Actual Rotary Displacement Request - Page 4

Barry Bordes · 05-31-2011, 10:49 AM

Request to use Actual Rotary Displacement

If someone started talking about a 2.6 liter Rotary would they be referring to a 4 rotor or are we dealing with someone who doubles displacement of a two rotor?

In the interest of clarity I believe that we should describe the displacement of our rotary engines by its actual scientific size.

Some very experienced individuals have doubled and sometimes even tripled its size. This has become confusing to new impressionable members trying to communicate ideas correctly.

One would think that a physical measurement like displacement would be rudimentary but on a rotary it is more complicated than π X radius² X stroke X number of cylinders. Finding max volume from trochoid and peritrochoid shapes is a lot tougher.

I won’t bore you with formulas but all of the manufacturers signing licensing agreements to develop, and those producing Wankel engines including Alfa Romeo, American Motors, Citroen, Ford, General Motors, Mercedes-Benz, Nissan, Porsche, Rolls-Royce, Suzuki, Toyota and of course NSU and Mazda…and motorcycle manufactorers Sachs, DKW/Hercules, Norton and Suzuki… add John Deere, Artic Cat, Curtiss-Wright, also miscellaneous outboard and unmanned arcraft manufactures all agree on way actual displacement is determined and refere to them acordingly.

And yes, some sanctioning bodies use a multiplier which penalizes the Rotary as they do the two-stroke to help even out the competition. Displacement, however is a scientific measurement not up for opinions.

What size would Felix Wankel or Kenichi Yamamoto say that it is?

My Thoughts,
Barry

05-31-2011, 10:49 AM	#1
Barry Bordes Rotary Fanatic Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Slidell, LA Posts: 191 Rep Power: 18	Actual Rotary Displacement Request Request to use Actual Rotary Displacement If someone started talking about a 2.6 liter Rotary would they be referring to a 4 rotor or are we dealing with someone who doubles displacement of a two rotor? In the interest of clarity I believe that we should describe the displacement of our rotary engines by its actual scientific size. Some very experienced individuals have doubled and sometimes even tripled its size. This has become confusing to new impressionable members trying to communicate ideas correctly. One would think that a physical measurement like displacement would be rudimentary but on a rotary it is more complicated than *π X radius² X stroke X number of cylinders*. Finding max volume from trochoid and peritrochoid shapes is a lot tougher. I won’t bore you with formulas but all of the manufacturers signing licensing agreements to develop, and those producing Wankel engines including Alfa Romeo, American Motors, Citroen, Ford, General Motors, Mercedes-Benz, Nissan, Porsche, Rolls-Royce, Suzuki, Toyota and of course NSU and Mazda…and motorcycle manufactorers Sachs, DKW/Hercules, Norton and Suzuki… add John Deere, Artic Cat, Curtiss-Wright, also miscellaneous outboard and unmanned arcraft manufactures all agree on way actual displacement is determined and refere to them acordingly. And yes, some sanctioning bodies use a multiplier which penalizes the Rotary as they do the two-stroke to help even out the competition. Displacement, however is a scientific measurement not up for opinions. What size would Felix Wankel or Kenichi Yamamoto say that it is? My Thoughts, Barry