snips.....

Doug,

Just a thought...why not use an intermediate gear between a standard
clockwise radial turbine and the rotrex box? All it would take is two
spur gears, one on each shaft, at a simple 1:1 ratio. You could probably
find suitable gears over the counter -- there is not much power transfer
involved.

Btw, thanks for the links to that small turbine maker. Very interesting.
I've been interested in small turbines for RC applications for some time
and these engines are getting bigger all the time -- and moving to
full-scale aircraft. I know of one guy who mounted a couple of
20-pounders (I believe) on a retracting mechanism on his sailplane.
Apparently it's enough to get him rolling and airborne.

Now this guy with his 200-pounders...nice.

Regards,

Gordon.\\

Gordon,


Yes we thought of gears initially but line speed was the limiting factor.
BTW ROTREX has a unit that takes power off of the planetary already. It was
made under special contract for a company wanting to use it on a wind
generator. I can wait until mid summer and buy it.  I disagree with Paul
that the traction drive is an easy device to whip up.  Just to make it, for
sure, but it is in the high speed running of it that tolerances, and the
toughness of the outer ring become critical design factors. Calculate the CG
forces on the heavy rollers and you can understand what I am speaking about.

If Paul succeeds in slapping an untested traction drive on an engine and
dynoing it that is great. I am personally am not on a mission to prove
anything being absolutely convinced that turbocompounding the rotary engine
at high altitude is beneficial for some airplanes. Gee that's a vague
statement. Maybe I have been in Japan too long:) Hey wasn't the rotary engine
developed over here?

Doug F.

"slapping an untested traction drive" ????  Hey I represent that :)
My traction drives are designed by a genius (me) and  built with the finest
NC machine tools available with the closest possible tolerances using
the finest materials available.

No mystery in tough steels for me Doug :)

The centrifugal loads from the rollers are not that bad as the planet
carrier is rotating at only 12,000 RPM while the input shaft
is rotating at 120,000 RPM. Heck... think of the centrifugal loads of
a 13B nine pound rotor on the e-shaft while the e-shaft is rotating
at 9,000 RPM.

My rollers and bearings weigh only .66 pounds each as I was not as stupid
as Rotrex. Their roller shafts are part of the their rollers and adds
considerably to the mass subject to centrifugal loads. My shafts are stationary
with respect to the roller and are firmly attached to the planet carrier that
willingly accepts the .25 pound shaft's centrifugal loads. That makes my
design better than Rotrex's design :) Furthermore we can make dozens of
outer rings at low cost compared to the cost of a single Rotrex.

Don't get the idea I am selling these things because I am not.

The 26,000 RPM roller bearings are more of a challenge and I was fortunately
able to find some that are rated for 30,000 RPM.

Furthermore "beneficial for some airplanes"??? Baloney :) It is beneficial
for all the worlds internal combustion engines as the elimination
of the exhaust valve could result in a 30% or more improvement in
BSFC across the board.

Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.

The Rotary Engine NewsLetter. Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site. http://www.rotaryeng.net
Copyright 1998-2006 All world wide rights reserved.