Quote:
Originally Posted by vex
Otto cycle is just the technical term of suck, squish, bang, blow.
|
no, i was familiar with the term. i had just never seen the graph you posted and i figured i would spend hours trying to get, but after looking at it that night, i had it in less than an hour and confirmed my understanding of it via Wikipedia (for what that's worth - wink, wink
)
Quote:
Originally Posted by vex
The only thing I do not understand is where the 2.6L value comes from without using a multiplier. Anyone know?
|
get your grain of salt ...
as i understand it, they are using a multiplier - based on the 720 degree theory. by itself, it does seem arbitrary though.
it's funny, when i first got into rotaries (back in the mid 80s), some people used to say two rotor engines were equal to 2.4 liter, 4 cylinder engines (most people i knew primarily messed with 12As at the time), but extending that way of thinking to a 13B, you'd get 2.6L. the thinking was that rotaries were more akin to 2-strokes in nature, so they multiplied by 2. i don't know where the 4 cylinder thing came from.
if you are inclined to think of each rotor face as cylinders (which i know you don't), then with a 2.6L 4-banger, you have exactly two-thirds of a 3.9L 6. so in that context, i guess it makes sense ... sort of. come to think of it, i think i just found the 2616 theory less valid.
06-08-2011, 11:09 AM
Threaded Mode