"If you do, look at the camshaft. Consider the camshaft from a V8, it has 16 lobs all shaped so the intakes are the same and at different locations, the same for the exhaust and all with hardened surfaces."
In theory, your statement is correct. However, nothing is the world is manufactured "exactly". There are tolerances on a standard camshaft that can allow deviations from the true form. This does not pose many problems in a standard engine because the relative motion of each and every valve is independent from all of the others (except in a most generalized sense when discussing timing). If one lobe is slightly off, it does not effect the other lobes/valves/etc.
However, due to the nature of the APRE, each piston cannot act independently. Furthermore, the shape of the cam surface does not lend itself toward routine machining practices (i.e. - you cannot produce it on a lathe). My question stems from the fact that I am contemplating details about how the torque transfer from the pistons to the shaft is conducted. From the patent application, it looks like the piston plates are attached to the shaft with a sliding spline arrangement. This can get tricky since, with torque being transmitted through this joint, there will be an inherent difficulty in allowing this spline joint to slide. Couple that with the fact that if the cam surfaces are not very precisely machined, the piston plates can tilt slightly which may or may not cause the sliding spline joint to bind.
Mr. Demopolous, I do not have to address your concerns. You do not possess any authority or legitimacy from what I have been able to discern. Having said that, I will state for the record that I am not an adversary to the APRE. I would like to see this thing come to fruition. However, I am disillusioned by the manner in which this is being conducted. Yes, I have tied to address technical issues with those involved. The response is the standard boilerplate "We cannot release any information at this time." This is the only avenue (sadly enough) that I have found regarding discussions of the APRE. I have the technical background to understand, in principle, how this engine functions, and problems that may be encountered. I have worked as an analytical mechanical engineer on such products as gas turbine engines, hydraulic pumps and motors, and internal combustion engine valvetrains. I have experienced various types of tolerancing problems, spline problems, bearing problems, fastener problems, coupling problems, and overall basic structural problems in a wide variety of components and machinery. The APRE may be the greatest invention ever conceived of by the human race, however, I can guarantee you it does not defy the laws of physics.
I will tell you this. If I had 350 million dollars, and a novel new "save the world" engine, I would try to be the focal point of every technical journal, trade magazine, engineering show, and scientific study that I could fathom, and I would do this through engineering justification, not hype. This is not the course that AENG seems to be persueing.
One more word of advice, Mr. Demopolous. Since your only form of communication is the written word of these messages, you could avoid appearing very ignorant if you proof read your memos and checked for spelling and grammar. This would avoid my assumption that you are currently a bored elementary student home from school during the summer.
I apologize to the group for the harsh nature to which my ire has been incensed by the so called Mr. Demopolous. |
