Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:44 AM - Re: Rotary engine displacement (Gary Casey)
2. 08:08 AM - Re: Re: Rotary engine displacement ()
3. 09:47 AM - Re: Re: Rotary engine displacement (Johnny Johnson)
4. 10:12 AM - Re: Re: Rotary engine displacement (Dirk Slabbert)
5. 10:25 AM - Re: Re: Rotary engine displacement (Healy, Joseph)
6. 10:37 AM - Rotary engine displacement (Lincoln Schlecht)
7. 11:09 AM - Re: Engines-List Digest: 6 Msgs - 10/08/03 (ALEMBIC7@aol.com)
8. 01:19 PM - Re: Re: Rotary engine displacement (Tedd McHenry)
9. 01:29 PM - Re: Re: Rotary engine displacement (Ed Anderson)
10. 02:55 PM - Re: Re: Engines-List Digest: 6 Msgs - 10/08/03 (Russell Duffy)
11. 05:02 PM - Re: Re: Rotary engine displacement (Royce Wise)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: Rotary engine displacement |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Gary Casey" <glcasey@adelphia.net>
<<This is our basic disagreement. I'm quite certain that 1308 is the
displacement for one revolution of the e-shaft (2 of 6 chambers). Each
chamber is 654 cc, which is the number that's listed in the Mazda workshop
manual. Just as a sanity check, find a good picture of a rotor in a
housing, and do a rough calculation of the intake and compression areas. It
will be very clear that 654 is the correct number.
I do agree that there has been lots of confusion over the displacement.
Most of this is because folks are trying to make the rotary fit the 4-cycle
conventions.
Cheers,
Rusty>>
I stand corrected. I believe you are right - 654 is the displacement of a
single chamber. My whole argument was off by a factor of 2.
<<You make it sound arbitrary, but it's not. The displacement of an
internal
combustion engine is, by definition, the swept volume of the combustion
chambers for each revolution of the output shaft.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC>>
I think that's the fundamental difference. I agree that it is not arbitrary
(maybe a little). But displacement has nothing to do with the volume swept
in a single revolution of a shaft. It is the total volume of all chambers
in the engine. If it were the displacement of the "output shaft" then a
2-stroke piston engine would be rated at the actual piston displacement
while a 4-stroke would be rated at half the total piston displacement. Or
one could argue that the only thing that counts is the displacement after
the intake valve closes (or the exhaust port in the case of a 2-stroke). On
a 4-stroke some have used the camshaft for the output shaft - would that
double the rated displacement? No. Bottom line is that engine displacement
has traditionally been defined as the total ("swept") volume of all the
chambers in the engine. It is a geometric calculation, not the theoretical
volume of air that is inhaled in one revolution of a shaft. The rotary came
a long time after the piston engine, so it wasn't part of the convention,
and hence the confusion. So I guess the 13B is has a displacement of 3
liters. I don't see how you can count just one of the three chambers and
ignore the other two.
<<Divide this by 1.59 and we get 87.35 which is the amount of HP
the engine should make at 6000 rpm.
If the engine only made 87.35 HP, I never could have won the Sun 100 race
at Sun & Fun this year (Class 8, 160HP RV class). So, either my formula
is wrong or the displacement of the 13B is actually double what Gary says it
is. Using the latter assumption, I was making 174 HP, which would explain
why I was 10+ knots faster than the fastest 0 - 320 powered RV.
But really, all you have to do is take one look inside the 13B engine to see
that one chamber is way bigger than 327 cc (20 CI).
Tracy Cook>>
That's right. The engine has 3 liters displacement. Sounds like a dog
then, huh? Which tells me that displacement is a thing that drafters use
when they lay pen to paper - oops, mouse to pad - not what the user of the
engine cares about. We care about weight, durability, power, cost, etc.
Not displacement. The rotary is what it is and can't be compared to a
piston engine by using displacement. Let's see, if we could use a rotor as
the output shaft...no, that would wobble..looks like we're stuck with a
shaft that rotates 3 times as fast as we would like, requiring the addition
of a reduction gear to make the propeller happy.
Gary Casey
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: Rotary engine displacement |
--> Engines-List message posted by: <klwerner@comcast.net>
Isn't it enough already with this thread ???
Why not just trust MAZDA when they say it is a 1308cc engine? 2stroke/
4stroke/ turbine, etc.
What difference do all these different calculations and opinions make on
actual power produced?
All that really should matter is how much HP a given engine produces at
what RPM, because that's what drives the windmaker up front, and not the
many "theoretical" displacement versions, etc. etc.
PLEASE, DO NOT ARCHIVE
P.S. I had a fuel injected 13B in my RX7 GSL-SE a few years ago.
It sings at cruise RPM, so it "may" actually be a "disguised" turbine
engine. And it used Fuel accordingly.
----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Casey
To: engines-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 7:42 AM
Subject: Engines-List: RE: Rotary engine displacement
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Gary Casey"
<glcasey@adelphia.net>
<<This is our basic disagreement. I'm quite certain that 1308 is the
displacement for one revolution of the e-shaft (2 of 6 chambers).
Each
chamber is 654 cc, which is the number that's listed in the Mazda
workshop
manual. Just as a sanity check, find a good picture of a rotor in a
housing, and do a rough calculation of the intake and compression
areas. It
will be very clear that 654 is the correct number.
I do agree that there has been lots of confusion over the
displacement.
Most of this is because folks are trying to make the rotary fit the
4-cycle
conventions.
Cheers,
Rusty>>
I stand corrected. I believe you are right - 654 is the displacement
of a
single chamber. My whole argument was off by a factor of 2.
<<You make it sound arbitrary, but it's not. The displacement of an
internal
combustion engine is, by definition, the swept volume of the
combustion
chambers for each revolution of the output shaft.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC>>
I think that's the fundamental difference. I agree that it is not
arbitrary
(maybe a little). But displacement has nothing to do with the volume
swept
in a single revolution of a shaft. It is the total volume of all
chambers
in the engine. If it were the displacement of the "output shaft" then
a
2-stroke piston engine would be rated at the actual piston
displacement
while a 4-stroke would be rated at half the total piston displacement.
Or
one could argue that the only thing that counts is the displacement
after
the intake valve closes (or the exhaust port in the case of a
2-stroke). On
a 4-stroke some have used the camshaft for the output shaft - would
that
double the rated displacement? No. Bottom line is that engine
displacement
has traditionally been defined as the total ("swept") volume of all
the
chambers in the engine. It is a geometric calculation, not the
theoretical
volume of air that is inhaled in one revolution of a shaft. The
rotary came
a long time after the piston engine, so it wasn't part of the
convention,
and hence the confusion. So I guess the 13B is has a displacement of
3
liters. I don't see how you can count just one of the three chambers
and
ignore the other two.
<<Divide this by 1.59 and we get 87.35 which is the amount of HP
the engine should make at 6000 rpm.
If the engine only made 87.35 HP, I never could have won the Sun 100
race
at Sun & Fun this year (Class 8, 160HP RV class). So, either my
formula
is wrong or the displacement of the 13B is actually double what Gary
says it
is. Using the latter assumption, I was making 174 HP, which would
explain
why I was 10+ knots faster than the fastest 0 - 320 powered RV.
But really, all you have to do is take one look inside the 13B engine
to see
that one chamber is way bigger than 327 cc (20 CI).
Tracy Cook>>
That's right. The engine has 3 liters displacement. Sounds like a
dog
then, huh? Which tells me that displacement is a thing that drafters
use
when they lay pen to paper - oops, mouse to pad - not what the user of
the
engine cares about. We care about weight, durability, power, cost,
etc.
Not displacement. The rotary is what it is and can't be compared to a
piston engine by using displacement. Let's see, if we could use a
rotor as
the output shaft...no, that would wobble..looks like we're stuck with
a
shaft that rotates 3 times as fast as we would like, requiring the
addition
of a reduction gear to make the propeller happy.
Gary Casey
=
=
http://www.matronics.com/trouble-report
=
=
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" nameGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT faceArial color#000080>Isn't it enough already with
this thread
???</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT faceArial color#000080>Why not just trust MAZDA when
they say it is
a 1308cc engine? 2stroke/ 4stroke/ turbine, etc.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT faceArial color#000080></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT faceArial color#000080>What difference do all these
different
calculations and opinions make on actual power produced?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT faceArial color#000080></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT faceArial color#000080>All that really should matter is
how much HP
a given engine produces at what RPM, bec</FONT><FONT faceArial
color#000080>ause that's what drives the windmaker up front, and not
the many
"theoretical" displacement versions, etc. etc.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT faceArial color#000080></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT faceArial color#000080>PLEASE, DO NOT ARCHIVE
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT faceArial color#000080></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT faceArial color#000080>P.S. I had a fuel injected
13B in my
RX7 GSL-SE a few years ago. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT faceArial><FONT color#000080><FONT>It sings at cruise
RPM, so
it "may" actually be a "disguised" turbine engine. </FONT>And
it used
Fuel accordingly.</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;
BORDER-LEFT: #000080 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color:
black"><B>From:</B>
<A titleglcasey@adelphia.net
href"mailto:glcasey@adelphia.net">Gary
Casey</A> </DIV>
<DIV style"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
titleengines-list@matronics.com
href"mailto:engines-list@matronics.com">engines-list@matronics.com</A>=
</DIV>
<DIV style"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, October 09,
2003 7:42
AM</DIV>
<DIV style"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Engines-List: RE:
Rotary engine
displacement</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>--> Engines-List message posted by: "Gary Casey"
<<A
href"mailto:glcasey@adelphia.net">glcasey@adelphia.net</A>><BR><BR>=
<BR><<This
is our basic disagreement. I'm quite certain that 1308 is
the<BR>displacement for one revolution of the e-shaft (2 of 6
chambers).
Each<BR>chamber is 654 cc, which is the number that's listed in the
Mazda
workshop<BR>manual. Just as a sanity check, find a good picture
of a
rotor in a<BR>housing, and do a rough calculation of the intake and
compression areas. It<BR>will be very clear that 654 is the correct
number.<BR><BR>I do agree that there has been lots of confusion over
the
displacement.<BR>Most of this is because folks are trying to make the
rotary
fit the
4-cycle<BR>conventions.<BR><BR>Cheers,<BR>Rusty>><BR><BR>I stand
corrected. I believe you are right - 654 is the displacement of
a<BR>single chamber. My whole argument was off by a factor of
2.<BR><BR><<You make it sound arbitrary, but it's not. The
displacement of an<BR>internal<BR>combustion engine is, by definition,
the
swept volume of the combustion<BR>chambers for each revolution of the
output
shaft.<BR><BR>Tedd McHenry<BR>Surrey, BC>><BR><BR>I think that's
the
fundamental difference. I agree that it is not
arbitrary<BR>(maybe a
little). But displacement has nothing to do with the volume
swept<BR>in
a single revolution of a shaft. It is the total volume of all
chambers<BR>in the engine. If it were the displacement of the
"output
shaft" then a<BR>2-stroke piston engine would be rated at the actual
piston
displacement<BR>while a 4-stroke would be rated at half the total
piston
displacement. Or<BR>one could argue that the only thing that
counts is
the displacement after<BR>the intake valve closes (or the exhaust port
in the
case of a 2-stroke). On<BR>a 4-stroke some have used the
camshaft for
the output shaft - would that<BR>double the rated displacement?
No. Bottom line is that engine displacement<BR>has traditionally
been
defined as the total ("swept") volume of all the<BR>chambers in the
engine. It is a geometric calculation, not the
theoretical<BR>volume of
air that is inhaled in one revolution of a shaft. The rotary
came<BR>a
long time after the piston engine, so it wasn't part of the
convention,<BR>and
hence the confusion. So I guess the 13B is has a displacement of
3<BR>liters. I don't see how you can count just one of the three
chambers and<BR>ignore the other two.<BR><BR><BR><<Divide this
by 1.59
and we get 87.35 which is the amount of HP<BR>the engine should make
at 6000
rpm.<BR><BR> If the engine only made 87.35 HP, I never could have
won the
Sun 100 race<BR>at Sun & Fun this year (Class 8, 160HP RV
class). So, either my formula<BR>is wrong or the
displacement of the 13B is actually double what Gary says
it<BR>is.
