Misplaced Pages

Bourke engine: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:03, 9 December 2005 edit68.201.17.86 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 20:09, 3 January 2006 edit undo63.208.15.194 (talk) minor rewordingNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
In the late 1930’s Russell Bourke endeavored to improve upon the ] engine and despite finishing his redesign and building several working engines; bad luck (] breaking out), bad health and a ] compounded to prevent his engine from ever coming to market despite its advantages. To this day there are several small groups extolling the virtues of the design but the lack of funding and proper marketing seem to prevent anyone from making any actual inroads. In the late 1930’s Russell Bourke endeavored to improve upon the ] engine and despite finishing his redesign and building several working engines; bad luck (] breaking out), bad health and a ] compounded to prevent his engine from ever coming to market despite its advantages. Well into the 2000's there are several small groups extolling the virtues of the design but the lack of funding and proper marketing seems to prevent anyone from making any actual inroads.
* Design Points: * Design Points:
*# ] instead of connecting rods to translate motion to rotary motion. *# ] instead of connecting rods to translate motion to rotary motion.

Revision as of 20:09, 3 January 2006

In the late 1930’s Russell Bourke endeavored to improve upon the Otto Cycle engine and despite finishing his redesign and building several working engines; bad luck (WWII breaking out), bad health and a know-best attitude compounded to prevent his engine from ever coming to market despite its advantages. Well into the 2000's there are several small groups extolling the virtues of the design but the lack of funding and proper marketing seems to prevent anyone from making any actual inroads.

  • Design Points:
    1. Scotch Yoke instead of connecting rods to translate motion to rotary motion.
      • Fewer moving parts.
      • Smoother operation.
      • Longer percentage of cycle speant at top-dead-center and bottom-dead-center for more complete combustion and exhaust scavanging.
    2. One power stroke per rotation (2-Cycle) opposed to one every other rotation (4-Cycle) resulting in nearly twice the power at a given engine speed.
    3. High compression and temperatures to cause an instantaneous and adiabatic reaction as opposed to a drawn out combustion.
    4. Lean fuel/air misture combined with the adiabatic reaction resulting in zero unburnt hydrocarbons in the exhaust.
    5. Sealed underside of the piston to isolate the fuel/air mixture from the crankcase.
      • Eliminate the need to mix oil with the fuel as with standard 2-Cycle engines
      • Prevents the piston ring blow by from poluting the crankcase oil extending the life of the oil.

External Links