http://www.nsxprime.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=32434&d=1174340068

rotary theory

My thermodynamics professor seems to think they're a novelty, too.

turbine engines sure aren't

the basic concept is sound: conversion of combustion energy directly to rotational energy; eliminating pistons, camsahfts, connecting rods, etc

so batman (as in bruce wayne) had it right all along. lol.

turbine engines sure aren't

the basic concept is sound: conversion of combustion energy directly to rotational energy; eliminating pistons, camsahfts, connecting rods, etc


Where did Turbine engines come into play in this thread? And your wrong, a turbine engine does not turn combustion energy into rotational energy, However A Turboprop, turboshaft, and turbofan engines DO.

i think i made that on rx7 club in a thread with a website that let you add pictures and a caption.

Where did you fond that.

here, its on page 3.

http://www.rx7club.com/showthread.php?t=500432&page=4&pp=15&highlight=omgwtfdriftguy

get a clue

http://travel.howstuffworks.com/turbine3.htm

youre a complete moron

he just got done telling you that a turboSHAFT engine does what you claimed, but a turbojet engine doesnt. and to prove your case, you produce a link that shows what a turboSHAFT engine does??

you, marky, are absolutely clueless......thanks for owning yourself.

reading > you, stump chump

Hey skydivr...

Guess what?

i dunno--what, you have a big head, and little arms?

he's on ignore!! FOREVER!!

ahhhhhhhhh....

:bigthumb:

which explains the PMs marky sends...what a fucking moron

AHAHAHAHAHAHA!


So hes Going to tell a powerplant (engines) licenced aviation maint technician to get a clue about a common type of airplane engine, what a retard.

i dunno--what, you have a big head, and little arms?
Guess what?

why is your statement wrong? Because a Turbojet engine, creates thrust and only thrust. A turboshaft, a Turboprop, and a turbofan engine creates rotation thru combustion.

ALSO, the proof you have depicts an AXIAL flow engine. Which creates thrust and only thrust. While centifugal engines create small amounts of thrust (Sometimes) and rotational force.


OH yeah, and IF you are under the impression that the compressor is what makes it go, similar to the way a prop works, you mistaken. I turbine engine creates thrust using newtons 3rd law, the escaping exaust is the action, and the forward motion is the reaction.

so when someone uses the term "turbine engine". specifically a "gas turbine engine", that automatically means "turbojet"?

and I still don't see how my original statement "conversion of combustion energy directly to rotational energy" is wrong, referring to a gas turbine engine


Generally, unknowledgable People often only know of Turbojet engines and refer to them as turbine engines. So, yes turbojet engines are refered to as turbine engines.

People knowledgable on the subject tend to refer to turbojet as turbine, and refer to turboshaft/prop/fan as turboshaft/prop/fan. And again, yes, Turbojet engines are generally refered to as turbine engines (Im sure that this isnt going to make sense to anybody)

Your statement about turbine engines was a general statement, refering to turbine engines in general.

And your statement "conversion of combustion energy directly to rotational energy" is false because specifically The combustion energy converts directly to pressue and exaust velocity which turns the turbines. The turbines turn the prop, fan, generators, compressors, etc.

let's drop it


Yes lets, weve had our fun.

Did anyone else notice that "this one was for jimlab" but he never showed up?

From a mechanical standpoint, the rotary is definitely cool. Problem is, there's a whole of surface area inside of one to absorb heat that could have gone into the gases which drive the motion.

Piston engines will always be superior from a thermal efficiency standpoint because of this.

yes, rotaries are thermally inefficient. Has to do with how the flame is carried over such a broad 'sweep'. Still cool engines though.

edit: and in this specific case, I have to concede Mark is correct. 'Turbine engine' can be correctly used to generally refer to any engine that converts kinetic energy (e.g. expanding gasses) into mechanical rotation - and in this broad definition rotaries could be classed as 'turbine engines'. A turbojet engine, specifically, uses the mechanical rotation to compress the gasses and create thrust - but Mark didn't say turbojet.

yes, rotaries are thermally inefficient. Has to do with how the flame is carried over such a broad 'sweep'. Still cool engines though.

