(summary of over 60 messages - original on http://deja.com)

alt.energy.homepower, sci.energy.hydrogen, misc.int-property, alt.inventors, sci.engr.mech,
sci.military.naval, talk.environment, alt.save.the.earth, alt.politics.greens

(Not necessairly chronologically listed - Inventors position expressed in red)


Wed, 03 Jan 2001 19:26:19 GMT
Le brevet É.-U. 6,164,263 peut maintenant être consulté
directement dans la base de données USPTO à : (entrer : PN/6164263 )

The patent .PDF copy can be downloaded from :

Gilles q
uasiturbine@promci.qc.ca      http://quasiturbine.promci.qc.ca
Fri, 05 Jan 2001 12:02:53 GMT
This device has been reviewed by major industry magazines on many occasions,
and has received high marks for an up and coming technology. give them time
to work out the manufacturing, and I believe they will have a good thing!

Steve Spence "Steve Spence"  sspence@webconx.com   http://www.webconx.com/subscribe.htm
Fri, 5 Jan 2001 13:33:19 -0000
I think, and hope, so too. The piston IC engine has had well over 100 years
of development and is still inefficient and pollutes far too much. The
development has been mainly to make it more reliable rather than efficient.
Imagine 100 years development of an engine, which without any doubt, has a
far superior basic conceptual design.

And as far as big auto makers dragging their feet, they dragged them
backwards. The Greenpeace SMILE car proved them wrong.

"News"  Newss@NOSSPAMscreammingmail.com
Sat, 06 Jan 2001 03:33:59 GMT
It appears to be a complicated extension of a rotary vane type air
motor where there's provision for not only expansion, but compression
and combustion as well. And it's not a turbine in any sense of the
word. While a turbine passes a continuous stream of fluid, this thing
is a positive-displacement machine. It grabs discrete chunks of
fuel/air, then compresses, ignites, expands, and expels them. It's
probably closest to a Wankel engine, only more complicated and more
difficult to seal and lubricate. And it almost certainly suffers from
horrible emissions and fuel economy. With all those nooks and crannies
in the combustion chambers, there's a heck of a lot of quench volume
that will let copious amounts of fuel pass through unburned.

I notice the patent was just issued 12/26/00, which explains Saint-
Hilaire's latest postings. But the patent was filed 12/2/97 -- more
than three years ago. While Don points out that it's strange that the
only web hits he gets on it are on the home power and free energy
crowd, I find it interesting that this thing has been hyped for some
time now, yet there's no performance or emission data on it at all.
How can you expect to interest potential customers and/or investors if
you don't demonstrate your performance claims?

Walter Curnow walter_curnow@my-deja.com
Sat, 06 Jan 2001 07:41:40 GMT
Did you see the chainsaw video at http://www.quasiturbine.com/QTVideo.html ?
or the reviews at http://www.quasiturbine.com/QTIndex.html ?
This has substance, not the usual smoke and mirrors. And no claims of over unity.
see the following: http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/es32198e.html

Steve Spence "Steve Spence"  sspence@webconx.com   http://www.webconx.com/subscribe.htm
Sat, 06 Jan 2001 19:01:59 GMT

This Engine is a joke. It does not and cannot perform. The chainsaw video
is absolutely laughable. I could achieve similar results with a
butterknife. There is no engineering data available for a good reason --
the hype would quickly end. One look at the design and I could tell
immediately that it was by no means a turbine, that it was too complex, and
that it wouldn't perform. The chainsaw video substantiated my intuitions.
Steve Spence, you are a scientific guy, and you are being fooled by this one
and I am quite surprised!

"Scott O'Hearen" scotto@west-point.org
Sat, 06 Jan 2001 20:28:32 GMT
It's more substantial than most stuff I've had thrown at me, and there are
no claims of over unity, just an improved wankel. seems to me that the guys
have something to work with. no, it's not fully there yet, but it has
potential. it is peer reviewed as well.

Steve Spence "Steve Spence"  sspence@webconx.com  http://www.webconx.com/subscribe.htm
Mon, 15 Jan 2001 21:32:12 -0600
Wankels don't have have a bunch of complicated internal parts rubbing on
each other and on the wall. Just a trilobe and gear. Sounds like a step
in the wrong direction to me.
Dr. Bob Bob@anl.gov
Tue, 16 Jan 2001 05:08:59 GMT
Not to mention the wankel is better than ever, and it's a strong possibility
we'll see them hitting north america for 2,003 model year
Standard 1.3litre engine, 280hp naturally aspirated, and 40% improved fuel

"Grant" funkedupshiftNOSPAM@hotmail.com
Tue, 16 Jan 2001 15:13:08 GMT
I'd like to see the emissions numbers.

