Interesting rotary design
02-02-08, 11:57 PM
#1
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting rotary design
I saw this on YouTube... Kinda interesting. I like it when people use their imagination and engineering skills to try to build something new, and hopefully better than has been done before...
Not sure about this one... but it looks to be fairly simple... kinda wonder about longevity of the "Vane" thought... The machining work looks to be failry complicated, and well done.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSxqdJ-B7_k
Enjoy.
Ken
Not sure about this one... but it looks to be fairly simple... kinda wonder about longevity of the "Vane" thought... The machining work looks to be failry complicated, and well done.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSxqdJ-B7_k
Enjoy.
Ken
02-03-08, 12:25 AM
#2
I need a new user title
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Yaizu, Japan
Posts: 2,646
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's actually very clever. I'm no physicist by any stretch, but I've been following new ICE designs recently, and that's one of the better ones I've seen so far. I like his throttling solution, and the ability to set compression and expansion ratios independently is awesome. I wouldn't worry too much about vane longevity, at least in NA form. Think of it like an apex seal with valve springs. Plus, it could be much easier to replace them than apex seals should they break or wear down.
Edit: And it's quiet, too. Imagine looking into the exhaust port of a running 13B with no header. You'd need new eardrums.
Edit: And it's quiet, too. Imagine looking into the exhaust port of a running 13B with no header. You'd need new eardrums.
Last edited by PercentSevenC; 02-03-08 at 12:31 AM.
02-03-08, 02:23 PM
#4
Neat, but not new...
Umm... 
Looks interesting, but it seems like a slight step backward with his vane control idea. I may be misinterpreting it, but it seems he is basically using a valve style setup to control power... as if trying to blend a Wankel design with a piston engine's power control design (getting away from the initial intent of rotaries to reduce moving parts and friction, while reducing vibration). I also don't see how a truly circular rotor would provide much linear power or torque when put into larger scale production for purpose of power and beneficial torque, not just to show that the idea works.
In his closing frames, he states it is done for the benefit of the economy and environment to get ICEs to run on a variety of fuels. Does he forget that the Wankel's current and original designs were built with that intent? If I remember correctly, the first operational prototype KM and KKM engines were run on kerosene. Curtiss Wright and John Deere had the SCORE engines at several gov't shows that would run on kerosene, gas, diesel, veg. & peanut oil, natural gas... pretty much any combustible gas or liquid that could be partially atomized. Mazda has had the hydrogen and fuel cell rotary prototypes for many years. The only reason omnivorous rotaries have not been put into production beyond the government, commercial and marine industries seems to be due to a lack of refueling options for the general population, should those engines be sold to the public.
Although I applaud his efforts, I don't see where he thinks he is reinventing the wheel... he's taking a step laterally or backwards, but not necessarily forwards. Nothing new has been demonstrated in his models that wasn't already done in the late 50s and early 60s by Wankel license holders.
True, but look at how small his prototype engines are and how slowly they were running. Scale down your 13B to that size, enlargen the exhaust ports and shrink your intake ports so they are in scale with his comparative to the operational volume, and slow it down to the same speed as he is running at and the 13B probably wouldn't be much louder, if at all.
Looks interesting, but it seems like a slight step backward with his vane control idea. I may be misinterpreting it, but it seems he is basically using a valve style setup to control power... as if trying to blend a Wankel design with a piston engine's power control design (getting away from the initial intent of rotaries to reduce moving parts and friction, while reducing vibration). I also don't see how a truly circular rotor would provide much linear power or torque when put into larger scale production for purpose of power and beneficial torque, not just to show that the idea works.
In his closing frames, he states it is done for the benefit of the economy and environment to get ICEs to run on a variety of fuels. Does he forget that the Wankel's current and original designs were built with that intent? If I remember correctly, the first operational prototype KM and KKM engines were run on kerosene. Curtiss Wright and John Deere had the SCORE engines at several gov't shows that would run on kerosene, gas, diesel, veg. & peanut oil, natural gas... pretty much any combustible gas or liquid that could be partially atomized. Mazda has had the hydrogen and fuel cell rotary prototypes for many years. The only reason omnivorous rotaries have not been put into production beyond the government, commercial and marine industries seems to be due to a lack of refueling options for the general population, should those engines be sold to the public.
Although I applaud his efforts, I don't see where he thinks he is reinventing the wheel... he's taking a step laterally or backwards, but not necessarily forwards. Nothing new has been demonstrated in his models that wasn't already done in the late 50s and early 60s by Wankel license holders.
True, but look at how small his prototype engines are and how slowly they were running. Scale down your 13B to that size, enlargen the exhaust ports and shrink your intake ports so they are in scale with his comparative to the operational volume, and slow it down to the same speed as he is running at and the 13B probably wouldn't be much louder, if at all.
Last edited by kansei; 02-03-08 at 02:28 PM.
02-03-08, 08:42 PM
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: fl
Posts: 306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^both hes ICE design and the wankel may be very parallel as far as having like goals but what i believe is he is trying move away from is a high lubrication requirement and better sealing capacity than the wankel. basically a better wankel. as rotaryiceman mentions at 2min and 42 seconds into the video the rotors and combustion chambers dont require lube. also rotaryiceman is quoted to say "Wankels are but one of many rotary design approaches. Sealing & lubrication are a rotary's curse. My design objective has always been greater efficiency above all else & I employ some unique features to that end;" in a comment reply a week ago.
02-04-08, 02:10 PM
#6
I need a new user title
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Yaizu, Japan
Posts: 2,646
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
His design goals are somewhat different from Wankel's. This design focuses on high efficiency while maintaining simplicity and the ability to run high-octane fuels and diesel. The Wankel engine was all about simple, compact, smooth power while running on gasoline. Wankel rotaries cannot naturally run on diesel due to the ~11:1 practical compression ratio limit. The John Deere diesel versions had to use a huge supercharger to create the compression necessary to ignite the fuel and were rather inefficient.
While the concept behind the engine isn't new, some of his approaches are rather innovative. I'm interested in seeing how his "Model 33" design works out. kansei: I don't think the vanes are a step backward at all. Indeed, they greatly reduce one of the weaknesses the Wankel design (the apex seals; these vanes may or may not be as fragile, but at least they are easily replaceable) without increasing complexity much, if at all. My only concern is their effect on the flame front.
This is already a member of a very exclusive club of rotary engine designs in that it has run under its own power. There are only three others that I know of that have: our Wankel engine (300 HP mass-production engines), the Sarich orbital engine (briefly, under no load), and the Rand-Cam engine (42 HP diesel prototype). We'll see where he goes with it, but I think it has promise.
While the concept behind the engine isn't new, some of his approaches are rather innovative. I'm interested in seeing how his "Model 33" design works out. kansei: I don't think the vanes are a step backward at all. Indeed, they greatly reduce one of the weaknesses the Wankel design (the apex seals; these vanes may or may not be as fragile, but at least they are easily replaceable) without increasing complexity much, if at all. My only concern is their effect on the flame front.
This is already a member of a very exclusive club of rotary engine designs in that it has run under its own power. There are only three others that I know of that have: our Wankel engine (300 HP mass-production engines), the Sarich orbital engine (briefly, under no load), and the Rand-Cam engine (42 HP diesel prototype). We'll see where he goes with it, but I think it has promise.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
