A Better Way to Combust That Car Engine.

Sounds great.

Where can I buy one?

First question: will the dc compressor take more energy to run than will be saved by removing camshaft and valve springs? Why not drive it with a belt and do away with conversion losses?

Where will the surge tank be located; how much volume required?

Why do you need a light return spring if you have hi-voltage solenoids? How much power will be required by solenoids?

I have to do some real work now.

Bye.

I'd rather combust the fuel than the engine....

An amusing combination of intriguing ideas and hype, the latter of which would be best toned down.

Many of the auto makers have been working on just that. Problem is the frequency in which the valve needs to open and close. Also the reliability of the solenoid to preform as needed for control over engine performance.

Why would the solenoids require "high voltage", he asked.......

I took that to mean "hi-power". Maybe Fredski isn't an electrical type.

Hahaha, anonymous hecklers. Cowards.

The exhaust solenoid in particular would have to be actuated with a high voltage because the maximum force produced by a solenoid happens when the current is at its peak. Remember that the current lags the voltage applied to a solenoid and that the movement of the iron core lags the maximum force applied. So with not one but two differential equations each producing a lag, a high voltage must slam through the exhaust solenoid to attempt to open the valve while fighting both the inertia of the valve and the back pressure from the exhaust gasses.

Thanks redfred,

So it would require high voltage and current. That would be some switching network.

At what point (frequency) would the coil saturate?

I wonder what the cost would be as opposed to conventional mechanical?

Actually one can get clever with the drive circuitry by using a non-linear drive electronics that produce high voltage to speed up the transitions but provide the high current at a low voltage. This work has been done to my knowledge with some military engines as part of a research project on variable valve timing applications. There is as usual a maximum speed and force limitation that one reaches with this approach. To find that though one must really know all of the parameters or empirically test for them.

Sounds like the coil would have to be biased. Appears complicated.

No coil biasing is required. But it is complicated. What isn't these days.

I miss DAS.

I see a few major design hurdles or outright impracticalities with this design.

First off the springs in a engines valve train are surprisingly efficient despite their seat pressures. What force the one side of the cam lobe exerts while compressing them gets returned back to the other side as it closes. To spin a camshaft takes surprisingly little power despite the amount of combined force all the valve springs exert.

Also the high seat pressures are necessary to get the valves to close fast enough at higher engine speeds. Low tension valve springs will allow for a condition called valve float to happen which leads to catastrophic engine damage if not properly controlled.

The next one is the variable compression ratio produced by use of an electric blower system on the intake side of the engine.

Do you have any idea how much power it takes to compress air to multiple ATM levels at the volumes that typical vehicle engines use?

Lastly turbochargers are an efficient way to produce power because they take advantage of what is normally mostly wasted energy being dumped out the exhaust system.

They do not produce much back pressure when spooled up but they do take advantage of using a small pressure drop at a high volume of flow to scavenge usable energy out of the exhaust gases from the expansion and resulting cooling down that occurs in the turbochargers drive side turbine wheel. Or so thats the accepted theory my gearhead buddies explain it with.

Thank you for your reply. You might want to re-think your notion that a spring is "returning" power to the engine once it's unsprung. The energy is lost during compression. The valve returns, the energy it took to compress the spring is lost. Your second point about valve float. Valve float is a product of RPM and spring pressure. In order to get higher RPMs the higher you go the higher the seat pressure has to be to keep the cylinder sealed. Because the valves I propose are not following a cam lobe they would never overshoot a lobe or cause a valve to bounce at higher RPM. Higher RPMs could be achieved without robbing the engine of power that is absorbed by current valve springs. Nascar engines typically have seat pressures exceeding 220 lbs. Top fuel, 550 lbs. These are huge power robbers but necessary to seal these engines at higher RPM. Do I have any idea how much air has to be compressed? Was that a rhetorical question? All engines are have limits depending on their displacements. Most 5 litre engines are limited to around 600CFM. The engine size I propose is actually quite a bit smaller. It's very doable. Thank you for enlightening me on how well a turbo works. Did you actually stop to think that this engine could ALSO be turbocharged to take advantage of a turbo and add to it's gains?

The cam drives the crank....I had no idea.

The cam drives the crank....I had no idea.

