Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 161

Thread: Pattakon engine.....legitimate alternative or just another fly-by-night

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Gold Coast, Australia
    Posts
    581
    Look I don't know if their variable valve system works better or not. I love innovation and new technology. It is all the other designs on the Pattakon website.

    In any R&D project, you need to be focused on one project and get it to market. Any ideas along the way silly or not must be sidelined, or they will never complete anything properly. I have about 12 inventions on the drawing board. I have only focused on one, until it is in production. Then I will focus on what I choose as the next best, or related invention to what I'm doing now.

    Manolis: Get Pattakon to remove the other unfinished concept stuff off their website. It makes the valve technology look unprofessional and not serious. Make no more further comments on those other concepts because until you are able to make them successful your going to get hammered over the faults and lack of knowledge in the areas your defending. Stop bagging other technology that you do not know enough about. I'm not telling you to do so...just making a suggestion.
    Focus on the valve system and refine it, and most importantly post comparison figures. If the valve system was good I might have been able to help Pattakon with it, but your behavior has damaged any help I am able to provide. I may have even licensed the valve technology if it stood up, but now....

    You have received the reaction you have, because of your behavior on this forum, and all I can say is the only way to make amends is to eat humble pie and to publicly apologize. I don't think you will but until then we will react to your statements and technology.
    Last edited by revetec; 02-08-2007 at 04:04 PM.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by revetec
    Manolis: Get Pattakon to remove the other unfinished concept stuff off their website. It makes the valve technology look unprofessional and not serious. Make no more further comments on those other concepts because until you are able to make them successful your going to get hammered over the faults and lack of knowledge in the areas your defending. Stop bagging other technology that you do not know enough about. I'm not telling you to do so...just making a suggestion.
    Focus on the valve system and refine it, and most importantly post comparison figures. If the valve system was good I might have been able to help Pattakon with it, but your behavior has damaged any help I am able to provide. I may have even licensed the valve technology if it stood up, but now....

    You have received the reaction you have, because of your behavior on this forum, and all I can say is the only way to make amends is to eat humble pie and to publicly apologize. I don't think you will but until then we will react to your statements and technology.
    Very well put Brad. It looks like Manolis may have burned a few valuable bridges.

    The last couple of pages has identified the serious flaws in the Pattakon design. Manolis you can defend the Pattakon design as much as you want or take what Santo has provided you from the goodness of his own heart and something that you obviously have not done yourself and show the family what needs to be looked at.

    Think about the patience of those that are providing you with valuable constructive critism and at the same time taken all the misleading and misunderstood crap that you have put on them. They can easily just ignore you and let you go on your merry way thinking that you are the new Bill Gates of the engine world and post your crazy little animations on forums.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    99
    Revetec : “Or do they hope to overcome problems at a later date?”

    Revetec knows better than anyone else.
    Unless Revetec applied for a patent with all problems solved.




    Revetec: “So how much more power?
    It is now 5 years since the Patent was lodged on a camshaft design. The engine tacho shows it goes to 9,000rpm, so the engine is running. How about posting a dyno graph which is third party certified to show us the improvements over the standard engine. If it is better I'm even interested.”



    I am interesting too, in a few details of Revetec’s design, for the sake of Pattakon GRECO I3 at www.pattakon.com/greco/Grecoi3.exe (a true “thrust free” engine), but Revetec persistently keeps the precious secrets. Even the Bore and the Stroke.



    Checking US-PTO for Revetec’s patents, what I see is that the first basic design of their engine was longed on July 1995.

    If, after 11.5 years (i.e. 5.5 years before patent expiration) and millions of dollars from their share holders, Revetec’s best dyno graph is the one for RHL4 1400cc finishing at 4600 rpm (which actually is not good news for Pattakon’s GRECO engines future), Revetec should be more patient and less arrogant with Pattakon’s “delay”.



    As regards the power, I admit that Revetec’s RHL4 (1400cc) makes more power than the one cylinder of Pattakon’s prototypes, either with the light version Honda B16A (1600cc) at www.pattakon.com/vvar/VVAL.htm or with the full version Honda B16A www.pattakon.com/vvar/OnBoard/ . And I estimate that neither VTS www.pattakon.com/vts/ (1600 cc Citroen) with only one working cylinder (i.e. with the other three cylinders deactivated) and without supercharging would be able to win the RHL4. But with two cylinders deactivated and two working (of anyone of the above Pattakon prototype engines), the Revetec RHL4 has no chance at all.

    When the new 2400cc Revetec engine is ready, we’ll see how many cylinders to deactivate. Two or one?

