On 8/4/12 9:41 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 8/4/2012 12:30 PM, Meyer wrote:
On 8/4/2012 12:27 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article om,
says...

On 8/4/2012 11:04 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article om,
says...

On 8/4/2012 9:24 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article m,
says...

On 8/4/2012 9:05 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 8/4/12 9:04 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 8/4/2012 7:59 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 8/3/2012 10:09 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"X ` Man" wrote in message
...

On 8/3/12 5:51 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 8/3/2012 4:47 PM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
lid
says...

David T. Ashley dashley gmail.com wrote:

John Doe wrote:

I'm looking at gas/petrol stabilizers, Sea Foam and
STA-BIL.

On their FAQ page, both of them refer to a "2-stroke"
engine as
a "2-cycle" engine.

Uhg.

It's only semantics, but you would think that those
manufacturers would know the difference between a
"stroke" and a
"cycle".

Per Merriam-Webster...

stroke:
the movement in either direction of a mechanical part
(as a
piston) having a reciprocating motion; also : the
distance of
such movement
cycle:
a course or series of events or operations that recur
regularly and usually lead back to the starting point

"2-stroke" "4-stroke" engine

About 3,270,000 results

"2-cycle" "4-cycle" engine

About 427,000 results (0.48 seconds)

Using "cycle" is not a big deal for casual speakers,
but besides
being less popular, it's semantical nonsense.

I believe that using "4-stroke cycle" is more correct
than
either 4-stroke or 4-cycle. It takes 4 strokes to make
a cycle.

I'm not talking about technical correctness, I'm
referring to
a significant semantical blunder.

What matters is the number of strokes per cycle. The
number of
cycles is irrelevant.

At least you aren't calling them motors.


"like"


Motor is an acceptable synonym for engine.

--------------------------------------------

"Happy Motoring"



Indianapolis MOTOR Speedway Hummm, didn't know they ran
electric
cars there

There sure is a lot you don't know.....

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/4/prweb9433282.htm

http://www.evgrandprix.org/

http://www.indianapolismotorspeedway...entinfo/41451/





Well, I just noticed this is a crossthreaded troll... and you
and harry
are either name shifting or my filters are failing again so I
am gonna'
take a look, but I am not gonna' read your links, cause I
really don't
care what you think... Plonk again...

I've not changed anything, dummy. And those links aren't what *I*
"think", they are links to actual events that have taken place
at Indy,
where YOU said you didn't know they ran electric cars.



Let's not get the weekend off to a bad start by having to watch
Scotty
explode again, eh?


You have 4 choices

A prevent the explosion
B cause the explosion
C watch the explosion
D ignore the explosion

My money is on you choosing B and C

At least you're admitting that Scotty will go insane and explode!


You are incorrect, as usual.
http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/searc...ng&FORM=DTPDIA



"acknowledge truth" Not incorrect at all. You see, YOU said that "the
money is on (harry) choosing B and C." Therefore, you acknowledged
that
Scotty would, indeed explode.

Liar; unless you admit to being incredibly stupid, or easily misled, or
to jumping to wrong conclusions consistantly, or just have difficulty
understanding English.
I am wagering that Harry will chose options B and C based on prior
behavior. Option A is still an available choice, but, knowing Harry,
that would be the last thing he would want. Option D is completely out
of the question for Harry.

All of the options involve Scotty "exploding" period.


Or not. See option A.
Mumble Mumble. I'm done with you.

Like I said, it's only you and loogie that are playing here.... Loog
and Harry are exploding because I have been ignoring them lately. Even
crossposted to another group with a name change to try to bring me in.
So "Capt" Meyer, you, loogie, harry and john can just keep on keepin'
on... LOL!!



Funny ****. Really. And just more of the usual Scotty bull****.

--
I'm a liberal because the militant fundamentalist ignorant
science-denying religious xenophobic corporate oligarchy of modern
Republican conservatism just doesn't work for me or my country.

"Meyer" wrote in message
b.com...
On 8/3/2012 6:39 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 8/3/12 5:51 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 8/3/2012 4:47 PM, BAR wrote:
In article , lid
says...

David T. Ashley dashley gmail.com wrote:

John Doe wrote:

I'm looking at gas/petrol stabilizers, Sea Foam and STA-BIL.

On their FAQ page, both of them refer to a "2-stroke" engine as
a "2-cycle" engine.

Uhg.

It's only semantics, but you would think that those
manufacturers would know the difference between a "stroke" and a
"cycle".