Steve Spence "Steve Spence"  sspence@webconx.com  http://www.webconx.com/subscribe.htm
Tue, 16 Jan 2001 16:15:07 GMT
They meet california standards, but i don't know what the exact #'s are.

"Grant" funkedupshiftNOSPAM@hotmail.com
Tue, 16 Jan 2001 15:16:48 GMT
Isn't the lobe seal exactly equivalent to the piston ring in a normal
recip? The only other significant rubbing friction in a recip is cam to
lifter, which can be reduced with roller tappets. Bearings are
insignificant friction losses compared to the main losses.

Don Stauffer stauffer@gte.net
Tue, 16 Jan 2001 16:19:32 GMT
I would suggest the main cause of poor emissions/fuel economy was the
placement of the exhaust ports, along the "rim" of the rotor housing
as the 2mm thick seals pass over the exhaust ports, gasses from adjecent
chambers (which are in different phases of combustion) are able to flow
through the exhaust port and mix. If i understand correctly, the a/f
mixture had to be enriched to keep things running properly.
Now the exhaust ports are on the side of the rotor housings, so the entire
rotor (not just the tip) can pass over the exhaust port and it's wide enough
to prevent more than 1 chamber from having an opening to the port at a time.

"Grant" funkedupshiftNOSPAM@hotmail.com
Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:23:22 GMT
The popular sentiment on my rx7 list is that the new rotary vehicle,
although kick ass, will probably fail
a) cuz mazda will really screw up the marketing/customer relations like they
did with the later rx7s
b) it will be underpowered for its class

"Grant" funkedupshiftNOSPAM@hotmail.com
Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:25:59 GMT
I just want to bring your attention on a different explanation
we have about the Wankel poor combustion.
Please look at paragraph #4 and its following diagram at :

The diagram makes a comparaison of Piston - Wankel -Quasiturbine.
As you can see, the volume at the end of the Wankel stroke
is 3 times larger than the optimum volume generated
by the movement of its radial differential,
and the volume variation is several times faster that the piston or the Quasiturbine
(resulting in a geometric squelch effect, and a thermo diabatic cold down of the flame).
Not only this reduces substantially the efficiency,
but this too fast expansion is responsible for the poor combustion,
an the large quantity of HC unburnt.

The inter-chambers communication throught exhaust port
has certainly nothing to do with the poor combustion.
Furthermore, we believe that the exhaust port (radial or axial)
has also little to do with it ... even if many like you to believe it ...
Excess geometric volume squelching is the answer that every one fear to face !
Good luck to Mazda.

Gilles q
uasiturbine@promci.qc.ca      http://quasiturbine.promci.qc.ca
Tue, 16 Jan 2001 21:50:32 GMT
I think a big source of the horrible emissions and fuel economy is the
large quench volume in the odd-shaped combustion chamber. As the flame
front tries to propagate into the nooks and crannies, it loses heat to
the relatively cool walls and goes out.
That's one reason with piston engines you try to place the top ring as
high on the piston as possible. It's hard to ignite the fuel/air
trapped in the thin volume above the top ring.
And if you think a Wankel has a large amount of quench volume, look at
all the nooks and crannies of the Quasiturbine.

Walter Curnow walter_curnow@my-deja.com
Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:25:37 GMT
Although I would agree the combustion chamber has a less than ideal shape,
I'd suggest that the exhaust port situation i described earlier is more

"Grant" funkedupshiftNOSPAM@hotmail.com
Tue, 16 Jan 2001 19:07:19 -0500
What are all those Wankel apex and rotor seals if they are not "complicated
internal parts rubbing on each other and on the wall?"

"C. E. White" cewhite3@bellsouth.net
Tue, 16 Jan 2001 21:36:31 -0600
A quick glance at the website showed a complicated series of linkages.
Wankel engines don't have any linkages, and if I understand the operation
correctly, the the seals just sit in their slots and slide.
No one has been able to beat conventional engines because
1) the surface to volume ratio is very good
2) poppet valves are very durable
3) circular rings seal very well
4) crevice volume is small. In addition, with fancy modifications you can vary
the valve timing and compression ratio.
The drawback is large number of parts in a piston engine.
The Wankel is superior vis-a-vis parts count.
Still needs to work on the surface-to-volume ratio.

Dr. Bob Bob@anl.gov
Sat, 06 Jan 2001 19:59:20 -0500
Did you also notice the electric cord going into the "chainsaw"?
You might not be able to see it unless you use the highest speed
realvideo version. and with the high speed video, it is painfully
obvious that the "chainsaw" sound is simply dubbed in from a
conventional saw, complete with rattling centrifugal clutch shoes.
Sniff, sniff? Is that fraud I smell?...

