|
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
On 8/8/12 7:43 AM, Ben Kaufman wrote:
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?" Seems to me that a definition from the Oxford English Dictionary is "technical" enough to suffice: "An agent or force that produces mechanical motion." All-encompassing. Motor and engine frequently are synonyms. Among rational, intelligent people, there is no need to split hairs between the two words when referring to the assemblies that burn fuel to produce motive force for cars, motorcycles, boats, et cetera. In the present discussion, as has been cited, the devices are called "motorcycles," not "enginecycles." -- 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"
On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 07:42:40 -0400, "J. Clarke" wrote:
In article m, says... On 8/3/2012 4:23 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 05:29:58 +0000 (UTC), 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. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-stroke_cycle 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. Until you get to Wankel engines, in which case I don't think there is anything stroking. DTA Sure there is. It's a four stroke. Does it take 2 revolutions to complete a cycle? 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. Krebs cycle. :-) |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 09:49:06 +0100, "Beav"
wrote: "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. No wonder US schools are behind in math and science. :-) |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
In article , spaXm-mXe-anXd-
says... 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?" Something that converts any energy into mechanical energy. |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
On 8/8/2012 7:43 AM, Ben Kaufman wrote:
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?" It's different from the technical definition of engine. |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
On 8/8/2012 7:53 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 8/8/12 7:43 AM, Ben Kaufman wrote: 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?" Seems to me that a definition from the Oxford English Dictionary is "technical" enough to suffice: "An agent or force that produces mechanical motion." All-encompassing. Motor and engine frequently are synonyms. Among rational, intelligent people, there is no need to split hairs between the two words when referring to the assemblies that burn fuel to produce motive force for cars, motorcycles, boats, et cetera. Why not look up engine? Words have meaning. Read this article and see if you can figure out the difference between engine and motor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_...iesel-electric As an etymologist, you suck. |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
On 8/8/2012 8:55 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , spaXm-mXe-anXd- says... 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?" Something that converts any energy into mechanical energy. I think you are on to something. What is the technical definition of engine? |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
In article m,
says... On 8/8/2012 8:55 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , spaXm-mXe-anXd- says... 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?" Something that converts any energy into mechanical energy. I think you are on to something. What is the technical definition of engine? Well, it's the same thing, of course. |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
On 8/8/2012 10:52 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article m, says... On 8/8/2012 8:55 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , spaXm-mXe-anXd- says... 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?" Something that converts any energy into mechanical energy. I think you are on to something. What is the technical definition of engine? Well, it's the same thing, of course. Such a disappointment. |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 07:53:53 -0400, X ` Man
wrote: SNIP Acceptable is not a synonym for correct. What is the technical definition of "motor?" Seems to me that a definition from the Oxford English Dictionary is "technical" enough to suffice: "An agent or force that produces mechanical motion." All-encompassing. Motor and engine frequently are synonyms. Among rational, intelligent people, there is no need to split hairs between the two words when referring to the assemblies that burn fuel to produce motive force for cars, motorcycles, boats, et cetera. BINGO! In the present discussion, as has been cited, the devices are called "motorcycles," not "enginecycles." |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
