Can flame go through tiny gaps?

10,000 rpm is quite high for continuous operation. Less than most large turbines but still high. Have you seen what happens when a turbine blade let's go at high speed? Really messy.

Don't airlenes call it uncontained catastrophic engine failure

Technicality, as combustion engines will be illegal in a few years, it's a copyright of what you could have had.

 

Unless you can burn hydrogen or other green fuel

 

I can get paid to include my signature.

If the world ran on my engine I doubt the world would be cruel and I not get paid.

Don't be too sure about that, given the opportunity you will get screwed over and then screwed over again, with any invention you must first find out if anything else similar has an existing patent, and if it has what are the similarities and do they differ enough the have a your design patented seperately, also the cost of patents has increased dramatically over the last few years, and don't count on posting your designs to yourself and keeping in sealed envelope any kind of protection this is a myth that won't stand up in court, good luck but i think you have fekked up big time by showing your idea before taking the necessary safeguards to protect your designs

10,000 rpm is quite high for continuous operation. Less than most large turbines but still high. Have you seen what happens when a turbine blade let's go at high speed? Really messy.

 

Don't airlenes call it uncontained catastrophic engine failure

Don't know about airlines but when one of our turbo chargers threw a blade at 16000 rpm we used the technical term - cluster f**k. Fortunately the casing retained most of the debris but in total it cost a cool million euros to put right. Did nothing for the following year's insurance premium

Theres a company in California who have made something quite similar you might want to look at.

http://www.gotekenergy.com/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5m1meR3dueo&feature=youtu.be

Thats from 2014, they are currently working on making a smaller version for use in air compressor technology apparently

Theres a company in California who have made something quite similar you might want to look at.

http://www.gotekenergy.com/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5m1meR3dueo&feature=youtu.be

Thats from 2014, they are currently working on making a smaller version for use in air compressor technology apparently

That's not similar, the only similarity is it's supposed to rotate, mine is as simple as can be without dream imagination kicking in.

I see how it works, the red flame graphics is pushing the silver wings that I'm presuming is eventually leading to turning off the center gear that is not shown?

Looks a lot of high tension to me, and not efficient, if praising the device is comparing it to 2/4 strokes power than that is not a good engine to compare against as the 2/4 stroke has a horrible power loss of the crank being pushed down and not around like pushing a bike pedal when the crank is very near the top, extremely difficult. The problems with tension is apparent with this engine too.

You need something solid to push off against such as my bar valves in my engine http://griffithsengines.com

There's a difference between being clever and imagining it as such without something solid. It amazes me the effort people put in to something when they believe a simpler solution would be superior.

That's good AutoCad, however I'm believing the years of working on AutoCad has taken it's toll, I know how it feels with computer programming, I'm exhausted.

The website chats a lot... and I mean a lot, may be more time should be accepting an inefficient design and not polishing turd. Though I do like the look of their finished prototype lol.

Though without people/company's trying new things we wouldn't have the wheel.

The title of the movie is 1.5 litres, you would be extremely frightened driving a 1.5 litre engine of mine.

My engine works on simplicity, not powered by a dream.

Sorry to sound negative and pick on such, it's simply honesty will one day create a better day.

Not to sound too negative however that looks awful, most of the expansion is just sitting there and only sort of going around, reminds me of air blowing on a fan and expansion being wasted, and to be honest looks worse than the non related problem with 2 strokes, the crank being pushed down and not around.

You need something solid to push off against such as my bar valves in my engine http://griffithsengines.com

There's a difference between being clever and imagining it as such without something solid.

Have you got a technical paper?

Not to sound too negative however that looks awful, most of the expansion is just sitting there and only sort of going around, reminds me of air blowing on a fan and expansion being wasted, and to be honest looks worse than the non related problem with 2 strokes, the crank being pushed down and not around.

You need something solid to push off against such as my bar valves in my engine http://griffithsengines.com

There's a difference between being clever and imagining it as such without something solid.

