# Twin Flame Gulper Revisited



## Bogstandard (Sep 14, 2007)

I started off this little project with the cylinders mounted side by side, but it got a bit hairy when the flames started to shoot about and interfere with the opposite flame, so I decided to go with a boxer configuration. So I salvaged what I could from the original, made new baseplate, burners and a tank. This is to show how I got on with that exercise.

















And to really show how it got on, try this next bit

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IyrWRBoC-2c" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350"> </embed>

Except for a bit more polishing and reshaping the project has been a success.
Just a few words to people who are contemplating making one of these engines. On the plans it shows the burner at a certain height, I couldn't get it to work with this dimension, if you need to set them up the same as mine, just ask. The other problem that I found with the instructions was that Jan said you can use a bit of thin oil on the engine once it had warmed up, only use a minute amount on the little end pin and maybe a bit on the cylinder where the pin runs right thru it, otherwise the engine will totally sieze up with a gummy deposit.

John


----------



## mklotz (Sep 14, 2007)

John,

To use the vernacular, that is "way cool".  I'm amazed that anyone could get a two cylinder flame sucker to work.

It appears that the valving is driven somehow by the piston (as opposed to a separate crank off the driveshaft).  Am I right about that?


----------



## Bogstandard (Sep 14, 2007)

Marv,
The contra piston is driven by the main piston.
All shown here -
http://heetgasmodelbouw.ridders.nu/Webpaginas/pagina_happer_inw_schuif/inw_schuif_frameset.htm

I contacted Jan about the phenomononomnomn (attributes) that this engine has, because normally a flame gulper will stop when it gets moved about too much or taken into draughty conditions, but because I actually fixed the burner I can do both of the above with no problems. He has decided to build one himself to prove the theory.

John


----------



## rake60 (Sep 14, 2007)

Beautiful John!

I still haven't gotten my single cylinder together.
Knowing how difficult a single can be, makes your double even more
impressive!!!

Rick


----------



## Bogstandard (Sep 14, 2007)

Rick,
Glad you like it, it is now like a little pussycat rather than a wild beast, and can be quick started by warming up the cylinders with a blowtorch first, 30 seconds on each then wait for a few seconds to allow the heat to penetrate.
Here is how I set up the fixed burner position.
They are both in exactly the same position for the 'sweet' spot.
The top of the tubes are 1mm down from the bottom of the inlet port and 1mm into the port towards the flywheel. The tubes are positioned right against the cylinder. I used glass fibre for the wick and it is sticking straight up from the tube by 8mm. This might help when you get yours running, as I just couldn't get it to run with the dimensions on the plan.

John


----------



## rake60 (Sep 14, 2007)

I see Jan added a link to your two cylinder video on his web page for 
the engine.


----------



## Bogstandard (Sep 15, 2007)

Hi Rick,
Fame at last, will have to get out the Raybans and a new pen for signing autographs  :lol: 
But joking aside, I think that the fixed burner has solved a lot of the problems with this type of engine and if it inspires just one person to have a go at one, all to the good.
I am now going to experiment with a much smaller burner, to use less spirit, this is a real gas guzzler, about 1 tank to the hour. If I can crack that, I think a 4 cylinder flat four might just be on the cards, after the 18 cylinder elbow engine. :roll: 

John


----------



## Bogstandard (Sep 15, 2007)

Did my trials on different sized burners from 1/8" upwards, 3/16" is the smallest it will run on but does love the 1/4" which is the original.
Anyway, I have been in touch with Jan again about a problem with this engine. I have my doubts whether mine is running as a vacuum engine, but more of an internal combustion engine.
I am just waiting for his answer to my theory from Jan, then I will let you know if I have discovered a new type of engine. It is taking a fair bit of time for him to answer, so maybe he can't answer my question.


----------



## Bogstandard (Sep 17, 2007)

Had a reply from Jan Ridder,
He shot my theory down in flames, no pun intended. What the difference is, over the single cylinder is the fact that I have made it a lot more efficient by putting a power stroke every 180 degrees. Now comes the time to decide to go for a 4 cylinder and put a power stroke every 90 degrees, by combining a modified version of my first my first twin and the boxer setup. Time to raid the sash weight stash, so after building the mine engine (now in progress) and a stirling engine (next project) and building a few engines for cash swap, then I think it is a goer.

