Quasi-turbine Engine

Post anything that doesn't belong in any other forum, including gaming and topics unrelated to motorsport. Site specific discussions should go in the site feedback forum.
sion_williams
sion_williams
0
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 6:12 pm

Quasi-turbine Engine

Post

I have been looking into this type of combustion and it seems very feesable, I cannot find much info on this but do not understand why this has not been developed further. I think it could provide an excellent alternative to the wankel and has everything necesary to be successful.

I would like to hear your views on this. For all who are thinking what the hell am I on about, heres a link http://quasiturbine.promci.qc.ca/ETypeCombustion.htm

DaveKillens
DaveKillens
54
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 3:02 am

Post

Well, this is a form of rotary engine, quite similar to the Wankel. It is possible the manufacturer's claims are valid, but even if so, I see a few disadvantages.
First off, of course, will the rules allow a rotary engine? Secondly, we already have the Wankel, which is now very well developed, puts out respectable power, and reliable.
So I make comparisons between this new quasi and the Wankel.
The quasi promises a continuous burn, without the need for spark plugs once idle is achieved. OK, maybe possible, but hey, having a spark plug isn't such a bad thing, especially since the quasi will still need a spark plug and associated equipment anyways, just to get it to start.
The Wankel has a one piece, solid rotor, while the quasi has a rotor consisting of a lot of moving parts. Personally, I like as few parts as possible, I consider them as just increased the likelyhood of something breaking.
I have scoured the quasi web site looking for direct comparisons between them, and although a lot of comparisons were made, very little numbers were mentioned. The best I could dig up was 14 HP and 25 ft/lb at 3000 RPM, from 200cc aspirated volume. This was calculations, with no real real world testing to verify the claims. Also, this was back in 1999, so I expect that in the six years of development since then, we should have seen an engine that should have matured and produced better power and reliability. But all I see are claims, and not much else.
It's a nice, and novel concept, and maybe one day could see large scale production. But until I see valid numbers, real world dyno results, this sceptic will stay with what works.

Apex
Apex
0
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 11:54 pm

Post

The fundamental problems of a rotary engine still apply this quasiturbine.

I feel that the main problem would be to seal these combustion chambers. The seals are the Achilles heel of the rotary engine. With a more complex rotor, with more degrees of freedom this problem is only worsened.

A ‘good’ way to reduce this sealing problem is to use a fuel with a higher lubricity, which brings in the emission standards problem! These things spew out more gunk than piston power.

As much as we may not like the idea of reciprocating things, I am afraid that when all has been (practical considerations especially) factored in the piston engine actually provides impressive results.

I am however a big fan of the rotary engine!

sion_williams
sion_williams
0
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 6:12 pm

Post

One advantage is that the quasi spins around a solid central axis, unlike the wankel where you have a centrifugal axis, this was a massive problem that zapped loads of power from the wankel.

Are there people here familiar with Ricardo WAVE? would it be possible to model the quasi on this program?

guest
guest
0

Post

Interesting idea,having more working strokes in less revolutions is a good thing, but it keeps all the disadvantages of the wankel engine in comparison of diesel or gasoline engines. These are: a lot of sliding part causing short lifetime; far not optimal combustion chamber causes really bad fuel consumption and catastrophic emission values.
And I dont see any advantage of having no spark plug. Igniting the mixture with flame from other chambers is going to be very-very difficult.

sion_williams
sion_williams
0
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 6:12 pm

Post

im sure if designed well the sliding parts wont be "that" big of a problem. On the other hand i agree with the point of having an odd shaped chamber will cause losses.

Is this a lost cause?

Apex
Apex
0
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 11:54 pm

Post

Is this a lost cause?
Well There is a reason why 99.999% of engines are piston....
I hate to sound negative but I would be surprised if this is economically viable.

As stated in the atrical, the shape of the combustion chamber can be made 'more ideal' than the standard wankel because the centre is not restricted by the shaft.