Skyactive-R (Rotary)
03-02-2012, 09:51 AM
#1
Registered
Thread Starter
Skyactive-R (Rotary)
I hope this is not a repost. I saw it first via RX7 Club on facebook, and decided to share it with you folks, in case you guys have not heard~
Cheers!
http://wardsauto.com/vehicles-amp-te...otary-new-life
Cheers!
http://wardsauto.com/vehicles-amp-te...otary-new-life
03-02-2012, 10:48 AM
#6
"Mitsuo Hitomi, general manager-powertrain development, says the auto maker soon will complete development of an all-new rotary engine that meets future fuel-economy and emissions standards."
That says it all to me. I am VERY pleased.
Paul.
That says it all to me. I am VERY pleased.
Paul.
03-02-2012, 10:54 AM
#7
Registered
Thread Starter
I am hoping that they would find a way to merge 16X with it, because I want a bigger displacement engine with these Skyactiv technologies - that would be interesting!
03-02-2012, 11:08 AM
#8
Registered
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 16,684
Likes: 0
Received 240 Likes
on
110 Posts
I'm thinking that rather than having a flat |__| housing surface, it's curved more u-shaped. They acknowledged in the 16X development that the combustion wasn't reaching the corners of the combustion area. Narrowing the rotors/housing brought these corners closer, but a corner will still inherently have issues with a complete combustion. Think square pistons instead of round ones. Rounding the rotor tip to be convex, matching a concave housing surface would "eliminate" the corners entirely, and provide a more even push on the rotor from the combustion.
Then the noted issue of the recessed spark plugs. What if the rotor cavity is almost completely eliminated. What if that cavity is in the housing instead? Spark plugs can reach into it cleanly and safely. The rotor's remaining cavity could be designed to provide a flatter surface at a more perpendicular angle to the combustion for the push against. Having the cavity in the housing would be a problem for the trailing apex seal I guess (in a given combustion), and you certainly don't want the combustion traveling back into the fresh charge of the next rotor face, so I guess that idea is not viable. The laser ignition returns as an option. They can put the ignition point into the sweep area of the rotor without having a physical object there doing it.
What about using the rotor itself as part of the ignition? Think crazy for a moment. What if there is a spur of metal protruding from the rotor face, not so long as to ever contact the housing, but gets it at the needed distance from the spark plug. And the spark jumps the gap, out from the housing through the charge and to the spur, igniting the charge between. Technically, the coil problem could be changed, as you don't have it "firing" any more. It's a matter of just providing the continuous voltage needed, and as the rotor sweeps past the correct point, the charge will make the jump without an electronic control. You would probably be unable to get to the same gapping that spark plugs do, but the gap is really only a matter of voltage. You can just any amount of air/fuel with a high enough voltage. Double the voltage, you can at least double the gap. What if there were multiple charge points, configured on the housing and rotor face so that it provides the same double-step, or even more, as it sweeps around? Possible at this point to also have multiple charge points laterally, and not just in the direction of the rotor motion. Picture the lightning dancing along the edge of a storm front. If you had these ignitions rippling across the correct points of the charge, your burn is all in the correct direction. Obviously not viable with actual spark plugs, but once you move to ignition sources that don't involve the physical space/size of a plug in the side of the housing, these types of things become viable.
It may be crazy, but not impossible.
Then the noted issue of the recessed spark plugs. What if the rotor cavity is almost completely eliminated. What if that cavity is in the housing instead? Spark plugs can reach into it cleanly and safely. The rotor's remaining cavity could be designed to provide a flatter surface at a more perpendicular angle to the combustion for the push against. Having the cavity in the housing would be a problem for the trailing apex seal I guess (in a given combustion), and you certainly don't want the combustion traveling back into the fresh charge of the next rotor face, so I guess that idea is not viable. The laser ignition returns as an option. They can put the ignition point into the sweep area of the rotor without having a physical object there doing it.
