|
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
On 8/4/2012 11:59 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article om, says... On 8/4/2012 10:32 AM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 07:42:40 -0400, "J. Clarke" wrote: If you want to be technical it's an Otto cycle, which is the same as a four-stroke piston engine. A lot of people think that there's something fundamentally different about a Wankel--there isn't, it just uses a weirdly shaped piston. === But most importantly, the piston does not change direction (reciprocate). Here's Otto Cycle http://www.kruse-ltc.com/Otto/otto_cycle.php Here's a Wankle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wankel_engine The only real similarities are the fuel and spark plugs. And the thermodynamics. I wonder if they ever tried to make a diesel Wankle? Yep. Rolls-Royce and Yanmar come to mind but I'm sure there have been others. Thermodynamics is conspicuously missing from descriptions of electric motors. Is that because a motor is not an engine? |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
In article om,
says... On 8/4/2012 11:04 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article om, says... On 8/4/2012 9:24 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article m, says... On 8/4/2012 9:05 AM, X ` Man wrote: On 8/4/12 9:04 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 8/4/2012 7:59 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 8/3/2012 10:09 PM, Eisboch wrote: "X ` Man" wrote in message ... On 8/3/12 5:51 PM, JustWait wrote: On 8/3/2012 4:47 PM, BAR wrote: In article , lid says... David T. Ashley dashley gmail.com wrote: John Doe wrote: I'm looking at gas/petrol stabilizers, Sea Foam and STA-BIL. On their FAQ page, both of them refer to a "2-stroke" engine as a "2-cycle" engine. Uhg. It's only semantics, but you would think that those manufacturers would know the difference between a "stroke" and a "cycle". Per Merriam-Webster... stroke: the movement in either direction of a mechanical part (as a piston) having a reciprocating motion; also : the distance of such movement cycle: a course or series of events or operations that recur regularly and usually lead back to the starting point "2-stroke" "4-stroke" engine About 3,270,000 results "2-cycle" "4-cycle" engine About 427,000 results (0.48 seconds) Using "cycle" is not a big deal for casual speakers, but besides being less popular, it's semantical nonsense. I believe that using "4-stroke cycle" is more correct than either 4-stroke or 4-cycle. It takes 4 strokes to make a cycle. I'm not talking about technical correctness, I'm referring to a significant semantical blunder. What matters is the number of strokes per cycle. The number of cycles is irrelevant. At least you aren't calling them motors. "like" Motor is an acceptable synonym for engine. -------------------------------------------- "Happy Motoring" Indianapolis MOTOR Speedway:) Hummm, didn't know they ran electric cars the) There sure is a lot you don't know..... http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/4/prweb9433282.htm http://www.evgrandprix.org/ http://www.indianapolismotorspeedway...entinfo/41451/ Well, I just noticed this is a crossthreaded troll... and you and harry are either name shifting or my filters are failing again so I am gonna' take a look, but I am not gonna' read your links, cause I really don't care what you think... Plonk again... I've not changed anything, dummy. And those links aren't what *I* "think", they are links to actual events that have taken place at Indy, where YOU said you didn't know they ran electric cars. Let's not get the weekend off to a bad start by having to watch Scotty explode again, eh? You have 4 choices A prevent the explosion B cause the explosion C watch the explosion D ignore the explosion My money is on you choosing B and C At least you're admitting that Scotty will go insane and explode! You are incorrect, as usual. http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/searc...ng&FORM=DTPDIA "acknowledge truth" Not incorrect at all. You see, YOU said that "the money is on (harry) choosing B and C." Therefore, you acknowledged that Scotty would, indeed explode. Liar; unless you admit to being incredibly stupid, or easily misled, or to jumping to wrong conclusions consistantly, or just have difficulty understanding English. I am wagering that Harry will chose options B and C based on prior behavior. Option A is still an available choice, but, knowing Harry, that would be the last thing he would want. Option D is completely out of the question for Harry. All of the options involve Scotty "exploding" period. |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
On 8/4/2012 12:27 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article om, says... On 8/4/2012 11:04 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article om, says... On 8/4/2012 9:24 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article m, says... On 8/4/2012 9:05 AM, X ` Man wrote: On 8/4/12 9:04 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 8/4/2012 7:59 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 8/3/2012 10:09 PM, Eisboch wrote: "X ` Man" wrote in message ... On 8/3/12 5:51 PM, JustWait wrote: On 8/3/2012 4:47 PM, BAR wrote: In article , lid says... David T. Ashley dashley gmail.com wrote: John Doe wrote: I'm looking at gas/petrol stabilizers, Sea Foam and STA-BIL. On their FAQ page, both of them refer to a "2-stroke" engine as a "2-cycle" engine. Uhg. It's only semantics, but you would think that those manufacturers would know the difference between a "stroke" and a "cycle". Per Merriam-Webster... stroke: the movement in either direction of a mechanical part (as a piston) having a reciprocating motion; also : the distance of such movement cycle: a course or series of events or operations that recur regularly and usually lead back to the starting point "2-stroke" "4-stroke" engine About 3,270,000 results "2-cycle" "4-cycle" engine About 427,000 results (0.48 seconds) Using "cycle" is not a big deal for casual speakers, but besides being less popular, it's semantical nonsense. I believe that using "4-stroke cycle" is more correct than either 4-stroke or 4-cycle. It takes 4 strokes to make a cycle. I'm not talking about technical correctness, I'm referring to a significant semantical blunder. What matters is the number of strokes per cycle. The number of cycles is irrelevant. At least you aren't calling them motors. "like" Motor is an acceptable synonym for engine. -------------------------------------------- "Happy Motoring" Indianapolis MOTOR Speedway:) Hummm, didn't know they ran electric cars the) There sure is a lot you don't know..... http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/4/prweb9433282.htm http://www.evgrandprix.org/ http://www.indianapolismotorspeedway...entinfo/41451/ Well, I just noticed this is a crossthreaded troll... and you and harry are either name shifting or my filters are failing again so I am gonna' take a look, but I am not gonna' read your links, cause I really don't care what you think... Plonk again... I've not changed anything, dummy. And those links aren't what *I* "think", they are links to actual events that have taken place at Indy, where YOU said you didn't know they ran electric cars. Let's not get the weekend off to a bad start by having to watch Scotty explode again, eh? You have 4 choices A prevent the explosion B cause the explosion C watch the explosion D ignore the explosion My money is on you choosing B and C At least you're admitting that Scotty will go insane and explode! You are incorrect, as usual. http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/searc...ng&FORM=DTPDIA "acknowledge truth" Not incorrect at all. You see, YOU said that "the money is on (harry) choosing B and C." Therefore, you acknowledged that Scotty would, indeed explode. Liar; unless you admit to being incredibly stupid, or easily misled, or to jumping to wrong conclusions consistantly, or just have difficulty understanding English. I am wagering that Harry will chose options B and C based on prior behavior. Option A is still an available choice, but, knowing Harry, that would be the last thing he would want. Option D is completely out of the question for Harry. All of the options involve Scotty "exploding" period. Or not. See option A. Mumble Mumble. I'm done with you. |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
