Moller invents compound rotary engine.
Grab our Forum Feed

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 4 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 35

Thread: Moller invents compound rotary engine.

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Indian Harbour Beach, FL
    Posts
    4,085

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    If I was trying to build a flying car, I certainly would'nt use internal combustion engines to drive the fans, I'd use turbines.
    I saw the drawings on the link provided, but these were only external diagrams.
    Also, Moller claims numerous patents on this engine, but does'nt provide the patent #'s.
    Turbines are very powerful and efficient, but they are also very large and heavy. If you are making a small vehicle, turbines' size and weight may be prohibitive.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    548

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    If I was trying to build a flying car, I certainly would'nt use internal combustion engines to drive the fans, I'd use turbines.
    I saw the drawings on the link provided, but these were only external diagrams.
    Also, Moller claims numerous patents on this engine, but does'nt provide the patent #'s.
    A simple patent search about Moller came up with:

    US Patent 6325603 - Charged cooled rotary engine
    http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6325603.html

    European Patent
    http://www.freepatentsonline.com/EP1040259.html

    Australian Patent
    http://sec.edgar-online.com/2003/10/.../Section25.asp

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Indian Harbour Beach, FL
    Posts
    4,085

    Default

    Here is an SEC filing that lists all their patents, including the latest:

    Link

  4.  

    Advertisement

  5. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Indian Harbour Beach, FL
    Posts
    4,085

    Default

    Here are three more patent applications:

    Link

  6. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Indian Harbour Beach, FL
    Posts
    4,085

    Default

    I found this snippet in Moller's April 2008 Letter from the President:

    "The Rotapower gen-set is unique in its ability to address the plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) car market and both Moller International and Freedom Motors have been approached by hybrid car manufacturers and are participating in plans to put the Rotapower engine into volume production in a number of countries. I will have far more to say about this in my next newsletter."

    If Moller was already talking to hybrid vehicle makers, then I am sure their compound rotary engine will be an instant success, as it is more powerful, 12 dB quieter, greatly reduced exhaust heat and greatly reduced emissions.

  7. #16

    Default

    Wankel rotary engines have always been and will always be more inefficient than it's pistoned conterparts, just from it's fundamental design. It makes good power at a light weight, but consumes a lot of fuel to do so, and pollutes pretty badly. And i would be wary of Mollers design: Wankel rotaries historically have had problems when it comes to dealing with forced induction. My RX7 did. As did a lot of the turbo rotaries. And I'd be a little apprehensive about not having to oil the rotor housings...

    IMO, if you want a very efficient conststant speed engine for the PEEV's, a small displacement (perhaps, 0.5, 0.75L?) two-cylinder two stroke diesel would be the best way to go.

  8. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Coral Gables, FL
    Posts
    1,257

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steel View Post
    Wankel rotary engines have always been and will always be more inefficient than it's pistoned conterparts, just from it's fundamental design. It makes good power at a light weight, but consumes a lot of fuel to do so, and pollutes pretty badly. And i would be wary of Mollers design: Wankel rotaries historically have had problems when it comes to dealing with forced induction. My RX7 did. As did a lot of the turbo rotaries. And I'd be a little apprehensive about not having to oil the rotor housings...

    IMO, if you want a very efficient conststant speed engine for the PEEV's, a small displacement (perhaps, 0.5, 0.75L?) two-cylinder two stroke diesel would be the best way to go.
    I understand the rotary inefficiencies to be centered around high power and varying power demands. I believe an "oversized" Wankel run at a constant, medium load is very efficient on will be much less troublesome too. They also have an advantage in being flex-fuel capable, too. While deisel isn't a bad idea, it is heavier, larger, and more expensive in volume compared to rotary. Size, efficiency, and cost are the 3 most important parameters for an EREV.

  9. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Coral Gables, FL
    Posts
    1,257

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jason M. Hendler View Post
    If Moller was already talking to hybrid vehicle makers, then I am sure their compound rotary engine will be an instant success, as it is more powerful, 12 dB quieter, greatly reduced exhaust heat and greatly reduced emissions.

    Freedom motors has had hybrids shown on their website as one of their key potential markets for some time. Hopefully their newest engine is peforming as they say and they have done a good job marketing it to auto manufacturers. Time will tell, but I think could add a big boost to their Volt EREV powertrain performance with a purpose built engine. One of the elegant features of the EREV is that one size (of engine) fits many and 2 sizes could fit all.

  10. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Koz View Post
    I understand the rotary inefficiencies to be centered around high power and varying power demands. I believe an "oversized" Wankel run at a constant, medium load is very efficient on will be much less troublesome too. They also have an advantage in being flex-fuel capable, too. While deisel isn't a bad idea, it is heavier, larger, and more expensive in volume compared to rotary. Size, efficiency, and cost are the 3 most important parameters for an EREV.
    Well you're not going to win in efficiency contest with a rotary in comparison to a diesel. They will cost more because they just pop more easily from forced induction. You automatically negate the size comparison if you want to go to an "oversized" rotary in comparison to a sub 1 liter 2 cylinder diesel. When running an engine for constant speed power, it's most efficient at WOT at peak torque, so you would not want to run a larger rotary at medium load. Rotaries tend to make their best torque higher in the RPM range, so it will have to run faster, while a two stroke diesel, even smaller ones, tend to run more slowly which will give you the benefits of a quieter running engine, and longevity, as diesels are well known for already, and rotaries are...not.


    Rotaries are great little engines if you need lots of power (speed) in a small package, but they pale in comparison to even gasoline piston engines in longevity and efficiency.

  11.  

    Advertisement

  12. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    548

    Default

    Jet engines are a rotary type and most are a lot older than me and most are still fully operational. I have outlived the piston engines of all my previous gasoline vehicles. In terms of mileage, the piston engines pale in comparison to the mileage of a jet engine.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 4 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts