Curious about the Quasiturbine ?

Bonjour,
To know more, see the September 2006 Article by Brian Cowan in Engine Technology International magazine � Quasiturbine: Unusual Engines - Turbine Tale www.quasiturbine.com/Presse/EngineTechIntl0609.htm
Also, a paper abstract has been accepted by the ASME - American Society Of Mechanical Engineers for the Montr�al May 2007 Turbo Expo Conference www.asmeconferences.org/te07/ � Quasiturbine: Low Revolution High Torque Pressure Turbine for Top Efficiency Power Modulation � A 350 Kb PDF partial preview at : www.quasiturbine.com/QTPapiers/ASME2007QTMontreal.pdf Vos suggestions seront les bienvenues...
Meilleures salutations, Gilles www.quasiturbine.com

-- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Hi GillesQT;
GillesQT wrote:

To know more, see the September 2006 Article by Brian Cowan in Engine Technology International magazine � Quasiturbine: Unusual Engines - Turbine Tale www.quasiturbine.com/Presse/EngineTechIntl0609.htm
Also, a paper abstract has been accepted by the ASME - American Society Of Mechanical Engineers for the Montr�al May 2007 Turbo Expo Conference www.asmeconferences.org/te07/ � Quasiturbine: Low Revolution High Torque Pressure Turbine for Top Efficiency Power Modulation � A 350 Kb PDF partial preview at : www.quasiturbine.com/QTPapiers/ASME2007QTMontreal.pdf Vos suggestions seront les bienvenues...
Meilleures salutations, Gilles www.quasiturbine.com

What is it that you want to know about the Quasiturbine other than it's not very efficient due to the odd shaped combustion chambers and would be a polluter similar to that of the Wankel engine.
Or are you just spamming us again.
Duane
-- Home of the $35 Solar Tracker Receiver http://www.redrok.com/led3xassm.htm [*] Powered by \ \ \ //| Thermonuclear Solar Energy from the Sun / | Energy (the SUN) \ \ \ / / | Red Rock Energy \ \ / / | Duane C. Johnson Designer \ \ / \ / | 1825 Florence St Heliostat,Control,& Mounts | White Bear Lake, Minnesota === \ / \ | USA 55110-3364 === \ | (651)426-4766 use Courier New Font \ | redrok@redrok.com (my email: address) \ | http://www.redrok.com (Web site) ===

"Duane C. Johnson" wrote in message

Hi GillesQT;
GillesQT wrote:
To know more, see the September 2006 Article by Brian Cowan in Engine Technology International magazine � Quasiturbine: Unusual Engines - Turbine Tale www.quasiturbine.com/Presse/EngineTechIntl0609.htm
Also, a paper abstract has been accepted by the ASME - American Society Of Mechanical Engineers for the Montr�al May 2007 Turbo Expo Conference www.asmeconferences.org/te07/ � Quasiturbine: Low Revolution High Torque Pressure Turbine for Top Efficiency Power Modulation � A 350 Kb PDF partial preview at : www.quasiturbine.com/QTPapiers/ASME2007QTMontreal.pdf Vos suggestions seront les bienvenues...
Meilleures salutations, Gilles www.quasiturbine.com
What is it that you want to know about the Quasiturbine other than it's not very efficient due to the odd shaped combustion chambers and would be a polluter similar to that of the Wankel engine.
Or are you just spamming us again.

Duane,
Gilles is not selling anything. The engine is not for sale yet. He is letting people know the progress of development of an engine that no one else is developing. I have no problems with that. The efficiency and polluting will be determined by testing.
It certainly looks simple and small enough. One of these powering a generator in a hybrid may be a nice efficient cheap to run option - like in the Mini. Just turns a generator not powering the engine directly. This unit is small enough, and a superior power/weight ratio (power/weight ratio is important in a vehicle) than a piston engine, which is a major advantage: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/08/the_hybrid_mini.php

I am skeptic about the longevity of the internal parts in a quasi-turbine. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the idea, but having moving parts in the combustion chamber seems like it will lead to a significant amount of problems. At the very least, it will have to use extremely clean fuel because of junk acumulating on moving parts...hopefully I am wrong though, because the engine would change things....

