Stirlingengineforum.com

I was offering the process to those that care

Fool wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2024 1:44 pmHe probably does.

Fool wrote: ↑Sat Jun 22, 2024 4:15 am I seem to have touched a sore spot. I wish this Nobody poster were still here. What happened to him? He seemed to be quite knowledge. Did you drive him away too?

I still think the 90° offset is a compromise, brought on by the compromises gained by harmonic motion. I've seen elliptical gears made for improvement on that compromise. And even Senft with the P-19 lost motion linkage. All attempting to get displacer changeover closer to top or bottom dead center and to dwell longer during the power and return strokes.

Harmonic moton is very interesting from an engineering perspective. Simple, smooth, efficient. There are motions that are potential improvements. There are design compromises good and bad that make them have nich areas of use. Lost motion links are good for small light weight slow moving engines. Elliptical gears would introduce noise, and may be useful in remote LTD solar farms.

There is a difference between a solid stiff crank drive locked into harmonic motion and a spring mass system being driven flexibly into resonance. You talk of resonant systems here, but what is the resonant system in these crank driven systems? What is the your evidence that it is operating at resonance?

[Off topic necessity]
Your problem is still rejection of well tested science and well constructed mathematical models. Your unreasonable request for construction of ideal engines is one such denial. It's like asking for a test of a perfect circle model, by constructing a perfect circle. All your bashing does is waste people's time on false leads. Engineering mathematics and testing has proven you and your conclusions wrong from every engine ever built. Your data, from poor laboratory practice, is a very shakey foundation for your overly belligerent attack on thermodynamics.

The only shit being posted here is your own vituperations, and scientific ignorance. Insulting posters and ancient scientist is not proof in any way shape or form. Praising cherry picked erroneous comments from ancient beloved inventors, isn't either. Having proper scientific lab practices well documented.comprehensive data is. Not waving a camera around wildly. We are trying to improve, are you?

Sinking your boat with the false joy of bashing, Matt, Nobody, Alphafax, and many other posters until they leave, isn't getting you anywhere either. Your narcissistic style here makes the truth become buried, and unappreciated. Let posters make comments. Try to understand more. Lack of calculus is not helping you, and there are way more principals you don't seem to understand too. Filling this website up with erroneous Tom Booth opinion, is one thing, but attacking posters that understand this engineering very well, isn't. It's your posting style that is abrasive, not merely your errors. We all make errors, even you. Being patient and explaining the correct science in many different ways, is the correct way of handling perceived errors, it might just be you or me, listen back carefully.

Writing your opinion that you don't like a posters point, is all well and good, but isn't going to prove that poster wrong. It's just poor form to use profanity to garnish nothing more than opinion and in an attack on a poster and that is nothing more than a logical fallacy.

Please be kind. We are. Way kinder than you, IMHO.

[/Off topic necessity]

It was necessary because you used the word "shit", in an attack on friendly posters. Grow up.

Fool wrote: ↑Sat Jun 22, 2024 8:33 am Sheesh, what a whiner.