Inner Fire Engine

It's called the Wankel or rotary engine. As in the Mazda RX- series of automobiles in the 1970s and '80s. Worked quite well after they figured out how to make the seals correctly. But it didn't save lots of gas - certainly not four times as efficient. What it did do was pack about twice the horsepower in a given size as compared to a traditional four cycle engine.

TO STOP ALL THE CONFUSION REGISTER, OR SIGN YOUR POST WITH A NAME

You are describing a wankle engine. You should Google wankel or rotory engine. These are use in masda products and are not effecient or powerful. Good Luck.

Thanks,

In this engine all actions of system is differ than rotary engine. The piston moving around the shaft.

Instead of the single piston you describe, picture 10, 20, or more pistons spinning around the center shaft. Now take each piston and shape it for maximum efficiency. Hey that is what a turbine engine is.

The firing pressure system is same in Inner Fire Engine and present engine, just like bullet fired from gun or riffle. But playing aria of Piston is differ. We can used fully energy generated by firing along with velocity of piston in Inner Fire Engine. We can used 2-4-6 pistons as required. Each piston having separate chamber for compressor, and firing. Despite of it is a matter experiment.

TO STOP ALL THE CONFUSION REGISTER, OR SIGN YOUR POST WITH A NAME

Fuel for the fire? Think it was in the '60's that someone patented a unique engine. It weighed about the same a the old VW Beetle motor, had TWO cylinders and four pistons (two opposing in each cylinder), two crankshafts linked with either gears or chain. As I recall, the prototype got something like 100 mpg and developed 160 HP. Too, I recall that one of the oil co's snapped up the patent (and parked it?). The patent probably has expired by now. The compression ration must have been OMG!

Doxford made marine diesels to a similar opposed piston design many years ago. Main advantage was that they were inherently balanced. Not sure how this system would improve fuel efficiency though. You need to transfer the power from the top piston back to your crankshaft which requires two more cross-head bearing and at least two more big end bearings per cylinder with all the added weight and friction. Also if it is IC then your fuel injection has to be from the side with all the inherent problems of even burning etc..

I would love to see some sort of proof of any oil company ever having bought and "parked" a patent for any energy saving engine. If this "unique" engine was so good and the patent has expired why is it not on the market now or has another "oil co" destroyed the patent office??

By the way Doxford also gave up on the design eventually, though many of us (much) older marine guys still have a soft spot for the old bangers. (remember repacking the top piston cooling pipes?)

There was a British truck (Commer, I think) which had an opposed piston diesel which had a single crankshaft (unlike Jumo, Deltic, F-M) and big rocker arms (no crosshead)to move the pistons. Apparently, injecting from the side of the cylinder was not a problem. I like opposed piston engines, as they have no valves, and, as you note, they are inherently ballanced. They also have no head gasket, and, having spent a lot replacing head gaskets (on silly French cars), I like that feature.

TO STOP ALL THE CONFUSION REGISTER, OR SIGN YOUR POST WITH A NAME

Are you expecting this to use a quarter of the fuel for the same power, or to provide four times more power from a the same size cylinder? It certainly won't do the first, and the second appears extravagantly unlikely.

The reason for writing this is that, way I read your posting, it appears as if you think that starting and stopping the movement of the piston dissipates the stored energy. It doesn't - what happens is that the kinetic energy is simply transferred between different parts of the moving assembly. (In principle, there are loads of other practical problmems - but they seem to have been largely solved - must go vrrrm)

I agree with your views, that kinetic energy is simply transferred between different parts of the moving assembly is effective up to 20% energy against distroying energy as per my views.

Are you really implying that as much of 80% of the kinetic energy stored in the piston and piston-rod in each cycle is lost as a result of the reciprocation?

N.B. I know a fair bit of the energy is lost in bearings etc., but very little of this is due to the starting and stopping of the piston. Perhaps what stimulates this idea is that a fuel-starved engine can be used for deceleration? But the reason for this is the way the air is fed to the cylinders and compressed - engines where the valves are set to minimise the volume of air in the pistons show much less of this effect.

