Paul,

/    I don't understand what you are trying to say.

 /   The actual physical displacement of the Wankel combustion
  /  chamber --
   / that is, the volume of any of the three "flanks" of the rotor -- is
    /what it is. In the Ansdale illustration that is 500 cc.

    /In a 13B engine it is 1300 cc for the two rotors or 650 cc per
    /rotor. That is the actual physical volume and that is the amount of
   / air-fuel charge that is combusted in each power stroke. Is this
    /not so?

    /That is why the naming conventions of all Wankel engines that I
    /have
    /seen are based on actual displacement.

    /For each complete revolution of the three-sided rotor, there are
    /three power strokes. Since the engine shaft turns three times for
    I give up.
..........SNIP>>>>>>>>>>
    Now you're saying that each rotor on a 13B takes in 80ci of air on
    each intake stroke? And combusts 80 ci inches of air on each
    combustion stroke?

    Why is it called a 1300cc engine?

    Let's forget about the revolutions for now and just concentrate on
    the actual physical volume. And by that I mean the maximum volume
    formed by the rotor and the housing when it takes in the intake
    charge. I believe this is 650 cc per rotor, no?

    I think this is confusin g a lot of people.


    Regards,

    Gordon.


  "Now you're saying that each rotor on a 13B takes in 80ci of air on
    each intake stroke? And combusts 80 ci inches of air on each
    combustion stroke?"

Well not in so many words but yes that is it... more or less
like it is in a one rotor engine.

Lets call them chambers rather than a rotor. Each 80 ci chamber
moves around in the rotor housing performing all four cycles.
It sucks in 80 ci of air, compresses it, expands it and exhaust
it. It just takes longer than one rev of the e-shaft.

There are three 80 ci chambers doing this simultaneously.
The total amount of air pumped by all three 80 ci chambers
in one rev is 160 ci.

It just so happens the one rotor engine fires once per rev
of the e-shaft and the amount of air all three chambers pump
in one rev is the same as a 2 cyl four stroke 160 ci engine.

As Dave Leonard pointed out it is unfortunate the inventors
called it a 80 ci engine.

BTW I would say the word "displacement" has a specific
meaning in the context of an internal combustion engine.

People need to understand this. This is part of the reason
why the Wankel is so frequently dismissed or discriminated
against.



Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.


HI Paul..... The key that Gordon is missing is in your sentence above.
It should be underlined as it is missed by many. "IT JUST TAKES LONGER
THAN ONE REV OF THE E-SHAFT" to complete it's 4 cycle function. If
Gordon was to make a time line of the e-shaft for some number of
revolutions that was a multiple of three revolutions (3,6,9,etc) it
should become apparent that by counting the number of compressions (or
firings or exhausts) and dividing that by the number of complete
(360deg) e-shaft revolutions the result is as you have stated. BTW
Gordons chart will look exactly like Andale's only for a single rotor,
but sometimes actually going thru the motions of making your own chart
is more helpful than trying to understand someone elses. Gordon, don't
give up, we need that spreadsheet!                      Dave M.



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