Inventions of a non-Engineer 19/10/2005 In my younger days, I used to invent things. It would be wrong to say that I was an inventor, for I never actually did anything about the ideas I came up with, but just occasionally I'd have a brainwave and think of a solution to some technical problem or other. And the fact that it later turned out that most of my inventions had been thought of before doesn't depress me at all. It was somehow encouraging to know that I had been right.Take my idea for increasing the lift on an airplane wing, for instance. I figured that if one were to cut a notch along the length of the wing, above and behind the leading edge, this would increase the area of low pressure and therefore give more lift. Then I discovered that the engineers had thought of this and gone one better; they designed slats that move forward on top of the wing to increase lift when taking off and landing. The really clever idea that the slats should be movable and fold back into the wing for normal flight had not occurred to me, but at least my thinking was in the right area.And there is the horizontally opposed internal combustion engine, I think my favorite invention of all. Although quite simple in concept, this one is really difficult to describe, so bear with me while I try to picture it for you.Like any internal combustion engine, this can have any number of cylinders but the trick is that each cylinder has two pistons. The pistons work against each other, approaching from opposite ends of the cylinder (hence horizontally opposed), squashing the fuel/air mixture in between them as they do so. The spark plug is right in the middle of the cylinder and provides the spark as the pistons approach most closely. Bang. The explosion drives the pistons apart again.If that description makes any sense, you will have realized that this arrangement requires that there be two crankshafts that the pistons are attached to, one on each side of the engine. These could be geared together to prevent any variation in speed and power could be taken off at the same time.Of course, having two crankshafts means that the engine begins to suffer a weight disadvantage in comparison to more conventional engines. So why bother with it at all? My only excuse must be that I just liked the idea of all these pistons furiously charging at each other, creating their own combustion chamber between themselves, and then driven apart by each ignition.You may laugh but the last laugh is mine. The engine exists and is in production. Years after I thought of it, I discovered that they make this type of engine for very large trucks and machinery with heavy loads. Apparently it gives massive amounts of torque and this compensates for any weight disadvantage. See? I was right!I have one invention that has not been produced, as far as I know. To explain this one, I have to tell a little story so, once again, I must ask you to bear with me.It begins in the mid-sixties, when it was decided to change the formula for F1 racing cars from 1.5 liters to 3.0 liters. This came at a time when two or three of the engine manufacturers had just invested huge sums in fiendishly complicated little engines that they thought would outperform the rest (BRM had an H-16 would you believe? Imagine that - 16 tiny pistons in miniature cylinders, all screaming their little guts out to provide the power. No wonder the thing only managed to finish one race. And I'm not even going to attempt to describe what configuration an H is). And so it was decided to throw the manufacturers a bone: an allowed alternative to the big 3.0 liters was to have a 1.5 liter supercharged engine.This was actually no compensation at all. At the time, no supercharged 1.5 could hope to match the power of a 3.0 liter and so the provision was ignored for ten years. But over those years the science of turbo-charging developed and, in 1977, Renault entered a turbo-charged 1.5 liter car. It was fast but unreliable at first but, as the engineers solved the heat problems of turbos, it became clear that such an engine could produce far more power than any 3.0 liter. The turbo era of the eighties dawned.But, if I may take you back to the time of that rule change in the sixties, another wild idea had been born in my imagination. I read an article in a motoring magazine that considered the alternative specification that had crept into the regulations and pointed out that, if one could supercharge a 1.5 two-stroke, it would produce phenomenal amounts of power. Theoretically, such an engine would be an almost unlimited power source; what a pity that it was impossible to supercharge a two-stroke."Is it?" thought I. One sees the problem immediately: no valves. Without valves, any pressure built up by a supercharger would force the mixture straight through the combustion chamber and probably cause a nice little explosion in the exhaust system. But what if you added valves? Ordinary valves won't do, of course - they would stick out into the cylinder and get wiped off promptly by the piston. But there are other types of valve that don't need to protrude into the combustion chamber; rotary valves, for instance. And one could time the opening of the valves so that the exhaust closed just as the inlet opened.Now, anyone who knows anything about engines also knows that rotary valves are more trouble than they're worth. They have tremendous problems with sealing - finding a material that will stand up to the heat and wear implicit in seating such a valve would be enormously difficult. The valve would have to rotate at astronomical speeds to keep up with the high revs of our theoretical engine. It was probably beyond the technology of the time to seal such valves effectively. But today, it might just be possible. Certainly the Mazda engineers have solved similar problems on the rotary engine that bankrupted NSU in the sixties.So I maintain that it's not impossible to supercharge a two-stroke engine. And, if my memory serves me correctly, the article I read suggested that power output of such an engine would exceed 700 bhp. With that sort of power, it would have dominated F1 for a decade at least.If it had ever managed to finish any races, of course...
Clive
Mad Do you remember my design for an engine that ran on air when I was just a little nipper? I also invented the pedometer trainer at a time when Nike had only just released the air trainer. I'd be rich if I'd have done something with that... The world has moved away from two stroke engines, even the motorbike industry is giving them up. Shame, I like the two smokes! I'd love to see a supercharged two stroke but with a world frowning on emmision heavy engines... Date Added: 19/10/2005
Gone Away All true, Mad - and I think my supercharged two-stroke would have been enough to blacken the air for miles around! Ah well, dreams... I don't remember you inventing an air engine, however. Did it work (if it did, you're a millionaire)? Date Added: 19/10/2005
Rusty Eh... what? Sounds complicated. Too complicated for me to ... eh... what? Date Added: 20/10/2005
Gone Away LOL Well, I tried to simplify it, Rusty. ;) Date Added: 20/10/2005
Matt Another amazing post. I'm not sure that the technology exists to build a turbo charged two stroke engine, even still. But the idea is an amusing one. And there's really no telling what you can do if you put your mind to it. I once fixed a cylinder head that had developed a hole in the exhaust runners with a rather copious amount of JB Weld and a can of WD-40. It lasted just exactly as long as it needed to. Three passes down a 1/4 mile drag strip. Date Added: 20/10/2005
Gone Away Actually I wasn't thinking in terms of a turbo, Matt - the idea was full supercharging. And, to ensure an even delivery of power throughout the range, I decided the supercharger should be run by an electric motor rather than off the engine. The weight disadvantage would be more than offset by the power gain! They do say that the perfect racing engine is one that expires just as it's crossing the finish line. Seems to me that you achieved it! And, of course, a man with a can of WD-40 can take on anything... ;) Date Added: 20/10/2005
Enviroman You have very good ideas. How about inventing some way to make the world realise that if we continue to go the way we are going, we are going to face very bad environmental problems. We will be very grateful to you for that. Support Enviroman Enviroman Says Date Added: 20/10/2005
Mad I think that's what is wrong with modern cars - you can't attack and fix 'em with a roll of gaffer tape and a can of WD40. Motorbikes can still be spannered by your average rider, at least to some extent. But with modern cars running everything with computer management you dare not touch anything important. Date Added: 20/10/2005
Mad Oh and my air engine had a drawback, it needed large amounts of hydrogen as well as air! But I was about seven at the time so I still think I did well. Date Added: 20/10/2005
Gone Away Thanks, Enviroman. Actually, I've already had my say regarding the environment - see my post entitled Reflections in an Old Mirror. Date Added: 20/10/2005
Gone Away Sounds like a hydrogen motor, Mad (which is one of the best options available as a replacement for the gasoline/petrol engine, of course). I like the circular conservation of energy that looks possible with this - water separated into hydrogen and oxygen, ignited in the combustion chamber to produce steam which is cooled to become water, then separated again by electrolysis, and so on. The fact that generating the electricity required to effect the electrolysis would require more power than the engine produces is a minor matter... ;) Date Added: 20/10/2005
Kurt What a great post, Clive! I love the old Grand Prix racers, and the (I think it was) 1967 season when they doubled up the engines and everyone was racing on jerry-rigged engines made in a hurry, or worse, two marginally-modified 1.5 engines bolted onto each other must have been incredibly exciting to watch! Of course, it also serves as a reminder of how much the profit motive drives development of these ideas; the year after they went to 3.0 engines, they also started allowing advertisements on the cars themselves instead of just national liveries, and soon the real F1 races (developing the best engine and best parts) took off in real style. Still, there's much to be said for the days when it was more about the driver than the car. Date Added: 20/10/2005
Gone Away I agree totally, Kurt; those were the days when anyone could have a go if they had a decent engine and a welding kit. Some of the small competitors actually did start in backyard garages! And the change in formula led to all sorts of interesting developments, just as you say. I suppose the commercial interests were bound to get involved and there's no doubt that the pace of development has increased exponentially as a result, but I do miss the craziness of those days. Some of the drivers were a little bit crazy too! Date Added: 20/10/2005
Ken Prof. Branestawm, I presume? Or is it Dr. Heath-Robinson? Fascinating insight into your turbulent mind, Gone Away, fascinating. There may still be time to change the world. I'm left-handed, for instance. Any thoughts on that particular can of worms? Or maybe time-travel? I always thought that Wells never really got to grips with the technology. Date Added: 20/10/2005
John Great post Clive, thereis no end to your talents! :) GBYAY Date Added: 20/10/2005
Gone Away Well of course, Ken, all the best people are left-handed. :D Although I'm actually ambidextrous - I write and bowl with my left hand but bat with my right; I can play tennis with either hand. But I support the left handers because they've had such a raw deal over the years. Leftie power! Come to think of it, a while ago we were talking about poets being the only people fit to govern. Perhaps we should amend that to left-handed poets... ;) As for the turbulent mind, it's a classic case of Jack of all trades, Ken. Date Added: 21/10/2005
Gone Away Just a wandering mind, John, and a bit too much curiosity! ;) Date Added: 21/10/2005
