Hacker News Reader

Comment by fernly | Hacker News Reader

The posted article and also the "how it works"[1] make it very clear and specific that this is _not_ a Wankel, and details the differences.

[1] https://www.liquidpiston.com/how-it-works

View on HN

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.

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.

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.

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.

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-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."

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com