---------------------------------------------------------- Engines-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Thu 10/09/03: 11 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:44:26 AM PST US From: "Gary Casey" Subject: Engines-List: RE: Rotary engine displacement --> Engines-List message posted by: "Gary Casey" <> 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. <> 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. <> 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:08:50 AM PST US From: Subject: Re: Engines-List: RE: Rotary engine displacement --> Engines-List message posted by: 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" <> 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. <> 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. <> 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 = =
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
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 = = 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= UN/SUBSCRIBE:   http://www.matronics.com/s= List FAQ:       http://www.matroni= Search Engine:  http://www.matronics.com/search<= 7-Day Browse:   http://www.matronic= Browse Digests: http://www.matronic= Archives:       http://www.matronics.com/archi= Photo Share:    http://www.matronics.com/pho= List Specific:  http://www.matronics.com/e= Other Lists:    http://www.matronics.com/ema= Trouble Report  http://www.matronics.com= Contributions:  http://www.matronics.com/c= = =



________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 09:47:40 AM PST US From: "Johnny Johnson" Subject: RE: Engines-List: RE: Rotary engine displacement --> Engines-List message posted by: "Johnny Johnson" 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: 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" <> 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. <> 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. <> 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 = =
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 -----
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 = = 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= UN/SUBSCRIBE:   http://www.matronics.com/s= List FAQ:       http://www.matroni= Search Engine:  http://www.matronics.com/search<= 7-Day Browse:   http://www.matronic= Browse Digests: http://www.matronic= Archives:       http://www.matronics.com/archi= Photo Share:    http://www.matronics.com/pho= List Specific:  http://www.matronics.com/e= Other Lists:    http://www.matronics.com/ema= Trouble Report  http://www.matronics.com= Contributions:  http://www.matronics.com/c= = =



________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 10:12:38 AM PST US From: "Dirk Slabbert" Subject: Re: Engines-List: RE: Rotary engine displacement --> Engines-List message posted by: "Dirk Slabbert" 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: 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" <> 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. <> 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. <> 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
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 -----
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 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= UN/SUBSCRIBE:   http://www.matronics.com/s= List FAQ:       http://www.matroni= Search Engine:  http://www.matronics.com/search<= 7-Day Browse:   http://www.matronic= Browse Digests: http://www.matronic= Archives:       http://www.matronics.com/archi= Photo Share:    http://www.matronics.com/pho= List Specific:  http://www.matronics.com/e= Other Lists:    http://www.matronics.com/ema= Trouble Report  http://www.matronics.com= Contributions:  http://www.matronics.com/c=



= = http://www.matronics.com/trouble-report = =
Gary, I tend to agree, HP, RPM, but what would the feul consumption be? Heard these things were but thirsty?!
Dirk.
----- Original Message -----
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?&nbsp; 2stroke/ 4stroke/ turbine, etc.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT faceArial color#000080></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FON= T 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>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FON= T 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"&nbsp;displacement versions, etc. etc.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT faceArial color#000080></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FON= T faceArial color#000080>PLEASE, &nbsp;DO NOT ARCHIVE
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT faceArial color#000080></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FON= T faceArial color#000080>P.S. &nbsp;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&nbsp;"may"&nbsp;actually be a "disguised" turbine engine. </FONT>And
it used
Fuel accordingly.</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
s= tyle"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.nethref"Gary'>mailto:glcasey@adelphia.net"&g= t;Gary
  Casey</A> </DIV>
  <DIV style"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
titleengines-list@matroni= cs.com

href"engines-list@matronics.commailto: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>--&gt; Engines-List message posted by: "Gary Casey"
&lt;<A

