This engine is better in every way?
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 05. 2024
- This engine is better in every way than a conventional engine. It’s more efficient, it makes more power and it even has much better balance.
First, the efficiency. The connecting rod in a conventional engine is at an angle when combustion occurs. Of the four strokes combustion is the one where by far the highest loads are placed on the engine. The fact that the rod is angled during combustion means that the load placed on it is trying to flip the rod. As the rod tries to do this it actually ends up pushing the piston into the cylinder wall. This increases friction and friction is wasted energy which means that efficiency is reduced as less of the energy created by combustion is actually turned into useful work. The other problem is that this increased friction also increases wear. This angle of the rod is the reason why one side of a cylinder wears more than the other over many miles.
Next up, power. How can a different rotating assembly increase power? It can do this by giving the engine more time to harness the energy created by combustion. This of course also positively contributes to efficiency but at high rpm when the window for harnessing combustion energy becomes very small, buying some time leads to higher power output. How does the rotating assembly buy time? By preventing the rod from pulling the piston down.
Now our unconventional engine has a name and it’s called is a scotch yoke engine. A scotch yoke is simply an alternative way of turning rotation into reciprocation and it is not a novel concept at all. It has been employed many times in the past in steam and hot air engines. In the 1920 a gentleman by the name of Ruseel Bourke attempted to improve two stroke engines by empliyng a scotch yoke design and although he built a few working examples, his design was never commercialized.
This brings us to the elephant in the room. If this design has sooo many benefits and is much better than a conventional engine then why do all of our vehicles, land, sea and air, use a conventional engine instead of the allegedly much better scotch yoke design.
But the actual key reason why this engine is not in every vehicle is that this design has an inherent weakness and if you observe it for a bit it quickly becomes obvious where the weakness is…and yes you guessed it. It’s the rod. It’s always the rod. This giant slot that we made in the rod in order to gain all these benefits has done two things. First of all it has made the rod weak and second it has created potential for friction problems. However, material science and engineering as well as machining have made leaps and bounds in the last few decades and may now be in the position to offer solutions to the inherent problems of the scotch yoke engines.
And this brings us to Alfadan. As some of you may know, I made a video about a novel engine design two years ago. The company behind this engine is called Alfadan and according to their patent the engine they want to bring to market is an inline four with a scotch yoke design. The video I made got many views for some reason and I still get a lot of questions in my comments asking about updates. I also get accusations how I promoted a scam etc. So I’d like to use this opportunity to discuss Alfadan a bit and hopefully provide answers to the past and future questions that may come.
A special thank you to my patrons:
Daniel
Pepe
Brian Alvarez
Peter Della Flora
Dave Westwood
Joe C
Zwoa Meda Beda
Toma Marini
Cole Philips
#d4a #scotchyoke
00:00 Scotch Yoke engine benefits
08:43 Alfadan follow-up - Auta a dopravní prostředky
The wrist pin friction losses are just moved to the sliding square and the piston is obviously still loaded at an angle
Yeah i was thinking the same thing
Yes I see a lot friction there.
Would that sliding square be set in roller bearings, both top and bottom?
there is also a lot more weight.
@@rob5944 Even if, that would add more moving parts and reliability would probably suffer.
It can be a balance king but at the same time it become friction king. The contact surface is enormous
Large friction surface means lower friction!
@@stianmathisen4284explain please
@@stianmathisen4284 most of the surfaces in an engine never contact one another, they ride on a thin film of oil and any amount of metal-to-metal contact should be considered a mechanical failure. larger contact surfaces = way more oil shear forces = more losses. the main reason modern car engines are moving to thinner and thinner oils is because the engine oil viscosity contributes a huge portion of the total frictional losses
Why not put four bearings, one at each corner of the slider. That would eliminate the sliding friction.
The contact surface is smaller. 2-times diameter vs 3.1415926535... times
There is still significant friction against the cylinder of the scotch yoke design: the off-centre force from the crank pin on the yoke causes a torque, just like in the connecting rod, which in turn torques the piston inside the cylinder. The force on the cylinder wall can be reduced by increasing the piston length, similar to how the lateral forces are reduced by lengthening the connecting rod.
No , the short edges of the scotch yoke's "square" run up and down linear bearings ( 9:40 648 & 650 in the diagram are bearings) in the crankcase walls. This eliminates side loads on the piston. i.e. The square also acts as a crosshead , as used in steam engines and large (ship size) diesels
For some reason most commenters fail to understand this
@@user-ic6ln4lm2x Ok, so they just shifted the uneven force and friction from the cylinder wall to the crank case wall. My point still stands.
