Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 155

Thread: PatEF; the "Ef" for efficiency

  1. #106
    apriliaforum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Athens Greece
    Posts
    178
    Hello all.

    Thanks for your “strictly technical”, well supported and polite posts, especially those signed with poster’s real names.


    Back to Strictly Technical:

    At Mazda’s SkyActive-X (an almost HCCI system) presentation the focus was on the way they activate the combustion:
    an expanding “fire-ball air-piston” (with center at the spark plug electrodes, containing burnt rich air-fuel mixture (which means stratified charge and secondary extreme pressure fuel injection towards the spark plug)) compresses the rest lean air-fuel mixture in the cylinder, causing its auto-ignition and rapid combustion.

    In order to support their SkyActi-X system (they plan to put in production in 2019, they have prototypes on the roads for test) they present the weaknesses of their previous SkyActiv-G.

    Among them, the slow / progressive combustion dominates:





    To put it simply:

    The expansion ratio of a fuel quantity burnt at 33 degrees after the TDC is 1:5.5 (for an 11:1 compression ratio engine and 2:1 con-rod to stroke ratio).

    The expansion ratio of a fuel quantity burnt 66 degrees after the TDC is 1:2.5.

    Such small expansion ratios “kill” the Brake Thermal Efficiency”.

    The combustion is far from being a “constant volume combustion”.

    A true constant volume combustion at the TDC is the ideal for top BTE.



    Quote from http://www.mazda.com/en/csr/special/2017_01/

    Pursuit of the ultimate engine

    Eiji Nakai (General Manager, Powertrain Development Division, Mazda):

    With compression ignition, gasoline burns vigorously only when the right temperature and pressure conditions are met. It's especially hard to combust when the air-fuel ratio is high. We had to create conditions for the combustion of a predetermined amount of fuel as planned in every combustion cycle and in various driving scenarios and operating conditions.

    End of Quote

    Quote from https://blog.caranddriver.com/mazdas...ine-explained/

    Controlling homogeneous combustion events—which amount to otherwise potentially damaging pre-ignition—is difficult without timed spark or injection events, requiring tight control over the amounts of air and fuel in the cylinder, as well as pressures and temperatures. As such, HCCI is intolerant of higher engine speeds and extremely sensitive to variances in atmospheric pressure that come with elevation changes or weather swings.

    End of Quote



    The PatBam HCCI,

    either as a 2-stroke Opposed Piston:



    or as a two-stroke single piston:



    or as a four stroke:



    does exactly what is considered difficult in the second quote above: “without timed spark or injection events (a spark plug is optional, not a requirement in the PatBam; and if desired the PatBam can operate with a carburetor for the preparation of the homogeneous lean mixture) it manages to burn (by the high compression in the auxiliary chamber) a small quantity of the charge and, just before the TDC, it burst the burnt gas from the auxiliary chamber into the main chamber (as a mechanical “fire-ball air-piston”) causing its auto-ignition / rapid combustion at almost constant volume.


    According Mazda’s Technical director (first quote above): “We had to create conditions for the combustion of a predetermined amount of fuel”

    The PatBam geometry does create these conditions for the combustion of a predetermined amount of fuel.

    And because the overall compression ratio needs not to be extreme, any longer, the peak pressure in the combustion chamber is not catastrophically high.

    Thanks
    Manolis Pattakos

  2. #107
    apriliaforum expert Satanic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    601
    Hello all.

    Photosensitive epilepsy status: triggered

    Thanks
    Bruce Willis


  3. #108
    apriliaforum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Athens Greece
    Posts
    178
    Hello all.


    Here is a "more conventional" HCCI PatBam 2-stroke:





    wherein the piston-ring of the auxiliary piston slides permanently onto the cylinder liner of the auxiliary chamber.

    The same design fits with 4-strokes, too.


    Thanks
    Manolis Pattakos

  4. #109
    apriliaforum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Athens Greece
    Posts
    178
    Hello all.


    The following animation has been added at the bottom of the http://www.pattakon.com/pattakonPatBam.htm web page.





    It is a four-stroke PatBam HCCI control.


    Exhaust valve: red.
    Intake valve: blue.
    Auxiliary chamber "anvil": black.


    Thanks
    Manolis Pattakos

  5. #110
    apriliaforum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Athens Greece
    Posts
    178
    Hello all.


    Here is a youtube video - animation of the PatBam HCCI in a 4-stroke engine:





    Thanks
    Manolis Pattakos

  6. #111
    apriliaforum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Athens Greece
    Posts
    178
    Hello all.





    HCCI Spontaneous Combustion vs Spark Ignition Progressive Combustion


    The finger (bottom right) corresponds to the spark.


