[ARCHIVED THREAD] - An engine with BALLS. (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 6/30/2009 4:05:30 PM EDT
|
Or... made out of a ball. Pretty neat. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqeXPPJck-0 Here's the page... there's a power curve graph compared to the original 400cc engine in the scooter they put it in. I have one of them, and can tell ya it puts out about 30hp stock. http://kugelmotor.peraves.ch/index_en.htm |
|
I've seen quite a few 'alternate' designs... unfortunately none have caught on. We can't seem to get over the reciprocating piston engine. Not a lot of details available about this engine yet, but they've built one and slapped it in a real vehicle and apparently it works. I'd love to see data about power, torque and efficiency. There are better ways to get power out of gas/diesel/other petrochemicals. |
|
2 things-
1) if it was so much better then what we use now, we would be using it. thats why we dont use other alternative engens very often. Kinda like the water powered car, it makes sence until you do the math 2) it look as if it has more moving parts and is more complicated then a 4 stroke engen, that means more that can break, go wrong, and cost $$$ to fix |
|
Quoted:
2) it look as if it has more moving parts and is more complicated then a 4 stroke engen, that means more that can break, go wrong, and cost $$$ to fix I have to disagree it looks a hell of a lot simpler then a standard 4 stroke internal combustion engine. |
|
Quoted: 2 things- 1) if it was so much better then what we use now, we would be using it. thats why we dont use other alternative engens very often. Kinda like the water powered car, it makes sence until you do the math 2) it look as if it has more moving parts and is more complicated then a 4 stroke engen, that means more that can break, go wrong, and cost $$$ to fix 1. Someone recently came up with this specific engine, and quite a few others in the last few years. If we knew everything from the dawn of time, we would already have a better way of doing it. People have to discover better ways of doing things before we can actually do them better. The chicken/egg question, except the idea HAS to come before the reality. Yes, I understand the economics of it, it takes time, research, development and $$$$ to bring a new powerplant into production. 2. This specific example of an engine has 3 moving parts. Three. Your average four stroke reciprocating engine has dozens per cylinder. That means more to break, more that can go wrong and more $$$ to fix. Yet we still use them. |
|
that's pretty cool, i wonder how it scales?
would you just get an engine with more balls along the crankshaft ? logically , yes. i wonder how it responds to being larger. it'll probably turn out like the wankel did, that is, if it catches on at all... from that grainy dyno chart , it looks like the power curve doesn't exist, it's like a power cliff. |
|
This would have been hard to make prior to the advent of advanced CNC machining techniques and equipment. Very interesting, but only time and experimentation will reveal how it performs. The gearheads won't like it much. The design doesn't lend itself to hotrodding very easily. No camshaft, and I'll be flipped if I'd call that a piston, or even a crankshaft. CJ |
|
Quoted:
2 things- 1) if it was so much better then what we use now, we would be using it. thats why we dont use other alternative engens very often. Kinda like the water powered car, it makes sence until you do the math 2) it look as if it has more moving parts and is more complicated then a 4 stroke engen, that means more that can break, go wrong, and cost $$$ to fix #1 they state that it takes modern machining processes and materials to make, in other words you couldn't make one twenty years ago. #2 It has three moving parts, watch the animation. |
|
Some questions to ask
How much does it weight? What is the fuel burn rate? How much does it cost? Can it be mass produced? And is it significantly better that what is currently being made? Other than that, someone put a lot of time into that project. Looks interesting. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
2) it look as if it has more moving parts and is more complicated then a 4 stroke engen, that means more that can break, go wrong, and cost $$$ to fix I have to disagree it looks a hell of a lot simpler then a standard 4 stroke internal combustion engine. +1 |
|
Quoted:
I wonder how it is lubricated. Very cool though. I am guessing they will say it dosent require much or any lubrication because it rotates on ceramic balls or bearings. My concern is that is a big piece of metal that has to turn there using a lot of energy. I would be interested in seeing how its cooled. |
|
Quoted:
This would have been hard to make prior to the advent of advanced CNC machining techniques and equipment. Very interesting, but only time and experimentation will reveal how it performs. The gearheads won't like it much. The design doesn't lend itself to hotrodding very easily. No camshaft, and I'll be flipped if I'd call that a piston, or even a crankshaft. CJ modding would be very similar to making an RX-7 fast. 1. port work 2. boost 3. more boost 4 ??? 5. profit. |
|
Quoted:
Mazda rotary engine is awesome. not much for torque but they don't red line til 10k rpm. The ball engine looks to me like it has a failure point with the ceramic balls. Theoretically, rotary engines don't have any redline as there are no valves or valvetrain. On paper, they can rev forever. Rotary engines are a great design too. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I wonder how it is lubricated. Very cool though. I am guessing they will say it dosent require much or any lubrication because it rotates on ceramic balls or bearings. My concern is that is a big piece of metal that has to turn there using a lot of energy. I would be interested in seeing how its cooled. You are thinking too conventionally. Why not make a ceramic rotor assembly? It doesn't seem like there is any impact with the parts there... |
