 80 kgm ).
Returning now to the Hero 's Apache, we can assume that the torque on the main propeller tubes produce more than us four propeller.
Let's say that in May they long 3.5 feet (1 meter ). So, as at the end of each of those tubes you put the engine that gives us a sequence of 10 N (2 Lbs) values ??(1kg) it will be added to the rotor torque of 10 Nm (1 kgm)
So four of these tubes with motors will give us a 40 Nm (4 kgm).
Now, assuming that our helicopter will be lighter with a big motor, gears and tail rotor, we can assume that he will need to drive only the main rotor diameter of 600 Nm at, say, 16 feet (4.9 m).
So if we placed the total at the end of the tube Heron's Apache silnki of values ??within 600/40 = 15
15 X 2 lbs = 30 lbs of force within, we get has fully functional helicopter....
As it turns out, these motors have already modelers....
http://www.wrenturbines.co.uk/media/files/wren_160_pro_instructions.pdf
Weight engines 8 Kg (14 Lbs)....
http://wn.com/jetkart 10 position video
If you want to build a crane helicopter, use these eight:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JE4t-o7XY6M :tsk
http://www.vortechinternational.com/review.html
http://www.jetcentral.com.mx/english/mammoth.html
:cool::cool::cool:
Or a combination of hybrid electric..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DNOk5hXD60&noredirect=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEpbjk6dguM&feature=related&noredirect=1
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=777461
Or Only electric:
http://www.youtube.com/user/HansThunderbolt
40 pcs enought..~~ 40 KW and ful personal electric helicopter

So it happens that good fun can become a good professional...

Regards Andrew:D

Feliks
09-30-2011, 04:25 AM
Well, maybe but the full electric version:
These eight electric motors:
http://shop.rc-electric-jets.com/RC-Lander-DPS-120-mm-830kv-12S-Metal-EDF-LEDF120-1A83.htm


Now just: 8 electric motors, ie 2, 3 / 4 Lbs each battery X 8 pieces = 22Lbs (~ 10 kg) and can fly for 5 minutes. That is 132 lbs ( 66kg ) meringue can fly 30 minutes at full load... Weight of motors is 132 16 = 148 lbs (74 kg) fuel + engines.

http://alshobbies.com/shop/lookupstock.php?pc=7178

Weight of the traditional system of propulsion engine of CRE MZ202 is 38 kg, the transmission of about 15 kg, 5 gallons of fuel to the tank about 20 kg, the total weight of 72 kg and the propulsion flight time 1 hour..
When you subtract the tail rotor 20 kg to obtain also a similar range..

http://www.new4stroke.com/mosquito_experimental_ultralight_helicopter_dimens ions.gif

Until you can control the direction of these one additional electric motors, administer, only a little smaller.

And this looks like a traditional electric version of the aircraft

http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/8060/electriccricri.jpg

Bumblebee Andrew:D

I have no problems with leaking oil...

IcePaq
10-01-2011, 10:06 AM
The BMW M12/13 motor as used in the brabham had a BMEP of over 1000psi.

Feliks
10-02-2011, 11:45 PM
I think that also the propeller airplanes can replenish the idea of ​​Heron's Jet Propeller. The latest toy modelers have superior features, and you may use them for "big air ".
Well let us take a small aircraft engine Rotax 447 to 44 Nm of torque. On the axis of the propeller must gear, have twice as large, ie ~ ~ 100 Nm (10 kgm ). Przytakim driving the propeller with a diameter of 1700 mm will be to spin it properly and give the appropriate string.
So at the end of a single turbine on the arm of Heron 's say a length of 500 mm have a string 200N (20 kg), and two shoulders at 100 N (10 kg). Then we were given the same torque on the propeller, which gives the Rotax engine.
http://www.faston.home.pl/r447.htm
After putting two turbines, modeling of over 10 kg (100 N), we get a replacement Rotax engine.
They even have the parameters several times larger than we need for this example.
Well, the weight of the drive unit will be cheaper too many times, what in aviation is crucial

It turns out that we already have a fairly large selection of gas turbine engines such
http://www.jetcatusa.com/p200.html
http://www.amtjets.com/Titan.php

And of course we have also quite a large number of electric motors to drive the turbines of jet aircraft models, whose parameters are such that we can use them in Heron's propeller well. Their parameters and parameters of the battery used in development Propeller Heron, causes them to become competitive with conventional engines
http://shop.rc-electric-jets.com/RC-Lander-DPS-120-mm-830kv-12S-Metal-EDF-LEDF120-1A83.htm

They can be used in this exemplary model propeller Heron


http://www.new4stroke.com/Heronspropeller500.gif



After viewing a few videos of models turbuny aircraft, I saw that these turbines do not have to be at the end of the model, and may be in the middle, and the aid of additional exhaust pipes just flies out of the model.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNP9TbkYCrw&feature=related

From this reason, and my solution also applied this collective pipe, which is separated into 4 and changes the direction of exhaust gas.
Thanks to this, quite seriously improves the design Propellers Heron....