Using the latter assumption, I was making 174 HP, which would
explain<BR>why I
was 10+ knots faster than the fastest 0 - 320 powered
RV.<BR><BR>But
really, all you have to do is take one look inside the 13B engine to
see<BR>that one chamber is way bigger than 327 cc (20
CI).<BR><BR>Tracy
Cook>><BR><BR>That's right. The engine has 3 liters
displacement. Sounds like a dog<BR>then, huh? Which tells
me that
displacement is a thing that drafters use<BR>when they lay pen to
paper -
oops, mouse to pad - not what the user of the<BR>engine cares
about. We
care about weight, durability, power, cost, etc.<BR>Not
displacement.
The rotary is what it is and can't be compared to a<BR>piston engine
by using
displacement. Let's see, if we could use a rotor as<BR>the
output
shaft...no, that would wobble..looks like we're stuck with a<BR>shaft
that
rotates 3 times as fast as we would like, requiring the addition<BR>of
a
reduction gear to make the propeller happy.<BR><BR>Gary
=
=
p;
entirely
see
Matronics
=
=
href"http://www.matronics.com/trouble-report">http://www.matronics.com=
=
=
href"mailto:engines-list@matronics.com">engines-list@matronics.com</A>=
UN/SUBSCRIBE: <A
href"http://www.matronics.com/subscription">http://www.matronics.com/s=
List FAQ: <A
href"http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Engines-List.htm">http://www.matroni=
Search Engine: <A
href"http://www.matronics.com/search">http://www.matronics.com/search<=
7-Day Browse: <A
href"http://www.matronics.com/browse/engines-list">http://www.matronic=
Browse Digests: <A
href"http://www.matronics.com/digest/engines-list">http://www.matronic=
Archives: <A
href"http://www.matronics.com/archives">http://www.matronics.com/archi=
Photo Share: <A
href"http://www.matronics.com/photoshare">http://www.matronics.com/pho=
List Specific: <A
href"http://www.matronics.com/engines-list">http://www.matronics.com/e=
Other Lists: <A
href"http://www.matronics.com/emaillists">http://www.matronics.com/ema=
Trouble Report <A
href"http://www.matronics.com/trouble-report">http://www.matronics.com=
Contributions: <A
href"http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c=
=
=
<BR><BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: Rotary engine displacement |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Johnny Johnson" <Johnny@wiktel.com>
I, for one, found the thread kind of interesting... different strokes for
different folks, I guess... let's all relax and enjoy what we enjoy--and
delete the rest. :=))
Johnny Johnson
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
klwerner@comcast.net
Subject: Re: Engines-List: RE: Rotary engine displacement
--> Engines-List message posted by: <klwerner@comcast.net>
Isn't it enough already with this thread ???
Why not just trust MAZDA when they say it is a 1308cc engine? 2stroke/
4stroke/ turbine, etc.
What difference do all these different calculations and opinions make on
actual power produced?
All that really should matter is how much HP a given engine produces at
what RPM, because that's what drives the windmaker up front, and not the
many "theoretical" displacement versions, etc. etc.
PLEASE, DO NOT ARCHIVE
P.S. I had a fuel injected 13B in my RX7 GSL-SE a few years ago.
It sings at cruise RPM, so it "may" actually be a "disguised" turbine
engine. And it used Fuel accordingly.
----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Casey
To: engines-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 7:42 AM
Subject: Engines-List: RE: Rotary engine displacement
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Gary Casey"
<glcasey@adelphia.net>
<<This is our basic disagreement. I'm quite certain that 1308 is the
displacement for one revolution of the e-shaft (2 of 6 chambers).
Each
chamber is 654 cc, which is the number that's listed in the Mazda
workshop
manual. Just as a sanity check, find a good picture of a rotor in a
housing, and do a rough calculation of the intake and compression
areas. It
will be very clear that 654 is the correct number.
I do agree that there has been lots of confusion over the
displacement.
Most of this is because folks are trying to make the rotary fit the
4-cycle
conventions.
Cheers,
Rusty>>
I stand corrected. I believe you are right - 654 is the displacement
of a
single chamber. My whole argument was off by a factor of 2.
<<You make it sound arbitrary, but it's not. The displacement of an
internal
combustion engine is, by definition, the swept volume of the
combustion
chambers for each revolution of the output shaft.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC>>
I think that's the fundamental difference. I agree that it is not
arbitrary
(maybe a little). But displacement has nothing to do with the volume
swept
in a single revolution of a shaft. It is the total volume of all
chambers
in the engine. If it were the displacement of the "output shaft" then
a
2-stroke piston engine would be rated at the actual piston
displacement
while a 4-stroke would be rated at half the total piston displacement.
Or
one could argue that the only thing that counts is the displacement
after
the intake valve closes (or the exhaust port in the case of a
2-stroke). On
a 4-stroke some have used the camshaft for the output shaft - would
that
double the rated displacement? No. Bottom line is that engine
displacement
has traditionally been defined as the total ("swept") volume of all
the
chambers in the engine. It is a geometric calculation, not the
theoretical
volume of air that is inhaled in one revolution of a shaft. The
rotary came
a long time after the piston engine, so it wasn't part of the
convention,
and hence the confusion. So I guess the 13B is has a displacement of
3
liters. I don't see how you can count just one of the three chambers
and
ignore the other two.
<<Divide this by 1.59 and we get 87.35 which is the amount of HP
the engine should make at 6000 rpm.
If the engine only made 87.35 HP, I never could have won the Sun 100
race
at Sun & Fun this year (Class 8, 160HP RV class). So, either my
formula
is wrong or the displacement of the 13B is actually double what Gary
says it
is. Using the latter assumption, I was making 174 HP, which would
explain
why I was 10+ knots faster than the fastest 0 - 320 powered RV.
But really, all you have to do is take one look inside the 13B engine
to see
that one chamber is way bigger than 327 cc (20 CI).
Tracy Cook>>
That's right. The engine has 3 liters displacement. Sounds like a
dog
then, huh? Which tells me that displacement is a thing that drafters
use
when they lay pen to paper - oops, mouse to pad - not what the user of
the
engine cares about. We care about weight, durability, power, cost,
etc.
Not displacement. The rotary is what it is and can't be compared to a
piston engine by using displacement. Let's see, if we could use a
rotor as
the output shaft...no, that would wobble..looks like we're stuck with
a
shaft that rotates 3 times as fast as we would like, requiring the
addition
of a reduction gear to make the propeller happy.
Gary Casey
=
=
http://www.matronics.com/trouble-report
=
=
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" nameGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT faceArial color#000080>Isn't it enough already with
this thread
???</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT faceArial color#000080>Why not just trust MAZDA when
they say it is
a 1308cc engine? 2stroke/ 4stroke/ turbine, etc.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT faceArial color#000080></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT faceArial color#000080>What difference do all these
different
calculations and opinions make on actual power produced?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT faceArial color#000080></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT faceArial color#000080>All that really should matter is
how much HP
a given engine produces at what RPM, bec</FONT><FONT faceArial
color#000080>ause that's what drives the windmaker up front, and not
the many
"theoretical" displacement versions, etc. etc.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT faceArial color#000080></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT faceArial color#000080>PLEASE, DO NOT ARCHIVE
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT faceArial color#000080></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT faceArial color#000080>P.S. I had a fuel injected
13B in my
RX7 GSL-SE a few years ago. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT faceArial><FONT color#000080><FONT>It sings at cruise
RPM, so
it "may" actually be a "disguised" turbine engine. </FONT>And
it used
Fuel accordingly.</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;
BORDER-LEFT: #000080 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color:
black"><B>From:</B>
<A titleglcasey@adelphia.net
href"mailto:glcasey@adelphia.net">Gary
Casey</A> </DIV>
<DIV style"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
titleengines-list@matronics.com
href"mailto:engines-list@matronics.com">engines-list@matronics.com</A>=
</DIV>
<DIV style"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, October 09,
2003 7:42
AM</DIV>
<DIV style"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Engines-List: RE:
Rotary engine
displacement</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>--> Engines-List message posted by: "Gary Casey"
<<A
href"mailto:glcasey@adelphia.net">glcasey@adelphia.net</A>><BR><BR>=
<BR><<This
is our basic disagreement. I'm quite certain that 1308 is
the<BR>displacement for one revolution of the e-shaft (2 of 6
chambers).
Each<BR>chamber is 654 cc, which is the number that's listed in the
Mazda
workshop<BR>manual. Just as a sanity check, find a good picture
of a
rotor in a<BR>housing, and do a rough calculation of the intake and
compression areas. It<BR>will be very clear that 654 is the correct
number.<BR><BR>I do agree that there has been lots of confusion over
the
displacement.<BR>Most of this is because folks are trying to make the
rotary
fit the
4-cycle<BR>conventions.<BR><BR>Cheers,<BR>Rusty>><BR><BR>I stand
corrected. I believe you are right - 654 is the displacement of
a<BR>single chamber. My whole argument was off by a factor of
2.<BR><BR><<You make it sound arbitrary, but it's not. The
displacement of an<BR>internal<BR>combustion engine is, by definition,
the
swept volume of the combustion<BR>chambers for each revolution of the
output
shaft.<BR><BR>Tedd McHenry<BR>Surrey, BC>><BR><BR>I think that's
the
fundamental difference. I agree that it is not
arbitrary<BR>(maybe a
little). But displacement has nothing to do with the volume
swept<BR>in
a single revolution of a shaft. It is the total volume of all
chambers<BR>in the engine. If it were the displacement of the
"output
shaft" then a<BR>2-stroke piston engine would be rated at the actual
piston
displacement<BR>while a 4-stroke would be rated at half the total
piston
displacement. Or<BR>one could argue that the only thing that
counts is
the displacement after<BR>the intake valve closes (or the exhaust port
in the
case of a 2-stroke). On<BR>a 4-stroke some have used the
camshaft for
the output shaft - would that<BR>double the rated displacement?
No. Bottom line is that engine displacement<BR>has traditionally
been
defined as the total ("swept") volume of all the<BR>chambers in the
engine. It is a geometric calculation, not the
theoretical<BR>volume of
air that is inhaled in one revolution of a shaft. The rotary
came<BR>a
long time after the piston engine, so it wasn't part of the
convention,<BR>and
hence the confusion. So I guess the 13B is has a displacement of
3<BR>liters. I don't see how you can count just one of the three
chambers and<BR>ignore the other two.<BR><BR><BR><<Divide this
by 1.59
and we get 87.35 which is the amount of HP<BR>the engine should make
at 6000
rpm.<BR><BR> If the engine only made 87.35 HP, I never could have
won the
Sun 100 race<BR>at Sun & Fun this year (Class 8, 160HP RV
class). So, either my formula<BR>is wrong or the
displacement of the 13B is actually double what Gary says
it<BR>is.
Using the latter assumption, I was making 174 HP, which would
explain<BR>why I
was 10+ knots faster than the fastest 0 - 320 powered
RV.<BR><BR>But
really, all you have to do is take one look inside the 13B engine to
see<BR>that one chamber is way bigger than 327 cc (20
CI).<BR><BR>Tracy
Cook>><BR><BR>That's right. The engine has 3 liters
displacement. Sounds like a dog<BR>then, huh? Which tells
me that
displacement is a thing that drafters use<BR>when they lay pen to
paper -
oops, mouse to pad - not what the user of the<BR>engine cares
about. We
care about weight, durability, power, cost, etc.<BR>Not
displacement.
