Talk:Stelzer engine
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
I moved this from [[Frank Selzer]], however neither he nor his invention seem to be terribly significant as evidenced with a Google search. And the version submitted by User:Wysocki1 even conceeds this, which leads me to believe this may be a vanity page and a possible VfD candidate (see revision history). Alcarillo 16:06, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
Unsure. It has been the subject of a number of newspaper articles in Australia, but these may just have been produced by clever press releases. Andrewa 22:47, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
Still unsure. The diagrams at the external link have no connecting-rods or crankshaft, which certainly allows for fewer moving parts and simplified manufacturing, but it's not obvious how this engine would achieve anything either! If the intention is to use a turbine on the exhaust to deliver the power, that should be shown in the diagrams as it's a basic part of the concept, but this of course increases the number of moving parts and the complexity, and complicates manufacturing. Similar designs have been tried in the past with conventional reciprocating engines, but they weren't a great success.
I think the (top) ends of the pistons are used as pumps ie: they pump air. There is also talk of linear generators ie: magnets embedded in the rods - no rotary action. This is typical of free piston engines.
The claim that this is an opposed piston design is a strange one, opposed piston is an established and completely different concept, see talk:opposed piston.
I don't think this article does a lot of harm as long as we are careful to keep it NPOV, but I wouldn't be upset if it were deleted either. Andrewa 20:00, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
German wikipedia
editThere is a lot more information in the German article.[1] It just needs translating. Biscuittin (talk) 12:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Opposed/opposing, scavenging and output
editIt is an opposing piston design, with two combustion chambers, rather than an opposed piston design with one combustion chamber. The central chamber seems to provide the equivalent of "crankcase compression" so no scavenge blower would be needed. According to the patent: "The power generated by the combustion can be transformed into work by the piston portions 16 and 18, in that, for example, in further chambers (not shown) still another medium can be periodically sucked in and exhausted. This medium can then drive other working machines, for example, turbines, in a further cycle (not shown)". Biscuittin (talk) 12:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)