Slashdot Mirror
RX-8 Hydrogen RE a Dual Fuel Car
greekgod8591 writes "Japan's Mazda Motor Corp. said on Wednesday it will begin leasing a dual-fuel car that can run on both hydrogen and gasoline in the auto industry's latest effort to reduce oil consumption in vehicles. Mazda said the RX-8 Hydrogen RE, based on its popular RX-8 sports car, gets around these problems by running on gasoline in the absence of a hydrogen fuelling station, and using existing engine parts and production facilities to lower costs."
Now they're making a partially hydrogenated engine
Trans-fast?
Fuel me once, shame on me. Fuel me duel, won't get fueled again. Cool! I've always wanted to see two fuels duel!
I know nothing of planes, but Mazda has used the rotary before, most notably for the RX-7, the predecessor to the aforementioned RX-8.
Even if someone wanted to pay the $3400+ lease (not including local taxes, licenses, delivery, etc.) there are but a handful of places in North America where you could find a fill. Not that there's even a standard fueling nozzle, nor one proposed to ANSI at this point. You could buy land in Illinois, grow corn, distill your own alchohol and at least have a few places to not only fuel up but some cars that can actually use the fuel for that kind of money.
And so, this is Mazda's PR machine cooking up hope where it'll be a decade or more before consumers will see something tangible on this side of the Pacific. Must be a dull news day.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
You're wrong.
All of the RX- line are rotaries, IIRC.
The RX-7 was very popular for a time, competing with Nissan's Z series.
The two cars were styled similarly.
Technology tips and tricks.
You are thinking of radial engine not rotary, the rotary is properly known as a Wankel engine.
Rotaries (Wankels) get really poor fuel economy btw.
Mazda has been the main user of the rotary engine for the past decade or so. Both their RX-7 (which ended it's lifespan in 1995, IIRC) and the current RX-8 are rotary engine designs.
From the reading car enthusiast forums that I frequent, both are seen as great cars, but have their share of oil leaks. Additionally, it's rather difficult to find a mechanic that is willing to work on rotary engines, so most cars are maintained by shade-tree mechanics.
Specifically, it's a Wankel Rotary. Mazda has been using them since 1972 or 1973. They are completely different from the old rotary aircraft engines of World War I, where the crankshaft was bolted to the firewall and the rest of the engine spun around it.
"It can cruise for a maximum 62 miles on hydrogen and 549 km (341 miles) on gasoline..."
62 miles on hydrogen? I guess there isn't much room in an RX8 for hydrogen with a full tank of gas.
You may be thinking of a radial engine which was (and still is) used to many power prop driven aircraft. Mazda used to use rotary engines in the 70's, stopped for a while and re-introduced them in the RX-8. Mercedes tried them out too.
Mazda rotary car engines are different from Sopwith Camel rotary engines. The WWI rotaries were radial engines where the pistons rotated with the propellor instead of being fixed to the fuselage. A modern rotary (aka Wankel) engine uses a triangular thing spinning inside a roughly circular hole, with the exploding fuel/air mixture in the gaps. It shouldn't be too hard to find an animation of it.
Some aircraft do use Wankel engines. I believe most of these are modified Mazda RX-7 ones.
In short any Mazda with R in the designation has a rotory engine - for the last 20+ years this has been the RXn series of sports cars although there have been saloons in the 1970s IIRC.
One line description: smooth, quiet, one moving part but thirsty...
What are you listening to? (http://megamanic.blogetery.com/)
Rotary piston engines were standard on WW2 and WW1 era aircraft, among many others. They were not the least bit unique at the time. The vast majority of piston aircraft today use inline designs though.
Mazda has been using rotary engines for years, but only in the RX-8 (isn't that what it stands for? Rotary eXpirament 8?). They are a very interesting idea, and it's too bad we don't see more of them.
I have to wonder if the car has any other interesting features, like a Continuously Variable Transmission. It is probably just a stock RX-8 modified to use the Hydrogen, so it probably has the same kind of transmission.
If you read the article, it says that it can travel only about 60 miles on Hydrogen, but something much bigger (240?) on Gasoline. I guess the storage tank is either small, or not under huge pressure. What ever happened to those "hydrogen pellets" that were announced last year?
Still, this is how we will have to go over to Hydrogen cars. Just like this is how we will have to move to electric cars. You'll have to give them the ability to run on both Gas and Fuel-X until the stations are prevalent enough. The article says there are only 12 government owned Hydrogen stations in Japan (it doesn't mention how many private stations, but it gives the implication that there aren't any).
I wonder if they plan to move into production of these if they don't find any problems (this is a test car, that they are leasing out to a fuel company for $3500 a month). I'd love to know more about it, like how the hydrogen part works. It looks like they burn it (because of a comparison to fuel cells) but I'm not sure.
Quick question too. I mentioned that I think these dual fuel cars are the way to transition to the future. I'm not old enough to remember the switch to unleaded gas here in the US. I know that was federally mandated (which does tend to speed things along), but were any cars ever mass produced that would run on either leaded or unleaded fuel?
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
You can really save money driving this thing. With it's 62 mile hydrogen range and its lease price of $3577 per month I figure I could hire a chauffeur with the money I save. Sign me up.
99% of people who buy a RX-8 buy the car for its speed (and look), not gas consumption rates.
A weird choice to become dual fuel car.
I think it was 600K though. Got half the gas milage and half the power, but when you start out with 400+ horsepower in the BMW, half seems good to me.
I ran an RX8 (hi-powered, UK) for two years, 30,000 miles. It drinks like a fish.
Hydrogen , whilst its a nice step forward isnt going to help much overall, and 62miles is ok if you live very close to where you fill up. As for 340miles out of the gas tank, forget it, most mine did was 275, typicaly 200-220.
Stunning cars though, balance, power and practicality, tho the Hydrogen cycle runs at 50% power and thats with a turbo.
mazda have had a demo/development duel fuel RX8 for a number of years.
I imagine to use hydrogen, that Mazda must have solved the sealing problems in the engine. They first dropped the rotary because of it's poor mileage and leaky rotor seals. I know a number of RX-3s and 4s had horrible problems with their rotor seals. It looks like they corrected that enough for the RX-8 (the 7 had problems too) to be an efficient gasoline engine. Hydrogen seems dicier to me in the regard of sealing. If they haven't corrected the problem enough to do hydrogen over the long term, this will be a flop.
Mazda is most definitely not the "world's only maker of rotary engines."
Maybe the only rotary engines for mass produced cars, but definitely not the only mfg.
Off the top of my head, Rotax is a really big name in rotary engines today. They are used in everything from snowmobiles to ultra-light planes. People use Rotax engines on dune buggies, go-karts, & other light vehicles. Aprila (high end motorcycle mfg) also uses Rotax engines.
Rotary power is still alive and well in the world, even if Mazda dissappears.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
...on the RX-series as well as the wankel-style rotary engine check out the following:
http://rx7club.com/
http://fc3s.org/
http://www.mazdatrix.com/
http://rx7.org/
and if you live in or near Ohio:
http://www.ohiorotaries.com/
These are some of the better sites/forums maintained and populated with rotorheads.
Its a two way exchange too, if you know anything about multi-fuel or new fuel vehicles we would like to hear from you as well.
Fortunately, not much goes wrong with wankel engines. Very few moving parts. Biggest problem is the seals wearing out, iirc, but the rx-7 i had in the 80s ran over 100k miles without any engine work, and didn't leak oil noticibly between oil changes, either.
XML causes global warming.
Especially when bio-diesel is the one true alternative for internal combustion.
"Quick question too. I mentioned that I think these dual fuel cars are the way to transition to the future. I'm not old enough to remember the switch to unleaded gas here in the US. I know that was federally mandated (which does tend to speed things along), but were any cars ever mass produced that would run on either leaded or unleaded fuel?"
That's a good question, and a good point as well. I think people like Cheney would rather people forget that a fuel switch was undertaken in the past, and can be again with something as simple as a new law for incentive.
I barely remember leaded gasoline being sold, but I think unleaded engines couldn't use the leaded gas, but old engines could run on unleaded. Again, correct me if I've remembered incorrectly.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
I owned an RX-7 which was rotary. There are some advantages, they red-lined at a very high RPM. They didn't live up to the mileage predictions but they are fairly low maintainence. The engine seal was the one issue and I did have that go out. Very smooth running. I was sad to hear they droped them and glad to hear the RX-8 brought them back.
You misspelled radial
Lead additives were used to boost the octane rating of the gasoline. Unleaded gas had to find other means. Your engine today would have no problem running leaded gas, its the catalytic converter that clogs up and causes problems. That's downstream on the exhaust, though, not on the engine itself. So yes, even now, any engine could run on leaded gasoline. You'd just have to replace the cat frequently or not use one at all. On many modern engine designs, they run clean enough to pass emissions w/o a cat. It's as they start aging that you need one for emissions, but im off on a tangent now. In fact, off-road use leaded gas is still sold at racetracks/dragstrips.
I much prefer the RX-7 to the RX-8 :P
Rotax does not make rotary engines.
Throw the bums out!
Some posters seem to be confusing radial piston engines with rotary engines. While radial engines were common on many piston aircraft (some of which are still around), the pistons themselves still moved in a back and forth motion within the cylinders. In a rotary engine, specifically the Wankel used in the Mazda, the "pistons" are roughly triangular in shape and rotate (not oscillate) within an oval housing (the "cylinder" equivalent). The varying shape and volume of the space between the triangular center piece and the oval housing provides the compression and expansion provided by the oscillation of the piston in the cylinder of a more conventional engine.
Radial engines were so designed to provide adequate cooling airflow to all the cylinders, since all cylinders were at the front of the engine (or for some engines, in the space between two cylinders in front). Aircraft engines are usually air-cooled, for a variety of reasons (weight, reliability, etc).
As far as WW1 or WW2 engines, the required machining precision and seals technology to make something like a Wankel rotary was just not available. Cylindrical pistons and bores with circular seals are much simpler.
-- Alastair
... and 341 miles on gasoline. Wow! I can see why everyone is on the edge of their seats waiting for hydrogen cars!
Can anyone give me a link to some technology on the horizon that shows that hydrogen is really an alternative to gasoline? How is the energy density problem going to be solved for hydrogen?
In the mean time, hydrocarbons are going to be the primary solution to propelling cars.
