The rotary engine suffers from high BSFC at low loads.
 Low loads are the name of the game for automotive engines.
 GM found back in 1978 that the temperature of the rotor face had a strong
 effect on the low load BSFC. A 9.8% improvement in the BSFC
 was possible with a hot rotor at low loads. Higher rotor temperatures gave
 lower fuel burn at low loads. However if the rotor was not
 cooled at high loads the cast iron over heated.
 GM got a patent in 1976 on a hot rotor face insulated from
 the rest of the rotor. Here is a pdf on the 3,995,602 patent.
 The SAE GM paper on the subject was 780419.

 The obvious solution is to control the temperature of
 the rotor as a function of the load on the engine.

 The amount of oil cooling on the rotor is now controlled
 by a ball and a spring that opens at a certain RPM.
 RPM is not the problem. Engine load is the problem.
 A way can be found to cut off the oil cooling to the
 rotor at low loads regardless of the RPM. In other
 words run the rotor face as hot as possible at all RPM's.

 One mechanical way of doing that is insert a stationary tube
 in the center of the e-shaft that moves back and
 fourth controlled by a servo that senses engine
 load and cuts off the cooling oil supply to the
 rotor. A peice of cake for todays computer controlled
 engines. In fact it need not be controlled by a computer
 or electrical servo but by a simple air servo connected to the
 intake manifold pressure.


 Patent applied for :)

 Paul Lamar



 Sounds like it should work ... however ...

 Common sense (which often fails me) tells me that something else is
 really going on in during the compression/ignition cycle that is not
 addressed by the GM research. I find it hard to believe that somehow
 the gas charge "knows" about a 100 degree temperature difference in a
 metal surface that is whizzing for the briefest instant during the the
 ignition/combustion process. It all happens in about 0.01 seconds. By
 far the majority of the the gas-charge is separated from the rotor
 surface by only only a fraction of an inch, but this fraction of an inch
 amounts to millions of molecules of separation. That seems like miles to
 me in my microscopic world-view. And the theory is that what would
 appear to be a barely significant temperature difference in the middle
 of a thermodynamic inferno is going to somehow extract 10% more energy
 out of the reaction ?????? I dunno???

 In defense of the theory, the operation of glow-plugs come to mind, and
 of course, pre-ignition due to a build up of combustion-chamber deposits
 can really affect the fuel burn. But these examples relate to very high
 temperature surfaces. Back about 1970 I had a little Ford Bronco that
 would start running really rough. A few times I was forced to pull off
 onto the shoulder of the road and remedy the situation by dribbling
 coffee from my thermos bottle down the throat of the carburetor as I
 raced the engine to help the beast "clear its sinuses".

 So yes, combustion is/can be influenced by surfaces, but at 300
 degrees?

 I have often wanted to experiment with extremely high-voltage, perhaps
 radio-frequency spark plugs. (RF currents are not dangerous to humans,
 since the molecules in our bodies are to sluggish to respond to the
 signal as they do in direct currents.) So by applying a huge RF voltage
 between the upper and lower plugs one might be able to get very
 efficient ignition to occur. The design problem I have not yet solved
 is what the nature of the combustion chamber and rotor surfaces would
 need to be to force the RF electrical discharge to either arc across the
 surface or create a blast of plasma through the gas-charge rather than
 jump back into the housing metal for part of its journey to the other
 spark plug. Ceramic engines? Maybe.

 Patent soon applied for :)

 R Berglund

 There a lot of other things discussed in the SAE GM paper but those, in the
 opinion of the GM engineers, could be addressed with high pressure direct
 injection. It had mostly to do with the raw fuel wetting the walls of
 the combustion  chambers including the compression chamber and the exhaust chamber.
 Mazda addressed some of those issues with the RX8 and how it recycles
 raw fuel with the side exhaust ports.

 IMHO it is just a matter of time before this problem will be solved.

 Paul Lamar

    Cell phones are 900Mh, Virg

Here is how to have your modified 2.5 rotor RX8 get 50 MPG at a steady 65
MPH using an AIXRO one rotor kart engine mounted on
the back of the stock RX8 differential.

First read this. http://www.rotaryeng.net/RX8-TC-eng3.html

Here is a cheaper and quicker way of testing this concept. Get an AIXRO Kart
engine and mount it on the back of the RX8 differential. Remove the stock
rear cover. Use a second pinion gear and run the AIXRO only at cruising
speed with a one way clutch to disconnect it at lower speeds.

Assume 30 inch tire. That is 94.248" circumference so that is 7.85 feet in
circumference. At 95 feet per second or 65 MPH that is 12 revs per second or
720 RPM times 4.77 is 3434 engine RPM.

So you need a 2.17:1 planetary reduction given 7452 RPM for the AXIRO engine. That is
also 114 revs per mile per hour or 96 MPH at 11,000 AIXRO max RPM.

BTW for those on here that have not yet heard a Mazda 13B 1991 Turbo II engine
more or less stock went 229 MPH at the recent Reno air races in a RV6 experimental
airplane.

Paul Lamar