funny article about camless combustion engine

[brainhulk]

http://jalopnik.com/the-future-of-the-internal-combustion-engine-is-camless-369015485

The opening and closing movements of the valves in an internal combustion engine have been controlled by camshaft rotation for around 150 years. The cam itself was invented by Al-Jazari in the year 1206 as part of a proto-drum machine. But now, in Koenigsegg's shop as it is in many other labs around the world, the cam is turning obsolete.


On this penultimate episode of Inside Koenigsegg, Christian Von K and Urban Carlson, CEO of Cargine -- a developer of pneumatically driven valve actuators -- offer keen insight into how camless engines will improve the efficiency and power output of internal combustion engines, both in Koenigsegg-grade supercars and in more, er, pedestrian cars too.

Imagine, as CVK says, an engine in which the valves can be controlled independently, like keys on a piano keyboard. The possibilities bode well for fine-tuning an engine's sucking and blowing, but also for optimizing its squeezing and banging as well.

started out interesting, but i guess he wouldnt to end it with some laughs.

 

[phucheneh]

...'suck squeeze bang blow' is probably older than anyone on this forum.

Cutting edge fail.

 

[Howard]

Not that funny.

Anyway, even with a cam you can nowadays control basically every event independently.

 

[LTC8K6]

I think they have been opening the valves without cams for a very long time in various engines. F1 engines, for example. 2 strokes also.

 

[Howard]

I think they have been opening the valves without cams for a very long time in various engines. F1 engines, for example. 2 strokes also.

F1 engines still use cams. The valve springs are pneumatic though.

 

[LTC8K6]

F1 engines still use cams. The valve springs are pneumatic though.

Renault had camless, iirc. Quite a while ago, but don't know if they actually used it.

http://scarbsf1.com/valves.html

 

[Greenman]

I think they have been opening the valves without cams for a very long time in various engines. F1 engines, for example. 2 strokes also.

2 Strokes don't have valves.

 

[LTC8K6]

2 Strokes don't have valves.

2 strokes certainly do have valves of various types, but I meant that they were camless, of course.

 

[mmntech]

I think they have been opening the valves without cams for a very long time in various engines. F1 engines, for example. 2 strokes also.

Wankel as well.

 

[FuzzyDunlop]

do rotory's have valves?

EDIT: ^^ beat me too it.

 

[SSSnail]

So, why can't they just mate a series of two-strokes together to make an engine?

 

[SyndromeOCZ]

So, why can't they just mate a series of two-strokes together to make an engine?

Wouldn't pass emissions. They have already switched everything over to 4 strokes for all ATV's and such.

 

[phucheneh]

IIRC rotaries have no valves at all. Hence the triangular rotor- one section is pulling in, one is sealing for combustion, the other is pushing out. No valves needed...the apex seals in combination with the offset motion of the rotor are essentially performing the same function as valves in a conventional engine.

Why do F1 cars have cams if the valves have pneumatic actuators? I'm guessing maybe just the closing is pneumatic to avoid float? If so, they could have crazy steep ramps on the cam lobes (no fighting sturdy springs) and obviously the closing speed would be nuts. Would the lobe even need a ramp on both sides? Must investigate F1 tech more...it'd be nuts to see their valvetrain operated at crazy RPM's with a high speed camera.

Re: two-stroke...they've made enormous multi-cylinder two-stroke engines. There were supercharged Detroit diesels that would suck a phonebook down the intake. But they run dirty as shit.

 

[SSSnail]

I thought the latest F1 engines have solenoids controlling the valves.

 

[mmntech]

So, why can't they just mate a series of two-strokes together to make an engine?

Two strokes aren't very efficient. By their nature they tend to dump raw fuel into the exhaust since your intake and exhaust are the same stroke. Tuned pipes help this a bit though. For this reason, they also can't be turbocharged, since exhaust pressure is being used to keep raw fuel in the cylinder. They can be supercharged though. They also burn their lubricating oil.

From my experience with small engines, two strokes have a higher power to weight ratio than Otto cycle engines. At least in terms of horse power. Otto cycle (four stroke) engines tend to produce less horsepower but more torque than a two stroke.

Two strokes are best suited for high speed, low torque applications. They can run at a higher rpm. Which is why they're ideal for stuff like chain saws and weed wackers. Otto cycle engines are better for low speed, high torque applications like cars and trucks.