I don't see why so many people are stuck on the idea of spark plug wires getting twisted up. Who said wires have to run directly through the engine casing? Distributors on regular car engines rotate inside and manage to transfer power to the cap without anything getting twisted up do they not? Other mechanisms to transfer electrical energy through rotating devices have been around for a long time also. This is probably one of the lesser obstacles.
I cant see this working. It seems to me that because the 'pistons' are in circular chambers with the pivot at the center, the pressure due to combustion will be equally distributed on the rotating piston & thus will not cause it to rotate 1 way or another. Even if you there was net imbalance in the pressure distribution, 1 side of the combustion would still be working against the other. Plus, it looks as if the exhaust feeds into the following stroke which would reduce the combustion efficiency.
By far this is my favorite design out of all the "new engine designs" on youtube.
Cooling is definitely gonna be a challenge.
and proper sealing on those small rotors i think its gonna take some rethinking.
I may be wrong but i think the small seals might loose contact with the outside wall during ignition with the extreme pressure ignition creates. if they use some kind of spring mechanism to keep contact as they wear out.
i'm seeing very, very little displacement and therefore an inherent lack of toque and therefore a lack of horsepower. maybe on a large scale it would have some usable power but it looks weak to me. i don't know, my opinion. prove me wrong!
@art1618 probably with a set of metal rings around the "crankshaft" (by lack of a better word) and a set of metal brushes running against those. Much like a slot car on a circular track really.
It's perfectly possible, but the challenge would be to develop a system that doesn't wear out quickly or needs a lot of maintenance.
However it's unlikely that this engine will ever get past the prototype stage. Having to open up the engine to change plugs is just crazy.
How does it turn the combustion into efficient mechanical energy? To me there isn't enough expansion room in the chamber. Also most of the pressure is pushing sideways against the main rotor and the outside housing.....to me this is wasted energy.
I really do hope I'm wrong as it would be great to have a true rotary engine. However I'm as of yet to see a design that can turn combustion pressure into mechanical energy as efficiently as the piston engine.
something about those 3 mini rotors has me doubting this... Don't take that the wrong way though. Great design, I'd love to see a prototype in action! nice work
With this design you will not be able to get a full enclosure of your chambers, it will leak gasses throughout your gears. And the surface area where your cam ”strikes” your cylinder wall there will be a huge amount of energy produced, melting any material if you speed up the process.
I'm a bit confused about the spark plugs. Why are they traveling with the rotor? Should not the spark plugs be stationary in the engine? Cables would twist and break. Hard rotary connections wear down quickly. I'm just having trouble with the idea of using a "Distributor cap".
it seems that the compression chambers are very small and limited to how much power can be achieved.. then again, with the higher rpm range.. and maybe a turbo..... it does look possible... I'd like to hear it run!! .. bet it would sould like a jet engine at very high rpms
@calholli, the smaller the volume, the greater the compression ratio, the more power within reason, until detonation starts.
Unlike piston engines, it cannot have it's compression ratio increased by "milling the heads". The design being limited to about 5:1. The path to higher ratio is mechanical supercharging, say doubling to 10:1, mounted on the rotor shaft.
MSC virtual analysis indicates that there is very little energy left in the cool exhaust to drive a a turbocharger, a GOOD thing!
@primeobserver How will you run the plug wires on this thing it looks to me as they would get twisted and riped off by the rotation of the engine? Correct me if i'm wrong.
14:1 on a perfect, hot, dry, day with brand new fuel and a brand new engine with perfect compression. I agree, I can't see this thing being to produce enough compression to auto-ignite diesel unless glo-plugs are added. But I don't see how you could consistently power glo-plugs with this design.
Both good questions Wolf. Unlike the Wankel engine with it's eccentrically oscillating rotor, the rotor in this engine revolves concentrically, making sealing much easier, the seals remaining in place against the sealed. No side seals sliding across the housing, as in the RX8
How long will it last? The 4 moving parts are held in place with bearings and can't touch, just as in a turbine. When you see the illus. above, replaced with videos of the engine running, I'll have a better answer, thanks
this design is elegant and something Wankel would love to see in action. but wheres the fuel here? i see the cool air, spark, combustion, but wheres the fuel?
The fuel is introduced into the INTAKE PORT, top of engine, with a common EFI nozzle. The air/fuel charge enters the engine premixed, just as it does in any port injection system.
For compression ignition (diesel), higher boost and timed injection will be utilized. One advantage of the diesel version is simplifying the engine by not having to route CDI voltage to rotor mounted spark plugs, (eliminated), though that is no more difficult than the well proven automotive distributor.
"rotarys have no torque" What does that mean? Torque as a pipe wrench, more torque is putting a long extention on the pipe wrench handle.
Typical 400cid V8 (6.5 liters) has a 2" torque arm, (half of it's 4" stroke), the 61cid, (1 litre) true rotary above has a 6-1/2" torque arm. It could be said that the V8 has no torque but that wouldn't be true either.
Torque is measured in foot pounds, the longer the arm, the more torque. The Wankel is a rotary in name only and has a short torque moment arm.
Alright. Torque is worthless. It's a measure of how the work is being done. Horsepower is the only measure of actual power. An equally powered Cummis or Powerstroke or Mod 5.4 or whatever the hell you want with, say. 200hp and 400 ft/lbs will do the EXACT SAME AMOUNT OF WORK as a rotary or tiny little inline 4 at 200hp regardless of the torque output. Go back to highschool and pay attention in physics. Jackass.
Settle down hypnolobster and pay attention, jps13party said "rotarys have no torque". Torque was his ONLY concern, so of course I addressed ONLY torque in my reply.
Only someone who didn't get it in "highschool physics" would make the silly statement, "Torque is worthless". Torque is 2/3 of the HP equasion, the other 1/3 is time.
James Watt's original equasion was 33,000 ft. pounds p/min = 1 HP.
With torque determined, (weight X moment arm), X time, gives horsePOWER.
Alright, "torque is worthless" was perhaps a little bit of an exaggeration. My point about work being done stands though.
Two equally powered engines will accomplish the same task regardless of the variance in torque between, for example a truck engine and a rotary.
Admittedly, I should have avoided the sperging and just made my point directly at his "id like to see a truck try to tow with any rotary engine." comment.
1. I started to take my shoes off to count but then realized there are only 3 moving parts. Bet you wish the engine in the family car were so simple huh?
2. "Flaps"? Do you mean the 3 ellipses that are rotating in place, controlled by substantial high speed bearings?
Some turbochargers spin past 100,000RPM and still manage to "hold together", insane speeds huh? And they have thin little fins, they're not solid blocks.
He said "only 3 moving parts" but he missed one, the rotor that carries the three ellipses moves too, that's 4 moving parts but still not, "wayyyy to many moving parts" is it?
Man, a 4 valve, 4 cyl engine has 16 valves, then there's a couple more things, like 2 cams, 16 cam followers, 4 pistons, 4 con rods, a crankshaft, balancer shaft, whew, just ran out of breath, yeah, had to take my shoes off........ mind's spinning......... now an Audi 5 valve V8, OMG! :)
By "rotary engines", you of course are addressing the Mazda/Wankle engine.
The sealing issues have been pretty much overcome by diligent engineering, though once a notion catches the fancy of the public, it's tough to correct, even with facts.
As far as the mileage is concerned, inherent in the piston and to a slightly greater degree, the Wankel, is an insurmountable mechanical limitation, not enough time to do the work and the fire past the exhaust ports, is fuel burned without doing work.
No offense taken. I do know enough about engines to know the Wankel is a reciprocating engine with a crankshaft and is only a rotary in name. The crank shaft is driven just as in a piston engine. Then, the "rotor" is DRIVEN around by gears to precisely fit the housing in it's various positions for displacement changes, compression and expansion, just as a piston does in it's cylinder.
No crankshaft in my engine above, so unlike the piston or Wankel, is not a reciprocating engine, IT is a ROTARY
You've got the Most impressive design! Would you get even less vibration if it had an even number of combustion "lobes"? Any plan to demo a working model? How about a small R/C Model engine? Stationary gen-set?, etc.?
3 ellipses were chosen as they most completely utilize the available degrees of combustion. 2 would leave dead spaces and 4 would cause counter-productive overlap.
As to vibration, 3 even spaces of 120°, are as "balanced" as 4 @ 90°
With the gasses smoothly expanding and no pistons slamming to a stop, then wildly reversing direction, no vibration. Complication of dampers, counter weights and counter shafts of no value.
I answered octratek772's comment with a personal email, too long for youtube, here's a small part: ..the conductors to the plugs, will be short, stiff copper straps, wont deform like distributor wires, due to high centrifugal force.
Actually, may all be moot, working on a diesel version. Allows stacking rotors, no need to keep the face of the rotor free for access to plugs. With room, even better than stacking, larger diameter = more torque/hp. Double rotor width, doubles CID too.
this is so cleaver!. and very stable, and will have significantly less vibration. and will have a lot of torque, close to electric motors, or even better. and the sound of it , i can already imagine. it'll sound so different. almost like a jet engine with fast explosive pulses in between. well make it happen. this is so brilliant if it really works. and a lot of power, smaller engine!!
It blows my mind that you've nailed the sound of the engine with only your acute imagination, though with the pressure and temperature greatly reduced as the ellipse clears the exhaust port, those "explosive" pulses won't require a muffler.
Doing my best to "make it happen," thank you for the kind comments.
It looks like you would lose lots of power due to heat loss through the engine wall during the expansion "stroke."
Perhaps the lower-left quadrant ought to be thermally insulated?
BenjaminGoldberg1 1 month ago
How do you change the plugs? haha
KreatorOfDeath1985 1 month ago
Aint happening ..
JaxxBat 2 months ago
I don't see why so many people are stuck on the idea of spark plug wires getting twisted up. Who said wires have to run directly through the engine casing? Distributors on regular car engines rotate inside and manage to transfer power to the cap without anything getting twisted up do they not? Other mechanisms to transfer electrical energy through rotating devices have been around for a long time also. This is probably one of the lesser obstacles.
Joe440N 2 months ago 2
@Joe440N the engine itself could be the distributor. what an awesome idea.
117nathanmyers 1 month ago
I cant see this working. It seems to me that because the 'pistons' are in circular chambers with the pivot at the center, the pressure due to combustion will be equally distributed on the rotating piston & thus will not cause it to rotate 1 way or another. Even if you there was net imbalance in the pressure distribution, 1 side of the combustion would still be working against the other. Plus, it looks as if the exhaust feeds into the following stroke which would reduce the combustion efficiency.
eyeammi 3 months ago
By far this is my favorite design out of all the "new engine designs" on youtube.
Cooling is definitely gonna be a challenge.
and proper sealing on those small rotors i think its gonna take some rethinking.
I may be wrong but i think the small seals might loose contact with the outside wall during ignition with the extreme pressure ignition creates. if they use some kind of spring mechanism to keep contact as they wear out.
talontooner 4 months ago in playlist More videos from primeobserver
How is ignition achieved?
mikeybrd 5 months ago
wow never imagined moving spark plugs..but dammit that kind of crazy outside box thinking works
Sonicku 5 months ago
This is basically the Legacy Engine, only those planetary things in that one are stationary in rotation relative to the housing.
DragonFlyback256 5 months ago
i'm seeing very, very little displacement and therefore an inherent lack of toque and therefore a lack of horsepower. maybe on a large scale it would have some usable power but it looks weak to me. i don't know, my opinion. prove me wrong!
jonathanstensberg 7 months ago
The spark plugs are the least of the worries - I don't see any compression happening, is the fuel mix precompressed ?
chapmansbg 8 months ago
Gosh I wouldn't want to be the mechanic to change the spark plug!