Janus I invent and design quite a bit (One of my 5 main functions..write, design, make sure people don't blow the place up (managing), Invent, and keep chair warm. When you think of the designs try to draw em out, I use my drafting tools to get a nice prototype sketch. Then find someone that can make the individual parts (without sharing what you are doing), use a few people to do that if possible to safeguard yourself. Then test your prototype...if your prototype works...it may be worth getting it patented and seeing if someone will buy it. You never know you might get lots of royaltys, then you can be a semi-retired blogger who can enjoy the fruits of your labor. It doesn't take a million designs to be considered an inventor, just one good one P.S. I am interested in Mad's Air powered engine, tell us more tell us more =) Date Added: 21/10/2005
Gone Away Oh, I was never serious about my inventions, Janus. They were flights of fancy more than anything else. I think you need a certain amount of detailed knowledge even to make a decent drawing of an idea like that and I would never presume. But Mad's air engine... Well, I'll let him explain. ;) Date Added: 21/10/2005
Mad Sorry I ain't spilling the beans on my hydrogen/air engine... Mainly because I've long since lost the drawing. It's actually the training shoe that would have made me a fortune. Ho-hum. Date Added: 21/10/2005
Mad Talking of design, Kim came a visiting the other day and was asking about your car designs. He pointed out how modern cars look like the designs you were doing in the 60's but he wants you to design a way to make the wing mirrors fit in with the shape of the car - he says they look like big ears. Date Added: 21/10/2005
Beltane Oh umm wow. I didn't know you were quite an engineering genius as well. Sounds like it passed down, too :) I am sort of depressed now, thinking of how my sex has ruined all those things for me. It's a bitch growing up with traditional gender-role parents. Alas, I had older brothers to live vicariously through, and was too young to be an apprentice when I was very young. But I was always extremely good at working with electronics in my house, so much so that by the time I was 11 (and all my older sibs were gone by then) my mom stopped trying and I did everything. So, I'm curious - was just Mad's hydrogen engine problematic... or.. what about the one that Ford bought the rights to a few years ago and is in development? Is that the same idea and they are working through the same problems? If only we could switch to hydrogen. I'd flip to it in a heartbeat. Date Added: 21/10/2005
ME Strauss Well, I'm feeling pret-ty good that I could follow along with your post, Clive, without getting lost, feeling secure in the fact that I still drive a stick shift. :) But I'm not silly enough to think I have the background to apply what I've read in any way that would come off sounding like I knew what I was talking about. So I'll say *message received and translated. Isn't it fun when you invent things in your mind and they prove out to be real things?* Date Added: 21/10/2005
Gone Away You can tell Kim it's been done, Mad. I, too, have always been annoyed at the way wing mirrors spoil the lines of a car design and I came up with the answer years ago. Maybe I shouldn't tell you; I could give the idea to Janus and we could make a fortune... ;) Oh, and tell Kim to read my blog and leave a comment so I can get back in touch with him! Date Added: 21/10/2005
Gone Away Hardly an engineering genius, Beltane! But if it's mechanical I can usually see how it works and work out ways to do it differently. It's you I envy, however. I've read your blog and know that you're really good with all this computer design stuff and coding and so on. That seems like a far more valuable skill today than any mechanical ability. Computing is the engineering of the future, methinks - everything will be done on computer and it'll be robots that actually get their hands, ummm claws (?), dirty making things. We're not far off that scenario already. Date Added: 21/10/2005
Gone Away Liz, you have put your finger on the whole point. Since I would never make any of my weird ideas, all the fun comes from finding out that someone, somewhere, has already made the thing and it works! This gives me the confirmation that I'm not completely crazy and can continue to build my castles in the air. ;) Date Added: 21/10/2005
Killerro Yeah, Gone Away I had the same idea for an engine that had two opposing cylinders that fired toward one another. That was news (for me) that they had already made one. It really pisses you off sometimes when you come up with a great idea and then find someone else has already done it. I had designed an active suspension system for a car (basically when you turn, the car tilts into the turn for increased handeling and traction) and as it turns out, of all the companies BOSE (yes the speaker company) had already done it. I don't know, I guess great mind think alike, just some before others. Date Added: 26/04/2006
Gone Away Ah, Killerro, that is perhaps why I don't mind finding out that my inventions have been made already - it's the feeling that great minds think alike! I didn't know that it was BOSE who had come up with the idea of tilting the car into corners but, in the late seventies/early eighties, the Brits were working on a high speed train and an important part of the design concept was that the whole train would lean into corners. Like most innovations in Britain these days, the project was cancelled just as they got it to the point of working... Date Added: 14/05/2006
Back to the main blog
You may use HTML in comments. A carriage return is <br />, use two for a new paragraph. For bold text use <strong></strong> and for italic text use <em></em>. If you know what you're doing feel free to use more complex mark-up but please no deprecated tags or JavaScript.
Name * Comment * Email * URL Commenting has closed for this post
