new engine types

i dont know wheather this is the right section to post this in or if there is another thread on this in here but any way i stumbled on this site;quasiturbine.promci.qc.ca...
and it looks like if this thing works out as expected and gets accepted (crossing my fingers) alot of good will come out of it.

That's an interesting link, nice find (this is the right category for it btw)

I'm taking a course in electric machines this term at school, and one of the surprising things I learned from my prof is concerning the efficiency of today's motors. Basically, they blow. Motor manufacturers meet the minimum standards that they have to, and no more. We have the tech to make way better motors, but they will be more expensive. According to my prof, who does research in machines, if people make more efficient motors, no one buys them because buyers just look at the price tag. I think this quasiturbine, providing it works as they claim, is an excellent invention; however, unless it is extremely economical to manufacture, it unfortunately will not get anywhere.

efficiency is an interesting note.

anyone have the numbers on a gas/diesel motor ?

101 percent efficiency is pepetual motion. i forget what conventional motors are. very low.

Very interesting. It appears as if they have some working models. From what I can see of the web site they don't want the designs to be perceived as another "wankle" or rotary engine. However, this is not the case, they have to deal with many of the same problems that the designers of the wankle engine had. The saying goes, for every increase in complexity you have an increased possibility of failure.

Rotary engines have been available from Mazda for 30+ years, and they've been around for almost 50 years. Why aren't you driving one if they are so good? The fuel economy on them really isn't that good. The design that you linked to does look like it may increase fuel economy for a rotary engine, and would probably be better suited for gaseous fuel such as propane or hydrogen rather than a "wet" fuel like gasoline because of the increased volume to surface area. This is also true of the old "wankle" rotary engine design.

I don't see this as being a dramatic breakthrough that we will be buying in cars within the next 10-20 years. Unless the benefits hugely outweigh the drawbacks it won't happen. Will the auto manufacturers retool for it, where are you going to find an affordable mechanic to work on it when it breaks down, and how long is it going to last as compared to what we already have? These are all questions that will have to have answers before it can be marketed.

Edit:
As a side note, Chrysler called the rotary a " filthy pig" because it consumed tons of fuel and created tons of pollutants. They have a lot of misconceptions to get past if the engine is as good as they claim.

[edit on 19-4-2005 by Seth76]

i think they are used in some snowmobiles too.

nothing great about them.

Originally posted by Dulcimer
efficiency is an interesting note.

anyone have the numbers on a gas/diesel motor ?

101 percent efficiency is pepetual motion. i forget what conventional motors are. very low.

From my thermodynamics textbook, Thermodynamics: An Engineering Approach, 4th Ed, Cengel&Boles, p.464

"Thermal efficiencies of large diesel engines range from about 35 to 40 percent."

As a mode of comparison, I looked up a couple of other types of engines in the book, spark-ignition engines are 25-30%, gas turbine engines are 26-37%. The book also says that "The higher efficiency and lower fuel costs of diesel engines make them the clear choice in applications requiring relatively large amounts of power" and then they give a bunch of examples, like trains, ocean liners, trucks, etc.

So from what I understand out of this, is that diesel engines are actually pretty good. Most of the homework assignments I've done have efficiencies for various engines in the 30-something percents. Of course, those are just on paper, not real life, and homework questions tend to be idealized cases; real life is never as good as what's on paper. (the efficiencies in the previous paragraphs were specifically stated as real life efficiencies in the text, in case you are wondering)