Begbucks 9 months ago
@Aunubus69 no shit huh? How would you run the wires?
art1618 9 months ago
@art1618 probably with a set of metal rings around the "crankshaft" (by lack of a better word) and a set of metal brushes running against those. Much like a slot car on a circular track really.
It's perfectly possible, but the challenge would be to develop a system that doesn't wear out quickly or needs a lot of maintenance.
However it's unlikely that this engine will ever get past the prototype stage. Having to open up the engine to change plugs is just crazy.
XSaenen 8 months ago
Combustion engine top out at just over 40% (marine diesel)
trevortrevortsr2 9 months ago
how do you conect the rotating sparck plugs???????????
ttooddoo000000000000 11 months ago
@ttooddoo000000000000 That's what I was wondering...
terracer 11 months ago
looks like the combustion chamber would be completely ineffectual.
Also, you have a serious problem in that those rotating seals would have significant leakage.
redreaper2020 11 months ago
How does it turn the combustion into efficient mechanical energy? To me there isn't enough expansion room in the chamber. Also most of the pressure is pushing sideways against the main rotor and the outside housing.....to me this is wasted energy.
I really do hope I'm wrong as it would be great to have a true rotary engine. However I'm as of yet to see a design that can turn combustion pressure into mechanical energy as efficiently as the piston engine.
69aussieguy 1 year ago
looks interesting but can it be done?
GalacticoAR 1 year ago
something about those 3 mini rotors has me doubting this... Don't take that the wrong way though. Great design, I'd love to see a prototype in action! nice work
homerunhita12 1 year ago
With this design you will not be able to get a full enclosure of your chambers, it will leak gasses throughout your gears. And the surface area where your cam ”strikes” your cylinder wall there will be a huge amount of energy produced, melting any material if you speed up the process.
Also how are you going to spark your plugs?
And more important where’s your lubrication?
basmvr 1 year ago
I'm a bit confused about the spark plugs. Why are they traveling with the rotor? Should not the spark plugs be stationary in the engine? Cables would twist and break. Hard rotary connections wear down quickly. I'm just having trouble with the idea of using a "Distributor cap".
DocWolph 1 year ago
this is very interesting
it looks very similar like a Wankel. a wankel has an eccentric shaft to spin the rotor in a way that all the apex seals touch to make seal.
this has a concentric shaft, using gears to spin the "seal" to make seal.
sunnyjason 1 year ago
it seems that the compression chambers are very small and limited to how much power can be achieved.. then again, with the higher rpm range.. and maybe a turbo..... it does look possible... I'd like to hear it run!! .. bet it would sould like a jet engine at very high rpms
calholli 1 year ago
@calholli, the smaller the volume, the greater the compression ratio, the more power within reason, until detonation starts.
Unlike piston engines, it cannot have it's compression ratio increased by "milling the heads". The design being limited to about 5:1. The path to higher ratio is mechanical supercharging, say doubling to 10:1, mounted on the rotor shaft.
MSC virtual analysis indicates that there is very little energy left in the cool exhaust to drive a a turbocharger, a GOOD thing!
primeobserver 1 year ago
@primeobserver How will you run the plug wires on this thing it looks to me as they would get twisted and riped off by the rotation of the engine? Correct me if i'm wrong.
Aunubus69 10 months ago
@primeobserver good luck running diesel. since it requires a minimum of 14:1.
fenix144 7 months ago
@fenix144
14:1 on a perfect, hot, dry, day with brand new fuel and a brand new engine with perfect compression. I agree, I can't see this thing being to produce enough compression to auto-ignite diesel unless glo-plugs are added. But I don't see how you could consistently power glo-plugs with this design.
xxschlager420xx 6 months ago
Both good questions Wolf. Unlike the Wankel engine with it's eccentrically oscillating rotor, the rotor in this engine revolves concentrically, making sealing much easier, the seals remaining in place against the sealed. No side seals sliding across the housing, as in the RX8
How long will it last? The 4 moving parts are held in place with bearings and can't touch, just as in a turbine. When you see the illus. above, replaced with videos of the engine running, I'll have a better answer, thanks
primeobserver 1 year ago
How well does this engine seal, and how long do they last?