| Yeah, seals. Always a killer. While small recip engines can be made without rings, this cannot be done with anything larger than a few cubic centimeters of displacement. And FORGET about emissions because ringless engines consume a lot of oil...that is how they seal. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
This would have been hard to make prior to the advent of advanced CNC machining techniques and equipment. Very interesting, but only time and experimentation will reveal how it performs. The gearheads won't like it much. The design doesn't lend itself to hotrodding very easily. No camshaft, and I'll be flipped if I'd call that a piston, or even a crankshaft. CJ modding would be very similar to making an RX-7 fast. 1. port work 2. boost 3. more boost 4 ??? 5. profit. Pretty much, I dont see why the couldn't elongate the ports so it picks up more air. or have more then one inline. |
|
Quoted:
This would have been hard to make prior to the advent of advanced CNC machining techniques and equipment. Very interesting, but only time and experimentation will reveal how it performs. The gearheads won't like it much. The design doesn't lend itself to hotrodding very easily. No camshaft, and I'll be flipped if I'd call that a piston, or even a crankshaft. CJ Plus modern 3D CAD/CAM, not to mention 3D computer graphics itself. |
|
I personally think that engine developments will come from advances in metallurgy, ceramics, plastics not a super revolutionary new engine we have never thought of. Developing a traditional piston engine with lighter parts and less friction would make a huge differences. There are some good ideas out there but making such a change would be huge and very expensive.
I like this engine quite a bit, design has been around for a while but never really put into use. http://engineeringtv.com/blogs/etv/archive/2008/07/01/opposed-piston-opposed-cylinder-engine.aspx |
| I am pretty sure that isn't a "camless ball piston engine" Its a a ball valve design, shown to increase the RPM potential of a standard ford v-8 to over 15,000 rpm due to the lack of standard valve dynamics, float, and seat bouncing. Its about 10 years old too. |
| see my post before the picture. heres a vid: the Coates Engine |
|
Quoted:
I am pretty sure that isn't a "camless ball piston engine" Its a a ball valve design, shown to increase the RPM potential of a standard ford v-8 to over 15,000 rpm due to the lack of standard valve dynamics, float, and seat bouncing. Its about 10 years old too. Yep, rotary valves. Nothing new, in fact I'd bet it's been around way longer than 10 years. On a side note- I recently found an interesting small engine. Hayabusa V-8. 2.6 liter, @200 lbs and 455 horsepower! Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Spherical Engine designs have been around a long time , but no one has been able
pull off a working design that can compete with conventional piston engine ...... Yet . I read a paper on THIS ONE about two years ago . They had the working prototype up and running , but that was the last I heard of it . At first I thought it was the same engine , but as you can see from the design it's not and a quick search for " Spherical Engine " will turn up dozens more . |
|
Quoted: Spherical Engine designs have been around a long time , but no one has been able pull off a working design that can compete with conventional piston engine ...... Yet . I read a paper on THIS ONE about two years ago . They had the working prototype up and running , but that was the last I heard of it . At first I thought it was the same engine , but as you can see from the design it's not and a quick search for " Spherical Engine " will turn up dozens more . That one actually looks VERY similar. It looks to operate on the same method, the little squiggly track thing causing the 'clamshell' chambers to close and open. It just appears to have more working parts than the OP subject engine. |
|
Quoted:
2 things- 1) if it was so much better then what we use now, we would be using it. thats why we dont use other alternative engens very often. Kinda like the water powered car, it makes sence until you do the math 
Quoted:
2) it look as if it has more moving parts and is more complicated then a 4 stroke engen, that means more that can break, go wrong, and cost $$$ to fix
Finally, when critiquing advanced engine technology, it lends more gravitas to your opinion if you know the difference between "then" and "than" , "since" and "sence" (not a word), and can at least spell the word "engine". Peraves is an interesting company. 
|
|
Quoted: Nice hoarse.Quoted: 2 things- 1) if it was so much better then what we use now, we would be using it. thats why we dont use other alternative engens very often. Kinda like the water powered car, it makes sence until you do the math http://www.eyeofdubai.com/v1/dubaiguide/images/horse.jpg Quoted: 2) it look as if it has more moving parts and is more complicated then a 4 stroke engen, that means more that can break, go wrong, and cost $$$ to fix http://www.eyeofdubai.com/v1/dubaiguide/images/horse.jpg Finally, when critiquing advanced engine technology, it lends more gravitas to your opinion if you know the difference between "then" and "than" , "since" and "sence" (not a word), and can at least spell the word "engine". Peraves is an interesting company. http://randomous.com/floatbox/images/ecomobile3.jpg |