Carbon8

iTrader: (4)

Maybe you should follow your on advice, their is no coil to date that can achieve a spark with a 250 ns dwell.

Thanks for the links to useless theory documents, still waiting for that real world solution though

SIPSOIL

The point is that Mazda did try it without the chrome plating. This is mentioned in Kenichi Yamamoto's book. The point is that I do consider the current and past states of the art.



Having two plugs and the ability to firing the leading plug twice surpasses the complexity of firing two plugs once. Did you forget that we already agreed that a 160mm rotor probably needs 4 plugs?

[/QUOTE]This isn't helping to clear the confusion on that point. You can already ignite an incredibly lean AFR, so lean in fact that your engine isn't producing much power at all. Do a search for a thread called "lean burn with negative split timing". Lots of lean burn testing that a member did. He didn't need different plugs or deliberately inconsistent AFR mixes to fire AFRs as lean as ...17:1?[/QUOTE]

In a two rotor engine, injecting fuel only into one chamber can run the engine at half power at a theoretical AFR of 28:1, so shutting off one rotor completely seems like the better approach.

When you have only one rotor to begin with and if the rotor is infinitely wide and you only inject fuel into one continuous half, you get the same result as for two separate rotors. But, even a very wide rotor is not "infinitely wide" and this is where things get interesting...

RIWWP

iTrader: (2)

So we all agree that chrome plating is needed, not sure why it is an argument point for you?

"Turning off" 1 rotor has more problems than simply stopping fueling and ignition. You still need to inject lubrication and there is the problem of the air compression/expansion acting as a huge drag on the engine.

So since you are still pulling in a full rotor face's worth of air, you are essentially doubling the air to fuel ratio. Sounds like a recipe for engine damaging detonation, and NO power even if the resulting explosion doesn't shatter the seals. And you won't be able to compress only one half of the rotor face, 10:1 compression becomes 5:1, and the engine won't run.

Carbon8

iTrader: (4)

Take a moment, and think about this before someone else points out the obvious flawed logic

SIPSOIL

"Variable displacement is an automobile engine technology that allows the engine displacement to change, usually by deactivating cylinders, for improved fuel economy. The technology is primarily used in large, multi-cylinder engines. Many automobile manufacturers have adopted this technology as of 2005, although the concept has existed for some time prior to this."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_displacement

RIWWP

iTrader: (2)

That isn't the point Carbon was making.

He was making the point that not only is the engine not producing ANY power past ~18:1, and mixtures of 17:1 can be deadly to an engine, and you are far far past that on both points. So theorizing that 28:1 is doable is a bit short sighted.

bladeiai

iTrader: (1)

Yeah you missed the point completely... Again.

Even if this engine of yours could be built and function (which it can't) what would be the point? It already sounds overly complicated and calls upon so many theoretical/cutting edge/ non-existent parts that even if one could be produced what would be the point? Everything that would hoped to be accomplished could be done so for cheaper and in far more practical ways.

Theoretical AFR of 28:1? Why is this crap still being entertained?

He is either nuts or a troll.

Carbon8

iTrader: (4)

To interpret that by shutting off one rotor would then make the running rotor and AFR of 28:1 is leaps away from reality.

Shutting off one rotor will not effect the ARF of the running rotor, all it will do is decrease power and cause parasitic drag on the other rotor while destroying itself from not being lubricated.

It will improve MPG though, but considering your not starting this "theoretic motor" due to emissions regulation Im curious as to why you would be worried about your MPG then

So for less than the OP derived 1500 dollar budget (battling GM) you get.

Nanosecond dwell coils
laser ignition source
28:1 AFR,
Sheet metal Irons
aluminum and tungsten (mixed thermal expansion coefficients) E-Shaft
180mm wide one rotor
4 plugs with sequential firing
No emission regulations
Great MPG
Will never start.

Sounds like a dream come true to me.

Did I miss anything?
Ill take two of these, remember you need one for the trunk too. They swap out like spare tires.



Food for thought, 90% of all information on wikipedia was written by people similar to yourself. Who have little actual knowledge of the given topic, but think they are leading minds in the field. No credible affiliation would ever respect nor accept a wikipedia source. At least now we know where your getting all your falsely derived information

SIPSOIL

Do your research, guys. It is not only theoretically possible, it is being done. Today. In piston engines, however.

If anybody can show that this is theoretically not possible in a Wankel engine, please provide proof. I'm in MENSA so even a sketch suffices, I'll be able to fill in the blanks. That no Wankel engine that comes within 25% of the above results has ever been built by Mazda is not proof. Neither is a strawman argument resulting from a severe lack of functional literacy.

bladeiai

iTrader: (1)

Also when production on these start I think you should have an option for a Flux Capacitor in case these are capable of reaching 88MPH.

bladeiai

iTrader: (1)

First of all, RIWWP has, for reasons I don't understand, has been arguing your ridiculous ideas rationally and trying to explain why the majority of them won't work.

