|
|
很久以來(lái),聰明的機(jī)械設(shè)計(jì)師們?cè)O(shè)計(jì)出了很多種發(fā)動(dòng)機(jī)形式,但是總是沒(méi)有哪個(gè)能夠革了活塞發(fā)動(dòng)機(jī)的命.現(xiàn)在權(quán)當(dāng)是一種藝術(shù)品來(lái)欣賞吧.
$ C& `& a, x" k9 R# M; D看看這個(gè).E文的評(píng)價(jià)不是我寫(xiě)的哦.2 ?# d" W+ Y4 S5 P9 _% ~! u u$ ?
This design took a hell of alot of work. He has a running prototype, it has alot of great animations and material on the website with regards to this design. I truly congratulate this individual for coming up with an alternate design and then making it work.7 c) X' O* X$ g
- C; V2 _% }7 s1 C! E$ g# ^8 oHowever (and there always is a however), designer seems hell-bent to keep certain ideas that he had from the beginning of the design, most notably not using oil lubrication or water cooling. His test runs work, but this will melt down without oil & water.
# x. B% l7 t ^ P/ I5 q! [/ s; o9 c" b; M: F
This is a real example of where I feel the designer does not seem to realize that 70% of the energy created by combustion is hitting un-moveable walls, the force/area problem I've talked of before. I believe there is a good reason that no performance figures are noted anywhere for torque or horsepower, and that is because these numbers are poor. My bet is that this design is LESS efficient than a regular Briggs & Stratton engine. Just a guess.; j( h1 n) k! O) [' D; a
) H* }" k7 q2 W
UPDATED 11/15/2002
& q; L3 _& O; @4 iOn further review, this is a nice design, not a rotary (and does not claim to be) but a QuasiTurbine (as the name implies). And, unfortunately, simply another way to burn fuel. |
|
樓主: A209
發(fā)表于 2007-10-30 13:00:41