Neon John johngdDONTYOUDARE@bellsouth.net
Sat, 06 Jan 2001 19:43:22 -0700
Artistic license.
Like the zipper on the Bigfoot movie.

Don Lancaster don@tinaja.com
Sat, 06 Jan 2001 20:25:02 GMT
Yes. That's the video I described eariler in this thread as "an anemic
chainsaw scratching at the surface of a log".
Pretty poor performance if it can't even make it through a log,
wouldn't you say?
Basically those are all popular magazines regurgitating the same hype
you can get directly from Saint-Hilaire. How about something from the
SAE (and I don't mean a picture of the Quasiturbine table on the
exhibition floor at the Small Engine Conference). Any conference
papers? And test data?
I don't doubt the substance. I doubt the performance. And I'd be
willing to bet it's significantly _under_ unity. Where is the
performance data? Everything I know about internal combustion engines
tells me this thing is a dog. They sure don't present any numbers that
would indicate otherwise.
A spiel on a government web site generated entirely by Quasiturbine.
That doesn't give the technology any legitimacy in the eyes of an
engineer. Performance data would tell the whole story. Where is it?

Walter Curnow walter_curnow@my-deja.com
Sat, 06 Jan 2001 15:29:57 GMT
One of the most common patents for the last century (actually more than
that) has been the 'alternative' internal combustion engine. It is
possible to get a patent on something that is different. You do not
have to prove it better.
Thousands of MEs graduate each year well versed in the efficiency of the
IC. It is really presumptious to believe that a century's worth of MEs
have ALL been wrong, and there is a better way now to design an engine.
Not only must an alternate engine be better, it must be enough better
that a higher selling price can pay for new tooling and startup. Even
some designs that had some slight advantage over conventional engines
have not met this criterion.
Many of these alternate designs were rotary. There is a mistaken belief
that energy is wasted when the piston pushes down on a connecting rod
when the rod is not perpendicular to the crank arm. This is not true.
The total energy transferred depends on the expansion during that half
cycle, and the exact rate of push versus crank angle gets averaged out
by flywheel. Reciprocation does NOT waste energy.

Don Stauffer stauffer@gte.net
Sat, 06 Jan 2001 18:57:17 -0700
Actually, there are now all kinds of new ways to design a better engine.
Such as: 42 volt electricals, programmable electric valves, electric replacement
of addons (power steering, etc), ultra hard ceramics, elimination of chains
and belts, super smooth surface treatments, gasoline reformation,
combined starter/alternator/flywheel/hybrid, hydrogen injection (possibly), six cycle
sequencing, cascaded multi-cycle thermodynamics, true 4-wheel drive, etc.etc..
Mostly brought about by stunning recent advances in other fields.
Check the AURA website for examples. Or the Automotive Engineering trade journal.
The quasiturbine does not appear to be one of them, though.

Don Lancaster don@tinaja.com
8 Jan 2001 09:08:43 GMT
Sometimes I wish patent writers were required to diagram their
sentences! For example, I can't figure out how to parse this one:
We claim:
1. A rotary apparatus able to produce mechanical energy from
pressurized fluids flow like hydraulic, steam, pneumatic, and internal
combustion, or to pump, vacuum and compress, comprising...

Marshall Price d021317c@dc.seflin.org
Thu, 11 Jan 2001 15:54:31 -0700
Actually, most of this comes from "legalese" trying to cover as many
bases as possible without being too vague to actually receive the
patent. I have several patents, and, after the patent attorneys get
through rewriting what I've written, I have to admit, even I have a hard
time deciphering exactly what my own patent is really all about!

cj cj_johansson@hp.com
14 Jan 2001 06:18:46 GMT
As always, it is interesting and exciting to see new technology trying to
emerge. This little 200cc engine connected to a chain saw fits the
'interesting' part. They may have something, but they really, really have a
long way to go. A little 40cc 2 stroke chainsaw for 100 bucks, although
possibly producing more pollution, blows the doors off what I saw in that

Wed, 17 Jan 2001 17:09:31 GMT
I had a look at this about a year ago. I believe it was
going to power chainsaws and the like, but after looking
at it again, a tortuous beast. I've no doubt it spins,
but it would be a dog to service and would surely need
it frequently.

Steve Zadarnowski fanjet@nilspam.iinet.com.au
16 Jan 2001 09:01:47 GMT
[paranoid delusions of suppression by the "status quo automakers" and "Big Oil"]
We all know that couldn't happen :-)
(don't know squat about Quasimodo"s turban but I do Knew dat BIG OIL stinkz!!!)

Thisnumbr1 thisnumbr1@aol.com
Sat, 06 Jan 2001 17:24:21 GMT
Bonjour les amis, Je viens de lire quelques uns de vos commentaires,
et je crois devoir apporter un éclairage additionnel sur la Quasiturbine.

