Return-Path: Received: from imo-m28.mx.aol.com ([64.12.137.9] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.1) with ESMTP id 415905 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 21:29:37 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.137.9; envelope-from=Lehanover@aol.com Received: from Lehanover@aol.com by imo-m28.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v37_r3.7.) id q.dc.14f792e6 (4206) for ; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 21:28:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Lehanover@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 21:28:54 EDT Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Quiet To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 138 In a message dated 9/17/2004 9:39:21 AM Central Daylight Time, randy.smith@intel.com writes: << Ferinstance...No one responded to my third point last week regarding how particular the 13B is regarding gasoline and its various grades and flavors. Not a word regarding the SCORE technology allowing it to run Diesel/Jet/Kerosene. -Randy "silence fore and aft! Bosun, take that man's name!" Smith >> Sorry! I must have missed that. John Deer tried to get the Navy to use a very large two rotor (around 1000 HP) rotary to replace the Colt (Fairbanks Morse) 38-D81/8 OP diesel in stationary power generation. The advantage was going to be that it would run on anything the ship had available. Bunker C, diesel, avgas, JP-4 whatever. The other advantage was (is) compared to the OP engine it was very compact. It had to be mounted on a little platform to get it in line with the alternator shaft. Made the generator room look empty. Plus it was not designed in the 20s. The Navy still cannot get over loosing their sails, and just refused to believe their own test data that proved that the rotary was better by a factor of ten on every test point. And much cheaper operating costs. So does the Navy now have 8 big rotaries on every aircraft carrier? No. Even without the stratified charge feature, the rotary (NA) will run on the lowest octane rating fuel you may ever run across. The large combustion surface and the low temperature of the rotor housing tends to produce low flame front speeds. The same effect you would get from a very high octane motor fuel in a piston engine. This makes detonation just about impossible. We used to race on 87 octane with extra Texaco 30 wt oil mixed into the fuel to further reduce the octane. Timing no more than 20 degrees BTDC. This is also the only thing any Texaco oil is good for. Well, OK, starting brush fires too. So there you are, two things Texaco oil is good for. Now we have real race engines and run 93 octane (no alcohol) with 1 oz of Redline 2 cycle in each gallon. Timing now is 27 degrees BTDC. None of this applies to forced induction rotaries. Forced induction raises the compression ratio. That means faster flame front speeds. The higher the boost the higher the compression and the faster the flame front. Now the overly large combustion chamber is no longer an asset but a detriment. Fuel/air near the rotor tips ignites from high pressure and radiant energy from the approaching flame front. All detonation is charge temperature dependent. So you add an intercooler so some of the "heat of compression" from the turbo can be removed. Also too low a fuel octane may become a problem (flame front speed too high) and the ignition timing must be retarded. Also oil and water temperatures become critical. I can go on for hours. How much can you stand? Lynn E. Hanover