tangengial engine design

[GreyGoose006]

i ran across this online.

http://www.geocities.com/tangentialengine/




wouldnt the extreme angle between the piston and the rod create HUGELY high rod angles... unless you used LONG rods and sacrificed a lot of stroke, i see no way this could work reliably.

seems like the wrist pins would be stressed a LOT (i think thats what they are called... pins that connect piston to rod)

also, say that the bored out block was the only modification, and that the only power improvments were low down. he never mentions if the dimensions (bore x stroke) are the same before and after the little re drilling of the block.

another problem is that, while decreasing friction on the down (power) stroke is important, you cannot ignore that you more than doubled the friction on the way back up, especially a few degrees above BDC.

is it just me or does it seem that there is something missing here?
ya'll are the experts...
tear it up.
seems like a load of

-edit:
i edited the link to be correct.
thanks silentchamber

[TheSilentChamber]

http://www.geocities.com/tangentialengine/

^^ thats the link you need.

It has less cylinder friction on the downstroke, but the up stroke it has extream friction. Also I dont see how the rod is going to be able to pass through the cylinder wall like the way its animated and not cause problems.

[GreyGoose006]

OOPS.

yeah. if you read his site it makes no sense.
all kinds of things he says contradict themselves.

are we missing something?

-hello smart people-

[TheSilentChamber]

Also looks like it would be very hard to ballance.

How exactly did he turn the cylinders to the side and still use the stock head and stuff also puzzles me.

[corning_d3]

I don't see it happening, either.

[GreyGoose006]

what i think he is saying is that he re drilled the cylinders at a different angle. IDK.

[534BC]

The concept really makes a lot of sense to me and I tend to agree with lining the power sroke up with the better part of the crankpin travel.

It doesn't really state how much off-set there is on a cylinder and I think that a resonable amount might be a good thing. The loads associated with the low stress cycles could be sacrificed for a better angle on the power stroke. However this becomes opposit when talking about a 4 stroke compression and exhaust strokes.

The animation is probably skewed somewhat, but offsetting cylinder very much will cause an effective reduction in stroke (swept travel of the piston)

I am really trying hard to recall engines that offset the pins, pistons, or cylinders.

Oh yes, I remember. Lots of chrysler,gm, engines had and probably still do have off-set pin bores in the pistons, maybe for this very reason and I'd like to find out the amount of the off-set of this clark design.

[corning_d3]

I wanna see a completed engine using this design. The very high rod anlge on the upstroke would just increase friction on both upstrokes, and now the cylinder in question doesn't have the force of combustion to help overcome this friction(as it would on a standard design), so it must rely on another cylinder to help out. It may work, but I'm skeptical. If it were that easy, why are we still using ancient designs?

[GreyGoose006]

it would only work well (as advertised) on a 2 stroke.
on a 4 stroke, the compression would kill the efficiency gain by scraping the piston againsst the cylinder.

there might be info we dont have here, but as he explained it, there is no way i would put an engine like that in my car

[UncleBob]

would work fine with a really really long rod. That would reduce the side force on compression stroke.

Still not very realistic though. You're not going to get large gains IMO.

2 stroke would have the same problem, every up stroke IS a compression stroke.

here's a much better application of the same rough idea: a twin crank, twin con rod per cylinder, twin cylinder diesel motorcycle. Check out the animation

http://www.neander-motors.com/motorbike/en/index.php

[GreyGoose006]

thats REALLY cool.

[win_daddy]

Did anyone elsee nice that the capacity of the tangential test engine was 2.55 litres vs. 2.44 litres for the normal test engine? and the peak power was much lower for his design? This guy missed geometry class in high school.....

[GreyGoose006]

yeah. i saw that too.
whats to say that the stroke length and bore arent changed too.
its no secret that an engine with a longer stroke will make more torque even with identical displacement.

part of the idea was to lower the power curve down into the "everyday" rev range.

still looks like a cooky idea to me.
that motorcycle engine link is awesome.
check it out.

[KiwiBacon]

That principle is used, but not in that extreme form.

Toyota's Prius engine has offset bores.