^^ **** fiber optics, lets go bio optics!

 

lol I guess
never heard of bio optics tho
well lets keep up the humor

 

Screw Hydrogen, I want Nitromethane!
1. It's made from Propane.
2. It makes MORE power than gasoline.
3. It is not a new fuel, it has been used for many years.
4. It's Nitro-freaking-Methane!

 

I think you're comparing apples and oranges here. BSFC is not given in percentages. It is a discrete measurement. The lower the BSFC, the more efficient the engine under the measured conditions. Lower fuel consumption over hp and time is greater efficiency. IIRC, NASA projected a potential BSFC of .30-.32 if they had continued with their work with John Deere, eg, with turbo compounding, etc. The lower number would be better, more efficient.

BTW, where did you get your 26-28% thermal efficiency number?

 

I'm for adding Nitrous or liquid Helium to turn the electric car motor into a super conducted electric car motor!

Having a "button" would be nice too.

 

It would be crazy if Mazda could develop a system that could shut off one rotor for cruising and when you really need the "power" it would activate both rotors. You know, kind of how like those hemi engines can use 4 cylinders for cruising to save gas and stuff.

But Im guessing it would be a lonnnng way before that ever happens.

 

there's an old thread in the forum that discusses that but goes into a more intrincate and viable technique of skipping combustion events alternating between faces of both rotors to help keep the torque fluctuations to a minimum.

just shutting down one rotor is not that beneficial as it creates torque imbalance, friction drag and pumping losses from the non-working rotor.

 

Well you know what I mean, shut down parts that you don't need at cruising or at WOT, or even Idle in order to save gas. I know, I know it's a sports car, but why not try to get the best out of it.

 

..a larger question is how and what would you disconnect? There's not much extra...

[embed]<object width="340" height="285"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Gr8nOeHOkNY&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd 311b&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Gr8nOeHOkNY&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd 311b&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="340" height="285"></embed></object>[/embed]

[embed]<object width="340" height="285"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6BCgl2uumlI&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd 311b&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6BCgl2uumlI&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd 311b&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="340" height="285"></embed></object>[/embed]

 

Yeah there really isn't anything that can be physically shut down on a rotary, but what about skipping combustion cycles? Each rotor has three faces, so what if it skips 1/3 of the combustions when the engine is cruising? Or maybe 1/6? That might be able to provide a 10-20% increase in highway fuel economy, unless I'm missing something (which I admit is very possible .

 

Good thinking. That would certainly be a way to try it. But, I also think the fuel economy increase would be minimal at best since it does nothing to address the principle cause of thermal inefficiency in a rotary. In fact, some might argue you're actually increasing the inefficiency caused by pushing air around the working (now nonworking) chambers, which is part of the fundamental inefficiency of the rotary. Regardless, I think any gains would be minimal, comparable to what you get by by cruising in a slightly higher gear and lowering revs. Yes, every little bit helps, but don't expect too much. These types of cylinder shut-off designs in piston engines yield only very small increases in fuel economy, eg, on the Honda V6 there's only something like a 1-mpg increase in fuel economy.

 

people are already turning our engines into spark assist diesel.
olddragger

 

I know this is an Oldish Thread...

Many of the features shown on the new 16X have been incorporated in the latest Series II (09) RX-8 13B RENESIS.

The new EMOP (Electric Metering Oil Pumps (2))
The additional Leading (middle) Oil Injector for each rotor housing lubricating the centre of Apex Seals.
The new location and larger Oil Filter.
The new High Pressure Oil Pump, there is no longer the separate Oil Pressure Regulator with Plunger and Spring fitted to the bottom of iron housing.

 

Does it mean that the oil pressure would reach 156,6 PSI in the engine?
It would be very strange, and cool!!!

According to the european web tech page of the RENESIS II.:

Oil discharge pressure (reference value)
-212°F, 1,500 rpm, 40.6 PSI
-212 F, 3,000 rpm, 72.5 PSI
Relief valve opening pressure (reference value) 156.6 PSI

 

scrub cooling. time for thermal heat barriers.
olddragger

 

nice Read Bmonkey... i Hope for the best for the 16x!!!

 

I really don't know, we know it is much higher.
I can not find any oil pressure relief valve as a separate unit.
We know there is a new Oil Pump assy set up, I am assuming it is incorporated in the somewhat Large body.

 

I neither find it. This 156,6 PSi relief valve was in the REN I. or in the older rotaries too, but there was a bypass valve with much lower PSI data.

Maybe in the REN II. they left away this bypass valve. Is it possible 156,6 PSi oil pressure in an engine?

 

you know Mazda did this in 1986 already and then ditched it in the 89 cars? it was on a peripheral exhaust engine though.

 

This is the Oil Pressure Regulator (3648-14-250) Shown here on the 2003 S1 RENESIS which screws into the bottom internal Rear Iron Housing like ALL other previous Rotaries..

As I said the S2 RENESIS no longer has this separate Valve...well I can not find one...all I can find is an oil pressure SWITCH located on one of the EMOP's which obviously monitors (makes sure) there is oil pressure/oil available for the two EMOP's use.

 

Keep in mine the Series II RENESIS is Identical (from what I can configure) to the new 16X in technologies...two EMOP's and the extra Oil Injector for each rotor housing...

Other differences are in the new 16X...
1. Larger cc Capacity....Larger "Diameter" Rotors and Internal Dimensions not a wide as the 13B (Rotors and their Housings).
2. DI (Direct Injection)
3. Aluminum Side Housings (with Iron facing inserts of about 2mm...making engine lighter).

That is about all I can see and think of..

 

the new motors have higher pressures due to a new oil pump IIRC, id have to go thru the tech docs again.

As for running 156 psi oil pressure, i doubt it, the spec is in the FSM ill double check it later, time for bed.

kevin.

 

I called this regulator a bypass valve. In the S1 Renesis it's opening pressure is 78-92 PSI. So there is 78-92 PSI the max. oil pressure.

Now in the S2 Renesis the reference min. oil pressure is 72 PSi at 3000rpm. It much higher than the S1's same data. So they would not use the 78-92 PSI regulator in this high temp and rpm rotary engine. This regulator valve (bypass) would open too early, at very low rpms if they use it in the new S2 engine.

According to this, if our informations are true there is only the 156,6 PSI regulator valve in the S2 engine, no other pressure maximiser valve. This allowed high maximum pressure means absolute protection for the engine (cooling, bearing), but sounds strange.

 

aryton012

Well, here is some trivia for you the 3648-14-250 was last used in the FC before that 1976 RX-4 13B..that is the parts model code 3648 for 76 RX-4.

The internal plunger and spring (0221-14-115 and 0221-14-116) are the exact same parts used in ALL oil pumps in Mazda's since 1967-08, Mazda 1500,1600,626,929..Rotary.
With a spring change (0324-14-116) for their smaller engines Mazda 2,3.

We know the S1 as had a lot of Rotor Bearing issues (Chomped out), I have always thought it was the oil grade..still do., So Mazda have increased oil pressure flows to improve cooling and bearing life as you said.

I have some concern about the oil control rings and o rings, whether they will stand up OK as they has been NO Internal parts changes in the S2 when compared to S1 (Rotors,seals etc).

 

..but in those engines this plunger only the secondary control for dangerous pressure situations. For primary control there are a regulator valves (bypass) with much lower opening pressure data, except S2 Renesis (if our information is true).