Instead of trying to compress hot exhaust gases which only want to expand rapidly why not utilise a larger cylinder for exhaust to pass into thus utilising more of the heat energy for another power phase?
I don't really like 4-cycles as it is and they are trying to add another 2... utter crap. If 2-cycles have been perfected to be more fuel efficient, have higher torque, and quicker to their power band in outboards than 4-cycles, why not use that knowledge to better perfect an auto engine. Even though sleeve valve engines are pretty much a thing of the past, I think they can show promise for 2-cycles, especially for auto engines, if the EPA can make standards for 4 cycles, then they can for 2.
@UGLandrum The problem is, while 2-cycles inherently theoretically use less fuel to create the same amount of power, they also inherently lose efficiency in fuel/exhaust separation. Because of the nature of 2-cycle engines, it's very tough to keep exhaust out of the combustion chamber during the next powerstroke. This means while it only needs 1 rotation for power, it can't create as much in that amount of time. By adding the 2 steam strokes, you reduce fuel consumption, and decrease hydrocarbon
@SchizoFilms Why not run water injection into the intake system of a two stroke, along with electronic fuel injection? By cutting the fuel on every other engine cycle, or 1 of however many cycles, it could still use steam expansion and also cool the cylinder a little.
@stopglobalswarming Yes, it would give 2-stroke power gains, but the underlying problem still exists: 2-stroke engines have higher emissions and lower efficiency due to exhaust contamination. The whole system would be less powerful and more polluting than a modified 4-stroke.
@UGLandrum and NOx emissions. Finally, a way to harness some of the wasted heat energy. After all, 83% of the power generated by even the most efficient engine is converted to waste heat.
@RCNitroHelp101 I believe it's because the fuel mixture they use burns cooler anyway and they actually have misfiring due to too much fuel and air being charged into the cylinders. Not because of the wrong mixture, simply because it's not igniting in time, in those extreme cases a water injection would simply cause more misfiring. In those drag cars, when there's misfiring in one bank of cylinders, there can be catastrophic failures. Btw, did you draw a dick?
A six-stroke engine would be good for non-racing applications, and it needs to be of a fairly big displacement (automobile, not a lawn mower) to be worth the extra 2 strokes. It won't be a game changer in itself, but it would be good to see practical progress made. I mean make prototypes and put them in non-mission-critical trucks and stuff, and progress R&D.
If its the 6 stroke engine I think it is then the combustion cycle is identical to a 4 stroke, but it then injects water into the cylinder (still hot from combustion) which becomes super heated steam and expands giving it a second power stroke and then the exhaust stroke (i.e. Intake, compression, combustion Exhaust, steam, Exhaust).
tht thing must not have any balls especially if it is going through the power stroke once every 6 strokes....only upside to this design is fuel economy
An engine uses the principal of Induction, Compression Power and Exhaust, (The 4 basic strokes) so what are the other 2 strokes? Induction, misfire, Compression splutter, Power and Exhaust?
So the engine go's through one complete cycle every 1 and a half revolutions?
@lazzer408 That's called a steam engine. I actually just gone done designing a "one-stroke" steam V-8 in 3D last night. I was having a lot of fun imagining the thing racing against top-fuel dragsters. :-)
@MichaelD400 strokes pretty much explain themselvs the stroke one is the up stroke stroke to is the down stroke so it fires every revolution or every other stroke
Although it would be hard to tell for sure, this doesn't look like it could be the crower type 6-stroke because it would have an irregular beat to it. If anything it's the Beare Head type, judging by the fact that you can actually see the valve through the exhaust port and the head is round.
When the water is atomized the hydrocarbons collect around the outside of the water molecule. When the hydocarbons ignite the water is instantaneously vaporized greatly increasing compression. You can use water injection in four strokes and as was mentioned above it works particularly well in diesel engines. Don;t know what the deal with the fictional six stroke is. That engine was releasing exhaust on every other stroke therefore it's a two stroke.
@Mpower330csl it is six stroke engine only, it has got two pistons only is in upper part of the head and other is as usual four stroke piston with connecting rod.
when lower piston makes four cycles the upper piston make two cycles . totally six strokes.
itz our project in engineering..those are our legs
you'd have to completely evacuate every drop or you'd start loosing efficiency.
I guess that's why the literature I've found says that it uses a 2nd set of intake and combustion without a subsequent venting instead of that preposterous idea. however I think I see where you're getting confused. some designs use water injection around the cylinders for cooling.
No dosrespect my friend but thing about it - when spraying (not pouring) small, calculated jet ofwater into fire you get explosive reaction - that's why you don't try to put off gasoline fire with water but with foam or CO2. This is a good idea but it's too complicated for common use.
wouldnt the engine hydrolock if you didnt get all the water out, or do these run a lower compression, not being ignorant, i have worked under the hoods of cars for awhile for now but i dont know much about a 6 stroke cycle
Water is atomized and sprayed in a fine mist, and will not cause the car to run like crap, theres a diff between pouring water in and spraying a fine mist.
@mrtaterman fuck two stroke engines. Unreliable, burns gas too fast, horrible emissions, and who the fuck wants to mix gas and oil? The only equipment that is better to use 2 stroke is small machines that need lots of power with a small lightweight engine.
@stevenmorookian16 Actually you can just put the oil in its own separate tank and they mix automatically. Two-cycle engines were used in more than just lawnmowers y'know.
@zapwatt no shit, they have that automatic oiling thing on a lot of 2 stroke outboards. Still a pain in the ass. And everyone knows that 2-stroke engines are everywhere.
@zapwatt what statement did I take back? I don't hate 2 stroke engines. I just like 4 stroke a whole lot better. I am always having to maintain my 2 stroke engines every season. My 4 stroke engines just keep on running. 2 stroke requires a lot of care to keep running.
@stevenmorookian16 what exactly do you do to your 2-stroke's??? lol! i have owned a15hp evinrude outboard for 10 years now and its 2-stroke...and the only thing ive done is drain the carb when i put it in storage!
if i remember corectly 4-strokes require an oil change every 2-3 months...
@kddcc well that evinrude of yours is a beast. You only have to change the oil every 2-3 months if you use the shit out of the engine. It seems that 2 strokes are harder to start then 4-strokes, don't have nearly as long lifespan, i go through 1 spark plug per most of my 2 strokes every season, and the coil always mysteriously goes bad on at least one machine every season.
@stevenmorookian16 Don't have as long a lifespan as a 4 stroke? Please don't tell that to my '58 evinrude. It's true that 2 strokes of the past have a bad rep, but look at modern 2 stroke engines, especially outboards. New 2 stroke outboards are low, or ultra low emissions compliant. They are as quiet as 4 strokes. Lighter than 4 strokes. Usually only require their oil to be refilled once a season. Have the same spk plug life as a 4 stroke. They usually have more grunt than a equal HP 4 stroke.
@MrSirosis1 2 strokes are far superior to 4 strokes. i have a boat motor from 1948 and it started second pull after sitting for 30 years. 2 strokes are much more simple and way more reliable, have you heard of a motobecain moby m1? a 2 stroke so quite it sounds electric!
