osmose

WOW. that's all i can say. The rotary valve has been tried (unsuccessfuly) since the beginning of the 1900's. Now it seems as though Coates has got it right. I'm not sure if this is in the right forum, especialy since this application would do more fore the NA engines than the boosted ones, (at least from my understanding). But almost every engine could benefit from this, it would improve relaibility and decrease noise while at the same time reduce manufacturing costs.

Coates has auto manufact.'s interested in their patented Technology. No word on which manufacs though. If GM would pick this they could become the major NA player producing engine we never thought they would, ones that rev up to 15K RPM's.

I would like to see Honda pick this technology up. Then they truly would be the NA kings for the next few decades (until Coates Patents are up). Can you imagine this Head on a 2.0 K-series with forged rods reving at 15,000 RMP's. Given the linear hp curves of Honda engines (and 210hp at 7000 RMPS) they could theoretically produce 450 HP at 15,000RPM's. And that is without touching the 11:1 compression ratio, if that too was increased to 13:1 or 15:1 the power would be crazy. I know Extrapolation is dangerous, there are too many factor to take into consideration, a major one being fuel delivery, but this is still impressive. It opens a whole new performance realm, one that doesn't saccrifice efficiency and economy.


http://www.coatesengine.com/csrv.html

http://www.coatesengine.com/engine_of_the_future.html

This was, for me, the most exciting part of the whole site. FROM COATES :

The breathing capabilities of the system are almost double that of a poppet valve. For instance: a static test of a five-litre poppet valve engine on an airflow machine produced a reading of 133 cubic feet per minute (CFM) with valve fully opened. The five-litre Coates Spherical Rotary Valve Engine on the same machine, however, produced a reading of 319 CFMs fully opened; a colossal advantage in airflow comparison. A five-litre poppet vavle engine tested on a dynomometer under the same loads and conditions at 5500 produced 480 BHP and 454 foot pounds of torque. The maximum RPMs on the poppet valve engine were 5700 RPMs; the Spherical Rotary Valve Engine in comparison reached 14,850 RPM's, The Coates Spherical Rotary Valve comprises two spherical rotary valves assembled on two separate shafts - one for inlet and one for exhaust. They rotate on ceramic carbon bearing with no oil lubrication, the spheres do not make contact with any part of the housing. The seals are a floating type and are also made of a ceramic material. They have two piston rings and are floating in a small cylinder-type chamber, they are activated by the compression and the combustion strokes of the engine which allows 100 percent sealing effectiveness, when compressed.

Because the valves rotate away from the combustion chamber and are vented and charged on the opposite side of each sphere, this creates a lower combustion chamber temperature, allowing for higher compression ratios to be used thus creating an extremely efficient engine. Some of the Coates Spherical Rotary Combustion Engines are at 12 to 1, 13 to 1, 14 to 1 and 15 to 1 compression ratios depending on the application.

END QUOTE.

I wish they would have given their HP TQ figures with their RPM's.

Anyway, i hope you enjoyed my post and I for one am EXCITED. Anyone else.

Nocturn

SO is this basically a rotary engine? Or was is it some weird sort of rotary head that fits on a ICE?

osmose

Did you look at the link?

It's not a rotory engine at all. It ia a new cylinder hread for the internal combustion engine. That's the beauty of it. It doesn't require much in terms of new block designs, it will mate to evisting blocks. in fact they put one on a Mercedes inline 6 and drove it over 150K (if i recall correctly).

osmose

it's not news to have a rotory rev at 15K RPM's but to have a ICE with cylinders going like that, that is new. The problem with the Rotory was the compresion ratio was so low (7:1)that it guzzels gas (old Rx7 and even new renesis) and revs like a **** to get power. Also the Rotory needs to burn oil, in fact you never change the oil you just add it, and it burns with the fuel. This causes bad environmental factors (poor emissions) for the rotory engine.

b-spot

umm.. why is everyone talking about rotary engines in here? Thats great that you know how they work, but this thread has nothing to do with rotaries.

osmose

It's my thread, and he asked about rotories so i answered; just to show how this was not a rotory application at all and how much it differs i gave some extra info on the rotory and how it was different.

