Innovation: internal combustion rotary engine MYT

[freddau]

There is still something that bothers me:

and in fact the gold of compression we have to do with two moving parts ??
The "stop" is mobile and the "piston" which compresses is mobile so how can uniform compression be achieved when the two parts are in theory mobile and free to move ???

In current engines at least the chamber is fixed and the piston which compresses mobile ????

Or did I miss a turn ???

[neant]

In my opinion you really missed a lot of things to want to claim at all costs that the engine as we know it is good.
By standing behind the technical cathedral of car dealers.

I inform you that there are engines with rotating compression chamber in the cylinder, the info is on this forum if I remember correctly.

And then I like Euclid and his lever arm.
And also, why we have no Stirling engines whose performance is better than that of a conventional engine, and also why ...
Lots of things in fact, money makes decisions, not science. Quasiturbine is not that bad.

We are not going to sell you a high-performance motor that consumes not a lot, and then what else ...

If this principle was so good, the inventor's engine would surely have lasted a little longer, right?

Why you can take pages.
And why don't we have other types of engines on cars? bah simply because we have not evolved, that's all.
The other inventions remained in the closet, even if better.

And instead of making it simple and quickly repairable, we make super complicated, stuffed with electronics, so reliable that you fart next to your car and it closes the doors.
I'm exaggerating, but for some car models, the cold makes centralization shut down, and obviously, the warranty doesn't work.
Why?

I am sure that the manufacturers do not ask themselves many questions about the architectures of the engines.
There was a time when they were wondering, of course. This era goes back a long way ...
In any case, ideas are flowing elsewhere than with the manufacturers currently.
What is also on ...
And you why do you think that there can not be better than a classic engine made by classic builders?
You know, you have the right to give your chances to others, after all, and if the engine of these people were really efficient ...
Because it is completely out of the ordinary then it would be a scam!
A bit of patience...

[elephant]

why wouldn't he do it again?

yes and no, there is competition, all the same.

another question: and the engine brake?

[denis]

In my opinion you really missed a lot of things to want to claim at all costs that the engine as we know it is good.
By standing behind the technical cathedral of car dealers.

I inform you that there are engines with rotating compression chamber in the cylinder, the info is on this forum if I remember correctly.

And then I like Euclid and his lever arm.
And also, why we have no Stirling engines whose performance is better than that of a conventional engine, and also why ...
Lots of things in fact, money makes decisions, not science. Quasiturbine is not that bad.

We are not going to sell you a high-performance motor that consumes not a lot, and then what else ...

If this principle was so good, the inventor's engine would surely have lasted a little longer, right?

Why you can take pages.
And why don't we have other types of engines on cars? bah simply because we have not evolved, that's all.
The other inventions remained in the closet, even if better.

And instead of making it simple and quickly repairable, we make super complicated, stuffed with electronics, so reliable that you fart next to your car and it closes the doors.
I'm exaggerating, but for some car models, the cold makes centralization shut down, and obviously, the warranty doesn't work.
Why?

I am sure that the manufacturers do not ask themselves many questions about the architectures of the engines.
There was a time when they were wondering, of course. This era goes back a long way ...
In any case, ideas are flowing elsewhere than with the manufacturers currently.
What is also on ...
And you why do you think that there can not be better than a classic engine made by classic builders?
You know, you have the right to give your chances to others, after all, and if the engine of these people were really efficient ...
Because it is completely out of the ordinary then it would be a scam!
A bit of patience...

all these whys remind me of the brilliant inventor tucker, the revolutionary car maker, that GM “killed”. For those who don't know there is the excellent f copola movie “tucker”. This film reflects well the monopoly of the "big ones", by killing the rare bird in the bud 51 tucker builds in the 50s cars without price so prestigious is interesting at the level of History !! to have

[freddau]

Okay, well what did she have the tucker?

[denis]

and one who doesn't know!

