Rotating Liner Engine
 

I found this while researching what makes up most of the losses in an engine. While this may or may not be the highest it certainly is up there. I'd never have thought of this and i wonder if it will ever make it a little more mainstream?
If we are going to use IC engines for the forseeable future then this needs to make headway and quickly.

http://www.rotatingliner.com/RLE-Art...nal-022404.pdf

RLE | Rotating Liner Engine

Information Bridge: DOE Scientific and Technical Information - Sponsored by OSTI

Sounds like yet another "Magic Bullet" like the rotary-valve engine. I'm skeptical so far, but if they can demonstrate it in practical use and show actual improvements it would be a nice addition to the traditional internal combustion engine.

-soD

Gotta admit, I don't understand the premise of it :confused:

And looks to me like the regular valves are still there, so now they've added all this other rube goldberg mechanical stuff on top of what's already there and internal friction is reduced? :confused:

Referring to "a total of 200 million horsepower of SVE's were built during WW2" could backfire.

None too many of those sleeve valve engines are still flying high in warbirds, and those that still exist are a real pain to keep running & properly serviced.

I think they may be trying to always stay with dynamic friction instead of static friction. Dynamic friction is considerably less than static friction. But that's a heck of a lot of extra moving parts & maintenance to deal with. I don't think we will be seeing them on the road anytime soon.

Don

There talking about using a rotating cylinder liner to reduce ring friction at TDC and still use normal valve train .
The issue with this setup is it will take up more space.
The way engines blocks are cast if a rotating cylinder liner enter into design the length of block would go up and this is critical in FWD space (engine + trans ) .
Maybe on trucks and large stationary engines it be ok .

Looking at a typical 4 cycle engine from the top with the cylinder head removed.

Think of the front of the crankshaft as the 12 o'clock position and the rear as the 6 o'clock position.

The greatest wear will occur at the 9 and 3 o'clock positions.

This is because of the pressure of combustion on the top of the piston pushes the piston straight down, but the different angles of the connecting rod, in relation to the piston and crank journal, create severe side loads on the piston. The piston skirts are there to spread out the side loads, but even then, after many miles the bore will wear in an oval pattern with the greatest wear at the positions that are 90 degrees from the center line of the crankshaft (3 and 9 o'clock).

When that wear reaches a certain amount, the rings can no longer seal properly and compression losses and oil consumption get to the point where a re bore and new pistons are necessary.

While I understand the concept of a rotating cylinder liner, I doubt very seriously that this solution is practical.

My engine design reduces the side loads by maintaining the alignment of the pistons and cylinders and eliminates the connecting rod as the source of the excessive side loads.

It also allows for variable compression and the elimination of the valve train.

http://www.youtube.com/user/Ride122609

You can see this in the video linked above. It's a simple pump driven by compressed air, but could be configured as a IC engine.

Instead of pursuing the engine design, I decided to work on a hydraulic in wheel drive.

regards
Mech

Ha- as far as automotive engines and cylinder wear... I have a Tempo 2.3 with almost 300,000 miles on it with good compression on all four. I've had the cyl head off a '94 Taurus 3.0 with 150,000 miles and not only was there no ridge on top, the crosshatching was clearly visible.

So I'm thinking cyl wear is an issue that's already under control.

I couldn't agree with you more Frank. By the time you have significant cylinder wear on a decently maintained engine the rest of the car is falling apart.

One of my customers had an 83 200SX with 540,000 miles. The inside of the engine was immaculate and it did not use any significant amount of oil. The passengers door was so badly rusted on the outside, you could see the inside of the interior trim panel from outside of the car ;).

regards
Mech

I tend to agree with all your posts guys. Extra maintenance was an issue not mentioned in their prototype. Still though, they have balls to come up with something like that! And the reduction in fuel consumption at low load is quite a bit.