It would probably not be a 1 cylinder engine.
I think you are missing the fact that the off-axis force still exists. So you will need restraint against rotating of the yoke due to the moment (torque).
@@user-ic6ln4lm2x Got it, so you have more reciprocating sliding surfaces and more reciprocating mass. You also have much more difficulty in maintaining tolerances which is why such designs have only been used commercially in low speed applications such as diesel ship engines. You just moved the problem (which has long ago been solved) to a more problematic location. YAY! I love designs that rattle themselves apart due to problematic tolerancing requirements!
I am a pilot. Although I spent most of my career flying jets, perhaps my favorite piston aircraft engine is the Lycoming IO-360. It is a 6 liter, 4 cylinder engine. How do they manage to make a smooth 4 cylinder engine that big? It's an air cooled boxer. The secondary balance problem was solved a long time ago, 23 million Volkswagen Beetles can't be wrong.
boxers are very suitable for larger displacement due to their inherent good balance. vw beetles were built to spec so are not the pinnacle of engineering, just good enough. a boxer 6 is even better than a boxer 4, ie porsche.
an inline 4 and a boxer 4 are different
lol i was thinking the same thing, this design but in boxer engine would get rid of many problems he talks about, and if you make lets say, a 8 cyl boxer, with two pistons per rod assembly, you get rid of the weakness in the bottom rod cap
@@daos3300 porsche makes flat sixes, not boxer sixes.
@@midnight.a3 how so?
The sliding box section of the yoke design would make lubrication a lot more difficult to achieve effectively than with standard plain bearings on a normal crank pin.
Mitigation through soaking the crank in the oil sump halfway or more? Yes more detergent and stringent oil change intervals I believe
as a new comer marine engineer cadet, i have to say that the sliders that are being used on the 2 stroke low rpm diesel engines, are made of white metals, that are cheap and are the first to wear out, so damaging of the engine can be avoided. In those engines are vertical, but yoke sliders are on the side, something that will incise friction and wearing out. Because of that i am very interested to see with what they came out to stope that problem.
Not really, it would be feeding oil to the crank and thus the square itself through feed holes, exactly like normal cranks. And voila. Have it squirt oil just before and after the lead and end corners of each slide surface of the square, the same way we use piston skirt squirters. Just have it squirt the slides instead. Bam done.
The early Scot design probably only relied on paddle oiling like push mowers so it's no wonder it failed.
@@ShogunAutoworks it slows the wear out, but yes, if it is lubricated properly, then the life spend will be increased to that of a piston' s spring, or even more then that.
There could be needle bearings the same that are used in some high horsepower cam applications. However, there could be a round design instead of a square crank design.
Scotch yoke sounds like a British breakfast dish.
Great work. Love this channel.
😂😂😂👍🍳
It does.
Something grey, disgusting and that gives you heart attacks.
It's actually the non-rotating centre of a Scotch Egg 🤣
Deep fried scotch egg made out of mars bars and heroin... probably
We had a horizontally-opposed Scotch-yoke engine designed three decades ago. Each piston was double-ended (you still need to keep that yoke from moving, there _are_ side forces!) with the yoke in the middle. We never got around to building it, but in my retirement I may do so. Gotta make it a four to keep the balance even close enough to live with!
Use rails on the right+left of the yoke.
Could it be possible to use gears to increase the strength and reduce sliding friction?
What engine was that? I've only heard of a 2 stroke design and that it never made mass production.
Bourke engine, look it up.
@@klausbrinck2137 And it's added friction...
That whole thing about no sideloading on the piston is unfortunately not true in the configuration that was shown in all the animations. Adding linear bearings to keep the yoke from moving sideways would take out a lot of that, but it would add friction at yet another point.
It's a case of saving friction in one place and loosing it in three others. So sorry, but I can't see how this would be able to revolutionize engine design. People have tried it before, and will try again as everyone is certain that no one else understands just how great their particular idea is.
And there's nothing wrong with people trying to refine ideas, but it become stupid when you have to ignore science for your idea to make sense.
You not only have sliding friction but also every moment of movement places a different direction of sheering force on that slot as you convert circular motion into lateral motion.
Scotch yoke engines make more sense as a boxer engine
I remember reading a article on how it would change engines forever and that was 20years ago still waiting.
As mentioned in the video, there are still inherit issues with the Scotch/Yoke engine that is still keeping it in engineering development. Until then, a conventional piston mechanism is still the preferred choice for mass production and applications.
