Subject: Rotary compressor
From: Rotary Engine
Date: 2/5/2007, 8:53 AM
To: AARotary Engine



    > I have been monitoring this group for three months now and look
   forward to
    > each day's postings.  I am an active pilot (P210) and a long-time
    > subscriber
    > to Kitplanes, so your discussions surrounding the perfection of
   the rotary
    > aviation engine really intrigue me.  A 337 running two rotaries
   would be
    > one
    > heck of an airplane!
    >
    > I apologize to the aviation purists that my posting is not aviation
    > related,
    > but it is rotary related.  I own a small manufacturing company in
   North
    > Central Montana which has twenty years experience building portable
    > natural
    > gas compressors.  Our units feature rotary screw compressors
   driven by
    > piston engines (natural gas powered).
    >
    > I would like to investigate the possibility of utilizing the
   rotary engine
    > as a "valve-less" compressor.  I am hoping that through this
   group I can
    > find individuals who would be willing to provide engineering
   services for
    > this concept.
    >
    > Ideally, I would like to see the driver and the compressor
   integrated into
    > the same rotary engine block--one rotor driving another.
    >
    > My major concern is that the stock rotary has too much inherent
   overlap
    > between the intake and discharge ports to work properly as a
   compressor
    > without the installation of intake and discharge valves.  Is
   there a way
    > to
    > re-configure the ports to eliminate overlap?
    >
    > Cole T. Chandler
    >
    > Sure you put the output p-port just about where the spark plugs
    > are.
    >
    > Wankel rotaries have been widely used as compressors.
    >
    > Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.

   Isn't the overlap eliminated in the Renesis, or is it just
   minimized ?

   John

   Yes it is (sort of) but that has nothing to do with a compressor
   configuration. The compressor config needs an air outlet
   port near the combustion chamber. If it is anywhere else
   the engine compresses the air and then lets it expand again
   and THEN merely escape through the existing exhaust with no
   pressure change. The difference is there is no fuel and spark
   to expand the air.

   Just bore a p-port hole where the lower spark plug hole is
   and you have a mighty fine, perfectly balanced, 10,000 RPM
   air compressor capable of horrendous air flow.
   You don't even have to do that if you want lower flow.
   Just screw a hose fitting in the spark plug hole.
   Block the top spark plug hole with a stock
   spark plug. You will get at least 150 psi.
   If you fill the depression in the rotors you will
   probably get close to 200 psi or more.


   Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.


   As I understand your suggestion, there would be only one compression
   cycle
   per rotor revolution?  The normal "exhaust" stroke of engine would
   not have
   any function and not be utilized?  Would this "dead stroke" create
   wasted
   horsepower?

   Cole

   Yes but if you vented it to the atmosphere it would consume
   very little power. That part of the cycle could be a used as
   a vacuum pump with the p-port exhaust as the exhaust port.
   You would need another intake port below the pressure
   port on the spark plug side. The pressure output port
   will need a one way valve. So too the vacuum input
   port. One problem might be apex seal lube but try
   self lubricating Rulon apex seals. A mixture of Teflon
   and Kevlar. What you wind up with is both a vacuum pump
   and a compressor in the same stroke and in one revolution
   of the e-shaft.
   --
   Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.


I'm watching the animation. Why not have both sides of the engine
pumping out air? -Jeff (Jeff Martin)

I guess that will work too.

Paul Lamar

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