@586guest2 Why are you preaching to me? I am the one who's saying 2 stokes are OK. While the older ones can be a pain in the ass, the newer ones are quite nice. I wouldn't say 2 strokes are far superior to 4 strokes. They both have their respective places in the world of engines.
@MrSirosis1 oh yeah i didnt really word that to well. haha i was agreeing with you! and you are right, if we used two strokes on everything the world would be terrible. imagine if every car was a 2 stroke! but when it comes to fun i will take my light high powered 2 stroke over a clunky 4 banger any day of the week!
@MrSirosis1 Guess you missed the Ficht fuel injection debacle that sunk OMC. When it comes to power output boat motors are sluggards when you consider their capacity. How many CCs does it take to make 250 HP? A Honda S2000 makes around 200 or better on a pretty small engine. Little motorcycle 4s are up there also, 150 to 175. The achellies heal of the two stroke is plug up a jet and you smoke an engine due to no lube. ON a single this isn't a problem, the engine dies, on a boat it's death
@505197 What does the "Ficht debacle", (from a manufacturer that has now been defunct for 10 years) have anything to with the topic of Modern (I.E. NEW) 2 stoke outboards? How many CC's does it take to make 250HP? 3279 for Evinrude, 3032 for Mercury. You're comparing small displacement 4 strokes that need the snot revved out of them to make the power, to purpose built marine 2 strokes? In your apples to oranges comparison, how long would one of those engines last behind a boat at continuous WOT?
@505197 How much torque does a motorcycle engine or Honda S2000 engine make? Is it enough to get a 2500+ pound boat loaded with people, gear, and a water skier in tow on plane? If you perform regular maintenance on any engine, plugged jets aren't a problem......
this just isn't true its possible to tune the an engine as old as the 1275cc a-series to up to 200hp just an example put theres plenty other f1 engines?
@irnotbob wait what?? it would be near impossable to get 200whp from a 1.3 without boost or nitrous, i dont think that could be done. iv seen 260 from 1.8 liters though.
@2jzgtejza80 yeah but to make that power you need very hi octane race fuel ya know. i know f1 cars have insane HP hondas 3.5 makes 500 due just because thats the highest they can have in that class.i know about the B16B makes 185 na the F20C is 240 from a 2.0 great power
It's not all about race fuel, it's mostly because of technology. High rev engines usually produce huge power from small displacement, but small torque= better throttle respond. Used is light racing cars to improve handling. High compression engines usually using race fuel 100+ to 120 octane to prevent knocking.
@2jzgtejza80 well yeah you need high compression in order to get those high numbers out of a small displacment engine but you need that high octane to prevent pre detinaton you HAVE to use hi octane to achive good power lol
this just isn't true its possible to tune the an engine as old as the 1275cc a-series to up to 200hp just an example put theres plenty other howabout f1 engines?
@jurciks71 well i can see how you think 2 strokes "are" shit, but in MY opinion 2 strokes are better. see, opinions are like assholes. everybody has one.
@rickcperry It isn't compressed. Exhaust gases are compressed in an additional stroke, after which water is injected and turned to steam creating a second power stroke.
@LIP15 Wrong water injection allows the air fuel mix to be cooled and when it is released into the combustoin chamber it contacts the surface and pulls heat out of it so the engine runs cooler and cuts down detonation. You can run a higher compression ratio on pump gas and not have the fear of detonation.
The reason 2 strokes have such a lower CR is because in a very narrow RPM window they get a forced induction type effect from the pipe. When the exhaust port is open the hot spent gasses rush out and hit the bottle neck in the pipe and come rushing back into the cylinder. when the rpm is right the port is close just in time to trap those extra gasses in the cylinder. Long pipe that happens at a lower rpm, short pipe that happens at a higher rpm.
Its a six stroke because it has 6 separate strokes. First is intake, second is compression, third is power, fourth is exhaust, fifth is water injection/expansion, sixth is water vapor exhausted.
Apparently the engine uses water in roughly the same proportion as fuel. At stochiometric air/fuel ratio and WOT, about 1mg of fuel is burnt/cubic inch of displacement. 1mg of water expands to about 0.1 cubic inches at 1 bar. So the 'power stroke' simply generates a vacuum which requires work to be put into the system. You'd need about 10 times this amount of water to break even but that would require more heat to vaporise than the engine block absorbs from combustion. Doh!
Simple, yes. Great and revolutionary? No. Crower was not awarded any patents, primarily because the concept was patented in 1915 by Leonard Dyer. For a variety of reasons, the concept does not work as well as the facile thermodynamic reasoning would suggest. Basically, cool combustion chambers tend to cause poor combustion, and quenching hot metal with cold water is generally a bad idea. Sorry to piss on people's fires, but this is one 'breakthrough' that needs to be debunked.
Melvin, the heat of vaporisation of water is 2.257MJ/kg. The enthalpy of combustion of gasoline or diesel is about 44MJ/Kg, of which maybe a third is left rejected to the engine during combustion and expansion. Work out the mass of supersaturated steam that is required to produce a powerstroke and you'll see that there simply isn't sufficient heat remaining in the engine to create that steam.
1.) 500C is far too high an estimate for combustion chamber temperatures (except the exhaust valve)
2.) Heating water requires MUCH less energy than boiling it to dry steam.
3.) The temperature of the coolant does not reflect the temperature of the combustion chamber. The coolant is not at steady flow through the radiator-it is thermostatically controlled.
4.) A few drops of water will not raise enough steam to drive the piston through 360degrees of rotation
You didnt mention abt the heat absorbed by the radiators,it is almost 30% of the total heat produced & 40% is lost in exhaust gases, If we preheat the water by passing through the exhaust tubes(just like in the boiler) & taking the 30% lost in radiators(as radiators r not in the 6stroke concept) .Is it not possible?
The heat absorbed by the radiator came from the coolant cooling the engine-it is the same heat. If we use less water, then you create a partial vacuum towards the end of the power stroke. When the exhaust valve opens, air will rush INTO the cylinder-and air can move quickly to fill a vacuum (approaching the speed of sound in the fluid!). As the piston moves up, it will then have to push that air back out of the cylinder towards air in the exhaust header that is still trying to get into the cylin
der creating a heavy pumping loss. You also have to consider the frictional losses created by the extra 2 strokes, and the fact that a catalytic converter needs exhaust gas > ~300C to operate. basically phase changes in working fluids lead to very inefficient engines. Steam is a good working fluid-but not if you have to generate steam anew for every cycle. Steam turbines are efficient because once the steam is raised it is recirculated over and over again-it is simply reheated every cycle.
Of course they do! Pumping losses are less as well. 2 strokes tend to get poorer fuel economy because of air/fuel being scavenged out of the exhaust before they are compressed. Also the power stroke is short because the exhaust port is uncovered. 2 strokes are not inherently inefficient-the most efficient piston engines on the planet are huge 2 stroke diesels, but they bear little resemblence to the enginesyou see in scooters and mopeds.
