Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

You know what the funny thing is about the writing in bold. That's exactly what it is. Because it's only one part of the engine that's different to the rest. And you want to total it into some aggregated displacement? When total displacement figures assume that displacement is equally shared amongst chambers?

Even if I'm wrong about my averaging, your totalling assumes that the 4 litre is evenly divided amongst combustion chambers...it's not the case. If one chamber has different displacement to the rest then you need to state so...and only for that cycle will it be a 1.4 litre engine...for the other cycles it will be a 1.3 litre engine. This is such a bad hypothetical example anyway, because balanced engines don't work this way.

I don't understand how you think that compressing air in 2 different ways is so similar that it's comparable? What's your point? For my argument the key words are "different ways". How many spark plugs there are does mean something. If you have 0 spark plugs in an engine it won't run, if you have 3 spark plugs in only 3 chambers of a 6 cylinder engine, it will run as a 3 cylinder engine. If you have spark plugs in all cylinders, it will run as a 6 cylinder engine. How can you say that number of spark plugs and where they are located does not affect it? Nothing wrong with looking at these finer details mate, this is afterall, how an engine works...it's not a simple machine, they are complex.

So I suppose my 2.5L engine should change what it is advertised as depending on what point the pistons are at? Well if that's the case, it will NEVER be 2.5L

Total displacement doesn't assume anything. It's how much air moves through the engine in total. That's what total means.

Again, not assuming anything. If an engine moves 4L of air, then it's a 4L engine. Why would i have to state if one chamber had different displacement? What if I didn't know, WHAT IF I JUST WANTED TO ASSUME MY CUSTOMERS ALREADY KNEW THIS??? I though that's what you were all about... assumptions. I still honestly believe your idea of a 'cycle' is inherrently flawed. A cycle can involve a smaller cycle, but for a true cycle, it should not differ from the previous, or the next cycle, which yours does. My cycle incorporates your 3 cycles that you mentioned. So while I've done one cycle, and could do a billion more that are EXACTLY THE SAME, you've done 3, all of which are different. That's hardly a cycle.

For simplicities sake, I was focussing on one chamber. As long as it has one, it could have 5 more and make little to no difference. Again, just talking about a single chamber... stay with me.

And to be honest, these are pretty simple machines. Whatever screen you're looking at RIGHT NOW is a much more complicated machine then these engines.

here is a better example

you can keep your 1.3 Rotor

we will change all Piston engines to the following

2 Stroke 2 litre = 1 litre

4 stroke 2 litre = 0.5 litres

6 stroke 2 litre = 0.3 litres

you see piston engines per cyclinder uses less than a rotor......!

Incorrect. That would be:

2 stroke 2 litre = 2L

4 stroke 2 litre = 1L

6 stroke 2 litre = 0.67L

Nah you've lost me already mate, you've gone off on some sort of tangent I can't fathom...when did I ever say Mazda assumed their customers knew stuff? I'm pretty sure like most manufacturers, if anything they assume their customers don't know shit. But they don't write the figures down for all those customers, they write them down for the customers who do know.

Engine? Simple machine? Go and invent an internal combustion engine that doesn't use pistons and see how far you get mate. You guys are wagering your logic against some of the best engineers in the world...nice.

I apologise I missed the part of your example where all 100 chambers had spark plugs in all of them...so if they are hypothetically igniting at the same time then yes it's a 130L engine. Remember, I said if hypothetically a 13B rotary could ignite all chambers at once then what would you call the engine? 3.9 litres or 11.7 litres?

Tell me, and here's stretching the limits of hypothetical...but if a rotor had 1000 faces and just as many chambers but only spark plugs in one of those chambers...would it be a 1300 litre engine or a 1.3 litre? Pretty horrible performance for a 1300 litre engine LOL, given it can only ignite ONE CHAMBER AT A TIME.

That's fantastic, your example has actually further proved my point that a rotary only has a valid 1.3 litres of combustible displacement and it's own cycle.

Yes, but it ignites that chamber 1000 times per cycle. so 1300L it is!

Which I didn't take into account on my 130L rotary aircraft engine hypothesis :cool: so that would be like... carry the one... 13 000Ls

big engines... I f**ked up.

Hey birds, just one more thing before the weekend...

If you were to do a compression test on a rotary, how many degrees would you turn the E shaft? If it's only got 2 ignition chambers it should only need 360 degrees yeah? That's 1 cycle yeah?? Cause a compression test only requires one cycle of the engine, any more and you're repeating yourself... and we all hate that right?

:cool:

If you were to do a compression test on a rotary

I'm half-expecting the response to be, "You can't do compression tests on rotaries because they're so different. They don't compress air, they rotarise it."

I'm half-expecting the response to be, "You can't do compression tests on rotaries because they're so different. They don't compress air, they rotarise it."

I dead set near wet myself reading that LOL

Hey birds, just one more thing before the weekend...

If you were to do a compression test on a rotary, how many degrees would you turn the E shaft? If it's only got 2 ignition chambers it should only need 360 degrees yeah? That's 1 cycle yeah?? Cause a compression test only requires one cycle of the engine, any more and you're repeating yourself... and we all hate that right?

:P

And my last post before my weekend celebrations...damn Sydneyites getting Monday off...

Dry or wet test? :)

I don't know how to compression test a rotary but I assume it is done via the spark plug recess where compression is at its peak...in which case you would need to turn the eccentric shaft 3 times for a total of 1080 degrees because due to there only being one combustion chamber in the rotor housing, you can only measure the compression of each rotor face using this chamber. Therefore each face of the rotor must face this one combustion chamber at some point. Were it a 3.9 litre engine I'm sure you could check compression from each individual chamber via each chamber's spark plug recess :)

Or is that two turns of the eccentric shaft...because this would be enough to check all apex seals using only two faces of the rotor, as is a unique ability of this engine? :)

It's never going to end mate; for every answer you guys throw towards us we have something to answer it back and vice versa. And the truth is, everyone to an extent is making valid points here...which is why this argument has continued on for so long. Believe what you guys want, I'm sticking with my theories about this engine and I'll respectfully agree to disagree with you on the basis that everyone here has demonstrated a nice in-depth analysis on the workings of these engines...without coming to universally agreeable conclusions. I myself am pretty happy to have come this far given I have no formal training/education in mechanics or physics and 5 years ago I couldn't point you to a throttle body to save myself (though I did know internal combustion from an early age - thank you nerdy computer games).

Hey birds, just one more thing before the weekend...

If you were to do a compression test on a rotary, how many degrees would you turn the E shaft? If it's only got 2 ignition chambers it should only need 360 degrees yeah? That's 1 cycle yeah?? Cause a compression test only requires one cycle of the engine, any more and you're repeating yourself... and we all hate that right?

:P

1080 degrees as there are 6 pulses to measure. We all know that. I see what you did there. :)

Nice points with your combustion chamber comments Birds :)

IT WAS MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

I was severely drunk and I thought a V8 supercar driver's opinion could be valuable to the discussion. Dean Canto's response: NFI

Sorry guys it seemed like a good idea at the time LOL.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Thanks Dose.....    I appreciate it!!
    • I'll probably be putting the shit box back on the dyno again soon, I want to dial in the closed loop boost control properly. I'll have a camera facing the car/motor for fun too. Just note, there are essentially 3x 10AN inlets going into the catch can and 1x going back to the intake pipe. Most of the time the catch can "return" to the sump actually is the crank case breather, pushing air out.
    • I have the R3C with a Nismo slave and by no means does it behave like a stocker, it ain’t THAT bad. On take off just give a bit more throttle than you would say a coppermix and it’s fine. It will not slip though.   
    • Okay. Final round of testing done. Got a friend to hook up a fancy scanner to the car and we also ran some compression and leakdown tests, she is healthy.  The MAF was definitely the culprit. So for future reference anyone with similar issues that find this thread. I suggest the following steps, in order of affordability:   Check your spark plugs for any fouling, replace plugs if they are bad or re adjust the gaps making it narrower (0.8mm would be good). Check every coil's resistance with a multimeter. It can be done by probing the IB and G pins on the coil pack. Resistance should be around 1.4 (+/- 0.1) Ohms Check the MAF. If you have Nissan connect or a good scanner with the 14 adapter it should allow you to see the voltage on the MAF reading should be around 1.1 - 1.2V when car is idling. But if you don't, buy a new MAF from Amazon and test, then return it. (For instance, I got a Chinese one for $40 that was reporting 1.3v on idle). If you still have scanner, you can run tests on the injectors to see if they are working, just remember to unplug the fuel pump fuse/relay and have no pressure on the line. Then listen for the noises that the injectors make. Clean/replace injectors as needed. Once you find the issue and fix, order thousands of dollars worth of OEM parts to refresh unrelated things (Optional)   PS: Thanks to the absolute legends of this forum for the responses and help to someone that went a bit over their head. (me)
    • Ha ha ha, so they stopped the bearings spinning on the one you want, but then decided the crank hub should slip instead 😛   Stick to RB, at least you can work on it yourself. And now it doesn't smell of vapour   Also I still believe there's a chance your new flap doesn't "pop", as even though the engine might breath hard, it has a direct path with no restriction to the inlet, which when on boost should pull a bit of suction for you. If you do get pressure in the catch can id be very intrigued. Time to put a boost gauge on it, and a session at the track, then solid cover your vent and do another session
×
×
  • Create New...