The Quasiturbine Engine

Weebitob · #1 10-18-2005, 06:50 PM

Combining possitive attributes of a rotary with the durable if not greater of a pistone engine and according to this article the Quasiturbine, or at least the carriage version, is the ideal engine to utilize hydrogen.

As well as having a standard model that be used in a large range of mediums, from gasoline combustion, steam, pneumatic and even sterling applications according to their official site.

Do any of you have opinions or can even roughly translate what kind of real world power we can potential get from these motors?

Carriage model (for photo-detonation):

Non-carriage version:

Any answers!?

Seraph · #2 10-18-2005, 07:48 PM

Not sure.

I once thought about putting in a tank drivetrain in a car -- yes hydrolic fulid driven drive train. They had one for sale for a few thousand dollars once.

Sidewinder · #3 10-19-2005, 11:55 AM

Following the old cliche, if it's too good to be true, then it probably is. This thing works for Otto, Diesel, and Stirling cycles? Seems to be too much. We must remember that Stirling is very different from Otto and Diesel.

Beav · #4 10-19-2005, 03:42 PM

The rotary engine, IMHO, suffers from excessive fuel usage due to a protracted burn cycle, e.g. the expanding gases exit before they've finished (or close to finished) expanding. Porting the exhaust through the side plate in order to provide perpetual igniton shows that the fuel isn't completely spent before it exits. I don't see where this is an improvement in that repsect.

I'm also not buying into the photo-detonation ability. The rotary uses apex seals, this uses similar seals. Just because they are located in the center of the carriage doesn't mean they aren't apex seals, they are still effectively the apex of the revolving mass. I'm here to tell you, from personal experience (and it isn't a proud thing to admit) that if you don't have the igniton timing correct on a rotary engine before you try to start it one little 'burp' will blow the apex seal clean away. No apex seal = no compression = no go/no mojo.

I'm also not sold on the carriages. What do you expect will happen when combustion by-products begin to build up? If not on the outer shell's inner face, what about the nooks and crannies of the rotor(s)?

Much also seems to be made of the hollow center, but what use is it when it is hollow? If it isn't driving something it's just a whizz-bang toy. I can see it best being used as a very compact generator or hydraulic pump.

I don't want to come off as negative, I think it is a great excercise in motion. I just don't see it living up to its hype.

Beav · #5 10-19-2005, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seraph

Not sure.

I once thought about putting in a tank drivetrain in a car -- yes hydrolic fulid driven drive train. They had one for sale for a few thousand dollars once.

Hydrostatic drive on a riding mower is all hydraulic. Noisy as heck too.

Anyone up for a Cub SVX with the mower deck option?

Weebitob · #6 10-19-2005, 04:13 PM

You offer some very valid points on the Rotary, it seems you know plenty about it so can I ask you one question which recently has made little sense to me?

According to this article Mid-West Engines, the aeronautics company that bought over the rotary devision of Norton Motorcycles, is working with Bermingham University and Power Transmission Laboratory to create what they phrase a an apex "seal-less" Rotary engine. How can they do that?

Also, another thing about your comment on the hollow center. For the Carriage Quasiturbine Engine it seems a "X" shaped draftshaft can be fitted in there. Unlike the gears in the center of a Rotary. As for the Non-Carriage Quasiturbine engine, it seems someone has already figured out how to get that power to the wheels, in concept at least.

And as for making sense of all the applications I can't tell you everything, but from reading the Stirling one, it seems they admitted that you cannot get much power out of it.

It great to see some actual comments on this engine but it would be even better to see more, keep'em coming. We'll make sense of this conundrum soon.

Mr. Pockets · #7 10-19-2005, 05:10 PM

I'm with Beav on this one so far. I can't tell you how many 'revolutionary' (sic) variants I've seen on the internal combustion engine. This one goes on the same pile.

Weebitob · #8 10-19-2005, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Pockets

I'm with Beav on this one so far. I can't tell you how many 'revolutionary' (sic) variants I've seen on the internal combustion engine. This one goes on the same pile.

