I thought by comparing itself to existing technologies, it was being up front that it’s just moving from purely theoretical to prototype. Maybe that’s not as clear to others?

I’m fairly certain every single point there was made about the Wankel when it was prototyped…look at it now! Edit: in fact, wankel side seals are the likely solution…it has the same rotary “side bleed” issue and they do ok.
Same for reciprocating piston engines and more.

Sure, it’s not ready for prime time, and no, it is no where near it’s theoretical potentials. What engine has been at this point? They got it to run, I’m pretty impressed with that as it’s much farther than most theoretical motor designs ever get.

This response seems to have a few gaps in it, but here's what a company rep said:

"And then there's our apex seals, they're like our piston rings," he continues. "In the Wankel engine, they're inside the rotor, again. They move at a high speed, and bounce around, they're very hard to lubricate. In our case, they're stationary, they don't bounce around, and you can lubricate them directly from the housing.

"So we basically solved the key challenges the old rotaries had with combustion and with oiling. Those oiling challenges caused both durability issues and emissions problems. By making those components stationary, we solve the challenges of the old rotary. And we also upgraded its cycle to give it much higher efficiency."

https://newatlas.com/military/liquidpiston-rotary-x-engine-army-generator/

Someone tell me why the seals won't fail in the same way that Wankel rotors in the RX-7 do--but it will be a lot of fun until they do!

You are welcome.

You said wankel.

*quality Wankel

Thanks for that, makes me feel better about getting them confused since the terminology is semi-fluid.

Seeing the disassembled Wankel engine in the video should have clued me in that that was NOT what was used in the P-47, which had lots of big cylinders for pistons radiating around a central point, hence the "radial" designation.

It (the video) was very helpful for figuring out how the chambers and path of the parts work in comparison to a piston engine, which is quite interesting even for someone like me who really only understands the rudiments of either design. Live and learn!

Two different types of engine are both called "rotary" and both have been used on airplanes to confuse people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_engine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pistonless_rotary_engine

Also a rotary engine (most WWI warplanes) can look fairly similar to a radial (some WWII warplanes) unless its running.

The principle of the wankel engine is not dead. At this time other principles have been developed better but it can come back with better materials and design.

It would be awesome if there was a way to bring back real old style rotary engines, I love visible moving parts, very steampunk.

I can't argue with a single thing he said, but for a power to weight ratio, the rotary can't be beat by pistons.
For an insane story about how it was conceived, you can't beat the Wankel period.

Very good explanation of how Wankel/Rotary engine works has been added as a related post - related requested by kulpims on that post.

A rotary (Wankel) engine has a triangular device that acts as the piston, which rotates in a chamber close to a figure 8 shape. Each side of the triangle acts as it's own piston as it rotates, first intake through a port (no valve) then compression, detonation, expansion, and finally exhaust through another port (still no valve).
Radial engines (what I think you meant) are relatively normal piston driven engines where the pistons are arranged in a circle around the crank at a 90 deg angle from the cranks rotation. These are usually used in prop driven airplanes.
This motor arranges the pistons in the same orientation as the cranks rotation...a 90 deg difference from radial engines. This makes it far more compact, but also puts the pistons in a single, rotating, revolver like arrangement of cylinders. It's a bit of a combination of rotary and radial engine features.

Revolutionize, probably not. Be an improved option over 'regular' internal combustion in (apparently) weight, size and efficiency, maybe. This seems to be a great option for a hybrid. Being smaller and lighter is what you want in an energy efficient vehicle, as is fuel efficiency. Since fossil fueled vehicles will be the norm for the foreseeable future, any step towards making them more efficient is a good thing (although not the end goal, true enough). This seemed to have many advantages of Wankel motors (rotaries) without the efficiency problem due to low compression/incomplete combustion. 14:1 on pump gas is INSANE! My offroad race motor is only 12:1 and it needs trick racing fuel.
Also, as far as simplicity, this had no valves and assorted crap, just inlet and outlet ports (from what I understood anyway) like Wankels. That's a HUGE jump in simplicity, with an entire system eliminated, so there's far less to break/wear out/need tuning. IF manufacturing cost can be reasonable, I see this as a great step forward possibly making hybrids more acceptable to many more people.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^probie:
Reuleaux triangle

Reminds me of a Wankel Rotary Engine


http://videosift.com/video/Very-good-explanation-of-how-Wankel-Rotary-engine-works

>> ^probie:

Reuleaux triangle


Reminds me of a Wankel Rotary Engine

You said Wankel.>> ^rottenseed:

>> ^arvana:
They remind me of the Gömböc, but with quite a different function.

Me too...
A Wankel-Rotor is NOT a Reuleaux Triangle!