Talk:Pistonless rotary engine
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
Why does the article claim Mazda is the only Wankle producer? Article text should probably be changed to "the only automotive engine manufacturer", not "only commercial manufacturer."
Why is the MYT engine listed, when no running prototype has ever been demonstrated? There are videos of it running off compressed air in cheesy convention booths, or being turned by hand by an assistant. They claim to have run one for 1000 hours of testing- where's the video of it running? Where's a car with it installed, even just a prototype model? It is a great disservice to Wikipedia readers to not qualify/disclaim ANY mention of the MYT engine when discussing it alongside engine technology that has been in widespread use for decades. It implies credibility most would agree "MYT" doesn't deserve (yet- I'll shut up when they run an engine publicly on an independent dyno.)
What about the Mazda RX-series? The RX-8, which came out in (I think) 2003 has a Wankel-type rotary engine.
- Please sign your posts on talk pages, user 192.35.35.36 (see also User talk:192.35.35.36), and consider creating a userid, it costs nothing and gives you a little more privacy.
- All the Mazda RX- models are Wankel powered. See for example Mazda RX-3, also Mazda Wankel engine. Andrewa 14:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Removed text:
Sometimes these engines are referred to in somewhat erroneous shorthand as rotary engines, although the term rotary engine was first used to describe the rotary piston engine, a type of aircooled reciprocating aircraft engine, where in the reverse of the usual piston engine practice, the crankshaft is static and attached to the airplane, while a bank of cylinders rotates around the crankshaft and is attached to the airscrew.
This is not altogether accurate, and in any case belongs in the article on these engines, not here.
The newest automotive rotary engines, however, are currently produced by Mazda. Recently, both the RX-7 and RX-8 have used Wankel-type rotary engines exclusively. The Mazda website has a history of their use of rotary engines [1].
Again, the Wankel engine is already well described in several articles. This external link could perhaps be added to Mazda Wankel engine. Andrewa 20:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
See also Talk:Rotary piston engine#Proposed name changes. Andrewa 20:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] and many, many others...
See http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/POWER/rotaryIC/rotaryIC.htm and http://dmoz.org/Science/Technology/Energy/Devices/Internal_Combustion_Engines/Rotary/ for two excellent surveys, the first with diagrams. Andrewa 00:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Clarifying Statements
- Guys, I added the following statements to clarify the article.
- 1. In the starting sentance: "A rotary engine is an.." changed to "A pistonless rotary engine is an..."
- 2. Added this line to the starting paragraph:
"An example of a pistonless rotary engine is the Wankel engine.
--Pavithran 23:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Disadvantages section
This section must have been written by the bloody frenchman that invented the Quasiturbine and for some bizarre reason continuously finds it necessary to attack the wankel as a bad engine and conclude from there that his engine be better. Well I do not know how to turn a page into "the content of this page is disputed not to be neutral" otherwise I d have done that. Anyway, the remarks fooling readers into believing that the quasiturbine is some kind of wankel improvement should be rewritten more neutrally, as should be the disadvantages of the wankel engine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.165.18.225 (talk • contribs).
- Well… I would say: please do. --Van helsing 13:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Non helpful editing
A message to Van Helsing: Please do not remove entries on the R.A.C.E. engine without reasonable grounds. Your edit removed a stub that other people were interested in expanding, as well as a link to the Atkinson cycle which is an important advantage in some rotary engine designs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sowilo (talk • contribs).
I fully agree with the above statement. Following some simple rules should help.
Sowilo 04:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Shall we keep this discussion on one place instead of four? --Van helsing 09:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] What gives that here?
Wankel Rotary Myths for Amateurs!? --90.186.119.176 21:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.186.119.176 (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
