From what I remember from a couple of years ago, the ring is free floating and only has a small effective range. Once the valve is past say .100" of lift, the ring is pulled of the valve seat.

 

dohc, I do know that reversion does occur and didn't mean to convey that it didn't, I apologize. Sometimes my complete thoughts don't make it in the posts. I got carried away, because of the nature of this thread was sounding like, like you said, an informercial. A thread to "get the word out". I also googled "omnivalve" and found several blog entries that were inappropiate as far as the subject goes and were made to discredit hybrids, etc. while making "omnivalve" look like the messiah. All entries were made by someone posting under Mike, tiemann55, omnivalve, etc. Some entries were deleted as spam.

I understand that the concept would be beneficial once proper and costly research and development has been done. I still haven't seen a proper explanation as to HOW this ring reacts to cylinder pressure. All of my concerns were addressed with marketing BS and not true raw comprehendable data. It is described as a full floating seat, well doesn't that mean it has to be designed to take in effect the cylinder pressures? Otherwise, if the ring has too much mass then it would never act as intended. None of this has been explained and is said to be withheld because of patent issues. If it's patented then it's protected right? The pics, site, and explanation aren't convincing, but what is is the concept. I would like to see true data. Have yet to see that.
Also, dohc you mentioned that you'd seen dyno sheets showing a low range gain of 10-20% that's more realistic.

 

Yah, it was on the VW vortex. There was link to it. It was in the 2.0 8V forum. I'll have to search for it. It was like 3 or 4 years ago though.

It wasn't omnivalves at the time, it was just some inventor by himself with some help of some buddies. Nothing ever came of it for the VW 2.0 8V motor so that thread just died. We all figured it was too complicated or expensive to make.

There was some pictures of it as well, don't know what motor it was for though.

Your right, the mass of the floating seat would need to be real low or it would remain closed at higher speeds until the lift exceeded the floating seats stroke (during the intake stroke). And would never close during the begining of the intake stroke. (Or the pressure diff. between the intake port and the cylinder would have to be fairly high)

 

I just had a long hard look at the Omnivalve site and couldn't find much to
answer the following question. Hopefully Mike can clarify my post.

If I'm applying the theory correctly, the ring will only separate from the valve
head when the pressure in the cylinder is higher than the pressure withinin the
intake port.

So...starting at TDC on the intake stroke, the overlap period has ended and
the piston is moving downward. The pressure in the cylinder is lower than the
pressure in the intake port.

The valve begins to open, the ring is moving 'as one' with the valve head.
Therefore, there should be no/little obstruction to air flow into the cylinder.

Now we're approaching the compression stroke. The intake valve has a
somewhat late IVC and the piston is starting to move up. The pressure within
the cylinder begins to rise above the pressure within the intake port.

Let's say the ring mass, interia, and all that fun stuff requires a differential
of 1 PSI to move the ring off the valve head. The ring separates and moves
against the valve seat stopping any reversion while the valve head is still
approaching IVC (closed point).

Next the IVC point has been reached the valve head is seated on the valve
seat. Compression begins. Ignition Begins. Power stroke occurs. Exhaust
stroke occurs.

The intake valve is still shut, and there is no apparent difference between
the Omni valve and convention valve at this time.

Exhuast stroke is nearly complete. The Intake valve begins to open to start
the overlap period.

Pressure within the cylinder is quite low at this point (when most of the
exhaust gas has been expelled and the exhaust port has a relatively high
velocity of gas exiting).

Depending on the cylinder pressure, exhaust port pressure and intake pressure,
the ring may, or may not separate. If there is a reverted exhaust pulse which
is a higher pressure than the incoming intake pulse, the ring will separate and
block the exhaust reversion back into the intake port.

In essence, the ring should only separate during the overlap period, and around
the IVC point.

I can see this working fairly well at low RPM, but how will the ring react at
higher RPM? I would imagine with a very aggressive lobe, the ring could
separate and impede intake flow at let's say 4000+ RPM as the valve starts
to lift for the intake stroke. The ring could 'stick' to the seat momentarily
could it not?

As RPM increases, so will the effective weight of the ring. The inertia would
be incredible to have the ring react in a timely manner.

 

The ring does not have a spring. We have tried a spring but it will not last and we at this point believe it was never necessary in the first place. After testing the valves on several motors, we have found that the OmniRing is blown closed with alot of force. The first few designs we made we blew off the rings, when we started to put more OmniRing lift.

The ring does not have a spring. We have tried a spring but it will not last and we at this point believe it was never necessary in the first place. After testing the valves on several motors, we have found that the Omni Ring is blown closed with a lot of force. The first few designs we made we blew off the rings, when we started to put more Omni Ring lift.

