OT Interesting video

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Ryan Cousineau writes:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The Wankel is dead!

Quoted message said:

E pur si muove:

I don't understand your comment, "and also one moves"?

Andrew fully explicated it: it was the apocryphal quote from Galileo
after his Inquisition hearing, usually translated as "and yet it moves."

en.wikipedia.orgE pur si muove!Open ↗

Quoted message said:

http://www.mazda.co.uk/Showroom/RX-8/

I thought the Galileo quote apt for a dead engine design which still
sells.

Quoted message said:

It will remain as a boutique experiment and appeal to those who seek to
be different. As a useful engine, it is dead for the reasons cited.
It has not made any advances in IC propulsion and remains a problem
that has not been solved.

Yes, and its power-weight and power-size ratios are superb. About the
only thing that touches them are small turbocharged engines, and they
have to be

I used a comparator on Nissan's website to pair up the Nissan 350Z,
Mitsubishi Eclipse V6, and the Mazda RX-8:

http://tinyurl.com/2loepq

Notably, both the sixes have more horsepower than the rotary, and way
more torque. But Mazda is 300-400 pounds lighter than the others. As a
sports car, it's much loved.

The rotary will never replace the piston engine in automotive
applications. The piston was conclusively the champion for mainstream
cars as early as the 1960s. On this Jobst is clearly right. But sports
cars are an interesting niche.

But then, I think the state of batteries is finally good enough that the
next decade will see the end of IC engines as the powerplant of choice
for mainstream cars. And I say this as someone who has a great fondness
for IC engines.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Bill Sornson said:

Quoted message said:

Stephen Harding wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I guess "diversity" of speech isn't one of the areas requiring
tolerance from the PC crowd yet.

Quoted message said:

Likewise, correct diction must not be almong the "high standards" the
so-called conservatives demand from the education system.

Why did you delete SH's preface to the above? ("Jimmy Carter can say
"nuckyooler" (and he worked in the field
in the Navy) with only a bit of "haha" from the Press, but Bush does it and
over and over we hear it as proof of how stoopit he is."😉

So much for your "high standards" of fairness, integrity and honesty, Frank.

Oh good grief.

We've explained the conventions to you many times, in response to your
interminable "why did you trim?" whining. Here they are again:

1) Posters are _expected_ to trim the parts to which they're not
responding, and to include the parts to which they are responding.

2) Posters get to respond to whatever they like.

And, for this particular sub-thread:

3) Don't be so touchy. We're just having fun.

How did you get "left behind" in Usenet class? Was the teacher too
liberal with grades?

;-)

- Frank Krygowski

In article <[email hidden]>,

Mark Hickey said:

AustinMN said:

Matt O'Toole wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Turbines are actually less efficient and pollute more than modern diesels,
so they're a non-starter for car/truck use.

I think you are thinking about a specific application - aircraft
engines. A well-built turbine should come out near twice the
efficiency of a diesel with the same output. But it would cost several
times as much to make.

The big deal is that Turbines don't like to change speeds much. And
diesels are heavy and bulky. But weight and size don't matter much on
big ships, so they use diesel. Turbines can be very efficient in very
specific stationary applications.

The pollution aspect is wildly complex. Let's just say it depends on the
application.

Quoted message said:

From what I've seen, aircraft that use a comparable turbine engine
burn MUCH more fuel than a similar gas engine. The current crop of
diesel engines (most of which are in the late stages of development or
early first run shipment) burn less fuel than their gas counterparts
(particularly when measured in gallons per hour, since the fuel is
denser and has more energy per gallon).

Comparable is a funny thing. Because they can work very efficiently at
high altitudes, turbines are the obvious choice for most aircraft where
performance or operating costs matter.

The synergistic effects of small size and weight, plus the ability to
effectively self-turbocharge (I'm just making that term up, but using it
to refer to the idea that they compress their intake air effectively
even at high altitudes where there's less air) make turbines the
powerplant of choice for aircraft.