No, the sopwith camel, and many other airplanes of the
WWI era used an engine called a rotary engine. It is
not the same as the rotary used in this car, nor is it
quite the same as a radial aircraft engine, although
the differences where not all that large. The aircraft
rotary fastened the crankshaft to the aircraft, and the
propeller directly to the engine ( the propeller spun
with the engine ). In the radial, the cylinders stayed
still and the crankshaft rotated within, with the propeller
attached to it.
Why, you ask? With the engine in constant motion, cooling
was not as large a problem. Might have been some manufacturing
issues as well.
emt 377 emt 4
I think unleaded engines couldn't use the leaded gas, but old engines could run on unleaded.
If my motorcycle didn't have a catalytic converter on it, it could run on leaded fuel alright. Apparently the lead can mess up the cat, causing it to overheat/melt/block the flow of exhaust gases (and, presumably, melt other things).
I'm pretty sure that older cars, designed to burn "leaded fuel" would just ADD lead afterwards, if needed. I've seen 'lead additive' used quite a bit in big, old boats. Leaded gas "paved the way for the development of the high-power, high-compression internal combustion engines that were to win World War II and dominate the U.S. automotive industry until the early 1970s."link
Aircraft rotary != aircraft radial != Wankel rotary.
See other posts ( one by me, in fact ) explaining.
emt 377 emt 4
That's one of the huge cases for them; no valves, valve springs, cam shafts, pistons or rods to deal with. They are commonly used in planes due to their small size and light weight per horsepower they can produce. Specifically, my RX-7 runs 400 horsepower out of a 2 rotor 1.1 liter 350lb engine... Granted it's race only, because the intake ports are huge; it doesn't start making power until around 9000 RPM, but maintains it until around 14,000 RPM. (That's the other thing; since the rotors themselves are only spinning at 1/3 rotation per crank rotation, you can get them to rev all to high hell.) Their negatives are that they tend towards low gas milage, because of the long narrow combustion chamber (hence why then generally run with two spark plugs per rotor).
They don't leak oil, as such, they consume it. The design of the engine requires that oil be injected into the combustion chamber to lubricate the apex seals. Of course, the net effect to the owner is the same - you have to keep an eye on your oil level, but the consumption is really pretty slight in the RX-8 engine - I check my oil every 1,000-1,500 miles and need to top off about half of those times. After 26,000 miles, I've added a total of less than 2 quarts between scheduled oil changes.
...I think unleaded engines couldn't use the leaded gas, but old engines could run on unleaded.
You have it reversed. Older engines needed the lead to lubricate the intake and exhaust valves. Running unleaded would cause the valves to erode much more quickly. Running leaded gas in the new engines would (in addition to fouling up the catalytic converter) normally just clog the spark plugs with globs of lead. I personally think hydrogen is dumb when bio-diesel is much easier to produce, store, distribute, and it ddoesn't take too much re-tooling to manufacture the powerplants.
http://www.rotamax.net/
:o\
Maybe that's the people I was thinking of.
or the RotaPower engine.
I coulda sworn Rotax made rotary engines though. I pulled all that stuff from Wikipedia
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
This is similar to a propane, natural gas, or butane conversion, all of which have been available for years.
If by 'Stopped for a while' You mean paused for a few months (whist refitting the factory) between the end of the RX7 (August 2002) and start of the RX8 production(1st on street March 2003) I think you'd be right...
Indeed... in my experience the biggest problems with rotary engines were as follows:
Mazada used a couple of rotary engines in the 1980's and 1990's in cars. Despite the more efficient design, the rotary engine just didn't have the engineering history behind it that the gas engine had, so it tended to be somewhat weak, loud, and sluggish. Mazada has in the past few years started working on the engine again, and it is currently in a couple of sports cars that Mazada sells.
Whenever there is an artical posted about any type of alternative energy there are about 400 trolls complaining that X energy isn't a good enough and that it is a complete waste of time and money to even try.
Here's the thing, if someone doesn't start the ball rolling it never will start, so its great that Mazda has done this, perhaps it will be a failure, perhaps it will do better then they expected but mainly this is planting seeds.
The first company to bring out competitive alternative energy cars is going to be in an excellent market position, the only way to do this is to actually start bringing out the cars once they see what works and what doesn't they will be miles ahead of the competition.
The RX7 was produced and sold up until late 2002 in Japan, they withdrew it from sale inthe US and Europe in the mid 90's.
That's a good point. What I want to know is, why can't they embed some kind of water electrolysis system in the car. That way, if you need to refill on hyodrogen, just pour some water into a compartment, plug the car in, buy electricity, and the the car would collect the hydrogen for use as fuel. Since it draws its power ultimately from electricity, anything that can make electricity can fuel it.
What's wrong with this idea, and why aren't they doing it now?
Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
Rotary Engines are also commonly used in Ski-Do Snowmobliles. they auctually deliver performance on par with engines of similar displacements.
I think that cars like these will be essential in the gas-to-hydrogen transition. I don't think people will buy hydrogen cars if they can't fill up anywhere, and no gas station will offer hydrogen if no one will buy it.
A hydrogen/gas hybrid will definitely help that transition.
I'd call that leet, if that isn't anacronistic for WWII technology.
A second advantage is that it saves the weight of a seperate flywheel (or a unnecesarily heavy prop), because an entier engine should be heavy enough for anyone!
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
I thought all of the RX-7's produced throughout the 80's and 90's were rotary.
IIRC,range is approx 60 miles on hydrogen. What next? Rubber band engines?
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Yes, but it had it's drawbacks. Aside from the obvious technical issues with the entire engine spinning, there were practical issues also.
Just imagine the torque roll problem. Throttle response issues. Gyroscopic effect. Bearing loads.
The radial was a much better design. The two stroke radials (even number of cylinders) seem even better still...
GrpA
Enjoy science fiction? "Turing Evolved" - AI, Mecha, Androids and rail-gun battles. What more could you want?
Hmm 24/26mpg combined for the normal car. Nice. In fact, I drove an RX8 with a friend at a dealer and we decided he shouldn't buy one because the comparitively mediocre performance wasn't worth the fuel bills!
Yep, excellent proof of concept, but they'd do _so_ much better for the environment by improving the economy of the normal car :)
Having said that, hydrogen RX8 would be pretty cool for town cruising...
"Stopped for a while" means they stopped selling it in the U.S. although the RX7 was sold in Japan until 2002.
I know this, I said he (the parent) may be thinking of a radial engine. I do know the difference between a pratt and whitney wasp and a rotary engine.
Makes perfect sense. I was basing my response off of the owner's manual stating that every time you fill the gas tank, you should check the oil. Your explanation makes perfect sense, as the rotary design would be more prone to consuming the oil in the combustion process.
I can't speak about production for the rest of the world, but in north america, there was a big gap between the RX-4 (which went like stink) and the RX-7, and then a long gap (mid-ninties to a couple of years ago) between the RX-7 and RX-8.
The Sopwith's engine wasn't a rotary engine like a wankel (which uses a rotor, not pistons), but it was called a radial rotary engine because the crankshaft was in fact fixed, and the cylinders, pistons, heads, manifolds, propeller--everything rotated around the crankshaft. As a matter of fact, the propeller was mounted to the engine itself!
In effect, the rest of the engine became the flywheel. Because it didn't need an external flywheel, these engines had better power to weight ratios, which is obviously very important in WWI biplanes. There was also a French airplane, which, IIRC made dual use of the crankshaft as a gun barrel... So bullets fired straight through the center of the engine, and the barrel was very effectively oil cooled if you can imagine!
They're wrong, however, saying that Mazda makes the only Wankel engine, because of course, Moller international also makes them, and they're going to be used in their much anticipated VTOL Skycar.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
Apart from that and the one time the throttle got stuck wide open on a downhill, I really did like that car though. Had a nice amount of pickup and was a lot of fun to drive.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
There are already a lot of duel fuel propane/LNG/gasoline trucks out there. Most of the places I've seen them though only fill them up with gasoline. Also, the tank for the LNG fills up about a quarter of the truck bed in the back. Same problem, although worse with hydrogen. Since hydrogen naturally doesn't have as much energy densities at similar pressure you have two choices: Make the tank even bigger, or compress the gas to a ridiculusly high pressure. Both choices have their own associated problems.
Thousands of companies do it, and thousand of larger companies will lease thousands of cars (I'd hate to think how many my employer has in the fleet). There are tax incentives for doing so.
With specialty items like this leasing is a great way to get real world testing done and give people a taste of the vehicle, leasing also guarentees they get their shit back.
If GM's Australian arm (Holden) or the local Ford mob could put together a similar vehicle and release it in small numbers, leased to the public I'd love to put my hand up for one.
The radial had many many advantages, and that is why it "won".
But it was a harder technical problem to solve.
And what throttle? IIRC, those engines where "on" with a "cut"
switch. Hence the characteristic noise they made.
Wasnt arguing any superiourity for the design,
just that is what they were using in those days. And yes, the
torque was a big issue. IIRC turns to the right were easy
and quick. Left was a bit more work. Tactically, that meant
that you could predict which direction an enemy plane would
"break" to.
But why would a two stroke radial have to have an even number
of cylinders?
emt 377 emt 4
I've already had a RX-7 powered by hydrogen. The hydrogen was conveniently stored in "gasoline" molecules that I readily purchased at a "gas station".
I wonder when people will realize that hydrogen is merely an energy currency?
Do they realize that electricity (a.k.a. Fossil Fuels) must still be used to break apart the water?
Do they further realize that any compressed gas is a pain to transfer anywhere?
When will people realize that ethanol, until it can be produced in extremely massive quantities (30 gallons per vehicle per week, minimum ), is merely a short-term solution to a long-term problem?
Why are people nowdays programmed to think just like the media wants them to think?
-Chubbz
Charming man. I wish I had a daughter so I could forbid her to marry one. -Arthur Dent
For those who aren't in the know, Mazda is a division of Ford. Many of the cars use the same components and sometimes they are the same cars with different model names. People looking for a "japanese" car often buy Mazda not knowing they are buying a Ford. Go to the mazda site and compare some of the models to the ford site, the resemblance is uncanny ;)
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
The sopwith camel used an engine that was roughly similar to a
radial engine, the differences being that the whole engine turned,
and the crankshaft was held fixed. That engine being called a
rotary. Different from the Wankel rotary engine.
A link
is worth a thousand words.
Apologies if you already knew this, but I cant
infer this from your post.
emt 377 emt 4
It seems that to the average consumer, driving an environmentally friendly car means you have to compromise on size and/or speed and/or fun. This shows the opposite.
