Talk:Bourke engine/Archive 2

Witness Bourke Engine - Military General and Majors
Greg, I have copies of letters from military Generals and Majors that have witness the Bourke Engine operation. In their letters they have stated observations of (felt) low exhaust temperatures, light weight engine, and few moving parts. Would you like me to fax you copies of the letters.


 * No

Also, I have copies of the Hot Rod magazine engine journalist article(s) that have witness the engine run continuously for hours, light weight, few moving parts, high power, and low fuel consumption. Would you like me to fax you copies of the articles?


 * Can you give on-line references for the articles?

Both Roger Richards and Bob Ziegler have done nothing but tried to get a creditable organization to evaluate, test, and certify the engine performance. Someone or a group(s) has hurt their effort by publishing miss information about the engine operation and overstating its performance. This has cost them $100,000s of their own private funds, and time. Their websites mainly provide video of the different Bourke prototype engines running and photos of the engine parts; they make no claims to the engine performance on their site, nor are they trying to sell stuff.


 * Many of the crazier performance claims are taken from the bourke-engine website. I don't know what to suggest, testing an engine is something that many people have managed in the past.

Henry Ford produced one of the first opposing piston engines, before Bourke. When I find the article on his engine I’ll forward it to you. B MW manufactures an opposing piston (boxer) motorcycle engines. Opposing piston engines are very balanced, and as you can see used for motorcycles engine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_motorcycles


 * But, they are only balanced because they have a boxer configuration, ie both pistons move inwards at the same time. The Bourke has two pistons out of phase, one moves in as the other moves out, hence generating a large primary imbalance.

Someone has published Paul Niq account (link) of an engine that someone (or he) claims to have been a Bourke Engine or replicate. His account doesn’t reflect any of the accounts I have read by military leaders or of the engine journalist. But, sounds like an account of other type of opposing piston engine. He does not represent a creditable agency for engine testing. His information needs to be removed from this web-site.


 * That's not the way wiki works. He has published an eye witness account. If you can find a better, more factual account, put that in.

The Bourke is a unique engine no engine in the world runs like the Bourke engine. If you can provide information that differs, or of other engines that run like the Bourke please forward links. What is your definition of constant volume?


 * YOU are the one claiming constant volume advantages for Bourke, not me. My definition is that combustion occurs at constant volume. What's yours?

Greg, I would like to see this web-site corrected to reflect the Bourke engine operation and history; neither performance data nor claims of performance are required. Also, all the links for video should be made to Bob Ziegler website; there are no claims of performance on his site. If you need more information, let me know.


 * Why is Bob's site more or less authoritative than any other? What is the address of that site?

I’m sorry if I may have offended you.


 * No problem, anonymous people on the internet don't even register on my personal scale of annoyance. I get more annoying things free with my breakfast cereal.

I’ve spent a considerable about of time on finding funds and a government agency to test the engine. Last year I had a group willing to test the engine but backed out, I’m not sure why. Please work with me to correct this web-site.


 * Hang on, yesterday you were working for the DoD, testing the engine, today you are trying to get people to test it????


 * Greglocock (talk) 12:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Greg, I spoke with Roger Richards today; he doesn’t understand your obsession with the engine. Roger owns and operates one of the original Bourke engines that is +60 years old. Plus, he has built another that is water cooled. I have a BSE and MSE with over 20 years of experience as an analysis. Engineers don't go to college to become good writers; they go to become engineers and scientist. You have made statements about Russell Bourke that are un-factual and unsupported. The engine never went into pre-production, nor did Russell Bourke endeavor to improve the Otto cycle. The DOE paper on HCCI Otto cycle proves that with constant volume combustion an additional 50% of work is achievable. Have you published papers that disprove the DOE study? The Bourke Engine combustion occurs at constant volume. Do you have papers or data that supports otherwise? The Bourke Engine is unique, no engine cycle in the WORLD runs like the Bourke. FACT! Do you have papers or data that supports otherwise? http://www.eng.mu.edu/goldsborough/sgoldsb.DOE.HCCI.Meeting.2003.pdf http://www-erd.llnl.gov/FuelsoftheFuture/pdf_files/hccirtc.pdf What is your connection to the Bourke Engine? I’m going to change the Bourke site to reflect the facts. --68.212.29.228 (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "he doesn’t understand your obsession with the engine." I am not obsessed by the engine. I am trying to make sure that the wiki article reflects the claims made in published sources, and current engineering knowledge.


 * "I have a BSE and MSE with over 20 years of experience as an analysis. Engineers don't go to college to become good writers; they go to become engineers and scientist." Engineers don't rant and rave. They discuss problems using polite language, logic and maths. Greglocock (talk)


 * "You have made statements about Russell Bourke that are un-factual and unsupported. The engine never went into pre-production, nor did Russell Bourke endeavor to improve the Otto cycle. " Did I really write anything about Russell Bourke at all? Check the history of the article. I agree that your second sentence is likely, I just didn't have any proof either way, so left it the way it was.


 * " The DOE paper on HCCI Otto cycle proves that with constant volume combustion an additional 50% of work is achievable."" True for very high peak cylinder ressures, and low power outputs. Bourke is not a constant volume combustion engine, and there are engineering problems associated with high peak cylinder pressures.


 * " Have you published papers that disprove the DOE study? The Bourke Engine combustion occurs at constant volume." Rubbish. Plot the motion of a scotch yoke engine compared with a conventional engine of the same stroke. Combustion occurs over 20 to fifty degrees of crank angle. see Piston motion equations for the equations for a normal engine, and a Scotch yoke is a sine wave. "Do you have papers or data that supports otherwise?" JB Heywood "Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals" is my usual reference.


 * " The Bourke Engine is unique, no engine cycle in the WORLD runs like the Bourke. FACT!  Do you have papers or data that supports otherwise?" Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The onus is on the boosters to provide evidence in favour of the claims.


 * "http://www.eng.mu.edu/goldsborough/sgoldsb.DOE.HCCI.Meeting.2003.pdf
 * http://www-erd.llnl.gov/FuelsoftheFuture/pdf_files/hccirtc.pdf" Thanks, interesting.


 * "What is your connection to the Bourke Engine?" None.


 * "I’m going to change the Bourke site to reflect the facts." Great, that will improve the article immensely. Remember that any statements about performance will need to be backed up by publicly available references, see WP:RS. However before you do another of your shotgun attacks on the article itself why not post the claims and evidence here in the Talk page so we can go through them to sort them out? Being as we're both engineers and all. Please check out what I said about Scotch yokes, constant volume combustion and crank angle, you'll find that I am 100% right. If you don't have the skill to do that I could post the relevant graphs, but you'll believe it if you do it yourself. Incidentally if you edit the article directly at least try and put claims in the claims section, and critiques in the critiques section. Greglocock (talk) 00:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

As discussed here before. The low exhaust temperatures dose not mean that the Bourke engine is more efficient. It may show that the Bourke engine is just loosing heat to the combustion chamber and cylinder walls. Holding the piston near TDC prolongs the time that the combustion gases are at higher temperatures, hence more heat loss. Also constant pressure is more efficient than constant volume when taking into account specific heat ratio (thermal dynamics 101 diesel cycle).

If Roger Richards and Bob Ziegler want to demonstrate the bourke's claimed advantages they could use free software to simulate the combustion and provide a test case that can be peer reviewed. See link http://www.openfoamworkshop.org/index.php?title=OpenFOAM_for_Internal_Combustion_Engine_Simulations%2C_Combustion_and_Spray DieselDude (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Oil
The various enthusiasts state that the lubricating oil is well separated from the combustion chamber. If so, how are the piston rings lubricated? Greglocock 12:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

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)


 * If they are confidential then how are we supposed to reference them? Greglocock (talk) 02:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I can run 2 stroke oil in my diesel with no smoke in its exhaust. I can and do run motor oil in it too with the same results. No smoke in the exhaust doesn't prove a thing.DieselDude (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Charge separation
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)

Slipper bearing
The model that is linked to from the article clearly shows a complex rotary plain bearing. The cross section linked to, from the article, clearly shows a similar plain bearing. Is there any eveidence at all that a slipper bearing is (a) used and (b) had a long life in this application and (c) was feasible in this application - the combination of rotary and longitudinal travel is quite complex. Greglocock 12:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Disclaimer
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)

Why hasn't the Army accepted the proposals? Were the proposals testing methods up to standards? Can answers to these questions be referenced? DieselDude (talk) 01:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Bourke Engine Prototypes
Statements below are inaccurate. There have been over 15 engines have been built, at least 13 by Russell Bourke. Currently there are two (2) water cooled engines available for testing and evaluation. Contact Roger Richard. ALEX… —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.212.7.32 (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The Bourke engine was built and tested and was in pre-production at one time. I believe that it is a proven engine and not a proposed design.


 * And yet no performance data has been released to justify the claims made. Greglocock 23:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Niquette
We should include a link to this eye witness account of how the Bourke engines were tested by Russel Bourke and the people who continued his work using his original engines eye_witness_account --DieselDude 23:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)

What leads you to believe that it is not accurate or is embellished? I will remove it for the time being. It has been published although I admit that doesn't make it true.--DieselDude 23:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Just about everything. i've emailed the author. Greglocock 01:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * I figured this would be the case. --DieselDude 20:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Diesel...that link to the niquette page has been one of the external links on the bourke page ever since I have seen the page...(over six months ago)....it is the last link "bourke engine"

I have a problem with the testing shown on that page...not that I do not believe it...the author sounds like the engine was sprewing exaust and was running very roughly...this does not agree with the videos of running engines...sounds like it was not balanced....really all the whole article shows is that they were incorrectly measuring the efficiency....does not really say anything about the bourke engine......sno

The way an engine sounds through a video doesn't do justice to the way it sounds in real life. I don't know exactly what video you are referring to but I assume the engine was not under load. An engine under load is a lot louder. This is because more fuel must be burned to do work which leaves a higher residual pressure in the cylinder at the end of the stroke when exhaust is vented. This article is important because it shows that people that worked with Bourke using Bourke's engines they duplicated Bourke's results using a flawed method. This doesn't prove that Bourke used this same flawed test but it does implicate that he did. This is because to get consistent results and measure progress you need to test things the same way each time. Since these people worked with Bourke and knew how he did things they most likely would have done it the exact same way. Their methods were scientific, however their test was flawed. This is probably the origin of all the hype about the Bourke engine. --DieselDude 20:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)

Efficiency calculations
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)

For 1 hp burning 1 lb/h of standard gasoline.

calorific value		4.27E+07	J/kg 1 lb/h	=	0.454	kg/h fuel energy in per hour=		1.94E+07	J/h Therefore power in=		5385	W

power out	=1 hp=	745.7	W efficiency=power out/power in=		13.85% Greglocock 08:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

reorganize
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)

(0)Starting from BDC the intake port is covered. As the piston travels toward TDC energy is used to create a partial vacuum in the compression (lower) chamber. As the piston approaches TDC the intake port is opened and air is drawn into the compression chamber from the intake duct. The energy used to create the vacuum cannot be recovered as the air transfer is an irreversible process.

(1) TDC, with a full charge of air in the compression chamber, the cool air is warmed by the cylinder walls and piston.

(2) The piston moves down, so the skirt closes the intake in the beginning of the down stroke. The air is then compressed by the piston, its temperature and pressure rising roughly in an adiabatic compression. In the early stages of compression it absorbs heat from the cylinder walls. In the later stages of compression it warms the cylinder, resulting in a loss of internal energy (This is inevitable according to second law of thermal dynamics regarding energy transfers). Some of this heat is also lost to the cooling system. Given the extended dwell time around BDC this heat loss to the walls is greater than a more conventional two stroke.

(3) Approaching BDC the piston uncovers the transfer port and opens the exhaust port of the combustion chamber. Energy stored in the compressed air in the compression chamber is used to help blow the exhaust out of the exhaust port. As it does so the compressed air expands and cools some and fuel is injected and mixed with the incoming charge. As in a traditional cross-scavenged two stroke engine, inevitably some mixing of the incoming mixture and the exhaust takes place. If the scavenge ratio exceeds 40% some fresh mixture is discharged unburnt out of the exhaust port.

(4) At BDC the residual exhaust in the chamber and the walls of the chamber heat the incoming mixture.

(5) As the piston moves up the piston ring closes the transfer port in the combustion chamber and the exhaust port. As the piston moves up the bore it re-compresses the mixture causing it to heat up and transfer heat back into the walls. As in (2) the heat transfer to and from the mixture increases the internal energy loss from the mixture. Also as in (2) some of this heat lost to the walls is lost to the cooling system. Since the Bourke engine has extended dwell time near TDC the air charge is held in a compressed heated state, exacerbating the heat loss to the walls.

(6) TDC - the mixture is fully compressed, and is now ignited, either by self ignition or by the spark plug. If the mixture detonates it will cause shock waves to bounce around the combustion chamber. Each time these shock waves bounce off a wall or the piston the compressed charge forming the shock wave transfers heat to the piston or combustion chamber wall losing energy that otherwise could be extracted in the power stroke.

(7) The rising pressure due to the combustion forces the piston back down the bore. Since the burning/burnt mixture is hot it heats the cylinder walls. The extended dwell time around TDC ensures almost complete combustion of all the fuel. However as in (5), the extended dwell time also increases the amount of heat transfered to the walls which is later lost to the cooling system.

(8) The piston ring uncovers the transfer port and the exhaust port (as in 3), and the exhaust flows out of the exhaust port, pushed out partly by the incoming charge.

--DieselDude 01:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)