TO STOP ALL THE CONFUSION REGISTER, OR SIGN YOUR POST WITH A NAME

TO STOP ALL THE CONFUSION REGISTER, OR SIGN YOUR POST WITH A NAME

TO STOP ALL THE CONFUSION REGISTER, OR SIGN YOUR POST WITH A NAME

Check out this site, look into the "Power Generation" section. It will give you a good idea what's been tried over the years:

http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/museum.htm

Here's but one example:

Looks very much like the GM A6 air conditioning compressor that was widely used from the late 1950s. That design used 3 double sided pistons connected to the swash-plate.

Variable displacement hydraulic pumps and motors use similar designs, with a variable angle swash-plate.

I have examin the site http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/museum.htm as directed wherein Inner Fire Engine is imagine by me i.e. one person only and it is totally differ. I observed many engines on the site, but system not according to Inner Fire Engine. I beliving that my idea is correct despite of result of the exprement will establish result.

TO STOP ALL THE CONFUSION REGISTER, OR SIGN YOUR POST WITH A NAME

Could you provide us the termodinamic cicle you expect your engine runs? just because of that you'll have a better engine in termodinamics terms like fuel savings in my way to see,a different construction just could be an improvement in terms of size,weight,wearing parts, costs,etc.On the other hand take in the bill, for any existent pump you could "invent" a new engine:the beautiful animation above could be a common hydraulic pistons pump, an Excelo diesel injection pump,...Same for Wankel and towsands of inventions like that.I think just the temodinamic cicle makes the difference.-

-Thanks for your Comments as it is meeting with my views. I clarify that Piston fitted with connecting road which fitted with straight shaft, and piston rotating around the centre shaft. Means Piston completed one round per one firing. Just it is a idea at present.

I think that you are simply describing a system where the piston swings back and forth together with the piston rod, so the second swivel is on the cylinder containing the piston instead of on the piston-rod interface. If that's right, it might be a goer if you could keep the casing cool enough without water - but the valve and air-entry systems become more complex as well.

TO STOP ALL THE CONFUSION REGISTER, OR SIGN YOUR POST WITH A NAME

TO STOP ALL THE CONFUSION REGISTER, OR SIGN YOUR POST WITH A NAME

Check this link for another rotary engine: http://quasiturbine.promci.qc.ca/

You can even buy one to test it!

By the way, I am not related to this company. I like their idea and they are

in production.

I don't understand why you'd want a engine that "increase average consumption four times more".

But assuming you do, how did you arrive at these figures?

A university in the early nineties, did a study on the mazda rotary motor. They found that if you could feed it enough fuel/air that it would spin at nearly 19000 rpm and produce insane levels of power for the size of motor. but it wasn't really practicle.

TO STOP ALL THE CONFUSION REGISTER, OR SIGN YOUR POST WITH A NAME

I don't mean to deter the gist of this of our "Guest" (Wish CR4 would require all posters to at least post with a little info about themselves).

Circa about 1962 at the engineers fair and the University of Florida, Chrysler has an expo of their turbine engine prototype (kind of looked like a T-bird). They had built about 100 or so and had them out for user testing. Inquiries where we asked the reps/engineers about performance: "fuel mileage is very good, but our early reports are poor low end acceleration." At one point, they started the baby up and I was directly behind it (it on a platform). The exhaust was quite sweet! They said it would run on diesel, peanut oil . . . Mean time between major maintenance, about 200,000+ miles.

The interesting experience was when the expo ended and these guys closed out to go back to their hotel rooms: they backed the baby back down into the street (this was right at the south end of what is still the Gators stadium in Gainesville); they dropped into drive and peeled rubber down the street. Huh? What was that about poor end acceleration??

I believe Chrysler didn't get into this because of aftermarket and dealer profits, that is: the lack of. Gee, the dealer wouldn't likely see you coming back with one of these, except for maybe a brake job etc.

Think it was the Discovery Channel, or similar, where someone had one of these. Still going! Said, Chrysler destroyed all the other prototypes.

My problem is simply: what the hell is going on with our auto mfr's? I've been getting 27 mpg since my 63 Corvair, 66 Valiant, 72 Plymouth Fury (318), others, and current '03 Taurus. What's with these little boys listed at a highway of 27 or so mpg? Their weight is much less to begin with. Have the mfr's been buddies with the oil companies?

Back to the original post: Mr. Guest, did you mean a fuel savings four times greater LESS than present system engine? Sure you did.

I'd recommend that all review their posts/responses before sending them.

TO STOP ALL THE CONFUSION REGISTER, OR SIGN YOUR POST WITH A NAME