Aerolight

Alas twas all for naught, I feel my time working on this has ended at least for now. After trying everything I could in regards to air fuel mixture (namely using easy start as is burns at the greatest range of concentrations) I finally got the engine to fire almost every cycle. This should have been more than enough but the engine just simply lacks compression, while a cylinder like this seals well enough for use with a vacuum cleaner (ominous) the way a gas expansion produces force requires good compression above ease of movement; which this motor was built around as good compression with Lego is almost impossible perhaps even with glue. As for the video I got my uncle to try and take one but the 'pop' sound was the only thing worth seeing (hearing) and our phones just would not pick up the sound over the valve gear so I cant even give you that (I know some of you would still like to see a video of it being turned over but without the pops it just falls flat) although now I wish I had at least taken a small clip with the head off just because after applying silicon lubricant to everything the piston was so smooth it was actually surprising and the method for the cylinder walls that enabled this was probably the best thing to come from this to be honest. The engine as it is now is dead in the water, a fire started inside the airbox and I only saw it when smoke came out from the gaps. This warped practically all of the Lego in and around the airbox, not that much but enough to lock the valves when connected tightly. Its only a matter of time before the cylinder is affected and bricks any plans for something in the future. So no more tests at least for now, I could use glue to get a good seal between Legos but I don't want to do that until I know I can fix the other problems (the piston seal/rings and fuel atomisation). I will be away from my Lego for a while now (yet again) though, but hopefully my next MOC will be somewhat more functional (perhaps a working Lego micrometre with a 20 number planet style digital display that's surprisingly accurate) oh and don't try this without a complete disregard to your personal safety and that of your Lego.

26th of august is the go date then video slightly after that - I need my uncle who's been away working for summer (hence bank holiday Monday)to helm the jug of water as the rest of my family sees this as a waste of water. Though while waiting I have made some improvements; there is now a prototype gasket between the head and the case and a workingish rpm gauge though it only really shows rotating and not rotating rather than anything helpful. But the best thing is a working "supercharger", I wanted a turbo for #spoollife but there is just too much pressure leakage so a ducted fan driven off the crank (into the carb)is the best I can do, there's not boost per say but rather more air flow so it may not help but its worth a shot. Not sure if its allowed but I took a modelling knife to the capped technic pins I'm using for valves and whittled them from a cross to a small rod (like a real valve) for better flow, actual porting!

its just to much, £50 for enough for a 4x4, brick link is already has listings at a similar price but when they verify the new parts list they should drop - at least I hope.

Update I have got three new ways to regulate the air/fuel mixture now; First is like a normal carburettor except the air is not drawn over liquid fuel but over gaseous fuel (due to lack of suction) and the vellum will be the point of adjustment. Second is to have the inlet drawing from two separate places, one with air one with air and fuel, and using adjustable valves regulate the mixture. Third is to use pneumatic pumps to supply the fuel and air instead of just relying on the suction from the engine. The pumps need surprisingly little energy to pump its the switch that sprays into the inlet that's probably the problem due to the rpm, however a mix of method 2 and 3 might be the best chance due to the increase, as slight as it is, of air/fuel flow and not requiring a pneumatic switch. The best mix is only 5-10% fuel encase you are wondering. Hopefully the next test will be in less than a week from now, I promised a friend I would only start it with him and he is away working this week. As I have said before I want to wait to upload a video until the engine can run for more than a few seconds, hopefully a improvement in the air/fuel mix is enough to make this happen. I am hopeful enough that I have built a chassis that the engine can sit in to drive around so stay tuned.

True but you would have to redesign the model a lot to make space for the bigger gears and using a 90 degree mesh per wheel instead of per axle about doubles the amount of torque that can be passed through without de-meshing. Another mod I came up with the stock parts (there should be just enough gears and axles) was to move the motors the middle side by side allowing both motors to be easily connected allowing for better crawling, although I realise this is a bit to major to be considered a mod as you have to move so much about at this point all that's left is the body.

