Quality Of Tools
 

Bob Eager wrote:

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 11:54:43 UTC, John Laird
wrote:


Accepted definitions are a bit vague, often having Wankel engines as
alternative meanings for "rotary". However, I doubt you'd want a true
rotary engine under your bonnet ;-)


I saw a car with a Rolls Royce Merlin in it, once. Isn't that rotary?
(I'm not actually sure, I really am asking)


No, a V24 from memory with a 3:1 gearbox on the front.

Quality Of Tools
 

John Laird wrote:

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 22:48:55 +0100, Dave Plowman
wrote:


In article ,
Bob Eager wrote:

Accepted definitions are a bit vague, often having Wankel engines as
alternative meanings for "rotary". However, I doubt you'd want a true
rotary engine under your bonnet ;-)

I saw a car with a Rolls Royce Merlin in it, once. Isn't that rotary?
(I'm not actually sure, I really am asking)

No, the Merlin is a conventional V-12.

If you were thinking about the John Dodd monstrosity, it wasn't fitted
with a Merlin engine, but the far less powerful tank version, IIRC Meteor.


I expect 2000+bhp was a bit of a handful, even in 50 tons of tank. They
took the supercharger off, basically.

A Merlin was fited to a transit van at one time. In the back. No room
under the bonnet.

Quality Of Tools
 

In article , Huge
wrote:


Tee-hee. He's confused about what a rotary engine *is*.

Aren't they all rotary? :-)

--
AJL Electronics (G6FGO) Ltd : Satellite and TV aerial systems
http://www.classicmicrocars.co.uk : http://www.ajlelectronics.co.uk

Quality Of Tools
 

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 13:00:42 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

A Merlin was fited to a transit van at one time. In the back. No room
under the bonnet.

If you've seen one on display, you'll know why. 27litres of V12 (*) takes
up a fair bit of room. Even if it could be shoehorned in, there's then the
question of a gearbox stressed to transfer the power to the wheels...

(*) A bit of background research revealed that all the engines it
outperformed during WW2 were considerably larger. A testament to the RR
engineers, methinks, even allowing for the supercharger technology, which
was quite widespread anyway.

--
Ask not what your computer can do for you...

Mail john rather than nospam...

Quality Of Tools
 

In article ,
John Laird wrote:
(*) A bit of background research revealed that all the engines it
outperformed during WW2 were considerably larger. A testament to the RR
engineers, methinks, even allowing for the supercharger technology, which
was quite widespread anyway.

If it really did give 2000 bhp from 27 supercharged litres, that's only 75
bhp per litre. Nothing special even then - although of course it had to
have a reasonable life, I suppose.

--
*The severity of the itch is proportional to the reach *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

Quality Of Tools
 

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 17:49:46 +0100, Dave Plowman
wrote:

In article ,
John Laird wrote:
(*) A bit of background research revealed that all the engines it
outperformed during WW2 were considerably larger. A testament to the RR
engineers, methinks, even allowing for the supercharger technology, which
was quite widespread anyway.

If it really did give 2000 bhp from 27 supercharged litres, that's only 75
bhp per litre. Nothing special even then - although of course it had to
have a reasonable life, I suppose.

Perhaps you have some comparitive figures from that era, I would've thought
that a fairly impressive specific power output for the early 40s ? You
can't draw comparisons with smaller engines because it is always harder to
get the same rating as size increases. Witness modern motorcycle power
plants putting out about 150bhp/l. I think a Merlin ran about 3000rpm, no
doubt someone can work out the torque ;-) It was certainly enough to spin a
plane over on take-off without full opposite rudder. And all that with
carburettors too.

Real supercharged Merlin-in-a-car at:
http://www.rodshop.com.au/project55.htm

--
After all is said and done, more is said than done.

Mail john rather than nospam...

Quality Of Tools
 

"IMM" wrote in message
...

POWER

The watt (W) is a unit of Power.
The kilowatt (kW) is simply 1,000 watts. A one-bar 1 kilowatt
electric fire or ten 100 watt light bulbs will consume one kilowatt.