I gathered that. Although this is theoretically obvious, is is less obvious in practice with multi cylinder engines, because one closing valve is acting against an opening one. But in a single (especially an overhead cam single) this becomes obvious when you try to time the cam and install the cam chain: the cam has a strong tendency to rotate away from the lobe. If the timing chain tensioner in such engines is out of adjustment, the chain makes a racket as the tension reverses with every valve cycle.

A disadvantage with many camless valve timing schemes is that this return of spring compression energy is lost. If there is valving involved, a lot of the energy used to accelerate and decelerate the valves goes off as heat from fluid turbulence. In purely electric systems, there are iron losses, etc.

"Because the valves are not limited by the geometry of a camshaft engine they can be configured in any orientation to maximize chamber shape. Side by side, 90 degrees, 180 degrees, etc."

Hahahaha, really? so how would valves at 90 or 180 degrees work again? Wow, if we made perfectly square cylinders, we could pack more in a smaller space! Hahaha, very entertaining.

Check out www. Coates engine . com

h

Totally different concept, but thanks for the reply.

Have you done a website for this yet?

No I have not.

Positive and infinitely variably control of valve timing is a definite plus - I can see only advantages in it, provided of course it can be brought to at least the same level of reliability as the current mechanical and mechanical/hydraulic valve actuation systems.

As for the rest, it makes little sense to me. The work of compressing the charge air has to be done, and I don't see how it is better to do it externally with an electrically driven compressor whose power ultimately comes from the engine crankshaft, through two power conversion steps, at a considerable loss.

Thanks for your reply. It isn't "better" to compress outside the combustion chamber. The idea is being able to have variable compression. It also allows for individual cylinder filling. As an engine ages individual cylinders have differences in their compression due to build up of byproducts of combustion, valve and ring wear. The ability to individualize each cylinders filling is huge even if the power to compress is identical to a typical engine.

Even with 100's of thousands of miles of wear this engine would run as smooth as the day it was 1st started.

Please deine in more detail what you have stated in sketches.

You appear to be talking through a two-stroke engine.

In thermodynamics terms the very action of the Carnot Cycle is limited in absolute terms by the logic of the system.

Represent your "Invention" if you would by a series of sketches explaining how the enrgy is translated to rotational motion (assuming that is what is intended) or linear motion (if that is the alternative.)

Thankyou.

1. The things you propose have or are being experimented with today.

2. You appear to lack some understanding of basic engine design.

3. Why do want to put lipstick on such an old sow as the IC engine? You're adding a lot of complexity when simpler, more efficient solutions are available.

The Italians got around the usual valve train with heavy return springs, on one of it's motorbikes, the valves are returned by the rocker arm as well as opend by it, it is called a Desmodromic valve drive, and is used on some of the Ducati's!

Xanasax

Ducati have been using desmodromic valves for 40 years or more. They are OHC so there is no rocker, the camshaft lobes coming between the upper and lower actuating arms that open and close the valve. The purpose was to eliminate valve bounce at high engine speeds. I was always surprised that no one else really went for desmodromic valves, so I can only assume there must be some disadvantages or complications. But then the performance of Ducati bikes over the last 40-50 years speaks for itself ( not to mention the absolutely gorgeous sound that emanates from them).

That's quite a few ideas strung together, but in theory such an engine would work. Many manufacturers are working on electrohydraulic valve actuation for roughly the reasons you mention: complete freedom in valve timing, under electronic control. As you can imagine, getting the accelerations and decelerations right (so the seats don't get too badly pounded) can be tricky.

Engines with compression external to the combustion chamber are not uncommon (in labs and patents) but none have made it to market. Flow losses can kill the concept. Adding in the losses of an electrical system doing the mechanical work would further erode efficiency. (You'd have a very large generator on the crankshaft and a very large DC motor doing the compression work, for a combined efficiency of about 80%, at best. A direct mechanical link (as in crankshaft to piston) is nearly 100% efficient.

But it would be fun to build one, and see how it goes. This sort of thing can be modeled given enough computer time, and that would be a good pace to start.

Thank you for your reply. I wont argue with you over the efficiency but I think you're missing a few points. Variable compression going both ways (up or down on demand) can't be achieved with a turbo or supercharged engine. The design I suggest would make an engine that self adjusted to any condition. No fixed compression engine can do this. The engine would have any emission profile that was programmed in it's engine management system. And unlike any current design because the cylinders filling pressure is measured on every filling cycle the engine would outlast the car and run perfectly. As one or more cylinders began to lag (from ring or valve leakage) they would be individually compensated. The engine would run smoothly without a noticeable loss in power year after year. I agree it would be QUITE fun to build one.

Hold on a minute there.

There are several things that I like about what you are proposing to do with this theoretical motor design but to claim any kind of improved longevity or subtle performance characteristics before you built one has quickly put you in the bogus snake oil salesman category. Until you've fabricated at least a testable mock-up you cannot claim any results. This is because you do not have any results, only fantasies.

"I believe" the things I cite would happen, better?

GA. Nice pdf.

butterfly valve or one directional velve http://www.google.is/images?hl=is&biw=1280&bih=899&q=Check+valve&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=9ohVTZWuJ9CwhAeawejEDA&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=2&ved=0CD8QsAQwAQ

or the more traditional

for a 2 stroke reed valve

Insacly, i was only bringing up a concept, so you dont need to use cams, springs and velves, better to use a one way valve. no loss of power there.

Try a Rotary engine. I had one in my RX-7. No valves or springs or camshaft.

Ron

The gains from eliminating valves, springs & camshafts are negated many times over by the inherent inefficiency due mostly to difficulties in sealing the rotary piston. I have always been a huge fan of the rotary (or Wankel) engine, for many reasons, if only the sealing problem could be resolved. The best application I've seen for these engines is in drones or microlights, because the power to weight ratio is exceptional.

I am control systems electrical engineer but can see a possible limitation in the speed of actuation of the valves electrically. They would have the same operational time at any engine speed which would limit high engine speeds unless a sophisticated 'advance' system was used to compensate. Not impossible but detracts from the simplicity.

Penttijp

I'm sure you're familiar with anticipation circuits and their function.

One common misconception is the compression ratio issue. Actually the applicable term would be displacement ratio. Only naturally aspirated Diesel engines could be considered to have a fixed compression ratio.

The reason I am referring to it as a displacement ratio is because in a spark ignition engine the throttle varies the incoming flow and thusly the manifold pressure. At idle there is a high manifold vacuum that represents a very low pressure going into filling the cylinders. When that low pressure is compressed by the compression stroke the final compression value can can be lower than 1 ATM at TDC of the compression stroke during idle.

What that means is that a spark ignition engine can run just fine with a displacement ratio of 20:1 with no problems right up until the intake pressure level allows for the peak compression stroke pressures to go high enough to produce spontaneous combustion of the fuel. That is what causes low octane rated fuels to ping and knock in high compression engines but only when the throttle is open more.

The work done by compressing a valve spring is returned when the spring expands.

Friction losses are small and can be reduced with roller bearing.

Plane bearings are good for 300,000 miles - roller bearings last 50,000.

"Elimination of massive spring pressures that must be overcome constantly greatly enhance efficiency" = FALSE

http://www.grandprix.com/ft/ftpw012.html

Hello, this is my first post on cr4. I'm not an engineer just a lowly beginning physics student, but I do know quite a bit about cars and engines.

I may be wrong but it appears Fredski wishes to make quite a few radical changes to the performance profile of a basic IC reciprocating engine through nothing more than a change in the valve train and (possibly?) the associated intake/exhaust efficiency improvements? In so far as automotive technology, I believe that particular hurdle has been fairly successfully vaulted with some rather elegantly simple electro-hydraulic systems through various manufacturers. In fact, it is my understanding, that several existing systems have such a high degree of variability that the throttle butterflies are effectively redundant. This is why we have the extraordinary flexibility available in some of the new engines (30 mpg driveable, petrol V6 that will still deliver 300 hp (NOT at 30 mpg) when needed).

Most of the new developments in car engines seem to focus on combustion chamber refinements, heat control, intake/exhaust systems, and fuel delivery/injection systems. Making the valves open and close doesn't seem to be even on the radar. Nor does it seem to be at such a level of inefficiency as to currently effect to any significance the performance capabilities of a given power plant. The current generation of variable valve lift and duration valve trains are very reliable and seem capable of flowing air/fuel and exhaust gasses at any desired fraction of a given cylinder head's wide open flow capabilities.

