Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site zehntel.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!intelca!qantel!dual!zehntel!zinfandel!joe From: joe@zinfandel.UUCP Newsgroups: net.auto Subject: A Better Cam Idea... Message-ID: <1739@zehntel.UUCP> Date: Fri, 11-Jan-85 04:18:41 EST Article-I.D.: zehntel.1739 Posted: Fri Jan 11 04:18:41 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 17-Jan-85 04:19:37 EST Sender: berry@zehntel.UUCP Organization: Zehntel Automation Systems Inc, Walnut Creek CA Lines: 27 Nf-ID: #N:zinfandel:3200073:000:1185 Nf-From: zinfandel!joe Jan 9 10:25:00 1985 Hello. I have an idea that fits the discussion about the further improvement of valve actuation. Let us assume a functional rpm range of 500 to 7000. Create 5 different cams. Each shall be optimal for a different subspan of the original RPM range. The first one for 500 to 1500, the second for 1500 to 2500, the third for 2500 to 5000 and the last for 5000 up. Align them in order to form a single long shaft and smooth the transitions to make a single long cam that varies smoothly along the axis of rotation. In the limit, the best is to have the cam profile ideal for 500 RPM at one end, ideal for 7000 RPM at the other, and varying for the ideal linearly in between. Using this cam with an RPM driven positioner which slides the cam along the axis of rotation so as to position the cam at the ideal profile for the given RPM should be easy, with very little power requirement. The only high cost will be in machining the cam itself. " Cogito ergo Spud. " ( I Think, therefore A Yam. ) Joseph Weinstein Zehntel Inc. (ihnp4!zehntel!zinfandel!joe) P.O. Box 8016 (415)932-6900 Walnut Creek California 94596