TKDWolf 1 year ago
this design is elegant and something Wankel would love to see in action. but wheres the fuel here? i see the cool air, spark, combustion, but wheres the fuel?
Namord 1 year ago
Thanks Namrod
The fuel is introduced into the INTAKE PORT, top of engine, with a common EFI nozzle. The air/fuel charge enters the engine premixed, just as it does in any port injection system.
For compression ignition (diesel), higher boost and timed injection will be utilized. One advantage of the diesel version is simplifying the engine by not having to route CDI voltage to rotor mounted spark plugs, (eliminated), though that is no more difficult than the well proven automotive distributor.
primeobserver 1 year ago
rotarys have no torque..
id like to see a truck try to tow with any rotary engine.
jps13party 2 years ago
"rotarys have no torque" What does that mean? Torque as a pipe wrench, more torque is putting a long extention on the pipe wrench handle.
Typical 400cid V8 (6.5 liters) has a 2" torque arm, (half of it's 4" stroke), the 61cid, (1 litre) true rotary above has a 6-1/2" torque arm. It could be said that the V8 has no torque but that wouldn't be true either.
Torque is measured in foot pounds, the longer the arm, the more torque. The Wankel is a rotary in name only and has a short torque moment arm.
primeobserver 2 years ago
Alright. Torque is worthless. It's a measure of how the work is being done. Horsepower is the only measure of actual power. An equally powered Cummis or Powerstroke or Mod 5.4 or whatever the hell you want with, say. 200hp and 400 ft/lbs will do the EXACT SAME AMOUNT OF WORK as a rotary or tiny little inline 4 at 200hp regardless of the torque output. Go back to highschool and pay attention in physics. Jackass.
hypnolobster 2 years ago
Settle down hypnolobster and pay attention, jps13party said "rotarys have no torque". Torque was his ONLY concern, so of course I addressed ONLY torque in my reply.
Only someone who didn't get it in "highschool physics" would make the silly statement, "Torque is worthless". Torque is 2/3 of the HP equasion, the other 1/3 is time.
James Watt's original equasion was 33,000 ft. pounds p/min = 1 HP.
With torque determined, (weight X moment arm), X time, gives horsePOWER.
Who was the jackass?
primeobserver 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Alright, "torque is worthless" was perhaps a little bit of an exaggeration. My point about work being done stands though.
Two equally powered engines will accomplish the same task regardless of the variance in torque between, for example a truck engine and a rotary.
Admittedly, I should have avoided the sperging and just made my point directly at his "id like to see a truck try to tow with any rotary engine." comment.
hypnolobster 1 year ago
This looks like a smooth operation, and I think it has a lot going for for it.
Thanks for posting
Ray
rayunseitig 2 years ago
Thanx Ray, definitely my pleasure!
primeobserver 2 years ago
i think this engine would be uselss
1. thers wayyyy to many moving parts
2. at high speeds those little rotating flaps would be spinning at insane speeds that i doubt could hold together
TAudio121 2 years ago
1. I started to take my shoes off to count but then realized there are only 3 moving parts. Bet you wish the engine in the family car were so simple huh?
2. "Flaps"? Do you mean the 3 ellipses that are rotating in place, controlled by substantial high speed bearings?
Some turbochargers spin past 100,000RPM and still manage to "hold together", insane speeds huh? And they have thin little fins, they're not solid blocks.
Any other thoughts or doubts TAudio121?
PS: it's "there's waaaay too" :-)
everdadful 2 years ago
I guess everdadful beat me to it.
He said "only 3 moving parts" but he missed one, the rotor that carries the three ellipses moves too, that's 4 moving parts but still not, "wayyyy to many moving parts" is it?
Man, a 4 valve, 4 cyl engine has 16 valves, then there's a couple more things, like 2 cams, 16 cam followers, 4 pistons, 4 con rods, a crankshaft, balancer shaft, whew, just ran out of breath, yeah, had to take my shoes off........ mind's spinning......... now an Audi 5 valve V8, OMG! :)
primeobserver 2 years ago
A typical gasoline engine will have more than 200 moving parts.
