"Quasiturbine" White Paper presented by eMOTION! REPORTS.com

[News]

I don't know what canadian has to do with anything. but I can just about
guarantee that if a developed product was available and actually had some
significant benefit, someone would bite on it.

The major auto makers are still locked into fuel cells and hydrogen, etc,
r&d. They have received large grants to look into this, so they do because
they are being paid to do so. It appears that the fuel cell will not cut
it - well not within the next 10 years or so. Governments are getting
irritated at the slow progress these people make - probably dragging their
feet. Once the focus goes back onto gasoline and diesel and governments
force the makers to improve efficiencies, the they will look up sharp at
other designs.

The problem is that no one
is going to bet the farm on such unproven
technology when there is proven
technology available.

The concept is sound with a running model. No one bets the farm as grants
will be available. The US government has spent a large amount of money of
research into batteries and fuel cell. this will just be focused elsewhere.

Maybe when an actual QT powered device of some sort
is actually put on the market and a few hundred thousand
of them are in service for a few years
and there is a demonstarted cost/benefit ratio, then
other people will fall into line.

The inventors are not manufacturers. It needs a large corpn to take it up
and develop it further. Or some Howard Hughes pours billions into it. A
Russian billionaire has spent many, many millions on buying an English
soccer club, Chelsea, with a bottomless pit of money for players. All this
on a whim. All it needs is someone like hime to finance such a project,
with potential billions coming in when complete. The soccer club is a big
gamble. The engine is not so much.

But until there is some real demonstarted
benefit, this is no different than the magnets idiots buy to put on their
fuel lines because some scam artist told them it improves their fuel
economy.

This is no scam magnet nonsense. No one is claiming any magic here. Anyone
who understand engineering can see the benefits of the design. If we are to
stay with the IC engine then this design is more than worthy of further r&d.

 

[News]

Since you seem to have a problem with references here is one for you:
http://www.orbeng.com.au/orbital/aboutOrbital/diaryarchive/97korspeech.htm

I have already read it. I drove one the Ford Orbital prototypes fitted in a
Ford Fiesta. About 80 of these were given to British and German police
forces for testing. No vales, so revved like hell. Fast, economical,
smooth, lots or torque, and just a small thing at the bottom of the engine
bay. The exhaust was about 3 inches diameter.

 

[News]

Care to post any?

You hit on the Orbital site. That is a good start. The factory in Michigan
was originally set up by Ford/GM around 1992. Orbital are an Australian
company.

Look further and you should see the licenses taken up by most of the major
makers: Ford, GM, FIAT (Pininfarina make a prototype sports car with a
running Orbital engine), etc.

 

[News]

I did. Looks like smoke and mirrors to me. That's why I asked if you
had evidence to demonstrate they really exist.

I can't help you any further if you can't appreciate the concept.

 

[News]

You hit on the Orbital site. That is a good start. The factory in Michigan
was originally set up by Ford/GM around 1992. Orbital are an Australian
company.

Look further and you should see the licenses taken up by most of the major
makers: Ford, GM, FIAT (Pininfarina make a prototype sports car with a
running Orbital engine), etc.

see:
http://www.orbeng.com.au/orbital/customersProducts/custLicensees.htm

All paid Orbital millions for the license, but then decided not to make the
engine themselves, which would have brought in more millions. They were
apparently frightened that the Japanese would steal a lead on them, as they
were doing heavy r&d on 2-stokes for cars at the time. Orbital cracked it,
a factory was set up for mass production by Ford/GM, sold licences and then
the Japs did nothing, so then western corporations did nothing. All super
eager with a proven product and then.......... Sounds very conspiratorial.
You could set up a who killed JFK type of web site on this topic.