The rotary is what it is and can't be compared to a<BR>piston engine
by using
displacement. Let's see, if we could use a rotor as<BR>the
output
shaft...no, that would wobble..looks like we're stuck with a<BR>shaft
that
rotates 3 times as fast as we would like, requiring the addition<BR>of
a
reduction gear to make the propeller happy.<BR><BR>Gary
=
=
p;
entirely
see
Matronics
=
=
href"http://www.matronics.com/trouble-report">http://www.matronics.com=
=
=
href"mailto:engines-list@matronics.com">engines-list@matronics.com</A>=
UN/SUBSCRIBE: <A
href"http://www.matronics.com/subscription">http://www.matronics.com/s=
List FAQ: <A
href"http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Engines-List.htm">http://www.matroni=
Search Engine: <A
href"http://www.matronics.com/search">http://www.matronics.com/search<=
7-Day Browse: <A
href"http://www.matronics.com/browse/engines-list">http://www.matronic=
Browse Digests: <A
href"http://www.matronics.com/digest/engines-list">http://www.matronic=
Archives: <A
href"http://www.matronics.com/archives">http://www.matronics.com/archi=
Photo Share: <A
href"http://www.matronics.com/photoshare">http://www.matronics.com/pho=
List Specific: <A
href"http://www.matronics.com/engines-list">http://www.matronics.com/e=
Other Lists: <A
href"http://www.matronics.com/emaillists">http://www.matronics.com/ema=
Trouble Report <A
href"http://www.matronics.com/trouble-report">http://www.matronics.com=
Contributions: <A
href"http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c=
=
=
<BR><BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: Rotary engine displacement |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Dirk Slabbert" <dslabbert@worldonline.co.za>
Gary, I tend to agree, HP, RPM, but what would the feul consumption be?
Heard these things were but thirsty?!
Dirk.
----- Original Message -----
From: klwerner@comcast.net
To: engines-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 5:11 PM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: RE: Rotary engine displacement
--> Engines-List message posted by: <klwerner@comcast.net>
Isn't it enough already with this thread ???
Why not just trust MAZDA when they say it is a 1308cc engine?
2stroke/
4stroke/ turbine, etc.
What difference do all these different calculations and opinions make
on
actual power produced?
All that really should matter is how much HP a given engine produces
at
what RPM, because that's what drives the windmaker up front, and not
the
many "theoretical" displacement versions, etc. etc.
PLEASE, DO NOT ARCHIVE
P.S. I had a fuel injected 13B in my RX7 GSL-SE a few years ago.
It sings at cruise RPM, so it "may" actually be a "disguised" turbine
engine. And it used Fuel accordingly.
----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Casey
To: engines-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 7:42 AM
Subject: Engines-List: RE: Rotary engine displacement
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Gary Casey"
<glcasey@adelphia.net>
<<This is our basic disagreement. I'm quite certain that 1308 is
the
displacement for one revolution of the e-shaft (2 of 6 chambers).
Each
chamber is 654 cc, which is the number that's listed in the Mazda
workshop
manual. Just as a sanity check, find a good picture of a rotor in a
housing, and do a rough calculation of the intake and compression
areas. It
will be very clear that 654 is the correct number.
I do agree that there has been lots of confusion over the
displacement.
Most of this is because folks are trying to make the rotary fit the
4-cycle
conventions.
Cheers,
Rusty>>
I stand corrected. I believe you are right - 654 is the
displacement
of a
single chamber. My whole argument was off by a factor of 2.
<<You make it sound arbitrary, but it's not. The displacement of an
internal
combustion engine is, by definition, the swept volume of the
combustion
chambers for each revolution of the output shaft.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC>>
I think that's the fundamental difference. I agree that it is not
arbitrary
(maybe a little). But displacement has nothing to do with the
volume
swept
in a single revolution of a shaft. It is the total volume of all
chambers
in the engine. If it were the displacement of the "output shaft"
then
a
2-stroke piston engine would be rated at the actual piston
displacement
while a 4-stroke would be rated at half the total piston
displacement.
Or
one could argue that the only thing that counts is the displacement
after
the intake valve closes (or the exhaust port in the case of a
2-stroke). On
a 4-stroke some have used the camshaft for the output shaft - would
that
double the rated displacement? No. Bottom line is that engine
displacement
has traditionally been defined as the total ("swept") volume of all
the
chambers in the engine. It is a geometric calculation, not the
theoretical
volume of air that is inhaled in one revolution of a shaft. The
rotary came
a long time after the piston engine, so it wasn't part of the
convention,
and hence the confusion. So I guess the 13B is has a displacement
of
3
liters. I don't see how you can count just one of the three
chambers
and
ignore the other two.
<<Divide this by 1.59 and we get 87.35 which is the amount of HP
the engine should make at 6000 rpm.
If the engine only made 87.35 HP, I never could have won the Sun
100
race
at Sun & Fun this year (Class 8, 160HP RV class). So, either my
formula
is wrong or the displacement of the 13B is actually double what Gary
says it
is. Using the latter assumption, I was making 174 HP, which would
explain
why I was 10+ knots faster than the fastest 0 - 320 powered RV.
But really, all you have to do is take one look inside the 13B
engine
to see
that one chamber is way bigger than 327 cc (20 CI).
Tracy Cook>>
That's right. The engine has 3 liters displacement. Sounds like a
dog
then, huh? Which tells me that displacement is a thing that
drafters
use
when they lay pen to paper - oops, mouse to pad - not what the user
of
the
engine cares about. We care about weight, durability, power, cost,
etc.
Not displacement. The rotary is what it is and can't be compared to
a
piston engine by using displacement. Let's see, if we could use a
rotor as
the output shaft...no, that would wobble..looks like we're stuck
with
a
shaft that rotates 3 times as fast as we would like, requiring the
addition
of a reduction gear to make the propeller happy.
Gary Casey
http://www.matronics.com/trouble-report
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" nameGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT faceArial color#000080>Isn't it enough already with
this thread
???</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT faceArial color#000080>Why not just trust MAZDA when
they say it is
a 1308cc engine? 2stroke/ 4stroke/ turbine, etc.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT faceArial color#000080></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT faceArial color#000080>What difference do all these
different
calculations and opinions make on actual power produced?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT faceArial color#000080></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT faceArial color#000080>All that really should matter is
how much HP
a given engine produces at what RPM, bec</FONT><FONT faceArial
color#000080>ause that's what drives the windmaker up front, and not
the many
"theoretical" displacement versions, etc. etc.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT faceArial color#000080></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT faceArial color#000080>PLEASE, DO NOT ARCHIVE
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT faceArial color#000080></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT faceArial color#000080>P.S. I had a fuel injected
13B in my
RX7 GSL-SE a few years ago. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT faceArial><FONT color#000080><FONT>It sings at cruise
RPM, so
it "may" actually be a "disguised" turbine engine.
</FONT>And
it used
Fuel accordingly.</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;
BORDER-LEFT: #000080 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color:
black"><B>From:</B>
<A titleglcasey@adelphia.net
href"mailto:glcasey@adelphia.net">Gary
Casey</A> </DIV>
<DIV style"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
titleengines-list@matronics.com
href"mailto:engines-list@matronics.com">engines-list@matronics.com</A>=
</DIV>
<DIV style"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, October 09,
2003 7:42
AM</DIV>
<DIV style"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Engines-List: RE:
Rotary engine
displacement</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>--> Engines-List message posted by: "Gary Casey"
<<A
href"mailto:glcasey@adelphia.net">glcasey@adelphia.net</A>><BR><BR>=
<BR><<This
is our basic disagreement. I'm quite certain that 1308 is
the<BR>displacement for one revolution of the e-shaft (2 of 6
chambers).
Each<BR>chamber is 654 cc, which is the number that's listed in the
Mazda
workshop<BR>manual. Just as a sanity check, find a good
picture
of a
rotor in a<BR>housing, and do a rough calculation of the intake and
compression areas. It<BR>will be very clear that 654 is the correct
number.<BR><BR>I do agree that there has been lots of confusion over
the
displacement.<BR>Most of this is because folks are trying to make
the
rotary
fit the
4-cycle<BR>conventions.<BR><BR>Cheers,<BR>Rusty>><BR><BR>I stand
corrected. I believe you are right - 654 is the displacement
of
a<BR>single chamber. My whole argument was off by a factor of
2.<BR><BR><<You make it sound arbitrary, but it's not.
The
displacement of an<BR>internal<BR>combustion engine is, by
definition,
the
swept volume of the combustion<BR>chambers for each revolution of
the
output
shaft.<BR><BR>Tedd McHenry<BR>Surrey, BC>><BR><BR>I think
that's
the
fundamental difference. I agree that it is not
arbitrary<BR>(maybe a
little). But displacement has nothing to do with the volume
swept<BR>in
a single revolution of a shaft. It is the total volume of all
chambers<BR>in the engine. If it were the displacement of the
"output
shaft" then a<BR>2-stroke piston engine would be rated at the actual
piston
displacement<BR>while a 4-stroke would be rated at half the total
piston
displacement. Or<BR>one could argue that the only thing that
counts is
the displacement after<BR>the intake valve closes (or the exhaust
port
in the
case of a 2-stroke). On<BR>a 4-stroke some have used the
camshaft for
the output shaft - would that<BR>double the rated
displacement?
No. Bottom line is that engine displacement<BR>has
traditionally
been
defined as the total ("swept") volume of all the<BR>chambers in the
engine. It is a geometric calculation, not the
theoretical<BR>volume of
air that is inhaled in one revolution of a shaft. The rotary
came<BR>a
long time after the piston engine, so it wasn't part of the
convention,<BR>and
hence the confusion. So I guess the 13B is has a displacement
of
3<BR>liters. I don't see how you can count just one of the
three
chambers and<BR>ignore the other two.<BR><BR><BR><<Divide this
by 1.59
and we get 87.35 which is the amount of HP<BR>the engine should make
at 6000
rpm.<BR><BR> If the engine only made 87.35 HP, I never could
have
won the
Sun 100 race<BR>at Sun & Fun this year (Class 8, 160HP RV
class). So, either my formula<BR>is wrong or the
displacement of the 13B is actually double what Gary says
it<BR>is.
Using the latter assumption, I was making 174 HP, which would
explain<BR>why I
was 10+ knots faster than the fastest 0 - 320 powered
RV.<BR><BR>But
really, all you have to do is take one look inside the 13B engine to
see<BR>that one chamber is way bigger than 327 cc (20
CI).<BR><BR>Tracy
Cook>><BR><BR>That's right. The engine has 3 liters
displacement. Sounds like a dog<BR>then, huh? Which
tells
me that
displacement is a thing that drafters use<BR>when they lay pen to
paper -
oops, mouse to pad - not what the user of the<BR>engine cares
about. We
care about weight, durability, power, cost, etc.<BR>Not
displacement.
