Comparison of LiquidPiston and Wankel Rotary engine

P.H. Woelfle – Updated March 2021

A) Text from Frequently Asked Questions | LiquidPiston - How does the engine differ from a Wankel?
Original text in italic, my comments in bold

The Wankel rotary engine demonstrated excellent power to weight characteristics and exhibited low
vibration even at high RPM. Correct, though these are only few of several advantageous features.
Despite these advantages, the Wankel was always plagued by poor fuel economy
Wrong – and there is a lot of potential e.g. in applying an Atkinson cycle, new ignition systems and turbo
compounding,
emissions problems
Wrong – similar exhaust treatment requirements as on 4-stroke piston engines
and durability issues, especially in the apex / tip seals
Totally wrong – seal issues were resolved in the 1970s, and ceramic apex seals last literally forever.
These challenges are due to a number of inherent issues:
1) a narrow combustion chamber prevents adequate flame propagation, while also having high
surface to volume ratio which cools the charge and reduces efficiency
Partly true – the volume at TDC is more compact on the LiquidPiston and hence similar to a 4-stroke piston
engine (red chambers), but when the rotor moves away from TDC, the LiquidPiston is similar to a Wankel
(yellow chambers).

Image from LiquidPiston website

2) the engine is poorly sealed, leading to significant blowby, thereby decreasing efficiency
Totally Wrong – sealing is much better than on the LiquidPiston, where chambers are not properly separated
through the equivalent of corner seals (green on Wankel)

screenshot from How It’s Made | LiquidPiston / Wankel engine rotor

Furthermore, tightness of seals depends much on how they make contact laterally, and like on a piston
engine, internal gas actually aids the sealing function. On the LiquidPiston, which only has one “peanut-
shaped” seal on each side, any contact in one area will result in contact loss in another area. When also
considering thermal expansion and rotational offset from friction on the side plates, it becomes obvious that
the side sealing of the LiquidPiston is far inferior to the sealing of a state of the art Wankel rotary.
3) the Wankel engine operates on the same conventional 4-stroke Otto cycle with spark ignition as a
piston engine;
cycle modifications (e.g. Atkinson) are also possible with the Wankel rotary
however there are inherent challenges to operate > 10:1 compression ratio,
This is the other real benefit of the LiquidPiston: The Wankel by geometry is limited in its compression ratio
to around 12:1. So a Wankel, while being capable of running many different fuels, is not suitable for a
naturally aspirated compression ignition.
and this engine was forced to compete with piston engines that had over one hundred years of prior
development; and
That didn’t make it easier for the Wankel, but it is not a technical argument.
4) the tip seals, in addition to being difficult to seal, are also difficult to lubricate; oil must be injected
into the charge, with the majority of the oil burned in order to lubricate the gas seals.
Wrong – oil can be injected to the surface for lubrication. Adding it to charge is possible, but not necessary.

The ‘X’ engine essentially “inverts” the Wankel engine. While a Wankel engine has a 3-sided
triangular rotor, within a 2-lobed oval housing, the X engine has a 2-lobed oval rotor in a 3-sided
housing. The X engine captures the main advantages of the Wankel, including 1) high power-to-
weight ratio [a one rotor X engine behaves like a 3-cylinder 4-stroke]; 2) simplicity – having only 2
moving parts – a rotor, and a shaft; and 3) like the Wankel - the X engine is inherently balanced with
no oscillating components, therefore having minimal vibration. Unlike the Wankel however, there are
several key differentiators which address the bulk of the older Wankel’s design deficiencies:

The combustion chamber in the X engine is located in the stationary housing, with most of the gas
displaced during compression into this stationary combustion chamber. This makes the X engine
uniquely suitable for high compression ratio operation with Direct Injection and Compression Ignition
(which is not possible in the Wankel without boosting or a second compression rotor). Additionally,
the combustion chamber can take any geometry, and can be approximately spherical, optimized for
surface to volume ratio, thereby improving combustion efficiency and reducing heat transfer.
The stationary and comparably small ignition area is the other benefit of the LiquidPiston, agreed. With the
future perspective of using laser or microwave ignition – or using quickly burning hydrogen-based fuels – this
point loses relevance though.

The apex seals of the X engine are located within the stationary housing, and do not move with the
rotor. The seals do not experience centrifugal forces, and can be lubricated directly by metering small
amounts of oil directly to the sealing surface through the housings, which means that oil consumption
can be reduced to levels potentially comparable to that of a 4-stroke piston engine (essentially
negligible).
Whether oil goes on the housing surface as on the Wankel or on the rotor surface (which is where it goes
from the apex seal) as on the LiquidPiston makes no big difference technically.
The unique sealing geometry of the X engine has 3-5 times less blowby than the Wankel rotary. This is
mainly because 1) the Wankel requires clearance at the corners between its side/face seals and its
apex seals, while the X engine does not; and
As stated above. The Wankel could also have one combined seal on each side of the rotor (similar to the
LiquidPiston) instead of a combination of side and corner seals. But that would significantly reduce the
sealing function and the performance and efficiency of the engine.
2) the Wankel seals traverse across holes that contain spark plug(s), whereas the X engine does not.
Wrong – the spark plug position is chosen for a pressure neutral zone, so there is not much gas exchange.