Sarah Ehrett wrote:
In the simplest terms Krausie : Motors are powered by electricity. Engines have internal combustion. I l*love it* when somebody pretends to be an absolute authority and ****s up on the most basic thing. Here we go. Steam engines. Internal combustion? And you even referred to steam engines later on. -- 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 8/8/12 3:47 PM, The Older Gentleman wrote:
Sarah Ehrett wrote: In the simplest terms Krausie : Motors are powered by electricity. Engines have internal combustion. I l*love it* when somebody pretends to be an absolute authority and ****s up on the most basic thing. Here we go. Steam engines. Internal combustion? And you even referred to steam engines later on. It's just the stupid hair-splitting over nonsense that posters with nothing to add engage in to have something to post. -- 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"
Sarah Ehrett wrote:
Definition of motor noun a machine, especially one powered by electricity or internal combustion, [...] Motors are powered by electricity. Engines have internal combustion. Sorry, I see a contradiction here. This is a really puzzling discussion. To take the confusion further: in German, everything is a motor. Dieselmotor is perfect, I never said anything different to my Savage motor. If it's an electric motor, we say that using a special term (Elektromotor). Hence the notion, that a motor necessarily has an electric chord and a plug, sounds completely nuts to me. "Engine" virtually doesn't exist in German. Of course there are terms describing in general the propulsion method (e.g. "Antrieb", though with bikes this may also mean "chain" or "belt" driven), but sometimes they lack the "machine meaning" of engine. I think, it's a matter of language and habits of using it, not a technical necessity to draw the line just between "electric" and "internal combustion". Bob Myers: Once again: Per current usage and etymology, all engines are motors. I go with this. Not all motors are engines. But I don't quite understand this: "My shaver's engine is an electric motor." That wrong? I can't quite think of a motor clearly not being an engine, since a motor always drives some device, and this device has an engine consisting of or including that motor. ;-) Viele Grüße Klaus |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
Klaus Cammin wrote:
To take the confusion further: in German, everything is a motor. That's also incorrect: we don't say "steam motor" but "steam machine", let alone "steam engine", which doesn't exist. Viele Grüße Klaus |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
Sarah Ehrett wrote:
Automobile. Motor vehicle? Steam engines on tracks. Steamshps on water. Old Stanley Steamer on road. Can't think of a steam-driven aeroplane, though. I didn't. You're referring to the text in the cited article. You referred to a reference. Thanks for playing. Two posts, and you've been made to look a twonk in both. I'll leave you now. Too easy. -- 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 8, 11:46*am, Sarah Ehrett wrote:
LOL. *My dear Herr Krause, even rocket scientists debate the differences. The first two paragraphs from the cited article. "On the rare occasions we encounter one, we refer to a steam locomotive as an engine, the same word that we give to the motive power of an aircraft. But all electrical devices are driven by motors. In Britain at least, one’s personal transport is a motor car (with compounds such as motor trade, motor vehicle and motor sport), even though it’s always powered by an engine. Small boats may have outboard motors and then are often called motor boats. However, the propulsion device of a rocket can be called either a rocket motor or a rocket engine, and usage here seems not to have settled on one or the other. The IEEE Spectrum magazine for June 1998 (which Ron Jeffries has thoughtfully sent me) reports that the debate has been so intense, and yet so inconclusive, that some rocket scientist has coined the phrase whoosh generator as “the humorous, genderless, politically correct way to refer to the propulsion device in a hobby rocket, thus avoiding the great motor/engine debate”. " (Yawn). This failed to wake me up, even *after* riding my enginecycle to work on the engineway, this morning after staying up late last night watching an enginesports telecast on TV. |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
