[calex59]

Au contrair, math does lie, quite often. You can't have displacement bigger then the physical size of the cylinders length and bore, but you can increase the horse power above the size of the displacement. No matter how you spin it, the displacement doesn't get bigger, it may act like an engine of a larger displacement but the displacement is what it is. Measure the engine bore and stroke that is the displacement, you can't fit 100 lbs of potatoes into a 10 lb sack, and you can't make a 2.4 liter engine into an 850 CI displacement.

What is happening is double talk and sleight of hand, not a real displacement.

[ovrtaxt]

Do I have to go through the explanation? You can look it up on the links I've posted. The piston heads create the top and bottom of the chamber. As the machine rotates, the relative position changes, thus the full capacity of the cylinders is reached by a factor of 16 (I think) for every revolution. (And I'm only counting the firing strokes.) Do the math, 850 ci of firing chamber displacement is what you get.

[labette]

Instead of figuring the volume of a cylinder, adjust your view slightly.

Try figuring the volume of air pumped per revolution. You'll get it.

[Candor7]

What is happening is double talk and sleight of hand, not a real displacement.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Liberals are not limited by Newtonian physics. (LOL) What they are saying is that there is a displacement multiplier through rotation. That cannot be assumed, as you say.

A displacent multiplier effect depends on so many variables that it cannot be assumed as you say. It rotates fine using compressed air but what about the lubrication problem, for example, that would be necessary to solve prior to assuming that the displacement multiplier effect could be assumed?

You are right about the displacement. It is too early in the engines development to assume a displacement multiplier.

Until it fires and rotates at assumed rates under power, no one can assume a displacement multiplier effect that results in the equivalent of 850 cu. in, the proven displacement is as you say, 2.4 liters.

It is this double talk which makes the presentation look hokey.

Having said that, they may be on the right track, but they must overcome the lubrication,meatlurgical, cooling problems associated with such a small engine mass generating such predicted energy. It may require 500 gallons of coolent and a radiator that is over 4 by 8 feet in surface area, the size of a sheet of plywood with a four inch depth.

The cooling challenge of such a little beasty makes it unlikely ever to be successful in an automobile. It might eventually make a good marine engine though, if the water pump can cycle enough water through the cooling jacket, which would have to surround the entire combustion chamber.