What about using the rotor itself as part of the ignition? Think crazy for a moment. What if there is a spur of metal protruding from the rotor face, not so long as to ever contact the housing, but gets it at the needed distance from the spark plug. And the spark jumps the gap, out from the housing through the charge and to the spur, igniting the charge between. Technically, the coil problem could be changed, as you don't have it "firing" any more. It's a matter of just providing the continuous voltage needed, and as the rotor sweeps past the correct point, the charge will make the jump without an electronic control. You would probably be unable to get to the same gapping that spark plugs do, but the gap is really only a matter of voltage. You can just any amount of air/fuel with a high enough voltage. Double the voltage, you can at least double the gap. What if there were multiple charge points, configured on the housing and rotor face so that it provides the same double-step, or even more, as it sweeps around? Possible at this point to also have multiple charge points laterally, and not just in the direction of the rotor motion. Picture the lightning dancing along the edge of a storm front. If you had these ignitions rippling across the correct points of the charge, your burn is all in the correct direction. Obviously not viable with actual spark plugs, but once you move to ignition sources that don't involve the physical space/size of a plug in the side of the housing, these types of things become viable.
It may be crazy, but not impossible.
Last edited by RIWWP; 03-02-2012 at 11:16 AM.
03-02-2012, 02:39 PM
#10
European livin n ohio
03-02-2012, 02:53 PM
#11
What about using the rotor itself as part of the ignition? Think crazy for a moment. What if there is a spur of metal protruding from the rotor face, not so long as to ever contact the housing, but gets it at the needed distance from the spark plug. And the spark jumps the gap, out from the housing through the charge and to the spur, igniting the charge between. Technically, the coil problem could be changed, as you don't have it "firing" any more. It's a matter of just providing the continuous voltage needed, and as the rotor sweeps past the correct point, the charge will make the jump without an electronic control. You would probably be unable to get to the same gapping that spark plugs do, but the gap is really only a matter of voltage. You can just any amount of air/fuel with a high enough voltage. Double the voltage, you can at least double the gap.
But damn that is a smart idea!
03-02-2012, 03:08 PM
#12
my other car is a 787b
Still, any news is good news and this is very good news.
03-02-2012, 03:15 PM
#13
Registered
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 16,684
Likes: 0
Received 240 Likes
on
110 Posts
Yeah, getting control of preignition would be the primary issue I think. You would end up with having to have some level of voltage control as well, or else you would get it arcing to the housing itself and to the rotor tips as it sweeps by. But even if you still control the current timing with "coils", you can get the ignition spark, or sparks, where you want with a minimum of space issues using just the electrode tips. As long as the rotor itself will always be grounded electrically (which shouldn't be difficult if it isn't already), then it should work. Carbon caking would be another issue. Buildup would start shifting the spark path. Replacing the electrodes on the housing side could be simple in theory, assuming they are designed like very narrow spark plugs (I'm picturing no larger diameter than a pencil), but obviously the rotor side would be cost prohibitive to have to replace as a maintenance item. So that would have to be built for lifetime durability.
As with anything, it would definitely have to take R+D and refinement to get it to work. Costly R+D. But then, if you describe a piston engine in simple terms, it sounds just as crazy.
"You inject gas and air into this chamber, that is perfectly shaped to fit another block of metal that can slide up and down in it, and the combustion will push down on that block of metal, and you have another rod connecting that block of metal to the arm of a rotating shaft. You will have to have the rod hinged at both ends, and have to have the shaft shaped in linked U's so the rod doesn't have to pass through the shaft. If we add some plates where the air and fuel go in, and the exhaust goes out, we can use some sort of rotating shaft with lumps on it, linked to the main shaft by a belt so it turns at the right speed. The lumps can push down on the plates at the time time during the combustion cycle to let air in and exhaust out.
Come on guys! It should work!"
People compare the rotary to a piston engine, holding up the piston engine as perfect. When the reality is, if the piston engine was perfect, there would be no advances at all in emissions, efficiency, or power. Everyone would be making the same basic engine, only with varying numbers of pistons. Just because today's rotary has fundamental weaknesses in design doesn't mean that tomorrow's will have those same weaknesses. You can't take anything about today's rotary and say that tomorrow's rotary will have those same attributes, because someone can always find a way to re-design it to be better. The rotary hasn't advanced to the same degree of imperfectness that the piston has, but that doesn't mean that it can't.
