I will put some pictures together over the next couple of days on the combustion chamber shape and yes, the spark plug is in the centre. it is basically still a pent roof but the two rotors do have a little bit if a lead into and out of the combustion chamber which was a bit of a compromise at first but after a little work, we managed to make it so that the shape was acceptable and the piston could still be flat and still get to over 15:1 if we wanted, although we settled on 12.5:1.
N Smikle, I would love to see some imagise of what you came up with. Can you post them on here for me to look at and we can discuss the difference regarding my design and yours. I am interested in the problem you had on strength of the head.
Interesting technology.
2007 and no applications that I have seen.
The problems for other than racing may be the stumbling block.
I still think sleeve valves, that were fully proven in aviation engines are a far better direction.
I do hope that more open regulations in F1 will allow these technologies to be applied. Without them the ic F1 engine in 2013/15 will look very very ancient.
Marc Birkigt of Hispano-Suiza invented the DOHC 4-valve layout around 1912. Direct injection has been around forever, though F1 regs have fuel shot into the top of the velocity stack. Pneumatic valves are nothing new and have little use elsewhere. The current engine is not much more than electronically regulated 70-year-old technology.
Bring on the rotary valve and alternative cycle engines. Wouldn't the attention from genuine engineering advancement be good for F1? Why have they been banned for so long?
Heaven: Where the cooks are French, the police are British, the lovers are Greek, the mechanics are German, and it is all organized by the Swiss.
Hell: Where the cooks are British, the police are German, the lovers are Swiss, the mechanics are French, and it is all organized by the Greeks.
Well, again, going back to my point earlier, any engineering project I have been involved in over hte last 20 years has beenm at best, 60% politics.
A good idea has never got in the way of a stupid poilitical point.
and this is why I am doing this on my own this time. No big outside company helping us out. no timetables. no hidden adgenda. Just a good idea and pure engineering reasons to bring something to a conclusion that should have been done years ago before we all get forced to run around in battary powered boring silent soulless vehicles that have no passion or breeding.
And no, I am not against green issues. I think we should use sustainable liquied fuels that we can grow from the ground. Lubricants that we can do the same with and an engine that can move to those resources when they become financially viable. I an going to make this thing clean of both polution AND POLITICS which is far more difficult. Lets see if I can do it without some pen pusher stopping me. The results will have to be engineeringly irrifutable to stop the arguments.
Marc Birkigt of Hispano-Suiza invented the DOHC 4-valve layout around 1912. Direct injection has been around forever, though F1 regs have fuel shot into the top of the velocity stack. Pneumatic valves are nothing new and have little use elsewhere. The current engine is not much more than electronically regulated 70-year-old technology.
Bring on the rotary valve and alternative cycle engines. Wouldn't the attention from genuine engineering advancement be good for F1? Why have they been banned for so long?
the wheel has been around forever to and we still use that darn thing
I agree with using something when it is at the Zenith of it's development and you are right, something that goes round and round is better than something that goes thump, thump. Cams and poppet valves can be bettered, the wheel, in the most part, can't.
I am not going to split hairs by talking about tank tracks or rotary engines but all I am saying that current technology is so out of date that the term F1 should also mean peek of technical achievment and due to politics, it isn't.
I am not intending to "re-invent the wheel" to coin a phrase, just the valve train to make current vehicles cleaner, cheaper to produce and give the internal combustion engine a longer leese of life.
Wheels are indeed erfect, cams are lumpy and old fashioned. A Wheeled valve is surely better as wheels have been around for ever and we still use them. Cams have had thier day. We only used them while we figured out how to make better ideas work reliability.
I an going to make this thing clean of both polution AND POLITICS which is far more difficult. Lets see if I can do it without some pen pusher stopping me. ....
With money comes politics, and this is going to need a lot of money.
Good luck though, this is very interesting indeed and I look forward to the development of this system and thread.
rotaryvalveman, you need to be careful and firstly find the position of the pruduct withing the market, make sure it doesn't turn in to a crusade.
You for sure need to design the system to be able to deal with current emission related ideas such as EGR and the like.
I also think you might be surprised when you start getting some data through for a running engine in terms of emissions. My concern would be on an engine like this is the pumping losses due to higher flow coefficients through the valve-train area.
Areas being utilized to improve emissions and efficiency is having very poor torque at low throttle openings to force a larger throttle opening to achieve the desired torque, the exact opposite to what people might think.
Anyway, just a small heads-up about what you might expect to find.
F1_eng.
Thanks for the advice. that is one area we are interested in learning about. It is interesting that some of the biggest names in engine development shyed away from trying to predict these kind of things but finding out will be good.
If I can beat current fuel economy and emmision levels even by a small amount and run for 100KLS then I will be happy. If no one takes it up then, hey, I did my bit.
The crusade side of it was easy to fall into last time. this time it is just finishing what I started and proving we were right. At least I will drive one around until I retire from driving. I have learnt to seperate emotion from business so I will do what I can as and when I can aford it but I don't think, as an independant, it will cost as much as people think. For example, the first time some company spent more on the feasability study than I did on the first three prototypes and that includes the cost of the bike that we ran it in.
rotaryvalveman wrote:
N Smikle, I would love to see some imagise of what you came up with. Can you post them on here for me to look at and we can discuss the difference regarding my design and yours. I am interested in the problem you had on strength of the head.
I have seen the thread with the pictures of your SolidWorks drawings and mine is not too disimiler. Infact I have an early prototype mockup in Aluminium that looks almost the same including the twin spark plug.
You mentioned that you had problems for the head bolts but if you have the head in two halves, you can fit the head to the block, fit the rotors over the top of that and cove the head bolts but then bolt the top half to the bottom.
this also stops warping of the round rotor housing due to torqueing down he head as all this compression is isolated to the bottom few millimeters of the head.
I have not yet worked out how to add images to this page. I click the "add image" icon and all I get is some text added to the page.
Smikle, if you had perserveared, youe concept was very good and it was simpley a packaging problem, apart from how to seal which is another matter. This bit I will reveal when all is run and proven as I will have new patents to file and if I reveal it now then that will prevent me from doing so. I do have a patent on a previous method but even this is now my own prior art as I allowed this to fail.
the two rotor method is my preference as it makes the timing more flexible in design and afterwards too. you can alter it in overlap and the relationship for port size vs valve opening seems to be much easier to match. In the model you showed on the thread, I would suggest that your port sizes were a little too large relitive to shaft size. You can actually have too much airflow with these valves which is a novel problem if you are not going over 25,000 rpm.
well, if that was a single rotor design then I can understand it but if it was a twin rotor design, there is a way around it.
In a conventional engine, the exhaust valve is smaller but the duration is longer and this is due to the gas speed and temperature as well as the velocity being higher. Also, as the velocity is needed to be kept higher and is also pumped out rather than sucked in, you can get away with a smaller port to encourage the speed to create a vacume behind it to try and promote the dreadful breathing ability of the poppet valve to do something. Now I know that is a very brief and narrow description of the complexities of the combustion process but you get the idea.
well, in a rotary valve, the port size and rotor diameter are intrinsictly linked. therefore, if you have the rotor the same size for the exhaust and the inlet, the port on the exhasut now needs to be bigger for timming purposes but smaller for velocity. therefore, if you have a twin rotor design, you can have a much smaller exhaust rotor and still increae the timing percentage of the rotor diameter that you open the exhaust port which in turn gives you more valve area for the inlet. I hope I made that clear and not complcated.