Now if we can only get better battery technology, because tricked out electric vehicles can kick ricers asses all day. You just have much more torque with an electric motor than with an ICU.
Those stating that the RX-8 is the first car in several decades to use the rotary engine need to get their facts checked.
All of the RX-n series have used Rotary/Wankel engines, as did the Mazda Cosmos, which used a 2 Litre 3-rotor 20B engine.
And the RX in RX-8 does not stand for "Rotary eXpirament"
Hydrogen power pretty much is a waste of time and money because you lose net energy making it - that is, it costs more energy to make than you get from burning it. This is always going to be the case, whether the technology improves or not, and whether the infrastructure and the vehicles are there or not. If you were getting your energy from oil, and it you had to expend two barrels of oil for each barrel you extracted, you wouldn't bother, regardless of the market price of oil. (This will happen one day.) Hydrogen is good at carrying energy, but this energy is provided by existing fuel sources, mainly by electricity or biomass.
The "400 trolls" that complain about it because the general public thinks that advances in alternative energy sources are going to solve everyone's problems. Alternative energy is absolutely going to replace fossil fuel - it has to, because fossil fuel sources are, practically, going to run out one day - but the energy simply is not going to be there in the quantities we have now. The lifestyle we have in the western world, in everything from our homes to our workplaces to our neighbourhoods to our recreation, is very energy-intensive, and without the abundance of energy that we've had since the Industrial Revolution, that lifestyle cannot be sustained. Hydrogen doesn't solve this and it never will.
Alternative energy isn't inherently stupid. Solar power isn't stupid. Growing crops for alcohol fuel or biodiesel isn't stupid. Even hydrogen might not be entirely stupid: we may be able to furnish some transport with electric motors or fuel cells charged by solar power. The problem is that people take their lifestyles for granted - as if because, notwithstanding some superficial changes, the technology has always been there, and always will be there, making their lives better. Eventually, these people are going to find out how delusional this really is.
Attack its weak point for massive damage!
Weak, loud, and sluggish? I had an RX-7 Turbo in the early 90s, and I can assure you it was the opposite of all of those things.
The "rotary" you are thinking about in regards to Rotax is the rotary valve 2 stroke. They are common in aircraft and nowadays in snowmobiles. They were also used in bombardier dirtbikes during the 70s and 80s.
I'm surprised that the Renesis redlines at 9500. I had an RX-3 ('74, I think) fitted out with a 13B engine, and the redline was 11K. I can't imagine that transmission was sturdier than the new RX-8 tranny (I think my RX-3's was stock)...
How seriously has the torque been bolloxed up in the RX-8? My RX-3 felt like a motorcycle at times, and that with stock porting!
The rotax engines (914, for example) are closer in design to the old VW bug engines. 1.2L 4Cyl opposed-piston, single centre camshaft, 4 stroke, but water-cooled, fuel injected, electronic ignition, and turbocharged.
I'd contest the few moving parts bit, but are the oil leaks a result of the engine design (ie: a problem with rotary engines) or a problem with Mazda's implementation?
Alcohol engines are a better solution in the short term. Everyone assumes that the hydrogen is going to be produced by electricity but that simply isn't true. Most hydrogen is extracted from fossil fuels, I believe primarily natural gas at the moment. The reason for the big push on hydrogen is Bush is trying to lock us into a oil based hydrogen economy. Most of the investment is in a petroleum/hydrogen based infastructure to make sure we are still oil dependent. Alcohol can run existing cars with minor modifications. It doesn't require the storage systems or distribution systems hydrogen does and can get similar mileage to gasoline, not as much but far better than hydrogen. As for the extra carbon it's carbon active within the environment so it's a wash and doesn't add to the overall carbon. All petroleum products add carbon that has been stored. Alcohol can potentially be extracted from farm waste, plant stalks and such. At worst it comes from corn and the like, even plants like Agave. It'll probably never be a 100% solution but can help as a transitional fuel. An ideal combination would but alcohol hybrides that can be wall recharged and have limited solar cells for helping to top the car when sitting in an outdoor parking space. Given the fact if you were primarily commuting you'd only have to fill it a few times a year the savings would be huge even if alcohol ran 2X what current gas prices are. That's based on the results an engineer got when he simply added more batteries to his hybrid and charged it from the wall at night. The recharging was cheap and he was getting over 200 miles on a tank since he rarely went off batteries. Adding minimal solar cells would drastically reduce gas useage even if it just added 10% to the range. The extra batteries only added a few grand to the cost which would be quickly paid back in savings. Solar cells would add a few grand more but would reduce the alcohol engine to an emergency back. It would only be needed on long hauls and during bad weather.
But could you hold the carbon on that?
Ethanol is cheaper on price if you make it yourself or in very close by regional co-ops.. Indisputable. It becomes more expensive than gasoline once you have to start subsidising another huge flock of managers, sales people, secretaries,lobbyists, accountants, maintenance workers, CEOs, VPs, new shiny buildings, "stockholders" and their skimming proxies, transportation workers, "gas stations",etc in some "industry" where they can keep the profits and control centralized. Made at home hooch is just *not* that hard or expensive, it's been done all over the planet for centuries at any level of mass quantities required using a pretty wide and varied "raw stock" input..The basic technique is just drop down simple, what you can make it out of is incredible. The mammoth centralized power industry doesn't want it to happen PRECISELY because it is so easy and cheap. Your other two points are valid, but pricing nowadays is POLITICAL because the entrenched energy industries control the political process. They've been fighting ethanol since day one, same as the centralized electric grid monopolists have been fighting solar PV. They never want "consumers" to be able to control their own means of production of anything, they STOP being consumers then,ergo, no profits for the established rich guys. This is why they are pushing hydrogen so hard, they can maintain control over the serfs and their wallets much easier.. The fatcats want to keep it that way, too. Ethanol is happening despite that, because it's becoming harder for them to maintain the FUD, and the political realities of relying on a petroleum based economy are really sinking in when you got big ole huge wars over it. No one is going to go to war over a dirt farm that can grow some crops, but LOOK, plenty of wars and conflicts over oil from the ground. What's the REAL cost of gasoline and crude oil again? hint: not all at the pump price.
People leasing this car, does it because of the bragging right.
Rotax may have at some point or another in their 80+ year history built a rotary engine (none come to mind, but I could be wrong), they however do not build any currently.
As an owner of two Aprilia (a 2001 RSV Mille and a 1999 RS250), I can tell you the Rotax built V990 (998cc 60deg V-Twin) in my RSV is not a Rotary engine. RS250 doesn't matter as it uses a Suzuki VJ22 (250cc 90deg two-stroke V-Twin) engine.
That said there are motorcycle that were built using rotary engines.
Weak and sluggish could be applied to the NA versions, if you're used to the torque curve of a larger engine. The wankels need some revving to get in to the power, so until one gets used to that it could feel slow compared to a traditional V8 sports car.
As for loud, well that varies based on your exhaust and again if there's a turbo. Personally I love the sound of a wankel, so I wouldn't complain about them being loud, but I'm sure some would find them annoying.
I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
they were as well as the R100 RX-2 RX-3... REPU, COSMO so on and so forth.
The Kubara concept seems to signal that Mazda is preparing to make a compact RWD sportscar.
Hi all,
I am not a mechanical engineer, so pardon my ignorance.
My question is as follows -
Why do we have fuel consumption this high in vehicles?
That too when the vehicles are benchmarked on level roads.
I was thinking that only energy that is needed to keep the vehicle in motion is the energy to overcome rolling friction + drag.
(+ all the losses inside the moving parts of the vehicle, which I think can be minimised)
In this case why is the fuel consumption this high in vehicles?
Any further energy needed (to go up a slope for ex), can be reused from earlier (before that it could have gone down a slope, so that energy stored is used) energies (since on an average all + and - tends to cancel out).
I know that this would have been thought out much much earlier by engineers, but I just wanted to know.
Regards
lol
Rotary engines were not used on WW1 era aircraft. These were *radial* engines, with a set of cylinders in a circular arrangement.
The rotary has some big benefits and some notable acheivements:
Power-to-weight ratio is excellent. Minimal moving parts, no valve train and short eccentric shafts mean that vibration is very low, and this enables rotaries to rev very smoothly and at relatively high RPM (10,000+ RPM on a normally aspirated rotary in street trim is not difficult). Hot, high velocity exhausts make turbocharged rotaries capable of very high power levels.
The Mazda rotary has seen enormous success on the racetrack - Mazda is the only japanese manufacturer to win Le Mans, and the RX-7 has been extremely successful - winning more races outright than any other model in major US racing classes.
A 1.3L rotary engine is easily capable of producing 500bhp with a good turbocharger and fuelling setup, and the most powerful 13Bs used in drag racers produce up to 1000bhp in the extreme (it is true that a 1000bhp 13B will not last long).
the 2 litre (20B) engine was the torquiest production engine in a japanese car while the JC Cosmo was being made, and the boosted 20B in the worlds fastest rotary does the quarter mile in 6.9 seconds/202 mph with something approaching 1000 bhp.
The engine that powered the Le-Mans winning 787B in 1991 used a 2.6l 4-rotor normally aspirated engine with ceramic coatings, which produced about 700bhp, exhibited an almost perfectly flat power delivery curve over the entire race, and when disassembled at the end of the 24 hour race, showed practically no wear whatsoever.
Not only does the rotary produce excellent power for it's weight and displacement, it is also very reliable on a racetrack, or as an airplane engine.
On the downside:
Unfortunately heat/cooling cycles are the rotary's worst enemy, as the engine is constructed of a 'sandwich' of different metals, which tend to expand and contract at different rates. This leads to failure of coolant seals (letting water leak into the engine) - analogous to head gasket failure.
Apex seal breakage is the other major failure mode of the rotary, often due to detonation, or oil starvation.
Both of the major failure modes necessitate removal and rebuild of the engine block, which is labour-intensive and expensive.
Fuel efficiency is very difficult to maintain over a wide rev-range because of the shape of the rotary's combustion chamber, which is long and narrow, meaning it is difficult to get a smooth flame front and complete combustion, something piston engines (due to their 'closer to spherical' combustion chambers) have a natural advantage in.
Ceramic coatings and side-port designs such as used in the Renesis keep heat in the charge and insulate engine parts better, which provides cleaner burns and smoother combustion.
The Renesis (1.3l 2-rotor RX-8 engine) can burn hydrogen because it's side-ported intakes and exhausts (as opposed to the peripheral exhaust ports in production cars and the peripheral intake + exhaust in race engines) enable a complete separation between the intake, combustion and exhaust chambers, equivalent to zero valve overlap in a piston engine, while retaining the ability to rev high and without majorly impacting on flow.
