Originally posted by pinkfloyd from what i hear it seems that a 10a or 12a is better for a 4 rotor then a 13b. is this right. |
Originally posted by RotorMotor while were on the topic of experimental rotary engine designs heres one ive been pondering: ok, the rotary was originally designed as a pump... great! lets put that into practice... have a 2..well ok technically 3 rotor engine. rear two rotors would be like our 13b for combustion. but....... the 3rd rotor (probably a little less wide) would be a.... yes.... pump. pump what mr. wankle?? well why not air? ive heard rotarys are relatively efficiant as pumps... so what we would have is a supercharged 13b with the supercharger (another rotor) built into the engine! take that for the next 7 mazda! an all rotary powered, supercharged 13b renesis (and it all fits into one neat epichoidal package). :biggrin: what do you think.... heath sorry to poop on your dreams, but keep bring out ideas, thats how good things always are started... ideas |
well here's an idea.....
how about a twin-4 rotor Two four rotor engines side-by side. Comparitively small, yet good fuel economy and power. plus the added bonus of TORQUE!!! (you know, that thing we kinda lack!) But making the connections between the e-shafts would be awkward to say the least!!! |
u could connect both eshafts with a bike chain to a central shaft....and then u could also mess around with gear ratio's and stuff too....thats a good idea.....wat if u made an e-shaft.....twice as long as a regualr 10A e-shaft except the thickness of the lobes would also be double and there would be only 2 lobes....and u joint 2 rotor housings and 2 rotors together......i have no clue wat that would do or if ti would even be better....and i heard bikes had single rotor motors....wat if we had a single rotormotor with 2 10A rotors and rotor housings together? what are the limitations of a single rotor??
|
This is just getting weird :confused:
|
But would the chain hold up to the speeds of a motor going 10k rpm?
Thats the problem I see |
This is nuts guys :eek:
|
hooking in parallel has been done with piston engines, but there is a major loss in power in the output shaft, i looked into doing it with gears off of a concreate truck. the other problems is motor drag, it when one engine is out performing the other but is forced to run at the slower engines speed.
|
ah well - it was just a thought :)
|
hey man, the more ideas the better
|
Originally posted by QuagmireMan all engines are concidered pump, but i think it would be better to have a supercharger ontop an engine rather then adding to the length, plus it would not have high enough compression like a supercharger, plus it would be hard to redeliver the air/fuel mixture to the other housings sorry to poop on your dreams, but keep bring out ideas, thats how good things always are started... ideas |
You can't change the stationary gear ratio without changing the entire geometry of the engine; by that point you're better off just bolting a Lysholm type supercharger to it. And also, the configurations of it only allow for a rotor to be going 1 revolution per two revolutions of the output shaft at absolute most, so it's only possible to get 50% more RPM than the rest of the engine.
As for 4-rotors making it necessecary for other engine configurations... Scoot fit a 23A into an FD with an FR config, and that should be (by calculations) 40mm longer than a 20B. The theoretical 26B I mentioned (not the Mazda Factory Race one) would be 20mm shorter than that... of course, it requires custom end plates (kind of a given) and only peripheral ports (which some people might not think of as streetable). |
50% more RMP would be plenty with a higher compression rotor. the only thing that i can think of that would be a problem is balancing. as the compressor rotor would differ in revolutions from the other rotors wouldnt i run into a problem with the balance of the engine changing? that is the only problem i can see with it..... am i wrong?
PS is that a tatoo that you actually have Kenku..... if so that is bad-fu*kin-ass |
Right, balancing would be one issue. Another is that unless you make the compressor rotor bigger than the other two, it's not going to flow enough air. Using simple math, (assuming the same width and eccentricity) the compressor rotor is going to move 1.5 times as much air as any one of the other two... but that's *still* only 75% as much air going into each rotor as they want. It doesn't matter if you jack up the compression; that would only be an issue in a static system (air compressor filling a tank) Flow rate is the important factor for superchargers.
And yeah, that's a tattoo I actually have. I might go get it colored or whatnot at some point, but for now I'm pretty happy with it. |
although a 4 rotor 12a would be under better control...it has less compretion=less power right. so a 13b would make more power. if i ever do do a 4 rotor it would be under racing specs. like stronger houseing,seals,and rotors.
my dream engine 4 rotor(10a,12a,13b, i need to learn more) twin turbo big ones, and a super charger. 50 grand for the engine.......but can you say 1200hp at the wheels. heeheh |
dont get the tatoo colored in... its bad ass !
|
right then - why are you insisting it has to be a rotor in the "supercharger housing"? Couldn't it just be a roots type 'charger at a 90 degree turn bolted directly onto the driveshaft?
But then you come across the different path lengths for the air to travel to the different rotors, causing inneficiancy to the rotors further away....Hmmm... Bolt-on 'chargers seem to be loads better than this idea!!! Sorry man, but it just has too many flaws. But great idea nonetheless |
compression is the enemy of the rotary, well the seals anyway. you see the N/A ones run and get about 190k on em when the life of a Turbo usually has to be rebuilt about 70k. i figure the less compression the better, unless its going to be an all out race motor. so with less compression you would want to go with a leaner mixture, but this is a whole nother can of worm
|
i also wonder if a concave rotor housing would be better than a flat one???? more food for thought
|
tii only lasting 70k while the na can last 190k? i dont' think that is correct.
|
before a seal change in the tii.
|
maybe the #'s might be a little off but my point is that the N/A last longer, with the lesser compression
|
hey peter....lol peter from the family guy....what exactly do u mean by having the rotor housings concave instead of flat? i dint get wat ur sayin please explain!
|
the top width or the rotor is flat which goes against the housing, im thinkin if it is round it could have a better seal that could take more compression. if you want me to explain more i will. but the show i hate.... but am strangley adicted to (surviver) is on.
|
Originally posted by QuagmireMan you see the N/A ones run and get about 190k on em when the life of a Turbo usually has to be rebuilt about 70k. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:50 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands