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 th

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.