Not a boxer, you mean a flat engine - a boxer, by definition, needs to have separate rods
It’s vapour ware.
I read about the scotch yoke in 1974, still waiting. 😅
im not convinced the complexity of the sliding friction interface is worth a minor improvement in vibrations.
You're underestimating harmonics and balance
The most important part is getting rid of the far more severe sliding-friction in the cylinder/piston -interface... High combustion temperatures let metals get soft, and ease the destructive effects of sliding friction. Friction doesn´t come from nowhere, it simply leaves the cylinder, and goes somewhere, where the situation is far more under control, cause it´s cooler.
You get the benefit of longer dwell at tdc and a few other things on top of that.
Scotch yoke engines aren't exactly a new thought, the first ones built were the Bourke engines iirc.
They're quite interesting, and it's without doubt a feasible concept. Iirc some larger companies experimented with some such rather recently because the longer dwell time/slower movement around TDC was supposed to have advantages for HCCI engines or something like that.
if it was worth it, it would be used all over the place
The slider bracket would have to have a guiding groove andthe guide square have guide nub. Starting this would require a starter on the crank and timed firing. It seems rather extensive withmore draw backs for mass production. The lower crank case would need testing as well
The Scotch yoke actually tends to _degrade_ efficiency in practice. Since the piston spends more time being near TDC, and the sliding motion between the yoke and guide, more energy is lost as heat.
1.7m investment, nothing to show, the only 2 employees taking a 100K a year salary. No seems legit.
nice scotch yoke, next: geared piston
Why bother with geared pistons. Wankel engines is where it's @ m8!
@@markusluftner8418 a Wankel is basically 3 geared pistons in one
@@hansdietrich83 No, its' 3 very inefficient geared pistons in one.
@@markusluftner8418 So 3 geared pistons in one, then.
@@Ijusthopeitsquick no 3 oilfillercaps in 1 scavege pump
The yoke needs a tail guiding section below the connection to the crank to overcome piston ossilations within the bore from the forces of power stroke and compression strokes. The line of force moves from one side of the yoke/crank connection on every cycle.
The yoke runs on rails on its left and right (not shown in the animations here)...
It's called a crosshead but yeah
Came here to write a similar thought. The forces on that large "see saw" will cause huge friction on the piston to bore area. Adding more stabilisation to counter that just makes the friction elsewhere increase .
Another piston seems like the ideal "stabilizer".... it's other shortcomings, not withstanding...
@@jamesgeorge4874 an additional piston is probably best, a flat 8 seems like the most logical configuration
The Scotch crank has been arround for ages . It's ONLY advantage is that the piston moves sinusoidaly . Greater reciprocating mas more sliding friction , a total non starter that should remain a historic curiosity .
Funny in 1976 my father and I built a 2 cylinder apposed Brouke scotch yoke engine. We used a roller bearing on the crankshaft, but on our first crankshaft the rod journal was to small and it sheared off. Second try we used a Kawasaki 100cc crankshaft. I believe that an apposed 4 cylinder may solve some of the balance issues. We were able to get 10,000 rpm underload but were unable to spin it faster due to it having a carborator and a distributer out of a 1960's VW. Using modern direct injection and ignition this may actually work.
Just looking at the scotch yoke design, I would expect it to be a better proposition in horizontally opposed engines, simply becaues each cylinder will support the straight movement of the yoke assembly, also able to optimise the strength of the yoke on both thrust surfaces without adding extra material. I would also expect this layout to reduce any balance issues.
Surprised the likes of Porsche and BMW (Motorcycles) havent tried this in their boxer engines.
if you like new engine ideas, you may like the liquid piston engine. It seems to have a lot of potential, by being able to run in a variety of fuels, with high efficiency, and being simple and light weight. There is not much videos about it, so if you find it interesting, you could make a video about this engine, and at the same time help the engineers by making their job known.
It does sound interesting, but at the same time the company and people there have too many... "questionable" stuff behind them. I'd love to be proven wrong, but there're too many signs that it's an intentional scam, just to grab investors' money.
LP is just another crap ass rotary engine with high SA/vol and low efficiency. theres a reason they havent published any efficiency numbers yet
@@dirtyclanner2250 they are developing the engine from 2004, with the final design been made in 2016. From then, they are involving it, trying to make it more efficient and more powerful. They have a small museum with their previous designs and fully workable prototypes, and in their website, their looking for new engineers, so calling it a scam is a huge claim for which there are no evidences.