But i promise u 2strokewill not lessen the frictional losses just because of having only 2 strokes. At aconstant rpm 2stroke or 4stroke or even 6 stroke would move at the same speed. for example at 6000 rpm 2stroke,4stroke&6stroke would do 6000 up&down motions(strokes), but 2stroke would complete 6000 cycles , 4stroke would complete 3000 cycles& 2000 cycles by the 6stroke. So there is no chance for lessening the frictional losses, by just seeing it as 2,4or 6 stroke type
friction losses are less then 15% of the power lost to the compression stroke but of course you need that for the engine to run. and in the 6stroke engine your getting 1 free power stroke without the loss of power through a compression stroke
I think the fact that none of these engines seem to end up on the dyno speaks for itself! Like I said the 6 stroke the idea has been rattling around since 1915 and no manufacturerer has been interested in it...
You're taking the compression stroke as an isolate event-it isn't. Even without combustion, most of the energy put into compression of the gas would berecovered by expanding it again. frictional losses are quite small when compared to WOT operation. At low load, along with throttling losses, they are very significant. One of the reasons that diesels are more efficient than gassers is the lack of an air throttle (although the ignorant will attribute the efficiency to greater compression ratio).
im not taking the compression stroke as an isolate event the most effeicent engines have high copression ratios or low compression with a super charger or turbo (increasing the amount of air begin compressed so you need to lower the compression or the engine could blow a gasget) and i dont think the 6stroke engine will ever get mass produced anyway where already closer to hydrogen cars then 6 stroke engines
Only up to a point. The old indirect injection diesels ran at CR of up to 22:1 and they are FAR less efficient than modern direct injection diesels running at 16:1. Boosted Spark Ignition engines run low CRs to avoid detonation, rather than save the head gasket. Supercharged and turbo gasoline engines are generally less efficient than their naturally aspirated cousins-they make more power because they burn a lot more fuel, not because they are more efficient.
you wrong about superchargers and turbos the only reason most cars with them on are uneffecient is because there tuned up to have more power. turbo chargers are the ones that most manufactures use towards fuel economy because superchargers take 30% of the engines power you can get cars with turbos that can do 50-70mpg and still have 100hp. and of course a old engine is not going to be effeincent because modern cars have ECUs that can calculate thousands of times a second the best mixture
yes ur right it can create partial vaccum, if we use less amt of water.But what about designing the valves to open some degrees before reaching the BDC.then i think we can avoid the partial vaccum. And I still believe that if we consider the 70% loss (coolant loss+exhaust loss) , we might be able to heat the adequate amt of water(in ur calculation u considered only the coolant losses)
How do you recapture energy from the exhaust? The water is injected AFTER the exhaust stroke when virtually all of the exhaust gas has been expelled. The early exhaust valve opening is interesting. It's better than nothing but not perfect. You're still going to draw air in from the exhaust manifold only to expel it a few degrees of crankshaft rotation later having done nothing useful with it!
What are pistons and cylinders (usually) fabricated from Melvin? Aluminium. Aluminium gets pretty soft at 500C. If the piston got that hot, the oil on the cylinder wall would rapidly degrade. If the combustion chamber was at 500C, pre-detontation and indeed preignition would ocur even at very low compression ratios. An air cooled 4 stroke might get to 400C at high load, but that's why they tend to operate at 6-7:1 CR and rich AFRs resulting in inefficient and dirty comubstion.
Have you any idea of the stresses that would be incurred in already heavily stressed components by quenching them repeatedly with water? Ignoring that, let me try to demonstrate why it cannot work. Lets take a 500 cubic centimetre cylinder (say 1/4 of a 2 litre 4 pot engine). AT WOT there is enough air to burn about 35 mg of petrol, which will release about 1500J of energy. About 40% of that energy goes straight out the exhaust, and about 30-35% is rejected to the engine...
...so we have an upper limit of about 500J of energy to turn to steam. How much steam do we need? We need to fill the cylinder with about 1 bar of steam. Water will expand to about 1600 times in volume at 1 bar so we need about 0.3g of water to povide enough steam. Ignoring the energy required to heat the water to boiling point we need (0.3/1000)* heat of vaporisation/kg=(0.3/1000)*2,257,000J/Kg=700J. This is 40% more the entire heat absorbed from the engine. Oops...
It doesnt need to drive the piston through 360degree of rotation. It just needs a few drops of water to assist the piston movement & for that we have to use perhaps a modified flywheel.
If there is not enough heat for .3g of water, then lets use 0.15g. If it can give a push to the flywheel ,it wil add to its efficiency.
You're quite right that we don't need a net positive force on the piston throughout the 180 degree powerstroke.-it's just a rough calculation to indicate the huge heat requirement needed to boil water. I neglected the calculation for heatig the water; ie I assumed it was already hot. If we start with cold water the situation becomes worse! Like I said this concept has been around since 1915-there's a reason no manufacturer has pursued it!
Trying to raise any appreciable amount of steam will pull a lot of heat out of the combustion chamber. The specific heat of aluminium (most commonly used material for pistons and cylinderhead) is about 900J/Kg/K. The heat of vaporisation of water is 2,257,000J/Kg. A combustion chamber temperature of ~100C is regarded as 'cold' and below the optimum temperature. Remember that steam piston engines were only about 8-10% efficient. Compare that to modern gasoline engines that are ~30% efficient...
I've been experimenting on working with a wankel engine that is four-stroke diesel and has a two-stake turbocharger (like a jet engine turbine, for compression ratio). It would work like a two-stroke diesel, but the third and fourth strokes would be water injection and steam emission. With alternating sides firing alternating strokes, it would be a high-efficiency rotary engine.
why not use a dual rotor design like rolls-royce experimented with? and also, could you send over some more details please? it sounds very interesting.
Wouldn't you need a supercharger to start it? It is difficult to get a high compression ratio from Wankels, and the turbo won't boost until the engine fires and is placed under load.
six-stroke engines inject water to use the heat of the engine AFTER gas has expanded that the water turns to dry steam. You get regular four-stroke power plus high-pressure steam. It essentially uses a spare stroke like a steam engine, keeping the engine cool as well, so you have no need for radiator or cooling unit since engine temp only oscillates, doesn't maintain high. If turned off on 5th stroke, the heat would still burst out the water, and if not the starter could pump it out.
Standard engine have 4 strokes: - intake stroke, - compression stroke, - power stroke, - exhaust stroke. The 6-stroke engine have 6-strokes: - intake stroke, - compression stroke, - exhaust work stroke, - exhaust stroke - steam water work stroke, - steam water exhaust stroke It means that this engine is using gasoline, air and also water.
Not really, a 6 stroke will produce 40% better fuel economy than a 4 stroke with the same power output. It also produces less emissions, it's still being experimented with however. The engine itself was considered a disaster on the first attempt to make one, so is everything.
OK so what happens if you stop the engine on the waters expansion stroke would the engine be able to restart on gas with the cylinder loaded with water? and how does the water being injected into the cyliner create power??? Isa so confused! X.X
well its not really water thats going in but more steam, which is only decipating heat from the engine, but as far as more power from it...i havent understood that yet...i know that the regular exhaust stroke keeps the smoke in and waits for the water to get pumped in....the water under extreme pressure turns into steam and helps expand the piston even faster and then gets puped out....i assume its something like that...need to look more into it...
well since an engine keeps on turning for a few revs after electricity is cut out, the injected water (which will become steam, since in-cylinder temperatures are way above 100°C) will be forced out before the engine comes to a complete stop
Nei primi decenni del '900 furono realizzati motori a gas povero che effettuavano più cicli di compressione ed accensione ovvero alla fase di aspirazione seguivano due ed anche tre fasi di compressione-accensione prima della fase di scarico. Erano motori statici, utilizzati in agricoltura per azionare trebbiatrici e la soluzione era proficua in quanto l'enorme cilindrata unitaria di questi motori monocilindrici non consentiva la completa combustione del combustibile in una sola fase attiva.
i am not sure, but i think it has the same first 4 strokes as a 4 stroke engine, but then it injects a stream of water into the cylinder, the water instantly evaporates and creates pressure pushing the piston down.the steam then exits through the exhaust valve. and then were back to the first stroke
whats the point? fucking barely any power
theboarman 1 month ago
Mech rockz new invention-6 STROKE ENGINE ¿ high efficiency!!!!
Basavarajdv 1 month ago
Instead of trying to compress hot exhaust gases which only want to expand rapidly why not utilise a larger cylinder for exhaust to pass into thus utilising more of the heat energy for another power phase?
TK42138 1 month ago
it's a normal four stroke engine with a rotary valve at discharge
pisaenginer 2 months ago
sorry 4 stroke atv engines are not 6 strokes
FastSuzuki250 2 months ago
@FastSuzuki250 go serch up 6 stroke engines
joeycool12 2 months ago
@joeycool12 no
FastSuzuki250 2 months ago
stupid niggers...
xxkittenkiller 2 months ago
No such thing as a '6-stroke' engine.
aivilik 2 months ago
@aivilik
Yes there is. Look it up !
BFWRT 2 months ago
@aivilik go serch up 6 stroke engines
joeycool12 2 months ago
@aivilik go serch up 6 stroke engines
joeycool12 2 months ago
wow a honda ct 90 engine with a bad exhaust leak
newgun2000 2 months ago
This isn't a 6-stroke engine, it's a 4-stroke engine with a rotary intake and exhaust valve system. Nothing special here people, move on.
NLRevZ 3 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
2 stroke for life
OMGxWHATRUDOING 3 months ago
2 stroke for life
OMGxWHATRUDOING 3 months ago
Seems to scare him :o
Riot454di 5 months ago
oh look, it's a honda and it's blowing blue smoke
ishank14 6 months ago
Lol, 6stroke is this not a rotary engine?? Not sure
adamosification 6 months ago
@christhetromboneguy i think its based on a honda engine.
thdmtr 6 months ago
anyone else see the big HONDA on the crankcase??? i did, this isn local made if its a Honda!
christhetromboneguy 6 months ago
what are the benefits??
86Ivar 7 months ago
I don't really like 4-cycles as it is and they are trying to add another 2... utter crap. If 2-cycles have been perfected to be more fuel efficient, have higher torque, and quicker to their power band in outboards than 4-cycles, why not use that knowledge to better perfect an auto engine. Even though sleeve valve engines are pretty much a thing of the past, I think they can show promise for 2-cycles, especially for auto engines, if the EPA can make standards for 4 cycles, then they can for 2.
UGLandrum 8 months ago
@UGLandrum The problem is, while 2-cycles inherently theoretically use less fuel to create the same amount of power, they also inherently lose efficiency in fuel/exhaust separation. Because of the nature of 2-cycle engines, it's very tough to keep exhaust out of the combustion chamber during the next powerstroke. This means while it only needs 1 rotation for power, it can't create as much in that amount of time. By adding the 2 steam strokes, you reduce fuel consumption, and decrease hydrocarbon
SchizoFilms 8 months ago
@SchizoFilms Why not run water injection into the intake system of a two stroke, along with electronic fuel injection? By cutting the fuel on every other engine cycle, or 1 of however many cycles, it could still use steam expansion and also cool the cylinder a little.
stopglobalswarming 4 months ago
@stopglobalswarming Yes, it would give 2-stroke power gains, but the underlying problem still exists: 2-stroke engines have higher emissions and lower efficiency due to exhaust contamination. The whole system would be less powerful and more polluting than a modified 4-stroke.
SchizoFilms 4 months ago
@UGLandrum and NOx emissions. Finally, a way to harness some of the wasted heat energy. After all, 83% of the power generated by even the most efficient engine is converted to waste heat.
SchizoFilms 8 months ago
intake compression chuck norris power exhaust
bcarby 8 months ago 10
@RCNitroHelp101 Hahaha, fair enough. :)
jcadlols 8 months ago
@RCNitroHelp101 I believe it's because the fuel mixture they use burns cooler anyway and they actually have misfiring due to too much fuel and air being charged into the cylinders. Not because of the wrong mixture, simply because it's not igniting in time, in those extreme cases a water injection would simply cause more misfiring. In those drag cars, when there's misfiring in one bank of cylinders, there can be catastrophic failures. Btw, did you draw a dick?
jcadlols 8 months ago
@RCNitroHelp101 it's usually used in high turbo boost situations where you want lower burning temps and possibly (I'm unsure) to prevent knocking :)
jcadlols 8 months ago
A six-stroke engine would be good for non-racing applications, and it needs to be of a fairly big displacement (automobile, not a lawn mower) to be worth the extra 2 strokes. It won't be a game changer in itself, but it would be good to see practical progress made. I mean make prototypes and put them in non-mission-critical trucks and stuff, and progress R&D.
DeutschWaffenSS 10 months ago
Honda's 1.5L F1 turbo from the eighties produced over 950 bhp, I believe it is still the highest HP/capacity on record.
88jamesy88 1 year ago
6 strokes are the way forward! in cars though not on a stupid little kick start!!!
Shroffff 1 year ago
@dandim23
If its the 6 stroke engine I think it is then the combustion cycle is identical to a 4 stroke, but it then injects water into the cylinder (still hot from combustion) which becomes super heated steam and expands giving it a second power stroke and then the exhaust stroke (i.e. Intake, compression, combustion Exhaust, steam, Exhaust).
ekrug111 1 year ago
tht thing must not have any balls especially if it is going through the power stroke once every 6 strokes....only upside to this design is fuel economy
dandim23 1 year ago
thats awsome!
offspringfanman96 1 year ago
more torque
undercoverLsX 1 year ago
sounds like my quad bike....................
drfrasse 1 year ago
its innovative!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
powerstroke186 1 year ago
ive never heard of a 6 stroke engine?
2pac203 1 year ago
this is 4 strokes...
FAIL!
zbljk 1 year ago 2
An engine uses the principal of Induction, Compression Power and Exhaust, (The 4 basic strokes) so what are the other 2 strokes? Induction, misfire, Compression splutter, Power and Exhaust?
So the engine go's through one complete cycle every 1 and a half revolutions?
Kinda hard to get my head around this one!
locouk 1 year ago
yep sounds like what i imagined a 6 stroke to sound like.
1 cu-put per 3 revolutions = useless
vkorinfsky 1 year ago
Lets see a 1 stroke engine. One non-stop power producing stroke. =)
lazzer408 1 year ago
@lazzer408 That's called a steam engine. I actually just gone done designing a "one-stroke" steam V-8 in 3D last night. I was having a lot of fun imagining the thing racing against top-fuel dragsters. :-)
JETZcorp 1 year ago
@JETZcorp A steam engine with both sides of the piston being pushed. I'd like to see something like that in an internal combustion engine.
lazzer408 1 year ago
@lazzer408 I haven't seen it done with steam, but look up "free-piston engine".
RomeoReject23 1 year ago
@lazzer408 turbine?
fairyheli2 1 year ago
@fairyheli2 Yeh that's about it.
lazzer408 1 year ago
@lazzer408 There is, It's a Nitro Engine. You know like little Nitro Cars. They have constant Fire.
MichaelD400 1 year ago
@MichaelD400 Those are 2 strokes.
lazzer408 1 year ago
@MichaelD400 tht would be called a 2stroke genius.
coryv4 1 year ago
@MichaelD400 strokes pretty much explain themselvs the stroke one is the up stroke stroke to is the down stroke so it fires every revolution or every other stroke
coryv4 1 year ago
@MichaelD400 a 1 stroke would never work seeing how u would have to fire on the downstroke nitro rc motors are 2stroke
coryv4 1 year ago
@lazzer408 that would be pretty difficult to make, but yes; that would be very cool.
stevenmorookian16 1 year ago
which collage are you guys from? Sounds like Madras?
KarthikSoun 1 year ago
Hay it is six stroke only i has got one more piston on top
which doesn't contain connecting rod mechanism
those legs are mine
would explain the principal later
skumardheen 1 year ago
it was a 4stroke engine lol
MultiDude456 1 year ago
Looks to me just like a 4-cycle engine with a rotary valve head in place of the regular poppet valve head.
tlfrantz1 1 year ago
Although it would be hard to tell for sure, this doesn't look like it could be the crower type 6-stroke because it would have an irregular beat to it. If anything it's the Beare Head type, judging by the fact that you can actually see the valve through the exhaust port and the head is round.
getoffmyinternet 1 year ago
When the water is atomized the hydrocarbons collect around the outside of the water molecule. When the hydocarbons ignite the water is instantaneously vaporized greatly increasing compression. You can use water injection in four strokes and as was mentioned above it works particularly well in diesel engines. Don;t know what the deal with the fictional six stroke is. That engine was releasing exhaust on every other stroke therefore it's a two stroke.
JamesThWilliams 1 year ago
seriously? you dont believe there is one?!
its from the guy who started crower camshafts! he has a functioning prototype he showed at SEMA a number of years ago
AMCtilldeath 1 year ago
its a 2 stroke engine
Mpower330csl 1 year ago 2
@Mpower330csl it is six stroke engine only, it has got two pistons only is in upper part of the head and other is as usual four stroke piston with connecting rod.
when lower piston makes four cycles the upper piston make two cycles . totally six strokes.
itz our project in engineering..those are our legs
skumardheen 1 year ago
not
dejic24 1 year ago
It says "Honda" on the side!
eye8owne8u 1 year ago
we don't actually know for sure if this really is a six stroke engine. I'm inclined to believe that there is no such thing. I want more proof
XKTMRiderX 1 year ago
ok just one question how in the hell do u make a 6 STROKE ENGINE
subiemon 2 years ago
water is injected onto the head after the first fuel power stroke, so only one injection of fuel per 6 strokes
13brotary 2 years ago
water would foul out the cyclinder and gas would not ingite properly basicly it would run like crap!!!!
subiemon 2 years ago
well thats how it works look it up (steam) is used and it works
13brotary 2 years ago
dude water+gasoline=fail.
you'd have to completely evacuate every drop or you'd start loosing efficiency.
I guess that's why the literature I've found says that it uses a 2nd set of intake and combustion without a subsequent venting instead of that preposterous idea. however I think I see where you're getting confused. some designs use water injection around the cylinders for cooling.
DonHoraldo 2 years ago
correction the half stroke piston doesn't have an ignition.
DonHoraldo 2 years ago
No dosrespect my friend but thing about it - when spraying (not pouring) small, calculated jet ofwater into fire you get explosive reaction - that's why you don't try to put off gasoline fire with water but with foam or CO2. This is a good idea but it's too complicated for common use.
fstoev 2 years ago
ok but water seem's to work bretty well for firefighters and sprinkler systems!!!
subiemon 2 years ago
@ sublemon, because that its intent.
killerzracing71 2 years ago
wouldnt the engine hydrolock if you didnt get all the water out, or do these run a lower compression, not being ignorant, i have worked under the hoods of cars for awhile for now but i dont know much about a 6 stroke cycle
xG34RxH34Dx 2 years ago
Look up Meth or Meth/water injection.
Water is atomized and sprayed in a fine mist, and will not cause the car to run like crap, theres a diff between pouring water in and spraying a fine mist.
killerzracing71 2 years ago 18
i just don't see a need for 2 more strokes on a engine 4 is enough!
subiemon 2 years ago
4 it too much! two strokes for the win
mrtaterman 1 year ago 62
Comment removed
fairyheli2 1 year ago
@mrtaterman fuck two stroke engines. Unreliable, burns gas too fast, horrible emissions, and who the fuck wants to mix gas and oil? The only equipment that is better to use 2 stroke is small machines that need lots of power with a small lightweight engine.
stevenmorookian16 1 year ago
@stevenmorookian16 Actually you can just put the oil in its own separate tank and they mix automatically. Two-cycle engines were used in more than just lawnmowers y'know.
zapwatt 1 year ago
@zapwatt no shit, they have that automatic oiling thing on a lot of 2 stroke outboards. Still a pain in the ass. And everyone knows that 2-stroke engines are everywhere.
stevenmorookian16 1 year ago
@stevenmorookian16 Ohhhhkay, so are you rescinding your original statement, because you just backed me up on my points.
zapwatt 1 year ago
@zapwatt what statement did I take back? I don't hate 2 stroke engines. I just like 4 stroke a whole lot better. I am always having to maintain my 2 stroke engines every season. My 4 stroke engines just keep on running. 2 stroke requires a lot of care to keep running.
stevenmorookian16 1 year ago
@stevenmorookian16 what exactly do you do to your 2-stroke's??? lol! i have owned a15hp evinrude outboard for 10 years now and its 2-stroke...and the only thing ive done is drain the carb when i put it in storage!
if i remember corectly 4-strokes require an oil change every 2-3 months...
kddcc 1 year ago
@kddcc well that evinrude of yours is a beast. You only have to change the oil every 2-3 months if you use the shit out of the engine. It seems that 2 strokes are harder to start then 4-strokes, don't have nearly as long lifespan, i go through 1 spark plug per most of my 2 strokes every season, and the coil always mysteriously goes bad on at least one machine every season.
stevenmorookian16 1 year ago
@stevenmorookian16 Don't have as long a lifespan as a 4 stroke? Please don't tell that to my '58 evinrude. It's true that 2 strokes of the past have a bad rep, but look at modern 2 stroke engines, especially outboards. New 2 stroke outboards are low, or ultra low emissions compliant. They are as quiet as 4 strokes. Lighter than 4 strokes. Usually only require their oil to be refilled once a season. Have the same spk plug life as a 4 stroke. They usually have more grunt than a equal HP 4 stroke.
MrSirosis1 1 year ago
@MrSirosis1 2 strokes are far superior to 4 strokes. i have a boat motor from 1948 and it started second pull after sitting for 30 years. 2 strokes are much more simple and way more reliable, have you heard of a motobecain moby m1? a 2 stroke so quite it sounds electric!
586guest2 1 year ago
@586guest2 Why are you preaching to me? I am the one who's saying 2 stokes are OK. While the older ones can be a pain in the ass, the newer ones are quite nice. I wouldn't say 2 strokes are far superior to 4 strokes. They both have their respective places in the world of engines.
MrSirosis1 1 year ago
@MrSirosis1 oh yeah i didnt really word that to well. haha i was agreeing with you! and you are right, if we used two strokes on everything the world would be terrible. imagine if every car was a 2 stroke! but when it comes to fun i will take my light high powered 2 stroke over a clunky 4 banger any day of the week!
586guest2 1 year ago
@MrSirosis1 Guess you missed the Ficht fuel injection debacle that sunk OMC. When it comes to power output boat motors are sluggards when you consider their capacity. How many CCs does it take to make 250 HP? A Honda S2000 makes around 200 or better on a pretty small engine. Little motorcycle 4s are up there also, 150 to 175. The achellies heal of the two stroke is plug up a jet and you smoke an engine due to no lube. ON a single this isn't a problem, the engine dies, on a boat it's death
505197 1 year ago
@505197 What does the "Ficht debacle", (from a manufacturer that has now been defunct for 10 years) have anything to with the topic of Modern (I.E. NEW) 2 stoke outboards? How many CC's does it take to make 250HP? 3279 for Evinrude, 3032 for Mercury. You're comparing small displacement 4 strokes that need the snot revved out of them to make the power, to purpose built marine 2 strokes? In your apples to oranges comparison, how long would one of those engines last behind a boat at continuous WOT?
MrSirosis1 1 year ago
@505197 How much torque does a motorcycle engine or Honda S2000 engine make? Is it enough to get a 2500+ pound boat loaded with people, gear, and a water skier in tow on plane? If you perform regular maintenance on any engine, plugged jets aren't a problem......
MrSirosis1 1 year ago
@505197 yeah hondas s2k makes 240 from a 2.0 highest power per litre in the world.
MRDC2day 1 year ago
this just isn't true its possible to tune the an engine as old as the 1275cc a-series to up to 200hp just an example put theres plenty other f1 engines?
irnotbob 1 year ago
@irnotbob wait what?? it would be near impossable to get 200whp from a 1.3 without boost or nitrous, i dont think that could be done. iv seen 260 from 1.8 liters though.
MRDC2day 1 year ago
@MRDC2day
Suzuki Hayabusa have 1.3L engine with 200+hp.
2jzgtejza80 1 year ago
@2jzgtejza80 N/A?
MRDC2day 1 year ago
@MRDC2day
Of Course
2jzgtejza80 1 year ago
@2jzgtejza80 and your sure on them numbers? thats a little high lol
MRDC2day 1 year ago
@MRDC2day
Oh buddy, that's very low power compared to Formula 1 engines.
There is engine with 3L V10 from BAR Honda producing 1000 hp in training trim and 950-980 hp i racing trim.
2jzgtejza80 1 year ago
@2jzgtejza80 yeah but to make that power you need very hi octane race fuel ya know. i know f1 cars have insane HP hondas 3.5 makes 500 due just because thats the highest they can have in that class.i know about the B16B makes 185 na the F20C is 240 from a 2.0 great power
MRDC2day 1 year ago
@MRDC2day
It's not all about race fuel, it's mostly because of technology. High rev engines usually produce huge power from small displacement, but small torque= better throttle respond. Used is light racing cars to improve handling. High compression engines usually using race fuel 100+ to 120 octane to prevent knocking.
2jzgtejza80 1 year ago
@2jzgtejza80 well yeah you need high compression in order to get those high numbers out of a small displacment engine but you need that high octane to prevent pre detinaton you HAVE to use hi octane to achive good power lol
MRDC2day 1 year ago
@MRDC2day
Suzuki own racing Swift 1.3 with 165 hp and Honda 1.6L with 185 hp all naturally aspirated.
2jzgtejza80 1 year ago
@MRDC2day that is right, formula 1 went to 2.4 litres v8s from 3l v10s a few years ago now.
gilessmokey 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this just isn't true its possible to tune the an engine as old as the 1275cc a-series to up to 200hp just an example put theres plenty other howabout f1 engines?
irnotbob 1 year ago
@mrtaterman 2 strokes is shit
jurciks71 5 months ago
@jurciks71 well i can see how you think 2 strokes "are" shit, but in MY opinion 2 strokes are better. see, opinions are like assholes. everybody has one.
mrtaterman 5 months ago
@jurciks71 they certainly can be,but under the right circumstances, they are rathe impressive for their size and weight.
demonofrazgriz333 4 months ago
water methonol is bad ass, such a power difference, espically n diesels
xG34RxH34Dx 2 years ago
4 strokes more it can handle
Zoomtronic1 1 year ago
@killerzracing71
All the water is for is to raise compression. waters much moer compressable than air.
LIP15 1 year ago
@LIP15 Water compressible? That's a new one...
rickcperry 1 year ago 4
@rickcperry water mist
JRBeaman 1 year ago
@rickcperry It isn't compressed. Exhaust gases are compressed in an additional stroke, after which water is injected and turned to steam creating a second power stroke.
magnum9987 2 months ago
@rickcperry no expandable to steam dur
ConvenientCow 1 month ago
@LIP15 Wrong water injection allows the air fuel mix to be cooled and when it is released into the combustoin chamber it contacts the surface and pulls heat out of it so the engine runs cooler and cuts down detonation. You can run a higher compression ratio on pump gas and not have the fear of detonation.
Chevymonster203 1 year ago
based on a honda engine only the head is changed.
lets try this engine out on a honda ss50!
hendrikhelweg 2 years ago
that thing probably has no power, but has killer torque!
chevyman8329 2 years ago
The reason 2 strokes have such a lower CR is because in a very narrow RPM window they get a forced induction type effect from the pipe. When the exhaust port is open the hot spent gasses rush out and hit the bottle neck in the pipe and come rushing back into the cylinder. when the rpm is right the port is close just in time to trap those extra gasses in the cylinder. Long pipe that happens at a lower rpm, short pipe that happens at a higher rpm.
DanoD39 2 years ago
Is that really a six stroke?
Picapacapopo 2 years ago
Its a six stroke because it has 6 separate strokes. First is intake, second is compression, third is power, fourth is exhaust, fifth is water injection/expansion, sixth is water vapor exhausted.