Complexity : One can not expect to always solve a complicated problem with simple solution.
For those of you who seem to favor simple solutions,
you must remind that the electronic watches are thousands time more complex
that mechanical ones, but they got all the market anyway.
An other example is the Airbus which are the most complex airplanes in the world,
but the most efficient, the most energy saving, and the less costly in maintenance fees
(Ok, they crash a few, but so did Boeing in the beginning ...)
Conclusion : In todays technology, simplicity is not a must anymore !

Piston limitations : There are reasons why the piston engine is holding for so long,
but there is also a long (secret) list of limitations
about what the piston can do well (see our site). We suggest that you study that first.
Piston is in useful power stroke 120 degrees every 2 revolutions (360 + 360),
which means 17% of the time, compare to 83% of the time in dragging mode !

"Engine theory" is a must : Wankel engine is discarded because of a fundamental lack
in its principle (that we found and reveal on our site), not a lack in its manufacturing.
Would a detailed theoretical analysis be done in 1952,
this engine would never have been built ...
Apart from the jet engine, we never did encounter an engine proposal
preceded by its detail theory analysis.
"Let built and see ..." has been the rule, and many of you still push that way ...
Nevertheless, this is why there are so many costly late failing projects.
You may be interested to know that the Quasiturbine theory has been
developed 4 years before the actual invention of the device !

The plus of the Quasiturbine : Making an alternative engine is not good enough,
it has to be better than piston. Our theory essentially deals with those major aspects;
1 - Time management : Crankshaft splits the engine process in 4 equal duration strokes,
which is far from an optimum. The Quasiturbine gives much less angular space
to compression and exhaust strokes, and more to intake and expansion strokes.
This kind of asymmetry (partly based on port location) is not obvious by looking
at the Quasiturbine, but it is there.
2 - No dead time : Piston has 83% dead time,
Wankel has a 30 degrees dead time, three times per revolution (a total of 90 degrees).
The Quasiturbine has zero dead time.
3 - Progressive torque : Piston and Wanlkel, as all engine projects we have reviewed,
produce a progressive torque, smoothly from zero to a maximum and down to zero.
The Quasiturbine produces a much more efficient long torque plateau (this is also the reason
why the Quasiturbine is almost insensitive to the sparkplug synchronization).
4 - Multi-functionallity of component : Looking at the instantaneous engine process,
piston is useful only 17% of the time (and could be theoretically removed 83% of the time).
This is called an engine component "use factor" of 17%. Because of multi-functionality
of the components, all parts in the Quasiturbine are essential all the time,
which give a component "use factor" of 100 %.
Those improvements all together do have a tremendous impact on engine overall characteristics,
increasing the power density by close to 4, and reducing the weight by more than 5 times !
It is true that all claims are not experimentally verified,
but they are based and justified by some kind of simulations.
From our perspective, our engine theory is more important that the device itself.
In fact, based on our theory, someone may eventually propose an other different device;
fortunately, our Quasiturbine device meet 100% of our theoretical needs,
and that is why we are confident that someone else can do as good, but not better !

Quasiturbine multi-faces : As one can notice from the patent,
the Quasiturbine construction parameters are numerous and on a large range,
such as the Quasiturbine can look very different from the one shown
(These optimizations result from heavy calculations,
and are not disclosed at this time to prevent some countries to take early advantage ...).
Some arrangement reduces the combustion chamber surface to the piston level,
while other arrangements optimize the power density, torque continuity,
or compressor or pump characteristics ...

Why the name "Quasiturbine" : The main characteristic of a turbine
is to provide a constant instantaneous torque.
Piston engine does produce an instantaneous torque which reaches up to 7 times
its average torque (and must be built to meet this peak condition).
The Quasiturbine torque is almost constant,
and its peak torque is only 20 % higher than its average torque.
Furthermore, you all know that the conventional gas turbine
has a compressor turbine and a power turbine -
In an attempt to bring those two turbines in the same plane,
we found that the turbine blades could not be attached to the shaft any more,
but must be attached to one an other, in such a way that this new single plane turbine
would work a quarter of the revolution in compressor turbine,
and a quarter or a turn in power turbine.
Not surprising that the Quasiturbine has some of the conventional turbine characteristics.

Simulations : Many other engine proposals suffer the same situation as the Wankel.
Their inventors rush to built prototypes to test them.
That is often not needed, and certainly not the initial way to go anymore !
Experts do simulate nuclear power plant or new rocket much
before they actually make them, and nowadays, very few question the simulation result ...

