smaller better?
11-13-03, 10:53 PM
#77
My idea for a shortened 4 rotor: AKA 2 rotor
Since we are dreaming, they could sandwitch the 13b rotors together and two rotor housings to match. This way the rotors would now be 160mm wide each. This would give you 2 rotor chambers instead of 4. You would still keep the same displacment of the 4 rotor(not sure about the rotating mass). This would also elliminate 2 extra side plates. Also, you could use 4 spark plugs per housing.
That ideal should work!
Since we are dreaming, they could sandwitch the 13b rotors together and two rotor housings to match. This way the rotors would now be 160mm wide each. This would give you 2 rotor chambers instead of 4. You would still keep the same displacment of the 4 rotor(not sure about the rotating mass). This would also elliminate 2 extra side plates. Also, you could use 4 spark plugs per housing.
That ideal should work!
Last edited by t-von; 11-13-03 at 10:57 PM.
11-14-03, 03:57 PM
#78
Registered Offender
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,047
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
t-von that is great thinking, but i believe it would need a new rotor all together to allow for good compression, i like it.
the concave idea would hold better to the principal of compression. the ring/seal would expand out into the concave surface, when im not sure what the convex would do... plus on the convex the rotor would have weak points at the ends, when if it was concave it would add to its strength
the concave idea would hold better to the principal of compression. the ring/seal would expand out into the concave surface, when im not sure what the convex would do... plus on the convex the rotor would have weak points at the ends, when if it was concave it would add to its strength
11-14-03, 05:10 PM
#79
Originally posted by QuagmireMan
t-von that is great thinking, but i believe it would need a new rotor all together to allow for good compression, i like it.
the concave idea would hold better to the principal of compression. the ring/seal would expand out into the concave surface, when im not sure what the convex would do... plus on the convex the rotor would have weak points at the ends, when if it was concave it would add to its strength
t-von that is great thinking, but i believe it would need a new rotor all together to allow for good compression, i like it.
the concave idea would hold better to the principal of compression. the ring/seal would expand out into the concave surface, when im not sure what the convex would do... plus on the convex the rotor would have weak points at the ends, when if it was concave it would add to its strength
Thx! You know I was just BSing about the idea but then later it hit me; this could accually work.
Check this out. Yes it would be just one rotor! To make his work Mazda would have to use both intake ports as primaries "to double the volume" where as before, one port would be for the primaries and the second larger port was for the secondaries. Now as wide as the rotor chambers would be, this would allow for them to fill with air properly at both sides at low rpms. I know some of you are thinking "what about the secondary ports? There's no room for them now right?". Thats were the peripheral ports comes in. A peripheral port could be added high just below the oil injection lines. Now once again I know some of your are thinking "It would idle roughly because of overlap!" Maybe not because the peripheral ports would be secondary ports and they could have shutter valves in them to stay closes until a specified rpm(like on the Renesis). So now we have a total of 6 intake ports for this engine (3 per housing, 2 primarys on the side and 1 peripheral port on top as a secondary). This would allow for Mazda to reuse the 20b UIM(6 runners). Mazda could also reuse the thick 20b side plate as the middle plate because it has the holes for the long studs. The engine would have to be assembled from both sides just like a 20b. Also do to the length of the rotors, the rotors could be designed for 2 stationary gears each. Extra doweling would need to be used(maybe). As far as exhaust goes, I would keep the old peripheral exhaust setup because the Renesis side exhaust would have to have thicker side plates to increase the volume there(remember, the volume has been doubled because of the 160mm rotors). Anyways that would defeat the purpose of shortenig the engine. There would be 2 peripheral exhaust ports per housing. I thought about just 1 per housing but, the opening might be too large for the larger apex seal to slide over(too much chance for flexing). This overall design would weigh less than a regular 20b an be about the same length(I think). Plus it would retain the Mazda forumla of fewer moving parts(only 3). Mazda could then use this NA production engine for a future supercar AKA "THE RX-9"
What do you guys think about that?
Last edited by t-von; 11-14-03 at 05:21 PM.
11-14-03, 09:30 PM
#80
Registered Offender
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,047
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by t-von
Thx! You know I was just BSing about the idea but then later it hit me; this could accually work.
Check this out. Yes it would be just one rotor! To make his work Mazda would have to use both intake ports as primaries "to double the volume" where as before, one port would be for the primaries and the second larger port was for the secondaries. Now as wide as the rotor chambers would be, this would allow for them to fill with air properly at both sides at low rpms. I know some of you are thinking "what about the secondary ports? There's no room for them now right?". Thats were the peripheral ports comes in. A peripheral port could be added high just below the oil injection lines. Now once again I know some of your are thinking "It would idle roughly because of overlap!" Maybe not because the peripheral ports would be secondary ports and they could have shutter valves in them to stay closes until a specified rpm(like on the Renesis). So now we have a total of 6 intake ports for this engine (3 per housing, 2 primarys on the side and 1 peripheral port on top as a secondary). This would allow for Mazda to reuse the 20b UIM(6 runners). Mazda could also reuse the thick 20b side plate as the middle plate because it has the holes for the long studs. The engine would have to be assembled from both sides just like a 20b. Also do to the length of the rotors, the rotors could be designed for 2 stationary gears each. Extra doweling would need to be used(maybe). As far as exhaust goes, I would keep the old peripheral exhaust setup because the Renesis side exhaust would have to have thicker side plates to increase the volume there(remember, the volume has been doubled because of the 160mm rotors). Anyways that would defeat the purpose of shortenig the engine. There would be 2 peripheral exhaust ports per housing. I thought about just 1 per housing but, the opening might be too large for the larger apex seal to slide over(too much chance for flexing). This overall design would weigh less than a regular 20b an be about the same length(I think). Plus it would retain the Mazda forumla of fewer moving parts(only 3). Mazda could then use this NA production engine for a future supercar AKA "THE RX-9" What do you guys think about that?