Nocturn

Links didnt work for me...

Ah, okay I understand now, but their lack of including the performance with their new heads is suspecious as they give the stock numbers for their 5.0 regular head desgin.

Who cares if you can rev to 14K if you don't have the power to back it up. Untill I see more results I am going to lean towards the electric valve control system being the newest design to hit the market.

osmose

Weird, i deleted them and re-inserted them, they work now ... try'em.

zinner

Links work but the sites DNS server is slow so you have to click 2 or 3 times.


The future is electric motors. All the torque avalible from get go, no transmission, less moving parts. It just so happens it's easier to carry around 15 gallons of stored chemical energy in the form of gas.

I would rather see a company spend their time and money researching electric vehicles.

Nocturn

I doubt we will rid of the ICE all togethor, but see more hybrid cars in the future, even if we switch to Hydrodgen it will still be using the modern day ICE. I think the Honda Accord Hybrid will be the way we will go, a gas engine with a electric motor assisting at acceleration, then just running on 1/2 cylinders, or all electric at highway speeds.

zinner

I don't doubt for a second the gas engine is on the way out. The article itself points out at it's most efficient it's only 55% efficient. Plus the pollution, it's just a matter of time before we can easily and quickly store eletricity. Onces thats overcome electric will be quieter, more powerful, zero emission. I can't imagine why you would want a gas powered car. We will all be tweaking out capacitors and resistors

Archplsm

I think there is a possiblity for the design. If you think about it you could connect a more efficent generator to the engine because its running a near 15,000 rpm. The large amount of electric power produced by the generator would allow for more powerful electric motors. With this motor you could continuously run the gas engine with small injectors (using less gas) and at the same time be running the electric motors. at high speed with the amount of electric being produced you could be running all the motors at same time electric and gas (the electric motor would not turn off at 35 mph). In this design the gas engine almost become a moble generator for the electric motors thus the car does not require a large quanity of batteries in the trunk. I think this could be a large step towards ultra high efficency cars, maybe 80-90 mpg? Yes it may not be a high performance car but I think we will have to take a step back to become less oil dependant. I still think the Hydrogen engine will be ultimate step in engine design. Hydrogen can be produced for pennies on the dollar from water and solar panels, plus the entire hydrogen system (from fueling station to exhaust out of the car) would be the most enviroment friendly system.

osmose

if we used H2 fuel cell, we are not using an ICE. It uses a proton exchange membrane fuel cell.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/fuel-cell1.htm

Voodoosoup

^^^ Anyone remember the Space Shuttle Challenger.

Granted we're talking much higher amounts of Hydrogen, but that thing exploded like bomb when that solid rocket booster oring failed on liftoff.

I'm not ready to strap a tank full of pressurized hydrogen onto my car to power an electric motor. And when's the last time you saw a corner Hydrogen refilling station?
My guess is that Hydrogen fuel cells aren't going to make it into mainstream automotive use for passenger vehivles anytime soon. Now a fuel cell powered by Natural Gas or Methanol is much more likely. Since natural gas is so much more readily available than hydrogen..... And methanol is kind of pricey going for roughly $900 some dollars for a 55 gal drum.....

Archplsm

well you better get ready for hydrogen corner fuel stations. The US government is already 6 months into researching the cost involved with conveting all the gas station to hydrogen stations. Also I think it was Fords that developed a water/solar panel fuel station, no fueling truck just a hose with water in it with a solar panel. As for the challenger, keep in mind the reason for the "O" rings on that tank, they were there to compensate for heat expansion from speed friction of the tank as it takes off. I don't see cars going as fast as the space shuttle, thus no need for "o" rings.

Archplsm

here's a couple links to read up on hydrogen fuel stations and cars:

Solar to hydrogen
Department of energy
National Hydrogen Ass. - loads of information
Interesting description of systems

wesmanw02

Thanks for the links, sounds like a promising design. If the company can successfully market this new valvetrain, I wouldn't be suprised to start seeing it in new vehicles in the near future.

As for Hydrogen and electric motors, I saw screw that There's nothing like the sound and performance than an internal combustion engine offers; its completely unrivaled by any fuel-cells or battery powered motors. They are all but quiet, have little or no driver interaction, and suck in terms of performance/fun.

