The AUTOSPORT Bulletin Board > Quasiturbine Engines

The AUTOSPORT Bulletin Board > Forums > The Technical Forum

PAGATRON

Sep 16 2009, 12:23

Been surfing the interweb on this, even though is in the prototype stage it seems to have a lot of potential.

QUOTE (wikipedia)

* Cylinder ports in place of valves reduce the number of moving parts, in common with the Wankel engine and some two stroke engines.
* The carriages keep the seals almost perpendicular to the cylinder walls, in contrast to the Wankel engine where the angle varies plus and minus 60°.
* The rotor can be designed so its centre of gravity remains stationary or nearly so, minimising vibration.
* Sixteen strokes per revolution of the rotor, as opposed to twelve for a single-rotor Wankel engine and two for a revolution of the crankshaft of a single-cylinder single-acting piston engine.

What do you folks think?

cheapracer

Sep 16 2009, 12:39

QUOTE (PAGATRON™ @ Sep 16 2009, 20:23)

Been surfing the interweb on this, even though is in the prototype stage it seems to have a lot of potential.

What do you folks think?

wow.

PAGATRON

Sep 16 2009, 13:44

Wow?

cheapracer

Sep 16 2009, 13:54

No, not Wow, I said "wow" - note the small case and lack of exclamation mark?.

Waste of time, the rotary in any form was dead a long time ago, Mazda spent billions of Yen because they couldn't go backwards with what they had invested and it broke them to give you an overweight, underpowered, heavy on fuel, unreliable short lifed engine that you have today.

Now with those facts in hand do you really think a backyarder can improve on it when they face the age old surface to volume problems? The age old side seal problems?

Damn the computer and 3D software, it has done so much to kill real innovation in the area of new engine design.

When you post about something it's good ediquette to also provide a link.

PAGATRON

Sep 16 2009, 14:29

OK here's the the full wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasiturbine

Again on the how stuff works site:

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

And here's it's home page:

http://quasiturbine.promci.qc.ca/

dosco

Sep 16 2009, 19:29

QUOTE (PAGATRON™ @ Sep 16 2009, 10:29)

I read the wiki page.

QUOTE

The main problems with this design are

it has far more moving parts than the Wankel engine
it has never been shown to work as an internal combustion engine
for all other possible uses there are many other designs that are more reliable and function more efficiently

That inspires some confidence.

Plus the wiki page reads a lot like the stuff from the Scuderi guys ... friggin snake oil salesmen.

Greg Locock

Sep 16 2009, 23:21

Scuderi does have the advantage of being a workable concept, a close relative has been in production for something like 40 years in Europe. Whether it then qualifies as innovative is another matter.

Quite why anyone thinks a contraption like the Quasiturbine will run happily as an IC engine is beyond me. Of course any compessor/expander can be made to go round with enough fuel, sparks and high pressure air injected at the right time, but just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Canuck

Sep 17 2009, 02:10

QUOTE (Greg Locock @ Sep 16 2009, 17:21)

just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Felt that way about some of the women that passed through my life. I generally did it anyway.

PAGATRON

Sep 17 2009, 08:03

Oh well, looks like were stuck with the good old pistons then.

dosco

Sep 17 2009, 17:10

QUOTE (Greg Locock @ Sep 16 2009, 19:21)

Scuderi does have the advantage of being a workable concept, a close relative has been in production for something like 40 years in Europe. Whether it then qualifies as innovative is another matter.

Indeed. A friend swears up and down that the Scuderi engine will "revolutionize" IC engines. Ugh.

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.