Jump to content


admin (Simon W)

Recommended Posts

I found this very interesting indeed :-) 

Link to full document below. 

Technical description: 

This invention particularly deals with reducing the velocity with which the exhaust gases are released 
from the combustion chamber to the atmosphere, thereby reducing the noise created by sudden 
expansion of exhaust gases. 

The time for which the exhaust port remains open is around 135 degrees of the crank angle. At this 
stage of 135 degrees of crank angle the exhaust gases are forced out of the combustion chamber into 
the atmosphere creating sudden expansion of gases. The so proposed invention uses the rest of the 
time (i.e. the remaining 225 degrees of the crank angle) in addition to the available 135 degrees to 
control, regulate the exhaust gases flow. This is done with the help of an ‘exhaust gas reservoir’ and a 
series of ‘valve arrangement’ to control, regulate the flow of the exhaust gases. 

Referring to port timing diagram of a common two stroke engine




Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting article but from reading it the chamber will go between the exhaust port and the expansion chamber. The problem I can see with this is it will severely hinder effectiveness of the expansion pipe. From my book leanings the expansion pipe is designed to produce the high gas velocity/low presure entering the widest part which in turn creates high backpressure front as the pipe narrows again to push some of the unburnt charge back into the cylinder.

If there is a large void between the two what would stop working surely?


Ref:  Tuning for speed. Phil Irvine (1960)


Great book for getting right back to basics. When I was racing 2 strokes and building my own pipes it was my reference as it contains all the calculations needed.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really really interesting. I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a trade off between performance/efficiency and additional noise reduction (isn’t there always?!).

That said, I think one of the biggest issues our sport has in terms of engagement with local communities is noise pollution. The way I see it is if we can significantly reduce that (perhaps at a small cost to performance or efficiency) then there could certainly be a big benefit in being responsible pilots. 

Will take a better read of it later so my hobby mechanic skills can be overwhelmed :P 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Virtually any interference of the exhaust gases causes loss of power due to the additional back-pressure cause by such means. This is why we often have straight through arrangements with holes through to cushioning material in a surrounding silencer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me it depends on the cost both literally - what it would cost to modify existing engines and what performance loss against noise reduction gain. 

Silent Paramotors are obviously the snake oil as like you said, the prop will make noise but if there is a quieter engine that doesn’t sound like, as someone put it - a dirt bike in the sky for a performance loss I can deal with. I’d be happy. 

Would love to jump onboard with electric Paramotors but I feel it’s the same lifecycle as electric cars - early gen will be/are low distance and high recharge time which will both improve with tech.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...