Comments by "Ferrum Ignis" (@ferrumignis) on "Repairman22" channel.

  1. A compound engine using the same double expansion design (three cylinder with the centre being used for additional expansion) was built by the German Deutz company in 1879. A five cylinders compound engine was built by the Frenchman Forest-Gallice who patented in 1890. Rudolph Diesel, father of rolling coal patented his three cylinder double expansion engine in 1897. Edward Bales of Illinois patented his three cylinder compound engine in 1897 The three cylinder Crossley-Atkinson (of Atkinson cycle fame) compound engine was patented in 1903. These designs all suffered the same problem as the one in this video is likely to suffer; the loss of heat from the gases being passed from the high to low pressure cylinder coupled with the additional friction of the additional cylinder negated the efficiency benefits. Gerhard Smith was very late to the game.
    158
  2. It's crazy that you watched this video which clearly explained the difference between conventional two stroke diesels and the Mazda design and still posted this comment.
    31
  3.  @georgehorobin2225  Are you OK? It look like you were having a seizure when you posted this.
    3
  4. The long stroke was a contributing factor. A long stroke and small bearing journal sizes means no overlap between the main and rod bearing journals, combined with only three main bearings this gives a weak and spindly crankshaft design which has often been compared to a bent wire coathanger (as were other engines of the era to be fair). The original cast iron pistons were also quite heavy which increased forces on the crank.
    3
  5. ​ @lesp315 Guessing you've never heard a Detroit diesel powered truck driven hard, they sound amazing.
    2
  6.  @georgehorobin2225  Is English not your native language?
    2
  7.  @beemerscoot8851  The exhaust closes before the inlet. Think about it.
    2
  8.  @beemerscoot8851  You need to watch the video again and think harder if you can. Observe the animation starting around 6:28. The exhaust very clearly closes before the inlet, hence a supercharger can push air into the cylinder without it escaping straight down the exhaust.
    2
  9.  @joejoejoejoejoejoe4391  No you don't need all the extra electrical hybrid equipment to implement the Atkinson cycle (or one of its very simmilar derivatives). The engines used in hybrids like the Prius use the Atkinson cycle for efficiency, and the power loss this introduces is made up by the electric motor system. While the Fiat twin air design makes changing the cycle on the fly a relatively simple software task, you can implement the Atkinson cycle purely mechanically by changing the effective cam profile.
    2
  10. Yes I don't like that. The force vector is at an angle to the crank, so the inner pistons will be seeing a sideways thrust as well as the conventional thrust forces from a conrod. A great deal of care would need to be taken with clearances to ensure there is no binding of either pistons or rod bearing as the engine heats up
    2
  11.  @Bialy_1  Like the other guy said, try comparing apples with apples.
    2
  12. If two cylinders fired at a time it would negate the entire point of having a 4 or 8 cylinder engine, you might as well have a 2 or 4 cylinder and save on complexity. Compare this design to a conventional IL4 or V8 and tell me where all this extra friction is?
    2
  13. Presumably not using the original crank, rods and pistons if it's really making that much power?
    1
  14. Why do you think it must rev slowly?
    1
  15.  @theyeetus1428  No, there are more but individually lighter linkages (apart from main forked rod) and the crankshaft will be far lighter than a conventional IL4 or V8 design.
    1
  16. Could you clarify why you'd want to expand the exhaust gases by powering a turbine with a motor? None of this makes sense.
    1
  17. If you want to destroy the engine balance you could do that...
    1
  18. Amazing how many people think the outer cylinders aren't contributing to power, despite it being obvious that they are. Hint: the conrod transfers energy to the crank on the upstroke and downstroke in this design, as was clearly described in the video
    1
  19. I very much doubt it has 2-3 times the torque of a conventional V8 of the same displacement. Can you give your reasoning?
    1
  20. Good for you. What was the point you were making?
    1
  21. Please explain how the tiny rods and rocker arms have more reciprocating mass than four regular sized con rods.
    1
  22. Why would you want to convert a IL4 engine into an IL2, or a V8 into a V4? That negates all the smoothness advantages of the number of cylinders without increasing power output.
    1
  23. OTOH the things that aren't there (e.g. oil and water pumps) make it break more often.
    1
  24. ​ @beemerscoot8851 Apart from this Mazda design where it does increase cylinder pressure.
    1
  25. No. They provide power to the crankshaft just as the inner pistons do. The only difference is the connecting rod will be under tension when the outer cylinders are on their power stroke, and under compression when the inners have their power stroke.