The rotary is what it is and can't be compared to a<BR>piston engine
by using
displacement. Let's see, if we could use a rotor as<BR>the
output
shaft...no, that would wobble..looks like we're stuck with
a<BR>shaft
that
rotates 3 times as fast as we would like, requiring the
addition<BR>of
a
reduction gear to make the propeller happy.<BR><BR>Gary
p;
entirely
see
Matronics
href"http://www.matronics.com/trouble-report">http://www.matronics.com=
href"mailto:engines-list@matronics.com">engines-list@matronics.com</A>=
UN/SUBSCRIBE: <A
href"http://www.matronics.com/subscription">http://www.matronics.com/s=
List FAQ: <A
href"http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Engines-List.htm">http://www.matroni=
Search Engine: <A
href"http://www.matronics.com/search">http://www.matronics.com/search<=
7-Day Browse: <A
href"http://www.matronics.com/browse/engines-list">http://www.matronic=
Browse Digests: <A
href"http://www.matronics.com/digest/engines-list">http://www.matronic=
Archives: <A
href"http://www.matronics.com/archives">http://www.matronics.com/archi=
Photo Share: <A
href"http://www.matronics.com/photoshare">http://www.matronics.com/pho=
List Specific: <A
href"http://www.matronics.com/engines-list">http://www.matronics.com/e=
Other Lists: <A
href"http://www.matronics.com/emaillists">http://www.matronics.com/ema=
Trouble Report <A
href"http://www.matronics.com/trouble-report">http://www.matronics.com=
Contributions: <A
href"http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c=
<BR><BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
=
=
http://www.matronics.com/trouble-report
=
=
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content"MSHTML 6.00.2600.0" nameGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face"Book Antiqua" color#0000ff>Gary, I tend to agree,
HP, RPM, but
what would the feul consumption be? Heard these things were but
thirsty?!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face"Book Antiqua" color#0000ff>Dirk.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;
BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color:
black"><B>From:</B>
<A titleklwerner@comcast.net
href"mailto:klwerner@comcast.net">klwerner@comcast.net</A> </DIV>
<DIV style"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
titleengines-list@matronics.com
href"mailto:engines-list@matronics.com">engines-list@matronics.com</A>=
</DIV>
<DIV style"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, October 09,
2003 5:11
PM</DIV>
<DIV style"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Engines-List: RE:
Rotary
engine displacement</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>--> Engines-List message posted by: <<A
href"mailto:klwerner@comcast.net">klwerner@comcast.net</A>><BR><BR>=
<BR>Isn't
it enough already with this thread ???<BR>Why not just trust MAZDA
when they
say it is a 1308cc engine? 2stroke/<BR>4stroke/ turbine,
etc.<BR><BR>What difference do all these different calculations and
opinions
make on<BR>actual power produced?<BR><BR>All that really should matter
is how
much HP a given engine produces at<BR>what RPM, because that's what
drives the
windmaker up front, and not the<BR>many "theoretical" displacement
versions,
etc. etc.<BR><BR>PLEASE, DO NOT ARCHIVE<BR><BR>P.S. I had
a fuel
injected 13B in my RX7 GSL-SE a few years ago.<BR>It sings at cruise
RPM, so
it "may" actually be a "disguised" turbine<BR>engine. And it used Fuel
accordingly.<BR> ----- Original Message -----<BR> From:
Gary
Casey<BR> To: <A
href"mailto:engines-list@matronics.com">engines-list@matronics.com</A>=
<BR>
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 7:42 AM<BR> Subject:
Engines-List: RE:
Rotary engine displacement<BR><BR><BR> --> Engines-List
message
posted by: "Gary Casey"<BR><<A
href"mailto:glcasey@adelphia.net">glcasey@adelphia.net</A>><BR><BR>=
<BR>
<<This is our basic disagreement. I'm quite certain that
1308 is
the<BR> displacement for one revolution of the e-shaft (2 of 6
chambers). <BR>Each<BR> chamber is 654 cc, which is the number
that's
listed in the Mazda<BR>workshop<BR> manual. Just as a
sanity
check, find a good picture of a rotor in a<BR> housing, and do a
rough
calculation of the intake and compression<BR>areas. It<BR> will
be very
clear that 654 is the correct number.<BR><BR> I do agree that
there has
been lots of confusion over the<BR>displacement.<BR> Most of
this is
because folks are trying to make the rotary fit
the<BR>4-cycle<BR>
conventions.<BR><BR> Cheers,<BR>
Rusty>><BR><BR> I
stand corrected. I believe you are right - 654 is the
displacement<BR>of
a<BR> single chamber. My whole argument was off by a
factor of
2.<BR><BR> <<You make it sound arbitrary, but it's
not. The
displacement of an<BR> internal<BR> combustion engine is,
by
definition, the swept volume of the<BR>combustion<BR> chambers
for each
revolution of the output shaft.<BR><BR> Tedd McHenry<BR>
Surrey,
BC>><BR><BR> I think that's the fundamental
difference. I
agree that it is not<BR>arbitrary<BR> (maybe a little).
But
displacement has nothing to do with the volume<BR>swept<BR> in a
single
revolution of a shaft. It is the total volume of
all<BR>chambers<BR> in the engine. If it were the
displacement of
the "output shaft" then<BR>a<BR> 2-stroke piston engine would be
rated
at the actual piston<BR>displacement<BR> while a 4-stroke would
be rated
at half the total piston displacement.<BR> Or<BR> one could
argue
that the only thing that counts is the displacement<BR>after<BR>
the
intake valve closes (or the exhaust port in the case of
a<BR>2-stroke).
On<BR> a 4-stroke some have used the camshaft for the output
shaft -
would<BR>that<BR> double the rated displacement? No.
Bottom
line is that engine<BR>displacement<BR> has traditionally been
defined
as the total ("swept") volume of all<BR>the<BR> chambers in the
engine. It is a geometric calculation, not
the<BR>theoretical<BR>
volume of air that is inhaled in one revolution of a shaft.
The<BR>rotary came<BR> a long time after the piston engine, so
it wasn't
part of the<BR>convention,<BR> and hence the confusion. So
I guess
the 13B is has a displacement of<BR>3<BR> liters. I don't
see how
you can count just one of the three chambers<BR>and<BR> ignore
the other
two.<BR><BR><BR> <<Divide this by 1.59 and we get 87.35
which is
the amount of HP<BR> the engine should make at 6000
rpm.<BR><BR> If the engine only made 87.35 HP, I never
could have
won the Sun 100<BR>race<BR> at Sun & Fun this year (Class 8,
160HP
RV class). So, either my<BR>formula<BR> is
wrong or
the displacement of the 13B is actually double what Gary<BR>says
it<BR>
is. Using the latter assumption, I was making 174 HP, which
would<BR>explain<BR> why I was 10+ knots faster than the fastest
0 -
320 powered RV.<BR><BR> But really, all you have to do is
take one
look inside the 13B engine<BR>to see<BR> that one chamber is way
bigger
than 327 cc (20 CI).<BR><BR> Tracy Cook>><BR><BR>
That's
right. The engine has 3 liters displacement. Sounds like
a<BR>dog<BR> then, huh? Which tells me that displacement
is a
thing that drafters<BR>use<BR> when they lay pen to paper -
oops, mouse
to pad - not what the user of<BR>the<BR> engine cares
about. We
care about weight, durability, power, cost,<BR>etc.<BR> Not
displacement. The rotary is what it is and can't be compared to
a<BR> piston engine by using displacement. Let's see, if
we could
use a<BR>rotor as<BR> the output shaft...no, that would
wobble..looks
like we're stuck with<BR>a<BR> shaft that rotates 3 times as
fast as we
would like, requiring the<BR>addition<BR> of a reduction gear to
make
the propeller happy.<BR><BR> Gary
Casey<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><A
href"http://www.matronics.com/trouble-report">http://www.matronics.com=
/trouble-report</A><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><HTML><=
HEAD><BR><META
content"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106"
nameGENERATOR><BR><STYLE></STYLE><BR></HEAD><BR><=
BODY
bgColor#ffffff><BR><DIV><FONT faceArial
color#000080>Isn't it
enough already with<BR>this
thread<BR>???</FONT></DIV><BR><DIV><FONT
faceArial
color#000080>Why not just trust MAZDA when<BR>they say it is<BR>a
1308cc
engine?&nbsp; 2stroke/ 4stroke/ turbine,
etc.</FONT></DIV><BR><DIV><FONT faceArial
color#000080></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV><BR><DIV><FON=
T
faceArial color#000080>What difference do all
these<BR>different<BR>calculations and opinions make on actual power
produced?</FONT></DIV><BR><DIV><FONT faceArial
color#000080></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV><BR><DIV><FON=
T
faceArial color#000080>All that really should matter is<BR>how much
HP<BR>a
given engine produces at what RPM, bec</FONT><FONT
faceArial<BR>color#000080>ause that's what drives the windmaker up
front,
and not<BR>the many<BR>"theoretical"&nbsp;displacement versions,
etc.
etc.</FONT></DIV><BR><DIV><FONT faceArial
color#000080></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV><BR><DIV><FON=
T
faceArial color#000080>PLEASE, &nbsp;DO NOT
ARCHIVE<BR></FONT></DIV><BR><DIV><FONT faceArial
color#000080></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV><BR><DIV><FON=
T
faceArial color#000080>P.S. &nbsp;I had a fuel injected<BR>13B
in
my<BR>RX7 GSL-SE a few years ago.
</FONT></DIV><BR><DIV><FONT faceArial><FONT
color#000080><FONT>It sings at cruise<BR>RPM,
so<BR>it&nbsp;"may"&nbsp;actually be a "disguised" turbine
engine.
</FONT>And<BR>it used<BR>Fuel
accordingly.</FONT></FONT></DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE<BR>s=
tyle"PADDING-RIGHT:
0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;<BR>BORDER-LEFT: #000080 2px
solid;
MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><BR> <DIV style"FONT: 10pt
arial">-----
Original Message ----- </DIV><BR> <DIV<BR>
style"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial;
font-color:<BR>black"><B>From:</B><BR> <A <A
href"mailto:titleglcasey@adelphia.net">titleglcasey@adelphia.net</A><B=
R>href"<A
href'mailto:glcasey@adelphia.net">Gary'>mailto:glcasey@adelphia.net"&g=
t;Gary</A><BR>
Casey</A> </DIV><BR> <DIV style"FONT: 10pt
arial"><B>To:</B> <A<BR><A
href"mailto:titleengines-list@matronics.com">titleengines-list@matroni=
cs.com</A><BR><BR>href"<A
href'mailto:engines-list@matronics.com">engines-list@matronics.com</A'=
>mailto:engines-list@matronics.com">engines-list@matronics.com</A</=
A>><BR> </DIV><BR>
<DIV style"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday,
October
09,<BR>2003 7:42<BR> AM</DIV><BR> <DIV
style"FONT: 10pt
arial"><B>Subject:</B> Engines-List: RE:<BR>Rotary
engine<BR> displacement</DIV><BR>
<DIV><BR></DIV>--&gt; Engines-List message
posted by:
"Gary Casey"<BR>&lt;<A<BR><BR>href"<A
href'mailto:glcasey@adelphia.net">glcasey@adelphia.net</A>&gt;<BR>=
<BR'>mailto:glcasey@adelphia.net">glcasey@adelphia.net</A>&g=
t;<BR><BR</A>><BR><BR>&lt;&lt;This<BR> =
is our basic disagreement.&nbsp; I'm quite certain that 1308
is<BR>
the<BR>displacement for one revolution of the e-shaft (2 of
6<BR>chambers).&nbsp;<BR> Each<BR>chamber is 654 cc,
which is
the number that's listed in the<BR>Mazda<BR>
workshop<BR>manual.&nbsp; Just as a sanity check, find a
good
picture<BR>of a<BR> rotor in a<BR>housing, and do a rough
calculation of the intake and<BR> compression areas.
