[balsaman]

Let the poor guy be.

Ken is working on an engine that he believes will be great yet it does not run. Who cares. He is WORKING on it. Maybe it will never run, maybe it will, maybe it's not a viable design, maybe it is, maybe it's just dreams, WHO cares. It's his dream, let him dream it. His claims are just that, claims. He has offered no proof for or against, who cares. Let him believe in his theories. NC Cams, what do you care that he hasn't proven anything? At least 15 times you have asked him to prove it. It is clear that he can't at this time, maybe never, it doesn't matter. Maybe he will some day, maybe he won't. Who cares. Let the poor guy tinker. Time will tell. It's not really worth 15, 1000 word posts repeating the same stuff. It's clear he is not intersted in your opinion on the subject. He has made up his mind that it's the best IC engine design around. You or I are not going to change that opinion, and why should we care anyways. At least he is more creative that 99.9% of the rest of us, and he is having fun, and he is learning, and he is sharing what he has learned. We can take it or leave it.

In the mean time, maybe Ken will continue to contribute and document his findings. Quit arguing and take it or leave it. It's not that important.

E

[NC Cams]

Balsaman: I could have taken that for a response IN A HEARBEAT 140 posts ago had Ken issued it with his inital post or somewheres along the way.

Rather, he simply continued making unproven claims that challenged even avante garde interpretations of technological fact regarding the Wankel. Moreover, some of his ideas lacked true technical viability.

Should invalid technical proclamations be left unchalleged if one knows them to be based upon incorrect understanding of technology??? I think/feel not.

One can overlook and ignore bogus technological comments - up to a point. When I issued a mistaken explanation about servos on another thread, I do believe that you were a/the member who was kind enough to correct my misstatments.

Did I argue and keep spouting the same wrong mantra? Nope, took note and will pass on correct info next time the question arrises.

Why did you care?

My comments were only a teeny tiny bit wrong? No big deal, right? Simply put, I was wrong. You fixed it and the level of knowledge took a step up as a result then and will continue to do so thereafter.

Letting incorrect interpretations of technology go unanswered does NO ONE any good - most specifically the poor individual who is a rank noobie who's looking to find the way. Letting them get off to at a wrong start with bogus info is a huge disservice.

Ken can make all the claims he wanted IF HE QUALIFIED THEM AS THEORY, NOT AS FACTUAL METHODS/PROCEDURES as he's been doing. That way, he can say that in HIS OPINION, the moon is made of used Wankel rotors and that's just fine with me. I may take a different opinion and voice it but that's OK.

But to say the "THE MOON IS MADE OF USED WANKEL ROTORS BECAUSE I SAY IT IS..." goes a bit beyond what should be tolerated as factual - we simply can't let something that incorrect stay out there to become sage wisdom, can we?

God, I hope the moon isn't make of used Wankel rotors. Stranger claims have been proven to be true - I think.

Point is, people come to this m/b to obtain SOUND, VALID information about the technology they have an interest in. I do my best to provide sound advice and technology so as to help enlighten the members. You do to.

There's a way to qualify a technical concept as theoretical. But don't, DON"T call a concept factual when it is merely your unproven theory about how/why the thing will work/should work better if you do it my way as opposed to proven ways that have survived the test of time and production service for years.

Sometimes you have to care, but not too much. Sorry if I care too much. Only trying to keep false, incorrect or bogus urban legends regarding IC engines from getting too imbedded into the lexicon of CNCZone.com

EDIT Sadly, eons ago, some well intended individual tossed some Bon-Ami cleanser down a carburetor to "help seat some rings" -

Ssdly that boguse urban legend remains entrenched in circles to this day. Had it been quashed as it should have been eons ago, many a guy wounldn't have done it and done even MORE harm to the engine.

Point is, bogus ideas about any form of technology need ot be quashed ASAP. Otherwise, the urban legends become entrenched and take their toll on counless people thereafter.

END EDIT

[Eson]

NC Cams:

As i said, inventors and employed engineers work diffrently. Ken doesnt have $3 million he can choose to invest in. He got nothing to lose, so why wouldnt he pick a fight? WHAT IF HE WON? And by his claims he could mean theoretically that his engine is superior. A high rev v12 cyl. engine is superior to a 1 cyl. in terms of performance. A wankel perform better then other engines with the same displacement. And the wankel got a 3 lobe rotor. Now wouldnt the Starapex with even more lobes perform better? 1 cyl. < 12 cyl. Piston < Wankel. 3 lobes < 5 lobes. Why shouldnt Ken use that argument that the Starapex is a superior design?

If you, from the beginning of the piston program could read in the sketches, from the designer; "Doesnt improve anything at all". Would you even look at that paper again?
If Ken says "my new engine is inferior to other engines", would anyone look at his posts?

If youve been in the community for over 30 years you should be able to see a connection between Ken's claims and the piston program.

EDIT: And who can judge if it is bogus and not? It might be bogus today, but in the future someone else might find that this bogus idea was the missing piece to a technology breakthrough.

[balsaman]

Let it go. Ken is experimenting. Everyone sees that. No one takes any of his unproven design info as fact. If he told you thew moon was made of wankles then just correct him with as few words as possible.

Some things are either true or false. Some things are opinion. Ken can share an opinion no matter how far fetched it seems to anyone else.

I am now done with this thread.

[NC Cams]

Eson:

Successful engines do NOT spring forth off of the design table. The undergo development and testing. They have to prove themselves or they don't get into production - limited or high volume.

Ultimately, the V12 you mention (probably from F1) are all dyno proven after they are designed, machined and assembled. The first effort seldom sees the racetrack because engines demonstrate strange tendencies -the brilliant ideas don't always pan out.

Even engine modeling programs, when applied to a clean sheet of paper, don't model the engine properly or correclty, The models have to be tuned, THEN they work fairly well.

