I just want to say thank you everyone for the kind words and the encouragement. I appreciate it immensely. Onshape: Onshape.pro/d4a JLC3DP: jlc3dp.com/?from=driving4answers Support the channel by shopping through this link: amzn.to/3RIqU0u Patreon: www.patreon.com/d4a Become a member: ruclips.net/channel/UCwosUnVH6AINmxtqkNJ3Fbgjoin Grit: ruclips.net/channel/UCt3YSIPcvJsYbwGCDLNiIKA Link to the patent: patentcenter.uspto.gov/applications/18585308/ifw/docs?application=
@@Eduardo_Espinoza 100% as soon as I saw the wobble in the flywheel, it was done. I think he knew that though and had to put the video out. If he could find a way to stabilize all of that, the spark off the lawn mower engine would be fine. Bussiness card width is a great point of refrence for the magneto / coil gap. As far as the vanes not flying out, hydraulics come to mind, but not in any simple form aside from haveing all the vanes connected underneath for shared displacement.
I've been wondering since the first video how the engine was supposed to seal at the front/back (where the acrylic plate is on your prototype). Are there any potential solutions you know of for that? That's one of the biggest flaws I see with rotary vane engines.
Future attempt note: your ignition system has a few issues. First, your gap between the magnets on the flywheel and the magneto is WAY too big. Spec is typically .010” for something like a lawnmower magneto setup. Second, you have a six vein rotor and a flywheel with two magnet sets. You need a flywheel with six magnet sets or you will only get ignition every third vein chamber. Third, you will need to time the flywheel and magnets for proper spark timing. Fantastic first attempt though. More please!
Yeah he would be better using a digital ignition system triggered by a magnetic pickup and 6 magnets embedded into the flywheel, that way he can set the ignition timing and set it at different RPM
I loved this video! As I'm building a similar engine. The vanes are partially not moving in and out due to vacuum. Maybe drill a vent hole passage to connect the vanes. Keep trying. I love it.
I agree about the gap. I usually use a playing card or even a business card to set the gap on my mower. Just put the card in the right spot and move the pickup coil against the card.
Im kinda surprised he didn’t consider this? The gap between flywheel magnets and coil are definitely an issue, hopefully the pit bike coil and those particular magnets on the flywheel jive together ok - not sure if they were from the same engine? Also, just turning the flywheel by hand wasn’t going to be enough to create spark - probably better to attach a cordless drill or something to truly test, not sure how those veins were ever going to seal anything either? Just with centrifugal force pushing them outwards? The veins sealing at all is questionable, plus this would create a major issue for startup… those veins need to be completely unquestionably sealed for that carburetor to function whatsoever, and obstructing to keep that exhaust port sealed and get any kind of pressure/power. Building your own engine of this type is one of those things you find out quick that you can’t half-ass anything, it’s all the way or nothing. Ive seen some vids of guys converting fridge compressors into 4 stroke engines which was pretty impressive in itself, but this isn’t that! He’s creating this from the ground up and it’s an inherently difficult engine design, thus why they aren’t mainstream. Those veins are definitely the main issue. Id start considering how exactly to get a spring under them and how to keep it all retained together. Maybe a folded spring-steel that nests into the rotor somehow to keep it in place.
Please don't take this as negative feedback, the points I'm bringing up are meant to be helpful in directing you toward a working engine. I love ambitious projects; they teach you the most. You're doing great. 25:30 - You have no compression; your clearance between rotor and cover plate is totally wrong so you're getting no compression. You can see this when your rotor sides (thrust load) in/out of your bearing. Vanes are bypassing around the side (front/back). Can probably machine or lap down the front of the block to bring the clearance to where it needs to be. Just be sure the depth is consistent right/left/top/bottom. And account for your gasket thickness in the depth. Without the gasket, the rotor and vanes should bind on the acrylic cover. Thinking about your flywheel issue, my best solution if you want to keep it in the system is that the flywheel needs to be machined for a press fit shaft/collet on a lathe to get fully centered. Entirely possible the engine will run without the mass. Think model airplane engines; they have very little rotating mass and rotate at VERY high RPM. The less mass you have, the better in this case. Especially if you don't want rapid disassembly of your project. If you don't have anyone with the right tools to machine this, let me know and I can throw this on my lathe for proper tolerancing. (both the flywheel and the block can likely be machined with an accurate lathe, or the block could also be surface-ground if you want to be super fancy) Regarding the pit bike magneto setup - only one magnet, meaning only one of the 6 chambers will actually fire. Probably gonna need a custom magnet-mounted flywheel to get it running on all chambers. Maybe you can source a 6-pole magnetic stator out of a 3-phase inrunner motor? Most I know of are 2 or 4 pole, but there may be 6-pole motors available cheaply? ....checking... Yep, definitely an option, though the motors are upwards of $100 for anything big enough to possibly generate the power you might need. Alternatively: go for a speeduino setup, and do electronic ignition with a rotor position sensor. speeduino.com/ (it supports "rotary" modes, unsure if it can do 6-vane by default, but should at least do 3 vane, as RX7/RX8 configurations already exist) Probably the best option for proper timing. I guess if the carburetor is totally mismatched you could also try full EFI, but that seems like total overkill, and speeduino can run in ignition-only mode with a carb just fine. As a first try you're about 80% of the way from the get-go; most of your design was clean and appropriate; some attention to the remaining details and maybe 1-2 weeks of work learning speeduino, and a day in a machine shop should get you a running engine. Last thing that might be worth your time is - surface finish of the internal bore in the block isn't perfect. Might not matter in the end, as the vanes will polish that up the more it runs; they will also wear, but softer materials tend to pick up and embed abrasive particles, which then in turn lap the harder of the two surfaces in a sliding interface. I can't think of a good way to polish up the chamber without purpose-made lapping vanes, possibly some lapping compound, and probably sacrificing your existing rotor to do so. Never mind, I changed my mind, chamber is fine as-is and just needs to be run-in.
" You have no compression; your clearance between rotor and cover plate is totally wrong so you're getting no compression." 2-stroke gasoline engines don't have much of a compression stroke, yet they run just fine. Less compression just means output less torque, and no minimum octane requirement.
@akulkis while true, I suspect there's simply not enough sealing going on to compress the air/fuel mixture to extract torque for keeping the rotor spinning
@@EitanTsur lol... what part of this actually "extracts torque"? the vanes. pressure acts on the housing, the rotor, the end plates, and the vanes, equally in all directions. torque is rotational force. a pressure acting on a surface to produce a force that can then act at a radius. the only part of the vane that "extracts torque", or converts pressure into rotational effort, is the DIFFERENCE in AREA of two vanes forming any section. the pressure acting on the leading vane is cancelled by the pressure acting on the opposing vane... all that remains is the DIFFERENCE. which is fractional, compared to the massive surface area of the chamber itself. and dont forget that each chamber separated by a vane also has opposing pressures or farces acting in both directions on any vane itself. a piston in a cylinder? the force acts on the head, the walls, and the piston, that then acts on a crankpin via a con rod, and that force invariably an act tangentially on the crank itself. there have been no successful "rotary vane motors". despite the countless thousands of attempts over the last 150 odd years. some of them make popping noises, some can actually "run" to some vague degree... but NONE work as hoped for. NONE are "revolutionary" or set to "take the world over and change our way of thinking"... because all these "intrepid inventors" with stars in their eyes fail to see the basic fundamental flaw staring them in the face.
@@paradiselost9946 I could be misunderstanding your point. It seems you believe a rotary vane motor can't operate because the area of a vane creating a combustion cavity is equal to a vane creating a compression cavity. Because there is no difference in area, you posit no net force difference exists and so torque. This seems to neglect that the pressure in the combustion cavity is greater than in a compression cavity, due to rise in temperature from fuel combustion.
@@joeblogs6598 engines do not run on wishful thinking. they run on pressure, acting on an area, to create force. that force then has to act on a crank of some type, to produce torque or turning effort. PLAN. length of stroke, area of piston. number of strokes. as i said, any two vanes forming a section, have pressure acting equally upon them, producing the same force that cancels out and produces no torque. as one protrudes fractionally more than the other, there is a slight imbalance of force, only due to pressure acting on that area. those vanes can only extend and retract a certain distance per revolution. therefore the force created to produce torque is marginal. it may be at a radius, a tangential force, but its tiny. most of the pressure simply acts on the rotor, the outer casing, and the two end plates, with only a tiny percentage acting on a vane to produce "torque". this torque can only be applied for 90 degrees of revolution. the hot gas applying the pressure is rapidly cooling due to radiation and conduction. now, in all engines... the expansion ratio is the inverse of the compression ratio. has to be, right? some basic geometry... by half stroke, the chamber has reduced in volume by half. 2:1. at 1/4 stroke from tdc, its 4:1. and so forth... if there were no clearance, pressure would become infinite. think of how the air COMPRESSES in a cylinder... half volume, double the pressure... halve it again, double the pressure... how far does the piston have to move each time to halve the volume? what sort of clearance volume can you get? basic geometry... its hard to get more than 20:1. a 5% clearance volume. aka combustion chamber. thats assuming an "ideal" 180 degrees of stroke, and a sinusoidal/harmonic crank. this engine here, its a "perfect stroke" of 90 degrees, straight away. the expansion ratio to degrees of rotation being limited by the degree of eccentricity. same as compression... it means that upon expansion, that volume of gas very quickly doubles in volume, and halves in pressure... within a fraction of the revolution. yet the only reason besides compression that it can produce work is that its hot. combustion. and its radiating heat away... you want me to keep going? so we use vane motors in air tools. they are long... maximise the area they have to work on. they are "full admission"... they apply air from the tank through their entire "stroke" or revolution. not a hot, EXPANDING gas... thats rapidly cooling down... so they chew on air... not many average compressors can keep up with a die grinder running constantly. leakage doesnt matter... modern air tools are far from efficient. they have only one "eccentricity". they arent trying to squeeze a four stroke cycle in there. they spin both ways... air drills, rattle guns... just feed the air through on the other side of "TDC"... its just a simple valve... they act more like a turbine, with the velocity of the air flowing through them forcing them around. though "balanced vane pumps" exist, that do do the elliptical housing... theyve been well studied and work marvelously as PUMPS. as COMPRESSORS. it takes very little force to produce high pressures... no-one has made a successful rotary vane "engine". theyre all flops, that may make some popping noises... none RUN and make POWER. they didnt work on steam, either, for the same reasons... theres very little torque produced, or power, for a lot of steam used. a piston at least... at full compression, the piston area is half the area that the pressure has to act upon. to lose heat to. the rest acts on the head, transferring to the case itself. some acts outward on the cylinder walls. its all absorbing heat... its why opposed pistons are a good idea. all the surface area is piston and produces force. except... an engine is an expander. its job is to expand hot air to produce work. but we use compressors, expecting them to act in reverse...this is the fundamental flaw of all engines. all the mechanisms we use to produce rotation we also use as presses. for an engine to run... we take in a fixed volume of air, compress it to a certain pressure, then heat it up rapidly through combustion, whereupon it then rises in pressure, and we then use that hot gas to produce more force than it took to compress, that in a piston engine, gets to expand so far before reducing in pressure to the point we can get no more work and have to dump it. but at TDC, when we have maximum combustion pressures... massive forces... it all acts radially. crank has to rotate 20, 30 degrees before that force can get in behind the crankpin and PUSH it around... or "produce torque". and by then the gas is already losing heat, as soon as the pistons descended even a fraction, the pressure has halved.. diesels have that advantage of still injecting fuel, still maintaining a burn, still adding heat. they compress air to a certain pressure then maintain that pressure through the power stroke. get to push on that crankpin like you can push the cranks on your bicycle. spark ignition doesnt do that... they where once classed as "constant pressure cycle" because of it. go back to akroyd and others... a turbine engine has the advantage of the pressure of combustion producing a tangential force on the shaft... its always acting on the rim, at right angles. there just isnt much force. its all about air mass and velocity rather than pressure rise as such... you only need pressure to get the flow. accelerate the flow. by adding heat. TLDR... probably get shadowbanned as well...
As part of an engineering team of a medium sized company, even our first prototypes usually end up being paper weights. As long as you learned something, the prototype served its purpose. Dont give up!
I always get this with my camera prototypes. Even with all the calculations and measurements two holes wont line up and itll need an entire rebuild. Its the process thats important, not the first prototype working which never happens.
Thank you! That’s exactly what I thought. Not a bad first attempt at all. Ok maybe drilling off centre wasn’t great but everything else . . . 👌and hey, they’re called prototypes for a reason aren’t they?
I'm 61 years old and back in the 8th grade this was a project of our shop class. We used the internals of a 1 inch impact gun. Much larger than the ones that you are using. What we found is that in order to keep the vanes from sticking it was to increase the vane slots by 0.0015 thousands and use a 50:1 fuel / oil mixture to allow for vane lubrication of the vanes. It did solve our problem but the vanes were short lived due to their material. I think if we had the ability to have vanes made out of a harder material such as you did we would have greater success. I really enjoy your videos!