    The hand (right middle) corresponds to the transfer port opening of the PatBam HCCI.

    Thanks
    Manolis Pattakos
    Last edited by manolis8; 01-29-2018 at 12:47 AM.

  7. #112
    apriliaforum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Athens Greece
    Posts
    178
    Hello all.


    Here is a Portable Flyer wherein the design is focused on the safety, without compromising in the rest areas.







    ENGINE


    Two OPRE Tilting engines, each having 350cc capacity (86mm bore, 30+30=60mm stroke) preferably the PatBam version for HCCI combustion (no need for high voltage circuit).


    The two engine casings are secured / bolted to each other:





    to form the Portable Flyer casing.


    I.e. there are two independent propulsion units, each comprising an engine and two counter-rotating propellers.





    Portable Flyer total mass: less than 20Kg / 44lb.




    PORTABLE FLYER SIZE


    With 3-blade propellers having 39’’ (991mm) diameter,
    and with 21’’ (533mm) distance from propeller axis to propeller axis,
    the maximum dimension of the Portable Flyer is 39’’+21’’ = 60’’ (3.5 points (35% of the maximum Final Score) in the “compact size” scoring of the GoFly competition: https://www.herox.com/GoFly/guidelines sponsored by BOEING).




    QUIET TAKE OFF


    Limiting the propeller tip speed at only 150m/sec (44% of the sound velocity) for “quiet” take off, the resulting propeller rpm is 2,900rpm.


    With 28’’ pitch and 3 blades per propeller, the static thrust at 2,900rpm is ~35Kp / 350N (at least according http://www.godolloairport.hu/calc/strc_eng/index.htm ; if anybody has another static thrust calculator, he can check it out), while the power absorbed by each propeller is ~15bhp.


    At the “quiet” take off, the total upwards thrust is 4*35=140Kp (with a total mass <110Kg, this means ~0.3g upwards acceleration) and the required power from each engine is ~30bhp.


    The small tip speed keeps the noise low, and the “noiseless” scoring high (GoFly / BOEING competition: the quietness counts for some 40% of the Final Score).


    With 2.4:1 “crankshaft to propeller” reduction ratio, the 2,900rpm of the propellers at the above “quiet” take-off, translates into 7,000rpm for the engines.


    In order a 350cc 2-stroke engine to provide 30bhp at 7,000rpm, it needs to make 30mN of torque at 7,000rpm (~90mN/lt specific torque, which is easily attainable even with 4-stroke engines).


    After the take off, the engine rpm (and the propeller rpm) increase to enable a high cruise speed (above 100mph (160Km/h)).




    TOP SPEED


    At top speed (> 100kts / 185Km/h) the propellers rev at 4,350rpm (propeller tip speed 2/3 of the sound velocity), and the engines are running at 10,500rpm (at 10.5m/sec mean piston speed, which is still low and improves the long term reliability).
    In the scoring of the GoFly / BOEING competition (see figure “speed” at https://www.herox.com/GoFly/guidelines) this means less than 0.05 points below the maximum possible (this counts for less than 0.5% of the maximum possible Final Score).




    SAFETY


    In case of malfunction of the one engine, or in case one propeller falls apart, or in case a transmission tooth belt is broken, or . . ., the “healthy” propulsion unit is capable for a safe landing.


    With the one only engine running at 9,000rpm (mean piston speed: 9m/sec) and driving its two 3-blade 39’’ diameter / 28’’ pitch propellers at 3750rpm (2.4:1 reduction):
    the total thrust force is ~115Kp,
    the tip speed is 195m/sec (57% of the sound velocity),
    the power required from the running engine is ~65bhp (which means: ~50mN of torque from 350cc capacity, i.e. ~150mN/lt specific torque, which is attainable by a good 2-stroke: the Rotax 850 has more than 175mN/lt peak specific torque).


    With “only” 195m/sec propeller tip speed, the Portable Flyer is quiet even during an emergency landing.




    FAST TAKE OFF


    With both engines running at 9,000rpm, the upwards acceleration at a “fast take off” is more than 1g (10m/sec); it is like “falling towards the sky”.


    Alternatively: the Portable Flyer can carry two persons (the pilot and a passenger); in this case at a malfunction of the one propulsion unit, the emergency landing is not possible (unless the one person (the pilot or the passenger) falls, preferably with a parachute).




    CRUISING / CONSUMPTION / MILEAGE


    With the pilot wearing a wing suit,
    at 100mph cruising (87kts / 160Km/h / 44.5m/sec) the required thrust is about 30Kp (300N, 66lb) and the calculated power is ~18bhp.