On Aug 9, 10:46*am, Sarah Ehrett wrote:
Thanks for playing. Two posts, and you've been made to look a twonk in both. I'll leave you now. Too easy. Pity the entire article went right over your head. Run away.... Q: Do these lies make you feel better about yourself, little troll? I ask because it's obvious that you're badly in need of *something* and hope to find it on Usenet. |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
On 8/9/12 5:48 PM, Twibil wrote:
On Aug 9, 10:46 am, Sarah Ehrett wrote: Thanks for playing. Two posts, and you've been made to look a twonk in both. I'll leave you now. Too easy. Pity the entire article went right over your head. Run away.... Q: Do these lies make you feel better about yourself, little troll? I ask because it's obvious that you're badly in need of *something* and hope to find it on Usenet. Bingo. "Sarah" is a guy hiding behind a woman's name to post on usenet. -- 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"
On Aug 9, 5:06*pm, Sarah Ehrett wrote:
Q: * Do these lies make you feel better about yourself, little troll? I ask because it's obvious that you're badly in need of *something* and hope to find it on Usenet. Krausie brought his off topic political crap into my group. Tsk! Lying again. You don't own a group of any kind so it isn't "your" group. But feel free to defend your fat friend. And yet again: I didn't defend him, I don't know him from Adam, and you don't know whether or not he's fat. Life is so much easier when you devote a neuron or two to actual thought before clicking on "send". |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
On 8/9/12 8:43 PM, WaIIy wrote:
On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 20:16:46 -0400, Sarah Ehrett wrote: On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 19:33:45 -0400, X ` Man wrote: On 8/9/12 5:48 PM, Twibil wrote: On Aug 9, 10:46 am, Sarah Ehrett wrote: Thanks for playing. Two posts, and you've been made to look a twonk in both. I'll leave you now. Too easy. Pity the entire article went right over your head. Run away.... Q: Do these lies make you feel better about yourself, little troll? I ask because it's obvious that you're badly in need of *something* and hope to find it on Usenet. Bingo. "Sarah" is a guy hiding behind a woman's name to post on usenet. You've also lied and claimed I'm living in Maryland, Krausie. You and I have a looooong history Harry. Remember the piccys you sent to me of yourself fishing? I no longer have the images but one I recall was of you standing in the stern of what looks to be a deep sea fishing boat. You claimed it was taken off the coast of Florida and you were holding up a fish you'd caught. I guess you thought I'd be interested since I'd mentioned on the fora that I'd caught a sailfish off Palm Beach when I was 10 years old. Guess you've conveniently forgotten that as well as the image of me next to the aforementioned sailfish, hmmmmm? Oh BTW, how's Anthropy? LOL. Quit the crossposting to rec.motorcycles. Also, krause is a known liar, why reply? That's what he wants. Ahh, all the love from the right-wing turds...how sweet. -- 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"
On 8/9/12 8:16 PM, Sarah Ehrett wrote:
On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 19:33:45 -0400, X ` Man wrote: On 8/9/12 5:48 PM, Twibil wrote: On Aug 9, 10:46 am, Sarah Ehrett wrote: Thanks for playing. Two posts, and you've been made to look a twonk in both. I'll leave you now. Too easy. Pity the entire article went right over your head. Run away.... Q: Do these lies make you feel better about yourself, little troll? I ask because it's obvious that you're badly in need of *something* and hope to find it on Usenet. Bingo. "Sarah" is a guy hiding behind a woman's name to post on usenet. You've also lied and claimed I'm living in Maryland, Krausie. You and I have a looooong history Harry. Remember the piccys you sent to me of yourself fishing? I no longer have the images but one I recall was of you standing in the stern of what looks to be a deep sea fishing boat. You claimed it was taken off the coast of Florida and you were holding up a fish you'd caught. I guess you thought I'd be interested since I'd mentioned on the fora that I'd caught a sailfish off Palm Beach when I was 10 years old. Guess you've conveniently forgotten that as well as the image of me next to the aforementioned sailfish, hmmmmm? Oh BTW, how's Anthropy? LOL. Sorry, Sarah ****head, but I never sent you any photos of me standing in the stern of a *deep sea* fishing boat holding up a fish. There were and are no such photos of me holding up a fish in a *deep sea* fishing boat. Nor do I have any recollection of any post mentioning catching a sailfish when the poster was 10 years old. Now, back you go into the septic tank. Bye. -- 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"
On 8/9/12 8:43 PM, WaIIy wrote:
On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 20:16:46 -0400, Sarah Ehrett wrote: On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 19:33:45 -0400, X ` Man wrote: On 8/9/12 5:48 PM, Twibil wrote: On Aug 9, 10:46 am, Sarah Ehrett wrote: Thanks for playing. Two posts, and you've been made to look a twonk in both. I'll leave you now. Too easy. Pity the entire article went right over your head. Run away.... Q: Do these lies make you feel better about yourself, little troll? I ask because it's obvious that you're badly in need of *something* and hope to find it on Usenet. Bingo. "Sarah" is a guy hiding behind a woman's name to post on usenet. You've also lied and claimed I'm living in Maryland, Krausie. You and I have a looooong history Harry. Remember the piccys you sent to me of yourself fishing? I no longer have the images but one I recall was of you standing in the stern of what looks to be a deep sea fishing boat. You claimed it was taken off the coast of Florida and you were holding up a fish you'd caught. I guess you thought I'd be interested since I'd mentioned on the fora that I'd caught a sailfish off Palm Beach when I was 10 years old. Guess you've conveniently forgotten that as well as the image of me next to the aforementioned sailfish, hmmmmm? Oh BTW, how's Anthropy? LOL. Quit the crossposting to rec.motorcycles. Also, krause is a known liar, why reply? That's what he wants. Wally...when you stopped posting in rec.boats did you send back the trophy you earned as "the dumbest poster in rec.boats" at that time? -- 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"
"Ben Kaufman" wrote
Meyer wrote: | X ` Man wrote: | J. Clarke wrote: | says... | JustWait wrote: | BAR wrote: | lid says... | David T. Ashley dashley gmail.com 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?" I am only glad that nobody has any more serious matters in their lives. |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
On Aug 9, 10:20*pm, X ` Man dump-on-conservati...@anywhere-you-
can.com wrote: On 8/9/12 8:43 PM, WaIIy wrote: On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 20:16:46 -0400, Sarah Ehrett wrote: On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 19:33:45 -0400, X ` Man wrote: On 8/9/12 5:48 PM, Twibil wrote: On Aug 9, 10:46 am, Sarah Ehrett wrote: Thanks for playing. Two posts, and you've been made to look a twonk in both. I'll leave you now. Too easy. Pity the entire article went right over your head. Run away.... Q: * Do these lies make you feel better about yourself, little troll? I ask because it's obvious that you're badly in need of *something* and hope to find it on Usenet. Bingo. "Sarah" is a guy hiding behind a woman's name to post on usenet. |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
On 8/9/2012 10:37 PM, North Star wrote:
On Aug 9, 10:20 pm, X ` Man dump-on-conservati...@anywhere-you- can.com wrote: On 8/9/12 8:43 PM, WaIIy wrote: On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 20:16:46 -0400, Sarah Ehrett wrote: On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 19:33:45 -0400, X ` Man wrote: On 8/9/12 5:48 PM, Twibil wrote: On Aug 9, 10:46 am, Sarah Ehrett wrote: Thanks for playing. Two posts, and you've been made to look a twonk in both. I'll leave you now. Too easy. Pity the entire article went right over your head. Run away.... Q: Do these lies make you feel better about yourself, little troll? I ask because it's obvious that you're badly in need of *something* and hope to find it on Usenet. Bingo. "Sarah" is a guy hiding behind a woman's name to post on usenet. You've also lied and claimed I'm living in Maryland, Krausie. You and I have a looooong history Harry. Remember the piccys you sent to me of yourself fishing? I no longer have the images but one I recall was of you standing in the stern of what looks to be a deep sea fishing boat. You claimed it was taken off the coast of Florida and you were holding up a fish you'd caught. I guess you thought I'd be interested since I'd mentioned on the fora that I'd caught a sailfish off Palm Beach when I was 10 years old. Guess you've conveniently forgotten that as well as the image of me next to the aforementioned sailfish, hmmmmm? Oh BTW, how's Anthropy? LOL. Quit the crossposting to rec.motorcycles. Also, krause is a known liar, why reply? That's what he wants. Wally...when you stopped posting in rec.boats did you send back the trophy you earned as "the dumbest poster in rec.boats" at that time? -- 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. Wasn't that a 'lifetime achievement award? We'll have to have another one made up so the current crop of dummies have something to work for. And the award for the most loyal turd worshiper goes to none other than Canada's own Donnie White. |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
On 8/9/12 10:37 PM, North Star wrote:
On Aug 9, 10:20 pm, X ` Man dump-on-conservati...@anywhere-you- can.com wrote: On 8/9/12 8:43 PM, WaIIy wrote: On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 20:16:46 -0400, Sarah Ehrett wrote: On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 19:33:45 -0400, X ` Man wrote: On 8/9/12 5:48 PM, Twibil wrote: On Aug 9, 10:46 am, Sarah Ehrett wrote: Thanks for playing. Two posts, and you've been made to look a twonk in both. I'll leave you now. Too easy. Pity the entire article went right over your head. Run away.... Q: Do these lies make you feel better about yourself, little troll? I ask because it's obvious that you're badly in need of *something* and hope to find it on Usenet. Bingo. "Sarah" is a guy hiding behind a woman's name to post on usenet. You've also lied and claimed I'm living in Maryland, Krausie. You and I have a looooong history Harry. Remember the piccys you sent to me of yourself fishing? I no longer have the images but one I recall was of you standing in the stern of what looks to be a deep sea fishing boat. You claimed it was taken off the coast of Florida and you were holding up a fish you'd caught. I guess you thought I'd be interested since I'd mentioned on the fora that I'd caught a sailfish off Palm Beach when I was 10 years old. Guess you've conveniently forgotten that as well as the image of me next to the aforementioned sailfish, hmmmmm? Oh BTW, how's Anthropy? LOL. Quit the crossposting to rec.motorcycles. Also, krause is a known liar, why reply? That's what he wants. Wally...when you stopped posting in rec.boats did you send back the trophy you earned as "the dumbest poster in rec.boats" at that time? -- 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. Wasn't that a 'lifetime achievement award? We'll have to have another one made up so the current crop of dummies have something to work for. IF memory serves, Wally had a buddy in rec.boats who was almost as dumb back then...Wally would fit right in with PsychoScotty, iLoogy, et al. -- 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"
X ` Man wrote:
On 8/9/12 8:16 PM, Sarah Ehrett wrote: On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 19:33:45 -0400, X ` Man wrote: On 8/9/12 5:48 PM, Twibil wrote: On Aug 9, 10:46 am, Sarah Ehrett wrote: Thanks for playing. Two posts, and you've been made to look a twonk in both. I'll leave you now. Too easy. Pity the entire article went right over your head. Run away.... Q: Do these lies make you feel better about yourself, little troll? I ask because it's obvious that you're badly in need of *something* and hope to find it on Usenet. Bingo. "Sarah" is a guy hiding behind a woman's name to post on usenet. You've also lied and claimed I'm living in Maryland, Krausie. You and I have a looooong history Harry. Remember the piccys you sent to me of yourself fishing? I no longer have the images but one I recall was of you standing in the stern of what looks to be a deep sea fishing boat. You claimed it was taken off the coast of Florida and you were holding up a fish you'd caught. I guess you thought I'd be interested since I'd mentioned on the fora that I'd caught a sailfish off Palm Beach when I was 10 years old. Guess you've conveniently forgotten that as well as the image of me next to the aforementioned sailfish, hmmmmm? Oh BTW, how's Anthropy? LOL. Sorry, Sarah ****head, but I never sent you any photos of me standing in the stern of a *deep sea* fishing boat holding up a fish. There were and are no such photos of me holding up a fish in a *deep sea* fishing boat. Nor do I have any recollection of any post mentioning catching a sailfish when the poster was 10 years old. Now, back you go into the septic tank. Bye. You have something to hide or you wouldn't dismiss her so fast. |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