[... snip loads]

THERM
Again, in the past, gas was charged for by yet another energy unit,
the Therm. One therm is simply 100,000 BTU (energy), equivalent
therefore to 29.31 kWh (energy).

Err, excuse me Mr. IMM. What you have posted there is (mostly) my copyright
material, first posted here by myself on 2nd January 2001. If you doubt
this, look he
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...lure.pipex.net.

I object strongly to you plagiarising my work and trying to pass it off as
your own - the more so because my 2001 article was in reply to one of yours
(you were still calling yourself Adam then) in which you had got yourself
into a complete muddle on this same subject of energy and power. Anyway, I
will not be suing you for breach of copyright on this occasion, provided
that you post a public apology. I have no objection to reasonable
non-commercial reproduction of material that I've posted to Usenet
_provided_ that the reproduced text is clearly identified and due
acknowledgement of the source is given. Please familiarise yourself with
the requirements of the Designs Copyright and Patents Act of 1988.

I also note that the version you just posted is rather similar to another
copyright-infringing article which was posted to alt.solar.thermal on 15th
August 2002 by someone calling themself 'News' ) and
which can be found he
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm....svr.pol.co.uk
.
Since that form of e-mail address is similar, I think, to one that you used
to use and the article was also posted via pol.co.uk, I am inclined to think
that 'News' is just another instance of 'IMM'|'Adam', although ICBW. If it
was you, that makes two apologies required. OK?

--
Andy

Quality Of Tools
 

Andy Wade wrote:

Err, excuse me Mr. IMM. What you have posted there is (mostly) my copyright
material, first posted here by myself on 2nd January 2001. If you doubt
this, look he
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...lure.pipex.net.


Bwahaha!!! I did wonder where he'd copied it from!!

Thank you for pointing this out, and good luck in resolving the matter.

--
Grunff

Quality Of Tools
 

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 11:12:01 +0100, Grunff wrote:

Andy Wade wrote:

Err, excuse me Mr. IMM. What you have posted there is (mostly) my copyright
material, first posted here by myself on 2nd January 2001. If you doubt
this, look he
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...lure.pipex.net.


Bwahaha!!! I did wonder where he'd copied it from!!

Thank you for pointing this out, and good luck in resolving the matter.

I knew it had to be plagiarism - the grammar and spelling are correct
and the sentences scan properly.

I also notice that IMM has inherited Adam's confusion between energy
and power. No wonder first form thermodynamics escapes him
completely.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Quality Of Tools
 

In article ,
Andy Wade wrote:
Err, excuse me Mr. IMM. What you have posted there is (mostly) my
copyright material, first posted here by myself on 2nd January 2001.

Heh heh - hadn't you noticed that any correct information he gives is
always lifted from somewhere?

For 'original' thought, check out twin combis, magnetic water
conditioners, land reform...

--
*If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence that you tried *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

Quality Of Tools
 

In article , Andy Wade spambucket
@ajwade.clara.co.uk writes
"IMM" wrote in message
...

POWER

The watt (W) is a unit of Power.
The kilowatt (kW) is simply 1,000 watts. A one-bar 1 kilowatt
electric fire or ten 100 watt light bulbs will consume one kilowatt.

[... snip loads]

THERM
Again, in the past, gas was charged for by yet another energy unit,
the Therm. One therm is simply 100,000 BTU (energy), equivalent
therefore to 29.31 kWh (energy).

Err, excuse me Mr. IMM. What you have posted there is (mostly) my copyright
material, first posted here by myself on 2nd January 2001. If you doubt
this, look he
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...lure.pipex.net.

I object strongly to you plagiarising my work and trying to pass it off as
your own - the more so because my 2001 article was in reply to one of yours
(you were still calling yourself Adam then) in which you had got yourself
into a complete muddle on this same subject of energy and power. Anyway, I
will not be suing you for breach of copyright on this occasion, provided
that you post a public apology. I have no objection to reasonable
non-commercial reproduction of material that I've posted to Usenet
_provided_ that the reproduced text is clearly identified and due
acknowledgement of the source is given. Please familiarise yourself with
the requirements of the Designs Copyright and Patents Act of 1988.

