Actual Rotary Displacement Request

[RICE RACING]

Originally Posted by t_g_farrell

Wow! That does suck then.

Rice, that was a great demonstration with the pics.

no worries

and yes taxation is based on equivalence (to std common/majority 4 stroke reciprocating engines) and thus in 720deg the 13B does inhale (suck!) or partially displace 2616cc as shown............... but as we all know and can see it has NOT completed its full Wankel Cycle in that time, this only happens in 3 full revolutions of 1080deg.

[Barry Bordes]

Originally Posted by RICE RACING

It's not a argument, its FACT! ALL INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES (except the rotary!) are rated on ONE CYCLE OF WORK FOR THE COMPLETE ENGINE.

Mazda conveniently choose to not rate the whole engine, if you or others can't get that then you need to move onto another area of interest I suggest, one you can understand

The Wankel Rotary is a 1080deg cycle, nothing more nothing less!

You btw f*** your own argument cause a 4 stoke is NOT rated after only 360 degrees! cause it HAS NOT COMPLETED ITS CYCLE OF OPERATION! it is rated ONLY AFTER 720 degree's (suck sqeeze bang blow) it only SUCKS once in 720 degree's! and ALL piston faces are counted to rate the displacement of the whole engine! not 1/3rd of them, or 2/3rd's of them! but ALL OF THEM!......... The irony is only in the rotary world where people want to only count 1/3rd of the combustion faces and rate it as a 2 stroke engine, but its NOT! its a wankel and thus they only want to count one face (which misses out 2/3rds of the rest of the engine). if only you could do this on a BDC built half bridge!!!! then when it drops an apex seal on each rotor he can then tell you its only a 2 stroke engine like people in this thread and the other 2 apex seals and four combustion faces are not required LOL!!!!!!!!!!!

OK, so my guess is that this is a 2499 magnum!

[NoDOHC]

Peter and Barry, I have too much respect for both of you to stand idly by while you dispute so vehemently.

It's Ok to disagree, but let's not turn this into an personal argument. This is a case where the only important factor is that we understand how the engine works. It is accurate to say that a rotary engine completes an intake, compression, power and exhaust stroke on each rotor during a single rotation of the engine. However it requires 3 revolutions of the engine for all faces of each rotor to see all four strokes.

The difference between you is that Barry is looking at a single rotor housing as the displacement-providing chamber, while Peter is looking at the rotor as the displacement-providing chamber. Neither of you is right or wrong, it is a difference of perception.

How each of us slices this up depends on personal preference and nothing more. There is no right answer here.

I appreciate the information and clarification provided in this thread, but I don't want two knowledgeable and intelligent members of this community bogged down in this senseless argument.

Let's leave it with the cycle explanation and keep this thread informative.

[Barry Bordes]

Hey DOHC, who are you calling knowledgeable?

Just one more thought to keep in mind.

We have all driven different size engines with standard transmissions. When you let the clutch out on a rotary what size engine does it feel like?

A- 3900cc engine.
B- 2600cc engine
C- 1300 cc engine

[Libor]

Originally Posted by Barry Bordes

We have all driven different size engines with standard transmissions. When you let the clutch out on a rotary what size engine does it feel like?

A- 3900cc engine.
B- 2600cc engine
C- 1300 cc engine

This is not valid Barry and you know it.

Reasons why rotary engines feel soft, and they really are at low RPMs have roots in inherent engine configuration and its design flaws.

Even Kenichi Yamamoto states exact reasons why is it so. Gas leakage through numerous gaps of gas sealing coupled with 1.5 times slower working cycle - losses losses losses

[RICE RACING]

Forums!

Difference between me and Barry is I am right he is WRONG!

I get paid to teach people for a living!

He comes to forums cause no one will pay him to teach people

You can bury your head in the sand as much as you like, if you cant accept equivalence or know what an internal combustion cycle is or how all elements of an engine are accounted for then there is not much hope left for you to learn. It is not a hard concept, for some though I agree its a mountain v's for others a mole hill.

Good luck to you, one day you will learn something, I suggest you go to school and spend less time on the internet.