Experts are not independent : Someone questioned "Why only "news:alt.energy.homepower hits" ?
This remind us last year, when the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was looking
for experts to comment on TV about the Quasiturbine, they all decline exept one
(Dr. P. Couture), which does happen to be one of the best physicist in Canada !
Years of private discussions with experts lead us to believe that experts are either
"not independent anymore (...the boss ?)", "scare of their opinions (... waiting attitude)",
"not doing their intellectual work" or "expecting additional money for their comments" ?
Considering past engine failure proposals, we must understand their position,
... and if no expert is talking positively, none is talking negatively either.
Except for young researchers, we did observe that more an expert knows about engine,
more likely he is to be indifferent (hostile) to the Quasiturbine
(... we are still looking for exceptions).
This appears to be standard regarding most advance concepts, and not specific to Quasiturbine.
I am force to conclude that brave people are mostly all on "news:alt.energy.homepower" !

European versus American : It may be useful to notice that Europeans are showing
(in private, like others) a great interest for the Quasiturbine theory,
while the Americans seem to bring all their attention to the poorly done prototypes.
This is an amazing difference, considering that most of the intellectual forces
in the US came from Europe less than a century ago.
Are the American brains already so different from their European cousins ?
Or is it a consequence of the cheap fuel cost in the US ?
We suggest that both the theory and the prototype be considered ...

Government and Corporation : We are today in a technology world where simulations
are as good as experimentations. Our project is consequently much more advanced that
it would look to conventional hobbyist. Nevertheless, a time comes
when the demonstration must be done ? Should this be done by the inventor ?
At this time, we know that everyone (Government, military, university, corporations,
environmentalists, ) are doing their own private and secrete evaluation of the Quasiturbine.
We failed so far to convince any of them to put together a common provisory public evaluation.
Unless this is done, we will be somewhat on idle, as no one is willing to talk first ?
(Two exceptions : The US patent office examiners and the scientific journalists).
Will the Quasiturbine be TABOU for long ? You can all help ending that ...

Conclusion : The Quasiturbine engine theory is not easy to understand,
and if it were, it would have been invented 100 years ago.
A couple hours on the site is far from enough to understand it all ...
(considering it is old stuff, and that not everything is said specifically).
No need to be an international expert to comment on the Quasiturbine,
all comments are in some respect interesting, and if negative,
it is probably because we did not make our point clear enough,
and we will work at it further ... rather than to intervene into your fine discussions.

So far, the Quasiturbine project has progressed very well,
and is still in rapid acceleration !
Thanks for not being indifferent.

Gilles quasiturbine@promci.qc.ca      http://quasiturbine.promci.qc.ca
Sat, 06 Jan 2001 18:55:12 GMT
Please indulge my quest for simplicity just this once by answering
these simple questions:
1) Have you ever tested a Quasiturbine engine on a dynamometer?
2) If so, what was the power output, fuel flow rate, and exhaust
unburned hydrocarbon level?

Walter Curnow walter_curnow@my-deja.com
8 Jan 2001 09:37:57 GMT
Saint-Hilaire wrote:
: Conclusion: In today's technology, simplicity is not a must anymore !
I agree. The main benefit of VLSI technology is that complexity is no longer
expensive, but cheap. Things which couldn't be done without lots of
moving mechanical parts (or "The TTL Cookbook" :) can now be done with a
few small sensors, an actuator, and a tiny computer.
And someday soon, that computer won't even need a battery, I betcha.

Marshall Price d021317c@dc.seflin.org
Sun, 07 Jan 2001 06:32:59 GMT
Bonjour les amis, je note que certains ne manquent pas d'imagination ...

I - About the old 1998 Chainsaw (early hybrid prototype)
the video was actually done in pneumatic mode.
The so called electric cable is in fact the pressure air line
from a diver air tank. The noise is the actual one.
Pneumatic chainsaw has very interesting properties :
As an example, a chainsaw with a pneumatic engine
(runing from pressure air bottle regulated to 300 psi)
allows for a non combustible "all condition" running unit
for the fireman and/or national safety teams.
It does run in heavy smoke or under water as well.
Exhaust can even be respirated by the fireman !
More at : http://quasiturbine.promci.qc.ca/QTPneumatique.html

II - About the gentleman asking for dynamometer and combustion test,
I have to say that neither GM or Ford would provide such preliminary result,
why should we ? Some question are basicaly interesting, but are not fair to development.
Nevertheless, we believe that there is nothing wrong to dicuss
the interest of an innovation much before its ultime dynamometer test ...
Just be patient, and you eventually will get it all.

It is Ok to disagree, but de-information is not acceptable.

