Comments on: Poppet Valve Patent Application from Michael Czysz

By: Borneo Pierre

Borneo Pierre — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 03:09:06 +0000

The idea is a good one but I can’t see them for ultra high performance because it lacks port volume or throat volume. These valve would be perfect for economical engines, probably the narrow flow of air would create good turbulance at low piston speeds while its low volume flow will allow lower maximum valve lift so the piston would not need so much drastic holes to interfere in combustion chamber design. Can’t say fuel atomization as now days most things are going direct injection but if so this design would surely do up the mix well, certainly looks like it.

It will be a success but for economical, low fuel consumption designed engines. That is where its future is.

By: Paul

Paul — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 10:49:41 +0000

Can’t see much benefit in that design at all, the complexity of the arrangement far out weighs any benefits, which to be honest are hard for me to identify.

Valves can not rotate off axis or will crash with valve seats. Speaking of which what would they look like, the seats that is and how hard to realize? Wet area looks to be less than a round valve. Perhaps the design a distraction or smoke screen?

By: Michael Czysz

Michael Czysz — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:50:46 +0000

In the simplest terms a valves ability to flow fuel/air mixture is determined by its size and lift, more specifically the valves circumference X lift, this is commonly referred to as the valve curtain area. The solution I was looking for in this design was to reduces the mass of the valve, for increased RPM and reduced heat gain while maintaining or increasing the same curtain area as a standard valve.

The new valve has 3 segments / arcs, equalling approximately 60% of the valve circumference. These arcs are mirrored and thus are subtracted from the valve area while maintaining the same curtain area as the original valve in a lighter, smaller area. This means higher RPM and less heat absorption with the same ability of heat transfer (same perimeter) into the seats. With a smaller package more valves or curtain area can be achieved in the same bore resulting in improved volumetric efficiency. In addition fuel preparation and delivery should not be underestimated and may be improved with some development.

This is simply an idea, we prototyped and it seemed to have enough merit to apply for a patent. The idea did impressed a major company enough that they offered us some software we needed. So…. comment away if you must, but we did not disclose this idea to the public or are marketing it. It is simply a new idea and we are just conducting our business.

As for Gordy and Wendell- We are under no illusion or never stated we would be winning MotoGP races by now, though I appreciate your disappointment that we are not. What we have done is designed the best sportbike/superbike ever made in America. It is an unfortunate fact that to design and make virtually every part of motorcycle is a huge task and for a small start-up company with 14 employees to take a clean sheet engine into production simply takes time. For example the new Buell has been under development for the same amount of time as our bike (3 years) and they only wrote a engine spec.

This has been an unbelievable month of testing and data collecting I will post a report to our blog http://www.motoczysz.com/club/index.php in the next week.

Thanks for staying interested and WAY up to date, more news to follow soon.

Sincerely,
Michael Czysz

By: wendell

wendell — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 19:35:48 +0000

amen.

By: Gordy

Gordy — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 12:50:37 +0000

Just because it’s been granted a patent does not stop it being a pile of crap.

By the way, where is the Czysz MotoGP bike that was to be winning races by now? Say no more.