>
    > No doubt a 28 pin $30 PICAXE that has  four analog to digital
   converters
    > and
    > four $30 pressure sensors could monitor all these pressures and
    > tailor the fuel feed precisely. The trouble is the computer nerds
   around
    > here
    > are in the minority and people don't appear to want to learn to
    > program... even in simple BASIC and deal with the electronics.
   They would
    > rather deal with simple mechanics. I could be wrong.
    >
    > Here is a poll.
    >
    > PICAXE Yes or no?
    >
    > The results will be kept anonymous. I will tally the responses so
   nobody
    > else will know how you voted.
    >
    > ------------------------------------------------------
    >
    > The voting is going well. We have 8 votes so far. So all you lurkers
    > out there send in your votes. I am putting the yes's and no's in
   separate
    > folders. After the polls close I will publish the most elegant
   arguments
    > pro or con.
    >
    > Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.

   Yes/no; why can't we look at both? That is what we have been doing,
   isn't
   it?
   jofarr, soddy tn


One-liner random thoughts:

- I think there's room for multiple solutions.

- Getting people to agree on one method can help develop better
standards, and develop a better public presence for rotary aircraft engines.

- People that are testing engines need something quick to assemble and
tune/debug, and has lots of performance overhead.

- Installed systems need to be compact and reliable/durable and cheap
and efficient.

- Price is sort of important.  Price is also relative.  One man's
"expensive" is another's "cheap."

- Nothing is ever cheap.

- Computers are reliable.  No moving parts.  People love computers.

- Computers are flexible to changes in hardware.  New sensor, no big
deal - just change a lookup table.

- Computers are complicated and failure prone.  Computers are delicate
- requiring proper environmental support.  People fear/dislike computers.

- Mechanical systems are inflexible, wear out, demand precision
(expensive) machining.

- Mechanical systems are easy to understand and debug.  Can be modified
with normal machine/hand tools.

- Wrecking yard items can be great - inexpensive, high performance/dollar.

- Wrecking yard items can be horrible - rare parts, not designed for
the task at hand, have an unknown operating history.

What have I missed?  :)


Paul, I'd say you can build you're p-port test engine with whatever you
think you'll have the easiest time putting together and tuning.  Either
way can generate lots of horsepower/dollar.  This is still a
demonstration engine, and anything you put together will need to be
proven through operation.  When all is said and done, the solution you
come up with will only be copied verbatim of it's adopted/endorsed by
Van's or somebody like that.  Or you (or some other smart person) starts
selling firewall forwards like NSI or Eggenfellner.  Otherwise, people
are going to continue to do what they always do..  Read only parts of
the reports, ignore some of the instruction manual, decide that certain
data must be impossible, and that their bailing wire/bubble gum is going
to work better.

I should stop reading the newspaper..  It makes me too pessimistic..  :)


Matt-

I only have the time and resources to do one. Whatever I do I will
provide all the information I can so it can be copied by anyone and
I will help them doing so. That includes publishing the source code
for the computer program. If a person is looking to make money at it
and suppress competition it is much easier to hide the crucial details
using a computer.

Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.

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