On 8/4/2012 12:09 PM, Meyer wrote:
On 8/4/2012 11:04 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article om, says... On 8/4/2012 9:24 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article m, says... On 8/4/2012 9:05 AM, X ` Man wrote: On 8/4/12 9:04 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 8/4/2012 7:59 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 8/3/2012 10:09 PM, Eisboch wrote: "X ` Man" wrote in message ... On 8/3/12 5:51 PM, JustWait wrote: On 8/3/2012 4:47 PM, BAR wrote: In article , lid says... David T. Ashley dashley gmail.com wrote: John Doe wrote: I'm looking at gas/petrol stabilizers, Sea Foam and STA-BIL. On their FAQ page, both of them refer to a "2-stroke" engine as a "2-cycle" engine. Uhg. It's only semantics, but you would think that those manufacturers would know the difference between a "stroke" and a "cycle". Per Merriam-Webster... stroke: the movement in either direction of a mechanical part (as a piston) having a reciprocating motion; also : the distance of such movement cycle: a course or series of events or operations that recur regularly and usually lead back to the starting point "2-stroke" "4-stroke" engine About 3,270,000 results "2-cycle" "4-cycle" engine About 427,000 results (0.48 seconds) Using "cycle" is not a big deal for casual speakers, but besides being less popular, it's semantical nonsense. I believe that using "4-stroke cycle" is more correct than either 4-stroke or 4-cycle. It takes 4 strokes to make a cycle. I'm not talking about technical correctness, I'm referring to a significant semantical blunder. What matters is the number of strokes per cycle. The number of cycles is irrelevant. At least you aren't calling them motors. "like" Motor is an acceptable synonym for engine. -------------------------------------------- "Happy Motoring" Indianapolis MOTOR Speedway:) Hummm, didn't know they ran electric cars the) There sure is a lot you don't know..... http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/4/prweb9433282.htm http://www.evgrandprix.org/ http://www.indianapolismotorspeedway...entinfo/41451/ Well, I just noticed this is a crossthreaded troll... and you and harry are either name shifting or my filters are failing again so I am gonna' take a look, but I am not gonna' read your links, cause I really don't care what you think... Plonk again... I've not changed anything, dummy. And those links aren't what *I* "think", they are links to actual events that have taken place at Indy, where YOU said you didn't know they ran electric cars. Let's not get the weekend off to a bad start by having to watch Scotty explode again, eh? You have 4 choices A prevent the explosion B cause the explosion C watch the explosion D ignore the explosion My money is on you choosing B and C At least you're admitting that Scotty will go insane and explode! You are incorrect, as usual. http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/searc...ng&FORM=DTPDIA "acknowledge truth" Not incorrect at all. You see, YOU said that "the money is on (harry) choosing B and C." Therefore, you acknowledged that Scotty would, indeed explode. Liar; unless you admit to being incredibly stupid, or easily misled, or to jumping to wrong conclusions consistantly, or just have difficulty understanding English. I am wagering that Harry will chose options B and C based on prior behavior. Option A is still an available choice, but, knowing Harry, that would be the last thing he would want. Option D is completely out of the question for Harry. However in this case, you are both wrong... Here, loogie is "inventing" the explosion... while exploding... LOL! |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
In article om,
says... On 8/4/2012 11:59 AM, J. Clarke wrote: In article om, says... On 8/4/2012 10:32 AM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 07:42:40 -0400, "J. Clarke" wrote: If you want to be technical it's an Otto cycle, which is the same as a four-stroke piston engine. A lot of people think that there's something fundamentally different about a Wankel--there isn't, it just uses a weirdly shaped piston. === But most importantly, the piston does not change direction (reciprocate). Here's Otto Cycle http://www.kruse-ltc.com/Otto/otto_cycle.php Here's a Wankle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wankel_engine The only real similarities are the fuel and spark plugs. And the thermodynamics. I wonder if they ever tried to make a diesel Wankle? Yep. Rolls-Royce and Yanmar come to mind but I'm sure there have been others. Thermodynamics is conspicuously missing from descriptions of electric motors. Is that because a motor is not an engine? While it is common for an engine to convert heat energy into mechanical work, the true definition is a device to convert energy (any type) into mechanical work. So, your thermodynamics question has no merit. |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
On 8/4/2012 12:31 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 8/4/2012 12:09 PM, Meyer wrote: On 8/4/2012 11:04 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article om, says... On 8/4/2012 9:24 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article m, says... On 8/4/2012 9:05 AM, X ` Man wrote: On 8/4/12 9:04 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 8/4/2012 7:59 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 8/3/2012 10:09 PM, Eisboch wrote: "X ` Man" wrote in message ... On 8/3/12 5:51 PM, JustWait wrote: On 8/3/2012 4:47 PM, BAR wrote: In article , lid says... David T. Ashley dashley gmail.com wrote: John Doe wrote: I'm looking at gas/petrol stabilizers, Sea Foam and STA-BIL. On their FAQ page, both of them refer to a "2-stroke" engine as a "2-cycle" engine. Uhg. It's only semantics, but you would think that those manufacturers would know the difference between a "stroke" and a "cycle". Per Merriam-Webster... stroke: the movement in either direction of a mechanical part (as a piston) having a reciprocating motion; also : the distance of such movement cycle: a course or series of events or operations that recur regularly and usually lead back to the starting point "2-stroke" "4-stroke" engine About 3,270,000 results "2-cycle" "4-cycle" engine About 427,000 results (0.48 seconds) Using "cycle" is not a big deal for casual speakers, but besides being less popular, it's semantical nonsense. I believe that using "4-stroke cycle" is more correct than either 4-stroke or 4-cycle. It takes 4 strokes to make a cycle. I'm not talking about technical correctness, I'm referring to a significant semantical blunder. What matters is the number of strokes per cycle. The number of cycles is irrelevant. At least you aren't calling them motors. "like" Motor is an acceptable synonym for engine. -------------------------------------------- "Happy Motoring" Indianapolis MOTOR Speedway:) Hummm, didn't know they ran electric cars the) There sure is a lot you don't know..... http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/4/prweb9433282.htm http://www.evgrandprix.org/ http://www.indianapolismotorspeedway...entinfo/41451/ Well, I just noticed this is a crossthreaded troll... and you and harry are either name shifting or my filters are failing again so I am gonna' take a look, but I am not gonna' read your links, cause I really don't care what you think... Plonk again... I've not changed anything, dummy. And those links aren't what *I* "think", they are links to actual events that have taken place at Indy, where YOU said you didn't know they ran electric cars. Let's not get the weekend off to a bad start by having to watch Scotty explode again, eh? You have 4 choices A prevent the explosion B cause the explosion C watch the explosion D ignore the explosion My money is on you choosing B and C At least you're admitting that Scotty will go insane and explode! You are incorrect, as usual. http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/searc...ng&FORM=DTPDIA "acknowledge truth" Not incorrect at all. You see, YOU said that "the money is on (harry) choosing