|
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. |
| 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