Return-Path: Received: from web41503.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.93.86] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c1) with SMTP id 723992 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 10 Feb 2005 13:34:15 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.218.93.86; envelope-from=tomtugan@yahoo.com Received: (qmail 27692 invoked by uid 60001); 10 Feb 2005 18:33:30 -0000 Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; b=NAa45o0dSlYcaba4VzsdIHMINnkpxIO3qVUKrbnAMjt3eiFBnxEmke6P/m+KIJkwhBZMk4ota2/KU1JXMTYMi+wEBZ8ctxngIKHcz4Ii9odonmzVw9xgW94KpBqS5vmqS6mmjAarRgOXJdHC+OiZgDH7APXrPBGI9RO/IGC/MCk= ; Message-ID: <20050210183330.27690.qmail@web41503.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [63.224.93.112] by web41503.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 10 Feb 2005 10:33:30 PST Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 10:33:30 -0800 (PST) From: Tom Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Rotary AirFlow Equation / Ellison To: Rotary motors in aircraft In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-635284464-1108060410=:25823" --0-635284464-1108060410=:25823 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Thanks Jerry. Ed, Previously you provided for a 360... 360cid * 2800rpm/(2*1728) = 291.66 rpm Now consider this for a 13b... 2800 prop rpm * 2.175(redrive) = 6090 shaft rpm, 160cid * 6090 / (2*1728) = 281.94 CFM or 2800 prop rpm * 2.175(redrive) = 6090 shaft rpm, / 3 = 2030 rotor rpm 6*40*2030/1728 = 281.94 CFM Some number looks off just a bit for either the 360 or 13b but it's not that significant. Bottom line(s), Does the 13b need a greater intake air velocity for the same prop rpm? Doesn't appear so. Does the 13b need to have a larger bore tbi than a 360? Doesn't appear so. Airflow restrictions would effect the fuel-injected 13b same as a tbi'd 13b or a 360. no?? Opening up intake sizes only add value to a point. Make them the size of a DVD and you've added no value. Open the throttle, after a certain point you get no benefit. yes? As for using a single tbi vs one for each port, there are earlier mentioned questions for a non-renesis 13b, but this is limited to post-ignition discharges of one rotor potentially interfering with the other rotor's intake. Sounds like there's nothing supporting a need for more than a single tbi for a renesis. Ed, you mentioned Mazda Dynamic Effect Intake (DEI), Finite Amplitude Wave (FAW) pulses, and "reversion". Thanks, I wasn't aware but I had a sense that there are many other little things happening that wasn't being factored in. Bill, when refering to the impressive powers achieved by those motorcycles when using larger holes, aren't they also using different fuels or additives? There are other related subtopics. Fundamentals of Fuel-Injection mention a better atomization and better fuel/oxygen molecule mix. Russ says the Ellison should be considered 'fuel injection'. It looks like fuel-injection into a psuedo-carburetor to me. Question is: is the atomization not as good as standard fuel injection? Better than a carburetor? Does the atomization degrade in the time it takes to get in and get ignited? Beats me. Also, there's the topic of fuel evaporation effects on air temperature and then air density. Seems the TBI would have an advantage here but as Jerry says, at the speeds this is happening it may be irrelevant. My speculation doesn't matter. Bottom bottom line. While may still be questions relating to a single Ellison vs multiple Ellisons for the non-renesis 13b. Few to no questions seem to exist with a single Ellison on a renesis. It seems worthwhile to give the Ellison a test. Wish I were in a position to do this now. > > Help Meee..! > > Thanks > > Ed Ed, I passed your analysis on to Rolf Pfeiffer. Here is his response. Jerry I quote Ed: 3. This Logic gives us rotary Air Flow = 4*40*2000/(1728) = 185 CFM! This is, of course, NOT the 277 CFM arrived at by the approved formula. The answer is simple. On one rotation of the a rotor, all three faces came to "work". Having two rotors the total faces or chambers displaced is 6. So the formula should read: Air Flow = 6*40*2000/(1728) = 277 CFM! The operation of the rotary was established as a four cycle engine, which it is. In order to have the same displacement as a four cycle RPE and to be comparable therewith, the displacement at "two" shaft rotations was considered to be "equal". So, at equal output shaft rotations the engines can be compared in displacement and therewith in performance. I personally think that is fair, although it is not quite so as the rotary can easily turn at higher speeds, and therefore make more power for the "same" displacement of only two chambers counted. One must also consider that at equal speeds the duration of a power stroke in the Rotary is 1.5 times slower and therewith the rotary has an advantage in a longer duration and better combustion. The disadvantage the Rotary has over the RPE is the large surface area and poor combustion chamber shape that lead to a poorer combustion process. Both factors are offsetting somewhat, so that in overall, the "counting" of only two chambers is the most realistic in comparing the Rotary to the RPE. Besides, one can use the RPE formula for throughput, namely "displacement" * shaft rpm * the same factors. Rolf > --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term' --0-635284464-1108060410=:25823 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Thanks Jerry.
 