Gilles quasiturbine@promci.qc.ca      http://quasiturbine.promci.qc.ca
Thu, 18 Jan 2001 12:10:01 GMT
Yet still no Quasiturbine engine exists beyond the compressed air motor
that couldn't even power a chainsaw through a log. Funny that...
You mean the theory that if you repeat unsupported conjecture often
enough, some people may start to believe it? You've already gotten to
the popular magazines. Now it's time to work on Detroit. That's going
to take a working model that lives up to your claims.
Oh, you mean the "theory" that the Quasiturbine minimizes surface area
to volume ratio.
You might try brushing up on your solid geometry.

Walter Curnow walter_curnow@my-deja.com
Thu, 18 Jan 2001 00:39:20 GMT
Quasiturbine - Une mosaique de machines !
Bonjour les amis, je remarque que personne ne veux comprendre,
ni admettre les multiples facettes de la Quasiturbine.
Sans doute était-il trop exigeant de vous demandez d'extrapoler ?
Laissez-moi être plus explicite, sans compromettre les brevets en cours.

For years ... and again on January 6th, I wrote :
Quasiturbine multi-faces : As one can notice from the patent,
the Quasiturbine construction parameters are numerous and on a large range,
such as the Quasiturbine can look very different from the one shown
(These optimizations result from heavy calculations, and are not disclosed
at this time to prevent some countries to take early advantage ...).
Some arrangement reduces the combustion chamber surface to the piston level,
while other arrangements optimize the power density, torque continuity,
or compressor or pump characteristics ...

Because none of your seem to be willing to understand what I mean
(and because most seem to limit themselves to comment the photos and videos
- I incredibly notice "not a single comment" on the Quasiturbine theory !)
I have no choice but to partially disclose more some of the critical part
of the internal combustion Quasiturbine engine
(Believe me, I hate to do that at this time).
Please have a look at :
The Quasiturbine presented in the patent used mid-value parameters.
Here is only one more way the Quasiturbine can look,
and there are many many more, depending on the application ...
Some suggested me to remove the old "1998 Chainsaw video".
I disagree, it is part of the story, and ultimately,
it allows for everyone to comment on something !
(Will be sold at Christies for $$$$$$$ in 10 years !).

Gilles quasiturbine@promci.qc.ca      http://quasiturbine.promci.qc.ca
Thu, 18 Jan 2001 17:05:09 GMT
This new engine concept makes use of a "four degrees of freedom X, Y, q, ø "rotor"
If the rotor has four degress of freedom. how does the shaft connect to it?

"BobH" esotech88@REMOVEemail.com
Fri, 19 Jan 2001 10:34:47 GMT
I hope you do not mind that I come-in again,
but I would not like your question to be left un-answered,
since you raised one of the most interesting
and foundamental question of all about the Quasiturbine device
(not the engine theory), and I am pleased you did.
Forget a moment the confinement stator,
and just consider the rotor layed down on a table.
The 2 diagonals of the lozenge are the X, Y,
which can be rotated along Theta.
Furthermore, each carriage is free to rotate on its pivot,
which gives 4 more degrees of freedom phi1, phi2, phi3 and phi4
(because some peoples where not confortable with 7 degrees of freedom,
we made a concession, and considered all phi as one !).

Mathematicaly, the question is : Can we find a confinement profile
such as the rotor equation can be reduced to only the theta dependancy :
F(X, Y, theta, phi1, phi2, phi3, phi4) = F'(theta)
(Because once the rotor is in the stator,
the only independant variable left is the rotational "theta").
It does append that this question is extremly complex,
has no analytical solution, and furthermore has no exact solution at all !
In fact, we have shown that for the 5 1/2" diameter rotor,
there is a residual theoretical error of 0,0012",
as impossible to reduce as the circle quadrature !
The solution of this profile absolutly require powerful computer,
which explain also why the Quasiturbine was not invented before ...
As you know all elipse have 2 poles (as the Wankel also has),
contrary to the Quasiturbine skating rink solutions, which have 4 poles !
Believe me, this is not a small difference in term of engine ...

You also asked : How does the shaft connect to it?
Good question, also much related to RPM harmonics.
Instantaneous piston engine RPM is greatly modulated by the power strokes,
and only a flywheel can attenuate those harmonics
(and protect the crankshaft from twisting).
Each blade in a Quasiturbine also generates harmonics,
but the interesting thing is that they can be completely suppress
without using a flywheel, but simply through a proper shaft attachement.
We shown one solution in the patent fig. 2, but there are many more ...

Thanks for your careful analysis of the Quasiturbine device,
which lead you to this fundamental question.
There are many more subtilities,
but it would not be appropriate for me to raise them ...

