Intake Valve and Feliks' ideas

[Feliks]

Yes, I describe a tsunami from the mainland. However, it was not science fiction. This, however, safety of nuclear plants is science fiction. I wonder how many are Indian nuclear power plants is at risk .. a lot a few days longer to collect water ..
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-32859353

Andrew

[Feliks]

I was at the fair Engine Expo 2015 in Stuttgart, this time to watch, but lacked the funds .. But we have a great relationship with the load Engine of the Year awards in 12 categories in 2015 ... I was just dreaming that in a few years in these all categories , can overcome my concept of four-stroke engines ... it's just that you have to win about 85% of knowledge about the new engine and the old concepts abandon, despite the here they are great ..but worth it .. here reportage of this wonderful celebration ..

http://www.ukipme.com/engineoftheyear/

Download the exclusive online awards magazine here!

http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/645 ... 64507aa3/1

Andrew

[Feliks]

So once again we return to the thermodynamic efficiency new4stroke .. Here the hearing of the efficiency of the charts made for the traditional engine.
https://www.mhi.co.jp/technology/review ... 451021.pdf

You can see on the chart with the highest efficiency is low speed engine sea, which is 47%.
My engine as reported above, draws about 360 cc more than the old conventional engine, which did a prototype or 600 ccm ... But this extra volume displacement, is implemented by the system of pistons which rotate two times slower, ie, the force of inertia are four times smaller, because they are dependent upon the square of the rotation. that is, we can just to count the inertial forces relative to the sucked air further. 360 ccm divided by four is going to give us 90 cc. These 90 ccm going to beat the additional forces of inertia (ie a total of friction). But now we have a net profit of 360 ccm minus 90 cc = 270 cc. It is pure extra profit aspirated air, without any mechanical losses already on its construction .. that is entirely theoretical operational efficiency engine so it looks .. traditional engine of 600 cc is 47%, ie 12, 76 ccm is 1% plus an additional 270 cc, which is 270 divided by 12,76 = 21% additional efficiency .. So the total increase the efficiency regarding displacement capacity should be at 47 +21 = 68%. additionally, we can still make a profit energy by stopping propelling Similar systems poppet valves and springs which will have at least the 7% efficiency more .. So, the total physical ability of such an engine 68% + 7% = ~ 75% .

ie it is to increase efficiency, which can not be subject to discussion.

If we add all the above mentioned advantages, no such low temperature in the combustion chamber, the combustion speed, and more, which can contribute to higher efficiency even further by around 5% this will give us the final number of efficiency of up to 80% .....
Andrew

[Feliks]

Windmills are good, but you need a wind to their work ...
But here the way we can, even in a closed room, well, for instance in the basement of the house, "produce wind" .. Just, the Starting a device, manually, to the speed of 18 m / sec..To are few, it is 1 turn per second.
I've been to all these wings Windmill Red Baron, will operate the wind, at the speed of 18 m / sec ..
If we consider, in simulator NASA and the effect of "spoon" is theoretically You will receive an strength of resistance to "lift force" (vacuum). and is about 15 times less ..
So the resistance force, it is only around 6% received "lift force"
I think that even with a very negligent and mismanagement execution of such a machine, it will propel herself after the first start-up .. And we should still get some electricity .. Case, jet just how much ..




description:



Vane drive:






http://www.new4stroke.com/treadmill.mp4

or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mt1DEHlZ0Kc


Regards Andrew

[Feliks]

We must take care to harmful aerodynamic resistances as low as possible ..
Because, after all, and two revolutions per second can turn the wings .. It is 120 km / h .. Pretty on the wind.
This cover should be good.



Andrew

[Feliks]

Can of some use ..

http://enu.kz/repository/2010/AIAA-2010-1007.pdf

Andrew

[Feliks]

If the vacuum looks like the animation spoon wings, it is seen that it has a range before the profile wings. Perhaps the the vacuum will suck the new air between the wings and hence a marked decrease their frontal resistance ..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1QOp_9 ... e=youtu.be


Here a version with a large vane Engines .. I do not know yet what dimensions it should be .. Maybe even a big and then it will be adjusted to the amount and pressure created by the wings

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_So_SOZUlI

Andrew

[Feliks]

Once upon a time there was no internet .. Even with the video was difficult .. only movies .. I have survived such films showing such beautiful cars with large wings .. I once suggested that such a wing but the bulge facing down ..but not all of it like .. it turned out that such huge wings were already in use .. Now can a wing of such large dimensions but the double - spoon effect .. interesting how many vacuum that could, if NACA-profile Felix apply any .. maybe above a certain speed .. .....







