The Bourke Engine Solved Virtually All Imbalance Problems In 1930 With Only 2 Moving Parts! 20

[Cryptoman]

thread71-376751
Anyone seen the CMC Sytek Scotch Yoke Engine? Completely kills the imbalance problems that conventional direct couple conn rod types suffer from. Interesting how it resembles the Original reverse cam effect Bourke Engine invented by Russell Bourke back in the early 1930's!
But what about utilizing only half the scotch yoke and applying it to conventional inline 4 and 6 cylinder engines? I thought this up decades ago when I was first introduced by a friend to the Bourke Engine Documentary written by Lois Bourke back in the early 70's. Have wondered what the real world result would be for a very long time and due to lack of resources, have not yet been able to find out. Would be easy enough to simulate on today's super fact computers.
It is very easy to realize that this solves imbalance and piston side loading problems associated with conventonal conn rod setups due to lack of direct coupling of the conn' rod to the throw. This advantege is obvious to anyone who can see and think.
One of Russell's main goals was to cure all vibration problems inherrant in conventional engines.
Also, there is a free piston engine design called the Bourke Engine, invented by Russell Bourke back in the 1930's! Basically a dual 2 stroke cylinder design with pistons fixed to a ridged inline connecting rod through a scotch yoke mechanism that simply imparts power to the rotating mass as it is not directly coupled thereto. Sort of the mechanical version of passive agressive!
Russell Bourke designed the worlds first HCCI engine without realizing it or at least without naming it correctly. His primary discovery and goal was to achieve clean cool environmentally friendly exhaust emissions via an inverted combustion process known in conventional terms as pre-ignition! He so acheived these goals in his design. His purpose was to do away with multiple parasitic power robbing parts and that's exactly what he achieved way back in the 1930's! It's still the worlds most efficient piston I/C engine ever too!
For free info -

http://www.bourke-engine.com

/

http://www.projectbourke.com

 

[GregLocock]

The game is called ripping investors off, admittedly legally.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[malbeare]

Greg.
I resigned when I realised that I was just the carrot in the investor rippoff

A tidy mind not intelligent as it ignors the random opportunities of total chaos. Thats my excuse anyway
Malbeare

http://www.sixstroke.com

 

[waross]

Liquid piston engine?
Like a Nash vacuum pump running as a pressure pump into a continuous combustion chamber.
The exhaust exits through a larger displacement Nash vacuum pump repurposed as a motor and running on a common shaft.
This may be best for marine applications so as to have a ready supply of make-up water.
I can see the heading now:
The Liquid Piston Engine Solved Virtually All Imbalance Problems With Only 1 Moving Parts!
There's something about this thread that keeps sending my mind off into the weeds.
Still, I can't give it up. Grin

Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter

 

[RodRico]

gmaslin,

Thanks for the vote of support. My predictions and expectations vary as I nudge the design to reflect what I learn from others kind enough to offer feedback and as I refine the final prototype design. Factors impacting the prototype have been overall size (driven by the tools I plan to use to make it) minimum wall thickness (which I set to values from machine shop guidelines), and decisions regarding key design features (seals, lubrication, cooling, etc.). I recently, for example, decided to eliminate the integrated centrifugal fan because I'm targeting aviation and it's very simply for me to use prop wash over finned oil coolers to do what I was doing with a much more complex (and uncertain) centrifugal fan.

I don't see myself *ever* advocating my engine for automobiles. My primary target market remains light aviation because I think it will ultimately be the only place we continue using internal combustion rather than electric propulsion (batteries are quite heavy and limited in capacity). Remember, it's going to take years for me to get my motor running and optimized. In that time, I believe internal combustion will still be used in automobiles, but primarily in a hybrid configuration in which the engine is used as a generator only. Auto makers also invest a fortune in their designs, service large markets, have great minds, and deep pockets while makers of small airplane/drone engines continue using dated designs due to their comparatively small R&D budget. The small aviation engine is a good place to operate in my opinion.

Rod

 

[gruntguru]

For every "new engine concept" that is legit, well researched and technically sound, there are a thousand that are not. Of those 1,000 at least a handful get to some stage of "commercialisation" that can only be described as "ripping investors off".

As far as the Bourke engine goes. I don't know enough about the history to declare Bourke a snake oil salesman (sometimes the inventor is simply an innocently naive believer in his own concept) but it will be obvious to any engineer with a background in ICE's that there is no magic in the Bourke Engine.,

je suis charlie

 

[PJGD]

On the topic of other similar engines, technically sound or otherwise, it may be worth taking a look at Honda's attempt at a well balanced flat twin as seen here:

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7434562.html

I have great difficulty in comprehending just what is going on and how, but it is a fascinating and complex mechanism anyway.

