X-Mozilla-Keys:                                                                                 
Howard Wilkinson wrote:

I frankly can't believe that anybody who was interested in the Wankel
engine could take the so called split cycle engine seriously.  Here we
have a miriad of tiny highly loaded pieces of immense complexity with
their only concievable purpose being to accomplish a reduction
internally rather than having a gearbox... it allows the pistons to go
up and down many times for one rotation of the crank... that's all.

The liabilities of the engine are so many as to make it absurd except
as a curosity.  The big one Paul pointed out is "line contact"  The
same bugaboo that has crippled the Palmer Dynacam engine for many
years.  In a conventonal engine you have bearings which are curved to
match the surfaces so your contact pressure per area is far less.  In
the Dyna Cam or the Split Cycle, or the Caminez, or numerous other
designs of this type you have a straight line of contact which is
quite narrow.  This is necessitated by the compound variable of the
cam which moves from convex to concave through it's travel.
    My advice is SEND THEM ALL YOUR MONEY .....  they're going to need
it ;-)

    The Wankel engine cannot possibly work... It's too simple and has
too few moving parts.... I just don't know why you guys waste your
time with Mazda engines ;-)

                                                    H.W.

 
The Aircraft Rotary Engine Newsletter.              Powered by Linux.

http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/            http://www.linux.org