Secondly, why can't you eliminate them yourself? Why would you build something too disprove an idea that common sense should dispel on its own?

See below:

Also the burden of proof is on you my friend. If you want to argue against common sense, and prove that you are smarter than the R/D team(s) that have been working on this at Mazda for the last 40+ years you should really have come to the table with far more than you did.

The real answer here is for you to build a functional prototype.

SIPSOIL

Now I'm beginning to think that I'm being trolled. Nobody can be that dense.

Of course you'll close the throttle to the second rotor and lubricate that rotor with oil. Yes, the A/F will be 14:1, not 28:1. The 28:1 was to illustrate that a 28:1 will still produce a lot of net power, as the parasitic drag will not cause the engine to stop. Proof: start your engine, step on the gas pedal and disconnect the electrical supply to the fuel injectors of one rotor, if you don't think it's possible. Yes, the oil injectors will still lubricate the engine. They are entirely different from the fuel injectors.

Carbon8

iTrader: (4)

Like we have all already said try this in the real world and the results will astonish you.

kevinande

That seems reasonable....let us know how that works out for you.

Carbon8

iTrader: (4)

Who needs a working prototype, wikipedia surely will yield some wisdom to defy all you skeptics.

Im down for a group buy, 10 units each person needs two. I know 4 more of you want to get in on this breakthrough.

SIPSOIL

I agree.

I would have to ask a couple of people and if they odds are favorable enough, I'll begin a $25,000 kickstarter.com project to finance the prototype. But before we can do that we would need to agree on the terms of the bet. Since you think I'm a total fool, you'll take 25:1 odds, right? In order to make this work at all you'll need to convince other people that I'm such a total fool that they'll put enough money into a into a pot to split say $10,000. I'm not coning you, i.e., I won't know beforehand that I'll win the bet, say because I already have an engine that fits the terms. I'd be doing this for the kicks.

I predict that we'll disagree on the terms because you'll make sure you do not have to put any money where your mouth is, but would you at least agree that a bet would settle our difference in opinion at least in principle?

Full disclosure:

I'm in Mensa and I'd heavily draw on the resources the club makes available. For example, some of the Mazda engineers are likely in Mensa Japan and might enjoy participating in a project that is way more fun because they can go a little bit crazy.

Carbon8

iTrader: (4)

Why would we logically fund the illogical, its your failed prototype you are trying to sell us. That you want to achieve by using our money to build. Im officially amused by your arrogant notions.

Im still in for 1500, I believe that was the initial proposed price of said breakthrough motor.

Again your logic is clearly undeniable.

RIWWP

iTrader: (2)

Are you aware of this dynamic of combustion?



Notice how the power curve is falling rapidly by the time you get to 18:1? Where do you think it would be at 28:1? What is the point of running 28:1 AFRs if you can't produce enough power to overcome wind resistance? At 17:1 there is already only barely enough power to keep an RX-8 at 60mph.


Note that I'm not giving you straw arguments why your idea won't work. You on the other hand are providing complete fabrications to support why they would. Sure, the math works...but only as long as you ignore a host of other variables.


BTW: You don't have enough content yet to meet the requirements of a kickstarter project.

bladeiai

iTrader: (1)

Where do I even begin with this... How would we outline a bet and what it would entail? We couldn't use all of the "theories" you have conjured up as most of them contradict each other.
The only thing I can think of is outlining what this theoretical engine will be capable of/constructed of such as:

1. That it runs
2. Power output
3. Fuel consumption
4. Cost of R/D
5. Cost of Unit production
6. Acceptable failure rate
7. Acceptable longevity
8. Allstar/greatest hits part list
a. 1 rotor that is 160mm wide
b. AFR of 28:1
c. 250 Nanosecond dwell coils
d. etc
9. Engine can use no parts from existing rotary engines or any parts made by Mazda or it's engineers as you will be "showing them how it is done"

Also what is the $25000 for? Surely not to build your engine as you couldn't begin to build it with that.
Also what do you mean by put my money where my mouth is exactly? If you want me to agree to buy one of your engines, provided it does what it should and costs what you say it will than sure. If you mean fund this venture into absurdity than you really must be crazy.

blackenedwings

This... is a joke right? I mean, everyone keeps making posts treating this as serious, and I'm really trying to understand why anybody would encourage this sort of clownshoes idiocy? I know RIWWP is prodding the OP with a stick because it amuses him, but everyone else?

ShinkaEvo

iTrader: (3)

Wel, i got my popcorn ready when the OP mentioned that producing rotary is cheap because it got less parts than piston....

bladeiai

iTrader: (1)

It's completely legit. He is going to build us all dirt cheap engines out of parts that don't exist or are bleeding edge/still in development using a $25k grant from kickstart with the help of his Mazda engineer buddies that he laughs at because they are all trumped by his incredible genius.

What is idiotic about that?

kevinande

This had FAIL written all over it, from post number 1.

ken-x8

What's Dipl. Volkswirt?

Ken

flying_solo

German equivalent to a masters degree in economics I believe.