The performance limitations are instead a product of structural limitations, heat, durability/reliability specs, etc.... There are some 300 hp engines that won't produce 600 hp not because they can't take in enough fuel/air mixture and efficiently burn it, but because they will break.

As far as the title of the thread, if I'm correct as to your stated proposition, I don't think solenoid actuated valves are an effective solution. I do think they were an excellent idea when they were first introduced many years ago, and possibly helped to inspire some of the modern variable valve train systems available today. Spherical valves also looked neat, no reciprocating mass, yay!

Anyhoo, if you wish to tackle the inefficiency of the IC engine, I suppose you might want to look at an efficient way to use the waste heat of the engine to accomplish something other than looking pretty in infrared.

Hi Auntie,

Welcome to CR4. It's refreshing to have a student contributing, instead of asking us to do their homework for them. Although, there are some very intelligent folks here who can, and will, help students figure things out, without doing the work for them.

I agree with what you say.

Cheers.

Thanks for your reply. If you read all the replies you might have gotten some further advantages that I didn't state on the initial post. I also think you missed the big picture. I never stated that variable valve timing isn't good or that my method is better. The entire idea of the valves is that they can adjust their duration to provide for individual cylinder filling. No current system comes close. If there was an operating system such as I suggest then cylinder filling could be tailored to each individual cylinder even as the engine wears. So as 1 or more cylinders begin to wear (valve seats, top compression ring, etc) these cylinders would be a drag on the entire engine. You say you know a lot about engines. I assume you've performed compression tests. If you have a V-8 and just 1 cylinder is a few % less than the rest that cylinder causes a loss of power and more vibration. It harms crank momentum, etc. Mine would have even filling under all conditions regardless of the age of the engine. No other design even addresses this.

"Fredski wishes to make quite a few radical changes to the performance profile of a basic IC reciprocating engine through nothing more than a change in the valve train" Really? you must know of a variable compressor that provides compression externally. Care to share? BTW, adding a turbo just adds to my design.

Welcome to the forum.

Just curious. Why have you spent so much time looking for everything wrong you can cite? If I don't believe in something I just pass and don't waste my time. I really don't get the highly negative blogger energy here. I doubt for a nanosecond you tried to actually consider why this WOULD work. All your efforts seem to be search for what you believe what wont work. You're clearly intelligent. Why the negativity?

BTW, I never said it was an 8 cylinder. I was thinking 4.

Devils advocate=priceless

A bit sensitive, aren't we?

Your time would have been better served defending your unsubstantiated opinions, instead of trashing me.

Cheers!

So what does a persons post count have to do with anything? 8500+ posts over a three year time frame is around 23 - 24 a day. Thats not much considering that any active contributor to a active thread can easily put 5 - 10 posts in to it in one day. Spread that 24 posts over a half dozen threads or more and thats not much really.

Apparently you are not aware that people who hang around one engineering sites tend to be more experienced and knowledgeable about engineering related topics than the average person from off the street. It just goes with our career and personal interest choices we each made in our lives.

If you want to brag up your concept to a bunch of doe eyed clueless half wits who will hang on your very word take your idea to the over unity or environutter/para science AE sites. Most of them couldn't engineer their way out of a cardboard box by themselves so they should eat up your new design like its the holy grail of para science environutterdom.

I am not saying your design is an impossibility or a true para science type creation but rather that some of us here do have considerable first hand knowledge and experience with many of the concepts and components that you have suggested here. Regardless of where you use a camshaft and a spring to open and close a valve it still follows the same basic rules of physics and conservation of energy.

Same with compressing a gas. Regardless of how you do it it takes a specific amount of energy that has to come from someplace in order to do the work. Some methods are more efficient than others and some are better suited to exploiting what could be normally viewed as waisted energy but still energy is energy and it has to come from someplace.

Thanks for your post. Your assumptions about what I'm aware of are off target. Some of your pals on here might in fact be knowledgeable on a host of topics. Treating someone new like a piñata is just rude and unnecessary. The highly condescending tone of some of these jokers might be tolerated by some people, not I. Would you talk down to a colleague in business? You wouldn't last with that conduct. Some of these people spend so much time on blogs they self anoint themselves as in charge. Not only is that completely hollow it's pathetic. If someone wants a healthy discussion I'm all for it. If they think I have to kiss their ring to get them to comment they can just skip my posts.

You should hook up with M S DIVEKAR. He too likes "healthy discussions" on novel engine concepts.

