The K-cycle Engine

[Unknown303]

Was talking with some family last night about engines and what not and he drops the K-cycle bomb on me. Now i'm completely lost trying to find any information on this strange engine invented in Winnipeg, Manitoba. I searched the internet and could find places that mentioned it momentarily but nothing that would go over the concept or have illustrations of this engine.

Does anyone know of this or have any interesting links to sites about this.

[topmade]

Could this be it?

http://www.oldengine.org/members/lozzi/K.htm

[Canada Tom]

Originally posted by Unknown303
Was talking with some family last night about engines and what not and he drops the K-cycle bomb on me. Now i'm completely lost trying to find any information on this strange engine invented in Winnipeg, Manitoba. I searched the internet and could find places that mentioned it momentarily but nothing that would go over the concept or have illustrations of this engine.

Does anyone know of this or have any interesting links to sites about this.

I realize this post reply is 1 1/2 years "late" but I was Googling for K-Cycle engine and Unknown303 came up.

I am familiar with Dr. Christianson from Winnipeg, Manitoba.

I heard him speak in 1984 at the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology.

He merged with someone and then went bankrupt.

Did you ever find anything about it? It is a brilliant engine.

Canada Tom.

[Unknown303]

Nope to this day I've still had a near impossible time tracking down any detailed information regarding the K-Cycle engine.

Its kind of crazy to see this thread revived, maybe we can finally find some information.

Oh my brain!!!
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7117841.html
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7117841.html

[ryanallan]

I would be interested in knowing how it works . . .

[Unknown303]

Oh posted links in my past post.

[badatusrnames]

From a google hit:




The Kristiansen cycle engine, aka the K-Cycle, was developed by a Professor Kristiansen of the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. I don't remember the exact date of its development, but it was sometime in the early 60's if I remember correctly. It used 6 pistons, 6 cylinders, 1 sparkplug one exhaust port and one intake port. There were no valves. It looked like the barrel of a six shooter used in old westerns.

Each piston moved freely inside its respective cylinder. The cylinders would move around the drive shaft like the bullet holders in a six shooter barrel. Each piston's connecting rod would ride on a rollercoaster like track. The cylinders were attached to the drive shaft to translate the energy of combustion in every one of the cylinders to the rotation of the shaft. As the track moved, the pistons and corresponding connecting rod would move through the intake, compression, spark, drive and exhaust positions. When the fuel combusted, the piston that was at the drive position would push the rest of the pistons through the other stroke positions.

This design resulted in a much longer time for expansion of the combusted fuel thereby increasing the engine's efficiency. When demonstrating this engine, Kristiansen would ask spectators to touch the exhaust port and, to everyone's amazement, the exhaust port ran at a comfortably warm temperature.

The advantage of this engine was its high efficiency - more than 3 to 4 times that of the internal combustion engines of today.

The disadvantage of this engine was the moving parts and the difficulty in lubricating them. The engine would fail frequently due to fatigue and material creep. The centrifugal force on the parts, as one might imagine, was incredible. No one was ever killed from these failures, which was incredibly lucky!

My personal assessment of this engine was that it was a great try, but it is impractical. Maybe someone could revisit the design and come up with a better solution.

http://forums.howwhatwhy.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=Cars&Number=-120073&fpart=1

[Unknown303]

Damn and i was just going to post that link. Talk about the crazy things that come out of Canada.

[Proboscis]

theres a wiki look alike site that has diagrams on various engine designs. one from Calgary if I recall.

[Canada Tom]

Originally posted by Unknown303
Nope to this day I've still had a near impossible time tracking down any detailed information regarding the K-Cycle engine.

Its kind of crazy to see this thread revived, maybe we can finally find some information.

Oh my brain!!!
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7117841.html
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7117841.html

Hey, you ARE out there! I checked out those two web sites,

and I believe they are patents for the Mazda Rotory engine.

The K-Cycle uses opposed pistons that form a compression chamber between the piston tops as they move towards each other.

The cylinders are arranged like the bullet revolver in a pistol.

Now, this is where things get really wild, the whole thing spins while the pistons go up and down.

It's very difficult to explain without a diagram.

It's incredibly simple, however, and twice as efficient as a naturally aspirated gasoline engine.

[Proboscis]

we need some animated gifs

[Unknown303]

Yeah my original conversation with my family member he was describing it to me that it was like the mazda wanko but with more compression and expansion chambers. Sounds interesting and it a shame it never really made it anywhere.

