Bourke Engine
 

Hello -

I was in class at work today and our instructor told me that he fiddled with this back in the day :

Bourke engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bourke-Engine.com

I searched Ecomodder but couldn't find a reference, so I was interested in your opinions.

CarloSW2

...sounds like *it* should've been the power plant for the TUCKER mobile.

...notice the "hydrogen" fuel?

Reading the Wikipedia link got me thinking: One of the problems with traditional 2-stroke engines is that air-fuel mixture rushing into the cylinder will partially mix with the exhaust, leading to unburnt fuel in the exhaust. But what about a 2-stroker with direct fuel injection? Then there is only fresh air in the intake, so no hydrocarbons leave the cylinder, and if some exhaust lags behind then it's like EGR. Make it a gasser or a diesel. I'm sure someone has tried this.

Orbital, for one.

Direct injection in a 2 stroke will be a game changer. I think some of the outboard motors are using some of Orbital's technology, Frank.

And yes on the EGR from incomplete scavenging. If you want even more power add an electric supercharger.

The days of raw fuel in the exhaust are long gone.

Oil mix in the fuel, also long gone.

regards
Mech

Chrysler played with 2 stroke DI in the '90s. It was actually supposed to go in the Neon at one point. Old Detroit Diesel 2 strokes are DI as well, being diesel.

The Bourke engine is a joke when it comes to fuel efficiency.

First lets look at one of its most touted features, the scotch yoke. It keeps the piston around top dead center longer. This does allow more combustion to take place before the downward power stroke and burn more of the fuel, however it also keeps the combustion gasses hotter for longer causing much more heat loss (and thus energy) to the cylinder head and piston. In fact if you look at some of the engines Russell Bourke built you will see they have giant cooling fins on the head for this reason.

The second glaring inefficiency is the fact that gasses are compressed and expanded twice but energy is only recovered once.


All the talk about it being a detonation engine and running on hydrogen are a bunch of lies too. There has never been one documented case of these engines running on hydrogen or in detonation mode as they call it.

I think the major problem with the scotch yoke engines was wear in the scotch yoke. See the photo below. The areas in the elipses have apparently been worn or pounded out by the bearing on the connnecting rod - they should be in a straight line from the top to the bottom, I believe. Maybe this problem could be over come with modern materials - nitrided steel or titanium, perhaps?

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 -

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

CarloSW2

Sorry, I couldn't resist!~

Frank -

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

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..

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?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ne_-_Cycle.gif

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

Edit:
3D-printed sintered metal pastes. :thumbup:

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 :thumbup:

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 :D 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..

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.

GreenHornet -- Thanks. My friend found this <<youtube=watch=c4bNOLdhchA>> as fast as I could spell b-o-u-r-k-e, but it still doesn't show the gas flow. I don't see how it's anything but an out-of-balance two-stoke.

ConnClark -- I always appreciate your input. Can you point to a similar critique of the Scuderi engine without going too far off-topic?

The Scuderi split cycle actually has some promise (not to mention that they have working prototypes with decent results). I don't have a link to a critique of it. As I can see the only potential loss of efficiency is the transfer passage between the two pistons. This loss is not like what would be experienced on the Bourke engine. For one, it doesn't waste the energy of compression. Also losses from the transfer passage will be offset by keeping the combustion in the hot cylinder thus reducing cooling losses ( To the extent of how much this is offset I can't say).


The biggest obstacle to it would probably be the retooling costs for mass production. Also big business might just wait for their patents to expire.

It looks as though the company has ran afoul of the SEC recently
Scuderi Group announces engine deal, won't name company it is working with | masslive.com

However, it they are spending money on actual work and research unlike Bourke Engine developers.

Thanks. Your critique is what I was asking for.

Big business has to wait, but the owner-builder doesn't. I think Scuderi's proprietary in-line VR-4 block isn't as suited to development work as a VW flat 4 boxer. The biggest problem I foresee is containing the pressure in any intercooler in the connecting passage. And sourcing a custom crankshaft and camshaft.

I would like to thank Mr. ConnClark for pointing out a few of the engines potential weak points. One thing I think we can all agree on is that no engine at least at this point in time in our history is perfect. All engines have flaws and weak points. However there are far more pros to the Bourke engine than any other engine I have seen to date.

As far as the comment about the Bourke engine being a scam well that is completely false and can not be further from the truth really. However I will agree with ConnClark in that some of the people that operate these Bourke websites are in fact scam artists and in fact do nothing but try to steal your money. This is not the case for all of them though and I have confirmed this point!

Is this engine an inefficient gas guzzler?