Indeed, even among propellor aircraft, most of the bigger or more
commercial ones use turbines to drive their props ("turboprop"😉.

About the only planes where pistons are used are low, slow, and cheap.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Mark Hickey said:

Michael Press said:

Can you can tell me why gas turbine engines are not
practical? They have run well in races.

One of the major drawbacks is that a turbine engine uses a significant
percentage of its "full power fuel burn" just idling - don't have the
figures at hand, but I believe it's something near 50%. That's not
gonna work very well for your average commuter, but is less of an
issue on aircraft (where they typically run at nearly full power for
the majority of their lifetime).

A turbine uses 20x the fuel that a diesel does at idle. At full load a
turbine may have an advantage, but as load drops the turbine's efficiency
drops dramatically. Car/truck engines actually spend very little time at
full load, if any. Most of the time they're running at less than a third
of their capacity, cars even less than trucks (most cars are quite
overpowered).

Again, turbines are suited for high load, steady load applications --
aircraft and marine propellers, and generators.

Also, they're better for gas fuel than liquid. Turbine generators are
usually powered by natural gas, while oil-fired power plants often
employ diesel engines.

Matt O.

Stephen Harding said:

Quoted message said:

Exactly. But that doesn't prevent "nucyooler" from sounding dumb!

We can live with pronunciation variations; it's the damn political
dogma that's dumb!

Jimmy Carter can say "nuckyooler" (and he worked in the field
in the Navy) with only a bit of "haha" from the Press, but Bush
does it and over and over we hear it as proof of how stoopit
he is.

But Carter is otherwise well-spoken. There's other evidence he's actually
smart.

Matt O.

Tim McNamara said:

You can't pinpoint current air quality problems from a single source or
even a single nation. There are lots of contributors. Cars. Trucks.
Coal fired powerplants. Industry.

Actually the sources can be pinpointed pretty well. Certainly there are
lots of sources, but the lion's share of air pollution is from motor
vehicles.

Matt O.

Quoted message said:

Bill Sornson said:

Quoted message said:

Stephen Harding wrote /in part/:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I guess "diversity" of speech isn't one of the areas requiring
> tolerance from the PC crowd yet.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Likewise, correct diction must not be almong the "high standards"
the so-called conservatives demand from the education system.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why did you delete SH's preface to the above? ("Jimmy Carter can say
"nuckyooler" (and he worked in the field
in the Navy) with only a bit of "haha" from the Press, but Bush does
it and over and over we hear it as proof of how stoopit he is."😉

So much for your "high standards" of fairness, integrity and
honesty, Frank.

Quoted message said:

Oh good grief.

We've explained the conventions to you many times, in response to your
interminable "why did you trim?" whining. Here they are again:

1) Posters are _expected_ to trim the parts to which they're not
responding, and to include the parts to which they are responding.

But you quoted something that was dependent on what came before it, both for
intended meaning and context. It was dishonest to represent it as a
stand-alone comment when in fact it was not. HTH

Quoted message said:

2) Posters get to respond to whatever they like.

And so do repliers.

Quoted message said:

And, for this particular sub-thread:

3) Don't be so touchy. We're just having fun.

So am I. Poking at you is a freaking ball ;-)

Quoted message said:

How did you get "left behind" in Usenet class? Was the teacher too
liberal with grades?

Misleading deleting is a pet peeve. Too much JFT, I guess.

HAGWE. BS (no, really)

Matt O'Toole said:

Tim McNamara said:

You can't pinpoint current air quality problems from a single source or
even a single nation. There are lots of contributors. Cars. Trucks.
Coal fired powerplants. Industry.

Actually the sources can be pinpointed pretty well. Certainly there are
lots of sources, but the lion's share of air pollution is from motor
vehicles.

Matt O.

