Quote:
Originally Posted by RotorDad
|
I honestly don't know why "rotarygod" feels he has merit to claim anyone else is wrong. That's pretty much saying that the definition of displacement in relation to internal combustion engines is wrong.
Its always been in direct relation to 1 revolution of the crank, regardless of stroke (2, 4 or '6')
All these crazy arguments of multipliers are just relative arguments but are all lacking the fact that 2 and 4 stroke engines calculate displacement the exact same way. You don't need valves or a head to calculate displacement. just the bore are x the stroke x the number of pistons, which is going to net you exactly what I have been saying all along. 1 revolution worth of displacement. Starting position of the piston or rotor face DOESN'T matter as long as you go through EXACTLY one revolution of the crankshaft/eshaft.
So here are the key notes that need to be seen here:
Displacement is:
-based on 1 revolution of the crankshaft/eshaft/centershaft
-2/4/'6' stroke is irrelevant
-physical volume displaced per revolution regardless of stroke style
-multipliers are "rules or regulations" in place to even out the playing field due to the different power levels, and efficiencies of the different stroke types. (of course different methods of making power will yield different results)
-Nothing mystical or hidden.
I am not trying to make anyone look bad, only showing that this thread is turning into a magical goose chase of some mystical formula that must be used to calculate true rotary engine displacement.... The problem is, so many people are not willing to admit that the rotary CAN be rated in the exact same method as piston engines. And that is precisely what Mazda did.