Talk:Rotary engine (disambiguation)

message: I have removed most of the text from this page, as such material does not belong on a disambiguation page. Much of it could be merged to one of the articles this page points to. Andrewa 14:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: excise

message: For clarity, I am removing the bullet from the fourth paragraph in the history section starting with "Another advantage, not realized at first"
In the history section, it says Balzer was interested "for two main reasons:" and then lists 3 bullet points.  The third point is described as an "advantage, not realized at first", making it seperate from the reasons Belzer was first interested in the design.
This is relating to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_engine
The discussion link on that page redirects to the disambiguation page.  I'm not sure how to get to the discussion page for that article.
216.24.148.2 02:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More to the point, I'm not sure this makes any difference anyway. The reality is there is a big bang in the cylinder head, and a big bang is a big bang no matter what part is moving. That stress is getting transmitted to the crankshaft whether or not its turning. Basically I don't see the claimed advantage, and unless someone can point it out, I think this should be removed. Maury 00:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rotary engine page 

message: The next major advance in the design was Louis and Laurent Seguin's Gnome series from 1908. Believed to have been inspired by the American Adams-Farwell automobile's rotary engine concept,
Actually the original single-cylinder design was licensed from Oberrusel firm around the turn of the century. It was years before they turned it into a rotary. It's possible they turned it into a rotary for the reasons noted here, but I'd like to see a ref on that please.
Maury 00:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gnome origin 

message: I would like to kindly point out that I have not read this article, only breifly scanned it. The reason for this is that I would like to point out that all the information contained within this article relates to a 'Radial' engine and not a 'Rotary' engine, and therefore is not correct in my eyes.
The concepts of the two engines are totally different. A radial engine uses conventional pistons to compress the air fuel mixture and therefore create a power stroke to the crank, differeing only slightly from a conventional Otto Cycle Engine. The difference being (and I am sure you can find out in the article) is that a 'Radial' engine has only one fixed piston (connected directlt to the crank), with the other pistons connecting to that fixed piston.
A 'Rotary' engine on the other hand does not comply with the Otto Cycle, it uses triangular shaped pistons which osolate in circular (rotary) motion. They are more efficient than conventional piston engines because they do not have to stop at the top or bottom of the stroke.
:Thanks, but note the difference between the radial engine and the somewhat similar WWI vintage rotary aircraft engine, as detailed in the relevant articles. Gzuckier 15:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rotary Engine - Wrong