Hello Mats Norway.
“Would love to have Manolis to have a serious look at it and provide us with some insight. Which i assume you do for the insight on your own part.”
They should explain in their drawings how they seal the passageways shown by the red arrows:
They have another,way more serious issue to solve, as the following slides from their International Patent Application show:
Unless I got it wrong (I doubt), the rotating peripheral seals pass over other, stationary seals. . .
To pass the compressed air-fuel mixture from the “intake” rotor to the “exhaust” rotor, is a big challenge (ask Scuderi).
To have an exhaust chamber dealing continuously with “red hot” gas, is a bigger challenge.
For comparison, here is another solution:
More at http://www.pattakon....takonRotary.htm
The above PatRE rotary engine is a four-stroke engine, has four combustions per shaft rotation, has top power to weight ratio, has extreme intake port and exhaust port areas for a given capacity per chamber.
The PatRE needs not to pass the compressed gas to another chamber; everything happen and complete in the same chamber (there are four).
The PatRE treats its seals gently, way more gently than the Wankel rotary.
Quote from http://www.pattakon....takonKeyAdv.htm :
The Wankel rotary engine features the freest breathing, being rid of camshafts, valves, springs etc. The PatRE rotary engine features as free breathing as the Wankel rotary engine, being also rid of camshafts, valves, springs etc.
The attenuated combustion chamber and the poor sealing have been, and still are, Wankel's Achilles' heel, causing way lower thermal efficiency than conventional. This rotary engine (PatRE) has not the sealing problems of the Wankel rotary: its "piston rings" - more than one if desirable - keep "surface contact" with the toroidal "cylinder", while Wankel's rotor apex seals - inevitably one only per rotor apex - keep poor "line contact" with the epitrochoid. It is also the shape of the combustion chamber of the PatRE rotary engine: it is as compact as the combustion chamber of the conventional reciprocating engine. The good sealing, the compact combustion chamber and the low friction enable comparable to the conventional, if not better, thermal efficiency.
The two-rotor Wankel rotary engine completes two combustions per power shaft rotation, while the PatRE rotary engine completes four combustions per power shaft rotation (one per chamber).
The Wankel rotary engine needs a pair of gear wheels to synchronize the motion of the rotor with the power shaft, it also needs counterbalancing weights on the power shaft. The PatRE rotary engine needs neither gear wheels nor counterbalancing webs.
For equal "expansion cycle" (or power stroke) duration (i.e. time in seconds), the power shaft of the Wankel rotates three times faster, while the crankshaft of the conventional rotates two times faster than the power shaft of the PatRE rotary engine.
This built-in revs reduction is beneficial in many applications. For instance when a propeller of an airplane is driven directly by the power shaft.
When an electric generator is driven at 3000 rpm directly by the power shaft of the Wankel, the time for the "expansion cycle" of a chamber of the Wankel engine is 0.015 seconds (too long, especially when combined with the poor sealing of the Wankel and the worst surface to volume ratio of the chamber during combustion). When the same electric generator is driven at 3000 rpm by the power shaft of this toroidal rotary engine, the time for the "expansion cycle" of a chamber is only 0.005 seconds, i.e. 3 times shorter than in the case of Wankel.
By the way,please take alook at the PatEf thread started today.