|
DJHale68 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I have to differ with you on this myth that reciprocating engines waste energy stopping and starting the piston. As the piston slows down the energy goes into speeding up the crank/flywheel system. Then the flywheel puts the energy right back into the piston to accelerate it back up. So NO energy is lost.
RotaryICEman (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Still don't fully understand. Is there an animation somewhere on the web?
RotaryICEman (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
They may not be better than Mazdas, the jury is still out. The Mazda Wankel is simpler, but it's not very efficient which is the main objective of this program.
RotaryICEman (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
They have 2 stages/rotors. The first stage is the rotor closest to the shaft. It compresses the fuel/air mixture & passes it via the transfer port to the combustion stage which is the side with the glass cover.
isaacd101 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
wow this is really cool
smvuy (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
how these engine manage to compress the fuel air mix?
PauliusBa (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Why it is in any way better than mazdas rotary engine?
nwapracy (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
hello.
i think what testacorsa150 means instead of original apex seals, having a part in place of them that can rotate arond the housing instead of scraping it.they would be rolling around the housing.
RotaryICEman (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I can't say that I understand your concept. But it seems to me that almost avery imaginable design has already been tried by somebody.
RotaryICEman (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
These are experimental devices, so yes, they are definitily "high maintenance" at the moment. I've experienced broken springs, vanes, seals, excessive wear, engine lock-ups, bearing failure due to excessive preload, etc. Once all the bugs are worked out, I expect them to be lower maintenance, and much more reliable than conventional designs because they're so much simpler. |