All right guys I have done some more research into an internal combustion version of the rotary vee engine. I have watched all the videos and tried to make some sense of the NASA report.
I am not an engineer but I can see one very real problem.
Lets look at one of the piston rod assembly. This one rod will have a firing or explosion at each end of its length at exactly the same time. If the amount of energy is not identical at each end the rod the rod will tend to bow up and bind in the cylinders. From past experience with multi piston engines each piston does not have the exact same amount of force or horsepower. Getting a fuel air mixture to be exact in each cylinder is above my pay grade.
The engine is of a two cycle design of which I have very limited knowledge but that may account for all the smoke generated in the video. To lubricate this engine the fuel and oil mixture will probably be in the 10 to 1 ratio or even lower.
There are many other reasons I am not interested in building the internal combustion version of this engine at this time but will continue exploring a air or steam version.
It may turn out to be a fun project.
All right guys I have done some more research into an internal combustion version of the rotary vee engine. I have watched all the videos and tried to make some sense of the NASA report.
I am not an engineer but I can see one very real problem.
Lets look at one of the piston rod assembly. This one rod will have a firing or explosion at each end of its length at exactly the same time. If the amount of energy is not identical at each end the rod the rod will tend to bow up and bind in the cylinders. From past experience with multi piston engines each piston does not have the exact same amount of force or horsepower. Getting a fuel air mixture to be exact in each cylinder is above my pay grade.
The engine is of a two cycle design of which I have very limited knowledge but that may account for all the smoke generated in the video. To lubricate this engine the fuel and oil mixture will probably be in the 10 to 1 ratio or even lower.
There are many other reasons I am not interested in building the internal combustion version of this engine at this time but will continue exploring a air or steam version.
It may turn out to be a fun project.
I found the original Popular Science (not Mechanics) article that triggered my obsession at 12 years of age. It starts on pgs 62-64 and on pg117.
It briefly describes the ingenious way the engine handles equal ignition.
Popular Science gives our readers the information and tools to improve their technology and their world. The core belief that Popular Science and our readers share: The future is going to be better, and science and technology are the driving forces that will help make it better.
Eddy that article talks about version 3 of the engine and if I read it correctly half the spark plugs were removed and somehow the ignition from the previous firing cycle ignites the next cylinder.
That was in 1974 and I haven't seen anything since to show much progress to the design. I also don't think it would downsize well for a model.
It has given me some ideas though but I still need a lot more thinking.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.