RotoMax Rotary Engine... Tesla - Wankel - Mason HHO Hybrid

[ramset]

RM
Quote:
As for the potential of this engine... well... how about this...

A huge field of solar panels in the desert, running massive dry cell HHO generators that run the LFV's, that power the RotoMax engines, to generate electricity to pump seawater and distil it, to turn the deserts green.

I like that idea very much

RM

-------------------------------
Now thats what I call potential!![also put a huge smile on my face}
Thanks for the responce!
Chet

[evolvingape]

I forgot to tell you all about something so here it is...

As the fluid enters the compression chamber it goes through the processes of compression, expansion and then parallel flow following the principles we have learned about with the Energy Conversion Valve.

When the fluid potential enters the parallel region it is fully converted to maximise the velocity remaining.

As the fluid travels around the box section formed between the discs and the vanes it "tightens" into a 180 degree spiral towards the centre.

The discs will always have the same clearance at 0.75mm or 0.040". The inter vane gap gets smaller as it travels around the spiral and "squeezes" the fluid towards the winglets.

This has the effect of creating a gradual compression of the box section boundary layers, in 2 dimensions (inter vane gap), extracting more energy from the fluid.

I have added the HELP Boundary Layer Spacing Properties diagram below to help you understand what I mean, and the description for the diagram is Reply No. 4 in the HELIS thread:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10218.0

In order to calculate the spiral inter vane gaps use Sacred Geometry, as I did, and then simply change the straight lines to curves when you program the CAD file.

By adding a compression phase to the boundary layer flow we maximise the potential for energy extraction and also create a highly focused jet of fluid to feed the winglet leading edge.

RM

[evolvingape]

Hi Everyone,

I have been prototyping in my mind and have come across a few issues I want to share with you.

I do not like presenting you with problems before I have a potential solution... so...

First of all I have been running through firing cycles for 12 LFV's on a single Rotor, and I see a potential problem if each LFV is fired individually. As the Rotor rotates it will pass the next LFV which is in its priming cycle.

Pressure has an equal and opposite reaction and so there is a possibility of the pressure pushing the poppet piston away from the sealing cone. We do not want this to happen.

The potential solution I see is to fire all 12 LFV's simultaneously. This will solve the reverse pressure problem and also make it simple for a single buzz coil signal to fire all the LFV's at the same moment.

The problem this will cause however is that the Rotor is either going to be driven by the LFV's firing, or slowing due to the load applied while the LFV's are priming for the next firing cycle.

This will cause the Rotor RPM to “hunt” excessively and is undesirable.

If we were to mount 12 Rotor's on the drive shaft, we would regain our ability to control the energy input to the drive shaft. 1 Rotor firing while 11 are priming for example.

This is going to be a beast of an engine with 12 Rotor's and 144 LFV's!

The other issue may be the parallel flow tube, we want it to be the same bore diameter as the inter disc gap in the rotor, this being 0.75mm or 0.030”.

Finding a suitable tube with a bore of 0.75mm and suitable wall thickness is going to be a problem if not impossible, it also means that the LFV will be very small and we may not be able to get a large enough HHO charge in there to maximise Rotor performance.

So...

How about we build a rectangular box section LFV ?

The entire LFV can be built out of laser or water jet cut sheet. This will also give us the advantage of being easily able to prototype different radii for the compression phase of the ECV.

Ceramic Paper may offer the seal we need to use compression bolts to hold the LFV side plates together, and the rear plate can simply be tapped to accept a fitting for HHO line connection.

Hopefully the water/steam that will continuously be present in the chamber will provide suitable lubrication.

If we are going to need 144 LFV's for a 12 Rotor system as I suspect then this may be an excellent cost effective alternative to cylindrical construction.

The other advantage being that a rectangular slot cut in the Ring Pipe Housing will allow us to massively increase the area for fluid injection into the Rotor while still maintaining the 0.75mm width of the Rotor gap.

Have a think about it and see if you can find any problems with this line of reasoning.

RM

[evolvingape]

Hello Everyone,

Following on from my previous comments regarding the probable requirement for a 12 LFV RotoMax to fire all LFV's simultaneously I have some further thoughts on the matter.

As already discussed the principle form of initial energy input to the Rotor is an Impulse operating on the equal and opposite reaction principle. We want the largest Impulse to the ECW compression area that we can get and then we want that pressure to bleed away as quickly as possible.

