Paul,  here is another drawing comparing very clearly my p port and the
Leman P port.  Both close at nearly the  same time but the Leman port
opens much earlier.   Once one determines the closing event timing, the
opening event is fixed by the diameter of the opening.  I did not want
an opening larger than our operating range required, thus the bore of
1.5 inches which was determined by Rolf to be adequate up to 8500 rpm.
If one wanted to run the engine at even  higher rpm, the capacity of
the port  would have to be changed . However,  my goal was to have a
safe (easy on seals), efficient p port that would operate up to 7500
rpm. If my engine generates 240 hp I will be thrilled.  But if it only
generates 220 hp,   that will be o.k. too.      Also,  George was
right,  it is much simpler to simply bore a round hole as opposed to
grinding a rectangular opening.  I was relieved when it was determined
the round hole  would be sufficient.   jerry

Jerry,
While I've got your attention can I ask what is the shiny area around your
port ( inside of the housing) is that a finish grind. If it is I would be
worried about the Teflon coating being abraded off in that area.
Also your original design showed a distinct edge relief at the top side of
the port and that no longer shows on your prototype.
My advice is that an adequate convex relief ( airfoil shape) would enhance
flow characteristics - in the right direction.

I may be overly concerned about these things, but I thought I would mention
them just the same. Perhaps you could comment on these issues?
George ( down under)

 
The Rotary Engine NewsLetter.  Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site. http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/            
Copyright 1998-2004 All world wide rights reserved.