Talk:Pistonless rotary engine

Untitled

Why does the article claim Mazda is the only Wankle producer? Article text should probably be changed to "the only automotive engine manufacturer", not "only commercial manufacturer."

Why is the MYT engine listed, when no running prototype has ever been demonstrated? There are videos of it running off compressed air in cheesy convention booths, or being turned by hand by an assistant. They claim to have run one for 1000 hours of testing- where's the video of it running? Where's a car with it installed, even just a prototype model? It is a great disservice to Wikipedia readers to not qualify/disclaim ANY mention of the MYT engine when discussing it alongside engine technology that has been in widespread use for decades. It implies credibility most would agree "MYT" doesn't deserve (yet- I'll shut up when they run an engine publicly on an independent dyno.)

What about the Mazda RX-series? The RX-8, which came out in (I think) 2003 has a Wankel-type rotary engine.

Please sign your posts on talk pages, user 192.35.35.36 (see also User talk:192.35.35.36), and consider creating a userid, it costs nothing and gives you a little more privacy.

All the Mazda RX- models are Wankel powered. See for example Mazda RX-3, also Mazda Wankel engine. Andrewa 14:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removed text:

Sometimes these engines are referred to in somewhat erroneous shorthand as rotary engines, although the term rotary engine was first used to describe the rotary piston engine, a type of aircooled reciprocating aircraft engine, where in the reverse of the usual piston engine practice, the crankshaft is static and attached to the airplane, while a bank of cylinders rotates around the crankshaft and is attached to the airscrew.

This is not altogether accurate, and in any case belongs in the article on these engines, not here.

The newest automotive rotary engines, however, are currently produced by Mazda. Recently, both the RX-7 and RX-8 have used Wankel-type rotary engines exclusively. The Mazda website has a history of their use of rotary engines [1].

Again, the Wankel engine is already well described in several articles. This external link could perhaps be added to Mazda Wankel engine. Andrewa 20:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Veselovsky seems to be a Wankel engine very similar to the LiquidPiston engine, with intake and exhaust through the central rotor. At least that's how I interpret it.impossiblefork (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

and many, many others...

See http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/POWER/rotaryIC/rotaryIC.htm and http://dmoz.org/Science/Technology/Energy/Devices/Internal_Combustion_Engines/Rotary/ for two excellent surveys, the first with diagrams. Andrewa 00:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying Statements

Guys, I added the following statements to clarify the article.

1. In the starting sentance: "A rotary engine is an.." changed to "A pistonless rotary engine is an..."

2. Added this line to the starting paragraph:
"An example of a pistonless rotary engine is the Wankel engine.

--Pavithran 23:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disadvantages section

This section must have been written by the bloody frenchman that invented the Quasiturbine and for some bizarre reason continuously finds it necessary to attack the wankel as a bad engine and conclude from there that his engine be better. Well I do not know how to turn a page into "the content of this page is disputed not to be neutral" otherwise I d have done that. Anyway, the remarks fooling readers into believing that the quasiturbine is some kind of wankel improvement should be rewritten more neutrally, as should be the disadvantages of the wankel engine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.165.18.225 (talk • contribs)

Well… I would say: please do. --Van helsing 13:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bizarre reason is not hard to guess... people are making money out of promoting designs such as the Quasiturbine. But it's not necessarily those directly involved with these promotions who produce these questionable edits; Often they are the work of idealistic people who have been taken in by the persuasive promotional material associated with such projects. See Solar Tower Buronga.

The article as is certainly needs some cleaning up. Andrewa 11:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non helpful editing

A message to Van Helsing: Please do not remove entries on the R.A.C.E. engine without reasonable grounds. Your edit removed a stub that other people were interested in expanding, as well as a link to the Atkinson cycle which is an important advantage in some rotary engine designs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sowilo (talk • contribs)

I fully agree with the above statement. Following some simple rules should help.

The five pillars of Wikipedia

Sowilo 04:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we keep this discussion on one place instead of four? --Van helsing 09:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What gives that here?

Wankel Rotary Myths for Amateurs!? --90.186.119.176 21:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.186.119.176 (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Quite so. What a mess. Andrewa 12:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trochilic Engines

From http://www.trochilicengines.com/glossary/ : Trochilic Engines - A truly rotating piston, turbine by design that can function as a Stirling cycle, internal combustion, and high-pressure gas engine. This highly efficient, clean, cost effective power source offers a solution to the worlds energy dilemma.

It appears that the Trochilic Engine is a new proprietry engine design. Two similarly-shaped interlocking rotary piston segments (see this image of one segment) rotate in a cylindrical chamber. Ports are used instead of valves, a la Wankel, and the two piston segments are controlled by planetary gearing so that their angular displacement one from the other varies as they spin, so that the space between them varies in volume. Ingenious.

