Hey Haystack,,,, and all July 03, 2006, 12:54:15 PM here are the heads i was trying to find that you said you never heard of.....http://www.coatesengine.com/photo_gallery.html Quote Selected
Hey Haystack,,,, and all Reply #1 – July 03, 2006, 05:54:05 PM I've read about them...does away with the weight of the valves, springs, retainers, pushrods, and rockers. I wonder how much more efficient, if any, that system is. Quote Selected
Hey Haystack,,,, and all Reply #2 – July 03, 2006, 06:54:15 PM been a while since my name was in the title to a thread. It is rather interesting. I find this particularly interesting."The comparative efficiencies of the spherical rotary valve combustion engine have enabled engine speeds of 14,850 RPMs. In addition, the spherical rotary valve design can accommodate markedly higher compression ratios than conventional engines. The rotary design provides these exceptionally higher compression ratios with no detectable detonation when utilizing fuels of lower octane ratings. These factors, coupled with the ability of the rotary valve head to deliver more fuel to the combustion chamber than the poppet valve, makes the Coates design especially well suited for more powerful engines." Quote Selected
Hey Haystack,,,, and all Reply #3 – July 03, 2006, 08:02:51 PM man, those engines are real cool sounding, and sound way better as far as efficiecy and power, but i dont understand how they work, something about rotary valves? is there a moving diagram on the site i couldnt find? i think it'd be neat to see one in action. Quote Selected
Hey Haystack,,,, and all Reply #4 – July 07, 2006, 06:23:54 PM yep so everyone else like me and not know? or we just been shy lately? Quote Selected
Hey Haystack,,,, and all Reply #5 – July 08, 2006, 09:34:36 AM Well you might as well as the valve is part of that cam looking shaft. When then shaft spins it moves the open and closed area over the combustion chamber just like a valve would. But this way there are less parts and resistance. Quote Selected
Hey Haystack,,,, and all Reply #6 – December 17, 2007, 12:32:49 PM The Sphere is the valve. There is no cam, as there is no need for stem valves. I'm not sure how this would work with boost applications, with no solid metal on metal closing of the 'valves'. There would have to be an air or oil space to counter friction, and that just screams blow-by (not the piston kind) to me. Quote Selected
Hey Haystack,,,, and all Reply #7 – November 27, 2008, 02:21:17 AM and more progress. I keep my eyes open on great ideas...see press releasehttp://www.coatesengine.com/press_releases.html:D Quote Selected
Hey Haystack,,,, and all Reply #8 – November 27, 2008, 10:59:56 AM Interesting concept. I also find it interesting the only thing they say about "power" is enabled engine speeds of 14,850 RPM but that in and of itself does NOT mean more horsepower or torque. Also, while the exhaust "sphere" timing allows for the exhaust stroke to evacuate the spent mixture, the timing on the intake sphere does NOT allow for the intake charge to be pulled in to the sphere. Looking at their animation, the intake charge is only scooped up by the sphere. The only "draw" action on the intake side would be a residual vacuum caused by the the intake stroke of the piston and closing of the sphere before the stroke is completed. This might leave enough vacuum in the sphere to cause a rush of air/fuel in to the sphere when it "opens" to the intake manifold.make any sense?http://www.coatesengine.com/rotary_motor.html Quote Selected
Hey Haystack,,,, and all Reply #9 – November 27, 2008, 08:32:55 PM Quote from: Turbo 88;244948Interesting concept. I also find it interesting the only thing they say about "power" is enabled engine speeds of 14,850 RPM but that in and of itself does NOT mean more horsepower or torque. pass some of that around. Quote Selected
Hey Haystack,,,, and all Reply #10 – November 27, 2008, 11:36:50 PM they threw the heads on a stock Lincoln, and made somewhere near 400hp.I can't seem to find the article or video on it for some reason. Quote Selected
Hey Haystack,,,, and all Reply #11 – November 28, 2008, 05:45:13 AM Quote from: Turbo 88;244948Interesting concept. I also find it interesting the only thing they say about "power" is enabled engine speeds of 14,850 RPM but that in and of itself does NOT mean more horsepower or torque. Quote from: jcassity;245014pass some of that around.What Turbo said is very true, HP and torque curves are mostly due to amount of intake charge and it's timing... Of course a free flowing exhaust and compression ratio are a important factor as well... Without boost, could well spin 14K and not make 100HP, of course I expect it makes a bit more than that... Quote Selected
Hey Haystack,,,, and all Reply #12 – December 05, 2009, 03:04:11 AM i would like the think the economy has done this....... or it could end up being something we might remember in a few years where nothing on the net can be found to back up such a tall tale of an engine system like this.nonetheless........ check it out. like i said, i hope its just the economy and not several companies putting stops on this.seems like nobody usa side thinks its worth it.http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/snapshot/snapshot.asp?ric=COTE.OBhttp://www.investorguide.com/stock-profile.cgi?ticker=COTE Quote Selected
Hey Haystack,,,, and all Reply #13 – December 05, 2009, 07:58:00 AM I remember those (an article) in Hot Rod magazine a few years back.I wonder how much $$$ they would set a person back. Quote Selected
Hey Haystack,,,, and all Reply #14 – December 06, 2009, 02:20:15 AM I think its just a sign of the times. More out of the box thinking vs. "bigger better". I thought this one was interesting. http://www.autoblog.com/2009/11/30/autoline-on-autoblog-with-john-mcelroy/#continued Quote Selected
Topic: Hey Haystack,,,, and all (Read 2257 times)
previous topic - next topic
