Skip to main content

Auto: Square Pistons

(Disclaimer: I am mostly ignorant of auto tech.)

Why must pistons be round? I'm guessing that it's because it's easy to machine something really accurately if its round, and there's probably also something to be said for even pressure distribution. However, I'm thinking that if you used a square piston with rounded corners, you could get a larger "cylinder" to fit in the same block without compromising the thickness of the walls.

Also, why must ports be round? I can imagine ports that are triangles with rounded corners. This could be used to tune how much air is allowed in or out as the piston is going up and down. This would be a tunable, just like a camshaft.


Square pistons are not the problem. The issues is how do you bore, polish and lap a square hole? The fact is you can't to the same tolerance on all 4 sides of the bore.
Mark Melvin said…
Why must pistons be round?

Because you would never make a seal otherwise. Fabricating a set of rounded-corner piston rings that sealed against the cylinder walls would be...well a challenge, I imagine.

Also, why must ports be round? I can imagine ports that are triangles with rounded corners. This could be used to tune how much air is allowed in or out as the piston is going up and down.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. How is it tunable? 4-cycle engines don't have "ports" in same the sense that 2-cycle engines do (well they have ports, but they are covered with valves that open and close - which are round). So do you mean triangular-shaped valves? If so, then again you'll have major sealing issues, and I still don't see how it could be tunable.
Perhaps you are referring to 2-cycle engine ports (which are in the cylinder walls) - in which case that is an interesting idea, but I think the general goal is to get as much stuff in as quick as possible, and to get it out just as fast, so the end result of your tuning would result in pretty much a big ole' rectangle. ;)
junklight said…
as JohnMc says way easier to make.

Also corners are weak points - that is where cracks and flaws will propagate from. An engine has constant explosions going on it - not a place for weaknesses.
Mike Lowe said…
There are a couple of reasons, and they all center around efficiency. There are 4 things that take away from the kinetic energy produced by the engine, by using a cylinder we can minimize some of them. The first is the friction from the piston rubbing against the cylinder wall. You can minimize this by reducing the area, but we know that reducing the area will mean reducing the perimeter of the cross section which also reduces the power output proportionately. So we use the geometric figure that has the greatest area with smallest perimeter - a circle. Another draw on KE is moving gasses that aren't involved in the combustion. If you take an atomizer and look at the cloud produced it is always conical. So the corners of the rectangle won't get fuel air mix and won't be involved in the combustion and wind up just being in the way. The hemi (as in hemispherical) engines are a good example, the hemisphere that is formed for the ignition chamber closely approximates the fuel air aerosol and produces the greatest efficiency and therefor the most power from equal displacements.

I don't know much about the efficiencies of manufacture, but I would imagine it would be very difficult to produce square corners with the rotary machine tools.

So the short answer is that it would produce a less efficient/less powerful engine at a higher cost.
jjinux said…
Thanks for humoring me with intelligent answers, guys. It's been something on the back of my mind for a couple years.
Varikin said…
Check out the rotary engine. It is different. The mazda rx line uses them.
jjinux said…
Anonymous said…
Same reason we don't have square windows on aircraft nowadays. The first passenger jetliner, the Comet had some "issues" with it's original windows:

Stress around the window corners was found to be much higher than expected, "probably over 40,000 psi," and stresses on the skin were generally more than previously expected or tested. This was due to stress concentration, a consequence of the window's square shape. ...The square windows of the Comet 1 were redesigned as oval for the Comet 2, which first flew in 1953.
jjinux said…
Wow! Such great comments!
Anonymous said…
This is what windows looked like on the original Comet. Interestingly, because of aggressive weight-reduction goals, windows on the latest passenger jets are becoming rounder than what they used to be:

The 777 also features larger, more rounded, windows than most other aircraft. The 777-style windows were later adopted on the 767-400ER and Boeing 747-8.

Popular posts from this blog

Ubuntu 20.04 on a 2015 15" MacBook Pro

I decided to give Ubuntu 20.04 a try on my 2015 15" MacBook Pro. I didn't actually install it; I just live booted from a USB thumb drive which was enough to try out everything I wanted. In summary, it's not perfect, and issues with my camera would prevent me from switching, but given the right hardware, I think it's a really viable option. The first thing I wanted to try was what would happen if I plugged in a non-HiDPI screen given that my laptop has a HiDPI screen. Without sub-pixel scaling, whatever scale rate I picked for one screen would apply to the other. However, once I turned on sub-pixel scaling, I was able to pick different scale rates for the internal and external displays. That looked ok. I tried plugging in and unplugging multiple times, and it didn't crash. I doubt it'd work with my Thunderbolt display at work, but it worked fine for my HDMI displays at home. I even plugged it into my TV, and it stuck to the 100% scaling I picked for the othe

ERNOS: Erlang Networked Operating System

I've been reading Dreaming in Code lately, and I really like it. If you're not a dreamer, you may safely skip the rest of this post ;) In Chapter 10, "Engineers and Artists", Alan Kay, John Backus, and Jaron Lanier really got me thinking. I've also been thinking a lot about Minix 3 , Erlang , and the original Lisp machine . The ideas are beginning to synthesize into something cohesive--more than just the sum of their parts. Now, I'm sure that many of these ideas have already been envisioned within , LLVM , Microsoft's Singularity project, or in some other place that I haven't managed to discover or fully read, but I'm going to blog them anyway. Rather than wax philosophical, let me just dump out some ideas: Start with Minix 3. It's a new microkernel, and it's meant for real use, unlike the original Minix. "This new OS is extremely small, with the part that runs in kernel mode under 4000 lines of executable code.&quo

Haskell or Erlang?

I've coded in both Erlang and Haskell. Erlang is practical, efficient, and useful. It's got a wonderful niche in the distributed world, and it has some real success stories such as CouchDB and Haskell is elegant and beautiful. It's been successful in various programming language competitions. I have some experience in both, but I'm thinking it's time to really commit to learning one of them on a professional level. They both have good books out now, and it's probably time I read one of those books cover to cover. My question is which? Back in 2000, Perl had established a real niche for systems administration, CGI, and text processing. The syntax wasn't exactly beautiful (unless you're into that sort of thing), but it was popular and mature. Python hadn't really become popular, nor did it really have a strong niche (at least as far as I could see). I went with Python because of its elegance, but since then, I've coded both p