    (the data are taken from http://www.dropzone.com/news/General...light_613.html )


    At cruising the propellers rev at 3,750rpm (propeller tip speed 57% of the sound velocity), and the engines rev at 9,000rpm (mean piston speed: 9m/sec)


    With, say, 75% propeller efficiency, the power required from the engines is ~24bhp.
    With the engines running at 35% BTE (attainable with HCCI combustion and lean mixture), the fuel consumption (gasoline) at 100mph (160Km/h) cruising is easily calculated at ~5.5lt/h (3.5l/100Km), and the mileage at 67mpg (US gallons).
    For a distance of 200miles (320Km), they are required some 11lt (~8Kg) of gasoline.


    Each engine has to be capable of providing, at 9,000rpm, the 65bhp required for an emergency landing (as previously described). Compared to the 24bhp required for cruising at 100mph, the engine(s) at cruising will operate at substantially light load (quite lean air fuel mixture if HCCI).


    The straight line a Portable Flyer follows going to a specific destination is a big advantage as compared to a car and to a motorcycle which cover a substantially longer distance following the road.




    HIGH SPEED AND SAFETY


    The ability for high speed flights is mandatory for the safety; at windy weather a big size / slow moving (“hovering”) flyer is like a “feather in the wind”.
    If the Portable Flyer can fly way faster than the wind, the strong wind is not a problem.




    USE


    In the near future the Portable Flyers (or the Personal Flyers) appear as interesting alternatives for cars / motorcycles / boats etc (which means wide use).


    For special uses, the Portable Flyers appear as a passť partout.


    Think of:


    A “first aid” doctor arriving into a couple of minutes and landing 5m from the injured persons.


    A rescue team flying to a sinking vessel.


    A fireman who, at a skyscraper fire, is taking off the road and is landing in seconds on the roof of the skyscraper to help (or to take away) trapped persons (if each engine alone is capable for an emergency landing, the Portable Flyer is capable to lift, besides the pilot, a passenger (or two: the Portable Flyer mass is counted only once)).




    COST


    Regarding the ownership cost, a Portable Flyer like the above is way simpler than a car or motorcycle (it needs not wheels, it needs not suspension, it needs not a steering, . . .): just two simple, lightweight, vibration-free engines forming the casing, and four propellers.
    Regarding the running cost, according the previous calculations a Portable Flyer appears more economical (and more green) than a car or motorcycle.




    THEORETICALLY SPEAKING


    All the previous are just theories; yet, interesting theories.


    The safety is the “big issue”.


    Having two independent propulsion units (each alone capable for emergency landings),
    having also a parachute (for just in case, say when it runs out of fuel),
    having (optionally) three small wheels like:




    for emergency airplane-like-landing on a road or on a flat field,
    the safety appears better than the safety provided by the conventional airplanes and helicopters.




    SUMMARY


    In the double-propulsion-unit OPRE Tilting Portable Flyer presented above, nothing appears near or beyond the current state of the art limits.

    Lightweight carbon-fiber propellers of various designs and sizes are available in the market at low prices.


    Toothed belts are common place for power transmission and revs reduction.

    The structure of the Portable Flyer utilizes the engine casings as its backbone.


    The perfect vibration free (including both, inertia vibrations and power pulses vibrations) is a requirement when a powerful engine is to be directly supported / secured on the body of the pilot/rider; otherwise a long (say of one or two hours) flight would be a torture.


    The counter-rotating propellers eliminate the gyroscopic rigidity and allow the pilot/rider to vector the thrust immediately and effortlessly to the desired direction.


    Every ounce of mass that can be omitted from a personal flyer, must be omitted. The more the mass of the flyer, the more fuel is required for a specific range and the more challenging the take-off / landing becomes.


    The peroxide JetPacks consume some 30Kg of “fuel” in half a minute.
    The jet powered personal flyers (Yves Rossi like, Zapata like etc) consume their fuel in ten minute, or so (BTE less than too small).
    The electrical personal flyers are based on batteries; and the existing batteries have an energy density several dozens of times lower than the fossil fuels (gasoline, kerosene, Diesel etc). The energy density of the power source is more than important for a flying device.


    The body and the eyes and the senses of the pilot/rider are available; why not to use them as the fuselage and the sensors and the control system?
    Isn’t this what the birds are doing?
    Relative to the birds, the low power to weight ratio of the human body is the only thing that restricts us from flying / hovering.
    This lack of power is what the OPRE Tilting engines and the propellers are curing at a true “neutral” and efficient way.