    As for the Pattakon PRE single cylinder, 515cc, naturally aspirated, direct injection opposed piston Diesel engine ( www.pattakon.com/pre/PE14.exe and www.pattakon.com/pre/droplet.exe ) I dare say it will provide similar power to the Revetec RHL4.

    Thanks
    Manolis Pattakos

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Gold Coast, Australia
    Posts
    581
    Quote Originally Posted by manolis
    Revetec : “Or do they hope to overcome problems at a later date?”

    Revetec knows better than anyone else.
    Unless Revetec applied for a patent with all problems solved.
    For a start, we are an honest company and we have not and never get into the practice of modifying and taking out new patents of other peoples technology.

    Quote Originally Posted by manolis
    Revetec: “So how much more power?
    It is now 5 years since the Patent was lodged on a camshaft design. The engine tacho shows it goes to 9,000rpm, so the engine is running. How about posting a dyno graph which is third party certified to show us the improvements over the standard engine. If it is better I'm even interested.”

    I am interesting too, in a few details of Revetec’s design, for the sake of Pattakon GRECO I3 at www.pattakon.com/greco/Grecoi3.exe (a true “thrust free” engine), but Revetec persistently keeps the precious secrets. Even the Bore and the Stroke.
    After a huge amount of time performing analysis, as if I'm going to tell you details like that? Come on....be sensible...would you release that info to me if the situation was reversed? I bet not.

    Quote Originally Posted by manolis
    Checking US-PTO for Revetec’s patents, what I see is that the first basic design of their engine was longed on July 1995.

    If, after 11.5 years (i.e. 5.5 years before patent expiration) and millions of dollars from their share holders, Revetec’s best dyno graph is the one for RHL4 1400cc finishing at 4600 rpm (which actually is not good news for Pattakon’s GRECO engines future), Revetec should be more patient and less arrogant with Pattakon’s “delay”.
    Early history of our company was that we were under funded for the first 6 years.

    Let's look at Revetec Today. The X4 concept was designed on 10 July 2006. Patents were lodged in August 2006. X4 first evaluation/build design was completed November 2006. Engine completed in two weeks (fully dressed and running February 2006. We now have a fresh patent 20 years (not the 17 you stated because you probably don't know about the 36 month extension you can make for the PCT.

    Quote Originally Posted by manolis
    As regards the power, I admit that Revetec’s RHL4 (1400cc) makes more power than the one cylinder of Pattakon’s prototypes, either with the light version Honda B16A (1600cc) at www.pattakon.com/vvar/VVAL.htm or with the full version Honda B16A www.pattakon.com/vvar/OnBoard/ . And I estimate that neither VTS www.pattakon.com/vts/ (1600 cc Citroen) with only one working cylinder (i.e. with the other three cylinders deactivated) and without supercharging would be able to win the RHL4.
    Well to this date, everyone has been asking for figures from you and nothing has been posted.

    Let's look at your statement because we are going to be talking about power per litre at a certain RPM range. Higher the Revs the more power it is possible to produce. We are loking at efficiency not outright performance.

    If what you say is correct, then one cylinder of your 1600cc 4 cylinder engine is 400cc. This 400cc your quoting will have to make about 58kW at 4,200rpm normally aspirated to be equal to our old engine.

    By your statement are you saying that you can produce 145kw or about 200hp per litre at 4,200rpm?

    OK...BMW M6 produces 100hp per litre at 7,750rpm. If you look at the dyno graph of the M6, at 4,200rpm it is producing about 50Hp per litre.

    So your saying that you can produce 4 times the power per litre at the same speed as our tested engine and than the BMW M6 at the same RPM?


    You are the funniest person I have ever had contact with. At our tested peak power point of our old 1350cc engine we are producing about the same power per litre as the M6 at 4,200rpm but our fuel consumption is less.

    Just by having variable valve timing, you are not going to produce 4 times the power per litre.

    If the point you were making about your engine is able to rev to 9,000rpm then your fuel will at least double to do so. Anyways this still means you are saying that you can make twice the power (apples for apples) per litre than the BMW M6 with modifying a Citroen 1600cc with your VVT?

    Impossible and a stupid statement.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    99
    MISTAKE
    First I have to correct a mistake I made.
    I wrote that Revetec’s patent has 5.5 years before expiration (this was the law a couple of years before).
    The correct is that Revetec’s patent has 8.5 years before expiration.


