As you say - my diagram reflects piston position rather than max volume up
as Ansdale used.
All three of his diagrams are correct - as far as they go. and if he had
used the proper cycle
based time line (wankel 270 degrees for the same "stroke" as 180 degrees for
the pistuns)
as I did, he would have realised that the three cylinder is an exact match,
where the 2 cylinder
is not.  There are three chambers in the Wankel (count them) and each is
carying a charge
of working fluid - a "stroke takes 270 degrees (as if it were geared) - the
only reason that
you cannot equate that to three cylinders is because  it is counter to your
desires. The 2
cylinder concept is almost more bogus than the one cylinder concept, and
probably only
has credibility since that was a concept they managed to sell to the German
tax man.

Actually the scale looks close enough that you coul cut and paste his 3
cylinder curve
ove the Wankel curve. OK now can I quit? (the web page stays) Vance

If you quit I will mention your web page on my web page as being bogus :)

It is very simple once you see the light. It takes three wankel chambers to equal
two piston cylinders to process the same amount of air in the same time.

It takes all three wankel chambers working together to fire once per rev.
It also takes both piston cylinders working together to fire once per rev.

The amount of air/fuel ingested and processed in a given time period is
intrinsic to the definition of HP.


Paul Lamar

Paul,

Don't get Vance mad, we need him on this list!

How does it look if you take the 270/180 difference out of the Wankel,
consider it a geared engine with a 2:3 (or is it 3:2) reduction drive?

Vance, since you are a rocket scientist, what do you think of Rutan's
rocket?

Perry Mick

 
The AirCraft Rotary Engine NewsLetter.  Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site. http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/            
Copyright 1998-2003 All world wide rights reserved.