"Kent, Russell" wrote:
Paul Lamar:
Deactivating one rotor of a conventional two rotor engine
results in a very rough running engine.
I'll take that statement as true.
This invention consist of a completely balanced stand alone
one rotor engine combined with a stand alone two rotor engine.
Um, unless you're claiming that it is the balance weights that determine
whether a one rotor engine runs smoothly, it isn't clear to me how the
"completely balanced one rotor" engine will run any smoother than a two
rotor engine with one rotor shut off.
Perhaps this is an issue of semantics. I consider a "rough running
engine" to be one where the torque pulses exiting the crankshaft are
irregularly spaced over time, as when a Lycosaur has a fouled plug, or a
big radial is starting (lope-lope-lope...).
Unlike piston engine configurations rotary engines are always
in complete balance.
Hmm, so a two rotor engine with one rotor turned off is completely
balanced? So again, tell me how your one rotor engine runs smoothly
versus a two rotor with one rotor turned off?
The resulting three rotor engine avoids the deactivation drawback
by stopping two of the front rotors during steady highway cruise
and slow speed stop and go driving. Only the one rotor engine
generates power in this mode thereby reaping the BSFC advantages
of a small one rotor engine closely matched to the road load.
When acceleration or hill climbing ability is required the front
two rotors automatically start up and feed their power through
the one rotor shaft by way of a over running clutch and then back
into the transmission.
That will be a neat trick (restarting the two rotor engine). The
flywheel/clutch plate is presumably on the one rotor. The starter gear
is presumably on the flywheel/clutch plate. Oops! You're going to have
to move the starter gear to the front cover, along with the starter
motor. Also, the starter motor will need to be sized to crank the three
rotor configuration. Or you could have two starters and two ring gears,
but that's a lot of extra weight.
Oh, and aren't the alternator, water pump, power steering pump, and air
conditioning compressor all driven from the front cover? If the two
rotor engine isn't running, then neither are any of those. You'll need
to move all of them to the "intermediate front cover" of the one rotor
engine.
This engine has many of the MPG and emissions advantages of the
hybrid without the hybrid's cost and weight of electric motors
and batteries.
Maybe. The existing cylinder-shutoff engines used a regular crankshaft
without an over running clutch as you have. You might need to look at
that aspect long and hard to determine if the fuel savings of not
turning the inactive rotors is worth the engineering, complexity, and
weight penalties of all the changes that would require.
Would it work better to build a 20B with a funky eccentric shaft? It
would need to phase rotors #2 and #3 180 degrees apart (instead of the
120 degree phasing between all three lobes on a traditional 20B), and
have a fancy engine control computer that would turn on/off the plugs
and injectors at the right time. The engine would run on one rotor (low
load) or two rotors (high load). I think trying to run all three rotors
("war emergency" load?) might give some peculiar engine vibrations and
"rough running" sounds, but if you need the HP of all three rotors,
perhaps that's ok.
Regards,
Russell Kent
I am not sure why a two rotor engine runs rough with one rotor off but
they do. Perhaps only one or two chambers are not working.
The front cover (so to speak) or accessory drive is on the one rotor engine.
The starter would be on the two rotor engine.
Paul Lamar
The Rotary Engine NewsLetter. Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site. http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/
Copyright 1998-2004 All world wide rights reserved.