    DESMO
    The desmo valves is a completely “correct” geometry.
    The “eye” like member is always in contact to both lobes: the internal (or conventional) lobe and the external lobe.
    The “eye” like member is actually the section of two cylinders.
    A simple way to made the Pattakon desmo camshaft ( www.pattakon.com/greco/Desmo2D.exe and www.pattakon.com/greco/Desmo3D.exe ) has been already described by another’s post.
    After the internal cams are grinded on a shaft (just like in normal camshafts) the external cams are secured properly to the basic camshaft.
    The assembly of the rest parts is much more easy than initially seems: through a side hole in the “external” cam, the “eye” like member is inserted in its working place.
    The valve stem passes through a hole on the “eye” like member (or cam follower if you prefer) and is secured and aligned by a pair of nuts.
    An elastic washer (i.e. a strong spring of very short stroke) inserted between the “eye” like member and the valve stem is used to take the lash and the thermal expansion.
    The system is much more light, compact and robust than the known desmo systems.
    If it fails to work in practice, nobody is going to get hurt.
    But think, if it works, why F1 engines need pneumatic valves any longer.


    PORTABLE FLYER
    There is a great difference between the synchropter shown in the picture and the Portable Flying Machine ( www.pattakon.com/fly/Flyer4.exe ). In a helicopter you cannot change the position of the center of gravity compared to the rotors.
    In the portable flyer, the pilot/rider can displace his body compared to the engine/rotors.
    This is enough to give absolute control of the flight.
    Just think that the pilot can slightly change the revs of the engine to keep the Flyer hovering. A little more throttle and the Flyer moves slowly upwards, a little less throttle and the Flyer moves slowly downwards ( www.pattakon.com/fly/Flyer5.exe ) .
    As the pilot/rider pulls or pushes the “grips” (or handlebars), what he is actually doing is that he displaces his center of gravity relevant to the rotors. This is more than enough. No need for pitch control, no need for electronic sensors and servo mechanisms (the body is the best sensor ever).


    GRECO i3
    The Greco i3 ( www.pattakon.com/greco/Grecoi3.exe) has absolutely zero inertia forces, inertia moments and inertia torques (case of sinusoidal piston motion). There is no conventional engine better balanced than this 3 cylinder. Only the rotary Wankel has similar balance quality.
    To get the importance of the zero inertia torque of the Greco i3, compare it to an even firing four stroke, four cylinder engine like the X4.
    The X4 has a significant inertia torque: when the two pistons of X4 are at TDC, the other two are at BDC, which means that all pistons of X4 are immovable simultaneously, i.e. they have zero kinetic energy.
    At the middle of the stroke of a piston, all pistons of X4 have near their maximum velocity simultaneously, i.e. they all reach their maximum kinetic energy simultaneously. In other words, the kinetic energy of the four pistons of the X4 changes from zero to a maximum, two times per piston reciprocation. This, in turn, is translated into variable velocity of the output shaft : for instance when the engine operates at 5000 rpm, if you measure the instant angular velocity of the output shaft of the engine it will be lower (let say 4900 rpm) when the pistons pass through the middle of their stroke and higher (let say 5100 rpm) when the pistons are at their TDC and BDC. The less the flywheel moment of inertia, the more the change of the angular velocity during a cycle. Using elastic absorbers between the output shaft and the helix / rotor / load in order to rectify this irregularity, a part of the energy is lost.
    Each piston of X4 has two heavy rollers that move together with the piston. So, at TDC there are eight heavy rollers (heavy because they have to be of yoke type) and four pistons and two “plates” interconnecting each pair of pistons (and keeping the “shafts” of the roller), all immovable. “Half of a piston stroke” later, the eight heavy rollers and the four pistons and the two “interconnecting plates” have reach their maximum speed, i.e. their kinetic energy is at maximum. “Half a piston stroke” later, the pistons, rollers and plates are all immovable again. In other words, at high revs there is a tremendous energy oscillation (this is the meaning of the high inertia torque of the even firing four stroke four cylinder engine, as compared to the six in line or V8 etc).
    In the case of the Greco i3, the total kinetic energy of the three pistons is always constant. When a piston assembly losses kinetic energy (i.e. losses speed) the other two absorb exactly the same amount of energy. This means that when the engine operates at 5000 rpm without load, no matter at what specific angle of the main shaft the revs were instantly measured, they are always 5000 rpm. The helix / rotor take only combustion torque from the main shaft.
    The rollers of the Greco i3 can be similar to the light needle roller bearings shown at http://www.pattakon.com/greco/GrecoS...isassembly.exe and http://www.pattakon.com/greco/GrecoS...erCylinderWall . Instead of having the roller bearing rolling on the cam, you can have light “wheels” (like train wheels) rolling on the cams with the needle roller bearing “nested” into the aluminum of the piston.
    Having a unique cylinder head of the conventional type (DOHC, 4 valves per cylinder etc) is significant.
    The simple synchronizing gearing (including only two spur gears) between the two “shafts” is also significant.
    The absolute absence of thrust loads (truly “thrust free” engine) is also important.
    If necessary, the Greco i3 can easily change to an even firing six cylinder engine, like the Greco U6 shown at www.pattakon.com/greco/GrecoU6.exe . This engine has the length of the conventional three in line (and less height) and uses a unique cylinder head (like the VR6 of VW) etc etc.
    Both Greco i3 and Greco U6 are true alternatives of conventional, offering many more than just “improved” thermal efficiency.
    They can be used not only in airplane applications but in any application the conventional is currently used.

    Think the case Revetec adopted the Greco i3 and Greco U6 engines and imagine what arguments they could use to “beat” the conventional engines in every application. Compare the case to the present position of Revetec in engine market.

    If the only real problem of the Greco i3 is the difficult finishing of its “cams”, this is nothing.
    Revetec knows the reliability of such a design. Pattakon does not, yet.
    If there is no such reliability “problem”, the benefits the Greco i3 design brings about are great.

    Greco i3 can be a WIN – WIN case (business is business and Australia is Australia). Doesn’t it, Revetec?


    Thanks
    Manolis Pattakos

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    nr Edinburgh, Whisky-soaked Scotland
    Posts
    27,776
    DO NOT POST THE SAME THING TWICE !!!!!!

    Manolis, what are you smoking ??
    Can rip holes in every point you're trying to put forward.
    BUT as stated, I think you are tryign to get experienced engieers to do it cheaply. Parasites on my pets dont' get fed
    Lets just take ONE --- instead of penumatic in F1 ? Have you even done the SIMPLEST math on the inertia and subsequent forces at point of change of direction on a valve in an engine revving at 20000 ????? ANY wear and the shock load will snap one of those ears as slack is taken up.

    But I have to add one more ... just so I can picture you trying it THe "flyer" ..... go open a door and hang from the top of the openeing. Now shift your weight a littel to left and right, back and forward and then tell me how long you think you could stay there doing that

    You also need to improve your understanding of the human body and it's feedback systems. There will be growing oscillations and crashes every time this thing took off
    "A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Gold Coast, Australia
    Posts
    581
    Quote Originally Posted by manolis View Post
    MISTAKE
    First I have to correct a mistake I made.
    I wrote that Revetec’s patent has 5.5 years before expiration (this was the law a couple of years before).
    The correct is that Revetec’s patent has 8.5 years before expiration.


    DESMO
    The desmo valves is a completely “correct” geometry.
    The “eye” like member is always in contact to both lobes: the internal (or conventional) lobe and the external lobe.
    Well build it and let us see if it works. I understand the assembly now but it will be interesting to see the exact arrangement of the "elastic washer" type arrangement.

    Quote Originally Posted by manolis View Post
    PORTABLE FLYER
    There is a great difference between the synchropter shown in the picture and the Portable Flying Machine ( www.pattakon.com/fly/Flyer4.exe ). In a helicopter you cannot change the position of the center of gravity compared to the rotors.
    In the portable flyer, the pilot/rider can displace his body compared to the engine/rotors.
    This is enough to give absolute control of the flight.
    Just think that the pilot can slightly change the revs of the engine to keep the Flyer hovering. A little more throttle and the Flyer moves slowly upwards, a little less throttle and the Flyer moves slowly downwards ( www.pattakon.com/fly/Flyer5.exe ) .
    As the pilot/rider pulls or pushes the “grips” (or handlebars), what he is actually doing is that he displaces his center of gravity relevant to the rotors. This is more than enough. No need for pitch control, no need for electronic sensors and servo mechanisms (the body is the best sensor ever).
    How do you rotate on a verticle axis?

    Quote Originally Posted by manolis View Post
    GRECO i3
    The Greco i3 ( www.pattakon.com/greco/Grecoi3.exe) has absolutely zero inertia forces, inertia moments and inertia torques (case of sinusoidal piston motion).
    Everytime you move a piston there are inertia forces...Maybe you mean that inertia forces are kept to a minimum due to sinusoidal piston motion. Again we have tried this and the initial piston speed being slower effects breathing. Build one and try it.

    Quote Originally Posted by manolis View Post
    There is no conventional engine better balanced than this 3 cylinder. Only the rotary Wankel has similar balance quality.
    To get the importance of the zero inertia torque of the Greco i3, compare it to an even firing four stroke, four cylinder engine like the X4.
    I think you are forgetting that pressure in a cylinder isn't constant throughout the power stroke.

