Check this out:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...791163690&rd=1

 

thats pretty crazy. but cant they get in ALOT of trouble from mazda calling it a rotary engine with such a similar design? to me it doesnt look like it would work all that great unless it has three rotars since there are three extension points (lack of a better word). its pretty cool, but kinda.. i dont know.. looks like they are looking for a legal battle with mazda (maybe thast why they are selling the rights)

i dont think it would be that effecient either because you would need three exhaust/intake/combustion spots on each part of the engine. hard to explain what im trying to get at, maybe someone else sees what im trying to say

 

rotary is the type of design. i'm pretty sure you can't sure someone for using the term piston engine.

 

Mazda don't own the patent on the rotary design as it is in our cars ... if you look closely at sales leaflets etc. it credits NSU as having the patent on the engine

 

That looks like a pipe dream to me, has anyone looked at the info on his sight.... there is no way to lubericate, supply air/fuel or relieve exhaust. It also does not look as though the engine would last very long as there are no moving seals or springs (what about normal metal wear from friction) which is the whole point of apex, side, corner seals in our motors.

peace

 

**** i just typed this long *** post and it womehow fucked up and it didnt post

 

The original Wankel and NSU patents have only been licensed to Mazda. The Wankel-patents are all in a society. This was sold by Felix Wankel a few years before he died. The company who bought it did not do anything with it. It has now been moved on, and into a new society. Don't know the name though.
The Wankel engine can now be build by anyone, but Mazda has the rights to most of the emmision systems, and also to some types of seals and materials.
The engine design for sale, does not really look that revolutionary to me. Felix Wankels experiments included some things that were rather simular...
Since it's up for sale for $500 start price, I'd think there's a problem there. I mean: a really good engine design can make you RICH.

 

I'm sure it's an early design...everything starts off small and full of errors.

 

ok, for each combustion chamber you would have to have a fuel/ air delivery device. thats 3 that you have to have, and the fuel air mixture has to be the same. there would also have to be 3 different exhaust manifolds. these factors probably limit this engine to being a single rotor only, otherwise it would be a total clusterfuck of intake and exhaust systems. also wouldnt it run hot as hell? and there would be no way to have an oilpan. with this design i think it would be hard as hell do perform basic engine care tasks, such as changing the pugs. i am basing my thoughts on this being about the same size as a 12a, and being used for automotive purposes. this guy has been working on this project for a long time, and i have only looked at it for a few minutes. so i could (and probably am) wrong about most of this stuff.
this is the shortened version of what i tried to post before my comp fucked me over.

 

oh yeah, on his web site he is trying to sell the patent etc. for 10k, so he is probly trying to get somewhere around that much on ebay. A for effort, however dont count on me bidding on it.

 

I've got something like that.

 

huh?

 

That's a cool design, I can already think of some good improvements for it - but the guy doesn't give much detail about it on his website (a bunch of his animations don't show up for me) so maybe my new ideas are really old ideas.

 

i have a feeling the intake/exhaust setup would be like a rotary piston engine. the oil pan would be remote. all it has to do is be mounted lower then the motor and the oil pump will take care of the rest. it has its possibilities. question is, are the benefits of this motor worth the money and energy invested into it to be functional?

 

The concept is literally the "inverse" of the wankel. The rotary engine we know and love is essentially a triangle in an oval - this is an oval in a rounded triangle. Not to mention that this "oval in a triangle" idea has serious issues with how it attempts to compress - all in all, at $500 it's a serious waste of money - especially since the mechanical description would have to be so similar to the rotary that no self-respecting patent office in the world would approve this cheap rip-off

 

The intake/exhaust is supposed to travel through the center shaft, so it can alternately heat and cool the metal thousands of times per second and cause it to fail faster...

I read some of the guys text. He's good at analysing the failures of other engine designs, but when it comes to the marketability of his own (based on a 100 year old steam engine design) I think the cheese has slipped off his cracker

 

You know what I like about you Manntis...The way you always seem to have a funny saying that I havent heard before, lol .