 

[Ben Simons]

I don't know what canadian has to do with anything. but I can just about
guarantee that if a developed product was available and actually had some
significant benefit, someone would bite on it. The problem is that no
one
is going to bet the farm on such unproven technology when there is proven
technology available. Maybe when an actual QT powered device of some
sort
is actually put on the market and a few hundred thousand of them are in
service for a few years and there is a demonstarted cost/benefit ratio,
then
other people will fall into line. But until there is some real
demonstarted
benefit, this is no different than the magnets idiots buy to put on their
fuel lines because some scam artist told them it improves their fuel
economy.

Hmm, you mean it must be produced before it is developed? This is
difficult.

The trouble is money. I remember a cooking system which worked and its
development was finished ready for sale. It worked (I saw it). It was
faster and more energy efficient even than induction systems. You even
could save money by significantly reduce your electric bill!!! But.....the
inventor had too little money to launch it as mass production and to
create it cheaper. No one wanted to invest in this even better cooking
system. As an engineer, I must say, this was really frustrating. Even if I
only was emotionally involved in this project.

The problem is not the technology, it is the marketing (money)!

Even if the QT is better than the other technologies. Nobody will buy it
until there aren't REALLY huge benfits (price and efficiency).

@News
Sorry News , for this statement, but this is the reality. As you said,
many idiots spend gazillions for football clubs. Few spend money to
develop smart things. Fellings rulez the world.

Perhaps we should develop a 2000HP QT-Motor. Just for awakening the
feelings?

 

[News]

Yes, and it would be even less credible.

You really don't believe it do you? My dear chap all is true.

 

[News]

Yes, I did. Note I said verifiable claims.

So let me get this right. You're saying most
of the manufacturers
bought licenses,

They "bought" licenses, see the link I gave.

a couple set up a factory, but none use the engine?

You got it in one!

The engine is proven: half the weight, 50% more mpg, half the size, simple,
smooth, fewer moving parts, tuned correctly in the right car a gearbox is
not required, reducing weight yet again, etc. Design a car around the
engine and the knock on effects make it even more attractive. A small car
does not require power steering as there is little weight over the front
wheels, smaller engine bay giving better front air design, etc. Most signed
up and paid million to Orbital, a factor was setup and NONE make it. Well
Mercury and few marine people use it. Where the bulk of fossil fuel is
consumed, in road vehicles, they developed selective amnesia.

It appears the factory Frd/GM set up is being used for low volume marine
applications.

 

[News]

I do appreciate the concept, but that's all there is to this. You
know that as well, that's why you can provide *nothing* to back your
claims.

I'm not claiming anything. I ma saying just look and, observe , think, etc.
Don't take my word for it, look and assess.

 

[News]

"News" <[email protected]> wrote in message

Oh we appreciate the concept very well. A very complicated design
with multiple seals (and associated problems) that has been 'in
design' for many years. If it were feasible, it would have already
been on the market. Basic engineering rule number one KISS.

It IS simple. There are few moving parts in it. Look at the moving parts
in a 4-stoke piston engines. No contest.

Sealing? Pretty well solved on the Rotary, I don't like calling it a Wankle
as Felix never invented it. He just look it further and got it to
production.

By the by, come up with an address for the (nonexistant) air car
factory yet? You've had almost a year now.

Look deeper.

 

[News]

As a former employee of OEC yes the engine did work well and the owner of
Orbital made a bunch of money. What didn't work was trying to make the
worlds largest automakers pay nearly 100$US royalties to refine and build
the engine. Delphi is currently working on our own system that took off
where they left off. The orbital engine had problems with the cold and
humidity nothing that couldn't be overcome but charging royalties for an
idea that was far from complete would be a bit stupid.

mikell,

Are you saying the Orbital was "far" from complete? It was almost there, I
drove one, and as you say, nothing that was insurmountable. Car mags were
giving test reports on car built for it with Orbitals inside. There were
few negative comments.

 

[News]

I had a Mazda with the infamous Wankel engine. Ran great when I got it,
then after thirty thousand miles I learned that I would need a major rebuild
of the engine after 40 to 60 thousand miles. Since I drove about that far
each year then, a rebuild each year was out of the question. And Expensive!
I got a conventional 1600cc Toyota and put 545,000 miles on it before it
needed any major work. Only replace the transmission and the usual wear
items.

