me and my dad were talking about engines, and he thinks that traditional cylinder engines are very inefficient if you consider how much time is spent waiting for the cylinder to start and stop moving. his idea for a better cylinder is to have it spin really fast by creating more inertia as the fuel is combusted. why has no one done this yet?
Only possible through nazi magic that hasn't been attempted by anyone except the occult wizards at Mazda
>>28656689You have no compression. You’re not going to extract much energy from the burn if you’re running away from the expanding gasses at nearly the expansion rate.There’s a reason there’s a compression strike even though it takes energy to compress the air. You get far more back in efficient use of the burn.
>>28656689>me and my dadMy dad and I
>>28656704Also your burn is literally pushing the wrong way. Your engine literally can’t work. You have to close off the intake before you can spark or it all goes out the top, but after the intake is closed the force of the burn would be counterclockwise.
>>28656708i just used a gif that shows something similar to what im thinking about. i found that there are already some rotary engines but they dont seem to have a smooth circle rotation. the wankel bounces around
>>28656707Based grammar nazi.
>>28656689Cylinders don't move, so I'll assume you're talking about the pistons inside of them. In that case, they do build up energy by combusting fuel, that's literally how they function. That's why your car doesn't start at 7k rpm. If you're proposing shorter piston travel, then that just varies from engine to engine. Just remember that an engine is essentially a very complicated series of levers. With shorter travel, you have less leverage. If you look at an existing rotary engine, that's why the rotor itself is shaped like a cam, and not just a disc. You could look at some turbine engines, those may be closer to what you're describing
>>28656689So what your asking for is a better two stroke? And yes we already have made that.https://www.motortrend.com/news/innengine-e-rex-1-stroke-hydrogen-powered-range-extender-engine
>>28656720yes turbines are pretty close. but surely its possible to have pure rotation energy produced in a cylinder without any sort of bumping
>>28656727Turbines are essentially the most efficient way possible (from a purely mechanical standpoint) to extract work from fuel and air. If you or your father have an even more efficient design in mind, you should draw it out and share it. But there is a reason turbines have been used in energy plants and aircraft for decades.
>>28656689
>>28656689Literally how a rotary engine works you fucking retard. Your retarded dad and his retarded offspring need to kill themselves.
>>28656731>tfw no turbine car
>>28656922u have a lot of anger man you should find out why
>>28656979he gay hehe
>>28656689So a really bad rotary?
>>28656689>have it spin really fast by creating more inertia as the fuel is combustedyou're just a midwit slamming random words together
>>28656707>me and my dad>My dad and IMy two moms
>>28656718>the wankel bounces aroundA rotor weighs literally 10 lb vs the 1lb or less for a piston engine spinning on its eccentric path yet it's extremely smooth and can rev to the moon and back without issue and major work and specially made expensive parts unlike piston engines, I don't think that qualifies as "bouncing around"
>>28657107>me and my dad>My dad and I>My two momsThe two birthing people
>>28656951when east germany was still around, the soviet put rubber threads onto their turbine tanks and were able to out-race any car on the road
>>28656707The way I remember to use this correctly is asking, "does it sound correct if I remove the other person?">Me and my dad thought thisBecomes >Me thought thisWhich is very obviously wrong>My dad and I thought thisBecomes>I thought thisWhich is correct
>>28656768>what if we made an entire engine from apex seals
>>28656689It can only work with peristaltic injection
>>28656718Despite the eccentric rotation rotary engines are extremely smooth and rev happy, it is the main selling point of the engine design along with how compact it is for the energy produced. The problem with a non-eccentric rotary is generating compression and expansion, you're putting even more emphasis on the apex seals which are already the weak point of a rotary, much worse than piston rings. Additionally without an eccentric rotation is becomes much harder to capture the explosive force of a combustion event against a surface that can efficiently absorb it into rotation, you see these vane engine concepts relying on the apex seals, again already an achilles heel, to take the explosive force which is a recipe for disaster. Lots of very smart engineers have been developing rotational engine concepts for well over a century now, and almost no company has been able to produce a viable product for good reason.
>>28657802>almost no company has been able to produce a viable product for good reasonit's like cold fusion. the jews don't want the market to be disrupted by this technology
>>28656689>his idea for a better cylinder is to have it spin really fast by creating more inertia as the fuel is combusted. why has no one done this yet?They did. It was called a rotary.
>>28657802Mazda produced a good one over 25 years ago
>>28656689Garbage combustion profile. Also lubrication. Same problems as a rotary wankel because that is just a worse rotary wankel.Also try "gas turbines" but the spool time is horrific and so is the hp*size*efficiency (pick 2 and only 2, get fucked on the third)
