X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from relay2.mail.twtelecom.net ([216.54.204.190] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0c5) with ESMTP id 771477 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 17 Oct 2005 19:26:51 -0400 Received-SPF: neutral receiver=logan.com; client-ip=216.54.204.190; envelope-from=hsanders@bellsouth.net Received: from herbhehbdwmte2 (66-162-168-98.gen.twtelecom.net [66.162.168.98]) by relay2.mail.twtelecom.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07432C199 for ; Mon, 17 Oct 2005 18:26:04 -0500 (CDT) From: "Herb Sanders" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: Displacement - Again? Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 18:26:03 -0500 Message-ID: <000001c5d372$2452b620$1900a8c0@herbhehbdwmte2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01C5D348.3B7CAE20" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C5D348.3B7CAE20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ed, Now you are going to get an argument started on how many angles it = takes to make an angel. :-) Herb =20 -----Original Message----- From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Ed Anderson Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 10:14 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Displacement - Again? =20 Gee, Richard, I'll bet you wouldn't spend time arguing about how many = angles can fit on the head of a pin either {:>) =20 I agree it does not matter in the sense the engine produces what the = engine produces and does it very well, thank you. But, it is interesting to = see the topic come up repeatedly. =20 Ed A ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Richard Sohn =20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 12:58 AM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Displacement - Again? =20 Who cares?=20 weight vs hp and BSFC and to some extend, cost, is what counts. I = remember the bureaucrats work on the RO80 and the Spider. There was no factual = basis for their explanation than. So why wasting our energy on it now. The real problem is that the rotary is a better solution! =20 Richard Sohn N-2071U =20 =20 =20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Ed Anderson=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 7:38 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Displacement - Again? =20 Been there, done that {:>). If you are going to compare the power production of 13B rotary engine with a normal reciprocating engine, = then the accepted standard for a power cycle (for a four stroke) is 720Deg crankshaft degrees of rotation. 720 degrees of a reciprocating engine = has all cylinders firing be it a 4,6,8 or 12 cylinder engine.=20 =20 Clearly the 80 CID or 1.3 Liters comes from simplistic sum of the two 40 = CID chambers per rotor. The 2.6 liters takes a bit more explaining. =20 Where I believe the controversy comes in is that 720 degrees of a = rotary leaves two faces of the 13B yet unfired. For all six faces to fire it takes 1080 degrees of crankshaft rotation. Each rotor face rotates 120 rotor degrees for a complete cycle- since the e shaft is geared 3:1 then = 120 deg rotor rotation =3D 3*120 =3D 360Deg of E shaft rotation. Or another = way to look at it is 360 deg of rotor rotation ( a complete rotor revolution) = =3D 3*360 =3D 1080 deg of e shaft rotation. =20 =20 Now you can argue that the rotary has not finished its combustion cycle = (all chambers firing) until all six faces have fire (1080 deg) - however, the accepted standard for a complete cycle of a reciprocating 4 stroke is = 720 degs.=20 =20 So IF you are interested in comparing oranges and oranges, then its generally accepted you compare only 720 deg of the rotary's rotation to equal the 720 deg of a normal 4 stroke reciprocating engine. =20 IF you do accept that - then that means 4 rotor faces have gone through their cycle in 720 deg of e shaft rotation. So at approx 40 CID per = face we have 4 x 40 =3D 160 CID for the 720 deg cycle. And that turns out to be = 2.62 liters of displacement. =20 Its really no different than adding up the total displacement of all = the cylinders in a reciprocating engine which do happen to complete a power stroke in that standard 720 deg. I think the fact that two faces or (80 = CID of displacement) have not yet fire with the rotary is what bothers folks = in this comparison.=20 =20 But if you are going to compare the power of the two different designs = of engine you have to pick one or the other as the standard of comparison. = And keep the parameters the same for both engines. For example: =20 If you believe the cycle of the rotary is not complete until all six = faces have fired then you have 6 x 40 =3D 240 CID in the 1080 degree rotary = cycle. =20 We could insist that the reciprocating engine be compared to the 1080 = deg rotation of the rotary, but then you would have to increase the = effective displacement of the reciprocating engine to include an additional 1/2 of = its displacement since it will have gone through another 360 deg of rotation = to match (720 + 360 =3D 1080) the rotary cycle of 1080deg. That way you = again have oranges and oranges.=20 =20 But, in that case both we and the recip folks could boast about even = more HP than we do now {:>) =20 Since I am mainly interested in comparing a rotary with the = reciprocating engines production of power, I adhere to the 720 deg standard for the comparison.=20 =20 Not taking any sides , but someone asked where the 2.6 liter figure came from and I hope I have answered that. =20 =20 Ed A =20 =20 =20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Bob White" < bob@bob-white.com> To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" < flyrotary@lancaironline.net> Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 9:21 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: flyrotary_Web_Archive Re: Banishment =20 > Hi Dave, >=20 > OK, one revolution of the e-shaft is 1/3 revolution of the rotors. So > each rotor has had one intake event. Each face has a calculated > displacement of about 650 cc. Two X 650 cc =3D 1.3L. If you can = explain > why it's 2.6L, maybe I can send Paul an apology. Or are you just > trying to get my goat? :) >=20 > I'm not trying to create a big discussion on the displacement of the > rotary, I just want to understand where that 2.6L per revolution = number > is comming from. I haven't been able to see it. I think Paul gets it > from comparing to a piston engine, and I agree that the 13B compares > closest to a 2.6L 4 cycle 4 cylinder engine. >=20 > Bob W. >=20 >=20 > On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 16:27:59 -0700 > David Leonard < wdleonard@gmail.com> = wrote: >=20 >> Monty, Glad to have you and you know you will always be welcome here. >> However, you are wrong and 'he' is right about the displacement of = the 13B. >> It is 2.6L or 159.6 cubic inches to be more exact. >> That is the volume of intake on one revolution of the e-shaft. >> But I think you knew that, you were just trying to get his goat. ;-) >>=20 >> -- >> Dave Leonard >> Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY >> http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/rotaryroster/index.html >> http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/vp4skydoc/index.html >>=20 >> On 10/16/05, Monty Roberts < montyr2157@alltel.net> wrote: >> > >> > The doctrine of immaculate ingestion. Whereby molecules of air and = fuel >> > magically migrate into a very small, very perfect engine,unsullied = by the >> > mere laws of physics, thereby creating the salvation of the world through >> > massive power levels. >> > In the protestant tradition of placing the individual at the front = of the >> > line rather than at the bottom of the church hierarchy, I will henceforth >> > place all replies at the TOP of each post. >> > Monty >> > Which doctrine was that Monty? >> > >> > Bob W. >> > >> > >>=20 >=20 >=20 > --=20 > http://www.bob-white.com > N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 (real soon) > Prewired EC2 Cables - http://www.roblinphoto.com/shop/ >=20 > -- > Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ > Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/ >=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C5D348.3B7CAE20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Ed, Now you are going to get an = argument started on how many angles it takes to make an angel. = J = Herb

