|
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
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! |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
On 8/4/2012 9:17 AM, Meyer wrote:
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 You and John have been the only ones playing with krause and loogie lately in case you haven't noticed... I am busy with my kid, we have two weeks and she just got the practice bike yesterday. The race bike is still on the bench and the gym is waiting.. Soooo, troll on Capt Meyer... LOL! |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
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 |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
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). |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
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. I wonder if they ever tried to make a diesel Wankle? |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
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. |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
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. I wonder if they ever tried to make a diesel Wankle? They did. http://www.bargerltd.com/wankel_history.htm |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
|
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:19 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com