You can not define what is impossible, only what you choose to not pursue.
As with anything, it would definitely have to take R+D and refinement to get it to work. Costly R+D. But then, if you describe a piston engine in simple terms, it sounds just as crazy.
"You inject gas and air into this chamber, that is perfectly shaped to fit another block of metal that can slide up and down in it, and the combustion will push down on that block of metal, and you have another rod connecting that block of metal to the arm of a rotating shaft. You will have to have the rod hinged at both ends, and have to have the shaft shaped in linked U's so the rod doesn't have to pass through the shaft. If we add some plates where the air and fuel go in, and the exhaust goes out, we can use some sort of rotating shaft with lumps on it, linked to the main shaft by a belt so it turns at the right speed. The lumps can push down on the plates at the time time during the combustion cycle to let air in and exhaust out.
Come on guys! It should work!"
People compare the rotary to a piston engine, holding up the piston engine as perfect. When the reality is, if the piston engine was perfect, there would be no advances at all in emissions, efficiency, or power. Everyone would be making the same basic engine, only with varying numbers of pistons. Just because today's rotary has fundamental weaknesses in design doesn't mean that tomorrow's will have those same weaknesses. You can't take anything about today's rotary and say that tomorrow's rotary will have those same attributes, because someone can always find a way to re-design it to be better. The rotary hasn't advanced to the same degree of imperfectness that the piston has, but that doesn't mean that it can't.
You can not define what is impossible, only what you choose to not pursue.
Last edited by RIWWP; 03-02-2012 at 03:18 PM.
03-02-2012, 05:15 PM
#15
RIWWP, I don't think the rotor can have a proper ground because it's always floating around various viscosity of oils and oils are not a good conductor of electricity. So this is not going to work for sure.
In order to find ground, the electron has to jump between the rotors to the housing and to improve grounding you'll need a separate conductor from the housing directly to the negative terminal of the battery or chassis. It'll never make it pass the oil films without some super high voltage.
I wonder how the laser ignition would work, as it would require a hole to shoot the beam into the chamber. I'd imagine the tip of the emitter is fragile and can't survive the heat/pressure of having it close to the housing like the spark plug. So it would then need to be installed way back with a tiny hole allowing the laser to shoot into the chamber. But this tiny hole could get clogged by carbon build up which would block the laser beam at the same time. Moreover, to prevent combustion gases from escaping into the hole and making its way back to the laser emitter, some type of diamond/moissanite shield must be in place to plug that hole but still allow the light to pass.
hmmm... a Diffracted laser beam to ignite the fuel would be interesting... would give it a very uniform ignition spread!
In order to find ground, the electron has to jump between the rotors to the housing and to improve grounding you'll need a separate conductor from the housing directly to the negative terminal of the battery or chassis. It'll never make it pass the oil films without some super high voltage.
I wonder how the laser ignition would work, as it would require a hole to shoot the beam into the chamber. I'd imagine the tip of the emitter is fragile and can't survive the heat/pressure of having it close to the housing like the spark plug. So it would then need to be installed way back with a tiny hole allowing the laser to shoot into the chamber. But this tiny hole could get clogged by carbon build up which would block the laser beam at the same time. Moreover, to prevent combustion gases from escaping into the hole and making its way back to the laser emitter, some type of diamond/moissanite shield must be in place to plug that hole but still allow the light to pass.
hmmm... a Diffracted laser beam to ignite the fuel would be interesting... would give it a very uniform ignition spread!