 

Have you got a technical paper?

I have since reviewed and edited my response.

I have not got a technical paper, my engine is so simple does it require it?

Remember the original VSH Recorders? They had more motors and gears and rods than you can remember, then near the end of life of the recorder things got extremely simple and only one motor and a few gears, I know as I used to repair them, I have taken that philosophy and created something simple for an drive/engine.

This is what I was used to:

I worked for radio rentals and they had 100's of different models. I remember the old pinch rollers, carriages, loading arms, timing holes and quick fixes.

Back to basics here . The OP is asking a bunch of Bikers whether a flame can go through tiny gaps . Well given that this invention is designed around that very principal , I would have thought that he would have conducted suitable experiments from the beginning . Those of us who have been to a Motorcycle Rally will be in no doubt that a strong fart can be ignited in complete safety without removing the trousers . Given the appalling state of Biker's trousers back in the Good O'l Days I would say that the principal is well established . A flame passing the wrong way could have easily ruined a weekends drinking . Thank you very much .

Back to basics here . The OP is asking a bunch of Bikers whether a flame can go through tiny gaps . Well given that this invention is designed around that very principal , I would have thought that he would have conducted suitable experiments from the beginning . Those of us who have been to a Motorcycle Rally will be in no doubt that a strong fart can be ignited in complete safety without removing the trousers . Given the appalling state of Biker's trousers back in the Good O'l Days I would say that the principal is well established . A flame passing the wrong way could have easily ruined a weekends drinking . Thank you very much .

My original design did not work on that principle, I have advanced it and it's a requirement to having 1 or 2 drives compared to 4.

Well, remember camping stoves? the flame does not go through the mesh.

I would have a drink myself and numb the pain, however I'm skint till Monday.

If you go on the website you will see it's not a dream, they have actually built the engine and are currently working on a smaller lighter version.

Realistically that's what you should look to do with your design I feel. All the simulations in the world can't beat an actual field test

Mate, you're slating someone else for building a prototype to show what it can do yet your design is so fantastically simple that it doesn't need any sort of explanation, let alone a working model. At least they provide some information to say what it's doing.

You really need a technical document to describe how your device works.

Have you done the calculations?

You say it'll do 600 odd mph... How? It's a pointless statement without quantification. How do you know it'll do 10k rpm? Can you show that's possible?

If you go on the website you will see it's not a dream, they have actually built the engine and are currently working on a smaller lighter version.

Realistically that's what you should look to do with your design I feel. All the simulations in the world can't beat an actual field test

I totally agree.

Mate, you're slating someone else for building a prototype to show what it can do yet your design is so fantastically simple that it doesn't need any sort of explanation, let alone a working model. At least they provide some information to say what it's doing.

You really need a technical document to describe how your device works.

Have you done the calculations?

You say it'll do 600 odd mph... How? It's a pointless statement without quantification. How do you know it'll do 10k rpm? Can you show that's possible?

If I increase the depth of the objects, then yes, 10,000 revs may be possible.

I'm going on the principle of the 2/4 stroke going 50mph for a 50cc engine, however the 2/4 stroke has a problem similar to push bike cranks, try pushing directly down on a push peddle when it's very near the top, it has to be 20X times harder than the peddle in the horizontal position.

Now increase the speed of a 50cc engine by 20 times and subtract air resistance and yes 600mph may be possible? It's only an guess mate.

If I increase the depth of the objects, then yes, 10,000 revs may be possible.

I'm going on the principle of the 2/4 stroke going 50mph for a 50cc engine, however the 2/4 stroke has a problem similar to push bike cranks, try pushing directly down on a push peddle when it's very near the top, it has to be 20X times harder than the peddle in the horizontal position.

Now increase the speed of a 50cc engine by 20 times and subtract air resistance and yes 600mph may be possible? It's only an guess mate.