Meyer wrote:
On 8/9/2012 10:37 PM, North Star wrote: On Aug 9, 10:20 pm, X ` Man dump-on-conservati...@anywhere-you- can.com wrote: On 8/9/12 8:43 PM, WaIIy wrote: On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 20:16:46 -0400, Sarah Ehrett wrote: On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 19:33:45 -0400, X ` Man wrote: On 8/9/12 5:48 PM, Twibil wrote: On Aug 9, 10:46 am, Sarah Ehrett wrote: Thanks for playing. Two posts, and you've been made to look a twonk in both. I'll leave you now. Too easy. Pity the entire article went right over your head. Run away.... Q: Do these lies make you feel better about yourself, little troll? I ask because it's obvious that you're badly in need of *something* and hope to find it on Usenet. Bingo. "Sarah" is a guy hiding behind a woman's name to post on usenet. You've also lied and claimed I'm living in Maryland, Krausie. You and I have a looooong history Harry. Remember the piccys you sent to me of yourself fishing? I no longer have the images but one I recall was of you standing in the stern of what looks to be a deep sea fishing boat. You claimed it was taken off the coast of Florida and you were holding up a fish you'd caught. I guess you thought I'd be interested since I'd mentioned on the fora that I'd caught a sailfish off Palm Beach when I was 10 years old. Guess you've conveniently forgotten that as well as the image of me next to the aforementioned sailfish, hmmmmm? Oh BTW, how's Anthropy? LOL. Quit the crossposting to rec.motorcycles. Also, krause is a known liar, why reply? That's what he wants. Wally...when you stopped posting in rec.boats did you send back the trophy you earned as "the dumbest poster in rec.boats" at that time? -- 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. Wasn't that a 'lifetime achievement award? We'll have to have another one made up so the current crop of dummies have something to work for. And the award for the most loyal turd worshiper goes to none other than Canada's own Donnie White. No kidding. He's rather pathetic like a sad puppy looking for his only friend's support. |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
|
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
On 8/8/2012 10:46 AM, Sarah Ehrett wrote:
To some, maybe to most but not to engineers. In the simplest terms Krausie : Motors are powered by electricity. Engines have internal combustion. [... What about other types of motors, such as hydraulic? (Common on some types of agricultural and construction equipment.) -- Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W Post Free or Die! |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
In article , "Tom $herman (-_-)" says...
On 8/8/2012 10:46 AM, Sarah Ehrett wrote: To some, maybe to most but not to engineers. In the simplest terms Krausie : Motors are powered by electricity. Engines have internal combustion. [... What about other types of motors, such as hydraulic? (Common on some types of agricultural and construction equipment.) And I've never heard of the propulsive machinery of a warship referred to as a steam motor, however it has external combustion. |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
On 8/9/2012 9:35 PM, Sarah Ehrett wrote:
On Thu, 9 Aug 2012 17:41:57 -0700 (PDT), Twibil wrote: You don't own a group of any kind so it isn't "your" group. LOL. Goodness but you're an excitable little fellow. It's my "home" group. Apparently you're unfamiliar with the term. Beginning with the 4th hit down.... http://tiny.cc/o3zsiw . You're welcome. Keep defending Fat Krausie. :) Funny thing is, you (S.E.) are arguing with someone who thinks he has ownership of a group, and will relentlessly attack anyone who does not acknowledge this. Best to ignore. -- Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W Post Free or Die! |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
On 8/11/2012 8:50 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article , "Tom $herman (-_-)" says... On 8/8/2012 10:46 AM, Sarah Ehrett wrote: To some, maybe to most but not to engineers. In the simplest terms Krausie : Motors are powered by electricity. Engines have internal combustion. [... What about other types of motors, such as hydraulic? (Common on some types of agricultural and construction equipment.) And I've never heard of the propulsive machinery of a warship referred to as a steam motor, however it has external combustion. Well, some warships have Diesel motors, er engines. :) -- Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W Post Free or Die! |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
