Comments by "Martin L" (@martin09091989) on "Repairman22" channel.

@magnusatheos7301 Nop! Making a round bore with a curve in it, that is constant and smooth enough to have a piston and it´s rings hurtle up and down a hundred times a second is not don that easy! A modern CNC could do that, but it takes hours for a single bor! And for what benefit??
147
@denis-uo6ew Es ist schlecht Franzose zu sein!
27
@doctordapp All that trouble for that piss amount of friction, and all the new problems it brings with it? Wow that's stupid! First problem: the moving mass on the rod end is higher due to the arm, needs bigger bearings, more friction. 2nd: when the engine and thus the piston arm heats up, it grows toward the one side of the chamber wall. 3rd: piston rings wear unevenly and will be influenced by the centrifugal force around the arm axis. Outside gets pushed against the wall harder, inside gets pushed into the groove. 4th: block strength is compromised due to openings on the side, so the block gets weaker and/or more heavy! 5th: the piston acceleration has higher peaks due to the two circular paths instead of one linear. The piston will get jerked harder on TDC, depending on the rotational direction to the piston arm at decel or accel. And the knew harmonics the arm brings with it! An engeneres sweaty nightmare! 😱 I see parts of the piston fatiguing, and weird wear patterns on all the bearings.
25
@unicornadrian1358 Why, is it better? Just repeating nonsense frases doesn't explain anything! How dose this construction reduce friction? How dose it make the combustion more efficient?
11
@thesollys9540 And what's with the lateral force from the con rod under combustion pressure? That for what the pivot arm mainly is for? It's not just to gently guide the piston so it doesn't fall over. 😂 Also all the centrifugal force from all the crap hanging on the end of the arm moving in a circular path rather then linear, plus the inertia from the con rod when the crank changes its direction. There is alot of force on that arm! Would it be straight and it's axis straight true the center of mass of the piston that would be less of a concern. But that's not possible, in engenering it's called a drawback. This engine is damned to run relatively low rpm's.
8
@unicornadrian1358 I knew what the benefits of this design was and the intention behind it. Just was curious if someone could come up with another bonkers reason. 😏 40% of all parasitic loses inside a engine is from the piston group. Half of that is for the rings dielrectly and half is from shear forces between the piston and oil film. This shear forces are round about half and half for the skirt and the oil rings. Half of the work of scraping off the excessive oil comes from the skirt. So in best case zenario you get somthing like a 10-15% reduction of losses thru that mechanism. And now add all the additional losses thus to increase of yoints. For the mater of the doubt, let's give it a 10% benefit. Is that worth the effort? You can easily shave off alot more loses with simpler solutions. Alot of modern engine for example have variable displacement oil pumps, that gives you 10-15% right of the bett. Also magnetically coupled water pumps to cycle them periodically or to use a smaller electrical pump for low power situations. The benefit is not worth the complexity! Maby you can work out all the new kinks of such a system and make it at least reliable. But you have alot more expanses to produce and maintain such an engine. For example you need a specialized Maschine to hone the bore for repair, heck you can't even cross hatch it because you just can do single point cutting! You also can't sleve it, so you have to LDS coate it or go back to Alusil surfaces. Alusil is just repairable with larger pistons, and LDS is not viable for repair and needs cross hatching anyway! That's like making a wankel engine equal to a piston engine. Can it be done? Shure, but it takes aerospace tech and development to do it! And even the simple solution like the oil pumps are not done on smaller cheaper engines because it's simply not worth it.
7
@DrTheRich On that arm will be ALOT of force! Why is every one thinks that it just gently guides the piston? It's not, the arm needs to take up the lateral force from the con rod! You know, the thing that makes a crank cranking and not just bow under a detonation. 😉
7
@davidcolin6519 It's not that it can't be made! It's the viability that's the problem. It increases complexity and afford to make, and doesn't give back much benefits and adds new problems. I am myself build stuff like that all the time just because it's a fun challenge, not because it's revolutionary. I guess that was his purpose also. But then comes someone that doesn't understand engenering and think that's the next best shitt after sliced bread, and convince him to promote his stuff, or dose it for him. Sry to brake your enthusiasm about revolutionary inventions that kept suppressed by evil corporations for profit...... It's not that! This stuff was made multiple times over the last 200 years, and it was not successful for reasons. Engineers built a multitude of engines with all sorts of levers and cogs. In fact, the first gas engine from Nicolaus August Otto, (the inventor of the Otto cycle) had no crank but a long ratched rack to drive the flywheel. It worked fine, but it was quickly replaced by a conventional crank, but with a linear guided rod end, like a steam engine. That was quickly replaced by today's standard configuration, even with slow moving open crank engines. Why if such a guiding system is such a good idea??? Because more affort for to less advantage, if at all! In reality, alot of things that are good in theory are bad in practice.
