[HN Gopher] Company builds 500cc 'one-stroke' engine
___________________________________________________________________
Company builds 500cc 'one-stroke' engine
Author : throwaway28203
Score : 93 points
Date : 2023-07-15 16:42 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.thedrive.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.thedrive.com)
| LispSporks22 wrote:
| Would this be good in a bike? Would it likely be more power than
| say my R1?
| Enginerrrd wrote:
| I don't think it'd be very good.
|
| It has no torque on the low end so you'd have to set idle
| really high to get useful low range performance.
|
| This type of engine is great for its intended application
| though: A steady-state range extender/generator.
|
| Now, at higher revs, it might be pretty sweet.
| Ancapistani wrote:
| Yep, you'd have to run it at high RPM, like a rotary.
| danielovichdk wrote:
| Would make a great boat engine for smaller leasure crafts and
| sail boats.
| s17n wrote:
| In case you're wondering:
|
| "Now, here's the thing: this motor isn't a one-stroke engine. It
| has a compression stroke and exhaust stroke, making it a two-
| stroke cycle. INNengine acknowledges this and has said that it
| brands the motor as such because people would assume that a two-
| stroke engine would need to have oil mixed in along with fuel.
| Most two-strokes do. The company says that the one-stroke name
| was suggested by an 'external ICE institution' and they found it
| to be 'catchy,' so INNengine stuck with it."
|
| (From close to he bottom of the article)
| dreamlayers wrote:
| So, how do they lubricate it?
| jacquesm wrote:
| Like any other engine with a separate oil system.
| Tuna-Fish wrote:
| The same as any other engine that doesn't mix oil into its
| fuel.
|
| Lubrication in fuel vs lubrication using a separate system
| and 2-stroke vs 4-stroke are two entirely separate
| engineering decisions, that are in no way tied to each other.
| It's just that the most common types of 2-stroke engine use
| lubricant oil mixed in fuel, and the most common types of
| 4-stroke engines don't, and so they concepts are thought to
| be related to each other by most people who don't know much
| about engines.
| hatsunearu wrote:
| 2-stroke engines often go into handheld tools or dirt bikes
| that can't explode when you turn it upside down (at least,
| immediately), and since it eliminates the oiling system,
| premix is often chosen for these.
|
| 2-stroke engines also have great power densities (at the
| cost of fuel efficiency), which means those two often go
| hand-in-hand.
| userbinator wrote:
| _because people would assume that a two-stroke engine would
| need to have oil mixed in along with fuel_
|
| That suggests most people don't know about 2-stroke diesels,
| although I suspect much of the older population (at least in
| North America) have probably heard or been on a vehicle that
| uses one.
| caseyohara wrote:
| Also plenty of (gasoline) two-stroke engines use oil
| injection so you don't have to use premix, namely any machine
| where you'd typically get your fuel straight from the pump
| like a snowmobile or a dual sport motorcycle, back when those
| were still two-stroke.
|
| I had a 1983 Yamaha DT-80 (little enduro dirt bike) that had
| an oil reservoir so you could use pump gas.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Those are pretty nasty for bystanders though.
| throwaway28203 wrote:
| Immediately Installs It in a Miata
| rolph wrote:
| https://yt.artemislena.eu/watch?v=-evhsWLWlkY [video]
| FollowingTheDao wrote:
| Man, a smaller version of these would be awesome in motorcycles
| and scooters. Wonder what the MPGs are....
| [deleted]
| criddell wrote:
| I wonder if this would be a good engine for an airplane?
| ben_bai wrote:
| In theory, yes. But especially the single engine aircrafts are
| very set on old but reliable engine design, for reasons.
| Tuna-Fish wrote:
| In terms of power curves and power to weight, absolutely. But I
| would be really unhappy taking off in a plane that uses a cam
| engine. Those are not historically known for their great
| reliability.
| ksaj wrote:
| Something to notice in the line drawing: The rear is powered by
| an electric motor. I assume that's to get it moving in the first
| place before there's enough momentum for this engine to keep it
| going.
| watson wrote:
| I would assume so, yes. This is exactly how regular motors get
| started, unless you have one of those old-timy cranks you had
| to manually turn to get the motor running
| incomplete wrote:
| of COURSE they put it in a miata. :)
| rolph wrote:
| actually a two stroke, 2 opposing pistons in a common cylinder
| cycling through compression stroke-combustion-power stroke. no
| connecting rod to bend or break, and large cams replacing the
| crankshaft
|
| https://www.thedrive.com/uploads/2023/07/14/innengine-1.gif?...
