Hmm, correct...to control intake/outtake via modifying crankshafts´
timings to each other, you would ruin the even masses...

:-(

Am 08.03.2018 um 14:32 schrieb Jim. Felder:
> Raimund, that's an interesting observation. You might have to turn the rods
> around so the pistons face the other way to do that. I piston engines there
> is (always, usually?) a very slight offset on wrist pins so that the
> compression, combined with the dynamics of the moving piston and rotating
> crankshaft, even out the loads on the piston in the cylinder bore.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 7:27 AM Raimund Feussner <ray@v6bus.de> wrote:
>
>> The adjusting valves would disappear.
>>
>> So how can you control intake/outtake strokes? You would need to modify
>> the position of the opposing pistons to each other, maybe. That´s why I
>> thought of the tensioner. Like on Audi twin camshaft heads, which use an
>> oilpressure controlled tensioner (adjusting intake to outlet camshaft).
>>
>> David, I mean the ugly gear connecting both cranks...
>> The flywheel is only on the lower crank.
>>
>> However, since it´s a two stroke without camshafts, running it backwards
>> just needs a reversed starter motor.
>> Perfect for front-engine setups in rear-engine cars! The solution to all
>> our problems!
>>
>> Raimund
>>
>> Am 07.03.2018 um 22:10 schrieb Jim. Felder:
>>> I was thinking same as Raymond, that the moving parts in an OHV engine
>> are
>>> a lot of both the energy and manufacturing inefficiency of a traditional
>>> engine. I don't think a belt or anything else would work though, and
>> what's
>>> an extra gear or two? Transmissions are full of them, no problem really.
>>> The configuration shown in the video is probably not going to be the end
>> of
>>> the story if this design gets beyond the test bed stage and the best
>>> mechanical and manufacturing minds start pondering it. The only
>> concession
>>> to precision control mentioned in the video seems to be the boost, so I
>> am
>>> not sure variable piston relationships would be needed if that is so.
>>>
>>> Emissions? Don't know but it seems like 45% efficiency would be a great
>>> place to start from.
>>>
>>> Jim
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 2:18 PM Alistair Bell <albell@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bah humbug
>>>>
>>>> Just an updated and trimmed down version of Napier Deltic.
>>>>
>>>> :-)
>>>>
>>>> Alistair
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 7, 2018, at 8:48 AM, Jim. Felder <jim.felder@GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Everything is wrong with this new engine--opposed piston, combustion
>>>>> ignition, two-cycle. But check out the video and tell me--if it became
>>>>> popular—that you wouldn't want one in your Vanagon.
>>>>>
>>>>> <
>>>>>
>> https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/videos/radical-new-engine-makes-a-run-at-reality/?ftag=ACQ-00-10aaa5b&vndid=00e8ca988f7d01a748f9a28d57d69900d7
>>>>> Jim
>>