|
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
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 realize this might rub some Sea Foam or STA-BIL fan boys the wrong way, but oh well. |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
On 8/3/2012 1:29 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". 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. In bikes we refer to 2t and 4t.... |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
On 8/3/2012 7:05 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 8/3/2012 1:29 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". 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. In bikes we refer to 2t and 4t.... Ooops, thought I was still in the other group.. This is the bikes, oooops... |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
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 |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
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. -- Until you get to Wankel engines, in which case I don't think there is anything stroking. DTA |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
|
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
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? |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
|
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
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. -- 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 8/3/2012 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. |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
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. WTF? Another frekin' name shift? |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
On 8/3/12 7:23 PM, JustWait wrote:
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. WTF? Another frekin' name shift? Still X ` Man, less than **** for brains. -- 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"
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. Do you have one or two diesel motors in your imaginary boat? |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
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. -- Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W Post Free or Die! |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
"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" |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
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) |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
Congratulations, it's a troll...
BAR screw you.com wrote: Path: eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!border3.nntp.dca.giga news.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.gig anews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.gigane ws.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 15:47:54 -0500 From: BAR screw you.com Newsgroups: rec.boats,rec.motorcycles,rec.motorcycles.dirt Subject: OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke" Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 16:47:20 -0400 Message-ID: MPG.2a8602e6d8e97036ed5 news.giganews.com References: jvfnkl$n92$1 dont-email.me 5g4o189ive74k0c8lf1bck738sek04n50v 4ax.com jvh7bb$vfs$1 dont-email.me MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: MicroPlanet-Gravity/3.0.4 Lines: 50 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-CGl+q0o050vuNscYgphEEfuvUz8aqP06/uNTs6GsfxjoeXKa97ad8pR5Gv6cq5FCKY1i8T/SL5DHfQp!eOW6hmfuEqRykiscZVQIMgpEOn8Ie4ksN4cNucDot BGe2TLHTaiYXEFVEp4yoXbL3Lt+ X-Complaints-To: abuse giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 X-Original-Bytes: 2675 Xref: mx04.eternal-september.org rec.boats:210015 rec.motorcycles:99518 rec.motorcycles.dirt:18767 In article jvh7bb$vfs$1 dont-email.me, jdoe usenetlove.invalid says... David T. Ashley dashley gmail.com wrote: John Doe jdoe usenetlove.invalid wrote: I'm looking at gas/petrol stabilizers, Sea Foam and STA-BIL. On their FAQ page, both of them refer to a "2-stroke" engine as a "2-cycle" engine. Uhg. It's only semantics, but you would think that those manufacturers would know the difference between a "stroke" and a "cycle". Per Merriam-Webster... stroke: the movement in either direction of a mechanical part (as a piston) having a reciprocating motion; also : the distance of such movement cycle: a course or series of events or operations that recur regularly and usually lead back to the starting point "2-stroke" "4-stroke" engine About 3,270,000 results "2-cycle" "4-cycle" engine About 427,000 results (0.48 seconds) Using "cycle" is not a big deal for casual speakers, but besides being less popular, it's semantical nonsense. I believe that using "4-stroke cycle" is more correct than either 4-stroke or 4-cycle. It takes 4 strokes to make a cycle. I'm not talking about technical correctness, I'm referring to a significant semantical blunder. What matters is the number of strokes per cycle. The number of cycles is irrelevant. At least you aren't calling them motors. |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
On 8/3/2012 11:52 PM, John Doe wrote:
Congratulations, it's a troll... BAR screw you.com wrote: Path: eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!border3.nntp.dca.giga news.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.gig anews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.gigane ws.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 15:47:54 -0500 From: BAR screw you.com Newsgroups: rec.boats,rec.motorcycles,rec.motorcycles.dirt Subject: OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke" Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 16:47:20 -0400 Message-ID: MPG.2a8602e6d8e97036ed5 news.giganews.com References: jvfnkl$n92$1 dont-email.me 5g4o189ive74k0c8lf1bck738sek04n50v 4ax.com jvh7bb$vfs$1 dont-email.me MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: MicroPlanet-Gravity/3.0.4 Lines: 50 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-CGl+q0o050vuNscYgphEEfuvUz8aqP06/uNTs6GsfxjoeXKa97ad8pR5Gv6cq5FCKY1i8T/SL5DHfQp!eOW6hmfuEqRykiscZVQIMgpEOn8Ie4ksN4cNucDot BGe2TLHTaiYXEFVEp4yoXbL3Lt+ X-Complaints-To: abuse giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 X-Original-Bytes: 2675 Xref: mx04.eternal-september.org rec.boats:210015 rec.motorcycles:99518 rec.motorcycles.dirt:18767 In article jvh7bb$vfs$1 dont-email.me, jdoe usenetlove.invalid says... David T. Ashley dashley gmail.com wrote: John Doe jdoe usenetlove.invalid 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. Yeah, finally saw that. He must be ****ed that nobody is listening to him rant on...:) |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
JustWait wrote in :
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) http://americansolarchallenge.org/about/fsgp/fsgp-2011/ |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
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. |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
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. |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
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/ |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
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... |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
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. -- 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"
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. |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
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? -- 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"
J. Clarke wrote:
I think you're going to make little progress convincing motorcyclists that the thing that powers their motorcycles is not a motor. G Nicely put. -- Kawasaki GTR1000 Honda CB750 Four, 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 8/4/2012 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. |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
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 |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
On 8/4/2012 9:09 AM, 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. LOL! But still, this is a crossthreaded troll... |
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 06:20 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com