[denis]

seatbelt, non-deformable safety cell, ejection safety windshield, converter, hydraulic motor in the wheels, butterfly doors, these last 2 novelties were scuttled by the chief engineer, who was infiltrated and paid by GM, others I forgot, I have to look at myself one more time
sounds ridiculous, but back then it was a tech revolution and the "big ones" could not have followed given the investments on the assembly lines
the steel was cut upstream, its prototypes made with pieces coming from breakages, to finish it recovered a stock of sheet metal in aviation and also 6 cyl helicopter engine !!! his car was a success, but wrongly accused of swindle ..... finally watch the film, i won't tell everything qm

[denis]

sorry we move away from the subject, besides I did not capture everything the operation

[neant]

If that can reassure you Denis, I either did not capture the operation, that said, the fact of putting forward a larger lever arm to transmit more force to the axis is far from a bad idea .
We have guided our work in this direction in our small team. A similar principle in a hot air engine design and simulation.
Strong is to note that with low rotation frequencies (600 to 800 rpm), we manage to make Watts, and much more than on a classic design.
Normal, we only multiply the force.
And this is proven.
It is surely not, with conventional engines that we will manage to have economical and powerful machines.
The lever arm is one of the most influential parameters on the power of an engine. At least as influential as pressure, if not more.
P = C * w
(Power = torque * frequency of rotation)
And the big advantage is that when a machine does not rotate quickly and has a large torque then it wears less quickly, much less quickly.
Normal, the material is much less stressed, it is enough to properly size the elements to obtain a good rigidity of the machine in the face of stresses. And above all make sure to stay in the elastic domain.
In an engine, it is enough that a single piece (vital) exceeds the elastic threshold to arrive in the plastic field, and bye bye engine ...
So, I conclude that it is not necessarily a canulard, but I still remain suspicious.
That said, if these people, with this machine, have succeeded in making good mechanics with an architecture radically different from what we know, well I am delighted and that's good, because the engine technology really need a thorough cleaning.
Personally, I'm fed up with classic engines, it's monotonous ...
And they are so complicated that even the garage owners lose their Latin. We have nevertheless reached a turning point, where we no longer repair the engines, we change them ...
Recall in passing that a conventional engine has an efficiency of less than 30% despite all these years of improvement by related systems, expensive, moreover.
Surely, it is stupid to continue on this path, because it is the consumer who pays the price. Is it a hazard, an error, or is it intended ...

[neant]

I rest, I had not watched the animation there.

I'm pretty much ok on principle.
For me, this mechanism is very functional, of course, there are inevitably some technological concerns, but to see the machine in photo, I do not doubt that they could have found solutions, there are much more mechanisms complicated which are very reliable.
In addition, the thermodynamic cycle seems coherent to me.
This principle is exactly the same as ours, we are trying at all costs to increase the leverage.
My only downside on this machine will be in terms of tightness, but that meets the concerns on the quasiturbine.

Our principle is really similar in basic architecture, except that with us the cylinders are round and classic.
The transmission on the rotor is arranged differently, it forces us to losses due to a force applied on a slope, but one in the other, we have a compromise; which is really very correct in terms of performance. And terribly simple compared to a classic machine. Really cheaper.

The engine of these people there must have a phenomenal torque, on the one hand, the fluid flows are really optimized by the architecture therefore, it is at all good, and it is far from being negligible because a tors on says an explosion, while it's a very fast combustion.
On the other hand, the force of the expansion of the burning gas is applied over a large area, and in addition, the lever arm also comes to bring a quantity of mechanical energy to the rotor much higher than a conventional engine.
For an equivalent quantity of fuel, and for an equivalent "explosion", the points of application of the forces are very far from the axis of the rotor, not as on a conventional engine, where the design limits this distance because of the stroke of the pistons.
No wonder this engine can be multi-fuel, it will accept combustion not necessarily fast, while providing good torque.
I like it anyway.
I strongly suspect this machine to be able to operate in external combustion without major modifications.
I prefer this architecture to that of the quasiturbine. And by far.

Also, I say bravo these people.

With such a machine, they should really be very competitive on production costs, and of course, of course, on the energy consumed for serial production.