Spin9k

Video overview http://doylerotary.com/overview.php

Who said rotary engines don't have pistons????

"A 2.3 liter engine should produce about 150 horse power, weigh just under 65 lbs. and will be 9.5" long and 13.5" diameter"

-------------------
Features:

Split cycle - One row of pistons performs the intake and compression (IC) strokes while the other row performs the power and exhaust (PE) strokes. The central combustion chamber separates these two rows. This layout is advantageous because it opens up many options that a conventional engine does not have:

All of the parts have history - Many new engine concepts rely on new, complex or exotic parts to run. This can range from more complicated valve assemblies to sealing technologies that haven't even been invented yet.

The DRE uses off the shelf components. From the piston and cylinder technologies that have been in use for hundreds of years in steam and combustion engines, to the apex, side and corner seals that were first used in production vehicles in 1967 (and still in use in the 2011 Mazda RX-8), the components of the Doyle Rotary have been constantly tested by the public for at least 40 years.

So unlike other concept engines, asking whether the Doyle Rotary will work does not involve questioning the components. The parts within the DRE will function just like they have for years.

Overall easier to manufacture parts

Easier to assemble

One combustion chamber - In a conventional engine each combustion chamber burns slightly different from the others. This is because of differences in operating temperatures and intake and exhaust lengths. In the Doyle Rotary each cylinder uses the same combustion chamber. This increases the consistency in power between each cylinder leading to an engine that runs smoother and has consistent wear characteristics for each component.

No valvetrain - Eliminating the valvetrain provides many advantages. Less energy will be lost due to friction and manufacturing and assembly will be cheaper and simpler. The two biggest advantages to removing the valvetrain are a higher fluid efficiency and a lower chance of failure.

Unlike valves, the ports in the DRE open and close instantly. This allows the port to remain open longer and to remain at full flow much longer than in a conventional valvetrain. This will be very noticeable at higher RPMs when the fluid efficiency of conventional valvetrains begins to drop. Also, at higher RPMs valves begin to float. The stationary seals will not have issues at higher RPMs.

Fewer moving parts - Eliminating the valve train not only gets rid of 100 or so moving parts, it also gets rid of the cam drive mechanism and simplifies the oiling system.

Fewer overall parts - Approximately 135 fewer parts not counting fasteners. That's 135 parts that the consumer does not have to buy, 135 parts that the consumer does not have to pay to have installed and 135 parts that are not going to break and need replacing.

Smaller and lighter per unit of displacement

Lower NOx and hydrocarbon emissions

9krpmrx8

iTrader: (46)

Cool concept.

elysium19

iTrader: (1)

Sounds interesting, but on first glance I would have to think it has all the problems of a rotary engine plus all the complications/cost/problems associated with the (relative) complexity of a piston engine. And the designer himself says it would be smaller and lighter, true, but no more powerful per size/displacement.

WTBRotary!

iTrader: (6)

Confusing but I understand it... Cool Concept... Should work, in theory... lol but we know what that means... Im curious about the lubrication and if that will pose any issues...

monchie

It's still a concept. We will just have to find out whenever it goes out in the real world.

NotAPreppie

That looks like a lot of rotating inertia.

Spin9k

here's your answer >>> http://doylerotary.com/advantages.php#lighter_per_cc

click on "Smaller and lighter per unit of displacement"

terrypk1

this will never get enough cooling

usnidc

My question is how do you design an engine bay to have a spinning rock tumbler in it? And then connect that spinning rock tumbler up to a transmission so it can actually drive the car?

Interesting engineering concept but the question is: Why? I'm not sure how having 12 pistons in a spinning engine is LESS somplicated?

Spin9k

^ from the video, the first 1/2 bank of pistons are there only to feed compressed air to the combustion chamber continuously...and then after the compressed gas fires off in the SINGLE combustion chamber within the crankshaft, the other half of the pistons exhaust the burned mixture, releasing the energy to drive the piston rotation.

There is no combustion within the pistons. The fixed crankshaft contains the combustion chamber. Power would be taken off the tub I would imagine via a gear.

secret8gent

i'd remove the compression bank half of the engine and use a turbo instead, then you can use the extra space to figure out some water-based cooling for the piston block & shaft if needed. also saves some weight and part count this way.

inertia is the problem, though. (and i lol'd at the denial of reciprocating motion, the pistons still move up and down in their cylinders, yeah? they just spin at the same time - balance would be good though)

the nut of the idea seems to be that rather than an 'outward' rotary (piston) engine, the pistons face inward and can share a simplified valve train (sliding ports embedded in the crank shaft design)

Spin9k

As you alluded to.... I'm too thinking of the rotating piston parts of this as a gigantic tubocharger (pistons pushed by the exhaust gases), running the compressor side (pistons compressing the inlet air) all feeding a single cental fixed cylinder.

IOW ... a single cyclinder, rotary piston turbocharged engine! I'd say that's how they get so much HP out of it.