The new RX8 engine is very different to the older versions. the inlet and
exaust are on the side of the rotar, onthe side plate. This improve power
and mpg. The Rx8's 1300cc unit gives about 225 BHP, yes 225. A rebuild on
a rotary is easy anyway. There is only a few parts, virtualy a DIY job.

The Quasiturbine LOOKS like a wankel,

It is not a Wankel engine at all, no than a gasoline engine is a diesel and
they look the same too. Read the web sites description.

and has no track record to
show an improvement in life
or performance

I6 is a new concept. Of course there is no track record.

which is substantial nor is there
any particular advantage to such a
change

You have to be joking.

if there are no mechanics trained
to service it!

You give them a course, just as they do when new injection systems come out.

Hewlett Packard started their company in two garages, perhaps that is the
route the Quasiturbine should take! Prove the performance in the field, and
the life expectancy!

What are they going to do? Write a letter to Chelsea's Russian owner for
the odd 100 million or so to develop and make the thing and then run it for
10 years?

 

[Bob Peterson]

The Quasiturbine is far superior in concept than the Wankel.

I don't doubt the the 'concept" might well be better. getting from concept
to a real life useful and economical product is a HUGE step. And one that
very few products ever make, for varying reasons.

Only, NSU and Mazda did any serious work on this engine. Norton motorcycles
improved it and used it in a bike about 13 years ago. Norton spent a
considerable amount of money on development. the company went broke and
virtually gave the rights of the engine away. A company was thinking of
using it in light aircraft, with one plane fitted with the unit and flying.
One Norton unit was about 8 inches diameter and about 3 inches thick that
produced 12 BHP. Couple two or three of these rotors together and it would
power a small car very well with large spaces left in the engine bay. The
Wankel engine is best suited to high rev applications, hence bikes and
sports cars. A Wankel powered Mazda car won the le Mans 24 endurance race
in 1991.

I readily admit the wankel is a "better" design. But it is not "better"
enough to make it worth the effort to switch to such an engine. otherwise
the big car companies would have pruchased to rights to the engine or
designed there own by now.

The Russians have at least two 2-rotor Wankles. One powers the Volga-2
Ekranoplan aircraft. The second is used in a helicopter, the the MI-34V.

The Wankel "is" better than conventional engines, look at the new Mazda RX8.
Vibration free, small (1300cc and competes with engines with 2.5 to 3 times
the cc), simple. Fuel consumption could be better, but not bad at all, when
you consider the piston engines have had over 100 years of development by
major corp'ns on every continent, while the Wankle has had peanuts in
development in comparison.

Then drive a car with a Wankle engine. Then you will be convinced.


All major journals speak highly of it. I have read none that dismiss it.
They do have a working model that is for sure, with the concept being sound
and engineering of the unit well within modern engineering and manufacturing
capabilities.

I am always suspicious of any company that has such a radical design, a lot
of hype, and very little in the way of actual information about it. Their
amateurish PR efforts make it look like a scam, even if it is not.

 

[daestrom]

I had a Mazda with the infamous Wankel engine. Ran great when I got it,
then after thirty thousand miles I learned that I would need a major rebuild
of the engine after 40 to 60 thousand miles. Since I drove about that far
each year then, a rebuild each year was out of the question. And Expensive!
I got a conventional 1600cc Toyota and put 545,000 miles on it before it
needed any major work. Only replace the transmission and the usual wear
items. The Quasiturbine LOOKS like a wankel, and has no track record to
show an improvement in life or performance which is substantial nor is there
any particular advantage to such a change if there are no mechanics trained
to service it!

That's the point that 'News' is missing. THere is a *big* difference
between an engine that 'is far superior in concept', and one that is
superior overall. Piston engines may not be superior in some areas, but
they have it all over Wankel and some other designs in other areas. Like
reliability and maintenance costs.