This is because the Piston Poppet inside the LFV will remain closed while the back pressure from the Rotor Chamber is greater than the spring pressure trying to push the Poppet forward.

So...

I have put up a new schematic of how I feel the RotoMax 12 will most efficiently operate.

I have removed the gate seals from the Rotor edge, I have done this because the gate seals concept was formed when the RotoMax only had a single or a dual ECW chamber and one or two LFV's respectively. This required a mechanism to separate the compression cycles on that particular design.

As the concept developed to the final 12 ECW version the requirement arose for simultaneous firing of all LFV's and so we no longer require ECW chamber separation. This has the added benefit of simplifying construction, and the resultant Rotor will run with a small edge clearance the same as a Tesla Turbine.

The other major change is I have dropped the Static Ring Seal idea. The reason I have done this is because we will require the Rotor to bleed pressure not being immediately utilised by the ECW so that the Piston Poppet spring will act allowing the LFV's to prime for the next firing cycle.

So the RotoMax should run on a similar efficiency to a Tesla Turbine when considering Rotor to Housing pressure bleed. The most suitable tolerance for clearance will become a tuning issue as we are actually going to use the pressure loss as a function of the system.

This will still have advantages to us as with a Tesla Turbine it is a constant pressure loss from a steady state fuel supply. The RotoMax being a Pulse Detonation Engine will use less fuel.

Moving on, if we examine the Rotor edge we can see two ECW Locking and Rotor Compression Bolts for each ECW. These serve the dual purpose of positioning the ECW and also stabilising the Rotor components via Compression.

The Winglets will also require two locking bolts, one of them small as it is closer to the trailing edge of the Winglet and serves to compress the Rotor, the other larger as it is nearer the larger leading edge of the Winglet and also serves the dual function of mounting the Rotor and carries the rotating load.

The Heat Deflection Rings have made a comeback and now serve an additional purpose of becoming an off the shelf Hub to Rotor mount adaptor plate. With the bolt holes on different radii this should work well

I have omitted the Ring Housing to Side Plate Housing sealing mechanism, you have two choices, the Ring Groove or the alternative inner and outer Ring Plates as discussed in the HHO PCT thread.

The last thing I am going to talk about here is radial and lateral runout. Have a look at these resources and research until you understand if you do not already:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxZl5K7PFp0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMp5G9J1P48

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_1ySs7liS4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M60H8VpuCrU&feature=related

Understanding radial and lateral runout is essential for Rotary Engine or Turbine building. It is not optional.

I consider you should be aiming for 0.002” maximum deviation. With components cut from sheet you will get a very uniform disc face and a very true circumference when turned on a lathe.

RM

[evolvingape]

Hello Everyone,

Here is the RotoMax 12 final evolution.

It is a Rotary Engine that uses a sequence of airfoils to extract Torque from the high velocity fluid.

The fluid repeatedly passes through areas of compression and expansion and transfers energy to the Rotor.

The areas of maximum compression cause an Impulse via the pressure increase having an equal and opposite reaction. They also allow the repeated opportunity to cross boundary layers in 3 dimensions.

Each airfoil occupies 30 degrees and creates a lift force in the same way as a Winglet. Each expansion region is 10 degrees.

Instead of propelling an airfoil through the air as an aircraft does, we are propelling the fluid over the surfaces of the airfoil and creating a Rotary Moment.

The Lift Winglets around the exhaust serve to maximise the area available, as if we only used the boundary layer effect as in a Tesla Turbine design the linear distance of such a small circle is almost insignificant.

You can experiment with different airfoil sections very easily and compare Rotor performance.

Each airfoil also now has a larger area than a vane allowing compression bolts to lock them in place and prevent vibration which would occur with the original vanes having only two locking bolts at the top.

Here are some resources to help you get a grasp on the Principles of Flight:

http://www.pilotsweb.com/principle/lift.htm

http://www.pilotsweb.com/principle.htm

Pay particular attention to the section on Lift as it is noted that the NASA Glenn Research Centre published a paper stating that the established theory as taught for decades by schools and government agencies is wrong.

This helps me understand why I was always arguing with my teachers during my aircraft apprenticeship, as quite simply what they were teaching was nonsense and could be proven so, although it was startling how many students just sat there and never questioned it!

We will eventually get around to why I believe some of the fundamental principles are incorrect but that is for another day. Have a read of the resources and see if they make sense to you.

RM