Rotary Engines *VS* Turbines

jim beam > wrote in news:zvmdnewkHso5aXrRnZ2dnUVZ_s-
:

> On 11/19/2010 06:24 PM, Kevin Bottorff wrote:
>> jim > wrote in
>> t:


snip old stuff



>>>>
>>>
>>> that's mechanical efficiency not thermodynamic.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I never even mentioned it was thermodynamic,
>
> but your cite did. and you certainly didn't make the effort to
clarify.

they most certainly did not put it out as the main componant of the
experments. to clarify for you, there is a small increase in the dwell
time at TDC. the increase of the burn at TDC is longer and thus a small
increase in thermodynamic efficiency is realized. it is very small so I
didn`t dwell on the thermodyamic part of it compaired to the entire
increase.


>
>
>> they are always working on
>> inprovemnets, not all are thermodynamic in nature. KB
>
> some people work on their spelling, not always without the assistance
of
> their computer's built-in spell checker.

No computer comes with a built in spell checker!!!!! It is a component
of the program that does or does not have it. Obvesously my news reader
does not have one. unlike some anal retentives I focus on quick thought
transfer not perfection on spelling. This is not exactly a scientific
forum. KB


>
>

On 11/21/2010 04:31 PM, Kevin Bottorff wrote:
> jim > wrote in news:zvmdnewkHso5aXrRnZ2dnUVZ_s-
> :
>
>> On 11/19/2010 06:24 PM, Kevin Bottorff wrote:
>>> jim > wrote in
>>> t:
>
>
> snip old stuff
>
>
>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> that's mechanical efficiency not thermodynamic.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I never even mentioned it was thermodynamic,
>>
>> but your cite did. and you certainly didn't make the effort to
> clarify.
>
> they most certainly did not put it out as the main componant of the
> experments. to clarify for you, there is a small increase in the dwell
> time at TDC. the increase of the burn at TDC is longer and thus a small
> increase in thermodynamic efficiency is realized. it is very small so I
> didn`t dwell on the thermodyamic part of it compaired to the entire
> increase.

apparently you missed the part about "full expansion" and don't
understand why that was being pursued.


>
>
>>
>>
>>> they are always working on
>>> inprovemnets, not all are thermodynamic in nature. KB
>>
>> some people work on their spelling, not always without the assistance
> of
>> their computer's built-in spell checker.
>
> No computer comes with a built in spell checker!!!!! It is a component
> of the program that does or does not have it. Obvesously my news reader
> does not have one.

no, it's not "obvious" that it doesn't have one. especially when
they're free and easily available from any other competent news client.


> unlike some anal retentives I focus on quick thought
> transfer

do you worry about accuracy when driving? i mean, it's only a few feet
between you and an oncoming vehicle. what about accuracy from your bank
when they're sending your monthly statement. would a few hundred
dollars rounded down be ok?


> not perfection on spelling. This is not exactly a scientific
> forum. KB

no, it's "tech". car's wouldn't run without the science that goes into
the "tech".


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

On Nov 15, 1:57*am, "2.7182818284590..." >
wrote:
> Both of these engines combust fuel and a non-reciprocal motion
> occures. *Both cases produces a circular motion.
>
> However both of these engines are quite different. *What explains the
> differences in power output and efficiencies?
>
> They are different in the following ways:
> 1. *The turbines are very efficient. *Power stations use turbines but
> not the rotary engines.

Virtually every engine used to provide forward motion converts energy
into a rotary motion. So what?

The power output is usually defined by the the amount of energy that
is transformed. A turbine functions well when the engine speed does
not change much. A rotary and other piston type engines are designed
to run at varying speeds and to change speeds relatively quickly.