Continue to Site

Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

Register Log in
  • Congratulations GregLocock on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Scuderi~Split Cycle Engine, anything to it? 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sorry JMW, didn't see your posting. Please re-route to JMW's link, all.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.
 
Na.
Here is OK and it isn't a double post because different people posted.
Not everyone covers both forums so its justification enough to leave both running.

JMW
 
1) The Twingle engine of the 1920s

2) Anybody equipped with a copy of Heywood and a brain can identify the likely reasons why its performance (in a general sense) is likely to be ho hum. There are some offsetting advantages, maybe there is some magic there. They have sternly resisted the temptation to publish hard numbers for efficiency and bsfc and power.

3) They have a lot of lawyers and money

Nuff said.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376
 
Couple of idle thoughts

1) why is the charging cylinder the same displacement as the combustion cylinder?

2) has anybody got a quick estimate of the losses associated with the redundant compression/transfer/expansion portion of this engine's cycle?

Incidentally underneath the hood there are a lot of similarities with our old friend the Bourke engine, and really with any crankcase charged two stroke.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376
 
1) I think it was just easier to 'split a four' for the ancient prototype that way. Some recent illustrations suggest a difference in bore, but I haven't noticed any specific discussion of the point.

I suspect the primary reason for not exploring simple alternatives is that every configuration change becomes an excuse for the Research Institute that's been eating their money to restart the simulation build effort from scratch.

I haven't been able to get a straight answer about how many actual engines exist, or ever existed. The published claims seem to be all based on simulations.



Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA
 
I was able to get BSFC #s from one of thier engineers at the SAE conference in Washington D.C. last year. 296g/Kwh. Nothing spectacular. Have to give them credit for thier ability to raise money, too bad they're flushing it down the toilet on this dog.----Phil
 
That's got to be a simulation prediction, not physical.

- Steve
 
jmw said:
BSFC #s ?
Sorry, I'm not from the texting generation.
Click to expand...
BSFC values (numbers) - not really texting generation usage here.
 
I'm a little behind the curve when it comes to high tech. Just got a rotary dial cell phone.----Phil
 

This report made in 1944 mentions BSFC as an acronym for Brake Specific Fuel Consumption. I think 1944 is well before the advent of texting.

I also remember using # as a symbol for number going back to mainframe computer days like the 1970s.

Regards
Pat
See FAQ731-376 for tips on use of eng-tips by professional engineers &
for site rules
 
This is a very ingenious idea, but it is complicated. It appears that there is 1 induction stroke, 1 compression stroke, 1 power stroke and 1 exhaust stroke for 2 paired cylinders per 1 revolution. This is the same as for any 2 cylinders of a 4-stroke engine. It uses only 1/2 the injectors and spark plugs.
However, it has only 1/2 the intake ports and valves and 1/2 the exhaust ports and valves and it looks like the durations of the intake and exhaust events are shorter than they can be in a 4-stroke. The intermediate port and valves are extra restrictions in the chain. It appears to me that the performance of the 2 coupled cylinders would have to be much poorer than for 2 cylinders of a 4-stroke. The BSFC should be higher also because of the added pumping losses in the intermediate port and transfer problems.
The conflict between induction of the pre-compressed charge into the power cylinder and the compression stroke at the same time and the timing of the spark with the induction port still open looks restrictive for induction, compression and spark timing, but only experimentation can tell if or how much of a problem this is.

Is this right? What am I missing?

BTW, the second intermediate valve won't seal well opening to the outside of the chamber. Why is that necessary?
 
140airpower,
Elegantly and politely put . basicly this design in its present form has no future . Why not do away with the charging cylinder and add or substitute a turbocharged intercooled positive displacement supercharger (roots), The result would be better.

A tidy mind not intelligent as it ignors the random opportunities of total chaos. Thats my excuse anyway
Malbeare
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

L
  • Question
internal combustion engine stuck valves
Replies
4
Views
1K
dtimberlake
D
T
  • Question
A completely new piston engine architecture
Replies
7
Views
841
GregLocock
GregLocock
Gbawn
  • Locked
  • Question
Diesel Engine Ratings.
Replies
5
Views
772
LittleInch
LittleInch
enginesrus
  • Locked
  • Question
Scania does it right
Replies
6
Views
628
PJGD
PJGD
Sean Miller
  • Question
Q1=Q2(P2/P1)^.5 ,where it does come from!
Replies
2
Views
606
PersonalProfile
PersonalProfile

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor

Back
Top Bottom