AMPERe One stroke engine

Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum

Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

Blackhawk

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
246
Location
AUSTRALIA
I also read that the one-stroke was capable of 16,000 rpm .... in aviation it would need an exotic reduction unit to achieve prop speeds ....... the transmission could weigh more than the engine.

If you read their web site you'll find this paragraph:
"We are currently prioritizing resources to the power generation, aviation, automotive and marine sectors".

But then if you wanted a ducted fan jet or VTOL, then 16000rpm may be useful.

I attached the wrong PDF Patent above; it should have been their 3 cylinder radial which explains all the the working parts that are the same as the current range of engines from their site
 

Attachments

PMD

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2015
Messages
353
Location
Martensville SK
Not only nothing shown as to how cylinders are charged, no explanation of the connection between inlet and exhaust ports while piston at mid-stroke. I am always skeptical when people adapt the "trust me" attitude when providing technical information. Also the fully unsupported claims regarding efficiency and emissions make me more than a bit doubtful.
 

Hot Wings

Grumpy Cynic
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
7,853
Location
Rocky Mountains
There's a lot missing. What, for instance, drives the air into the cylinders? A two-stroke uses crankcase pressures or a supercharger. This shows nothing at all.
Took a second look - I know, I shouldn't be wasting time on this...................

It is nothing but a couple of free pistons linked together. Didn't bother the read the whole patent but I got the impression all that is being patented is the linking idea. They will have trouble there with prior art as well.

If you look at the picture (CG?) on the web site the engine has 3 carburetors/throttle bodies (4 in the animation). These look to contain reed valves - also indicated by the little red and blue lines in the animation.
 

Dan Thomas

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
6,050
Not only nothing shown as to how cylinders are charged, no explanation of the connection between inlet and exhaust ports while piston at mid-stroke. I am always skeptical when people adapt the "trust me" attitude when providing technical information. Also the fully unsupported claims regarding efficiency and emissions make me more than a bit doubtful.
I quickly read through both patents. The first one shows induction air and fuel entering the crankcase, and the text says that the crank and rod are lubricated the same way as a four-stroke engine. That doesn't make sense. It also says that no oil from the crankcase will escape with the exhaust. No sense there, either. The second patent talks repeatedly about "compressed air" being admitted to one of the cylinder side ports to charge the cylinder and scavenge the exhaust, but nowhere at all does it say where that compressed air comes from.

The bending loads on the piston rods in the second engine are concerning. Normal con rods are only in compression and tension. Bending fatigues metal, which is why it's avoided as much as possible and why crankshafts and valve rockers and camshafts are so stout and well-supported. Some large ship engines use a rod like this Ampere engine, but it's a huge rod, and its lower end runs in guides to take the side forces from the other rod. It encounters no bending forces.

1626883827077.png

1626883845751.png



There doesn't appear, to me anyway, any advantage over a typical two-stroke engine.

History teaches us stuff, if we pay attention. Henry Ford's Model T, first produced in 1908, 113 years ago, had an inline four-cylinder four-stroke engine. Pistons in cylinders with connecting rods to a crankshaft, intake and exhaust valves driven by a camshaft. Sparkplugs provided ignition and a carburetor provided air and fuel.

If we open the hood of a 2021 smaller car, what do we see? An inline four-cylinder four-stroke engine. Pistons in cylinders with connecting rods to a crankshaft, intake and exhaust valves driven by a camshaft. Sparkplugs provide ignition, but a fuel injection system provides fuel. The air is drawn into the engine the same way it was in 1908. The sparkplugs are fired by a much better system. The improvements are metallurgical and electronic, and the valves are in the head, but the entire mechanical principle is still the same. I wonder why.
 

trimtab

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2014
Messages
209
Location
rocky mountains, rocky, usa
Have a look through the patent; it should give you some of the information you're looking for.
This is for a different engine...


 
Last edited:

PMD

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2015
Messages
353
Location
Martensville SK
In any sort of "normal" 2 cycle engine, the exhaust ports open before the intakes, so that cylinder pressure drops before the inlet port open (for what I hope are obvious reasons). The one stroke engines could do that by simply having a much longer exhaust port but that all goes to pieces when you consider the "bypass" from the narrowed piston middle section. Maybe that is where some magic vacuum cleaner picks up all of the lube oil and combustion emissions and makes them disappear.
 

trimtab

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2014
Messages
209
Location
rocky mountains, rocky, usa
I'm going to say the idea looks great for drones, the tech development of which is lurching heavily into the kamikaze market in defense, which doesn't require good lubrication or cooling for long life. I see their company as being built around that premise. Which is what others have been doing as well, and SWAP rules those budgets.
 

Dan Thomas

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
6,050
I'm going to say the idea looks great for drones, the tech development of which is lurching heavily into the kamikaze market in defense, which doesn't require good lubrication or cooling for long life. I see their company as being built around that premise. Which is what others have been doing as well, and SWAP rules those budgets.
I'm going to say that the idea looks great for fleecing investors. Their website says they have built 400 prototypes, yet there are no videos of any of them running and doing something useful.

No, wait: It says their chief has built more than 400 prototypes of various engines. The website claims this for the single-stroke engines:

Currently, the Single-Stroke engines are being tested in a working environment for final optimization and commercialization.

But still not a single video of this activity. No pictures, no proof.
 

Vigilant1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
6,509
Location
US
Some of the most imaginative and technically competent minds in the world have thoroughly explored every type of engine. The ground has been thoroughly picked over. There's very little chance of a new fundamental breakthrough in this area unless it is the result of new materials or technologies that weren't available to those earlier generations.
 
Top