The Brickley Engine

Interesting concept.

<"Read the whole article and watch the video">

I did read the article, but could not locate the Video at all, in spite of carefully looking for it.

The pins and pivot points are going to need very careful lubrication.

As for using this in a diesel engine, forget it, with such high compression, wear would be extremely rapid.

Kind Regards....

The video link is at the end of the article, after the mention of a steam powered bicycle, click on the word 'link'. It looks like it's part of the link to the bicycle image but it is separate.

I can see how the linkage would guide the path of the piston travel but not how it would keep the piston straight. If the piston can still 'fall over' it is still relying on sidewall friction to guide it in the cylinder..

Thank you Nigh

Thanks for the Link:http://www.brickleyengine.com/

I have now looked at the animated graphic, and the concept is interesting.

Like yourself I can see that there is are some major problems of piston registration and lubrication.

And for those, we don't really achieve great improvements.

Cheap to make it may well be, once those problems are sorted out, but I cannot see the World's car-makers beating a path to Mr Brickley's door.

Kind Regards....

Hi Sparky.

Andy Ross of Ohio invented and patented a very similar type of linkage for his stirling engines in 1986! This was due to the fact that stirling engine cylinders are run dry, ie cannot be lubicated.

Spencer.

I agree with you Sparkstation. I think the reciprocating masses would require massive crankshaft counterweights and the crank journals would have to be enlarged to take the abuse. The connecting rod would certainly be much larger and I cannot see where any reduction in friction would result from the additional levers, pins and shafts.

When I built my 502 cubic inch big block Chevy it required only twenty foot pounds of torque to rotate the crankshaft without the sparkplugs installed. Piston ring drag was minimal with zero gap rings. With a film of oil between every moving part, rotation of the crankshaft was mainly inhibited by the seals and valve spring pressures.

I lose very little horsepower to friction compared to the potential horsepower I lose to heat. There seems to be few details about Smokey Yunick's adiabatic ceramic engine which operated at red hot temperatures and got 50 miles per gallon when installed in a Pontiac Fiero.

I remember it was featured in HotRod magazine but I don't recall the year. The reason Smokey built the engine was to recover the energy lost in heat. It was successful but if I remember correctly the lubrication technology was not equal to the task at that time.

AFAK the engine and all the test data went to GM before his death. The engine had no radiator and heated the incoming air and fuel contrary to current practice. The engine used a turbocharger which Smokey claimed was to act as a "check valve".

The Otto cycle's greatest energy loss is heat. Smokey went for the obvious and got results. But because he was well ahead of the technology we have yet to see any of his invention applied to our engines.

Perhaps high temperature synthetic lubrication will extend the marketplace life of Mr. Otto's marvelous engine by reducing fuel consumption and recovering much of the heat lost to combustion as in Smokey's example. But like you and Nigh, I don't think re-arranging and adding to the reciprocating masses as Mr. Brickley has done will improve the basic Otto cycle engine design at all.

Smokey Yunick was one of my heroes! I remember the ceramic engine also, but like you, forget the date of publication of the Hot Rod article. The fact that it was a Fiero narrows it down, if I get a chance, I'll see if it's available online.

"...Speaking of the steam driven Bicycle..."

Well we weren't, but that kind of reminds me of the Ozark Mountain Daredevils' song about the 'steam driven airplane'... A lovely concept, reminicent of Jules Verne. I have a friend that owns the vehicle pictured below. Thought it might be of interest. Not steam powered, but an electric auto, a 1916 Raush & Lang, that still runs today on the original (!) batteries. Not necessarily a model of speed or efficiency, but for durability, hard to top.

Smokey's articles were in Popular Science and his problem with his ceramic engine was pre-detonation which he later said that he had solved by changing the gasoline formula. He said that the change was slight, simple and very inexpensive.

After he left Popular Science we didn't hear any more from him, however, Doug Pendagast an automotive, radio talk show host in OKC OK and friend of his said on the air that he had visited Smokey and did see the car and engine that could get 50 mpg. He said that Smokey had received an offer that he couldn't refuse for health reasons. Previously in his magazine articles he had said that he would give the information to the public at no charge.

Speaking of the steam driven Bicycle, I have often wondered whether steam driven automobiles such as the old Stanley Steamer couldnt have provided a solution to either the energy or emissions problem if as much effort had been given to upgrading those engine cycles as has been spent of the IC engine.

I can see how the linkage would guide the path of the piston travel but not how it would keep the piston straight. If the piston can still 'fall over' it is still relying on sidewall friction to guide it in the cylinder.

I have the same difficulty, but I think that the pistons still act as linear sliders, while their other ends are supported/located by the linkages preventing the "falling over" problem. The number of moving parts is huge in comparison to a "normal" four-cylinder engine. The calculations regarding main bearings for the crank are bogus: they are all coaxial and can be treated as a distributed single bearing. Given the standard physics dictum that friction is independent of area for non-deforming surfaces, the reduction in bearing count has no effect (no bearing on results, so to speak!). Worse, he has added a large number of other bearings which cannot be treated as extensions, since each works independently. A 9-cylinder radial engine has 19 moving parts "below the head", and 20 rotating or reciprocating bearings, plus nine sliding pistons/skirts. It has just two main bearings. This compares closely with the counts on this four-banger, and is more compact. It may be possible to revise Mr. Brinkley's geometry to reduce overall size, though.

Hmmmmmmm, a 12 cylinder in the length of a 6 cylinder block (I would assume)? A bit more bulky (i.e. taller, thicker) but maybe he wouldn't mind letting me test one in my Chevy ... The ultimate sleeper racer - "the Ferris mobile"

Hello Ferris

If you had one with the cylinders arranged radially, you could call yours a "Ferris Wheel".

Kind Regards....

Bwa hahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaa cough, cough, gasp Ferris Wheel, hahahaaaa. Thanks Sparky, you lightened up my evening

If you build a plug-in electric vehicle that will give you the same mileage as an internal combustion car, the price is more than triple that of an IC car, then when you get to the end of your charge it may take 6 hours to recharge. A 20% increase in fuel mileage may be good, there may be ways to get even more. Perhaps the Brickley design could be applied to a steam engine to increase its efficiency even more. Then using the more efficient steam engine to power a generator to keep the batteries charged on a cheaper, short-range plug-in hybrid could possibly be even better for fuel economy. About 80% of driving is done within 25 miles of home and could be done using what is basically a cheaper short range EV. By using the highly efficient steam engine to generate electricity you would not have the limited range, yet would use fuel for only about 20% of your total driving.

I wonder how adaptable the design would be to steam power and how much more efficient it might be than other designs for steam engines.

Here's another take on the same idea but using a cam instead of linkages. Their test engine seems to be giving some impressive results.

Hello Nigh

Thanks for the weblink to the Shane Engine

While the idea is another interesting one, the huge benefit of current reciprocating piston engines is in the ease of lubrication, the automatic piston registration in the cylinder because of the skirt, and the robustness of bearing surfaces.

The Shane engine promises much, but complexity of bearing surfaces, and the necessary lubrication to all moving surfaces, are not going to be overcome, due to the engine design.

We would be better in using modified Stirling Engines.

Kind Regards....