~T.J.

 

Oh yeah, and it reminds me of this:

http://www.machaon.ru/tetra/veselo.htm

~T.J.

 

TJ, that was a good link... Now, was this an earlier attempt on the same thing??? They look very much the same, but still claim to be invented by different people, do I get that right?
As for the link that TJ gave us: look at the seals. They are in the housings, yes? Well nice idea, but thy won't seal much this way. There are no side seals, and I can't come up with a way to incorporate them. When the seals (apex) are at the tips of the rotor they can be connected with the sideseals (via the corner springs) and therefor make a near-perfect seal. In these cases, you can't have side seals, so pressure is going to leak all the time. Impossible to work with. The Ebay-dude doesn't even show any seals. Even if I think a lot of effort went in, they're both missing a few vital details.
And of course none of them is as revoltionary as claimed... The real solution to the Wankel problems (chatter marks etc...) can be solved by Wankels own design: the DKM. The problem in the KKM (the rotary engine as we know it) are mainly caused by the rotor's movement not being circular. That's what's putting stress on the gears and making the apex seals bite the rotor housing. The original DKM could easily be operated at 20.000rpm. With current technology, it would last ages. Of course the drawbacks stay: changing a plug means pulling the motor...
Well, at least they tried to get something different then those stone-age piston bangers... That means they deserve some sympathy. But I won't buy it guys...

 

It's easy to spin up fanciful engine ideas.

I whipped this Manntis Hybrid Fuel Burner up in Flash after seeing the rotors featured in this thread:

http://www.rotorhead.ca/mystuff/dummyengine.swf

In theory you have all the sealing of the rotor as we know it, plus capturing some of the thermal and sidewall forces lost in the Wankel design. Heck, it even aids in increased compression, forces a bit of exhaust gas recirculation for cleaner burning, and you could use the crankshaft's auxhilary output to power a blower (no turbo exhaust restriction, minimized parasitic loss, etc) or power other devices like the water pump, etc.

Sounds good, right?

Okay, but you'd have to link the crankshaft to the eccentric shaft somehow to maintain timing. This would require an external timing chain. Hopefully there's a gain in power - by capturing that explosive force that, in theory, only pushes against the housing but then it also decreases the force pushing on the rotor. Sure there's possible fuel efficiency and emmissions gains (sort of the ultimate exhaust gas recirculator) but there's a whole hockey sock full of issues ranging from increased complexity, weight, parts quantity, cooling, lubrication, etc. etc.

Basically with the billions poured into refining piston engines, and the hundreds of millions Mazda spends on rotary development (including manufacture, 'cause only by making a thing do you learn what works and what doesn't), anything a backyard inventor like eBay boy thinks up in an effort to fleece some ambitious no-mind out of $10,000 usually amounts to just a new way to burn fuel

 

Shame on you, Manntis!!! You introduced the devil in there! A f***ing piston!!!

Now you lost ALL respect

Well, ok, got the point, and of course you're right...
These guys look like trying to make some fast money, as apart from the nice flash movies there's not much to be seen. I repeat: there's nothing revolutionary about this design, and there's a reason why it has been tossed in the past. Wonder if someone's gona make a bid, nevertheless...

 

TJ's link has more useful infomation, but lots of lies also. These inventor guys sure are full of themselves.

RE,
Someone already bid the $500.

 

Someone bid on it!? Waaaw, if that's not a guy asked to bid on it by the "inventor" to make it look like someone is intrested, than there are people who want to be ripped of... So next month or so I'll sell some genius inventions too!!! I need money for my seven, so let's invent some stuff :-)

 

I think I'll list a left-handed hammer on eBay...

 

Yes, Manntis, that would be a good idea. Well, I'm right handed, but otherwise, I'd bid on it :-)
What about a set of hammers? one left- and one righthanded...???