Polish 4 Stroke

[Feliks]

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=777461

Of course, the fuel will be coal dust....

Andrew: Wavey

Originally posted by Anth
Of course

I hope you will also agree with this, teeth were the least moving parts. The 5 MW windmill should be placed. Mounted on the ends of the arms jet frame. (ends reach such a large fan wheel 1 Ma), so the jet frame will fit well ... It will be a "small" treadmill

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramjet


Andrew

 

[Feliks]

Ramjet symulation (upper green) Need Java
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/VirtualAero/BottleRocket/airplane/ngnsim.html


As I see massive construction that are to demolish the building of Reactor No. 3 is me shivers go ..
Certainly the building suffered the most, because it was the biggest explosion. So the walls are certainly very weak, and it seems to me that the water in the pool of fuel remains a miracle there is to do there can not be inspected, that does not mean that the building is sturdy ..
Therefore, demolition should in my opinion not cause additional shocks, and be carried out as gently as possible ... Heavy construction equipment, rather they should not be used ...
They are after all modern methods, such as cutting concrete with water. The company offers cutting up to 3 meters ..

http://ajaks.eu/en/services-for-civ...olition-of-concrete--hydrodynamic-robots.html

I do not want to think what would have happened, if as a result of the vibrations, the resulting leaks in the fuel pool and the water came out of it ... Almost as a result of radiation inside the building and its three filling remains, you can not to re-seal it. ..

Therefore, even mild disturbances such methods may be used: diamond cut rope ..

http://www.hilti.com/data/editorials/-14620/ds-wss 30 leaflet e.pdf

https://www.hilti.co.uk/fstore/holuk/techlib/docs/DS-WS10 en.pdf

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZ04OdpmJ84[/ame]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=N54madabs9s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=GVI8Z5grdOw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=I8xoHvhiA2k

Andrew

 

[Feliks]

Andrew: P

 

[MuellerNick]

That "Polish invention" of the 4-stroke (first posting) is in fact a design from 1937 (probably even earlier). It was by E.H.Royce.
There were other similar arrangements like the Hamilton-motor and the Mascad-and-Boothroyd-motor.

Nothing new!
Nick

 

[Feliks]

That "Polish invention" of the 4-stroke (first posting) is in fact a design from 1937 (probably even earlier). It was by E.H.Royce.
There were other similar arrangements like the Hamilton-motor and the Mascad-and-Boothroyd-motor.

Nothing new!
Nick

Well, yes, "Polish Invention", it means that my invention has been nationalized ...
The invention did Andrew Feliks, and so please write. Because I surely do not speak out about the invention bulb that American invention, but the invention of Thomas Edison. It's the order of things ...
Andrew

 

[MuellerNick]

The invention did Andrew Feliks,

And when?
From the blurb at the homepage, it sounds like something new. But I didn't waste time to read it all.


Nick

 

[Feliks]

And when?
From the blurb at the homepage, it sounds like something new. But I didn't waste time to read it all.


Nick

in 1978. I did a master thesis at the Technical University of Cracow Published:

But I guess you do not read everything and you have a problem ..
Next thesis of my invention, Robert Motyka Cracow University of Technology 2004/2005
You know?

 

[MuellerNick]

in 1978.

It had already been invented 1937.

But I guess you do not read everything and you have a problem ..

Uh?
For the IC-engine, there is almost no 2- or 4-stroke variant that hadn't been invented before.

Do you have further inventions in regard to the 4-stroke? That half-circle thing?



Nick

 

[mu38&Bg#]

Nick, I found one one small reference to the Royce engine. http://www.rrec.org.uk/History/People/George_Clegg_Reminisces.php Is there any drawings or photos of this design?

Greg

 

[MuellerNick]

Here's the Royce:

It only has an awkward crank-shaft mechanism to save height.
In that book (S. Zima, Ungewöhnliche Motoren) are at least 7 more engines with piston-valves. Partly 2-stroke, partly just exhaust/inlet.

I should have an other book that has similar setups, but I can't find it right now.


Nick

 

[Feliks]

Of course, valves, piston engines, and it was some much earlier( to train a advise, before we take the time) already in 1914, the U.S. engine of Rockefeller:

or Fairbanks morse :

and there were many others, but mainly driven cams.


But there was none like mine, which is directly driven from the crankshaft connecting rods pistons.
And in general, it is a new four-stroke rather than timing, due to the exit of the master cylinder magic circle.

And how do you like the latest treadmill?
Andrew: P

 

[MuellerNick]

The first two of your pictures don't work. So I can't comment on them.

and there were many others, but mainly driven cams.

The picture I posted is not cam-driven, it is driven by a crankshaft.
The Fairbanks-More also is not cam-driven, it is driven by a crankshaft. He only added rockers to keep the height small.

Nick

 

[Feliks]

The first two of your pictures don't work. So I can't comment on them.

Nick

And it's just a brand new four-stroke engine

Andrew

 

[MuellerNick]

And it's just a brand new four-stroke engine

If you think so.
For me, it is just a Junkers opposed piston 2-stroke converted to a 4-stroke. Or even more obvious, the Royce-motor with the half-speed crankshaft moved upwards to increase motor height.
That's all.

Did you realize, that your rendering in post #93 has both pulleys with the same diameter?
That won't work that well.


Nick

 

[Feliks]

If you think so.
For me, it is just a Junkers opposed piston 2-stroke converted to a 4-stroke. Or even more obvious, the Royce-motor with the half-speed crankshaft moved upwards to increase motor height.
That's all.

Did you realize, that your rendering in post #93 has both pulleys with the same diameter?
That won't work that well.


Nick

No, not true. Take a ruler and measure yourself in the picture are obviously different. Perspective may be a little bit swayed proportions, but an intelligent person knows that it is about a 2:1 ratio,and for me the difference between 2 stroke and 4 stroke is the basic.
That's all.

 

[MuellerNick]

No, not true. Take a ruler and measure yourself in the picture are obviously different.

Lower pulley is 40.5 mm, upper (that is more in the rear and thus smaller) is 39 mm.

Useless discussion! Unless you have more inventions regarding IC engines.

Have a nice day,
Nick

 

[Feliks]

Here, the photo of the engine and Abart, for those who have doubts about the hight engine of my..

Andrew

 

[Feliks]

Did you know that it looks like the latest engine to produce electricity using any fuel, such as coal dust. Attached to the treadmill, skip step steam,,,
The end of the treadmill must be about 1 Mach speed, which at the shoulder of 50 meters is normal ... every second ..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CGcRgEuCocQ

It's not like we all have to fly, but the current a good thing ...


Regards Andrew : O

 

[Feliks]

Here is a reworked so as not to put unnecessary drag .. A bit like a UFO. Still on the edge of the "plate" can fasten some neodymium magnets ....

With these dimensions of 10 MW ....

In preparation for the new job of atomic physics, they can calculate the efficiency of the this power plant ...

Regards Andrew

 

[Feliks]

This treadmill UFO version of ramjet engines, would work best as an MHD generator. Its efficiency apparently comes to 60% or more has no moving parts. At 1 m plasma jet should be good.
The rest of you can generate in the traditional way, which would help stabilize the rotation ...

This model can be mounted on the ends of the arms windmill ....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=s7c3zz0rWZM

Andrew