|
| [Now, here's the thing: this motor isn't a one-stroke engine. It
| has a compression stroke and exhaust stroke, making it a two-
| stroke cycle. INNengine acknowledges this and has said that it
| brands the motor as such because people would assume that a two-
| stroke engine would need to have oil mixed in along with fuel.]
|
| the goal seems to be a hybrid ehicle that places more duty
| reliance on electric propulsion, but keeping the long range
| capabilities of petrol fuel in a combustion-over-electric design.
|
| [adndm] this is 120HP in 500cc displacement, which is superbike
| engine stuff
| userbinator wrote:
| _this is 120HP in 500cc displacement, which is superbike engine
| stuff_
|
| The real question you should be asking when you see
| suspiciously high power densities is "for how long?"
|
| A car and a truck engine can have the same HP rating, but the
| former is not going to last very long producing that power
| continuously, while the latter is essentially designed to spend
| most of its time at full power.
| ksaj wrote:
| Indeed. My old bike had 1400cc and was rated at only 94 hp.
| jacquesm wrote:
| 'old' may have something to do with it here, engine tech has
| seen all kinds of improvements over the last two decades
| resulting in tiny engines with ridiculous levels of output
| while still having reasonable life span. A pretty common
| small car engine that has .9 L displacement and a turbo
| yields 105 HP, that's 120 HP/L, vs 67 HP/L for your bike. A
| few years ago I had a 660 CC 4 cylinder engine in a car that
| did 67 HP so that's about 100 HP/L.
|
| This engine is pretty clever, it avoids one nasty problem of
| swashplate drives and their cousins: the piston travel is
| only half here of what it would be otherwise. But there is a
| lot of extra complexity.
| brucethemoose2 wrote:
| The Ariel Atom V8 did ~160hp/liter in a 3L NA engine.
|
| I'm sure its pretty high strung, but its also older and
| more "conventional" than exotic supercar engines.
| jacquesm wrote:
| The Atom is an absolute beast.
| windexh8er wrote:
| We should probably call a spade a spade here. This is a
| 2-stroke motor. In today's powersports world it's normal
| for a factory 650cc motor to be putting out over 135HP.
| It's not impressive in terms of the performance to engine
| size and, as I mentioned in another comment, this engine
| will be extremely weak on the torque side of the equation
| which will make those ponies virtually useless.
| jacquesm wrote:
| That's fair, for a two stroke it isn't substantially
| better than what's out there. As for weak on the torque,
| for a generator that may not matter all that much. What
| I'm more curious about is the powerband, in other words
| how wide the RPM range is over which it produces max
| power. If that range is wide it might be a very useful
| engine (because you can simply couple it with an
| appropriate gearbox for torque), if it is very narrow
| then it really only will work well as a generator
| producing high frequency AC.
|
| That's one reason why specialty generator engines tend to
| run with very sharp cams on the camshafts: they only need
| to work in a very narrow RPM range and opening them
| earlier or later is just going to waste fuel so for
| maximum efficiency you want the valves to be open _just_
| long enough to take in enough air or to exhaust the
| expended fuel /air mixture.
|
| edit: apparently this engine also has a super charger,
| which isn't quite 'atmospheric'.
| windexh8er wrote:
| > this is 120HP in 500cc displacement, which is superbike
| engine stuff
|
| HP-wise, maybe. But the reality is this is not a performant
| engine you'll see replacing high performance 2 or 4 stroke
| motors anytime soon.
|
| First is that the company has lied a lot in their marketing.
| They imply that the motor is naturally aspirated and then show
| a car, with said plant running a very obvious supercharger.
| They also lie about the motor type - there is no viable
| 1-stroke motor and there likely never will be based on the laws
| that govern our planet. They even admit to their own lie in the
| name of marketing (a non-oil burning 2-stroke is not a 1-stroke
| by default).
|
| The real reason this motor will not touch a comparable
| superbike cc-to-cc is that this motor has no claimed torque
| specs. It really doesn't matter at all if they're able to put
| out 120HP in 500cc if it has low torque. And we know it has low
| torque based on the fact that this motor has no crankshaft, and
| therefore the mechanical advantage that adds.
|
| I currently have 650, 800 and 850cc 2-stroke motors today that
| have similar HP-to-cc today compared to the 120HP they've
| claimed from 500cc. The difference is that all these motors
| have the torque required for driving performance.
|
| While I would love to see something bridge the gap of small
| heavy 4-stroke vs light oil burning 2-stroke this is,
| unfortunately, not it.
| merth wrote:
| why I feel like this would put pressure on one side of cylinder
| block due to non-linear force against bottom wave-plate and
| cause wear and tear?
| timlarshanson wrote:
| Agreed.
|
| Also, how does it get started? Seems like the only force
| pushing the piston against the axial cam is the fuel
| explosion. (Perhaps extra springs to retract the piston for
| intake?)