    Quote Originally Posted by manolis View Post
    The X4 has a significant inertia torque: when the two pistons of X4 are at TDC, the other two are at BDC, which means that all pistons of X4 are immovable simultaneously, i.e. they have zero kinetic energy.
    So what you are saying that every auto manufacturer should get rid of 4 cylinder engines and produce 3 cylinder engines?

    Quote Originally Posted by manolis View Post
    Each piston of X4 has two heavy rollers that move together with the piston. So, at TDC there are eight heavy rollers (heavy because they have to be of yoke type) and four pistons and two “plates” interconnecting each pair of pistons (and keeping the “shafts” of the roller), all immovable.
    Our piston assemblies are lighter than a conventional engine of the same capacity. Your engine design fails under stress analysis and is heavier, so what is your point?

    Quote Originally Posted by manolis View Post
    The rollers of the Greco i3 can be similar to the light needle roller bearings shown at http://www.pattakon.com/greco/GrecoS...isassembly.exe and http://www.pattakon.com/greco/GrecoS...erCylinderWall .
    If you perform a bearing analysis you will find that your roller speed is to fast for needle roller bearings. I think you should talk to someone like SKF. You engine does 6,000rpm, needle rollers you are describing are doing about 30,000rpm+. They will fail at a very short lifespan!

    Quote Originally Posted by manolis View Post
    If the only real problem of the Greco i3 is the difficult finishing of its “cams”, this is nothing.
    I'm surprised you say this because the method for grinding such a cam will be expensive, that is if it can be done at all in production to the correct tolerances. The area at which your cam sits on the shaft is too weak also. You haven't addressed this at all.


    Quote Originally Posted by manolis View Post
    Greco i3 can be a WIN – WIN case


    Thanks
    Manolis Pattakos
    Win at what? The design has no thought put into it regarding stress failure, load and speed related issues (bearings), production techniques and other basic theory. It will be a while until we will see a working version of the Greco engine and the needle rollers won't let you do 9,000rpm because the needle rollers will be going about 50,000rpm and wont last.
    Last edited by revetec; 02-12-2007 at 12:00 AM.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Gold Coast, Australia
    Posts
    581
    Manolis: Start answering the questions from everyone. Here is a list to answer to save you going back through the thread.....

    1. How long has this engine been in design phase?

    2. How close are you to production of this engine?

    3. Can you provide us with some independant third party results on power torque and fuel consumption or are the figures just your own theory?

    4. Can you advise whether you are in discussions with auto manufacturers?

    5. Have you presented the engine on a world stage?

    6. So how much money has your company raised and burned to date?

    7. Has your company returned anything yet?

    8. Has your company signed any solid agreements?

    9. How long has the company been around?

    10. Is it a private company or listed on the stock exchange?

    11. How many shareholders and shares do you have in your company(Only the ones that paid for their shares, outside your family and friends, and ones given away for services like accountants and solicitors)?

    12. How much did they paid for the shares?

    13. The flying machine? What is with that? How do you turn, roll and pitch and turn on a verticle axis?

    14. The piston acceleration of the pull rod engine and its effect on breathing?

    15. The strength and deflection of the tabs actuating the valves on the desmo valve design?

    16. The cams slicing through the shafts of the short stroke engine animation with two shafts on the Grec engine?

    17. The manufacturing of the shafts of the multi cylinder greco engine: How are you going to machine or grind the concave cam face?

    18. Who does your machining? It looks like it was welded and finished with a hammer drill. Do you do this inhouse?

    19. Junkers is a big company from Germany. They might not be too happy with you naming it like so. It seems highly unlikely you have their cooperation on this, becuase they are not active in the engine business. Is there any association?

    20. How are you going to address the poor stress analysis on the piston assembly?

    21. How are you going to address the poor stress analysis on your drive shafts?

    22. How are you going to grind/manufacture, and fitt your cams?

    23. How are you going to adjust your valve clearance on the desmo design?

    24. How are you going to lighten your piston assemblies on your Junkers engine? You need to reduce it by over half.

    25. How many development engineers are involved on your projects?

    26. What design and/or analysis software do you use?

    27. Have you personally been involved in any of the Pattakon's developments or concepts?


    I have numbered them so you can keep track of the questions and number the responses. Please don't go on about other stuff until you answer them all.
    Last edited by revetec; 02-13-2007 at 09:05 PM.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    99
    Regarding the Pattakon Desmo system ( www.pattakon.com/greco/Desmo2D.exe and www.pattakon.com/greco/Desmo3D.exe ) and its loads.

