If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Don Stauffer wrote:
I wouldn't say the ENTIRE expansion phase. That would not be that great for efficiency- sort of like a steam engine running with no cutoff. And if one injects fuel into the cylinder at the instant just before BDC, that fuel would be pretty much wasted. I was under the impression that the cycle would look something like the steam (Rankine) cycle in that the way Diesel envisoned it it would be either constant enthalpy or constant pressure of part of the expansion phase, adiabatic during the rest. The point where it changed would correspond to what would be the throttle opening on a steam or SI engine. At full "throttle" the changeover would be late in stroke, light load early in stroke. True, although diesel engine manufacturers of late have discovered that they can do things like reduce the injection flow rate instead of just reducing injection duration. That has the nice side-effect of REALLY quieting diesel "rattle" at light throttle openings, as most clearly evidenced by the current Cummins diesel in the Dodge Ram. The flow rate/duration combination can be played with to do really neat things to the torque curve also. The stumbling block that prevented this for many, many years was the camshaft-driven fuel injection pump, and its limited ability to vary injection timing and volume. Once the move was made to computer control and use of electronically controlled engine oil-pressure activated unit injectors, a lot of possibilities opened up. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Sport Pilot wrote:
As long as I get 90% or so right, I really don't give a damn. Good luck on getting your next landing "90% right." :P |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Steve wrote: wingsnaprop wrote: Guess why? *Duh* Pollution laws, and no need for the power to weight requirements of Aviation! Duh... whats that got to do with this topic? Other than to show that 2 stroke Compression ignition engines are a proven concept? As already stated, 2-stroke diesels really don't have a power-to-weight advantage over 4-strokes. They still have to have a camshaft and exhaust valves (they aren't like weed whacker engines, you know), so they don't save that weight. Plus they have to have a blower for scavenge air. The only area where they save weight is in that the connecting rod and crank can be lighter, and that only helps offset the added weight of the blower. I said something similar, but I don't know that a desiel has to have the valve, as the old locomotive two strokes. Could it not be ported, as the two stroke spark engines? The fuel is already oily so if the bearings are sealed ball bearings, you may not have to add oil to the fuel. Not saying this is preferable, just possible. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Steve wrote: Sport Pilot wrote: As long as I get 90% or so right, I really don't give a damn. Good luck on getting your next landing "90% right." :P I do, a good landing gear system is essential. Nobody makes a perfect landing everytime. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Steve wrote: Morgans wrote: "Steve" wrote As already stated, 2-stroke diesels really don't have a power-to-weight advantage over 4-strokes. They still have to have a camshaft and exhaust valves (they aren't like weed whacker engines, you know), so they don't save that weight. Plus they have to have a blower for scavenge air. The only area where they save weight is in that the connecting rod and crank can be lighter, and that only helps offset the added weight of the blower. How about the fact that they have power pulses in each revolution? They could possibly have half the displacement, and still get the same power, (or close to it) with less weight than the double displacement 4 cycle. Yes, the blower weight is added, but it is nice to make good power, way up there. The blower also takes away a significant chunk of crankshaft power. The blower has to do the same net work as those "non power" strokes in a 4-cycle diesel because its doing the same job- expelling burnt mixture and bringing in fresh air. You can't get something for nothing. This is all old-hat. 2-stroke diesels have been in widespread use since Winton developed the basic foundation for what became both the EMD and Detroit Diesel 2-stroke engine architecture back in the 1920s. 2-strokes became very simple to service and reliable, but they rarely won on either fuel efficiency or total power output per unit weight. That's why you find 2-strokes in locomotives and ships where weight doesn't matter (or is a benefit), but they all but disappeared from on-road applications by the end of the 1970s and DID completely disappear by the turn of the century. I would have agreed at the start of this thread, but the two stroke desiel does not have to be the same as the old locomotive desiels. The blower is not needed if the crankcase is used to pump fuel/air mixture. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Steve wrote: Luke Scharf wrote: Steve wrote: But there are more and more small diesels that run just as fast as gasoline engines. There's no fundamental limit thats any different than a gasoline engine, really, but up until now there's not been a demand for high-RPM diesels. When I was reading about the Volkswagen TDI engine, I vaguely remember coming across someone who said that the redline of that engine was set by the speed which which the burning fuel expanded. Sounds rather fundamental to me - but, then again, I'm a computer guy. -Luke In almost ALL real-world engines, the actual limit is set by the point at which some mechanical component would fail. The engine's torque *may* drop off well before the mechanical failure point if it can't ingest enough fuel or air at high speed. In the case of a diesel, you can pretty much increase the burn rate to as high as the mechanical parts can tolerate by increasing turbocharger boost (and injection rate to match). Since detonation isn't possible (no fuel exists in the cylinder until combustion is supposed to begin anyway) the only limits to boost pressure are mechanical in nature. In practical terms, no one really wants or needs a 9000 RPM diesel, though. Diesel fuel is not conducive to high speed running. Nor is a long injection period through much of the expansion phase. Yes you can boost the turbocharger and the other things, but an Otto cycle engine will respond with even higher speeds. Parts failure from speed is not a problem with diesel engines, the rotating parts have to be bigger than an otto engine because of the higher compression, yet the otto engine will turn higer RPM's with smaller parts. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry about the two similar posts. I didn't think the first "took".
