3 ms·

Sure, their engine and they can claim whatever they want.But I have the right to disagree. V4,v6,v8, inline twin, inline 4, 2-stroke, 4-stroke they all have dif

by 0xFFFE 6y ago

Sure, their engine and they can claim whatever they want.But I have the right to disagree. V4,v6,v8, inline twin, inline 4, 2-stroke, 4-stroke they all have different torque,power curves and characteristics, and there is big difference between Petrol/Gasoline and Diesel engines as well. BUT, they all are considered as internal combustion engines that convert translational motion into rotary motion.

fastball 6y ago
No, you don't really have the "right to disagree". This is clearly not a Wankel engine. In a Wankel engine, the rotor is approximately Reuleaux triangle-shaped. In this engine, the rotor is pill-shaped (obround). Yes, it is a rotary engine and it is an internal combustion engine, but it is not Wankel.
- 0xFFFE 6y ago
  Oh really? this is fun, I absolutely have the "right to disagree". Even with your comment. You can claim that this engine is built by the Martians, nobody is stopping you. You have the same "right to claim" whatever you want.
  - fastball 6y ago
    This isn't a subjective issue. A Wankel engine is a certain type of engine with certain key characteristics, by definition. The LiquidPiston engine does not share all of these key characteristics, so it is not a Wankel engine. Of course you can call whatever you want a Wankel engine, nobody can stop you. You can call the SpaceX Raptor engine a Wankel engine. But we will ignore you, because you are objectively wrong.
    - 0xFFFE 6y ago
      See? this comment is an improvement over your previous ludicrous comment of "No, you don't really have the right to disagree". Keep working on it. Meanwhile, read this. https://news.mit.edu/2014/liquidpiston-small-efficient-rotary-engine-1205 https://news.mit.edu/2014/liquidpiston-small-efficient-rotar... Especially, this part. "The X Mini is essentially an upgrade in design and efficiency of the compact Wankel rotary engine, invented in the 1950s and used today in sports cars, boats, and some aircraft."
      - fastball 6y ago
        Yes, I see how the article literally says this is not a Wankel, but rather an "inverse Wankel". Taking many of the main ideas behind another engine and using those ideas to make your own (with different key features) does not make it the same engine. My saying you don't have the "right to disagree" was a response to your ludicrous assertion that an engine can be whatever you want it to be, not what it is. Any ludicrousness coming from that is purely a function of how ridiculous your original response was.

by 0xFFFE 6y ago

fastball 6y ago

No, you don't really have the "right to disagree". This is clearly not a Wankel engine. In a Wankel engine, the rotor is approximately Reuleaux triangle-shaped. In this engine, the rotor is pill-shaped (obround). Yes, it is a rotary engine and it is an internal combustion engine, but it is not Wankel.

0xFFFE 6y ago
Oh really? this is fun, I absolutely have the "right to disagree". Even with your comment. You can claim that this engine is built by the Martians, nobody is stopping you. You have the same "right to claim" whatever you want.
- fastball 6y ago
  This isn't a subjective issue. A Wankel engine is a certain type of engine with certain key characteristics, by definition. The LiquidPiston engine does not share all of these key characteristics, so it is not a Wankel engine. Of course you can call whatever you want a Wankel engine, nobody can stop you. You can call the SpaceX Raptor engine a Wankel engine. But we will ignore you, because you are objectively wrong.
  - 0xFFFE 6y ago
    See? this comment is an improvement over your previous ludicrous comment of "No, you don't really have the right to disagree". Keep working on it. Meanwhile, read this. https://news.mit.edu/2014/liquidpiston-small-efficient-rotary-engine-1205 https://news.mit.edu/2014/liquidpiston-small-efficient-rotar... Especially, this part. "The X Mini is essentially an upgrade in design and efficiency of the compact Wankel rotary engine, invented in the 1950s and used today in sports cars, boats, and some aircraft."
    - fastball 6y ago
      Yes, I see how the article literally says this is not a Wankel, but rather an "inverse Wankel". Taking many of the main ideas behind another engine and using those ideas to make your own (with different key features) does not make it the same engine. My saying you don't have the "right to disagree" was a response to your ludicrous assertion that an engine can be whatever you want it to be, not what it is. Any ludicrousness coming from that is purely a function of how ridiculous your original response was.