This is more or less impossible with a conventional 2 or 4-stroke piston engine - any piston engine running hydrogen either needs a totally different and switchable cam profile which produces anemic performance, or is built to run on dedicated hydrogen fuel and is still a pretty poor performer.
The Renesis is an outright better hydrogen hybrid engine than anything anybody at any other car manufacturer can come up with, despite their much longer histories and enormous research budgets.
You can only go 62 miles on a tank of hydrogen in an RX-8, but how far can you go running hydrogen in any other vehicle? Not very.
Many people trash the rotary out of ignorance, but the truth is that it is the
I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
Half the power with 18% of the range of the gas version. No thanks.
The big problem with hydrogen-fuelled vehicles is that 1) you need an all-new fuelling infrastructure and 2) the range of hydrogen-fuelled vehicles is still a bit on the short side. Fortunately, today's gasoline (petrol) and diesel engines can get improvements that could tremendously extend the usefulness well into the 21st Century.
Take for example the diesel engine. We all remember them as loudly clattering, smoky, smelly engines lacking in high-end power. However, thanks to the development of computer-controlled common-rail pressurized direct fuel injection and better exhaust emission controls, today's diesel engines have pretty much left their old reputations behind. If you've driven a Mercedes-Benz E320CDI you'll notice the surprising amount of acceleration power, just about no engine clattering, and the infamous diesel smoke is very rarely seen. With the arrival of low-sulfur diesel fuel in Summer 2006, the use of urea injection into the exhaust gas stream, and a new generation of diesel catalytic converters that double as diesel particulate traps, diesel engines in the near future can meet even the tough EPA/CARB regulations for such engines coming in the next few years. The best thing about diesel engines is that they offer 30-40% better fuel economy compared to equivalent gasoline engines, and because of their low torque peaks are well-suited for vehicles such as minivans, SUV's and pickup trucks. Also, modern diesel engines won't need much modification to run biodiesel fuel (and in fact the engine will actually run cleaner with biodiesel fuel since this fuel usually doesn't generate harmful diesel particulates).
As for gasoline engines, a promising new technology called homogeneous charge compression ignition promises 30-35% better fuel economy compared to today's engines, but without having to deal with the issues of diesel exhuast. Honda recently said they're almost ready to demonstrate an actual automobile engine with this new technology, and we might see Honda demonstrate such an engine within the next few months.
They may own ~30% of their stock, but the RX-8 parts list shows it's 99% parts made in Japan.
SearchIRC - Now with live chat directory!
Three moving parts (in a 2 rotor, the "standard" number for a rotary), 2 in a 1 rotor, 4 in a 3 rotor. You get the idea.
m
http://travel.howstuffworks.com/rotary-engine9.ht
No worries. I had actually forgot about that type of engine. I think Nieuport used them too. Funny to think that was almost 100 years ago. Actually I used to work with a Brit who had a Sopwith Camel back in Jolly Old.
It wasn't just Mazda and Mercedes. Everyone was looking into Wankels in the early 70's- in 1973 GM even had a concept that looked like a 4-rotor Corvette. Then the oil crisis hit, and the Wankel's lower than average mileage pretty much ended all experimentation with the design. Their emissions at the time were less than stellar as well. Mazda has continued development since, and they've made great strides in improving the mileage and emissions, but those problems are still associated with the design in the average Joe's mind (if they even know about it). It's a shame, because there are a lot of advantages to the design- less moving parts, less vibration and higher RPMs due to the lack of reciprocation. My dad tells me that when he was looking at RX-7's back in 79 when they first came out, the salesman made a demonstration of putting the car in neutral and flooring the engine for a couple minutes. Not something most people care to do with their piston engines...
Mine (1983 GSL) had a choke - I don't remember if I used it much. None of that other stuff, too. I had a problem with the radiator and some cosmetic stuff, but the engine was solid. Loved that car, maybe because it was my first. Sold it to a "friend" who never finished paying me. Bitch.
XML causes global warming.
Why do you want to contest the "fewer" moving parts bit? It's true. The oil leaks aren't bad, Mazda has had the problem solved for many years.
XML causes global warming.
Though it may be flawd, it may just also not be flawd.
Arbritary online sources do a better job of explaining than I do.
Google Search: Geet Engine"Geet.Geet."
-I sincearly hope this post does not read as some form of online spam or an advertisement of some sort, because I assure you that is not my intent.
Wake me up when I can lease an RX-78.
Mazda has been the main user of the rotary engine for the past decade or so. Both their RX-7 (which ended it's lifespan in 1995, IIRC) and the current RX-8 are rotary engine designs.
From the reading car enthusiast forums that I frequent, both are seen as great cars, but have their share of oil leaks. Additionally, it's rather difficult to find a mechanic that is willing to work on rotary engines, so most cars are maintained by shade-tree mechanics.
The Oil leaks are not leaks, the nature of the lubrication system of the rotary design intentionally burns a small amount of oil during operation as a part of the lubrication process. However it is only like a 1/2qt every 3000-4000 miles.
The older RX3 and RX5 vehicles made by Mazda in the 70s DID have oil leaks, but this was due to a faulty seal design that was overcome with the 12A Rotory engine introduced in the new 1979 RX7. The engine's size was increased and refined again in 1985 with the GXL-SE RX7, and this engine, the 13B, then became the standard engine of the new body style that ran from 1986.
Mazada redesigned the RX7 again in 1992, and it still holds as one of the top sports cars ever produced, with under 5sec 0-60sec times, over 1g skipad, etc. However the engine in the 1992 RX7 Was the same basic 13B engine introduced in 1985, but with an improved twin turbo system, giving this simple engine amazing horsepower and the lower end torque to move.
The RX8 is a new revision to the Rotary engine, giving it more horsepower without the need for turbo. (However if the earlier Twin-Turbo was added to this engine, it would be in the ranks of the fastest cars ever made, a decision I think Mazda skipped on due to the market of the RX8(too much power for the average buyer); however, rumors of it or a new RX7 with twin-turbo are going around.
As for working on the rotary engine, it is out of ingornance if mechanics won't work on them, they are a very simple design, much simplier than the more complex piston based combustion engine.
The biggest failure in RX7s were the transmissions, as the rotary engine normally runs at a higher RPM than other engines, as it just keeps spinning and doesn't have to reverse direction. So a 9K redline is nothing, in fact many street racers and modders in the late 80s early 90s used RX7s in racing because the standard engine could still perform reasonably well in the 15,000-18,000 rpm range, it was the transmission to hold up to this amount of speed and power that was the trick.
Rotary engines are quite interesting and surprising that they have not caught on more in the market. They can be more fuel efficient, and emmissions are often better as the engine does a more complete burn process of the fuel. They are also surpsingly small, and lightweight. An average person can lift the engine. Which is kind of cool seeing a tiny engine that back in 1992 and 1993 was basically a 2 cylinder engine and could out perform even the Corvette ZR1 at the time.
The light weight nature of the engine and lack of vibration were also benefits to the performance of the car, as the engine could be mounted futher back in the car giving the car a 50/50 weight distribution for great cornering, and unlike other cars in its class, no vibration problems that other companies like Nissan were plaqued with when they tried to compete with their 6cylinder engines of the time.
Another footnote on the Mazda/Rotary engine is that in the racing circuit, Mazda for years has used a 3cylinder version of the rotary engine in its racing cars, and unline competitors like GM/Corvette, Porche, Ferrari, etc - the Mazda team uses the SAME engine throughout the racing season because of its high durability, where the other competitors usually replace engines between each race.
I am somewhat of a car enthusiast, and have owned all 3 variations of the RX7. I actually miss them, they were fast, nimble cars that were easy to do things well in them.
In contrast to the Corvettes and other performance cars I ha
Your thinign of radial engines.
Radial engliens are very much like a normal inline engine or a V engine execpt the pistions are aranged in a circle insted of a line or a v.
So has anyone managed to solve this problem? Until it has been, I wont be driving any modified car to run it.
Hydrogen embrittlement is the process by which various metals, most importantly steel, become brittle and crack following exposure to hydrogen. It is not completely understood. Detection of hydrogen embrittlement in welds and fabricated parts is more difficult than detection of oxidative corrosion (rust).
The basic corrosion mechanism begins with hydrogen atoms diffusing through the metal as an interstitial. In steel (an alloy of iron and carbon)exposed to hydrogen at high temperatures, hydrogen will diffuse and combine with carbon to form tiny pockets of methane at internal surfaces like grain boudaries, voids etc.. This methane does not diffuse out of the metal, and collects in small voids on the grain boundaries at high pressure. These pockets then initiate cracks in the bulk material. This process is known as hydrogen attack and leads to decarburization of the steel and general loss in strength. Hydrogen embrittlement, on the other hand, is a room temperature phenomenon where hydrogen present inside the material makes it brittle. High-strength steels, aluminum and titanium alloys are most susceptible.
Hydrogen embrittlement can be facilitated during various manufacturing operations or operational use, anywhere where the material comes in contact with atomic or molecular hydrogen. Processes leading to this include cathodic protection (especially when not properly controlled), phosphating, pickling, and electroplating. A special case is arc welding, in which the hydrogen is released from moisture in the coating of the welding electrodes; to minimize this, special low-hydrogen electrodes must be used for welding high-strength steels. Another mechanism of introduction of hydrogen into metal is galvanic corrosion, chemical reactions of metal with acids, or with other chemicals (notably hydrogen sulfide in sulphide stress cracking, or SCC, a process of importance for the oil and gas industries).
If the metal has not yet started to crack, the condition can be reversed by removing the ambient hydrogen source to cause the hydrogen within the metal to diffuse out and restore ductility to the metal. Susceptible alloys after chemical or electrochemical treatments, where hydrogen is produced, are often subjected to baking heat treatment, in order to remove absorbed hydrogen.
Hydrogen cracking poses a difficult engineering problem especially in context of hydrogen economy.
Wikipedia.com
Life is not for the lazy.