edit: and in this specific case, I have to concede Mark is correct. 'Turbine engine' can be correctly used to generally refer to any engine that converts kinetic energy (e.g. expanding gasses) into mechanical rotation - and in this broad definition rotaries could be classed as 'turbine engines'. A turbojet engine, specifically, uses the mechanical rotation to compress the gasses and create thrust - but Mark didn't say turbojet.

well, when you look at the other guy's post in detail, you see that mark wasnt correct:

Where did Turbine engines come into play in this thread? And your wrong, a turbine engine does not turn combustion energy into rotational energy, However A Turboprop, turboshaft, and turbofan engines DO.

mazdated clearly explained his point, and then marky counters with a link that....confirms ted's statement....

Actually, Jon, mazdated's explanation is a bit off.

As I said, engines that turn the kinetic motion of fluids, such as expanding gasses, into rotational energy can be called turbine engines. And 'turbine engine' is the term Mark used in his post which mazdated was allegedly countering.

And you know I don't normally side with Three-apples ;)

Not trying to get into another debate but something that turns kinetic energy such as fluids or gasses into rotational energy I think would be called a "turbine" rather than a "turbine engine".

do you have anything technical to back that up?

not saying you're wrong, just curious

every time I see a rotary on a stand I'm amazed at how such a tiny little beer keg can produce such fury :)


I've never seen an actual engineering analysis of the surface area inside a rotary combustion chamber compared to that of an identical displacement piston chamber, because most engineers (and professors) see the clear difference by inspection.

Conceptually, it seems obvious that a banana shaped combustion chamber that sweeps over an area about 1.5x its length has more surface area than a contracting cylinder.

Not trying to get into another debate but something that turns kinetic energy such as fluids or gasses into rotational energy I think would be called a "turbine" rather than a "turbine engine".

Arguing semantics is rarely effective. "Engine" came from a piston/cylinder compression ignition process that was used by natives for starting camp fires. See how this applies to anything that uses rotating and stationary blades to compress the gas?

Not trying to get into another debate but something that turns kinetic energy such as fluids or gasses into rotational energy I think would be called a "turbine" rather than a "turbine engine".

turbines turn a shaft, true. But a turbine shaft can be used to turn electromagnets and generate electricity, as in a hydroelectric dam, or turn another impeller, as in a turbocharger. Mechanical force - from exhaust gases, water, air, etc. depending on the turbine in question - can turn the turbine, and the consumption of a fuel is not required. In contrast, a turbine engine consumes fuel to produce appreciable mechanical force or motion, converting matter into energy - hence 'turbine engine' used where a turbine powers a vehicle :) Or such is my understanding of the distinction.

Then again, in common use many people say 'motor' when they mean 'engine', etc.

Arguing semantics is rarely effective. "Engine" came from a piston/cylinder compression ignition process that was used by natives for starting camp fires. See how this applies to anything that uses rotating and stationary blades to compress the gas?

To be extremely pedantic, 'engine' also applied to mechanical devices without pistons long before the notion of pistons came about, applying mechanical force to do work - such as catapults being referred to as 'engines of war'. But that's getting pretty off topic.

Actually, Jon, mazdated's explanation is a bit off.

As I said, engines that turn the kinetic motion of fluids, such as expanding gasses, into rotational energy can be called turbine engines. And 'turbine engine' is the term Mark used in his post which mazdated was allegedly countering.

And you know I don't normally side with Three-apples ;)

Not trying to get into another debate but something that turns kinetic energy such as fluids or gasses into rotational energy I think would be called a "turbine" rather than a "turbine engine".

he beat me to it. also, while stump chump may have said "turbine engine", the link he posted specifically related to a turboshaft engine and not all versions of turbine engines. The diagram is a giveaway there. And besides, you cant count on ol stump chump to use the right terminology because he doesnt have the first clue about the right terminology. This is just another example of marky trying to think he knows more about any field than those who actually work in that field. He has tried the same thing with me on criminal justice statistics, while I went to school for it and he never studied it in his life. He just thinks he has to be superior to everyone.

as for turbine engine, not all forms of turbine engine produce rotational thrust as already pointed out. marky didnt know the difference either way.

he beat me to it.