However, rotary engines typically have poor mileage and troublesome sealing issues.
spiderpig85 1 year ago
By "rotary engines", you of course are addressing the Mazda/Wankle engine.
The sealing issues have been pretty much overcome by diligent engineering, though once a notion catches the fancy of the public, it's tough to correct, even with facts.
As far as the mileage is concerned, inherent in the piston and to a slightly greater degree, the Wankel, is an insurmountable mechanical limitation, not enough time to do the work and the fire past the exhaust ports, is fuel burned without doing work.
primeobserver 1 year ago
yea u must not know anything about engines.. no offense..
jps13party 2 years ago
No offense taken. I do know enough about engines to know the Wankel is a reciprocating engine with a crankshaft and is only a rotary in name. The crank shaft is driven just as in a piston engine. Then, the "rotor" is DRIVEN around by gears to precisely fit the housing in it's various positions for displacement changes, compression and expansion, just as a piston does in it's cylinder.
No crankshaft in my engine above, so unlike the piston or Wankel, is not a reciprocating engine, IT is a ROTARY
primeobserver 2 years ago
You've got the Most impressive design! Would you get even less vibration if it had an even number of combustion "lobes"? Any plan to demo a working model? How about a small R/C Model engine? Stationary gen-set?, etc.?
Thank God for American ingenuity!
guloguloguy 2 years ago
Thanks guloguloguy.
3 ellipses were chosen as they most completely utilize the available degrees of combustion. 2 would leave dead spaces and 4 would cause counter-productive overlap.
As to vibration, 3 even spaces of 120°, are as "balanced" as 4 @ 90°
With the gasses smoothly expanding and no pistons slamming to a stop, then wildly reversing direction, no vibration. Complication of dampers, counter weights and counter shafts of no value.
Yes, working on a proof-of-principle prototype.
primeobserver 2 years ago
I answered octratek772's comment with a personal email, too long for youtube, here's a small part: ..the conductors to the plugs, will be short, stiff copper straps, wont deform like distributor wires, due to high centrifugal force.
Actually, may all be moot, working on a diesel version. Allows stacking rotors, no need to keep the face of the rotor free for access to plugs. With room, even better than stacking, larger diameter = more torque/hp. Double rotor width, doubles CID too.
Thanx, Bob
primeobserver 2 years ago
One simple question... Did you think about the sparkplug cables getting loomed all the time as it spins?
mrxgonza 2 years ago
How are you supposed to power the spark plugs if they travel with the rotor? Especially if it travels at "turbine speeds"?
octratek772 2 years ago
this engine is gay
youtoob123456 2 years ago
hahahh
mxmang 2 years ago
@youtoob123456
your mom too
thePavuk 2 years ago
you are gay too
youtoob123456 2 years ago
nice engine, when can we see it in the stores?
I wish someone could build a nice motorcycle with a rotary.
btester1 2 years ago
Suzuki Already Has
RotaryGTUs 2 years ago
Where can I see the video of this?
thanks!
btester1 2 years ago
never heared about the norton NRV588?
mrxgonza 2 years ago
its beautiful
keeevan 2 years ago
Nice to hear keeevan, I appreciate it!
primeobserver 2 years ago
this is so cleaver!. and very stable, and will have significantly less vibration. and will have a lot of torque, close to electric motors, or even better. and the sound of it , i can already imagine. it'll sound so different. almost like a jet engine with fast explosive pulses in between. well make it happen. this is so brilliant if it really works. and a lot of power, smaller engine!!
saleall 1 year ago
It blows my mind that you've nailed the sound of the engine with only your acute imagination, though with the pressure and temperature greatly reduced as the ellipse clears the exhaust port, those "explosive" pulses won't require a muffler.
Doing my best to "make it happen," thank you for the kind comments.
primeobserver 1 year ago