Mstngdrew232 2 years ago
what's the reason for the last 2 strokes?
dctim 2 years ago
and i assume the water is used to help cool the engine?
Transane 2 years ago
can someone tell me why this a 6 stroke..?
allater3 2 years ago
Apparently the engine uses water in roughly the same proportion as fuel. At stochiometric air/fuel ratio and WOT, about 1mg of fuel is burnt/cubic inch of displacement. 1mg of water expands to about 0.1 cubic inches at 1 bar. So the 'power stroke' simply generates a vacuum which requires work to be put into the system. You'd need about 10 times this amount of water to break even but that would require more heat to vaporise than the engine block absorbs from combustion. Doh!
nem427 2 years ago
it is asimple and a great idea.
In the 4 stroke engine the combustion of gasoline in the 3rd stroke produces the power.
In the 6 stroke engine the expansion of water into steam, when it enters the hot combustion chamber produces an another power stroke.
Great revolutionary concept.
melvinjohnsone 2 years ago
Simple, yes. Great and revolutionary? No. Crower was not awarded any patents, primarily because the concept was patented in 1915 by Leonard Dyer. For a variety of reasons, the concept does not work as well as the facile thermodynamic reasoning would suggest. Basically, cool combustion chambers tend to cause poor combustion, and quenching hot metal with cold water is generally a bad idea. Sorry to piss on people's fires, but this is one 'breakthrough' that needs to be debunked.
nem427 2 years ago
its not like pouring cold water into the combustion chamber.
As soon as the water enters the combustion chamber it turns into super saturated steam,and what happens next is exactly what in a steam engine.
And one more thing,the combustion chambers will never become COLD it just lowers the temp like what the radiators would do.
there is no deal like low or high temp, its the optimum temp which matters.
melvinjohnsone 2 years ago
Melvin, the heat of vaporisation of water is 2.257MJ/kg. The enthalpy of combustion of gasoline or diesel is about 44MJ/Kg, of which maybe a third is left rejected to the engine during combustion and expansion. Work out the mass of supersaturated steam that is required to produce a powerstroke and you'll see that there simply isn't sufficient heat remaining in the engine to create that steam.
nem427 2 years ago
so do u want to say that a few drop of water would lower the temp from around 500C to 100C,
then the radiators with a steady flow coolant can bring down the temp much lower than this
melvinjohnsone 2 years ago
1.) 500C is far too high an estimate for combustion chamber temperatures (except the exhaust valve)
2.) Heating water requires MUCH less energy than boiling it to dry steam.
3.) The temperature of the coolant does not reflect the temperature of the combustion chamber. The coolant is not at steady flow through the radiator-it is thermostatically controlled.
4.) A few drops of water will not raise enough steam to drive the piston through 360degrees of rotation
nem427 2 years ago
Hello Nem,how r u?
Thankyou for ur share of thoughts.
Im an Indian,where r u from?
You didnt mention abt the heat absorbed by the radiators,it is almost 30% of the total heat produced & 40% is lost in exhaust gases, If we preheat the water by passing through the exhaust tubes(just like in the boiler) & taking the 30% lost in radiators(as radiators r not in the 6stroke concept) .Is it not possible?
melvinjohnsone 2 years ago
The heat absorbed by the radiator came from the coolant cooling the engine-it is the same heat. If we use less water, then you create a partial vacuum towards the end of the power stroke. When the exhaust valve opens, air will rush INTO the cylinder-and air can move quickly to fill a vacuum (approaching the speed of sound in the fluid!). As the piston moves up, it will then have to push that air back out of the cylinder towards air in the exhaust header that is still trying to get into the cylin
nem427 2 years ago
der creating a heavy pumping loss. You also have to consider the frictional losses created by the extra 2 strokes, and the fact that a catalytic converter needs exhaust gas > ~300C to operate. basically phase changes in working fluids lead to very inefficient engines. Steam is a good working fluid-but not if you have to generate steam anew for every cycle. Steam turbines are efficient because once the steam is raised it is recirculated over and over again-it is simply reheated every cycle.
nem427 2 years ago
The comment that the 6stroke would create more frictional loses is not wise.Then do u believe that 2stroke engine have less frictional losses?
melvinjohnsone 2 years ago
Of course they do! Pumping losses are less as well. 2 strokes tend to get poorer fuel economy because of air/fuel being scavenged out of the exhaust before they are compressed. Also the power stroke is short because the exhaust port is uncovered. 2 strokes are not inherently inefficient-the most efficient piston engines on the planet are huge 2 stroke diesels, but they bear little resemblence to the enginesyou see in scooters and mopeds.
nem427 2 years ago
But i promise u 2strokewill not lessen the frictional losses just because of having only 2 strokes. At aconstant rpm 2stroke or 4stroke or even 6 stroke would move at the same speed. for example at 6000 rpm 2stroke,4stroke&6stroke would do 6000 up&down motions(strokes), but 2stroke would complete 6000 cycles , 4stroke would complete 3000 cycles& 2000 cycles by the 6stroke. So there is no chance for lessening the frictional losses, by just seeing it as 2,4or 6 stroke type
melvinjohnsone 2 years ago
i got 120mpg out of a geared 2stroke 125cc scooter from 1986 its a T5 aswell (14hp)
micheals1992 2 years ago
friction losses are less then 15% of the power lost to the compression stroke but of course you need that for the engine to run. and in the 6stroke engine your getting 1 free power stroke without the loss of power through a compression stroke
micheals1992 2 years ago
I think the fact that none of these engines seem to end up on the dyno speaks for itself! Like I said the 6 stroke the idea has been rattling around since 1915 and no manufacturerer has been interested in it...
nem427 2 years ago
You're taking the compression stroke as an isolate event-it isn't. Even without combustion, most of the energy put into compression of the gas would berecovered by expanding it again. frictional losses are quite small when compared to WOT operation. At low load, along with throttling losses, they are very significant. One of the reasons that diesels are more efficient than gassers is the lack of an air throttle (although the ignorant will attribute the efficiency to greater compression ratio).
nem427 2 years ago
im not taking the compression stroke as an isolate event the most effeicent engines have high copression ratios or low compression with a super charger or turbo (increasing the amount of air begin compressed so you need to lower the compression or the engine could blow a gasget) and i dont think the 6stroke engine will ever get mass produced anyway where already closer to hydrogen cars then 6 stroke engines
micheals1992 2 years ago
Only up to a point. The old indirect injection diesels ran at CR of up to 22:1 and they are FAR less efficient than modern direct injection diesels running at 16:1. Boosted Spark Ignition engines run low CRs to avoid detonation, rather than save the head gasket. Supercharged and turbo gasoline engines are generally less efficient than their naturally aspirated cousins-they make more power because they burn a lot more fuel, not because they are more efficient.
nem427 2 years ago
you wrong about superchargers and turbos the only reason most cars with them on are uneffecient is because there tuned up to have more power. turbo chargers are the ones that most manufactures use towards fuel economy because superchargers take 30% of the engines power you can get cars with turbos that can do 50-70mpg and still have 100hp. and of course a old engine is not going to be effeincent because modern cars have ECUs that can calculate thousands of times a second the best mixture
micheals1992 2 years ago
Im 23years old & i completed my engg in 2007. your comments r so valuable , but im just trying to express my views.