| Ancapistani wrote:
| Presumably an electric starter, much like a traditional
| engine - only it'll turn the driver shaft instead of a cam
| shaft.
| pengaru wrote:
| > Also, how does it get started? Seems like the only force
| pushing the piston against the axial cam is the fuel
| explosion. (Perhaps extra springs to retract the piston for
| intake?)
|
| In lieu of combustion you still have the air spring rebound
| from the compression... (at least until the exhaust opens)
| Animats wrote:
| That's neat.
|
| This is a type of axial engine, a cam engine.[1] People have been
| trying designs along this line since at least 1926. A recent
| version was from Axial Vector Engine, which was pushing their
| stock around 2006 and is now gone.[2]
|
| The problem with this class of designs is that they apply large
| forces to small parts. The most likely source of trouble is the
| bearings of those little wheels at the base of each piston. Those
| have to take the full force of the explosion on each cycle. That
| doesn't mean it's impossible, but it means it's a long way from
| the first running engine to one with a long, useful, low-
| maintenance life.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_engine
|
| [2]
| https://web.archive.org/web/20090208215443/http://www.axialv...
| Justsignedup wrote:
| also noted, that they don't have that lever like standard
| pistons do, so torque is an issue.
| pedrocr wrote:
| If it's putting out the power you need with good efficiency
| just gear it for whatever torque you want for the
| application.
|
| The idea that torque and power represent different qualities
| out of an engine comes from manufacturers quoting just peak
| torque and peak power, giving you two different points on the
| torque and power curve. A complete torque or power curve is
| much more useful. Either works and which is just a matter of
| preference as you can just calculate the other from the same
| data.
| Ancapistani wrote:
| Torque isn't an issue if it isn't pushing a drivetrain, but
| an inverter generator to charge the electric drivetrain.
|
| That would also lower the forces applied to the piston roller
| bearings, which should greatly improve reliability.
| ben_bai wrote:
| Yes those tiny new engines (also liquidpiston engine) would
| make a good range-extender for electric drivetrains, also
| thinking semi-trucks and big equipment. Wherever you need
| big torque/power to get going, but once rolling 35hp is
| enough to keep rolling.
| c2h5oh wrote:
| They admit it's two stroke, but they use that name because they
| have no oil in fuel and "it's cool".
|
| It's small, lightweight, perfectly balanced but has low torque so
| it's not a best fit for cars. Would be great for generator.
| sethhochberg wrote:
| They're pretty explicitly marketing it as a "range extender"
| for hybrid electric vehicles. In the mockups in the article it
| seems like they don't have a traditional gearbox, so it sure
| looks like they're intending to suggest running it as a
| straight-up electrical generator even when mounted in a car.
| Neat application of the concept. Diesel locomotives have worked
| this way for a long time.
| seiferteric wrote:
| Considering the negative associations with two-strokes (noise
| and emissions) it makes sense to try and distance themselves
| from it if it does not have these properties.
| cperciva wrote:
| _Would be great for generator._
|
| That was my first thought too -- this design seems simpler and
| correspondingly less prone to failure than most engines, which
| would make it well suited for emergency use.
| djaychela wrote:
| While the actual method of connection between pistons and the
| lobed plates seems new, opposed piston engines have been around
| for a long time, so I'm not sure this is quite as new as the
| article appears to make out [1]. I instantly thought "deltic"!
|
| [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposed-piston_engine
| jacquesm wrote:
| That's a variation on the swash plate drive:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swashplate
|
| I like theirs better than an actual swash plate because you can
| pull all kinds of timing tricks by shaping the lobes just so,
| and it looks easier to lubricate.
| gfody wrote:
| looks like the dynacam, whatever happened to that?
| jauntywundrkind wrote:
| 120 HP is 88kW. You could shrink this considerably & still have a
| very nice range extender. (Edited: proper conversion)
| sitkack wrote:
| Many cars use only 20kw to go highway speeds, imagine if this
| could shrink to 1/8th its current size.
| fuzzy2 wrote:
| That conversion is the wrong way around. 120 HP is roughly 88
| kW. The point still stands, of course. If it indeed can be
| shrunk further while remaining efficient.
| russellbeattie wrote:
| Here's a great deep dive into the engine, explaining the pros and
| cons: Yes it's simpler and more compact, but the lack of crank
| shaft means that it doesn't benefit from the lever effect of the
| shaft so it doesn't have as much torque.
|
| https://youtu.be/9I0_3qFmPUM
| hammock wrote:
| Then it's perfect for a hybrid vehicle that uses electric when
| torque is needed
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-07-15 23:01 UTC)