Engine animations

(The Older Gentleman) spouted the
following in :

Err, ah yes, was it that Norton was originally allowed to Race at a nominal
600cc against the 500cc GP bikes. I can't remember. Enlightem me please
TOG.

 

They're just like 500cc GP bikes, but better screwed together.
[/QUOTE]

Lol, ****.

 

Undergrad? Fucking Hell, I'm sure we covered that for 'O' levels.

Fucking youngsters...don't know you're born. Now, in my day.....

 

Well, the current GCSEs and A-levels are crap.

heh.

 

"Hog" <> spouted the following in

Seems odd to me. All other engines are reckoned by their swept cylinder
volume, not the number of compression rngs on the pistons. The Norton
wankel only has sparkplugs into 2 of the six chambers. Ergo 600cc.
True,the Wankel packs in more power cycles per rev than a four stroke,
but thats good design for you innit

Didn't they used to have races where you could run a stroker of one
capacity, or a four stroke of a higher capacity?

If you want to include the chambers used for induction and transfer of
the fuel air charge to get 1800cc, you'll have to reckon the crankcase
volume of reciprocating strokers in their engine capacity if you are
going to keep a level playng field.

Norton originally reckoned 1200cc more as a marketing decision than any
particularly scientific reckoning of engine capacity. If you are going
to market a bike which is aimed at the 'Fast big Tourer' end of the
market, 1200cc sounds better than 600cc.

 

In the TT, I think. 250cc stinkwheels or 400cc four-strokes.

 

Quite. I certainly learnt about the principle of rocket moters with
conservation of momentum.

Auvache? Is that you?

 

"same way as the rocket", as d pointed out

 

Say, 500c 2strokes or 1000cc 4strokes?

 

Team-UKRM's secret engine?

--
Alan

http://www.ads-training.co.uk
"Kneesliders Sponsored by Cane"
GSX-R1000 , Triumph Thunderbird, ZXR750L2 Racer(gone), GS500,
GHPOTHUF#27
TGF, UKRMFBC#7, Two#24, BOTAFOF#11, YTC#9, GYASB#1. SbS#23.
DFWAG#2, DS#2, DIAABTCOD#20. remove "thisbit" in the reply
http://sportsbike.org (our own endurance team) http://Team-ukrm.com
"Nemo repente fuit turpissimus"

 

I'm just astonished that the jet==rocket thang had passed you by. In
essence it's not so different from a propellor anyway.

 

I can't understand how Champ thought jet engines *did* work, other
than just being rockets without an on-board oxygen supply.

No, though most propellors /appear/ to pull rather than push, IYSWIM.

Actually, there are very few forms of non-wheel-driven vehicle that
don't use a mass reaction engine of some kind. <fx: struggles to
think> Maglev trains...Solar Sails[1]...anything else.

[1] though I suppose in one way these could be considered to be the
ultimate in external combustion reaction-propulsion engines.

 

As I said, I'd never understood them.

 

as soon as I'd hit "send" on that post, it occurred to me that a Solar
Sail isn't really an engine at all. I don't think anything
"wind-driven" counts as an "engine". Something might be
wind-*powered*, but the wind itself is not the engine.

 

I think there is a difference, tho - don't propellors "push" air
against air? Whereas a rocket just throws mass out the back with
enough momentum to push the vehicle forward. I now see this is why
jet engines are required for high altitude, in that there's very
little to 'push' against.

 

Did you see the programme on BBC2 a couple of weeks ago about
the Orion Project?

The basic idea was to drop bombs out the back of a rocket,
exploding them a short distance from the rocket. Some of
the swept up material reaches the rocket, giving it an
impulse to drive it forwards. Obviously the arse end of
the rocket requires a "pusher plate"... Oh, and the bombs
would be atomic.

http://www.angelfire.com/on2/daviddarling/OrionProj.htm

 

propellors use air alone as the reaction mass, as opposed to the
exhaust gas in a jet. The basic idea is exactly the same, though - the
plane is propelled forwards my pushing gas(ses) backwards.

of course they're different in terms of what they use as a reaction
mass, but they're still both reaction-propulsion engines.

and of course there's another altitude ceiling beyond which you need
to fall back from jets to rockets, for the same reason.

 

I didn't see the programme, but I'm aware of the project, and
nuclear-pulse engines in particular. It's *still* a mass reaction
engine though.

Until someone gets the whole UFT thing sorted and we get subspace
engines or some such, this sort of thing is probably the way forward.

Not particularly environmentally friendly, mind...

 

ISTR Airfix making a model of it in the 60s/70s.

 

Bloody greenies.