But according to http://www.trochilicengines.com/faq they haven't actually built one, all they have so far are some computer simulations and of course the idea. Mind you, this same FAQ also predicts We expect to introduce internal combustion trial and demonstration units early 2006 so it may not be quite up to date. Andrewa 12:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trochilic Engine redirects to Swing-piston engine. If this is correct, it is not a pistonless engine. Biscuittin (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-encyclopedic engines

http://dmoz.org/Science/Technology/Energy/Devices/Internal_Combustion_Engines/Rotary/ gives a list of websites dedicated to proposed engine designs which includes the Trochilic. But all you need to appear on this list is an idea and a website. Several of them, by their own admission, have yet to be built, and there's no evidence that they ever will or even can be.

There are particularly interesting drawings of the Hula engine, see here and here, which appears to be a reinvention of the Sarich engine, and the Veselovsky which appears to be a variety of Wankel engine.

I'm skeptical as to whether any of them, including the Trochilic, should get a mention in this article. Andrewa 18:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction is a bit tame

Introduction now reads An example of a pistonless rotary engine is the Wankel engine. In fact the only commercially successful pistonless rotary engine to date is the Wankel. So shouldn't the introduction reflect this?

IMO the reason it doesn't is that some of our editors wish to promote other designs. Not a good reason. Andrewa 07:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NEVIS Engine

what kind of engine is this? http://www.nevisengine.com/

--83.190.246.96 23:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of share scam engines?

I recently came upon this article after Klpolon (talk · contribs) left a comment on my talk page about a new type of engine. I am very concerned that this article gives undue weight to a number of theoretical engine designs. I've seen plenty of theoretical engine designs come and go over the years, and the main thing that they have in common is a desire to sell shares in the company that is developing them. Once such shares are sold and the original inventors have made their money, the whole proposal quietly collapses. The only 2 engine types in this article that I am sure don't fit that category are the Wankel and Sarich. --Athol Mullen 01:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rotary Engine Links

An interesting link to a history of rotary engines, particularly rotary steam engines: http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/POWER/rotaryengines/rotaryeng.htm A link to many innovative engine designs of all sorts (some, perhaps as crackpot or impractical as the previous commentator laments): http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Engines —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.148.36.138 (talk) 15:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisons

I elaborated on some of the other methods of measuring displacement of a Wankel rotary as it originally said something to the effect of "There are many ways of calculating displacement of a Wankel" but went on to only mention one (i.e. the Japanese/industry standard of measurement). Feel free to expand on or scrutinize. Should i also add this information to the Mazda Wankel page and the Wankel page as i believe any information to this effect is missing. I believe it is necessary for understanding the abnormal specific output numbers of the Wankel rotary's have in comparison to piston engines. - Li7in6

That is not the Japan standard, in fact this is the scientific standard. The rotor surface is not the combustion chamber surface and the comparsion is a little bit tricky. The combustion chamber is stationary in the location of the spark spark plug. Then need a Wankel engine per surface 3 x 360° = 1080° (3 rev) against 2 x 360° (2 rev) for all four Otto cycle. Only the absence of the empty stroke make difference. A four stroke reciprocating piston engine has a empty stroke (only every second rotation one working cycle) this has a Wankel engine not (every rotation one ignition). Therefor is the power density of a Wankel engine higher. Chamber volume x 2 is the equivalent displacement. All other is orginal research! --HDP (talk) 10:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not correct as in a Wankel rotary the combustion chamber is constantly movind due to the geometery of the rotor/housing relation. It is not directly comparable to a piston engine who's combustion chamber IS stationary within the block. Simply recognising 1/3rd of an engine's combustion chambers because you are attempting to adapt a piston displacement standard to an engine of a completely different design. in a wankel rotary a single rotor =/= a single piston. The rotors creates three completely seperate combustion chambers and taking all 3 of these chamebrs per rotor is the only way to determine maximum possible displacement of a Wankel rotary. Li7in6

Quasiturbine

Its own page gives links that puts it in development. --174.71.78.172 (talk) 08:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Large content deletion

Anyone interested in this article, or in improving it, might find this revision useful. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Boy, What Happened??

Seems like we have too many cooks in the kitchen. Pretty much anything of relevance got deleted at some point and what we have, now, makes no sense, whatsoever. That's a shame, because this used to be a very good, and thorough, discussion of how a rotary (Wankel) worked, and was used to power some commercially available motor vehicles. Mazda brought the rotary engine into the mainstream with it's RX-series. Ending the article with some tribute to Mazda seems appropriate, since they are the sole motor vehicle manufacturer to use a rotary powered car. My solution? Redirect everyone to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wankel_engine. Issues? Complaints? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squonk64 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What happened is this blanking of unsourced content. You might defend it as policy, you might claim it's heavy-handed. Either way, the content is still there if you want to fix it up and source it.

As to Wankels, then I'd leave this article as far from Wankel as possible (there are other engines), link to Wankel and move any useful content to that with a summary remaining. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]