Rotary expansible chamber devices – Working member has planetary or planetating movement – Plural working members or chambers
Reexamination Certificate
2001-07-27
2003-06-10
Denion, Thomas (Department: 3748)
Rotary expansible chamber devices
Working member has planetary or planetating movement
Plural working members or chambers
C418S183000, C418S186000, C418S123000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06575719
ABSTRACT:
BACKGROUND
1. Field of the Invention
This invention relates to rotary machines utilizing planetary motion to either pump fluid or be driven by fluid or accomplish both simultaneously.
2. Description of the Related Art
The fundamental starting point for this invention is the motion of the Wankel type engine. Technically such an engine is a planetary motion machine, which one inventor characterized as: “a rotating piston arrangement where a motor is guided by a gear mechanism meshing with a toothed reaction wheel in such a way that the rotor can move into or out of one or more consecutively following work chambers which accommodate rotor and are in a stationary casing.” F. Jernaes, U.S. Pat. No. 3,221,664, Dec. 7, 1965.
A planetary motion machine offers the benefit of fewer moving parts than a typical machine using cyclical motion, valves, or conversion from rotary to linear motion or vice versa to exert or receive pressure. A planetary motion machine may be a pump (that is taking in a fluid stream and compressing it to be exhausted at higher pressure), or a turbine (utilizing pressure to drive a rotor circularly to a lower pressure exhaust, and generating rotary mechanical power in a rotating shaft). A planetary motion machine has less eccentric motion than a typical straight piston machine. It has fewer moving parts in part because the machine is inherently a rotary machine and need not convert linear motion to rotary motion. Its disadvantages are that traditionally the classic planetary motion machine has only one compression per rotor cycle, and at high speed, there can be problems maintaining a seal of the compression chambers.
A classic planetary motion machine is illustrated in FIG. 2. The basic shape of the chamber, looking at the chamber from the “top” parallel to the axis of the rotating parts, is that of a symmetric peanut, though the “waist” of the peanut is barely narrowed. The peanut shape is called a peritrochoid in mathematics. The rotor looks like an equilateral triangle with symmetric bulged sides. In essence, the rotor, to use a layperson's description, rolls around in the inside of the peanut with each apex in contact with the peanut. If an engine is placed on the drive shaft of the planetary machine, it will cause the rotor to spin, and the action of an alternating increase and decrease in volumes of the working chambers in combination with alternate occlusion and exposure to intake and exhaust ports will cause fluid to be pumped. Alternatively, if pressurized fluid is allowed into a chamber to force the rotor to turn, then the drive shaft will be forced to rotate and will produce mechanical power at the shaft. Similarly, if pressurized fluid is allowed into a chamber to force the rotor to turn, by changing the position of the intake and exhaust ports for a different chamber, that different chamber can be used to compress fluid, effectively permitting the rotary machine to be a compressor and turbine simultaneously. The fluid can be liquid or gas or a combination.
In order to make a planetary machine attractive, scientists have sought to have more than one chamber simultaneously performing compression/exhaustion while another chamber performs induction/expansion during each rotation of the rotor, and at the same time minimize the number of moving parts, and minimize the speed of what parts are moving. The machine in the present invention is a double pumping or double action planetary machine, meaning that for each planetary cycle, the machine can have one chamber perform a function of compression/exhaust or intake/expansion, while another chamber performs another function of either compression/exhaust or intake/expansion, and therefore the cycle of at least one chamber consists of a) two motions of intake/compression/exhaust, b) two motions of intake/expansion/exhaust or c) one action of each of intake/compression/exhaust and intake/expansion/exhaust.
In 1976, Whitestone, U.S. Pat. No. 3,998,054, Dec. 21, 1976, was issued a patent for a “Rotary Mechanism with Improved Volume Displacement Characteristics.” While claiming improved displacement characteristics, and using ports in side plates, his rotor did not use the device of a duct through the rotor face and thence to a side port, nor did his pump contemplate a two-lobe peritrochoidal cavity. The effect of not using this duct or aperture through the rotor face and the lack of two-lobe peritrochoidal cavity is that for any given planetary cycle, the pump fails to achieve the swept volume and compression ratio (maximum volume to minimum volume) that the present invention achieves. This can be seen by reviewing FIGS. 1 through 8 in Whitestone '054. The advantage of the present invention is that a working chamber is nearly totally evacuated from a maximum volume. In Whitestone, particularly as the geometry of his proposed rotor veered away from the three lobed rotor in a square cavity in FIG. 2, Whitestone's invention faces one of two efficiency difficulties. First, there is a large permanently retained minimum volume 25f as in FIG. 9E, which minimizes the compression ratio of the maximum to minimum volume. Alternatively, second, there is a relatively small maximum volume with a somewhat smaller but substantial minimum volume 12af as in subfigures CF and DF of FIG. 13, but no port available for exhaust in Whitestone's '054 invention. Whitestone's porting, shown in Whitestone '054 FIG. 9a, which is the identical rotor position to Whitestone '054 subfigure CF of FIG. 13, particularly for a solid rotor which eliminates volume 25f of FIG. 9E, shows the traditional geometric difficulty faced by Maillard, United Kingdom (British) Pat. No. 583,035 issued Jan. 2, 1947, and prior art rotary pumps of either a) maximizing intake volume for the beginning of compression, but also enlarging the volume being compressed at time of exhaust, as in Whitestone '054, or b) lessening intake volume for the beginning of volume, and lessening the volume being compressed at time of exhaust. An example of the latter is Maillard UK Pat. 583,035 and Juge, U.S. Pat. No. 3,869,863, Mar. 11, 1975.
A rotary pump was proposed in an unpublished project proposal at the University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada referred to as a Zwiauer-Wankel configuration of rotary Stirling engine, for which a figure is shown at p. 79 of G. Walker, Stirling Engines, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1980, Library of Congress Call No. TJ765.W35, and is described at p. 115 of that book, Walker, Stirling Engines. In G. Walker, et al, The Stirling Alternative: Power Systems, Refrigerants and Heat Pumps, p.78, (Gordon and Breach Science Publishers 1994), the same author remarks that the Zwaiuer-Stirling rotary engine is an “arrangement [that] could provide a compact high specific output machine but although proposed over 20 years ago it has not been reduced to practice so far as is known.” From the drawing, Zwaiuer appeared to use a solid rotor form with porting after the fashion of Maillard or Whitestone '054, and in any event did not contemplate the use of a duct through the rotor and corresponding porting arrangement.
There are several other planetary machines which do not achieve double action where ducts through the rotor are contemplated, and/or where the maximum to minimum volume (the compression ratio) is not particularly useful for efficient fluid flow, and/or there are sealing problems. However, no art utilizes a system set out in this invention involving ducting, porting and the relative position of the rotor, duct and ports for the basic pumping or turbine action of the planetary machine to achieve double action with a superior volumetric efficiency without seal loss, double action in a three vaned-two lobed pump meaning two compressions and two expansions of fluid per planetary cycle. Maillard, United Kingdom (British) Pat. No. 583,035 issued Jan. 2, 1947, recognized the geometric constraints of his design, but absent a fluid passage through the rotor and proper design of ports and proper location of such a f
Kirtley Kevin R.
Manner David B.
Schumm, III Brooke
Brooke Schumm, III
Daneker, McIntire Schumm et al.
Denion Thomas
Trieu Theresa
LandOfFree
Planetary rotary machine using apertures, volutes and... does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Planetary rotary machine using apertures, volutes and..., we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Planetary rotary machine using apertures, volutes and... will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-3133695