|
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Sport Pilot wrote:
Steve wrote: wingsnaprop wrote: Guess why? *Duh* Pollution laws, and no need for the power to weight requirements of Aviation! Duh... whats that got to do with this topic? Other than to show that 2 stroke Compression ignition engines are a proven concept? As already stated, 2-stroke diesels really don't have a power-to-weight advantage over 4-strokes. They still have to have a camshaft and exhaust valves (they aren't like weed whacker engines, you know), so they don't save that weight. Plus they have to have a blower for scavenge air. The only area where they save weight is in that the connecting rod and crank can be lighter, and that only helps offset the added weight of the blower. I said something similar, but I don't know that a desiel has to have the valve, as the old locomotive two strokes. Could it not be ported, as the two stroke spark engines? In order to scavenge the cylinders properly, the inlet ports need to be at the bottom of the cylinder and exhaust valves have to be located at the top. The only viable alternative is the opposed piston engine (ala Fairbanks-Morse) in which one piston uncovers an inlet port array and the other uncovers the exhaust ports. But then you have the weight of an additional CRANKSHAFT, without any increase in output power! The fuel is already oily so if the bearings are sealed ball bearings, you may not have to add oil to the fuel. I think you're confusing a weed-whacker/outboard motor type 2-stroke with a 2-stroke diesel. A 2-stroke diesel has a closed crankcase just like a 4-stroke. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Sport Pilot wrote:
Steve wrote: Morgans wrote: "Steve" wrote As already stated, 2-stroke diesels really don't have a power-to-weight advantage over 4-strokes. They still have to have a camshaft and exhaust valves (they aren't like weed whacker engines, you know), so they don't save that weight. Plus they have to have a blower for scavenge air. The only area where they save weight is in that the connecting rod and crank can be lighter, and that only helps offset the added weight of the blower. How about the fact that they have power pulses in each revolution? They could possibly have half the displacement, and still get the same power, (or close to it) with less weight than the double displacement 4 cycle. Yes, the blower weight is added, but it is nice to make good power, way up there. The blower also takes away a significant chunk of crankshaft power. The blower has to do the same net work as those "non power" strokes in a 4-cycle diesel because its doing the same job- expelling burnt mixture and bringing in fresh air. You can't get something for nothing. This is all old-hat. 2-stroke diesels have been in widespread use since Winton developed the basic foundation for what became both the EMD and Detroit Diesel 2-stroke engine architecture back in the 1920s. 2-strokes became very simple to service and reliable, but they rarely won on either fuel efficiency or total power output per unit weight. That's why you find 2-strokes in locomotives and ships where weight doesn't matter (or is a benefit), but they all but disappeared from on-road applications by the end of the 1970s and DID completely disappear by the turn of the century. I would have agreed at the start of this thread, but the two stroke desiel does not have to be the same as the old locomotive desiels. The blower is not needed if the crankcase is used to pump fuel/air mixture. You're describing a weed-whacker engine, not a 2-stroke Diesel. Good for cheap manufacture and relatively light total weight, but at the expense of a very narrow power band, terrible efficiency, terrible emissions, and except at the peak of the power band, terrible power/weight ratio in spite of being lightweight. |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Sport Pilot wrote:
Diesel fuel is not conducive to high speed running. Nor is a long injection period through much of the expansion phase. Yes you can boost the turbocharger and the other things, but an Otto cycle engine will respond with even higher speeds. Parts failure from speed is not a problem with diesel engines, the rotating parts have to be bigger than an otto engine because of the higher compression, yet the otto engine will turn higer RPM's with smaller parts. All of the above is true in the common practice of diesel design, but none of it is necessarily true. There is nothing FUNDAMENTAL that limits a diesel to low-RPM designs only. One can build a screaming high-RPM diesel with light-weight rotating parts, but one would have to ask "why?" Gasoline engines are made high-revving in order to increase power output from a small package, but diesels can develop a lot more low-RPM torque through high boost because they don't detonate when "lugged," so there's no NEED to make them scream. If you need more power, don't spin them faster, just boost them harder. High RPM is an aggravation, not an advantage (no matter what Honda VTEC drivers think...). |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
BSFC vs gas mileage, 2 stroke vs 4 stroke | Jay | Home Built | 10 | August 24th 04 02:26 PM |
Diesel Jodel information..........and .........diesel plane groups | Roland M | Home Built | 1 | January 4th 04 04:04 AM |
Diesel Jodel information..........and .........diesel plane groups | Roland M | General Aviation | 1 | January 4th 04 04:04 AM |
Diesel engines for Planes Yahoo Group Jodel Diesel is Isuzu Citroen Peugeot | Roland M | General Aviation | 2 | September 13th 03 12:44 AM |
Diesel engines for Planes Yahoo Group Jodel Diesel is Isuzu Citroen Peugeot | Roland M | Rotorcraft | 2 | September 13th 03 12:44 AM |