And was refuted, again, in post #32 :)

And was refuted, again, in post #32 :)

That isnt refuting anything--now youre just talking about the usage of different words and terms. The fact is simple--marky tried to prove someone wrong without having the faintest clue what he was talking about. He doesnt know the terminology, he doesnt know the information, and he didnt even know enough to use the proper link. Proving that a turboshaft engine creates rotational thrust isnt the same by any stretch as proving that all variants of the turbine engine concept do the exact same thing. he tried. he failed. And youre defending him for it.

That discussion has no involvement whatsoever in the concept of someone confusing "engine" with "motor".

That isnt refuting anything--now youre just talking about the usage of different words and terms.

As opposed to the chap you're declaring right saying "turbine" v. "turbine engine"? Really, Jon.

If I'm defending anything, it's that Mark's original statement was "turbine engine" and the presumption was made that he meant turbojet - but that wasn't what he'd said. As for the rest, it's the usual mark trying to sound like he knows what he's talking about, and both sides diggin in deeper. you'll note I've not 'defended' his link, or any of the other crap. Merely reminded all involved what 'turbine' and 'turbine engine' mean, and that a rotary engine could be classed as a turbine engine. There's no argument there - it's first-year stuff.

That discussion has no involvement whatsoever in the concept of someone confusing "engine" with "motor".

You're right - which is why it's only mentioned where I say "Then again, some people say..." as in people often misuse terms. Sorry that confused you :)

I already said you were right, this time. But you had to fuck it up by being arrogant, as always.

If I'm defending anything, it's that Mark's original statement was "turbine engine" and the presumption was made that he meant turbojet

if that was the presumption, as you call it, then perhaps you can explain why the only piece of supporting information he posted clearly said "turboshaft" instead. Marky didnt even need to know what all the terms were--all he needed to be able to do was read his own link before he posted it. But even that was too much to ask.

As opposed to the chap you're declaring right saying "turbine" v. "turbine engine"? Really, Jon.

like I said, just because he doesnt use the exact terms the exact way you do, that has absolutely no effect on the fact that his earlier posts made the distinction between different types of turbine engines....even before marky "came to the rescue" with his link. But you keep skipping past that part....I wonder why.

You're right - which is why it's only mentioned where I say "Then again, some people say..." as in people often misuse terms.

and then you just mentioned it again at the top of your last post with "really, jon" like it somehow meant more than that, so who do you think youre trying to kid here? Take your pick, manntis--

1--it was only mentioned because people sometimes misuse terms

2--As opposed to the chap you're declaring right saying "turbine" v. "turbine engine"? Really, Jon.


You can do better than that.

my original statement (and those that followed) was completely accurate

it's just another case of the freakshows on this forum grabbing their torches and lanterns every time I make a post.....oooo, ooo, we got him this time!!

and they have nothing....I'm right, as always

and as for you, ya raging pussy, shut the hell up for once. Torches and lanterns? Perhaps if you didnt have to start your own witch hunt, always trying to be right on topics you dont have a clue about, you wouldnt find yourself in this position each and every time. In short, youre a dick. Stop being a dick.

if that was the presumption, as you call it, then perhaps you can explain why the only piece of supporting information he posted clearly said "turboshaft" instead.

You're asking me to explain why Mark would do something? Who are you, and what have you done with the real Jon? ;)

My point was, and remains, that - contrary to what some others have claimed in this thread - "turbine engine" does not, by default, mean turbojet. Nor does "turbine" itself meet the definition put forth by others, as we're discussing engines specifically - and engines require the conversion of matter into energy.

who do you think youre trying to kid here? Take your pick, manntis--

1--it was only mentioned because people sometimes misuse terms

The use of people saying 'motor' when they mean 'engine' - an aside. Reread that post and you'll clearly see the context.

In fact I'm doing the opposite of kidding: I've provided clear and unobfuscated definitions of "turbine" and "turbine engine", and how a rotary engine could technically be considered the latter. All the other stuff is Marks smugness at being right for once, and people's reaction's thereto.

