Re: Toroidal Rotary Engine
Posted by:
Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: July 03, 2002 06:48AM
<HTML>Hi Jim,
I usually try to steer clear of controversy (once bitten twice shy, and I've been "bitten" a lot more than once in other steam forums), but my 3 primary "warning signs" for identifying the theoretical twits as you call them, are the presence of:
1.) securities sales in the absence of marketable product,
2.) government R&D contracts, and
3.) advertizing of R&D (especially in early stages) into an idea as a "green-credentials-building" or similar public relations effort by major corporations with a vested interest in the continued dominance of competing conventional technology. I am always wary of "institutional advertising" (ads selling a company's expertise, track record, size, longevity, good intentions, groovy vibes, etc. instead of its actual products). Enron and a few similar outfits were/are noted for this (don't get me started on _that_ issue!). Anybody can screw up, so them ads is strictly for suckers.
In the absence of these factors, I'll give a developer the (provisional) benefit of a doubt. Meaning, the developers are putting their own time and money into building running examples eventually aimed at the market.
Like you, however, I await extensive testing of any idea before giving it much credence. 100 hours at full load is a good start. For car engines, though, I'd actually be a bit stricter; I want to see good results from extensive _road testing_ under real-world conditions (meaning mostly variable and part-load running for road engines), or at least a close simulation of road conditions. Some machines that do well in full-load conditions run horribly in part-load & variable-load conditions, however durable they may be.
I have read that (barring, say, Rolls-Royce and a rare few other premium examples) most production gas car engines can't survive 100 hours of full-load running without at least major damage (if not pieces flying around the test facility). Most production car engines can't develop more than a fraction of their "rated power" as installed in road vehicles, so obviously they're not designed to actually run at such fanciful power outputs for more than a relatively brief interval during a bench test. Note all those gas cars that brag 250 hp and more. A typical car would have to run at something like 200 mph to actually develop that hp! Gear ratios, etc are rarely set up to achieve such results on the road.
George:
Thanks for following up on this. Further reports would be of interest. I figured they'd have seal problems, always the bugaboo in rotary engines. It took $billions & decades of R&D to work out all the seal problems with the Wankel, for example. Who knows, maybe one or more of the various alternative rotary engines being worked on can achieve acceptable sealing, durability, & overall cost per mile (incl fuel & maintenance). A low-rpm, high-torque engine, properly designed, has an edge here. It is a tall order, though.
Numerous caveats aside, this is definitely interesting stuff!
Peter</HTML>