Discussion in 'Supplier / Manufacturer Announcements' started by invEngin, May 17, 2015.
He he! I was just point out lack of information compared to claims. If there is no information and video claims tons of power and torque, that is just talk. I am happy if somebody can build more powerful engines than now exist, and could keep it together with higher power levels. That mean lighter engines compared hp level.
Context-sensitive and audience-appropriate information is the issue here.
The OP and/or the engine developer have posted a notice, and asked for help, and asked for credibility.... on a forum largely populated by people who are far more experienced and educated in these matters than the general public. Further, a fair number of the members of this forum have been around long enough to have seen hundreds of similar claims that amounted to nothing (or worse).
So making a claim without any data, or even any logic, is a guarantee of not being taken seriously.
Add to this the fact that the entire operating principle of this engine has not been explained to any significant degree, and that requests for any explanation have been met with evasive and non-substantive replies.
Add to this the fact that (apparently... I have not seen it) the website and video reduce (rather than increase) the credibility of the claims.
However, the most important, and telling (and likely accuracte) fact about this concept comes directly from the original post:
"Deep BreatHER© is an innovative engine construction with unseen performance."
I think that pretty much says it all
I'm placing my financial investment in the Zero Displacement Engine instead, especially since it comes with a ground-floor opportunity to sell them via multi-level marketing to my family and friends.
There was claim for O 200 that might ring a bell for most aircraft mechanic. 200+ hp at 2750 rpm. Yes, that is absolutely doable, but when somebody do it, it really need 2 X more air and gas than 100 hp O 200. That will add 2 X thermal load too, and that is something alarming for engine like O 200. That engine is known to have valve problems with just 100 hp original level. Power is easy if just boost air, but everything else is hard part.
Yes,I know but I could not resist, sorry about that.
I must admit that I probably would react the same way.
What I do in such a situation is checking out the threads and posts of the one who claims this level of performance.
If it looks like a guy who knows what he is talking about I would start wondering...
Is the Deep BreatHER© based on the project in the link above?
Shouldn't that be Deep BreatHER®?
Hi Clanon, thank you for this
it's just not enough information. I don't doubt you've worked diligently on it and have something of potential value. Anybody in your core group have sales or marketing experience?
Many years ago I was involved as a pilot and aircraft owner in the IF-1 racing (Formula One) at the Reno Air Races. As a real-world data point, it was calculated that the O-200 under normal aspiration will only make 118-122 horsepower in RACING configuration at 4150 RPM, which is well over the regular rated RPM of 2750. There is a tremendous amount of air moving through the engine under these conditions due to RPM, and only a modest increase in delivered power.
To achieve 200HP from this engine would require either a tremendous amount of RPM, which will cause catastrophic valve issues as mentioned, or supercharging that would quickly remove the cylinders from the crankcase. The attach hardware, as well as the construction of the crankcase itself, as well as the small number of cylinder hold-down studs, with a smaller number of through-bolts..... is simply not enough to hold the engine together at ultra-high intake boost.
There are many engines that are capable of making 1 HP for every cubic inch of displacement, but the wolderful, reliable, trustworthy, antique O-200 is not one of them. I'm NOT a high-end engine expert like some of the people on this forum might be. But it is obvious to me as a simple mechanic that in order to get this type of power delivery you need either a screaming 2-stroke engine, a "block" style liquid cooled engine, a Wankel rotary, or a "block" style opposed piston diesel.
Six hold-down studs per cylinder on a long-stroke, low-tech engine just ain't gonna stay together.
Ok, I feel I can pretty much clear this one up.
Here is my presumption of what is going on, could be wrong but I doubt it with the clues and seeing what Lemans was doing with his 4 stroke engine.
As some of you know, a 2 stroke uses the crankcase for pumping, supercharging if you will. A number of people over the years, including me, suddenly realise; Hey, why don't I just put a 4 stroke head onto the 2 stroke crankcase, a couple of one way valves (reed valves) and viola!, a supercharged 4 stroke!
Note the claims of extra "Beathing" and "Air cooled internals" - fits the layout. Note also Lemans (to his credit) was building a layout that could easily be converted to such a system.
Now let me convey the bad news, it doesn't work, well not to the levels people think it will, although in some applications there are some advantages, back to that in a moment.
First let me tell you lots of people have tried it, I converted a Yamaha YZ80 with a Honda CT110 head in my workshop for fun after reading an article about a guy who was hand building limited numbers of Trials bikes in Europe. It went ok, just ok, a bit better than a Honda 110 but much slower than the YZ80 and the reasons are simple.
- First you need a lot of intake volume for all the routeing which lowers the pressures available.
- Second is the heat, the pressurisation and violent pumping of the charge raises the temps quite dramatically lowering the density. Along with that heat, you necessarily have an oil in the charge to lubricate the crankshaft bearings, so you have heat and oil and that equals lowered compression, another loss of power. Sure, you can use an intercooler as in this example ..
.. but that just increases intake volume which lowers intake pressures more.
It's just not worth it, the results are nowhere near what seems obvious at first glance.
By the way, Husqvarna's very first 4 stroke motocross bike, the "510" after years of 2 strokes, was a 4 stroke top end literally bolted directly onto their then current 2 stroke crankcase. They did not attempt to use this crankcase supercharging method, they just ran it naturally aspirated. They aren't idiots, they were making reed valved 2 strokes and there's no way they didn't consider it and experiment with it.
Now Stihl have a different take on it and make them in the millions, it's called the "4 Mix" engine. The advantage to them is lower cost of manufacturer. Used for their small weedeaters and chainsaws. In this day and age no doubt they wanted to go the 4 stroke path rather than have those "evil 2 strokes" - ironically though they still need to pump oil through the system to feed the bottom end as seen here ...
That is all, you can all breathe deeply now ...
Clearly none of this is going to be resolved here, and this thread is headed in an ugly direction.
The OP is clearly not willing to release more detailed information here, or on their website.
Badgering or mocking him/her is unlikely to change that situation.
Without more information, everyone is reduced to speculation - which is about as futile an exercise as exists.
There is a long and well-established track record of inventors claiming some radical improvement to the internal combustion engine. I've yet to hear of a single lone inventor or small group that makes such claims ever turning their idea into a real, marketable item. It's about on par with seeing a unicorn, IMHO.
Given that track record and the taint it has put on the entire idea of radically improving the ICE, the likelihood of a lone inventor (or small group) attracting any serious investment very closely approaches zero - unless they have some kind of proof to back up their claims. Doesn't have to be an exposition of the concept. Just an independent dyno run of a prototype would be sufficient to start serious talks.
Funding a prototype is probably going to be done on the shoulders of the inventor(s). If you can't afford it, then somethiing like Kickstarter or IndiGoGo is your only remaining hope. Not many venture capitalists hang out on HBA.
So let's all take a deep breath and let this thread run a natural course: Either some angel investor will show up and fund this project, or the thread will die for lack of information. Anything else just descends into argument and sniping at each other. We've seen it here before, more than once.
Good thinking Cheapracer, what you have explained here is close to the 'Spinner' but has nothing to do with the 'DeepBreatHER'.
At least, we can say that you have done your homework.
No need for an investor to fund the prototype. We did not need one to build the 'Spinner' we don't need one to build the DeepBreatHER©.
Then I wish you and your team all the best, and I look forward to seeing your prototype proving your theories correct!
Hey is the Smokey Yunick patent up yet?
I missed something... What is the talk about (Leman's) "Spinner"?
I donow bmcj , he didn't say her name...onder:
Home - EMA - Engine Manufacturers Association
Re an o-200 giving 200hp at 2750 rpm.
Snowball in hell!
An O-200 is 3.3 litres displacement.
A top level racing car (nascar, formula 1) , manages mid 90's ftlb/litre. The only engines that produce more than that are supercharged.
A good not absolute racing engine makes 80ftlb/litre
so, at nascar 95 ftlb/litre tune, an O-200 could make 313 ftlb, at 2750 rpm, that's 164 bhp. Dream on.
At 80ftlb/litre tune, an O-200 would make 264 ftlb, 138hp. Should be doable, with a lot more compression, tuned intake and exhaust and maybe new heads and cam.
Sane people would just use an O-240 and skip the bit where they have to worry about the engine melting, and the expense of tuning
Yep, that's the plan.
Meanwhile, I just see no reason why an other company should waste valuable time as we are confident that we can convince the most skeptic engineer on a 30 minutes presentation.
If nobody is interested, no harm done.
If somebody is, there is nothing to lose and a lot to win.
Never think that all is already invented.
Separate names with a comma.