6
@ajwilson605 How would you Maschine and press in a bowed sleeve? That would be interesting. Also how do you hone the surface to get a cross hatch to hold oil? You just can Single point cut such a geometry. Best choice for the bore lining would be LDS or Alusil. Alusil is crap, and LDS can't be repaired and need honing. And why would there be no wear on the bore? Most wear comes from the rings, the skirt is mostly hydrodynamicly beared by the oil. Oh Yea, because it says so in the video. My bad! 🤦‍♂️
6
@unicornadrian1358 But still way slower and more elaborate. And for what benefit?
5
@matthewpeterson3329 No I'm not certain that I'm right but pretty convinced. As long as no one brings up some logical and technical based argument I will nagg you dreamers until I get bored! 🤣 No really, no one defending this brings up real technical arguments! It's all just "it's so much more efficient", "you just wana be against it", "watch the video..." bla bla bla.... Pls, someone give me a theoretical solution how the get a cross hatch in that bore! How?
5
@leadgindairy3709 Yea, I did! And what? Everything claimed from the curator is absolute truth? Because it must be, ain't it? What technical fact in this video makes logical sense? It's just the typical "it's 30% more efficient, bla, bla" The compressors build with that is a viable application because they have Teflon seals and are used for spezial purposes where no oil is wanted. So you can't use the piston to guide itself. But on the other hand don't need to have a cross hatch (so you can single point cut it) in the bore, not much heat and low rpm. By the way, 50% of the friction in a piston group comes from the rings, and those loses make up for 40% of all parasitic loses INSIDE the engine, and the parasitics make 5-7% of the engine power. It's not the ultimate wonder weapon that increases efficiency at 30%. It literally reduces over all PISTON group losses 20- 30% (mathematically best Szenario) wich results in 1-2% overall efficiency gain! WOW! 💪
4
@matthewpeterson3329 I don't know where the emotional part is, but maby it just bugs me that so much people can't use there brain, and instead like to get hyped with spectacular special bla blub.... Thing is, it's not at all frictionless, the rings make up for 50% of friction in the piston group. So that's the rings, (mostly the oil rings) and the skirt and the rist pin (wich is negligible) What I would like to see on the comments are technical debate about specific aspects of this construction, and what those could be beneficial for. Like the compressors, those are for low oil, or oil less applications where you can't rely on the skirts for guiding. How much rpm can you pull on those ptfe seals, and what surface on the bore is good for that? Maby a smooth bore with chrome plating? You can Single point cut such a shape smooth easily, but you can't hone it. Wich surface treatment would you think would be viable for a production, combustion engine in that making? Honing a cross hatch is pretty much out of the question. Or how would you do that?
4
@DrTheRich And what is with the lateral force from the con rod? The main force the skirt is normally for? Also the new centrifugal force introduced by the now circular path of the piston. There will be ALOT of force going true that banana arm into that poor bearing.
4
@paradiselost9946 yep! I would like to see some of the Fanboys resolving any of those problems. 😁👍
2
@ET_AYY_LMAO OH shitt, I smell conspiracies! No that's not there only intend. They making stuff as cheap as possible, because we want our stuff to be cheap. What people don't realize is that although stuff gets cheaper, the live span often times stays the same! Especially cars didn't drop that much in runtime until recently. (cars that cost as much equivalent to a sewing machine in the 1920s) A car from the 60s can't run even 100k without several engine rebuilds. The thing is, in an ideal world, the technological advances would be used to make things last even longer to get the most economy out of them. But that's not our world. The consumers demand cheap stuff all the time, and the industries are happy to constantly deliver. That's our economy today. That's a social problem, not a conspiracy from the industry.
2
@ajwilson605 So you mean the piston rings run dry or what? The oil rings have nothing to do with the skirt, they are needed anyway. Also honing with a "dingelberry" will get that bore out of shape. Only way to Maschine anything in such a geometry is by having the "cuter" in a single plain and moving the tool head in that path. In a production environment that's not feasible because you get trouble to control wear on the honing tool. That for Shure would be a candidate for other technics like LDS.
2
@kirkboswell2575 Yea, just take all those claims for granted, without using you own brain. 🤤 You are exactly the right customer for that!
2
@mitchellcouchman1444 Yea, to EDM the block out of tungsten was just a joke! But it worked! 😂 Get some books about machining, industrial Production and internal combustion engines! I just can recommend German ones, but maby the English literature hase somthing equivalent. Beside all the Profesional literature ther is a good series called "autos schneller machen" Independently of it's cheesy name there is alot of really good information on every topic from the engine over chassis to the Suspension, from former industry engeneres in retirement. Just in German though! 🤷‍♂️
2
@sharefactor yep, that's why I'm nag so hard on those people. They are here in ther bubble, petting each others back without using their brain. And I have great fun seeing them struggle to give even one good argument. 😜
2
@PorchBass No shitt Sherlock!