Dear Matt,

You'd think that motor vehicles would be the lion's share, since
they're so visible and active, but the Sierra Club thinks that power
plants are in some ways the largest single source of air pollution:

http://texas.sierraclub.org/events/LegWork06/powerplantpresentation11-11-06.pdf

Think about all the buildings that are heated, cooled, and
lighted--every day, all day long--along with all the to businesses that
use the power. If it comes from coal, the coal is being burned.

Every day, several long coal trains pass through Colorado Springs and
head down along the Fountain River to Pueblo. Each trainload is burned
that day at the Comanche Power Station east of Pueblo, where the
prevailing winds push the smoke out toward Kansas. Meanwhile, we look
at the faint haze of car smog drifting south from Colorado Springs and
shake our heads.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Matt O'Toole said:

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 22:44:31 +0000, Stephen Harding wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Jimmy Carter can say "nuckyooler" (and he worked in the field
in the Navy) with only a bit of "haha" from the Press, but Bush
does it and over and over we hear it as proof of how stoopit
he is.

Quoted message said:

But Carter is otherwise well-spoken. There's other evidence he's
actually smart.

You misspelled anti-Semitic.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/19/AR2007011901541.html

Bill "and that's before today's revelation that he gave a Nazi* a free pass"
S.

* http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=119732

Mark Hickey said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Turbines are actually less efficient and pollute more than modern
diesels, so they're a non-starter for car/truck use.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think you are thinking about a specific application - aircraft
engines. A well-built turbine should come out near twice the
efficiency of a diesel with the same output. But it would cost
several times as much to make.

Quoted message said:

From what I've seen, aircraft that use a comparable turbine engine
burn MUCH more fuel than a similar gas engine. The current crop of
diesel engines (most of which are in the late stages of development
or early first run shipment) burn less fuel than their gas
counterparts (particularly when measured in gallons per hour, since
the fuel is denser and has more energy per gallon).

The Diesel cycle is different from the Otto (gasoline engine) cycle in
that no fuel is added to the air going into the cylinder before the
piston essentially reaches the top of its compression stroke. A
diesel engine can run on a "fuel air mixture" with zero fuel. Only a
small dose of diesel is injected into the compressed air that by
compression has reached more than ignition temperature for atomized
fuel. That is, it can run on a lean mixture down to zero fuel,
something a gasoline (Otto Cycle) engine cannot.

It is at the low partial power range that most automobile engines are
operated and it is there that the diesel achieves its fuel economy.
We don't drive with the pedal all the way, or even half way down to
the floor, and that is where fuel economy shows up in the diesel.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/thermo/otto.html
http://tinyurl.com/3xa48n http://auto.howstuffworks.com/diesel.htm

To make up for that, I have seldom been in a diesel car where the
owner didn't mention that the car is much smoother running than the
older ones... but you can usually notice it or the subject wouldn't
have been mentioned. The Germans have the best description of it:
nageln and klingeln... driving nails, and bell ringing, quite aside
from the vibration at low speed caused by a 20:1 compression ratio.

Jobst Brandt

Matt O'Toole writes:

http://www.mazda.co.uk/Showroom/RX-8/

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It will remain as a boutique experiment and appeal to those who
seek to be different. As a useful engine, it is dead for the
reasons cited. It has not made any advances in IC propulsion and
remains a problem that has not been solved.

Quoted message said:

I know two people who have RX-8s, and report mid-teens to low 20s
MPG. Compare this to the very similar BMW 3 Series coupe, which gets
mid-20s around town and over 30 on the highway.

This is getting to sound more and more like a recumbent thread. The
engine is not used in automotive technology as a whole and remains a
boutique machine because it has no "clothes" so to speak.

I suppose you recall the ads:

"Piston engine go boing, boing, boing, boing, rotary go Hummmmmmmmm!"

That sums up its drawing card pretty well.

Jobst Brandt

Ryan Cousineau said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> The Wankel is dead!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

E pur si muove:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't understand your comment, "and also one moves"?