The newest Wankel designs are only now seeing any widespread use because of
advances in material technology. The seals of the '70's vintage engine were
&*#^$#. Unless I can get 125k to 175k out of an engine with only moderate
routine maintenance, you'ld have to 'show me the money'.

When the QT has more than a few hundred hours of runtime between rebuilds,
then it's at least getting close.

Hewlett Packard started their company in two garages, perhaps that is the
route the Quasiturbine should take! Prove the performance in the field, and
the life expectancy!

And, if its performance or life expectancy isn't what it should be, it will
die a the same quiet death of thousands of 'garage companies' have. No big
deal except to the garage owners ;-) Or perhaps the developers will need so
much capital, they'll have to go in with a partner. And if it *still* can't
be made practical after *that* money is gone, it will fade away. But 5
years from now, someone will claim a conspiracy, that someone 'bought up the
rights' and shut it down to 'preserve big oil.'

daestrom

 

[News]

I don't doubt the the 'concept" might well be better. getting from concept
to a real life useful and economical product is a HUGE step. And one that
very few products ever make, for varying reasons.

If the concept is sound and a prototype is running, which one is, the rest
isn't that difficult. The auto makers need an incentive to make them adopt
more efficient design, like government legistalation on emissions, fuel
usage and overall efficiency. Otherwise the auto giants will just sit there
for ever making outdated power units.

Anyone who think they would willingly snap up any design that is more
efficient is in cloud cuckoo land. Their track record is poor to appalling
on innovation, so why should they willingly be any different now.

I readily admit the wankel is a "better" design. But it is not "better"
enough to make it worth the effort to switch to such an engine. otherwise
the big car companies would have pruchased to rights to the engine or
designed there own by now.

It got off to a poor start. The NSU Ro80's engine was underdeveloped giving
a rotten reputation. Mazda actually solved the sealing problem for them if
my memory is correct.

I nearly bought one for buttons as the rotary required seals. Ford V4
conversions were available (a lousy engine prone to going up in flames).
http://www.telebyte.nl/~hug/

I am always suspicious of any company that has such a radical design, a lot
of hype, and very little in the way of actual information about it. Their
amateurish PR efforts make it look like a scam, even if it is not.

"very little in the way of actual information"? Please? Their web site is
full of information. They will respond to emails and they also have a
teaching prototype. Major journals speak highly of the design. It is
probably a matter of when the fuel cell is back burnered, this will
seriously looked at.

 

[News]

That's the point that 'News' is missing. THere is a *big* difference
between an engine that 'is far superior in concept', and one that is
superior overall. Piston engines may not be superior in some areas, but
they have it all over Wankel and some other designs in other areas. Like
reliability and maintenance costs.

You, and many are missing the big point. Legislation will force auto makers
into better efficiency. Here is a concept, which is rather more than a back
of the envelope sketch, that appears to fit the bill using proven current
engineering technology. Anyone who sneers the design is no engineer.
Engineers don't do that, they are objective.

A friend of mine is a an automotive design engineer. For e.g., he has
worked on the Range Rover, Land Rover and Triumph bike engines. I directed
him to the QT. His response was very favourable, saying it was very good
design and sees no problems in implementation - the normal r&d iterations.
He has also worked on Ford designs in which Ford had no input whatsoever -
totally farmed out. I asked him what he thought about it being taken up by
the big boys. His reaction was mixed. One was that they are ultra
conservative. Another that only legislation will force them to look at it.
He also said some may take it up, like they did with the Orbital, and then
having it back burnered, just in case. I rate this guys opinions.

The newest Wankel designs are only now seeing any widespread use because of
advances in material technology. The seals of the '70's vintage engine were
&*#^$#.

That is stating the obvious. The piston seals of the otto engines were
pretty crap in the 1900s too. Since the 1970s far better seals and
evolutionary advances in the design have emerged. Far sueriorr fully
synthetic oils have emerged too.

Unless I can get 125k to 175k out of
an engine with only moderate
routine maintenance, you'ld have to
'show me the money'.

Most overhead cam engines required the rubber cam belts replacing every
50,000 miles or so. Replacing rotary seals can mean taking off a side
plate and sliding the seals out and sliding the new seals in. Bolt back up.
No more hassle than replacing cam belts. Modern seals are ceramic and are
very durable anyhow.

30 years ago, if you got 100,000 miles from an engine without major overhaul
you were doing good. Advances in material, manufacturing methods,
lubricants and computer injection have increased longevity. These advances
are also available to rotary engines too.

When the QT has more than a few hundred hours of runtime between rebuilds,
then it's at least getting close.


And, if its performance or life expectancy isn't what it should be, it will
die a the same quiet death of thousands of 'garage companies' have. No big
deal except to the garage owners ;-) Or perhaps the developers will need so
much capital, they'll have to go in with a partner. And if it *still* can't
be made practical after *that* money is gone, it will fade away. But 5
years from now, someone will claim a conspiracy, that someone 'bought up the
rights' and shut it down to 'preserve big oil.'

If a proven superior design was shelved then why? Orbital is a prime
example of a superior design being seriously assessed in a highly favourable
way then ignored.

If you think that engineering could not come up with a better design than
the current anachronism that is the IC engine, over the past 100 years then
I think you are naive. Nothing personal.

 

[News]

never heard of emotion before. is this one of those pr firms
masquarading as a legitmate infomration source?

Imperial College of London University is certainly not a PR company.

 

[User]

Good. So you can list these benefits and provide evidence to
demonstrate they really exist and it's not all smoke and mirrors.

I saw that video, and it *was* pathetic. It was operating as an air
motor, and it was so weak that the chainsaw barely scratched the
surface of the log. As fas as I can tell, Gilles has never operated
the Quasiturbine as an IC engine. And given its Rube Goldberg design,
my bet is that it never will operate as an IC engine.

 

[Bob Peterson]

If the concept is sound and a prototype is running, which one is, the rest
isn't that difficult. The auto makers need an incentive to make them adopt
more efficient design, like government legistalation on emissions, fuel
usage and overall efficiency. Otherwise the auto giants will just sit there
for ever making outdated power units.

You are making a completely unwarranted jump between a sound concept (of
which there are a lot) and the concept being commerically viable (very few
ideas ever make it that far). Suggesting that some kind of government
mandate is the only thing that will force car makers to use the QT is the
same as saying it is no good and would only be useful if people were forced
to use it. probably not what you meant to say. its pretty obvious you have
little clue about how the auto industry has to work to be successful. You
can't take a flyer on something that barely even has a prototype at present
and decide to switch out all your powerplants to some future version of that
prototype. No one even knows if the QT is even viable yet.

Anyone who think they would willingly snap up any design that is more
efficient is in cloud cuckoo land. Their track record is poor to appalling
on innovation, so why should they willingly be any different now.

I am unaware of any innovation that has a proven track recoird that they
have not gone with. Electronic ignition, fuel injection, tansaxles, front
wheel drive, etc, etc. It just takes a long time to get from the pre-design
phase where the QT is now to the commerically succesful phase. 10-20 years
is not that long to get there.

It got off to a poor start. The NSU Ro80's engine was underdeveloped giving
a rotten reputation. Mazda actually solved the sealing problem for them if
my memory is correct.

I nearly bought one for buttons as the rotary required seals. Ford V4
conversions were available (a lousy engine prone to going up in flames).
http://www.telebyte.nl/~hug/


"very little in the way of actual information"? Please? Their web site is
full of information. They will respond to emails and they also have a
teaching prototype. Major journals speak highly of the design. It is
probably a matter of when the fuel cell is back burnered, this will
seriously looked at.

Its full of BS and fluff. That does not mean that it can't eventually
become commerically successful, only that it is a LONG way from where it is
now to where it needs to be.

 

[Bob Peterson]

Imperial College of London University is certainly not a PR company.

And you know this because of what?