X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from relay02.roc.ny.frontiernet.net ([66.133.182.165] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0c5) with ESMTP id 773436 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 11:19:30 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.133.182.165; envelope-from=canarder@frontiernet.net Received: from filter07.roc.ny.frontiernet.net (filter07.roc.ny.frontiernet.net [66.133.183.74]) by relay02.roc.ny.frontiernet.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D45F8370899 for ; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 15:18:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay02.roc.ny.frontiernet.net ([66.133.182.165]) by filter07.roc.ny.frontiernet.net (filter07.roc.ny.frontiernet.net [66.133.183.74]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 15322-03-93 for ; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 15:18:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (70-98-154-190.dsl1.csv.tn.frontiernet.net [70.98.154.190]) by relay02.roc.ny.frontiernet.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20EF6370878 for ; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 15:18:40 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <435663C9.5020701@frontiernet.net> Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 10:18:33 -0500 From: Jim Sower User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040514 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] flyrotary Displacement References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040809040807070201050606" X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 0542-3, 10/19/2005), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.3.2 (20050629) at filter07.roc.ny.frontiernet.net This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------040809040807070201050606 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Now *THAT's* what I've been waiting to hear. Makes PERFECT sense, covers ALL the bases, explains CLEARLY which parameters the defenders of all the various positions are manipulating and gives insights into why. Glad you got excommunicated. Welcome aboard - sorry I'm so late ... Jim S. Monty Roberts wrote: > Well guys here you all go getting tangled up in you analytical undies. > > I keep trying to tell you to stop getting confused about the hardware > and just pretend it does not even exist. > > A fixed amount of air and fuel goes in. > > It is compressed. > > It is ignited. > > It is expanded > > It is exhausted > > > Now the question is for this one packet what is the maximum amount > that can be ingested at atmospheric pressure. > > .65 liters per chamber. > > what constitutes a chamber? > > A rotor face. > > How many are there? > > How long does it take to run all the little packets through one > complete cycle? > > The true *_thermodynamic_* eqivalent is a 3.9L 6 cyl motor spining at > 1/3 eshaft speed. > > You may choose a 1.3 L 6 cylinder spining 3 times as fast if you like > and get the same numbers. > > You may also choose a 2.6 L spining 2/3 as fast > > Or you may play any game of two cycle four cycle six cycle etc. > > Or you could just make up some arbitrary way to make the numbers work out. > > You could also say that 302 cubic inch engine is actually a 604 cubic > inch engine if spun twice as fast and choose to calculate displacement > via the cam drive. > > The point is the only thing that matters when comparing oranges and > oranges is that one little chamber or single cylinder. Not half a > cylinder or 2/3 of cylinder or chamber. > > The working fluid is the key-not the hardware.....I promise. > > > I still maintain that it doesn't make a hill of beans of difference. > The mental exercise beats watching Oprah, however. > > > Monty > > --------------040809040807070201050606 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Now THAT's what I've been waiting to hear.  Makes PERFECT sense, covers ALL the bases, explains CLEARLY which parameters the defenders of all the various positions are manipulating and gives insights into why.

Glad you got excommunicated.  Welcome aboard - sorry I'm so late ... Jim S.

Monty Roberts wrote:
Well guys here you all go getting tangled up in you analytical undies.
 
I keep trying to tell you to stop getting confused about the hardware and just pretend it does not even exist.
 
A fixed amount of air and fuel goes in.
 
It is compressed.
 
It is ignited.
 
It is expanded
 
It is exhausted
 
 
Now the question is for this one packet what is the maximum amount that can be ingested at atmospheric pressure.
 
.65 liters per chamber.
 
what constitutes a chamber?
 
A rotor face.
 
How many are there?
 
How long does it take to run all the little packets through one complete cycle?
 
The true thermodynamic eqivalent is a 3.9L 6 cyl motor spining at 1/3 eshaft speed.
 
You may choose a 1.3 L 6 cylinder spining 3 times as fast if you like and get the same numbers.
 
You may also choose a 2.6 L spining 2/3 as fast
 
Or you may play any game of two cycle four cycle six cycle etc.
 
Or you could just make up some arbitrary way to make the numbers work out.
 
You could also say that 302 cubic inch engine is actually a 604 cubic inch engine if spun twice as fast and choose to calculate displacement via the cam drive.
 
The point is the only thing that matters when comparing oranges and oranges is that one little chamber or single cylinder. Not half a cylinder or 2/3 of cylinder or chamber.
 
The working fluid is the key-not the hardware.....I promise.
 
 
I still maintain that it doesn't make a hill of beans of difference. The mental exercise beats watching Oprah, however.
 
 
Monty
 
 
--------------040809040807070201050606--