[Supa Dexta]

Is he still alive? Shouldn't be hard to track him down, beyond detective style (just don't ruin his life when you find him)

[Unknown303]

K-Cycle Patent PDF (http://members.shaw.ca/zenonp/Misc/KCycle.pdf)

So that's the a PDF of the actual Patent forms. Pretty interesting illustrations.

[badatusrnames]

Sounds interesting, but it sounds like the engine was simply too complex and had reliability issues that were too serious for mainstream use...

[ryanallan]

thats an interesting design.
but ya, seems complex with lots of moving parts.
kinda the opposite of the wankel rotary.

[Canada Tom]

Originally posted by Unknown303
K-Cycle Patent PDF (http://members.shaw.ca/zenonp/Misc/KCycle.pdf)

So that's the a PDF of the actual Patent forms. Pretty interesting illustrations.


So, I opened the PDF above and all 16 pages were blank!
Never had that happen before.
If he were still alive he'd be in his 80's I would think.
Essentially, this engine has a variable radius crankshaft
that allows for more energy usage on the power stroke.
The reason I got "crancked" up about it again is I was
watching Daily Planet the other night and a guy "Ed"
in California has built a cross between the K-Cycle and a
hydro-static drive. It's much smaller with fewer moving parts
some of them a white composite vs. steel.
I'll look again and see if they've posted the clip.

[Canada Tom]

DicoveryChannel.ca drives me crazy, I NEVER find what I'm looking for there! Perhaps I'll send them an email and see if I can't get more info.

[Unknown303]

Do it i need more information!

[Vetmxr]

The K-Cycle was designed by my wife’s uncle Hawken Kristiansen in conjunction with the University of Manitoba, we still have I believe 2 or 3 engines in mothballs capable of working! The K-Cycle can operate on bio fuels and at time of design thru to early 80’s required no emission equipment, had one igniter and as a result of it's variable stroke required no muffler. Typically the K-Cycle develops more H.P. for a third less engine weight and a reduction of fuel consumption of up to 30% when compared to comparable Otto Cycle engines. Fuel consumption of today’s engines has not improved substantially so I see the K-cycle engine as still viable!
The K-cycle would have been an engine of choice today had not Hawken Kristiansen sadly passed away suddenly from a heart attack at the peak of K-Cycles development. Hawken was the driving force behind K-Cycle and he was a very principled man. He would not sell his design his intention was to license companies only to ensure the general public would reap the benefit of his invention. The K-cycle ran successfully in various applications including for several thousand miles in a Ford Mustang and was shown publicly by the then President of Ford Canada who made a presentation on the K-Cycle. The K-Cycle was close to market at the time of Hawkens death.
I am currently acting for the Kristiansen family with regard to promoting and looking for new investors.

[pppaulll]

:banghead:
Hi,

i'm delighted that someone remembers this engine. i first heard obout it more than 30 years ago. i hesitate to imagine why this engine never made it to market.

This is taken entirely from my memory of a ‘70’s Canadian Film Board documentary that I saw (7 times) in the '70s. This description should give one a pretty fair idea of the engine. People interested in this technology should also investigate an Australian engine (the OX2) which one might help you to understand some of the K-Cycle properties. The K-Cycle is far more elegant than the Australian effort. One can also research the term “Swash Plate Engine”. Swash plate is the generic term for this class of engine.

My summary follows:

While automakers are delivering more economical engines they are doing so in dribs and drabs, one percent here, two there. Thirty-two miles per gallon seems to be today’s gold-standard. Swash-plate technology is claimed to be able to provide over 100 miles to the U.S. gallon in an average-sized car according to the Australian OX2 engine developer.

I recall from the 1970’s, that a similar engine was developed in Canada. It was known as the K-Cycle engine. Developers of the K-Cycle were claiming 80 miles to an Imperial gallon in full sized behemoths. Both of these swash-plate engines are capable of being powered by any liquid or gaseous fuel.

There is a great deal of information available on the Internet about the OX-2 engine but the K-Cycle was developed pre-web. I still vividly recall watching a Canadian Film Board documentary describing the K-Cycle. I was astounded by the simplicity and sophistication of the idea.

Claims for the K-Cycle included:

• High gas mileage (80 mpg[Imp] on 1970’s vintage behemoths)
• Multi-fuel capable
• Extremely clean
• Robust (100,000 mile service interval – 500,000+ mile life expectancy)
• Quiet (Exhaust gases are at near atmospheric pressure at the end of the power-stroke. A muffler is not needed.).
• A great deal of inertial energy is stored in the revolving block making acceleration more efficient
• Very simple (Few moving parts, ports instead of valves)
• Customizable fixed-cam
• Smooth (The CFB documentary mentioned above showed the engine operating with a full glass of wine sitting on the block cover. Not a drop was spilled.)
• Inexpensive
• Air-cooled

The fixed cam is at the core of what makes the swash-plate engine so different and efficient. The cam can be cast to modify the angular rotation of each stroke, the depth of the stroke and the stroke’s slope. The block can be thought of like the cylinder in a pistol. The pistons move up and down through the ‘cartridge chambers’ in the cylinder. The pistons apply force to a fixed cam, causing the entire block to rotate.

An example of how the cam might be designed is:

• The power/exhaust cycles takes 220° while the intake/exhaust is only 140° giving a bias to the power/exhaust.
• The power/exhaust cycles are deeper than the intake/compression, capturing more energy from the burned fuel and reducing exhaust gasses to almost atmospheric pressure.
• A flat spot on the cam locks the piston at TDC for (say) 3° of rotation, causing the fuel to ignite and burn in a “non-reducing” environment (i.e. one of constant pressure). This is far more efficient than burning fuel while the piston is already travelling down in the power stroke.
• The slope of the cam for each stroke can be optimized: Power stroke has a shallower slope than the exhaust stroke, capturing more energy from the burning fuel.

(i am attaching a jpg file that shows the K-Cycle cam "flattened out").

Of course the design is more complex, but this gives you the idea.

Does the 100 mpg carburetor exist? It most probably does not. But the 100 mpg engine is really out there. Canada too has large reserves of natural gas just waiting to be recovered. Canada too cannot afford to keep transferring money abroad. Canada cannot continue to drive 32 mpg cars when 100 mpg can and should exist.

Regards,

pppaulll

[97'Scort]

I challenge your claims that it is robust and has few moving parts.

The main two problems with the K-cycle are: when you have the ENTIRE ENGINE rotating (wow, that seems like a lot of moving parts to me), all your lubrication is flung to the outside of the casing. This makes it notoriously difficult to make the thing anywhere close to reliable.

Second, the metals will experience increased "creep" from the centrifugal force put on them, causing them go go out of balance or fail entirely. Both these were stated previously in this thread.

The K-Cycle is an intriguing concept, but it is nothing more than a science project. Simple yes, efficient yes, practial no.

[Eleanor]

Didn't people make the same claims about the rotary engine back in the day too?

[sillysod]

Originally posted by 97'Scort
I challenge your claims that it is robust and has few moving parts.

The main two problems with the K-cycle are: when you have the ENTIRE ENGINE rotating (wow, that seems like a lot of moving parts to me), all your lubrication is flung to the outside of the casing. This makes it notoriously difficult to make the thing anywhere close to reliable.

Second, the metals will experience increased "creep" from the centrifugal force put on them, causing them go go out of balance or fail entirely. Both these were stated previously in this thread.

The K-Cycle is an intriguing concept, but it is nothing more than a science project. Simple yes, efficient yes, practial no.


ever seen the old radial engines? Sopwith Camel?

VT9wtDNiKaI

[badatusrnames]

Originally posted by pppaulll
Canada too has large reserves of natural gas just waiting to be recovered. Canada too cannot afford to keep transferring money abroad.

I hope you realize that Canada is a net exporter of energy. Sure, the east imports crude, but Canada's energy trade balance is positive.

[badatusrnames]

Originally posted by sillysod



ever seen the old radial engines? Sopwith Camel?

VT9wtDNiKaI

What does this have to do with anything? Radial refers to the arrangement of the pistons - radially as opposed to longitudinally or in a "V." It's still a traditional engine.

[97'Scort]

Originally posted by sillysod
ever seen the old radial engines? Sopwith Camel?


Yeah, totally not the same thing. Do you see all the pistons spinning with the propeller? Plus it's air cooled? Two cycle, meaning the fuel is an oil/gas mix?

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by badatusrnames


What does this have to do with anything? Radial refers to the arrangement of the pistons - radially as opposed to longitudinally or in a "V." It's still a traditional engine.

I believe he was drawing a similarity between the K and older radial designs in that both engines spun while operating.

Edit: so slow, that's what I get for leaving a window open and forgetting to hit post.

[badatusrnames]

Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat


I believe he was drawing a similarity between the K and older radial designs in that both engines spun while operating.

Edit: so slow, that's what I get for leaving a window open and forgetting to hit post.

I see, but the camel engine was a rotary, not a radial. I think he got his terminology mixed up

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sopwith_Camel#Engine_variants


With rotary engines, the crankshaft remained fixed while the cylinders and attached propeller rotated around it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_engine#Distinction_between_.22Rotary.22_and_.22Radial.22_engines


Rotary and radial engines look strikingly similar when they are not running and can easily be confused, since both have cylinders arranged radially around a central crankshaft. Unlike the rotary engine, however, radial engines use a conventional rotating crankshaft in a fixed engine block.

