© 2010 - 2011 by Walter E. Parrish. All Rights Reserved

Q. What about the intake valve? It has to cope with an intake charge pressure that would tend to open it at times when it should remain shut.
A. Strong enough return springs, desmodromic valve actuation, and/or a balanced poppet design.

Q. Can you fire after top dead center?
A. Indeed yes. The Lenoir cycle engines that prevailed prior to the advent of the Otto cycle were being fired at about 90 degrees after top dead center with an ordinary crankshaft. With a camshaft or some sophisticated linkage replacing the ordinary crankshaft many of the rules change.

Q. How does the cam follower keep tight against the cam when the piston needs to be pulled down for the intake?
A. The example given in the illustration ignores that for the sake of simplicity. In real life this might be accomplished by a cam arrangement with a captive follower or even springs, especially if there are opposing cylinders. In an opposing cylinder arrangement the piston assemblies could be in effect bound to each other while having enough elasticity in the binding to allow for the lull part of the cycle. In addition and possibly even replacing the need for the methods just mentioned is the fact that the intake charge is under pressure and the act of allowing it to come into the cylinder will tend to force the piston outward.

Q. Why is the fuel injection put where it is? Shouldn't it be.....
A. Stupid question. Put it wherever you want. Direct injection might be awesome.

Q. Why a turbocharger and a positive displacement supercharger too?
A. Several reasons. One is that the intake pressure can be over 200 psi. To try that in one quick step would be a set up for compression ignition. Another is that the arrangement lends toward flexibility. One instance is where one compressor can be electrically driven to slowly drive the engine much like a steam engine and there are a few other possibilities that are outlined elsewhere on this site.

Q. What looks like a connecting rod in your illustrations doesn't seem to move at the wristpin. What's up with that?

A. It's not really a connecting rod in the conventional sense. It just needs to be able to convey reciprocal motion. I initially was thinking to use the same materials to make illustrations depicting more conventional engines as well but I don't think I'll need to since there are so many great one I can just hyperlink to instead.

Q. Can a camdrive compete against a crankshaft arrangement in terms of strength and ability to withstand speed?

A. It seems to be a very close call. Even with a simple sine wave movemement the cam set-up does appear to have an edge over the more common crankshaft but familiarity seems to be in the favor of the crankshaft. A Lullen-cycle needs a movement that the ordinary crankshaft system cannot provide. I'm providing a link (or more as I get them) in the "Links" page to show some cam drives and some other arrangements as well. You'll see that cam drive engines have been are being used now by some military forces including that of the United States.

Q. Can this be quickly put into production by existing manufacturers by using many existing parts and/or with minimal expenses toward producing a motor of this design?
A. I doubt it. I honestly foresee quite a lot of R&D needing to go into this even to determine if this design has merit. Aside from motors that would be considered "proof of concept" in nature, I think most every element of these motors will have to be engineered from the ground up.

Q. This seems like a lot of complexity to just be a motor. Won't that make it an unattractive for most, if not all, purposes?
A. If it can indeed be designed to have relatively high torque even when the mainshaft is turning slowly or even not at all, no.
If this design can actually eliminate the need for a clutch/torque converter and transmission then the entire system is probably going to be much less complicated.

Q. Why do you have this site in the first place? Wouldn't you do better by getting investors to get involved in this concept, get patents and make a bunch of money?
A. I just don't have that kind of mindset nor do those things hold much attraction for me. Aside from that, I'm not bring much of anything truly new, if anything at all, into general knowledge. The idea of claiming something as one's own when it really isn't is simply repulsive to me. What I present here is really downright simple and is a natural progression of an idea that was already being implemented nearly a hundred years before I was even born.

Questions and Answers