@@reedhanson5945 they have relish. It is all in their website. Also don't say that something is a crap before it get tested. The LP engine doesn't need more lubrication oil then a usual engine, because the friction that is experiencing is mostly rolling friction.
The LP engine would be great for small aircraft but I am skeptical if they will ever make an engine that does not need overhauled frequently. The Achilles heel of the design is the seals, not at the tip like on a normal rotary but on the sides of the rotor.
Fascinating that the source of secondary imbalances in a standard layout are clearly visible as the two models reciprocate.
It's impressive how much patience and perseverance you have to explain it to some idiots 👍👍👍 BIG RESPECT for this👍
I see a torque at the piston in that configuration. Much more than in the traditional design. I would guess that this would greatly increase wear an the potential of engine failure. In the traditional design, the piston is pushed against one side. But in the here presented design, the piston will get tilted. Seems like a bigger problem to me.
Needs a cross head to control the rotation of the yoke.
Yup, not only that but you might need a longer piston head to reduce the moment-induced forces at the corners, increasing the contact area of the piston walls and increasing friction.
Then there's the arm which would probably need to be much wider to survive the bending moment without fatiguing.
Then he also says there are fewer parts because there's no hinge between the head and the arm, conveniently forgetting that those extra parts have just been shifted down to the sliding block connection.
In general mechanical engineers like to say that they prefer rotation over sliding wherever possible for reliability. There's so many practical reasons why this theoretically better engine just isn't better. Engine builders haven't just been ignorant this whole time, they've converged on the conventional design for good reasons.
@@excrubulent In addition to that, bearings, or anything round, is easier and cheaper to manufacture.
Sorry for spelling errors, i usually speak german ^^'
Seems like horizontally/vertically opposed would solve the weakness problem of the rod/crank weak point if you have an equal mass of the rod on both sides.
I was also really interested in a company called Revtec in the late 2000's, they had a modular opposed piston design that used a triple lobed cam instead of a crankshaft that had a similar movement to a wankel rotary but the opposed pistons were linked on opposing sides by rigid linkages that kept them in sync as the lobes controlled the stroke of the pistons in the bore. The company had some running prototypes but have since disappeared.
The company was Revetec, and they had some plansfor aero engines where the efficiency would be a good fit, but that apparently didn't go anywhere. I think fundamentally they just ran out of money to develop it further, which is a shame. The prototypes based on a Subaru EJ engine was interesting, but basically proved it wasn't a good fit for automotive.
For anyone interested, here's there Wikipedia page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_combustion_engine
the problem with horizontally/vertically opposed engines is that they are nearly impossible to cool evenly and eventually head warpage is an almost guaranteed failure.
My only thing here with the two opposed cylinders is at that point, why not just get rid of the crankshaft entirely and turn it into a free piston linear generator, a la Toyota's thing, and then put some electric motors in? With relatively minor battery storage, you could have an incredibly efficient, responsive, and reliable setup that has at the very least similar range to a conventional ICE vehicle.
When the motors are asking for more power than the generator is currently generating, they draw power from the batteries. When the load decreases, the generator continues recharging the batteries until they're charged, and then lower power production. Because the batteries are relatively small, you could only store so much from regenerative braking, but it'd get some benefit especially in cities, and the FPLG is more efficient than a crankshaft-based engine. Because there's no rotating assembly, a lot of the big forces don't exist, and since much of the engine is gone, it's much smaller, which helps with packaging. It can be made perfectly balanced in a couple ways, easiest way being two opposing floating pistons with basically a pneumatic spring in the middle. You could also basically just make a 4-cylinder engine with combustion chambers on either side, which would make 8 perfectly-balanced combustion chambers.. but any way to make this engine perfectly balanced would require perfect synchronization of 2 or more pistons, which is the trickiest part.
Not that you couldn't just use an odd ICE, but it seems like if you're taking things that far, the FPLG is capable of suiting the application as well, and would have a number of added benefits.
Holy Rod-Cap Batman! Now the rod cap and slide bearing becomes weakest link. Lubrication in the bearings (roller?) here becomes crucial.
Wobble plate engines (some of them similar to hydraulic motors) were another promising alternative to crankshafts, besides linear engines.
The way you explained scam and what is not scam was amazing. I love you! Lmao 😂🤣😂🤣
I think the Scotch yoke rod should slide between rails, to keep it straight and in linear motion. Now the force of combustion will try to tilt it and the piston, which is much worse than pushing into the cilinder wall. Great idea though!