Quoted message said:

Andrew fully explicated it: it was the apocryphal quote from Galileo
after his Inquisition hearing, usually translated as "and yet it
moves."

en.wikipedia.orgE pur si muove!Open ↗

http://www.mazda.co.uk/Showroom/RX-8/

Quoted message said:

I thought the Galileo quote apt for a dead engine design which still
sells.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It will remain as a boutique experiment and appeal to those who
seek to be different. As a useful engine, it is dead for the
reasons cited. It has not made any advances in IC propulsion and
remains a problem that has not been solved.

Quoted message said:

Yes, and its power-weight and power-size ratios are superb. About
the only thing that touches them are small turbocharged engines, and
they have to be

Quoted message said:

I used a comparator on Nissan's website to pair up the Nissan 350Z,
Mitsubishi Eclipse V6, and the Mazda RX-8:

http://tinyurl.com/2loepq

Quoted message said:

Notably, both the sixes have more horsepower than the rotary, and
way more torque. But Mazda is 300-400 pounds lighter than the
others. As a sports car, it's much loved.

Quoted message said:

The rotary will never replace the piston engine in automotive
applications. The piston was conclusively the champion for
mainstream cars as early as the 1960s. On this Jobst is clearly
right. But sports cars are an interesting niche.

Quoted message said:

But then, I think the state of batteries is finally good enough that
the next decade will see the end of IC engines as the powerplant of
choice for mainstream cars. And I say this as someone who has a
great fondness for IC engines.

I had a ride in a Tesla the other day and other than a 200mile range,
it outperformed any sport car I've seen. My friend who did the demo
told me of a Dodge Viper that was ahead of him on the freeway on-ramp.
As the monster brute did a maximum acceleration and moved over to its
rightful place, farther left on the road, the Tesla shot by using
traction control to keep from developing white smoke at the rear
wheels. I'm sure that didn't go down well with the beast of a car and
its driver, but that is what electric drive can do.

http://www.teslamotors.com/
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog1/index.php?p=30&js_enabled=1

Jobst Brandt

Matt O'Toole said:

Quoted message said:

You can't pinpoint current air quality problems from a single
source or even a single nation. There are lots of contributors.
Cars. Trucks. Coal fired powerplants. Industry.

Quoted message said:

Actually the sources can be pinpointed pretty well. Certainly there
are lots of sources, but the lion's share of air pollution is from
motor vehicles.

I can recall when trains were pulled by steam engines that often
belched huge plumes of thick black smoke. However, we had not yet
experienced smog, although media mentioned it with respect to Los
Angeles.

Jobst Brandt

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Matt O'Toole said:

Quoted message said:

You can't pinpoint current air quality problems from a single
source or even a single nation. There are lots of contributors.
Cars. Trucks. Coal fired powerplants. Industry.

Quoted message said:

Actually the sources can be pinpointed pretty well. Certainly there
are lots of sources, but the lion's share of air pollution is from
motor vehicles.

I can recall when trains were pulled by steam engines that often
belched huge plumes of thick black smoke. However, we had not yet
experienced smog, although media mentioned it with respect to Los
Angeles.

One of the convenient things of living on the
West Coast is that the Prevailing Westerlies
tend to blow our air pollution inland, into
smaller communities with smaller communications
media, so we don't have to listen to their whining
and griping and gasping and choking too much.

At least, it was like that, back in the day.

Now those inland communities have grown, and
become more vocal. And more intertwined with
the larger, more polluting urban centres from
which many have fled to live in the 'burbs,
while still working in the City. And it's their
own air pollution they're complaining about.

If those inland suburban communities weren't
residential, they'd still be agricultural. And
then we'd be eating the air pollution that falls
onto the fruits & vegetables and the soil they
grow in. Remember when lead was a fuel additive?
I wonder where all that lead went.

But now we get to import fruits & veggies encumbered
with other people's air pollution. Especially
from Mexico.

cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill Sornson said:

[email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Oh good grief.

We've explained the conventions to you many times, in response to your
interminable "why did you trim?" whining. Here they are again:

1) Posters are _expected_ to trim the parts to which they're not
responding, and to include the parts to which they are responding.