melvinjohnsone 2 years ago
yes ur right it can create partial vaccum, if we use less amt of water.But what about designing the valves to open some degrees before reaching the BDC.then i think we can avoid the partial vaccum. And I still believe that if we consider the 70% loss (coolant loss+exhaust loss) , we might be able to heat the adequate amt of water(in ur calculation u considered only the coolant losses)
melvinjohnsone 2 years ago
How do you recapture energy from the exhaust? The water is injected AFTER the exhaust stroke when virtually all of the exhaust gas has been expelled. The early exhaust valve opening is interesting. It's better than nothing but not perfect. You're still going to draw air in from the exhaust manifold only to expel it a few degrees of crankshaft rotation later having done nothing useful with it!
nem427 2 years ago
500digrees is not too high as there is no radiators.
melvinjohnsone 2 years ago
What are pistons and cylinders (usually) fabricated from Melvin? Aluminium. Aluminium gets pretty soft at 500C. If the piston got that hot, the oil on the cylinder wall would rapidly degrade. If the combustion chamber was at 500C, pre-detontation and indeed preignition would ocur even at very low compression ratios. An air cooled 4 stroke might get to 400C at high load, but that's why they tend to operate at 6-7:1 CR and rich AFRs resulting in inefficient and dirty comubstion.
nem427 2 years ago
wtf is a digree?
sideshow45 2 years ago
Have you any idea of the stresses that would be incurred in already heavily stressed components by quenching them repeatedly with water? Ignoring that, let me try to demonstrate why it cannot work. Lets take a 500 cubic centimetre cylinder (say 1/4 of a 2 litre 4 pot engine). AT WOT there is enough air to burn about 35 mg of petrol, which will release about 1500J of energy. About 40% of that energy goes straight out the exhaust, and about 30-35% is rejected to the engine...
nem427 2 years ago
...so we have an upper limit of about 500J of energy to turn to steam. How much steam do we need? We need to fill the cylinder with about 1 bar of steam. Water will expand to about 1600 times in volume at 1 bar so we need about 0.3g of water to povide enough steam. Ignoring the energy required to heat the water to boiling point we need (0.3/1000)* heat of vaporisation/kg=(0.3/1000)*2,257,000J/Kg=700J. This is 40% more the entire heat absorbed from the engine. Oops...
nem427 2 years ago
It doesnt need to drive the piston through 360degree of rotation. It just needs a few drops of water to assist the piston movement & for that we have to use perhaps a modified flywheel.
If there is not enough heat for .3g of water, then lets use 0.15g. If it can give a push to the flywheel ,it wil add to its efficiency.
melvinjohnsone 2 years ago
I'm from oxford, UK.
You're quite right that we don't need a net positive force on the piston throughout the 180 degree powerstroke.-it's just a rough calculation to indicate the huge heat requirement needed to boil water. I neglected the calculation for heatig the water; ie I assumed it was already hot. If we start with cold water the situation becomes worse! Like I said this concept has been around since 1915-there's a reason no manufacturer has pursued it!
nem427 2 years ago
Trying to raise any appreciable amount of steam will pull a lot of heat out of the combustion chamber. The specific heat of aluminium (most commonly used material for pistons and cylinderhead) is about 900J/Kg/K. The heat of vaporisation of water is 2,257,000J/Kg. A combustion chamber temperature of ~100C is regarded as 'cold' and below the optimum temperature. Remember that steam piston engines were only about 8-10% efficient. Compare that to modern gasoline engines that are ~30% efficient...
nem427 2 years ago
I've been experimenting on working with a wankel engine that is four-stroke diesel and has a two-stake turbocharger (like a jet engine turbine, for compression ratio). It would work like a two-stroke diesel, but the third and fourth strokes would be water injection and steam emission. With alternating sides firing alternating strokes, it would be a high-efficiency rotary engine.
dvdprui 2 years ago
why not use a dual rotor design like rolls-royce experimented with? and also, could you send over some more details please? it sounds very interesting.
anratse 2 years ago
Wouldn't you need a supercharger to start it? It is difficult to get a high compression ratio from Wankels, and the turbo won't boost until the engine fires and is placed under load.
nem427 2 years ago
six-stroke engines inject water to use the heat of the engine AFTER gas has expanded that the water turns to dry steam. You get regular four-stroke power plus high-pressure steam. It essentially uses a spare stroke like a steam engine, keeping the engine cool as well, so you have no need for radiator or cooling unit since engine temp only oscillates, doesn't maintain high. If turned off on 5th stroke, the heat would still burst out the water, and if not the starter could pump it out.
dvdprui 2 years ago
Marcinex22 2 years ago
Sounds like a disaster if you ask me.
sdscbe1 2 years ago
like he said.. disaster waiting to happen lol
flamerail 2 years ago
Not really, a 6 stroke will produce 40% better fuel economy than a 4 stroke with the same power output. It also produces less emissions, it's still being experimented with however. The engine itself was considered a disaster on the first attempt to make one, so is everything.
JtsGreene 2 years ago
OK so what happens if you stop the engine on the waters expansion stroke would the engine be able to restart on gas with the cylinder loaded with water? and how does the water being injected into the cyliner create power??? Isa so confused! X.X
itsmacintosh 2 years ago
well its not really water thats going in but more steam, which is only decipating heat from the engine, but as far as more power from it...i havent understood that yet...i know that the regular exhaust stroke keeps the smoke in and waits for the water to get pumped in....the water under extreme pressure turns into steam and helps expand the piston even faster and then gets puped out....i assume its something like that...need to look more into it...
MadDynasty 2 years ago
well since an engine keeps on turning for a few revs after electricity is cut out, the injected water (which will become steam, since in-cylinder temperatures are way above 100°C) will be forced out before the engine comes to a complete stop
anratse 2 years ago
Nei primi decenni del '900 furono realizzati motori a gas povero che effettuavano più cicli di compressione ed accensione ovvero alla fase di aspirazione seguivano due ed anche tre fasi di compressione-accensione prima della fase di scarico. Erano motori statici, utilizzati in agricoltura per azionare trebbiatrici e la soluzione era proficua in quanto l'enorme cilindrata unitaria di questi motori monocilindrici non consentiva la completa combustione del combustibile in una sola fase attiva.
s650bandit 2 years ago
How the hell does a 6 stroke work? 2 stroke fires every time and 4 stroke fires every other time so what is 6 stroke?
Hotrodx199 2 years ago
It NEVER fires haha XD
FelixTheHouseFreak 2 years ago
haha. Maybe it fires then releases exhaust twice and then fires again lmao
Hotrodx199 2 years ago
i am not sure, but i think it has the same first 4 strokes as a 4 stroke engine, but then it injects a stream of water into the cylinder, the water instantly evaporates and creates pressure pushing the piston down.the steam then exits through the exhaust valve. and then were back to the first stroke
thedudefromthewoods 2 years ago