"Quasiturbine" aka. elaborated rotary.

[Dv8]

Quasiturbine

Makes an interesting read. I still don't know why they would elaborate on the new rotaries. The 'chain' idea seems a bit sketch to me.

[accordaffair]

http://www.cb7tuner.com/vbb/showthre...0&page=1&pp=20

Check out about halfway down the first page, and I posted the link to the video

[93EXaesthetic]

Quasiturbine

Makes an interesting read. I still don't know why they would elaborate on the new rotaries. The 'chain' idea seems a bit sketch to me.

nice post....the saint hillaire <sp> family may get really rich in the next 20 years...

made me think about the future of cars by reading that...

yeah the combustion engine has had 120 years of progress...lets see what the quasiturine will be in 20 years..pretty intresting concept.

also the engine requires no oil..that was the awesome part...no oil...guess we wont have to invade the middle east again if these cars get put into mass production.

[accordaffair]

right, and it can run on a good variety of alternative fuels including hydrogen, which has been gaining notoriety. This gives me some hopes of dropping dependence on petrol.

But if we all have to give up the gas engine...its no problem for new vehicles, but give me a way to retrofit it into my CB

Then again...is a CB really a CB without an f22 or an H22 powering it?

[93EXaesthetic]

right, and it can run on a good variety of alternative fuels including hydrogen, which has been gaining notoriety. This gives me some hopes of dropping dependence on petrol.

But if we all have to give up the gas engine...its no problem for new vehicles, but give me a way to retrofit it into my CB

Then again...is a CB really a CB without an f22 or an H22 powering it?

hmm maybe ill keep the cb7 until .. 1) gas is too expensive..... or 2) the put out a high performance hydrogen car....(10 years down the road?)

damn i want to get a 350z when do you think alternative fuel powered cars are gonna be in every garage or on there way?... 2015..thats my guess

[accordaffair]

well, petrol companies don't want us to pursue alt. fuel options, unless they are the ones profiting, toyota said recently if we want to drop our dependence on foreign oil, its up to auto manufacturers, not the pres. to make it happen. But auto manufac. are heavily pressured by big oil not to pursue alt fuel I would imagine. Sweden recently said it would drop its dependence on oil within the next 15 years.
http://www.belleville.com/mld/bellev...s/13818721.htm
I don't know if thats realistic or not, but hell at least they're trying. Put your foot down and say "It will be done" instead of trying to ignore it hoping it will go away. It's not much of an option anyway, oil will run dry, we will move on, it will happen likely in our lifetime. We're writing the history books everyday.

[93EXaesthetic]

yeah that is pretty bold of sweden...........

but america wont buy a hydrogen car unless.......1)your a tree hugger 2) it runs a 13 in the 1/4 mile time or 3) your a geek <in a positive way>

[owequitit]

Hydrogen Fuel is a fallacy. It could be a feasible technology, don't get me wrong. But it will require substantial infrastructure changes before it is truly effective. As it stands right now, it is a technolgy that overpromises and will under deliver due to the infrastructure behind it.

I will elaborate when I have the time and energy.

[owequitit]

The quasi-turbine does have some potential, but it also has some hurdles to cross. There are a couple of mechanical issues there. It will either have a low low redline like a diesel, which will also offset some of the potential power gain, or those little rollers will be hauling ass to the tune of many many thousands of RPMs, which is gonna fry bearings, or at least present a severe wear challange.

1)While the specific power production is high, you have a lot of rotating mass for the amount of mass that is directly related to making power. Gas turbines have the same problem, that is one reason why they really don't like to be accelerated and decelerated rapidly or frequently. This is one of the main reasons they were never put into cars. It causes extreme wear. You are dealing with smaller masses here, but we will see. It would probably be more akin to a rotary.

2) It is a constant combustion engine. That is good from the perspective of total power output from a given amount of work put in, but it also does not contribute to fuel economy. I am assuming that since it can work based on detonation, they will probably end up throttling it like a diesel or gas turbine and use the amount of fuel injected to control engine speed. This works to a point, but once you lean it out so much, the mixture will "flame out" the spark plug can be used to help delay this problem, and probably wouldn't end up working much different than a diesel. They could probably even use a glow plug.

While at part throttle though, you still have to fuel the engine enough to keep it running. Since we are making 4 power strokes per revolution vs 2, we are basically spending twice as much fuel (based on equal displacement) just to keep the vehicle running, even though we aren't using anymore power to maintain a speed, say 25MPH, which is going to decrease fuel economy and waste more energy than we were with a piston engine. This is one reason rotaries do not acheive the same gas mileage as a piston engine. They produce 2 power strokes to a piston engines 1, which means we burned an extra stroke's worth of fuel even though we didn't need to.

Theoretically, we can run the engine at 1/2 the speed of the piston engine, and achieve the same results. Realistically, there will be a minimum idle speed to make everything happen, and I doubt that it will be 1/2 of a normal piston engine. How are we going to decrease our dependence on foreign oil if we are burning and wasting more of it? Yeah there are "alternative" fuels, but they bring along their own sets of challenges.

