[Gasification] Fwd: Gasification Digest, Vol 2, Issue 25

Thu Aug 17 14:53:09 CDT 2006

Dear Kenn
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "kenn johnsen" <kennj at webspeed.dk>
To: <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 4:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Fwd: Gasification Digest, Vol 2, Issue 25

> Kevin
>
> Well, it most have something to do with the scotch yoke, a later timing
> so the engine do not work against itself, a longer combustion time, a
> better combustion. That is also what they clearly say,

There would be slightly different piston motion with teh Scotch Yoke, but 
nothing really significant. Indeed, if it gave significantly longer 
effective time around TDC, the engine would probably require a change in 
spark timing to prevent excessive pressure build-up and possible knocking.

 it is building
> up an incredible heat in the combustion process, something like 1000 C,

I don't think that is very much different from a conventional Otto Cycle. If 
anything, it is lower.

> it can do a heck of rpm because of the in line motion, what also means
> a little wear on the cylinder wall.

The inline motion would make it a real pig to balance. Horizontal imbalance 
could be counteracted by a crank weight, but vertical vibration because of 
the counterweight would tend to cause the engine to jump up and down. If teh 
engine was bolted down so that tehre was minimal vertical movement, the 
imbalanced forces would show up as bearing stress.

Perhaps I am missing something but I can't see anything in the Burke Engine 
of significant advantage.

Best wishes,

Kevin
>
> Kenn
> torsdag 17. aug 2006 kl. 17:36 skrev Kevin Chisholm:
>
>> Dear Kenn
>>
>> Can you, or anyone, see anything specific about this engine that would
>> suggest that there is a rational basis for improved fuel efficiency?
>>
>> If not, then this would have to be classed as an "unsubstantiated
>> claim, with no reason to believe it is true."
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Kevin
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "kenn johnsen" <kennj at webspeed.dk>
>> To: <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
>> Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 11:19 AM
>> Subject: [Gasification] Fwd: Gasification Digest, Vol 2, Issue 25
>>
>>
>>>    It is claimed to use 1/4 of a pound off fuel, per horse, and that
>>> is
>>> with a carburetor, what would happen if the Aussie Orbitel got there
>>> hands on it.
>>>
>>> Kenn
>>>>
>>>> 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%252
>>>>> 5%
>>>>> 25252FPTO%2525%25252Fsearch-
>>>>> bool.html%2526r=1%2526f=G%2526l=50%2526d=PALL%2526S1=2122676.PN.%252
>>>>> 6O
>>>>> S=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%252
>>>>> 5%
>>>>> 25252FPTO%2525%25252Fsearch-
>>>>> bool.html%2526r=1%2526f=G%2526l=50%2526d=PALL%2526S1=2122676.PN.%252
>>>>> 6O
>>>>> S=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
>>>>> +A
>>>>> ND+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
>>>>> +A
>>>>> ND+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?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Gasification mailing list
>>>> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>>>> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/
>>>> gasification_listserv.repp.org
>>>> http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/gasification
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gasification mailing list
>>> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>>> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/
>>> gasification_listserv.repp.org
>>> http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/gasification
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_listserv.repp.org
> http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/gasification 