    Compare the inertia loads resulting from the motion of a valve to those resulting from the motion of the piston of Revetec’s engine.
    The principle of both kinematic mechanisms is very similar.

    So:

    The valve has less than 1/20 of Revetec piston weight.

    The valve has less than 1/7.5 of Revetec piston stroke.

    “One” complete reciprocation of the valve has similar frequency to the frequency of its relevant 4stroke piston (think why).

    In the mechanism of the Pattakon Desmo, the curvatures at the contact of the “cam follower” (or “eye” like member) to the “opening” lobe (i.e. the conventional lobe) are similar to the curvatures used in normal camshafts. The absence of restoring spring (no matter it is made from steel or it is made from pressurized air as in F1) reduces the load on the contact surface between the “opening” cam follower and the “opening” lobe. I.e. if the present “cam lobes / cam followers” of F1 endure for more than two races, the “opening” cam lobe of Pattakon Desmo endures for more.

    In the mechanism of Pattakon Desmo, at the contact of the “cam follower” to the “restoring” lobe, the one surface has positive curvature while the other has negative (think of it like a bearing with extreme “lash”), reducing significantly the “contact surface pressure” and making much easier and efficient the lubrication.

    Installing the Pattakon Desmo in a Formula 1 engine revving at 20.000 rpm and comparing the inertia loads to those in the kinematic mechanism of the Revetec X4 revving at 6.000 rpm, the “surface pressure” at the contact between the cam follower and the cam lobes of the Pattakon Desmo is about (1/20)*(1/7.5)*(10)=1/15, i.e. 15 times lower than the surface pressure between the rollers and the cams of the Revetec engine.
    (1/20 because the valve is more than 20 times lighter, 1/7.5 because the stroke of the piston is more than 7.5 times longer than the valve stroke, and 10 because ((20/6) square) is about 10).

    The fact that the rollers roll on the cams while the “cam follower” of Pattakon Desmo “slides” on the “opening” and “restoring” cam lobes, cannot compensate for such a huge difference in “surface pressure”.
    In any case the fact that the current “cam lobe” to “cam follower” cooperation / lubrication (from F1 to conventional engines) is absolutely successful, supports Pattakon Desmo.




    Regarding the Portable Flying Machine (www.pattakon.com/fly/Flyer4.exe , www.pattakon.com/fly/Flyer4.gif and www.pattakon.com/fly/Flyer5.exe ), the pilot / rider is not “hanged” by his hands.
    He is “hanged” by the hook in the middle of the two rotors, just like in a parachute or a para-pente.
    He “loads” his hands only for displacing his center of gravity relevant to the rotors, just like Valentino Rossi displaces his body on his bike to change direction.

    PS. Audience, how much is a fair price to pay to the “adviser” for his invaluable supporting critics?

    Thanks
    Manolis Pattakos

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    59
    Manolis - this is becoming the most boring thread I have ever read. Just like the other forums you have tried to promote this hack Pattakon engine of yours over the years. Pity I am the one who started it to give you an opportunity.

    You have had 10 days to answer some of the initial questions that were asked.

    9 days ago you said the following:
    Quote Originally Posted by manolis
    By the way, what is the time limit (the deadline) you give me to reply to your next “strictly technical” questions?
    You continue to ignore questions put to you. As others have suggested, it seems that you have no answers to them.

    I am surprised that Santo, Brad, Matra et Alpine and others have continued to bother. Maybe people should boycott your questions until you answer some and stop going round in circles preaching the same bullsh!t over and over and over again. As the saying goes, it's just the same sh!t, different day. (think why)

    Quote Originally Posted by manolis
    PS. Audience, how much is a fair price to pay to the “adviser” for his invaluable supporting critics?
    What is a fair price? With the stress analysis provided, it seems like they have provided you with something that your 50 engineers haven't achieved for ten years. Ten years paying 50 engineers. How many Drachma is that?
    Last edited by CHOOK; 02-12-2007 at 04:03 AM.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    99
    Regarding the Pattakon Desmo ( www.pattakon.com/greco/Desmo2D.exe and www.pattakon.com/greco/Desmo3D.exe ):

    Revetec: “Well build it and let us see if it works. I understand the assembly now but it will be interesting to see the exact arrangement of the "elastic washer" type arrangement.”

    This Desmo mechanism uses the same exactly “geometry” the Pattakon GRECO engines and the Revetec engines use. More details in my last post. If it is true that Revetec X4 revs reliably at 6000 rpm then the Pattakon Desmo can rev at F1 revs.