Also, a horrible byproduct of high temperature complete combustion are NOx emmisions. These are perhaps the nastiest emmision of all, and the more complete combustion you acheive the higher the percentage of these babies in your exhaust.

Technically a 4 banger is not a constant combustion engine, but there is always a power stroke occuring, it is just occuring in each cylinder once every other revolution.

I understand what they are getting at, but most of the smoothness benefits will come from not hurtling pistons up a bore, stopping them suddenly, causing an explosion and then hurtling them back down and stopping them again. The fact that it is using rotary motion is the main reason here.

Again, this is why rotaries and gas turbines are so smooth.

3) How are you going to oil and cool that thing? It will get hot and need cooled and it will especially need lubricated, so how do we get those fluids around? I am sure there will be solutions, but what might they be? Theoretically, they say it won't need much, but what about those rollers on the chamber walls? Do you have any idea how much friction that will cause at anything resembling the RPMs of a pistion engine? It is going to need to be oiled.

What might the force of combustion do to those little pivots in there, they look pretty structurally similar in construction and size to a wrist pin. We all know what can happen to a wrist pin if it doesn't like the angles, so what happens if we try to produce a lot of power with this thing?

4) Even though many people feel that the piston engine is an antiquated turd, that isn't justification for burning up all of the knowledge that we have gained from it.

For instance: a flame propogates most effectively and effeciently in a certain manner, under certain conditions, even when detonating. Do we think that perhaps this engine that is depending on the expansion of a gas in a chamber to drive this thing around in a circle might not benefit from the same knowledge a piston engine would? Look how much it increased the power and efficiency of turd like the piston engine!

How about gas flow technology. This more than anything has been responsible for increases. We discovered that the air pulses of one exhaust cycle could be harnessed to greatly improve the effeciency of another intake cycle. This design doesn't seem to be able to take advantage of that. At least not yet.

I am not saying the technology isn't feasible, but it will have to develop just like the piston engine has. I don't care what anybody says, it isn't all promises and deliverance. It has its fair share of disadvantages just like every other mechanical system that has ever been designed, built or dreamed of.

[owequitit]

http://personal.riverusers.com/~yawpower/techindx.html

Here is a link to a couple of really well written articles dealing with gas flow. Specifically he is dealing with a rotary, but the theory applies to a regular recip as well.

[accordaffair]

Also, a horrible byproduct of high temperature complete combustion are NOx emmisions. These are perhaps the nastiest emmision of all, and the more complete combustion you acheive the higher the percentage of these babies in your exhaust.

Quasiturbine engines with carriages work on the same basic idea as this simple design, with added design modifications that allow for photo-detonation. Photo-detonation is a superior combustion mode that requires more compression and greater sturdiness than piston or rotary engines can provide. In Type IV, the best attributes of gasoline and diesel engines are combined. A premixed fuel-air charge undergoes tremendous compression until the fuel self-ignites. This is what happens in a photo-detonation engine, and because it employs a homogenous charge and compression ignition, it is often described as an HCCI engine. HCCI (Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition) combustion results in virtually no emissions and superior fuel efficiency. This is because photo-detonation engines completely combust the fuel, leaving behind no hydrocarbons to be treated by a catalytic converter or simply expelled into the air.

So does complete combustion leave alot of hydrocarbons or none?
Also, they mention it accepts just about any fuel and if you use synthetic lubricant that should ixnay petrol usage.

The many little moving parts was really my first concern...I see what you're saying about idle though, even though standard piston engines have like what 70% dead time? Having 0 dead time really means you're burning more fuel per hour or per minute or whatever, but how how of an idle (rpm) can be run with one of these? Piston engines never seem to like going below say 500 without dieing...

[lil_dcb7]

cool design with potentia, yes!

but can it move?



http://quasiturbine.promci.qc.ca/QTV...kart1divx5.avi


I'd boost the sonofa beyotch!

[93EXaesthetic]

cool design with potentia, yes!

but can it move?



http://quasiturbine.promci.qc.ca/QTV...kart1divx5.avi


I'd boost the sonofa beyotch!

lol....

did the model T move?...this is the 1st gen of engines..

[owequitit]

So does complete combustion leave alot of hydrocarbons or none?
Also, they mention it accepts just about any fuel and if you use synthetic lubricant that should ixnay petrol usage.

The many little moving parts was really my first concern...I see what you're saying about idle though, even though standard piston engines have like what 70% dead time? Having 0 dead time really means you're burning more fuel per hour or per minute or whatever, but how how of an idle (rpm) can be run with one of these? Piston engines never seem to like going below say 500 without dieing...

Complete combustion leaves fewer hydrocarbons, but more Nitrous Oxide emmissions or NOx. The NOx is one the main components of smog, acid rain and many other nasty things we associate with tailpipe emmisions. It is just nasty, and the reason they invented the 3 way cat.

