Bourke Engine

[user removed]

Originally Posted by darcane

You mean something like this:
Lotus Engineering Omnivore concept

Not sure if their concept is a functional design or not though.

Being retired gives me the time to read many different sources of information about engine developments.

I think I linked the utube video of my fixed displacement prototype running on 120 PSI compressed air.

Closed cylinders and pistons will beat turbines as long as you do not have to use reciprocation to achieve the sealed expansion chamber.

A piston and cylinder is the best configuration for expansion engines since it has the largest volume for surface area of the cylinder.

Another unbeatable advantage of circular cylinders and pistons is as they heat up, their tolerances remain fairly constant.

These were my basic understandings when I started the process of patenting a non reciprocating piston in cylinder engine.

After 40 years of studying engines, I have not found a better configuration, and modern machining technology makes the cost of building this type of engine very cost effective.

It was not cost effective when you had to manually machine a 95 pound chunk of nickel steel into a single cylinder which weighed only 6.5 pounds, and you needed 7 or more of those cylinders per engine.

With modern investment casting the cost factor becomes insignificant.

regards
Mech

[Frank Lee]

[cfg83]

Frank -

Ha ha, I was also thinking of the Swedish chef.

CarloSW2

[Frank Lee]

Sorry, I couldn't resist!~

[cfg83]

Frank -

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Sorry, I couldn't resist!~

No problemo. I know I saw a video parody of the Swedish Chef walking around looking at things that rhymed with "BORK", ala spork, cork, and definitely Bjork. I am 80% sure it was Robot Chicken.

CarloSW2

[GreenHornet]

For the record this engine is a single stroke not 2 stroke design. There is much misunderstanding surrounding this engine when it comes to its components and use. The reason for this is there are very few people who semi understand how it works and not at the level of Mr. Bourke himself. This engine only has 2 moving parts and quite honestly is a work of genius. There were only 14 of these engines ever built back in the day.

Before we are critical and quick to pass judgements for or against such a device I believe we should first do our best to fully understand its workings. We are often to quick to dismiss things we do not fully understand. All the people that for whatever reason pass judgement on this engine and I am going to go on record here and say they most likely have never seen one run in person or been able to fully research it. Again very few of these engines were ever built and little is known about them since there is also little documentation of them to be had. So in other words its uncharted waters and even if you were to get your hands on one of these engines good luck trying to figure out how to tune it again no info or help on how to do it so you will be experimenting until your hair falls out most likely :-)

Mr. Bourke had a dream of building a simple efficient and non polluting engine. Did he achieve it?

It is my opinion that he did however there is much that still needs to be tested and improved for the basic engine to be viable in a car, boat, or plane.

Who would be willing to devote there time, money, and energy to such a cause without no promise of reward in return other than maybe there own satisfaction of getting the engine to run in a simulated environment and there own hand pat on the back?

I bet few to none unfortunately..

[freebeard]

I'm getting the non-boxer-ness of the concept but in trying to figure it out I got to http://bourke-engine.com/vids/Bourke30Runs.mpg. Wut?

Is there a clear animated GIF of the operating cycle anywhere? Like this one for the Scuderi Cycle?

Who would be willing to devote there time, money, and energy to such a cause without no promise of reward in return other than maybe there own satisfaction of getting the engine to run in a simulated environment and there own hand pat on the back?

Maybe these guys?
Home Model Engine Machinist
I searched their site for 'Bourke' and came up dry.

Edit:

With modern investment casting the cost factor becomes insignificant.

3D-printed sintered metal pastes.

[GreenHornet]

Yes there is a site that has the animated gif of the cycle.

Here is the link to view the larger sized version = Bourke-Engine : Animated GIF

GH

[GreenHornet]

How would you like an engine that you never will need to do an oil change ever! Or an engine that you don't need a cherry picker to pull out of your car? Or how about an engine you can put your face over the exhaust and not get burned or die from carbon monoxide poisoning LOL :-)

The Bourke engine gives you all of this in fact his 30 cubic inch model was 38lbs and put out 35hp at under 5000 rpm at 8000 rpm it would do 75hp. The horsepower of these engines are only limited by the number of cylinders and rpms the engine can put out. It was reported that the engine saw in excess of 20,000rpm. So ya the amount of horsepower that it could do puts to shame any engine we have today pound for pound. Did I mention it weighed 38lbs Oh and yes when it was emission tested it did not even register carbon monoxide

Oh and here is a video of a guy putting his head in the engine exhaust try that with any engine we have in our cars today and see what happens

Video Link =

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahw4p...ZXiQHrorR0d4kg

Folks what you are looking at is quite honestly the most efficient engine design ever produced and the least understood! The Tesla Turbine is much more understood than this engine believe it or not. Many will discount this engine because they just simply can not comprehend how it works for starts or how to make it better!

The best part about this engine is that all of its patents expired and yes the hobbyist can in fact build a replica and test it out! The man in the video that I provided did just that so it is very possible but it will take time a lot of time and complete precision to pull it off. Many have tried and failed from my understanding.

GH..

[ConnClark]

Okay Lets look at how the Bourke Engine works and why its a gas guzzler.

The Bourke cycle

1. Intake air below the piston. (fine)

2. Compress the intake charge below the piston

3. Let the intake charge that you expended energy on to compress decompress into top the cylinder above the piston with out extracting a bit of energy back out of it. (oops... wasted energy)

4. Compress the intake charge again.

5. ignite the compressed charge and hold it compressed while it burns around top dead center as long as possible. (oops.... we are letting all the heat energy dissipate into the combustion chamber walls)

6. Extract power from the combustion gasses that we have allowed to cool at top dead center and thus allowed significant energy to already escape.

7. exhaust the spent gasses.

Inefficient no matter how you look at it. Want to claim it runs in detonation mode making it efficient like a pulse detonation engine? Detonation in an internal combustion engine does nothing more than scrub combustion gasses against the combustion chamber walls via echoing shockwaves and loose more heat to the cooling system thus making it more inefficient. Want more proof of how inefficient it is? Look at the size of the heat dissipation fins on the engines that Russell Bourke built.

The Bourke engine is a scam just like browns gas and HHO. Backers of this
scam have even published a book about it and tried to post date it and claim it was published by the Experimental Aircraft Association in 1968 to give it credibility. Unfortunately its easy to look up and see that The Bourke Engine Documentary doesn't appear in a list of Experimental Aircraft Associations published works. Further digging will reveal it was first published in 1990 by Tesla Books.

These scam artists have done nothing but collect a few examples of a bourke engine, set up a web site, hype it, and ask for money to run tests that they will never do.