John


----------



## Bogstandard (Sep 21, 2007)

Just couldn't bring myself to do any work this afternoon so decided to run my little engine. It had stopped raining so I took it outside and shot a quickie vid to show that they can run outside in the moderate wind with little problem. This engine has over 30 hours on it now, and is really nicely bedded in, just warm it up with a torch and then it will run until it runs out of gas. I am now looking for sponsorship to pay for all the fuel it uses.

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Kc8C12QrrRI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350"> </embed>

John


----------



## rake60 (Sep 21, 2007)

I'm surprised by the speed that it runs John!
I've never seen one run that slowly.

In my experience a flame licker is mostly flywheel inertia kept in motion
with the help of the cylinder vacuum.

The basic design idea is over a century old. It failed because it took all the
energy the engine developed just to keep it running.

From what I'm seeing, yours actually seems to be developing some
positive power to keep it running at such a slow speed.  
Figure out a way to run that on a renewable energy source and oil 
oil companies of the world would *not* be impressed!   :lol:
*(But I CERTAINLY AM!)*

Rick


----------



## Bogstandard (Sep 21, 2007)

Rick,
Jan said in his write up that it only ran at about 400 rpm.
When the full size ones were running they were actually measured in manpower rather than horsepower. So a great big machine could just about power a sewing machine.
I saw a model vertical one a few years back, It stood about 15" high and looked like an old compressor pump, it had very similar running characteristics as mine, very reliable.
This one of mine does in fact produce some power, I wouldn't call it mouse, more like hamsterpower. But it does carry on running, albeit slowly, when a load is put on the shaft. I don't think the power companies have to worry, this thing uses more spirits than a full blown V-8.

John


----------



## AussieJimG (Oct 17, 2010)

John,
You might just have given me a clue as to why my first attempt at Jan's Flame Gulper produced a nice looking bookend.
Nobody has mentioned pre-heating before and the position of the wick is obviously critical. I will take these into account in the second attempt.
Elsewhere, you mentioned spending several hours lapping and polishing the cylinders (which I did not do). Is this to get the clearances down to minimum, or to polish the cylinder to reduce friction, or both?
Jan's instructions mention that the engine should continue turning for something like 2.5 minutes when rotated by hand. I could not get anything approaching this, even when I spun it up with the buffing wheel. Is this sort of frictionless operation essential?
Thank you for all the other tips and hints as well.
Regards
Jim


----------



## Blogwitch (Oct 17, 2010)

Hi Jim,

I think it might be because this was the first of this engine build to be shown those many moons ago and that I took Jan's word for gospel, maybe was the reason that I took so much care of the lapping. 
I think the original build of the engine, showing all the machining and lapping was lost when we went to a private hosting site, as a lot of stuff was lost in the transfer over.

Members have had this engine running without going to the lengths I did, but some did have problems, whereas both mine were up and running very quickly, and I put that down to making the cylinder/piston fit a very good one. In fact all bits could be swapped between both engines with no detrimental effect on the running of either one.

The major breakthru was when I started to experiment with the vertical burners, once they were set in the correct sweet position, there was never any trouble starting, except for the warm up time, which I got around by sticking a blowtorch on the cylinder outer surface for about 30 seconds. If I left the engine to warm up itself, by leaving the valve open to atmosphere, it could take between 10 and 15 minutes before the engine started to show signs of life, but once running, by either method, it would run until the fuel ran out. BTW, it was because of the vertical burners that my engine could be moved about or run outside, before that, even farting near it and it would stop. Jan used the vertical burners on later versions of his engines.

I could never get mine to freewheel as well as Jan says it needs to do, but having said that, these engines produce so little power, most probably only just enough to turn themselves over, friction, or lack of it does play a large part in getting them to run correctly.

Hope this helps.

John


----------



## AussieJimG (Oct 18, 2010)

Thanks John, there is really no substitute for advice from people like you. Much appreciated.
Jim


----------