    The present state of the art Desmo system is that of DUCATI used in superbikes. So for a possible “exact arrangement” of the elastic “washer” take a look at the way DUCATI’s valve is interconnected and aligned.





    Regarding the Pattakon Portable Flyer ( www.pattakon.com/fly/Flyer4.exe )

    Revetec: “How do you rotate on a verticle axis?”

    Think how a bike rotates about a vertical axis. Having the bike some horizontal speed, the biker displaces a little his body to the center of the curve he intents to go round, the reaction from the road and the air resistance and the weight of the bike/biker (the only forces applied to the bike-biker) change gradually the direction of the speed of bike, and the bike “rotates” about the vertical axis.
    This difficult.
    Apply the same in the Flyer case.

    The Flyer can easily rotate on the vertical axis even at hovering (i.e. zero horizontal speed). The Pilot “lives” into a fast air stream. Exploiting the air resistance of his body, according his legs/body position, he controls his rotation about the vertical axis.
    Recall the “acrobatics” (rotations, tumbles etc) that do into the air the parachutists before opening their parachutes, at free fall. They can, just because the air around them moves fast.
    Apply the same in case of Pattakon Flyer.
    The engine / rotors are completely “balanced”.
    A little forward the one leg and a little backwards the other leg of the pilot is enough to start the Flyer rotate about the vertical axis. Doesn’t it?

    The problem is not to rotate about the vertical axis, it is precisely the opposite: to keep from rotating.

    The human body is the best “means” to feel and respond. Better than any electronics and servomechanisms. Ask Capirossi (who also knows first hand DUCATI’s Desmo).





    Regarding GRECO engine balance and vibrations.

    Revetec: “Everytime you move a piston there are inertia forces...Maybe you mean that inertia forces are kept to a minimum due to sinusoidal piston motion. Again we have tried this and the initial piston speed being slower effects breathing. Build one and try it.”

    You get it wrong. The subject was the balance and the vibrations of the GRECO i3 (www.pattakon.com/greco/Grecoi3.exe) engine.
    This means of the engine as a whole.
    Compare the smoothness of the straight (in line) six to the straight four, with identical pistons, connecting rods, strokes etc.
    Open the www.pattakon.com/educ/balance.exe program and compute the forces and the moments on the engine block and the crankshaft (i.e. on the mounts of the engines and on the transmission). If you have difficulties, open the relevant help / examples file.
    Then compare the straight six with the conventional V-8.
    You can also study the balancing of the conventional three in line.
    As you see there is no comparison between the three in line conventional to the GRECO i3 in terms of inertia moments and inertia torque.

    And there is no need to build one to check the balancing.
    The thoughtful reader knows.
    As Stephen Hawking said: Nobody can argue with Mathematics.





    Revetec:
    “So what you are saying that every auto manufacturer should get rid of 4 cylinder engines and produce 3 cylinder engines?

    Our piston assemblies are lighter than a conventional engine of the same capacity. Your engine design fails under stress analysis and is heavier, so what is your point?”


    What I say is that counterbalancing the first order inertia forces of a big even firing four, like Revetec X4, is not adequate.
    Most engine manufacturers are not satisfied with the complete 1st order inertia forces balance of their straight four engines. Quality straight four engines (despite their complete internal balance of the 1st order inertia forces) add two counter-rotating second order balancing shafts (for instance BMW 2 liter, Mercedes etc). Even with the pair of second order balancing shafts, the transmission suffers the hard torsional moment (parasitic), and this is why the quality of the six cylinder has nothing in common with the quality of the four in line, no matter how many counter-shafts they use.
    If anybody from the audience needs more info about balancing, ask.

    Using a pair of 1st order balance shafts in Revetec’s X4, its second order forces and its 2nd order torque are not balanced (they load the mounts and the transmission) and will be noticeable and objectionable by the driver / pilot. But even with an additional pair of counterbalancing shafts, i.e. 4 balancing shafts (this time of 2nd order, i.e. rotating with twice the revs of the output shaft, i.e. six times faster than the tri-lobe cams), the inertia torque on the output shaft is still there, loading with parasitic power oscillation the helix / rotor and the spur gears.

    The present Yamaha TDM (crankpins at 0 and 270 degrees) is not even firing as the first Yamaha TDM (crankpins at 0 and 360 degrees). But it is free from parasitic inertia torque oscillating between the pistons and the transmission.
    Think again about torsional inertia torque. It is a serious topic for all engines, X4 included.

