Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I just had an idea, a single valved engine, eg one massive valve on each cylinder, then a second valve or even throttle body in the intake that closes when the exhaust stroke is occuring.


The logistics of this surely would be no more difficult than a typical 2 valve head, it would just require a different valve design for the intake, the increased surface area of the valve would surely be beneficial?

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/442524-single-valve-engine/
Share on other sites

Problems I can see so far are the valve would have to operate at double the speed of a normal valve, you would also always get some form of overlap due to the valve cavity where the intake/exhaust meet, though if coupled with direct injection you could remove this.

Edited by Rolls

How are you expecting this to work? have the top of the combustion chamber open to the part of the manifold where the valve is? Because if so you will add all that extra combustion volume - Therefore reduced C:R. Not to mention the issues with heat

If the air is bought in through the side then you lose a bit of volume for the air to be sucked in (proper term is escaping me atm :S)

It's not a good idea, there is a reason they use conventional style valves in engines. Over the years the valve size/location/etc to improve the way the engine performs

I just cant see a way for this to work any better at all

Direct injection 2 stroke as trialed by the Sarich Orbital group. That would only have one set of valves. Supercharged for scavenging purposes. At least that makes it eligible for the Forced Induction section. :action-smiley-069:

All pie in the sky stuff.

One huge negative is that the exhaust valve is hot, the exhaust flow path after the valve is hot. You don't want intake charge flowing over/through hot surfaces.

The overlap problem mentioned above is a real one. There can be no overlap at all when you have to flow exhaust outward, then completely stop that flow before you can start intake flow going the other way. Sure, overlap is only needed because we are restricted by breathing capacity of current designs and this monovalve idea HOPES to provide massive increase to breathing. But I strongly suspect that you will never get enough extra breathing from it to eradicate the need for an overlap period in high speed engines.

if you want to play with engine design and have science help you out along the way...

http://automationgame.com/

highly recommend it. design an engine (inline 4, inline 6, v6, v8, turbos), design the car, choose suspension, wheel options etc. still in beta. plenty of more content to come.

  • Like 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
×
×
  • Create New...