Rotary Engines *VS* Turbines

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.

"2.7182818284590..." > wrote in message
...
| 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.
|

Steam engines and steam turbines produce circular motion without
combustion of fuel. They'll run on compressed air just as well.
All such engines depend on the expansion of a gas. Reciprocating
engines are much less efficient as they have more moving parts than
the single moving part of a turbine and subject to more friction.
Gearboxes are inefficient and it is the overall efficiency of the
system (including transmission) that determines watts per dollar,
even for an electric elevator or refrigerator pump.
A rail locomotive is far more efficient than a Formula 1 racing car,
in terms of passenger-miles per dollar. In terms of winning a race, it
is not efficient at all. Do not compare apples and pears with bacon
and eggs.

On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 22:57:29 -0800 (PST), "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.

Gas Turbine is continuous flow process using Brayton cycle.

Rotary (Wankel) engine is intermittent usually using Otto cycle, a few
have been made to use the Diesel cycle.

All suck, squeeze, bang and blow.

Early reciprocating piston aero engines are also called rotary as the
crank was bolted to the airframe and the whole crankcase with
cylinders rotated with the propeller. This ensured good air flow over
the air cooled cylinders and heads at low airspeeds.
--
Peter Hill
Spamtrap reply domain as per NNTP-Posting-Host in header
Can of worms - what every fisherman wants.
Can of worms - what every PC owner gets!

On Nov 14, 10:57*pm, "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.

Sounds like homework.

Which sort of rotary engine did you have in mind?

What research have you done?


Mark L. Fergerson

"2.7182818284590..." > wrote in message
...
> 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.

Early turbines were not so efficient at all. This efficiency has improved
over the years.

Yes, they both "produce" circular motion, but in the broad sense so
does a reciprocating engine. The rotary "piston" does not move in
a circular path, remember. The turbine is circular.

If you had to cool a turbine, and limit the pressures, as you do in a rotary
what do you think would happen to the efficiency?

In article >,
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?

Is this a homework question?

Two things: think about the combustion rate, and think about where heat is
going.

Also think about what happens when the load changes.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

A windmill is a rotary engine.So is a paddle wheel being pushed around
and around by the water.
Motors are motors, engines are engines.
Ford Engine Company.Chrysler Engines Corporation.
cuhulin

On Nov 15, 10:13*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> In article >,
>
> 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?
>
> Is this a homework question?
>
> Two things: think about the combustion rate, and think about where heat is
> going.
>
> Also think about what happens when the load changes.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Spinning is 87% better than going up and down. Electric motors prove
that by 100% The wheel is in My Spin is in theory is Nobel
stuff.Nature's universe is a huge fly wheel and is constructed with
wheels in wheels in wheels TreBert

On Nov 15, 7:57*pm, "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.

A turbine is worn on the head by a Sikh.

HardySpicer > wrote in news:72f1ded7-97e0-47a8-9cc6-
:

>
> A turbine is worn on the head by a Sikh.
>



That joke made me Sikh.


--
Tegger