RX-7 owner here. No, you're thinking of a radial engine. Those have pistons radiating from the crankshaft. Very common in aircraft designs. Mazda licensed and refined Dr. Wankel's design, which uses two sorta triangular-shaped rotors that both orbit and revolve inside an oval chamber that's a little pinched at the sides. Those turn the eccentric shaft, which then turns the transmission. There are no pistons, camshafts, valves, or anything else you're used to hearing about. Really only three moving parts, and because it doesn't reciprocate (think of the piston going back and forth, stopping at each end then going the other way) it'll turn a whole mess of revolutions and develops more and more power as it spins faster. Whoever said they were noisy and sluggish is dead wrong. Even at 120+ MPH (and believe me, I've run mine at 100+ for hours out on lonely desert roads) they're vibration-free and eerily quiet. A little slow off the line, but comes alive around 3000RPM. At freeway speeds, I regularly smoke Corvettes and Porsches. The other benefit is that they develop a lot of power in a small package. Because of this, Mazda put the rotary behind the front axle on the RX-7, making it a true mid-engine car with 50:50 weight distribution. Totally neutral handling and fantastic speed. If you ever want to know what a supercar is like on the cheap, buy one. Mine's been bulletproof, too. Just regular maintenance.
Then buy a normal car.
You forgot "sign up for the Army Reserves" and/or "watch as 10% of your income is taken by the government and used to keep oil flowing from the middle east."
And, then, what do I do in 10 years? Buy a car that runs on coal?
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Being from the midwest, I haven't seen leaded gas in ages. I was quite surprised in Seattle 1995 to attempt to fill up my rental car, only to find that the nozzle didn't fit. It turns out that they made nozzles for unleaded gas smaller so that you couldn't put the wrong stuff in.
Apparently old cars were still common enough on the West coast that they actually sold enough leaded gas to be profitable. Nowadays it's probably all gone, though.
dom
Another drawback to this design was no throttle. The engine was toggled on and off by a switch that grounded out the magneto. This is why you hear the off and on sounds in older movies when the planes are landing. the rotating engine did not provide for a mechanical linkage to the carberator, so the carb was set, and an electrical linkage would cut the ignition.
-William
God is everything science has yet to explain.
http://sopwith3.sourceforge.net/ a little offtopic, but this is the only Sopwith I've ever flown. It works on an 8086 too, the kind without a rotary engine, but you need a CGA card.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
I wasn't aware that it was possible to use a gasoline engine to burn hydrogen. In fact I am quite sure it isn't, still the RX8 is a brilliant piece of kit and I am glad to hear that Mazda aren't going down the Prius path like Toyota. The best way to see implementation of non-fossil fuel cars is to make them go reallyu fast and look damn sexy :)
Ben.
Because a Wankel Rotary Engine has no valves it makes an excellent hydrogen combustion engine. [The high temperature of hydrogen combustion tends to burn valves in piston engines.] The effect is improved by burning a mixture of hydrogen, air (oxygen), and aerosolized water. The high combustion temps vaporize the water, increasing the expansion pressure. [Note that a hydrogen combustion engine is different than a hydrogen fuel cell engine].
o ls/1tools/hydrogen.html
Wankel rotary engines are underutilized today because of the bad rep they got in the 70's. Their horsepower-to-weight ratio makes them an excellent performance engine for light vehicles (like the Rx7, portable generators, and airplanes). They tend to be weak on the torque side, however. [Performance piston engines often can built with 1-1 horsepower to torque ratios.]
The lightweight, simple, valve-less structure of rotary engines make them good candidates for alternative fuels. However, current rotary engine designs require injections of small amounts of oil to lubricate the apex seals. This oil is combusted with the fuel and expelled. [Typical oil consumption on a 13B engine is about 1/2 quart per 1500 miles.] Unfortunately, even when burning hydrogen, this tiny amount of burned hydrocarbons disqualifies the engine as a "zero emissions" vehicle - no research grants - no subsidies - no ZEV tax credits.
http://www.millville.org/Workshops_f/kess_mech/to
Your car should have used oil. It should have used between one and two quarts every 3000 miles. Mazda's RX (rotary experiment) cars use oil by design to keep the apex seals lubricated. The RX8 has oil injectors that squirt very small amounts of oil on the intake side (I think it's near the intake side). The older RX7s had them as well.
"False hope is why we'll never run out of natural resources!" - Lewis Black
"Just as the shape of the Wankel combustion chamber prevents preignition, it also leads to incomplete combustion of the air-fuel charge, with the remaining unburned hydrocarbons released into the exhaust."
"A related cause for unexpectedly poor fuel economy involves an inherent weakness of the Wankel rotor design when used with conventional fuels. Some studies have indicated that at high speeds, the rate at which the volume of the combustion chamber increases in the moments after ignition actually outpaces the expansion of the burning fuel. The result is that, at high speeds, less useful energy is extracted from the same volume of fuel"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wankel_rotary
DRM 'manages access' in the same way that a prison 'manages freedom'
You might try rx8club.com
You're thinking of a radial engine. It has air-cooled pistsons arranged in a circle around a crankshaft. Mazda's rotary engines are completely different.
"I forgot my mantra."
- fuel intake
- compression of fuel and air
- igniting the mixture (via spark plugs) to create power and motion
- pushing out the exhaust gases from the engine
The rotary engine follows the exact same steps above. The difference? It carries out three of the above steps at the same time which results in much smoother delivery. The delivery and reliability for the engine is much much smoother than that of a conventional car engine. Yes conventional car engines suck. The drawback of the rotary engine is that they have high emissions and its hard to get them by the EPA. But then thats what this story is about... using hydrogen as a fuel! So yes this is quite something to be excited about. Not an ordinary slow news day folks!I should know to scroll down and see if 10 other people have already made the same reply before I post.
"I forgot my mantra."
You probably know but it seems that other may need a clarification... Rotary engine is a very bad (imho) name for a Wankel engine.
A 2000 ccm 3 chamber (with 3 rotating "pistons") Wankel engine (like the one in Mazda RX-7) is physically smaller and lighter than a 1000 ccm, 4 cylinder engine.
XML causes global warming.
The subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures (Junius)
Not all rotary engines suffer from these problems.
http://www.freedom-motors.com/techno.html
Mazda's Renesis engine in the RX-8 is a decent improvement over the previous versions. I must say they've got the coolest designs around (in the "affordable" range; a Ford GT would be pretty cool too) and I'd be all over a new RX-7 if they bring it back.
-- *My* journal is more interesting than *yours*...
Running on gas, far less carbon is produced and therefore the risk is reduced accordingly.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
One can only hope. The entire auto market got really boring when compact sports cars succumbed to the SUV craze. I think I'd get in line for a Kabura.
-- *My* journal is more interesting than *yours*...
A couple of Camel trivia: because of the difficulty feeding fuel to a spinning engine, it had no throttle. You had to blip the engine on and off to slow down. Also, they used a total-loss lubrication system based on castor oil, which inevitably got breathed in by the pilot. As well as having a life expectancy of a few hours, most Camel pilots had the galloping trots.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/
United Nuclear's been working on a dual-fuel hydrogen/gas conversion kit for a while, now, and they've got it running, though it's not quite ready for the public yet. The actual work needed to convert is minimal, and the thing comes with its own generator station -- either plug-in or solar. Of course, it's pricey, but...*shrugs*
Now when Americans say their car runs on 'gas', they'll actually be correct! :)
IIRC, Freedom Motors is the company contracted to make the engines for the Moller International skycar.
It's a Rotary (Wankel) engine... not a Radial (Piston) engine as used in early aircraft... Sorry, bit confusing I know.
Who is Seg Fault, and what is he doing with Kernel Space?
i remember the rx3 from the seventies.
i also remember reading an article about how the rotary engine was more efficient thant the piston driven engine, used less parts and less maintenance, however, there were few mechanics that understood them
_ In Egypt Networks: Network Solutions with a Twist
I miss it. The RX-8 is nowhere near as nice as the RX-7 RS :(
I nearly bought an RX-7 but then Mazda withdrew it, and with the previous experience of the depreciation of my MX-6 once it became an 'old model' (it lost over 80% of it's value in 4 years) there was no way I was going to buy a second user RX-7 now that they'd also become superceded.
-Jar.
Together, We Can Make Slashdot Better. I Do NOT Mod ACs. - Check Me Out
Missed yesterdays session with the shrink again did we?
Actually...
Mazda Rotarys from the 80's lost their seals at around 60k. They still worked, but had bad seals after that.
The seals that went wrong were not the ones that keep the oil in the engine -- those are different seals. The seals that went bad were the ones in the combustion chamber.
NSU used rotaries in the Ro80. The same engine was squeezed under the bonnet of the Citroën GZ Birotor, before being replaced by a Comotor design, giving the already fairly nippy GS over 100bhp instead of the 60bhp or so from the original flat-four.
Norton had Wankel-engined bikes, and I believe some of the design expertise found its way into the Mid-West Rotary aero engines. There have been quite a few Wankel aero engines, with varying degrees of success.
I think John Deere produced an industrial Wankel engine that could run on pretty much anything that would ignite with a spark.
"The only rotary engines I knew about were ones in planes beginning many decades ago. I think the Sopwith Camel used one, but correct me if I'm wrong."
They were (and still in production) PISTON rotary engines as opposed to Wankel Rotary engines (no pistons).
Yes I too had a Mazda RX2 which was a rocket and blew flames out the exhaust at around 120 mph. Great night show!
Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
Nope, sorry. "Wankel engines are criticized for poor fuel efficiency and exhaust emissions."
"Just as the shape of the Wankel combustion chamber prevents preignition, it also leads to incomplete combustion of the air-fuel charge, with the remaining unburned hydrocarbons released into the exhaust."
"A related cause for unexpectedly poor fuel economy involves an inherent weakness of the Wankel rotor design when used with conventional fuels. Some studies have indicated that at high speeds, the rate at which the volume of the combustion chamber increases in the moments after ignition actually outpaces the expansion of the burning fuel. The result is that, at high speeds, less useful energy is extracted from the same volume of fuel"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wankel_rotary
Nope sorry...
You need to rely on more than wikipedia my friend. Originally the Wankel design was less efficient at both the full usage of the fuel, resulting in lower fuel efficiency and extra pollution.
However if you would have looked up some of the Work Mazda specifically did with the design, these concerns were virtually gone at the 12A engine, and with the 13B engine were better than a comperable performing regular cylinder engine.
Remember you have to contrast the performance of the Engine. A 1987 (13B) Mazda RX7's fuel efficiency was better than a 6 Cylinder Nissan, yet the Mazda produced more horsepower.
Additionally, with the Mazda designs, the combustion chamber DOES Burn the fuel more completely, and there are considerable less emmissions when comparing the engine to the same performing engine.