Had ken take the approah outlined in post 142, this food fight wouldn't have gotten this far. He can argue the alleged merits of his superior design all he wants. That's not my beef.

All I've said all along that the INDUSTRY demands that such claims be substantiated. Claim all you want, but be prepared to substantiate it. He made the claim, all I asked for was proof. lacking that, I merely tried to do was qualify his claims as unsubstantiated/unproven which is what they are.

He claims to have tried to demonstrated/offered his ideas to Mazda and then claimed that they ignored his "clearly superior concept" or something to that effect. All I did was provide what probably went thru the OEM's mind when/if they looked at his offerings.

Yes, i've been in the community for 30+ years. I'm trying to explain what is required to have your ideals or concepts or technological advancements recognized. Do it any other way and you'll not be granted an audience. Period, paragraph. End of story.

Take this following statement for the gospel's truth: If I design a trick camshaft that i claim will make more power than anything out there, I might, MIGHT get some takers. However, they will inevitably test in an engine on a dyno.

If it makes the power I claimed, they'll buy more until the next improvement comes along.

On the other hand, if it DOESN"T make more or MAKES LESS or BREAKS STUFF, chances are I'll never EVER sell that team a camshaft EVER again. The competition in my business is just THAT intense

Like I've said a number of times, some of Kens claims are NOT self evident - his drawings are anything but clear and lucid. My understanding and training in combusrion engine technology gives me a totaly different view point from what what i suspect are Ken's self taught axioms and theories.

The tecnology I sell has to work or I don't eat, pay the rent or keep a roof over my head. Hence, my judgement criteria are based upon a much more stringent level of performance.

Believe what you want. Wish and hope as much as you dare. However, Ken will either keep tinkering until he tires or runs short of funds or tinkers until he finds something. If I can help him by providing sound technical input - I will. But to humor him by looking the other way at what is wrong or misplaced applications of technolgy, I simply can't do that. See post 142 for the reason why.

[Ken McKenzie]

NC cams

How dare you question my INSTRUCTIONS.

You have not indicated any intent to followed them.

You from your own admission are not farmiliar with the WANKEL ENGINE.

Ninety percent of your correspondence is off topic.

I can assure you that people who are farmiliar with the Wankel engine are capable of creating their own experience of the mechanical facts I have disclosed.

Ken

[NC Cams]

How dare I???

Simple.

I think your instructions are either incomplete, lacking technical accuracy in some areas, poorly documented, dynamically not viable in others, flighty, ill concieved and simply incorrect and/or poorly defined.

On a positive side, there are some interesting ideas but, sadly, your failure to use of a scientific method of development WILL hamper your possibilities of realizing success from the ones having good potential - you're simply creating more problems for yourself than you're solving via the implementation of the bogus ideas....

I'm entitled to these opinions just as much as you are in believing that your unproven, self evident, self serving technical advancements (that admittedly haven't always worked) are superior to the PROVEN technology of the successful Wankel engine developers who preceed you. I'm entitled to voice these opinions just as much as you or anyone else in this public forum.

I'm sorry that you consider my logic and engineering based responses regarding the basic technical principles used to build and develop ANY IC engine to be off topic. I'd offer an alternate opinion about these so-called 90% off topic postings which is clearly and concisely stated in prior post #129. I don't know why but I'd guess that the member who posted #129 just may be much more of a rotary engine afficianado than I.

In the real world of engineering, one in which you've probably never been involved, this would be considered a public design review. This is a review process wherein one's works are given public display so that peers can review a design for viability, probability of success, technical accuracy,

You know, the simple basic and more often than not the not so self evident stuff that goes into making something work in the intended fashion.

This process is quite effective at seeking out the advice and knowledge of those peers who know more or are better educated about the various technologies assosciated with designing and building an engine.

This would include metallurgists (who'd tell you the optimum materials to use for the bore surface and housing substrate and the proper way to heat treat them), mechanics experts (who'd mathematicaly analyze the dynamic movement of the engine components beyond paper tracing overlays -these are NOT mechanics) and dyno technicians (who are inordinately good at knowing the temps and pressures that the engine undergoes and who's experience will tell you what NOT to do).

One might also get a few components engineers to chime in. These guys have MUCH empirical experience with component interaction. The invovement of engine builders and assembles (not the same) is helpful because they can often "see" the dumb stuff that gets past even the sharpest designer, machinist or engineer.

Finally and most importantly, there's always some crusty old veteran senior/principal engineer. He's been in the trenches and seen stuff tried in diesels and gassers and and occasional Wankel way longer than anybody else. He's also the one who's seen more debacles than the rest of us combined and who's charged with preventing future ones.

Via his experience he knows just the right questions to ask of a designer - to see if the designer has used proper design procedures or made some silly SWAG involving unproven technobabble that can't/won't work - he can smell "alchemy" of sorts only with respect to its creeping into machine design.

These guys are NEVER specialists - they're always generalists and they have the uncanny ability to separate technobabble puffery from good solid engineering prowess.

BTW, I was part of the design review team for a former employer - we looked at the Wankel back in the 70's for aftermarket viability and decided to pass, mostly on the advice of the crusty veteran - he's dead and gone now but was 100% spot on about the VERY limited market penetration that the Wankel would ever have. BTW, he was to diesels as you would be to wankels but he KNEW IC engines -all of them, it was his job to know.

Yes, I have no intention of making a wankel - at least not your way. Your inability to prove that your concepts works is the prime reason. A secondary one would be that you can't explain or understand why it doesn't work other than to blame something else.

You can spend your time and money chasing dreams and tinkering. But why should I chase vaporware too??? Simply an impractical reduplication of efforts. (BTW starapex working AND living yet???).

Simply put, Don't try to continue to pawn off unproven theories as technical fact (Proven as in DYNO proven not "Ken proved" whatever that consists of). So you think the ides work, do you?

Fine, I've explained how to prove them to the engine engineering community so that you can achieve the recognition that you'd so truly seek to obtain. Why else would you have contacted Mazda directly with your ideas other than to show that a tinkerer's dream ideas could out perform those of an OEM engineering staff???

Some of us have repeatedly tried to set the world on fire with our deluded dreams of technical grandeur. Been there done that. However, I learned that the engineering community that I tried to set ablaze is QUITE non-flammable. Got burned out trying after a while. Simply came up against much tougher guys than me - guys who were better educated, more experienced, and/or better funded (politically or financially).

I learned to do it their way after a while. And you want to know something, Ken, stuff started working MUCH better. Besides, I spent less time fixing broken crap and trying to repair shattered dreams.

Try asking for and seeking help from those who may know a bit more about stuff than you do - no man is an island. There are tons of people out here, including myself who'd be glad to help you build/develop your dream engine. Or you can plod along hacking and slashing as you seem to be.

Keep in mind however, that you WILL INEVITABLLY get differing opinions on any subject when you ask for input. At the piont where conflicting opinions surface, you need a crusty old veteran to go to for his opinion - he'll usually point out options and quite often see something you misssed - darn it, those SOB's are right more than they're wrong - but, come to think of it, that's there job....

(Consider this: They even had differing opinions re: the seals on the space shuttle booster and that's rocket science if I ever saw it. Unfortunately and sadly, the guys who put forth the worst case scenario weren't listened to).

Henceforth, you'll either get my best intentioned help or my most acerbic criticism,

PICK ONE AND ONLY ONE!!!!

(to the faithful viewers out there, tune in for the next exciting episoded of "How the Wankel Turns" to see what Ken does - insert soap opera organ music here).

[fkaCarel]

Well, I favor an final end to this movie, instead off cliff-hangers. I've seen people coming in and out of bushes, and hey: is'nt that Edison there?

I learned here that you have to disqualify as an engineer to qualify as an inventor. To me something new was putting a new brick on proven bricks. Uptill now I thought you just quietly do your thing, bring it up and compare if it's equal or better.

The new method seems to be mudslinging and naivity.

[Eson]

NC Cams:

You seem to be stuck in your time. There are plenty of other ways to get your inventions recognized, the internet for one example. Industrial recognition is in my eyes, for people who lack inspiration and who need evrything to be perfecly described to even understand how it works.

I think its sad that the thread turned out this way, i want to listen to Ken's thoughts and ideas. I understand perfectly how Ken's Starapex engine works and how it could be made and why it is a superior design. I understand that there is some honor in to be recognized by the industry but that means i surrender and will follow the same old path which you took.

Me and my brothers got our own company, its not in the engine department but in plastic. And i know how you old engineers react on new inventions and ideas. You DONT WANT TO CHANGE because you worked so hard to get to your current stage. You have work so you can live and you dont want to take any risks that could jeapordize your retirement.

This could be the reason why Ken went to Mazda and not to Bill's machine shop. At Mazda's research department they surely want to have new engineers who have a lot of ideas to get fresh blood in the system. At Bill's youll find a tire old engineer that doesnt wanna do anything radical because they could lose customers.

[RotarySMP]

Epson, this kind of opinion does a huge disservice to professional design engineers. As a gas turbine service and certification engineer, I have had the pleasure of working with professional design engineers with GE and Rolls Royce.

These guys are professional inventors. They are incredibly creative because they practise creative skills regularly. They are confronted with design goals at the start of a project which normally include goals technically unobtainable at the start of development, with a 24 month deadline to create, prototype, test and develop the technology.

Look at the constant flow of outstanding inventions flowing out of companies like GE, 3M, Honeywell, IBM, Siemens etc. Combine that with the number of one hit wonders the 90's tecnology bubble produced - companies which exploded on the scene with one great idea, but lacked the methodical approach to inventing to enable them to repeat that one great idea.

The best of these people (the crusty old veterans NC Cams talks about) are not afraid to innovate, and are not stuck in their ways, rather they have an outstanding balance of experience which allows them to smell the best path to successfully acheiving a goal, combined with the analytic and practical skills required. They are hung up on dreaming of the "Best" design, they are looking for a design which fulfills the design objectives. Unfortunately for Ken (and for the Wankel) these guys have incrementally raised the barrier to entry of a new IC design so high that the recip may now never be dethroned (I would bet on Fuel cell technology displacing the Recip rather than alternative IC engine). The problem for Ken is that the IC engine is not novel or new. Excellent engineers such as Felix Wankel have already sorted through the miriad of potential geometries.

The amateur inventor has proven repeatedly throughout history to be a good source of the suprise invention in a completely new field. The disciplined experienced engineering team working methodically have proven to be required to bring a new technology to fruitition.

It is characteristic of the amateur to think he can invent a better IC engine. A fancy goal which is in itself meaningless. Where is the plan? What are the deliverables? Better by what parameter? The Wankel is a potentially better engine of your performance parameters include power to volume and low frontal area (important to A/C), it is a horrible solution if your principle parameter is cheap to produce (like a lawn mower engine - Sachs proved that the wankel isn't the answer to that market).

The Britten motorbike is a good example of what Ken lacks. John Britten had a similar vision to Ken, but he went out and built an engineering team to realise his ideas, and was measured on the track in Daytona. That is the path to respect.

NC CAM makes a very inportant point. What is the informative use of the internet if every halfbaked idea can be sold as fact. There are more than enough lies, half-truths, charlatans, stock scammers, urban legends, etc in the rotary engine community without Ken slandering the outstanding methodical engineering work performed by Mazdas team over the last 40 old years.

If Ken came here with a vision and discussed stuff as his opinion the thread would probably have quickly faded away. Once he started claiming facts and proof, for what are weakly formulated ideas and opinions, those of use who have been taught to value solid engineering effort feel oblidged to provide a balancing opinion.

[NC Cams]

Eson: I worked in the auto industry for many years BEFORE I set out on my own to nurture my little camshaft company. I experienced first hand the NIH (not invented here) aspect of the job. Again, for probably more years than you've been alive..

BUT along the way, I also learned of the ramifications that ensued if a poorly designed part/engine/whatever got into production.

You seem to think that I acquiesed and gave in to "the man". Yes, I did for many a year. You know, play by the rules, get good job, retirement, security, health care - the American dream.

Yet my secret dream was to create neat little trick high performance auto parts company - sort of like what Ken probably wants to do with his wankels.

I nurtured that dream for about 10 years until I got caught in a crossfire with my dept manager - I was eminnently qualified as an enginer - she was sleeping with the corporate VP. Guess who won???

So I bounced from job to job doing what I needed to do to fulfill my dream but still needing to make a paycheck to survive in the meantime.

NC Cams was started as a night/weekend activity and became technically successful in fairly short order. I simply used proven engineering discipline in concert with "break the rules" creativity (that engineers are NOT noted for having) and did stuff with valvetrains that has surprised even the SWAG side of me.

About 3 years ago on that fateful Friday (they always terminate on a Friday) the sad news came and I was put out on the street from a very well paying "dream" OEM job - I like to think that my former boss giving me the opportunity to spend ALL my time on camco instead of 12hrs/day schlepping for him.

In spite of the fact that cam core suppliers would NOT sell us cores (too small a company, we offered to prepay), few people would work with us (too small, what makes you think you could outperform Comp or Crane et al) and the real crowning criticism "you guys will never be able to grind cams for Nascar teams - pick something simpler" (we showed them otherwise).

But we had a dream - supported by creativity and 25 plus years mfg experience supplied by my partner and a a like amount supplied by me with a broad engine component design and development background we eeked along making cams out of billet.

Thankfully, friends in Nascar who we kept in touch with gave us a shot when we needed it and the rest is history.

Thus, when I lost my "real job" I took the radical step at 54 years of age and with a health condition that precludes me from getting affordable health insurance and struck out on my own with my cam company.

Are you brave enough to do that? Do you think your dad would be? My dad towed the line and took care of my mom and me. He told me to "get a good job, blah blah". He had union protection in construction. I had my education and creativity (no engineering unions to hide behind in USA) when I got the heave ho. Tough business makes tough attitudes.

At this point, the bills are paid, I barely make enough to survive and a health problem now would bankrupt me. Yet, I've never been emotionally happier.

I use the exact same methods I put forth to Ken and they work to develop my products. Yes, I'm not an expert in Wankels, but I haven't chosen to tinker with them either. I elected to tinker with camshshafts.

THere are many race cam companies in the USA. Some have been doing it for years - decades actually. I wonder how many of them won the largest race in Nascar (Daytona 500) in only ther second year of involvement and did it in a 2 man shop???

We did and repeated the feat for good measure (11 more restrictor plate wins in 16 races) thereafter to prove it was no fluke. By the way with ALL new profiles for each race - they changed the rules on us each year.

It is one thing to dream. I did too. It is another to tinker. I do that too. However, it is another thing to try to use tinkering to develop a complex thing like an IC engine.

The engineers out there who've followed this thread know of what I speak when I say that tinkering and dreaming will NOT make IC engines go. Hard work and the sound application of engineering discipline is what's needed.

Yes, Rudolph Diesel created the diesel. But look what the Audi engineers did with it at LeMans and Sebring most recently. Many engineers including Duntov et al designed and developed the lowly Chevy Small block in 1953 for 1955 production. Yet look at what tinkerers and engineers IN CONCERT WITH EACH OTHER did for its performance 50 years later.

An auto engine surviving for 50+ years is ASTOUNDING -what's been done with the S-B Chevy defies belief. Good sound engineeing combined with racer creativity and engineering suppor does wonders, no?

My initial intent of getting invovled with this thread was to help Ken with his project. Somewheres way back, the comment I made at the time was written off as WRONG.

Why? Superior knowledge of some unknown technical fact. No, because of some stuff he read in a Norbye book. Not engineering stuff but techno-fluff written by a writer that some folks revere and who others think of not so highly.

Another example: Ken's "constant velocity box gear" thing was disproven and discredited eons ago. The box gear was proven to be far less efficient at transmitting power than the involute gear that replaced it.

Yet Ken stubbornly said it would be a critical efficiency enhancing device to include as part of his engine improvment package. Really??? When did the laws of mechanics and physics change and why only for Ken?

Quite simply, when Ken started trying to pawn off flawed info and or technologies as "fact", I merely hoped to explain the errors of the ways to help him advance his cause further.

Sadly, because I wasn't a "wankel enthusiast" my contributions were deemed as "meaningless'. Again, why do the laws of physics, mechanics, etc work differently for wankels and/or Ken???

This is an open forum. He can I can both and folks can agree or disagree. They can even agreee to disagree. However to allow known flawed or wrong technical statements to be pawned off as "fact" serves what purpose??? Sorry, not my style.

The sameness and difference between the Wright Brothers, Edison and Ken is quite similar and also quite different. All four of the mentioned parties are creative inventors/thinkers.

The difference is that the Wright Brothers plane DID fly, Edison was granted patents because his technologies DID work when push came to shove and Ken's still trying to make the starapex work/run/live.

People have asked me via P/M why don't I leave poor Ken alone. Why? because he's spouting off his flawed technology and his interpretation of car magazine fluff off as "proven technical" fact.

Some folks can see thru it and others can't. Those who can't need to be advised of the questionable merit of his claims - no more, no less.

Perhaps at this point is is time to post a final CAVEAT EMPTOR. To those who seek refuge in hoping that Ken will ultimately prevail I leave you with a quote from the late Doug Roe that speaks volumes in a few simple words,

"If the results don't bear out your theory, believe the results and invent a new theory".