href"glcasey@adelphia.net&gt;
= mailto:glcasey@adelphia.net">glcasey@adelphia.net</A>&g= t;<BR><BR>
<BR>&lt;&lt;This
 = is our basic disagreement.&nbsp; I'm quite certain that 1308 is
  the<BR>displacement for one revolution of the e-shaft (2 of 6
chambers).&nbsp;
  Each<BR>chamber is 654 cc, which is the number that's listed in the
Mazda
  workshop<BR>manual.&nbsp; 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&gt;&gt;<BR><BR>I stand
  corrected.&nbsp; I believe you are right - 654 is the displacement of
  a<BR>single chamber.&nbsp; My whole argument was off by a factor of
  2.<BR><BR>&lt;&lt;You make it sound arbitrary, but it's not.&nbsp; 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&gt;&gt;<BR><BR>I think that's
the
  fundamental difference.&nbsp; I agree that it is not
arbitrary<BR>(maybe a
  little).&nbsp; But displacement has nothing to do with the volume
swept<BR>in
  a single revolution of a shaft.&nbsp; It is the total volume of all
  chambers<BR>in the engine.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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).&nbsp; On<BR>a 4-stroke some have used the
camshaft for
  the output shaft - would that<BR>double the rated displacement?&nbsp;
  No.&nbsp; Bottom line is that engine displacement<BR>has traditionally
been
  defined as the total ("swept") volume of all the<BR>chambers in the
  engine.&nbsp; It is a geometric calculation, not the
theoretical<BR>volume of
  air that is inhaled in one revolution of a shaft.&nbsp; The rotary
came<BR>a
  long time after the piston engine, so it wasn't part of the
convention,<BR>and
  hence the confusion.&nbsp; So I guess the 13B is has a displacement of

  3<BR>liters.&nbsp; I don't see how you can count just one of the three

  chambers and<BR>ignore the other two.<BR><BR><BR>&lt;&lt;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>&nbsp;If the engine only made 87.35 HP, I never could have
won the
  Sun 100 race<BR>at Sun &amp; Fun this year (Class 8, 160HP RV
  class).&nbsp;&nbsp; So,&nbsp; either my formula<BR>is wrong or the
  displacement of the 13B is actually double what Gary says
it<BR>is.&nbsp;
  Using the latter assumption, I was making 174 HP, which would
explain<BR>why I
  was 10+ knots faster than the fastest 0 - 320&nbsp; 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&gt;&gt;<BR><BR>That's right.&nbsp; The engine has 3 liters
  displacement.&nbsp; Sounds like a dog<BR>then, huh?&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; We
  care about weight, durability, power, cost, etc.<BR>Not
displacement.&nbsp;
  The rotary is what it is and can't be compared to a<BR>piston engine
by using
  displacement.&nbsp; 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;&nbsp;&nbsp= ;&nbsp;&nbsp;
entirely
see
Matronics



href"http://www.matronics.com= '>http://www.matronics.com/trouble-report">http://www.matronics.com



href"engines-list@matronics.commailto:engines-list@matronics.com">engines-list@matronics.com</A>
  UN/SUBSCRIBE:&nbsp;&nbsp; <A

href"http://www.matronics.com/s= '>http://www.matronics.com/subscription">http://www.matronics.com/s
  List FAQ:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <A

href"http://www.matroni= '>http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Engines-List.htm">http://www.matroni
  Search Engine:&nbsp; <A

href"http://www.matronics.com/search'= >http://www.matronics.com/search">http://www.matronics.com/search&= lt;
  7-Day Browse:&nbsp;&nbsp; <A

href"http://www.matronic= '>http://www.matronics.com/browse/engines-list">http://www.matronic
  Browse Digests: <A

href"http://www.matronic= '>http://www.matronics.com/digest/engines-list">http://www.matronic
  Archives:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <A

href"http://www.matronics.com/archi= '>http://www.matronics.com/archives">http://www.matronics.com/archi
  Photo Share:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <A

href"http://www.matronics.com/pho= '>http://www.matronics.com/photoshare">http://www.matronics.com/pho
  List Specific:&nbsp; <A

href"http://www.matronics.com/e= '>http://www.matronics.com/engines-list">http://www.matronics.com/e
  Other Lists:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <A

href"http://www.matronics.com/ema= '>http://www.matronics.com/emaillists">http://www.matronics.com/ema
  Trouble Report&nbsp; <A

