[Gasification] Gasification Digest, Vol 2, Issue 25

[Mark & Elena Gallmeier]

Hi Drew,

I mentioned the Bourke because I personally DON'T KNOW.  Except that Bourke 
produced and sold 30cc models of it in the 1950s and others now make certain 
performance claims for it.  Plus one of the websites shows a 30cc Bourke now 
being tested periodically against a 24 KW generator.   A 24kw generator 
would normally need 48 shp so that picqued my interest.  Whether he's able 
to run it full load with his Bourke engine, again I don't know.

>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourke_Engine<<

The problem with Wikipedia is articles may well be written by competitors. 
In the case of the Bourke Engine, they might be disinformation written by GM 
or Exxon public relations flacks.

The most I can say is developments in the tiny Bourke engine field seem 
worth watching given the claims made for the engine's performance. 
Conventional theoretical wisdom is often overturned by actual experimental 
results.  It might develop into a good gasification engine someday.  Or it 
may always be a spurious crackpot 'invention' always needing more 
development funding but never delivering any useful results.  Similar to 
hydrogen fusion and enyzmatic conversion of cellulose to ethanol.

Regards,

Mark


> Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 09:13:07 -0700
> From: drew <drew at artforging.com>
> Subject: [Gasification] Bourke Engine and Steves Gassifier
> To: Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> Message-ID: <44E1F293.80907 at artforging.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> The 1936 patent drawings of the bourke engine are here
>
> http://patimg2.uspto.gov/.piw?docid=US002122676&PageNum=2&IDKey=B2AB2A5BECE0&HomeUrl=http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1%2526Sect2=HITOFF%2526p=1%2526u=%25252Fnetahtml%2525%25252FPTO%2525%25252Fsearch-bool.html%2526r=1%2526f=G%2526l=50%2526d=PALL%2526S1=2122676.PN.%2526OS=PN/2122676%2526RS=PN/2122676
> <http://patimg2.uspto.gov/.piw?docid=US002122676&PageNum=2&IDKey=B2AB2A5BECE0&HomeUrl=http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1%2526Sect2=HITOFF%2526p=1%2526u=%25252Fnetahtml%2525%25252FPTO%2525%25252Fsearch-bool.html%2526r=1%2526f=G%2526l=50%2526d=PALL%2526S1=2122676.PN.%2526OS=PN/2122676%2526RS=PN/2122676>
>
> A 1994 patent for a similar engine but fancier scotch yoke
>
> http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=41&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=bourke&s2=engine&OS=bourke+AND+engine&RS=bourke+AND+engine
> <http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=41&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=bourke&s2=engine&OS=bourke+AND+engine&RS=bourke+AND+engine>
>
>
> The engine looks interesting, the pause at TDC and BDC are supposed to
> make the engine run better?   I don't know?   The true linear travel
> pistons look interesting.   I am not qualified to judge, and especialy
> not from the meager info on thier site, or in the patent.  I do notice
> that on the website they are selling an "revolutionary electronic fuel
> cracker" which gives 15% better fuel rating.   This sort of add does
> little for thier credibility from my point of view.
>
> The 1994 patent is licenced to Collins motor company in Austrailia, they
> have an artical on thier engine "soon to be released, after a bit of
> testing"
> http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3165/is_n4_v27/ai_10615466
>
> The wikipedia page
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourke_Engine
>
> Says poor NO emissions are what killed it, same as the wankel I suppose,
> as higher combustion efficency is obtained, the seemingly inevitable
> higher NO.    The scotch yoke mechanism seems like it could be (and has
> been) quite problematic too,  if it was huge and heavy like the old
> steam gear, maybe, but in a "high output" low weight engine?
>