It<BR>will be
very clear that 654 is the correct<BR>
number.<BR><BR>I do
agree that there has been lots of confusion over<BR>the<BR>
displacement.<BR>Most of this is because folks are trying to
make
the<BR>rotary<BR> fit
the<BR>4-cycle<BR>conventions.<BR><BR>Cheers,<BR>=
Rusty&gt;&gt;<BR><BR>I
stand<BR> corrected.&nbsp; I believe you are right - 654 is
the
displacement of<BR> a<BR>single chamber.&nbsp; My
whole
argument was off by a factor of<BR>
2.<BR><BR>&lt;&lt;You make it sound arbitrary, but
it's
not.&nbsp; The<BR><BR> displacement of
an<BR>internal<BR>combustion engine is, by
definition,<BR>the<BR> swept volume of the
combustion<BR>chambers
for each revolution of the<BR>output<BR>
shaft.<BR><BR>Tedd
McHenry<BR>Surrey, BC&gt;&gt;<BR><BR>I think
that's<BR>the<BR> fundamental difference.&nbsp; I agree that
it is
not<BR>arbitrary<BR>(maybe a<BR> little).&nbsp; But
displacement has nothing to do with the
volume<BR>swept<BR>in<BR>
a single revolution of a shaft.&nbsp; It is the total volume of
all<BR> chambers<BR>in the engine.&nbsp; If it were
the
displacement of the<BR>"output<BR> shaft" then
a<BR>2-stroke
piston engine would be rated at the actual<BR>piston<BR>
displacement<BR>while a 4-stroke would be rated at half the
total<BR>piston<BR> displacement.&nbsp; Or<BR>one
could argue
that the only thing that<BR>counts is<BR> the displacement
after<BR>the intake valve closes (or the exhaust port<BR>in
the<BR> case of a 2-stroke).&nbsp; On<BR>a 4-stroke
some have
used the<BR>camshaft for<BR> the output shaft - would
that<BR>double the rated displacement?&nbsp;<BR>
No.&nbsp;
Bottom line is that engine displacement<BR>has
traditionally<BR>been<BR> defined as the total ("swept") volume
of all
the<BR>chambers in the<BR> engine.&nbsp; It is a
geometric
calculation, not the<BR>theoretical<BR>volume of<BR> air
that is
inhaled in one revolution of a shaft.&nbsp; The
rotary<BR>came<BR>a<BR> long time after the piston engine,
so it
wasn't part of the<BR>convention,<BR>and<BR> hence the
confusion.&nbsp; So I guess the 13B is has a displacement
of<BR><BR>
3<BR>liters.&nbsp; I don't see how you can count just one of
the
three<BR><BR> chambers and<BR>ignore the other
two.<BR><BR><BR>&lt;&lt;Divide this<BR>by
1.59<BR> and we get 87.35 which is the amount of HP<BR>the
engine
should make<BR>at 6000<BR> rpm.<BR><BR>&nbsp;If
the
engine only made 87.35 HP, I never could have<BR>won the<BR> Sun
100
race<BR>at Sun &amp; Fun this year (Class 8, 160HP
RV<BR>
class).&nbsp;&nbsp; So,&nbsp; either my
formula<BR>is wrong
or the<BR> displacement of the 13B is actually double what Gary
says<BR>it<BR>is.&nbsp;<BR> Using the latter
assumption, I was
making 174 HP, which would<BR>explain<BR>why I<BR> was 10+
knots
faster than the fastest 0 - 320&nbsp;
powered<BR>RV.<BR><BR>But<BR> really, all you have
to do is
take one look inside the 13B engine to<BR> see<BR>that one
chamber
is way bigger than 327 cc
(20<BR>CI).<BR><BR>Tracy<BR>
Cook&gt;&gt;<BR><BR>That's right.&nbsp; The
engine has
3 liters<BR> displacement.&nbsp; Sounds like a
dog<BR>then,
huh?&nbsp; Which tells<BR>me that<BR> displacement is a
thing that
drafters use<BR>when they lay pen to<BR>paper -<BR> oops,
mouse to
pad - not what the user of the<BR>engine
cares<BR>about.&nbsp;
We<BR> care about weight, durability, power, cost,
etc.<BR>Not<BR>displacement.&nbsp;<BR> The rotary is
what it
is and can't be compared to a<BR>piston engine<BR>by
using<BR>
displacement.&nbsp; Let's see, if we could use a rotor
as<BR>the<BR>output<BR> shaft...no, that would
wobble..looks like
we're stuck with a<BR>shaft<BR>that<BR> rotates 3 times as
fast as
we would like, requiring the addition<BR>of<BR>a<BR>
reduction
gear to make the propeller
happy.<BR><BR>Gary<BR><BR><BR><BR>p;&nbsp;&nbsp=
;&nbsp;&nbsp;<BR>entirely<BR>see<BR>Matronics<BR><BR><BR><B=
R><BR>href"<A
href'http://www.matronics.com/trouble-report">http://www.matronics.com=
'>http://www.matronics.com/trouble-report">http://www.matronics.com</A=
><BR><BR><BR><BR>href"<A
href'mailto:engines-list@matronics.com">engines-list@matronics.com</A'=
>mailto:engines-list@matronics.com">engines-list@matronics.com</A</=
A>><BR>
UN/SUBSCRIBE:&nbsp;&nbsp; <A<BR><BR>href"<A
href'http://www.matronics.com/subscription">http://www.matronics.com/s=
'>http://www.matronics.com/subscription">http://www.matronics.com/s</A=
><BR>
List FAQ:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
<A<BR><BR>href"<A
href'http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Engines-List.htm">http://www.matroni=
'>http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Engines-List.htm">http://www.matroni</A=
><BR>
Search Engine:&nbsp; <A<BR><BR>href"<A
href'http://www.matronics.com/search">http://www.matronics.com/search'=
>http://www.matronics.com/search">http://www.matronics.com/search</A>&=
lt;<BR>
7-Day Browse:&nbsp;&nbsp; <A<BR><BR>href"<A
href'http://www.matronics.com/browse/engines-list">http://www.matronic=
'>http://www.matronics.com/browse/engines-list">http://www.matronic</A=
><BR>
Browse Digests: <A<BR><BR>href"<A
href'http://www.matronics.com/digest/engines-list">http://www.matronic=
'>http://www.matronics.com/digest/engines-list">http://www.matronic</A=
><BR>
Archives:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
<A<BR><BR>href"<A
href'http://www.matronics.com/archives">http://www.matronics.com/archi=
'>http://www.matronics.com/archives">http://www.matronics.com/archi</A=
><BR>
Photo Share:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <A<BR><BR>href"<A
href'http://www.matronics.com/photoshare">http://www.matronics.com/pho=
'>http://www.matronics.com/photoshare">http://www.matronics.com/pho</A=
><BR>
List Specific:&nbsp; <A<BR><BR>href"<A
href'http://www.matronics.com/engines-list">http://www.matronics.com/e=
'>http://www.matronics.com/engines-list">http://www.matronics.com/e</A=
><BR>
Other Lists:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <A<BR><BR>href"<A
href'http://www.matronics.com/emaillists">http://www.matronics.com/ema=
'>http://www.matronics.com/emaillists">http://www.matronics.com/ema</A=
><BR>
Trouble Report&nbsp; <A<BR><BR>href"<A
href'http://www.matronics.com/trouble-report">http://www.matronics.com=
'>http://www.matronics.com/trouble-report">http://www.matronics.com</A=
><BR>
Contributions:&nbsp; <A<BR><BR>href"<A
href'http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c=
><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQ=
=
=
nbsp;
entirely
see
Matronics
=
=
href"http://www.matronics.com/trouble-report">http://www.matronics.com=
=
=
href"mailto:engines-list@matronics.com">engines-list@matronics.com</A>=
UN/SUBSCRIBE: <A
href"http://www.matronics.com/subscription">http://www.matronics.com/s=
List FAQ: <A
href"http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Engines-List.htm">http://www.matroni=
Search Engine: <A
href"http://www.matronics.com/search">http://www.matronics.com/search<=
7-Day Browse: <A
href"http://www.matronics.com/browse/engines-list">http://www.matronic=
Browse Digests: <A
href"http://www.matronics.com/digest/engines-list">http://www.matronic=
Archives: <A
href"http://www.matronics.com/archives">http://www.matronics.com/archi=
Photo Share: <A
href"http://www.matronics.com/photoshare">http://www.matronics.com/pho=
List Specific: <A
href"http://www.matronics.com/engines-list">http://www.matronics.com/e=
Other Lists: <A
href"http://www.matronics.com/emaillists">http://www.matronics.com/ema=
Trouble Report <A
href"http://www.matronics.com/trouble-report">http://www.matronics.com=
Contributions: <A
href"http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c=
=
=
<BR><BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: Rotary engine displacement |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Healy, Joseph" <WJH@BRPLUSA.COM>
I did not. I found it pointless and tiresome. Kudo's to the first guy
who said so.
Joe
-----Original Message-----
From: Johnny Johnson [mailto:Johnny@wiktel.com]
Subject: RE: Engines-List: RE: Rotary engine displacement
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Johnny Johnson" <Johnny@wiktel.com>
I, for one, found the thread kind of interesting... different strokes
for different folks, I guess... let's all relax and enjoy what we
enjoy--and delete the rest. :=))
Johnny Johnson
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
klwerner@comcast.net
Subject: Re: Engines-List: RE: Rotary engine displacement
--> Engines-List message posted by: <klwerner@comcast.net>
Isn't it enough already with this thread ???
Why not just trust MAZDA when they say it is a 1308cc engine? 2stroke/
4stroke/ turbine, etc.
What difference do all these different calculations and opinions make on
actual power produced?
All that really should matter is how much HP a given engine produces at
what RPM, because that's what drives the windmaker up front, and not the
many "theoretical" displacement versions, etc. etc.
PLEASE, DO NOT ARCHIVE
P.S. I had a fuel injected 13B in my RX7 GSL-SE a few years ago. It
sings at cruise RPM, so it "may" actually be a "disguised" turbine
engine. And it used Fuel accordingly.
----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Casey
To: engines-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 7:42 AM
Subject: Engines-List: RE: Rotary engine displacement
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Gary Casey"
<glcasey@adelphia.net>
<<This is our basic disagreement. I'm quite certain that 1308 is the
displacement for one revolution of the e-shaft (2 of 6 chambers). Each
chamber is 654 cc, which is the number that's listed in the Mazda
workshop
manual. Just as a sanity check, find a good picture of a rotor in a
housing, and do a rough calculation of the intake and compression
areas. It
will be very clear that 654 is the correct number.
I do agree that there has been lots of confusion over the
displacement.
Most of this is because folks are trying to make the rotary fit the
4-cycle
conventions.
Cheers,
Rusty>>
I stand corrected. I believe you are right - 654 is the displacement
of a
single chamber. My whole argument was off by a factor of 2.
<<You make it sound arbitrary, but it's not. The displacement of an
internal
combustion engine is, by definition, the swept volume of the
combustion
chambers for each revolution of the output shaft.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC>>
I think that's the fundamental difference. I agree that it is not
arbitrary
(maybe a little). But displacement has nothing to do with the volume
swept
in a single revolution of a shaft. It is the total volume of all
chambers
in the engine. If it were the displacement of the "output shaft" then
a
2-stroke piston engine would be rated at the actual piston
displacement
while a 4-stroke would be rated at half the total piston displacement.
Or
one could argue that the only thing that counts is the displacement
after
the intake valve closes (or the exhaust port in the case of a
2-stroke). On
a 4-stroke some have used the camshaft for the output shaft - would
that
double the rated displacement? No. Bottom line is that engine
displacement
has traditionally been defined as the total ("swept") volume of all
the
chambers in the engine. It is a geometric calculation, not the
theoretical
volume of air that is inhaled in one revolution of a shaft. The
rotary came
a long time after the piston engine, so it wasn't part of the
convention,
and hence the confusion. So I guess the 13B is has a displacement of
3
liters. I don't see how you can count just one of the three chambers
and
ignore the other two.
<<Divide this by 1.59 and we get 87.35 which is the amount of HP
the engine should make at 6000 rpm.
If the engine only made 87.35 HP, I never could have won the Sun 100
race
at Sun & Fun this year (Class 8, 160HP RV class). So, either my
formula
is wrong or the displacement of the 13B is actually double what Gary
says it
is. Using the latter assumption, I was making 174 HP, which would
explain
why I was 10+ knots faster than the fastest 0 - 320 powered RV.
But really, all you have to do is take one look inside the 13B engine
to see
that one chamber is way bigger than 327 cc (20 CI).
Tracy Cook>>
That's right. The engine has 3 liters displacement. Sounds like a
dog
then, huh? Which tells me that displacement is a thing that drafters
use
when they lay pen to paper - oops, mouse to pad - not what the user of
the
engine cares about. We care about weight, durability, power, cost,
etc.
Not displacement. The rotary is what it is and can't be compared to a
piston engine by using displacement. Let's see, if we could use a
rotor as
the output shaft...no, that would wobble..looks like we're stuck with
a
shaft that rotates 3 times as fast as we would like, requiring the
addition
of a reduction gear to make the propeller happy.
