6 cycle motor

[Brent]

Stupid idea #521: The Six Cycle Motor

I think this will only work for multiples of 6 cylinder motors ie 6 cylinder and 12 cylinder motors. This would also seem to be a lot more work than installing a supercharger, but in a race where you are not allowed to use forced induction.... If you were to make a head for a 6 cylinder car that contained valved ports between ajoining cylinders and reprogramed the ECU it could work as a 6 cycle engine and produced 33.3% more power. Imagine a six cylinder motor with cylinder #1 on an intake stroke and cylinder #2 on a compression stroke, as cylinder #1 gets to the bottom of it's stroke cylinder #1 intake valve closes, the valve for the port between cylinders #1 and #2 opens and the compressed contents of cylinder #2 enters cylinder#1. The port valve closes, cylinder#1 continues on to it's power stroke producing twice as much power.
You end up with the power of 2 strokes per 6 cycles as compared to 1 power stroke per 4 cycles as with a 4 cycle motor. So over 24 cycles you would get the power of 8 strokes as compared to 6 power strokes with a 4 cycle motor for a 33.3% increase in power.

[ADAM]

hmmmm.... there have been many attempts to increase the efficiency of the internal combustion engine....but i am not sure that this is a viable one.....from what i am reading you are using cylinder #2 as a compressor pump to force twice as much air into cyl#1?

but.....now you have #2 not firing? just pumping air into #1, and a dead cylinder acting as a compressor is not efficient as it is driving itself off of the crank shaft....

want a neat way to increase efficency....look up the miller cycle (currently mazda is the only ones using it)

or...when the new solinoid actuated valve systems come out!!!! this will be next frontier in making power....we will see large increases in power from this...

anything that is parasitic is not the way to increase efficency of the engine....that really rules out all mechanical forms of forced induction.....thats why turbochargers are the ultimate......they run off the wasted heat in the exhaust gas.....heat (energy) that would normally be vented to atmosphere. (they present some exhaust restriction but no where near the parasitic loss of that created by a supercharger)

[ADAM]

also....in your picture...when #1 is on its intake, and #2 is forcing air into #1...what stops that air from being forced out of the intake valve? since everything is is only at 1 atmosphere the excess pressure of #2's air would just be blown out the intake valve, because the pressure behind the intake valve is just normal atmosphere?

or am i missing something?

[ADAM]

here is a link to the miller cycle info....

for steve...look at the info on frictional losses....this can also apply to our v8 vs 4cyl debate...and on which one would reign supreme...

http://www.mazda.com.au/models/114.html

[ADAM]

sorry wrong link

http://www.howstuffworks.com/question132.htm

[Brent]

I only spent about 15 minutes on this so it is sure to be flawed.
When piston #1 is at the bottom of it's stroke and it's intake valve is closed, the pressurized contents of cylinder #2 would be forced into cylinder one. This I suppose could be done by valving the intake ports but would require an interesting cam.
Then cylinder #2 would intake and receive the pressurized contents of cylinder 3 and so on and so on. that is why you need a six cylinder motor.
Also you could make an 8 cycle motor, I think that would work with a four cylinder motor, with a 50% increase in power.

P.S. this is not to be taken seriously, it's just mental chewing gum.

[Brent]

I checked out the Millar Cycle, seems like a lot of work just to reduce pumping loses.
The 4 stroke internal combustion engine is a dinosaur, but it works. It can be spruced up by adding gagets to it but it is still based on 1800's technology.