[pppaulll]

A standard piston engine rotates twice to complete the four cycles: compression, combustion, exhaust, intake. (720 deg) The K-Cycle rotates only once to complete the four cycles. (360 deg) The engine operates at very low RPM. This prevents centrifugal force from causing lubricant to pool in the outer reaches of the block.

The mass of the block is an advantage because it becomes a giant flywheel in a sense. The energy stored in the block helps the propelled vehicles to accelerate from a stopped position.

Another advantage of this engine is the fact that it is air cooled. This greatly reduces the weight and complexity of the engine (particularly the block).

The Canadian Film Board documentary about the K-Cycle concluded that the service interval for the engine would be 100,000 miles. Life expectancy for the engine was in the order of 500,000+ miles.

The fact that this engine was buried by Ford (like the intermittent windshield wiper) should raise an alarm. There was no pressing need for Ford to adopt this engine at the time because gas was 29 cents per Imperial gallon. Ford can afford to wait out the patents and that, my friend, is exactly what Ford is doing.

[97'Scort]

The CFB documentary was made in the fucking 70's: stop using it as a reference. It's so obsolete it's not even funny. You can conclude all you want but until I see one run for 100k miles, I will not believe it for a second.

It also doesn't matter about the RPM: you will have lubrication problems because it will require the same CRANK RPM's as a moden car in order to be remotely viable as a production model. This thing would EXPLODE at 6000 RPM, let alone 8.

And the oil would also not lubricate properly, as it would flung to the outside. If you spin it at even 120 RPM, or 1 rotation every half second, I will absolutely gaurantee you all your oil would be flung to the outside.

And, also, it's fine for a laboratory model to be air cooled, but to get the mass air flow to cool this thing in a vehicle would require an act of God: it would have to be adapted for liquid cooling.

Ford is "waiting out the patents" in your mind, but in any practical sense they've forgotten about it. Ford has enough problems without trying to explain why their engines keep exploding.

[pppaulll]

if you fail to believe in the "k" then have a look at the ox2. the ox2 is a similar engine being developed by an australian firm. their engine does not use a cam like the "k" but rather a rocker mechanism that returns the piston. note that the k-cycle cam is harnessed by a roller-coaster type cam which returns the piston from top. {the pistons must be returned to bottom centre either by rocker or cam - other swash-plate engines may use a different mechanism?}

criticizing the rotating block is a mistake. crank-shaft driven engines utilize a "flywheel" to smooth out motion. in the case of the k-cycle, the mass of the engine is used to advantage, especially when accelerating from a stopped position. also, remember that the k-cycle and ox2 engines are air-cooled like the lowly but very good vw beetle. a good deal of weight is saved because the surface of the block is designed as a "heat-sink", with as much surface area as possible.

finally, the engine is inherently a low-rpm engine. it has a 2:1 advantage from the get-go because the k-cycle and ox2 rotate once per four strokes while a crankshaft driven engine rotates twice. the lower rpm makes for less stress on the block's bearings eh?

claims in the canadian national film-board documentary claimed a 100K service interval and million mile durability! no anti-polution devices, no muffler, an ideal replacement if automobile manufactures are serious about staying in business. remember, ford canada was interested enough in the engine to install it on a ford mustang and drive it to detroit. detroit's natural reaction...not good for the economy. who's economy is the question here.

:whipped:

[97'Scort]

I'm still calling bullshit for a number of reasons, which I have already stated:

1: Unless you're feeding it oil/gas mix like a two stroke IT WILL NOT FUCKING LUBRICATE.

2: It absolutely, cannot and will not function air cooled. In order for air cooling to be even the tiniest bit effective, you need WAY more surface area than the cylinder offers. In fact, just about any normal engine block would have better air cooling properties than that thing.

I don't know why I'm giving in and beating a dead horse like this, but in a capitalist market, your arguments are moot. Listen to yourself: the automakers have access to this magical engine that, if it's as perfect as you claim, would rocket them to the top of the market in absolutely no time flat because they'd be pushing out powerful cars with great economy that absoutely everybody would want?

Why the fuck don't they use it then? Oh hey, maybe it's because it doesn't fucking work.

I haven't read up on the OX2 yet, so this is in relation to the K-Cycle still. But rocker type engines have been around for a long time.

[97'Scort]

So after having a look at the OX2, that's not really a new design. It's the same as just about any hydraulic motor out there.

The primary difference between this and the K-Cycle is the balancing and the "whole engine rotating" thing.

Now this will have the same problem as any other motor of this type, which is leakage. It's almost impossible to prevent leakage of oil, but if you're okay with that then it's not a bad way to go. The reason they use these for hydraulics is you can design those systems to systain the seepage. I'd be interested to know how they plan on getting around that.

[pppaulll]

neither the "k-cycle" and "ox2" prototypes has lubrication or cooling related issues...the film-board documentary describing the "k" showed an engine operating at full revs...a full glass of wine placed atop the engine spilled nary a drop.

the diameter of a working engine is not that great so centrifugal force is minimized. these engines are small relative to the equivalent crank-shaft engine - fantastic power to weight ratio.

and! they are simple and cheap. no valves, no muffler, no anti-pollution. certainly there is work to be done prior to production, but the basics are there.

ox2 is claiming a mechanical advantage of 6.6 times that of the crankshaft engine!!! the k-cycle is superior to the ox2 because it offers variable piston travel {power - exhaust > intake - combustion : locking piston at tdc for a few degrees of rotation : that sort of thing }

http://www.ox2engine.com/specs.html

remember that crankshaft engines are generally less than 10% efficient, most energy escaping as heat or unburned fuel...there is great room for improvement.

both of these engines can be engineered to run at a fixed-rpm in a hybrid system { if they ever get batteries right } providing even better fuel economy eh? } no sense playing with 1 or 2% improvements when implementing these engines can improve efficiency by 200%.:banghead:

[pppaulll]

i was just looking at a cut-away of the ox2 on-line. lubrication points include: bearings at both ends of the engine block (drive shaft bearings), the piston rings, and the piston plate mechanism. reading posts, one could only imagine that posters imagine this engine as some sort of hollow cylinder where oil was flung to some outside barrier like on that spinning carnival ride or science-fiction ring world.

few moving parts means very simple lubrication. how hard is it to lubricate all those cams in the detriot v-8's. how often do water pumps go, or hoses, or radiators, or head-gasket seals, or heater cores, etc. what about all the anti-polution stuff detroit has to add...changing this into that using platinum as a catalyst and continuing combustion into the exhayst system. simply burn the fuel more efficiently in the first place, and all of that veneer verily vanishes.

as to air-cooling, again you think about the inefficent, complex, crank-driven engine. the exhaust, at the point it leaves the exhaust port of the k-cycle engine was cool enough to allow one to comfortably hold a hand in the stream. try that on crank engine.

the low temperatures are because the power stroke is preceded by a flat spot at tdc where the piston is locked for a few (say 3) degrees of revolution. this "non-reducing atmosphere" (like in an external combustion engine) allows for more complete burning of the fuel. combustion in a crank-engine continues while the piston is already moving down (a reducing atmosphere) and actually starts BEFORE tdc (very clumsy and self-defeating).

the power stroke on the k-cycle, in order to capture more energy from combustion, is elongated. when the exhaust port transits, the exhaust pressure is almost atmospheric. again, this is why a muffler is not needed. the low temperature of the exhaust is exactly why air-cooling is easy to achieve in the k-cycle.

it also seems that fuel is more efficiently burned when the depth of intake/compression strokes is reduced relative to the power (/exhaust). hence the "asymmetrical" aspect of the engine? not obvious is the following graph is the fact that the angular rotation and slope of each stroke is tailored to the specific purpose and fuel type. example (top of my head):

intake..............short and steep...............060 deg
compression....short and more gradual .....070 deg

lock tdc............fixed at tdc.....................003 deg

power..............long and gradual.............130 deg
exhaust...........long and steeper.............097 deg

i wonder if this qualifies as a "5-cycle" engine eh?

let's see: intake, compression, combustion, power xfer, exhaust...yep 5 cycles.

x........xxx..................x
.x......x......x..............x
..x....x.........x...........x
...x..x............x........x
....x.................x.....x .. (int/comp more efficient combust at lower comp ratio)
.........................x..x
...........................x .. (pow/exh - exh steeper than pow - more energy xfer)

int...comp....pow....exh

as to seepage...the engine has a cylinder-head and outer port-plate so what seeps? read the ox2 online documentation and the patent documents for the k-cycle, then comment. the cut-away is pretty clear but maybe a pop-up book would be more easier eh?

metallurgic engineering would address the proposed metal-creep isue. detroit stands a better chance than accademia in addressing this non-problem. again, this is a low rpm engine that is not liable to ooze into a molten mass because of extreme rotational forces.

http://members.shaw.ca/zenonp/Misc/KCycle.pdf

:banghead:

when all else fails, read the manual.