I believe the solution is alternate fuels for internal combustion engines. That way drivers can still have the benefits (performance) of an internal comustion engine, while not polluting the air or using up the world's supply of crude oil. Fuels like Ethanol and hydrogen have proven to have potential, its just a matter of making minor modifications to engines from the factory so that they can run on these fuels.

Somehow I don't think people are ready to give up the performance, reliability, and familiarity of the I.C.E. anytime in the near future

Voodoosoup

My point had nothing to do with O-rings or friction. My point was stressing the explosive nature of hydrogen. Not that gasoline isn't dangerous, it's just that hydrogen is so much more dangerous than gasoline. Just think of the retards that pull away from pump with the pump nozzle stuck in their car. I've seen that cause some nice sized spills before it was stopped.

Voodoosoup

My point had nothing to do with O-rings or friction. My point was stressing the explosive nature of hydrogen. Not that gasoline isn't dangerous, it's just that hydrogen is so much more dangerous than gasoline. Just think of the retards that pull away from pump with the pump nozzle stuck in their car. I've seen that cause some nice sized spills before it was stopped.

osmose

as performance enthusiasts, we better all hope that H2 ICE's don't catch on. The stoiciometric ratios make less power per volume displacement than gasoline. We would need to go back to bigger displacement engines to yield decent power again. Bigger disp. blocks are heavier and then throw the weight dist. off and make the car heavier (more difficult to accelerate).

I see not everyon is as enthusiastic about this tecnology as i am. i realise there havn't been many major developments in the NA engine (maybe VVT?) but i think this is going to be big for the auto market, the environment and the performance enthusiast.

i was hoping for some disscusion on the mechanics behind this, but maybe there aren't many engineers or mechanics here on the board.

The thing about H2 is that it is a gas at 1atmosphere, (unless it is below like -400F; so us Canadians may have to watch out). It needs to be a liquid in order to be any use in an ICE (if we use it as gas we would get a very weak power yield).
Because of H2's properties, it needs to be pressurized into a liquid, and this would mean that you couln't just pull out a hose to "fill 'er up".
Also, if there was a spill of H2, it would evaporate into thin air within seconds when it is not pressurized. This means that H2 spilled would be very unlikely to ignite. This makes it environmetally friendly as well, ..think about all the oil / gas you see spilled on the street, that would not exist, nor would oil spills in the ocean, or in transit.

Nocturn

This might be where rotary engines come into play...Mazdas 1.3 Rennesis (sp) makes 240, if we round numbers, we could get close to 1500 HP if that was upgraded to a 6.3 Liter.

osmose

I think you're misunderstanding me, or perhaps stoiciometric ratios.
If an engine (say 3.0L ) produces 200hp on gasoline; the identical engine (if converted to to H2) would yieldabout 110 hp. This is a chemical physicality of running H2 in an ICE, not an opinion.

Nocturn

No, I understood, but was just suggesting that rotarys can make more power per displacment than the ICE.

b-spot

Do you know for a fact that those effeciencies hold up at a larger displacement?

Why did Honda not just scale up their 1.6L 4 cylinders to be 4L and 425 Hp? Because it doesn't work that way.

osmose

all other aspects remaining constant, increasing displacement is a sure way to increase power, it may not be a linear increase so i get what you're saying.


This is a 1/2 truth, so you are kinda right. Rotorys are generally small and the HP output is quite high for the displacement.

However, the rotory only produces so much Hp is because it revs so fast (if you drive a rotory between 2K and 6K Rpm's don't expect to produce any power).

Hp= torque x Rpm/5252
So they spin fast and thus producce Hp because of the above formula, but... they are very inefficient at producing power do to their low compression ratio. (They blow apex seals if they increase CR too high.) This makes them guzzel gas and produce poor emissions. Ask anyone who drives an RX-8, they will tell you they suck on gas.

The ICE is far more efficient (better on gas, better emmisions), but it was limited to how fast it could rev, and therefore how much power it could produce.

That is the beauty of this Head design; it combines (and improves on)the efficiency of an ICE along with the rev capabilities of a rotory. This means "Mo Powa Foo".