Yes, real Scotch yoke engines do have rails to constrain the "big end" of the yoke, which are omitted in this video. They are visible in the small model engines shown in this video, and in the Alfadan patent drawings also shown in this video.
That Scotch Yoke design will be forcing the piston to rock in the cyclinder, thus trying to grip it.
A lot
Scotch yoke.... I'm in Perth Western Australia and two different local companies made versions of an engine known as the Bourke Engine (USA 1960's). Bottom line frictional losses were too high, as was wear. LOL. I typed this as your video started... You covered most of it in your video. However....
One was Sarich Technologies...Circa 1987. I forget the other, but That company was owned by a then friend's dad. This was 43 years ago. Just Saying ! P.S. I enjoy your videos. Thank you for making them!
Hello Neighbour- keep cool
To have no side loading, there would have to be another sliding guide below the crankshaft for the piston assembly to slide in which means even MORE friction
Yes it seems that triangle would otherwise rock x degrees if it wasn't supported in some sort of guide...
If the connection to the piston is solid, to keep the triangle moving I a vertical plane, rather than the usual wrist pin, seems there would be rotational forces there, that would end up cracking the connection to the piston... unless it's heavily reinforced, but that would be more reciprocating weight....
I have an early Bosch power saw that uses that arrangement to drive the blade back & forth. It was my granddads then my dad's now I've got it ! Still working perfectly. They definitely don't make them to last like back then, has to be around 90 years young.
I can't believe this man just had to explain to people what scam means
It seems one would want roller bearings inside the slot. Is there a hidden problem with that? And maybe a hydraulic mechanism to keep contact with both sides of the slot (kind of like hydraulic lifters) as it wears?
Shaft for those bearings will either be too small and break, or the rod is going to be too large and drop efficiency. It's possible to avoid that with 2 slightly off-center bearings, but then it's imbalanced :)
Gives a whole new meaning to forcing a square peg in a round hole
Very interesting. So Alfadan didn't actually "reinvent the connecting rod" (their words not the video presenter's), they refined an existing design. I hope they succeed in bringing their technology to market.
They did?? Where? We all would love to actually see something
@@nenume00 Alfadan is a scum 100%. They just want investors to give them money. The owner will take all those money and deliver nothing. The money will go to his own pocket to finance his car, his boat, his mistress etc. Thus the mentioned in marketing material engine will never happen. Never.
I'd say that it's dangerous to croudfund any engineering endeavour unless you know exactly what you're building, how it's going to be built, with minimal unknowns. This is why we see other things like software struggling. People don't realize that there are things that we don't know that we don't know and it directly impacts everything about a product. Not just cost, but timeline, design, and required resourcing at the time, forget macro-economic conditions.
Exactly!
Plenty of stuff is crowd funded at the start. The difference here is the crowd is the general public. I think this is a bad investment but I don't think there's anything nefarious or reckless in this offering
@@d4a USE WHEELS!
I remember back in the day, the original Alfa Romeo GTA from the 1960s and 1970s had a sliding block rear end (might have be an option for racing use) to help locate the rear axle. From my understanding wear and maintenance issues were the main problems. This video reminded me of that setup.
17:15 - My favourite quote yet! *"But of course, knowing that..."*
To mitigate the "small thin" section weakness, make the entire area ROUND. Not flat. A flat surface is more friction. You can make the shape using a cylinder all the way around, and this increase strength (since cylinders are stronger) and also less surface area contact yet same result.
It would make sense to use the scotch yoke in an opposed cylinder design to get around some of the strength issues the yoke has.
Also, a plain rotational bearing has the same sliding friction as a linear sliding bearing (apart from the direction reversal). Making it work efficiently is just a matter of getting the fluid dynamics of the lubrication right.
They make it work for piston rings.
Lubrication nowadays involves much more than just the fluid and basic surface treatments. There are nanoparticles for coatings, solid lubricants, electromagnetism, all sorts of bizarre alloys and ceramics, self-lubrication, ... (search for anything about tribology for more info) but the technology used in mass production is still lagging behind.
@@vitordelima don't believe the spiel on an oil bottle , Castrol Magnetec 🙄
Indeed, but opposed cylinders mean 2 heads, which already complicates the engine a lot, so it could ruin the "game changer" potential of the engine
@@panvomacka9079 Modifying the Scotch Yoke in order to improve its problems with friction and structural issues seems to be more important than this. For example the inner slider could use a gear that rolls over a "serrated" surface and its shape could be slightly elliptical so it only touches one side at any moment. Another example is the article "Design of Scotch yoke mechanisms with improved driving dynamics" which proposes the use of springs to regularize the input torque.