Gary Casey
=
=
http://www.matronics.com/trouble-report
=
=
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" nameGENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD> <BODY bgColor#ffffff> <DIV><FONT faceArial color#000080>Isn't it
enough already with this thread ???</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT faceArial
color#000080>Why not just trust MAZDA when they say it is a 1308cc
engine? 2stroke/ 4stroke/ turbine, etc.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT
faceArial color#000080></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT faceArial
color#000080>What difference do all these different calculations and
opinions make on actual power produced?</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT
faceArial color#000080></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT faceArial
color#000080>All that really should matter is how much HP a given engine
produces at what RPM, bec</FONT><FONT faceArial color#000080>ause that's
what drives the windmaker up front, and not the many
"theoretical" displacement versions, etc. etc.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT faceArial color#000080></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT
faceArial color#000080>PLEASE, DO NOT ARCHIVE </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT faceArial color#000080></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT
faceArial color#000080>P.S. I had a fuel injected 13B in my RX7
GSL-SE a few years ago. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT faceArial><FONT
color#000080><FONT>It sings at cruise RPM, so
it "may" actually be a "disguised" turbine engine. </FONT>And
it used Fuel accordingly.</FONT></FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE
style"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;
BORDER-LEFT: #000080 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color:
black"><B>From:</B>
<A titleglcasey@adelphia.net href"mailto:glcasey@adelphia.net">Gary
Casey</A> </DIV>
<DIV style"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
titleengines-list@matronics.com
href"mailto:engines-list@matronics.com">engines-list@matronics.com</A>=
</DIV>
<DIV style"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, October 09, 2003
7:42
AM</DIV>
<DIV style"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Engines-List: RE: Rotary
engine
displacement</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>--> Engines-List message posted by: "Gary Casey"
<<A
href"mailto:glcasey@adelphia.net">glcasey@adelphia.net</A>><BR><BR>=
<BR><<This
is our basic disagreement. I'm quite certain that 1308 is
the<BR>displacement for one revolution of the e-shaft (2 of 6
chambers).
Each<BR>chamber is 654 cc, which is the number that's listed in the
Mazda
workshop<BR>manual. Just as a sanity check, find a good picture
of a
rotor in a<BR>housing, and do a rough calculation of the intake and
compression areas. It<BR>will be very clear that 654 is the correct
number.<BR><BR>I do agree that there has been lots of confusion over
the
displacement.<BR>Most of this is because folks are trying to make the
rotary
fit the
4-cycle<BR>conventions.<BR><BR>Cheers,<BR>Rusty>><BR><BR>I stand
corrected. I believe you are right - 654 is the displacement of
a<BR>single chamber. My whole argument was off by a factor of
2.<BR><BR><<You make it sound arbitrary, but it's not. The
displacement of an<BR>internal<BR>combustion engine is, by definition,
the
swept volume of the combustion<BR>chambers for each revolution of the
output
shaft.<BR><BR>Tedd McHenry<BR>Surrey, BC>><BR><BR>I think that's
the
fundamental difference. I agree that it is not
arbitrary<BR>(maybe a
little). But displacement has nothing to do with the volume
swept<BR>in
a single revolution of a shaft. It is the total volume of all
chambers<BR>in the engine. If it were the displacement of the
"output
shaft" then a<BR>2-stroke piston engine would be rated at the actual
piston
displacement<BR>while a 4-stroke would be rated at half the total
piston
displacement. Or<BR>one could argue that the only thing that
counts is
the displacement after<BR>the intake valve closes (or the exhaust port
in the
case of a 2-stroke). On<BR>a 4-stroke some have used the
camshaft for
the output shaft - would that<BR>double the rated displacement?
No. Bottom line is that engine displacement<BR>has traditionally
been
defined as the total ("swept") volume of all the<BR>chambers in the
engine. It is a geometric calculation, not the
theoretical<BR>volume of
air that is inhaled in one revolution of a shaft. The rotary
came<BR>a
long time after the piston engine, so it wasn't part of the
convention,<BR>and
hence the confusion. So I guess the 13B is has a displacement of
3<BR>liters. I don't see how you can count just one of the three
chambers and<BR>ignore the other two.<BR><BR><BR><<Divide this
by 1.59
and we get 87.35 which is the amount of HP<BR>the engine should make
at 6000
rpm.<BR><BR> If the engine only made 87.35 HP, I never could have
won the
Sun 100 race<BR>at Sun & Fun this year (Class 8, 160HP RV
class). So, either my formula<BR>is wrong or the
displacement of the 13B is actually double what Gary says
it<BR>is.
Using the latter assumption, I was making 174 HP, which would
explain<BR>why I
was 10+ knots faster than the fastest 0 - 320 powered
RV.<BR><BR>But
really, all you have to do is take one look inside the 13B engine to
see<BR>that one chamber is way bigger than 327 cc (20
CI).<BR><BR>Tracy
Cook>><BR><BR>That's right. The engine has 3 liters
displacement. Sounds like a dog<BR>then, huh? Which tells
me that
displacement is a thing that drafters use<BR>when they lay pen to
paper -
oops, mouse to pad - not what the user of the<BR>engine cares
about. We
care about weight, durability, power, cost, etc.<BR>Not
displacement.
The rotary is what it is and can't be compared to a<BR>piston engine
by using
displacement. Let's see, if we could use a rotor as<BR>the
output
shaft...no, that would wobble..looks like we're stuck with a<BR>shaft
that
rotates 3 times as fast as we would like, requiring the addition<BR>of
a
reduction gear to make the propeller happy.<BR><BR>Gary
=
=
p;
entirely
see
Matronics
=
=
href"http://www.matronics.com/trouble-report">http://www.matronics.com=
=
=
href"mailto:engines-list@matronics.com">engines-list@matronics.com</A>=
UN/SUBSCRIBE: <A
href"http://www.matronics.com/subscription">http://www.matronics.com/s=
List FAQ: <A
href"http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Engines-List.htm">http://www.matroni=
Search Engine: <A
href"http://www.matronics.com/search">http://www.matronics.com/search<=
7-Day Browse: <A
href"http://www.matronics.com/browse/engines-list">http://www.matronic=
Browse Digests: <A
href"http://www.matronics.com/digest/engines-list">http://www.matronic=
Archives: <A
href"http://www.matronics.com/archives">http://www.matronics.com/archi=
Photo Share: <A
href"http://www.matronics.com/photoshare">http://www.matronics.com/pho=
List Specific: <A
href"http://www.matronics.com/engines-list">http://www.matronics.com/e=
Other Lists: <A
href"http://www.matronics.com/emaillists">http://www.matronics.com/ema=
Trouble Report <A
href"http://www.matronics.com/trouble-report">http://www.matronics.com=
Contributions: <A
href"http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c=
=
=
<BR><BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
==
direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
==
http://www.matronics.com/trouble-report
==
==
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Rotary engine displacement |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Lincoln Schlecht" <flyseaplane@netzero.net>
by: "Johnny Johnson" <Johnny@wiktel.com>
" I, for one, found the thread kind of interesting... different strokes for
> different folks, I guess... let's all relax and enjoy what we enjoy--and
> delete the rest. :=))"
= = = = = = =
Yeah, I'm with Johnny. I feed on techie stuff like this.
Always interested in gaining more knowledge!!
Later, All.
Linc
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Engines-List Digest: 6 Msgs - 10/08/03 |
--> Engines-List message posted by: ALEMBIC7@aol.com
You guys probably know and perhaps would tell me about how heavy one of these
13b rotary installations is, installed with reduction drive, muffler, etc?
Thanks
A lurker
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: Rotary engine displacement |
--> Engines-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Gary Casey wrote:
> But displacement has nothing to do with the volume swept
> in a single revolution of a shaft. It is the total volume of all chambers
> in the engine.
Gary:
Or it's the volume of water displaced when you drop the engine in a swimming
pool. You can come up with any number of definitions, depending on your
purpose.
Books and magazines on engines used to call it "swept displacement," for
precisely the reason I described. Over time that has become contracted to
simply displacement, which is probably one reason for the confusion.
> On
> a 4-stroke some have used the camshaft for the output shaft - would that
> double the rated displacement? No.
That's really a semantic issue, not an engineering issue. The output shaft of
the Otto-cycle portion of the engine is still the same, they've just found a
clever way to incorporate a reduction drive.
Some manufacturers of reduction-drive engines DO advertised their swept
displacement based on one revolution of the propellor shaft (i.e. after the
reduction drive). In the case of aircraft engines, where the prop RPM is very
similar for all engines being compared, you can make some justification for
that approach. But when comparing engines without considering reduction
drives, the standard method I described is best. That's particularly true when
the engines are of different configurations.
> We care about weight, durability, power, cost, etc.
> Not displacement.
Good point.
> The rotary is what it is and can't be compared to a
> piston engine by using displacement.
That's a valid point. But sometimes you have to make the comparison. The race
sanctioning bodies had to. So did regulators in Europe, where cars are
licensed by displacement. In both cases they use the output-shaft definition
because, frankly, it makes the most engineering sense. I realize that's
argument-by-authority, but it's a fact, nevertheless.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: Rotary engine displacement |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
The nice thing about these list is you don't have to read a thread which has
no interest for you.
Just delete it!
Ed Anderson
RV-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson@carolina.rr.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Healy, Joseph" <WJH@brplusa.com>
Subject: RE: Engines-List: RE: Rotary engine displacement
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Healy, Joseph" <WJH@BRPLUSA.COM>
>
> I did not. I found it pointless and tiresome. Kudo's to the first guy
> who said so.
>
> Joe
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Johnny Johnson [mailto:Johnny@wiktel.com]
> To: engines-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Engines-List: RE: Rotary engine displacement
>
>
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Johnny Johnson" <Johnny@wiktel.com>
>
> I, for one, found the thread kind of interesting... different strokes
> for different folks, I guess... let's all relax and enjoy what we
> enjoy--and delete the rest. :=))
>
> Johnny Johnson
> do not archive
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
> klwerner@comcast.net
> To: engines-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: RE: Rotary engine displacement
>
> --> Engines-List message posted by: <klwerner@comcast.net>
>
>
> Isn't it enough already with this thread ???
> Why not just trust MAZDA when they say it is a 1308cc engine? 2stroke/
> 4stroke/ turbine, etc.
>
> What difference do all these different calculations and opinions make on
> actual power produced?
>
> All that really should matter is how much HP a given engine produces at
> what RPM, because that's what drives the windmaker up front, and not the
> many "theoretical" displacement versions, etc. etc.
>
> PLEASE, DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
> P.S. I had a fuel injected 13B in my RX7 GSL-SE a few years ago. It
> sings at cruise RPM, so it "may" actually be a "disguised" turbine
> engine. And it used Fuel accordingly.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Gary Casey
> To: engines-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 7:42 AM
> Subject: Engines-List: RE: Rotary engine displacement
>
>
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Gary Casey"
> <glcasey@adelphia.net>
>
>
> <<This is our basic disagreement. I'm quite certain that 1308 is the
> displacement for one revolution of the e-shaft (2 of 6 chambers). Each
> chamber is 654 cc, which is the number that's listed in the Mazda
> workshop
> manual. Just as a sanity check, find a good picture of a rotor in a
> housing, and do a rough calculation of the intake and compression
> areas. It
> will be very clear that 654 is the correct number.
>
> I do agree that there has been lots of confusion over the
> displacement.
> Most of this is because folks are trying to make the rotary fit the
> 4-cycle
> conventions.
>
> Cheers,
> Rusty>>
>
> I stand corrected. I believe you are right - 654 is the displacement
> of a
> single chamber. My whole argument was off by a factor of 2.
>
> <<You make it sound arbitrary, but it's not. The displacement of an
> internal
> combustion engine is, by definition, the swept volume of the
> combustion
> chambers for each revolution of the output shaft.
>
> Tedd McHenry
> Surrey, BC>>
>
> I think that's the fundamental difference. I agree that it is not
> arbitrary
> (maybe a little). But displacement has nothing to do with the volume
> swept
> in a single revolution of a shaft. It is the total volume of all
> chambers
> in the engine. If it were the displacement of the "output shaft" then
> a
> 2-stroke piston engine would be rated at the actual piston
> displacement
> while a 4-stroke would be rated at half the total piston displacement.