Gilles quasiturbine@promci.qc.ca      http://quasiturbine.promci.qc.ca
Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:08:03 -0600
I respectfully wish to point out, that if you are trying to sell Detroit on
your engine, a most effective approach will be to patent your development
and publish & present an SAE paper at their annual automotive conferences
and expo at Cobo Hall in Detroit. This is far more productive than
bewailing how backward we are in not recognizing your development and your
genius. I would caution anyone against investing in such a development
until the above happens. It does not cost money to publish your development
with the SAE, just time and attention. The SAE membership is always eager
to see new developments. Their magazine, Automotive Engineering (I believe
is the title) tends to publish feature articles from papers that they deem
worthy. Significant contributions to the art receive even more attention
and prestigious awards. These are decided by engineers that are member of
the society, as individual participants of the society. They do not engage
in supressing progress in their field. So, why try to sell us on the
internet? You need to be putting your efforts in places that will do you
some good.

"George H. Morgan P.E." patagent@evansville.net Patent Agent http://www.evansville.net/biz/patagent
Thu, 18 Jan 2001 20:34:30 GMT
On September 28-30 1999, the Quasiturbine has been presented to more than
500 experts world wide at the SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) Small
Engine Technology Conference & Exposition (SAE-SETC), Marriot Hotel,
Madisson West, Wisconsin, USA

Steve Spence "Steve Spence"  sspence@webconx.com  http://www.webconx.com/subscribe.htm
Sat, 20 Jan 2001 11:31:17 GMT
There was a Quasiturbine table in the exhibition hall at SETC, but no
paper presented in any of the technical sessions. Why is that?
If the Quasiturbine were as revolutionary as Saint-Hilaire claims, it
would be presented and discussed in a technical session, not simply
advertised on the exhibit floor along with the o-rings and fuel

Walter Curnow walter_curnow@my-deja.com
Sat, 20 Jan 2001 14:51:24 GMT
Explanation has been added at the bottom of the page
For those of you blaming us not to have presented a technical paper, below is a letter which explains why ?
The chairman of the selection commitee came personnally twice to see Mr. Saint-Hilaire during the exhibition to express his regret,
and explained that the reject was mostly base on the fact that "the authors were not known form the world of engines".
We mutually closed the discussions in recognising that this was not an acceptable criteria,
and that the selection commitee will be more "scientific" in the future.
Please understand that we have a great respect for the SAE, the conventional engine experts, and the majors in Detroit and all around the world,
but this proves that they are not always the first to welcome innovations !
We have been hurt, but we will be back still stronger ...

SAELetter990214.gif (52455 bytes)

Gilles quasiturbine@promci.qc.ca      http://quasiturbine.promci.qc.ca
Sat, 20 Jan 2001 09:45:56 -0600
I would suggest resubmitting it to the SAE for consideration for the Off-Highway Conferences,
which were held at the same time & place last year as the Small Engines.
The Off-Highway Conferences will be in Las Vegas, Nev., around March 2002 in conjunction with Con-Expo.
I am one of the session organizers.
As usual, will have a session on intellectual property matters.
Your proposal abstract has a lot to do with acceptance,
as that is what the session organizers go off of. Hang in there!

"George H. Morgan P.E." patagent@evansville.net     http://www.evansville.net/biz/patagent
28 Jan 2001 09:54:23 GMT
If the rotor has four degress of freedom. how does the shaft connect to it?
Probably the nth degree. This device is a wortheless.

RHolb99180 rholb99180@aol.com
Wed, 31 Jan 2001 02:25:28 GMT
The Quasiturbine is a whole lot of parts (high cost of production/high maintenance)
doing a whole lot of nothing.
We need an engine that can be built of composite materials (high operating temperatures)
with the low cost advantages of a piston engine
and the low maintenance/continuous combustion advantages of a turbine.
Please sir -- GIVE IT UP!

"Scott O'Hearen" scotto@west-point.org
Thu, 01 Feb 2001 03:13:05 GMT
No, It should be "Please Sir, Make it work".
Never discourage an inventor.
Otherwise we would not have electric lights and TV
(well ok, may be TV should have been discouraged).
If they make it work, then they have to figure out how to sell it.
If they can't maybe some of their ideas will enlighten someone else.

Steve Spence "Steve Spence"  sspence@webconx.com  http://www.webconx.com/subscribe.htm
Fri, 02 Feb 2001 01:21:01 GMT
We also don't need any "thin skins" -- and when it's time for the inventor
to go back to the drawing board, we shouldn't have to listen to him telling
us that the invention is great. All I am saying is for the inventor to stop
cramming this particular invention down our throat and go back and invent
something that WILL perform. I think from looking at all of the responses
that "the counsel has spoken."

"Scott O'Hearen" scotto@west-point.org
Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:25:59 GMT
I just want to bring your attention on a different explanation
we have about the Wankel poor combustion.
Please look at paragraph #4 and its following diagram at :
The diagram makes a comparaison of Piston - Wankel -Quasiturbine.
As you can see, the volume at the end of the Wankel stroke
is 3 times larger than the optimum volume generated
by the movement of its radial differential,
and the volume variation is several times faster that the piston or the Quasiturbine
(resulting in a geometric squelch effect, and a thermo diabatic cold down of the flame).
Not only this reduces substantially the efficiency,
but this too fast expansion is responsible for the poor combustion,
an the large quantity of HC unburnt.
The inter-chambers communication throught exhaust port
has certainly nothing to do with the poor combustion.
Furthermore, we believe that the exhaust port (radial or axial)
has also little to do with it ... even if many like you to believe it ...
Excess geometric volume squelching is the answer that every one fear to face !
Good luck to Mazda.

Gilles quasiturbine@promci.qc.ca      http://quasiturbine.promci.qc.ca

Wed, 07 Feb 2001 13:24:30 -0500
Problem with the Quasiturbine is that there are rotating bearings
(rocking bearings, actually) which that are directly exposed to the
combustion gas. These will wear out in no time when the carbon from
gasoline combustion settles in and acts like valve lapping compound :)

Ian Habicher ihabicher@hotmail.com
Wed, 07 Feb 2001 14:44:35 -0800
I guess GM and Daimler won't be lining up on this one!
No way could it be as good an idea as the rotary! (Wankel)

BizarroTerl Bizarroterl266@forgeus.com-subtract266
Thu, 08 Feb 2001 08:58:45 GMT
In relation with your interesting comment,
could you explain why the Wankel's Stator and apex contour seals
(and rings in piston engines)
are not wear out in no time when the carbon from
gasoline combustion settles in and acts like valve lapping compound ?
In fact, the combustion particles turn out
not to act as valve lapping compound, but more as poor quality graphite grease.
If the rotary seals can stand it, the bearings do stand it even better !
Notice also that some Quasiturbine designs
do not have bearing in the combustion chamber as at :
An other frequent related comment is
about accumulation of carbon under the carriages wheels track ?
In practice, wheels track are the cleanest part of the engine
(Just like the valve seats are in piston engine).
Lets all support the rotary engines ...

Gilles quasiturbine@promci.qc.ca      http://quasiturbine.promci.qc.ca
Thu, 8 Feb 2001 12:09:35 +0100
They say that this Quasiturbine is a 100% efficient. That smells fishy to
me. Nothing is a 100% efficient. If this would be possible within the laws
of physics then the 'moto perpetuum' would also be possible.
Ofcourse i will keep supporting the rotary, the only thing that bothers me
is it's poor mileage per gallon.

Fernando Riscado Cordas jr. frc@casema.net
Thu, 08 Feb 2001 12:39:48 GMT
If you read carefully, nowhere it is said that the efficiency is 100 %.
It is said that there is no dead time (zero),
and that the "components use factor" is 100 %
(which means that all engine components are essential at all time during rotation).

However, efficiency is commented positively at different places of the website in relation to :
Themodynamic (gain from early and late mechanical energy extraction)
Thermal (smaller heat flux and cooler operation)
Friction (the product friction X displacement is lower that for the piston)
Pheriferal accessories (gain because of no camshaft, valve, push rods ...)
Peak power (only 20% higher that the mean power, compare to 7 times for piston)
Shaft RPM harmonics (which are very low - no need of flywheel to average)
Gear box saving (8 à 12 % energy saving by not using gearbox)
Long live time (wear is mesured in number of passages, low RPM means long live)
Intake efficiency (piston has poor sinewave intake characteristics)
On board application saving (lighter vehicles ... means saving over 10 years!)
Fuel additives (Quasiturbine requires much lower octane level)
Environment (fuel savings and much less NOx production)
Vibration zero (source of billions of $ of dommages and corrosion acceleration)
Cumbersome (4 time less than the piston engine)
Weight reduction (5 time less than the piston)

Ok, some statements may not be absolutly proven,
but they are deduced from well known present engine modelling,
and deserve raisonable credibility.
Quasiturbine is a rotary engine with gives good mileage per gallon !
(because it does not have the Wankel excess volume during expansion)

Gilles quasiturbine@promci.qc.ca      http://quasiturbine.promci.qc.ca
Thu, 8 Feb 2001 20:10:54 -0500
All I saw at the site was a crappy running one attatched to a chain saw.
It sounded really crappy.

Pony Pingaman@cojoneville.com

Retour au menu principal Quasiturbine / Return to Quasiturbine main menu

Quasiturbine Agence Inc., Agence promotionnelle pour Quasiturbine Rotative Motorisée par Combustion Continue ou Compresseur
Casier 2804, 3535 Ave Papineau, Montréal Québec H2K 4J9 CANADA (514) 527-8484 Fax (514) 527-9530
http://quasiturbine.promci.qc.ca             quasiturbine@promci.qc.ca