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Rotary motors in = aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Ed Anderson
Sent: Sunday, October 16, = 2005 10:14 PM
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Displacement - Again?

 

Gee, Richard, I'll bet you wouldn't spend time = arguing about how many angles can fit on the head of a pin either = {:>)

 

I agree it does not matter in the sense the engine = produces what the engine produces and does it very well, thank you.  But, it = is interesting to see the topic come up repeatedly.

 

Ed A

----- Original Message -----

Sent: Monday, = October 17, 2005 12:58 AM

Subject: = [FlyRotary] Re: Displacement - Again?

 

Who cares?

weight vs hp and BSFC and to some extend, cost, is = what counts. I remember the bureaucrats work on the RO80 and the Spider. = There was no factual basis for their explanation than. So why wasting our = energy on it now.

The real problem is that the rotary is a better = solution!

 

Richard Sohn
N-2071U

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Ed Anderson

Sent: Sunday, = October 16, 2005 7:38 PM

Subject: = [FlyRotary] Displacement - Again?

 

Been there, done that {:>).  If you are going = to compare the power production of  13B rotary engine = with a normal reciprocating engine, then the accepted standard for a  = power cycle (for a four stroke) is 720Deg crankshaft degrees of rotation.  720 = degrees of  a reciprocating engine has all cylinders firing be it a 4,6,8 = or 12 cylinder engine. 

 

Clearly the 80 CID or 1.3 Liters comes = from simplistic sum of the two 40 CID chambers per rotor.  The 2.6 liters takes a = bit more explaining.

 

 Where I believe the controversy comes in = is that 720 degrees of a rotary leaves two faces of the 13B yet unfired.  For all six faces to fire  it takes 1080 degrees of crankshaft rotation.  Each rotor face rotates 120 rotor degrees for = a complete cycle- since the e shaft is geared 3:1 then 120 deg rotor  rotation =3D 3*120 =3D 360Deg of E shaft rotation. Or another way = to look at it is 360 deg of rotor rotation ( a complete rotor revolution) =3D 3*360 = =3D 1080 deg of e shaft rotation. 

