Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

short of writing the facts down on a wooden stake and literally bashing them into your heads with a hammer, I don't think that there is any other way that Gary is going to be able to get the facts into some of your very thick skulls :D

One thing that I really did learn from this thread is how much of a dead set idiot you are.

Are you sure you don't drive a Holden Commodore with a Southern Cross sticker in the back while you wear a straight edged brim hat tilted slightly to the side?

Besides proving my point by being an idiot, what is it that you are trying to achieve by posting the replies you're doing in the thread?

One thing that I really did learn from this thread is how much of a dead set idiot you are.

Are you sure you don't drive a Holden Commodore with a Southern Cross sticker in the back while you wear a straight edged brim hat tilted slightly to the side?

Besides proving my point by being an idiot, what is it that you are trying to achieve by posting the replies you're doing in the thread?

I don't think he even understands the concepts being discussed. Trolling is about all there is to it.

Judging by your off topic replies, once of which is a feeble attempt at a personal attack ([200] that is one of the most pathetic insults I've ever read on SAU), it is in fact the two of you, who are trolling.

I'm merely saying that some people should re read the facts which have been reiterated again and again in the previous 40 odd pages, but are seemingly immune to changing their POV on a particular subject.

I was expecting a reply something along those lines, absolutely pathetic.

Maybe one day you will achieve something in your life and your parents will no longer regret that you weren't just a cum stain on the bed sheets.

LOL.

well once the trolls and continual nay sayers accept the fact that a 13B actually flows 3.9L and revs to 3000RPM before the eccentric shaft, then the thread is finished! until then the debate continues!

What you call fact I say subjective opinion...the length of this thread is evidence of that. But really, shut up man. The debate finished a long time ago...we all got sick of it, even the most argumentative of us. You had your chance for input back then, of which I didn't see much besides you saying who is right and who is wrong. Why try to reignite the fire when the thread is long enough as is? It sure sounds like trolling to me.

well once the trolls and continual nay sayers accept the fact that a 13B actually flows 3.9L and revs to 3000RPM before the eccentric shaft, then the thread is finished! until then the debate continues!

Rotor spins at 3000RPM = Yes, no body argues that and was settled a very long time ago.

Flows 3.9 litres...? = It sucks and spits out 3.9l every revolution of the rotory but only spits out 1.3l every combustion cycle

well once the trolls and continual nay sayers accept the fact that a 13B actually flows 3.9L and revs to 3000RPM before the eccentric shaft, then the thread is finished! until then the debate continues!

I'll ignore the fact that there are mistakes and say yes, but that is but part of the story. A part which conveniently sets out to discredit the rotary (which is already incredibly flawed anyway).

Everything is relevant to time, everything. The position above totally ignores the time equalising crank/e-shaft and the notion of relative.

This is as smart as quoting torque and not power. Or assuming house prices rise indefinitely because they are high now. Assuming your car is full of petrol so it doesn't need any more again. That not being hungry now means you are okay forever.

Ignoring the arguments of displacement and capacity, the above position ignores time and relatives and doesn't get close to describing how the engine works at a critical point - output. Therefore any conclusions drawn from it are flawed.

It is you who needs to read the thread and understand it.

I have read this entire thread, start to finish, and gary's logic makes more sense than any of yours. To me the simplest way of putting it is that: if a rotary engine does not in fact flow such large amounts of air, then how on earth can they spool such big turbos with ease?

There are 4 seasons to a year, the earth revolves around the sun, humans are mammals, rotaries: revolve 3000rpm, pump out 3.9litres and are 2 stroke. These are all facts. Accept it.

There is nothing magical about a rotary. It does not use any state of the art alien technology. It's combustion technique is unique but by no means state of the art. The fuel it uses is just normal fuel, not any special nuclear fuels. So why in the hell can it produce that much power and use that much fuel if it only pumps 1.3litres? How can it spin a massive T01000000 turbo charger with just 1.3 litres? Use your common sense and logical reasoning people!!!

Mr Skyline Man - i will repost something just for you.

Let’s sum this up in a simple chart to visually explain how this works:

2 stroke engine (up, down) – 1 complete crankshaft revolution.

4 stroke engine (up, down, up, down) – 2 complete crankshaft revolutions.

6 stroke (rotary) engine (up, down, up, down, up, down) – 3 complete crankshaft (eccentric shaft) revolutions.

If its a 2 stroke engine then it only expells 1.3l. If its a 3.9l then its a 6 stroke. So one theory will cancel out the other, its either 2 stroke 1.3l or a 3.9l 6 stroke. As it is quite obvious that its not logical for it to be a 6 stroke and its perfectly plausable to be a 2 stroke then it has to be a 1.3l. If you want to look at it from the rotor's perspective rather than the e-shaft then you need to think of one rotor being one piston that is able to produce 3 operations at once and able to complete three combustion cylces in one rotor revolution.

Don't waste your time guys, you're only posting information that's already in this thread. And they're only asking questions that have already been asked in this thread. All this does is add to the length of it. It doesn't help that they have read the thread something like this:

utter crap

utter crap

utter crap

utter crap

GARY'S POST

utter crap

utter crap

utter crap

GARY's POST

utter crap

utter crap

I have read this entire thread, start to finish, and gary's logic makes more sense than any of yours. To me the simplest way of putting it is that: if a rotary engine does not in fact flow such large amounts of air, then how on earth can they spool such big turbos with ease?

Mate, there is no 'logic'. There is fact and there is not.

What is your definition of large? It is a totally subject term! The same size as a 2.6L piston engines in a similar fashion? For a 13B? Yes, exactly. Albeit (only) slightly better due to heat. RB26 single turbos can be basically applied to 13Bs. Think T04Z, T51R (extreme) or GT35R!

Many people are still ignoring relatives and time equilisers and only ending up confused (yet arguing based on it 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

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...