Nick Hulme
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 338
- Reaction score
- 84
Censored
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Last edited:
PatRoVa Rotary Valve engine
- Thread starter manolis
- Start date
Help Support Home Model Engine Machinist Forum:
Hello Nick Hulme.
You write:
what makes this seal as well as or better than previous rotary valve systems?
. . .
the gasses leak around the valve faces and this is dependent only on clearances and the pressure difference between cylinder and atmospheric.
PatRoVas sealing is better than previous rotary valve systems because its architecture allows several times smaller clearances to be used and to be maintained.
The above is analytically explained at http://www.pattakon.com/pattakonPatRoVa.htm
In a few words:
With the permanently zero total force on the PatRoVa rotary valve (no matter what the pressure inside the cylinder is) the sealing is independent from the bearings that support the rotary valve.
In comparison the sealing clearances in a Cross rotary valve (or in an Aspin rotary valve, or in any other rotary valve of the prior art) is the sum of the basic sealing clearance (when the force on the rotary valve is zero, i.e. without pressure into the cylinder), plus the clearance of the bearings whereon the rotary valve is supported. And because these bearings are heavily loaded, and because these bearings are of big diameter (for instance, in the case of the Cross rotary valve or of the Bishop-Cross rotary valve the mixture and the exhaust gas pass necessarily through the bearings that support the rotary valve), and because some of this bearings run too hot, the bearing clearance (which is added to the basic clearance) cannot be small enough to allow sealing without additional sealing means.
With a structure which is by far stiffer (for the specific loads applied) than the conventional rotary valves, the clearances can be maintained several times smaller.
Take the Bishop rotary valve (if the F1 rules had not been changed on 2004 to ban the rotary valves from F1, today all F1 cars would have rotary valve engines) and examine its structure and how flimsy it is for the loads it takes as compared to the PatRoVa rotary valve.
The Bishop rotary valve (the most advanced rotary valve, so far) is a thin tube with an oblique separator at the middle and two long axial ports, one on the cold side and another on the red hot side of the tube (i.e. it is a highly asymmetrical design which undergoes a highly uneven thermal expansion: half of the periphery of the tube (around the oblique separator) runs at, say, 900 degrees Celsius, while the other half of the periphery of the tube (around the oblique separator) runs at 50 degrees Celsius), with two big diameter needle roller bearings at the sides of the cylinder (i.e. at a long distance from each other, say at 130mm distance for a 100 bore cylinder) supporting it.
Think what the thermal expansion can do in such a tube.
Then think how much the sealing clearance is affected by a force of, say, 2 tons (20cm2 window area, 100bar cylinder peak pressure) acting through the window on the Bishop rotary valve.
Make a calculation or better make a test / experiment: put a 65mm (outer diameter) x 55mm (inner diameter) x 150mm (length) tube on two supports 130mm from each other, apply a force of 2tons at the middle of the tube and measure the bending of the tube (i.e. the displacement of the middle of the tube relative to its position without the 2 tons force) by a micrometer). Then cut two long ports on the tube and do the same measurement.
In practice (on the running engine) in the basic clearance of the Bishop rotary valve it has to be added the displacement of the center of the tube due to the force applied on it, it has also to be added the clearance of the big diameter / high speed needle roller bearings at the ends of the valve.
Important: the previous are for uniform temperature of the Bishop valve (say, for cold engine). But the temperature of the Bishop rotary valve during operation is highly uneven along and around it, which causes bending / distortion of it and increases substantially the required clearances.
Are we talking for hundredths of a mm, or for tenths of a mm?
I hope you understand now the difference.
A Cross or a Bishop-Cross rotary valve or an Aspin rotary valve, or a Coates spherical rotary valve cannot function without additional sealing means because of the several times bigger (than PatRoVas) clearances its architecture requires.
With the same total port area (10+10=20cm2) and the same cylinder pressure (100bar) the force onto each disk of the rotary valve is 1 ton.
Calculate the increase of the distance between the two discs of the PatRoVa. Take the diameter of the hub of the PatRoVa (at the ends of which they are secured the two disks) as 40mm (12.5cm2 of steel) for a normal size (like, say, 400cc) cylinder capacity .
Are we talking for more than 0.01mm?
I could stop here the explanation.
But there is a lot more.
Things further improve because the sealing in the PatRoVa is independent from the distortion / displacement at the two, of the three, dimensions.
Only the dimension along the rotation axis of the PatRoVa is significant for the sealing / clearances.
The sealing is so much independent from the radial clearances of the PatRoVa rotary valve that the valve can be displaced radially for a couple of millimeters (2.0 mm) without spoiling the working clearances.
Things are further improved with the significant reduction of the working length of the valve (thermal expansion effect). The working length is the distance between the inner flat surfaces of the two disks. This length is typically less than, say, 1/3 of the cylinder bore. For the Panigale 1299 (116mm bore) it would be some 35mm.
Things are further improved with the proper materials for the cylinder head and for the rotary valve. The basic requirements are small thermal expansion coefficient and high modulus of elasticity. Like, say, steel, spheroidal graphite iron, INVAR etc.
Things are more improved by keeping the PatRoVa rotary valve actually outside the combustion chamber (compare it to the Aspin rotary valve that lives inside the combustion chamber and comprises half of the combustion chamber wall surfaces).
The quick (and free, i.e. without obstacles) passing of the exhaust gas from the short exhaust port of the PatRoVa protects the valve from overheating (compare to the exhaust side of the Bishop rotary valve), further improves things.
The easy manufacturing (all the working surfaces are flat / plain surfaces) is another advantage. To cut and grind the two parallel flat surfaces (at the ends of the thick / robust shaft) at a specific distance from each other (equal to the width of the combustion chamber plus the basic clearance) is one of the simplest machining works. So it is not only that the PatRoVa needs several times smaller clearances than the other rotary valves of the art, it is also that the machining of the working surfaces is simple and requires no special cutting tools.
With proper surface hardening on the flat working surfaces (say, DLC) it is allowed the dry operation of the cylinder head (full absence of lubricant from the cylinder head), and it is enabled the reliable operation for a long-long time and the slower degradation of the lubricant (oil changes at substantially longer time intervals, read at Coates CSRV).
Things are further improved by PatRoVas symmetrical design and PatRoVas symmetrical temperature distribution (compare it to the Cross / Bishop rotary valve wherein a highly asymmetrical design (oblique separator in the middle of the valve) is combined with one cold side and one red hot side.
The free support of the PatRoVa on the cylinder head is another important characteristic that minimizes the required clearances and improves the sealing quality, especially for the multicylinder arrangements. See in the animations of the four-in-line how freely and independently from the others is supported each PatRoVa rotary valve and how it can find its perfect position above and around its own combustion chamber / cavity.
Etc, etc, etc.
Objections ?
You also write :
If you rely upon an oil film you will hit the usual oil consumption issue associated with many rotary valves
As explained in the previous, there is no need for an oil film between the sealing surfaces of the PatRoVa.
On the other hand, in a high revving model engine (this is the Home Model Engine Machinist forum) an oil film is used to improve the sealing between the piston and the cylinder liner (total loss lubrication). Even if you try to keep the flat working surfaces of the PatRoVa dry, this cannot be done because the exhaust gas has oil droplets in it. So, in such a case (high revving model engine) the PatRoVa will operate with an oil film between its flat working surfaces (which, in turn, allows bigger clearances and lower construction accuracy, i.e. easier and cheaper construction).
