The four-stroke engine with rotary cylinder block

Let's see if I can understand. You can challenge others but can't be challenged back?



If I challenged the whole automobile industry, I apologize! I simply stated that those like the inventor face stiff obstacles, even when they have engines that are up and working (I don't think this one has a working engine - - - and would suggest that he get one). They are still ignored! and that has nothing to do with me. They would be ignored if I didn't exist; that's obviously not a conspiracy against me. I don't believe in conspiracies. They take too much work.

As far as reliability is concerned, some of those inventions are more reliable, than the Otto and Diesel cycles, and some are less reliable. That and a dollar will get the inventors a cup of coffee, but not much more. The simple fact is that the inventors face an uphill battle, no matter how good or how bad their inventions are. What I am begging you and others for, is to please not dismiss or belittle them beforehand. Give them a chance to prove themselves.



It sometimes takes longer, but not necessarily because of the science; because of the NIH Factor. A perfect case at point, the overhead cam arrangement used by almost all of Today's engines. Duesenberg had it in the 1920s. Ferrari had it in the 1950s, most European and Japanese cars had it in the 1960s and 1970s. The American makers finally discovered it in the 1980s, not because they wanted to but because they had to. How many studies had the Duesenberg people conducted. All we know is that their engines beat the pants off everybody else with their well studied engines. Give the little man a break! Don't reject new ideas out of hand! Keep an open mind, most won't work, but with a little open mindedness, a few will work well.



Actually, I suspect that their engines will encounter serious problems before it can be made to work. I just don't think that balance presents such a serious problem. The thermal/cooling problem that you mentioned earlier strikes me as much more serious. Also an even more serious problem that they face is that of port sealing. I don't see how they are going to achieve the compression ratios needed in an Otto/Diesel Cycle engine without a lot of development work and at great cost. Another problem is the one I brought up just earlier Today. Don't think I'm attacking you. I just ask that you cut the inventors a little slack. They'll need all they can get.



I don't understand. What hidden purpose is this? Remember, you made a few very broad encompassing statements. I just called you on them. Don't get yourself into a huff over it; just back-up what you said. Remember, for instance that you said the following:



This is just not true! Several of these engines have worked just fine. Others are still in development but that doesn't mean that they won't work. I'm asking that rather than knock these efforts, that you encourage them. Some will fall flat on their faces. Others will just be forgotten whether they work or not - - - just like the steam engines of the past (though some of those worked incredibly well). One or more of those though, with a little encouragement, might be just what the world needs. Give them a break! With regard to the idea initially proposed in this string, I remind you of the following:



Before passing judgement, give them a chance to prove themselves. You state that the 'centrifugal turning' will be a problem. I cannot agree. There have been too many such engines with this characteristic that worked very well. I see no problem with this rotational characteristic itself, except that it will make the input and output ports difficult to seal (much like the Wankel). I am very sorry if you took it personally.

KM

They hadn't rejected wankel model by the way, they tried it and they have realised about its defects.

The ONLY car to use a wankel is the nissan.

Oh, and as far as his picture goes, the only thing I see that could use changing is his pistons. Dont make them square, give them a radius of that circle, so on the compresson stroke, you dont have that wasted space. You can get a very high compresson, and possibly avoid the spark plug.

Dont forget, Sir Frank Whittle had to practically BEG the british military to get funding to work on the jet engine during WWII, and even he was shot down a few times.

"While often regarded as the father of modern jet propulsion systems, the young Frank Whittle tried without success to obtain official support for study and development of his ideas. He had to persist his research on his own initiative and received his first patent on turbojet propulsion in January 1930."

Sadly, I agree with kennethman man. Even if his engine did work, I dont see it making much change, at least in the auto industry, unless it can provide benifits that are SIGNIFICANT in efficency. You gota remember, people are buying hummers that get 8mi/gal HIGHWAY, frankly, people in the auto industry really just DONT CARE. But I do think it could make it way to powering other devices, such as machines for factories etc. But then again, what company would want to pay retrain their technicians on how to service this new engine if it does not provide, ball park 20-30% efficiency. Its just cheaper to keep what does work and is the industry standard for so many years.



The ONLY car to use a wankel is the nissan. Some aircraft use them, due to the low vibration. But still, go check out any small airplane, its engine is a STANDARD opposed 4 or 6 cylinder. These engines have more vibration than a wankel, but any pilot will tell you that they simply cant afford to replace the seals on the end of the wankel that go bad much faster than the seals on a piston. For a wankel, you have to practically rebuild the engine every time those seals go bad. My little honda has 100k+ miles on it with the same seals. Its a matter of how much money one is willing to spend for the small benifits of a particular engine. Most likely, his engine would have to be used on something highly specialized, not generalized.

Oh, and as far as his picture goes, the only thing I see that could use changing is his pistons. Dont make them square, give them a radius of that circle, so on the compresson stroke, you dont have that wasted space. You can get a very high compresson, and possibly avoid the spark plug.

I didn't pick up that the pistons would be square! Why would they be square? How would square holes be sealed, or even bored and honed for that matter?
Have I missed something? Usually!

When a thread comes in this way, I have nothing to do in it. It would take a face-to face conversation with you to make you realise I have never diminished or belittle those engines before hand.

Diesel and Otto engines have been broaded studied. Maybe in the future, when the studies will be extended to those secondary models, they will get the foreground of the industry, but today they don't work as properly as Otto and Diesel engine. It's a trivial statement.

Let's recover the main topic of the thread, please.

I have not read all his post, nor I understood it well. Can anyone tell me where is the spark plug? Is it rotating or is it steady on the outer cage?. Thanks.

Sorry If i miss quoted you clausius. Do you think it would help to make those pistons have a curvature of the housing though? It should give you more compression.

I don't see how the combustion chamber can swallow air during the rotation. What kind of valves shape would you use?. When the combustion chamber is nearly to end the open angle for intake, the effective shape of the intake duct will be very strange, with a great loss of pressure due to it.

Also, it would be a complex flow induced by the rotation of the chamber. The nature of this initial flow have a GREAT impact on the combustion process. So a further study will be needed.

but any pilot will tell you that they simply cant afford to replace the seals on the end of the wankel that go bad much faster than the seals on a piston.

I anticipate that one of the problems encountered with this design would be effective sealing of the combustion chamber. Cylinder pressures under combustion are immense, and I'm having difficulty seeing a way to seal what would effectively be the cylinder head, since it's supposed to be able to move relative to the block. Kenneth, any more info on the related engines which have actually been made?