an engine minus crankshaft?!!

[emuisme]

I was surfing around for camless engines 'cause a guy was talking about them at work the other day and I stumbled on to this

http://www.revetec.com/

it's an interesting idea because it has max efficacy near top dead center (where max force is on the piston).

it started off as a backyard idea.  who said crackpot ideas never yielded great results?

[Chadza]

so its still a crankshaft of sorts, just a different design. Its physically impossible to have a piston engine without a common shaft of sorts.

[Jono]

Looks a bit like a cross between a piston and a rotary engine.

[SSS]

It still has a crank shaft, although not of the conventional type, otherwise how are you going to convert translational motion into rotational?

[emuisme]

Yea, I suppose it dose if you look at it that way, but it's more or less in two parts that spin opposite to each other.  I just found it a bit of a spin out.

It still has a crank shaft, although not of the conventional type, otherwise how are you going to convert translational motion into rotational?

Gasturbine? (Though I guess you could call the common shaft in that a crank shaft, as it connects the compressor and exhaust blading together, and you take your power off said shaft).

[SSS]

Yes that's right, i should've worded what i was trying to say better, as in they still share a common driven shaft.

[RichTRX]

It still has a crank shaft, although not of the conventional type, otherwise how are you going to convert translational motion into rotational?

Have a wheel on the bottom of each piston?? Then the car will bounce along like some WRXs with too stiff shocks do.