We have attempted to perform P-V diagrams but I am only a student and my dad is a machinist and the calculations are a bit out of our league. Also, calculating the volume isn't as easy as a conventional engine; in our engine multiple cylinders are open to one another at various times. Some high dollar CFD software could make quick work of it though. Months ago we wrote a check for $20,000 and drove hundreds of miles to an appointment with an engineer at SouthWest Research Institute in San Antonio hoping to hire a team of thermodynamics experts to study the engine and calculate the P-V information for us. However the experience was not a good one. The engineer obviously did not really want to learn the engine and got a glazed, day-dreamy look in his eyes as my dad described the engine to him. At the end of it all (verbal descriptions accompanied by 3D models and animations) it was obvious the engineer still did not understand and we decided to save our money and time for someone else.
The current prototype seized up very quickly after firing. We had built the prototype out of materials we had around (my dad machines aircraft parts...this is the reason we used 6061) assuming that the Mazda seals would survive at least a little while sliding against an aluminum surface. But the seals quickly dug into the aluminum and the engine locked completely up. To remedy this, we will be building the next prototype using the standards that are used for the sealing surfaces in the Wankel engine (chrome plated and treated to the correct hardness). Because the engine instantly locked up we could not get any power information.
We can make some general guesses to the power output by comparing our engine to a conventional engine. Assuming that our engine has the same efficiency and power output per CC, our motor would be better because of its size and weight (we believe it will actually be more efficient per CC due to several advantages our design has over the conventional engine...you can find a list, with explanations, of these advantages on the website or I can post them here, just let me know).
We consider the size and mass of our motor to be a great advancement over the conventional engine. Our engine is 11.5 inches long and 18 inches in diameter with a working displacement of 4181 cc (~255 ci). When a bounding box is placed around our engine and around a small block chevy with a comparable displacement we find that our engine contains 1.5cc of displacement for every cubic inch of physical space while the small block chevy only contains .47cc per cubic inch of space. Our engine is more compact.
As for the mass, fully assembled the Doyle Rotary comes to 220.5 lbs. A 350 small block chevy weighs 685 lbs
(http://www.enginefactory.com/chevdimensions.htm). You can see our engine is .86 lbs/CI while the chevy is 1.95 lbs/CI. Also concerning mass, the total rotating mass of our motor is 68 lbs while the total rotating mass of the chevy (crank:54, flywheel:35, and crank end of the rods:8) comes to 97 lbs. We might have to actually add weight to the rotating mass to increase the angular momentum.
We do not have data with which to make claims of expected power output and will not post fictitious numbers. We are trying hard to not be like the hundreds of others inventors spamming the internet with made up data. We know that hard data will be achieved only after we build and test the next prototype (we hope to start machining parts in two weeks but do not expect the prototype to be finished for a long while because we are funding the project ourselves).
Thanks for the questions. We really enjoy hearing the point of view of people not near to the motor.