Well I can not say for sure until I build one and thoroughly test it out but what I can say for sure is its no worse than the gas guzzler you have in your car right now! At least with the Bourke you will not need to pay for oil changes or tune ups LOL :-) Or have to worry about rebuilding the engine after you have driven it its course. These engines can easily be serviced with simple tools. Not to mention far less parts to potentially replace and service. The Bourke engine has no Flywheel, camshaft, cam gears, poppet valves, or gaskets.

This engine would easily save you money in total life repair costs and maintenance over traditional 2 and 4 stroke designs of gas or diesel engines. The 4 cylinder version is said to gulp 1 gallon of fuel per hour at 6500rpm. Now run the 2 cylinder 30 cubic inch version at around 4000rpm or the 10 cubic inch model at 1800rpm with biodiesel. You would have an engine fuel economy similar to our best diesels yet much more versatile and hundreds of pounds lighter with double the power potential. Not to mention you would not need all that emissions crap such as cat converters, urea injection, and all those sensors because you have virtually no emissions!

Despite what some may say this engine was built for one purpose and that was efficiency and simplicity. The simplicity is obvious it takes no rocket scientist to see this. The efficiency is what is always in question and often attacked. So this is the area I would like to focus my research on moving forward. There are a few people around the world who have been able to really work and test these engines and what I can say based on our discussions is that there is little doubt that this engine is for real and can do exactly what Mr. Bourke himself stated.

Where is Myth Busters when you need them :)

GH..

Weak point hell! These are full out flaws when it comes to efficiency.
The only thing it has going for it is that it has few moving parts.
Well according to the only independent 3rd party to observe a test of it, yes the Bourke engine is a guzzler.

The Bourke Engine

(Note when contacted to verify if this story for wikipedia was true Paul Niquette swore it was. he also has the credentials to back it up Paul Niquette Resume -- CH2M HILL )
You forgot to mention that the Bourke engine also has no proper lubrication for its piston rings due to the seal around the connecting rod. That tends to shorten the life of an engine.
There is no real emissions data on the Bourke engine to go off of. The only data is off of another Bourke engine scam site claiming 10ppm for NOx. Unfortunately there was no output power level given for this reading so I would suspect it was at idle. NOx output of a Bourke engine with its extended dwell time near top dead center should be rather high at full power.
Mr. Bourke was a politician and they have a poor track record on stated vs real benefits.

So few have looked at improving the efficiency of the Bourke engine because they can see straight off that its a lost cause.

If you want clean oil all the time go install a frantz bypass oil filter.

I move that this thread be placed in the unicorn corral

Oh man, I'm going to 'get some popcorn' and see what happens next! :)

I think I understand the 'never change the oil' a bit better. They say there's only two moving parts, but I'd never heard of a three-piece slipper bearing before. Doesn't that up the parts count 50%?

I read the Niquette story. That was awesome writing for an engineer.

http://niquette.com/books/images/bourke02.jpg
Volkswagen sized? That sucker's 4' across and 5' long.

Edit: Maybe that is the 400 cubic inch version.

I double checked my emissions data i cited. It turns out I was in error on the data I quoted. It looks like the website that posted some emissions data listed hydrocarbons at 80 ppm and carbon monoxide at less than 10 ppm but without an output power associated with these readings. No NOx measurements were given.

Its popcorn time everyone :D

Now looking at the engine from an emissions perspective it is my opinion that it would show decreases in all levels except NOx. This is the Achilles heal of the HCCI engines of today. The Bourke design is for all intent and purposes an HCCI engine that helped pave the way for modern designs. So it would not surprise me one bit if we were able to test a prototype and see elevated levels of NOx similar to what we find today in modern HCCI engines. When you run an engine lean this is what you get and this is the reason we do not see these engines to often currently. Honda has lean fuel burning engine technology such as in there Insight Gen1. They can use it because they provide proper catalyst technology to help keep the NOx emissions in check.

The mechanical weak link has always been considered the scotch yoke. Many have tried to overcome and improve upon this and have failed. As of recent there are a few who have succeeded in improving upon the design. The article links below detail just how they improved upon the Bourke design and its significance. These two engine designers obviously feel that the Bourke engine was more than just a scam or lost cause! You can also see my thread how to increase diesel engine efficiency where Mr. Pattakon was kind enough to post more about his genius engine designs.

#1. Advanced Technology for Piston Engines
#2. http://www.pattakon.com/pattakonOPRE2.htm

Again I am going to throw this out when something is not well understood people will be quick to judge and often discredit. When things don't go as planned people tend to give up and throw in the towel way to soon! The Bourke engine is not perfect nothing ever is! I could write a page on how inefficient our current gas and or diesel engines are. However we spend millions on improving them every year! The 2 inventors I provided article links for above believe conventional engine design can be improved upon as do I. What is interesting is they both used the simple Bourke engine design and principles as a basis for conventional improvement go figure!

