Posted on 05/21/2006 3:35:17 PM PDT by ovrtaxt
The 850 c.i. likely comes from the fact that the combustion chamber is a big donut-shaped tube. There are two sets of four pistons and they move back and forth relative to each other (while they all rotate around the donut). The total effective displacement is probably something like 150-200% of the area of the "donut".
Its weird, but it looks like he may have something.
I was thinking about that -- my '68 V8 Wildcat had a 430 CI engine and it was a MONSTER.
Wouldn't it be -Wrinkled Dog Day?
I am always sceptical of these things, but I must admit, this thing is pretty ingenious. I know the Wankel looks good on paper, and it runs great, but its just not as efficient as ones common sense might think, it has a bunch of problems.
The cars got a lot lighter and the engines got a lot more powerful. Top Fuel dumped carbs, uses fuel injection, and runs nitromethane now. Current horsepower estimates are in the 8000hp range.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_fuel_dragster
The 350mph barrier in Top Fuel is guesstimated to fall by the end of this decade, with people touching 400mph.
That said, the rocket-car folks are looking at the 500mph barrier in the 1/4...
You're a kneejerk cynic. Why don't you look at the recognition this has gotten from places like NASA and the auto industry?
But nevermind, it's more fun to be a jerk and meet everything with a jaded eye.
Er, with people touching 400mph in the next 15 years.
Yup- 850 ci, dude.
It's calculated by displacement per revolution of the driveshaft. I think the cylinder fires like 16 times per rev.
There goes a new design for the history heap. If this is true, it will go the way of many designs that have preceded it.
Yeah!! I'll just bet! I pull a 12,000 pound trailer with a Ford Diesel. I'll just bet this would work and I'm willing to bet my life savings on this crap NOT!
No, but for a small additional charge a flaming fairy from San Francisco can come over and bite you on the butt.
Am I the only one who noticed something wrong with this article. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think a 25 lb engine that has 2.4 liters of displacement has 850 cubic inches of displacement! This would be a huge engine and would have to be built of something lighter than titanium to weight only 25 lbs!
If you used this engine to power an antigravity generator, you might get even better mileage.
By definition, one liter = 10 centimeters cubed = a cube of just under 4 inches X 4 X 4 (one inch = 2.54 centimeters, so to be very precise, 10 centimeters = 3.93 inches), so one liter = 60.67 cubic inches; therefore, 2.4 liters = 145.6 cubic inches.
Ergo, a 2.4 liter engine with 850 cubic inch displacement is mathematically impossible.
There are these counterweight things that spin with the piston assemblies- kind of reminds me of a rotor/ timing advance assembly in a distributor.
The way this works appears to eliminate a lot of the wasted motion (and thus power).
There are only 22 moving parts, I think, in the prototype.
Couple areas of concern - not sure how you would seal the combustion chamber when there are three pieces rotating against each other - I suppose it could be done with rings like pistons have.
Yes, the seals are apparently the issue with longevity. I think there's some info on that on the site- but with automakers involved, they may have something that meets the challenge.
Yep, the proof is in the pudding.
Bump for later, but I'm one of the skeptics. I grew up in the "no replacement for displacement" era of motorhead.
That would not be fun at all. It might be interesting and exciting, but things happen way too fast at 330 mph.
In the LA car show video I think the inventor said 25lbs would be the weight of a 1/4 scale version that would be put into autos.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.