B and C." Therefore, you acknowledged that Scotty would, indeed explode. Liar; unless you admit to being incredibly stupid, or easily misled, or to jumping to wrong conclusions consistantly, or just have difficulty understanding English. I am wagering that Harry will chose options B and C based on prior behavior. Option A is still an available choice, but, knowing Harry, that would be the last thing he would want. Option D is completely out of the question for Harry. However in this case, you are both wrong... Here, loogie is "inventing" the explosion... while exploding... LOL! Sorry about using you as a tool to twist Iloogie and Harry's shorts. ;-) |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 11:55:18 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote: But most importantly, the piston does not change direction (reciprocate).] Well, actually it does. Look carefully at an animation of a wankel in operation and you'll find that the rotor moves both vertically and horizontally over a considerable distance. Wankels are not turbines. === I understand your point but it seems intuitive that there is probably less energy lost to overcoming reciprocating mass (pistons). |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
In article m,
says... On 8/4/2012 12:27 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In article om, says... On 8/4/2012 11:04 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article om, says... On 8/4/2012 9:24 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article m, says... On 8/4/2012 9:05 AM, X ` Man wrote: On 8/4/12 9:04 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 8/4/2012 7:59 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 8/3/2012 10:09 PM, Eisboch wrote: "X ` Man" wrote in message ... On 8/3/12 5:51 PM, JustWait wrote: On 8/3/2012 4:47 PM, BAR wrote: In article , lid says... David T. Ashley dashley gmail.com wrote: John Doe wrote: I'm looking at gas/petrol stabilizers, Sea Foam and STA-BIL. On their FAQ page, both of them refer to a "2-stroke" engine as a "2-cycle" engine. Uhg. It's only semantics, but you would think that those manufacturers would know the difference between a "stroke" and a "cycle". Per Merriam-Webster... stroke: the movement in either direction of a mechanical part (as a piston) having a reciprocating motion; also : the distance of such movement cycle: a course or series of events or operations that recur regularly and usually lead back to the starting point "2-stroke" "4-stroke" engine About 3,270,000 results "2-cycle" "4-cycle" engine About 427,000 results (0.48 seconds) Using "cycle" is not a big deal for casual speakers, but besides being less popular, it's semantical nonsense. I believe that using "4-stroke cycle" is more correct than either 4-stroke or 4-cycle. It takes 4 strokes to make a cycle. I'm not talking about technical correctness, I'm referring to a significant semantical blunder. What matters is the number of strokes per cycle. The number of cycles is irrelevant. At least you aren't calling them motors. "like" Motor is an acceptable synonym for engine. -------------------------------------------- "Happy Motoring" Indianapolis MOTOR Speedway:) Hummm, didn't know they ran electric cars the) There sure is a lot you don't know..... http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/4/prweb9433282.htm http://www.evgrandprix.org/ http://www.indianapolismotorspeedway...entinfo/41451/ Well, I just noticed this is a crossthreaded troll... and you and harry are either name shifting or my filters are failing again so I am gonna' take a look, but I am not gonna' read your links, cause I really don't care what you think... Plonk again... I've not changed anything, dummy. And those links aren't what *I* "think", they are links to actual events that have taken place at Indy, where YOU said you didn't know they ran electric cars. Let's not get the weekend off to a bad start by having to watch Scotty explode again, eh? You have 4 choices A prevent the explosion B cause the explosion C watch the explosion D ignore the explosion My money is on you choosing B and C At least you're admitting that Scotty will go insane and explode! You are incorrect, as usual. http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/searc...ng&FORM=DTPDIA "acknowledge truth" Not incorrect at all. You see, YOU said that "the money is on (harry) choosing B and C." Therefore, you acknowledged that Scotty would, indeed explode. Liar; unless you admit to being incredibly stupid, or easily misled, or to jumping to wrong conclusions consistantly, or just have difficulty understanding English. I am wagering that Harry will chose options B and C based on prior behavior. Option A is still an available choice, but, knowing Harry, that would be the last thing he would want. Option D is completely out of the question for Harry. All of the options involve Scotty "exploding" period. Or not. See option A. Mumble Mumble. I'm done with you. Does option A have the words "the explosion"? Answer, YES! |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
In article , says...
On 8/4/2012 12:09 PM, Meyer wrote: On 8/4/2012 11:04 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article om, says... On 8/4/2012 9:24 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article m, says... On 8/4/2012 9:05 AM, X ` Man wrote: On 8/4/12 9:04 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 8/4/2012 7:59 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 8/3/2012 10:09 PM, Eisboch wrote: "X ` Man" wrote in message ... On 8/3/12 5:51 PM, JustWait wrote: On 8/3/2012 4:47 PM, BAR wrote: In article , lid says... David T. Ashley dashley gmail.com wrote: John Doe wrote: I'm looking at gas/petrol stabilizers, Sea Foam and STA-BIL. On their FAQ page, both of them refer to a "2-stroke" engine as a "2-cycle" engine. Uhg. It's only semantics, but you would think that those manufacturers would know the difference between a "stroke" and a "cycle". Per Merriam-Webster... stroke: the movement in either direction of a mechanical part (as a piston) having a reciprocating motion; also : the distance of such movement cycle: a course or series of events or operations that recur regularly and usually lead back to the starting point "2-stroke" "4-stroke" engine About 3,270,000 results "2-cycle" "4-cycle" engine About 427,000 results (0.48 seconds) Using "cycle" is not a big deal for casual speakers, but besides being less popular, it's semantical nonsense. I believe that using "4-stroke cycle" is more correct than either 4-stroke or 4-cycle. It takes 4 strokes to make a cycle. I'm not talking about technical correctness, I'm referring to a significant semantical blunder. What matters is the number of strokes per cycle. The number of cycles is irrelevant. At least you aren't calling them motors. "like" Motor is an acceptable synonym for engine. -------------------------------------------- "Happy Motoring" Indianapolis MOTOR Speedway:) Hummm, didn't know they ran electric cars the) There sure is a lot you don't know..... http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/4/prweb9433282.htm http://www.evgrandprix.org/ http://www.indianapolismotorspeedway...entinfo/41451/ Well, I just noticed this is a crossthreaded troll... and you and harry are either name shifting or my filters are failing again so I am gonna' take a look, but I am not gonna' read your links, cause I really don't care what you think... Plonk again... I've not changed anything, dummy. And those links aren't what *I* "think", they are links to actual events that have taken place at Indy, where YOU said you didn't know they ran electric cars. Let's not get the weekend off to a bad start by having to watch Scotty explode again, eh? You have 4 choices A prevent the explosion B cause the explosion C watch the explosion D ignore the explosion My money is on you choosing B and C At least you're admitting that Scotty will go insane and explode! You are incorrect, as usual. http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/searc...ng&FORM=DTPDIA "acknowledge truth" Not incorrect at all. You see, YOU said that "the money is on (harry) choosing B and C." Therefore, you acknowledged that Scotty would, indeed explode. Liar; unless you admit to being incredibly stupid, or easily misled, or to jumping to wrong conclusions consistantly, or just have difficulty understanding English. I am wagering that Harry will chose options B and C based on prior behavior. Option A is still an available choice, but, knowing Harry, that would be the last thing he would want. Option D is completely out of the question for Harry. However in this case, you are both wrong... Here, loogie is "inventing" the explosion... while exploding... LOL! Huh? *I* didn't give the four scenarios, Oscar did. |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