Someone has never heard of a hydrodynamic wedge...
The main advantage I see with this design is balance and harmonics. Wear rates are very good on conventional piston engines that are 'properly' designed, due to advancements in materials/chemical engineering and manufacturing processes. Small engines are pushing loads of turbocharger boost and surviving (like AMG mercedes 4 cylinders), while milder engines (like Toyota's newer 2.5 liter) survive many miles of abuse and minimal maintenance.
I need a car guy friend like you! I love the way you talk and think and disect everything to do with cars! Good video as always!
Having watched 25mm thick steel rip like tissue paper, as well of having connecting rods blast new channels through engine blocks, I would suggest that scotch yokes remain with the early low power toys of yester years.
Became a financial advice video from an engineering video 😂😂
A flat 8 is balanced perfectly and gives the smoothest power.
I'll never tire of your presentation style, broad vocabulary, and ability to convey complex concepts. So cool! Bravo!
Thank you for your quality work. With productions like this, what a time to be alive!
Give an engine more points of possible failure, it will possibly fail more frequently. Always interesting to see anything innovating, whether it's old or new, revisiting them is always a good experience! Especially with evolving machining and tech!
Wow! I actually dropped an email 2 years ago or so to D4A to cover balance in case a Scotch yoke would be used exactly after watching the Alfadan video. No idea if it had any impact but still nice that it's actually here ;-)
As a mechanical engineer I can say this channel is top notch. Those animations just incredible. Visualization is the key to teaching. Amazing work!!!
as a mechanical engineer you should recognise this design doesn't remove the piston axial torque he mentions initially
@@darysparta9676 first of all "piston axial torque" isn't a thing. Not sure what you are referring to. Regardless he said the secondary forces are "much less pronounced". He did not say anything was eliminated.
I’m excited to see this! I’d love to see you cover other alternatives to traditional engine configurations.
Rotating crank journals are still sliding friction, they just are sliding in a circle. The reason early designs failed is their rods sliding surface wasn't being pressure oiled, as modern cranks and thus rod journals are.
Lastly, we could build these and eliminate PRIMARY IMBALANCES if we combined this design in a BOXER engine.
You're welcome ;)
11:00 wow, bro you are WAY more patient than I am in terms of suffering a fool, I can't believe you just went full 3rd-grade teacher on these dunces! 😅👍
now as far as i know is that there are some design ideas that kinda eliminate the problems of the scotch yoke design by using eccentric rods. its kind of a fusion between the piston engine with the movement of a rotary engine.
Hypocycloidal The 3rd oldest steam engine had straight line reciprocation. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hypocycloidal_Engine_higher_res.webm If MAHLE can't make that work, no-one will.
@@enwri yub, just like i described it. the only problem is see with this design is, that it adds parts. however if it is possible to eliminate secondary forces entirely, so why not. it would be great to see some more unique engines on the large market, the last one was only the rotary
Always happy to see you upload. I always learn so much from your videos. Great job!
7:57 correction: the piston rings are sliding the walls, and sometimes the piston skirts do that too
How refreshing to have a sensible debate on the merits and practicality of a subject without the silly arguments and cheap insults so typical in these forums.
Thanks! As always you manage to explain things in a manner that it makes them look simple even if I know they are not.
The best automotive channel from my point of view.
Thank you so much for your support. I sincerely appreciate it.
I'm wondering if the rectangular slot is a modeling simplification, or if changing it to rounded ends (like a pill) would make the slot a bit stronger x)
Unless the square bit slams into the slot's sides and a flat surface is desirable ?
The ends of the slot aren't contacted and are purely structural.
@@TheShamefurDispray okay, thanks !
If only someone redefined rotary engine to work perfectly with no flaws
The flaws in all engines is what makes them so interesting.
There is no absolute perfection; only levels of staving off inevitable impending failure.
The combustion forcing the piston to one side of the cilinder will not be completely gone on this desighn. The "rod" is still only supported by one side when combustion pushes down on it, so there is going to still be some torke generated.
do you have any concrete evidence that their claims of the superiority of their engine is not baseless, and they aren't just sitting around twiddling their thumbs saying "working on it" while drawing a wage until the invested money runs out?