That's why you need to do the calcs!

They're not difficult - pick up any thermodynamics book and you'll have all the info you need to do them.

Perhaps you could 3d print a model. Obviously it wouldn't work as an engine but it would be a useful tool for you to use. Probably a company somewhere you could go and get it done at

If I increase the depth of the objects, then yes, 10,000 revs may be possible.

I'm going on the principle of the 2/4 stroke going 50mph for a 50cc engine, however the 2/4 stroke has a problem similar to push bike cranks, try pushing directly down on a push peddle when it's very near the top, it has to be 20X times harder than the peddle in the horizontal position.

Now increase the speed of a 50cc engine by 20 times and subtract air resistance and yes 600mph may be possible? It's only an guess mate.

 

That's why you need to do the calcs!

They're not difficult - pick up any thermodynamics book and you'll have all the info you need to do them.

Let's say my engine is a lot more efficient than a 2/4 stroke, lets say...

And a 2/4 stroke is capable of 10,000RPM, so my drive can too, let say...

Let's say you have a 50cm wheel, at 10,000 rpm of my engine that's a potential speed of ((((50cm * 3.14159) / 100) * 10,000 * 60) / 1500) = 628.31MPH!!

That's similar to my previous statement of multiplying 50cc 50mph engine by 20X and subtracting air pressure.

That is so far enough evidence to push forward, I'm hoping motorbike company's hear of griffithsengines.com and are open to business like what has happened with GT.

Yes, I would have to know the PSI of expanding fuel, the expansion time of it too, also subtracting air pressure of 14psi by the times of compression of the fuel...

I'm tired, I have wrote 3000 lines of mathematical code many times to get where I have now got, and how simple is it now? comparing it to my industry version: http://griffithsengines.com/industry

What makes you believe it's not capable of 10,000RPM, 600 MPH? There's no tension for starters.

OK, I have just done a small test with a push bike crank and some luggage scales, in the horizontal position it took 2KG to start moving the bike, however in the near vertical position it took 10KG to move the same. However it's not an accurate test as the pushing or pulling of the pedal changes the weight applied to the floor.

So, now I'm estimating a 50cc version of my engine to travel around 200MPH, 4 times more efficient than a 2 stroke, however sinse I'm not going to use gears or chains I'm expecting the difference to increase.

Is that better?

To answer the original question there is an invention called a flame arrestor that might be applicable

https://youtu.be/vrSOhhHIXQ8

https://www.protego.com/products/flame-arresters.html

To answer the original question there is an invention called a flame arrestor that might be applicable

https://youtu.be/vrSOhhHIXQ8

https://www.protego.com/products/flame-arresters.html

Yes thanks, I'm just hoping the valve will cool the fume enough not to ignite the upcoming fuel mixture.

I have just done a more honest test, using a pushbike positioned upside down.

The crank horizontal took 0.2KG to move.

The crank near vertical position took 2.0KG.

So a crank near vertical position is 10X less efficient.

So a 2/4 stroke is the same.

So now I'm estimating my engine without air resistance to reach 500mph.

Add in no gears or chains and 600MPH may be?

So now without further investigation, ill keep to my 500-600mph potential drive at 50cc.

It's looking more positive than before, thank you those that wanted proof, my little test is something...

These vehicles that travel at 600 mph ? What sort of vehicles do you have in mind ? Boats , Railway Locomotives , Aeroplanes ? Certainly not Motorcycles , I nearly shit myself at 140 mph !

There's just no infrastructure for such vehicles to operate in except Bonneville Salt Flats .

I have just done a more honest test, using a pushbike positioned upside down.

The crank horizontal took 0.2KG to move.

The crank near vertical position took 2.0KG.

So a crank near vertical position is 10X less efficient.

So a 2/4 stroke is the same.

So now I'm estimating my engine without air resistance to reach 500mph.

Add in no gears or chains and 600MPH may be?