You also write :
there's nothing in any of the fancy animations which shows an innovative sealing solution, without which you have a nice lawnmower engine
You cant see sealing means in the animations (or in the photos of the prototype running engine; did you see the youtube video at [ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Q-EGdeS0ws[/ame] ? ) because there are no sealing means to be shown.
Sealing means like those used in the Bishop rotary valve or in the Coates rotary valves can be used in the PatRoVa and they will be simpler due to the flat surfaces they abut on.
However, and as explained analytically in the previous, the PatRoVa has, and maintains during operation, tiny clearances which make the conventional additional sealing means unnecessary.
Think how much everything will change in the internal combustion engines if the PatRoVa is as claimed. The conventional; poppet valve cylinder heads will be replaced by zero friction, high flow capacity, no-rev-limit PatRoVa cylinder heads.
By the way, did you achieve to see stereoscopically?
I think not, because you wouldnt call these animations fancy.
Most of those who failed (actually they stop trying) to see stereoscopically use to say: it cant be done.
My advice: try harder; it is worthy; it is more than fancy; the software is in your brain, all it takes is activation.
If I had to say in one sentence the previous:
The PatRoVa does what the other rotary valves fail to do: it keep the rotary valve at its place, it has and maintain tiny clearances, it is robust and stiff where it is required to be.
Thanks
[FONT="]Manolis Pattakos
.
[/FONT]
You write:
what makes this seal as well as or better than previous rotary valve systems?
. . .
the gasses leak around the valve faces and this is dependent only on clearances and the pressure difference between cylinder and atmospheric.
PatRoVas sealing is better than previous rotary valve systems because its architecture allows several times smaller clearances to be used and to be maintained.
The above is analytically explained at http://www.pattakon.com/pattakonPatRoVa.htm
In a few words:
With the permanently zero total force on the PatRoVa rotary valve (no matter what the pressure inside the cylinder is) the sealing is independent from the bearings that support the rotary valve.
In comparison the sealing clearances in a Cross rotary valve (or in an Aspin rotary valve, or in any other rotary valve of the prior art) is the sum of the basic sealing clearance (when the force on the rotary valve is zero, i.e. without pressure into the cylinder), plus the clearance of the bearings whereon the rotary valve is supported. And because these bearings are heavily loaded, and because these bearings are of big diameter (for instance, in the case of the Cross rotary valve or of the Bishop-Cross rotary valve the mixture and the exhaust gas pass necessarily through the bearings that support the rotary valve), and because some of this bearings run too hot, the bearing clearance (which is added to the basic clearance) cannot be small enough to allow sealing without additional sealing means.
With a structure which is by far stiffer (for the specific loads applied) than the conventional rotary valves, the clearances can be maintained several times smaller.
Take the Bishop rotary valve (if the F1 rules had not been changed on 2004 to ban the rotary valves from F1, today all F1 cars would have rotary valve engines) and examine its structure and how flimsy it is for the loads it takes as compared to the PatRoVa rotary valve.
The Bishop rotary valve (the most advanced rotary valve, so far) is a thin tube with an oblique separator at the middle and two long axial ports, one on the cold side and another on the red hot side of the tube (i.e. it is a highly asymmetrical design which undergoes a highly uneven thermal expansion: half of the periphery of the tube (around the oblique separator) runs at, say, 900 degrees Celsius, while the other half of the periphery of the tube (around the oblique separator) runs at 50 degrees Celsius), with two big diameter needle roller bearings at the sides of the cylinder (i.e. at a long distance from each other, say at 130mm distance for a 100 bore cylinder) supporting it.
Think what the thermal expansion can do in such a tube.
Then think how much the sealing clearance is affected by a force of, say, 2 tons (20cm2 window area, 100bar cylinder peak pressure) acting through the window on the Bishop rotary valve.
Make a calculation or better make a test / experiment: put a 65mm (outer diameter) x 55mm (inner diameter) x 150mm (length) tube on two supports 130mm from each other, apply a force of 2tons at the middle of the tube and measure the bending of the tube (i.e. the displacement of the middle of the tube relative to its position without the 2 tons force) by a micrometer). Then cut two long ports on the tube and do the same measurement.
In practice (on the running engine) in the basic clearance of the Bishop rotary valve it has to be added the displacement of the center of the tube due to the force applied on it, it has also to be added the clearance of the big diameter / high speed needle roller bearings at the ends of the valve.
Important: the previous are for uniform temperature of the Bishop valve (say, for cold engine). But the temperature of the Bishop rotary valve during operation is highly uneven along and around it, which causes bending / distortion of it and increases substantially the required clearances.
Are we talking for hundredths of a mm, or for tenths of a mm?
I hope you understand now the difference.
A Cross or a Bishop-Cross rotary valve or an Aspin rotary valve, or a Coates spherical rotary valve cannot function without additional sealing means because of the several times bigger (than PatRoVas) clearances its architecture requires.
With the same total port area (10+10=20cm2) and the same cylinder pressure (100bar) the force onto each disk of the rotary valve is 1 ton.
Calculate the increase of the distance between the two discs of the PatRoVa. Take the diameter of the hub of the PatRoVa (at the ends of which they are secured the two disks) as 40mm (12.5cm2 of steel) for a normal size (like, say, 400cc) cylinder capacity .
Are we talking for more than 0.01mm?
I could stop here the explanation.
But there is a lot more.
Things further improve because the sealing in the PatRoVa is independent from the distortion / displacement at the two, of the three, dimensions.
Only the dimension along the rotation axis of the PatRoVa is significant for the sealing / clearances.
The sealing is so much independent from the radial clearances of the PatRoVa rotary valve that the valve can be displaced radially for a couple of millimeters (2.0 mm) without spoiling the working clearances.
Things are further improved with the significant reduction of the working length of the valve (thermal expansion effect). The working length is the distance between the inner flat surfaces of the two disks. This length is typically less than, say, 1/3 of the cylinder bore. For the Panigale 1299 (116mm bore) it would be some 35mm.
Things are further improved with the proper materials for the cylinder head and for the rotary valve. The basic requirements are small thermal expansion coefficient and high modulus of elasticity. Like, say, steel, spheroidal graphite iron, INVAR etc.
Things are more improved by keeping the PatRoVa rotary valve actually outside the combustion chamber (compare it to the Aspin rotary valve that lives inside the combustion chamber and comprises half of the combustion chamber wall surfaces).
The quick (and free, i.e. without obstacles) passing of the exhaust gas from the short exhaust port of the PatRoVa protects the valve from overheating (compare to the exhaust side of the Bishop rotary valve), further improves things.
The easy manufacturing (all the working surfaces are flat / plain surfaces) is another advantage. To cut and grind the two parallel flat surfaces (at the ends of the thick / robust shaft) at a specific distance from each other (equal to the width of the combustion chamber plus the basic clearance) is one of the simplest machining works. So it is not only that the PatRoVa needs several times smaller clearances than the other rotary valves of the art, it is also that the machining of the working surfaces is simple and requires no special cutting tools.