[RICE RACING]

I'll leave you with one simple point to ponder!

Why when you do a compression test do you measure ALL THREE FACES over 1080 degree's? per rotor?

Why is the engine classed as not healthy and due for rebuild if ANY ONE of these three faces per rotor is below another by any great margin?

Why wont the engine function normally with only two apex seals per rotor if its only 1308cc for a 13B?

Why
Why
Why
Why
Why??????

Cause Rice racing is RIGHT!@

You are WRONG!



Have fun in your thread when you want to learn about engineering feel free to E-Mail me

[RotorDad]

Originally Posted by RICE RACING

Forums!

Difference between me and Barry is I am right he is WRONG!

I get paid to teach people for a living!

He comes to forums cause no one will pay him to teach people

.

Okay where I do agree with Rice on how he is coming to his conclusion, the fact that he is getting paid to teach something means absolutely nothing. To be honest there are more then a few people out that get paid to do a job & know nothing about what they are doing including teaching. So that comment literally could be seen as ego talking not knowledge.

I see nothing wrong with a healthy discussion & info provided with proof/facts, but I do agree with NoDOHC that insults do nothing for the topic.

[Monkman33]

Originally Posted by RICE RACING

It's not a argument, its FACT! ALL INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES (except the rotary!) are rated on ONE CYCLE OF WORK FOR THE COMPLETE ENGINE.

Mazda conveniently choose to not rate the whole engine, if you or others can't get that then you need to move onto another area of interest I suggest, one you can understand

The Wankel Rotary is a 1080deg cycle, nothing more nothing less!

You btw f*** your own argument cause a 4 stoke is NOT rated after only 360 degrees! cause it HAS NOT COMPLETED ITS CYCLE OF OPERATION! it is rated ONLY AFTER 720 degree's (suck sqeeze bang blow) it only SUCKS once in 720 degree's! and ALL piston faces are counted to rate the displacement of the whole engine! not 1/3rd of them, or 2/3rd's of them! but ALL OF THEM!......... The irony is only in the rotary world where people want to only count 1/3rd of the combustion faces and rate it as a 2 stroke engine, but its NOT! its a wankel and thus they only want to count one face (which misses out 2/3rds of the rest of the engine). if only you could do this on a BDC built half bridge!!!! then when it drops an apex seal on each rotor he can then tell you its only a 2 stroke engine like people in this thread and the other 2 apex seals and four combustion faces are not required LOL!!!!!!!!!!!

Wow.... you are so off base its amusing.

ALL engines, 2 stroke, 4 stroke, rotary... are using only one rotation of the crank shaft to measure displacement.

If you use your logic, then the 6.0 liter ls2 engine would really be a 3 liter 2 stroke engine if you built a custom head for it and ignited fuel every revolution? ... I am sorry, but you are wrong. The bore and stroke never changed therefore, your logic is home to a MAJOR fallacy.

Wow.. you are arguing that somehow the method of measuring displacement has anything to do with which apex seals are required. To measure the displacement of a rotary engine, you would total the amount of volume displaced by one face of each rotor and add it up.

Just like in a piston engine, you would take the displaced volume of EACH cylinder (notice how 4 stroke or 2 stroke doesn't matter) and add them together.

Displacement calculation DOES NOT take into account how many revolutions it takes to actually fire each piston or rotor face. I have a lot of respect for you rice racing, but you are very far off base here. Displacement caluculations are simple:

How much volume is displaced by the engine (regardless of type) in 1 rpm of the crankshaft/eshaft IS your displacement. Its fact, non-arguable.
You can do displacement calculations without the heads on. it doesn't matter if it is 2 or 4 stroke. Hence why they do all 2 and 4 stroke piston engine calculations like so: stroke x bore x # of pistons = displacement. which would be the EXACT same as: displacement of each piston added together x 1 rpm. The 1 rpm factor must remain the same between all engines to have an effective and consistent method of calculating displacement.