Here is where people get confused. The Mazda Rotary engines were 'classified as 4cylinder engines because they had 4 spark plugs - lead and trail on each of the two chambers'. However the engine is in the performance class of V6 and V8 engines.
So yes, if you were to compare a 2 chamber Rotary engine with an average 4 cylinder engine, the fuel economy looked bad. However, when compared to the same performance level 6 cylinder engine, the rotary was far ahead of it.
So these are false stats, as you can't truly call the Mazda Rotary a 4 cylinder engine, when it outperforms 6 cylinder engines. (And technically it is a two chamber engine.)
Even look at the new rotary in the RX8, it is technically classified as a 4 cylinder engine for insurance purposes or in common car classifications; however, it outperforms the Mitsubishi Eclipse 6 cylinder engine, and gets the same or better fuel efficiency. So in terms of power, it is a 6 or 8 cylinder engine.
Here think about it like this, a 1985 Corvette had 230hp, with the new tuned port V8, and yet the new Mazda RX8 has better horsepower and better fuel efficiency.
If you want to call the 2 chamber rotary a 4 cylinder engine, and try to compare it to an engine that produces about 1/2 the HP, then sure, the fuel efficiency doesn't look so great.
But doing so would be a bit 'insane'...
PS WikiPedia is only as good as the person that felt like an expert the day before you looked up the article, do some real research next time.
I may not do cars for a living, but I know my way around them, owned every type of RX7 and many other sports cars, outside of computers, it is my passion. I also did an engineering paper on the Wankel when I was in University, so I have did a bit more than just drive and work on them.
The important thing to remember here is that Hydrogen isn't a clean fuel unless it is produced by a renewable energy source- if the H2 is being produced using electricity from a coal-burning power plant, then there is basically no benefit to atmospheric CO2 levels, although air pollution in traffic will be reduced- good news for cyclists.
What if you to produce your own Hydrogen at home- say with a small turbine or a set of Solar Panels that run all day & fill up a tank, ready to fuel your morning commute. For a large initial investment it would produce free fuel and mean you have a fuel source in your own home. You wouldn't pay tax on your fuel either, unless the govornment wants to charge you more money for water you convert into pollution-free fuel (unless you count water vapour as a pollutant). It'd get a lot of people to work and back, and if there's a shortfall, then you can use a fuel station or switch to Petrol.
You could use the O2 for a free oxygen bar in your home too! Mmmmmm, atmospherrric!
When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
Minor correction - the 13B engine was reintroduced on the 1984 model GSL-SE RX7. Mine is still running (original engine), with over 250,000km on the odometer.
:)
:)
You are right, it was 84 and GSL-SE, not GXL-SE. The 84s were very rare though, even the 85s were rare.
I almost bought a used 85 GSL-SE, but instead waited and got a new 87 GXL.
I already had an 81 GS, and after driving a friends 86, I actually liked the feel of the new body, and wanted something different from my 81. Also the lure of the active suspension system and passive rear steering int he 86-91 models was actually quite impressive, especially for the time. And even being a bit 'bigger' it still felt so nimble and was very much still an RX7.
PS Enjoy your RX7, it should also be worth a penny or two someday being the SE. I moved from my 87 RX7 to a new Corvette convertable in 1991, and even though the Vette had muscle, looks, I missed the way my RX7 drove.
The Corvette was great, but it drove more like a race car than a sports car. It had speed, muscle and great cornering, but you had to know how to drive to get everything out of it. The RX7 was more about doing the same things, but with a bit of ease, letting the car do a lot of the work for you, especialy in agility and cornering.
I then moved to a 1993 RX7 and it again had that distinct feel my older RX7s had. I kept it and had a couple of Vettes at the time. I enjoyed driving the RX7 more, but the Vettes always got more attention.
I have been tempted to pick up an RX8, I tested one for a day, and it had that Mazda/RX7 feel, although not quite as tight as the RX7. If they do a Turbo/Performance version of the RX8, I will be one of the first people in line. I would like to see a new RX7 as well.
Sorry for the long post, just reminding me of my RX7s and days of youth.
Yes you are right, Mazda's rotary (and maybe other rotaries?) consume oil to keep things lubricated. From what I've heard, if you want to put oil in the RX-8, which you have to do on a regular basis, you have to remove the plastic engine cover. Brilliant...
One other thing to be aware of regarding the oil injection on the RX-8 is that it occurs every time the key is turned. So, if you stall the car and turn the key all the way back & restart, you'll inject another dose of oil that the engine does not need... Do it a few times and you start thinking you've "flooded" the engine. You have, but not with fuel.
There's a relative paucity of RX-8 owners posting I notice. I get through about 1l of oil every 2-2.5k miles; mpg could be better, but I didn't buy it for the fuel economy. Service costs aren't bad either - the expensive service is at 3 years, where they replace the platinum (tipped) spark plugs...
The pre RX8 rotary ran combustion temperatures 600 degress hotter than a piston engine. The new ones have moved the valves resulting in a cooler than piston combustion temperatures. This apparently makes them a poor candidate for turbocharging. My 1985 GSL-SE has over 200,000 miles on it and is still pretty strong. It doesn't smoke and doesn't seem to be using any more oil than it used to. I don't know about the later models, but the stock transmission was overdesigned quite a bit and were alleged to be able to withstand somewhere in the 500 hp range. Funny, considering the stock '85 GSL-SE was rated at 135 hp.
I used to put a pint of oil in very tank in my RX2.
After a while, the plugs would foul, so one tank dry would clean it.
Brilliant car. Would still have it if my girlfriend didn't drive it sideways up a kerb.
Bitch.
Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
First, Wankel engines were notoriously unreliable due to bearing and tip wear issues.
Secondly, the Mazda eninge is not a Wankel design, but rather there own development. The Wankel engine is a circular unit that rotates around a simple shaft. The Mazda rotary engine, the intenal part is actually triangular in shape and rotates around a concetric shaft, resulting in a figure of 8 motion.
The latter was supposedly developed independently of the Wankel unit, both getting thereinspiration from WW2 fighter engines.
Couple of points.
In Japan the FD3 (3rd generation RX-7) was made up to 2002.
Also the engine was a redesign, though only partial, hence being the 13B-REW as opposed to the 13B (13 stood for 1.3 litres). The 20B in the Cosmos was also effectively a REW engine.
Of note - the Renasis engine in the RX-8 is still only an advancement on the 13B-REW.
The reason turbos were not added to the RX-8 were two fold. 1 heat, 2 a lack of engine space, which is why FD3 owners such as myself are still hoping for a FE3 being launched in 2007/8.
On the mechanic side of things - I agree with the lack of understanding, especially on the tuning side. Rotary engines have to be more finely tuned as they are moer delicate. Knock can cause a tip to go, which will result in an engine build.
You should differentiate between a rotary engine and a Wankel. WWI aircraft did use rotary radial arranged engines, in which the entire engine rotated about a stationary crankshaft. This helped to cool the engine. The engine rotated along with the prop. They did have conventional pistons and cylinders and were by no means a Wankel. The term radial engine is typically used to describe and engine that the crankshaft is rotating with the engine being held stationary. Here is a reference to WWI aircraft engines: http://www.wwiaviation.com/engines/Engines.shtml The term rotary engine was in use before the Wankel was invented. Therefore it is proper terminology, if confusing.
Brillant!
and I can keep my dirty cars, gas stations and everything else. Chu Chu is not a train sound, nor anybody eating something. It's this crazy physics Nobel prize winning PHD's idea of the ONLY carbon neutral fuel source for Mother Earth. Why don't I read more of people getting an board (ha ha) with him?
Gizmos Gagets For Ninjas
The aircraft engines you're thinking of are radial engines, not Wankel rotary engines. Though there has been limited use of rotary motors in aircraft, the rotary engine wasnt even invented until 1924, far too late to be used in the Sopwith Camel. Radial engines are simply a different configuration of a typical reciprocating piston engine (Like "V" engines, or inline or boxer engines). The wankel rotary engine is a different type of engine entirely. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wankel_engine
Unfortunately lubrication is necessary and there are just no suitable really high temperature lubricants. You also have to get the fuel in without its vaporising. Even so, large Diesels do indeed do a lot better than electric motors given generation and transmission losses. And even in cars, many Diesels need oil fueled winter heaters because the engine does not waste enough heat at moderate speeds in traffic to warm the compartment sufficiently. This leads to the strange paradox that my car heats up faster when it is very cold (and the oil fueled heater comes on) than it does in weather which is just above the critical temperature.
Pining for the fjords
minor correction: ports, not valves. If you ran 600 deg hotter than a piston, you would turn your valves to ports anyway!
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
I have personally had great luck with my 2005 RX-8. I bought it in september, and it's been great to me. I agree, that fuel consumption is a bit...much...but I can live with that. Also, it only needs a LITTLE oil added after every 4-5 fillups with gas. This is only because the engine consumes oil. The only other thing I do is let the car warm up before shutting it off. Early RX-8's would flood if you shut the car off while cold (i.e. turning the car on, moving it 20 feet, and shutting it off). This was caused by fuel still in the engine having nowhere to go...and would foul up spark plugs and your catilytic converter. After ECU upgrades, this problem isn't really that bad...as you only really have to rev it over 3.5krpms for about 10 seconds...and shut the car off while the rpms are still high. I have to say, for the 'quirks' that a wankel has, I must say...it's a great handling car...and though not the torquiest car out there...does what I need it to. Plus it's pretty nice that the redline is at 9krpms.
http://www.nopistons.com/ This is the only site you need for rotary specific information.
And FWIW, Mazda uses a 3 or 4 ROTOR engine in their endurance cars.
The RX-8 is the PERFECT segway into the performance hybrid market, and in my opinion, it is the only market that matters to me. I don't want something that looks like it came out of Futurama. The RX-8 is a sexy sports sedan.
Your point about weaning tUSA off of oil is a good one, since very little electricity in tUSA is generated with oil.
But, replacing nuclear isn't possible. Nuclear energy provides the baseline for power generation, and the amount generated per unit time is almost never altered. So, you might reduce the consumption of coal, natural gas, or fuel oil, but not nuclear.
Support a few technologists in Washington.
I don't think it's fair to call it a 2 cylinder engine, either.
:P
I mean, technically it has no "cylinders" at all
Each of two chambers is divided into 3 working volumes by a single rotor, for a total of 6 independent working volumes at any given time. Wouldn't this be more analogous to a 6-cyl engine?
=Smidge=
You contest the fewer moving parts ?