With proper surface hardening on the flat working surfaces (say, DLC) it is allowed the dry operation of the cylinder head (full absence of lubricant from the cylinder head), and it is enabled the reliable operation for a long-long time and the slower degradation of the lubricant (oil changes at substantially longer time intervals, read at Coates CSRV).
Things are further improved by PatRoVas symmetrical design and PatRoVas symmetrical temperature distribution (compare it to the Cross / Bishop rotary valve wherein a highly asymmetrical design (oblique separator in the middle of the valve) is combined with one cold side and one red hot side.
The free support of the PatRoVa on the cylinder head is another important characteristic that minimizes the required clearances and improves the sealing quality, especially for the multicylinder arrangements. See in the animations of the four-in-line how freely and independently from the others is supported each PatRoVa rotary valve and how it can find its perfect position above and around its own combustion chamber / cavity.
Etc, etc, etc.
Objections ?
You also write :
If you rely upon an oil film you will hit the usual oil consumption issue associated with many rotary valves
As explained in the previous, there is no need for an oil film between the sealing surfaces of the PatRoVa.
On the other hand, in a high revving model engine (this is the Home Model Engine Machinist forum) an oil film is used to improve the sealing between the piston and the cylinder liner (total loss lubrication). Even if you try to keep the flat working surfaces of the PatRoVa dry, this cannot be done because the exhaust gas has oil droplets in it. So, in such a case (high revving model engine) the PatRoVa will operate with an oil film between its flat working surfaces (which, in turn, allows bigger clearances and lower construction accuracy, i.e. easier and cheaper construction).
You also write :
there's nothing in any of the fancy animations which shows an innovative sealing solution, without which you have a nice lawnmower engine
You cant see sealing means in the animations (or in the photos of the prototype running engine; did you see the youtube video at [ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Q-EGdeS0ws[/ame] ? ) because there are no sealing means to be shown.
Sealing means like those used in the Bishop rotary valve or in the Coates rotary valves can be used in the PatRoVa and they will be simpler due to the flat surfaces they abut on.
However, and as explained analytically in the previous, the PatRoVa has, and maintains during operation, tiny clearances which make the conventional additional sealing means unnecessary.
Think how much everything will change in the internal combustion engines if the PatRoVa is as claimed. The conventional; poppet valve cylinder heads will be replaced by zero friction, high flow capacity, no-rev-limit PatRoVa cylinder heads.
By the way, did you achieve to see stereoscopically?
I think not, because you wouldnt call these animations fancy.
Most of those who failed (actually they stop trying) to see stereoscopically use to say: it cant be done.
My advice: try harder; it is worthy; it is more than fancy; the software is in your brain, all it takes is activation.
If I had to say in one sentence the previous:
The PatRoVa does what the other rotary valves fail to do: it keep the rotary valve at its place, it has and maintain tiny clearances, it is robust and stiff where it is required to be.
Thanks
[FONT="]Manolis Pattakos
.
[/FONT]
Nick Hulme
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 338
- Reaction score
- 84
Censored
.......................
.......................
Last edited:
If we just ignore him he will probably give up here eventually.
Hello.
Unless I am wrong, the HMEM is an Open Technical Forum.
Some members (like Nick Hulme) try the “conspiracy theories” instead of the technical arguments.
To make it clear, you cannot buy pattakon stocks even if you want to. It is impossible.
Is it clear?
What I want is not your money.
What I want from you is your background and experience and manufacturing capabilities.
The funny think is that the guy who bankrupted several hundreds of innocent / naive investors worldwide (the founder of the Australian Revetec Company) was accusing others, writing:
“Companies like this (he meant “pattakon”
just burn investors money without having any prospect of getting an engine to perform or get to production.
If you want to read my reply to Brad Howell-Smith (who accused others (!!!) for burning investors money), go to http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2958&page=9 and read the post 125.
Here is the last sentence of the last post (by Spiderman, October 2015) in the original discussion for the Revetec engine at the Ultimatecarpage forum ( http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2958&page=98 ) :
“Any claim that an altenative mechanism for pushing the pistons up and down can increase thermal efficiency by more than one or two percent are just rubbish (as pointed out by Manolis and others long ago, only to be shouted down by all the experts here).”
In the hindsight, it is obvious that Revetec had a supporting / applauding team in the discussion in UltimateCarPage Forum (“all the experts here”. Nobody was allowed to argue about Brad’s cranksless engine design, no matter how problematic it was. However, at the end it came the reality to put each one in his right place.
If you read all the posts, and have some basic technical background, you will understand who is right and who is wrong.
In the hindsight I was right (Revetec bankrupted, their investors lost their money, and, unless I am wrong, some of them have sued Brad Howell-Smith (who is out of Revetec for some years now).
Have you seen the videos of the Opposed Piston Diesel prototype engines of pattakon?
Here is the PatOP Opposed Piston single cylinder Diesel engine free on a desk:
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ByEgfTTq1I[/ame]
more at http://www.pattakon.com/pattakonPatOP.htm
Have you seen the video of the Honda VTEC 1,600cc modified to pattakon VVA roller? It is the only fully variable VVA that can do such things:
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zzW8YkReLU[/ame]
more at http://www.pattakon.com/pattakonRoller.htm and http://www.pattakon.com/pattakonVtec.htm
There are several other patented projects in the www.pattakon.com web site.
Compare them to the last video published by Revetec (some three years ago) showing their Diesel engine “running” at “Atalan Makine” Turkey.
It was sad, but it was predicted. You can’t argue with reality.
Now they (Revetec) cannot even pay the maintenance fees of their patents and one by one lapses.
Allow me to declare once more that Pattakon never took a penny of any investor.
Nick Hulme, you should respect it and you should apologize for what you wrote. But it is your choice.
Back to the strictly technical discussion:
Are there, form the rest forum members, any technical arguments / objections for what I wrote in the last technical analysis for the PatRoVa rotary valve in my last post?
Thank you
[FONT="]Manolis Pattakos
.
[/FONT]
Unless I am wrong, the HMEM is an Open Technical Forum.
Some members (like Nick Hulme) try the “conspiracy theories” instead of the technical arguments.
To make it clear, you cannot buy pattakon stocks even if you want to. It is impossible.
Is it clear?
What I want is not your money.
What I want from you is your background and experience and manufacturing capabilities.
The funny think is that the guy who bankrupted several hundreds of innocent / naive investors worldwide (the founder of the Australian Revetec Company) was accusing others, writing:
“Companies like this (he meant “pattakon”
just burn investors money without having any prospect of getting an engine to perform or get to production.If you want to read my reply to Brad Howell-Smith (who accused others (!!!) for burning investors money), go to http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2958&page=9 and read the post 125.
Here is the last sentence of the last post (by Spiderman, October 2015) in the original discussion for the Revetec engine at the Ultimatecarpage forum ( http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2958&page=98 ) :
“Any claim that an altenative mechanism for pushing the pistons up and down can increase thermal efficiency by more than one or two percent are just rubbish (as pointed out by Manolis and others long ago, only to be shouted down by all the experts here).”