> Or
> one could argue that the only thing that counts is the displacement
> after
> the intake valve closes (or the exhaust port in the case of a
> 2-stroke). On
> a 4-stroke some have used the camshaft for the output shaft - would
> that
> double the rated displacement? No. Bottom line is that engine
> displacement
> has traditionally been defined as the total ("swept") volume of all
> the
> chambers in the engine. It is a geometric calculation, not the
> theoretical
> volume of air that is inhaled in one revolution of a shaft. The
> rotary came
> a long time after the piston engine, so it wasn't part of the
> convention,
> and hence the confusion. So I guess the 13B is has a displacement of
> 3
> liters. I don't see how you can count just one of the three chambers
> and
> ignore the other two.
>
>
> <<Divide this by 1.59 and we get 87.35 which is the amount of HP
> the engine should make at 6000 rpm.
>
> If the engine only made 87.35 HP, I never could have won the Sun 100
> race
> at Sun & Fun this year (Class 8, 160HP RV class). So, either my
> formula
> is wrong or the displacement of the 13B is actually double what Gary
> says it
> is. Using the latter assumption, I was making 174 HP, which would
> explain
> why I was 10+ knots faster than the fastest 0 - 320 powered RV.
>
> But really, all you have to do is take one look inside the 13B engine
> to see
> that one chamber is way bigger than 327 cc (20 CI).
>
> Tracy Cook>>
>
> That's right. The engine has 3 liters displacement. Sounds like a
> dog
> then, huh? Which tells me that displacement is a thing that drafters
> use
> when they lay pen to paper - oops, mouse to pad - not what the user of
> the
> engine cares about. We care about weight, durability, power, cost,
> etc.
> Not displacement. The rotary is what it is and can't be compared to a
> piston engine by using displacement. Let's see, if we could use a
> rotor as
> the output shaft...no, that would wobble..looks like we're stuck with
> a
> shaft that rotates 3 times as fast as we would like, requiring the
> addition
> of a reduction gear to make the propeller happy.
>
> Gary Casey
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/trouble-report
>
>
> <HTML><HEAD>
> <META content"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" nameGENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE>
> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor#ffffff> <DIV><FONT faceArial color#000080>Isn't it
> enough already with this thread ???</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT faceArial
> color#000080>Why not just trust MAZDA when they say it is a 1308cc
> engine? 2stroke/ 4stroke/ turbine, etc.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT
> faceArial color#000080></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT faceArial
> color#000080>What difference do all these different calculations and
> opinions make on actual power produced?</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT
> faceArial color#000080></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT faceArial
> color#000080>All that really should matter is how much HP a given engine
> produces at what RPM, bec</FONT><FONT faceArial color#000080>ause that's
> what drives the windmaker up front, and not the many
> "theoretical" displacement versions, etc. etc.</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT faceArial color#000080></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT
> faceArial color#000080>PLEASE, DO NOT ARCHIVE </FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT faceArial color#000080></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT
> faceArial color#000080>P.S. I had a fuel injected 13B in my RX7
> GSL-SE a few years ago. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT faceArial><FONT
> color#000080><FONT>It sings at cruise RPM, so
> it "may" actually be a "disguised" turbine engine. </FONT>And
> it used Fuel accordingly.</FONT></FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE
> style"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;
> BORDER-LEFT: #000080 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
> <DIV style"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
> <DIV
> style"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color:
> black"><B>From:</B>
> <A titleglcasey@adelphia.net href"mailto:glcasey@adelphia.net">Gary
> Casey</A> </DIV>
> <DIV style"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
> titleengines-list@matronics.com
>
> href"mailto:engines-list@matronics.com">engines-list@matronics.com</A>=
> </DIV>
> <DIV style"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, October 09, 2003
> 7:42
> AM</DIV>
> <DIV style"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Engines-List: RE: Rotary
> engine
> displacement</DIV>
> <DIV><BR></DIV>--> Engines-List message posted by: "Gary Casey"
> <<A
>
> href"mailto:glcasey@adelphia.net">glcasey@adelphia.net</A>><BR><BR>=
> <BR><<This
> is our basic disagreement. I'm quite certain that 1308 is
> the<BR>displacement for one revolution of the e-shaft (2 of 6
> chambers).
> Each<BR>chamber is 654 cc, which is the number that's listed in the
> Mazda
> workshop<BR>manual. Just as a sanity check, find a good picture
> of a
> rotor in a<BR>housing, and do a rough calculation of the intake and
> compression areas. It<BR>will be very clear that 654 is the correct
> number.<BR><BR>I do agree that there has been lots of confusion over
> the
> displacement.<BR>Most of this is because folks are trying to make the
> rotary
> fit the
> 4-cycle<BR>conventions.<BR><BR>Cheers,<BR>Rusty>><BR><BR>I stand
> corrected. I believe you are right - 654 is the displacement of
> a<BR>single chamber. My whole argument was off by a factor of
> 2.<BR><BR><<You make it sound arbitrary, but it's not. The
>
> displacement of an<BR>internal<BR>combustion engine is, by definition,
> the
> swept volume of the combustion<BR>chambers for each revolution of the
> output
> shaft.<BR><BR>Tedd McHenry<BR>Surrey, BC>><BR><BR>I think that's
> the
> fundamental difference. I agree that it is not
> arbitrary<BR>(maybe a
> little). But displacement has nothing to do with the volume
> swept<BR>in
> a single revolution of a shaft. It is the total volume of all
> chambers<BR>in the engine. If it were the displacement of the
> "output
> shaft" then a<BR>2-stroke piston engine would be rated at the actual
> piston
> displacement<BR>while a 4-stroke would be rated at half the total
> piston
> displacement. Or<BR>one could argue that the only thing that
> counts is
> the displacement after<BR>the intake valve closes (or the exhaust port
> in the
> case of a 2-stroke). On<BR>a 4-stroke some have used the
> camshaft for
> the output shaft - would that<BR>double the rated displacement?
> No. Bottom line is that engine displacement<BR>has traditionally
> been
> defined as the total ("swept") volume of all the<BR>chambers in the
> engine. It is a geometric calculation, not the
> theoretical<BR>volume of
> air that is inhaled in one revolution of a shaft. The rotary
> came<BR>a
> long time after the piston engine, so it wasn't part of the
> convention,<BR>and
> hence the confusion. So I guess the 13B is has a displacement of
>
> 3<BR>liters. I don't see how you can count just one of the three
>
> chambers and<BR>ignore the other two.<BR><BR><BR><<Divide this
> by 1.59
> and we get 87.35 which is the amount of HP<BR>the engine should make
> at 6000
> rpm.<BR><BR> If the engine only made 87.35 HP, I never could have
> won the
> Sun 100 race<BR>at Sun & Fun this year (Class 8, 160HP RV
> class). So, either my formula<BR>is wrong or the
> displacement of the 13B is actually double what Gary says
> it<BR>is.
> Using the latter assumption, I was making 174 HP, which would
> explain<BR>why I
> was 10+ knots faster than the fastest 0 - 320 powered
> RV.<BR><BR>But
> really, all you have to do is take one look inside the 13B engine to
> see<BR>that one chamber is way bigger than 327 cc (20
> CI).<BR><BR>Tracy
> Cook>><BR><BR>That's right. The engine has 3 liters
> displacement. Sounds like a dog<BR>then, huh? Which tells
> me that
> displacement is a thing that drafters use<BR>when they lay pen to
> paper -
> oops, mouse to pad - not what the user of the<BR>engine cares
> about. We
> care about weight, durability, power, cost, etc.<BR>Not
> displacement.
> The rotary is what it is and can't be compared to a<BR>piston engine
> by using
> displacement. Let's see, if we could use a rotor as<BR>the
> output
> shaft...no, that would wobble..looks like we're stuck with a<BR>shaft
> that
> rotates 3 times as fast as we would like, requiring the addition<BR>of
> a
> reduction gear to make the propeller happy.<BR><BR>Gary
>
>
> p;
> entirely
> see
> Matronics
>
>
> href"http://www.matronics.com/trouble-report">http://www.matronics.com=
>
>
> href"mailto:engines-list@matronics.com">engines-list@matronics.com</A>=
> UN/SUBSCRIBE: <A
>
> href"http://www.matronics.com/subscription">http://www.matronics.com/s=
> List FAQ: <A
>
> href"http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Engines-List.htm">http://www.matroni=
> Search Engine: <A
>
> href"http://www.matronics.com/search">http://www.matronics.com/search<=
> 7-Day Browse: <A
>
> href"http://www.matronics.com/browse/engines-list">http://www.matronic=
> Browse Digests: <A
>
> href"http://www.matronics.com/digest/engines-list">http://www.matronic=
> Archives: <A
>
> href"http://www.matronics.com/archives">http://www.matronics.com/archi=
> Photo Share: <A
>
> href"http://www.matronics.com/photoshare">http://www.matronics.com/pho=
> List Specific: <A
>
> href"http://www.matronics.com/engines-list">http://www.matronics.com/e=
> Other Lists: <A
>
> href"http://www.matronics.com/emaillists">http://www.matronics.com/ema=
> Trouble Report <A
>
> href"http://www.matronics.com/trouble-report">http://www.matronics.com=
> Contributions: <A
>
> href"http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c=
>
>
> <BR><BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
>
>
> ==
> direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
> ==
> http://www.matronics.com/trouble-report
> ==
> ==
>
>
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Engines-List Digest: 6 Msgs - 10/08/03 |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Russell Duffy" <13brv3@bellsouth.net>
--> Engines-List message posted by: ALEMBIC7@aol.com
You guys probably know and perhaps would tell me about how heavy one of
these
13b rotary installations is, installed with reduction drive, muffler, etc?
Thanks
A lurker
-----------------
Unfortunately, there's really no standard installation, so the weight varies
quite a bit. Very few people have gone through the trouble to weigh each and
every item of an installation, so you end up with no actual figure for
weight.
The best answer is that a 13B engine, will have about the same FWF weight as
an O-320. We know this because there are a number of rotary engines in
planes that would normally have an O-320, and they end up with similar empty
weights. That being said, you can come in slightly below the weight of an
O-320, or way over it. It all depends on how much you work to save weight
along the way.
Cheers,
Rusty
Overweight (though equally overpowered) 13B Turbo RV-3
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: Rotary engine displacement |
--> Engines-List message posted by: Royce Wise <royce@wayxcable.com>
Ed Anderson wrote:
>--> Engines-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolinarrcom>
>
>The nice thing about these list is you don't have to read a thread which has
>no interest for you
>Just delete it!
>
>Ed Anderson
>RV-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
>Matthews, NC
>eanderson@carolinarrcom
>
Well said Ed
How's the redrive checking going?
Royce
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Healy, Joseph" <WJH@brplusacom>
>To: <engines-list@matronicscom>
>Subject: RE: Engines-List: RE: Rotary engine displacement
>
>
>
>
>>--> Engines-List message posted by: "Healy, Joseph" <WJH@BRPLUSACOM>
>>
>>I did not I found it pointless and tiresome Kudo's to the first guy
>>who said so
>>
>>Joe
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Johnny Johnson [mailto:Johnny@wiktelcom]
>>To: engines-list@matronicscom
>>Subject: RE: Engines-List: RE: Rotary engine displacement
>>
>>
>>--> Engines-List message posted by: "Johnny Johnson" <Johnny@wiktelcom>
>>
>>I, for one, found the thread kind of interesting different strokes
>>for different folks, I guess let's all relax and enjoy what we
>>enjoy--and delete the rest :=
>>
>>Johnny Johnson
>>do not archive
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-engines-list-server@matronicscom
>>[mailto:owner-engines-list-server@matronicscom]On Behalf Of
>>klwerner@comcastnet
>>To: engines-list@matronicscom
>>Subject: Re: Engines-List: RE: Rotary engine displacement
>>
>>--> Engines-List message posted by: <klwerner@comcastnet>
>>
>>
>>Isn't it enough already with this thread ???
>>Why not just trust MAZDA when they say it is a 1308cc engine? 2stroke/
>>4stroke/ turbine, etc
>>
>>What difference do all these different calculations and opinions make on
>>actual power produced?
