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