I guess it depends on the writer's definition of 'dicey.'rixchard said:Knowing next to nothing about engines one has to ask, How is the wankel 'dicey'?
Ethanol is starting to appear. The first E85 Ethanol pump appeared this week in San Antonio (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline). Some existing vehicles can use it as is. Would be a tremendous step towards reducing gasoline usage and dependence on foreign oil. Would also greatly benefit the American farmer. Sounds like a no brainer to me. The down side - E85 gets about 10% poorer gas mileage.From what I can get from their web site, the Revtech engine is not a major technological breakthrough, but just a different combination of existing technology. Unfortunately, it is still designed to use fossil fuels, when new engine technology should be directed at something more renewable, such as alcohol or bio-diesel.
I had the same problem not finding data. Must be classified "Industrial Secret", or else it's not as good as their hype would lead you to believe.motorhead said:Thought I looked over the site pretty close ... Saw NOTHING stating Rpm range engine will tollerate or type of head / valve lay out.
Pictures did show what looked like a DOHC and whimpy intake runners ... Like a Subaru flat 4 ?
And with NO rpm info, no way to even get an idea on horse power figures ?
Any insight from you folks ?
This may all be true in the automobile (or motorcycle) industry, but I can say for certain that in the aviation industry, 'status quo' has been the only accepted practice for decades. That's why most "modern" piston aircraft engines are still using technology that was developed in the 1920's. With a few notable exceptions, magneto ignitions and antique carburetors or mechanical fuel injection systems are still being installed in brand new Cessnas, Pipers, Mooneys, etc. While unleaded gasoline has been the standard for automobiles for more than 30 years, most new piston airplanes are still designed to use gasoline containing lead as an octane booster.dshealey said:If any big company saw a design that was truly better, bets are they would buy it out and produce it. No large company can sit back and gamble that one of their competitors won't buy out a better design and beat them about the head and shoulders with it.
Believe it or not, a company that ignores something that is likely better, will die when better minds prevail and use the better approach.
There are many of these "better" approaches that have been touted over the past few decades, but proved to be non feasable for sound engineering or reliability reasons or just plain too expensive to produce compared to current engines, for small possible overall gains.
There have been cries of "keeping it out" related to engines, fuels, etc. (anyone remember the "Fish" carburetor?) for decades, but still, the better technology for the time and purpose usually wins out regardless, with very few exceptions. There have been a small number of cases where a large corporation will buy out a patent, and then sit on it to protect their investment from a competitor getting the patent and using it against them, but still, these types of cases are exceedingly rare.