Per Merriam-Webster...

stroke:
the movement in either direction of a mechanical part (as a
piston) having a reciprocating motion; also : the distance of
such movement
cycle:
a course or series of events or operations that recur
regularly and usually lead back to the starting point

"2-stroke" "4-stroke" engine

About 3,270,000 results

"2-cycle" "4-cycle" engine

About 427,000 results (0.48 seconds)

Using "cycle" is not a big deal for casual speakers, but besides
being less popular, it's semantical nonsense.

I believe that using "4-stroke cycle" is more correct than
either 4-stroke or 4-cycle. It takes 4 strokes to make a cycle.

I'm not talking about technical correctness, I'm referring to
a significant semantical blunder.

What matters is the number of strokes per cycle. The number of
cycles is irrelevant.

At least you aren't calling them motors.


"like"


Motor is an acceptable synonym for engine.

Maybe to you it is.

Well I've given up riding motorcycles and started riding enginecycles. Much
better they are too.

--
Beav

"John Doe" wrote in message
...
I'm looking at gas/petrol stabilizers, Sea Foam and STA-BIL.

On their FAQ page, both of them refer to a "2-stroke" engine as a
"2-cycle" engine.

Uhg.

It's only semantics, but you would think that those manufacturers
would know the difference between a "stroke" and a "cycle".

Per Merriam-Webster...

stroke:
the movement in either direction of a mechanical part (as a
piston) having a reciprocating motion; also : the distance of
such movement
cycle:
a course or series of events or operations that recur regularly
and usually lead back to the starting point

"2-stroke" "4-stroke" engine

About 3,270,000 results

"2-cycle" "4-cycle" engine

About 427,000 results (0.48 seconds)

Using "cycle" is not a big deal for casual speakers, but besides
being less popular, it's semantical nonsense.

I see it in quite simple terms.

A 2 stroke engine requires the piston to travel 2 full strokes to complete
the cycle needed to get the gas in and the gas out (induction, compression,
power, exhaust) and be ready to do it all again to continue running.

A 4 stroke requires 4 strokes of the piston to do the same thing.

2 cycle is wrong, 4 cycle is wrong.

--
Beav

"The Older Gentleman" wrote in message
news:1kobrds.4kd42e1hn1jk8N%totallydeadmailbox@yah oo.co.uk...
Meyer wrote:

On 8/4/2012 3:32 PM, Twibil wrote:
On Aug 4, 9:25 am, Meyer wrote:


Thermodynamics is conspicuously missing from descriptions of electric
motors.

Um, so you weren't aware that electric motors get nice and hot while
in use?

Is that because a motor is not an engine?

Nope.

Wasted energy.

Your postings must be positively glowing.

****er:-)

--
Beav

"Tom $herman (-_-)" " wrote in
message ...
On 8/3/2012 12:29 AM, John Doe wrote:
I'm looking at gas/petrol stabilizers, Sea Foam and STA-BIL.

On their FAQ page, both of them refer to a "2-stroke" engine as a
"2-cycle" engine.

Uhg.

It's only semantics, but you would think that those manufacturers
would know the difference between a "stroke" and a "cycle".
[...]

My solution is to call them "2-smokes" and "Otto cycle", respectively.

"Stinkwheels". Any other type of machine/engine/motor is of no consequence,
so a description isn't really needed.

--
Beav

Beav wrote:


"Stinkwheels". Any other type of machine/engine/motor is of no consequence,
so a description isn't really needed.

And if it's had the usual teenage home-grown 'improvements' grafted on,
"stinkwheel with Git Kit".


--
Honda CB400 Four Triumph Street Triple Ducati 800SS
Yamaha 660 Tenere Suzuki GN250, TS250ERx2
So many bikes, so little garage space....
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com

On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 22:53:47 +0100, (The Older Gentleman) wrote:

Meyer wrote:

On 8/4/2012 3:32 PM, Twibil wrote:
On Aug 4, 9:25 am, Meyer wrote:


Thermodynamics is conspicuously missing from descriptions of electric
motors.

Um, so you weren't aware that electric motors get nice and hot while
in use?

Is that because a motor is not an engine?

Nope.

Wasted energy.

Your postings must be positively glowing.

Trade all those bikes in for a nice Moto Guzzi.

In article m,
says...

On 8/4/2012 3:32 PM, Twibil wrote:
On Aug 4, 9:25 am, Meyer wrote:


Thermodynamics is conspicuously missing from descriptions of electric
motors.

Um, so you weren't aware that electric motors get nice and hot while
in use?

Is that because a motor is not an engine?

Nope.

Wasted energy.

So isn't heat generated from a gasoline or diesel motor. Do you think
that all of the heat dissipated from a gas or diesel motor is somehow
used?

In article ocal,
says...

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 11:55:18 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

But most importantly, the piston does not change direction
(reciprocate).]

Well, actually it does. Look carefully at an animation of a wankel in
operation and you'll find that the rotor moves both vertically and
horizontally over a considerable distance.

Wankels are not turbines.

===

I understand your point but it seems intuitive that there is probably
less energy lost to overcoming reciprocating mass (pistons).

I'd have to agree. Change in direction is always a mechanical energy
loss.

The Wankel rotor reciprocates and is more massive than most pistons so
this saving is imaginary.

A Wankel rotor does NOT change direction.

In article , says...

On 8/4/2012 12:30 PM, Meyer wrote:
On 8/4/2012 12:27 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article om,
says...

On 8/4/2012 11:04 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article om,
says...

On 8/4/2012 9:24 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article m,
says...

On 8/4/2012 9:05 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 8/4/12 9:04 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 8/4/2012 7:59 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 8/3/2012 10:09 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"X ` Man" wrote in message
...

On 8/3/12 5:51 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 8/3/2012 4:47 PM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
lid
says...

David T. Ashley dashley gmail.com wrote:

John Doe wrote:

I'm looking at gas/petrol stabilizers, Sea Foam and
STA-BIL.

On their FAQ page, both of them refer to a "2-stroke"
engine as
a "2-cycle" engine.

Uhg.

It's only semantics, but you would think that those
manufacturers would know the difference between a
"stroke" and a
"cycle".

Per Merriam-Webster...

stroke:
the movement in either direction of a mechanical part
(as a
piston) having a reciprocating motion; also : the
distance of
such movement
cycle:
a course or series of events or operations that recur
regularly and usually lead back to the starting point

"2-stroke" "4-stroke" engine

About 3,270,000 results

"2-cycle" "4-cycle" engine

About 427,000 results (0.48 seconds)

Using "cycle" is not a big deal for casual speakers,
but besides
being less popular, it's semantical nonsense.

I believe that using "4-stroke cycle" is more correct than
either 4-stroke or 4-cycle. It takes 4 strokes to make
a cycle.

I'm not talking about technical correctness, I'm
referring to
a significant semantical blunder.

What matters is the number of strokes per cycle. The
number of
cycles is irrelevant.

At least you aren't calling them motors.


"like"


Motor is an acceptable synonym for engine.

--------------------------------------------

"Happy Motoring"



Indianapolis MOTOR Speedway Hummm, didn't know they ran
electric
cars there

There sure is a lot you don't know.....

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/4/prweb9433282.htm

http://www.evgrandprix.org/

http://www.indianapolismotorspeedway...entinfo/41451/




Well, I just noticed this is a crossthreaded troll... and you
and harry
are either name shifting or my filters are failing again so I
am gonna'
take a look, but I am not gonna' read your links, cause I
really don't
care what you think... Plonk again...

I've not changed anything, dummy. And those links aren't what *I*
"think", they are links to actual events that have taken place
at Indy,
where YOU said you didn't know they ran electric cars.



Let's not get the weekend off to a bad start by having to watch
Scotty
explode again, eh?


You have 4 choices

A prevent the explosion
B cause the explosion
C watch the explosion
D ignore the explosion

My money is on you choosing B and C

At least you're admitting that Scotty will go insane and explode!


You are incorrect, as usual.
http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/searc...ng&FORM=DTPDIA


"acknowledge truth" Not incorrect at all. You see, YOU said that "the
money is on (harry) choosing B and C." Therefore, you acknowledged that
Scotty would, indeed explode.

Liar; unless you admit to being incredibly stupid, or easily misled, or
to jumping to wrong conclusions consistantly, or just have difficulty
understanding English.
I am wagering that Harry will chose options B and C based on prior
behavior. Option A is still an available choice, but, knowing Harry,
that would be the last thing he would want. Option D is completely out
of the question for Harry.

All of the options involve Scotty "exploding" period.


Or not. See option A.
Mumble Mumble. I'm done with you.

Like I said, it's only you and loogie that are playing here.... Loog
and Harry are exploding because I have been ignoring them lately. Even
crossposted to another group with a name change to try to bring me in.
So "Capt" Meyer, you, loogie, harry and john can just keep on keepin'
on... LOL!!

Uh, YOU crossposted, and don't even know you did, fool. I just think
it's so funny that you, John, and Don are the same mentality thinking
I'm someone I'm not!