The only thing that moves the ring is the D/P manifold v cylinder.

In most all engines you don't have to make any changes. Just install the valves and reduce the ignition timing about 10 to 12 degrees. In every motor we have tried to date we have run a total advance of no more then 24 degrees.

Our shorter lift valves (ring lift) have basically the same "effective margin) as a stock valve.

Thanks for you respectful post. I am not sure why everyone on this site takes everything so personally. I am just trying to get input for by baby the OmniValve. I have been working on it for years and it has been fun and very educational.

Thanks for you interest in OmniValves Mike

 

I think the proof is in the pudding and Omnivalves does not have any pudding, only promises of pudding. You can tell the ladies all day long that you're packin' but until you whip it out there will always be doubt.

Build your LS1, take lots of pics, make lots of dyno-runs, beat the crap out of it, post the results on the website, market your product through companies with established reputations, and BANG, you will have awesome business.

Babble about profit margins, $200 value for $30, and 500% increases in tq with no dyno charts and proliferate this information on websites like LS1tech.com while referring to a member of your team in this manner: and you wont get ****.

 

I think the proof is in the pudding and Omnivalves does not have any pudding, only promises of pudding. You can tell the ladies all day long that you're packin' but until you whip it out there will always be doubt.

Lmao

 

So what happened? Where is the data from the ls1 you were going to test, or was it an ls2? Where is the data from the testing on the cummins??????

 

The biggest problem, aside from wieght, is the piston to valve clearance and possibly the elevated dynamic compression ratio that this will ultimately produce. There is a big difference between static and dynamic compression ratios, and this valve appears to close that gap. So instead of having a 11:1 static and 8.5 dynamic compression ratio, you may be able to have a 9.5-10.0 dynamic copression ratio, which is where I'm guessing a lot of the low end torque is coming from.

Just look at any of the guys making over 430 ft/lbs of torque from stock cubes n/a. They've got high flow heads at low lifts, smallish cams, and high dynamic compression ratios through smaller combustion chambers, and tighter quenches.

In theory, these valves look like they could work. THink about putting in a big cam, and maintain stock 3.42 gears. Talk about one hell of a fun ride. But they definitely need to work on getting the rpm range back up a little higher. But then again, guys with bigger cube motors typically shift at 6200-6400 anyways.

 

I got to tune a ls2 based car with these valves in it, the car is completely stock except for the these valves. It was quite an interesting tune. I had to pull LOTS of timing out of the car as it didn't want much at all. Total timing at WOT was 14-15 degrees. I tuned the load cells individually on a mustang dyno, the car picked up lots of torque down low and through the midrange, i'm talking 30+ ft/lbs at the wheels at WOT and 10-15 ft/lbs at very light cruise. Peak power remained exactly the same as stock, but the entire graph below the peak moved up quite a bit. I'd love to see what would happen with a large cam.

Another interesting thing to note is after I retuned the timing at idle the injector pulse width dropped from 2.0mS to 1.5mS, 25% less fuel.

I'm not affiliated with these guys at all and this was the first time I've seen or heard of such a valve. It was pretty interesting and the results look quite promising. I'm hoping I get to play with some more of their stuff, i'm quite intrigued.

 

Makes sense to me, I think it's a good idea. It should allow you to use a much more radical cam and still have good low end torque and smoother idle. The effect should be similar to those hydraulic lifters that lifted less at lower oil pressure (I forget who made those). The stop pushes the ring off the seat at .100".

The design could be improved, the hat could be half the diameter of the outer floating ring and fit flush with the ring. I think something could be done about the ring stop, I think it'll wear before 30,000 miles or so. The ring could be a different material, the stem could be lighter than a stock valve, and is the stop necessary? Does it have to overcome combustion pressure? After all, if combustion pressure is higher than intake pressure, no air is going to enter anyway.

Here's a pic, shows the valves with the ring against the hat (bottom) and off the hat (top). I think the hats are way too big and heavy, but these are prototypes.

 

The only problem to running a big cam with these is piston to valve clearance. Unless they require a special valve seat to allow them to sink into the head deeper, they are going to stick so far into the combustion chamber that you will have absolutely no PtoV clearance.

 

So Whats The Verdict?

 

I get the benefits, and buy why you gain gas mileage and bottom TQ. Thats it. Everything they have done is based on the idea of one of the other. Not a high revving engine. Most of the issues have already been addressed. The two main being: poor PTVC and more valve mass that is problematic in causing valve float and excess spring wear. Go to their site and read details about their recent LS2 based 4XXci engine using these valves. You will quickly note that it doesnt follow contemporary methods of approaching a "high performance" engine. Whatever the **** that means to whomever is trying to explain or justify their or their products existance. I say NO. Thats the verdict.