http://www.new4stroke.com/Heronplropellerjet.gif
And weight in relation to the Rotax is 10 times less...
So that is similar in other much larger propeller propulsion system also...
http://www.amtjets.com/pdf/Olympus_HP_specification.pdf

Regards Andrew:D

Feliks
10-06-2011, 04:00 AM
This is the first contemporary working model turbines Heron.
* This photo accessories in my Low Budget Institute:

http://www.new4stroke.com/Accessories%20demonstration.jpg

And this movie works as a turbine

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J63NOqgPgVc


Regards Andrew :D

Feliks
10-07-2011, 04:27 AM
Yes, but even here motorcycle without an the traditional engine.......

http://www.new4stroke.com/Bike.jpg

Andrew:D

Feliks
10-07-2011, 06:03 AM
Here, the view from the other side :rolleyes:

http://www.new4stroke.com/Bike1.jpg


Andrew

Feliks
10-10-2011, 03:47 PM
I published once the South African forum.

http://www.landcruiserclub.co.za/cms/index.php?name=Your_Account&profile=1316

Perhaps, someone saw it.
Here it is made and the working prototype engine half rotate. Only this power way and grinding cylindrer....
But it is works....


http://stallionturbos.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=58&Itemid=83


http://www.new4stroke.com/delphin.jpg

http://www.new4stroke.com/delphin1.jpg

http://www.new4stroke.com/delphin2.jpg
http://www.new4stroke.com/valves.jpg

http://www.new4stroke.com/all delphine.jpg

http://www.new4stroke.com/chamber.jpg


http://www.new4stroke.com/piston.jpg

http://www.new4stroke.com/seal1.jpg

http://www.new4stroke.com/seal.jpg

Regards Andrew:D

Feliks
10-12-2011, 07:30 PM
Tt looks exactly like the good ,old vane pump

http://www.tanksystem.de/pics/equipment/hand_vane_pump_gr.jpg


http://www.new4stroke.com/parts.gif


http://www.new4stroke.com/wingpump.jpg

Andrew:D

Feliks
10-17-2011, 04:53 AM
Next Percival - it is too Heron
http://www.new4stroke.com/percival.pdf
.
But all helicopters this typy such defects were....
http://www.new4stroke.com/Rotorvibration.jpg

Seems to me that the project Herons Apache version "FEL -X" will not have these disadvantages, and will be missing heavy and very unreliable gear.... :rolleyes:

Andrew:D

Feliks
10-17-2011, 04:56 AM
Here are a few solutions that can some of the problems to solve..

Surely you will need to test them in practice, before se makes the right decisions as to the shape of the structure of the drive.
Perhaps such a solution with a single tube might be the most efficient, because it will most laminar flow

http://www.new4stroke.com/one%20pipe.jpg

Or a Cutter Heron :D

http://www.new4stroke.com/HeronCutters.jpg

Of course, a whole can be properly enclosed guard areodynamic...

http://www.new4stroke.com/apachewhell.jpg


Well, here an example, if the electric drive can also adapt to the helicopter. Turbine itself would be inside the helicopter, but it would not be permanently linked to the rotor, so that no torque moved...

http://www.new4stroke.com/1400.gif

It is air- gear drive:rolleyes:

Andrew:D

RichH
10-18-2011, 12:13 PM
*Crickets*

Feliks
10-19-2011, 06:13 PM
A very delicate matter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OGz5gu3rSo

Andrew:D

Feliks
02-17-2012, 03:26 PM
Ok, ok , but why write " is invented by a German scientist."????:rolleyes:


http://www.tzhealth.com/medical-devices%5CRugged%20Emissions%20Analyzer/A%20thermal%20catalytic%20converter%20reduce%20emi ssions%20a%20muffler%20to%20reduce%20engine%20nois e%20Dynamometer.htm

And you do not need to share the head of the block, because the valves go up and not down.

Regards Andrew :D

Feliks
02-21-2012, 06:46 AM
I was with my friends in the Museum of aviation again. "I'd like him to show this demo in which the effect of the vacuum State at the top of the wings, which blows the wind from the fan, the ball is sucked in by a transparent tube

provided in the middle of the wings and a peg that pops up on the wing.

Doing this experience again, so your friend can see it, I am surprised that the ball a is NOT sucked in tube!!

It is that this experience has been vandalized, and the ball is sucked on

Vandalized based on this, with a transparent tube to the bottom was several times the seeds.

But this was not the reason for the lack of vacuum in the tube.
After arrives home, thoroughly by looking at the about the well running the show.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fb8IFfnbjY8&feature=player_embedded

I noticed that the tube on the film extends over the upper surface of the wings have 70 mm
The vandalizet show the tube was brought down to equality with the upper surface of the wing.
And this was the main reason for the lack of vacuum in the tube !
Simply air her upper surface of the wing, when it encounters a simple hole in the wing, just get it and seeking to keep the pipes, eliminates any vacuum in it.!!

That is, that the ball could be the suck by the vacuum arising at the top of the wings, in this case the pipe must extend over the upper surface of the wing by about 70 mm !!!

When this tube does not extend, this does not transmit its down this vacuum, even in the smallest degree.

Why is this, explain the following drawings:


http://www.new4stroke.com/wingpipe.jpg

http://www.new4stroke.com/wingright.jpg

http://www.new4stroke.com/airfoil.jpg



Yes so we are one of the one cases where due to vandalism, we fully the specificities of of the Red Baron Windmill...:rolleyes:

According to estimates, the surface of the wing of a 100 m square, with a wind speed of 30 km\/h can produce approximately 750 KG lift.
To get 100 KG of thrust of the propeller to the ultralight trike, the engine must have a power of about 50 KW
You can take also denied that the 100 KG over da US 50 KW electrical Dynamo.
Which had managed to seize the entire lift such 100 m ^ 2 wings which is 750 KG, a power Dynamo would be 300 KW.

The Windmill of the Red Baron 100 m x 30 m = 3000 m ^ 2 and this will give us the 9000 KW.

Now you can build 10 such wings one above with which 30000 m ^ 2 = 90 MW.

No and now depends on how many% of this theoretical power we capture this lift and exchange it into electrical current.


Regards Andrew :D


http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/wrong1.html

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/wrong3.html

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/presar.html
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/shape.html

Feliks
02-24-2012, 03:22 AM
A can so ...

http://www.new4stroke.com/WaterRedBaron.jpg

Andrew :D

Feliks
02-28-2012, 07:47 AM
And in the meantime since the formation of the ideas, changes a lot. For example, go beyond the "magic circle of the cylinder" was the hardest thing.
When I discovered it, a new type of timing, was the new 4 stroke engine:


http://www.new4stroke.com/male.jpg

Regards Andrew :D

Feliks
03-01-2012, 03:18 AM
My 6 cylinder boxer..


http://www.new4stroke.com/6cilinder.jpg


Can have two times less cubic capacity, because that is two times smaller turnover at the flywheel.


Regards Andrew :D

Feliks
03-12-2012, 04:25 AM
I think the era of steam comes to an end. At most in obsolete nuclear power plants will be still used. :)

Half supports the engine has one very big advantage. Piston not friction on the walls of the "cylinder""Only the seals frictions cylinder

Thanks to these properties, the engine may be running on ... the coal dust.
Rudolf Diesel's first engine was built just on the coal dust, but unfortunately zacierał is at work. In the case of half rotate, will not look any login problems.Simply does not have any large surface friction


http://www.new4stroke.com/halfrotate400.gif


http://www.new4stroke.com/halfwater.jpg


Only the directory should be chosen for personal seal. Each round you can straighten lines, of course, resistant to coal dust.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6hwiz0QXsE

http://www.passerotti.com.pl/page/pol/download/549P.pdf


Regards Andrew :D:D

Feliks
03-17-2012, 04:29 PM
Will sufficient heat be generated in the exhaust to be used ina combined cycle situation?

Yes, combined cycle, but also the latest trends ...
http://www.gizmag.com/thermoelectric-cars-improve-mpg/10928/

And since it has to work at the coal face powder (same what they use today's power plants for combustion in boilers).
can seals with carbon, similar to the scrubbing of electric motors
http://hariramco.com/carbon-brushes.html

http://www.dpaonthenet.net/article/47129/C...ompressors.aspx

Star engines were characterized biggest always force density

http://www.new4stroke.com/starhalfrotate5.gif

http://www.new4stroke.com/elastic%20hose.jpg


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 .

http://www.new4stroke.com/half10.jpg

So 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.

http://www.new4stroke.com/sulzer1.jpg

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.
Slzer : 102 RPM 60 000 KW

Half rotate 250 RPM 150 000 KW

In same intake work volume .

And now, the efficiency of the engine, due to the friction of the walls of the cylinder to rise about 5%. That is, it is the most efficient machine for the heat, whose efficiency exceeds 50% of the.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2249

Regards Andrew:D

AirDOGGe
03-17-2012, 11:24 PM
Power problem solved right here:


http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/4885/gerbilwheel1.jpg



:D






And if that's not enough power, one can always uprate:

http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/7548/gerbilwheel2.jpg



:cool:






Who knows? With technology this advanced, the sky is the limit as far as powerplant upgrades go...:

http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/5002/gerbilwheel3.jpg




:thumbsup:

Feliks
03-18-2012, 02:21 AM
Power problem solved right here:


And if that's not enough power, one can always uprate:

:cool:


Who knows? With technology this advanced, the sky is the limit as far as powerplant upgrades go...:

:thumbsup:

My last innovation:

http://www.new4stroke.com/patent.jpg

300% power up !!!

Regards Andrew:rolleyes::rolleyes:

AirDOGGe
03-18-2012, 10:34 AM
My last innovation:

http://www.new4stroke.com/patent.jpg

300% power up !!!

Regards Andrew:rolleyes::rolleyes:


Looks like somebody beat you to it:

http://www.blogcdn.com/green.autoblog.com/media/2009/09/border-collie-hamster-car.jpg

VIDEO LINK: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=floukg9nxgs&feature=player_embedded




;)

Feliks
05-08-2021, 10:28 PM
https://mobilityrxiv.sae.org/

Andrew

Feliks
05-08-2021, 10:31 PM
https://mobilityrxiv.sae.org/