×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Have you seen?
2

Have you seen?

Have you seen?

(OP)
I had been contemplating the limiting factor for the modern internal combustion engine and came to the conclusion that it is the valve design.  Then I started to sketch out a rotating barstock system with ports cut into it and looked around on the net for similar ideas.

Has anyone else looked at the Coates engine (www.coatesengine.com)?  It looks quite promising but they are not producing for the public - especially my old Pontiac.

RE: Have you seen?

Ive always heard that sealing the exhaust ports was the difficulty, exhaust gas in a modern ICE is ~1600F+ and In my turbocharged 2.0L its up to 1700F.

Few sealing materials would work and allow the rotating bar to continue to rotate.

Also variable valve timing would go away, until the ports and passages could be designed to change geometry w/ RPM.

RE: Have you seen?

The limiting factor is thermochemical..  flame speed.

RE: Have you seen?

"The limiting factor is thermochemical..  flame speed"

I must agree, and the solution is in cylinder turbulence, early transition to turbulent flame with the resulting flame intensity. This combined with modern combustion chamber designs will produce minimal burn durations resulting in less negative work and little heat loss to the piston and head.

RE: Have you seen?

coats engine has been thrashed to death in previous threads.

A search may throw up a lot of discussion.

Regards

eng-tips, by professional engineers for professional engineers
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

RE: Have you seen?

(OP)
Thanks patprimmer.  There were several good points there both pro and con.  What I did not see mentioned though was the ceramic-composite bearings and sealing surface.  I too have some reliability concerns about a 14,500rpm small block Ford because of rotating mass but the lubrication would definitely be there seeing as the only lubricated parts are in the bottom end.
I know that it seems too good to be true but there must be some plausibility to the design - he has secured a contract on large truck engines and is selling them on bikes.  Maybe the pros are overstated and the cons understated but I would like to see one myself or maybe just an independent test.
Don't get me wrong, I am not sold on it but am intrigued.

RE: Have you seen?

What do you understand under limiting factor? Power density or efficiency? Gasturbines do not need valves at all and have high power densities, however don't reach efficiency levels of diesel piston engines with poppet valves. So I guess you're talking about power density since replacing poppet valves with a less restrictive valving mechanism would mainly promote flow and thus possibly increase power density (if there aren't any sealing issues).
But then again turbocharged engines can generate plenty of power with poppet valves: Here's a video of a 'family sedan' with a turbocharged 2.0 l engine that only needs 8.95 seconds on a 1/4" mile.
http://media.putfile.com/Worlds-Fastest-EVO-8-Buschur-Racing
(Not sure about power levels of this engine, but it might be over 1000 hp. Is this not sufficient?).

RE: Have you seen?

globi5 -- the mitsu, Lancer-EVO is a far cry from a family sedan.

(And thats what can be doen by consumers, In WRC trim these 2.0l 4-cyl turbo motors are making ~600ft-lbs at 1500rpm and by 7000rpm are HP restricted by a 34mm (or thereabouts) restrictor plate to limit them to 300hp.)

With pneumatic poppets or e-mag poppets dont F1 motors rev to like 16,000 rpm?

I just have to agree that poppet valves are not the limiting factor here. Possibly the limiting factor is the basic design of the SBC? wink

Nick
I love materials science!

RE: Have you seen?

Flame speed is the #1 limiting factor in F1.

RE: Have you seen?

Actually I wouldn't be too sure about flame speed in F1. If it was flame speed then F1 wouldn't be this short stroked, since the shorter the stroke the longer the flame has to travel (very wide and flat combustion chamber). So at least in this case I would argue that piston speed is one of the limiting factors.

NickE, regarding the family sedan: Well, you have to admit that it has 4 doors and a trunk. :)

RE: Have you seen?

Hasn't F1 already reached 20,000 rpm?

RE: Have you seen?

There is quite possibly more than one limiting factor. The parameters to optimise each might be in conflict  and a compromise is used so that the overall optimum is achieved, ie a bore and stroke where piston speed and flame travel limits hit the engine simultaneously.

Regards

eng-tips, by professional engineers for professional engineers
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

RE: Have you seen?

F1 engineers did testing a few years ago to "try" and determine the limiting factor in an F1 type IC engine.

