Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=67.15.10.31; envelope-from=bob@bob-white.com
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 22:38:31 -0700
From: Bob White <bob@bob-white.com>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Rotary Displacement, Was: Solved!!!!
Message-Id: <20050210223831.2bd28279.bob@bob-white.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-724675@logan.com>
References: <list-724675@logan.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


I'm not disagreeing at all. :)  The only point was that the displacement
is just displacement and all the controversary (much of it in other
places I might add) is centered around trying to find an equilivance to
something else.  (And Mazda didn't help by being misleading about it.)

Bob White

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:23:41 -0800 (PST)
Tom <tomtugan@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Yes you're right Bob, your statement that 'all the displacement gets
> used during one rev of the rotors is the same as what Ed was saying.  
> I didn't carefully follow Ed's very last fix that put that in.   
>  
> On your post I wasn't sure what the point being interjected was and
> what is supporting discussion.   Was the point: "Displacement doesn't
> have anything to do with RPM, it's just how much does the engine
> displace!" and do you think that disagrees with what Ed was saying? 
> Or were you even disagreeing at all?
>  
> Tom
> 
> 
> Bob White <bob@bob-white.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Tom,
> 
> As I say, my comment isn't directed at the calculations at all. There
> has been much discussion about what the displacement is, and how much
> of the rotation to count. Mazda claiming 1.3 L for example.
> 
> I stand by my statement about the displacement. That seems to be
> exactly the way Ed has used it.
> 
> 
> 		
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
>  Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'


-- 
http://www.bob-white.com
N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 (soon)