[97'Scort]

The fuel efficiency could definitely be better, but having the burn follow the cylinder might make it work better with fuel other than gasoline.

I only said I'd be curious to see HOW they'd fix the seepage problem. If you look at the OX2, the cylinders rotate, right? which means that the "six shooter" bores must rotate as well, so they need to be lubricated on the outside of the drum. Your seepage wouldn't be through the cylinders, it would be around the outside of that casing. I imaging they've come up with some kind of seal but I can't see it.

As for the lube problem, this OX2 may have it licked, but it's also not a KCycle, it's a different design. The KCycle was impractical because it siezed, constantly. Now, this could be because it was built poorly and the metals were expanding at different rates and thus jamming, or, and this is the simpler and more likely explanation, it was not properly lubricated. The solution to that would be to attempt to have some sort of oil spray system inside, which could be tried, but it's a little impractical.

I'm willing to give that you do know a great deal about this engine but in its present form it has no practical use. I'd like to see where its derivative (OX2) goes.

[97'Scort]

The fuel efficiency could definitely be better, but having the burn follow the cylinder might make it work better with fuel other than gasoline.

I only said I'd be curious to see HOW they'd fix the seepage problem. If you look at the OX2, the cylinders rotate, right? which means that the "six shooter" bores must rotate as well, so they need to be lubricated on the outside of the drum. Your seepage wouldn't be through the cylinders, it would be around the outside of that casing. I imaging they've come up with some kind of seal but I can't see it.

As for the lube problem, this OX2 may have it licked, but it's also not a KCycle, it's a different design. The KCycle was impractical because it siezed, constantly. Now, this could be because it was built poorly and the metals were expanding at different rates and thus jamming, or, and this is the simpler and more likely explanation, it was not properly lubricated. The solution to that would be to attempt to have some sort of oil spray system inside, which could be tried, but it's a little impractical.

The metal fatigue isn't from heat, it's from the spinning.

I'm willing to give that you do know a great deal about this engine but in its present form it has no practical use. I'd like to see where its derivative (OX2) goes.

[pppaulll]

1) why would one want to lubricate the "outside" of the block. the block's drive-shaft bearings take all the rotational forces. the block rotates freely inside the engine housing (not touching same). the cylinder sleeves are embedded in the cast block and do not spin independently. the whole kabuddle rotates as one, block, cylinder sleeves, cylinder head (ox2), drive end plate. the pistons, of course, go along for the ride. unless you intend to build the block out of silly-putty, metal shouldn't 'run' or 'warp' any more than any other engine.

2) nothing says the entire block need be solid. the block cast would only have to be thick enough to support the cylinder sleeves. the k-cycle is a bit more complex than i have described in that it uses an opposing piston configuration, kind of like two ox2 engines joined end-to-end, but you get the idea...think of the block as a big fly-wheel.

3) 8,000 rpm is not necessary with this engine. i seldom push my engines past 3,500 to 4,000 rpm. the economical shifting point with my last car, a hyundai elantra, was only about 2,500 rpm. since the k-cycle fires once per rev opposed to the crank-engine firing once every two revs, cut the max revs by half or more. if you want to drive a rocket stay with your wasteful v=8. if you're concerned with the environment and the shipping of dollars overseas, the k-cycle engine is the ticket. a three-fold improvement in efficiency overnight! that's 2/3 less oil/cng/propane immediately! could have been 2/3 less oil for over 25 years and counting!

======================================================

the real problem with the k-cycle is it is cheap to manufacture and maintain and lasts so long, that the sales, after-market parts industry and service industry would loose business...not good for the economy, or so they say eh?

what is needed is a well-honed company like toyota to pickup the slack and work out a production design based on the k-cycle, ox2 and other similar engines. apparently, metallurgy and lubrication are a problem (seems to be an issue with the block metal "running" or deforming under the incredible forces produced, but the prototypes did not bear that out...perhaps engineers working in academia simply didn't have access to the proper materials or the ability to work with them.

:drama:

dyslexic ford acronym : FORD -> DROF:
"Driver Returns On Foot"?

sign in a brothel:
sincerity costs extra

sign at a ford dealership:
that's not a leak. your cars's just marking it's territory.