Ken, if you can't/won't listen to me, please do listen to dear departed Doug (may he RIP)....

[Ken McKenzie]

Simple.

I think your instructions are either incomplete, lacking technical accuracy in some areas, poorly documented, dynamically not viable in others, flighty, ill concieved and simply incorrect and/or poorly defined.

NC Cams

Look at post 14 and 15.

If you followed the directions for making a machine to precision cut the housing and rotor you would have physical poof of the value of the instructions.

You questioned my CV box gears without first following the instructions to make them and test them yourself.

All the other instructions I provided are not complicated to people who have taken the time to understand the published functions of the Wankel engine.

I have had many ideas regarding the Wankel engine that have been proven wrong by my personal experimentation. I did not post ideas or claims I posted obvious manufacturing deficiencies in the development of the WAnkel engine. I also posted solutions to rectify the deficiencies.

The utilization of the solutions for people who understand and use the principles will provide better performance, economy and durability of the Wankel engine.

I note that to my knowledge no one else has made these improvements public.

Ken

[NC Cams]

I appologize for being a classically trained engineer who has severe comprehension problems with "word pictures". This is why I can not plainly see by your writings of the alleged superiority of your concepts. You alreadly know how I feel about your drawings.

THis personal semi-dyslexic deficiency is also probably why I can't read a slide rule and nor can I read a vernier caliper. Had it not have been for digital caculators and dial calipers, I don't know what I'd have done for a living but it probably wouldn't have involved cars or engineering.

Does that make me any worse of an engineer? I hope not. I've adapted well and found other ways to design, make, develop, modify and sell custom made premium qualtiy parts to a very demanding client base.

Perhaps because I can't readily "see" what some folks find intuitively obvious, I need to look at things from a fundamental building block basis. Sometimes you can actually see real obvious things that other folks don't see or overlook by doing it this way.

There is a BIG difference between drawing a theoretical shape on paper and turning the concept into hard, functioning metal - ask ANY machining or manufacturing engineer. GM learned this when they did pilot studies into wankel production in the late 60's/early 70's (don't recall exactly anymore). Saw this first hand when I had a chance to visit the proto facility where the pilot studies were being done while job interviewing after junior college graduation.

The biggest problem of any wankel maker: machining the rotor housing. It is one thing to take a boring bar and hone and make a round, straight bore into an engine block MILLIONS of times a year. It is another thing and vastly more difficult, as I"m sure you'll agree, to first machine a rotor cavity. Then and most importantly, to precisely finish the surface with sufficient accuracy, to the proper geometry and smoothness for the engine to function well becomes paramount.

Can you hand build an engine? Yes.

Can you laboriously machine the case with CNC tool path cutters and grinders on a individual basis? Yes.

Do these methods lend themselves to high volume production? No.

Are these hand massaged methods "robust" enough to be easily repeated over and over to very tight tolerances? No.

For niche markets, which I suspect the Mazda has targeted and served quite well, a corporate decision was clearly made by someone in Japan that "we will do this". They do things that way in Japan. They are NOTED for such dedicated support of a goal/ideal, especially DIFFICULT ones. It is a cultural matter of "honor".

Even if the engine sucked (I am NOT not saying it does), now that it runs well (after much dedicated development) and they have a market for it (as limited as it is/may be), Mazda will continue to make it until it is just too, TOO, T O O expensive to justify doing any more.

At this point, I'd contend that wankel production is not being done solely for profit mind you but for the matter of "technical honor". The management of Mazda would "lose face" (be dishonored, disgraced) if they stopped production now after all they did to develop and produce the engine for a loyal group of customers.

Besides and perhaps most importantly, they did what GM coudn't do, build a production wankel engine. Sort of a "nyah nyah, we did it, you can't" sort of deal. Engineers do give their colleagues "the finger" in such unique and clever and subtle albeit polite cerebral ways.

When you compare what GM did (not build the wankel) versus what Mazda did (build, develop, advance rotory technology), the Mazda guys are to be commended for doing what others either failed to do or elected not to get involved with.

Rather than more widely use the wankel in their product mix, it is noteworthy that the prime engine used on Mazda's fleet of high volume production cars today remains the venerable piston engine. Cheap, reliable and very highly developed and getting more so with each model year.

The fact that Ford bought into the company to help save it is probably why the piston engine became the salvation, not the wankel - more rational financial thinking as opposed to the "honor thing" (which Western societies simply DO NOT understand).

Mark these words: Some "insurmountable technical hurdle" will arrise and kill the wankel at Mazda when the time comes to take the wankel off life support. Those who know the Japanese culture know of what I speak.

Sadly, the wankel, with all it's real or percieved functional merits has one BIG problem that no one has found a solution for yet. Namely it is difficult and time consuming to make the rotor cavity.

Moreover and with the advent of variable valve timing (VVT), the fixed piston porting that the engine is saddled with ultimately prevents it from EVER taking advantage of performance and emissions reduction merits that VVT offers.

From what I do know about piston porting, anytime you move the ports, you affect high or low speed performance - thus, any fixed porting is and must be a compromise for an engine that will be used over a wide RPM range. This might be why moving the port to "solve lip seal issues" is not deemed as a viable compromise by the engineers responsible for the production engine. Compromise is a vicissitude of life for the engine engineer.

Every engine seems to have it's Achilles heal. The one thing that was to the wankel's advantage (simplicity and no poppet valves) may now be the feature that limit's its future growth, development potential and ultmately its survival (namely lack of VVT).

Yes, I've been harping about "prove it" for some time now in this thread. The reason has been clearly documented - no need to beat a dead horse.

Maybe Ken did his concepts to work in his shop. But "proof" is simply not "because I did it in my workshop, trust me". This is NOT sufficient for the engine community. Their game, their rules.

