Introducing The Dudgeon Engine

[electricme]

@ALL,

Can a engine do away with the function of the humble gear box?

With the DUDGEON Engine, it can have this effect, only if you carry out the below modification.

As I have stated, this engine is like NO other engine, it's possibilities seem to be endless in what it can actually do.

The KEY is the modification of the Machined Groove on the FLYWHEEL.

OK, lets take a refresher look at whats happening here, so we need to go back to the 4 stroke principle a moment before I go into showing everyone the next step.

So lets begin on the uprising of the Compression stroke and start from there.
The piston rises upwards, compressing the mixture to be burnt, the spark plug fires and the piston is driven downwards in the POWER stroke to rise again on the EXHAUST stroke, then it descends once more as the INTAKE stroke, and rises again as the COMPRESSION stroke.


You all agree with this procedure, so lets write these STROKES as P1 and E1 and I1 and C1 .

Lets now take these 4 strokes and make them appear in a straight horizontal MOTION like the chart seen below.

Now, remembering the 4 strokes, place in your mind how it works as seen on the FIRST wriggly line chart below.

I have marked at each Top Line and each Bottom line the corresponding positions where each of the 4 strokes happen in relation to a horizontal line.

The spark plug has fired the fuel mixture, the result is
             P1 is POWER                stroke 1
             E1 is the EXHAUST        stroke 1
             I1 is the INTAKE           stroke 1
             C1 is the COMPRESSION stroke 1

Now the 1's at the end of the word "stroke" relate to the "series cycle" of the 4 strokes, it will become very clear shortly.

Look at the jpg below, and don't go to my next post until you completely understand this section. It is a KEY you need to know to be able to understand the next two posts.

jim



 

[electricme]

@ALL,
Now the next step to grasp a better understanding on how the Machined Groove works is to take away the sheets of paper I used to block off the bottom horizontal chart.

In the above chart we can see the 4 stroke principle has been allowed to form a single horizontal line.
Now I add onto this stroke more 4 stroke "series" of cycles, and add them together.

Lets take a look at what I mean.
We begin at P1, E1 I1 C1, now we add P1 E2 I2 C2 then add P3 E3 I3 C3 then all the way to P9 E9 I9 C9

We could make a chart to rise into the 50s if possible.

But now take a look at the below chart, it has grown, and the reason willl become apparent shortly.

The bottom chart goes from P1 up to P9

Study it carefully, remembering these vertical lines represent the firing order for a4 stroke engine.
If this was a steel bar attached to the DUDGEON Engine, it would blow your mind, lol.

jim

[electricme]

@ALL,

Now we come to the good bit.
Can the DUDGEON Engine replace a gearbox, "YES" if the right modification is carried out.

As I have been saying previously, the DUDGEON Engine is like NO other engine, its possibilities are simply enormous.
Most people who will come across this information for the first time need to re think the way the 4 stroke cycle engine works from its standard way over the last century or more.

Now here below you will see a circle, this represents the MACHINED FLYWHEEL with the MACHINED GROOVE inside it.

NOW, take the "ABOVE" 4 stroke principle line, and WRAP IT just inside the Flywheel as you see below.

NOW you have NINE or in the example below ELEVEN (11) power strokes in ONE (1) SINGLE REVOLUTION of the DUDGEON Engine. cool.

The engine will be able to put out 11 times of the power it would have if it was just a single cylinder.
This makes it a VERY POWERFUL engine at very low torque.
Something engineers all over the world have been only able to dream about until today.

How it works, the usual 4 cycle process takes place between P1 to P2, then continues until P11 is reached, then the Flywheel returns to the original position of P1 and it starts to do the same thing all over again, until you turn of the engine.

The Flywheel will need to be made larger to accomodate these extra mods.
There is a down side of this also, until the flywheel can over come slow inertia, it would be seen to be cogging, so another geared faster spinning wheel would need to be attatched to overcome that effect.

However if the same machined wave form was a lot shallower, there would be no problem.

There is a lightning storm arriving so gotta be off.

jim

[mondrasek]

I went to the sites provided by mondrasek and, as an aerospace class A machinist and design engineer for over 20 years, I can tell you that those designs are nothing like yours.

