In reply to Keith Tanner:
All true, I was being fairly optimistic.
Other than the decade. Let's check back in ten years and see what happens.
My oldest will be starting college. Oof.
In reply to Keith Tanner:
All true, I was being fairly optimistic.
Other than the decade. Let's check back in ten years and see what happens.
My oldest will be starting college. Oof.
You're on! 
AClockworkGarage wrote: why don't you just eliminate the cam and rocker setup and just put the valves on electronic servos? then you've reduced weight and parasitic power loss and can program an infinitely variable lift and duration. Going drag racing? download a power cam, gotta tow? Download a torque cam. Long road trip? Economy cam. I've been wondering this since I was 12. Surly somebody smarter than me has thought of this already.
Energy density of electrical actuators cannot match mechanical. Then there's the issue of heat, which seriously degrades electrical performance. You COULD run the actuators in liquid Helium, might get a bit expensive. Then there is the issue of control, to match or exceed mechanical performance requires precise positional feedback to the driver circuit, basically servo controls. A simple solenoid cannot provide this degree of precision or control. Then there is cost, and weight, and size, and reliability, and ...
Current systems are hybrids, that use electronic control of small fast hydraulic or pneumatic valves that control the power to actually move the valves.
Another benefit to true servo valves is elimination of the throttle. The amount of mixture is totally controlled by valve opening. No more pumping losses past an intake restriction.
Keith Tanner wrote: Usually called weight savings
Any time someone invents a cutesy neologism for something that already has a well-defined and -understood word, my BS-o-meter hits the peg so hard it bends the needle.
You'll need to log in to post.
