> Right, but this lo---ong winded discussion has been about the
   details of
    > how to measure displacement on a Wankel, and how to compare that
    > measured displacement to a conventional 4 stroke piston engine.  My
    > point was that all of the mechanical discussion about how many
   chambers
    > to count, and how many e-shaft revs to use, and and the other
    > innumerable points were all for naught if the Wankel model that was
    > devised didn't allow us predict horsepower at an RPM in the same
   manner
    > as swept volume displacement does for 4 stroke piston engines.
    >
    > I guess what I am saying is that my question was loaded (and
    > rhetorical)..  And that I hoped it would center the discussion
   towards
    > things that matter - results.  It seemed to me that we've been
   drifting.
    >
    >
    > Matt-

   Right Matt, that's what it is all about. You said it very nicely:
   " ....were all for naught if the Wankel model that was
   devised didn't allow us predict horsepower at an RPM in the same manner
   as swept volume displacement does for 4 stroke piston engines."

   Conditions for comparison are:
   Equal rpm, equal "displacement" to result in about equal hp, where the
   same conditions and formulae do apply.

   The Rotary is equal to the RPE when counting the volume of "two"
   chambers per rotor.
   Both engines are working according to the four-stroke principle.

   Hope we can all agree on that.
   Doug said he does understand it now. Thanks.

   Rolf


Phew...  :)

Matt-


The Rotary Engine NewsLetter. Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site. http://www.rotaryeng.net
Copyright 1998-2006 All world wide rights reserved.