href"http://www.matronics.com= '>http://www.matronics.com/trouble-report">http://www.matronics.com
  Contributions:&nbsp; <A

href"http://www.matronics.com/c= >


<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= UN/SUBSCRIBE:   http://www.matronics.com/s= List FAQ:       http://www.matroni= Search Engine:  http://www.matronics.com/search<= 7-Day Browse:   http://www.matronic= Browse Digests: http://www.matronic= Archives:       http://www.matronics.com/archi= Photo Share:    http://www.matronics.com/pho= List Specific:  http://www.matronics.com/e= Other Lists:    http://www.matronics.com/ema= Trouble Report  http://www.matronics.com= Contributions:  http://www.matronics.com/c= = =



________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 10:25:35 AM PST US Subject: RE: Engines-List: RE: Rotary engine displacement From: "Healy, Joseph" --> Engines-List message posted by: "Healy, Joseph" 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" 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: 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" <> 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. <> 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. <> 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 = =
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 -----
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 = = 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= UN/SUBSCRIBE:   http://www.matronics.com/s= List FAQ:       http://www.matroni= Search Engine:  http://www.matronics.com/search<= 7-Day Browse:   http://www.matronic= Browse Digests: http://www.matronic= Archives:       http://www.matronics.com/archi= Photo Share:    http://www.matronics.com/pho= List Specific:  http://www.matronics.com/e= Other Lists:    http://www.matronics.com/ema= Trouble Report  http://www.matronics.com= Contributions:  http://www.matronics.com/c= = =



== direct advertising on the Matronics Forums. == http://www.matronics.com/trouble-report == == ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 10:37:06 AM PST US From: "Lincoln Schlecht" Subject: Engines-List: Rotary engine displacement --> Engines-List message posted by: "Lincoln Schlecht" by: "Johnny Johnson" " 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 _____________________________________ Time: 11:09:01 AM PST US From: ALEMBIC7@aol.com Subject: Engines-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 01:19:42 PM PST US From: Tedd McHenry Subject: Re: Engines-List: RE: Rotary engine displacement --> Engines-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry 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 _____________________________________ Time: 01:29:25 PM PST US From: "Ed Anderson" Subject: Re: Engines-List: RE: Rotary engine displacement --> Engines-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson" 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" Subject: RE: Engines-List: RE: Rotary engine displacement > --> Engines-List message posted by: "Healy, Joseph" > > 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" > > 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: > > > 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" > > > > < 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. > > < 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. > > > < 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 > > > > >
Isn't it > enough already with this thread ???
color#000080>Why not just trust MAZDA when they say it is a 1308cc > engine?  2stroke/ 4stroke/ turbine, etc.
faceArial color#000080> 
color#000080>What difference do all these different calculations and > opinions make on actual power produced?
faceArial color#000080> 
color#000080>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.
>
 
faceArial color#000080>PLEASE,  DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
 
faceArial color#000080>P.S.  I had a fuel injected 13B in my RX7 > GSL-SE a few years ago.
color#000080>It sings at cruise RPM, so > it "may" actually be a "disguised" turbine engine. And > it used Fuel accordingly.
style"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; > BORDER-LEFT: #000080 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> >
----- Original Message -----
> > >
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 > 7:42 > AM
>
Subject: Engines-List: RE: Rotary > engine > displacement
>

--> Engines-List message posted by: "Gary Casey" > < > href"mailto:glcasey@adelphia.net">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 > > > 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= > UN/SUBSCRIBE:   > href"http://www.matronics.com/subscription">http://www.matronics.com/s= > List FAQ:       > href"http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Engines-List.htm">http://www.matroni= > Search Engine:  > href"http://www.matronics.com/search">http://www.matronics.com/search<= > 7-Day Browse:   > href"http://www.matronics.com/browse/engines-list">http://www.matronic= > Browse Digests: > href"http://www.matronics.com/digest/engines-list">http://www.matronic= > Archives:       > href"http://www.matronics.com/archives">http://www.matronics.com/archi= > Photo Share:    > href"http://www.matronics.com/photoshare">http://www.matronics.com/pho= > List Specific:  > href"http://www.matronics.com/engines-list">http://www.matronics.com/e= > Other Lists:    > href"http://www.matronics.com/emaillists">http://www.matronics.com/ema= > Trouble Report  > href"http://www.matronics.com/trouble-report">http://www.matronics.com= > Contributions:  > href"http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c= > > >



