Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.133.182.165; envelope-from=canarder@frontiernet.net
Message-ID: <43566630.3080205@frontiernet.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 10:28:48 -0500
From: Jim Sower <canarder@frontiernet.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040514
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: flyrotary Displacement
References: <list-771532@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-771532@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Isn't 10 lbft torque through 1080 deg is the same work as 30 lbft 
through 360 deg?  And doesn't the E-shaft triple rotor rpm while 
reducing E-shaft torque to 1/3 of rotor torque so work breaks even? 

kenpowell@comcast.net wrote:

> None of this matters if you are COMPARING the WORK of the typical 
> 4-stroke with the WORK of the rotary.  This means by definition that 
> you MUST find a common means of measurement of that WORK.  The only 
> place that this takes place is at 720 degress of crankshaft/eshaft 
> rotation.  At 720 degrees of eshaft rotation the rotary displaces 
> 2.6L.  If you aren't trying to compare the 2 engine types then 3.9L is 
> correct for the rotary since it rotates 1080 degrees in 3 rotations of 
> the eshaft to WORK all 6 faces of the 2 rotors (but this isn't a valid 
> comparison to a Lyc or Chevy!).  Ed A. had it right earlier even if he 
> did change his mind.
>
> Ken Powell
> Bryant, Arkansas
> 501-847-4721
> C150 / RV-4 under construction
>  
>
>     -------------- Original message --------------
>     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
>      
>      
>