:whipped:

[jdmSiR]

great read, keep it going

[theken]

i hate stuff that spins, i love stuff that pumps

[pppaulll]

hey,

this baby spins and it pumps both ways at the same time eh?

from the 'horse's mouth" to your ear...

conventionally, internal combustion engines whether they are of the reciprocating piston type { i've been calling what mr k calls "reciprocating" a "crank type" in previous posts 'cuz the diesel and swatch-plate engines reciprocate also - not to mention also that the k-cycle engines rotate - they rotate and reciprocate both ways at the same time! } or the rotary type, utilize the otto-cycle or the diesel-cycle or the dual-combustion-cycle.
all conventional engines suffer from the one principal disadvantage, namely, that the expansion stoke is the same length as the compression stroke so that a considerable amount of the energy is wasted and expelled as hot exhaust gases under considerable pressure. { hencewhyforth the low 18% efficiency of current production today's engines }
another disadvantage of the conventional engines is that they require a separate combustion chamber for each piston

summary of the invention:
the present invention overcomes these disadvantages by utilizing an improved cycle in which the expansion ratio or stroke is greater than the compression ratio, or stroke is greater than the compression ratio or stroke therby converting some of the energy normally expelled and wasted in the exhaust gases, to useful work or horsepower.
the greater the expansion ration compared to that of the compression ratio is achieved within one cylinder and piston in contrast to the "brayton" cycle which although it expands the gases to atmospheric pressure, achieves this with two pistons, one fro compression and the other for expansion.
furthermore, a common mini-combustion chamber is used for each bank of cylinders so that continuous combustion is possible. { ooh! sounds clean and efficient }
an object of the invention is therefore to provide an improved operating cycle for internal combustion engines in which the expansion and exhaust strokes are longer than the intake and compression strokes thereby converting more work to useful energy than in conventional operating cycles.
another object of the invention is to provide a rotary engine which can be used with a conventional cycle of operation or, can be used with the improved cycle of operation as desired...........

{ couldn't have said it more-better my self eh? }

tfn,
pppaulll

PRACTISE SAFE HEX; USE YOUR FIREWALL PROPERLY

ref:
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/784410.html

:guns:

[semograd]

any thoughts on the quasiturbine engine?

[pppaulll]

hi,

ah yes...the quasiturbine...

a square wankel in an roundish hole,
what mpg doth the car-gods dole.
the k and the ox seem more more measurable,
'cuz a hundred per would be very pleasurable.

... never heard of a quasiturbine before just now. shows you how much the media and automotive trade papers care about improving auto-mobiles and the environment or informing their readers/consumers. what kind of mpg does it get? anyone...

i looked at some diagrams of the engine...why not? seems to be a lot like the 'wangle' { misspelling intentional } but square instead of triangular. continuous combustion like the k-cycle. 97'Scort will probably tell you that it will not lubricate or it will blow up from rotational forces - don't believe him...he said the same thing about k and ox2.

the point is, more efficient and robust engines are more than possible but auto-makers reject anything new because of retooling and retraining and the impact on revenue and the "good of the nation" and it's bad for the economy and my big-toe hurts. give the big-3 a target - 80 mpg in 5 years and let them get there any way they can...they can and they will.

start with the concept that, on average, it takes as much energy or more to build a car as it takes to operate that car for a year. cars are built for obsolescence. north-american cars start to nickel-and-dime after 5 years. japanese / korean cars seem to hum along for closer to 10 before things start to go. cars should putt along for 25+ years.

when in canadian army service in the late '60's and early '70's, i drove jeeps (and other smp vehicles) that were built in 1950-1953 for the korean war...they were still going strong long after i left service despite the fact we drove the hell out of them and occasionally flipped them over. get a few guys to flip it back and away you go.

toronto transit buses of early 1970's vintage were on the road for around 30 years! { newer buses are pulled after just a few years because of corrosion (articulated buses) and faulty battery packs (hybrids) }. hybrid buses have been found to burn more diesel than economical diesel models. thought it was supposed to be the other way around. battery technology ain't there yet eh?

with what is known today about metallurgy and corrosion, cars should not rust like my first new car, a 1973 dodge polara with "heavy duty" package. the rockers were gone in two years, careful maintenance notwithstanding. the springs collapsed under the weight of 6 { albeit hefty } men and a few rifles in the trunk. crap! if i were more experienced in the ways of the world, chrysler would have been toast...

my new 1979 honda civic ccvc { compound vortex controlled combustion } civic needed brake service every 3,000 miles in the winter salt! give me a break! { not disclosed until after purchase of course } the compound combustion chamber did improve the burn { ie it was more efficient and clean }. also at issue was that the freaking spark-plug wires ran down the front of the engine where they enjoyed a constant salt-spray bath which caused the car to sputter and choke and die constantly. new wires...same problem. only kept that car for about 3 years because of problems. honda's current reputation not withstanding i will never buy another honda.

both my { used } buicks had the "check-engine" lamp on constantly. covering the lamp with black tape seemed to work ok. parts constantly needed replacing. once again, rust claimed both buicks prematurely.