In the hindsight, it is obvious that Revetec had a supporting / applauding team in the discussion in UltimateCarPage Forum (“all the experts here”
. Nobody was allowed to argue about Brad’s cranksless engine design, no matter how problematic it was. However, at the end it came the reality to put each one in his right place. If you read all the posts, and have some basic technical background, you will understand who is right and who is wrong.
In the hindsight I was right (Revetec bankrupted, their investors lost their money, and, unless I am wrong, some of them have sued Brad Howell-Smith (who is out of Revetec for some years now).
Have you seen the videos of the Opposed Piston Diesel prototype engines of pattakon?
Here is the PatOP Opposed Piston single cylinder Diesel engine free on a desk:
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ByEgfTTq1I[/ame]
more at http://www.pattakon.com/pattakonPatOP.htm
Have you seen the video of the Honda VTEC 1,600cc modified to pattakon VVA roller? It is the only fully variable VVA that can do such things:
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zzW8YkReLU[/ame]
more at http://www.pattakon.com/pattakonRoller.htm and http://www.pattakon.com/pattakonVtec.htm
There are several other patented projects in the www.pattakon.com web site.
Compare them to the last video published by Revetec (some three years ago) showing their Diesel engine “running” at “Atalan Makine” Turkey.
It was sad, but it was predicted. You can’t argue with reality.
Now they (Revetec) cannot even pay the maintenance fees of their patents and one by one lapses.
Allow me to declare once more that Pattakon never took a penny of any investor.
Nick Hulme, you should respect it and you should apologize for what you wrote. But it is your choice.
Back to the strictly technical discussion:
Are there, form the rest forum members, any technical arguments / objections for what I wrote in the last technical analysis for the PatRoVa rotary valve in my last post?
Thank you
[FONT="]Manolis Pattakos
.
[/FONT]
Nick Hulme
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 338
- Reaction score
- 84
Censored
...................
...................
Last edited:
![MeshMagic 3D Free 3D Modeling Software [Download]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/B1U+p8ewjGS._SL500_.png)
Hello Nick Hulme.
Let me remind you: You can ignore this thread and proceed to the other ones; there are many.
Simple question:
Did you achieve to see stereoscopically? Honestly, did you?
Many people can’t and give in.
If and when you achieve it, you will like even more stereoscopic animations and “CAD diarrhoea”.
Judging from the “22 new likes” in the last few days, it seems that several forum members disagree with you and enjoy this technical discussion and what you characterize as CAD “diarrhoea”.
Thanks
Manolis Pattakos
Let me remind you: You can ignore this thread and proceed to the other ones; there are many.
Simple question:
Did you achieve to see stereoscopically? Honestly, did you?
Many people can’t and give in.
If and when you achieve it, you will like even more stereoscopic animations and “CAD diarrhoea”.
Judging from the “22 new likes” in the last few days, it seems that several forum members disagree with you and enjoy this technical discussion and what you characterize as CAD “diarrhoea”.
Thanks
Manolis Pattakos
Nick Hulme
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 338
- Reaction score
- 84
Censored
....................
....................
Last edited:
t.l.a.r. eng
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2009
- Messages
- 81
- Reaction score
- 14
Overheard a smart fellow once say, "If you cannot explain it simply, then you probably don't understand it yourself" :wall: :fan: :hDe:
IceFyre13th
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2015
- Messages
- 56
- Reaction score
- 14
What is wrong with you guys......something comes along and you don't understand how it works so you bash a guy................If you don't like it shut up and let the rest of us who "get it" keep reading.
I have found this informative, and guess what.....I do "get it"....
How does it seal.....guess you could ask "how a Wankel engine seals" too.
If you have nothing constructive too add then you can just move along and let the rest of us who find this interesting enjoy his postings. Too many "elite" builders here who think they know it all when they fail to see whats right in front of them........
I have found this informative, and guess what.....I do "get it"....
How does it seal.....guess you could ask "how a Wankel engine seals" too.
If you have nothing constructive too add then you can just move along and let the rest of us who find this interesting enjoy his postings. Too many "elite" builders here who think they know it all when they fail to see whats right in front of them........
Hello all.
Thank you IceFyre13th for your idea with the Wankel.
PatRoVa sealing versus Wankel sealing
Let me compare the sealing (and so the gas leakage) of a Wankel Rotary RC engine (say, the 49PI of the OS) with the single cylinder short stroke PatRoVa:
According OS, their 49PI Wankel rotary has:
4.97cc capacity (per chamber),
1.1hp/17,000rpm,
practical range: 2,500-18,000rpm,
(weight: 450gr).
According OS manuals / drawings, the height of the rotor (piston) along the axis of the power shaft is estimated at 15mm, while the total periphery of the triangular rotor is estimated at 120mm (40mm between each pair of apexes).
So, each chamber of the model Wankel rotary uses for its sealing two apex seals and two pairs of flat surfaces (the one on the side of the rotor, the other on the casing) each having 40mm length. So, besides the two apex seals, each chamber of the above Wankel model engine leaks from a periphery of 40+40=80mm. The leakage through these two long slits (80mm total length) is limited using a small clearance between the sides of the rotor and the flat surface of the “side covers” of the combustion chamber.
The PatRoVa short stroke model engine has:
6.28cc capacity,
13mm stroke,
and 24.8mm bore.
The periphery of each window of the PatRoVa model engine is 30mm, which means the total “sealing” periphery is 30+30=60mm for a 6.28cc capacity.
At the same revs, say 15,000rpm of the crankshaft and of the power shaft, the time interval for leakage is 50% longer in the case of the Wankel: while the reciprocating piston of the PatRoVa needs 180 crank degrees to go from the maximum volume in the combustion chamber to the minimum volume in the combustion chamber (actually from the BDC to the TDC), the power shaft of the Wankel needs to rotate for 270 degrees in order the volume in the combustion chamber to go from its maximum to its minimum.
The PatRoVa can feature a several times smaller clearance between the inner flat surfaces of the two disks and the lips of the chamber ports as compared to the required / necessary clearance between the flat sides of the rotor and the flat side covers of the casing.
Think why.
For the sake of the calculations let’s suppose the PatRoVa uses the same clearance with the Wankel rotary.
The absolute leakage in the Wankel model engine through the side slits is (80mm/60mm)*1.5=2 , i.e. it is double than in the PatRoVa model engine (the 1.5 is due to the 50% longer time the high pressure is maintained into the Wankel’s combustion chamber).
The relative leakage is even worse: 2*(6.28cc/4.97cc)=2.5. This means that if a percentage of 25% of the charge in a combustion chamber of the Wankel model engine leaks from the sides of the rotor, this percentage drops to 10% in the case of the PatRoVa.
(From another viewpoint: for the same percentage of leaked gas, the PatRoVa can run 2.5 times slower than the Wankel model. For instance, the PatRoVa running at 1,000rpm has the same leakage with the Wankel running at 2,500rpm (the lower practical rpm according OS)).
But there is more:
The PatRoVa has the same bore to stroke ratio with the Ducati Panigale 1299 and even freer breathing (the ratio of the total chamber port area to the piston area is bigger than in the Panigale).
The Panigale (1300cc, two cylinders in Vee 90 degrees) makes its peak power at 10,500rpm (21,3m/sec mean piston speed). Reasonably the PatRoVa model engine will make some 4.7hp at 50,000rpm (21.7m/sec mean piston speed).