03-02-2012, 05:49 PM
#16
Registered
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 16,684
Likes: 0
Received 240 Likes
on
110 Posts
I can't dismiss the idea that quickly Footman. The rotors themselves sit on the lobes of the e-shaft without moving in relation to the e-shaft, so there is an easy conductor there. If it doesn't exist already, then making the electrical connection isn't really that difficult.The e-shaft has plenty of bearing/lubrication points, however it does make it out to the front pulley. Have a high conduction core running through the center of the e-shaft if the e-shaft isn't conductive enough, and from there it's a simple matter. Spinning surface transferring current to a nearby non-spinning surface is used all the time in stuff like electric motors. If you opted for a brush or brushless, neither would have to be particularly resistant to combustion, and could be replaced easily at the front pulley.
I would agree about one of the big issues with lasers being carbon caking physically obstructing the beam, regardless of how it's configured. The only "simple" way I can see at the moment is rather than having a hole where the beam is triggered through, have it more like a "port". Only at a specific moment in the rotation of the rotor does the laser have a clear shot into the mixture to ignite it, and it's re-covered before the combustion has a chance to generate soot to start the path towards blocking the port. You couldn't do this in the housing though, without adding complex mechanisms. However I'm sure you could find a sliver of the side plate where a 1mm x 1mm surface area is only exposed for a briefest of periods. Even high mileage teardowns show the center/end plates as fairly carbon free. You could in theory could shape the rotor's edge with a divot at exactly the correct point, rather than assuming it's just a smooth curve like today's. Or else have a wafer extension of the edge of the rotor down the side plate with properly placed holes for each of the needed trigger points in the cycle. You wouldn't have to mount the laser in the side plate, since you can bend light. Just have that path through the end plate and reflected/refracted into the combustion chamber for the brief moment that the hole is exposed. You could even have the same laser trigger different ignition points in the rotation, and if you ran it through the center plate, one laser could theoretically handle all the ignition needs of both rotors. And you could still aim the laser as needed, so having this tiny port in the corner of the combustion chamber exposed only briefly wouldn't be a problem for starting the ignition where you wanted it, especially if you adjusted the shape of the edge of the rotor to match as needed.
I would agree about one of the big issues with lasers being carbon caking physically obstructing the beam, regardless of how it's configured. The only "simple" way I can see at the moment is rather than having a hole where the beam is triggered through, have it more like a "port". Only at a specific moment in the rotation of the rotor does the laser have a clear shot into the mixture to ignite it, and it's re-covered before the combustion has a chance to generate soot to start the path towards blocking the port. You couldn't do this in the housing though, without adding complex mechanisms. However I'm sure you could find a sliver of the side plate where a 1mm x 1mm surface area is only exposed for a briefest of periods. Even high mileage teardowns show the center/end plates as fairly carbon free. You could in theory could shape the rotor's edge with a divot at exactly the correct point, rather than assuming it's just a smooth curve like today's. Or else have a wafer extension of the edge of the rotor down the side plate with properly placed holes for each of the needed trigger points in the cycle. You wouldn't have to mount the laser in the side plate, since you can bend light. Just have that path through the end plate and reflected/refracted into the combustion chamber for the brief moment that the hole is exposed. You could even have the same laser trigger different ignition points in the rotation, and if you ran it through the center plate, one laser could theoretically handle all the ignition needs of both rotors. And you could still aim the laser as needed, so having this tiny port in the corner of the combustion chamber exposed only briefly wouldn't be a problem for starting the ignition where you wanted it, especially if you adjusted the shape of the edge of the rotor to match as needed.
Last edited by RIWWP; 03-02-2012 at 05:52 PM.
03-02-2012, 10:25 PM
#17
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Massapequa, NY
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Finally, some news! Bittersweet for me though because I wrecked my 8 last month, and bought an Evo X. Choosing between the 2 will be like asking which child is your favorite....better start saving so I can keep both 
03-02-2012, 10:33 PM
#18
Registered
I'm looking forward to this. I would say that a turbocharger out of factory would be a horrible idea, lets see what they got, leave turbo to aftermarket, just make a rotary car that the market will embrace, no need to do performance. A revamp of the rotary for the mass market may give rotaries a good image and thus leading to more development to performance rotary street cars.
03-02-2012, 10:38 PM
#19
Super Moderator
GREAT NEWS....I (we) Hope!!!!!