That's impressive on it's own but for an 8th grade project?! I wish we still had schools with such level of hands-on teaching. Do you remember the RPM range it ran at or if it had useful power? Increasing the vane slot is such a silly simple idea it becomes almost genius for a class project. I had a similar problem when rebuilding a milling machine. The ways would stick and sadly loosening them was not an option as it would ruin accuracy. Ultimately I had the long bed ways ground flat and smooth, then scraped the saddle to match plus decrease contact area and at the end I've relieved the middle 1/3 by 0,01mm so that when ends wear It still won't rock. 12:29 I think this is PARTIALLY what a cylindrical pin at the bottom of each vane is trying to achieve. It contacts the slot only at the bottom. Then a second, outer point of contact is handled by low friction inserts, allowing the slot itself to be wider.
You need to know: I don’t watch your videos to see some slick contraption you have built that works flawlessly. I watch to learn new concepts, to be exposed to new ideas and to hear fresh insights into old ones. And you outdid yourself in your presentation, explanations and incredible creativity displayed here. Keep up the good work and I’ll keep watching your videos and recommending them to my friends. And your videos are more often than not just plain fun to watch…
Ok so first I want to congratulate you on getting this far, and obviously all of the problems are of clear after the fact, but I'll try to enumerate them as I see them. 1. The coil will make one spark per revolution, you need 6. But actually a constant spark SHOULD be fine. You can get a (more or less) constant spark using the igniter coil for an oil burner. This will destroy the sparkplug over time, but it will give you enough heat to burn whatever is in the cylinder. BE CAREFUL, FURNACE IGNITERS CAN KILL YOU. 2. That flywheel is insanely oversized. It's meant for a 8:1 compression one compression per cycle, your engine is probably around 2:1 compression, 6 compressions per cycle. The rotary drum is probably enough flywheel so you can discard the entire flywheel assembly. 3. Trying to get a newly designed engine started with a pull cord is assuming you're going to hit a hole in one on your first try. You should attach a variable speed electric motor to the apparatus so that you can bring it up to operating speed, THEN play with the carburetor and try to get fire. First try to get non-zero energy output, then try to get enough energy output that you can power off the motor while it continues running. Only after you have all of this working flawlessly do you start thinking about starting without first running it up to optimal rotation speed. 4. Instinctively, I think the optimal speed for this engine is probably somewhere around 3000-5000 RPMs. Technically speaking, you want the highest RPM your hardware can tolerate, but over 5000 I think the premature wear starts to become so rapid that it will compromise your experimentation. You need centrifugal force to hold the veins against the housing, and you need high speed so that the compression action out-runs the leakage. At low speed, the air/fuel will all leak past the veins and your compression ratio will be essentially 0. The furnace igniter will help a lot because it will make a hot enough spark to light fuel even with very little compression, but if there's no compression, even lighting the fuel will not create any propulsive force. In short, I think you're really close.
I like the idea of the furnace igntor. Assuming a constant spark would not be a problem, this would certainly eliminate the variable of getting the magnito timed properly and allow you to focus on other variables you need to iron out.
@@roocaa3549 That's not necessarily a bad idea, but you need to switch to diesel fuel because the octane is going to resist auto-ignition, and then you can't rely on the carburetor anymore because it's designed around the viscosity of gasoline or alcohol. So I would recommend d4a to keep his focus on alcohol & spark ignition just to get that working for now.
The flywheel unevenness is probably his biggest problem, along with the mismatch between the magnet wheel and the coil. IDK why he wouldn't just use a matched set if he can afford to order in 3D printed stainless parts.
Great observations... I didn't even consider spark timing till you mentioned it...👍 I also agree with ditching that huge flywheel and running in off an electric motor till it catches... Really great suggestions, thanks guy...👍✨
I want to see this succeed! So suggestion: 1. Do away with the magneto setup and instead use a digital ignition system with a flywheel with a six position reluctor so you get an ignition timing going for each vane. 2. Have the vanes pvd coated. This will reduce the surface tension long enough for centrifugal force to take over. Good first attempt, and don't get overly frustrated. This is how we learn...
Get those vanes polished and Pvd coating is good stuff to help with lubricant. Maybe some 2 stroke oil in the fuel would help as well with the vanes sticking.
Can we all just take a moment to appreciate a couple of things? #1 he designed and made an engine. #2 He made mistakes but fully admitted to it and showed the whole world what he did wrong. #3 its those little details that come back and bite you. So before anyone goes "well that was a dumb mistake/oversight" lets see the engine you designed and built without mistakes...
Hats off for juggling the filming, and editing solo while simultaneously juggling first time prototyping with a potential first start. I don't think anyone's upset that it didn't start, and you might have given the bug for those watching to atleast see more of this... Can't wait for the revised version!
I am a product developer and I allways try to explain: if you do only cad design thats not enough. you should make digital prototypes, up to the last bolt and nut. the problems ending in the 'we will resolve them by fly' category are allways fatal and drop back the projects with days, weeeks or months. However the stuff you have in hand is a good start! Don't give up, I am glad to see that little engine realised! And onshape is realy good, maybe the only free cad softver what is not a pain to use and not limits you to ridiculous numbers of assemblies/projects
At this scale I suspect building dozens of actual prototype are probably better choice over doing something fancy digitally. It is usually more fool proof way too. so I suppose he's on the right track?
I'd like to make the observation man landed on the moon with nothing but pencil and paper drafting. CAD/CAM is important but it seems every monkey with a CAD program thinks he is a design engineer.
“I never lose. I either win or learn” Nelson Mandela. So you just learn a lot in this video. For the spring maybe build some spring in Z shape, with the top of Z touching the rotor, and the bottom touching the vane. Maybe also the use of some lubricant ?
@@p9vg Much less movement to account for in rotaries. Also this vane engine has too much play in the rotor so most of the compression is bypassing on the sides.
My only frame of reference for the magneto coil setup is a lawn mower I worked on as a kid. I remember that the spacing is quite small. A shim was used to set the gap on the mower. 1) I think your prototype has too much gap and variation to generate a spark. 2) check your ground connection. I see there is a second black wire, presumably the ground, but if you haven't already checking the connection between the base of the plug and the coil -ve would be worth doing with a multi-meter. 3) this is easy to spot, but only because you produced the prototype - drive it with an electric motor. Then you can run it at operational speed and see if it's sucking air, producing spark etc. A pull cord is ... for production engines (in retrospect, as we know hindsight has 20/20 vision). I saw others comment about the requirement for more sparks per revolution, but I'm not sure that's so necessary just to prove that it works. I love your videos! you have real talent for explaining things! So take a break and come back with all the little fixes for version 2. I'd love to see it working! -Martin from New Zealand.
Even if you don't get this engine operational, would definitely enjoy seeing this continue as a series where you identify key points of failure and implement solutions for them (e.g. spark firing absent, spark timing, improve vane extension, etc). Seeing the process is part of the fun and education of this episode.
Extremely surprised you thought it'd work on the first attempt. Also surprised of how good an attempt it was. And surprised yet again at how discouraged you seemed.
I think on top of the failure of the engine he's also wrestling with whether this will make a good video. If a youtuber makes a novel type of rocket and the rocket explodes then at least you have the footage of the fireball.
GREAT JOB! I appreciate that you didn't gloss over this "failed attempt" and took all of it and owned up to it. It's not a failure if you learned from it. Your extensive research and presentations always deliver more than enough so even this is well shared knowledge. I always enjoy your content. Keep it coming. 👍
I love this. I don't care that it failed to run, I'd really like to see more attempts after the necessary improvements. Maybe put it aside until a spark of inspiration allows you to solve the issues and continue on with it. 10/10 for effort.
Get some springs in there to push the vanes out. Use a cordless drill to start it. Consider applying something similar to rotary apex seal material to the end of the vanes if possible. Maybe something spray on is available. I believe you can get it with some refinement. Don’t give up!
@@axeman2638. As was pointed out , ALL engines are subject to uneven heating . You saw that part , right ? Basically , all engine designs are flawed in some way . Compromises everywhere . But perseverance has got them working well .
@@johncunningham4820 I have been hearing that the solution to the problems with rotarys is just around the corner since the 80s, still hasn't been fixed. Bit like fusion power, it's always 20 years away, or climate change, always 12 years away.
You raise a good point by using the word heartwarming; his sincerity and humility speak volumes about his character. This rings especially true when you can tell he's disappointed.
Bro give yourself some credit. Yea this is a basic engine but it still takes alot of work to put together and is difficult. Even though I was sceptical mad respect for going ahead with this.
"Man, I’m genuinely blown away by this prototype! Developing a vane rotary engine is no small feat, and you’ve done something remarkable here. It’s this kind of innovation that changes industries! Keep pushing, because your work has the potential to revolutionize the field. Never stop aiming higher - you're on the path to greatness!" I am a mechanic from Nigeria and loved bein onboard
theres no "innovation" here. its just another attempt at flogging a well flogged and extremely DEAD horse. over 150 years of people playing with these, not one actually performs as claimed, on teh rare occasion they can even 'self sustain".
You won't have spark with this setup because there is not path for electricity to go. The coil and housing don't have any continuity, so no current can flow through the sparkplug. Getting the coil bracket and the housing to share continuity with a ground strap or similar would probably help. Disregard the previous statement. There is a wire connecting the two. It's visible at 18:45. Also, the timing with a flywheel/coil setup lile that is determined by where the coil sits relative to where the magnet passes by in crank rotation, which is why cranks and flywheels of course. You'll probably need a custom flywheel or digitally controlled spark and a car coil to get the timing correct. Overall, great first attempt! I'm sure it's been an incredible learning experience, and I'd love to see a follow-up!
Timing can be changed by rotating the flywheel on the axis. Testing the timing with a light or LED in a dry run, probably would help to prevent damage to the motor due to bad timing
@bad001bd , what do you think about slotting the mounting hole on the coil so he can easily adjust the position of the coil relative to the flywheel magnets? Kinda like on a lawnmower where the coil mounts are slotted so you can adjust how far the coil is from the flywheel. I guess the flywheel would have to rotate exactly on its center of rotation for that to work though. Anyway, great suggestion.
The first step to success is failure. It has always been true. I work in development and I fail constantly and subsequently learn constantly. 1. Yes you need some sort of stable ignition system that will give you confidence that the spark is both happening at the right time, strong enough and adjustable. I would suggest a aluminum disk with a hole in where you strategically align a hall effect sensor for your spark trigger. 2. I think your "flywheel" is too large, if you had been successful you know as well as I that it would have made some horrific vibration. You are a smart guy I am sure the rest of this is fully understood. Also, maybe use a battery drill to start it instead of the pull start. Your honesty in the face of momentary failure is admirable. I subscribed because you where willing to be honest. Don't quit!
I think your closer than it feels, Oil up the internals of the chamber it will help seal the veins,carbs suck pipe propane into it, implement electronic ignition so you can dump the flywheels,. your chalage will be sealing the sides of the chamber. I'd be tempted to attach it to a dc motor or drill and run it up to a higher rpm to try and get some dynamic compression. It should make some noise at the least!
First of all, great job on this first attempt. The video was very entertaining and informative as always, and it was great fun seeing you try to have a go at making an engine. I don't really have any feedback that others haven't already mentioned, but I will say that this video perfectly demonstrates how important prototyping is for any project. This attempt was what usually would be a first prototype, of many, in any project. Most people, especially non-engineers, don't understand how easy it is to forget a tiny detail even if you know all of your theory. These first attempts, and further prototyping later on, help so much to bring attention to those, because there is only so much information that you can get from a CAD model or simulations. Don't get discouraged though, I find that figuring out all these issues and coming up with solutions is often the most fun and satisfying part of being an engineer. Also can I just say that "ecosystem of potential problems" sounds like the greatest name for a biography of an engineer. If I ever achieve anything of significance and someone decides to write one of me, that absolutely has to be the title 😂. Keep up the good work!
I am a engenineering student watching from Argentina, and I really love these videos. Dont give up on this engine prototype, it was a very good first attempt and i am sure that you are going to get the thing running. Keep at it!!!
For a more reliable spark plug you could hook it up to a battery with a relay, and use a magnet and hall sensor to trigger it. This would reduce atleast 1 variable you need to keep track of at any point of time.
A thin disc (aluminum or plastic) with six holes, an opto-interrupter (light beam sensor), and a power transistor will give him micro-second timing accuracy. Much more accurate, reliable, and cheaper than hall-effect and a relay.
lol, such nonsense, you do not seem to understand how an ignition works nor what the specs of a relay are and how this is totally unsuitable and not even remotely doable.
I paused the video now just before the start attempt. Just let me say how impressed I am that you went ahead and did this! Regardless of what's going to happen now.
"People find it very easy to criticize those who start running, while they themselves, sit on the couch." This is amazing and I wish you luck, First attempt success is a fairy tale, and I would not be discouraged.
27:44 It's almost like it takes a whole team of engineers several years to come to a new engine design that works. Don't get discouraged, you're on your own designing a novel engine. The first issue is that gap will in no way produce a spark, the typical distance is set by putting a business card between the coil and the flywheel and in fact coils are sold with a card for distance alignment
And now manufacturers change models every 3-4 years max. It takes 5-10 years just to prove reliability. They just gamble on the end user just enough to fund the next gamble. My cars 44 years old. My engine is 26 yo. My transmission is 33 yo. All proven machines.