never did own a ford...i knew better from the experience of others.

then there is the good...my 1989 eagle vista (japanese built with mitsubishi engine was 10 years on the road before i transferred it to my brother who drove it another 6. changed the tires, oiled it, new brakes a few times...almost perfect...the original stainless-steel exhaust was still intact at the end. my very first, and best car was a used 1963 toyota corona { not corolla } that i bought in 1969 and drove for 8 years before an 18-wheeler rear-ended and wrote it off this fabulous car!

auto-makers should be challenged. if they cannot build a saleable product at a reasonable price with reasonable durability and efficiency...THEY SHOULD GO THE WAY OF THE DODO.

gunna read more about quasiturbine...thanks for the tip.

WARNing >>> the animations accessed through this url may substantially improve the quality of ones bliss...however one chooses to reach that state <<<

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/quasiturbine.htm

also see...

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/quasiturbine2.htm

k-cycle allows for continuous combustion as well. the burn never stops...

tfn,

pppaulll

:hijack: back to the k eh?

[pppaulll]

hi,

here is a partial k-cycle legend per the patent documents. this reference should make it easier for someone reviewing the patent diagrams eh.

http://members.shaw.ca/zenonp/Misc/KCycle.pdf

===========================================================
10 - cylindrical stator
11 - cylindrical chamber
12 - cylinder head
13 - cylinder head bolts
14 - conventional seal
15 - cylindrical rotor
16 - common shaft
16' - point shaft secured
17 - common shaft bearings
18 - piston bores
19 - pistons
20 - conventional piston rings
22 - annular seals (labyrinth type)
22a - alternate radial seals
23 - annularly formed fluid passages for cooling
24 - cam rings
25 - bolts securing cam rings
26 - cam slots
27 - gear teeth around periphery of the two cam rings
28 - gear around the shaft
31 - cam ring base
32 - upstanding legs
33 - annular channel
34 - inner connecting rod
35 - connecting rods
37 - lower end of link
38 - large roller
39 - pin
40 - one wall/limit of annular channel (40, 42)
41 - smaller roller
42 - outer wall/limit of annular channel (40, 42)
43 - (alternate configuration)
44 - combustion (firing) chamber
45 - spark-plug (not on diesel version)
46 - fuel injector
47 - intake port
48 - exhaust port
50 - shims (cam adjust)
51 - end plates
52 - bearing assemblies
53 - collective designation for roller
54 - common cylinder head
56 - combustion chamber (full sized)
58 - support plate
59 - cylinder bores
59a - block (collective)
60 - support cylinder
61 - longitudinal extending channels
62 - bifurcated (two part) end
63 - connecting rod
64 - underside of piston
66 - cam ring
69 - web
70 - flange

========================
other links
========================

http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Lanoway_Brian_143990675.aspx

tfn,

paul

:clap:

[CalgaryXXL]

http://umanitoba.ca/libraries/units/archives/tribune/photographs/display_photo.php?id=2557

Here's a photo with Hoken and his engine from the 70's

[sr20s14zenki]

Wish i could find a video of the k-cycle in action.......


found this one while searching, its kind of neat.

aZB0Go3Kj-k

[CalgaryXXL]

Here's the Quasi Turbine. Want more horsepower? stack another engine.1WRXHyFD1j8

[ExtraSlow]

TLDR, has anyone actually got one of these running in anything more than a proof-of-concept setup? Like in an actual vehicle or generator where we could dyno it, and see it's benefits in a real world application?

[Protos17]

I know this is years late but I used to work at k-cycle in the lab where we tore down and rebuilt the engine.
It was not put in a mustang but a ford fairmont silver in color.
As far as moving parts go, there were almost no moving parts.
Far fewer parts than a normal engine.
The engine was extremely quiet and had almost no vibration.
We used to put a machine bolt on top of the engine. Accelerate and it wouldn’t top over.

[ExtraSlow]

This is a good bump of an old thread. What year was this? Be cool if you had any more details, or knew of someone who had continued with the development.

[jacky4566]

This whole concept sounds a lot like The Duke engine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c19kn3drdFU

Fairly neat engine and they do have real running engines.

The problem will all theses designs is fixed timing. Variable valve timing improves efficiency quite a bit and your throwing that all out the window unless the engine operates at a fixed rpm like a generator or even large boat motors.

I believe that Koenigsegg freevalve will be the ultimate in internal combustion... if they can ever get it out of the lab.

[ExtraSlow]

Even the skyactiv X engine from Mazda sounds like it's going to have massive advantages.