So now without further investigation, ill keep to my 500-600mph potential drive at 50cc.

It's looking more positive than before, thank you those that wanted proof, my little test is something...

In what vehicle ? And where ?

I have just done a more honest test, using a pushbike positioned upside down.

The crank horizontal took 0.2KG to move.

The crank near vertical position took 2.0KG.

So a crank near vertical position is 10X less efficient.

So a 2/4 stroke is the same.

So now I'm estimating my engine without air resistance to reach 500mph.

Add in no gears or chains and 600MPH may be?

So now without further investigation, ill keep to my 500-600mph potential drive at 50cc.

It's looking more positive than before, thank you those that wanted proof, my little test is something...

 

In what vehicle ? And where ?

I said "I have just done a more honest test, using a pushbike positioned upside down."

Why can't people accept that my drive may be X times more efficient than a 2/4 stroke engine? Are the very few parts too confusing for them? Does no tension mean anything?

It's not as if it looks like: https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Full+Car+Engine+Diagram they remind me of a sort of viruses.

And it's not as if my engine will require a litre of oil lubricating the piston rings per year, imagine what that would do to your decorating if you burnt it in your home?

I have just done a more honest test, using a pushbike positioned upside down.

The crank horizontal took 0.2KG to move.

The crank near vertical position took 2.0KG.

So a crank near vertical position is 10X less efficient.

So a 2/4 stroke is the same.

So now I'm estimating my engine without air resistance to reach 500mph.

Add in no gears or chains and 600MPH may be?

So now without further investigation, ill keep to my 500-600mph potential drive at 50cc.

It's looking more positive than before, thank you those that wanted proof, my little test is something...

 

In what vehicle ? And where ?

 

I said "I have just done a more honest test, using a pushbike positioned upside down."

Why can't people accept that my drive may be X times more efficient than a 2/4 stroke engine? Are the very few parts too confusing for them? Does no tension mean anything?

People will want physical evidence rather than take your word for it!

Thats the way of the world I'm afraid if what you say is true then get the evidence and build the engine

By the way the mx5 wankel engine has even less moving parts but it not efficient due to the way it works it uses fuel on every stroke which also triples the size of the actual displacement they claim it to be!

In what vehicle ? And where ?

 

I said "I have just done a more honest test, using a pushbike positioned upside down."

Why can't people accept that my drive may be X times more efficient than a 2/4 stroke engine? Are the very few parts too confusing for them? Does no tension mean anything?

 

People will want physical evidence rather than take your word for it!

Thats the way of the world I'm afraid if what you say is true then get the evidence and build the engine

By the way the mx5 wankel engine has even less moving parts but it not efficient due to the way it works it uses fuel on every stroke which also triples the size of the actual displacement they claim it to be!

The Wankel is a strange thing, mine is direct no tension, does it appear otherwise? No crank problems, no tappets problems either compared to the 2/4 stroke.

This thread was supposed to ask a simple question of flame and gaps, and has become a fight to defend my engine, it's getting late...

100+ people have now seen my engine, guess that's useful.

I said "I have just done a more honest test, using a pushbike positioned upside down."

Why can't people accept that my drive may be X times more efficient than a 2/4 stroke engine? Are the very few parts too confusing for them? Does no tension mean anything?

 

People will want physical evidence rather than take your word for it!

Thats the way of the world I'm afraid if what you say is true then get the evidence and build the engine

By the way the mx5 wankel engine has even less moving parts but it not efficient due to the way it works it uses fuel on every stroke which also triples the size of the actual displacement they claim it to be!

 

The Wankel is a strange thing, mine is direct no tension, does it appear otherwise? No crank problems, no tappets problems either compared to the 2/4 stroke.

This thread was supposed to ask a simple question of flame and gaps, and has become a fight to defend my engine, it's getting late...

100+ people have now seen my engine, guess that's useful.

I never said it was strange!