[Monkman33]

The key thing here is that people are arguing different things. "taxation displacement" has nothing to do with the actual definitive displacement of an engine. And determining displacement by the argument of "every rotor face/cylinder needs to fire" is faulty at best. For this to be even remotely true, then you would have to calculate 2 stroke and 4 stroke displacements differently. The fact of the matter is: This just doesn't happen. So these imaginary figures based on taxation methods or requiring every cylinder or rotor face to fire are just that. Imaginary figures that do not take into account he constant of 1rpm. Without this constant, there is no mathematical consistency, and then the game becomes fault riddled.

Displacement is universal to all engines as the displaced volume from 1 crankshaft/eshaft/centershaft revolution. 2 stroke or 4 stroke or rotary does not change this.

[RotorDad]

I remember reading this sometime ago & some of you may have read it also.

http://rotarygod.com/index.php?title=RE:_Displacement

[vex]

Fuel to the fire:

Engine displacement is the volume swept by all the pistons inside the cylinders of an internal combustion engine in a single movement from top dead centre (TDC) to bottom dead centre (BDC). It is commonly specified in cubic centimeters (cc), litres (l), or (mainly in North America) cubic inches (CID). Engine displacement does not include the total volume of the combustion chamber.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question685.htm

When the piston moves from top to bottom, it sucks in a certain amount of air. How much air it can suck in depends on how big around the piston is, and how far it moves when it goes from top to bottom.

Let's say that the piston in your car is 4 inches (10.16 centimeters) in diameter (also known as the bore), and it moves 4 inches from top to bottom (also known as the stroke). That means that one piston in your engine can suck in:

radius ^ 2 * pi * height = volume of a cylinder
5.08 cm (bore/2) ^ 2 * 3.14 * 10.16 cm (stroke) = 823.3 cubic centimeters

If your car has 4 cylinders, then it has a has a total displacement of:

4 * 823.3 cubic centimeters = 3,292.1 cubic centimeters, or 3.292 liters
A car manufacturer would round that up and say that your car has a 3.3-liter engine. This means that the displacement of this particular engine is 3.3 liters. If you were to turn the crankshaft of this engine through two complete revolutions, the four pistons would inhale a total of 3.3 liters of air.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-engine-displacement.htm

Engine displacement refers to the volume swept by all the pistons in an engine. It does not include the volume of air above the piston where the initial spark fires. Engine displacement can be calculated with the following formula:

Engine displacement = π/4 * (cylinder diameter)2 * stroke * number of cylinders

Engine displacement is the volume swept by all the pistons inside the cylinders of an internal combustion engine in a single movement from top dead centre (TDC) to bottom dead centre (BDC). It is commonly specified in cubic centimeters (cc), litres (l), or (mainly in North America) cubic inches (CID). Engine displacement does not include the total volume of the combustion chamber.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/engine-...#ixzz1ORxci7w9

http://www.answers.com/topic/engine-displacement

[Monkman33]

All of those support what I am saying, even though worded oddly in one of them.

The example from howstuffworks.com is assuming a 4 stroke engine. However, if you were to look at the same engine without ahead of valvetrain on it, it would displace the same total in one crankshaft revolution. Their example speaks of "ingesting" total displacement over 2 revolutions" which is true, because the term "ingesting" really has nothing to do with measuring the displacement, that has to do with engine type, 2 or 4 stroke).

So, with the added support of your posts, I will stand even more firmly on the definition of displacement bing the total volume displaced through 1 revolution of the crankshaft/eshaft/centershaft regardless of engine type. The air that the valves allow to be ingested has nothing to do with the engine's actual displacement. That just determines th engine type.

[Monkman33]

Originally Posted by RotorDad

I remember reading this sometime ago & some of you may have read it also.

http://rotarygod.com/index.php?title=RE:_Displacement

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.

[Barry Bordes]

Peter, please don’t take this so personal.

We had a saying in industry that all of us should apply on the forums.
And that is, ” It is OK to disagree. It is not OK to be disagreeable".

We are sharing ideas to further the Rotary's development.
You make your points well, especially the picture presentations.
We need to just supply facts to support our point of view and then let it go.

We just disagree on this point.
Barry