"PROOF" to the community is deemed real when you can bring an engine so equipped into ANYONE'S dyno facility on ANY GIVEN DAY and REPEAT the claimed performance improvements OVER AND OVER. Can your concepts do what you claim in hot running engines, time after time, yes or no?

I have to do that with my camshafts EACH AND EVERY TIME I MAKE A NEW ONE. What I'm asking of you is NOTHING LESS than what is DEMANDED of me - not merely for glory proof of a message board discussed hobby project - but for my day-to-day livelihood. Big difference.

I've been thru this sort of tussle with easiliy impressed marketing folks and technical inventors they supported many, MANY times before. In one of my worst, most stressful battles, the same sort of rhetoric and promises and "prove its", "you're old thinking" were being tossed about.

Interestingly, even the most staunch supporters of the avante garde technology "saw the method for the engineer's madness" when the following facts were cited as to "why we do things this way" - as in to demand dyno proof of concept viability:

Paper claims of the alleged technical superiority of a technical concept were granted US patent 4,365,785 on Dec 28, 1982. This patent was issued for an alleged superior, novel and unique rocker arm mounting geometry that offered superior performance via 16 claims in the patent. The inventor had been making trade publication claims of superiourity as far back as 1980.

Clearly unbeknownst to the inventor, (he surely wouldn't have sought patent protection had he known of the prior art), the very same geometry he had been granted a patent for was proved to be the ABSOLUTE WORST CASE method for valvetrain friction and wear. Could it have been that the inherent deficiencies of his method is why no one used it for so many years?

Anyway, the "novel" patented technology was found to be woefully deficient by G.D. Angle for a real live engine study he was commissioned to perform for a U.S. military aircraft project as documented publicly in the April 26, 1923 issue of Automotive Industries magazine.

Here we have a US Patent issued for trade publication claimed technically superior versus real life testing/development showing what the patented concept was actually a far cry from that which was the true optimum method for rocker arm operating geometery. Does ANY of this bear ANY similarity to what's gone on here????

NOTE: before ANY claims are made re: advances since 1923 etc, the geometric "facts" are what were patented and thes same 'facts' proved bogus in 1923. The laws of geometry and metallurgy and component interaction remained exactly the same in 1923 as they did in 1980-82 and as they continue to pertain so today.

To the supporters of avante garde technology, which method would you or any other reader chose to use in YOUR engine??? Patented paper claims of superior performance or actual dyno proven concepts which show the patented technology to be anything but what it claims to be???

BTW, the afore mentioned discussions re; 4,365,785 ended shortly after the patent anecdote was conveyed. The inventor was politely thanked for his presentation we would reconsider the sale/incorporation of his invention when he came back with suitable dyno proof of his claims. We never saw him again.

The claims first started in 1980 and the discussions occurred with my former employer in August 1982 - the guy resurfaced in around Y2K with a variant of the technology. Needless to say that as of today, the patented tecnoloby hasn't "swept the industry".

At this point and perhaps forever more, Ken and I will disagree.
However, to the casual reader, I'd encourage you to reread post #150, and specifically the last 2 paragraphs.

Caveat emptor....

[Ken McKenzie]

The biggest problem of any wankel maker: machining the rotor housing. It is one thing to take a boring bar and hone and make a round, straight bore into an engine block MILLIONS of times a year. It is another thing and vastly more difficult, as I"m sure you'll agree, to first machine a rotor cavity. Then and most importantly, to precisely finish the surface with sufficient accuracy, to the proper geometry and smoothness for the engine to function well becomes paramount.

Every Wankel engine manufacturer today does not make a precision housing.

The instructions that I provided follow the exact profile the gears create every time. All the actions turn in combinations of perfect circles.

The instructions are also directions for a lathe that would make precision housings.

The working prototype that I use finishes the new chromium surface with cylinder sandpaper that reciprocates as it follows the housing profile.

As the Mazda housings are not precision I have to make one path around the housing noting the deficiencies and then basically drive the cutter (sandpaper) slightly in and out so it creates a perpindicular smooth surface.

I have a A10 engine housing that appears to be perfect as it has carbon seals. Just as an exercise I slightly sanded it's surface after spraying it with blue ink. My finish demonstrably shows that the original Mazda chromium has defects that are beyond the reach of the carbon apex seals.

I read in the web that the cost for purchasing a housing grinding machine is $800,000

The instructions I posted has component costs below $2,000.

Perhaps manufacturers would appreciate a simple machine that creates precision results every time.

Ken

[Ken McKenzie]

Instructions for making a Wankel engine.

In the ultra light air craft the Wankel engine turns at a un desirable high speed.

In a previous experience I found excessive torque produced when I created a direct link between the rotor and drive shaft.

In this example we use the front of a Mazda engine from the fan belt to the center housing.

We cut the e-shaft in the center of the front lobe.

We press a sealed ball bearing assembly into the front part of the rotor bearing housing.

We grind or cut the e-shaft lobe to the inside journal size of the bearing

We attach a 1” diameter by 8” solid shaft to center of the e-shaft lobe.

We attach a 1.5” Diameter by 6” hollow shaft with splines to a disk attached to the rotor.

We install a three blade propeller over the splines and have it held in place by a bearing assembly at the end of the 1” diameter solid shaft.

What we have is an air cooled engine that turns the propeller slightly eccentrically at one third the speed.

Ken

[itsme]

Hi there,

Ken, I'm not quite sure if I fully understood your 'instructions' on building an aircooled ultralight engine, however from what I did take in, there seem to be many details that you have overlooked (or perhaps you just chose not to provide full details?).