I don't and neither does anyone but society is built on the concept of innocent until proven guilty. No one has said proof for thousands of different companies but we can't go arresting based on assumptions without proof. Ps it goes the other way too. Do you have concrete evidence they're doing what you claim? Or any other company. You also don't have concrete evidence that I'm not a thief but you can't barge into my house because you can't get a search warrant based on a hunch that I'm a thief.
That's the way most startups work. They have an idea and maybe a few patents, and they burn through capital until they have something worth selling. It's a speculative investment; most of them fail but some make it big or at least get bought out profitably. If you don't like the idea, don't invest in them.
Moreover, if the Scotch yoke design catches on and replaces rod engines as the standard, there will be no more secondary vibrations, and then what will you do? Face it, reexplaining secondary vibrations over and over is your Sisyphean destiny.
😂😂😂😂😂
When I was married, I used to tell my [wife] the same thing: "It's the rod, honey. It's the rod."
This is brilliant. Less the additional material needed to make a triangle versus a rod.
I always love your work, and great job as always. I especially love your break down of what is and isn't a scam because of just how bad it really is out here.
Free idea for the next April Fool's day: explain breathing and then add blinking so people know how to do both at the same time.
I don't think it will make a big change. But then, I'd also not think a 3 cyl would be a hot hatch powerplant worth a look, so maybe they can come up with something, but I'll not hold my breath waiting.
For me it's an interesting concept but I definitely agree on the breath holding 😁
There will be a side friction anyway, not on cylinder walls but on "rod" outer walls. It will be necessary to prevent a rod-cylinder assembly from tilting. Bourke cross was preventing that by placing two cylindrs in oposing positions.
Love your work... This yolk system could be turned into my one stroke engine idea that I could never work out how to get power out of. It would produce power, but getting it out and using it is another matter
😂
"One stroke"? WTF.
Just found your channel a few weeks ago= GOOD STUFF. I love the way you make complex issues a little more understandable for people like me.
Just from looking at this configuration, it apears to me that there is still a torque force where the piston and con rod join, since there is only resistance on one side of the slot; probably mitigated by constraint of the cylinder barrel, but that would then create piston:cylinder friction again... I'd also think the sliding friction under load might be a great deal more difficult to overcome than it it seems... Obviously thpugh, this is just eyeball impressions, so could be completely wrong. 🤷♂️
The force angle is there on both types. If you take for example the moment when the crank shaft is at 90°, the little square which the force acts upon is not directly below the center of force. Therefore the twisting force still remains. This does not solve anything.
way more friction points .This is in the same category with the rotary engine.
And side thrust on the bore...
@@jimrobcoyle that is in the first revs lol
Don't bother explaining to those who says this is a scam, clearly don't know where they place their feet on.
Neat theory, but more moving parts = more things that could break. I also think that would add a lot of weight the rotating assembly. Not to mention packaging inside the block, I don’t think a rod that wide would clear the bottom side of sleeve or other parts of the block when piston is at TDC, at least on a larger stroke engine. I could see the square inside the rod wearing out very quickly as well.
Where can I give you 100 thumbs up? In all seriousness, this video is great. Many people don't understand the complexities of developing anything. This is sometimes a failure of the press.
On a related note, I would like your take on things like Liquidpiston or the Omega 1 engine. Purely from a technical standpoint.
I love your videos! You explain things extremely well. Please keep it up!
Would a circular yoke/crank bearing not be better for reducing friction, in an oval hole to eliminate corner stresses? Also having opposing cylinders would potentially balance out the forces on the weak bottom section of the runner, e.g. a flat twin engine?
8:43 i knew this would be Alfadan's new engine tech since back then they said "we revolutionized the connecting rod" while they where working with Mahle but not showing anything to it before they get enough validation data just the "soon TM" glad to know this thing was still trucking along and thanks for the follow up mate!
Ah, okay. I see the distinction between investment and scam. So if I pay $15k extra for a car that can drive itself “fully” on the basis of a video that supposedly shows it doing so, but it turns out the video was cheating in many ways and I have to monitor the car closely to make sure it doesn’t kill me, then I’ve been… scammed?
Exactly!
I love this guy. I love that he spent time explaining to people the realities of developing an engine as a segue from his analysis on the engine. Such a great channel.
In large diesel engines, side-loading on the piston walls is eliminated by having a straight intermediate shaft between the piston and crank, which allows the side-loading to be shifted to a separate bearing set. Can't do that on small engines since it adds a bit more than a piston stroke length to total crank case height.
This is called a cross head, also seen on steam engines where it is mandatory in most cases because the cylinder is double acting.