In article m,
says... On 8/4/2012 12:31 PM, JustWait wrote: On 8/4/2012 12:09 PM, Meyer wrote: On 8/4/2012 11:04 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article om, says... On 8/4/2012 9:24 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article m, says... On 8/4/2012 9:05 AM, X ` Man wrote: On 8/4/12 9:04 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 8/4/2012 7:59 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 8/3/2012 10:09 PM, Eisboch wrote: "X ` Man" wrote in message ... On 8/3/12 5:51 PM, JustWait wrote: On 8/3/2012 4:47 PM, BAR wrote: In article , lid says... David T. Ashley dashley gmail.com wrote: John Doe wrote: I'm looking at gas/petrol stabilizers, Sea Foam and STA-BIL. On their FAQ page, both of them refer to a "2-stroke" engine as a "2-cycle" engine. Uhg. It's only semantics, but you would think that those manufacturers would know the difference between a "stroke" and a "cycle". Per Merriam-Webster... stroke: the movement in either direction of a mechanical part (as a piston) having a reciprocating motion; also : the distance of such movement cycle: a course or series of events or operations that recur regularly and usually lead back to the starting point "2-stroke" "4-stroke" engine About 3,270,000 results "2-cycle" "4-cycle" engine About 427,000 results (0.48 seconds) Using "cycle" is not a big deal for casual speakers, but besides being less popular, it's semantical nonsense. I believe that using "4-stroke cycle" is more correct than either 4-stroke or 4-cycle. It takes 4 strokes to make a cycle. I'm not talking about technical correctness, I'm referring to a significant semantical blunder. What matters is the number of strokes per cycle. The number of cycles is irrelevant. At least you aren't calling them motors. "like" Motor is an acceptable synonym for engine. -------------------------------------------- "Happy Motoring" Indianapolis MOTOR Speedway:) Hummm, didn't know they ran electric cars the) There sure is a lot you don't know..... http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/4/prweb9433282.htm http://www.evgrandprix.org/ http://www.indianapolismotorspeedway...entinfo/41451/ Well, I just noticed this is a crossthreaded troll... and you and harry are either name shifting or my filters are failing again so I am gonna' take a look, but I am not gonna' read your links, cause I really don't care what you think... Plonk again... I've not changed anything, dummy. And those links aren't what *I* "think", they are links to actual events that have taken place at Indy, where YOU said you didn't know they ran electric cars. Let's not get the weekend off to a bad start by having to watch Scotty explode again, eh? You have 4 choices A prevent the explosion B cause the explosion C watch the explosion D ignore the explosion My money is on you choosing B and C At least you're admitting that Scotty will go insane and explode! You are incorrect, as usual. http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/searc...ng&FORM=DTPDIA "acknowledge truth" Not incorrect at all. You see, YOU said that "the money is on (harry) choosing B and C." Therefore, you acknowledged that Scotty would, indeed explode. Liar; unless you admit to being incredibly stupid, or easily misled, or to jumping to wrong conclusions consistantly, or just have difficulty understanding English. I am wagering that Harry will chose options B and C based on prior behavior. Option A is still an available choice, but, knowing Harry, that would be the last thing he would want. Option D is completely out of the question for Harry. However in this case, you are both wrong... Here, loogie is "inventing" the explosion... while exploding... LOL! Sorry about using you as a tool to twist Iloogie and Harry's shorts. ;-) You didn't twist anything, you gave four different scenarios for Scotty "exploding". |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
|
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
On Aug 4, 1:35*pm, Meyer wrote:
On 8/4/2012 12:31 PM, JustWait wrote: On 8/4/2012 12:09 PM, Meyer wrote: On 8/4/2012 11:04 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article om, says... On 8/4/2012 9:24 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article m, says... On 8/4/2012 9:05 AM, X ` Man wrote: On 8/4/12 9:04 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 8/4/2012 7:59 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 8/3/2012 10:09 PM, Eisboch wrote: "X ` Man" *wrote in message ... On 8/3/12 5:51 PM, JustWait wrote: On 8/3/2012 4:47 PM, BAR wrote: In article , says... David T. Ashley dashley gmail.com wrote: John Doe wrote: I'm looking at gas/petrol stabilizers, Sea Foam and STA-BIL. On their FAQ page, both of them refer to a "2-stroke" engine as a "2-cycle" engine. Uhg. It's only semantics, but you would think that those manufacturers would know the difference between a "stroke" and a "cycle". Per Merriam-Webster... stroke: the movement in either direction of a mechanical part (as a piston) having a reciprocating motion; also : the distance of such movement cycle: a course or series of events or operations that recur regularly and usually lead back to the starting point "2-stroke" "4-stroke" engine About 3,270,000 results "2-cycle" "4-cycle" engine About 427,000 results (0.48 seconds) Using "cycle" is not a big deal for casual speakers, but besides being less popular, it's semantical nonsense. I believe that using "4-stroke cycle" is more correct than either 4-stroke or 4-cycle. *It takes 4 strokes to make a cycle. I'm not talking about technical correctness, I'm referring to a significant semantical blunder. What matters is the number of strokes per cycle. The number of cycles is irrelevant. At least you aren't calling them motors. * * * "like" Motor is an acceptable synonym for engine. -------------------------------------------- "Happy Motoring" Indianapolis MOTOR Speedway:) * *Hummm, didn't know they ran electric cars the) There sure is a lot you don't know..... http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/4/prweb9433282.htm http://www.evgrandprix.org/ http://www.indianapolismotorspeedway...entinfo/41451/ Well, I just noticed this is a crossthreaded troll... and you and harry are either name shifting or my filters are failing again so I am gonna' take a look, but I am not gonna' read your links, cause I really don't care what you think... *Plonk again... I've not changed anything, dummy. And those links aren't what *I* "think", they are links to actual events that have taken place at Indy, where YOU said you didn't know they ran electric cars. Let's not get the weekend off to a bad start by having to watch Scotty explode again, eh? You have 4 choices A prevent the explosion B cause the explosion C watch the explosion D ignore the explosion My money is on you choosing B and C At least you're admitting that Scotty will go insane and explode! You are incorrect, as usual. http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/searc...vt=admitting&F... "acknowledge truth" Not incorrect at all. You see, YOU said that "the money is on (harry) choosing B and C." Therefore, you acknowledged that Scotty would, indeed explode. Liar; unless you admit to being incredibly stupid, or easily misled, or to jumping to wrong conclusions consistantly, or just have difficulty understanding English. I am wagering that Harry will chose options B and C based on prior behavior. Option A is still an available choice, but, knowing Harry, that would be the last thing he would want. Option D is completely out of the question for Harry. However in this case, you are both wrong... Here, loogie is "inventing" the explosion... while exploding... LOL! Sorry about using you as a tool to twist Iloogie and Harry's shorts. ;-) I'm sure they'd prefer that you keep your hands off/out of their "shorts". |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
On Aug 4, 9:25*am, Meyer wrote:
Thermodynamics is conspicuously missing from descriptions of electric motors. Um, so you weren't aware that electric motors get nice and hot while in use? Is that because a motor is not an engine? Nope. |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
Now I am seeing the same garbage on major namebrand two-stroke oil
containers. I give up. |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
In article ,
says... In article , says... On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 11:55:18 -0400, "J. Clarke" wrote: But most importantly, the piston does not change direction (reciprocate).] Well, actually it does. Look carefully at an animation of a wankel in operation and you'll find that the rotor moves both vertically and horizontally over a considerable distance. Wankels are not turbines. === I understand your point but it seems intuitive that there is probably less energy lost to overcoming reciprocating mass (pistons). I'd have to agree. Change in direction is always a mechanical energy loss. The Wankel rotor reciprocates and is more massive than most pistons so this saving is imaginary. |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
On 8/4/2012 3:32 PM, Twibil wrote:
On Aug 4, 9:25 am, Meyer wrote: Thermodynamics is conspicuously missing from descriptions of electric motors. Um, so you weren't aware that electric motors get nice and hot while in use? Is that because a motor is not an engine? Nope. Wasted energy. |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
Meyer wrote:
On 8/4/2012 3:32 PM, Twibil wrote: On Aug 4, 9:25 am, Meyer wrote: Thermodynamics is conspicuously missing from descriptions of electric motors. Um, so you weren't aware that electric motors get nice and hot while in use? Is that because a motor is not an engine? Nope. Wasted energy. Your postings must be positively glowing. -- Honda CB400 Four Triumph Street Triple Ducati 800SS Yamaha 660 Tenere Suzuki GN250, TS250ERx2 So many bikes, so little garage space.... chateau dot murray at idnet dot com |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
On Aug 4, 2:14*pm, Meyer wrote:
Thermodynamics is conspicuously missing from descriptions of electric motors. Um, so you weren't aware that electric motors get nice and hot while in use? Is that because a motor is not an engine? Nope. Wasted energy. So internal combustion engines -or motors- don't waste any energy? How cool! |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
On 8/4/2012 12:30 PM, Meyer wrote:
On 8/4/2012 12:27 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In article om, says... On 8/4/2012 11:04 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article om, says... On 8/4/2012 9:24 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article m, says... On 8/4/2012 9:05 AM, X ` Man wrote: On 8/4/12 9:04 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 8/4/2012 7:59 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 8/3/2012 10:09 PM, Eisboch wrote: "X ` Man" wrote in message ... On 8/3/12 5:51 PM, JustWait wrote: On 8/3/2012 4:47 PM, BAR wrote: In article , lid says... David T. Ashley dashley gmail.com wrote: John Doe wrote: I'm looking at gas/petrol stabilizers, Sea Foam and STA-BIL. On their FAQ page, both of them refer to a "2-stroke" engine as a "2-cycle" engine. Uhg. It's only semantics, but you would think that those manufacturers would know the difference between a "stroke" and a "cycle". Per Merriam-Webster... stroke: the movement in either direction of a mechanical part (as a piston) having a reciprocating motion; also : the distance of such movement cycle: a course or series of events or operations that recur regularly and usually lead back to the starting point "2-stroke" "4-stroke" engine About 3,270,000 results "2-cycle" "4-cycle" engine About 427,000 results (0.48 seconds) Using "cycle" is not a big deal for casual speakers, but besides being less popular, it's semantical nonsense. I believe that using "4-stroke cycle" is more correct than either 4-stroke or 4-cycle. It takes 4 strokes to make a cycle. I'm not talking about technical correctness, I'm referring to a significant semantical blunder. What matters is the number of strokes per cycle. The number of cycles is irrelevant. At least you aren't calling them motors. "like" Motor is an acceptable synonym for engine. -------------------------------------------- "Happy Motoring" Indianapolis MOTOR Speedway:) Hummm, didn't know they ran electric cars the) There sure is a lot you don't know..... http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/4/prweb9433282.htm http://www.evgrandprix.org/ http://www.indianapolismotorspeedway...entinfo/41451/ Well, I just noticed this is a crossthreaded troll... and you and harry are either name shifting or my filters are failing again so I am gonna' take a look, but I am not gonna' read your links, cause I really don't care what you think... Plonk again... I've not changed anything, dummy. And those links aren't what *I* "think", they are links to actual events that have taken place at Indy, where YOU said you didn't know they ran electric cars. Let's not get the weekend off to a bad start by having to watch Scotty explode again, eh? You have 4 choices A prevent the explosion B cause the explosion C watch the explosion D ignore the explosion My money is on you choosing B and C At least you're admitting that Scotty will go insane and explode! You are incorrect, as usual. http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/searc...ng&FORM=DTPDIA "acknowledge truth" Not incorrect at all. You see, YOU said that "the money is on (harry) choosing B and C." Therefore, you acknowledged that Scotty would, indeed explode. Liar; unless you admit to being incredibly stupid, or easily misled, or to jumping to wrong conclusions consistantly, or just have difficulty understanding English. I am wagering that Harry will chose options B and C based on prior behavior. Option A is still an available choice, but, knowing Harry, that would be the last thing he would want. Option D is completely out of the question for Harry. All of the options involve Scotty "exploding" period. Or not. See option A. Mumble Mumble. I'm done with you. Like I said, it's only you and loogie that are playing here.... Loog and Harry are exploding because I have been ignoring them lately. Even crossposted to another group with a name change to try to bring me in. So "Capt" Meyer, you, loogie, harry and john can just keep on keepin' on... LOL!! |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
On 8/4/12 9:41 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 8/4/2012 12:30 PM, Meyer wrote: On 8/4/2012 12:27 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In article om, says... On 8/4/2012 11:04 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article om, says... On 8/4/2012 9:24 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article m, says... On 8/4/2012 9:05 AM, X ` Man wrote: On 8/4/12 9:04 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 8/4/2012 7:59 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 8/3/2012 10:09 PM, Eisboch wrote: "X ` Man" wrote in message ... On 8/3/12 5:51 PM, JustWait wrote: On 8/3/2012 4:47 PM, BAR wrote: In article , lid says... David T. Ashley dashley gmail.com wrote: John Doe wrote: I'm looking at gas/petrol stabilizers, Sea Foam and STA-BIL. On their FAQ page, both of them refer to a "2-stroke" engine as a "2-cycle" engine. Uhg. It's only semantics, but you would think that those manufacturers would know the difference between a "stroke" and a "cycle". Per Merriam-Webster... stroke: the movement in either direction of a mechanical part (as a piston) having a reciprocating motion; also : the distance of such movement cycle: a course or series of events or operations that recur regularly and usually lead back to the starting point "2-stroke" "4-stroke" engine About 3,270,000 results "2-cycle" "4-cycle" engine About 427,000 results (0.48 seconds) Using "cycle" is not a big deal for casual speakers, but besides being less popular, it's semantical nonsense. I believe that using "4-stroke cycle" is more correct than either 4-stroke or 4-cycle. It takes 4 strokes to make a cycle. I'm not talking about technical correctness, I'm referring to a significant semantical blunder. What matters is the number of strokes per cycle. The number of cycles is irrelevant. At least you aren't calling them motors. "like" Motor is an acceptable synonym for engine. -------------------------------------------- "Happy Motoring" Indianapolis MOTOR Speedway:) Hummm, didn't know they ran electric cars the) There sure is a lot you don't know..... http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/4/prweb9433282.htm http://www.evgrandprix.org/ http://www.indianapolismotorspeedway...entinfo/41451/ Well, I just noticed this is a crossthreaded troll... and you and harry are either name shifting or my filters are failing again so I am gonna' take a look, but I am not gonna' read your links, cause I really don't care what you think... Plonk again... I've not changed anything, dummy. And those links aren't what *I* "think", they are links to actual events that have taken place at Indy, where YOU said you didn't know they ran electric cars. Let's not get the weekend off to a bad start by having to watch Scotty explode again, eh? You have 4 choices A prevent the explosion B cause the explosion C watch the explosion D ignore the explosion My money is on you choosing B and C At least you're admitting that Scotty will go insane and explode! You are incorrect, as usual. http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/searc...ng&FORM=DTPDIA "acknowledge truth" Not incorrect at all. You see, YOU said that "the money is on (harry) choosing B and C." Therefore, you acknowledged that Scotty would, indeed explode. Liar; unless you admit to being incredibly stupid, or easily misled, or to jumping to wrong conclusions consistantly, or just have difficulty understanding English. I am wagering that Harry will chose options B and C based on prior behavior. Option A is still an available choice, but, knowing Harry, that would be the last thing he would want. Option D is completely out of the question for Harry. All of the options involve Scotty "exploding" period. Or not. See option A. Mumble Mumble. I'm done with you. Like I said, it's only you and loogie that are playing here.... Loog and Harry are exploding because I have been ignoring them lately. Even crossposted to another group with a name change to try to bring me in. So "Capt" Meyer, you, loogie, harry and john can just keep on keepin' on... LOL!! Funny ****. Really. And just more of the usual Scotty bull****. -- I'm a liberal because the militant fundamentalist ignorant science-denying religious xenophobic corporate oligarchy of modern Republican conservatism just doesn't work for me or my country. |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
"Meyer" wrote in message b.com... On 8/3/2012 6:39 PM, X ` Man wrote: On 8/3/12 5:51 PM, JustWait wrote: On 8/3/2012 4:47 PM, BAR wrote: In article , lid says... David T. Ashley dashley gmail.com wrote: John Doe wrote: I'm looking at gas/petrol stabilizers, Sea Foam and STA-BIL. On their FAQ page, both of them refer to a "2-stroke" engine as a "2-cycle" engine. Uhg. It's only semantics, but you would think that those manufacturers would know the difference between a "stroke" and a "cycle". Per Merriam-Webster... stroke: the movement in either direction of a mechanical part (as a piston) having a reciprocating motion; also : the distance of such movement cycle: a course or series of events or operations that recur regularly and usually lead back to the starting point "2-stroke" "4-stroke" engine About 3,270,000 results "2-cycle" "4-cycle" engine About 427,000 results (0.48 seconds) Using "cycle" is not a big deal for casual speakers, but besides being less popular, it's semantical nonsense. I believe that using "4-stroke cycle" is more correct than either 4-stroke or 4-cycle. It takes 4 strokes to make a cycle. I'm not talking about technical correctness, I'm referring to a significant semantical blunder. What matters is the number of strokes per cycle. The number of cycles is irrelevant. At least you aren't calling them motors. "like" Motor is an acceptable synonym for engine. Maybe to you it is. Well I've given up riding motorcycles and started riding enginecycles. Much better they are too. -- Beav |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
"John Doe" wrote in message ... I'm looking at gas/petrol stabilizers, Sea Foam and STA-BIL. On their FAQ page, both of them refer to a "2-stroke" engine as a "2-cycle" engine. Uhg. It's only semantics, but you would think that those manufacturers would know the difference between a "stroke" and a "cycle". Per Merriam-Webster... stroke: the movement in either direction of a mechanical part (as a piston) having a reciprocating motion; also : the distance of such movement cycle: a course or series of events or operations that recur regularly and usually lead back to the starting point "2-stroke" "4-stroke" engine About 3,270,000 results "2-cycle" "4-cycle" engine About 427,000 results (0.48 seconds) Using "cycle" is not a big deal for casual speakers, but besides being less popular, it's semantical nonsense. I see it in quite simple terms. A 2 stroke engine requires the piston to travel 2 full strokes to complete the cycle needed to get the gas in and the gas out (induction, compression, power, exhaust) and be ready to do it all again to continue running. A 4 stroke requires 4 strokes of the piston to do the same thing. 2 cycle is wrong, 4 cycle is wrong. -- Beav |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
"The Older Gentleman" wrote in message news:1kobrds.4kd42e1hn1jk8N%totallydeadmailbox@yah oo.co.uk... Meyer wrote: On 8/4/2012 3:32 PM, Twibil wrote: On Aug 4, 9:25 am, Meyer wrote: Thermodynamics is conspicuously missing from descriptions of electric motors. Um, so you weren't aware that electric motors get nice and hot while in use? Is that because a motor is not an engine? Nope. Wasted energy. Your postings must be positively glowing. ****er:-) -- Beav |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
"Tom $herman (-_-)" " wrote in message ... On 8/3/2012 12:29 AM, John Doe wrote: I'm looking at gas/petrol stabilizers, Sea Foam and STA-BIL. On their FAQ page, both of them refer to a "2-stroke" engine as a "2-cycle" engine. Uhg. It's only semantics, but you would think that those manufacturers would know the difference between a "stroke" and a "cycle". [...] My solution is to call them "2-smokes" and "Otto cycle", respectively. "Stinkwheels". Any other type of machine/engine/motor is of no consequence, so a description isn't really needed. -- Beav |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
Beav wrote:
"Stinkwheels". Any other type of machine/engine/motor is of no consequence, so a description isn't really needed. And if it's had the usual teenage home-grown 'improvements' grafted on, "stinkwheel with Git Kit". -- Honda CB400 Four Triumph Street Triple Ducati 800SS Yamaha 660 Tenere Suzuki GN250, TS250ERx2 So many bikes, so little garage space.... chateau dot murray at idnet dot com |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
|
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
|
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
In article ocal,
says... In article , says... In article , says... On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 11:55:18 -0400, "J. Clarke" wrote: But most importantly, the piston does not change direction (reciprocate).] Well, actually it does. Look carefully at an animation of a wankel in operation and you'll find that the rotor moves both vertically and horizontally over a considerable distance. Wankels are not turbines. === I understand your point but it seems intuitive that there is probably less energy lost to overcoming reciprocating mass (pistons). I'd have to agree. Change in direction is always a mechanical energy loss. The Wankel rotor reciprocates and is more massive than most pistons so this saving is imaginary. A Wankel rotor does NOT change direction. |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
In article , says...