"Hunter" wrote in message

I am skeptic about the longevity of the internal parts in a quasi-turbine. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the idea, but having moving parts in the combustion chamber seems like it will lead to a significant amount of problems. At the very least, it will have to use extremely clean fuel because of junk acumulating on moving parts...hopefully I am wrong though, because the engine would change things....

Now, what you have said. Someone introduces the piston ICE. Those comment are equally applicable. The Quasiturbine has a superb power/weight ratio, which in vehicles that need to carry he weight of the engines is a great bonus. As I pointed out, putting it on turning a genny is an ideal application. It is also simple and all rotates the one way.

Now, what you have said. Someone introduces the piston ICE. Those comment are equally applicable. The Quasiturbine has a superb power/weight ratio, which in vehicles that need to carry he weight of the engines is a great bonus. As I pointed out, putting it on turning a genny is an ideal application. It is also simple and all rotates the one way.

Like I said, I hope it works. The thing I worry about is having moving parts inside the combustion chamber. I think the quasiturbine is a great idea, but so is the wankel engine and they still have some issues with it. Don't get easily distracted by promises of a lighter engine with better power to weight issues...

"Hunter" wrote in message

Now, what you have said. Someone introduces the piston ICE. Those comment are equally applicable. The Quasiturbine has a superb power/weight ratio, which in vehicles that need to carry he weight of the engines is a great bonus. As I pointed out, putting it on turning a genny is an ideal application. It is also simple and all rotates the one way.
Like I said, I hope it works. The thing I worry about is having moving parts inside the combustion chamber. I think the quasiturbine is a great idea, but so is the wankel engine and they still have some issues with it. Don't get easily distracted by promises of a lighter engine with better power to weight issues...
most all internal combustion engines have moving parts in the combustion

chamber

digitalmaster wrote:

most all internal combustion engines have moving parts in the combustion chamber

which was the appeal of the wankel all those decades ago.

"Terryc" wrote in message

digitalmaster wrote:
most all internal combustion engines have moving parts in the combustion chamber
which was the appeal of the wankel all those decades ago.

There were many shapes of the rotor chambers of the Wankel, two stroke amongst them. Wankel never invented it. It appears they picked the worst shape - maybe because of patents. A Russian idea is to have the seals static in the engine block with different rotor chamber shape. They could be replaced by a DIYer.
There are rotary Stirling units being developed/prototyped. If these are perfected and size is reduced, then the external combustion Stirling in a hybrid setup turning only a genny sounds good. They may be feasible in CHP home situations.

Ok,
a) there are not moving parts INSIDE the combustion chamber in a piston engine. The valves and pistons are not in the center of the region where combustion occurs. Have you thought about how much of a pain things like thermal expansion will be on a pivoting joint?
and
b) again, they still can't get the wankel right, so what makes you think a more complicated system will be any better?
Seriously, lets be realistic here. There are a lot of really great ideas out there, but right now they are surrounded by big IFs. The transition from IF to reality takes DECADES. This engine will not solve our energy problems withing the time period we are most concerned about (that being when we will run out of fossil fuels). Like I said, it is a great idea and it would be cool as hell to play with, but it will not fix our current problem. At BEST it may yield 5-10% higher efficiency, but that doesn't change much in the grand scheme of things...

"Hunter" wrote in message

Ok,
a) there are not moving parts INSIDE the combustion chamber in a piston engine.

There is, a piston and 2 or 4 poppet valves.

Have you thought about how much of a pain things like thermal expansion will be on a pivoting joint?

Like a pistin pushing down on a crank? yes.

and
b) again, they still can't get the wankel right, so what makes you think a more complicated system will be any better?

They are not trying to alter the Wankel. Read what I wrote.

Seriously, lets be realistic here. There are a lot of really great ideas out there, but right now they are surrounded by big IFs.

For a new idea to be accepted it has to be simpler, easier to make using standard easy to make low precision parts, and do at least x2 the fuel consumption and nearly no emissions for any large company to look at it.
The Revetec may be taken up by an Indian concern: http://www.revetec.com

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 14:48:15 +0100, "News" wrote:

.......... There are rotary Stirling units being developed/prototyped. If these are perfected and size is reduced, then the external combustion Stirling in a hybrid setup turning only a genny sounds good. They may be feasible in CHP home situations.

Zeroing in on rotary Stirling engines, I found
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=7295342
and beginning Page 5
http://www.vok.lth.se/~ce/Research/stirling/papers/ST_TA2_1.pdf
Apparently the big problem, possibly what shelved the project is power could not be shut down quickly, which made it unfeasible as a conventional auto engine, but would possibly make it perfect to run the generator on a hybrid.
Is it actually possible that there is lost technology that was so good it couldn't be throttled down?
Joe Fischer

"Hunter" wrote in message

Ok,
a) there are not moving parts INSIDE the combustion chamber in a piston engine. The valves and pistons are not in the center of the region where combustion occurs. Have you thought about how much of a pain things like thermal expansion will be on a pivoting joint?

the pivoting joint is no more or less inside the combustion chamber than the wrist pin on a piston of a 4 stroke ICE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasiturbine
check out the link and you will se what i mean.

and
b) again, they still can't get the wankel right, so what makes you think a more complicated system will be any better?
Seriously, lets be realistic here. There are a lot of really great ideas out there, but right now they are surrounded by big IFs. The transition from IF to reality takes DECADES. This engine will not solve our energy problems withing the time period we are most concerned about (that being when we will run out of fossil fuels). Like I said, it is a great idea and it would be cool as hell to play with, but it will not fix our current problem. At BEST it may yield 5-10% higher efficiency, but that doesn't change much in the grand scheme of things...

There are no moving parts INSIDE a combustion chamber. PERIOD.
The boundaries of the combustion chamber move, but there are no pivoting points in DIRECT contact with the combustion process. The only parts that actually come in contact with the combustion process are the piston (and piston rings), the cylinder walls, the flat on the valves, and the cylinder head. The valves are closed during the combustion process and not in motion. The crankshaft NEVER contacts the combusting gasses, and if it does then your engine has some serious issues. The pin connecting the piston to the rod also does not contact the combustion process and the pin does not affect the seal in the combustion chamber.
So yes, there are moving parts in an engine, but the only moving component in the combustion chamber is the piston, and the seal that is formed while sliding on the cylinder wall is relatively easy to maintain.
Also, as a side note, the temperatures in the combustion chamber of most engines is hot enough to melt most of the materials that make up the rest of the engine. As long as the materials
The nature of the quasi-turbine means that instead of just a sliding component, you are additionally introducting a pivoting joint in contact with the combustion process. While the overall engine is a little simpler than a traditional ICE, the actual combustion chamber (the most important part of the engine) has become slighltly more complicated.
Look, seriously, like I said, I like the idea of the quasi-turbine, I just dont think it is feasable right now as a piston engine replacement.

"Hunter" wrote in message

There are no moving parts INSIDE a combustion chamber. PERIOD.
The boundaries of the combustion chamber move, but there are no pivoting points in DIRECT contact with the combustion process. The only parts that actually come in contact with the combustion process are the piston (and piston rings), the cylinder walls, the flat on the valves, and the cylinder head. The valves are closed during the combustion process and not in motion. The crankshaft NEVER contacts the combusting gasses, and if it does then your engine has some serious issues. The pin connecting the piston to the rod also does not contact the combustion process and the pin does not affect the seal in the combustion chamber.
So yes, there are moving parts in an engine, but the only moving component in the combustion chamber is the piston, and the seal that is formed while sliding on the cylinder wall is relatively easy to maintain.
Also, as a side note, the temperatures in the combustion chamber of most engines is hot enough to melt most of the materials that make up the rest of the engine. As long as the materials
The nature of the quasi-turbine means that instead of just a sliding component, you are additionally introducting a pivoting joint in contact with the combustion process. While the overall engine is a little simpler than a traditional ICE, the actual combustion chamber (the most important part of the engine) has become slighltly more complicated.
Look, seriously, like I said, I like the idea of the quasi-turbine, I just dont think it is feasable right now as a piston engine replacement.

I wonder of Gilles would like to comment.