Thx! You know I was just BSing about the idea but then later it hit me; this could accually work.
Check this out. Yes it would be just one rotor! To make his work Mazda would have to use both intake ports as primaries "to double the volume" where as before, one port would be for the primaries and the second larger port was for the secondaries. Now as wide as the rotor chambers would be, this would allow for them to fill with air properly at both sides at low rpms. I know some of you are thinking "what about the secondary ports? There's no room for them now right?". Thats were the peripheral ports comes in. A peripheral port could be added high just below the oil injection lines. Now once again I know some of your are thinking "It would idle roughly because of overlap!" Maybe not because the peripheral ports would be secondary ports and they could have shutter valves in them to stay closes until a specified rpm(like on the Renesis). So now we have a total of 6 intake ports for this engine (3 per housing, 2 primarys on the side and 1 peripheral port on top as a secondary). This would allow for Mazda to reuse the 20b UIM(6 runners). Mazda could also reuse the thick 20b side plate as the middle plate because it has the holes for the long studs. The engine would have to be assembled from both sides just like a 20b. Also do to the length of the rotors, the rotors could be designed for 2 stationary gears each. Extra doweling would need to be used(maybe). As far as exhaust goes, I would keep the old peripheral exhaust setup because the Renesis side exhaust would have to have thicker side plates to increase the volume there(remember, the volume has been doubled because of the 160mm rotors). Anyways that would defeat the purpose of shortenig the engine. There would be 2 peripheral exhaust ports per housing. I thought about just 1 per housing but, the opening might be too large for the larger apex seal to slide over(too much chance for flexing). This overall design would weigh less than a regular 20b an be about the same length(I think). Plus it would retain the Mazda forumla of fewer moving parts(only 3). Mazda could then use this NA production engine for a future supercar AKA "THE RX-9"
What do you guys think about that?
11-15-03, 08:44 PM
#81
50mpg - oooooh yeah!
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 527
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but hey -this topic has just turned into an idea playpen!!! so let it run riot - we may end up with a brand-new type of system.
But I really like the idea of a "twin chamber" rotor. It could offer serious benifits for torque...since you'd be getting two different locations for power in the same chamber. Not sure about idling though, since the fuel would have a pretty big area to fill if in this configuration.
So far we have the following setup though:
# a single large rotor with two bowls on each face
# a concave housing with rotors to match
# two stationary gears per rotor
# semi-PP setup
This means that we will have a fuell-guzzling torque monster!! (if combined with a turbo)
The housing shape could also be used to our benifit of having a higher RPM limit, and if only one rotor was used, then an even higher RPM limit would be acheivable due to the lesser rotating mass
20K RPM anybody?
BUT....If you wanted multiple rotors (say,3 or 4) then you could use bearings on the middle-plates to help reduce e-shaft flex
any more ideas?
But I really like the idea of a "twin chamber" rotor. It could offer serious benifits for torque...since you'd be getting two different locations for power in the same chamber. Not sure about idling though, since the fuel would have a pretty big area to fill if in this configuration.
So far we have the following setup though:
# a single large rotor with two bowls on each face
# a concave housing with rotors to match
# two stationary gears per rotor
# semi-PP setup
This means that we will have a fuell-guzzling torque monster!! (if combined with a turbo)
The housing shape could also be used to our benifit of having a higher RPM limit, and if only one rotor was used, then an even higher RPM limit would be acheivable due to the lesser rotating mass
20K RPM anybody?
BUT....If you wanted multiple rotors (say,3 or 4) then you could use bearings on the middle-plates to help reduce e-shaft flex
any more ideas?
11-16-03, 04:12 AM
#84
Originally posted by chairchild
But I really like the idea of a "twin chamber" rotor. It could offer serious benifits for torque...since you'd be getting two different locations for power in the same chamber. Not sure about idling though, since the fuel would have a pretty big area to fill if in this configuration.
But I really like the idea of a "twin chamber" rotor. It could offer serious benifits for torque...since you'd be getting two different locations for power in the same chamber. Not sure about idling though, since the fuel would have a pretty big area to fill if in this configuration.
