Actual Rotary Displacement Request

[RICE RACING]

Originally Posted by Barry Bordes

From Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary… displacement\ c: the volume displaced by a piston (as in a pump or engine) in a single stroke; also: the total displaced by all the pistons in an internal combustion engine.

The key phrase being “ in a single stroke”.

Notice that using the dictionary definition of displacement with your “personal convention of a full cycle” to determine displacement of a 4-stroke... the 720º required for the full cycle would incorrectly doubled its displacement.

Barry

"all pistons" = "all faces" apply that one you then will see that all faces and or otherwise "displace" a volume.

The troubling thing in a Wankel that people don't get (even if they dont understand the cycle) is that is has a common housing that is shared across three faces per rotor

Therein lies your path to understanding, rather than looking for an obscure definition in a dictionary

[RICE RACING]

Baz,

Would you only measure 2 pistons in a 6cly 3.9lt for a customer and give it a clean bill of health?

so follows

Would you only measure 2 rotor faces in a 13B and give it a rubber stamp pass BDC style?

You would measure all pistons and report on each.
Mostly everyone inc me and you would measure all rotor faces and report on each.
Why would we do this? if its only using 2 faces and is only 1.3lt in capacity? Surly by Mazda convention and everyone else's then we are mad and we could have saved money by leaving out one apex seal per rotor (potential saving there!) just as we could leave out 4 pistons in the 6cyl and save weight too

PROBLEM: Engines function and displace volume over the operating cycle and total sum of working chambers. This is how all internal combustion engines work. 2 stroke, 4 stroke and low and behold the Wankel too

[Barry Bordes]

Originally Posted by RICE RACING

"all pistons" = "all faces" apply that one you then will see that all faces and or otherwise "displace" a volume.

The troubling thing in a Wankel that people don't get (even if they dont understand the cycle) is that is has a common housing that is shared across three faces per rotor

Therein lies your path to understanding, rather than looking for an obscure definition in a dictionary

Peter,
Maybe it would help if I told you that I agree that a full cycle for the rotor is its complete revolution or three revolutions of the eccentric shaft.
My point is… what does that matter?

In the example of the .357 revolver both views are expressed.
The criminal has two main concerns as he runs from the crime scene.
1- What is the size and velocity of the slug coming at me?
2- How many shots does this guy have before a reload is required?
Both valid concerns… Now let’s say that we add an ammunition belt to supply bullets…. Then the only concern is the size and velocity of the slug. Our engines have continuous belts of ammunition between fuel stops.


Our attempt to make power is done by igniting a specific volume (654cc) which in turn works on a lever. We want to have this happen as often as possible. The best we can do in our case is once each revolution.

Counting in three’s won’t affect anything.

Barry

[RICE RACING]

It has an effect if one chamber (or face) is buggered, Image a S@W 357 mag with a stuffed chamber one will always not work properly, shoot a bad group it's why we count all the parts that make up the 6 shots, just like in our donkey engines.

All the chambers count to make a whole rig that will work well, faces, pistons does not matter, we dont just look at one alone, we look at all parts of the system

We are talking the same things I think

[My5ABaby]

Originally Posted by RICE RACING

It has an effect if one chamber (or face) is buggered, Image a S@W 357 mag with a stuffed chamber one will always not work properly, shoot a bad group it's why we count all the parts that make up the 6 shots, just like in our donkey engines.

All the chambers count to make a whole rig that will work well, faces, pistons does not matter, we dont just look at one alone, we look at all parts of the system

We are talking the same things I think

The totality of the gun (i.e. whether it works, the total chambers, how well it works, if all the chambers are working, etc.) has nothing to do with it's displacement (i.e. caliber). Unless I'm not understanding it, your argument seems to be referencing the engine as a whole in terms of whether it works or not and how you determine that versus how to determine displacement. When measuring the displacement of a piston engine, do we care if one of the cylinders is screwed up or if a valve isn't working?