On 8/4/2012 12:30 PM, Meyer wrote: On 8/4/2012 12:27 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In article om, says... On 8/4/2012 11:04 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article om, says... On 8/4/2012 9:24 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article m, says... On 8/4/2012 9:05 AM, X ` Man wrote: On 8/4/12 9:04 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 8/4/2012 7:59 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 8/3/2012 10:09 PM, Eisboch wrote: "X ` Man" wrote in message ... On 8/3/12 5:51 PM, JustWait wrote: On 8/3/2012 4:47 PM, BAR wrote: In article , lid says... David T. Ashley dashley gmail.com wrote: John Doe wrote: I'm looking at gas/petrol stabilizers, Sea Foam and STA-BIL. On their FAQ page, both of them refer to a "2-stroke" engine as a "2-cycle" engine. Uhg. It's only semantics, but you would think that those manufacturers would know the difference between a "stroke" and a "cycle". Per Merriam-Webster... stroke: the movement in either direction of a mechanical part (as a piston) having a reciprocating motion; also : the distance of such movement cycle: a course or series of events or operations that recur regularly and usually lead back to the starting point "2-stroke" "4-stroke" engine About 3,270,000 results "2-cycle" "4-cycle" engine About 427,000 results (0.48 seconds) Using "cycle" is not a big deal for casual speakers, but besides being less popular, it's semantical nonsense. I believe that using "4-stroke cycle" is more correct than either 4-stroke or 4-cycle. It takes 4 strokes to make a cycle. I'm not talking about technical correctness, I'm referring to a significant semantical blunder. What matters is the number of strokes per cycle. The number of cycles is irrelevant. At least you aren't calling them motors. "like" Motor is an acceptable synonym for engine. -------------------------------------------- "Happy Motoring" Indianapolis MOTOR Speedway:) Hummm, didn't know they ran electric cars the) There sure is a lot you don't know..... http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/4/prweb9433282.htm http://www.evgrandprix.org/ http://www.indianapolismotorspeedway...entinfo/41451/ Well, I just noticed this is a crossthreaded troll... and you and harry are either name shifting or my filters are failing again so I am gonna' take a look, but I am not gonna' read your links, cause I really don't care what you think... Plonk again... I've not changed anything, dummy. And those links aren't what *I* "think", they are links to actual events that have taken place at Indy, where YOU said you didn't know they ran electric cars. Let's not get the weekend off to a bad start by having to watch Scotty explode again, eh? You have 4 choices A prevent the explosion B cause the explosion C watch the explosion D ignore the explosion My money is on you choosing B and C At least you're admitting that Scotty will go insane and explode! You are incorrect, as usual. http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/searc...ng&FORM=DTPDIA "acknowledge truth" Not incorrect at all. You see, YOU said that "the money is on (harry) choosing B and C." Therefore, you acknowledged that Scotty would, indeed explode. Liar; unless you admit to being incredibly stupid, or easily misled, or to jumping to wrong conclusions consistantly, or just have difficulty understanding English. I am wagering that Harry will chose options B and C based on prior behavior. Option A is still an available choice, but, knowing Harry, that would be the last thing he would want. Option D is completely out of the question for Harry. All of the options involve Scotty "exploding" period. Or not. See option A. Mumble Mumble. I'm done with you. Like I said, it's only you and loogie that are playing here.... Loog and Harry are exploding because I have been ignoring them lately. Even crossposted to another group with a name change to try to bring me in. So "Capt" Meyer, you, loogie, harry and john can just keep on keepin' on... LOL!! Uh, YOU crossposted, and don't even know you did, fool. I just think it's so funny that you, John, and Don are the same mentality thinking I'm someone I'm not! |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
wrote:
Reciprocation requires that something move repetitively in a linear motion. Like half the posters in this thread, you mean? -- Honda CB400 Four Triumph Street Triple Ducati 800SS Yamaha 660 Tenere Suzuki GN250, TS250ERx2 So many bikes, so little garage space.... chateau dot murray at idnet dot com |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
On 8/5/2012 4:42 AM, Beav wrote:
"Meyer" wrote in message b.com... On 8/3/2012 6:39 PM, X ` Man wrote: On 8/3/12 5:51 PM, JustWait wrote: On 8/3/2012 4:47 PM, BAR wrote: In article , lid says... David T. Ashley dashley gmail.com wrote: John Doe wrote: I'm looking at gas/petrol stabilizers, Sea Foam and STA-BIL. On their FAQ page, both of them refer to a "2-stroke" engine as a "2-cycle" engine. Uhg. It's only semantics, but you would think that those manufacturers would know the difference between a "stroke" and a "cycle". Per Merriam-Webster... stroke: the movement in either direction of a mechanical part (as a piston) having a reciprocating motion; also : the distance of such movement cycle: a course or series of events or operations that recur regularly and usually lead back to the starting point "2-stroke" "4-stroke" engine About 3,270,000 results "2-cycle" "4-cycle" engine About 427,000 results (0.48 seconds) Using "cycle" is not a big deal for casual speakers, but besides being less popular, it's semantical nonsense. I believe that using "4-stroke cycle" is more correct than either 4-stroke or 4-cycle. It takes 4 strokes to make a cycle. I'm not talking about technical correctness, I'm referring to a significant semantical blunder. What matters is the number of strokes per cycle. The number of cycles is irrelevant. At least you aren't calling them motors. "like" Motor is an acceptable synonym for engine. Maybe to you it is. Well I've given up riding motorcycles and started riding enginecycles. Much better they are too. Good. Now you don't have to drag that darn electric cord along on your ride. |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
On 8/5/12 8:54 AM, The Older Gentleman wrote:
wrote: Reciprocation requires that something move repetitively in a linear motion. Like half the posters in this thread, you mean? Ahh...you've met iboatererererererererererer. :) -- I'm a liberal because the militant fundamentalist ignorant science-denying religious xenophobic corporate oligarchy of modern Republican conservatism just doesn't work for me or my country. |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
"Beav" wrote in message ...