Summary: In short, the majority of Wankel engine disadvantages just does not exist. It is always
difficult to try to show advantages of a novel concept if research on previous concepts has not been
done properly. Furthermore, the disadvantages of the LiquidPiston are not shown. And there are
quite a few beyond those mentioned above.
B) The opposite view: How does a Wankel rotary differ from LiquidPiston?

On the LiquidPiston the high achievable compression ratio is good for running non-gasoline fuel, and
the low air velocity and compact combustion pocket during ignition are the real benefit of this
design. Here additional efforts are required on the Wankel rotary.

The LiquidPiston’s intake is located centrally in the main shaft. From there, intake air is guided
through the rotor. The exhaust port in the rotor is right next to the intake. As a result, intake air will
be pre-warmed substantially, which results in reduced volumetric efficiency. Furthermore, the
uneven temperatures in the rotor will result in distortion, thus making sealing radially and laterally
even more complex.

Souce: video X-Mini Spark-Ignited (Multi-Fuel) Engine | LiquidPiston

The Wankel rotary has one solid shaft running in two large bearings. The LiquidPiston has a two-piece
solution that combines the shaft itself with a counterweight. Air intake is through the rotating shaft,
so the shaft outer and inner diameter and the bores in the shaft are a compromise between
optimum air flow and stiffness. Also, alignment difficulties that result in geometrical failures (rotor
not running straight, bearings locking up) between the two components are likely and the
counterweight side needs a comparably very large bearing unless further geometrical failures are
taken as a compromise.

Source: video X-Mini Spark-Ignited (Multi-Fuel) Engine | LiquidPiston

Wankel engine main shaft – most stiff where highest loads occur
The rotor is shrunk-fit to a geared segment, which contains two bearings that run in the shaft. The
bearings are limited in size by the outer gear size. Due to the hollow intake shaft, there is no room
for a separate lubrication, so the bearings have to be lubricated by intake charge.
This is also done on some rotary engines, and it is acceptable for some applications. But in stationary
or automotive applications, charge lubrication is not acceptable due to rather high oil consumption.
Apart from this, the rotor bearing of a rotary can be much bigger in size, thus significantly increasing
durability.

Source: LiquidPiston Intro video

On the LiquidPiston, the rotor itself is permanently exposed to high temperatures, so it will
experience local thermal expansion and distort. This can be compensated by adding clearance, which
most often results in more leakage. Alternatively, the shape of the rotor can be modified to
compensate for distortion, but the result of this is more clearance when the engine is cold, e.g. when
starting. Furthermore, rotor distortion has a significant impact on the peanut-shaped side seal.

Due to the geometry, the only feasible way of cooling the rotor is using a fan that is either integrated
in the rotor or preferably external, also to to blow hot exhaust gases out of the exhaust shrouds. The
result of this is that the exhaust air is rather cool, which is beneficial for some applications.
Air cooling of the rotor with a fan has several limitations though. First of all, it is less efficient and
requires more space than a closed-loop oil cooling system. As there are no additional sealing
elements in between, it is also possible that lubrication oil can get to the air/exhaust area, resulting
in semi-burnt, pollutant oil. Also, exhaust gas after treatment (as required in some applications) will
be very difficult due to the low air temperature that is likely insufficient for catalytic converters.
Furthermore, it is not possible to use the exhaust energy, e.g. for a turbocharger or turbo compound.
So if a charger should be desired, e.g. to increase power or compensate for altitude variation, a
supercharger (or the fan itself) is the only option.
On a Wankel rotary, if needed for the application, the rotor can be oil cooled and the rotor bearing
lubricated by a closed-loop lubrication system. Oil is thereby retained by additional oil rings on the
rotor sides. In addition, there are several alternative methods for cooling a Wankel rotary, such as
charge cooling and air cooling, so the cooling configuration can be designed to suit the application. In
any case, lost oil will not escape through the exhaust unburnt. Also, side ports can be applied on
Wankel engines to positively influence oil consumption and port timing for automotive and other
applications. Exhaust gas after treatment and adding a turbo charger or turbo compound is not a
problem at all.

Finally, size and packaging are important aspects. The Wankel engine has a very robust shaft that can
be used for any PTO/drivetrain, and there are no interfering components where the shaft protrudes
from the engine housing, so attaching and integrating components like a gearbox or generator is
rather easily possible. On the LiquidPiston, only the fan side can be used for a PTO, because on the
opposite side it has the inlet in the shaft and the three exhausts right next to this. Therefore,
compact packaging and integration is very difficult, and options are very limited.

C) Summary

It is an achievement to have the idea and to actually build an engine like the LiquidPiston, though the
idea of the kinematics has been explored by others before and has actually existed for more than a
century (US Pat 748348). It has advantages in the compact combustion pocket and high compression
ratio. But it also has many disadvantages that are not mentioned, but will have a big impact on
efficiency, durability, performance and packaging of the engine. It may work as long as it operates at
low power and is small in size, just like a model aircraft Wankel rotary can be operated without any
seals. But if it has to deliver continuous performance and prove its durability, limitations will become
apparent.
Beyond this, the engine may suit applications like smaller UAVs, but it will not be an option for
applications like generators/CHP systems or automotive use. Here the Wankel engine is the far
better option, combining most advantages of the LiquidPiston with the advantages of 4-stroke piston
engines.