The biggest problem that I can see is having your propeller rotating eccentrically. Rotary engines have got balancing masses for a reason - to balance the engine and prevent vibration. The masses on the engine are 'tuned' for the mass of the rotating engine parts. ie. the rotor, seals, eccentric lobe etc. If you start adding propellers and shafts that rotate with the eccentric lobe, you will upset the engine's balance completely and probably make for a VERY unpleasant flight. That is ignoring the other implications such as the increase in bearing loads and the poor little airframe that has to support this. You could of course change the balance weights on the engine, but if you have added a significant amount of rotating mass (which you would have with a propeller and all those shafts), then your balancing masses are not going to be insignificant by any means. After doing all of this, you MAY have a smooth engine, but one that has a mass far greater than the original engine. I would imagine that this is hardly ideal for aviation use and it is highly unlikely that it would be more effective than a simple belt reduction (or gear reduction) as used on many of the ultralight engines.

You have not mentioned anything about the lubrication and rotor cooling system on the engine either. If you start tampering with the rotor and the surrounding area, you are likely to start interfering with the oil supply to and from the rotor. How do you plan on lubricating and cooling the rotor? A premix is probably taking the engine back a few steps and rotor cooling IS required and important.

The air cooled housing would also be an issue. Have your ever noticed that aircooled engines have cooling fins? They have these for a reason too. The Mazda engines were not designed as air cooled engines and merely supplying a 'light breeze' over the relatively smooth housings would not be adequate.

Finally, seeing that the Mazda rotors were never designed to have the power taken directly off them, are you sure that they are able to handle what you have proposed?

Perhaps a bit more thought is in order.

Warren

[NC Cams]

To ITSME: I've learned from my voluminous exchanges with Ken to date that his concepts randomly go from classically unproven but "Ken proven" technologies to merely "Ken's instructions for everybody/anybody ELSE to use/try/perfect".

I can't wait to see his response to the very serious technological and dynamics realated challenges (I'd contend deficiencies) that you've uncovered in his latest claims.

An ECCENTRICLY MOUNTED PROPELLAR??? Interesting albeit dangerous idea. I think it has less than vacuous merit but to be fair, why not try it???

BTW, you DON'T want to put a concentrated imbalanced load into a ball or roller bearing. They simply won't live under that sort of loading environment. As a former bearing engineer for a major bearing supplier, I can say this with MUCH more authority and expertise than Ken can ever hope to muster via his SWAG's (God, how I hated doing unbalanced load life calculations), unbalance load applications are such a PITA to do and the load/life calc answer is NEVER good enough for the person to use the bearing they made room for!!!!.

To those folks who think this is 'viable' idea (I don't, so I refuse to waste time trying it), go to a model plane supplier and find the biggest, heaviest model air plane prop you can find - no matter how heavy of a one you'll find, it will weight less than a real one.

Bore the hole eccentrically - how much?? I dunno, ask Ken for his recommendation.

Then mount the prop to a motor. Make sure you can throttle it electrically. To be fair, be sure it is mounted the EXACT amount of eccentricity that Ken says to do. Now, run said motor at the speed Ken is claiming is viable for his latest wankel modification.

CAUTION: hang on and raise the RPM slowly because it will probably shake and shake pretty darn HARD and I suspect that the thrust will be irregular as well. Now imagine these or MORE shaking forces and irregular thrust forcees being applied to the nose of a light aircraft or an ultralight experimental airframe that YOU will be riding on.

At that point, please report on your findings... hopefully you'll be able to do it with all your digits still attached. In the mean time, I"d be interested to hear what other light/ultralight aircraft enthusiasts think of this eccentric prop idea...

Ken: has or have any REAL airplanes ACTUALLY flown with this concept? Yes or no.

Or is this another intuitively obvious 'Ken idea' that 'will work, trust me' that you're proposing for someone ELSE to try???

Ken, if your "sandpaper roll" cavity finisher concept works so well and so inexpensive to incorporate, you should EASILY be able to gain interest in a cost sensitive OEM buying the technology. This is especially true if it reduces the costs of capital tooling from $800K to a small fraction thereof. With the "cost down" philosophy in vogue at ANY OEM today, you should be welcomed wth open arms.

Lets say the the concept ultimately is production feasible and does perform as you claim (I am NOT saying it won't), OOPS, WAIT A MINUTE!!! You have a small problem.

For ANY OEM to incorporate a new, "advanced manufacturing technology" (oscilliting sanding rolls are not new nor advanced nor high volume production suited but I digess), you would have to -

guess what.......

PROVIDE A DYNO TEST TO PROVE VIABILITY OF YOUR CONCEPT. Isn't it strange how that small hurdle keeps cropping up??? Do you think that there is a reason why??? Can you or anyone guess what that reason might be??? Try rereading post 150, especially the closing paragraphs.

In light of the fact that Ken can't or won't do the dyno testing needed to prove his concept works, he merely seems to be hoping/expecting/waiting for someone else to do it. In such instances, the chances for Ken's concept EVER being implemented by an OEM or even other wankel afficianados are two (2) - slim and none.

Ken, keep one think in mind WHENEVER you start thinking about doing avante garde things to/with small aircraft:

Airplanes have a ruthlessly efficient and usually violent ways of proving that unproven, poorly engineered (perhaps stupid) concepts don't/won't/can't work.

Tinker all you want on "ground planes" and "bench motors". But when it comes to planes that will have a person's life at stake when it gets in the air, make DARN SURE you concept is dyno proven and engineering sound before you let it get off the ground.

SWAG's and "tinker engineered" concepts have NO PLACE WHATSOEVER in potentially life threatening useage applications.

Hmmmm. Eccentric propellars. Wait until the Experimental Aircraft Association and the FAA Inspectors hear about that one....

If there are any FAA folks or experimental aircraft plane builders in the viewing audience, I'd love to hear your input...

[fyffe555]

Ok, decided I wasn't going to contribute anymore but this is plain silly. Is this a troll? I have no trouble with new ideas but let us present them as such, not the suggestion or argue these are factual, proven and reasonable.

the best Wankel 'improvement' I've seen on the 'zone is Warren's (Itsme) model wankel, math for shapes almost identical to Kens drawing construction, made in a few weeks, openly shared here and I learnt some new stuff from it and he got it to fire if not run. great effort.