PJGD

 

[gruntguru]

Thanks for that link PJGD. The mechanism is the same as the Neander, with a few enhancements.
1. Splitting one connecting rod in two so the two pieces can "straddle" the rod on the other crankshaft. This allows the crankshafts to be moved closer together.
2. Duplicating the three rods and one piston on the other side of the cranks so each crank carries 3 rods.

je suis charlie

 

[PJGD]

gg; Thanks for that quick summary of the Honda arrangement; I did not have the time to look at it closely and I struggled to make sense of it. I am of course familiar with the Neander arrangement and the Paul engine etc. all based on the Lanchester layout.

PJGD

 

[Dave Kirk]

I hate to see this thread die, so here’s a small contribution to keep it going.

After writing that article for Sport Aviation magazine on testing the Bourke engine, I received many complimentary letters (pre-internet days) on how much readers appreciated an honest evaluation of this controversial engine. A few were not very kind, essentially stating that Russell Bourke was way ahead of me in the understanding of engines and that my testing was flawed in virtually all respects. To these people that blindly believed that everything that Bourke stated was fact, I labeled “Bourkeophiles”. No disrespect intended – just a handy term for those that believe in something that violates physical principles. There are numerous examples of this mentality still thriving today and notable examples can be seen on YouTube. The Flat Earth Society, Free Energy, NASA Faked Moon Landings, etc., are actually humorous in a tragic sort of way, in the total disregard for science. I must admit, I get a bit irritated when I hear things like “you engineers don’t know everything – you just know what you learned in college”. To this I must agree, but I learned enough to know that when the physics of mechanics, chemistry or thermodynamics are violated, that’s when I raise the red flag.

Now to relate a couple of Bourkeophile true stories:

I was contacted by a guy who wanted me to do some consulting for him on a revolutionary idea he had for a modified Bourke-cycle. His idea was to use a Bourke engine, raise the compression ratio to a very high value, then inject water into the cylinders at TDC. The high temperature air would instantly cause the injected water to flash into superheated steam, thus propelling the pistons downward with tremendous force. The result would be a steam engine that doesn’t require a boiler and would run on water. I tried to explain that water is not a fuel, heat and work are mutually convertible processes, and rather than adding heat to the compressed air, you would be removing heat and negative work would be generated. Long story short – he didn’t understand and I couldn’t convince him. I didn’t charge for my services which only amounted to a few hours of word salad.

Another guy contacted me on a project that he just knew would be revolutionary and “had to work”! Knowing the virtues of the high power and efficiency of the Bourke engine, he wanted me to calculate the “miles-per-gallon” he could potentially get from a Bourke engine fitted with a 200 mpg carburetor. He was serious and offered an attractive payment for consulting but my ethics prevented it. He actually went away mad after I tried to explain some elementary engine principles to him.

Such is the life of being a consultant in the engine profession.

Dave

 

[RodRico]

Not to say water injection doesn't have *any* legitimate use in an engine, however.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_injection_(engine)

 

[GregLocock]

Water injection can be a great idea. Perhaps, down the track now we've got used to the urea tanks, it'd be possible to introduce this? O/T Perhaps an English shorthand for Bourkephiles is Berks... but they may not appreciate the actual derivation.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[dgallup]

BMW has a vehicle with water injection.

https://jalopnik.com/how-the-absurdly-expensive-bmw-m4-gts-water-injection-w-1760175847

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

The Help for this program was created in Windows Help format, which depends on a feature that isn't included in this version of Windows.

 

[ornerynorsk]

The OP is nearly a month AWOL, but this has been a fascinating thread. Glad to see it continue.

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.

 

[RodRico]

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.

Great signature line! I used to run an R&D group, and I constantly had to remind leadership "you're focused too much on the D and overly averse to the failure inherent in R"

 

[Lou Scannon]

Re BMW, water injection, done properly and with full advantage taken on the combustion recipe side, is no less complicated or mission critical than the fuel system and needs to be developed accordingly.
Whereas the fuel system development can be amortized basically across the entire fleet, the water injection system for a niche product is bound to carry a premium cost, if the development cost is borne only by the niche product.
If you doubt my assessment, go develop and validate your own water injection system and let us know how it goes.
That is why, in my view, and history bears this out, that fuel enrichment is the poor man's water injection.
Not to say that water injection isn't better, in principle.


"Schiefgehen wird, was schiefgehen kann" - das Murphygesetz

 

[dgallup]

I put my own very crude water injection system on my '79 Mustang. It was not expensive but it did the job of suppressing detonation at elevated turbo boost.

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

The Help for this program was created in Windows Help format, which depends on a feature that isn't included in this version of Windows.

 

[CWB1]

I've had water injected pulling tractor engines, unfortunately they tended to go boom as they were rather crude. On my hot rods today I prefer to accomplish the same thing with EGR.

 

[Lou Scannon]

Like water injection, EGR is a very effective knock suppressant/charge diluent/what have you. Normally, for the same BMEP, you will need more boost pressure with EGR to get the job done versus water injection. This may bring challenges in the air system and power cylinder areas.

"Schiefgehen wird, was schiefgehen kann" - das Murphygesetz