|
|
I'm not disagreeing at all. :) The only point was that the displacement
is just displacement and all the controversary (much of it in other
places I might add) is centered around trying to find an equilivance to
something else. (And Mazda didn't help by being misleading about it.)
Bob White
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:23:41 -0800 (PST)
Tom <tomtugan@yahoo.com> wrote:
Yes you're right Bob, your statement that 'all the displacement gets
used during one rev of the rotors is the same as what Ed was saying. I didn't carefully follow Ed's very last fix that put that in. On your post I wasn't sure what the point being interjected was and
what is supporting discussion. Was the point: "Displacement doesn't
have anything to do with RPM, it's just how much does the engine
displace!" and do you think that disagrees with what Ed was saying? Or were you even disagreeing at all?
Tom
Bob White <bob@bob-white.com> wrote:
Hi Tom,
As I say, my comment isn't directed at the calculations at all. There
has been much discussion about what the displacement is, and how much
of the rotation to count. Mazda claiming 1.3 L for example.
I stand by my statement about the displacement. That seems to be
exactly the way Ed has used it.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'
--
http://www.bob-white.com
N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 (soon)
|
|