|
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:05 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com