Rotary or turbine?

Why not have both!

This looks very interesting, I would love to see the data that backs up their claim of 80% thermal efficiency but this looks like it might be the closest thing yet to replace reciprocating (i.e. piston) IC engines?


Oof, that video is a bit much, but I did this to myself.

It starts with the claim of needing no apex seal when clearly it does.

Realistically, you can reach about 2/3 of the Carnot-Efficiency, because all processes are far from isothermic (thermal losses).

The Carnot-Efficiency is defined as 1-(T_cold/T_hot). Add a factor of 2/3 for real life applicability. See if you can spot the issue with getting to 80% in practice.


Exactly :wink:

That struck me as well, I will have to have another watch to see if I can see how it does seal the case/combustion cycle (I have helped rebuild a rotary or two in my time, including a mate who had a peripheral port 13B in his RX4, that thing ate apex seals :slight_smile: )…

To me it seemed like the Rotary/Wankel analogy was a bit misleading. Maybe it is a rethink of turbine technology and with a scavenge effect it doesn’t need a gas tight seal? Technically a turbo jet is a four-stroke (suck, squeeze, ignite, exhaust) and I have seen them turning over when switched off when the wind is strong enough.

Anyway. I am glad to get everyones thoughts because the company seems legit and I’m not prepared to call ‘snake oil’ yet… except for that 80% claim :wink:

I had another look and now I am thinking ‘rotary pulse jet’… There wasn’t a lot of detail about what was going on in the exhaust section/outlet chamber of the engine.

There also seemed to be a lot of fluid leakage with engine on the test stand, NFI what that could be?

1 Like

It is clearly a rotary engine. In a turbine, combustion happens continuously, which is not the case here.

High efficiency requires high compression, which turn requires a tight seal. The more leakage happens, the less thermal energy is converted to mechanical energy.