"John Doe" wrote in message ... I'm looking at gas/petrol stabilizers, Sea Foam and STA-BIL. On their FAQ page, both of them refer to a "2-stroke" engine as a "2-cycle" engine. Uhg. It's only semantics, but you would think that those manufacturers would know the difference between a "stroke" and a "cycle". Per Merriam-Webster... stroke: the movement in either direction of a mechanical part (as a piston) having a reciprocating motion; also : the distance of such movement cycle: a course or series of events or operations that recur regularly and usually lead back to the starting point "2-stroke" "4-stroke" engine About 3,270,000 results "2-cycle" "4-cycle" engine About 427,000 results (0.48 seconds) Using "cycle" is not a big deal for casual speakers, but besides being less popular, it's semantical nonsense. I see it in quite simple terms. A 2 stroke engine requires the piston to travel 2 full strokes to complete the cycle needed to get the gas in and the gas out (induction, compression, power, exhaust) and be ready to do it all again to continue running. A 4 stroke requires 4 strokes of the piston to do the same thing. 2 cycle is wrong, 4 cycle is wrong. -- Beav ----------------------------------------------------------- Nope, 4 cycles are not wrong, or 2 cycles as they are described. 4 cycle or 4 strokes. First cycle / first stroke is one down movement of the piston for the intake cycle. 2nd cycle / 2nd stroke is one up movement of the piston for the compression cycle. 3rd cycle / 3rd stroke is one down movement of the piston for the power cycle as the gas is ignited and expands. 4th cycle / 4th stroke is one up movement of the piston for the exhaust cycle to purge the old burned gases. |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
UseNet is unique in its ability to thread conversations. That
helps greatly with technical discussion. Maybe this poster's lack of ability to properly post here is the same reason why he is unable to comprehend relatively simple technical things like the difference between a "stroke" and a "cycle". "Califbill" bmckee nospamix.netcom.com wrote: Path: eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!border3.nntp.dca.giga news.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.gig anews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.gigane ws.com!nntp.earthlink.com!news.earthlink.com.POSTE D!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2012 20:51:40 -0500 From: "Califbill" bmckee nospamix.netcom.com Newsgroups: rec.boats,rec.motorcycles,rec.motorcycles.dirt References: jvfnkl$n92$1 dont-email.me 3sqTr.421121$I_.400339 fx28.am4 In-Reply-To: 3sqTr.421121$I_.400339 fx28.am4 Subject: OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke" Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 18:51:39 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 15.4.3555.308 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V15.4.3555.308 Message-ID: JMKdnYIx4I-xvoLNnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d earthlink.com Lines: 61 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.245.151.151 X-Trace: sv3-d5e0dWeGyqh7i6+W2O3PfqGaQ7bAE+21FL3ri6VwZ8gfnToCvB KN+idsJs3Lr/zp2OoibjHYFTsMQeW!/uAymUtnq+dLx1QspOVUns7gnfFhv4VZXwQbeo56paQSaLbwzWK JvRKalesP4AtsQk12X5DuuENj!v5g70sNkH4GGHaYYmqUTqdnW yI9YQa2A X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 X-Original-Bytes: 3312 Xref: mx04.eternal-september.org rec.boats:210200 rec.motorcycles:99617 rec.motorcycles.dirt:18820 "Beav" wrote in message news:3sqTr.421121$I_.400339 fx28.am4... "John Doe" jdoe usenetlove.invalid wrote in message news:jvfnkl$n92$1 dont-email.me... I'm looking at gas/petrol stabilizers, Sea Foam and STA-BIL. On their FAQ page, both of them refer to a "2-stroke" engine as a "2-cycle" engine. Uhg. It's only semantics, but you would think that those manufacturers would know the difference between a "stroke" and a "cycle". Per Merriam-Webster... stroke: the movement in either direction of a mechanical part (as a piston) having a reciprocating motion; also : the distance of such movement cycle: a course or series of events or operations that recur regularly and usually lead back to the starting point "2-stroke" "4-stroke" engine About 3,270,000 results "2-cycle" "4-cycle" engine About 427,000 results (0.48 seconds) Using "cycle" is not a big deal for casual speakers, but besides being less popular, it's semantical nonsense. I see it in quite simple terms. A 2 stroke engine requires the piston to travel 2 full strokes to complete the cycle needed to get the gas in and the gas out (induction, compression, power, exhaust) and be ready to do it all again to continue running. A 4 stroke requires 4 strokes of the piston to do the same thing. 2 cycle is wrong, 4 cycle is wrong. -- Beav ----------------------------------------------------------- Nope, 4 cycles are not wrong, or 2 cycles as they are described. 4 cycle or 4 strokes. First cycle / first stroke is one down movement of the piston for the intake cycle. 2nd cycle / 2nd stroke is one up movement of the piston for the compression cycle. 3rd cycle / 3rd stroke is one down movement of the piston for the power cycle as the gas is ignited and expands. 4th cycle / 4th stroke is one up movement of the piston for the exhaust cycle to purge the old burned gases. |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
On 8/5/2012 9:51 PM, Califbill wrote:
"Beav" wrote in message ... "John Doe" wrote in message ... I'm looking at gas/petrol stabilizers, Sea Foam and STA-BIL. On their FAQ page, both of them refer to a "2-stroke" engine as a "2-cycle" engine. Uhg. It's only semantics, but you would think that those manufacturers would know the difference between a "stroke" and a "cycle". Per Merriam-Webster... stroke: the movement in either direction of a mechanical part (as a piston) having a reciprocating motion; also : the distance of such movement cycle: a course or series of events or operations that recur regularly and usually lead back to the starting point "2-stroke" "4-stroke" engine About 3,270,000 results "2-cycle" "4-cycle" engine About 427,000 results (0.48 seconds) Using "cycle" is not a big deal for casual speakers, but besides being less popular, it's semantical nonsense. I see it in quite simple terms. A 2 stroke engine requires the piston to travel 2 full strokes to complete the cycle needed to get the gas in and the gas out (induction, compression, power, exhaust) and be ready to do it all again to continue running. A 4 stroke requires 4 strokes of the piston to do the same thing. 2 cycle is wrong, 4 cycle is wrong. Hey guys, I stripped the crossthread out of this one. The thread was a troll to this group and two motorcycle groups, probably by someone I may have been ignoring here lately snerk Please stop crossposting it, let it die the quick death it deserves... |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
On 8/6/12 5:21 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 8/5/2012 8:54 AM, The Older Gentleman wrote: wrote: Reciprocation requires that something move repetitively in a linear motion. Like half the posters in this thread, you mean? I warned you folks earlier. The guy(s) who are crossposting this are well known trolls from another group.. If you must amuse them, please strip the cross thread out.. Carry on if you wish, RMR The best known troll in rec.boats is you, JustWait. -- I'm a liberal because the militant fundamentalist ignorant science-denying religious xenophobic corporate oligarchy of modern Republican conservatism just doesn't work for me or my country. |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
|
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 09:09:55 -0400, Meyer wrote:
On 8/4/2012 8:43 AM, X ` Man wrote: On 8/4/12 7:30 AM, J. Clarke wrote: In article m, says... On 8/3/2012 6:39 PM, X ` Man wrote: On 8/3/12 5:51 PM, JustWait wrote: On 8/3/2012 4:47 PM, BAR wrote: In article , lid says... David T. Ashley dashley gmail.com wrote: John Doe wrote: I'm looking at gas/petrol stabilizers, Sea Foam and STA-BIL. On their FAQ page, both of them refer to a "2-stroke" engine as a "2-cycle" engine. Uhg. It's only semantics, but you would think that those manufacturers would know the difference between a "stroke" and a "cycle". Per Merriam-Webster... stroke: the movement in either direction of a mechanical part (as a piston) having a reciprocating motion; also : the distance of such movement cycle: a course or series of events or operations that recur regularly and usually lead back to the starting point "2-stroke" "4-stroke" engine About 3,270,000 results "2-cycle" "4-cycle" engine About 427,000 results (0.48 seconds) Using "cycle" is not a big deal for casual speakers, but besides being less popular, it's semantical nonsense. I believe that using "4-stroke cycle" is more correct than either 4-stroke or 4-cycle. It takes 4 strokes to make a cycle. I'm not talking about technical correctness, I'm referring to a significant semantical blunder. What matters is the number of strokes per cycle. The number of cycles is irrelevant. At least you aren't calling them motors. "like" Motor is an acceptable synonym for engine. Maybe to you it is. I think you're going to make little progress convincing motorcyclists that the thing that powers their motorcycles is not a motor. There are too many objects and entities that use "engine" and "motor" as synonyms for motor not to be an acceptable term for engine and vice versa. General Motors, Ford Motor Company, outboard motor, Bavarian Motor Works, et cetera. Acceptable is not a synonym for correct. What is the technical definition of "motor?" |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:10 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com