wiggle drive propulsion application

That was helpfull!!

You can lead a horse to water but you cant make it drink.

Mind you ide love to see you run a round the workshop with a bit of rope on the crank. Very technical.

So if you took the pistons out, would make a difference or not.

Hmmmm think about it.

Actually Im tired with this I don't care what you think.

 

That works out well since you can finally see how wrong you've been.

Other than the frictional losses - no.

Really didn't have to think about that one too much. You're tossing us cream puffs.

But I DO care what you think about turbine engines and why they aren't in all the cars. So what gives with that?

 

Let's please keep the threads here polite to one another. If you want to fight with and insult someone, please take it outside or to a site like facebook. Thank you.

 

I think turbines are far too complicated for you to understand if you cant understand the theory of ' to every motion there is an equal and opposite motion' on a piston engine, I don't really see how I can help you.

Bos the reciprocating engine discussion was over the theory of 'to every motion there is an equal and opposite', which some people don't think exist when piston goes up and down being absorbed somehow in crank weights.

I was using this theory to account for reciprocating losses in a recipricoting fin drive which would be accountable to similar loses.

Unfortunately and surprisingly it went way over and landed in a field somewhere.

Please continue.

 

Propeller propulsion and Fin propulsión are 2 completly differen systems and work different to produce the thrust to move the boat. The propeller is using a rigid airfoil with a fix AoA. The fin is flexible and alters the AoA all the time. Propellers have cavitation problems. Fins have no cavitation problem. The effisiensy of the propeller is max.75%. The effisiensy of the fin is around 85%.
SwashDrive: You don’t answer my question, how your SwashDrive is produsing the thrust.
Propelles are easy to calculate, after many years of testing. There are no formulas to calculate the dimentions of the fin.

 

Just a not here --I--me personally was not referring to a propeller as in a screw but a surface propeller where one blade rotates and dips in the water as it does so.

 

Gday Kjell
I'm not even gonna try to explain that, i've been shot down here over efficiency claims all day, by people who know better:?:, what chance do i have of explaining that, talk about knocking the wind out of ur sails

 

It is nearly imposible to build a good working propeller if you don’t understand how it works. The same is happening with Tails and wings. Craig, why don contact me direct by E-mail?

 

Where can we see one of these miracle devices in action, directly compared to a similarly powered vessel with a conventional propellor ?

 

The matter of piston acceleration/deceleration losses is a complicated one, on a compression stroke the slowing down is co-incidental with the compression of the air, which would slow it down anyway if it wasn't connected to the conrod.

 

Not at 5000RPM it doesnt. It stretches the con rod and will even hit the head if not set up right.

 

Stretching conrods sounds like an improbable scenario to me, but I'm sure a mechanical engineer can clarify that.

 

Well there's your problem right there. I'm an aero engineer. I worked designing turbine engines at G.E.. We've been trying to explain to you that it's you that doesn't understand the basic dynamics of a piston, crank, and con-rod. THAT is why you can't help us.

But, you can try and help by telling us why they don't put turbine engines in cars since you claim they're much more efficient.

I assure you that's incorrect.

I assure you that's also incorrect.

The formulas are quite simple actually, and there are many approaches. If you want to be somewhat rigorous you'd solve the Navier-Stokes equations using CFD.

I recently built an 18' propeller to set a world land speed sailing record. Its efficiency was greater than your claimed 75% by a pretty significant margin.

 

Here's a reasonably rigorous treatment of mechanical losses in an I.C.E. http://www.evergreenamerica.com/Eve...and_SIE_relative_mechanical_energy_losses.pdf

Interesting that it only discusses frictional losses as we've tried to explain to you. Nowhere does it deal with the imaginary losses from changing the direction of the piston. Perhaps you could explain it to that author. Or better yet, maybe you can find a similar reference that hasn't failed to include this magical component.

Or if that's impossible, perhaps you can just make more ridiculous claims about how those simple dynamics go right over my head - despite my having an advanced degree in dynamics.

 

Piston inertia. worse than I thought.

http://books.google.com.my/books?id...EwBQ#v=onepage&q=piston inertia loads&f=false