>>
>>All that really should matter is how much HP a given engine produces at
>>what RPM, because that's what drives the windmaker up front, and not the
>>many "theoretical" displacement versions, etc etc
>>
>>PLEASE, DO NOT ARCHIVE
>>
>>PS I had a fuel injected 13B in my RX7 GSL-SE a few years ago It
>>sings at cruise RPM, so it "may" actually be a "disguised" turbine
>>engine And it used Fuel accordingly
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Gary Casey
>> To: engines-list@matronicscom
>> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 7:42 AM
>> Subject: Engines-List: RE: Rotary engine displacement
>>
>>
>> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Gary Casey"
>><glcasey@adelphianet>
>>
>>
>> <<This is our basic disagreement I'm quite certain that 1308 is the
>> displacement for one revolution of the e-shaft 2 of 6 chambers Each
>> chamber is 654 cc, which is the number that's listed in the Mazda
>>workshop
>> manual Just as a sanity check, find a good picture of a rotor in a
>> housing, and do a rough calculation of the intake and compression
>>areas It
>> will be very clear that 654 is the correct number
>>
>> I do agree that there has been lots of confusion over the
>>displacement
>> Most of this is because folks are trying to make the rotary fit the
>>4-cycle
>> conventions
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Rusty>>
>>
>> I stand corrected I believe you are right - 654 is the displacement
>>of a
>> single chamber My whole argument was off by a factor of 2
>>
>> <<You make it sound arbitrary, but it's not The displacement of an
>> internal
>> combustion engine is, by definition, the swept volume of the
>>combustion
>> chambers for each revolution of the output shaft
>>
>> Tedd McHenry
>> Surrey, BC>>
>>
>> I think that's the fundamental difference I agree that it is not
>>arbitrary
>> maybe a little But displacement has nothing to do with the volume
>>swept
>> in a single revolution of a shaft It is the total volume of all
>>chambers
>> in the engine If it were the displacement of the "output shaft" then
>>a
>> 2-stroke piston engine would be rated at the actual piston
>>displacement
>> while a 4-stroke would be rated at half the total piston displacement
>>Or
>> one could argue that the only thing that counts is the displacement
>>after
>> the intake valve closes or the exhaust port in the case of a
>>2-stroke On
>> a 4-stroke some have used the camshaft for the output shaft - would
>>that
>> double the rated displacement? No Bottom line is that engine
>>displacement
>> has traditionally been defined as the total "swept" volume of all
>>the
>> chambers in the engine It is a geometric calculation, not the
>>theoretical
>> volume of air that is inhaled in one revolution of a shaft The
>>rotary came
>> a long time after the piston engine, so it wasn't part of the
>>convention,
>> and hence the confusion So I guess the 13B is has a displacement of
>>3
>> liters I don't see how you can count just one of the three chambers
>>and
>> ignore the other two
>>
>>
>> <<Divide this by 159 and we get 8735 which is the amount of HP
>> the engine should make at 6000 rpm
>>
>> If the engine only made 8735 HP, I never could have won the Sun 100
>>race
>> at Sun & Fun this year Class 8, 160HP RV class So, either my
>>formula
>> is wrong or the displacement of the 13B is actually double what Gary
>>says it
>> is Using the latter assumption, I was making 174 HP, which would
>>explain
>> why I was 10+ knots faster than the fastest 0 - 320 powered RV
>>
>> But really, all you have to do is take one look inside the 13B engine
>>to see
>> that one chamber is way bigger than 327 cc 20 CI
>>
>> Tracy Cook>>
>>
>> That's right The engine has 3 liters displacement Sounds like a
>>dog
>> then, huh? Which tells me that displacement is a thing that drafters
>>use
>> when they lay pen to paper - oops, mouse to pad - not what the user of
>>the
>> engine cares about We care about weight, durability, power, cost,
>>etc
>> Not displacement The rotary is what it is and can't be compared to a
>> piston engine by using displacement Let's see, if we could use a
>>rotor as
>> the output shaftno, that would wobblelooks like we're stuck with
>>a
>> shaft that rotates 3 times as fast as we would like, requiring the
>>addition
>> of a reduction gear to make the propeller happy
>>
>> Gary Casey
>>
>>
>>http://wwwmatronicscom/trouble-report
>>
>>
>><HTML><HEAD>
>><META content"MSHTML 60028001106" nameGENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE>
>></HEAD> <BODY bgColor#ffffff> <DIV><FONT faceArial color#000080>Isn't it
>>enough already with this thread ???</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT faceArial
>>color#000080>Why not just trust MAZDA when they say it is a 1308cc
>>engine? 2stroke/ 4stroke/ turbine, etc</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT
>>faceArial color#000080></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT faceArial
>>color#000080>What difference do all these different calculations and
>>opinions make on actual power produced?</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT
>>faceArial color#000080></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT faceArial
>>color#000080>All that really should matter is how much HP a given engine
>>produces at what RPM, bec</FONT><FONT faceArial color#000080>ause that's
>>what drives the windmaker up front, and not the many
>>"theoretical" displacement versions, etc etc</FONT></DIV>
>><DIV><FONT faceArial color#000080></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT
>>faceArial color#000080>PLEASE, DO NOT ARCHIVE </FONT></DIV>
>><DIV><FONT faceArial color#000080></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT
>>faceArial color#000080>PS I had a fuel injected 13B in my RX7
>>GSL-SE a few years ago </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT faceArial><FONT
>>color#000080><FONT>It sings at cruise RPM, so
>>it "may" actually be a "disguised" turbine engine </FONT>And
>>it used Fuel accordingly</FONT></FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE
>>style"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;
>>BORDER-LEFT: #000080 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
>> <DIV style"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
>> <DIV
>> style"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color:
>>black"><B>From:</B>
>> <A titleglcasey@adelphianet href"mailto:glcasey@adelphianet">Gary
>> Casey</A> </DIV>
>> <DIV style"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
>>titleengines-list@matronicscom
>>
>>href"mailto:engines-list@matronicscom">engines-list@matronicscom</A>=
>> </DIV>
>> <DIV style"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, October 09, 2003
>>7:42
>> AM</DIV>
>> <DIV style"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Engines-List: RE: Rotary
>>engine
>> displacement</DIV>
>> <DIV><BR></DIV>--> Engines-List message posted by: "Gary Casey"
>><<A
>>
>>href"mailto:glcasey@adelphianet">glcasey@adelphianet</A>><BR><BR>=
>><BR><<This
>> is our basic disagreement I'm quite certain that 1308 is
>> the<BR>displacement for one revolution of the e-shaft 2 of 6
>>chambers
>> Each<BR>chamber is 654 cc, which is the number that's listed in the
>>Mazda
>> workshop<BR>manual Just as a sanity check, find a good picture
>>of a
>> rotor in a<BR>housing, and do a rough calculation of the intake and
>> compression areas It<BR>will be very clear that 654 is the correct
>> number<BR><BR>I do agree that there has been lots of confusion over
>>the
>> displacement<BR>Most of this is because folks are trying to make the
>>rotary
>> fit the
>>4-cycle<BR>conventions<BR><BR>Cheers,<BR>Rusty>><BR><BR>I stand
>> corrected I believe you are right - 654 is the displacement of
>> a<BR>single chamber My whole argument was off by a factor of
>> 2<BR><BR><<You make it sound arbitrary, but it's not The
>>
>> displacement of an<BR>internal<BR>combustion engine is, by definition,
>>the
>> swept volume of the combustion<BR>chambers for each revolution of the
>>output
>> shaft<BR><BR>Tedd McHenry<BR>Surrey, BC>><BR><BR>I think that's
>>the
>> fundamental difference I agree that it is not
>>arbitrary<BR>maybe a
>> little But displacement has nothing to do with the volume
>>swept<BR>in
>> a single revolution of a shaft It is the total volume of all
>> chambers<BR>in the engine If it were the displacement of the
>>"output
>> shaft" then a<BR>2-stroke piston engine would be rated at the actual
>>piston
>> displacement<BR>while a 4-stroke would be rated at half the total
>>piston
>> displacement Or<BR>one could argue that the only thing that
>>counts is
>> the displacement after<BR>the intake valve closes or the exhaust port
>>in the
>> case of a 2-stroke On<BR>a 4-stroke some have used the
>>camshaft for
>> the output shaft - would that<BR>double the rated displacement?
>> No Bottom line is that engine displacement<BR>has traditionally
>>been
>> defined as the total "swept" volume of all the<BR>chambers in the
>> engine It is a geometric calculation, not the
>>theoretical<BR>volume of
>> air that is inhaled in one revolution of a shaft The rotary
>>came<BR>a
>> long time after the piston engine, so it wasn't part of the
>>convention,<BR>and
>> hence the confusion So I guess the 13B is has a displacement of
>>
>> 3<BR>liters I don't see how you can count just one of the three
>>
>> chambers and<BR>ignore the other two<BR><BR><BR><<Divide this
>>by 159
>> and we get 8735 which is the amount of HP<BR>the engine should make
>>at 6000
>> rpm<BR><BR> If the engine only made 8735 HP, I never could have
>>won the
>> Sun 100 race<BR>at Sun & Fun this year Class 8, 160HP RV
>> class So, either my formula<BR>is wrong or the
>> displacement of the 13B is actually double what Gary says
>>it<BR>is
>> Using the latter assumption, I was making 174 HP, which would
>>explain<BR>why I
>> was 10+ knots faster than the fastest 0 - 320 powered
>>RV<BR><BR>But
>> really, all you have to do is take one look inside the 13B engine to
>> see<BR>that one chamber is way bigger than 327 cc 20
>>CI<BR><BR>Tracy
>> Cook>><BR><BR>That's right The engine has 3 liters
>> displacement Sounds like a dog<BR>then, huh? Which tells
>>me that
>> displacement is a thing that drafters use<BR>when they lay pen to
>>paper -
>> oops, mouse to pad - not what the user of the<BR>engine cares
>>about We
>> care about weight, durability, power, cost, etc<BR>Not
>>displacement
>> The rotary is what it is and can't be compared to a<BR>piston engine
>>by using
>> displacement Let's see, if we could use a rotor as<BR>the
>>output
>> shaftno, that would wobblelooks like we're stuck with a<BR>shaft
>>that
>> rotates 3 times as fast as we would like, requiring the addition<BR>of
>>a
>> reduction gear to make the propeller happy<BR><BR>Gary
>>
>>
>>p;
>>entirely
>>see
>>Matronics
>>
>>
>>href"http://wwwmatronicscom/trouble-report">http://wwwmatronicscom=
>>
>>
>>href"mailto:engines-list@matronicscom">engines-list@matronicscom</A>=
>> UN/SUBSCRIBE: <A
>>
>>href"http://wwwmatronicscom/subscription">http://wwwmatronicscom/s=
>> List FAQ: <A
>>
>>href"http://wwwmatronicscom/FAQ/Engines-Listhtm">http://wwwmatroni=
>> Search Engine: <A
>>
>>href"http://wwwmatronicscom/search">http://wwwmatronicscom/search<=
>> 7-Day Browse: <A
>>
>>href"http://wwwmatronicscom/browse/engines-list">http://wwwmatronic=
>> Browse Digests: <A
>>
>>href"http://wwwmatronicscom/digest/engines-list">http://wwwmatronic=
>> Archives: <A
>>
>>href"http://wwwmatronicscom/archives">http://wwwmatronicscom/archi=
>> Photo Share: <A
>>
>>href"http://wwwmatronicscom/photoshare">http://wwwmatronicscom/pho=
>> List Specific: <A
>>
>>href"http://wwwmatronicscom/engines-list">http://wwwmatronicscom/e=
>> Other Lists: <A
>>
>>href"http://wwwmatronicscom/emaillists">http://wwwmatronicscom/ema=
>> Trouble Report <A
>>
>>href"http://wwwmatronicscom/trouble-report">http://wwwmatronicscom=
>> Contributions: <A
>>
>>href"http://wwwmatronicscom/contribution">http://wwwmatronicscom/c=
>>
>>
>><BR><BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
>>
>>
>>==
>>direct advertising on the Matronics Forums
>>==
>>http://wwwmatronicscom/trouble-report
>>==
>>==
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|