Andrew

[Feliks]

Yesterday marked the 70th anniversary of explosion atomic bomb in Nagasaki. the first theoretical founder Joseph Rotblat it was ..

https://www.wagingpeace.org/tag/joseph-rotblat/

quoted below what was his attitude to scientific discoveries:

"Hind al. [16] pointed out that the unpredictability switched
petent research makes such a project
difficult, if at all possible. But such a project
of it becomes meaningful if based on ethical principles.
Rotblat was of the opinion that the foundations of ethics should form
part of the training of all scientists. He wanted,
that universities have adopted some sort of cited above
oaths, and to students of natural filed
such a vow when finish their studies, and listened to lectures
on the ethical aspects of science. Relying on his conscience
and the good will of individual scientists not in itself
It will be sufficient, since the units are often unreliable.
Therefore called for the establishment of a number of ethics committees,
which might consider science projects that may affect
human life, some kind of medical committees
ethical. Consent ethics of such a committee would be required
for funding a particular direction of research.
In later life, Rotblat opposed
research conducted in secret, which is often
in the case of government research and industrial applications. He believed
that new knowledge to be shared. He moved a problem
associated with the commercialization of research, since many studies
carried out in universities were funded
from commercial sources. This could influence the direction
study, put at risk the ethical problems and increase the mystery.
He also began to hate the patenting of results
research, because in his opinion, knowledge should be
available for free. But scientists themselves often impose secrecy.
because they want to keep other scholars in the dark
until publication, because a person who
First it publishes, often gets awards and honors.
These views Rotblat that come with early stages
his career and matured over a lifetime, are a bit naive,
because competition, secrecy
and commercialization are part of learning. He simply wanted
resist these pressures "

I like it..

Andrew

[Feliks]

Here this car..



Andrew

[Feliks]

[QUOTE=Thepanzerfuhrer;32937258]If I employed this wing technique on say a convertible mustang, how much reduction could I expect in my corrected et?[/QUOTE]

for it is not such a simple thing .. My drawing is only a theory, and even to good its use probably still need many experiences .. It's like a first flight .. Here we see that one of the first aircraft was driven by the wheel to become independent by the wind .. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustave_Whitehead
Now that the simulator airfoil from NASA perfectly we can see that even minimal changes in some parameters, the cause, the whole project can not go wrong .. You can discern that the value of lifting force to the resistance can take very extreme value. THEREFORE should be chosen carefully all the values. RELATIONSHIP TO RESISTANCE to the lift of WAS AS 1: 10 ..
For the time being we do not have a simulator to "spoon effect", the distance and angle of attack of wings .. But we can assume based on experience, that it will have a value, after careful about choosing the least 3 times larger than the two single wing, that is, if we simulator one wing lift 37 pounds is two give us 74 pounds .. multiply it by spoon effect. that is, times 3, which gives us 222 pounds of force "propellants", in relation to the resistance, which is 7.4 pounds ... So theoretical gain is about 30 times .. Now, from our skills and experience will depend on how much practically with the profit we will they could utilize to drive a car .. it is a very big number, and even if almost ten times we reduce it, it will be us coefficient 3, for a clean drive a car .. so it all depends on how it practically execute ..



Andrew

[Feliks]

Well, for flying Dedalus human needs only 200 watts of power .. I wonder how many need to of going by car ..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_Daedalus


Here the newest model ..




Andrew

[gruntguru]

If I employed this wing technique on say a convertible mustang, how much reduction could I expect in my corrected et?

for it is not such a simple thing .. My drawing is only a theory, and even to good its use probably still need many experiences .. It's like a first flight .. Here we see that one of the first aircraft was driven by the wheel to become independent by the wind .. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustave_Whitehead
Now that the simulator airfoil from NASA perfectly we can see that even minimal changes in some parameters, the cause, the whole project can not go wrong .. You can discern that the value of lifting force to the resistance can take very extreme value. THEREFORE should be chosen carefully all the values. RELATIONSHIP TO RESISTANCE to the lift of WAS AS 1: 10 ..
For the time being we do not have a simulator to "spoon effect", the distance and angle of attack of wings .. But we can assume based on experience, that it will have a value, after careful about choosing the least 3 times larger than the two single wing, that is, if we simulator one wing lift 37 pounds is two give us 74 pounds .. multiply it by spoon effect. that is, times 3, which gives us 222 pounds of force "propellants", in relation to the resistance, which is 7.4 pounds ... So theoretical gain is about 30 times .. Now, from our skills and experience will depend on how much practically with the profit we will they could utilize to drive a car .. it is a very big number, and even if almost ten times we reduce it, it will be us coefficient 3, for a clean drive a car .. so it all depends on how it practically execute ..
Andrew

Andrew:
Pressure is not energy. It is possible to multiply pressure by a factor of 10 or more using an aerofoil as you say however:

Energy = Pressure x volume of air displaced.

When you use an aerofoil to multiply pressure, the volume of air you can drive from this amplified pressure source is much lower than the volume you need to extract from the freestream to create the pressure in the first place.

The principle is the same as a lever - you can amplify the force but the displacement available is much lower than the displacement that must be applied to the long end of the lever. Energy = force x displacement.

So the best possible result (all devices in your mechanism are 100% efficient) is that the drag energy lost in driving the wing through the air is the same as the energy available to an air-motor driven by air from your venturi. This is a complicated way of saying:

"there is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine"

[Feliks]

If I employed this wing technique on say a convertible mustang, how much reduction could I expect in my corrected et?

Andrew:
Pressure is not energy. It is possible to multiply pressure by a factor of 10 or more using an aerofoil as you say however:

Energy = Pressure x volume of air displaced.

"there is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine"

Here you have proof .. windmill spins and gives you energy ... it is only a question of how much .. but for sure you can use it to add to drive the car ..and it arises from the negative pressure generated on the wing .. This is your case what you believe. . Formerly also they believed that a machine heavier than air can not fly .. and enough to weigh duck and find out you can .. I am convinced that as Einstein studied, it just so he just said ..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPZWUQlhvDA

Andrew

[flynfrog]

How much drag does your airfoil have? How much energy are you getting from the fan?