adseguy

I didn't know where to put this and I didn't want to post in GDD so here was my next best place, please move if necessary.

We all know Rotary engines real weakness was emissions. It was because of the shape and way the combustion process happened that the rotary engine left more pollutants then a piston engine. I think it was the thermal efficiency of the rotary engine (correct me if I'm wrong). This is solved through a Quasiturbine engine. To quickly summarize the difference between this engine and the rotary, this one is able to adjust compression and achieves 4 combustions in one cycle. Aside from being efficient it also can produce amazing power because it can handle sustained detonation. It's called photo-detonation, but I'm not sure what they meant by that. If anyone can ellaborate on this that would be great. This also allows it to use many different types of fuels from gasoline to alcohol or even hydrogen.

Just wanted to see if we could get a nice discussion on this type of engine and it's real feasibility in the future

dornon13

man that is a crazy looking design sorry i dont really have any technical input but anything can happen i really like the idea of using hydrogen fuel i dont want to switch to electric cars i hate batteries

knockout

I hate rotary because, as you stated, they are so inefficient. I like the design of this engine, however I have 1 concern. It doesn't seem that these "carriages" would be able to expell all of the trapped contents of the openings. It definately looks more efficient to me than a rotary engine, but I'd have to see if the "carriages" would be able to remove most of the waste. I definately like the idea of alternate fuels though.

*Boostwerks*

So have they built, and/or tested any of these?

What about the seals? I've read that the rotories need to be rebuilt on average much sooner than piston engines, because of the seals wearing.

88hondahatch

very interesting concept, seems more effecient than a traditional rotary

Sonny

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by knockout &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I hate rotary because, as you stated, they are so inefficient. I like the design of this engine, however I have 1 concern. It doesn't seem that these "carriages" would be able to expell all of the trapped contents of the openings. It definately looks more efficient to me than a rotary engine, but I'd have to see if the "carriages" would be able to remove most of the waste. I definately like the idea of alternate fuels though. </TD></TR></TABLE>

Rotary engines are inefficient? News to me...

The new Renesis rotary in the RX-8 makes ~240 hp from 1.3 liters. If you consider that a rotary is more like a 2 stroke than a 4 stroke, you effectively double the displacement. So, ~240 hp from 2.6 liters. That's still over 90 hp/liter. Fuel economy is in the low to mid 20's.

This design looks very cool, but looks hard/expensive to fix if it f's up.

Sonny

*Boostwerks*

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Sonny &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">


This design looks very cool, but looks hard/expensive to fix if it f's up.

Sonny
</TD></TR></TABLE>

Exactly.

I just wonder how a 1.3L Quasiturbine engine would compare to the standard 1.3L Rotary, in all aspects. Looks horribly expesive to me though...

wantboost

iTrader: (2)

i think i speak for everyone on this forum when i ask " can we turbocharge it?"

i have one conern... with the large number of internal components that can move and what looks to be a bulky rotating assembly, wouldnt over-revving the motor become a major concern? i mean, high mass, high rev's lower durability?

*Boostwerks*

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by wantboost &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">i think i speak for everyone on this forum when i ask " can we turbocharge it?"

i have one conern... with the large number of internal components that can move and what looks to be a bulky rotating assembly, wouldnt over-revving the motor become a major concern? i mean, high mass, high rev's lower durability?</TD></TR></TABLE>

Indeed. Espeically if something is out of balance. It would only take one part slightly out of spec to kill a motor like this.

adseguy

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Bryson &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">So have they built, and/or tested any of these?

What about the seals? I've read that the rotories need to be rebuilt on average much sooner than piston engines, because of the seals wearing. </TD></TR></TABLE>

Yes they have one on a go kart at some University, but no specs that I could find as far as power output.


<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Sonny &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Rotary engines are inefficient? News to me...

The new Renesis rotary in the RX-8 makes ~240 hp from 1.3 liters. If you consider that a rotary is more like a 2 stroke than a 4 stroke, you effectively double the displacement. So, ~240 hp from 2.6 liters. That's still over 90 hp/liter. Fuel economy is in the low to mid 20's.

This design looks very cool, but looks hard/expensive to fix if it f's up.

Sonny
</TD></TR></TABLE>

it's emmisions that's the problem. They make great power becuase of the design, but in turn trades that for thermal efficiency and so it has a lot of unburnt fuel. It's actually pretty hard to make them pass emissions in the US versions.


<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by wantboost &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">i think i speak for everyone on this forum when i ask " can we turbocharge it?"

i have one conern... with the large number of internal components that can move and what looks to be a bulky rotating assembly, wouldnt over-revving the motor become a major concern? i mean, high mass, high rev's lower durability?</TD></TR></TABLE>

I see what you mean by the rotating mass, but rods take much more of a beating when in high revs then this motor will. Remember also that it will produce more power down low like rotary engines and so it may not need to rev high. Again this is all in the testing stages for now so all this has to be tested for those concerns you guys are pointing out.

