X-WebTV-Signature: 1
ETAtAhUAjnxtsHNeC/quynztG/LRuv8h5ogCFDkS+2wg3Xgm6zGcO1X28OuzaEN7
From: ardunbill@webtv.net
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 09:24:15 -0500 (EST)
To: crothfuss@coastalnet.com (Chuck Rothfuss)
Subject: Re: mazda rotary engine factor
Message-ID: <6549-3A49FB8F-6369@storefull-241.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
In-Reply-To: Chuck Rothfuss <crothfuss@coastalnet.com>'s message of Tue,
26 Dec 2000 20:26:18 -0500
Content-Disposition: Inline
MIME-Version: 1.0 (WebTV)
Chuck, is there an issue of "breathing efficiency" at play here? I know
that today's best four strokes and today's best two strokes are not a
fair match based on displacement, because the two stroke, although it
does not have as good breathing (volumetric efficiency), has a net power
output better than the four stroke merely by virtue of double the power
strokes.
How does the rotary fit into this group, in other words, does it breathe
better or worse than its two and four stroke piston cousins? Porting,
time available for induction and exhaust, etc.
Regards from Ardun Bill where there's a dusting of snow this morning in
the Great Dismal Swamp, Chesapeake, VA
|