What does /sci/ think of this mechanism? It is an hydraulic motor which I designed because the vane motor was too complex for me to build. The blue part is a stator and the yellow is the rotor. The water enters the gap between the rotor and stator next to the right pink slider and exits next to the left pink slider. Since there are two chambers opposite each other you can push the rotor on both sides. I did research on existing motors and this "balanced" property is highly desired because it doesn't stress the rotor and axle with unbalanced torque. As far as I know this is the simplest balanced hydraulic motor in existence. I was going to patent it but seeing as I have no use for it anymore and no money I'll just share it publicly and maybe an actual engineer can develop it into something useful. Of course it can be reversed as a pump too.
Here is a vane pump in comparison, as you see there are much more moving parts.
Delete the thread and patent it you moron. Gid mone. Fug bishes.
So did you build a working prototype or planning too? Would be cool with a plexiglass plate on top.
>>7747134
So it is kind of like a hydraulic version of a Wankel engine only much more stable.
>>7747134
It's not clear to me where the water is supposed to enter and exit, can you explain it more clearly? Also are the sliders supposed to go up and down or is that an animation glitch?
12/27/2015
FROM THIS DAY ONWARDS THIS SHALL BE CALLED THE MEME ENGINE
>>7747390
the memegine
>>7747397
Wonderful contribution to a scientific topic. Thank you memenon.
>>7747403
too late.
>>7747281
Yeah that's where I got the idea from. The chambers have constant volume in my version though
>>7747382
>Also are the sliders supposed to go up and down or is that an animation glitch?
Animation glitch
>It's not clear to me where the water is supposed to enter and exit, can you explain it more clearly?
See pic related. the fluid enters and exits from the top
>>7747167
I tried to have it 3D printed, it was too expensive for me, I now have my own printer but I don't think budget printer tolerances are good enough to make it. I might try I dunno, I would have to do a lot of finishing to get it to spin smoothly without leakage. I kinda lost interest in it after canning the hydraulic system that I originally needed it for.
>>7747397
lol I like the name.
>>7747451
the outer ring seems pointless
just spring-load the two sliders, this will also reduce leakage on the contact point
>>7747451
Why 3d printing if you could get it done with some simple laser or lathe cutting?
>>7747462
The outer ring and the inner rotor is the same solid piece, giving it a dual function as a rotor and a cam. This reduces moving parts such as adding springs.
>>7747466
then how do you get the sliders to properly seal up the chambers
in order to get a proper fit this would require excessively tight tolerances on both faces of the rotor, else it would either jam up or have such a loose fit that it would reduce efficiency due to leakage
>>7747463
I did think of building it up from laser cut acrylic layers but as I said I lost interest in developing it because I didn't need it anymore.
>>7747473
>require excessively tight tolerances
Essentially yes. The Wankel engine itself had the same issue. That's engineering, you win some you lose some, nothing's perfect. More simplicity but you need tighter tolerances. I'm not defending it, I'm just putting it out there because I noticed it has that one useful advantage of being balanced unlike most other designs. It may be too hard to make efficient as you say, who knows?
>>7747473
If you increase the radius of curvature of the three sides of the rotor/cam this will make it easier to slide because it will approximate a circle more but of course the chamber volume will be reduced. Again you win some you lose some.
>Of course it can be reversed as a pump too.
>>7747481
If you use springs instead of the cam it will still be balanced. I'd think with the single part cam design as it is now it will either be too loose or too tight (where the sliders just get stuck), springs are just a better tradeoff overall.
>>7747481
The Wankel's seals use springs, buddy. Listen to the man, he's actually right.
>>7747522
Forgot pic
>>7747134
I dont think you did the cfd on this.
Your pump is going to have high and low pressure oscillate through the same ports, you will need check valves and your efficiency will be crap.
>>7747552
I don't think you understand the design. No valves are needed at all, entry and exit ports are completely separate.
>>7747552
Hence the name meme engine, successor to the mEMe drive
>>7747556
Run the CFD. Post results.
>>7747600
Not OP but how would you go about that? Can cad/cam programs automatically identify the chambers in a design like this?
That's almost like pic related but for a rotary engine.
>>7747600
I don't know how to use CFD.
>>7747622
Dosen't take anything super fancy, even solidworks can do it if you don't have the introductory version.
I'm amazed /sci/ has taken this so seriously. Normally you are all incredibly dismissive of new ideas. Maybe I should have patented it. Oh well too late now.
>>7749119
>Normally you are all incredibly dismissive of new ideas
poking holes into new ideas is the whole point of discussing things on an image board
if you can't defend your great idea against a couple of anons who bully it just for the heck of it then your idea won't cut it in the real world either
ideas are great
but lots of people have lots of ideas, every day
that's because having ideas isn't the hard part
the hard part is proving the feasibility, reliability and efficiency of your idea
>>7749169
>totally shit on idea without giving any indication that you actually thought about it carefully
>I was just giving constructive criticism
There is a difference between discussing something critically and being an outright contrarian. I have screencaps of spacex reuseable rockets concepts being called ludicrous and certain to explode. Even when they were spectacularly proved wrong /sci/ still attacked it saying it isnt profitable as if Musk would have poured all that R&D into it without first working out profitability.
thanks for the patent faggit
brb becoming rich
>>7749492
>and being an outright contrarian
the problem is that I've seen too many threads where there's an idea being posted which breaks down completely with just 1 minute of thinking about it logically
and instead of addressing the counterpoints the OP, and his fellow retards with an obvious lack of real engineering knowledge, just go right into the "ur just not open minded enough u stupid contrarian" rhetoric
obviously there has to be a balance between not posting ideas that are full pants-on-head retarded free energy pipe dreams and not spouting "IT WILL NEVAR EVAR WORK BECAUSE I SAID SO"
it's just not achieved in the majority of these threads
>>7747543
Regardless of springs or not, this can be done. Even with leakage, it will be quite useful.
This is the sort of thing I'd like to see Matthias Wandel from Woodgears make,
https://www.youtube.com/user/Matthiaswandel
He has the tenacity to do tolerances like that.
>>7749492
>>7749528
/diy/ and /sci/ both say humanity can't do anything and that all projects are going to fail and the OP will never even get started in the first place.
I'm sure most times, those are armchair contrarians.
The funny thing is, when I come back to /diy/ with pics of my working design it usually drops off the board with no replies. If it is replied to then it is raked over the coals as being fake or if they can't do that for obvious reasons then they attack the workmanship or how unclean my workroom is, etc. The problem is, there are too many contrarians trolls who need to feel better about themselves online.
>>7749545
Send him the animation. I appreciate your interest. This is why I prefer engineering to pure science, easier for an amateur like me to do something original.
I'm leaving this thread soon, if anyone has anymore questions about the mechanism, ask today.
>>7750990
I'd like to know how the flow directions look in that image.
>>7749528
>the problem is that I've seen too many threads where there's an idea being posted which breaks down completely with just 1 minute of thinking about it logically
Yes, but the other problem is that it's impossible to have a serious discussion when as soon as you attempt to people just say "lol ur dumb" without reacting to the substance of your argument.
>>7750990
Any specific reason you used a reuleaux triangle for the inside?
>>7747451
I may have some input here. I have 7 years worth of engineering experience with pumps, so hopefully this can be useful.
Assuming I am reading your design correctly, your intake and discharge enters the chamber axially correct? Assuming that is the case, you basically have a lobe pump with low head characteristics and worse reliability problems. While you have a "balanced" design that minimizes radial forces as you have dual inlets/outlets, the low head design means radial loading won't be a major design limitation to begin with. For something like this, you will be using it in high flow/low pressure service with semiconsistent volume control. The footprint of the pump and the cost to build will determine if this design is better than others. The little purple slider mechanism looks like it will wear out quickly and be a pain to replace. You'll also have leakage between the sliding piece and the rotor that will have to be managed. Will the outside chamber just match the respective pressures of the inlet/outlet? Will the outlet side just go back to the inlet side and flow through your sliding piece? If so, you can't use this for any slurry, abrasive service. The outer chambers and lower flows on the outside also mean you'll have dead spots in the pump. So if you have anything that sets up or solids that drop out it will just stay there. A massive corrosion nightmare.
So what pump designs are you replacing with your design so that it will be an improvement? Right now, I put this design competing with lobe pumps or low pressure gear pumps, but it can't pump slurries, will be larger due to the larger rotor, smaller chambers, and have more maintaince issues since your skider piece will wear and be harder to replace.
Sorry for any typos, i am on my phone. Feel free to correct any assumptions i made.
>>7752593
Also, i will add that it should work, but other designs are ultimately have superir qualities that make them desirable.
>>7752533
See >>7747451
>>7752544
It was inspired by the Wankel engine.
> your intake and discharge enters the chamber axially correct?
Yes
> you basically have a lobe pump with low head characteristics
Yes
>Will the outside chamber just match the respective pressures of the inlet/outlet?
Never thought about this but I suppose so
>, the low head design means radial loading won't be a major design limitation to begin with
That's unfortunate
>The footprint of the pump and the cost to build
It's easier to build than a vane pump I'll tell you that because I tried and failed.
>So what pump designs are you replacing with your design so that it will be an improvement?
It was a really specific small reason why I designed it; I wanted a simple easy to build hydraulic motor that had a single output shaft. Lobe and gear pumps are simple but have two contra-rotating shafts. The fact that it is balanced was completely unintentional.
>Will the outlet side just go back to the inlet side and flow through your sliding piece?
No
>>7753214
Same guy again.
>Will the outside chamber just match the respective pressures of the inlet/outlet?
>Never thought about this but I suppose so
You have nothing restricting/separating the chambers, so there will be a flow going from the high pressure to low pressure side. You last statement is unavoidable as you will have some clearance to allow for your sliding piece to move. It will happen.
>It was a really specific small reason why I designed it; I wanted a simple easy to build hydraulic motor that had a single output shaft. Lobe and gear pumps are simple but have two contra-rotating shafts. The fact that it is balanced was completely unintentional.
Gotcha. My thoughts are if you want an integrated motor/pump, you are probably going to go with a cheap centrifugal pump and your needs won't mater enough to warrant the extra cost. Regardless, I have never seen a moving part in a pump that wasn't in some way supported ultimately by the pump bearings via the rotor. You are talking about a very small free floating part that takes a moment force that is effectively supported by a sliding bearing going at high speeds. The closet analogy in which this occurs in industry is in a piston on a reciprocating engine, but even then the entire length of the piston is supported by the sleeve (sliding bearing in your case). My thoughts are it will get caught in a bind and snap at any decent speed (3600, 1800, 1200, 900 RPM). I work at a refinery, but I would consider this a "throwaway" pump, so the cost of an extra shaft isn't that much an issue, but rather the labor to remove it. I think having a design goal of only one shaft means that you aren't going to be repairing it anyways, so it being quicker to build won't matter much. For assembly, installing another shaft isn't that much of a problem to do, and getting the timing right is pretty straight forward. Pulling it from the field is where the costs occur, or the impact of it being down matter more.
>>7753547
Still, I welcome any creativity in this field. Pumps have basically stagnated in design and the focus is on making pumps 30 years old put out a bit more performance. It is also neat to see what designers vs users think too.
Also
>I wanted a simple easy to build hydraulic motor
Sorry, I missed the hydraulic part, ignore the high RPM at pole speed, though the underlying issue remains.
>>7754714
No problem. I am curious to see how you resolve the sliding part issue. I haven't seen anything like that in any rotating piece of equipment, so i suspect there is a reason. Regardless, you will be a better engineer through all of this so don't considered this a wasted effort.
>>7747281
How about two parallel wankel pumps, with the two lobes mounted on the same shaft but 180 degrees out of phase. That should be close enough to balanced lol, four pumping chambers, no cam sliders like in op. I will patent that.
>>7747495
Peristaltic pumps would not work well if you reversed them to be motors.
>>7755098
If he drastically increases the thickness of the stator so that the cam follower has contact surfaces much longer than it ever protrudes from the stator, that would help prevent it from binding. Also use a larger radius or better yet a complex shape (spline/high order polynomial) on the corners to control the velocity, acceleration, jerk, the next derivative etc. of the slider so that it is totally smooth that would help too. Now that I think of it, best design is probably to make the cavity constant radius but vary its depth and change the slider direction by 90 degrees(axial motion).
>>7755125
Are you on crack?
>>7747134
How about three sliders? It would make sense taking that there are three volumes moving around, and all.And maybe you could make it smaller by adding three sliders aswell, moving more volume/rev.