Then can you show me all these variants?

From what I have seen, there is the Horizontally Opposed, Inlice, V, not to mention any other varient of the Piston engine, Diesel, Turbine and Rotary. The Miller Cycle along with any other setups of that sort are just that, setups as well as tweaks in the revolution of a piston which can be applied to Piston and Diesel engines.

Beav · #9 10-19-2005, 07:39 PM

I saw the center driveshaft earlier. My comment didn''t mean there was no way to connect but rather the open center wasn't as big of a deal as the hype was playing it up. Just seemed to be more 'much ado about nothing'.

Regarding the apex 'seal-less' rotary: I haven't seen or read about it. Again, it seems to be much ado about nothing. There may be applications the rotary engine is well suited for beyond my knowledge. However, it remains in regards to automotive fuel economy, as effective as farting on a sunflower shaped lawn spinner. No matter how you seal it up it still isn't going to return reasonable economy. Again, I think it's a great piece of engineering but it still doesn't surpass the current reciprocating engine. Have you ever seen a Mazda rotary? First piece in the exhaust is the 'thermal reactorr', a very expensive flame catcher the still expanding gases from the engine exit. Then there is the heat problem - don't let your Mazdarati run low on coolant or it will display the automotive equivalent of 'The China Syndrome'. If you have that much heat to pass off you've got to be losing a lot of efficiency, i.e. a lot of BTUs spent on heating up the radiator.

One has to give Mazda credit for trying though. They carry the torch so Big Daddy doesn't get a black eye if it doesn't work out. Rotary = gas hog. Miller cycle = too expensive for the return.

Stirling: Bill Lear threw a lot of money at it in the '60s, as have many others. Too many conversions happening = inefficiency.

Best bet? Watch diesel tech with electronically mapped injection. I'm sticking with a hybrid drive because of its 'normally wasted' energy capture from regenerative braking. Maybe eventually the QT powered generator (diesel/canola/McGrease fueled?) with hybrid drive.

Seraph · #10 10-19-2005, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beav

Hydrostatic drive on a riding mower is all hydraulic. Noisy as heck too.

Anyone up for a Cub SVX with the mower deck option?

Is it? I have to go get me a riding mower. Mower race anyone?

oab_au · #11 10-20-2005, 06:01 PM

It would seem to suffer from the same problems that the Rotary has. Too much combustion chamber surface area, and a lack of torque producing leverage.

The compact combustion chamber that the Otto engine has developed, looses very little combustion heat, compared to the rotary type. The con rod/crank throw, in my opinion still provides the best way of turning pressure into rotational torque.

Harvey.

Weebitob · #12 10-20-2005, 07:17 PM

Are you sure about that, because the QT looks as thouh it has more as well as more enclosed chambers for combustion to accure and therefore can sum up more rotational force for every combustion. Also, like the article states since it is has more confined chamber for combustion then a rotary it can be more fuel efficient.

Remember, Turbine engines can turn out immense amounts of torque and if the name suggests even some of the characteristics of this engine, it may not apply an astounding amount of torque but it would be still more comperable than you think.

Beav · #13 10-20-2005, 07:21 PM

The only positive difference I can see is the possibility of rotating fields attached to the insides of the carriages for a compact, yet fuel inefficient, generator. Possibly a hydraulic pump.

I wonder if there could be something useful made of the expanding and collapsing fields...

Weebitob · #14 10-20-2005, 10:35 PM

I can see some more advantages, unlike the Rotary engine where multible Rotors have to be set up in a planetary formation in order to ensure best efficiency. I can see Quasiturbines stacked in an inclined fasion with heat walls separating each shaft with indivisual fuel injectors but all connecting to one intake and exhaust manifold. You can even probably program variable timing into it without resorting to as many mechanical tweaks.

Andy · #15 10-22-2005, 02:40 AM

I would be happier placing my money on the forthcoming C.E.M. engine. I can see it entering the mainstream in the next few years.

(Have a look under current projects for working details)