 

Now you can argue that the rotary has not finished = its combustion cycle (all chambers firing) until all six faces have fire = (1080 deg) - however, the accepted standard for a complete cycle of a reciprocating 4 stroke is 720 degs.

 

So IF you are interested in comparing oranges and = oranges, then its generally accepted you compare only 720 deg of the rotary's rotation to equal the = 720 deg of a normal 4 stroke reciprocating engine.

 

IF you do accept = that - then that means 4 rotor faces have gone through their cycle in 720 = deg of e shaft rotation.  So at approx 40 CID per face we have 4 x 40 =3D = 160 CID for the 720 deg cycle. And that turns out to be 2.62 liters of = displacement.

 

  Its really no different than adding up the total displacement of all the cylinders in a reciprocating engine = which do happen to complete a power stroke in that standard 720 deg.  I = think the fact that two faces or (80 CID of displacement) have not yet fire with = the rotary is what bothers folks in this comparison. 

 

But if you are going to compare the power of the two = different designs of engine you have to pick one or the other as the standard of comparison.  And keep the parameters the same for both = engines.  For example:

 

If  you believe the cycle of the rotary is not = complete until all six faces have fired then you have 6 x 40 =3D 240 CID in the = 1080 degree rotary cycle.

 

We could insist that the reciprocating engine be = compared to the 1080 deg rotation of the rotary, but then you would have to increase = the effective displacement of the reciprocating engine to include an = additional 1/2 of its displacement since it will have gone through another 360 deg of = rotation to match (720 + 360 =3D 1080) the rotary cycle of 1080deg. That way = you again have oranges and oranges. 

 

 But, in that case both we and the recip folks = could boast about even more HP than we do now {:>)

 

Since I am mainly interested in comparing a rotary = with the reciprocating engines production of power, I adhere to the 720 deg = standard for the comparison. 

 

Not taking any sides , but someone asked where = the 2.6 liter figure came from and I hope I have answered that.  =

 

Ed A

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Bob White" <bob@bob-white.com>

To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" = <flyrotary@lancaironline.net= >

Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 9:21 = PM

Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: flyrotary_Web_Archive Re: Banishment

 

> Hi Dave,
>
> OK, one revolution of the e-shaft is 1/3 revolution of the rotors. = So
> each rotor has had one intake event.  Each face has a = calculated
> displacement of about 650 cc.  Two X 650 cc =3D 1.3L.  If = you can explain
> why it's 2.6L, maybe I can send Paul an apology.  Or are you = just
> trying to get my goat? :)
>
> I'm not trying to create a big discussion on the displacement of = the
> rotary, I just want to understand where that 2.6L per revolution = number
> is comming from.  I haven't been able to see it.  I think = Paul gets it
> from comparing to a piston engine, and I agree that the 13B = compares
> closest to a 2.6L 4 cycle 4 cylinder engine.
>
> Bob W.
>
>
> On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 16:27:59 -0700
> David Leonard <wdleonard@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Monty, Glad to have you and you know you will always be welcome = here.
>> However, you are wrong and 'he' is right about the displacement = of the 13B.
>> It is 2.6L or 159.6 cubic inches to be more exact.
>>  That is the volume of intake on one revolution of the = e-shaft.
>>  But I think you knew that, you were just trying to get = his goat. ;-)
>>
>> --
>> Dave Leonard
>> Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY
>> http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/rotaryroster/ind= ex.html
>> = http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/vp4skydoc/index.= html
>>
>>  On 10/16/05, Monty Roberts <montyr2157@alltel.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > The doctrine of immaculate ingestion. Whereby molecules of = air and fuel
>> > magically migrate into a very small, very perfect engine,unsullied by the
>> > mere laws of physics, thereby creating the salvation of = the world through
>> > massive power levels.
>> >  In the protestant tradition of placing the = individual at the front of the
>> > line rather than at the bottom of the church hierarchy, I = will henceforth
>> > place all replies at the TOP of each post.
>> >  Monty
>> >   Which doctrine was that Monty?
>> >
>> > Bob W.
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
> --
> http://www.bob-white.com > N93BD - Rotary = Powered BD-4 (real soon)
> Prewired EC2 Cables - http://www.roblinphoto.com/shop/
>
> --
> Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/ > Archive and UnSub:   http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary= /
> =

------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C5D348.3B7CAE20--