Me2 Ceramic Rotary Engine

Had you provided a link, we too could see it on YouTube.

Ceramic Rotary Engine - YouTube This?

Much grass!

Bla bla ....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnfFEf7wyww

How many ME2 Ceramic Rotary engines do you find on youtube?????

Who wants to know?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1Z-3U7VOZI I was far from impressed

The Doyle Rotary Engine

In ref. to the Doyle Rotary Engine: Great video, Great 3D graphics unfortunately that is where it ends. Reciprocating piston necessitates heavy construction. The outer casing no doubt made of metal is a large rotating mass and here is the kicker very little torque produced during its power stoke

interesting design. I don't think its based on ceramics. a spinning block and stationary crank are quite different

No, it's strictly an aluminum prototype.

ADoyle88's father is the inventor.

http://doylerotary.com

The concept is really interesting.

You had an idea for an engine, as I recall, when you first came to CR4. Right? I gave you a hard time about it, too, as I recall.

basically it was about valves and their actuation, just about everything else is like a typical V-8, no exotic materials or special machining. different engine management but the crank-rods, block, etc. are the same stuff.

"spinning block and stationary crank are quite different"

Quite different, indeed, but certainly not new:

Spad engine:

That's notin' honey:

The Gnome was one of several

rotary engines popular on fighter planes during World War I. In this type of engine, the crankshaft is mounted on the airplane, while the crankcase and cylinders rotate with the propeller.

Most often attributed to the American F.D.Farwell the rotary engine may have had an earlier beginning

rotary aero engines of World War One

Ya, there's a good gif at that site too.

OOPS, didn't scroll down to your second pic.

My oops, I posted second photo with edit, whilst you posted.

Why are you not impressed?

I agree with you, Fredski. I am not impressed. The first thing that disappointed me with this thread was the lack of a link or web page listing telling us where to examine this motor. The next thing was the slow motion animation of this video. One can make anything happen for any reason in an animation. The most crucial thing that disappointed me was the complete absence of any measured data. There are so many things that could be measured, too.

Its a good think your definition of engineer is NOT in any dictionary. So if the video went fast you could understand it better? By looking at the video can you measure the torque?

By looking at your grammar, we can measure your intelligence.

You need some remedial help!

You made a valid request for feedback. I gave you my feedback why I agreed with Fredski. You can use or ignore my criticisms to improve your presentation technique. There is no need for insults. You are quite correct though that one cannot measure torque or any other measure of performance from an animation. That is precisely my point.

Its a good thing your definition of engineer is not in any dictionary. If the video ran fast could you understand it better? Buy looking at the video can you measure the torque?

the torque? I still can't tell if you released the parking brake yet!

The ME2 Engine outer casing does not rotate, the two rotors with attached pistons and center output are the only two parts that rotate.

That's the worst animation I've seen in a long while. All it looks like is barn doors opening and closing.

This is a poor animation of wishful thinking.

If this were my pipe-dream, I'd not waste time on such an amateur video.

You cannot measure the torque? Herein lies the problem.

Torque 101 The product of the perpendicular force x the moment arm. To make things easy I will compare the ME2 to todays common piston engine. Both engines piston size is the same. (say 1) Their moment arm the same length. (say 10). So we are comparing engines of the same size. Does that help?

No.

Did you actually think that by adding the definition of torque and a pair of dimensionless numbers to this thread that somebody here could calculate the torque from a poor animation?

I do not know what your vested interest is in this motor but I can clearly tell that you are a lousy promoter. You do not present measured data. You do not present a working description. You only provide a name of the motor and hope that people can find what you wish to discuss.

yes OH excuse me 1 " diameter piston and 10" momentum arm does that help? Now look at the animation and try real hard.

No.

You clearly have no understanding of the kinematics of classical (Newtonian) Physics. You know even less about testing standards. I will not waste my time trying to teach you.

I am curious about one thing. Why should any of us help you?

Help me ? You have no idea how to measure torque. You have come up with every excuse, but not one comment that could be construed as an answer.

The common piston engine Dia. piston 1" Momentum arm 10". Piston is 15 deg. past TDC. F = 20lb. torque? answer no comments.

I know the answer, I am trying to have a discussion comparing the two engines in regard to their torque characteristics.

You want an answer, here you go. You are an a$$hole. I see why you wish to hide your CR4 name.

This is your first posting of the magnitude of any dynamic metric in this entire thread. You don't believe me? Well press <CTRL>F and do a search of the page for any of the units of force (lb, Newton, Dyne, or Sthène) or power (watt, horsepower, human equivalent). Nowhere is any data on the performance of this ceramic even implied anywhere in this thread. You also got the definition of torque wrong. Torque is a vector cross product that requires knowledge of the orientation of lever arm and force direction. The angle of incident between these two vectors must be known to calculate rotational torque from a linear force acting on a lever arm.

Oh, did you actually think that I would use my time to go through the kinematics of that pathetic animation in an attempt to calculate for you the torque from this new data. Well the first thing is that you never verified or told us which video you started this silly thread wanting to discuss. You insulted instead of answering the simple question which video and motor is to be discussed. Now you want me to prove my analysis technique from insufficient information.

I think you should consider getting a good enema. You are so backed up you cannot see straight.

Boy, you're making all sorts of internet friends, aren't you?

These guys are being just as recalcitrant as we are.

It appears that you are having trouble with material selections, electronics of all types, kinematics... not to mention (as has been done already) a problem playing well with others.

Just curious: how many members are there in the design team for this ME2 engine? You are doing this alone? That is difficult for me to believe.

In addition, your lack of honesty is working against you. In your OP you said " I saw it on youtube.". In the other forum, you said "I have invented a new Rotary Ceramic ICE, ME2."