The Bourke engine has more than just an incredible short list of parts going for it. The engine can idle extremely low and have almost instant power. The engine is not dictated by RPM but rather engine load similar to what you would find in an electric motor. At idle it uses a very small amount of fuel unlike our conventional engines. The engine can run very lean and to very high rpm. The engine can run a plethora of fuels not just simply gas or diesel! Pretty much all low grade fuels can be run on this engine which gives it the ability to further clean up emissions. This engine is much lighter than conventional engines and will put out much more horsepower and torque than any crate engine we could purchase currently pound for pound. The engine can be coupled in series to easily create a 4,6,8,10,12 or more cylinder engine.

Now all of these advantages are confirmed and is much more than just the advantage of having far less parts and only 2 moving parts in the entire engine. Or the fact its a mono stroke that takes care of all 4 engine cycles 2 times per revolution. This engine actually has much going for it if you really take the time to look at it. If you took a quarter of the development costs we spend on our current conventional engine technology and put it into this engine we would have an engine that could be a game changer.

Mr Bourke did make some lofty claims about his engine design and from what I can determine from talking to individuals who have worked on the engines and really understand it the majority so far have been tested to be true. Not all of it has been tested and confirmed but enough to know at this point Mr. Bourke was not lying to create hype for his engine. However there are limitations and areas that need worked on and improved that the people who have worked and experimented with these engines will tell you. They will also tell you that even Mr. Bourke new it had limitations and was quietly working on improvements as most all great inventors do. He ran out of time before he could implement his improvements. Had he had more time who knows where we could be today!

Engine control and fuel injection are 2 areas that could really use improvement with the Bourke engine and modern fuel injection has matured to the point this could definitely be a possibility. Also engine electronics has improved and matured as well so this could have potential in helping control the Bourke design.

Now a few things I would like to make clear. First I am no engine design expert and second I am no Bourke engine expert either. I have come to my own opinions and conclusions from research not only from internet readings but also by talking with people who have far more experience in engine design than I as well as people who have first hand knowledge and experience in Bourke engines and the like.

Does the Bourke Engine deserve the Unicorn Corral maybe for some but for me I think it has much potential and sometimes it takes looking out of the box to see such potential. I can appreciate others opinions such as ConnClark and he brings up very valid arguments. Good arguments are constructive for improvement in anything and is something I highly value.

At this point I am so immersed into my kit car project Tigon that there is no way I have the time to build a prototype engine and perform testing to help us gain better knowledge into its claims. However once the car is complete and tested I will have much more time on my hands and would be willing to put my time and energy into such a task of helping us to understand the Bourke engine design much better. Until then the best I can do is talk to others and try to gain insight that way. Which to this point has showed me that The Bourke engine design is very real and not a scam. Also that it has helped us gain valuable insight to HCCI design and other engine design platforms that will help us to improve our current conventional engine designs and theories way into the future.

Oh and as far as the point about poor piston ring lubrication which I did not forget to mention btw because they are more than adequately supplied with oil by a small hole in the cylinder wall at bottom dead center :) However I do love the Frantz by pass oil filter for our current conventional engines and will utilize it in my small 2 cylinder diesel in my Tigon hybrid design...

GH :thumbup:

Here is the solution to high NOX emissions.

Transonic Combustion | Revolutionizing Combustion Technology

Regardless of the engine design.

regards
Mech

Hey Old Mech thanks for chiming in here and pointing out this tech. I agree with this solution and support this technology. I can not wait for it to go mainstream!

GH :)

Actually HCCI has lower NOx emissions than a diesel which is why it is attractive to car makers.
The main effort to control NOx is to not generate it in the first place. Trying to remove in the exhaust creates back pressure and eats in to fuel economy not to mention costs more money and adds weight to the car.
Things are well understood about the scotch yoke. Collins Motor Corporation built a few engines based on their "improved" scotch yoke design in the 90's. They made a big deal about how it made a more compact engine with less vibration and danced all around to avoid talking about what a fuel guzzler it was and its emissions in SAE papers. For their comparisons they used simulated conventional engine designs that showed much higher fuel consumption and emissions than was being achieved with real engines of the day. Needless to say the hype didn't hold up, people got wise, investor money dried up, they went broke, and nothing became of their technology.

Sinusoidal piston motion and extended dwell time at TDC is not a way to save fuel but just a way to waste it. Any company associating itself with the bourke engine is a scam. They can't get conventional development funding because science and actual experimental results show it won't work out the way they say it does. So how do they get funding for it? They bilk dreamers with false claims of being repressed and accept donations.