> > > == > direct advertising on the Matronics Forums. > == > http://www.matronics.com/trouble-report > == > == > > ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 02:55:05 PM PST US From: "Russell Duffy" <13brv3@bellsouth.net> Subject: RE: Engines-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:02:01 PM PST US From: Royce Wise Subject: Re: Engines-List: RE: Rotary engine displacement --> Engines-List message posted by: Royce Wise Ed Anderson wrote: >--> Engines-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson" > >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" >To: >Subject: RE: Engines-List: RE: Rotary engine displacement > > > > >>--> Engines-List message posted by: "Healy, Joseph" >> >>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" >> >>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: >> >> >>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" >> >> >> >> <> 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 >> >> <> 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 >> >> >> <> 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 >> >> >> >> >>
Isn't it >>enough already with this thread ???
>color#000080>Why not just trust MAZDA when they say it is a 1308cc >>engine?  2stroke/ 4stroke/ turbine, etc
>faceArial color#000080> 
>color#000080>What difference do all these different calculations and >>opinions make on actual power produced?
>faceArial color#000080> 
>color#000080>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
>>
 
>faceArial color#000080>PLEASE,  DO NOT ARCHIVE
>>
 
>faceArial color#000080>PS  I had a fuel injected 13B in my RX7 >>GSL-SE a few years ago
>color#000080>It sings at cruise RPM, so >>it "may" actually be a "disguised" turbine engine And >>it used Fuel accordingly
>style"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; >>BORDER-LEFT: #000080 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> >>
----- Original Message -----
>> >> >>
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 >>7:42 >> AM
>>
Subject: Engines-List: RE: Rotary >>engine >> displacement
>>

--> Engines-List message posted by: "Gary Casey" >><> >>href"mailto:glcasey@adelphianet">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 >> >> >>p;     >>entirely >>see >>Matronics >> >> >>href"http://wwwmatronicscom/trouble-report">http://wwwmatronicscom= >> >> >>href"mailto:engines-list@matronicscom">engines-list@matronicscom= >> UN/SUBSCRIBE:   > >>href"http://wwwmatronicscom/subscription">http://wwwmatronicscom/s= >> List FAQ:       > >>href"http://wwwmatronicscom/FAQ/Engines-Listhtm">http://wwwmatroni= >> Search Engine:  > >>href"http://wwwmatronicscom/search">http://wwwmatronicscom/search<= >> 7-Day Browse:   > >>href"http://wwwmatronicscom/browse/engines-list">http://wwwmatronic= >> Browse Digests: > >>href"http://wwwmatronicscom/digest/engines-list">http://wwwmatronic= >> Archives:       > >>href"http://wwwmatronicscom/archives">http://wwwmatronicscom/archi= >> Photo Share:    > >>href"http://wwwmatronicscom/photoshare">http://wwwmatronicscom/pho= >> List Specific:  > >>href"http://wwwmatronicscom/engines-list">http://wwwmatronicscom/e= >> Other Lists:    > >>href"http://wwwmatronicscom/emaillists">http://wwwmatronicscom/ema= >> Trouble Report  > >>href"http://wwwmatronicscom/trouble-report">http://wwwmatronicscom= >> Contributions:  > >>href"http://wwwmatronicscom/contribution">http://wwwmatronicscom/c= >> >> >>



>> >> >>== >>direct advertising on the Matronics Forums >>== >>http://wwwmatronicscom/trouble-report >>== >>== >> >> >> >> > > > >