[Southack]

"You never lose any of the angular momentum."

Neither do jet engines, but that makes them powerful...not fuel efficient.

[Fichori]

"Neither do jet engines, but that makes them powerful...not fuel efficient."

Gas turbine engines are very fuel efficient per horsepower/pound.

Using exhaust thrust for propulsion is whats not very efficient.

There is a reason they are putting turboprops in airplanes.

More power, less weight, better efficiency.

At least thats the way I understand it.

[djf]

With any other piston type engine, the piston goes up, then stops, then goes down. Each time it reverses direction, you are losing momentum.

Doesn’t happen in this design. The piston is continuously rotating right along in the rotor.

The actual angle of the cylinder in terms of the exposed face determines the operation characteristics.

I have designs of these with not even straight cylinders, but arced cylinders. And arced pistons.
Like I said, the varieties are huge. And each variety may suit a particular application.

The only questions I had when I first thought of it was whether it was able to be built and run a long time without extensive wear. But after discussions with a couple folks, I know it’s well within the tolerances of current technologies.

It is, for all intents and purposes, a passive rotor.

Need a new engine? Pull up to the joint, he pulls a bunch of bolts and yanks out this round, flat cylindrical shaped thing, and drops a new one in.

Presto chango.