• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

New type of engine - breakthrough?!?!!

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

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Look at the diagrams again.
 
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...?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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. 😀
 
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
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...


My thoughts exactly
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top