    What I claimed is clearly that the inertia forces, the inertia moments and the inertia torques transferred to the mounts and the transmission of the Greco i3 are all absolutely zero.
    And this is pure mathematics.
    And nobody needs any prototype to prove a mathematical truth.





    Revetec: “I think you are forgetting that pressure in a cylinder isn't constant throughout the power stroke.”

    The pressure inside the cylinder and the inertia vibration are two different thinks.
    Variable pressure also exists into the Wankel Rotary engine (which, by the way, is a pure sinusoidal engine).
    The running smoothness of the Greco i3 is equivalent to the running smoothness of Mazda’s Wankel Rotary. Doesn’t it?
    Both have power pulses on their mounts.

    The only engines that are free from power pulses on their mounts are:
    1. the turbines
    2. the Junkers and the Junkers-PRE (www.pattakon.com/pre/PRE16.exe and www.pattakon.com/fly/Flyer1.exe) i.e. engines with two output shafts that share the same combustion chamber.





    Revetec: “If you perform a bearing analysis you will find that your roller speed is to fast for needle roller bearings. I think you should talk to someone like SKF. You engine does 6,000rpm, needle rollers you are describing are doing about 30,000rpm+. They will fail at a very short lifespan!”

    Take another, careful this time, look at the arrangement at http://www.pattakon.com/greco/GrecoS...isassembly.exe and http://www.pattakon.com/greco/GrecoS...erCylinderWall to see how easy it is to reduce the bearing revs as much as you wish.
    In Greco i3, the true “thrust free” pistons make the ball bearings unnecessary.





    Again.

    Think the case Revetec adopted the Greco i3 and Greco U6 engines and imagine what arguments they could use to “beat” the conventional engines in every application.

    If their only claim would be that they make a straight three as perfectly balanced as the Wankel Rotary, what Mazda will say?

    Again.
    Compare the case to the present position of Revetec in engine market.

    If the only real problem of the Greco i3 is the difficult finishing of its “cams”, this is nothing.
    Revetec knows the reliability of such a design. Pattakon does not, yet.
    If there is no such reliability “problem”, the benefits the Greco i3 design brings about are great.

    Greco i3 can be a WIN – WIN case (business is business and Australia is Australia). Doesn’t it, Revetec?


    PS. Revetec may insist on their 26 questions, but don’t you think, audience, it is more interesting to talk strictly technical than to argue whose money we are burning?


    Thanks
    Manolis Pattakos

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    59
    As I said, same sh!t, different day.
    Last edited by CHOOK; 02-12-2007 at 04:22 PM.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Porto - Portugal
    Posts
    2,755
    This is going absolutly nowere and fast, can you just answer thoose questions Revetec posted? one by one please, calmly.
    "Religious belief is the “path of least resistance”, says Boyer, while disbelief requires effort."

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by ruim20 View Post
    can you just answer thoose questions Revetec posted? one by one please, calmly.
    Just to clarify something.
    Revetec didn't post those questions. He merely collated and quoted all the questions other members have asked Manolis over many months on this and other threads that he continually ignores; assuming because he either can't answer or answering them truthfully will be detrimental to his arguments. BTW many of these questions are similar to what Manolis has hassled other engine designers to answer, yet he refuses to answer those same questions when it comes to the Pattakon engine.

    Quote Originally Posted by ruim20 View Post
    This is going absolutly nowere and fast.
    Agreed. Not sure if you were talking about this thread or the Pattakon engine but I agree to both
    Last edited by CHOOK; 02-12-2007 at 07:35 PM.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Gold Coast, Australia
    Posts
    581
    Manolis...You compared a valve mechanism with a piston mechanism....Answer the questions directly as posed and stop avoiding the questions by posting answers that beat around the bush.
    Last edited by revetec; 02-13-2007 at 09:07 PM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Mercedes-Benz C111 Research Car 1969-1979
    By Matt in forum Matt's Hi-Res Hide-Out
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 10-21-2015, 10:35 PM
  2. Volvo S80 (2nd gen) 2006-2015
    By porlamfer in forum Matt's Hi-Res Hide-Out
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 08-09-2013, 09:40 AM
  3. Honda CR-V (RE) 2006-2011
    By dracu777 in forum Matt's Hi-Res Hide-Out
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 01-28-2010, 08:13 AM
  4. BMW Biturbo 3.0 Litre Engine
    By Vaigra in forum Technical forums
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 03-09-2008, 06:07 PM
  5. International Engine of the year 2005 is.....
    By lukeh in forum Car comparison
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 06-20-2005, 05:08 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •