Wheels always turning in this inventor's mind(rot.eng.,50%+fuel eff.-no tran.,coolant reqd)

Richmond Times Dispatch ^ | 10-19-03 | BOB RAYNER

[putupon]

The engineer, inventor and aspiring tycoon has spent half his life working on a project that he believes could revolution ize a mainstay of the industrial age: the internal combustion engine.

Yeah, right, you're probably thinking.

The DeFazio Rotary Engine, its creator said, needs no transmission. It requires no coolant system. It's 50 percent more fuel efficient and far more powerful than a typical engine.

[hoosierham]

The dollar figure is erroneously arrived at by valuing his own time as though he were billing a client.

Basement inventors cannot expect to do this ; corporate research lab workers are paid and so the time invested does have monetary value.

[xtargeter]

Didn't the car makers experiment with rotary engines a while back? Wankle rings a bell with me. Didn't Mazda build them? As I recall, there were lots of problems with them.

xtargerer

[Cboldt]

U.S. Patent 6,588,395 to DeFazio <-- Link

It looks mechanically complex, at a glance, and therefore somewhat expensive to produce.

[Cboldt]

Wankel engine is presently in production by Mazda. AFAIK, the wrinkles are fairly well worked out. The toughest problem was sealing the rotor apexes within the combustion chamber. The Mazda RX-7 had a Wankel, and their new RX (IIRC, it's RX-8) has one. Very highly rated automobile, especially "bang for the buck."

Article re: Wankel Engines <-- Link

[AFreeBird]

The piscean reek comes through strongly here. Sorry, but $400 Large ought to be more than enough to build a prototype.

Since 1975, he's spent a big chunk of his free time developing and improving the designs for his rotary engine. In 2001, he took a year off from work so he could devote all of his energy to his engine. He estimates that his investment - in time and money - is approaching $400,000.

I may be wrong; but it sounds like that $400K is spread out over almost 30 years. I suspect much of that was geared towards materials study and fabrication, and it also sounds like it includes his "time", and if it does, the the actual cash outlays might be less.

Sounds interesting though.

[FreedomPoster]

It sounds interesting *if* it really works. That is a huge "if". You ought to be able to build a technology demo for peanuts with an engineering school's machine shop and a little free student labor.

A practical issue that is pretty obvious right off the bat are the rotor lobe-to-stator sealing issues that we have with Wankel rotaries (see Cbolt's comments). It appears to me that this engine would have the similar issues. He claims in his FAQ at the web site that he's operating at lower pressures, but then shows the engine operating at 6 atm, which is not that much different from pressures seen in a normally-aspirated gasoline engine.

And putupon, I have since looked at the site (which was not in the original post), and don't see anything there that changes anything I've said. When you're making claims on your web site like this:
http://www.starrotor.com/2-slides/2-3-1.htm
when you haven't even properly demonstrated the technology, my B.S. detector goes off even louder.

Another item in his FAQ that does the same is this jewel:

>>Question 10: When will I be able to purchase an automobile with a StarRotor engine?

>>Question 10: It is very difficult to predict the future, but we hope that the automotive industry will adopt this engine by 2008, or so.

So an engine that hasn't even had a proper prototype demonstration, is going to be in mass-production within 5 years? Somehow I doubt it.

This guy needs to get his hardward ahead of his marketing hype - if he can.

[staytrue]

Reciprocating pistons waste energy in three of their four strokes, drawing air and fuel into the cylinder, compressing it, then exhausting it.

Drawing air and fuel and compressing and exhausting are not "waste of energy". His engine will also have to do the same.

[Rockitz]

I can see why this guy hasn't gotten anywhere. It's absolutely impossible to see how his engine works from his website.

I had the idea to go in and give him a good critique but like I said, it's impossible to determine how it works from the site.

As a sage once said, "The world is full of brilliant failures."

[Mackey]

The main idea in ceramic engines is getting more work out of the fuel: burning fuel produces heat which performs the work; by retaining and converting more of the heat into work, the engine runs hotter. Ceramic withstands heat better than any metal so it's the logical material of construction. The problem to overcome is lubrication.

