Mac Leod
[quote]Thank you for responding to my posting- there are a few things that I am not sure about still. The rotating mass and the reciprocating mass of your 'valve train' will still be greater than the standard cam shaft and valves setup (especially for an engine with an overhead cam)- wouldn't it?[/qote]
I am very happy that so quickly you understood my arguments, and you are already ready for next discussion,
Yeah I just wanted to clarify this matter of the weight "be greater" for my solution.
She is very often raised, as the lack of the advantage of my engine.
And it is of course the untrue, but intellectual ‘box’ are ordering to think so, that it is a truth.
As a token of it I did taking off the weight on which I put the valve with the spring and spring retainer(witout retainer locks) diametef full phi 32 mm ( diameter canal 30 mm),
And I other side Piston , rod, pin,and two rings diameter 38 mm , what is a greater dimension than a valve has him considerably.
In spite of it, in the photograph done by me clearly one can see, that much he is heavier unite the valve.
If not you believe, go to scrap, find and take the piston with the connecting rod from the old lawnmower and about the same diameter valve with the spring from some car engine.. I think that you will be not having to use scales, because after taken into one hand piston, and into second of valve, you will be sure knew what was heavier.
If now will add to the moving weight of valve ( the reciprocating mass) rocker arm, mecanical regulations of clearance valve (or very heavy hydraulic valve lifter( tappet)) taped (ewentualy push rod). it sure it will turn out that the weight of the valve is twice as bigger from set piston –rod same diameter.
However, that's not all in relation to the weight.
He/she is reaching jescze to valves static weight so things like valve quide in heads, and rocker arm shaft.
One should also add the weight not chosen materials of the head, about the diameter piston. and lengths of his cylinder.
For lowering static mass of the engine one should add the lack bolts for screwing the head, since altogether cylinders around wit cylinder valves it is possible easily to make one-piece steel out, and then aren't needed bolts to the head together with threaded with their nests.
Adding this static reducing the weight, we receive altogether the piston valve is three times lighter than the traditional valve.!!
And greatest loss of engine mass.Piston valves mass, at the same diameter like valves, they cause that he is arriving about 15 % of jumping volume of the engine. That is mass of the engine is also reducing about 15 %.
In net part all about termal efficiency.I am only attention, so most important in combustion chamber, are TEMPERATURE elements.
Here, the pictures, if someone does not know what is heavier ..
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris beauvais View Post
That is VERY cool! It'll probably be a little heavier because of the extra crank shaft, connecting rods, and pistons in the "head".
Are you sure??
So that you get rid of the doubt next photographs with accurate data :
Diameter popped 75 mm , diameter piston 76.5 mm
Right now are you shure ?? Any washes.
Weight popped 75 mm 1000 G
weight piston & rod 76.5 mm 850 G
weight popped 62 mm 400 G
weight piston & rod 62 mm 370 G
But the window of the flight of the valve of 75 mm is only 64 mm, what is very similar to the window of the flight piston 62 mm .
That is it results from it that the valve of 75 mm is giving the same flight as the piston 62 mm that is 1000 G to 370 G !!!!!
==~~ 2.5 more weight popped to piston& rod !!
It only looks impossibly. but this way is.