2
@elfeiin No, but thank you for informing me about that. Very interesting, maby I should leave all those idiots alone in there hype about stupid tech! 🤔
2
@richardfiennes3616 I don't think so. The masses of the parts would be less of a problem in a diesel engine, but the larger lateral forces on a diesel due to high compression and higher combustion pressures may be a problem for that banana arm. Also the benefit of lower friction gets smaller the lower the rpm of the engine is. And diesel engines need relative rugged pistons to withstand the violent diesel combustion. Such thin piston heads without a supporting skirt might be to week overall.
2
@mitchellcouchman1444 It's for Shure doable. You also can EDM maschine an engine block out of solid tungsten. But my overall conclusion is that you have to figure out too much new problems, for to less benefit. You basicly throws away 40% of engine development from the last 100 years, and start from scratch. For example even wankel engines are not at the same refined state as normal piston engines. You can't just make a piston bore bowed and assume that it will all behave like a linear one, BUT BETTER! 😑
1
@kirkboswell2575 Yea, I did that because most of those claims are more then questionable for someone with an engenering background. And I like to challenge the Fanboys. 😈 No one of them comes with ther own arguments, instead they just repeat what they have been told.
1
@twizz420 Why do you assume that? 😏 I guess you are to lazy to scroll true this comment?
1
@Unkl_Bob "There spacs wich seam to contradict in your talking point." As a non native English speaker I head to put that sentence into a translator to understand, I guess you are British, Americans don't speak that elaborate. 😆 I don't give a damm if my statement are not that coherent, because I want to see some quality arguments about the topic, and if you don't understand the technicalities that I just scratch, IDGAF. Yea, I don't like this engine as a internal combustion engine. Because I can see all the new problems that come with that constitution, and I think it's not woth it, it's just a noble approach. Don't get me wrong I am not the most knowledgeable person on that topic, but given the lack of valid arguments against mine make me wana push the finger deeper in the wound! 😈 For a little test, what is the shape of a piston in a modern engine like? As a hint, it's not a cylinder. 😉 And why?
1
@that207guy7 and you didn't pay attention to the comments! Also you are one of the midgets that hails the content your watching without a doubt! Must be right if a video says so!? 🤣
1
@that207guy7 no, I don't! But I give logical arguments and all you Fanboys don't! Don't just say, "yes this can be done with cnc machines" of cause it can, but if one sleeve takes 2 hours to Maschine with a ball end mill, you can brace your self for bankruptcy, even with 20% efficiency gain on the engine! How would you go for the bore surface? Alusil, Nicasil ore LDS? Mh!? Or if you think classic honing is viable, how would you technically do that? Pls give your wisdom to me!
1
@that207guy7 that insulting to you? Holly shitt! I'm sorry, I just wana dive into those bubbles some people are in to, and try to get some good technical arguments out, or at least make them thinking. If you're not technical savvy about such fields and light skinned, maby you shouldn't join those conspiracy bubble topics. This stuff is very controversial, because it might have some usefull truth behind it, but alot of technicalities are very questionable at lest. Alot of people just find it fascinating and thus think it's viable technology. But most people that have knowledge in the fields involved are just turning away bored. So the crowd left is fired up about finding somthing that looks mysterious... My personal goal is to question those close minded people to give me some valid arguments. If someone dose, it might be a interesting new detail, and if not I have a bitter sweet laugh about stupid people. I hate people for being stupid cunt's! 😙
1
@carlosmejia5728 That sentence makes not that much sense! I just can guess. Pls explain more precisely what you mean. Do you mean that on the pendulum engine, the piston doesn't exert lateral forces onto the zylinder wall? If so, yes that's it's whole purpose!
1
@YanGlina How do you gain 30% if there is not even 10% lost? Magic? It's amazing how much people just buy somthing someone says, without even thinking ones about it themselves. Or fact checking, if you have no clue about the subject. Look up some data from the Googley thingie. It's quite easy! 😉
1
@Sammy Van Dankstein 😂👍
1
@PatricioGarcia1973 After I make stupid people make ther mouth shut professionally, I am keyboard warrior, yes! The compressors in that style are used in applications where you can't use lubricant (or less) on the pistons because of contermination, like medical or some chemical stuff. That's where this is useful, NOT IN ENGINES as it turns out!
1
@Test4Echos yes, and he hase success with it. Just not as a internal combustion engine! 😂 And that's my whole point!
1
@jannpatrick6392 Yea of cause! You are absolutely right! 😘
1
Such engines where already build decades ago! I wonder wich trivial detail Mazda patented on this! 😆 Those engines just were not feasible back then because you have a hard time tuning this with a simpel mechanical injection, let alone a carburetor, combined with the complications in gas exchange this is a nightmare to get runing properly. It is realy the modern computing power and better understanding of gas exchange that makes this a real option.
1
Thats Stupid! This increases mass, friction and complexity of manufacturing, with no advantages! Go aheadd and try to maschine that bore!!!!
1