    1
  26. Compare like with like, you won't find an inline four cylinder engine with six main bearings because there are only five possible positions for a main bearing. Likewise three bearing designs on an IL4 are a rarity today, no mainstream car manufacturer makes such a thing.
    1
  27. You can say exactly the same with a conventional engine "when the rod bearings and wrist pin bearings wear...." except they don't wear if properly lubricated and the engine is regularly serviced.
    1
  28. Probably just a translation error. It's specific application is completely irrelevant though, its just a small four stroke engine.
    1
  29. Just as well as despite the claims of the video these early engine designs were not particularly reliable.
    1
  30. Another person that didn't bother to watch the video before commenting 🙄
    1
  31. If it offered even half the benefits claimed the auto manufacturers would have been all over it. You can be use they analysed the design and determined the claims were bogus.
    1
  32. Don't forget that the crankshaft is way shorter and lighter than a conventional V8 would be, so a lot of mass saved there. Additionally the outer cylinder don't have conventional conrods, which are also heavy due to length and the large rod bearing end. I think there are several valid criticisms of this design but mass isn't one of them.
    1
  33. Explain how the internal friction is greater than a conventional V8 please, I don't see it.
    1
  34. Did you watch the video? Peak forces are broadly equivalent to one cylinder of a conventional design, but the forces get reversed on alternate strokes so the conrod and bearing is loaded in compression and tension.
    1
  35.  @peterdarr383  The points, coil, condensor system was invented by Charles F Kettering, which is why it's often called the Kettering system. Not sure why people are so keen to attribute stuff to Tesla all the time.
    1
  36. Not great for packaging but long rods bring their own advantages like lower thrust forces on the piston and more equal acceleration of the piston at the top and bottom halves of the stroke.
    1
  37. It really isn't. This video makes some really stupid claims like not having an oil and water pump makes the engine more reliable, when it's the exact opposite. It made it cheaper to produce at the expense of reliability and longevity.
    1
  38. Modern engines are vastly more reliable than the Model T.
    1
  39. "side-valve engine is making a comeback" Which manufactures are moving back to side valve designs? First I've heard of this.
    1
  40. I don't like the forked conrod design tbh, but it could be replaced with two more conventional rods at the expense of a slightly longer crankshaft.
    1
  41. Yes, primitive and unreliable compared to modern engines, but Henry Ford was certainly a very astute man.
    1
  42. Yet another person that proves they didn't watch the video before making a fool of themselves.
    1
  43.  @seriously1184  "There comment I made, is still very very valid !" Not only you are utterly clueless about mechanisms, you can't even use your native language correctly. "Ever heard about the concept and mechanics of torque ???" Go on then, explain in detail why there is a problem with torque in this engine. No hand waving, no generalisation, a proper explanation. You can't do it can you?
    1
  44. "I'll get reliability" You will get no such thing, a modern car is far more reliable. These primitive engines required plenty of care and attention to keep them running. They were very simple to work on, but they needed to be worked on more often. You also get the advantage of effective brakes, steering and suspension, interior heating and cooling, headlights that produce more light than a birthday candle and the ability to survive a collision in a modern car. You have a romantic vision that reality would not meet.
    1
  45. It's completely different to one big piston. A single cylinder produces one power stroke for every two revolutions of the crankshaft, and is very poorly balanced. The V8 produces a power stroke every quarter turn of the crank and has almost perfect balance. In fact the balance of this design may actually be better than a conventional V8.
    1
  46. It won't be more compact, just look how long the forked conrod needs to be. This will make for a tall engine compared to a conventional design, but there should be significant weight savings.
    1
  47. Ikr? I've never understood why many people are keen to dive into a comments section and make themselves look foolish before watching the video.
    1
  48. Apart from the cost of the toroidal cylinder machining, the extra bulk the and the obviously bogus efficiency claims, I can see balancing being a real issue. This won't even get good primary balance since BDC and TDC are no longer 180 degrees apart.
    1
  49. It's an obvious fallacy to state that lacking parts such as an oil or water pump increases reliability. Yes there are fewer parts overall, but those additional parts contribute greatly to the longevity of the entire engjne. How many Model T engines would last 200,000 miles or more without a major rebuild, something that is absolutely unexceptional today? Comparing the fuel mileage of the Model T with the "average" fuel milage of modern vehicles is disingenuous at best, and bordering on dishonest. A small gas engined car today will get at least double the mileage whilst making maybe four or five times the power of the Model T from half the displacement or less. This is not to take anything away from the Model T, it was a huge success for good reason and a credit to Henry Ford. It is mechanically very simple and much easier to repair than modern vehicles, but those repairs were frequently needed.
    1