Delbert Posted June 16, 2014 Posted June 16, 2014 Yes, at least in principle- because the "piston" doesn't have to keep stopping and starting again. Don't think it's quite as simple as that. Ignoring the compressive and power stroke forces, the energy to accelerate a piston is returned by the piston when it pulls on the crankshaft when being decelerated. There'll be losses through friction and the like, but it's not like (say) you or I trying to oscillate a piston up and down in our hand.
John Cuthber Posted June 16, 2014 Posted June 16, 2014 Comedy value? How do you Brits pronounce piston? (peestone?). Sure hope its not as ridiculous as "aloo-min-yum" Meh! I live near this place http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penistone 1
karthik_rao Posted July 27, 2014 Posted July 27, 2014 From first principles, the Wankel should be more efficient because of two factors: 1. Lower mass than reciprocating engines 2. Less loss of kinetic energy from frequent changes in piston direction. This is a gross simplification, and a lot of other factors including leakage make it less efficient, but I still hope engineers will get past these limitations.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now