    Thanks
    Manolis Pattakos

  8. #113
    apriliaforum expert yzr750's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Brisbane Australia
    Posts
    4,815
    Quote Originally Posted by manolis8 View Post
    Relative to the birds, the low power to weight ratio of the human body is the only thing that restricts us from flying / hovering.
    Thanks
    Manolis Pattakos
    hahahah, you're a funny guy.........
    seesecurity.com.au

  9. #114
    apriliaforum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Athens Greece
    Posts
    178
    Hello YZR750


    I had to omit two paragraphs in my last post because the number of characters was above the limit.

    Here they are:



    ENGINE (again)

    The two OPRE Tilting engines are the heart and the backbone of the Portable Flyer.

    The “OPRE” stands for Opposed piston Pulling Rod Engine while the “Tilting” refers to a valve secured on the small end of the connecting rod; the tilting valve controls the intake and the transfer (no need for reed valves or rotary valves). More at http://www.pattakon.com/pattakonTilting.htm

    Each “crankcase” (actually the space underside the piston crown, inside the piston) runs not-pressurized.

    The thrust loads are taken at the cold ends of the engine, away from port openings.

    The synchronizing gearwheels between the two crankshafts run unloaded and serve as balance webs, too.

    Each engine, alone, is perfectly vibration free, and is driving its own pair of counter-rotating propellers (zero gyroscopic rigidity).

    The short piston stroke (30mm) allows high revs at low mean piston speed (reliability).

    With HCCI (i.e. spontaneous) combustion into a compact bowl, the over-square design is fine; the combined stroke is 30+30=60mm; with 86mm bore, the design is by far less over-square than the famous Ducati Panigale 1299 (60.8mm stroke, 116mm bore).

    The pulling rod architecture increases substantially (~40%) the piston dwell at the combustion dead center enabling more “constant volume combustion”.

    The single-piece “pipe-like” casing improves the stiffness, the lightweight, the simplicity and the low cost.



    AMENDMENTS ARE REQUIRED


    In the previous the GoFly competition (sponsored by BOEING) was mentioned only as a reference point.
    Surprisingly (because the BOEING is involved) they focus on the quietness and on the maximum dimension (8.5ft maximum) of the device: 90% of the total scoring is for the noiseless take-off / landing and for the maximum dimension of the Personal Flyer.


    Thanks
    Manolis Pattakos


  10. #115
    apriliaforum expert FTM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Portsmouth Uk
    Posts
    9,491
    Congratulations, you've just invented a helicopter.
    FUCK THE MAGS


    Never live the same day twice. (My wife nearly pissed her self laughing when she read my signature line, because she reckons she has never met anyone in the whole of her life who hates change more than me) She does have a point .

  11. #116
    apriliaforum expert cew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Brandon, MS
    Posts
    1,939
    Good luck getting the FAA to buy off on this contraption. Can you imagine the pain if you ground-looped this thing...OUCH! And conventional landings would be very damaging to the knees and feet...a human tail skid!

  12. #117
    apriliaforum expert photoRotor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    SE corner of the NW
    Posts
    10,286
    So now he's an aeronauticalist?







    Yeah, I made that up.
    JD

    '01 Futura

  13. #118
    apriliaforum expert yzr750's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Brisbane Australia
    Posts
    4,815
    Quote Originally Posted by photoRotor View Post
    So now he's an aeronauticalist?







    Yeah, I made that up.
    He's all things to all men, a genius beyond our comprehension, if only anyone could understand his designs the human race would be advanced way further than it is now, it's all our fault for being so fucking stupid.
    seesecurity.com.au

  14. #119
    apriliaforum expert
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Clearwater, Fl
    Posts
    7,415
    There are other much safer versions of that which have already been built with working prototypes and Beta versions being test flown around the world. No vaporous theories but actual development and testing of real working full sized models in real world conditions being flown by real people.

    Archimedes did not prove his designs by repetitively rehashing them but by actually building them and personally demonstrating physically that they worked.

  15. #120
    apriliaforum expert FTM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Portsmouth Uk
    Posts
    9,491
    Screw Archimedes, Manholeis8 is much more cleverer.
    FUCK THE MAGS


    Never live the same day twice. (My wife nearly pissed her self laughing when she read my signature line, because she reckons she has never met anyone in the whole of her life who hates change more than me) She does have a point .

Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Stick with the RS or go for a restricted 400!??
    By technoandy in forum RS125 Euro-archive
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 05-23-2003, 08:12 AM
  2. Giving up on the RS, traded it for a CBR250RR
    By Tokyo Rider in forum RS125 Euro-archive
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 05-21-2003, 01:29 AM
  3. The coolest Sprockets in the World...and now for Aprilia
    By micah apriliaforum com in forum SL1000 Falco Forum (all years)
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 12-29-2002, 08:14 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •