anybody for a one-stroke? Anyone? Lenoir?

13 posts / 0 new
Last post
anybody for a one-stroke? Anyone? Lenoir?

so i'm reading a book at the minute about the history and development of the 2-stroke engine. In the opening chapters there is an early concept called the 'lenoir' engine. This has a cylinder and a piston and a valve either side of the cylinder in a layout very similar to a steam engine - however instead of steam pressure a fuel/air mixture is injected into the cylinder when the capacity is at it's smallest (we cant really refer to this as TDC, you'll see why) and then ignited, however not under compression. - the expansion of the burning mixture then pushes the piston down the cylinder. When the piston reaches the other end of cylinder the same happens again on the other side of piston (if this is confusing anybody feel free to ask questions and i'll do my best). The only down point i can see is the lack of compression involved with this - (however i can think of a couple of ways of getting around this). Does anybody know what i'm talking about (cos i dont - just made it up ) If anybody does, the question is why was this brilliant little idea never made again and almost forgotten about? - poor little thing deserves some recognition at least i think...

hmm... i think i get what you mean but have never heard of anything like it before. & whats the book called by the way?

i think i get what you mean but its going to have to be valved (i think) which defeats the puropse of a simple engine isnt that why we love 2 strokes? only a few very fast moving parts more pwer less wear...2 strokes coz 1 aint enuff and 4's 2 many isnt that what the old sayin is?just IMHOTrevor

It would probably work when combined with direct injection technology which uses compressed air/turbo/supercharger to force the air into the combustion chamber, thus doing away with the need for crankcase scavenging so you could have a combustion chamber at both ends of the cylinder without the need for any crankcase space. But why bother?, it would still essentially be a twin-combustion chamber, if not cylinder, engine and it's cc would have to be a combination of the swept area at both ends of the cylinder so there would be no power v cubic capacity benefits and would probably be more of an engineering exercise just to prove it could be done.

richieboi wrote

hmm... i think i get what you mean but have never heard of anything like it before. & whats the book called by the way?

I have just googled 'lenoir' there is a load of info on it. Best discription I can see is a double acting steam engine but using petrol/ oil instead of steam.Great info v8benji very intresting

tis a publication called "thwe high-speed two stroke petrol engine" by Philip H Smith (MIMechE MSAE) - a fairly old one actually, from 1968!

Wasn't something like that used for paving whackers, years ago?

TrevorElliott wrote

2 strokes coz 1 aint enuff and 4's 2 many isnt that what the old sayin is?

Yea my sig VV

It's still a 2 stroke though, not 1.

Ric wrote

It's still a 2 stroke though, not 1.

If it was driving one single crank then it would by definition be a "one stroke" as there would be an explosion per stroke of that crank. But relative to the combustion chambers then it's obviously a "two stroke".If it were introduced to competition I reckon it would keep the FIM technical panel occupied for years!!!!!

A747 wrote

If it were introduced to competition I reckon it would keep the FIM technical panel occupied for years!!!!!

Sounds about right - someone should do it for just this reason alone lol

i agree!

phil vincent of vincent hrd had something to do with a 1 stroke engine in the last century, maybe early 50s

Log in or register to post comments