SethCotton
Mechanical
- Feb 17, 2014
- 3
Hello, My name is Seth Cotton.
I am a self taught design engineer with a work history in packaging engineering.
I have been working on some various designs for several years and posted some youtube videos as a form of prior art and to open discussions with companies and with the brilliant people found in forums like this.
So I was working on this variable valve lift and timing system and unfortunately there seems to be an extremely similar system patented in 2002. My questions relate to the differences between the systems and their functions. Why was the original system not put into production and does my system supersede the design patented.
Linked is the youtube video showing my concept.
As you can see the variable lift and valve timing are locked together in a preset ratio. As described in the video, these ratios can be altered by component dimensions and allowed travel of the rocker shaft.
Linked if the patent in question.
As you can see the basic concept is very similar, however there are some major differences in how these two systems go about achieving the desired functions. I cant tell you how frustrating it is to spend so much time designing something like this only to find someone has already patented something so similar.
The next design in question is a type of rotary/radial engine concept I cam up with. The real design challenges here are with rotor sealing and I believe I have solved using apex seals. However the motor will most likely burn a bit of oil, any tips on how to control this would be greatly appreciated. The main concept which I believe to be new, is to rotate the cylinder around the crank/eccentric shaft in the same direction of rotation. I am using a 3:1 planetary gear system to accomplish this in an attempt to create a longer dwell time during combustion events as opposed to a fixed cylinder engine. I have been hotly debating this with an engineer friend, not sure which one of us is correct yet but the concept is interesting. I did talk to a BMW engineer about this concept and he seemed interested in using it for a range extender for electric vehicles although nothing has come of it yet.
Linked is a youtube video.
In this video the intake port is on the bottom of the engine and the exhaust port is on the top although he engine could easily be flipped over, the spark plug(s) would always be in the central area of the housing opposing the ports.
What I am seeing here is a 1/3rd slower combustion stroke, a 1/3rd faster exhaust stroke, a 1/3rd slower intake stroke and a 1/3rd faster compression stroke in comparison to a conventional fixed cylinder engine. It also seems to apply some force to the rotor (Not shown in the video) on the leading edge of the cylinder as it crosses the exhaust port. The residual pressure from the combustion event would push its way out between the leading edge of the cylinder and the approaching edge of the exhaust port.
You could use a conventional crank and con rod setup for this design as well.
Last design is a concept that harks back to the "Big bang" Dual cylinder firing motorcycle engines used in moto gp only with a balanced firing order using a straight six design. Its not a mirror image crankshaft like a bmw wherein journals 1&6, 2&5, and 3&4 are paired because I was worried about distributing the forces evenly over the crankshaft, as well as vibrations. I chose to make journals 1&4, 2&5, and 3&6 pairs on the crankshaft to better distribute the load, my question on this crankshaft design is in regard to the possible torsional vibrations generated by the "screw" like nature of the crankshaft and if these vibrations would be present or difficult to dampen.
I could go on for about five pages on each one of these concepts pros and cons ect. I feel that simply showing the design concepts and opening the discussion to be easier on your eyes and brain.
I am open to criticism, thoughts, and advice.
Thanks,
Seth Cotton
I am a self taught design engineer with a work history in packaging engineering.
I have been working on some various designs for several years and posted some youtube videos as a form of prior art and to open discussions with companies and with the brilliant people found in forums like this.
So I was working on this variable valve lift and timing system and unfortunately there seems to be an extremely similar system patented in 2002. My questions relate to the differences between the systems and their functions. Why was the original system not put into production and does my system supersede the design patented.
Linked is the youtube video showing my concept.
As you can see the variable lift and valve timing are locked together in a preset ratio. As described in the video, these ratios can be altered by component dimensions and allowed travel of the rocker shaft.
Linked if the patent in question.
As you can see the basic concept is very similar, however there are some major differences in how these two systems go about achieving the desired functions. I cant tell you how frustrating it is to spend so much time designing something like this only to find someone has already patented something so similar.
The next design in question is a type of rotary/radial engine concept I cam up with. The real design challenges here are with rotor sealing and I believe I have solved using apex seals. However the motor will most likely burn a bit of oil, any tips on how to control this would be greatly appreciated. The main concept which I believe to be new, is to rotate the cylinder around the crank/eccentric shaft in the same direction of rotation. I am using a 3:1 planetary gear system to accomplish this in an attempt to create a longer dwell time during combustion events as opposed to a fixed cylinder engine. I have been hotly debating this with an engineer friend, not sure which one of us is correct yet but the concept is interesting. I did talk to a BMW engineer about this concept and he seemed interested in using it for a range extender for electric vehicles although nothing has come of it yet.
Linked is a youtube video.
In this video the intake port is on the bottom of the engine and the exhaust port is on the top although he engine could easily be flipped over, the spark plug(s) would always be in the central area of the housing opposing the ports.
What I am seeing here is a 1/3rd slower combustion stroke, a 1/3rd faster exhaust stroke, a 1/3rd slower intake stroke and a 1/3rd faster compression stroke in comparison to a conventional fixed cylinder engine. It also seems to apply some force to the rotor (Not shown in the video) on the leading edge of the cylinder as it crosses the exhaust port. The residual pressure from the combustion event would push its way out between the leading edge of the cylinder and the approaching edge of the exhaust port.
You could use a conventional crank and con rod setup for this design as well.
Last design is a concept that harks back to the "Big bang" Dual cylinder firing motorcycle engines used in moto gp only with a balanced firing order using a straight six design. Its not a mirror image crankshaft like a bmw wherein journals 1&6, 2&5, and 3&4 are paired because I was worried about distributing the forces evenly over the crankshaft, as well as vibrations. I chose to make journals 1&4, 2&5, and 3&6 pairs on the crankshaft to better distribute the load, my question on this crankshaft design is in regard to the possible torsional vibrations generated by the "screw" like nature of the crankshaft and if these vibrations would be present or difficult to dampen.
I could go on for about five pages on each one of these concepts pros and cons ect. I feel that simply showing the design concepts and opening the discussion to be easier on your eyes and brain.
I am open to criticism, thoughts, and advice.
Thanks,
Seth Cotton