I’ve been a professional mechanic for almost 50 years and I’m also an Aeronautical Engineer and a Physicist. It took me a nanosecond to realize that screaming at the tv wasn’t going to help anyone or anything!! I saw your mistakes as soon as you made them. I designed an engine exactly like yours back in the 70’s! If you’re interested in some helpful suggestions and advice, just let me know! Love the channel!! Keep up the great content!!!
Your Q&A with comment section was really interesting. And I like this format of you showing your whole experimental process. Most creators would wait until they have a working version and produce the video in such a way that they thought of everything already, but yours feels more close to home - what I'd expect if I tried something like this myself.
You deserve applause for even trying! I really want to see this engine run so I hope you keep working on it (you've come so far already). YOU CAN DO IT.
Amazing work. This is absolutely not a failure. You have succeeded in attempting the project. You haven already gone much further than 99.99% of other people. Secondly, anyone or any company who ever designed an engine, ever! Never got it right first time. I think the biggest hurdle by far is the main body of the engine. Sealing will be the biggest issue. The rest of it is easy by comparison. This is especially true in a small workshop environment. Work on the surface of the casing, machining and honing. But most of all work on the ends. The thickness of the gasket will effect the seal around the ends of the veins and the rotor. The rest is easy! Bin pull cord. Just a drill, you can spinning it much faster and for much long periods of time. Ditch the whole spark system, use a trigger wheel a cheap spark only ECU. This way you can slow a bit of film down to tweet the spark timing. I would start with sparking when the veins are not over the spark plug port. This can definaltly work. Perhaps easier thing to get a running engine and a good point to start from is modify a power steering pump or whatever so that all the tricky metalogy and clearance engineering work is done. Work on a clear side later. This is defainly doable. Don't worry in you spend the next 5 years chasing this goal, it's good for mental health to have a project. Especially one that taxes your brain. (Obviously not at the cost of relationships hahaha) Take your time, enjoy the project, keep it up, this is awesome!!!!
Great first attempt! I worked on a vane engine many moons ago. I found that as I got closer to getting compression the vanes would lock up grinding things to a halt. Centripetal force is not enough to overcome the friction that is created by the compression you will need to run the engine. You need a mechanical device such as pins running on a cam to keep the vanes in constant contact with the housing. My last attempt was to create a housing for 4 vanes that was mathematically correct distance for one vain to move in by x amount and push the other vane at 90 degrees out by the same x amount. Since this was a small model I used a fluid in a passage between the two vanes to create the push. This did a better job keeping the vanes against the housing but still not good enough to sustain compression to keep the engine running. Still the poping here and there was exciting! I recommend using a glow plug for small test engines as it eliminates a lot of fuss. Cheers! P.S. You will also need to keep your side clearance very tight:)
I like your Idea for the fluid pressure on the vanes. I think it would fail due to seepage of the fluid, but that might be advantageous if the fluid was the fuel. Unburned fuel will either be exhausted or just go around and burned in the next cycle. So all you really need is a fuel pump running all the time, and control the air intake. Very similar to the all metal 3d printed turbine that uses fluidic bearings that they pressurize with the fuel and keep the turbine shaft centered.
I really like that you made an attempt at making something. You are a creative person who is very generous with sharing ideas and knowledge. Don’t be discouraged. Your videos inspire me and I’m sure, many others. You have had a huge impact on my understanding of how things work. Your two stroke tuned exhaust pipe explanation was the most effective explanation I’ve heard yet and I have been trying to understand it for years now. Your graphics are first rate too. All the best to you!
Ok, probably been mentioned before, you only have one ignition event per revolution with the set up you have now, but you have six inlet and compression events per revolution. You need to put five more magnets on your flywheel, this will also mean that you will need to have some means of adjusting the advance as it increases in revs. Electronic ignition Next thing is you need to add lubrication to you fuel, your vanes are going to wear at the apex, this will also help with sealing.
I don't think multiple magnets are the way to go. No, you're going to have to do this the hard way: Electronics. One magnet (or optical sensor) to detect shaft position, sent to an arduino, which can do mathy stuff to multiply the frequency by six while maintaining the phase lock. This will let you apply your sparks with much greater position and less mechanical fiddlyness, at the expense of having to write code for the ECU.
don't quit! Comment about magnet gap is right on. Shaft alignment is critical but can be handled with a lathe bored/bushed part and pillow blocks for alignment. Springs behind the vanes will over come the fluid tension. And then you will find other issues to deal with, but thats the fun part! (for us anyway😊)
So refreshing to watch a video that doesn't end in miraculous success! We learn more from failure than success and I feel more invested in this project and your channel than I would have if it had worked. I'll certainly watch it if you try again. I almost hope you fail again because it feels a lot less contrived. It's good, for me, to see you struggling and getting frustrated and exhausted with it. Thank you for publishing this. It must've been tempting not to. More of this!
Dude, you've got some serious balls for putting this out there, and I have to offer you my full support for it. The vast majority of people would never have admitted that they didn't account for one thing, let alone several. The majority of people wouldn't have swallowed their pride and posted a video of a failure. They wouldn't have spoken about hand-threading a shaft because you forgot to include that in your CAD model. Instead, you put out your idea, how hard it was, that you didn't consider a lot of things, humbly admitted your mistakes and tried it anyway to show all of use the level of effort it takes to come up with something new. Engineering is NOT easy. There are BAD days. There are HARD days. There are days we come home from work and wonder "Why bother?" In a world in which we are all used to having an answer RIGHT NOW, you have showed the internet what it really takes to solve problems and come up with viable solutions, and you wear your heart on your sleeve doing it. We care so much to make things happen, and that is so hard. I absolutely love how you capture this spirit in your videos. I absolutely love your channel, it's rich knowledge and the fact that you make it personal, too. I sincerely hope you get to see the day when your rotary engine fires, but even if it doesn't, I'll keep watching because you are a man who isn't afraid to show the world how much time, effort, energy, patience and passion is required to make this stuff happen.
I'm sure others have said this but other then the wobbly flywheel you pointed out, your ignition system is going to be your biggest issue. That looks like an ignition system for a 1 cylinder engine. I realize you were just looking for anything at all, but still if you could increase your chances by having more spark anything would help. You have 6 vanes that would need 6 spark events per rotation, so you need some sort of ignition system that will allow for that. The EASIEST thing I can think of is literally using a distributor from an old V6 engine. Use an ignition coil for that same engine, hook the coil to the battery for power and to the distributor to trigger the spark. Now take the spark out of the top of the coil and send it directly to the spark plug skipping the distributor entirely. This will give you a spark event every 60 degrees which is exactly what you need. Basically the only thing you would be using the distributor for is a trigger wheel (and you could rotate it one way or another to adjust for timing which would be helpful) but other then that the coil would be doing all the work. That would get you WAY closer for very little effort or money. The only thing you would have to figure out is how to attach the distributor to your flywheel system.
I love that you built this prototype which has given you some brilliant ideas for an improved model. No one has ever built an engine like this first time. DONT GIVE UP, we want to see it work!
This was one of your best videos, not to say they all are not great. The gift of inquisiness has been given to you. We viewers have the gift of enjoying it! Thanks!
That’s really cool. I used to design lubrication systems for very large rotary vane compressors. FYI, they need a large amount of oil as compared to traditional piston compressors. I would expect the same of engines.
yeah, i like this guys videos, and he is clearly anything buy stupid. i sometimes dont like his attitude though. i dont think any of the comments were out to get him, but he seemed mighy pissed off about them and talking down to people. i am sure htose people that commented had watched the video first or they would have known enough to make said comments. people voicing what they consider valid criticisms is how things progress. sure, on youtube you will get mostly backyard mechanics who dont know much commenting. but there is no need to call them out like that and treat them like idiots. like i said though, i like this guys videos. maybe he could just be a bit more polite is all. i was not one of the people that commented, but some of those comments voiced concerns that seemed valid to me. im glad he pointed out reasons why they are not of real concern. edit: i finished watching this video. he was very humble at the end. maybe i misunderstood his earlier remarks as insults when it was meant as dry humour? i dont know.
@@socks2441Lol, did you seriously just start commenting before finishing watching the video, saying he was rude for saying "I guess watching the entire video before commenting is too much to ask".....🎉
Thank you for putting this out even when you weren't able to actually cycle the engine. This is a good illustration of why so many engines don't evolve beyond "paper engines". My specialty is actually electrical engineering, but no amount of theory prepares you for the moment your plug in your circuit that you've proven on paper and the LED doesn't light up. It's very easy to theory your way into a solution, but things like this are way more complicated than most people give them credit for, and these problems are where much of the true advancement in engineering comes from. Other than suggesting that capillary action from the fuel might be causing some of the fin sticking, I can't offer any real substantive solutions. As I said, I'm EE, not ME. Even so, thanks for putting this out, and I'm looking forward to a follow-up on this project.
Excellent first attempt! You are nearly there I feel. With a reliably working ignition system and non-sticking vanes you must be very close to having it running. Well done and I love your presentation and banter. Cheers.
I really appreciate your attempt in building an own engine! I know from own experience how frustrating some projects can be. Just keep on working when you feel to 👍. What comes to my mind as a small and quick enhancement. You could use molykote (molybdenium grease) to grease the vanes. This should prevent them from getting stuck and allow for a short time operation of the engine.
I know your self-doubts and frustration from many years of failing with initial prototypes. From some, I learned how to successfully complete them. From others I came to appreciate parts of the problem I had overlooked, and sometimes decided not to continue. This project shows your strong character, and just the right combination of humility and hubris needed to be successful. Continue with this, or don't. You ate succeeding already.
I am 100% confident you will get this right. You are the most insightful automotive youtuber on the platform and you have more common sense than anyone I've ever met in real life. Can't wait to see your next attempt. I'd look into the timing setup. Maybe you just didn't mention it, but you'll have to account for the 6 vanes to get it firing on each one. Hall effect sensors might be a relatively simple way, could offer slightly more control and feedback than a mechanical distributor type setup.
I see two things with your magneto setup that need some work. 1: you need the distance between the magneto coil and flywheel to be super small and consistent, otherwise the magnets in the flywheel will not give enough of a field change for the coil to make spark happen. 2: you have 6 vanes, giving 6 combustion chambers combusting every 360 degrees. Your flywheel only has one magnet system per 360 degrees, so you need 5 more.
I would try not have any mechanical timing/ignition parts in the setup but simply use electronic control. That allows to still tweak a few things before it's locked down in metal parts.
The funny thing is that if you go back to something like the turn of the century, and particularly of the years around WWI and up to the early 1930's, looking in patents you'll find oddball engines that look very much like the one here. They were trying a lot of stuff to get more power in a small package, because of how aviation was then. I guess there were limitations in materials and machining, that would explain why more conventional piston engines still won out until the jet age where gas turbines took over a lot of roles due to the simplicity and (relative) efficiency of how they worked. But yeah, I find it amusing that some experiments like this have been done before. It's just they weren't publicly documented in a way like they are now. The vane thing may still have some neat applications though. Particularly where you want positive displacement boost on very small displacement engines. Also Judson was a thing somewhere between the 1950's and 1970's, but I guess it wasn't as reliable as other designs which explains why that's not around now. However it seems simple enough to scale downwards easier than other options. So it's likely worth revisiting for some niche hobby things. BTW I'm just a bit of an internet nerd on stuff like this, so don't take my word completely - do your own homework on the stuff and see what lines up. Just that there is prior art that lines up along with stuff like this.
Something that may help outside of what you've already mentioned is to add an equal diplacement blower running at the same speed, probably gear to the output shaft. Similar to a detroit diesel 2 stroke, it should help fill the cylinder and evacuate the exhaust rather than relying entirely on what the open throttle body can pull. With this engine design, you could basically just use the same thing with a different port layout.
Running or not, that is a great engineering job. I've listened to your vast knowledge on many types of engines, and I'm confident you will figure it out and make it work. I have learned a lot from your channel, so thank you. I look forward to when you have it running!
I love what you did here. As a Stihl and other small engines equipment service tech, here's my two cents: 1) Your carburetor is on the wrong way, you see the little hole it has? That goes facing the inside of the engine since the venturi passage is already designed to draw fuel with air moving the right way. And with this comes the following point 2) The small hole the carburetor has on the face that should be facing the engine (and in yours is pointing outwards) is an *impulse line* and needs a pressure and vaccuum pulse for the carburetor to pump fuel and fill the carb to feed the fuel that will be sucked later by the main jet. Remember it's a diaphragm carburetor, not a regular float bowl carb. It's easier to make it work then. BUT you will need to capture both pressure AND vaccum pulse from somewhere in the crank case, in the same conduit, and feed it to the little hole in the carb's face. My guess is you wont need 6 pulses as long as it actually has some fuel in it and carb doesnt run dry. But maybe you will need 6 pair of pulses if the engine uses more fuel. Investigate about diaphragm carbs functioning with Walbro and Zama carburetoe instruction videos. 3) As many have said, you need one spark for every time fuel is compressed ready to be ignited. So you either get 6 cheap chinese brush cutter ignition modules to be exited by that single magnet in the flywheel, or you make your own flywheel with 6 magnets. Keep in mind you need U shaped magnets so it can excite the ignition module with the North and South part. 4) Check the rotation of the flywheel so you can benefit from aditional cooling in the future using a cover that directs air into the engine itself. Ignition will create spark with the flywheel spinning on each direction tho, but since someone already designed that part with a rotating direction, you should keep it qorking that way for any reason we may not know in their r&d. 5) You will need the vanes to seal on low rpm to create vacuum/pressure to draw air inside the engine, thus carrying fuel inside or it will never start by itself. Remember almost every engine is a pump. So I would recommend using springs like you showed in previous videos and not rely solely on centrifugal force, since at low speeds (hand cranking speeds) engine does not compress. 6) Speaking of pumps, manual crank oil pumps for 200Liter oil barrels use vanes as this to create the pumping action and those ALWAYS need priming with some oil to vanes actually seal and start pumping. When you dont use these pumps for a few days, oils drains down and they don't pump when they have air inside and wont seal. So try priming the engine with some mix first. I guess you could use 2 stroke mix for it like a chainsaw (2 stroke oil will help vanes seal better), or just nitromethane or whatever is used on small 2 stroke RC trucks like Traxxas and such. Edit: 7) At 18:46 is your ignition module grounded? In general ignition modules have a kill switch terminal, if you ground it, you are killing spark and it wont work! That goes grounded, yes, BUT with an on/off swith in the middle. If you open the circuit, eñectricity goes to the spark. If you close the circuit, you are grounding that cable and not generating spark. You can run with no cable at all, but you will need to stop the engine in a different way. You can choke the carb it with your hand and it will shut off if you dont want a kill switch.
I would machine a cone on the tip of the shaft with a key slot and a thread just like the one string trimmers have. Copy the string trimmer shaft end of the ignition side. And make a hard support for the ignition module so it has a consistent gap. A paper card is enough gap. You know, like companies cards. Sorry for my bad english, I'm from Argentina.
5..."almost every engine is a pump". no. EVERY engine IS a pump. and whilst the ALL work great at being a PUMP, a COMPRESSOR, using rotational motion to create PRESSURE... they all work terribly in reverse, as EXPANDERS, taking pressure and creating rotational motion. no matter what he does, all this thing will ever do is produce a few pops, make some smelly exhaust gas... if , and its an extremely doubtful IF, if it ever manages to run or self sustain, it wont produce any actual power output.
dude, this is great, ever since reading a little blurb in an engineering book in the 60's about the Mallory engine I've been fascinated about vane engines. Designed one up that carriers the centrifugal loads of the main vane seal carriers, if that makes sense. The chamber loads are carried by these steel vanes, but the centrifugal loads are not imparted to the main bore, only simple seals like a Mazda engine. Those main steel vanes that see the combustion loads have their own seals in the central rotor for lubrication. Congratulations, You are doing 99.9999% more than all the commentators.
Ask yourself....do you think those that came before "got it right" on the first try? That's an easy answer. 99.9 did not. They did what Space X does iterative design and development. Had they not....we would not have the answers and solutions that we have today. Eventually though they got it right .... because the real success is never giving up.
@johnnyringo35 SpaceX is a garbo company. They exist solely on government subsidies and they haven't created a solitary useful innovation. They can't even bring a man to the moon with 20 enormous rockets, when it was done 55 years ago with 1😂
Don't give up! I've been trying to finish building this steam turbine that I designed. It's been three years.. I will finish it and you will get a running engine. Your videos are great, and I always look forward to them.
I see the air gap between coil and magnet are little bit far from eachother. Try getting it closer to improve the spark. Or else try using gy6 dc cdi for a better spark.
I really feel that moment, and had very many over the last 8 years, when you're 5 hours on troubleshooting, and at 23:30 on a worknight, you want to toss everything in a corner. Mostly I told myself "Forget that, I'll need a 2 week break from this now!", just to restart at the very next evening. Besides the ignition problem, it might help to get a bit of lubricant in it with the fuel, like a 2-Stroke. It should help the sealing of the fins. Also, I recommend to at least polish the inside of the chamber, which further reduces sealing loss, and friction of the vale tips. I'm really excited to see it run one day, you got this!
Please don't give up, make it work. I am also makeing wired engine for 1 year, its plastic engine, and i understand what when i make it will have terrible fuel efficiency, but i learn so much in the process
I come from the Spanish channel, I just wanted to say that I love the project and the way you made the video... there are things that need to be fixed/solved but it is something that I would love to see working. Cheer up! and much success!
Hi, my friend! I understand you very well! :-) I'm an inventor with several successful patents, and I've now founded a company based on some of them. So, I know how much effort and struggle it takes to make an invention successful. Your project touched my heart because 30 years ago, I was working in a factory producing parts for airplanes. The first thing that caught my attention was a vane pump they manufactured. I immediately saw the potential of its principles for a powerful and efficient engine, and I fell in love with the idea, just like you did. I spent many nights thinking about how to handle centrifugal force, sealing, etc., which led me to learn a lot about physics. I'm still convinced this is a promising approach, and this engine could be very effective, but there are indeed many issues to solve. I’m sorry, but I don't think it will work with these tolerances and this kind of sealing (just remember what you already know about piston sealing in a regular internal combustion engine!). But don't be discouraged, and don’t blame yourself for any setbacks! This is a very typical path for every inventor. You may still figure out how to make this invention successful. Who knows? I wish you all the best! ;-)
Ignition system: Switch to an electrical-optical trigger design. By switching to this, you could have JLC cut an adjustable timing plate. Bonus is it is easier to confirm function. You do need to tighten up all of your tolerances and get a better seal for this to light off and maintain combustion (my opinion). For starting, look at Mustie1 - he uses a drill with a ratchet adapter to spin the engines. That would give you far more RPM for the initial start attempts, increasing your chance of success. But overall, well done. You've earned my sub.
For many years, I was involved with Heavy Duty "Rotary Sliding Vane" Air Compressors, which have the same basic technology as your design. I suggest you check out the 'Blade" design. Coated blades don't last and once the coating is through, the blade will shave itself to death on edges of the slot. So we used blades of Meehanite, which is a Nodular Cast iron and is somewhat malleable. Meehanite has excellent sliding properties, due to the graphite nodules and a suitable "oil injection". The blades were also hollow, to save weight and wear. The back of the blade was straight, not curved, and they were described as "lifelong". For your development program, I suggest that you might investigate purchasing a set these and build your test units around them. Still in production and available. Our machines would very often run 24/7. Our speed was only around 1725 RPM and this produced enough centrifugal force, to make springs etc.unnecessary. Good luck with this project. its tough, but you might be on to something!!!
Hey, embedded electronics engineer here and also tinker on all the other domains :) I'd suggest some sort of digital ignition. You can design yourself an optical encoder and 3d print it. Leave a bigger notch so you have a reference of the position of the crank. You can then use one of those U shaped optical transmitter-receiver such that the slots of the encoder will let the light to pass. You can then get a microcontroller such as arduino to do some calculations and know the exact position of the shaft. With the arduino, you can then control a mosfet which then powers a car ignition coil. Sure, there might be some electronics and coding involved, but you have a clear and very flexible setup for ignition and ignition timing. Then, it's the issue of sealing it. Centrifugal force will push the vanes outwards which will ensure the compression at high speeds. Thus, I assume you would need a higher start rpm. Then, it's about the seal in the sides of the engine. Unless you have some sort of seal (see wankel engines), the single thing you can do is to minimize the clearance and then fill the gaps with a viscous liquid. Adding oil to the mixture might be the way to go.
Don't give up! Please consider electronic Ignition - timing and spark, and/or you need to trigger it with 6 physical contact (or light/lazer reflection) points for every 1 rotation (i.e. every 60 degrees). Much easier to do with Arduino or similar. Integza can help. Also, def need gasket for cover. Best of luck. Very exciting! 👍
Don't be too hard on yourself, man; you learned a lot from that attempt!! From here I'd suggest working on the three main subsystems (spark, fuel/air, gas pump) separately. Can you spin the magneto and get a reliable spark? Does the carb even work with alcohol out-of-the-box? If you spin the rotor does it draw a vacuum on the intake at all? Then once you've optimized those separately put them all back together for another start attempt. Carry on!
Amazing to watch rapid prototyping engineering in more-or-less real time. Well done for keeping your sense of humour. As a non-engineer I found this impressive, even if it hasn't yet delivered. This is *surely* worth a few more iterations?
I enjoyed this quite a lot. When I watched the first video I thought it was a waste of time and brain power, but then after hearing the reasons behind its theoretical efficiency, I became curious. After seeing your attempt I would like to say it was very inspiring and I hope you try it again. I don’t have any experience in machining engines and I’m enjoying all of this information and learning. Thank you for explaining things so well!
Hi! I love your videos. I would like to add something about the intake. You have put the carburetor upside down and also that type of carburetor has its own fuel pump that works with the compression and depression of the Carter in a 2-stroke engine. Not only is the pump not working but also the Venturi effect does not occur because the carburettor is upside down. That is my humble contribution since I am dedicated to fixing 2-stroke chainsaw engines and other things. Stay strong and don't give up!!! We will be here to see you succeed!!
Aw, don't bash yourself on this one! This is still immensely impressive - you got a prototype that COULD theoretically work! By the looks of it, you have vacuum, but I have no idea whether there's compression or not. You could probably try running a compression test on it, but the numbers it gives would tell you whether it can run or not. Oh, and another bit of advice - try adding 2-stroke oil to the fuel! Sure, it'll bring up the emissions, but it should stop the vanes from wearing down as fast, as well as potentially strengthening the seal between the vanes. Overall, a great attempt - and a potentially working model, at that! I feel like this model could very well run.
I just want to say thank you everyone for the kind words and the encouragement. I appreciate it immensely.
Onshape: Onshape.pro/d4a
JLC3DP: jlc3dp.com/?from=driving4answers
Support the channel by shopping through this link: amzn.to/3RIqU0u
Patreon: www.patreon.com/d4a
Become a member: ruclips.net/channel/UCwosUnVH6AINmxtqkNJ3Fbgjoin
Grit: ruclips.net/channel/UCt3YSIPcvJsYbwGCDLNiIKA
Link to the patent: patentcenter.uspto.gov/applications/18585308/ifw/docs?application=
Keep going !
I think the gap to the coil & magneto is the issue, it isn't bad itself :)
@@Eduardo_Espinoza 100% as soon as I saw the wobble in the flywheel, it was done. I think he knew that though and had to put the video out. If he could find a way to stabilize all of that, the spark off the lawn mower engine would be fine. Bussiness card width is a great point of refrence for the magneto / coil gap. As far as the vanes not flying out, hydraulics come to mind, but not in any simple form aside from haveing all the vanes connected underneath for shared displacement.
I've been wondering since the first video how the engine was supposed to seal at the front/back (where the acrylic plate is on your prototype). Are there any potential solutions you know of for that? That's one of the biggest flaws I see with rotary vane engines.
@@d4a listen to all of us, we’re really smart… well, maybe some of us. Don’t give up on it. I really wanna see it run.
This was a great attempt ! And yes its easy to underestimate how hard it is to seal an engine like this!
Can you make this?
@@Worker225maybe 4 vane pneumatic like his wankel
trasparent resin printed housing?
Integza please refine this I had high hope
Integza/D4A collab would be awesome
Future attempt note: your ignition system has a few issues. First, your gap between the magnets on the flywheel and the magneto is WAY too big. Spec is typically .010” for something like a lawnmower magneto setup. Second, you have a six vein rotor and a flywheel with two magnet sets. You need a flywheel with six magnet sets or you will only get ignition every third vein chamber. Third, you will need to time the flywheel and magnets for proper spark timing. Fantastic first attempt though. More please!
Interesting
Yeah he would be better using a digital ignition system triggered by a magnetic pickup and 6 magnets embedded into the flywheel, that way he can set the ignition timing and set it at different RPM
I loved this video! As I'm building a similar engine. The vanes are partially not moving in and out due to vacuum. Maybe drill a vent hole passage to connect the vanes. Keep trying. I love it.
I agree about the gap. I usually use a playing card or even a business card to set the gap on my mower. Just put the card in the right spot and move the pickup coil against the card.
Im kinda surprised he didn’t consider this? The gap between flywheel magnets and coil are definitely an issue, hopefully the pit bike coil and those particular magnets on the flywheel jive together ok - not sure if they were from the same engine? Also, just turning the flywheel by hand wasn’t going to be enough to create spark - probably better to attach a cordless drill or something to truly test, not sure how those veins were ever going to seal anything either? Just with centrifugal force pushing them outwards? The veins sealing at all is questionable, plus this would create a major issue for startup… those veins need to be completely unquestionably sealed for that carburetor to function whatsoever, and obstructing to keep that exhaust port sealed and get any kind of pressure/power. Building your own engine of this type is one of those things you find out quick that you can’t half-ass anything, it’s all the way or nothing. Ive seen some vids of guys converting fridge compressors into 4 stroke engines which was pretty impressive in itself, but this isn’t that! He’s creating this from the ground up and it’s an inherently difficult engine design, thus why they aren’t mainstream. Those veins are definitely the main issue. Id start considering how exactly to get a spring under them and how to keep it all retained together. Maybe a folded spring-steel that nests into the rotor somehow to keep it in place.
Please don't take this as negative feedback, the points I'm bringing up are meant to be helpful in directing you toward a working engine. I love ambitious projects; they teach you the most. You're doing great.
25:30 - You have no compression; your clearance between rotor and cover plate is totally wrong so you're getting no compression. You can see this when your rotor sides (thrust load) in/out of your bearing. Vanes are bypassing around the side (front/back). Can probably machine or lap down the front of the block to bring the clearance to where it needs to be. Just be sure the depth is consistent right/left/top/bottom. And account for your gasket thickness in the depth. Without the gasket, the rotor and vanes should bind on the acrylic cover.
Thinking about your flywheel issue, my best solution if you want to keep it in the system is that the flywheel needs to be machined for a press fit shaft/collet on a lathe to get fully centered. Entirely possible the engine will run without the mass. Think model airplane engines; they have very little rotating mass and rotate at VERY high RPM. The less mass you have, the better in this case. Especially if you don't want rapid disassembly of your project. If you don't have anyone with the right tools to machine this, let me know and I can throw this on my lathe for proper tolerancing. (both the flywheel and the block can likely be machined with an accurate lathe, or the block could also be surface-ground if you want to be super fancy)
Regarding the pit bike magneto setup - only one magnet, meaning only one of the 6 chambers will actually fire. Probably gonna need a custom magnet-mounted flywheel to get it running on all chambers. Maybe you can source a 6-pole magnetic stator out of a 3-phase inrunner motor? Most I know of are 2 or 4 pole, but there may be 6-pole motors available cheaply? ....checking... Yep, definitely an option, though the motors are upwards of $100 for anything big enough to possibly generate the power you might need. Alternatively: go for a speeduino setup, and do electronic ignition with a rotor position sensor. speeduino.com/ (it supports "rotary" modes, unsure if it can do 6-vane by default, but should at least do 3 vane, as RX7/RX8 configurations already exist) Probably the best option for proper timing. I guess if the carburetor is totally mismatched you could also try full EFI, but that seems like total overkill, and speeduino can run in ignition-only mode with a carb just fine.
As a first try you're about 80% of the way from the get-go; most of your design was clean and appropriate; some attention to the remaining details and maybe 1-2 weeks of work learning speeduino, and a day in a machine shop should get you a running engine.
Last thing that might be worth your time is - surface finish of the internal bore in the block isn't perfect. Might not matter in the end, as the vanes will polish that up the more it runs; they will also wear, but softer materials tend to pick up and embed abrasive particles, which then in turn lap the harder of the two surfaces in a sliding interface. I can't think of a good way to polish up the chamber without purpose-made lapping vanes, possibly some lapping compound, and probably sacrificing your existing rotor to do so. Never mind, I changed my mind, chamber is fine as-is and just needs to be run-in.
" You have no compression; your clearance between rotor and cover plate is totally wrong so you're getting no compression."
2-stroke gasoline engines don't have much of a compression stroke, yet they run just fine. Less compression just means output less torque, and no minimum octane requirement.
@akulkis while true, I suspect there's simply not enough sealing going on to compress the air/fuel mixture to extract torque for keeping the rotor spinning
@@EitanTsur lol... what part of this actually "extracts torque"?
the vanes. pressure acts on the housing, the rotor, the end plates, and the vanes, equally in all directions.
torque is rotational force. a pressure acting on a surface to produce a force that can then act at a radius.
the only part of the vane that "extracts torque", or converts pressure into rotational effort, is the DIFFERENCE in AREA of two vanes forming any section. the pressure acting on the leading vane is cancelled by the pressure acting on the opposing vane... all that remains is the DIFFERENCE.
which is fractional, compared to the massive surface area of the chamber itself.
and dont forget that each chamber separated by a vane also has opposing pressures or farces acting in both directions on any vane itself.
a piston in a cylinder? the force acts on the head, the walls, and the piston, that then acts on a crankpin via a con rod, and that force invariably an act tangentially on the crank itself.
there have been no successful "rotary vane motors". despite the countless thousands of attempts over the last 150 odd years. some of them make popping noises, some can actually "run" to some vague degree... but NONE work as hoped for. NONE are "revolutionary" or set to "take the world over and change our way of thinking"...
because all these "intrepid inventors" with stars in their eyes fail to see the basic fundamental flaw staring them in the face.
@@paradiselost9946 I could be misunderstanding your point. It seems you believe a rotary vane motor can't operate because the area of a vane creating a combustion cavity is equal to a vane creating a compression cavity. Because there is no difference in area, you posit no net force difference exists and so torque.
This seems to neglect that the pressure in the combustion cavity is greater than in a compression cavity, due to rise in temperature from fuel combustion.
@@joeblogs6598 engines do not run on wishful thinking. they run on pressure, acting on an area, to create force. that force then has to act on a crank of some type, to produce torque or turning effort. PLAN. length of stroke, area of piston. number of strokes.
as i said, any two vanes forming a section, have pressure acting equally upon them, producing the same force that cancels out and produces no torque. as one protrudes fractionally more than the other, there is a slight imbalance of force, only due to pressure acting on that area. those vanes can only extend and retract a certain distance per revolution. therefore the force created to produce torque is marginal. it may be at a radius, a tangential force, but its tiny.
most of the pressure simply acts on the rotor, the outer casing, and the two end plates, with only a tiny percentage acting on a vane to produce "torque".
this torque can only be applied for 90 degrees of revolution.
the hot gas applying the pressure is rapidly cooling due to radiation and conduction.
now, in all engines... the expansion ratio is the inverse of the compression ratio. has to be, right?
some basic geometry...
by half stroke, the chamber has reduced in volume by half. 2:1.
at 1/4 stroke from tdc, its 4:1. and so forth... if there were no clearance, pressure would become infinite.
think of how the air COMPRESSES in a cylinder... half volume, double the pressure... halve it again, double the pressure... how far does the piston have to move each time to halve the volume? what sort of clearance volume can you get? basic geometry...
its hard to get more than 20:1. a 5% clearance volume. aka combustion chamber.
thats assuming an "ideal" 180 degrees of stroke, and a sinusoidal/harmonic crank.
this engine here, its a "perfect stroke" of 90 degrees, straight away. the expansion ratio to degrees of rotation being limited by the degree of eccentricity. same as compression...
it means that upon expansion, that volume of gas very quickly doubles in volume, and halves in pressure... within a fraction of the revolution. yet the only reason besides compression that it can produce work is that its hot. combustion. and its radiating heat away...
you want me to keep going?
so we use vane motors in air tools.
they are long... maximise the area they have to work on.
they are "full admission"... they apply air from the tank through their entire "stroke" or revolution. not a hot, EXPANDING gas... thats rapidly cooling down... so they chew on air... not many average compressors can keep up with a die grinder running constantly. leakage doesnt matter... modern air tools are far from efficient.
they have only one "eccentricity". they arent trying to squeeze a four stroke cycle in there.
they spin both ways... air drills, rattle guns... just feed the air through on the other side of "TDC"... its just a simple valve...
they act more like a turbine, with the velocity of the air flowing through them forcing them around.
though "balanced vane pumps" exist, that do do the elliptical housing... theyve been well studied and work marvelously as PUMPS. as COMPRESSORS. it takes very little force to produce high pressures... no-one has made a successful rotary vane "engine". theyre all flops, that may make some popping noises... none RUN and make POWER.
they didnt work on steam, either, for the same reasons... theres very little torque produced, or power, for a lot of steam used.
a piston at least... at full compression, the piston area is half the area that the pressure has to act upon. to lose heat to. the rest acts on the head, transferring to the case itself. some acts outward on the cylinder walls. its all absorbing heat... its why opposed pistons are a good idea. all the surface area is piston and produces force.
except...
an engine is an expander. its job is to expand hot air to produce work. but we use compressors, expecting them to act in reverse...this is the fundamental flaw of all engines. all the mechanisms we use to produce rotation we also use as presses.
for an engine to run... we take in a fixed volume of air, compress it to a certain pressure, then heat it up rapidly through combustion, whereupon it then rises in pressure, and we then use that hot gas to produce more force than it took to compress, that in a piston engine, gets to expand so far before reducing in pressure to the point we can get no more work and have to dump it.
but at TDC, when we have maximum combustion pressures... massive forces... it all acts radially. crank has to rotate 20, 30 degrees before that force can get in behind the crankpin and PUSH it around... or "produce torque". and by then the gas is already losing heat, as soon as the pistons descended even a fraction, the pressure has halved..
diesels have that advantage of still injecting fuel, still maintaining a burn, still adding heat. they compress air to a certain pressure then maintain that pressure through the power stroke. get to push on that crankpin like you can push the cranks on your bicycle. spark ignition doesnt do that...
they where once classed as "constant pressure cycle" because of it. go back to akroyd and others...
a turbine engine has the advantage of the pressure of combustion producing a tangential force on the shaft... its always acting on the rim, at right angles. there just isnt much force. its all about air mass and velocity rather than pressure rise as such... you only need pressure to get the flow. accelerate the flow. by adding heat.
TLDR...
probably get shadowbanned as well...
As part of an engineering team of a medium sized company, even our first prototypes usually end up being paper weights. As long as you learned something, the prototype served its purpose. Dont give up!
success is impossible without failure
I always get this with my camera prototypes. Even with all the calculations and measurements two holes wont line up and itll need an entire rebuild. Its the process thats important, not the first prototype working which never happens.
Agreed, altough i hope you guys dont design jet engines being out of balance by more than 50% of its entire rotational mass...
Thank you! That’s exactly what I thought. Not a bad first attempt at all. Ok maybe drilling off centre wasn’t great but everything else . . . 👌and hey, they’re called prototypes for a reason aren’t they?
You said exactly what I was thinking!
I'm 61 years old and back in the 8th grade this was a project of our shop class. We used the internals of a 1 inch impact gun. Much larger than the ones that you are using. What we found is that in order to keep the vanes from sticking it was to increase the vane slots by 0.0015 thousands and use a 50:1 fuel / oil mixture to allow for vane lubrication of the vanes. It did solve our problem but the vanes were short lived due to their material. I think if we had the ability to have vanes made out of a harder material such as you did we would have greater success. I really enjoy your videos!
did you get it to run at a constant rpm for some period of time?
@@sahilmeena8018 Yes, the ran until the vanes failed.
@@LionelHumphreys How long did the vanes last? And what was the rotary speed?
Lot easier to thin the vanes.
That's impressive on it's own but for an 8th grade project?! I wish we still had schools with such level of hands-on teaching.
Do you remember the RPM range it ran at or if it had useful power?
Increasing the vane slot is such a silly simple idea it becomes almost genius for a class project. I had a similar problem when rebuilding a milling machine. The ways would stick and sadly loosening them was not an option as it would ruin accuracy. Ultimately I had the long bed ways ground flat and smooth, then scraped the saddle to match plus decrease contact area and at the end I've relieved the middle 1/3 by 0,01mm so that when ends wear It still won't rock.
12:29 I think this is PARTIALLY what a cylindrical pin at the bottom of each vane is trying to achieve. It contacts the slot only at the bottom. Then a second, outer point of contact is handled by low friction inserts, allowing the slot itself to be wider.
You need to know: I don’t watch your videos to see some slick contraption you have built that works flawlessly. I watch to learn new concepts, to be exposed to new ideas and to hear fresh insights into old ones. And you outdid yourself in your presentation, explanations and incredible creativity displayed here. Keep up the good work and I’ll keep watching your videos and recommending them to my friends.
And your videos are more often than not just plain fun to watch…
Ok so first I want to congratulate you on getting this far, and obviously all of the problems are of clear after the fact, but I'll try to enumerate them as I see them.
1. The coil will make one spark per revolution, you need 6. But actually a constant spark SHOULD be fine. You can get a (more or less) constant spark using the igniter coil for an oil burner. This will destroy the sparkplug over time, but it will give you enough heat to burn whatever is in the cylinder. BE CAREFUL, FURNACE IGNITERS CAN KILL YOU.
2. That flywheel is insanely oversized. It's meant for a 8:1 compression one compression per cycle, your engine is probably around 2:1 compression, 6 compressions per cycle. The rotary drum is probably enough flywheel so you can discard the entire flywheel assembly.
3. Trying to get a newly designed engine started with a pull cord is assuming you're going to hit a hole in one on your first try. You should attach a variable speed electric motor to the apparatus so that you can bring it up to operating speed, THEN play with the carburetor and try to get fire. First try to get non-zero energy output, then try to get enough energy output that you can power off the motor while it continues running. Only after you have all of this working flawlessly do you start thinking about starting without first running it up to optimal rotation speed.
4. Instinctively, I think the optimal speed for this engine is probably somewhere around 3000-5000 RPMs. Technically speaking, you want the highest RPM your hardware can tolerate, but over 5000 I think the premature wear starts to become so rapid that it will compromise your experimentation. You need centrifugal force to hold the veins against the housing, and you need high speed so that the compression action out-runs the leakage. At low speed, the air/fuel will all leak past the veins and your compression ratio will be essentially 0. The furnace igniter will help a lot because it will make a hot enough spark to light fuel even with very little compression, but if there's no compression, even lighting the fuel will not create any propulsive force.
In short, I think you're really close.
I like the idea of the furnace igntor. Assuming a constant spark would not be a problem, this would certainly eliminate the variable of getting the magnito timed properly and allow you to focus on other variables you need to iron out.
Glow plug, constant fuel injection, continuous burn....it runs more like a turbine, this is not a piston engine.
@@roocaa3549 That's not necessarily a bad idea, but you need to switch to diesel fuel because the octane is going to resist auto-ignition, and then you can't rely on the carburetor anymore because it's designed around the viscosity of gasoline or alcohol. So I would recommend d4a to keep his focus on alcohol & spark ignition just to get that working for now.
The flywheel unevenness is probably his biggest problem, along with the mismatch between the magnet wheel and the coil. IDK why he wouldn't just use a matched set if he can afford to order in 3D printed stainless parts.
Great observations... I didn't even consider spark timing till you mentioned it...👍
I also agree with ditching that huge flywheel and running in off an electric motor till it catches...
Really great suggestions, thanks guy...👍✨
I want to see this succeed! So suggestion:
1. Do away with the magneto setup and instead use a digital ignition system with a flywheel with a six position reluctor so you get an ignition timing going for each vane.
2. Have the vanes pvd coated. This will reduce the surface tension long enough for centrifugal force to take over.
Good first attempt, and don't get overly frustrated. This is how we learn...
I was thinking WPC treatment on the vanes and 2 stroke oil
Get those vanes polished and Pvd coating is good stuff to help with lubricant. Maybe some 2 stroke oil in the fuel would help as well with the vanes sticking.
Can we all just take a moment to appreciate a couple of things? #1 he designed and made an engine. #2 He made mistakes but fully admitted to it and showed the whole world what he did wrong. #3 its those little details that come back and bite you. So before anyone goes "well that was a dumb mistake/oversight" lets see the engine you designed and built without mistakes...
SICK.
Don't get discouraged, this is cool shit
Hats off for juggling the filming, and editing solo while simultaneously juggling first time prototyping with a potential first start. I don't think anyone's upset that it didn't start, and you might have given the bug for those watching to atleast see more of this... Can't wait for the revised version!
Love when you do this honest format. Your humble side displays your originality and to me personally, makes it so relatable. Three thumbs up 👍👍👍
I am a product developer and I allways try to explain: if you do only cad design thats not enough. you should make digital prototypes, up to the last bolt and nut. the problems ending in the 'we will resolve them by fly' category are allways fatal and drop back the projects with days, weeeks or months.
However the stuff you have in hand is a good start! Don't give up, I am glad to see that little engine realised!
And onshape is realy good, maybe the only free cad softver what is not a pain to use and not limits you to ridiculous numbers of assemblies/projects
At this scale I suspect building dozens of actual prototype are probably better choice over doing something fancy digitally.
It is usually more fool proof way too. so I suppose he's on the right track?
That's rubbish, it depends totally on the skill set of who is doing it.
I'd like to make the observation man landed on the moon with nothing but pencil and paper drafting. CAD/CAM is important but it seems every monkey with a CAD program thinks he is a design engineer.
“I never lose. I either win or learn” Nelson Mandela. So you just learn a lot in this video. For the spring maybe build some spring in Z shape, with the top of Z touching the rotor, and the bottom touching the vane. Maybe also the use of some lubricant ?
2 z shaped springs
The spring could possibly made like a leaf spring, just a bent metal piece?
Lubrication is probably easiest, with two stroke oil mixed into the gasoline
@@Timoastra I think that's how the springs on the apex seals on a rotary engine works.
@@p9vg Much less movement to account for in rotaries. Also this vane engine has too much play in the rotor so most of the compression is bypassing on the sides.
My only frame of reference for the magneto coil setup is a lawn mower I worked on as a kid. I remember that the spacing is quite small. A shim was used to set the gap on the mower. 1) I think your prototype has too much gap and variation to generate a spark. 2) check your ground connection. I see there is a second black wire, presumably the ground, but if you haven't already checking the connection between the base of the plug and the coil -ve would be worth doing with a multi-meter. 3) this is easy to spot, but only because you produced the prototype - drive it with an electric motor. Then you can run it at operational speed and see if it's sucking air, producing spark etc. A pull cord is ... for production engines (in retrospect, as we know hindsight has 20/20 vision). I saw others comment about the requirement for more sparks per revolution, but I'm not sure that's so necessary just to prove that it works. I love your videos! you have real talent for explaining things! So take a break and come back with all the little fixes for version 2. I'd love to see it working! -Martin from New Zealand.
Even if you don't get this engine operational, would definitely enjoy seeing this continue as a series where you identify key points of failure and implement solutions for them (e.g. spark firing absent, spark timing, improve vane extension, etc). Seeing the process is part of the fun and education of this episode.
Extremely surprised you thought it'd work on the first attempt.
Also surprised of how good an attempt it was.
And surprised yet again at how discouraged you seemed.
I think on top of the failure of the engine he's also wrestling with whether this will make a good video. If a youtuber makes a novel type of rocket and the rocket explodes then at least you have the footage of the fireball.
GREAT JOB! I appreciate that you didn't gloss over this "failed attempt" and took all of it and owned up to it. It's not a failure if you learned from it. Your extensive research and presentations always deliver more than enough so even this is well shared knowledge. I always enjoy your content. Keep it coming. 👍
I love this. I don't care that it failed to run, I'd really like to see more attempts after the necessary improvements. Maybe put it aside until a spark of inspiration allows you to solve the issues and continue on with it. 10/10 for effort.
Get some springs in there to push the vanes out. Use a cordless drill to start it. Consider applying something similar to rotary apex seal material to the end of the vanes if possible. Maybe something spray on is available.
I believe you can get it with some refinement. Don’t give up!
it's an inherently flawed design, just like the wankel rotary, all the same sealing and uneven heat distribution issues.
@@axeman2638maybe if you watch the video and listen to what he said you'd actually have something to argue against
@@axeman2638. As was pointed out , ALL engines are subject to uneven heating . You saw that part , right ?
Basically , all engine designs are flawed in some way . Compromises everywhere . But perseverance has got them working well .
Hell yeah, i wanna see this thing run, even if for a tiny moment. It seems like these issues arent that bad and can be solved. Dont give up!
@@johncunningham4820 I have been hearing that the solution to the problems with rotarys is just around the corner since the 80s, still hasn't been fixed.
Bit like fusion power, it's always 20 years away, or climate change, always 12 years away.
Please do not stop developing this Engine . We need much more videos of this video , (You got a new subscriber)
Honesty is so rare these days. Thanks for (another) heartwarming video.
You raise a good point by using the word heartwarming; his sincerity and humility speak volumes about his character. This rings especially true when you can tell he's disappointed.
Bro give yourself some credit. Yea this is a basic engine but it still takes alot of work to put together and is difficult. Even though I was sceptical mad respect for going ahead with this.
"Man, I’m genuinely blown away by this prototype! Developing a vane rotary engine is no small feat, and you’ve done something remarkable here. It’s this kind of innovation that changes industries! Keep pushing, because your work has the potential to revolutionize the field. Never stop aiming higher - you're on the path to greatness!"
I am a mechanic from Nigeria and loved bein onboard
theres no "innovation" here. its just another attempt at flogging a well flogged and extremely DEAD horse. over 150 years of people playing with these, not one actually performs as claimed, on teh rare occasion they can even 'self sustain".
Excellent video, and not being afraid to show something going wrong shows integrity. Keep on it!
it was FUN 🤣 thumbs up for that👍👍👍
You won't have spark with this setup because there is not path for electricity to go. The coil and housing don't have any continuity, so no current can flow through the sparkplug. Getting the coil bracket and the housing to share continuity with a ground strap or similar would probably help.
Disregard the previous statement. There is a wire connecting the two. It's visible at 18:45.
Also, the timing with a flywheel/coil setup lile that is determined by where the coil sits relative to where the magnet passes by in crank rotation, which is why cranks and flywheels of course. You'll probably need a custom flywheel or digitally controlled spark and a car coil to get the timing correct.
Overall, great first attempt! I'm sure it's been an incredible learning experience, and I'd love to see a follow-up!
There is a wire connecting the housing to the coil.
Timing can be changed by rotating the flywheel on the axis.
Testing the timing with a light or LED in a dry run, probably would help to prevent damage to the motor due to bad timing
@@ianmorris8534Oh, good catch, I missed it. It's clearly visible at 18:45
@@bad001bd That is a killswitch wire. The mounting holes of the coil must be conected to the housing. Also you need more than one spark per rotation.
@bad001bd , what do you think about slotting the mounting hole on the coil so he can easily adjust the position of the coil relative to the flywheel magnets? Kinda like on a lawnmower where the coil mounts are slotted so you can adjust how far the coil is from the flywheel. I guess the flywheel would have to rotate exactly on its center of rotation for that to work though. Anyway, great suggestion.
The first step to success is failure. It has always been true. I work in development and I fail constantly and subsequently learn constantly. 1. Yes you need some sort of stable ignition system that will give you confidence that the spark is both happening at the right time, strong enough and adjustable. I would suggest a aluminum disk with a hole in where you strategically align a hall effect sensor for your spark trigger. 2. I think your "flywheel" is too large, if you had been successful you know as well as I that it would have made some horrific vibration. You are a smart guy I am sure the rest of this is fully understood. Also, maybe use a battery drill to start it instead of the pull start. Your honesty in the face of momentary failure is admirable. I subscribed because you where willing to be honest. Don't quit!
I think your closer than it feels, Oil up the internals of the chamber it will help seal the veins,carbs suck pipe propane into it, implement electronic ignition so you can dump the flywheels,. your chalage will be sealing the sides of the chamber. I'd be tempted to attach it to a dc motor or drill and run it up to a higher rpm to try and get some dynamic compression. It should make some noise at the least!
I just rebuilt my buddies Kia.
Put slight grease on the valve seats.
Oil soaked on the rings.
Fired very first tick over.
This was such a great video! Pure engineering in the most literal sense! The vanes getting stuck because of capillary adhesion is just brilliant
First of all, great job on this first attempt. The video was very entertaining and informative as always, and it was great fun seeing you try to have a go at making an engine.
I don't really have any feedback that others haven't already mentioned, but I will say that this video perfectly demonstrates how important prototyping is for any project. This attempt was what usually would be a first prototype, of many, in any project. Most people, especially non-engineers, don't understand how easy it is to forget a tiny detail even if you know all of your theory. These first attempts, and further prototyping later on, help so much to bring attention to those, because there is only so much information that you can get from a CAD model or simulations.
Don't get discouraged though, I find that figuring out all these issues and coming up with solutions is often the most fun and satisfying part of being an engineer.
Also can I just say that "ecosystem of potential problems" sounds like the greatest name for a biography of an engineer. If I ever achieve anything of significance and someone decides to write one of me, that absolutely has to be the title 😂.
Keep up the good work!
I am a engenineering student watching from Argentina, and I really love these videos. Dont give up on this engine prototype, it was a very good first attempt and i am sure that you are going to get the thing running. Keep at it!!!
For a more reliable spark plug you could hook it up to a battery with a relay, and use a magnet and hall sensor to trigger it. This would reduce atleast 1 variable you need to keep track of at any point of time.
I agree, although for this extremely early development, I'd probably just use constant ignition before trying to optimise ignition timing.
He needs 6 magnets and a way to advance the spark.
Relays are not even remotely suitable for ignition systems. Timing jitter at the very least.
A thin disc (aluminum or plastic) with six holes, an opto-interrupter (light beam sensor), and a power transistor will give him micro-second timing accuracy. Much more accurate, reliable, and cheaper than hall-effect and a relay.
lol, such nonsense, you do not seem to understand how an ignition works nor what the specs of a relay are and how this is totally unsuitable and not even remotely doable.
I paused the video now just before the start attempt. Just let me say how impressed I am that you went ahead and did this! Regardless of what's going to happen now.
"People find it very easy to criticize those who start running, while they themselves, sit on the couch."
This is amazing and I wish you luck, First attempt success is a fairy tale, and I would not be discouraged.
27:44 It's almost like it takes a whole team of engineers several years to come to a new engine design that works. Don't get discouraged, you're on your own designing a novel engine. The first issue is that gap will in no way produce a spark, the typical distance is set by putting a business card between the coil and the flywheel and in fact coils are sold with a card for distance alignment
And now manufacturers change models every 3-4 years max.
It takes 5-10 years just to prove reliability.
They just gamble on the end user just enough to fund the next gamble.
My cars 44 years old.
My engine is 26 yo.
My transmission is 33 yo.
All proven machines.
I’ve been a professional mechanic for almost 50 years and I’m also an Aeronautical Engineer and a Physicist. It took me a nanosecond to realize that screaming at the tv wasn’t going to help anyone or anything!! I saw your mistakes as soon as you made them. I designed an engine exactly like yours back in the 70’s! If you’re interested in some helpful suggestions and advice, just let me know!
Love the channel!! Keep up the great content!!!
Your Q&A with comment section was really interesting. And I like this format of you showing your whole experimental process. Most creators would wait until they have a working version and produce the video in such a way that they thought of everything already, but yours feels more close to home - what I'd expect if I tried something like this myself.
You deserve applause for even trying! I really want to see this engine run so I hope you keep working on it (you've come so far already). YOU CAN DO IT.
Amazing work. This is absolutely not a failure. You have succeeded in attempting the project. You haven already gone much further than 99.99% of other people.
Secondly, anyone or any company who ever designed an engine, ever! Never got it right first time.
I think the biggest hurdle by far is the main body of the engine. Sealing will be the biggest issue. The rest of it is easy by comparison. This is especially true in a small workshop environment.
Work on the surface of the casing, machining and honing. But most of all work on the ends. The thickness of the gasket will effect the seal around the ends of the veins and the rotor.
The rest is easy! Bin pull cord. Just a drill, you can spinning it much faster and for much long periods of time. Ditch the whole spark system, use a trigger wheel a cheap spark only ECU. This way you can slow a bit of film down to tweet the spark timing. I would start with sparking when the veins are not over the spark plug port.
This can definaltly work.
Perhaps easier thing to get a running engine and a good point to start from is modify a power steering pump or whatever so that all the tricky metalogy and clearance engineering work is done.
Work on a clear side later.
This is defainly doable. Don't worry in you spend the next 5 years chasing this goal, it's good for mental health to have a project. Especially one that taxes your brain. (Obviously not at the cost of relationships hahaha)
Take your time, enjoy the project, keep it up, this is awesome!!!!
Great first attempt! I worked on a vane engine many moons ago. I found that as I got closer to getting compression the vanes would lock up grinding things to a halt. Centripetal force is not enough to overcome the friction that is created by the compression you will need to run the engine. You need a mechanical device such as pins running on a cam to keep the vanes in constant contact with the housing. My last attempt was to create a housing for 4 vanes that was mathematically correct distance for one vain to move in by x amount and push the other vane at 90 degrees out by the same x amount. Since this was a small model I used a fluid in a passage between the two vanes to create the push. This did a better job keeping the vanes against the housing but still not good enough to sustain compression to keep the engine running. Still the poping here and there was exciting! I recommend using a glow plug for small test engines as it eliminates a lot of fuss. Cheers! P.S. You will also need to keep your side clearance very tight:)
I agree use a glow plug, generate a continuous burn, like a turbine.
I like your Idea for the fluid pressure on the vanes. I think it would fail due to seepage of the fluid, but that might be advantageous if the fluid was the fuel. Unburned fuel will either be exhausted or just go around and burned in the next cycle. So all you really need is a fuel pump running all the time, and control the air intake. Very similar to the all metal 3d printed turbine that uses fluidic bearings that they pressurize with the fuel and keep the turbine shaft centered.
My idea was to use an external reservoir to top up the oil similar to the way hydraulic lifters work. Any lost oil would help lubricant the vanes.
I like seeing the process and failure more than a 15min vid about magic success ;) Thats what makes channels like "stuff made here" so interesting.
I really like that you made an attempt at making something. You are a creative person who is very generous with sharing ideas and knowledge. Don’t be discouraged. Your videos inspire me and I’m sure, many others. You have had a huge impact on my understanding of how things work. Your two stroke tuned exhaust pipe explanation was the most effective explanation I’ve heard yet and I have been trying to understand it for years now. Your graphics are first rate too. All the best to you!
I massively appreciate your honesty and integrity. It's a rare thing on RUclips. Dream, build, fail, post it anyway. Chapeau Sir!
Ok, probably been mentioned before, you only have one ignition event per revolution with the set up you have now, but you have six inlet and compression events per revolution. You need to put five more magnets on your flywheel, this will also mean that you will need to have some means of adjusting the advance as it increases in revs. Electronic ignition Next thing is you need to add lubrication to you fuel, your vanes are going to wear at the apex, this will also help with sealing.
I don't think multiple magnets are the way to go. No, you're going to have to do this the hard way: Electronics. One magnet (or optical sensor) to detect shaft position, sent to an arduino, which can do mathy stuff to multiply the frequency by six while maintaining the phase lock. This will let you apply your sparks with much greater position and less mechanical fiddlyness, at the expense of having to write code for the ECU.
the magneto prolly can't handle 6 ignitions at lets say at least 3K rpm.
i'm also for electronic ignition.
Just go with computer controlled electronic ignition with hall sensors
@@casemodder89 so run flywheel at 1 to 6 and watch the rpm doesn't exceed what the mag usually does in real life.
@@bethnglenn you can't run a geared flywheel. it needs to be attached solid to the crankshaft.
don't quit! Comment about magnet gap is right on. Shaft alignment is critical but can be handled with a lathe bored/bushed part and pillow blocks for alignment. Springs behind the vanes will over come the fluid tension. And then you will find other issues to deal with, but thats the fun part! (for us anyway😊)
New upload from D4A. Definitely a must watch.
Love your honesty and willingness to make a mess. Can't wait to see how this develops. Good job.
So refreshing to watch a video that doesn't end in miraculous success! We learn more from failure than success and I feel more invested in this project and your channel than I would have if it had worked.
I'll certainly watch it if you try again. I almost hope you fail again because it feels a lot less contrived. It's good, for me, to see you struggling and getting frustrated and exhausted with it.
Thank you for publishing this. It must've been tempting not to. More of this!
Dude, you've got some serious balls for putting this out there, and I have to offer you my full support for it.
The vast majority of people would never have admitted that they didn't account for one thing, let alone several. The majority of people wouldn't have swallowed their pride and posted a video of a failure. They wouldn't have spoken about hand-threading a shaft because you forgot to include that in your CAD model. Instead, you put out your idea, how hard it was, that you didn't consider a lot of things, humbly admitted your mistakes and tried it anyway to show all of use the level of effort it takes to come up with something new. Engineering is NOT easy. There are BAD days. There are HARD days. There are days we come home from work and wonder "Why bother?" In a world in which we are all used to having an answer RIGHT NOW, you have showed the internet what it really takes to solve problems and come up with viable solutions, and you wear your heart on your sleeve doing it. We care so much to make things happen, and that is so hard. I absolutely love how you capture this spirit in your videos.
I absolutely love your channel, it's rich knowledge and the fact that you make it personal, too. I sincerely hope you get to see the day when your rotary engine fires, but even if it doesn't, I'll keep watching because you are a man who isn't afraid to show the world how much time, effort, energy, patience and passion is required to make this stuff happen.
Effin A gschra… Effin A
Agreed every word you said love this guy's process
Couldn't have said it better. Fully agree with everything you say!
I'm sure others have said this but other then the wobbly flywheel you pointed out, your ignition system is going to be your biggest issue. That looks like an ignition system for a 1 cylinder engine. I realize you were just looking for anything at all, but still if you could increase your chances by having more spark anything would help. You have 6 vanes that would need 6 spark events per rotation, so you need some sort of ignition system that will allow for that. The EASIEST thing I can think of is literally using a distributor from an old V6 engine. Use an ignition coil for that same engine, hook the coil to the battery for power and to the distributor to trigger the spark. Now take the spark out of the top of the coil and send it directly to the spark plug skipping the distributor entirely. This will give you a spark event every 60 degrees which is exactly what you need. Basically the only thing you would be using the distributor for is a trigger wheel (and you could rotate it one way or another to adjust for timing which would be helpful) but other then that the coil would be doing all the work. That would get you WAY closer for very little effort or money. The only thing you would have to figure out is how to attach the distributor to your flywheel system.
I love that you built this prototype which has given you some brilliant ideas for an improved model. No one has ever built an engine like this first time. DONT GIVE UP, we want to see it work!
Failures teach more than getting it working at first attempt. Im glad people are brave enough to share those
28:40 “little eco system of potential problems“, never ever has someone described my life so well
This was one of your best videos, not to say they all are not great. The gift of inquisiness has been given to you. We viewers have the gift of enjoying it! Thanks!
That’s really cool. I used to design lubrication systems for very large rotary vane compressors. FYI, they need a large amount of oil as compared to traditional piston compressors. I would expect the same of engines.
Totally
"Watching the video before commenting is asking too much..."
yeah, i like this guys videos, and he is clearly anything buy stupid. i sometimes dont like his attitude though. i dont think any of the comments were out to get him, but he seemed mighy pissed off about them and talking down to people. i am sure htose people that commented had watched the video first or they would have known enough to make said comments.
people voicing what they consider valid criticisms is how things progress. sure, on youtube you will get mostly backyard mechanics who dont know much commenting. but there is no need to call them out like that and treat them like idiots.
like i said though, i like this guys videos. maybe he could just be a bit more polite is all. i was not one of the people that commented, but some of those comments voiced concerns that seemed valid to me. im glad he pointed out reasons why they are not of real concern.
edit: i finished watching this video. he was very humble at the end. maybe i misunderstood his earlier remarks as insults when it was meant as dry humour? i dont know.
@@socks2441so you did exactly what he said. Dealing with stupid people wears on you.
@@socks2441Lol, did you seriously just start commenting before finishing watching the video, saying he was rude for saying "I guess watching the entire video before commenting is too much to ask".....🎉
@@socks2441 congratulations, you played yourself!
@@socks2441lmao you idiot 😂😂😂
Thank you for putting this out even when you weren't able to actually cycle the engine. This is a good illustration of why so many engines don't evolve beyond "paper engines". My specialty is actually electrical engineering, but no amount of theory prepares you for the moment your plug in your circuit that you've proven on paper and the LED doesn't light up. It's very easy to theory your way into a solution, but things like this are way more complicated than most people give them credit for, and these problems are where much of the true advancement in engineering comes from.
Other than suggesting that capillary action from the fuel might be causing some of the fin sticking, I can't offer any real substantive solutions. As I said, I'm EE, not ME. Even so, thanks for putting this out, and I'm looking forward to a follow-up on this project.
I've been waiting for this. Kinda got the feeling that you really like these engines from your last video. Really interested to hear how it sounds...
26:43 Nah it was a pretty good first attempt
Excellent first attempt! You are nearly there I feel. With a reliably working ignition system and non-sticking vanes you must be very close to having it running. Well done and I love your presentation and banter. Cheers.
Please try this again! I love this kind of content, it's so cool!
I really appreciate your attempt in building an own engine! I know from own experience how frustrating some projects can be. Just keep on working when you feel to 👍.
What comes to my mind as a small and quick enhancement. You could use molykote (molybdenium grease) to grease the vanes. This should prevent them from getting stuck and allow for a short time operation of the engine.
I know your self-doubts and frustration from many years of failing with initial prototypes. From some, I learned how to successfully complete them. From others I came to appreciate parts of the problem I had overlooked, and sometimes decided not to continue.
This project shows your strong character, and just the right combination of humility and hubris needed to be successful.
Continue with this, or don't. You ate succeeding already.
I had a bad day yesterday. Finfing your new video cheered me up.
Please keep this attempts. It will enrich your channel and extend the community. No matter if there is some failure along the way.
I am 100% confident you will get this right. You are the most insightful automotive youtuber on the platform and you have more common sense than anyone I've ever met in real life. Can't wait to see your next attempt. I'd look into the timing setup. Maybe you just didn't mention it, but you'll have to account for the 6 vanes to get it firing on each one. Hall effect sensors might be a relatively simple way, could offer slightly more control and feedback than a mechanical distributor type setup.
I see two things with your magneto setup that need some work. 1: you need the distance between the magneto coil and flywheel to be super small and consistent, otherwise the magnets in the flywheel will not give enough of a field change for the coil to make spark happen. 2: you have 6 vanes, giving 6 combustion chambers combusting every 360 degrees. Your flywheel only has one magnet system per 360 degrees, so you need 5 more.
I would try not have any mechanical timing/ignition parts in the setup but simply use electronic control. That allows to still tweak a few things before it's locked down in metal parts.
Such patience and tolerance. Keep on going!
The funny thing is that if you go back to something like the turn of the century, and particularly of the years around WWI and up to the early 1930's, looking in patents you'll find oddball engines that look very much like the one here. They were trying a lot of stuff to get more power in a small package, because of how aviation was then. I guess there were limitations in materials and machining, that would explain why more conventional piston engines still won out until the jet age where gas turbines took over a lot of roles due to the simplicity and (relative) efficiency of how they worked.
But yeah, I find it amusing that some experiments like this have been done before. It's just they weren't publicly documented in a way like they are now.
The vane thing may still have some neat applications though. Particularly where you want positive displacement boost on very small displacement engines. Also Judson was a thing somewhere between the 1950's and 1970's, but I guess it wasn't as reliable as other designs which explains why that's not around now. However it seems simple enough to scale downwards easier than other options. So it's likely worth revisiting for some niche hobby things.
BTW I'm just a bit of an internet nerd on stuff like this, so don't take my word completely - do your own homework on the stuff and see what lines up. Just that there is prior art that lines up along with stuff like this.
Something that may help outside of what you've already mentioned is to add an equal diplacement blower running at the same speed, probably gear to the output shaft. Similar to a detroit diesel 2 stroke, it should help fill the cylinder and evacuate the exhaust rather than relying entirely on what the open throttle body can pull.
With this engine design, you could basically just use the same thing with a different port layout.
Running or not, that is a great engineering job. I've listened to your vast knowledge on many types of engines, and I'm confident you will figure it out and make it work. I have learned a lot from your channel, so thank you. I look forward to when you have it running!
Great first attempt! I can't wait to see future iterations. I hope this is the beginning of you making some of the more exotic engines you cover.
cringe pfp
Slava Russia ❤
@@GewelReal shut it noone likes you
@@GewelReal That's really inciteful. I've never thought about it like that before. Please go on.
0:46 not always a good thing.
I think you have exactly the right level of enthusiasm when you are walking on your tools ;)
I love what you did here. As a Stihl and other small engines equipment service tech, here's my two cents:
1) Your carburetor is on the wrong way, you see the little hole it has? That goes facing the inside of the engine since the venturi passage is already designed to draw fuel with air moving the right way. And with this comes the following point
2) The small hole the carburetor has on the face that should be facing the engine (and in yours is pointing outwards) is an *impulse line* and needs a pressure and vaccuum pulse for the carburetor to pump fuel and fill the carb to feed the fuel that will be sucked later by the main jet. Remember it's a diaphragm carburetor, not a regular float bowl carb. It's easier to make it work then. BUT you will need to capture both pressure AND vaccum pulse from somewhere in the crank case, in the same conduit, and feed it to the little hole in the carb's face. My guess is you wont need 6 pulses as long as it actually has some fuel in it and carb doesnt run dry. But maybe you will need 6 pair of pulses if the engine uses more fuel. Investigate about diaphragm carbs functioning with Walbro and Zama carburetoe instruction videos.
3) As many have said, you need one spark for every time fuel is compressed ready to be ignited. So you either get 6 cheap chinese brush cutter ignition modules to be exited by that single magnet in the flywheel, or you make your own flywheel with 6 magnets. Keep in mind you need U shaped magnets so it can excite the ignition module with the North and South part.
4) Check the rotation of the flywheel so you can benefit from aditional cooling in the future using a cover that directs air into the engine itself. Ignition will create spark with the flywheel spinning on each direction tho, but since someone already designed that part with a rotating direction, you should keep it qorking that way for any reason we may not know in their r&d.
5) You will need the vanes to seal on low rpm to create vacuum/pressure to draw air inside the engine, thus carrying fuel inside or it will never start by itself. Remember almost every engine is a pump. So I would recommend using springs like you showed in previous videos and not rely solely on centrifugal force, since at low speeds (hand cranking speeds) engine does not compress.
6) Speaking of pumps, manual crank oil pumps for 200Liter oil barrels use vanes as this to create the pumping action and those ALWAYS need priming with some oil to vanes actually seal and start pumping. When you dont use these pumps for a few days, oils drains down and they don't pump when they have air inside and wont seal. So try priming the engine with some mix first. I guess you could use 2 stroke mix for it like a chainsaw (2 stroke oil will help vanes seal better), or just nitromethane or whatever is used on small 2 stroke RC trucks like Traxxas and such.
Edit:
7) At 18:46 is your ignition module grounded? In general ignition modules have a kill switch terminal, if you ground it, you are killing spark and it wont work! That goes grounded, yes, BUT with an on/off swith in the middle. If you open the circuit, eñectricity goes to the spark. If you close the circuit, you are grounding that cable and not generating spark. You can run with no cable at all, but you will need to stop the engine in a different way. You can choke the carb it with your hand and it will shut off if you dont want a kill switch.
I would machine a cone on the tip of the shaft with a key slot and a thread just like the one string trimmers have. Copy the string trimmer shaft end of the ignition side. And make a hard support for the ignition module so it has a consistent gap. A paper card is enough gap. You know, like companies cards. Sorry for my bad english, I'm from Argentina.
5..."almost every engine is a pump".
no. EVERY engine IS a pump.
and whilst the ALL work great at being a PUMP, a COMPRESSOR, using rotational motion to create PRESSURE... they all work terribly in reverse, as EXPANDERS, taking pressure and creating rotational motion.
no matter what he does, all this thing will ever do is produce a few pops, make some smelly exhaust gas... if , and its an extremely doubtful IF, if it ever manages to run or self sustain, it wont produce any actual power output.
You deserve way more views!
Lol the video is less than an hour old...
the fake comments, no shame...
dude, this is great, ever since reading a little blurb in an engineering book in the 60's about the Mallory engine I've been fascinated about vane engines. Designed one up that carriers the centrifugal loads of the main vane seal carriers, if that makes sense. The chamber loads are carried by these steel vanes, but the centrifugal loads are not imparted to the main bore, only simple seals like a Mazda engine. Those main steel vanes that see the combustion loads have their own seals in the central rotor for lubrication. Congratulations, You are doing 99.9999% more than all the commentators.
This is the politest, "fuck you, you're wrong and I'm right", video I have ever seen.
Except the engine didn't work? Feels more like a "Yeah I have no clue what I'm doing" bideo lol
Ask yourself....do you think those that came before "got it right" on the first try?
That's an easy answer. 99.9 did not. They did what Space X does iterative design and development. Had they not....we would not have the answers and solutions that we have today. Eventually though they got it right .... because the real success is never giving up.
@@johnnyringo35 soy oversocialized bugman response
@@windowsxseven Nihilist incel loser response from your side.
@johnnyringo35 SpaceX is a garbo company. They exist solely on government subsidies and they haven't created a solitary useful innovation.
They can't even bring a man to the moon with 20 enormous rockets, when it was done 55 years ago with 1😂
I love the way D4A says buuUUuut.....
Don't give up! I've been trying to finish building this steam turbine that I designed. It's been three years.. I will finish it and you will get a running engine. Your videos are great, and I always look forward to them.
the carburetor is on backwards and the coil gap is wrong it needs to be 10 - 15 thousands of an inch, good luck
I see the air gap between coil and magnet are little bit far from eachother. Try getting it closer to improve the spark. Or else try using gy6 dc cdi for a better spark.
I really feel that moment, and had very many over the last 8 years, when you're 5 hours on troubleshooting, and at 23:30 on a worknight, you want to toss everything in a corner. Mostly I told myself "Forget that, I'll need a 2 week break from this now!", just to restart at the very next evening.
Besides the ignition problem, it might help to get a bit of lubricant in it with the fuel, like a 2-Stroke. It should help the sealing of the fins. Also, I recommend to at least polish the inside of the chamber, which further reduces sealing loss, and friction of the vale tips.
I'm really excited to see it run one day, you got this!
You always know how to make a great video!
8:24 lol the intellect of the population has been going down for years now. 😅🤣💀 that explains why the ridiculous non thinking questions
Please don't give up, make it work. I am also makeing wired engine for 1 year, its plastic engine, and i understand what when i make it will have terrible fuel efficiency, but i learn so much in the process
Your videos always show me that common sense is absolutely dead. like people dont listen and don't think anymore before writing a comment it's sad
like the complete lack of common sense to ever believe one of these can run, self sustain, and better yet, produce actual power?
I come from the Spanish channel, I just wanted to say that I love the project and the way you made the video... there are things that need to be fixed/solved but it is something that I would love to see working. Cheer up! and much success!
Hi, my friend! I understand you very well! :-) I'm an inventor with several successful patents, and I've now founded a company based on some of them. So, I know how much effort and struggle it takes to make an invention successful. Your project touched my heart because 30 years ago, I was working in a factory producing parts for airplanes. The first thing that caught my attention was a vane pump they manufactured. I immediately saw the potential of its principles for a powerful and efficient engine, and I fell in love with the idea, just like you did. I spent many nights thinking about how to handle centrifugal force, sealing, etc., which led me to learn a lot about physics.
I'm still convinced this is a promising approach, and this engine could be very effective, but there are indeed many issues to solve. I’m sorry, but I don't think it will work with these tolerances and this kind of sealing (just remember what you already know about piston sealing in a regular internal combustion engine!). But don't be discouraged, and don’t blame yourself for any setbacks! This is a very typical path for every inventor. You may still figure out how to make this invention successful. Who knows? I wish you all the best! ;-)
Ignition system: Switch to an electrical-optical trigger design. By switching to this, you could have JLC cut an adjustable timing plate. Bonus is it is easier to confirm function.
You do need to tighten up all of your tolerances and get a better seal for this to light off and maintain combustion (my opinion).
For starting, look at Mustie1 - he uses a drill with a ratchet adapter to spin the engines. That would give you far more RPM for the initial start attempts, increasing your chance of success.
But overall, well done. You've earned my sub.
For many years, I was involved with Heavy Duty "Rotary Sliding Vane" Air Compressors, which have the same basic technology as your design. I suggest you check out the 'Blade" design. Coated blades don't last and once the coating is through, the blade will shave itself to death on edges of the slot. So we used blades of Meehanite, which is a Nodular Cast iron and is somewhat malleable. Meehanite has excellent sliding properties, due to the graphite nodules and a suitable "oil injection". The blades were also hollow, to save weight and wear. The back of the blade was straight, not curved, and they were described as "lifelong". For your development program, I suggest that you might investigate purchasing a set these and build your test units around them. Still in production and available. Our machines would very often run 24/7. Our speed was only around 1725 RPM and this produced enough centrifugal force, to make springs etc.unnecessary.
Good luck with this project. its tough, but you might be on to something!!!
Hey, embedded electronics engineer here and also tinker on all the other domains :)
I'd suggest some sort of digital ignition. You can design yourself an optical encoder and 3d print it. Leave a bigger notch so you have a reference of the position of the crank. You can then use one of those U shaped optical transmitter-receiver such that the slots of the encoder will let the light to pass. You can then get a microcontroller such as arduino to do some calculations and know the exact position of the shaft. With the arduino, you can then control a mosfet which then powers a car ignition coil.
Sure, there might be some electronics and coding involved, but you have a clear and very flexible setup for ignition and ignition timing.
Then, it's the issue of sealing it. Centrifugal force will push the vanes outwards which will ensure the compression at high speeds. Thus, I assume you would need a higher start rpm.
Then, it's about the seal in the sides of the engine. Unless you have some sort of seal (see wankel engines), the single thing you can do is to minimize the clearance and then fill the gaps with a viscous liquid. Adding oil to the mixture might be the way to go.
Don't give up! Please consider electronic Ignition - timing and spark, and/or you need to trigger it with 6 physical contact (or light/lazer reflection) points for every 1 rotation (i.e. every 60 degrees). Much easier to do with Arduino or similar. Integza can help. Also, def need gasket for cover. Best of luck. Very exciting! 👍
Don't be too hard on yourself, man; you learned a lot from that attempt!!
From here I'd suggest working on the three main subsystems (spark, fuel/air, gas pump) separately. Can you spin the magneto and get a reliable spark? Does the carb even work with alcohol out-of-the-box? If you spin the rotor does it draw a vacuum on the intake at all? Then once you've optimized those separately put them all back together for another start attempt.
Carry on!
Amazing to watch rapid prototyping engineering in more-or-less real time. Well done for keeping your sense of humour. As a non-engineer I found this impressive, even if it hasn't yet delivered. This is *surely* worth a few more iterations?
I enjoyed this quite a lot. When I watched the first video I thought it was a waste of time and brain power, but then after hearing the reasons behind its theoretical efficiency, I became curious. After seeing your attempt I would like to say it was very inspiring and I hope you try it again. I don’t have any experience in machining engines and I’m enjoying all of this information and learning. Thank you for explaining things so well!
Hi! I love your videos. I would like to add something about the intake. You have put the carburetor upside down and also that type of carburetor has its own fuel pump that works with the compression and depression of the Carter in a 2-stroke engine. Not only is the pump not working but also the Venturi effect does not occur because the carburettor is upside down. That is my humble contribution since I am dedicated to fixing 2-stroke chainsaw engines and other things. Stay strong and don't give up!!! We will be here to see you succeed!!
The fact that you tried makes you a success. It takes a brilliant mind to do what you have done. Never forget that.
Aw, don't bash yourself on this one! This is still immensely impressive - you got a prototype that COULD theoretically work!
By the looks of it, you have vacuum, but I have no idea whether there's compression or not. You could probably try running a compression test on it, but the numbers it gives would tell you whether it can run or not.
Oh, and another bit of advice - try adding 2-stroke oil to the fuel! Sure, it'll bring up the emissions, but it should stop the vanes from wearing down as fast, as well as potentially strengthening the seal between the vanes.
Overall, a great attempt - and a potentially working model, at that! I feel like this model could very well run.