But you quoted something that was dependent on what came before it, both for
intended meaning and context. It was dishonest to represent it as a
stand-alone comment when in fact it was not. HTH

Quoted message said:

2) Posters get to respond to whatever they like.

And so do repliers.

Quoted message said:

And, for this particular sub-thread:

3) Don't be so touchy. We're just having fun.

So am I. Poking at you is a freaking ball ;-)

Quoted message said:

How did you get "left behind" in Usenet class? Was the teacher too
liberal with grades?

Misleading deleting is a pet peeve. Too much JFT, I guess.

It's all my fault.

I shall assume full responsiblility,
and deal with it accordingly.

cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Quoted message said:

dustoyevsky snipes anonymously:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The Wankel is dead!

Quoted message said:

I looked for some sales figures; this is the first thing I found:
"As of March 31, 2005, 114,444 RX-8 models had been sold worldwide
since introduction."

Quoted message said:

That's not very dead.

As I said, the motor has no benefits, only drawbacks and that's why no
one else is using them. They are curiosities that don't perform well.
I'm curious how many miles tey get before requireing engine rebuild?

My 1988 model did 120,000 miles on the original engine. About 80k was
the anecdotal average, depending on how you used it and how often you
changed the oil. That was 1988 though, I expect the new ones are better.

As was mentioned the low weight (about half that of an equivalent piston
engine) does give them advantages in a sports car. Sports cars are also
not sold so competitively on fuel economy as normal family cars.

I agree that it's a niche though.

On 19 Jan 2007 10:13:36 -0800, "AustinMN" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Matt O'Toole said:

Ken C. M. said:

Michael Press wrote:

Quoted message said:

> Can you can tell me why gas turbine engines are not practical? They
> have run well in races.

Quoted message said:

Ask Chrysler they tried to get one to work in a prototype back in 70s
and it went nowhere fast.

Turbines are actually less efficient and pollute more than modern diesels,
so they're a non-starter for car/truck use.

I think you are thinking about a specific application - aircraft
engines. A well-built turbine should come out near twice the
efficiency of a diesel with the same output. But it would cost several
times as much to make.

If diesels were more efficient, we would not use turbines in power
plants, where even tiny efficiency advantages make significant profit
differences.

Quoted message said:

On top of that, they're expensive, run at too-high RPM, and have a narrow
RPM operating range. They're more suited for constant speed, high load
applications, like generators and aircraft/marine propellers.

A constant speed, high-RPM case could be made for turbine-electric
hybrids, but if it really would work, I would expect diesel-electric
locomotives to be replaced with turbine-electric.

I think one reason is that in the diesel-electric locomotive, massive
torque is needed to spin up the the generators which also don't need
much in rpm's.

Quoted message said:

Austin

Quoted message said:

Turbines are well suited for aircraft because of their light weight,
compact size, reliability, and relative efficiency. Light weight and
compact size makes for a smaller plane which requires less power, etc.

An Indy race car is a relatively constant speed, high load application,
where light weight and compact size are important too. Thus Granatelli's
effort in the 60s, which would have won if not for a broken fuel pump.

Matt O.

Quoted message said:

Mark Hickey said:

Quoted message said:

> Turbines are actually less efficient and pollute more than modern
> diesels, so they're a non-starter for car/truck use.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think you are thinking about a specific application - aircraft
engines. A well-built turbine should come out near twice the
efficiency of a diesel with the same output. But it would cost
several times as much to make.

Quoted message said:

From what I've seen, aircraft that use a comparable turbine engine
burn MUCH more fuel than a similar gas engine. The current crop of
diesel engines (most of which are in the late stages of development
or early first run shipment) burn less fuel than their gas
counterparts (particularly when measured in gallons per hour, since
the fuel is denser and has more energy per gallon).