A 19th century steam engine can idle at a complete stop and have instant power but that doesn't make it efficient.
You made me spit water out of my mouth from laughing at this claim.
I know where he would be. He would be hyping the Bourke engine with a bunch of other scammers because his patents ran out.
This still won't fix the problems of wasting energy compressing the intake charge twice and extracting power only once or wasted heat due to extended dwell time at TDC.

Regardless of the location of the lubrication hole it will still be exposed to blow by from the piston rings and that is going to contaminate the oil. A small hole might mitigate it to some degree but will likely foul and plug up.

The patents on this engine have been expired for decades. No one has made it work to be competitive with existing decades old technology. Glaring flaws from an efficiency stand point cannot be overcome to make it work efficiently. Getting rid of the flaws means omitting the scotch yoke and the compression of the intake charge by the piston. Doing so leaves you with a conventional two stroke with scavenging done by an external blower which is no longer a Bourke engine and thus has promise.

If you want something that is considered thinking out of the box try a rotary Atkinson cycle engine. It has thermodynamics working in its favor.

File:WikiDartEngine.gif - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's interesting. It's like a Tesla turbine with the flow reversed. Has anyone gotten that sliding inter-connector to work? Do you like that better than Scuderi's approach?

Do these require spark plugs? I'm not seeing any on the Rotary or the Bourke.
http://www.photonics.com/images2/Spe...er_Figure4.jpg
Who wouldn't want frickin' lasers in the heads?

HCCI yes can have lower NOx emissions than a diesel however a diesel with little modification can greatly reduce its emissions as well. Just utilizing a biodiesel blend will reduce emissions greatly in all categories!

"The main effort to control NOx is to not generate it in the first place. Trying to remove in the exhaust creates back pressure and eats in to fuel economy not to mention costs more money and adds weight to the car."

Completely agree with this 100%

"Things are well understood about the scotch yoke."

I agree with this also!

The lubrication system in a nutshell uses oil seals to prevent the pollution from the combustion chamber (created by piston ring blow-by) from polluting the crankcase oil. This helps extend the life of the oil as it is used slowly for keeping the rings full of oil to hold and use to lubricate.

As for fuel economy that is up for debate but from my brief readings I can confirm the 400 cubic foot model did suck an awful lot of gas. I will post what I find in details to this thread later as I have to get going now.

I will definitely look into the rotary Atkinson cycle engine so thanks for sharing that! Another engine I thought looked interesting was the Fre-Piston design but that is for another thread entirely.

GH..

Hello!

The Bourke engine seems indeed genial. Having put a lot of thought into it I must conclude that:
-It is so much misunderstood because it uses RESONANT effects that are not propery documented. This is why it is hard to duplicate, all the air and exhaust channels must be exact length and shape.
-It uses some kind of partial internal EGR that makes it so efficient
-The Bourke left some important aspects to himself because of the fear of being rejected from manufacturing the engine.
-The engine may be unstable at low or changing loads, this may be why it is not had wider use.

Let's hope that we can soon hear about successful refabrication of this magnificent engine, and have better proof of its real value.

Regards

Looking at this thread (because I have long ignored looking at the Bourke engine) I have often wondered how we might use ceramic on the head and walls to keep the hot exhaust gasses there while also not bothering to dissipate them through the material. An ideal engine would not have any active cooling at all :)

Ah well pipe dream just like the Bourke engine.

Unfortunately an engine that does not allow heat to escape to the cooling system won't pass emissions these days. The NOx emissions would be too high. In the 80's in Japan they made a ceramic diesel engine once and put it in a test car. It returned very very good mileage numbers, but no way would it pass emissions.

Also NOx emission was the main reason for aluminum heads to appear on production cars and not weight savings. Aluminum conducts heat much much better than cast iron.

You just can't win :P

I don't know, that thing looks pretty thermodynamically terrible. The combustion chamber design has a relatively huge surface area to volume ratio and there's friction points all over the place. Seems like a while lot of work to achieve what a plain old turbo can accomplish.

Nox can be stored in a sold metal state the same way that solid hydrogen tanks can, perhaps Nox production will someday be considered an excellent side effect allowing you to "boost" your car off self produced Nox when you have to hit the go pedal.

Ah well.

You're confusing NOx (meaning NO2, NO3, etc) with nitrous oxide (N2O).

No, N2O cannot be stored in solid form that I know of...


NO2 (Nitrous dioxide) is more effective than N2O at lighting a fire :)

It should work very well if it can be delivered in a non-corosive way.

Nitrogen dioxide, NO2, Physical properties, safety, MSDS, enthalpy, material compatibility, gas liquid equilibrium, density, viscosity, flammability, transport properties

It would accelerate the flame front, if it could be stored in adequate QTYs it would work very well at leaning out WOT enough that one could add some more fuel.

Ah well.