Careful, you don't trip over your own sig line, "If you don't try to tell me what I believe then we will probably get along fine."
Not true...Mazda is still using and developing the wankel rotary engine. And the Wankel passed California EmCon standards.
Never too old to learn things. You should take a science class or two. It might make you understand how the world really works.
Perpetual motion machines can not exist in our reality. Doesn't take much thought to realize that. But there will always be people who like to fantasize about it anyway.
Such engines could work as stationary motors, but for automotive use they have to be too large (heavy). The structure of your picture shows dramatically greater moving mass than a typical crankshaft design. That means it cannot withstand high rpms.
Really? Link to an article about a California EPA approved 2017 Wankel powered production car currently on the market.
For decades there is talk of new engines. Sterling. Steam, you name it. Nice theories. Making it work for an instant start, affordable daily driver is another matter. Here's the reality. Most people don't want to pay much for a car. Talking about 10 year overall saving on economy doesn't sell. People also want a car they get in and start - and then when finished to turn it off and walk away. Getting out of your car in driving cold rain to plug and unplug a car, sitting for half an hour or more at a charging station etc are not things people want to do any more than they want to bridle and unbridal a horse because riding in a horse drawn carriage saves money.
I can't because the last time Mazda used a Wankel was the 2012 RX-8. HOWEVER...at the Los Angeles Motor Show last November, Kiyoshi Fujiwara of Mazda's R&D department announced that they're currently working on their first EV which they're hoping to get out for the 2019 model year and that it's likely to offered with a model option to use a rotary engine as a range extender. The RX-8 series that used the 13B-MSP Renesis did meet California state guidelines as well as passing the California LEV standards. And while it has not been seen in a Mazda, they're not done with it. They're still playing with the design and are developing improvements to the engine to increase fuel economy and further reduce emissions. They're not done with it yet. Not to mention that there are other companies who are working to further develop the Wankel for other application. AIE for example is working on their CREEV system.
But with the newer battery technologies extending the range of the EVs, we're getting closer and closer to that. Tesla's model S with its recent 500 mile run for example. Granted it traded speed for range, but if you're talking about a in-town vehicle...that's a fair trade. If you come home from a day's driving and it's raining its butt off and you've still got a couple hundred miles on the charge...you can just say the heck with it and just dash inside and not worry about it. I do agree that we're not quite there yet...but we are getting much closer. I'm betting within 10 years we'll see them on the road for the average consumer.
Pull the other one. The engine (in the video) is actually quite small for its power output and the picture shows one piece reciprocating linearly, corresponding to the "moving mass" of 2 entire piston rod/bearing assemblies in a conventional IC engine. The pure linear motion makes it much easier to counterbalance, so a superior design for high rpm applications where the vibrations inherent to conventional IC engine design would be intolerable. It also does not run on the Otto cycle. Much cleaner, more efficient. Hi rpm, low vibration, obviously:
How much usable horsepower do you get from an engine like that? I mean could an engine like that in your typical sedan actually hold its own on the Highway or is it better suited for a range extender on an EV?
Based on your posts and your fandom, I'm sure I've seen much more of the real world than yourself. And I understand it, too, as I actually pay attention to science (and studied it for 8 years)
Good for you, being so sure of yourself. I'll bet you've written many such ego stroking posts since joining here. Maybe a few hundred more and you'll be completely over yourself.
Honestly, its just because your avatar annoys me. Sanders is one of the biggest hypocrites in the Senate (A socialist with three houses, each worth more than $500k). That, and I get tired of hearing about how conservatives are supposedly ignorant about science, yet liberal posters tend to be pretty ignorant about it.
Hard to say since it appears not enough have been built and independently tested to verify either Bourke's claims or those of his detractors. (<link) That said, I think any carbon fuel consuming motor would be "better suited for a range extender on an EV" since EVs are clearly superior in all practical respects. I have no doubt that a conventional IC motor produces significantly more on-demand HP at significant cost in terms of efficiency and emissions. No drag racer is apt to install a Bouke engine, iow. It would be superior to conventional for fixed applications, especially steady state, but I suspect it could have easily proven competitive with say the old air cooled Volkswagen Beetle engine all these years, given half a chance.
First, he's a democratic socialist, not simply a socialist. Big difference. Far as his actions belying his espoused beliefs, few politicians have ever proven more reliable and consistent. He's always walked what he's talked. That's why Vermont Republicans have supported him for decades now. Let's say you're correct about "three houses, each worth more than $500k." I understand one is his actual home in Vermont. Another is in or near D.C. because he and his family spend so much time there due to his (their?) work. It would be stupid to rent under such circumstances and I think that one's actually a condo so, >$500K is no surprise. The last is for their retirement (think they've earned one yet?) and is, no doubt, still vastly owned by a bank, and likely will remain so until they sell the other two and move there. Knowing them, I doubt that will ever happen. I suspect they were pressured into putting a down payment on the place by friends, associates, and their kids, but vacation and retirement have not been what they do. In a broader sense, home ownership is what practically everyone strives for in this country because the tax incentives have historically made it stupid not to. However, I'd agree if you said that extending the mortgage deduction to a second home is elitist crap that now serves to divide the Have Nots from the Have Too Muchs like nothing else. On the other hand, when and where have Republicans or the "conservatives" ever complained about that? Never and nowhere. It's exactly like bitching about Obamacare now as if Republicans hadn't created it all in the first place. Nonsense.
You need to read more about the engine. Generally horizontally opposed engines ree very well. The engine is smaller per CC because it has less parts including moving ones. It's more the weight of the pistons and rods than the crank which can be balanced relatively easily.
Could be twice as large with two larger pistons or four. Could use one or two small turbochargers or a SC. Of a combo like on an old fashion aircraft. You could put them on two or four wheels although much more complicated. I'd say as a range extender would be best. The smaller size and less need for moving parts and simpler exhaust system make it great for that. Newer battery technology is making pure conventional fuel based engines a dying breed. Even race cars will eventually give way. Besides we all like instant full on torque on demand.
Getting the 'water' to go down and naturally 'turn thing' is easy with suction. getting it back up there would be as easy as using a mechanism like the car ventilation or cooling things for the passengers.
The problem is that it takes more energy (with frictional losses in the cycle) to bring the water back up than you would get out of the water going down.
Perpetual motion again. With friction (friction of the water flowing through the pipes, friction of the water molecules rubbing against each other, etc) the system loses energy. This is just one of the many reasons that such a system can not work. It can not exist because the universe itself prevents it through the laws of thermodynamics. Even if you could produce a frictionless system you run into a problem. A perpetual motion system has a finite amount of energy. Even if it were possible (it ain't but let's pretend), the energy that the system generates goes right back in to resetting the system. That's the perpetual motion cycle...a closed loop. Once you hook something else to the system to make use of the energy...that device is taking away energy from the system. Now since the system can not generate more energy than the system has...remember that energy can not be created nor destroyed, just converted from one form to another...the device attached to the system will use the energy and eventually drain it beyond the point where the perpetual motion cycle collapses.
