Single Cylinder Opposed 2 Piston Engine

Home Model Engine Machinist Forum

Help Support Home Model Engine Machinist Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Back in the lathe for some cooling fins and a good clean up.
IMG_3638.JPG

I like shiny things don't you?
IMG_3641.JPG

Thanks for looking
Ray
 
Turned down a piece of cast iron to fit inside the cylinder and cut to length.
IMG_3655.JPG

The liner is 5 inches long so started with small drill bits and kept working my way up until I could get a large enough hole for the big boring bar to get through.
IMG_3658.JPG

This bar has a 3/4" shank and made good time out to the final size.
IMG_3660.JPG

Now to cleanup the mess.

Thanks for looking
Ray
 
My cylinder liner is just over 4" long but at 20mm bore I had to cut from both ends so the 'step' was in the combustion chamber.
 
I installed the liner and drilled and taped for the intake valve, the exhaust valve, and the spark plug.
I have given this a lot of thought as to just how I am going to support the upper piston through out it's up and down travel. It also has to be kept from tilting sideways and turning.
This is what I am going to try first and it may not work, or it may wear the sides of the slot or bind up. We will just have to see.

1/2" end mill centered on the cylinder bore to a depth of 1.25"
IMG_3665.JPG

Well that slot worked out very nicely.
The lower part of the slot extends into the cast iron liner.
IMG_3669.JPG

So here is the upper piston, connecting rod bolt, cross bar and brass side retaining stops.
I wanted the connecting rod to be adjustable in order to be able to adjust the piston and in turn the compression ratio.
IMG_3672.JPG


It moves smoothly now but the true test will be when the outer connecting rods and the o-rings are installed.
IMG_3674.JPG
Thanks for looking
Ray
 
I sawed through the center of the rod bearings, enlarged the holes in the caps for 4-40 cap screws, threaded the rod ends, reassembled and drilled the rod bearings to size. Then I gave them a little shine.
IMG_3687.JPG

Here they are installed on the engine. I did have some minor fitting to do on the rods but now they move smoothly. I don't have the o-rings installed yet so things might change but for now all is good.
IMG_3691.JPG

Thanks for looking
Ray
 
I think two 4" flywheels will be best for this model.
I could make up several reasons for the smaller size being better but really I have the material for the 4" wheels so 4" it will be.
IMG_3692.JPG

Aluminum inside.
IMG_3697.JPG

Pressed together, cleaned up, with split tapered retainers.
IMG_3700.JPG

Next will be to give the flywheels a good coat of paint and the retainers a little shine.

Thanks for looking
Ray
 
Hi Ray, I'm sure you have a nice precise set-up to make the flywheels and then press in the aluminium centre - finally to set the shaft hole.... - But did it need "trueing-up" after finally making the shaft hole? - Mine always do, so I leave everything oversize and finish the flywheel on a mandrel that is machined in the lathe, then the unfinished flywheel set upon it using the shaft hole as a datum, for final machining.
The other thing I have done, is used castings for flywheels, and where unbalanced, used the natural cast imbalance to compensate for piston, con-rod, etc. balance. A well balanced engine can run much slower in my experience of steam engines. What will you do to balance this engine? I am fascinated by the configuration. - Like a Doxford marine engine?
1724055884560.png

K2
 
Yes my flywheels usually do need trueing-up to some degree.

One of my main concerns on building this engine was just how to balance the difference in weight of the lower and upper piston assemblies. You now have me thinking of making flywheels that are unbalanced to compensate for the weight difference.
I will probably continue with the flywheels I have now as a test to see just how much offset is needed.

Thank you

Ray
 
The devil is very much in the details. The main reciprocating forces are fairly well balanced, the pull rods can be quite thin section as they are loaded in tension and don't have significant buckling forces. The Junkers engine I am building has a shorter stroke for the upper (induction) piston which allows the exhaust ports to open earlier for better scavenging and also improves the balance.

 
The main bearing are sealed ball bearings. The connecting rod ends are of a special impregnated bronze with 90 weight gear oil.
A drop of oil on each bearing has proven to be satisfactory.
They are sold by McMaster Carr.