Ed,
 
Previously you provided for a 360...
360cid * 2800rpm/(2*1728) = 291.66 rpm
 
Now consider this for a 13b...
 
2800 prop rpm * 2.175(redrive) = 6090 shaft rpm, 
160cid * 6090 / (2*1728)  = 281.94 CFM
 
or
 
2800 prop rpm * 2.175(redrive) = 6090 shaft rpm,   / 3 = 2030 rotor rpm
6*40*2030/1728 = 281.94 CFM
Some number looks off just a bit for either the 360 or 13b but it's not that significant.
 
Bottom line(s),
 
Does the 13b need a greater intake air velocity for the same prop rpm?   Doesn't appear so.   
 
Does the 13b need to have a larger bore tbi than a 360?  Doesn't appear so.    
 
Airflow restrictions would effect the fuel-injected 13b same as a tbi'd 13b or a 360.  no??    Opening up intake sizes only add value to a point.   Make them the size of a DVD and you've added no value.   Open the throttle, after a certain point you get no benefit.  yes? 
 
As for using a single tbi vs one for each port, there are earlier mentioned questions for a non-renesis 13b, but this is limited to post-ignition discharges of one rotor potentially interfering with the other rotor's intake.   Sounds like there's nothing supporting a need for more than a single tbi for a renesis.  
  
Ed, you mentioned Mazda Dynamic Effect Intake (DEI),  Finite Amplitude Wave (FAW) pulses,   and "reversion".    Thanks, I wasn't aware but I had a sense that there are many other little things happening that wasn't being factored in.  
 
Bill, when refering to the impressive powers achieved by those motorcycles when using larger holes, aren't they also using different fuels or additives?
 
There are other related subtopics.   Fundamentals of Fuel-Injection mention a better atomization and better fuel/oxygen molecule mix.   Russ says the Ellison should be considered 'fuel injection'.   It looks like fuel-injection into a psuedo-carburetor to me.   Question is: is the atomization not as good as standard fuel injection?  Better than a carburetor?  Does the atomization degrade in the time it takes to get in and get ignited? Beats me.
 
Also, there's the topic of fuel evaporation effects on air temperature and then air density.   Seems the TBI would have an advantage here but as Jerry says, at the speeds this is happening it may be irrelevant.  My speculation doesn't matter. 
 
Bottom bottom line.     While may still be questions relating to a single Ellison vs multiple Ellisons for the non-renesis 13b.   Few to no questions seem to exist with a single Ellison on a renesis.
 
It seems worthwhile to give the Ellison a test.    Wish I were in a position to do this now.  
 

>  
> Help Meee..!  
>  
> Thanks
>  
> Ed

Ed, I passed your analysis on to Rolf Pfeiffer. Here is his
response. Jerry

I quote Ed:

3. This Logic gives us rotary Air Flow = 4*40*2000/(1728) =
185 CFM! This is, of course, NOT the 277 CFM arrived at by the
approved formula.

The answer is simple.

On one rotation of the a rotor, all three faces came to "work".
Having two rotors the total faces or chambers displaced is 6. So the
formula should read:

Air Flow = 6*40*2000/(1728) = 277 CFM!

The operation of the rotary was established as a four cycle engine,
which it is. In order to have the same displacement as a four cycle
RPE and to be comparable therewith, the displacement at "two" shaft
rotations was considered to be "equal". So, at equal output shaft
rotations the engines can be compared in displacement and therewith
in performance. I personally think that is fair, although it is not
quite so as the rotary can easily turn at higher speeds, and
therefore make more power for the "same" displacement of only two
chambers counted.

One must also consider that at equal speeds the duration of a power
stroke in the Rotary is 1.5 times slower and therewith the rotary
has an advantage in a longer duration and better combustion. The
disadvantage the Rotary has over the RPE is the large surface area
and poor combustion chamber shape that lead to a poorer combustion
process. Both factors are offsetting somewhat, so that in overall,
the "counting" of only two chambers is the most realistic in
comparing the Rotary to the RPE. Besides, one can use the RPE
formula for throughput, namely "displacement" * shaft rpm * the same
factors.

Rolf

>  

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term' --0-635284464-1108060410=:25823--