As to the sillyness;

In the ultra light air craft the Wankel engine turns at a un desirable high speed.

Who said? This is rubbish. Assuming propellor propulsion here, the design speed of a prop is a function of tip speed, reynolds number, design parameters of the aircraft, thats it. An engine is chosen to meet the requirement. If the requirement is for the optimium torque of the motor to match a slower speed prop then gearing is used. Ask the Wright brothers, they figured it out.

Geared and direct drive wankel engines are very successfully in use and readily available for Ultralight and heavier Aircraft fully certified and have been for many years. All with conventional props or ducted fans. Wankels produce torque at higher speeds so they have to turn faster but correct prop or gearing is the solution.

In a previous experience I found excessive torque produced when I created a direct link between the rotor and drive shaft.

IC engines produce torque - Hp is a function of torque, which is just a function of pressure in the engine. More Hp and efficiency is desirable so how can you have too much torque??? Or do we mean there's too much for your 'direct link' modification. That's an engineering problem, not excessive torque.

What we have is an air cooled engine that turns the propeller slightly eccentrically at one third the speed.

OK this is where it gets real silly. Find someone who actually understands Props suggest your idea, stand WELL back if they happen to be drinking.

Prop balance is critical to such an extent that the prop is usually dynamically balanced, often to less than 0.1in/sec and depending upon engine the engine/prop assembly might be balanced too.

What do you think the balance might be on an eccentric prop? Did you even consider it? Exercise for the student; calculate the mechanical forces on a simple 2 blade 6' prop at ~1500-2000 rpm with a 1/2" eccentric. Now do the same for 3 blade. Now calculate the aerodynamic loads caused by running these props eccentric. Hint the aero loads on an eccentric prop will act to rock the blade forward and back or wobble in its plane as well as in the plane of the blade.

As a further clue, typical pager vibrator motors rotate around 6krpm and have an eccentric of 1/2mm and diameter or 3mm. Ignoring aero loads you're proposing a 100hp pager vibrator six feet in diameter and around 20-50lbs. In a microlight weighing under 254lbs empty?

Believe it or not Aero loads can exceed the mechanical loads, just ask someone with an Aeronautical education, oh wait, you just did..

Vibration shortens the flight hours of airframe, engine, electronics, avionics and aircrew. It's a major factor in calculating airframe life and when the switch to jet occured airframes doubled or more thier airframe hours even though the actual in flight loads increased simply because vibration was reduced.

My example of the 6' prop above would take the prop outside the 0.4 in/s balance requirement for FAA certified aircraft by many ORDERS of magnitude, and that entirely ignores the increase in stress failure risk.

At a simpler level, as I understand it you're mechanically connecting the prop, or in this case a massive vibration maker, vibrating in all three planes to the rotor and not the original output shaft? What do you think that's going to do to your bearing assemblies, let alone rotor clearances or seals?

Finally you suggest connecting to the rotor will ' reduce the speed' by a 1/3rd? really ? because in post #7 you say thats not true? Whateveryou are removing the gearing implicit in the engines original design and expect to turn a prop at rotor speed without gearing ? where do you think thats going to put the prop speed in the engines torque curve?

Apologies to 'zone members, not trying to rag on anyone but this is too much.

Andrew

[fyffe555]

Eason; 'Highly schooled engineers are limited by their lack of fantasy'

Could not have said it better myself.

A good question but I'm not sure about that. Engineers are limited by requirements of money, production costs, employers demands, peer review and inconveniant things like physics. That doesn't mean they don't image a better bridge or what ever fantasy they have, they are human after all!

However, wether they personally actually do anything about it is another issue and that's often down to human nature, Ken's an 'inventor' and tries, that's more than a lot of 'engineers' would do and he should be applauded for that. Especially since he's been doing the same thing since 1978.

He shouldn't be applauded for suggesting as fact ideas that are dubious or unproven. Like the idea that Mazda's housings are not 'precision'. The fact that so many are running for profit suggests that Mazda's are precise, they couldn't run consistantly otherwise, and they are precise to Mazda's spec. The issue is with definition and assertion that one is better than the other - and Kens not told us why his are more precise and what the benefit is, percieved or measured - other than quotes from one specific book. The idea that Mazda in their thousands if not millions of engines might know a thing or two isn't reasonable apparently.

Back to engineers, most successful engineering companies are sucessful why? because they're slow, unimaginative or behind the ball? Or because they are better, and if so what's better? Frequently it's because they DO put their imagination, fantasy or exciting product into fact. The fantasy does go on - it's just not visible, next time you go buy the newest technology; TV, ipod, hot sports car think that somewhere someones imagination came into play - and an engineer turned it into actual reliable fact.

To be a 'highly educated engineer' you have to graduate, if not post grad graduate. Most schools, if not all require some final thesis on a subject not previously covered or with a unique aspect. You don't get to do that without some imagination and fantasy. In good schools the pressure is to learn the skills AND how to apply it with imagination required. Lack of imagination means poor grades and thats where Eason's observation comes true.

At the end of the day we expect society to advance, in engineering thats means imagination and fantasy AND the ability to turn it into fact.

Most can identify a new problem, it's much harder to produce the solution, and it usually doesn't come from copying a book.

Andrew

[balsaman]

I agree that running a propeller on a slight eccentric is suicide.

We need to remember that all Ken's ideas are just that. Ideas. Food for thought. I do not believe he is suggesting you should try them. Perhaps he is suggesting that he would like to try them, and obviously he believes that his ideas will work without a doubt.

We can agree the we don't all believe that this is so.

I wish this thread would have turned out differently. As it is, I believe that it is no longer constructive, nor is it all that informative at this point. I have decided to close it for the time being. Perhaps, after a time, I will open it again.

Eric