A Mazda Rotary engine in a RX-7 or RX-8 has 3 moving parts - the crank and two rotors. In the 20B engine from the Cosmos it had 4 moving parts as there was a third rotor.
So just how many parts does a boinger (piston) engine have ?
Ford own only 30% of Mazda Motors, Mazda Corporation are still the majority stock holders.
The deal was done as a joint technology swap, with Ford investing money in Mazda rather than buying the technology. Mazda get chassis, Ford get engine technology.
... you should think "nuclear".
Fact: the US gets transportation primarily from oil, and power primarily from coal.
Fact: the oil will run out before the coal does.
Fact: nuclear power is more expensive than coal power
Fact: hydrogen can be used directly for transportation, but coal can't
Fact: shifting the transportation energy requirement onto coal-fired plants (coal -> power -> hydrogen) will mean the consumption of A LOT MORE coal
Conclusion: when oil hits $60/barrel and stays there, people will start wanting to build nuclear plants to allow the shift of some portion of the power and transportation sectors to hydrogen.
Oh, wait, that's already happened.
The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them. - Mark Twain
...about the Renesis engine in the RX-8. The car engine has a history of flooding. I bought one first hand and had it for more than a year. The car locked up on me thrice in the first couple of months and had to be towed to a dealership each time. It was so unreliable that I had to get rid of it.
It is an entirely unique feeling to watch a two week old car die and be sitting on the back of a flat-bed tow truck.
I owned an 81 and an 85. Liked the 81 much more. It was silver with black interior. No A/C. Hot as hell in the summer. The 85 was a GS cream with brown interior. Nicer car but just didn't seem as fun. Kept that one from 86 through 94 when I bought a piece of sh!t Ford Escort GT. The biggest problem I had on the RX-7 was the carburator went bad on me. I lusted after a 93-95 RX-7 but never got one. I still look at them in the used car ads and I'm amazed at how much they have held their value. If Mazda ever comes out with another RX-7, I'll be the first in line. I personally don't care for the RX-8. I like the back of the car but I don't care for the flared fenders or the nose of it.
The only complaint I have about rotary engines is their awful gas mileage.
True, but it's not like you have to get out the torque wrench or anything. Here's a pic of the engine cover. It's the square-ish piece at top center with "Renesis" and the Mazda logo on it. To remove it, you just lift up the front and pull it towards you. Takes all of 2 seconds, and another 5 to put it back. It serves no real purpose AFAIK, so you can always leave it in the garage if it bothers you.
Smooth, quiet, and costs under $6000 (far less than certified aircraft engines). Hopefully they will prove themselves reliable over the next few years. Don't start flaming - there isn't much data yet on real aircraft.
Makes me want to buy a set of Cozy IV plans...
Rotary engines also powerd the Megola motorcycle. Made in Germany in the 1920s, the Megola's crankshaft was fixed to the front axle, and the cylinders spun around it inside the front wheel to propel it. Crazy bike...
There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
Check out the pictures. Great car in great shape. Currently in winter storage.
http://www.storm.ca/~cfielding/rx7/
Umm, why hydrogen? Biodeisel is cheap, easy to make and uses common, inexpensive deisel engines that are used throughout the developing world and Europe. Only the US would face any difficulties transitioning to from petrol engines to diesel. In the interrum, they could use E85 ethanol.
Both technologies result in clean burning fuel, over 85% reduction of fossil fuel needs, and provide new markets for the world's farmers (who really need the help!).
Hydrogen and Electric by comparison, are expensive, hard to maintain, not suited for rough developing world conditions, and do not have the long lifespan of deisel technology. A electric hybrid needs its electric motors replaced every 4-6 years which is horrendously expensive. A biodeisel, otoh, can run 20 years or more with decent maintenance.
At the end of the day, rising oil costs will, through the invisible hand of the market, drive users to convert voluntarily to new solutions.
14,000 RPM out of a 12A? I'd like to see some charts on that. Heavily modified 13B and 20B engines (including the Mazda 787B that won Le Mans) don't spin to 14K.
Incorrect. The Mazda RENESIS rotary engine is an improved Wankel rotary engine, a form of pistonless engine without a crankshaft.
You're thinking of an entirely different kind of rotary engine that uses pistons and spins the engine block around a stationary shaft. That type of engine is pretty rare these days (I actually don't know of any modern use), but, as you say it was common on various types of planes in the 1910's and 1920's because it had a better power-to-mass compared to other engines available at the time.
This is actually funny because I had mentioned some time back, on Slashdot, I think, that I'd really like to see a RENESIS-based hybrid engine developed. Now, here we go.
While the notion of hydrogen power with only water vapor for exhaust sounds nice and clean, it doesn't help with the greenhouse effect. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Imagine millions of tones of water vapor released into the air every year by a worldwide fleet of hydrogen burning cars. Ambient humidity especially in cities would skyrocket with local and global climate effects. Additionally, the production of hydrogen takes a lot of energy, which is likely produced through means that produce greenhouse gases.
IMHO the solution is to change towards human-scale pedestrian-centered cities with effective mass transit options and pro-bicycle urban design. The model of individual motorized vehicles for everyone is just unsustainable, no matter what the power source for those motors is. When we're talking about a couple billion vehicles or more operating every day, any emissions cumulatively are too many emissions. There is no way to have zero emissions without bending or breaking the laws of physics.
For what it's worth... My old 1987 Turbo RX7 - which I still miss dearly - averaged around 23 mpg on the highway, a little better than the 4-cylinder compact pickup truck I'm driving around now. It was retired at about 110K miles after the apex seals blew, and in fact still sits in my garage today, waiting to rise from the ashes...
Please consider MODding the parent up. Thanks.
This car directly burns hydrogen for its explosive mechanical force. It doesnt oxidize hysdrogen in a fuel cell to gnerate electricity for an electric motor. This way it can leverage a 130 years of experience with very robust internal combustion engines, instead of waiting for fuel cells and electric engine developments. To confess, I dont know how far the later is economically behind. It may not be that much with all the current R&D.
...an RX model with an unwieldly expensive to maintain engine and astronomical fuel costs.
The reason a turbo was not added to the RX-8 was due to the design on the Renesis engine with higher-compression rotors. Turbos combined with the Renesis aren't efficient at this point.
The 13B engine in the "older" RX-7 is more powerful than it's cousin the Renesis. Plenty of charts to back that up.
I've love to see you back up your comment about the RX-7 being the winningest model in major US racing. I watch a LOT of racing. I watch Grand Am, Grand Am Grand Sport/Sport Touring, Trans Am, ALMS, SCCA/Speed World Challenge. Many years I even watch the runoffs. And I've done this for years.
And not only haven't I seen the RX-7 win a lot of races, I'm not sure I've seen a Gen III win any.
I know the older rotaries (RX-3?) were very successful before the classifications were changed to take advantage of the fact that a rotary fires so often and thus produce more power per unit displacement. But I don't recall the Gen III's doing all that well in major racing.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Your young upstart comments are ridiculous, by the way. In the 80s and part of the 90s, the Japanese were pouring a lot of money into Le Mans. If Mazda had not won Le Mans with the 787B, Toyota would have with the GT-One, or Nissan with the 300ZX/R390. These companies did excellent jobs campaigning cars, but none did it just offhand and thus embarassed the Europeans with how they could do it so easily.
Additionally, only FIA banned rotaries. Le Mans is not under the governance of FIA, it is governed by the ACO. As such, rotaries were never banned at Le Mans. Additionally, Mazda campaigned a (Renesis) rotary-powered LMP2 prototype as a fully-qualified car in the ACO-governed American Le Mans Series last year and will likely do so this year too.
So I think the major irony here is how you speak out about international auto racing and yet seem to know very little about it.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
WRong and wrong! Jesus fucking christ, are people ignorant about the rotary!
Mazda licked ALL THE SEAL ISSUES by 1979.
Wankel produced TWO versions of his engine... DKM and KKM. DKM (the one you mentioned) was impractical. KKM is what we use today.
Wankel *ASSISTED* Mazda. He went to Hiroshima and helped them. Mazda developed the first twinrotor rotary. All of wankel's originals were single-rotor side-ports. Mazda came up with the twinrotor peripheral-port, and now has come full circle going back to side-ports.
FWIW, NO WWII aircraft used rotaries. Radials, yes. But not rotaries.
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
ObLinks: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/flextech.shtml/ and http://www.e85fuel.com/
ACHTUNG! Das computermachine ist nicht fuer gefingerpoken und mittengrabben. Ist nicht fuer gewerken bei das dumpkopfen.
I guess my -1 troll designation on the grandparent post is justified then even though I was +1 interesting with a -1 Wrong. I'm glad to learn about engine technology, I don't think we teach children enough about combustion engines, or locomotion theory in general. I didn't see a diagram for a combustion engine in school until Grade 10, and that was only because I had taken an Industrial Arts class with an engine's component in the course. Going through the steps of a four stroke engine isn't complicated, and could be in any grade 5 class.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Burning or "using" oil is different than leaking. One of them leaves a poodle under your car.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
If only there was an easy way to make hydrogen or ethanol at home!
Steve
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
People need to get the silly notion out of their heads that hydrogen is always made by splitting water. The parent poster is informative.
I'll be your candy shop of infinite deliciousity if you'll be my discotheque of endless rump-shaking.
Freedom Motors is part of Moller International. Moller got his start with the famous Supertrapp engine muffler system, and he started Freedom Motors as an R&D firm for Wankel engines, mostly for his Skycar project. They also build engines for watercraft and military applications.
'
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
(and mod me up I want karma)
Is it me or is this is the kind of argument you will be considered a "troll" for on forums about 3d graphics.
Of course theres no standard fueling nozzle.
Of course it's going to be expensive.
Of course theres no where to fuel up.
We haven't even begun! If it's to become a reality we have to start somewhere! This may fail, but it's not a failure, it's one way that doesn't work.
At least the Japanese are trying! First the Toyota Prius, now dual-fuel cars, idealistic innovation?
1. technology
2. hardware (rotary "wankel" motor)
3. consumer awareness "oil is running out, hydrogen is clean and quiet"
4. early products (dual fuel cars)
5. maturation
Do I make myself clear!? lol
Teasing the nobles, and rightfully so!
Currently, there are 204 hydrogen purveyors in the US (source: US Dept of Agriculture).
/. for dissecting.
There are seven different fueling nozzles, for the under 450+ TOTAL hydrogen vehicles in North America (includes Canada).