Nice video as always, keep it up and don't mind the people that complain ilogically after barely understanding what your videos explain, and for free. Someones do only see what they want. Thanks for the content.
it feels illegal to be this early
You'll be arrested and jailed unless you deposit some bitcoin to a suspicious wallet 😂😂😂
A partial solution is to make this engine a boxer design, thus, the surface in the bottom of the rod & piston will no longer be thin. This doesn’t resolve the sliding motion, but it does solve the strength issue. The triangle is the strongest shape and this would make a diamond shape piston rod combo.
Scotch yokes are widely used in mechanical engineering, maybe there is something that uses it under similar conditions already.
Great explanation and perspective!
Thank you!
I am glad you present these alternative technologies. We have to accept that most of them won't pan out. You can't be an entrepreneur without having unreasonable faith in your product. Sometimes it works, mostly it doesn't. Either way, it is nice to see what is out there.
So, much higher friction losses, much more reciprocating mass, and the need for many more bearing faces, that have to be positioned relative to each other very accurately.
Furthermore, the expectation is that we use technology to try and mitigate a problematic engine design, but conventional engine designs arent allowed to have these advances (for some reason)?
Sounds like complete trash.
It's a "solution looking for a problem".
So glad to see this again! Very cool Kanye, thank you.
Hater's gonna hate. You don't have to explain yourself. Thank you for the interesting and informative videos. The vast majority of us appreciate you sharing your knowledge and cool new technologies.
"this is not a scam" every scammer says
2 counter rotating cranks in the one yoke would even it up, a double ended yoke for 2 cylinders strengthens both sides of the slides in the rod as well.
There is force pushing the piston to both sides of the cylinder depending of the offset of the sliding part to the vertical axis of the rod.
Maybe you shouldnt shill financial advice and just stick to the facts.
I strongly disagree with your explaination of why Alfadan is not a scam. Just putting a disclaimer on their website and saying that all investments carry risk doesn't make it legitimate. By your definition all crypto rug-pull scams would not be scams... People were calling it a scam because they set out highly questionable expectations, requested funding and then failed to provide any real proof, updates or prototypes for several years, the same thing has has happened with countless other similar (scam) projects.
I think your missing the point, by it's nature investment is risk. Some investments are higher risk than others. Alfadan is definitely high risk and they made no bones about it. I wouldn't touch them with a forty foot barge pole, but I don't think you can call them a scam.
@@rfwillett2424 So? Doesn't matter how high risk it is. It's high risk because it's unrealistic. They're promising something they're unlikely to be able to produce. Going back to crypto scams, they were obviously high risk: doesn't make them any less of a scam.
Finance 101. You just explained an entire semester of investment risk in a few minutes. Nicely Done!
D4A, This is by far one of your best videos regarding the ALFADAN i4 engine and the challenges we face as a new start up company. All of the issues you mentioned about the Scotch Yoke connecting rod and the false claims individuals have made about our company are very accurate and some of the most basic challenges we faced when we started this project. After various design changes, we feel that our team at Mahle has succeeded in producing a rod design that eliminates secondary imbalance as it relates to the i4 while also eliminating the design challenges you explained about the scotch Yoke connecting rod. We truly appreciate your support and explaining to this community the reality of executing as a new company on a project of this magnitude. Although we are concentrated on the High Performance Outboard market, we feel that this revolutionary i4 engine can in fact replace the traditional V configuration engine designs therefore allowing the i4 to be the engine of choice for most ICE applications. At the moment our greatest challenge is the job of securing the necessary funding to bring this great engine design to market. We feel confident that we will find that individual or group of investors that share our same passion and will provide us with the necessary resources. Thanks again for another honest and great video and rest assured, I will personally reach out to you in the future as we make sufficient progress and are closer to a test or release date. GREAT VIDEO!
This is an amazing and informative video, especially how you clearly and sharply explain everything without boring us to death. This engine, if it works is the next inline 4 revolution for decades on end and will replace v6 engines only because the increase liter can realistically go only that high for this new design for now. But, I would like to ask you if you think they should use the rotary design instead of the rectangular design on the bottom rod.?
Thanks for the really bad explaination on what investments are, and what a scam isn't.
This video is wrong in every way.......
A part of the combustion force conventionally causes sliding friction losses in the cylinder. Let's solve that problem by putting 100% of the force onto the sliding surfaces of the scotch yoke!
Makes total sense.
I agree with you on balance, however machining cost and wear are going to be an issue.
This guy lost all engineering credibility when he backed Alfascam.