Gas turbines are a prime example. Modern gas turbine engines (737-300 to 900, 777, A380, all operate at about 98% of their Carnot efficiency (the theoretical maximum thermodynamic efficiency of that particular engine) at cruise speeds.

They are operating with compression ratios of 30:1 and higher in some cases. They are dealing with temperatures so hot, that they have had to invent special alloys that wouldn't melt under the heat (in excess of 2,000 degrees in some cases). There isn't a lot of head room left to improve on the amount of power vs fuel burned. They pump out so many NOx particles that it would make a rather large fleet of old cars look squeakee clean.

As far as alternative fuels go, in the short term, it ain't gonna happen. Too many little things going on, too many production issues, too many technical hurtles. Besides, everybody bags on gasoline. Everytime you fart, you are releasing unburned hydrocarbons into the atmosphere. Natural Processes(feces, flatulence, plant matter decay, dead body decay etc etc) produces more greenhouse gasses by far than every single car on the planet added together running 24/7. Unless you are gonna convince the cows to stop farting, we aren't gonna stop greenhouse gasses or unburned hydrocarbons from entering the atmosphere.

The other problem with producing alternative fuels, is that most of the production processes use electricity. News Flash: most of our electricity is produced by burning fossil fuels (oil, coal, gas, natural gas, etc etc etc). Since the Laws of Thermodynamics say we can't do anything at 100% efficiency, we have to burn more energy than one car will use in order to produce enough energy for one car to use...

That is just to make the energy for the car, then we lose some when we turn the turbine that turns the generator, we have to step it up to transmit it (we lose more there), we lose more in the transmission, we lose more when we step it back down so that we can use it, and we lose more when we use it to produce our alternate fuel. So in order to get the energy to make the fuel for the car, we have to burn what; twice the energy that the car fuel contains? To make the same amount of energy that would be contained in 1 gallon of gas, we have to burn what 2 gallons, 1.5? We have still burned it, which means the pollution is in the air. So basically, we put 1.5 gallons of gas worth of pollution in the atmosphere so that we don't have to feel guilty about burning one gallon in our car...

Call me stupid, but that just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

If it was a clean renewable source of energy, then fine. Even if it was Nuclear generated, at least nuclear fuel has such a high energy density that we produce very little waste for UBER DUBER Giggawats of power.

Luckily, our stupid and sensationalist media has convinced the average joe that nuclear power is unsafe and will kill us all.

I am currently doing some research for a write up on here about alternative fuels, power production, and why alternative fuels are not feasible right now in the current status of the US. There is a lot of grim news below the glossy veneer. Without being politically active (before anybody starts accusing), a lot of it is being sold as a miracle technology that will "stop our dependence on foreign oil." Not immediately it won't, and not without beucoup spending and major paradigm shifts in this country.

As far as the complexity of the engine goes, I agree, it seems awfully complex to be feasible. That's just an opinion, but one of the beauties of the engine this thing supposedly improves is its simplicity. I basically have about 14 parts with 3 of them moving in a rotary (2 rotor). This has more than that, just counting the mechanism that runs the carriages around the NASCAR track. Plus how are we going to seal and separate everything? I assume that is what that little seal in the middle of the carriages is. I am skeptical. Again, just an opinion.

With a 4 stroke piston engine, you have 75% "dead time" (one stroke out of every four actually produces usable energy).

A good case in point with the idle problem is the rotary. It it is continuously producing power, but it can't idle any slower. That means that we are wasting more unneeded energy than a piston engine. Isn't that the complaint with the piston engine in the first place? The needless waste of energy due to inefficiency? How does burning more fuel under the same circumstances improve this? It could be argued that by reducing the displacement (which we can do with the greater power density) we can offset the increase, but again it won't be a linear relationship and displacement is an empirical formula anyway. If a 1.3 liter Wankel was measured using the same standards as a piston engine, it would actually displace 2.6 liters. That changes the ball game, doesn't it?

The original argument for the rotary was that it was so much more efficient that the OEMs would have no choice but to put them in EVERY car because otherwise they wouldn't be competitive. All the OEMs bought rights to develop it. Some even had plans to produce it. At one point Mazda had a rotary powered version of every car, including a pickup truck! Fairly quickly the realities of the technology revealed themselves. Luckily, Mazda realized that it wasn't feasible for every car, but that it made a superb sports car engine. Everyone else pretty much abandoned them.

Even though many people assume that OEM's still use reciprocating piston engines because all companies are cheap bastards and want big bonuses, that just isn't true. It neglects the fundamental principles of Capitalism (which are proven to work, by the way) and discounts the market driven necessity to one up the competition. Why are CB7s so much nicer and more capable than the generation before? Because in order to keep selling 450,000 Accords per year in the US they had to be better than the other guy. OEM's spend BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of dollars every year to try and make technology like this work so they can gain a leg up on the competition.

Just a theory, but maybe OEMs are still using reciprocating piston engines because nothing better has come along yet (fuel cells are close, but still quite a ways off).

[accordaffair]

Whew what a read! Lots of information there.