Home » Public Forums » GMCnet » [GMCnet] No more camshaft
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] No more camshaft [message #205224 is a reply to message #205211] |
Fri, 19 April 2013 09:42   |
habbyguy
Messages: 896
Registered: May 2012
Location: Mesa, AZ
Karma: 3
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Wow, that IS sexy! It makes SO much sense, though I'm sure there's a long development cycle ahead to make the system commercially viable and reliable enough to survive the kind of abuse (read "no maintenance") the average consumer causes.
Mark Hickey
Mesa, AZ
1978 Royale Center Kitchen
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] No more camshaft [message #205241 is a reply to message #205225] |
Fri, 19 April 2013 11:04 |
Keith V
Messages: 2337
Registered: March 2008
Location: Mounds View,MN
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I have a feeling it's one of deals that yes it can be done, no you can't afford it ( yet)
Keith Vasilakes
Mounds View. MN
75 ex Royale GMC
ask me about MicroLevel
Cell, 763-732-3419
My427v8@hotmail.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] No more camshaft [message #205283 is a reply to message #205255] |
Fri, 19 April 2013 19:12 |
jhbridges
Messages: 8412
Registered: May 2011
Location: Braselton ga
Karma: -74
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Why retain? You don't need the distributor if you have enough computing power to determine valve action, lightitng it off is gonna be fairly trivial. Save the weight and cost - and complexity.
--johnny
'76 23' transmode norris
'76 palm beach
Scenic Braselton, ga
From: Larry Davick <ljdavick@comcast.net>
To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 2:45 PM
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] No more camshaft
That is very cool. I can imagine retrofit kits in 10 years, or so. For our use we would probably maintain the camshaft - simply to run the distributor and oil pump (fuel pump too for those carb users) but without all the drag of the lifters. It's going to take more than an EBL computer to handle the computations, though!
Larry Davick
Fremont, California
A Mystery Machine
'76 (ish) Palm Beach
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven Ferguson" <botiemad11@gmail.com>
To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 6:52:32 AM
Subject: [GMCnet] No more camshaft
Interesting technology: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bch5B23_pu0
--
Take care,
Steve
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Foolish Carriage, 76 26' Eleganza(?) with beaucoup mods and add - ons.
Braselton, Ga.
I forgive them all, save those who hurt the dogs. They must answer to me in hell
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] No more camshaft [message #205288 is a reply to message #205283] |
Fri, 19 April 2013 19:37 |
 |
ljdavick
Messages: 3548
Registered: March 2007
Location: Fremont, CA
Karma: -3
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I kinda like having an oil pump. The distributor can go, a crank sensor and coil-pack will take care of that, but rejiggering an oil pump would be tough.
Larry Davick
Fremont, California
A Mystery Machine
'76 (ish) Palm Beach
----- Original Message -----
From: "Johnny Bridges" <jhbridges@ymail.com>
To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 5:12:57 PM
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] No more camshaft
Why retain? You don't need the distributor if you have enough computing power to determine valve action, lightitng it off is gonna be fairly trivial. Save the weight and cost - and complexity.
--johnny
'76 23' transmode norris
'76 palm beach
Scenic Braselton, ga
From: Larry Davick <ljdavick@comcast.net>
To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 2:45 PM
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] No more camshaft
That is very cool. I can imagine retrofit kits in 10 years, or so. For our use we would probably maintain the camshaft - simply to run the distributor and oil pump (fuel pump too for those carb users) but without all the drag of the lifters. It's going to take more than an EBL computer to handle the computations, though!
Larry Davick
Fremont, California
A Mystery Machine
'76 (ish) Palm Beach
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven Ferguson" <botiemad11@gmail.com>
To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 6:52:32 AM
Subject: [GMCnet] No more camshaft
Interesting technology: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bch5B23_pu0
--
Take care,
Steve
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Larry Davick
A Mystery Machine
1976(ish) Palm Beach
Fremont, Ca
Howell EFI + EBL + Electronic Dizzy
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] No more camshaft [message #205291 is a reply to message #205288] |
Fri, 19 April 2013 19:46 |
jhbridges
Messages: 8412
Registered: May 2011
Location: Braselton ga
Karma: -74
|
Senior Member |
|
|
BMW used to chain drive the pump off the crankshaft didn't they? And if electric sterring pumps work, why not oil?
I like the idea though.... total flexibility. Want to deactivate? Simple. Want an Atkinson cycle at some speeds and loads? Simple. Total 'cam' phasing? Yours for the asking.
Didn't somebody do an F1 engine with no cam? Or try, at least?
--johnny
From: Larry Davick <ljdavick@comcast.net>
To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 8:37 PM
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] No more camshaft
I kinda like having an oil pump. The distributor can go, a crank sensor and coil-pack will take care of that, but rejiggering an oil pump would be tough.
Larry Davick
Fremont, California
A Mystery Machine
'76 (ish) Palm Beach
----- Original Message -----
From: "Johnny Bridges" <jhbridges@ymail.com>
To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 5:12:57 PM
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] No more camshaft
Why retain? You don't need the distributor if you have enough computing power to determine valve action, lightitng it off is gonna be fairly trivial. Save the weight and cost - and complexity.
--johnny
'76 23' transmode norris
'76 palm beach
Scenic Braselton, ga
From: Larry Davick <ljdavick@comcast.net>
To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 2:45 PM
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] No more camshaft
That is very cool. I can imagine retrofit kits in 10 years, or so. For our use we would probably maintain the camshaft - simply to run the distributor and oil pump (fuel pump too for those carb users) but without all the drag of the lifters. It's going to take more than an EBL computer to handle the computations, though!
Larry Davick
Fremont, California
A Mystery Machine
'76 (ish) Palm Beach
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven Ferguson" <botiemad11@gmail.com>
To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 6:52:32 AM
Subject: [GMCnet] No more camshaft
Interesting technology: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bch5B23_pu0
--
Take care,
Steve
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Foolish Carriage, 76 26' Eleganza(?) with beaucoup mods and add - ons.
Braselton, Ga.
I forgive them all, save those who hurt the dogs. They must answer to me in hell
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] No more camshaft [message #205311 is a reply to message #205309] |
Sat, 20 April 2013 07:54 |
 |
Matt Colie
Messages: 8547
Registered: March 2007
Location: S.E. Michigan
Karma: 7
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Read what rf_burns (aka Bruce)wrote on Sat, 20 April 2013 08:09
Bruce you hit the nail right on the head. The electric power consumption of both camless engines and completely non-mechanical diesel injection both hit bottom hard right here. Because mechanical drives are so easy and clean, we forget that even the some little things can demand very high peak power.
Example: The camdrive of a typical V-8 engine is not very difficult to roll with a 1/2 breaker bar on the end, it is pretty hard to snap over the peaks, but you get the back on the other side. If it is electric, you have to pull it both ways, and you don't get that energy back....
For a while I was messing with a company that was trying to do a completely electric diesel fuel fuel system. One of the intended selling points would be the elimination of the 75#ft that a Bosch VE (used on Golf, Rabbit and other little diesels) could be taken of the the engine and that power used as output. There was a problem, the electric pump to provide the high pressure actually required more power than the mechanical pump, so the net actually suffered.
Matt
Matt & Mary Colie - Chaumière -'73 Glacier 23 - Members GMCMI, GMCGL, GMCES
Electronically Controlled Quiet Engine Cooling Fan with OE Rear Drum Brakes with Applied Control Arms
SE Michigan - Near DTW - Twixt A2 and Detroit
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] No more camshaft [message #205409 is a reply to message #205329] |
Sun, 21 April 2013 10:03 |
Arthur Mansfield
Messages: 290
Registered: April 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
That is what the future looks like. When and how much it cost is the question.
Art & Doris
76 EL
Decatur AL
On Apr 20, 2013, at 11:01 AM, Mike Miller wrote:
>
>
> rf_burns wrote on Sat, 20 April 2013 05:09
>> Its not computing power that is the hold back, its the mechanical side. ...
>>
>> ... I'm assuming the solenoids were opening a valve against a spring. On the other hand if the solenoid was holding the valve open and closed, then the solenoid would have a 100% duty cycle. They may be able to reduce the current using PWM while holding the valve open or closed.
>>
>> I'm sure the electrical power can be brought back down to something manageable. It sure is a long overdue improvement to the valving system.
>
>
> Think he said an air spring on one side, and computer controlled compressed air on the other side.
>
> SO... If I understand it correctly in this design the valves are powered by air pressure and the electronics just control the compressed air.
>
> Granted, the air pressure needs to come from SOMEWHERE. :roll:
>
> --
> Mike Miller -- Hillsboro, OR -- on the Black list
> (#1)'73 26' exPainted D. -- (#2)`78 23' Birchaven Rear Bath -- (#3)`77 23' Birchaven Side Bath
> http://m000035.blogspot.com
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] No more camshaft [message #205412 is a reply to message #205409] |
Sun, 21 April 2013 11:28 |
jhbridges
Messages: 8412
Registered: May 2011
Location: Braselton ga
Karma: -74
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Well, if it is the future, R&D will be spead acors what - 10 to 20 million units per year? I don't see it being poisonusly expensive.
--johnny
From: 1104agm <1104agm@gmail.com>
To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 11:03 AM
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] No more camshaft
That is what the future looks like. When and how much it cost is the question.
Art & Doris
76 EL
Decatur AL
On Apr 20, 2013, at 11:01 AM, Mike Miller wrote:
>
>
> rf_burns wrote on Sat, 20 April 2013 05:09
>> Its not computing power that is the hold back, its the mechanical side. ...
>>
>> ... I'm assuming the solenoids were opening a valve against a spring. On the other hand if the solenoid was holding the valve open and closed, then the solenoid would have a 100% duty cycle. They may be able to reduce the current using PWM while holding the valve open or closed.
>>
>> I'm sure the electrical power can be brought back down to something manageable. It sure is a long overdue improvement to the valving system.
>
>
> Think he said an air spring on one side, and computer controlled compressed air on the other side.
>
> SO... If I understand it correctly in this design the valves are powered by air pressure and the electronics just control the compressed air.
>
> Granted, the air pressure needs to come from SOMEWHERE. :roll:
>
> --
> Mike Miller -- Hillsboro, OR -- on the Black list
> (#1)'73 26' exPainted D. -- (#2)`78 23' Birchaven Rear Bath -- (#3)`77 23' Birchaven Side Bath
> http://m000035.blogspot.com
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Foolish Carriage, 76 26' Eleganza(?) with beaucoup mods and add - ons.
Braselton, Ga.
I forgive them all, save those who hurt the dogs. They must answer to me in hell
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] No more camshaft [message #205413 is a reply to message #205309] |
Sun, 21 April 2013 12:13 |
Keith V
Messages: 2337
Registered: March 2008
Location: Mounds View,MN
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
| rf_burns wrote on Sat, 20 April 2013 07:09 |
Matt mentioned they used electric solenoids (which makes the most sense to me) 48v @ 15amps = 720watts. One horsepower = 746watts so it takes one horsepower to have a valve open. An since over the 4 cycles, each valve is open 1/4 of the time, that means at any time 1/2 the valves are open so about 8 electrical HP is used by the valve train. Plus loses = more like 10hp. At 12V that's 625amps so forget using your HD 100amp alternator.
|
except it's not 100% duty cycle, probably less than 25%
Keith Vasilakes
Mounds View. MN
75 ex Royale GMC
ask me about MicroLevel
Cell, 763-732-3419
My427v8@hotmail.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] No more camshaft [message #205686 is a reply to message #205211] |
Tue, 23 April 2013 23:05 |
Bob de Kruyff
Messages: 4260
Registered: January 2004
Location: Chandler, AZ
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
With lower reciprocating mass and dramaticall reduced valve actuation forces, this idea is closer than most people think. The ability to actuate each valve independently eliminates a lot of claptrap that totally variable valve timing requires today. Plus you can have totally variable lift and much better cylinder de-activation. I doubt this will ever be a retrofit item since it is enabled by the base engine design.
Bob de Kruyff
78 Eleganza
Chandler, AZ
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] No more camshaft [message #205696 is a reply to message #205688] |
Wed, 24 April 2013 06:29 |
jhbridges
Messages: 8412
Registered: May 2011
Location: Braselton ga
Karma: -74
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dunno what you consider 'recent' but the Chrysler WWii (the Big one) tank engine had five.
--johnny
'76 23' transmode norris
'76 palm beach
________________________________
From: Bob de Kruyff <NEXT2POOL@AOL.COM>
To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 12:09 AM
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] No more camshaft
BTW which engine in recent history had 5 "camshafts"?
--
Bob de Kruyff
78 Eleganza
Chandler, AZ
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Foolish Carriage, 76 26' Eleganza(?) with beaucoup mods and add - ons.
Braselton, Ga.
I forgive them all, save those who hurt the dogs. They must answer to me in hell
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri Nov 15 20:49:56 CST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02408 seconds
|
GMCforum
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
