man. and you thought the rotary was wierd.

[Orion]

get the fuck outta here. for real?

[AngryBMW]

Wow. Interesting...

-Marc

[Guest 420GSXR1000]

whoa.....its a rotary with an extra side..interesting though, gotta love mech. engineers!!!

[Lustalbert]

Very intersting. Makes m wish i had the tooling to try and build one just to fuck around with. Also to see how it responds to our usual bag of aftermarket tricks.

[Science Abuse]

Originally posted by Lustalbert:

Very intersting. Makes m wish i had the tooling to try and build one just to fuck around with. Also to see how it responds to our usual bag of aftermarket tricks.

same as the rotary, with death.

 

Its a great utilitarian concept, but it's doubtfull that it will power anything with weight. You need asemetry to create real power and torque.

[Lustalbert]

after looking around, aparently there is already a chainsaw that uses this engine. It is still in its prototype stages, but there are functioning units.

so in therory, one could just use one big square shaft on this engine, and stack as many housings up as the shaft could handle without flexing.

[Guest GSRchick714]

Interesting...

[large_x7]

So explain to me a couple of things:

 

1. How does this thing get away with "nearly oil free operation" All machinery with moving parts requires some sort of lubrication to operate. It looks like this thing would need to have an oil injection system just like a rotary engine.

 

2. Fewer moving parts than what? A V8? There are 8 parts per chamber (it looks like the "carriage" is made up of 4 individual pieces with a hinge, but I could be wrong), which is about 7 more than my rotary has.

 

It's a neat concept, sure, but we're all gonna be driving hydrogen powered fuel cells before this thing sees any real-world applications.

[Brandon]

Awesome.

[Lustalbert]

Originally posted by large_x7:

It's a neat concept, sure, but we're all gonna be driving hydrogen powered fuel cells before this thing sees any real-world applications.

quasi chainsaw

[ohio_wookie]

Go Here

I havent spent alot of time on this website but it looks like this engine can work with steam, pnematicly(bad spelling and grammer), gasoline and more.

It looks like this thing could have some potentian

[SPLN SUX]

Originally posted by large_x7:

So explain to me a couple of things:

 

1. How does this thing get away with "nearly oil free operation" All machinery with moving parts requires some sort of lubrication to operate. It looks like this thing would need to have an oil injection system just like a rotary engine.

The only "oil" it needs is on the barrings of the carrages... in which case id say it would be more like axel grease. With the carrages riding on wheels around the housing, the friction is next to nothing. Rolling friction is on both ends of the spectrum. The friction is VERY HIGH when used with say ABS. But its very low when there is no power is needed for acceleration (both positive and negative). Think of a train wheel against the track. Almost no friction there, no need for lubing the outside edge of it, just a good polishing.

[Science Abuse]

Originally posted by large_x7:

It's a neat concept, sure, but we're all gonna be driving hydrogen powered fuel cells before this thing sees any real-world applications.

never. Too expensive, short term trial run, something for the hippies to like. Just start making LPG conversion kits for cars and all will be gravy.

[Mensan]

Originally posted by Volvolution:

Think of a train wheel against the track. Almost no friction there, no need for lubing the outside edge of it, just a good polishing.

Problems with your argument:

 

</font>

• A train wheel is a poor example. The train does not slide across the rails, the wheel rolls.</font>
• A train wheel moving down a track creates a HUGE amount of friction. Ever feel how hot a track is after a train passes? How is heat generated in the track?</font>
• Trains are very inefficient anyway; lubing the track would not even begin to cover the losses of energy created by friction in that system.</font>
• There is going to be more oil required than in just the bearings of the engine.</font>

I would take the time to explain these things in detail, but since you form sentences such as:

 

Originally posted by Volvolution:

But its very low when there is no power is needed for acceleration (both positive and negative).

I think it might be a waste of my time.

[Science Abuse]

Originally posted by Volvolution:

But its very low when there is no power is needed for acceleration (both positive and negative).

no power needed for acceleration....Either you're pondering movement in one of the 11 dimensions required in M Theory, or you need to go back to the "intro to physics" chapter in your 7th grade science book. I'm guessing it's the latter. graemlins/nonono.gif

[Lustalbert]

Originally posted by Swirl Marks:

Problems with your argument:

 

[*]A train wheel is a poor example. The train does not slide across the rails, the wheel rolls.

The wheels inside this engine also roll, not slide. There are 2 variations of this motor, one with caraiage, and one without.

As far as the sides of the rotating assembly sliding on the inside of the housing, it should be similar to a wankel in terms of friction loss.

The problem I can figure out is how the wheels in the cariage keep from building up any carbon deposits. Even if it runs really lean, eventually there will be some carbon build up on the wheels, or in the bearings. I think this would be especialy true if it had to have oill injected or pre mixed like a 2 cycle or bertos rx-7.

[Science Abuse]

wheels would be a bad idea because where they meet the housing would be the most critical point in the motor, compression would rely on a tight fit, almost an interference fit. But, if you have that, you have force and friction, and very very short bearing life.

[Mensan]

Albert, my argument was in reference to his satement that "no power is needed for acceleration", not this engine which obviously uses rolling mechanisms. The rolling mechanisms are nothing like a train wheel, which has thousands upon thousands of pounds of perpindicular force acting upon it. The very idea that it would be anywhere near frictionless is laughable.

[1Quik7]

trains are very efficient, when compared to the amount of weight they are pulling in contrast to the power being supplied. only a few inches of the wheel are in contact with the track at any one time. friction = traction, if the track was oiled the train wouldn't go anywhere, that is why they sometimes spray sand onto the track ahead of the wheels to create enough friction/traction.

 

the only way for this thing to be completely "frictionless" would be to use MAGLEV technology.

 

just my $.02

[Lustalbert]

Originally posted by The Stig:

wheels would be a bad idea because where they meet the housing would be the most critical point in the motor, compression would rely on a tight fit, almost an interference fit. But, if you have that, you have force and friction, and very very short bearing life.

In the roller version, the roller dosent make the seal. There is a (heaven forbid) apex seal that rides in a slot in the middle of the caraige assembly that makes the seal.

Originally posted by Swirl Marks:

Albert, my argument was in reference to his satement that "no power is needed for acceleration", not this engine which obviously uses rolling mechanisms. The rolling mechanisms are nothing like a train wheel, which has thousands upon thousands of pounds of perpindicular force acting upon it. The very idea that it would be anywhere near frictionless is laughable.

agreed, no such thing as a perfect/prepetual machine. I just wasnt sure if you where refering to the cariageless angine only, and hadnt seen the caraige type.

[Lustalbert]

Originally posted by 1Quik7:

trains are very efficient, when compared to the amount of weight they are pulling in contrast to the power being supplied. only a few inches of the wheel are in contact with the track at any one time. friction = traction, if the track was oiled the train wouldn't go anywhere, that is why they sometimes spray sand onto the track ahead of the wheels to create enough friction/traction.

 

the only way for this thing to be completely "frictionless" would be to use MAGLEV technology.

 

just my $.02

maglev? I know nothing about this, link so I may read on it?

[Mensan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_levitation

[Science Abuse]

Originally posted by Lustalbert:

maglev? I know nothing about this, link so I may read on it?

Basicaly, as physics states; Electromagnetism > Gravity by ALOT. At least, within the 3 dimensions we can move around in.

[Lustalbert]

good reading, my brain feels better. It has been craving some technical stimulation.