The information that did "leak out" is that they stopped the testing at 31,000 rpms. I have not seen any other details of the testing made public.

RE: Have you seen?

Keep in mind F1 engines are quite limited as well. If I remember correctly they're only allowed to use metals and/or materials with a limited modulus of elasticity (and density) and of course are only allowed to use 8 cylinders.  
E.g. no carbon fiber rods or ceramic valves.
Also a high bore / stroke ratio leads to a combustion chamber with a large surface area where gases can cool down more rapidly and thus hurt torque.

RE: Have you seen?

Not quite on topic, but since we're at it: It's a pity that F1 engines are this regulated. They should only limit fuel and maybe displacement and allow any positive displacement engines including wankel engines. This way they only need to be powerful but efficient as well.
Of course this would increase the possibility that one team finds an engine concept that is far superior as far as power density and efficiency goes. But to slow down a faster team they could simply add weight (as done in other race series).  
This way our daily drivers might eventually benefit from these developments as well.  

It is also interesting to see, that F1 teams of today consume 10 or 100 times more resources to develop a race car than 40 years ago. A race car, which for regulatory reasons is far less innovative than some of the race cars developed in the past.

RE: Have you seen?

The limiting factor for development of any technology is

...

money.

Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

RE: Have you seen?

Lotus had an F1 car with a gasturbine running 1970 or at least around then. I don't know what the exact budget was back then but I believe it was less than a tenth of what an F1 one team has now.
It is only a question of where you set your priorities. If innovation goes up, predictability and reliability will go down. So what? An F1 car is not an airliner, instead of 1 smoking engine we would simply see 10 per race. I just don't believe that people would stop watching it, simply because there are more smoking engines.

F1 is supposed to high risk and action. However, F1 regulations start to generate a higher predictability level than regulations of a retirement home.
And I don't say they should reduce safety, I just say they should allow more innovation particulary in the engine department where it might help generating more efficient engines after all.

RE: Have you seen?

Just out of idle curiousity, when was the last time that a concept that was invented in racing made its way onto production road cars?


The cars are more expensive now because there is more money available. A racing team will always spend 105% of its budget.

Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

RE: Have you seen?

Entirely new ideas hardly come from racing applications anyway, but experience, useful data and promotion of a new technology did come from racing. For instance from the turbo-charger era or from the semi automatic gearbox development.
Now you can argue that the turbo-charger was invented 1905, but it didn't start to become widely popular on road cars before it was extensively applied in racing.

This huge F1 budget is now used to do a lot of detail work, for instance to work on the various little fins to guide air on a particular part of a chassis, which is generation of data that has mainly value for this particular chassis but very little for anything else, sometimes not even for the next years chassis.
Also, I'm mainly critizing F1. Not all racing series are like this, as Audi showed with its first Diesel powered race car winning LeMans.

RE: Have you seen?

On the latter point, the rules were jigged to favour the diesel.

Yes, I'd allow the turbo and possibly sporting 4wd, as succesful transplants from racing into road cars. That was what, 30 years ago? Since then nothing of any interest.

Motor racing is primarily a business, not a Petri dish for experimentation.





Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

RE: Have you seen?

Unfortunately, Greg is pretty well correct.

I still think that knowledge flows from motor racing to road cars, just not in the form of invention, and only as a fairly intangible trickle.

I think Honda learnt some fuel efficiency tricks from the days of fuel quantity limited turbo engine F1 days.

I wish I could remember the details

Regards

eng-tips, by professional engineers for professional engineers
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

RE: Have you seen?

I wish it was still a 'Petri dish for experimentation' as it was 25+ years ago, but the rules unfortunately do not allow it anymore.
It is possible to combine business and a high grade of innovation, but they're obviously not willing to take the risk.
Also, for instance, some wind tunnels of F1 teams are running 24/6 or 24/7. So they're possibly experiminenting more than ever but just not on new concepts.

It's also interesting to see that 25+ years ago they had fewer people and didn't have all these sophisticated 3D CAD/CAM and rapid prototyping tools and still generated quite a variety of designs in short order.

RE: Have you seen?

Back to the topic: The larger the bore/stroke ratio the larger the valves for a given displacement and thus reducing flow restrictions. However, I still believe the reason for a big b/s ratio is mainly to reduce piston speed, but valve sizing might also play a minor role.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources