spridgets
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: CAMLESS engine was Re: CFR engine

Subject: Re: CAMLESS engine was Re: CFR engine
From: "Angela Hervey-Tennyson & Peter Westcott" <toobmany@bigpond.com>
Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 19:01:26 +1000
Cc: <spridgets@autox.team.net>
Reply-to: "Angela Hervey-Tennyson & Peter Westcott" <toobmany@bigpond.com>
Sender: owner-spridgets@autox.team.net
Some F1 engines use pneumatic valves because conventional systems couldn't
take 16000rpm.  There is also the rotary valve engine where an apetured
hollow spinning shaft takes the mixture to the cylinder ports.  The problem
with this system is sealing between the shaft and cylinder ports for
compression and oil.  And don't forget the Willys-Knight engine which
operated on a similar principle but with vertical reed apetures.  Oh, and
there's the rotary. (which started life as a supercharger on NSU
motorcycles)

Peter Westcott

----------
From: Daniel1312@aol.com
To: froggi@cdsnet.net
Cc: tob@taltec.net; spridgets@autox.team.net
Subject: Re: CAMLESS engine was Re: CFR engine
Date: Sunday, 16 May 1999 7:10

No, this is a 4 stroke engine with conventional poppet valves.  The valves 
are operated by acutuators rather than springs hence only one step away
from 
camless.  The problem was that they couldn't get the actuators to work fast

enough.

Daniel1312

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>