11-16-03, 02:41 PM
#85
not sure anymore
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: leawood,kansas
Posts: 1,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
when you say two rotors together you just mean one big rotor(twice the width of normal rotor.....just trying to fallow along. sweet idea
also to add to this, wether the rotor be fater(width) or taller(hight) wouldent trying to make the width and hight the same be the best, so that it is equal.
also to add to this, wether the rotor be fater(width) or taller(hight) wouldent trying to make the width and hight the same be the best, so that it is equal.
11-16-03, 06:02 PM
#86
I'll Apex YOUR Seal
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Mississauga, Ontario - Canada
Posts: 972
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets not forget Mr. BiG G started the twin rotor/twin housing idea....and no one answered my question....whats wrong with having a single rotor motor?
....and no one answered my question....whats wrong with having a single rotor motor?
Originally posted by Mr BiG G
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??
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??
11-16-03, 06:15 PM
#89
[i]
Yes! The rotor could have 2 separate dimples or one big one.
I'm not a engineer by any means but a taller & wider rotor would cause alot more rotating mass. The engine wouldn't be able to rev as high. I think Mazda has already made an experimental engine like that(can't remember the name, made huge hp though). The overall diameter of the engine would be larger as well, which means Mazda couldn't re-use any of the older housing and side plate molds. Too cut cost, Mazda as traditionally gone wider on the rotors without changing the rotor height. Thats why most of these engines have interchangable parts. To my knowledge every production rotary Mazda has produced, has the same height(10a,12a 13b,20b,13g,ect). Buy just widening the rotors even further Mazda would save a **** load of money on R&D.
when you say two rotors together you just mean one big rotor(twice the width of normal rotor.....just trying to fallow along. sweet idea
also to add to this, wether the rotor be fater(width) or taller(hight) wouldent trying to make the width and hight the same be the best, so that it is equal.
Last edited by t-von; 11-16-03 at 06:25 PM.
11-16-03, 06:24 PM
#90
Originally posted by Mr BiG G
Lets not forget Mr. BiG G started the twin rotor/twin housing idea....and no one answered my question
Lets not forget Mr. BiG G started the twin rotor/twin housing idea
....and no one answered my question
Ha Ha Ha thats funny because when I first posted on this thread, I skipped over most of these post. Also you probably lost the guys here when you mentioned the bicycle chain. Great thinking! All I can say now is, lets make this dream a reality.
[i]Whats wrong with having a single rotor motor?
You would loss the advantage of having the lengthy power stoke that two rotors provide and have more vibrations.
Last edited by t-von; 11-16-03 at 06:30 PM.
11-16-03, 06:34 PM
#91
50mpg - oooooh yeah!
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 527
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
have a look on google, there's loads of peolpe who have done single rotor conversions....There's even one in a (classic) mini!!!
It just means you lose 1/2 the power, and it becomes slightly less smooth
But t-von, If it has two bowls on the rotor facem that would mean you would be getting two areas which would have "power" made from them on each face. Do you see where I'm getting at?
It just means you lose 1/2 the power, and it becomes slightly less smooth
But t-von, If it has two bowls on the rotor facem that would mean you would be getting two areas which would have "power" made from them on each face. Do you see where I'm getting at?
11-16-03, 06:42 PM
#92
Originally posted by chairchild
have a look on google, there's loads of peolpe who have done single rotor conversions....There's even one in a (classic) mini!!!
It just means you lose 1/2 the power, and it becomes slightly less smooth
But t-von, If it has two bowls on the rotor facem that would mean you would be getting two areas which would have "power" made from them on each face. Do you see where I'm getting at?
have a look on google, there's loads of peolpe who have done single rotor conversions....There's even one in a (classic) mini!!!
It just means you lose 1/2 the power, and it becomes slightly less smooth
But t-von, If it has two bowls on the rotor facem that would mean you would be getting two areas which would have "power" made from them on each face. Do you see where I'm getting at?
I think I understand your point now. I almost got the the impression you were talking about two "seperate" areas in the same chamber that would produce power at seperate times. Just imagine two rotors welded together with both bowls on them. Thats why you would use the 4 spark plugs to fire the mixture.
Last edited by t-von; 11-16-03 at 06:56 PM.
11-16-03, 07:14 PM
#95
50mpg - oooooh yeah!
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 527
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just imagine two rotors welded together with both bowls on them. Thats why you would use the 4 spark plugs to fire the mixture.
just like having two rotors firing at the same time, but sharing a chamber (so you get two points of power)
11-16-03, 07:14 PM
#96
I'll Apex YOUR Seal
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Mississauga, Ontario - Canada
Posts: 972
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yea i think 2 dimples are better than one as stated by chairchild.....i hope someday either me or someone else here puts tons of money into crazy ideas like these.....u never know what might actually work and be a success!
11-16-03, 07:54 PM
#99
Registered Offender
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,047
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
one problem we run into..... the burn rate. the fact is air/fuel mix always always burns at the same rate.... so smaller would be better.
with such a larger rotor, it would best to be diesil.
plus if the rotor squares off more, how would then engine know which way to turn.
let me get back with you guys after i get done with physics and engineering classes
with such a larger rotor, it would best to be diesil.
plus if the rotor squares off more, how would then engine know which way to turn.
let me get back with you guys after i get done with physics and engineering classes