I'm thinking of changing YZF-R1's avatar to an upside down crucifix...... :)

Hi Jim?

u imagining things now?

Jim Labreck is a fascinating man. I've met one or two other witty, arrogant and successful business types like him in the past. Something about that presumptuous confidence and downright mean spirit is unusual......

You're asking me to explain why Mark would do something? Who are you, and what have you done with the real Jon?

No, I am asking why you dont apply the same logic to stump chump's claims in here that you are trying to apply to everyone else. Marky wrongly posted an example of a turboshaft engine and claimed it was the same as all turbine engines....if anything, your next statement applies to him and not to anyone else:

My point was, and remains, that - contrary to what some others have claimed in this thread - "turbine engine" does not, by default, mean turbojet.

And like I said, retard over there tried to use an example of what a turboshaft engine does, as proof of what all turbine engines do. And for this, you say he was correct. He wasnt.

Not only that, but I direct your attention to this post--marky's original claim:

http://www.theforumlounge.com/showpost.php?p=133765&postcount=3

turbine engines sure aren't

the basic concept is sound: conversion of combustion energy directly to rotational energy; eliminating pistons, camsahfts, connecting rods, etc

Note the complete lack of any realization on his part that there are different types of "turbine engines". Now, this is the reply he got:

Where did Turbine engines come into play in this thread? And your wrong, a turbine engine does not turn combustion energy into rotational energy, However A Turboprop, turboshaft, and turbofan engines DO.

How can anyone think that no distinction was made? Mazdated clearly listed out different types....

And then, mazdated clarified it further:

http://www.theforumlounge.com/showpost.php?p=133913&postcount=17

why is your statement wrong? Because a Turbojet engine, creates thrust and only thrust. A turboshaft, a Turboprop, and a turbofan engine creates rotation thru combustion.

ALSO, the proof you have depicts an AXIAL flow engine. Which creates thrust and only thrust. While centifugal engines create small amounts of thrust (Sometimes) and rotational force.

How many more times does someone need to properly clarify different types and what they do? Clearly marky didnt know any of this, and the "proof" he posted shows it.

So, that makes him right about something? What? If anything, even if you try to make a case that someone else misused "turbine engine", the very same can be said about stump chump--go back to the first post I quoted in this post, and you tell me....

If I'm defending anything, it's that Mark's original statement was "turbine engine" and the presumption was made that he meant turbojet

that presumption was never made--the responses he got clearly indicated different types of turbine engines that marky tried to lump all together like they were one and the same.

he was surfing this thread, but didn't bother to post

Proof positive--no matter how much this jackass claims he doesnt, here is is admitting that he watches to see where certain people are in the forum just to think he has the drop on someone.....what a retard.

And for this, you say he was correct. He wasnt.

Since you missed it the first few times, I'll break it down:

Mazdated spotted Mark's use of the term "turbine engine" and said "a turbine engine does not turn combustion energy into rotational energy" - which is false.

Mazdated then misspoke and claimed Mark was talking about turbofans, which Mark had not said. Mark had said "turbine engines". Clear 'nuff?

Since you missed it the first few times, I'll break it down:

Mazdated spotted Mark's use of the term "turbine engine" and said "a turbine engine does not turn combustion energy into rotational energy" - which is false.

Mazdated then misspoke and claimed Mark was talking about turbofans, which Mark had not said. Mark had said "turbine engines". Clear 'nuff?

dude, I already addressed this, so why the constant repetition of whats already been answered?

In my last post, I said this:

If anything, even if you try to make a case that someone else misused "turbine engine", the very same can be said about stump chump

--which is completely true, since he thought he could generalize that all turbine engines do the same thing. Like I said, he was wrong. At the very least, thats just as wrong as someone trying to make the point on the opposite end of that spectrum. Do YOU finally get MY explanation??

Its only been said before....

dude, I already addressed this, so why the constant repetition of whats already been answered?

Right back atcha ;) as I said many posts ago, for me it's just about proper term use.