At 50,000rpm the time for leakage is 50,000/17,000 = 2.94 times less than at 17,000rp (where the Wankel model engine makes its peak power).
And because 2.94*2.5=7.35, if at 17,000rpm the 15% of the charge in a combustion chamber of the Wankel model engine leaks from the side “slits”, this percentage will drop to only 2% in the case of the PatRoVa model engine.
And there is more:
While the width of the combustion chamber of the PatRoVa (i.e. the distance between the two disks of the rotary valve) is less than 9mm, the rotor height (along the rotation axis of the power shaft of the Wankel) is 15mm, i.e. the one width is 60% bigger than the other.
This means that the necessary clearances in the Wankel need to be some 60% bigger than the clearances in the cylinder head of the PatRoVa.
Actually they are way bigger because of the architecture of the Wankel (see how the two side plates are secured to each other) and of the big temperature differences along the parts / surfaces that participate in the side sealing of the Wankel.
To be noted: a double clearance allows a way more than double leakage.
According the previous analysis:
The sealing quality in the PatRoVa model engine is many times better than in the existing Wankel model engines.
Objections?
Thanks
Manolis Pattakos
.
Thank you IceFyre13th for your idea with the Wankel.
PatRoVa sealing versus Wankel sealing
Let me compare the sealing (and so the gas leakage) of a Wankel Rotary RC engine (say, the 49PI of the OS) with the single cylinder short stroke PatRoVa:
According OS, their 49PI Wankel rotary has:
4.97cc capacity (per chamber),
1.1hp/17,000rpm,
practical range: 2,500-18,000rpm,
(weight: 450gr).
According OS manuals / drawings, the height of the rotor (piston) along the axis of the power shaft is estimated at 15mm, while the total periphery of the triangular rotor is estimated at 120mm (40mm between each pair of apexes).
So, each chamber of the model Wankel rotary uses for its sealing two apex seals and two pairs of flat surfaces (the one on the side of the rotor, the other on the casing) each having 40mm length. So, besides the two apex seals, each chamber of the above Wankel model engine leaks from a periphery of 40+40=80mm. The leakage through these two long slits (80mm total length) is limited using a small clearance between the sides of the rotor and the flat surface of the “side covers” of the combustion chamber.
The PatRoVa short stroke model engine has:
6.28cc capacity,
13mm stroke,
and 24.8mm bore.
The periphery of each window of the PatRoVa model engine is 30mm, which means the total “sealing” periphery is 30+30=60mm for a 6.28cc capacity.
At the same revs, say 15,000rpm of the crankshaft and of the power shaft, the time interval for leakage is 50% longer in the case of the Wankel: while the reciprocating piston of the PatRoVa needs 180 crank degrees to go from the maximum volume in the combustion chamber to the minimum volume in the combustion chamber (actually from the BDC to the TDC), the power shaft of the Wankel needs to rotate for 270 degrees in order the volume in the combustion chamber to go from its maximum to its minimum.
The PatRoVa can feature a several times smaller clearance between the inner flat surfaces of the two disks and the lips of the chamber ports as compared to the required / necessary clearance between the flat sides of the rotor and the flat side covers of the casing.
Think why.
For the sake of the calculations let’s suppose the PatRoVa uses the same clearance with the Wankel rotary.
The absolute leakage in the Wankel model engine through the side slits is (80mm/60mm)*1.5=2 , i.e. it is double than in the PatRoVa model engine (the 1.5 is due to the 50% longer time the high pressure is maintained into the Wankel’s combustion chamber).
The relative leakage is even worse: 2*(6.28cc/4.97cc)=2.5. This means that if a percentage of 25% of the charge in a combustion chamber of the Wankel model engine leaks from the sides of the rotor, this percentage drops to 10% in the case of the PatRoVa.
(From another viewpoint: for the same percentage of leaked gas, the PatRoVa can run 2.5 times slower than the Wankel model. For instance, the PatRoVa running at 1,000rpm has the same leakage with the Wankel running at 2,500rpm (the lower practical rpm according OS)).
But there is more:
The PatRoVa has the same bore to stroke ratio with the Ducati Panigale 1299 and even freer breathing (the ratio of the total chamber port area to the piston area is bigger than in the Panigale).
The Panigale (1300cc, two cylinders in Vee 90 degrees) makes its peak power at 10,500rpm (21,3m/sec mean piston speed). Reasonably the PatRoVa model engine will make some 4.7hp at 50,000rpm (21.7m/sec mean piston speed).
At 50,000rpm the time for leakage is 50,000/17,000 = 2.94 times less than at 17,000rp (where the Wankel model engine makes its peak power).
And because 2.94*2.5=7.35, if at 17,000rpm the 15% of the charge in a combustion chamber of the Wankel model engine leaks from the side “slits”, this percentage will drop to only 2% in the case of the PatRoVa model engine.
And there is more:
While the width of the combustion chamber of the PatRoVa (i.e. the distance between the two disks of the rotary valve) is less than 9mm, the rotor height (along the rotation axis of the power shaft of the Wankel) is 15mm, i.e. the one width is 60% bigger than the other.
This means that the necessary clearances in the Wankel need to be some 60% bigger than the clearances in the cylinder head of the PatRoVa.
Actually they are way bigger because of the architecture of the Wankel (see how the two side plates are secured to each other) and of the big temperature differences along the parts / surfaces that participate in the side sealing of the Wankel.
To be noted: a double clearance allows a way more than double leakage.
According the previous analysis:
The sealing quality in the PatRoVa model engine is many times better than in the existing Wankel model engines.
Objections?
Thanks
Manolis Pattakos
.
Nick Hulme
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 338
- Reaction score
- 84
Censored
..................
..................
Last edited:
Nick Hulme
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 338
- Reaction score
- 84
Censored
..................
..................
Last edited:
Hello Nick Hulme.
You write:
“It doesn't seal very well, to meet emissions”
This is a progress!
Now it seals, but not “very well”!
Quote from http://www.pattakon.com/pattakonPatRoVa.htm :
“Leakage internally recycled
Without having a pathway to the exhaust, any gas leakage from the combustion chamber during the compression / combustion is recycled: it returns into the cylinder at the next suction cycle.
This built-in "recycling" of the unburned gas leakage is even more important at the warming-up period wherein the clearance between the valve fronts and the chamber ports is not yet minimized.”
End of Quote.
I.e. the PatRoVa rotary valve automatically recycles any leakage from the top end of the combustion chamber.
If you look carefully at the CAD drawings and at the photos of the parts of the working prototype, you may understand how.
If not, let me know to make a few more CAD drawings.
The conventional poppet valve engine besides leaking from the piston rings towards the crankcase, it also leaks (slightly, but leaks) from the poppet valves before the pressure gets high enough to make the valves seat tightly on their seats.
Think: where the leaked, through the not perfectly seated exhaust valves, goes?
Did you ever think the effect of the uneven thermal expansion in the cylinder head of a poppet valve engine?
Look at the one exhaust valve (say the one at right top, it is 38.2mm diameter) of the Panigale: its valve seat neighbors at left with the cold intake valve, at right with the hot exhaust and at its lower part with the other red-hot exhaust valve. When cold the valve seat is circular. At operation (i.e. hot) is cannot help being oval.
