Talk:Bourke engine/Archive 1

message: The information on the oil lubrication system and many other functions of the engine are CONFIDENTAL.   Watch the video(s) at  http://bourkeengine.net/videoclips.htm. You’ll see no smoke in the exhaust and low recorded exhaust temperatures.  The Bourke 2-stroke engine does not require oil in the fuel, it has an improved intake/exhaust cycle, and ignition occurs at TDC at MAXIMUM compression.  No engine in the world runs like the Bourke Engine.   ALEX...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.212.7.32 (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they are confidential then how are we spupposed to reference them? Greglocock (talk) 02:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oil

message: The drawing explicitly shows fuel injected into the transfer port. Is all air transferred into the combustion chamber of roughly equivalent fuel/air ratio? Or is the fuel injection timed so that the fuel is concentrated into the latter part of the scavenging cycle? Greglocock 12:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Charge separation

message: The slipper bearing is used for the piston ring.  Slipper bearings are used in jet engines they are extremely reliable and have very long lives.  This engine only has two moving parts.  It’s amazing that the 4-stroke engine runs with so many moving parts, and potential for failure.  ALEX...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.212.7.32 (talk) 00:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Slipper bearing

message: Ideal Gas Law (P1*V1)/T1 = (P2*V2)/T2 – The temperature and volume of a gas (fuel/air mixture) is proportional.  In the Bourke engine the fuel ignites when the piston is at TDC (minimum volume – highest temperature) and held there for a very short time (dwell).    At BDC the gaseous (H2O vapor and CO2) are exhausted (maximum volume – lowest temperature).   In other types of combustion engines, the fuel/air mixture ignites on the downward stroke of the engine, leaving as a flame and not completely burn.   The Bourke engine low exhaust temperatures (100 °C) represents that complete combustion has occurred and meets ideal gas laws.  ALEX...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.212.7.32 (talk) 00:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't need to go to a link. The definition of adiabatic is NO heat transfer. Greglocock 09:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No compromise is required. Remove either the heat transfer claim, or the adiabatic claim, and it makes sense. Leave them both in and it is self-contradictory. The JT effect is precisely what you don't want in an engine, since you get no work out of it. Quote from first sentence "which means that no heat is transferred to or from the gas, and no external work is extracted" Do you even try and understand this stuff? why not buy a book on thermo, and one on  engines, and read it? Greglocock 22:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You persist in typing nonsense. Just because you can join words together does not make your ideas valid. Adiabatic is a description of a process, not a state. Greglocock 00:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ideal Gas Law - Adiabatic cooling

message: There has been no testing performed by the government and/or the automotive industry.  The Bourke Engine Project has submitted proposals to the Army for testing.  Statements below about testing are inaccurate and can not be supported.  ALEX...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.212.7.32 (talk) 00:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disclaimer 

message: Where is the reference for the claim of nitrous oxide production problems?  It's very logical and "sensible" but those who build Bourke engines say that it doesn't happen. In any event, wouldn't that be primarily a result of the lean fuel-air mixture and easily remediable by running a richer mixture and trading away the assitional fuel economy in order to gain the simplicity of design?
ANY burning process that relies on high temperatures, with excess air, will produce NOx. You will get high temperatures if you want high efficincy. If you are prepared to trade off efficiency for NOx, fair enough, but don't then try and claim high efficiency. This stuff is basic engine science, fundamental to all IC engines.Greglocock 02:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NOx Discussion

message: Turbocharge is the correct term...and is done on the engine.  Turbochargin is the compressing of air, prior to mixing with fuel in order to have more air mixing with fuel then under normal atmospheric pressure.  This is done on the engine (see the piston that compresses the air, under the main piston where the air enters) 
Sno2 21:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Turbocharging/Supercharging

message: Needs links from other pages and to other pages.  Otto 2 cycle, 4 cycle, turbine...etc.....
Needs links to other pages of different type engines.
Do not know how to do this.
The person that wrote this article claims to have 50 years of experience, and was responsible for Xerox Corporation high growth.   He has no experience with engines and has a resume as long as a rap sheet.  I guess he really wasn’t employable (not credible).   Maybe he really works for oil industry, eye witness account unlikely.  http://www.niquette.com/paul/access/prtfolio.html  ALEX…  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.212.7.32 (talk) 02:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, he is a real person who answers his emails, not an effectively anonymous contributor to wiki who seems to specialise in randomly inserting paragraphs in other people's comments. WHEN somebody tests one of the 15 Bourke engines and publishes the results then that may confirm the hype. So far all we've got is one test that shows the efficiency is nothing specal. Greglocock (talk) 02:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am 99% sure that it is a work of fiction, or heavily embellished fact. If you put this into the article then please confirm that it is accurate beforehand, I will revert it if you cannot provide this evidence. Greglocock 23:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Just about everything. i've emailed the author. Greglocock 01:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, he's sent me a rather aggressive response saying that the account is true. The good news is that the link can go back in. The bad news is that the efficiency he observed is well below that claimed by the enthusiasts, and is in line with normal engineering expectations. I shall adjust the article accordingly. Greglocock 23:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  I figured this would be the case. --DieselDude 20:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links from other pages... 

message: Added introduction to simplified explanation so it could be peer reviewed.Sno2 00:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: I question some of the things in the engineering critique concerning efficiency....believe you are insinuating that the losses are bigger then they actually are...
looking at the thermal efficiency only...
Assume both the bourke and conventional burn the same amount of fuel and the temperatures are the same to begin with, say 2000 degrees.
Assume thermal loss through the cylinder walls are the same.
Both engines running under the same load.
Measured:
Bourke exaust temperature around 200 degrees
Conventional around 800 degrees
2000 - 200 = 1800 amount of fuel energy equal to 1800 degrees is used, either in load or in internal losses.
2000 - 800 = 1200 amount of fuel energy equal to 1200 degrees is used, either in load or in internal losses. 
The difference is about 30 percent.
I do not think the losses you refer to your engineering analysis would lower the final efficiency of the Bourke by more then 5 percent....in fact think it would be probably be around 1 or 2 percent.
With 5 percent still gives 25 percent advantage to bourke
Note: Am giving all the advantage to the conventional...Bourke temperature initially hotter for same amount of fuel...average temperature of cylinder lower in bourke then conventional, less thermal loss through walls.
Does this make sense...and if not why not...??Sno2 21:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about you stop pulling numbers out of mid-air? The estimation of the efficiency of an engine is quite difficult, I see no sign that you are actually trying to use equations. The Bourke engine is a two stroke engine. The efficiency problems of 2 stroke engines, specifically to do with scavenging are well known. In fact the design of a 2 stroke is largely concerned with scavenging. Your argument about temperatures means nothing if some of the charge escapes with the previous exhaust, (ie a high scavenging ratio is used), whereas if a low scavenging ratio is used the torque developed will drop. Roughly speaking a crossflow scavenged two stroke will dump unburnt HC out of the exhaust if the scavenging ratio is greater than 0.4. Therefore if we believe the test results given, a low scavenging ratio was used, so the maximum torque developed per litre is less than 80% of a normal 4 stroke. Therefore the claims about high power to weight ratio start to look rather suspect. In fact the presence of 60% exhaust in the charge will reduce the burn temperature, and NOx formation, so the thermodynamic efficiency will drop, but at least the NOx formation will be less. On the other hand if the scavenging ratio is 1, as it appears to be from the drawing, then a fair amount of unburnt HC will be exhausted, and the torque will increase. The high combustion temperature will increase the efficincy,  although it is unlikely to compensate for the unburnt HCs,and will create NOx. This still leaves the problem that if there is excess air then the burn rate will be slow compared with a conventional mixture, and therefore the claims of high efficiency due to consatnt volume burn look very dodgy. Now, this is all available in the obvious reference J.B. Heywood, "Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals" so why not save me some time and go and read it. Your misunderstanding of engine balance on my talk page is remarkable for anyone who claims to know anything about engines. Greglocock 00:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: experiment trumps theory every time = glad to hear that. I have 25 years of experience working on engines and vibration and dynamics. You have what? Greglocock 01:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Efficiency question engineering analysis

message: Similar to bourke...opposing pistons...triangle cam..??..no piston slap..complete burn..??..the only claims seem to be low weight....high torque...high efficiency..one of videos here shows torque curve in comparison to conventional....
Sno2 21:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Revetec

message: Carnot Cycle Ideal Heat Engine Efficiency 
E =  1 – (T1 – T2) / T1 
E = 1 – (2173 – 373 (100 C) / 2173 (1800 C)
E = 83 % Idea Efficiency)
Actual Measured -  ¼ lb/hp hr = 62% (Refer to DOE Paper HCCI) ALEX...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.212.7.32 (talk) 23:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Efficiency calculations

message: Statements below are inaccurate.  The detail information on the Bourke Engine operation is CONFIDENTAL and unavailable to the public.   Watch the video(s) at http://bourkeengine.net/videoclips.htm.  (Probably by ALEX)
::If the information is confidential then by definition we can't see it and by definition we can't give a reference to it so by definition it can't go into the article. Please add your comments below preceeding comments, not above them.Greglocock (talk) 10:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: reorganize