Unfortunately after checking this model has no cross block/form (LDD name) pieces, I don't know why I thought it had some and since 8 are required for the new suspension its not possible to do with the parts in the box. However these 8 pieces are all you need (I made double sure this time) but even so its still more of a c model than an upgrade to the a model so sorry for posting in the wrong topic. However you can eliminate the diffs with this method. No diff by michael waterfield, on Flickr

Using the existing parts you can redesign the model entirely for far better performance. Using a bevel gear set to transfer power to each wheel instead of the upper CVs allows the wishbones to attach to the frame 3 studs apart, instead of the original model's 9 allowing for longer wishbones for more articulation and ground clearance; although due to the limited length of the steering arms included the system would not work to its full potential. This method also removes the diffs and allows for motors to drive opposite sides instead of individual axles; this greatly increases climbing capability and allows for tighter turning via the addition of tank steering. Lastly this makes it easy to mount the motors next to each other in the frame, this makes enough space to mount the C+ hub at the lowest point in the fame; lowering the centre of gravity greatly when compared to the original. You also gain parts for your collection as this end model uses less parts than the original.

With the new elements what kind improvement should we see in RC capabilities? First let us calculate the improvement of torque at the wheels. Before this the main way was to use the portals from the Unimog and old RC 4x4 which had a gear reduction of 3-1 where as with the new hubs reduction is up to just over 5/1, so just with this we gain 66% more torque at the wheels (probably more in practice due to the reduced friction with the new hubs when under load). With my tests the old style joins where not the weak point of the old system, while they where the first to down right break the axle going through the lower wheel in the portal twisted permanently before this. While most of us probably don't mind this as it still works if you lock the axle in, as the twist will cause the axle to work out with load without and it can be considered the point of failure with the old hubs. While I don't have the new CVs to test (nor have I seen any tests yet please link if someone has done some) a few years ago I did machine lego compatible UV joints that where, as far as lego motors are concerned, indestructible. I expect this is what the new CVs will in effect be, i.e. the axles driving the joints will twist before joint breaks. So if the old limitation is the axle twisting in the output of the old hub and the new limitation is the axle twisting when entering the new hub what kind of improvement can we expect? We get a 66% increase due to the gearing in the new hubs itself and a whopping 200% from the axle being before rather than after the gearing (old hub has 3/1 gearing so the input is under 1/3 the stress of the output, therefore the new hub gains 3 times the torque threshold). So a good guess would be 1.66*3 = 4.98 WOW! Please bear in mind that to see this increase you have to gear down the pre-hub drivetrain 3/1 when apposed to the old hub and sorry if the maths confusing but at the start I talk about percentage increase and to calculate the final number I use total relative percentage (100% plus increase so 166% and 300% which compound together to give just under 500%). The 2 new elements each have a weakness when compared to the old system however. With the new CVs the problem is the length of the male shaft,firstly only one length is available which makes it annoying to use without a diff as with no diff the input shafts must have 1 stud different lengths. You could design the drivetrain to be off-centre to account for this but no only would you get ganked by all the modellers with OCD the overall length of the CVs is still superfluous not allowing for the maximum length of suspension arms for a given MOCs width, the new 4x4 shows both these problems. The best solution is probably just to use the new CV for the hub and 90 degree capable gears for the end that connects to the frame. As for the new hub I only see one possible downside and that is the reduction in ground clearance when apposed to the old style, however this is minor if you don't use straight lower wishbones (use ones that step up around the drive to be the same height as the drive) in practice a few studs will be a good payoff for the increase in torque. Unless your using them in a solid axle where the new hub's shortcomings are much more apparent though all in all still an improvement in most cases. While the massive increase in torque is great I don't see as varied designs happening as apposed to the old system due to wishbone being so much better than solid this time around (although the use of the hubs as gearboxes is promising). And remember the new CV needs a stud gap around it which will make packaging that much less optimal. (RANT ALERT) Just remember that even with objectively 5 times better parts lego could no produce a model that rivalled the performance of MOCs that are 8 years old! (when the Unimog released) this is even with changing the gearing for better crawling (unofficial B model). Not to flock a dead horse but I don't mean just the lack of wheel torque but the rickety barge levels of stability due to height and length and an un-sprung pendular front axle; with a turntable mounted so high the wheels do the shuffle when articulating, even the first traction engines used a pivot on the centreline of the wheels. I'm one of the ones who refuse to buy the set but am still checking bricklink everyday for the new elements. What are your planes for the new elements?

Why cant the front wishbones droop as much as the rear ones, cant you just lower the spring mounts as well as the steering racks (if the lack of droop is due to the steering rods maxing out)?

Its quite easy to put one of the grey clutch gears the wrong way round, this was a common error when the set released.

The top end / head is built stud down so the roof of the cylinder is smooth (same build as top of piston), then the head and case are clamped together from the outside with technic. The valves are driven via a vertical swing bar with a wheel that contacts with a regular technic cam driven off a gear train just above the crank, valve timing is adjusted via removing intermediate gears and the ignition timing is adjusted by turning its magnet arm (red tape) (its driven via a white friction gear). As for fuel I just tried what I had and found that aside from the solvent, and a pool of lighter fluid, the temperature was completely reasonable. After running for a few minutes (with a lot of help from the starter) the lego was far from melting so for the moment my moneys on simple gas fire lighter. But the main problem with fuel is not temp but the range of air/fuel ratios where combustion can occur due to the lack of any real carburation, when I tried propane it would fire about once every 30 seconds opposed to the gas fire lighter which is very close to self sustaining. Although if the engine can self sustain I would think it would not run for long, a few minutes perhaps, but due to the exhaust valves being a point of weakness the engine will stop before a real damage is done to the block. When I used the differential timing method (used on some GBCs) it shook its timing out and the timing became the same as an antilag cycle, the sound this made almost put me on the floor with laughter, imagine a little stationary engine hitting ak47 (potato gun) tune. When I make a video I will be sure to add this "error". Thanks for the interest.

finally added picks via flicker hope you find the fact its not a pool of rainbow collared goo impressive

lego engine 2 by michael waterfield, on Flickr lego engine 1 by michael waterfield, on Flickr lego piston head by michael waterfield, on Flickr About 2 months ago I started building said engine, single cylinder 4x4 bore 5 stud stroke (no glue), for the ignition I used a system made for model engines with magnetic based timing and powered it via the Lego rechargeable battery / wire from a dead motor. The first incarnation used gate style valves but they where sticky and lost a lot of pressure, so I switched to using technic caped axles through lego system which is amazingly air tight and looks/works like a real engine (4 valve total arranged in a flat head configuration). The valves originally had variable timing via two diffs but I later removed it not due to the resistance but retiming the engine every time got tedious fast (the ignition magnet was driven by the same gear train as the valves (1/2 from the crank, 12 tooth too 24). Now for interesting part the running, the area behind the valves is in a open top box and its this I spray the fuel into. O don't use solvent of any kind, with gas type lighter fluid lego holds up with no sigh of damage after a few minutes of inconsistent firing, but I ran out and due to crippling stupidity/laziness I just grabbed the next most flammable thing I had - a solvent spay. After less than 10 seconds firing on the starter motor (two xl gear up x5 about, 42 8) the engine slowed and when I opened it up both the exit valves had their caps melted and there was some waviness to the piston top. After replacing the axles and getting some more lighter spray I changed the flywheel from a geared up Unimog wheel to a aluminium pully about 8 cm across and 2cm deep. With this configuration the engine runs for a few seconds (yes without the starter connected) a few seconds after fuel is added no matter what I try I cant get the engine to run without these gaps in ignition, It seams like there is too much fuel and after a few cycles the fuels concentration becomes low enough for combustion, this is where I believe the most improvement can be made and yes I mean a working lego carburettor, or at least something better that my box method. While running the engine sounds like some of the first ic engines made, probably due to the bad burn and merely non zero compression. . Now I imagine most of you are curious how I got useable pressure containment and no hang-ups with a lego cylinder/piston without glue, gaskets or any modification to the lego , well unfortunately that is hard to explain even though it is ldr friendly its a bit unorthodox, but you can see in the pics. But during building the cylinder I put the piston in and blew in the other end and the piston went 4 feet across the room consistently. I plan to make a video as soon as I get more than a few seconds of ignition out of it (first running lego engine hello youtube gold). O and finally I made it four stoke due to it being easier to run at low rpms and my ptsd from nitro cars has yet to leave me. Any advice/interest? (hopefully I added pics correctly)