Talk:Quasiturbine

Quasiturbine et pompe à palettes/ and vane pumps.

Since one of the contibutors suggested that articles in French would be appreciated, at least as an an alternative to nearly illegible English, I include hereunder my reactions, right after reading Wikipedia info on Quasiturbine in the french version of Wikipedia. I hope it will not be too hard to understand this piece of French intermixed with English language contributions. Sorry for this painful task which is not mandatory... Best regards from Bordeaux. (The 2009 vintage is expected to be superb : une grande année)

Je viens de lire avec beaucoup d'intérêt l'artcle décrivant la Quasiturbine. J'ai eu l'impression de lire un prospectus ou une "publicité rédactionnelle". Je me trompe certainement. Il est curieux de constater comme cette Quasiturbine rappelle les pompes à palettes inventées par les Italiens il y a de cela quelques siècles. L'idée d'en faire un moteur a alimenté les rêves de bien des personnes... et les miens lorsque j'étais adolescent, il y a une soixantaine d'années. Les pompes à palettes continuent à se vendre. Il n'y a pas eu de moteurs à palettes. Pour l'instant la Quasiturbine est à peu près dans la même situation, elle fonctionne en pompe, mais quid de ses réelles possibilités en fonctionnement moteur? Le moteur Wankel, auquel elle se compare, étonnamment simple en théorie, eut, et a toujours, à surmonter bien des problèmes d'ordre pratique; notamment ceux de l'étanchéité. Le moteur à piston rotatif "Atkinson" souffre sans doute, ou souffrira de ces mêmes handicaps. Vivement des réalisations concrètes et industrielles. En tout cas on ne peut que rêver du succès d'un moteur aussi innovant que la Quasiturbine.

La Quasiturbine n'a justement pas de palettes, dont le débattement est généralement important et contre lesquels la pression s'exerce pour engendrer la rotation. Les joints de contour de la Quasiturbine ont un débattement minime, et le mouvement de rotation ne vient pas d'une poussée contre ces joints. D'autres part, la géométrie des pompes à palettes ne permet pas de taux de compression élevé au point haut, alors que la Quasiturbine a une chambre résiduelle haute de volume très faible (ceci explique pourquoi il n'y a pas de moteur à combustion palettes).

In order to comply with the rules of the present discussion, please find here a translation into English of the text above.

I have been very interested in going through the article describing the Quasiturbine engine. I got the feeling of reading promotional stuff however. I am certainly wrong. What is amazing with Quasiturbine is that it reminds me vane pumps which had been invented by Italians some centuries ago. The idea of designing an engine based on the principle of vane pumps was a dream for many I suppose... By the way it was mine when I was a very young chap, six decades ago or so. Vane pumps are still working and available on the market. But there is no working vane motors so far. For the time being the Quasiturbine is more or less in the same situation, it runs as a pump, but what about its motor ability? The Wankel engine which it compares to was astonishingly simple in theory, although it had, and still has, to overcome practical drawbacks, for instance those related to tightness. The "Atkinson" rotating piston engine presumably experiments, or will experiment the same type of problems. One can be eager to see actual running applications of such a kind of engine. In any case anyone can dream of a success for such innovative an engine as the Quasiturbine seems to be.

The Quasiturbine does not have vane, which extension is generally important and against which the pressure acts to generate rotation. The Quasiturbine contour seals have a minimal extension, and the rotation does not come from a push against these seals. Furthermore, the geometry of the vane pumps do not allow high compression ratio at top dead center, while the Quasiturbine does, having a small residual chamber volume (this is the reason why there is no vane combustion engine).

--193.250.101.71 (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Bernard Huet.

Articles in the French language, or any other language, would be appreciated so long as they appear in reliable sources. However talk page discussion is expected to be in English, as this is the English Wikipedia. Se WP:TALK for the relevant guidelines.   Will Beback  talk  22:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

6-stroke ?

Appearantly one quasiturbine design has 6-strokes (see http://quasiturbine.promci.qc.ca/QTMarchettiSthSixStroke0509.pdf ) Do others have 4 strokes ? 91.182.179.177 (talk) 11:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

QT Simplified Calculation

July 2013 statement moved from article to talk page :

In 2012 Latchezar Marinov (Bulgaria) found Quasiturbine - Mathematical model. In 2013, he and his son used this mathematical model to make 3D motion model via CADきゃど program.

Motive: Quasiturbine refer to a general device described as QT-AC concept where confinement profile calculation is quite complex and the method extensively described in the USA patent profile calculation. So far (2013), no one as reported a successful alternative to the general calculation method. This general method also apply to the simplified QT-SC family of designs, where the length between the center of the 2 rollers of each carriages is set to zero. Among the criteria for optimizing the confinement profile is the rotor geometry (for example deformable geometry range, or with pivots size suitable to carry a contour seal), but also the ability of the profile to fit the rotor shape, and to produce a rate of angular confinement volume variation suitable to specific application.

Several people have made their own « Quasiturbine like rotor simplification » (which could be appreciated in proper context...) and found ways to calculated their set of confinement shapes, but no one so far (2013) has produced confinement result base on the actual Quasiturbine QT-SC as manufactured by the inventor. Courageous and enthusiast innovators must therefore be careful in their statement not to advertise generalization or misunderstanding, to avoid confusion and deception to readers and numerous project entrepreneurs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.22.66.95 (talk) 13:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Gilles

(moved from my talk..snip[1])...someone has bring to my attention your comment on Quasiturbine Secondary or tertiary sources are plenty for such a new innovation, But for some reason, few are willing to dig properly into it… to improve the article.

May I suggest the page: [2]

See also - The Quasiturbine at the invention autopsy: A bibliographic overview prior to 2012 by Michel Bourguignon Ing. [3]

Nothing is perfect of course, but time will help. Thanks for your impressive 50 k contributions.

Gilles 514-527-8484 Montréal Canada [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.90.72 (talk) 4:08 pm, Today (UTC+1)

Gilles, see WP:COI and follow those instructions for contributing and declaring your COI. Regarding sources - see WP:SECONDARY. Regards Widefox; talk 16:46, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Cleanup

Would help, based on WP:SECONDARY, third party, independent sources rather than being WP:OR based on the WP:PATENTs and other WP:PRIMARY sources. The French article may help. Widefox; talk 10:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

This article is out of date

It says things like "as of 2005." That's almost 15 years ago as when I posted this comment. Things might have changed by now. Please update this article if you can. Don't forget to look for sources to verify the up-to-date information. WorldQuestioneer (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

we are getting old omg 19 years ago. I'll update it as much as I can. Taffy boeing b 17 (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)