Are you sure that during the initial part of the compression there is no escape of charge towards the exhaust?
As you see, the thermal expansion has to do with the poppet valve engines, too..
In the Wankel rotary a good part of the leakage is from the two apex seals of each chamber.
During the high pressure period in a combustion chamber, the leakage to the (following) chamber wherein intake and compression take place is “automatically” recycled during the next combustion.
However the leakage to the other (leading) chamber wherein the exhausted gas is expelled by the rotor, goes inevitably to the exhaust and this is a significant problem (emissions).
By the way, near the apex seals of the Wankel is where significant quantities of unburned mixture are found at the end of the combustion, i.e. what leaks from the apex seals is, mostly, unburned mixture.
The recycling of the leakage is a significant problem for the Coates spherical rotary valves, too.
Any leakage from the exhaust spherical valve goes directly to the exhaust and spoils the emissions.
You also write:
“The sealing quality in the PatRoVa model engine is still a bit Wankel compared to poppet valves!”
The 5cc OS model Wankel engine runs well (as a model engine) without side seals. Its side “slits” through which a part of the leakage occurs have an 80mm total length and the height of the rotor (along the rotation axis) is 15mm.
As shown, the leakage in the PatRoVa short stroke 6.28cc model engine is several times smaller.
Consider now the PatRoVa Panigale 1299 (116mm bore, 60.8mm stroke). All its dimensions are 4.7 times bigger (so the length of the “leaking”slits increases 4.7 times), while the capacity of the cylinder is 4.7^3, i.e. more than 100 times larger than the model PatRoVa engine.
Think: while the length of the periphery wherein leakage happens has been increased 4.7 times, the capacity of the cylinder has increased more than 100 times.
Try to think the rest by yourself, or let me know to continue..
You also write:
“Coates also loves people like you, and their money”
As Brad Howell-Smith (the founder of the Australian Revetec), similarly Coates (the founder of the US CSRV) has spent millions of dollars of his investors for nothing.
Unless it is not fact that:
almost all his patents are lapsed,
there is nothing in production,
and many of his investors are penniless (it is really sad for the non-technically oriented ones).
On this basis, a fair guy should respect those who spend their own money to develop new ideas / inventions / solutions, even if they look crap.
Thanks
[FONT="]Manolis Pattakos
.
[/FONT]
You write:
“It doesn't seal very well, to meet emissions”
This is a progress!
Now it seals, but not “very well”!
Quote from http://www.pattakon.com/pattakonPatRoVa.htm :
“Leakage internally recycled
Without having a pathway to the exhaust, any gas leakage from the combustion chamber during the compression / combustion is recycled: it returns into the cylinder at the next suction cycle.
This built-in "recycling" of the unburned gas leakage is even more important at the warming-up period wherein the clearance between the valve fronts and the chamber ports is not yet minimized.”
End of Quote.
I.e. the PatRoVa rotary valve automatically recycles any leakage from the top end of the combustion chamber.
If you look carefully at the CAD drawings and at the photos of the parts of the working prototype, you may understand how.
If not, let me know to make a few more CAD drawings.
The conventional poppet valve engine besides leaking from the piston rings towards the crankcase, it also leaks (slightly, but leaks) from the poppet valves before the pressure gets high enough to make the valves seat tightly on their seats.
Think: where the leaked, through the not perfectly seated exhaust valves, goes?
Did you ever think the effect of the uneven thermal expansion in the cylinder head of a poppet valve engine?
Look at the one exhaust valve (say the one at right top, it is 38.2mm diameter) of the Panigale: its valve seat neighbors at left with the cold intake valve, at right with the hot exhaust and at its lower part with the other red-hot exhaust valve. When cold the valve seat is circular. At operation (i.e. hot) is cannot help being oval.
Are you sure that during the initial part of the compression there is no escape of charge towards the exhaust?
As you see, the thermal expansion has to do with the poppet valve engines, too..
In the Wankel rotary a good part of the leakage is from the two apex seals of each chamber.
During the high pressure period in a combustion chamber, the leakage to the (following) chamber wherein intake and compression take place is “automatically” recycled during the next combustion.
However the leakage to the other (leading) chamber wherein the exhausted gas is expelled by the rotor, goes inevitably to the exhaust and this is a significant problem (emissions).
By the way, near the apex seals of the Wankel is where significant quantities of unburned mixture are found at the end of the combustion, i.e. what leaks from the apex seals is, mostly, unburned mixture.
The recycling of the leakage is a significant problem for the Coates spherical rotary valves, too.
Any leakage from the exhaust spherical valve goes directly to the exhaust and spoils the emissions.
You also write:
“The sealing quality in the PatRoVa model engine is still a bit Wankel compared to poppet valves!”
The 5cc OS model Wankel engine runs well (as a model engine) without side seals. Its side “slits” through which a part of the leakage occurs have an 80mm total length and the height of the rotor (along the rotation axis) is 15mm.
As shown, the leakage in the PatRoVa short stroke 6.28cc model engine is several times smaller.
Consider now the PatRoVa Panigale 1299 (116mm bore, 60.8mm stroke). All its dimensions are 4.7 times bigger (so the length of the “leaking”slits increases 4.7 times), while the capacity of the cylinder is 4.7^3, i.e. more than 100 times larger than the model PatRoVa engine.
Think: while the length of the periphery wherein leakage happens has been increased 4.7 times, the capacity of the cylinder has increased more than 100 times.
Try to think the rest by yourself, or let me know to continue..
You also write:
“Coates also loves people like you, and their money”
As Brad Howell-Smith (the founder of the Australian Revetec), similarly Coates (the founder of the US CSRV) has spent millions of dollars of his investors for nothing.
Unless it is not fact that:
almost all his patents are lapsed,
there is nothing in production,
and many of his investors are penniless (it is really sad for the non-technically oriented ones).
On this basis, a fair guy should respect those who spend their own money to develop new ideas / inventions / solutions, even if they look crap.
Thanks
[FONT="]Manolis Pattakos
.
[/FONT]
Nick Hulme
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 338
- Reaction score
- 84
Censored
...............
...............
Last edited:
Hello Nick Hulme.
You write:
It leaks
Thank You.
It Leaks Back Into It's Own Induction Tract.
So it burns oil and has reduced performance from contaminated inlet gasses. . .
What kind of reasoning is this?
Lets apply the same reasoning in the conventional poppet valve engines:
It leaks (from the cylinder towards the crankcase).
It leaks back into its own induction track (the leakage to the crankcase is recycled to the induction track).
So it burns oil and has reduced performance from contaminated inlet gasses. . .
It would be nice if you could further explain what you mean.
And write which kind of PatRoVa engine you mean.
To make things easier for you:
In case of model engines, the lubricant into the fuel is the case (as well as the total loss lubrication).
Inevitably the PatRoVa model engine (as the rest model engines) will have some oil on the sealing surfaces in the cylinder head.
In the case of normal size engines (say for motorcycles, cars, airplanes), the cylinder head runs dry. There is no lubricant in the cylinder, only air and fuel. The scrapper rings keep the lubricant from entering into the combustion chamber as in the conventional poppet valve engines.
Any leakage towards the cylinder head is recycled during the next combustion.
