Dreamer3000’s Weblog

October 1, 2009


Filed under: Uncategorized — dreamer3000 @ 5:03 pm

Latest update 16 October  2014.

I have recently been educated that  “” neglecting heat transfer, combustion transients, and intake/exhaust restriction; all positive displacement engines having the same pressure bounds and same displacement will produce exactly the same power.   The energy produced by a positive displacement is given by “”

This means that the combustion gases don’t care inside what kind of engine they are in, what is important is the initial and final pressure and temperatures that you are able to operate at.

the higher the initial combustion pressure value and the lower the exhausted temperature and pressure values the more powerful and efficient your engine is. regardless of geometry or architecture of engine.

So the architecture or geometry of an engine doesn’t matter or affect the  how much power or efficient the engine is at extracting workable energy from the fuel.

The advantage this type of engine can offer is only a Braytone-Atkinson cycle capable geometry.

so much of what is below is actually less false.

70% of the energy (heat) you put in your cars Reciprocating Piston Engine is wasted as the engine throws it out into ambient air (atmosphere).

The rest of this page and in fact all pages need to be scientifically reviewed by real

scientist and engineers. 

Please ignore what i have written down and enjoy the links.

15th May 2018

All the below is rubbish, i have been reading thermodynamics for engineers, and found out lots of nice thing, i should be deleting this page or rephrasing it all. 

learn from my mistakes, read first. 



The Wankel engine is not much different if not worse; Jet engines are 50% efficient if I am not mistaken.

There are two inhibitors of efficiency or limiting factors for this deficiency of internal combustion.

The Mechanical conversion mechanism factor or problem……

and …

The Pressure  port (vessel)factor or problem

In this weblog i will try to explain the solution for both problems.

A – The Mechanical Conversion Mechanism efficiency.

The Conversion mechanism is the Means or method or mechanical utility or device used to convert Pressure/Heat into useful work – torque

Examples if which

Jet engine Blades with disk.              Reciprocating piston +connecting rod + Crank shaft.                            Wankel Eccentric Rotary+ its crank.

B –The Pressure port (vessel) problem.

What is the meant by Pressure port.

In order to make use of the pressure from combustion we need a chamber (vessel) to contain the pressure of burned gasses, in order for the Gasses to do their  EFFECT  or WORK on the  part  that converts that pressure into force  (piston or Wankel rotor or blade in jet engine) ,BUT those gases HAVE  to have a reference point to start from.

For example in the Reciprocating Piston engine the GASES  would ACT with PRESSURE  on the piston crown and push it and move away from the engine head  it to twist the crank.

In this case  the engine head is a  STATIC pressure port or the reference point or surface.  and the Piston is the DYNAMIC pressure port.

The engine head does thermal relief ONLY and IS BEING STUPIDLY STATIC, while the piston does MECHANICAL Relief of Heat/Pressure/Kinetic energy in the Gases and hence is BEING DYNAMIC about the pressure .

The solution for both problems is discussed in this blog separately .

Two approaches exists that promises a lot  in solving  those  two problems.

1-Both solution or engine families increase mechanical CONVERTING efficiency.  Circular engines and/or  Opposing pistons.
2-Both solutions Reduce emissions to a fraction for “Circular engines”, and to ZERO emissions “Dr.Marius Ana Paul” opposing piston engine .

In the Opposing pistons engine they had so much excess POWER that they cooled the exhaust till they eliminated heat signature . so no one can send an IR tracking missile up its exhaust pips.  watch this film in one of its episodes Professor Major  says so. 

3-reduce oil demand world-wide according to the Egyptian engineer inventor seems to have gone off-line, i emailed him with no results  75% (see Hekal ).

4-Have a higher power to weight ratio.  both engine types mathematically speaking have done that , in real life Achates  opposing pistons  is working perfectly, and Hekal claims to have done also.

5-Theoretically speaking  they can produce from 4 to 9 to 10 times more power with the same amount of fuel to burn compared to regular engine.

Watch Achates   here to see them take pride in their engine , a continuation of  the “Dr.Marius Ana Paul” .

6-Each has a very high RPM in theory, since  deflagration speed limits the maximum RPM to in C.E engines since  to 3k ,   while real in Opposing piston engines , since the pistons have to travel half the stroke length to produce the same amount of torque , thus producing more RPM with off the shelf products. also the pistons needed are smaller .

7-Simplicity to manufacture and Maintain, both. For OPE , one does not have to do with the cam shaft and puppet valves and manifolds etc while its gets complicated for a four-stroke OPE (see the cleaves engine). as for the C.E  it only has three moving parts.

8-low if no Vibration, symmetry in design so auto balanced . both the Opposing pistons and the Circular.

9-have a high-compression ratio of up to 30:1 , only for OPE ,  hence Hydrogen and diesel version would  be extremely powerful and possible.(see Professor Fred Major lecture)

10-use normal cheap alloys since this engine runs cooler.(theoretical since combustion chamber always needs to handle heat)

Look at the rest of the site for more info.

Blog at WordPress.com.