Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=65.166.240.5; envelope-from=jackoford@theofficenet.com
Message-ID: <00b101c5550a$ee987550$0700a8c0@toshibauser>
From: "Jack Ford" <jackoford@theofficenet.com>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
References: <list-938035@logan.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: center rotor OFF
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 19:49:42 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

That entire variable cylinder configuration routine seems to me to be a lot 
of (old) advertising hype. The concept seems to be that the public thinks 
fewer cylinders burn less fuel, so you can have your eight cylinder cake and 
eat four cylinder fuel. Purest balderdash.

The engine is still pulling eight cylinders worth of rings back and forth in 
the bores even if it's not compressing any air. The cam is still trying to 
lift sixteen (plus) valves and compress sixteen (plus) springs, ETC. You 
can't reduce a lot of the pumping losses if the whole mechanism is still 
rotating/reciprocating/wearing.

Power is proportional to the amount of air/fuel mixture going through the 
pump (assuming the same combustion efficiency). The reduced air/fuel mixture 
(of the variable cylinder configuration at cruise) presumably produces 
increased economy. BUT, it requires exactly the same amount of power to push 
the vehicle down the road at cruise using 4,6,8,10 or 24+ cylinders. The 
conventional method of accomplishing this enterprise is CLOSING THE THROTTLE 
so less air/fuel mixture is pumped through. Has the exact same effect with 
much less complicated design.

So if you want more efficiency, just run at lower power settings. You will 
accomplish the desired result.

Retracting soapbox,

Jack Ford


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ernest Christley" <echristley@nc.rr.com>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 3:16 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: center rotor OFF


> Russell Duffy wrote:
>
>>  OK, make me look it up :-)  Apparently, they stop the valves from 
>> opening, rather than leaving them open.  I couldn't find anything that 
>> gave details of exactly what point in the sequence they stop the valves, 
>> so the cylinder could either be full of air (silly and wasteful of 
>> power), empty of air (would cause vacuum that would be as bad as the 
>> compression force), or perhaps somewhere in between.
>
>
> Other than friction losses, you'll get back everything you put into 
> compressing the gas in the cylinder, Rusty.  The process will be totally 
> elastic.
>
> -- 
> This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against
> instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make
> mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their
> decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)."
>
>
>>>  Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
>>>  Archive:   http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html
>
>