Where the lubricant you talk about comes from?
You also write:
Talking about Rotor Tips is simply an irrelevance as your engine doesn't have them and 99%+ of IC engines don't have them either.
Try again and you will achieve to see the great relevance between them. Here is some help for you:
The model Wankel rotary engine uses a tiny clearance between the flat sides of the rotor and the flat sides of the casing to minimize the leakage.
The PatRoVa rotary valve engine uses a tiny clearance between the flat sides of the rotary valve and the flat sides of the cylinder head to minimize the leakage.
No relevance at all!
Do you want to get a little deeper?
In a modified to PatRoVa (according the CAD drawings provided so far) old C50 Honda engine (39mm bore, 41.4mm stroke, 49cc) the width of the combustion chamber equals to the height of the rotor (along the power shaft rotation axis) of the 4.97cc OS Wankel model engine (mentioned in previous posts), and the total length of the slits results the same, too.
If you want the CAD drawing I will post it.
Suppose the PatRoVa C50 runs at 2/3 of the revs of the Wankel model engine.
The one engine is 50cc while the other is only 5cc (i.e. the one tenth).
The peak pressure in the cylinder is the same.
So, both appear to have the same absolute leakage (i.e. quantity of gas leaked).
Think about it once more.
Decide which is the maximum permitted leakage for the OS Wankel 5cc engine (more leakage and the engine stops running).
Do you want a 25% limit?
Do you want a 50% limit?
Take the 50% case.
So, with 5cc capacity for each chamber of the Wankel, the 2.5cc leak from the sides of the rotor.
The absolute leakage is the same for the ten times bigger PatRoVa C50 engine, which means that from the 50cc of the charge only the 2.5cc leaks from the PatRoVa rotary valve, which is 5% of the total quantity of mixture in the cylinder.
Compare the 50% leakage in the Wankel model engine with the 5% in the PatRoVa C50.
More reasonable is a 10% leakage in the Wankel 5cc engine. In such a case the leakage (which is automatically recycled during the next combustion) from the rotary valve of the PatRoVa C50 becomes 1%. By the way, how much do you think is the conventional leakage from the sides of the piston to the crankcase?
I admit it is not so easy to get it, but try.
I am sure somebody in this forum gets it.
You also write:
And Finally.
I have a set of plans for an anti-gravity machine which draws it's power from a greater than unity efficiency engine, you can have a set for £10, it has been proven to work but must be built exactly to the plans ;-)
Millions of guys proposed the anti-gravity machine before you.
This is why the serious Patent Offices refuse to receive patent applications for anti-gravity mechanisms and of perpetual motion mechanisms.
On the other hand, and if you really want to fly, there are more conventional ways than antigravity mechanisms.
See for instance the pattakon Portable Flyer project at:
http://www.pattakon.com/pattakonPatTol.htm#PortableFlyerAxial
As happens with the rest pattakon projects, the OPRE_Tilting engine is patent protected.
I suppose you know what Intellectual Property is. If not, I can explain.
A really smart guy would first try (and try and try and try and try ) to see stereoscopically (all it takes is a pair of eyes and a functional brain) and only after achieving it, he would come joking about antigravity mechanisms etc.
Thanks
[FONT="]Manolis Pattakos
.
[/FONT]
You write:
It leaks
Thank You.
It Leaks Back Into It's Own Induction Tract.
So it burns oil and has reduced performance from contaminated inlet gasses. . .
What kind of reasoning is this?
Lets apply the same reasoning in the conventional poppet valve engines:
It leaks (from the cylinder towards the crankcase).
It leaks back into its own induction track (the leakage to the crankcase is recycled to the induction track).
So it burns oil and has reduced performance from contaminated inlet gasses. . .
It would be nice if you could further explain what you mean.
And write which kind of PatRoVa engine you mean.
To make things easier for you:
In case of model engines, the lubricant into the fuel is the case (as well as the total loss lubrication).
Inevitably the PatRoVa model engine (as the rest model engines) will have some oil on the sealing surfaces in the cylinder head.
In the case of normal size engines (say for motorcycles, cars, airplanes), the cylinder head runs dry. There is no lubricant in the cylinder, only air and fuel. The scrapper rings keep the lubricant from entering into the combustion chamber as in the conventional poppet valve engines.
Any leakage towards the cylinder head is recycled during the next combustion.
Where the lubricant you talk about comes from?
You also write:
Talking about Rotor Tips is simply an irrelevance as your engine doesn't have them and 99%+ of IC engines don't have them either.
Try again and you will achieve to see the great relevance between them. Here is some help for you:
The model Wankel rotary engine uses a tiny clearance between the flat sides of the rotor and the flat sides of the casing to minimize the leakage.
The PatRoVa rotary valve engine uses a tiny clearance between the flat sides of the rotary valve and the flat sides of the cylinder head to minimize the leakage.
No relevance at all!
Do you want to get a little deeper?
In a modified to PatRoVa (according the CAD drawings provided so far) old C50 Honda engine (39mm bore, 41.4mm stroke, 49cc) the width of the combustion chamber equals to the height of the rotor (along the power shaft rotation axis) of the 4.97cc OS Wankel model engine (mentioned in previous posts), and the total length of the slits results the same, too.
If you want the CAD drawing I will post it.
Suppose the PatRoVa C50 runs at 2/3 of the revs of the Wankel model engine.
The one engine is 50cc while the other is only 5cc (i.e. the one tenth).
The peak pressure in the cylinder is the same.
So, both appear to have the same absolute leakage (i.e. quantity of gas leaked).
Think about it once more.
Decide which is the maximum permitted leakage for the OS Wankel 5cc engine (more leakage and the engine stops running).
Do you want a 25% limit?
Do you want a 50% limit?
Take the 50% case.
So, with 5cc capacity for each chamber of the Wankel, the 2.5cc leak from the sides of the rotor.
The absolute leakage is the same for the ten times bigger PatRoVa C50 engine, which means that from the 50cc of the charge only the 2.5cc leaks from the PatRoVa rotary valve, which is 5% of the total quantity of mixture in the cylinder.
Compare the 50% leakage in the Wankel model engine with the 5% in the PatRoVa C50.
More reasonable is a 10% leakage in the Wankel 5cc engine. In such a case the leakage (which is automatically recycled during the next combustion) from the rotary valve of the PatRoVa C50 becomes 1%. By the way, how much do you think is the conventional leakage from the sides of the piston to the crankcase?
I admit it is not so easy to get it, but try.
I am sure somebody in this forum gets it.
You also write:
And Finally.
I have a set of plans for an anti-gravity machine which draws it's power from a greater than unity efficiency engine, you can have a set for £10, it has been proven to work but must be built exactly to the plans ;-)
Millions of guys proposed the anti-gravity machine before you.
This is why the serious Patent Offices refuse to receive patent applications for anti-gravity mechanisms and of perpetual motion mechanisms.
On the other hand, and if you really want to fly, there are more conventional ways than antigravity mechanisms.
See for instance the pattakon Portable Flyer project at:
http://www.pattakon.com/pattakonPatTol.htm#PortableFlyerAxial
As happens with the rest pattakon projects, the OPRE_Tilting engine is patent protected.