The Diesel cycle is different from the Otto (gasoline engine) cycle in
that no fuel is added to the air going into the cylinder before the
piston essentially reaches the top of its compression stroke. A
diesel engine can run on a "fuel air mixture" with zero fuel. Only a
small dose of diesel is injected into the compressed air that by
compression has reached more than ignition temperature for atomized
fuel. That is, it can run on a lean mixture down to zero fuel,
something a gasoline (Otto Cycle) engine cannot.

It is at the low partial power range that most automobile engines are
operated and it is there that the diesel achieves its fuel economy.
We don't drive with the pedal all the way, or even half way down to
the floor, and that is where fuel economy shows up in the diesel.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/thermo/otto.html
http://tinyurl.com/3xa48n http://auto.howstuffworks.com/diesel.htm

To make up for that, I have seldom been in a diesel car where the
owner didn't mention that the car is much smoother running than the
older ones... but you can usually notice it or the subject wouldn't
have been mentioned. The Germans have the best description of it:
nageln and klingeln... driving nails, and bell ringing, quite aside
from the vibration at low speed caused by a 20:1 compression ratio.

Jobst Brandt

Christ Jobst.
You are supposed to be the resident genius around here and it is
apparent you don't even have a clue. Energy is being wasted in more than
one area even in generating plants. If they made the engines bigger and
slower then they would be throwing the pistons around a lot less, which
makes up to 50% of the energy loss in both cars and generating plants.
The heat (read energy) out of the engine cooling and the tailpipes is
more than what is being used. That is wasted energy, period.
Do you really think the geniuses (self proclaimed) "Duh, Duh, I have a
Ph.D. in this subject really really know about thermodynamics?
NO.
If they had brains almost no heat would be wasted because it would get
used. A 100 MPG car on gas only is possible but would require warming up
of the cooling fluid and and heat engine hooked to the exhaust pipe,
plus some under body streamlining and a super high 6th or 7th gear. Will
the automakers do anything? No!!! As long as they can sell to el Stupido
American they don't care. Look under a new car and see how much
streamlining is done UNDER the car. Almost none. No matter how slick the
body style looks, nobody looks under the car to see how much drag is
down there. Top gear is nowhere near high enough because people don't
want to down shift to get instant go power.
My car can run in 5th overdrive down to 25 MPH, no acceleration, but you
should see how much mileage I get going to garage sales at 25 MPH in 5th.
This isn't a rant as much as how much that could be done isn't even
attempted, just to keep the average American fat, happy, and stupid.
My Mazda gets only about 30 MPG with it's present gearing, but I'll bet
that with a nearly 2:1 final drive increase it could be more like 50.
With some under body streamlining it might be more like 60+.
It can be done, but hybrids and Hydrogen have taken any sales glory out
of it.
Bill Baka

Quoted message said:

Peter Chisholm said:

Isn't the RX-8 a rotary engine? And I owned a RX-2..2 plugs per
rotor, btw, not one.

They are both in the same place and fire at the same time. Putting
more of them there does not move the "combustion chamber" away from
that hot spot.

Jobst Brandt

I guess my point was the reference to how "Wankel' engines are both
dead and use 1 spark plug per rotor...but not dead and use 2...

Quoted message said:

Matt O'Toole said:

Quoted message said:

You can't pinpoint current air quality problems from a single
source or even a single nation. There are lots of contributors.
Cars. Trucks. Coal fired powerplants. Industry.

Quoted message said:

Actually the sources can be pinpointed pretty well. Certainly there
are lots of sources, but the lion's share of air pollution is from
motor vehicles.

I can recall when trains were pulled by steam engines that often
belched huge plumes of thick black smoke. However, we had not yet
experienced smog, although media mentioned it with respect to Los
Angeles.

Jobst Brandt

And if they had any smarts back then they would have used Hexane or
Octane or something along those lines. C6H14, less Carbon but as much H
as can be bound to a Carbon and get something that can be liquefied. I
have heard of experiments with oil powered steam but that was back in
the primitive days. Diesel or steam we still have big pistons going back
and forth.
Bill Baka