I support new concepts or new variants of concepts far more than most and I too have been through the trial by fire experience of bringing a new concept on a subject into public view.

Around 2009 I made my early designs for a thing called a Grid Tie Inverter open to the public on another forum that deals with electronics. At first I was not received well and took I a lot more poking than I cared for and found the saying of 'Put out or get out' is very true when dealing with new concepts. I put out the designs, the technical write ups describing those designs, the pictures of the basic GTI units built on those designs, and stood my ground like a professional. So if you are curious as to where I stand now on that subject just do a general search for grid tie inverter trust me if you go looking for designs or schematics for them you will find me!

What this means is that you can boast theory and concept about your invention all you want but if you want to be taken serious by the people who work with anything remotely similar to what you propose then you have to put out the real information in its entirety or get used to being hassled for being a crackpot who isn't knowledgeable of the reality of what his proposes.

Are you the guy in the youtube vids?

You must be new to Internet forum discussions. Honestly, if you feel this discussion has been "rude", then I strongly recommend you disconnect your Internet service and stick with face-to-face conversations.

Okay I'll do that right now. I should have never expected an intellectual exchange.

That's because you haven't furnished anything even remotely intellectual. Good riddance.

They always promise to never darken our door steps again, but keep coming back :D :D

Son of Editor Crankshaft

Auntie was at least talking about ideas. If his ideas challenge your ideas, you are free to respond (still within the realm of ideas), and give facts/figures/calculatons/verified observations/etc. Instead, you have abandoned the realm of ideas and have dabbled in alleged personal characteristics. Have you been taking lessons from kastrupsky?

Okay, can you tell me how you arrived at your PSI figure? Top Fuel dragsters run 500 inch engines with blower pressure around 60 PSI. The engine I envision is in the 1 liter area. Maybe 50-70 inches. Your figure seems incredibly high.

A top fuel dragster's blower is pressurizing a plenum that feeds the cylinder during its intake stroke, the engine then mechanically compresses that charge during the compression stroke.

Your system has no intake stroke and the entirety of the charged intake air is introduced towards the end of your engine's "everything but power" stroke. This implies it must be mostly compressed when it is introduced to the combustion chamber.

A typical engine that displaced 300cc's and had a compression ratio of 6:1 would have a pre-combustion pressure of around 90 psi (6 x 14.2ish psi) at the top of the compression stroke. Since your design uses an external compressor to provide that charge, it would need to provide an equivalent volume of gas at an equivalent pressure to properly fill the cylinder and get an equivalent charge.

NP, run it as a 4 stroke. It still has all the variables of duration and final comp ratios. I have to get moving. If you respond I'll get back tomorrow. Cheers

Yes and have you ever looked closely at just how big that blower drive belt is and yet they still rip them apart fairly often?

I would say Aunties numbers where on the more conservative side of realistic.

What do you pan to power with a 1 liter engine? My riding lawn mower is packing more than that.

Welcome to the mad house, Auntie.

I agree with both your analysis of this innovative engine concept and that thinking out of the box ideas should not be discouraged but be forewarned about possible difficulties before implementation. You've earned a couple of GAs here.

Auntie has invested so much time on your approach because your motor design is innovative. But just because a new system is innovative does not mean that it has to be successful. You came here to obtain some incite from people with an engineering experience and drive. Listen to the criticisms and concerns of people who have worked in the realm you wish to pursue. Every innovative design initially failed. Knowing how and why it failed allows for new growth in the field to flourish. Rarely does the original idea itself show so much promise that surmounting the initial unexpected complications ultimately reveal a completely new design approach. More often though a careful analysis of how and why the initial design fails reveals hidden truths about how things work.

I wish you the best in your engineering endeavors, Fredski. Remember, careful scrutiny is a hallmark of interest.

How about a single or double cylinder, valveless port induction/exhaust engine. Everything you mention sounds a lot like a Wankel, or rotary type engine. Get rid of the valves entirely, go pure electronic injection, etc.

No Valves! You're a genius. That really simplifies things. Hell, just use a solid block of steel. Think of it, no moving parts. Wow, I'm a genius!

Green anodized aluminium

light weight, green & no valves

Where's my Nobel Prize...

You are an inspiration to me today :D

Green! I love it. You are also a marketing genius!