I suppose you know what Intellectual Property is. If not, I can explain.
A really smart guy would first try (and try and try and try and try ) to see stereoscopically (all it takes is a pair of eyes and a functional brain) and only after achieving it, he would come joking about antigravity mechanisms etc.
Thanks
[FONT="]Manolis Pattakos
.
[/FONT]
Nick Hulme
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 338
- Reaction score
- 84
Yup,
Those Freudian Slips just keep coming ;-)
Patents mean nothing, without commercial applications there's nothing worth protecting and getting a patent doesn't mean something is of any use either.
As you've failed to get anything in production in the best part of 10 years of bulling this stuff about I'm guessing that none of what you have is of any commercial interest.
EDIT -
Just found this howler on the website and couldn't not include it -
"Considering the flat fronts and the flat lips as parts of spheres (or cylinders) of infinite diameter"
You could consider your toeses are roses but they're not and the logic is flawed, the port is close to the edge of a disc so that infinite stuff is misleading bunk
And
"At a thermal expansion (or contraction) each rotary valve slides slightly along the splined shaft and continues its friction-free / wear-free cooperation with the respective ports."
Seriously, you just can't make this stuff up, it's dry and it's close enough to provide a gas seal and it's friction-free and wear-free, got to stop and clean the keyboard, my coffee came down my nose when I read that
Last edited:
Mechanicboy
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2013
- Messages
- 959
- Reaction score
- 349
He is expert for writing long story about his invention who is already invented and discarded. Best not to respond to his comments. So, I hope he gives up eventually.
t.l.a.r. eng
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2009
- Messages
- 81
- Reaction score
- 14
"Considering the flat fronts and the flat lips as parts of spheres (or cylinders) of infinite diameter"
And
"At a thermal expansion (or contraction) each rotary valve slides slightly along the splined shaft and continues its friction-free / wear-free cooperation with the respective ports."
Possibly where all the sparks are coming from when it runs. :thumbup:
Hello Nick Hulme.
You write:
“Patents mean nothing, without commercial applications there's nothing worth protecting and getting a patent doesn't mean something is of any use either.
As you've failed to get anything in production in the best part of 10 years of bulling this stuff about I'm guessing that none of what you have is of any commercial interest.”
Patents mean a lot.
An Examiner (specialized in a narrow field, say in the rotary valves) of the Patent Office wherein a patent application was filed searches for similar inventions / ideas all over the world and decides if the invention in question is new, if it has inventive step and if it is applicable.
Many of the modern car engines use the Atkinson / Miller cycle (one of the first was the Toyota PRIUS).
Here you can read the patent of Ralf Miller (filed 23 September 1952) http://www.pattakon.com/tempman/Miller_patent.pdf
The patents are one of the most useful tools of the modern world.
You also write:
“Just found this howler on the website and couldn't not include it -
"Considering the flat fronts and the flat lips as parts of spheres (or cylinders) of infinite diameter"
You could consider your toeses are roses but they're not and the logic is flawed, the port is close to the edge of a disc so that infinite stuff is misleading bunk”
What is so difficult to be understood?
In the above drawing the numbers show the diameters of the spheres (some parts of which comprise the PatRoVa rotary valve sealing surfaces).
The bigger the diameter, the smaller the total radial force on the rotary valve.
In the case at right–bottom, the radius is infinite which makes the working surfaces flat / plain, eliminating the total radial force on the rotary valve.
You also write:
“(Just found this howler on the website and couldn't not include it)
"At a thermal expansion (or contraction) each rotary valve slides slightly along the splined shaft and continues its friction-free / wear-free cooperation with the respective ports."
Seriously, you just can't make this stuff up, it's dry and it's close enough to provide a gas seal and it's friction-free and wear-free, got to stop and clean the keyboard, my coffee came down my nose when I read that”
On one hand consider the “zero total force” characteristic of the PatRoVa rotary valve and, on the other hand, consider the fact that the most frictionless bearings today are neither the roller bearings, nor the plain bearings with hydrodynamic lubrication, but the air bearings.
Quote from http://www.newwayairbearings.com/sites/default/files/new_way_application_and_design_guide_%20Rev_E_2006-01-18.pdf (do read it)
“What is an air bearing?
Unlike contact roller bearings, air bearings utilize a thin film of pressurized air to provide a ‘zero friction’ load bearing interface between surfaces that would otherwise be in contact with each other (Figure 2). Being non-contact, air bearings avoid the traditional bearing-related problems of friction, wear, and lubricant handling, and offer distinct advantages in precision positioning and high speed applications.”
End of quote
Thanks
[FONT="]Manolis Pattakos
.
[/FONT]
You write:
“Patents mean nothing, without commercial applications there's nothing worth protecting and getting a patent doesn't mean something is of any use either.
As you've failed to get anything in production in the best part of 10 years of bulling this stuff about I'm guessing that none of what you have is of any commercial interest.”
Patents mean a lot.
An Examiner (specialized in a narrow field, say in the rotary valves) of the Patent Office wherein a patent application was filed searches for similar inventions / ideas all over the world and decides if the invention in question is new, if it has inventive step and if it is applicable.
Many of the modern car engines use the Atkinson / Miller cycle (one of the first was the Toyota PRIUS).
Here you can read the patent of Ralf Miller (filed 23 September 1952) http://www.pattakon.com/tempman/Miller_patent.pdf
The patents are one of the most useful tools of the modern world.
You also write:
“Just found this howler on the website and couldn't not include it -
"Considering the flat fronts and the flat lips as parts of spheres (or cylinders) of infinite diameter"
You could consider your toeses are roses but they're not and the logic is flawed, the port is close to the edge of a disc so that infinite stuff is misleading bunk”
What is so difficult to be understood?
In the above drawing the numbers show the diameters of the spheres (some parts of which comprise the PatRoVa rotary valve sealing surfaces).
The bigger the diameter, the smaller the total radial force on the rotary valve.
In the case at right–bottom, the radius is infinite which makes the working surfaces flat / plain, eliminating the total radial force on the rotary valve.
You also write:
“(Just found this howler on the website and couldn't not include it)
"At a thermal expansion (or contraction) each rotary valve slides slightly along the splined shaft and continues its friction-free / wear-free cooperation with the respective ports."
Seriously, you just can't make this stuff up, it's dry and it's close enough to provide a gas seal and it's friction-free and wear-free, got to stop and clean the keyboard, my coffee came down my nose when I read that”
On one hand consider the “zero total force” characteristic of the PatRoVa rotary valve and, on the other hand, consider the fact that the most frictionless bearings today are neither the roller bearings, nor the plain bearings with hydrodynamic lubrication, but the air bearings.
Quote from http://www.newwayairbearings.com/sites/default/files/new_way_application_and_design_guide_%20Rev_E_2006-01-18.pdf (do read it)
“What is an air bearing?
Unlike contact roller bearings, air bearings utilize a thin film of pressurized air to provide a ‘zero friction’ load bearing interface between surfaces that would otherwise be in contact with each other (Figure 2). Being non-contact, air bearings avoid the traditional bearing-related problems of friction, wear, and lubricant handling, and offer distinct advantages in precision positioning and high speed applications.”
End of quote
Thanks
[FONT="]Manolis Pattakos
.
[/FONT]
