New type of engine - breakthrough?!?!!

[wacki]

http://www.regtech.com/

Anyone know anything about this?

 

[EightySix Four]

Same idea as the RX- 7/8 motors...

 

[The Boston Dangler]

Not really a Wankel rotary. Looks like there's a lot of moving parts, and subject to high stress and wear.

 

[Geniere]

Originally posted by: crazySOB297
Same idea as the RX- 7/8 motors...

I don?t see any resemblance to a Wankel engine at all.

The mfg. claims only 2 moving parts but I see a lot more.

The vanes that actuate the wobble plate must be a nightmare to seal and must have an enormous amount of friction with so many rubbing surfaces.

The operation seems to be a 2-stroke principle with the exhaust port opening during the power pulse i.e., a real smoker.

I think its civilian use will be limited to garden tractors and the like where small size is important.

 

[wacki]

Originally posted by: Geniere
The operation seems to be a 2-stroke principle with the exhaust port opening during the power pulse i.e., a real smoker.

Look at the diagrams again.

 

[EightySix Four]

It just seems like the sme design turned sideways in a way... I don't know, looks too much like the things you see showing the internals of the RX8 engine on mazda's site. Different but same idea.... wonder how effecient this is v.s the wankel...?

 

[The Boston Dangler]

I bet a Wankel is better, and has fewer moving parts. I can see how it's confused for a Wankel, due to the non-linear combustion chamber.

 

[wacki]

All you people that are confusing this for a wankel are nuts.


http://www.regtech.com/images/1/finalengine_320x240.gif

vs

http://www.keveney.com/Wankel.html

completely nuts.

 

[Athlex]

Interesting, but seems complicated. When I first started reading about the Bourke engine I thought it would be a big deal for motorcycles and smaller cars, but so nothing has gone into production. Too bad too since it seems like an efficient design with relatively few parts...

If you're interested:
http://bourke-engine.com/
http://bourke-engine-project.com/index2.html

 

[DivideBYZero]

Odd. Looking at the gif posted by wacki, the timing seems a bit odd.

The intake stroke doesn't seem to allow for compression, as the intake port passes the vane, the chamber continues to grow. As the chamber reduces in volume before the power stroke, it *looks* like you would have only atmospheric pressure.

Also, those vanes would really create stacks of friction, I mean, in the animation I can see five. Thats 10 seal points and I can only guess that there are double that many vanes, so 20 seal points... Thats a lot of friction and I would expect to lube it you would end up burning a lot of oil.

 

[Pulsar]

Am I missing something horribly obvious? It appears that the combustion turns the cam - but that means the combustion is being used horribly inefficiently. The force on the cam is normal to the curve of the cam that is currently in the combustion cylinder - and because that portion of the cam is nearly parallel to the direction you want your cam to travel, you lose most if not all of your explosive force - it gets eaten by side loads on the bearings.

A Wankel at least places the combustion force on a level arm to turn the crank.

This looks HORRIBLY inefficient.

 

[RossGr]

I suspect that the animations are deceptive. Since they label the center section with the vanes, the rotor, I bet that it is the actual moving part. The end cams are stationary and the rotor spins. Looks like the intake and exhaust ports are in the end cams and connect to the chambers as they pass. Just a guess on my part.

I also thing that the continuous high speed contact with the side cams will be a problem. That is what killed the Wankles on the initial release back in the 60's and 70's. Perhaps we now have the materials needed to withstand that kind of punishiment.

 

[phaxmohdem]

This is a motor I'd like to see come to fruition

http://www.perendev-power.com/My_Homepage_Files/Page4.html

 

[Athlex]

What kind of motor is it? (link is broken)

 

[SGtheArtist]

I think i saw where it said there was 12 vanes. I think the vanes are the biggest drawback to this design. The RX-7 rotary design only has 3 vanes (that I can see).

I bet it would be expensive to replace those vanes.

 

[Calin]

Well, the design looks cool. The engine power is direct rotation, unlike the Otto engine. It uses the Otto engine 4-stroke cycle (even if the schematics shows an injection port, that would suggest a Diesel engine).
I think it is a great idea - as long as the vanes are able to keep perfect contact against the side cams. They could actuate the vanes using an external cam profile, on which a ball bearing runs. This will remove most of the load on the vane-cam contact area, and hopefully will keep the chambers sealed.
If they use fuel injection, there will be no explosion in the chambers, so the vanes will have a better working habitat

 

[0roo0roo]

the contact point for the vertical slats keeps changing angle, that can't be good for wear.

 

[SGtheArtist]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
the contact point for the vertical slats keeps changing angle, that can't be good for wear.

Thats also true for the RX-7 rotary engine.

 

[imported_Tick]

Perhaps I'm missing something, but why does anyone care? How does this have advantages over a wankel, sterling cycle, fly wheel, or electric motor?

 

[Howard]

www.ballpistonengine.com

Been around for a while.

 

[beansbaxter]

It's an engineering/development question when/if such an engine will ever be built that operates properly with good service life and efficiency. As yet apparently they haven't built a single such example, though they claim to have built engines that have operated at all (but for all we know, only a few minutes or hours before needing rebuilding.)

So it could be hundreds of millions of dollars if ever before it ever pans out.

Interesting link! I'd never heard of it.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: LsDPulsar
Am I missing something horribly obvious? It appears that the combustion turns the cam - but that means the combustion is being used horribly inefficiently. The force on the cam is normal to the curve of the cam that is currently in the combustion cylinder - and because that portion of the cam is nearly parallel to the direction you want your cam to travel, you lose most if not all of your explosive force - it gets eaten by side loads on the bearings.

A Wankel at least places the combustion force on a level arm to turn the crank.

This looks HORRIBLY inefficient.

My thoughts exactly

 

[thesurge]

ditto

 

[dkozloski]

Way too much surface area to the combustion chamber with a huge quench area. The result is going to be abnormal HC in the exhaust. I predict a real dud or scam. Probably will serve best as a stock promotion.

 

[ForumMaster]

Anyone heard of the quasiturbine engine? it is an improvment of the wankel and seems to be very good. find more about it here.