smaller better?
11-12-03, 06:50 PM
#51
Registered Offender
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,047
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
from what i hear it seems that a 10a or 12a is better for a 4 rotor then a 13b. is this right.
11-12-03, 06:54 PM
#52
Registered Offender
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,047
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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).
what do you think.... heath
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).
what do you think.... heath
sorry to poop on your dreams, but keep bring out ideas, thats how good things always are started... ideas
11-12-03, 08:12 PM
#53
50mpg - oooooh yeah!
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 527
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!!!
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!!!
11-12-03, 08:50 PM
#54
I'll Apex YOUR Seal
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Mississauga, Ontario - Canada
Posts: 972
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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??
11-12-03, 09:50 PM
#58
Registered Offender
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,047
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
11-12-03, 11:00 PM
#61
DRIVE THE ROTARY SPORTS
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: CA (Bay Area)
Posts: 4,150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
..... hmmm let seeee..... ok, got it, you increase compression by making the cavity in the rotor face smaller.... isnt that how they raised compression on the renesis? also, we can change the stationary gear ratio to spin it twice as fast (or faster) than the other rotors cause it wont be under much load. so now we are moving more air, and its more compressed. ok, lastly all you have to do is keep the intake side where it is (for the supercharger rotor) but move the exhaust to the other side so it will easily line up with your intake. done and done! ha, my motor is running again! comments please!!!!!!! and more criticisim... it helps me ponder 
. am i just being retarded or is this a good idea, and are my solutions to the problems decent ones? heath
11-12-03, 11:10 PM
#62
spoon!
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).
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).
11-13-03, 04:13 AM
#63
DRIVE THE ROTARY SPORTS
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: CA (Bay Area)
Posts: 4,150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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-***
PS is that a tatoo that you actually have Kenku..... if so that is bad-fu*kin-***
11-13-03, 10:06 AM
#64
spoon!
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.
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.
11-13-03, 02:24 PM
#65
not sure anymore
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: leawood,kansas
Posts: 1,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
11-13-03, 05:53 PM
#67
50mpg - oooooh yeah!
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 527
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
11-13-03, 06:01 PM
#68
Registered Offender
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,047
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
11-13-03, 07:46 PM
#73
I'll Apex YOUR Seal
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Mississauga, Ontario - Canada
Posts: 972
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
11-13-03, 07:50 PM
#74
Registered Offender
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,047
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
11-13-03, 08:01 PM
#75
I wish I was driving!
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.
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.