[lshadoff]

Honda produced V4 oval piston engines for the NR750 and the NR500 (at the bottom of the page).

See also this page.

Lew

 

[510Mods]

Thats what I was looking for, thanks.

 

[Ride116]

you could use a post-reactive core amplifier. then we would have to manage a force field to hold the stray neutrino ions.

Oh yeah? Once I coasted down a hill on my bike.

 

[510Mods]

ever try spitting in the air and catching it?

 

[myoung]

I have this book "Building The Tesla Turbine", and combine theories for: crankless engine: "The engine is unusual. A piston slides in a casing between two combustion chambers. It vents in the center, and the exhaust gas is combined with water to produce steam, which adds to the thrust. This modified engine uses these fuels: acetylene, butane, nitromethane, propane, two-stroke oil (for lubrication), and filtered water (for doubling the thrust). " Really trippy stuff.

Nissan is a company, they have stock holders, it's a business that can only survive by producing dependable vehicles.

There really isn't much long term data proving this is viable for mass production vehicles... Honda gave up on it pretty quickly and If I'm correct it was never tried in a passenger vehicle, just a couple motorcycles

 

[Dwntyme]

But you'll need to get to 88 mph before it would work and have 1 jigggaa watt.... hahahaha

 

[510Mods]

Which theory are you referring to, cause they all are true. Tesla Turbine, free-piston engine, and cam-less motors. Just like everything we do, it can be done if the materials are better and technology could catch up to them. But something with these piston motors is going to change pretty soon, and I'm not talking about electric motors. You'll see soon, I will post my experiments up and soon to have patents.

Nissan is a company, they have stock holders, it's a business that can only survive by producing dependable vehicles.

There really isn't much long term data proving this is viable for mass production vehicles... Honda gave up on it pretty quickly and If I'm correct it was never tried in a passenger vehicle, just a couple motorcycles

 

[lshadoff]

You'll see soon, I will post my experiments up and soon to have patents.

Have you applied for a patent yet? If not, by disclosing anything about your invention, you start the clock running on the lifetime of your patent.

It cost me about $1000 for the last patent search I had my attorney do for me, which indicated I might have a patentable idea (and started the clock running). I decided not to have her write a patent application, which would have cost another $2000-3000, because I could not see how I could recoup my patent application costs.

Lew

 

[Dwntyme]

Here's an Opposed free-piston engine

and it's parts

 

[Tavel]

Here's an Opposed free-piston engine

and it's parts

my brain hurts.

 

[myoung]

But you'll need to get to 88 mph before it would work and have 1 jigggaa watt.... hahahaha

hahaha okay I have to admit that was a good one :thumbup:

great Scott!

 

[myoung]

Which theory are you referring to, cause they all are true. Tesla Turbine, free-piston engine, and cam-less motors. Just like everything we do, it can be done if the materials are better and technology could catch up to them. But something with these piston motors is going to change pretty soon, and I'm not talking about electric motors. You'll see soon, I will post my experiments up and soon to have patents.

You're the one that said "combined theory" don't remember anyone else saying that in this thread.

I have this book "Building The Tesla Turbine", and combine theories for: crankless engine: "The engine is unusual........edit.....

Your original post was "New Nissan Motor..."

I'm simply saying Nissan the company is only going to make motors that have been proven for mass production..

Now if you as an individule want to give it a shot then that would be extremly interesting... In fact do it...test it on a Nissan and I will promise you a series of articles in NPM.

 

[510Mods]

LOL, very true. Its all about staying in the "norm", thats why they waited this long for hybrids. They had the technology for nearly 50 years, same with the tubine powered Chrysler car. It was there, but they never improved it much for mass production. There are soo many factors, government has everything. Makes me upset sometimes. Well nobody would look at it if I said "New Dodge Motor", hehe.

 

[myoung]

LOL, very true. Its all about staying in the "norm", thats why they waited this long for hybrids. They had the technology for nearly 50 years, same with the tubine powered Chrysler car. It was there, but they never improved it much for mass production. There are soo many factors, government has everything. Makes me upset sometimes. Well nobody would look at it if I said "New Dodge Motor", hehe.

oval piston HEMI..yeaaaa baby.....hahaha

 

[510Mods]

Thats truly not a "free piston engine" The pistons should not be connected by any-means to anything. And there is no drive shaft. A free piston motor is like 4 two stroke motors cradling 2 pistons. 1 chamber on each side of piston. Then in the very middle is and exhaust port with a special manifold chamber. But a true free-piston engine has only 2 moving parts. And also has 2 ignition sources, glow plugs for running and spark plugs to initial start. Which the starting is done by feeding it air pressure.

Here's an Opposed free-piston engine

and it's parts

 

[lshadoff]

I had some fun on Google.

The free-piston engine in Popular Mechanics.

The Taylor Linear Engine.

1956 Time Magazine article on the free-piston engine.

These guys will build a free-piston engine for you [maybe].

Honeywell is developing a free-piston engine for the military.

The marine free-piston gas turbine engine.

In 1867 Nickolaus Otto produced a "free-piston" engine engine powered by igniting a charge of gas and air under a piston in a vertical cylinder which forced the piston up. The down stroke was provided by gravity and atmospheric pressure.

The list seems endless.

Lew

 

[510Mods]

Yes, the original free piston engine is considered a "turbine" because of the great thrust produced by the vortex exhaust. You can pick up the plans for it for $60 and make it yourself. Its very simple and has end-less possibilities. The original did power a go-cart and pushed it to 150mph in a less than 10 seconds. The motor weighed 42lbs.

 

[lshadoff]

Yes, the original free piston engine is considered a "turbine" because of the great thrust produced by the vortex exhaust. You can pick up the plans for it for $60 and make it yourself. Its very simple and has end-less possibilities. The original did power a go-cart and pushed it to 150mph in a less than 10 seconds. The motor weighed 42lbs.

A turbine engine uses gas flow to turn a shaft. It is sort of the opposite of a fan. Instead of turning a shaft to rotate fan blades which move air, the air pushes on the fan blades which turns the shaft. In a free-piston gas turbine engine, the free piston part is the source of pressurized gas to drive the turbine.

Lew

 

[510Mods]

The turbine engine that we are used to seeing does have compressor blades. I have made my own jet engine before and still use it, you have the intake compressor, combustion chamber, and exhaust blades.

The "true" free-piston (exactly what its name says) does not have a shaft, nor any rotating blades. Just the two sealed chamber pistons. I thought I posted up a picture of it? The water injection increases the velocity of the exhaust force, which in itself is like a "BOOST".

 

[lshadoff]

The "true" free-piston (exactly what its name says) does not have a shaft, nor any rotating blades. Just the two sealed chamber pistons. I thought I posted up a picture of it? The water injection increases the velocity of the exhaust force, which in itself is like a "BOOST".

I don't understand what makes your definition of a "true" piston-free engine so desirable as opposed to a design that uses the piston-free engine as part of an engine system. Please enlighten me.

Lew