Ray
 
The devil is very much in the details. The main reciprocating forces are fairly well balanced, the pull rods can be quite thin section as they are loaded in tension and don't have significant buckling forces. The Junkers engine I am building has a shorter stroke for the upper (induction) piston which allows the exhaust ports to open earlier for better scavenging and also improves the balance.



Wouldn't you offset the exhaust piston crankpins a bit so the exhaust opens first but closes around the same time as the intake?

I suppose that makes the balance issue even stranger.
 
Sorry Nerd, I didn't understand that comment. I understand the pair of rods to the top piston to be 180 degrees from the crankpin of the bottom rod n piston. - That's wjat makes this engine work. The valves, timing etc. are separate to Crank pins.
Or have I mixed the Doxford opposed piston engine design with something else?
I understand that modern Ship engines like this are Blown 2-strokes with a separate valve operation to open and blow in the central cylinder port from the supercharger/blower, with valve timed just after the exhaust port (near end of stroke of each piston) has opened, then the inlet valve stays open until after the exhaust port closes. But that is with inlet valve timing from a cam, not one of the cranks. So should not affect the Crank balance...
But the Fairbanks-Morse engine (picture attached) has inlet port at one end of the expanded combustion chamber and Exhaust ports at the other end. So maybe this is what you are referring to? - Except this doesn't need any offset from the 180degree crank arrangement either? - I am confused? - Or wrong?
The Fairbanks-Morse uses a pair of crankshafts, so maybe they are not timed at 180degrees separation? (looking closely at the pictures). - This is all new to me, so I am just a beginner - learning!
So the cylinder ports can be timed by the crank pin timing - a way from 180degrees - as you are suggesting? (IF I understand your ideas?). What did Fairbanks-Morse do? 1724249867669.png
Perhaps Ray can explain his engine when he returns from his other duties in a few days? Meanwhile we can chat among ourselves - if you wish?
Ken
1724249867669.png
 

Attachments

  • 1724249426029.png
    1724249426029.png
    167.5 KB
The Junkers Jumo 204/205aircraft diesel engines were a twin crankshaft design and had the two crankshafts offset by, if I remember correctly, 9°.
 
Sorry Nerd, I didn't understand that comment. I understand the pair of rods to the top piston to be 180 degrees from the crankpin of the bottom rod n piston. - That's wjat makes this engine work. The valves, timing etc. are separate to Crank pins.
Or have I mixed the Doxford opposed piston engine design with something else?
I understand that modern Ship engines like this are Blown 2-strokes with a separate valve operation to open and blow in the central cylinder port from the supercharger/blower, with valve timed just after the exhaust port (near end of stroke of each piston) has opened, then the inlet valve stays open until after the exhaust port closes. But that is with inlet valve timing from a cam, not one of the cranks. So should not affect the Crank balance...
But the Fairbanks-Morse engine (picture attached) has inlet port at one end of the expanded combustion chamber and Exhaust ports at the other end. So maybe this is what you are referring to? - Except this doesn't need any offset from the 180degree crank arrangement either? - I am confused? - Or wrong?
The Fairbanks-Morse uses a pair of crankshafts, so maybe they are not timed at 180degrees separation? (looking closely at the pictures). - This is all new to me, so I am just a beginner - learning!
So the cylinder ports can be timed by the crank pin timing - a way from 180degrees - as you are suggesting? (IF I understand your ideas?). What did Fairbanks-Morse do? View attachment 159200
Perhaps Ray can explain his engine when he returns from his other duties in a few days? Meanwhile we can chat among ourselves - if you wish?
Ken
View attachment 159200
Basically what Roger said. 'Conventional' 2 strokes always have the problem that the exhaust port must be uncovered before the transfer port so as to blow down the exhaust pressure before scavenging begins. If you only have one piston (or two, 180 degrees out of phase) the exhaust must necessarily close after the transfer port. This has the unfortunate effect of allowing some of the charge in the cylinder to be displaced out through the exhaust before the port is covered and compression starts. If you have opposed pistons you can at least in principle arrange to have the piston that covers the exhaust ports run a bit ahead of the piston that covers the transfers, so the exhaust opens before the transfers and closes at the same time as the transfers (or even a bit before).

If you had 2 cranks you would just advance one crank relative to the other. But if you have one crank and side rods you would instead have to adjust the location of the crankpins working the side rods so that the angle between them and the middle crankpin is something other than 180 degrees.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top