On 8/11/2012 9:50 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article , "Tom $herman (-_-)" says... On 8/8/2012 10:46 AM, Sarah Ehrett wrote: To some, maybe to most but not to engineers. In the simplest terms Krausie : Motors are powered by electricity. Engines have internal combustion. [... What about other types of motors, such as hydraulic? (Common on some types of agricultural and construction equipment.) And I've never heard of the propulsive machinery of a warship referred to as a steam motor, however it has external combustion. Another type of propultion which uses motors, generators/alternators, fuel cells, batteries, engines, hydraulics, steam or any combination of the above. But you are not likely to find one under the bonnet of your motor-car http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5OoQadZTPk |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
On Aug 11, 7:39*pm, "Tom $herman (-_-)" ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote: On 8/9/2012 9:35 PM, Sarah Ehrett wrote: On Thu, 9 Aug 2012 17:41:57 -0700 (PDT), Twibil wrote: You don't own a group of any kind so it isn't "your" group. LOL. * Goodness but you're an excitable little fellow. *It's my "home" group. * * Apparently you're unfamiliar with the term. *Beginning with the 4th hit down.... *http://tiny.cc/o3zsiw* . * *You're welcome. Keep defending Fat Krausie. * :) Funny thing is, you (S.E.) are arguing with someone who thinks he has ownership of a group, and will relentlessly attack anyone who does not acknowledge this. *Best to ignore. Heh. The self-deception continues apace. But wait! I'm no doubt a paid government shill whose job is to discredit patriotic American conspiracy kooks like you, so anything I say is automatically suspect at best. Keep up the good work, tovarich, and say hello to Tim McVeigh for us. |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
"Sarah Ehrett" wrote in message ... On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 16:01:33 -0400, X ` Man wrote: On 8/8/12 3:47 PM, The Older Gentleman wrote: Sarah Ehrett wrote: In the simplest terms Krausie : Motors are powered by electricity. Engines have internal combustion. I l*love it* when somebody pretends to be an absolute authority and ****s up on the most basic thing. Here we go. Steam engines. Internal combustion? And you even referred to steam engines later on. It's just the stupid hair-splitting over nonsense that posters with nothing to add engage in to have something to post. Krausie....didn't you claim to have been an etymologist ? I thought the IEEE article would be of particular interest to you. Unless like everything else you write your etymologist claim is just more make believe and lies? I immediately went looking for a new kind of bug tht was powered by a nengine. -- Beav |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
"Sarah Ehrett" wrote in message ... On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 19:33:45 -0400, X ` Man wrote: On 8/9/12 5:48 PM, Twibil wrote: On Aug 9, 10:46 am, Sarah Ehrett wrote: Thanks for playing. Two posts, and you've been made to look a twonk in both. I'll leave you now. Too easy. Pity the entire article went right over your head. Run away.... Q: Do these lies make you feel better about yourself, little troll? I ask because it's obvious that you're badly in need of *something* and hope to find it on Usenet. Bingo. "Sarah" is a guy hiding behind a woman's name to post on usenet. You've also lied and claimed I'm living in Maryland, Krausie. You and I have a looooong history Harry. Remember the piccys you sent to me of yourself fishing? I no longer have the images but one I recall was of you standing in the stern of what looks to be a deep sea fishing boat. I hope to **** it had a motor on the back. -- Beav |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
"Sarah Ehrett" wrote in message ... On Thu, 9 Aug 2012 14:48:53 -0700 (PDT), Twibil wrote: On Aug 9, 10:46 am, Sarah Ehrett wrote: Thanks for playing. Two posts, and you've been made to look a twonk in both. I'll leave you now. Too easy. Pity the entire article went right over your head. Run away.... Q: Do these lies make you feel better about yourself, little troll? I ask because it's obvious that you're badly in need of *something* and hope to find it on Usenet. Krausie brought his off topic political crap into my group. Oooo, "my group". I ****ing love it. Is your middle name Use or Net? -- Beav |
| 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