[steve86]

Drawing air and fuel and compressing and exhausting are not "waste of energy".

True, but you have to admit those are a kind of "overhead" in a four-stroke engine. Reason that a two-stroke engine can be more powerful, firing twice as often, even though much of the fuel is wasted and unburned.

By the way, are those hand cranks sticking up on the provisional engine?

[ckca]

Similar in principle to the original rotary developed by Felix Wankel in the 1950’s, the Rotapower® engine has been optimized for high-horsepower, high-reliability, low-weight and low-cost manufacturing. It is an excellent choice for a wide range of high-performance applications.

From its inception the M400 Skycar volantor has been designed to minimize both direct and indirect costs. The Skycar uses an engine that can burn almost any fuel from diesel to natural gas so that worldwide refueling can be accommodated by what is locally available. Using gasoline, the M400 can be expected to get over 25 mpg. With a range of 900 miles, the logistics associated with refueling the shorter-range helicopter can be eliminated. The rotapower engines have only two major moving parts, weigh less than 80 pounds and occupy less than one cubic foot. The bulk of the remaining technology is electronic and replaceable in modules as the onboard redundant systems identify a failed or failing component. Vehicle size greatly affects ground mobility and parking space required. The Skycar, with its compact size, can be stored in a space the size of a standard single car garage. The landing gear on the vehicle makes roadability possible for short distances. Initially introduced as the M400, four-seat model, the Skycar technology has the ability to be both scaled up to a six passenger, M600, or scaled down to a one passenger, M100. This allows a cost efficient vehicle size to accommodate a variety of military, paramilitary, and commercial transport missions.

[RightWhale]

it includes his "time",

A simple calculation shows that FReepers have donated $50 billion to FreeRepublic in "time."

[Publius6961]

Damn!
I saw this in Popular Mechanics in 1947...
And 1954...
And 1968..
and 1971...
And....

am I excited, or what?

[RandallFlagg]

I've been checking on Moller's Skycar for some time now. Have you seen the flight test videos? Sweet!

Too bad it's going to be a fly-by-wire thing, though...

[Publius6961]

Duly filed under "nut jobs"

[razorback-bert]

Put that engine on a Seagway and we might have something.

[fso301]

There's a catch, of course. DeFazio hasn't been able to raise enough money to build a working prototype to prove his model actually does what he thinks it will.

With his credentials, he should be fully capable of building a proof-of-concept using machined metals. Even without supplimentary cooling, the machine should run long enough before burning out to get usefull test data. For this reason, I don't buy the guys story.

Right now, the engine exists only as a computer model and a small metal and plastic mockup that illustrates its basic principles.

So why doesn't he hook up a fuel line and try it out? he has drawings so if a part burns out, he can fabricate new ones.

His invention relies on solid lubricants, such as silicon carbide

How counter intuitive. I always though silicon carbide (aka carborundum) was the second hardest substance known.

[fso301]

Didn't the car makers experiment with rotary engines a while back? Wankle rings a bell with me. Didn't Mazda build them? As I recall, there were lots of problems with them

Lower fuel efficiency was one problem associated with earlier rotary (Wankel) engines. Mazda claims to have solved many of the problems and will introduce a line of cars powered by advanced rotary engines.

[RandallFlagg]

Just a general question, but how many FReepers here have legit invention experiences? The reason I'm asking is because I have a desk design that I'd like to market.

[nightdriver]

"There's a catch, of course. DeFazio hasn't been able to raise enough money to build a working prototype to prove his model actually does what he thinks it will."

There's always a "catch." Just need someone to give him some money!

He says silicone carbide is a lubricant? I suppose that is why I use it in vitrified grinding wheels to sharpen carbide tools, huh?

He says that it is a rotary engine, then talks about variable stroke lengths?

Sorry, but my B.S. meter just pegged.

First of all, he is talking about efficiencies that exceed Carnot efficiency, the maximum available. We've had the Wankel, (somewhat successful, almost as good as a piston engine) the Virmel, the inimitable "Borque" and several others and they all have died a-borning.

No matter how you cut it, any internal combustion engine has 4 essential processes, suck, mash, burn and blow. Nothing else qualifies.