We (as in US and Canada) have more hydrogen-powered vehicles than in all of the ASEAN countries combines, times 5.
Don't be a twit and twiddle your fingers on the keyboard until you get the facts.
Then you can see the Mazda PR prattle for what it is.... unwittingly picked up and placed on
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned, is the disadvantage of Wankel engines buring conventional fuels - the combuston chamber is long and narrow, so combustion takes a long time, and can be quite inefficient. Often, two or more spark plugs are used to speed things up.
With hydrogen, combustion is very rapid. So much so, that the Wankel engine's combustion chamber is now an advantage - the combustion can be controlled to some degree. The major problem is pre-ignition. Hydrogen burns with a lot of energy (per unit mass), but is very touchy - the equivalent to having a low octane rating.
The 13B engine in the "older" RX-7 is more powerful than it's cousin the Renesis. Plenty of charts to back that up.
If that is the case, can you post links to some of those charts so that I can see?
Learn to love Alaska
Like, 75% gas 25% oil like any good rotary !
Maybe some day it'll become true.
9 6403660b668a6b83961231a0cc8&p=1850591&postcount=69
But it isn't today. ACO never banned rotaries.
http://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showpost.php?s=0721
(Note I do not support the idea that the 787B won on a freak, it ran a very respectable distance. It was not however leagues beyond any of its competitors as those "ban" conspiracy theorists might make it out to have been.)
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
If you had any details about that French airplane I'd really like to hear about it. Most of the time crankshafts (except for rotaries like the RX7) are nothing near straight, by their very function. Airplanes with prop speed reduction, like the WWII Airacobra, had cannons firing down the prop driveshaft, but it was neither a crank nor colinear with it. But they did all sorts of weird stuff during WWI so I wouldn't be surprised to find out someone had figured out something I've never heard of.
There are a bunch of companies making Wankel rotary engines. Mazda is just the only one doing it for cars.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
Back in the '70 AMC designed a car for the GM Wankel engine that they never produced. GM ran into so many problems they abandoned the design. Without the wankel AMC shoehorned a straight 6 into a space never designed to hold it. You could not see the last 2 spark plugs because they were buried in the firewall!
http://www.american-motors.de/en/pacer/history/
:q! Oh crap, not again...
Yeah, I like how the conspiracy nuts think Hydrogen is meant to keep us dependent on the oil companies. Hydrogen benefits the nuclear industry, because they can create it most efficiently at ridiculously high temperatures. Add in the carbon == bad crowd and what you get is a push by nuclear to beat out coal in replacing oil for transportation. The oil companies would love to see alcohol fuels, because they're basically just distribution channels nowadays anyways. "Big coal" would be happiest if everyone drove electric cars.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Damn, that brings back memories... What an awesome game. I wonder if they've fixed how the game was timed on the CPU's frequency. I remember when I sopwith on a 386, it suddenly became very challenging, and then I upgraded to a 486 33 machine... It was quite impossible!
Ahh, good times.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
All these hybrid cars have 2 engines. Repair costs after an accident {cars WILL still be involved in accidents} where TWO ENGINE SYSTEMS HAVE TO BE REPAIRED, RETOOLED, REALIGNED. Well, you may as well send it down the road to the car chopper recycler.
President Bush wants us to have "affordable energy". Translated what his doublespeak says is he doesn't EVER want us to have a cheap car like Henry Ford first gave us. He wants more & more expensive cars & trucks for America. Personally I suspect he has money invested {or monies promised to him later under the table}.
I've had a design for a "true" hybrid engine that combines 2 fluids into an engine cylinder, where they combine. Due to their vastly different temperatures they explode. The engine would roughly be 1/3 the weight of current vehicle engines. Emissions? There are none. It runs a 100% closed system. No exhaust by-products because there isn't any exhaust. Due to the reduced weight of the vehicle, it needs less horsepower to carry people down the road. My information is all explained on this page >
http://www.newpath4.com/enginewow.htm .
One prototype of the engine was built and ran in 1997 but the professor who created it made a few mistakes that severely lowered the Power Output. I found it in 2003 & changed it. Every stroke is a power stroke, which is a 400% increase over combustion engines. Every 4th stroke in a combustion engine has to recompress the cylinder contents so a combustion banger has to actually OVERPRODUCE power so there's enough left over for the compression stroke.
Mine doesn't have to do all that. Many schools & universities are looking over the engine now, especially the University of Washington because that's where the prototype was built. With all the improvements plus so many of the power robbers gone plus a weight reduction {no cooling system, no exhaust system, smaller size}, they know the "effective" horsepower of an engine like mine is awesome. Which is GREAT... but the reduced cost to consumers {accident repairs & reduced roadway surface repairs} could really do a lot to reverse our tremendous National Debts.
http://free.seekon.com/NonNuclearFusionEngines/ has more links & explanations.
if the H2 is being produced using electricity from a coal-burning power plant, then there is basically no benefit to atmospheric CO2 levels, although air pollution in traffic will be reduced- good news for cyclists.
The science is (mostly) correct, but not the economics. Centralizing carbon dioxide production means that mitigation strategies become possible that aren't otherwise. Think "economy of scale".
For example, I've heard that it might be possible to sequester carbon dioxide in the oceans in frozen form. Suppose that turns out to be possible. Now, is it easier to sequester 1000 tons of carbon dioxide from one stationary source along the coast in this way, or 1 ton each from 1000 geographically dispersed, mobile sources?
Wait a second, can you explain, using Thermodynamics, what this engine does and how a completely closed system can possibly contribute power to something? I dont think I understand what you mean. I'd like to hear it rephrased for a technical audience. Could I score some thermodynamic specs to back up your claim?
I read the two links you attached, but none of them had any real information. They were just hype-pamphlets. If you want to attract a technical audience for your claims, providing no real information is a real turn-off for us. One of the pages even claimed a 200% success rate, implying that there were twice as many successes as trials.
SRSLY.
You don't want my help. You're an audience, remember? hahahahaha Go beat up your little brother.
Check your watch... you're off by 20 years. The Sopwith Camel was a World War One aircraft, it entered British service in 1917 and was obsolete by 1918.
Each of two chambers is divided into 3 working volumes by a single rotor, for a total of 6 independent working volumes at any given time. Wouldn't this be more analogous to a 6-cyl engine?
Possibly, and that is my point, yet the auto industry and insurance companies classify it as a 4 cylinder engine (not having a 2 chamber engine checkbox when they are filling out forms for it.)
It also had 4 spark plugs, so people assumed one plug per cylinder, etc etc... But that was misleading as two plugs worked with each chamber - trailing and leading.
In operation it is somewheber between a 4 cyclinder and 6 cylinder in terms of the ecentric chambers, but when modeled on performance alone it is a high end V6/V8 range depending othe V6 or V8 being compared to.
So to state that its fuel efficiency is bad, becuase people think of it in the 4cylinder class really don't get it. Put it in the V6 class at least, and then compare emissions and fuel efficiency.
Check the facts at the USDA, or other places. Hydrogen adoption rates in NA are very small. It's a shame, but nonetheless, you can't get much done with hydrogen-powered vehicles here. There are lots of reasons why, but the Mazda piece was a PR move that got picked up by /. and moved around like it was a big deal. Instead, they were suckered. That's my whole point.
Move over to alcohol, and things are much different, as are the engine dynamics. Oxygen sensor technology, coupled with over-large fuel injectors that can handle alcohol, are here and working. But not hydrogen. It's a different techology that requires a different engine design and fuel system delivery methodology. And it's not only not standardized, but it's unfortuantely a joke in NA. It'll change, but $3.5K/month for a hydrogen vehicle is rubbish.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
I thought this hydrogen crap had finally run its course.
I'm still waiting for them to drill a Hydrogen well...
Mazda's a bit late at this hype. I suspect most other car companies (GM included- the "There's a sucker born every minute" company) are discreetly trying to bail out of the Hydrogen boondoggle.
A simple point: there is more hydrogen in a gallon of gasoline than in a gallon of hydrogen, at STP.
I could go on,but...
This is one of those pet rock things.. I am surprised this silly hydrogen fad is still going around.
Notable e-mail blurb that I got this week: David Suzuki (www.davidsuzuki.org) in their childlike newsletter, this month talked about energy conservation/efficiency with respect to automobiles. Lots of Ethanol, french fry grease and "bio"-diesel stuff (the usual crap), but thank god! NOT ONE WORD about Hydrogen!
Finally! Someone is starting to wise up!
I could go on but...
Sorry for the late reply to this topic. Remind me to buy a Hyundai, instead of a Ford, heh-heh "Mazda", as my next small car...
Ha!.. GM will soon die, and now you too, Ford! Good riddance, you shucksters!
.
- aqk
F U
Not now, not then. And as to your ideas of ACO "going along" with FIA, I just don't see it. FIA bans pretty much all "weird motors", including gas turbines and such.
ACO on the other hand encourages weird entries, they use a theory of "technical merit" or something like that. They have had Diesels and veggie Diesels running over the last 5 years and have even entertained electric entries (although I don't think any has shown up).
The 787B, like many other successful cars at Le Mans fell prey to the ACO's tendency to "mix things up", to change the rules seemingly just because everyone has optimized for them. Stretch that a bit and you can say the ACO banned the 787B (as much as you can say they banned the R8). But it's untruthful to say the ACO banned rotaries.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
The reason is that the 12A is a somewhat smaller engine. Of course, being basically race only, it's looking at a 5000 mile life span, at most, before all the seals and bearings need to be replaced.
Fuel cells...bleh! Every car on the road right now is perfectly capable of running ethanol. Pretty much anything since the Model T has been. The only reason that people use gasoline is because it makes it easier to start on cold mornings (below freezing). For those occasions, a small amount of gas to get the enginge started (a few tablespoons) is all that's required. The rest of the time, it just runs on ethanol.
:) might have to work a bit harder at it since you have more below freezing days than we do, but I'd bet you could retro-fit your car for no more than $200.
The even better news, ethanol is cheap to produce. It can be made from grass clippings, leaves, corn stalks, corn cobs, pretty much all of the left overs from food production. It's easy to distill once the fermentation is complete. The waste from the fermentation can be returned to the fields as fertilizer where the crops were grown.
Brazil has already done it and their ethanol fuel is less than 1/2 the cost of gasoline AT THE PUMP. You can I can do it now, if gas stations were just required to offer up ethanol as a product. Require that the factories be here so that there's no foreign dependence and we're good to go here in the South. You Yankees
2 cents,
Queen B
HDGary secures my bank