-Trinitron-

So with the detonation at the top of a circular track, what initiates the rotating assembly forward to create the torque? When a piston is forced downward the crank has already begun to swing back down as it is forced down by the rod. I realize that this is a much more complex system but I just don't see how it could consistanly work...I guess that is why I am not an engineer!!!

Alcemades

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by -Trinitron- &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">So with the detonation at the top of a circular track, what initiates the rotating assembly forward to create the torque? When a piston is forced downward the crank has already begun to swing back down as it is forced down by the rod. I realize that this is a much more complex system but I just don't see how it could consistanly work...I guess that is why I am not an engineer!!!</TD></TR></TABLE>

Believe it or not this system is more simple than you may believe. Think of a jet engine. You should not think of a quasiturbine as a four stroke engine. Like a jet engine it preforms intake, compression, ignition, and expulsion all simultaniously. Therefore while one cycle is on intake, another cycle is forcing the injection with the ignition. This combined with the inertia of such a large rotating mass in the middle will mean continuous power and torque. A quasiturbine will be like having a jet engine in a car without the jet lag (a period of 1-5 seconds that it takes for the engine to spin up when you press the gas), and without the large amount of heat generated which led to the United States government not allowing jet engines in road vehicles.


Modified by Alcemades at 6:11 PM 8/22/2006

Alcemades

Furthermore, I believe that if the quasiturbine hits the streets, that it will be a diesel engine rather than a gasoline engine. This will mean that it will have higher torque from much lower rpm's. The quasiturbine isn't an all new design. It has been tried and tested in many compression related endeavors. Look at the name for instance. Quasiturbine. One of the first uses was as an actual steam turbine. Another indicator I have are the clues i've picked up from older research i've done on quasiturbines. While I havn't referenced any research, I can tell you that i've heard hints that it may be able to run on multiple fuel sources. Again I compare it to a jet engine here because a jet engine is the most versatile of engines we have today. It can run off of almost any oil based product plus some. It is a compression engine. I believe the Quasiturbine will run off of diesel because that is the current compression fuel at the pumps, but it will be quite versatile.

93supercoupe

I want more info and some real life testing

brad pitt

http://www.angellabsllc.com/
http://www.leftlanenews.com/20...hings/
looks like the same thing to me 858hp sick

b16a2delsol

crazy

Tactic$

The Angle labs motor is freakin amazing.

kulrevon

I don't think the myt will be a clean engine. if you look it won't efficently push all the spent air out. so when it starts the intake it will still have "dirty" air. I did alot of research on rotaries and thats why they were dirty the overlap. they moved the intake and exhuast to the sides of the rotor in the new 13bs.

EJ1 wilcox

I was going to say that I remember reading about these engines a while ago... then I saw that this thread is from a long time ago. lol

rdrnnr

It's called photo-detonation, but I'm not sure what they meant by that. If anyone can ellaborate on this that would be great.

photo detonation is better known as self detonation. but its a step above diesel. basically the fire "moves" from one cylinder to the next. the quasi is capable of burning any combustible fuel source or even running on compressed air. the engine was patented in 1997. the saint-hilaire family in general are rocket scientists. the quasi is designed as a hybrid/improvement of the piston, the steam and the turbine engines. power output is 10 to that of a comparible engine on the same fuel. it is also listed as the perfect engine to use for hydrogen. by calculation to power a pickup (235 hp) you would only need a quasi less than 8.5 x 11 and only 2 inches deep. also if you find a more recent diagram the center shaft has been enlarged and has splines rather than the slit of the original model. it was initially designed as an air pump. between the quasi design and hydrogen technology from the mid 1970s you would be looking at a more powerful, smaller engine, that wouldn't even cost for fuel.


yes i have been watching this engine for some time.
if it weren't for the patents i would have casted one some time ago.


Modified by rdrnnr at 4:03 PM 6/11/2008

rdrnnr

This design looks very cool, but looks hard/expensive to fix if it f's up.

Sonny

i am more than a little surprised to hear anyone familiar with cars say anything like that. how many moving parts does a traditional engine have. fuel injectors, throttle body, cams, lifters, valves, pistons, tie rods, crank shaft, oil pump, water pump, a/c pump, flywheel. what happens if any one of those parts go out??? and how many sensors does your current engine require? you can kiss off almost half your sensors, and you wouldn't need oil in the engine, so there goes that pump too, no tie rods getting compressed and yanked, there those go too. no cams, lifters, or valves, the list of parts just keeps going down. the only reason this engine needs the crankshaft is to transfer power out of the engine, and that doesn't take the up and down that piston cranks do. the first thought i had when i saw the designs on this engine 5 years ago is - how was this not the first engine ever created. exponentialy higher ability for compression, no need for timing, no need for traditional lubrication, air cooled/ or circulate coolant for your vehicle heater. and the list goes on and on. i still can't believe how simple this engine is