Orb

iTrader: (3)

Perhaps some have already heard about this engine design but being a rotary fan I thought this was extremely interesting!

It's an advanced rotary design patented in 1996.

Sure would like to throw one of these into my 85 GSL!!!

http://www.quasiturbine.com

Hyper4mance2k

iTrader: (40)

To me it looks as though it would have the same inharent design flaws as a otto cycle engine that the wankel has. unless the exhuast and intake ports were moved to the side housings.

Tranquil

iTrader: (1)

Its not the first time that link has popped up around here. There was a great debate over it and the general consensus was that since it has the same flaws and few to no pros then why bother?

Wankel for life!

ch0g0nda

Why seperate stages for both compression and combustion?

(sorry if the answer is on the page somewhere; just a little uninterested today)

chairchild

it's a mixture of a piston and a rotary engine - with extra complications thrown in!

Orb

iTrader: (3)

I've been reading about the Quasiturbine all morning (5+ hrs) and I have to say it really sounds promising!

It's design overcomes some of the shortcomings of both rotary and piston engines.
FAR fewer moving parts the a piston engine and only slightly more the a rotary.
Virtually no oil requirements to speak of!!!

***
Uses Photo-Detonation.
***
Piston and Rotary engines can't handle the extreme forces involved with Photo-Detonation!
Yes, they can be made to work but the Quasiturbine is more efficient in doing so.

Also, hydrogen burns at about 8ft/sec while the standard piston at 2000rpm is moving downward at around 45ft/sec which makes burning hydrogen in a piston engine limit the rpm to very low requirements.
As above, piston and rotary's can burn hydrogen also but again the Quasiturbine seems to do so more efficiently.

Before replying and shooting down the Quasiturbine type of engine, spend a few hrs studing how it works and why it makes sense!

Read this article in particular. Only takes about 20min and gives a very user friendly and easy to understand explanation of how it works and why it is a very promising engine type!

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/quasiturbine.htm

Seriously, read the above article!!!

Please keep in mind that the piston engine has been around for over 120 yrs allowing for many advancements in it's design.
The Quasiturbine has NOT been around very long and so is still in it's infancy allowing for many advancements in it's design and workings.

Which is why I think the Quasiturbine has a very promising furture.

Thanks,
Orb

ericgrau

iTrader: (1)

Nope, supposedly the engine overcomes the flaws of both! That's the goal anyway. Low cooling necessary, higher fuel economy than a hybrid, better power to weight than a Wankel, low emissions.

ApG Spaz

do they have actual running quasiturbine engines? or just thoeretical models? cause i can say my model of engine can do a good 900hp at 50mpg, but unless the engines there to back it, then whats the point. i searched a good while when it came into discussion a while back, and couldnt find any aplication of the model.

Tyrael6666

From what I get out of this, it should make more torque and power than the wankel design. However they don't directly mention their own flaws, and from the way they say it fires 16 jointed times per revolution it means a LOT of gasoline. Could you imagine having 16 completed strokes per revolution? No matter what you run it on, as it says is pretty universal in what you can feed to the engine, you are going to eat a lot of it. 8 Miles per gallon in a nicely suited 12a is going to seem amazing compared to the quasiturbine (or so it sounds to me). Also they neglect to mention anything about their seals, all the strain that those must go through in their life, who knows how long even well manufactured seals for the engine will last.

Then theres the one with the "carriages", could you imagine the strain those moving parts will go through? Just another part that needs replacing, which will obviously not be cheap, seeing as our parts are already expensive enough, and our engine is fairly maintream.

So to conclude, this engine is probably quite efficient, it certainly looks to be. Maybe gas mileage isn't that bad, I'm not entirely sure, it just doesn't look that way. The engine makes me think it in terms of "The V8 of rotaries" only difference being that we already eat as much gas as most V8s, if not more. And finally, its probably not cost effective, simply due to the price of replacement parts, and especially with those carriages if they break, who knows what internal damage it would cause to the engine itself, similarly to if one of our apex seals were to chip off inside the housing.

But who knows what the future holds. =)

ericgrau

iTrader: (1)

There is a pneumatic prototype (runs on compressed air). No gasoline or diesel version yet.

The engine is more fuel efficient than a piston engine because the housing is completely reshapable (e.g., you can make it the ideal shape or any other). The Wankel housing must be a certain shape, which is part of the reason why it gets bad gas mileage. Strokes per revolution does not affect gas mileage. All that means is that the engine is a low rpm engine. The version of the engine with carriages can withstand detonation. So what? Intentional detonation removes the need for a throttle valve, since you can lean out the mixture instead. So what? The engine must fight against a vacuum creating by the partially closed throttle valve. This is why big engines get worse fuel economy than small engines - less throttle during normal operation. Suddenly your sports car gets the freeway mpg of a hybrid.

The force against the seals in this engine is low, because the rotor rotates on center unlike the off-center rotor in the Wankel.

The engine is supposed to be quite reliable due to the zero vibration (on-center rotor) and low number of moving parts (compared to a piston engine; a Wankel has even less moving parts).

3sand7s

iTrader: (1)

check this out : www.angellabsllc.com

chedda_j

that is amazing.......only 4 inches big.....and 500 hp **** me...that amazing..

ericgrau

iTrader: (1)

A couple problem with the Angel Labs engine: (see animation) What keeps the red paddle from moving backwards while the blue paddle is moving forward? A ratchet? That must be some beefy ratchet.

What moves both paddles forward in between sparks? A second engine? A flywheel? Okay, that's been done before, but then the movement between sparks wouldn't look like the animation. It'd be jerkier. How do you connect the 4 parts of the blue paddle without interferring with the red paddle? Seals, right? Those seals seem kind of complicated.

It still seems doable, I'm just saying.

GavinJuice

wow.....anyone else having problems with this movie? LA Auto Show video #2 http://www.angellabsllc.com/video/autoShowVideo2.wmv

vipernicus42

iTrader: (4)

Let's take a look at the "pros" listed on howstuffworks for this engine

* Zero vibration because the engine is perfectly balanced

- Same with the rotary. Of course general mass production means that there will be *some* imbalance, and some vibration, just like the rotary, but tuners will re-balance their engine for racing.


* Faster acceleration without a flywheel

- Without a flywheel? This is an engine, not a transmission. It will have to have *some* sort of flywheel to interface with its transmission. Maybe I missed the part where the engine becomes a tranny, but what the?

* Higher torque at lower rpm

Can't blast that one, I'd just have to see it.

* Nearly oil-free operation

- Yeah right, it's got 4 "apex seals" in one model, and countless touching parts in the other. Oil injection like our OMP will be a must. They're going on the assumption that with perfectly sized and shaped components the math says they wouldn't need to "take up the slack" so to speak. The same is true for the rotary, but I've yet to see anyone make a successful production (or even prototype) rotary without apex seals.

* Less noise

- If they're talking exhaust I'm all for it. If they're talking about the typical "noise" associated with things like lifters, valves, etc.. we already don't have it

* Complete flexibility to operate completely submerged or in any orientation, even upside-down

- Assuming it's FI, a rotary can do the same. You just have to find a way to get it air/fuel while it's under water.

* Fewer moving parts for less wear and tear

- Looks like more than a rotor and 3 apex seals to me.


Yeah it's promising, but I'd hate to see what carbon buildup does to the parts in that thing... It looks good on paper, but it's gonna take a helluva lot of work to make it a reality, and I don't see what the advantages are over the wankel, *other* than the supposed better effeciency from longer chamber length.

Jon

Nicholas P.

iTrader: (1)

Its a airplane engine!........................................... ...................



Its actually a good idea, but wheres the torqe...


It keeps the rotary alive