To clarify:  Those final two links that I added were referred to as a "variants" of the same main idea presented by Jim.  That main idea is to replace the crankshaft in a typical reciprocating piston engine with a rotating grooved cam.  The swashplate design cited evolves this main idea further by changing the orientation of the pistons to the main shaft by 90 degrees so as to minimize the package (albeit likely with an increase in production cost and complexity).  Both use cams instead of crankshafts and achieve the goal of completing a four stroke power cycle in one revolution.  Interestingly, all the links show the improvement of having a second piston opposed 180 degrees to the one in Jim's design to immediately double the power, something I thought you all might find useful.

Sorry I cannot produce a link to a site that describes a design exactly like Jim's, or even the one from Popular Mechanics that I mentioned in my first post.  But that was not my purpose.  I did not want to dissuade anyone from pursuing whatever it is you think you have here.  I was just pointing out the FACT that this main idea is in no way new.  So unless there is something unique about Jim's take on this main idea, your efforts are duplicating those of others who have proceeded you.  And there is nothing wrong with that if your intentions are to "learn by doing" or some other such noble purpose.  That would be great.  But if your purpose is to develop what you believe to be a unique technology for the benefit of mankind, then you might want know more about similar devices that have previously been developed.  My purpose was only to bring those other devices to your attention.  The choice to research them is up to you.  I'm not going to do it for you and definitely not for the purpose of trying to stop you from attaining whatever goal it is you desire.  The information I gave was just that, information.  Use it how you want.

The design I mentioned that was featured in Popular Mechanics is really the most similar to Jim's that I can recall, if you have an interest.  I know I saw it at the barber shop I have frequented since I moved to my current job.  So I would estimate that the issue is between 10 and 16 years old.  BTW, one of the claims for that particular engine was that it eliminated the need for a transmission.

[electricme]

Hmmmm, it seems we have here someone who is on a dedicated negative mission, well lets see who is the one who brings discredit on who.

I present Pirate88179 full text so others who read it can make their own mind up about the situation.
The last line just about says it all.
   

@ Jim:

I went to the sites provided by mondrasek and, as an aerospace class A machinist and design engineer for over 20 years, I can tell you that those designs are nothing like yours.

As you know, I don't have much time now, but when I do, I want to delve into your design and see what can be done with it.

A great idea is a great idea and I am not shocked when I have one and find it has been done before.  To me, this is just verification that the idea was good to begin with.  However, from what I have seen, this is not the case here at all.  I have never seen, heard about nor read about a design like what you propose here.

Carry on my friend.

Bill

Ha ha, thank you Bill, those are excellent words and it is a pleasure to have you here.

Yes readers, take a look at the second paragraph of mondraseks above post, he says and I quote "Sorry I cannot produce a link to a site that describes a design exactly like Jim's", or even the one from "Popular Mechanics" and goes on to say as a way of escape to distance himself "But it was not my purpose".

So what was your purpose? if it is not to build up and edify? Is it to pull down and destroy?

Readers are not dumb, they know if someone has a negative opinion, which is the reflection of the inner person with a negative outlook in life, weather it is of the topic at hand or other, but they also are able to understand the depth or degree of it also, and they will know which person who is of a higher calibre.

So my main idea is not new,  , therefore, if a vehicle manufacturer brings out a "new" model it's not new, according to the opinion by mondrasek. Once again people will understand.

I haven't told a single person to make my engine, its a free world, they can make it or any other engine if they wish.
I am not twisting anyones arm over this to go make it.
Have you ever designed an engine? Obviously by your remarks, you have no idea.

Thank you for bring those other devices to my attention.
Once again the readers will be able to read between the lines of what your main purpose is.

Lastly, for the benefit of the readers, I have never approached mondrasek to do any research on my behalf, or asked for his opinion, at any time over the years.

I would not want a negative biased opinion anyway, therefore as with all designers or inventors, I see it as my right, to see if a suggestion is suitable for the purpose at hand. If I choose or choose not to use it, that is my democratic right the same as yours.

If the knocker, gets the humphs, because the "advice" was not heeded, or can't get their own way, then they need to have a little rest away from that which might be seen as a problem to them.

I have examined all the input from everyone over the last few days, 90 percent is very positive and edifying, building up, but frankly mondraseks is inconsistent, says something on one post, then denies it on another, he has nothing positave to say.

So, thank you for your input mondrasek, but if anyone displaying such severe negative attributes were employed by me, their sacking would be immanent and swift, I'm sure you would have to agree.

jim