[silver_pilate]

Why don't we just improve the technology that we have now instead of spending tons of money researching "new" methods.

For instance, the most efficient traditional gasoline powered motors available today only approaches 25% efficiency. Most, in fact, hover between 13-20%. In other words, 75+% of the energy produced in the fuel combustion is lost in the exhaust gases or used in cooling the motor.

Check out this website:

http://www.coatesengine.com

I heard about this technology several years ago. He replaces the traditional poppet valve technology with rotary spherical valves.



It took him a while, but he's got the sealing mechanism down and the results are quite impressive. It does away with camshaft, pushrods, lifters, rocker arms, valve springs, and the poppet valves. It also eliminates the need for oil on the top of the head as the rotating valves have sealed bearing systems. You get much better air flow, decreased detonation with higher compression ratios and lower octane fuels, better gas milage, more power, and an increased rpm capability. They've had a 5.0L 302 to 14,750 rpm in their labs! The only limiting factor of course being the rotating assembly. Here's some more info on the Lincoln engine they tested:

"Where the CSRV really shines is in its airflow potential compared to a poppet valve Bench-marking a 5.0 L engine from a Lincoln, the stock Ford casting (when tested at 28 inches of H2O) flowed approximately 180 cfm on the intake port at static. The rotary valve for the engine in comparison flowed a whopping 319-cfm at the same test pressure. Equipped with the poppet valve head, the Lincoln engine dynoed at 260 hp and 249 lb.-ft of torque. When equipped with the CSRV head at the same 5,500 rpm test protocol, it made 475 hp and 454 lb.-ft of torque, with no changes to the block or rotating assembly: The higher power was a result of diminished frictional and pumping losses, but the inherent airflow benefit of the spherical valve was the major contributor. "

The cherry thing about it is it can use existing assembly plants and parts. I believe he still offers retrofit kits for cars today, and they've got test vehicles on the road with more than 100,000 miles on them.

This kind of technology deserves more thought. Some of the major manufacturers have contacted him, but I haven't heard anything on production. The sad thing is that it is likely that foreign manufacturers will jump on this band wagon before the US companies do. I guess it's like Samuel Colt when he developed the revolver. It took a while to catch on because it was considered too "radical."

--nathan