I also note that the version you just posted is rather similar to another
copyright-infringing article which was posted to alt.solar.thermal on 15th
August 2002 by someone calling themself 'News' ) and
which can be found he
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm....svr.pol.co.uk
.
Since that form of e-mail address is similar, I think, to one that you used
to use and the article was also posted via pol.co.uk, I am inclined to think
that 'News' is just another instance of 'IMM'|'Adam', although ICBW. If it
was you, that makes two apologies required. OK?

No doubt Andy, that IMM, Adam and News are just three of John's aliases,
he's got a few more but are all recognisable by the style of posting and
crap content

--
David

Quality Of Tools
 

Dave Plowman wrote:

In article ,
John Laird wrote:

(*) A bit of background research revealed that all the engines it
outperformed during WW2 were considerably larger. A testament to the RR
engineers, methinks, even allowing for the supercharger technology, which
was quite widespread anyway.


If it really did give 2000 bhp from 27 supercharged litres, that's only 75
bhp per litre. Nothing special even then - although of course it had to
have a reasonable life, I suppose.


Its good for an aircraft engine. Remember they hadn't got dynamic
balancing then - RPM was only about 3,000 max.

I reads some where that someone took and old 1920 something RR engine,
rated at 2,000 RPM only, balanced it, and doubled the BHP by getting it
to go to over 4,000 RPM.

Quality Of Tools
 

"John Laird" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 17:49:46 +0100, Dave Plowman

wrote:

In article ,
John Laird wrote:
(*) A bit of background research revealed that all the engines it
outperformed during WW2 were considerably larger. A testament to the
RR
engineers, methinks, even allowing for the supercharger technology,
which
was quite widespread anyway.

If it really did give 2000 bhp from 27 supercharged litres, that's only
75
bhp per litre. Nothing special even then - although of course it had to
have a reasonable life, I suppose.

Perhaps you have some comparitive figures from that era, I would've
thought
that a fairly impressive specific power output for the early 40s ? You
can't draw comparisons with smaller engines because it is always harder to
get the same rating as size increases.

In aircraft engines the power to weight factor is the most important. The
Merlin had a high P/W ratio. It was initially developed for racing planes,
as was the Spitfire.

Witness modern motorcycle power
plants putting out about 150bhp/l. I think a Merlin ran about 3000rpm, no
doubt someone can work out the torque ;-) It was certainly enough to spin
a
plane over on take-off without full opposite rudder. And all that with
carburettors too.

Later Merlins had fuel injection.

Quality Of Tools
 

"Andy Wade" wrote in message
...
"IMM" wrote in message
...

POWER

The watt (W) is a unit of Power.
The kilowatt (kW) is simply 1,000 watts. A one-bar 1 kilowatt
electric fire or ten 100 watt light bulbs will consume one kilowatt.

[... snip loads]

THERM
Again, in the past, gas was charged for by yet another energy unit,
the Therm. One therm is simply 100,000 BTU (energy), equivalent
therefore to 29.31 kWh (energy).

Err, excuse me Mr. IMM. What you have posted there is (mostly) my
copyright
material, first posted here by myself on 2nd January 2001. If you doubt
this, look he
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...lure.pipex.net.

I object strongly to you plagiarising my work

Since when did you invent physics?

snip babble

Quality Of Tools
 

wrote in message
...
In article , Andy Wade spambucket
@ajwade.clara.co.uk writes
"IMM" wrote in message
...

POWER

The watt (W) is a unit of Power.
The kilowatt (kW) is simply 1,000 watts. A one-bar 1 kilowatt
electric fire or ten 100 watt light bulbs will consume one kilowatt.

[... snip loads]

THERM
Again, in the past, gas was charged for by yet another energy unit,
the Therm. One therm is simply 100,000 BTU (energy), equivalent
therefore to 29.31 kWh (energy).

Err, excuse me Mr. IMM. What you have posted there is (mostly) my
copyright
material, first posted here by myself on 2nd January 2001. If you doubt
this, look he
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...lure.pipex.net.

I object strongly to you plagiarising my work and trying to pass it off
as
your own - the more so because my 2001 article was in reply to one of
yours
(you were still calling yourself Adam then) in which you had got yourself
into a complete muddle on this same subject of energy and power. Anyway,
I
will not be suing you for breach of copyright on this occasion, provided
that you post a public apology. I have no objection to reasonable
non-commercial reproduction of material that I've posted to Usenet
_provided_ that the reproduced text is clearly identified and due
acknowledgement of the source is given. Please familiarise yourself with
the requirements of the Designs Copyright and Patents Act of 1988.

I also note that the version you just posted is rather similar to another
copyright-infringing article which was posted to alt.solar.thermal on
15th
August 2002 by someone calling themself 'News' )
and
which can be found he

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...8.svr.pol.co.u
k
.
Since that form of e-mail address is similar, I think, to one that you
used
to use and the article was also posted via pol.co.uk, I am inclined to
think
that 'News' is just another instance of 'IMM'|'Adam', although ICBW. If
it
was you, that makes two apologies required. OK?

No doubt Andy,

Bertie, you should get yourself sorted out.

Quality Of Tools
 

IMM wrote:

Since when did you invent physics?

So anyone writing a physics textbook can't own the copyright on it
because they didn't 'invent physics'? Your stupidity truly knows no
bounds. Thank you for sharing it with us.


--
Grunff

Quality Of Tools
 

"Grunff" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

Since when did you invent physics?

So anyone writing a physics textbook
can't own the copyright on it
because they didn't 'invent physics'?

They own copyright on words, not the meaning of the words. Anyone can
rearrange the words. Duh!

Quality Of Tools
 

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 09:57:50 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Grunff" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

Since when did you invent physics?

So anyone writing a physics textbook
can't own the copyright on it
because they didn't 'invent physics'?

They own copyright on words, not the meaning of the words. Anyone can
rearrange the words. Duh!



Tell you what. Why don't you publish all of Kevin Wotsisname's book
on the internet as a service to humanity? There can't be anything
wrong with that, since he didn't invent anything either.

Let us know when you receive the writ.......


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Quality Of Tools
 

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 09:57:50 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Grunff" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

Since when did you invent physics?

So anyone writing a physics textbook
can't own the copyright on it
because they didn't 'invent physics'?

They own copyright on words, not the meaning of the words. Anyone can
rearrange the words. Duh!



Tell you what. Why don't you publish all of Kevin Wotsisname's book
on the internet as a service to humanity? There can't be anything
wrong with that, since he didn't invent anything either.

You can do that, but the words can't be in the same order. Duh!

You want it on the web? Too mean to go out and buy it to broaden that Little
Middle England mind? How you people mock Scotsmen for their meanness!

Quality Of Tools
 

In article ,
IMM wrote:
They own copyright on words, not the meaning of the words. Anyone can
rearrange the words. Duh!

And no one knows that better than you...

--
*What happens when none of your bees wax? *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

Quality Of Tools
 

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 08:57:50 UTC, "IMM" wrote:

So anyone writing a physics textbook
can't own the copyright on it
because they didn't 'invent physics'?

They own copyright on words, not the meaning of the words. Anyone can
rearrange the words. Duh!

But you didn't...did you?

What are you on about?

Quality Of Tools
 

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 08:57:50 UTC, "IMM" wrote:

So anyone writing a physics textbook
can't own the copyright on it
because they didn't 'invent physics'?

They own copyright on words, not the meaning of the words. Anyone can
rearrange the words. Duh!

But you didn't...did you?

--
Bob Eager
begin a new life...dump Windows!

Quality Of Tools
 

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 08:57:50 UTC, "IMM" wrote:

So anyone writing a physics textbook
can't own the copyright on it
because they didn't 'invent physics'?

They own copyright on words, not the meaning of the words. Anyone can
rearrange the words. Duh!

But you didn't...did you?

What are you on about?



Bob's "on about" your blatant passing off of significant copied-and-pasted
portions of Andy Wade's post as your own work, with no attribution.

It's obvious.

--
Richard Sampson

email me at
richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk

Quality Of Tools
 

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 17:49:49 +0100, "RichardS" noaccess@invalid
wrote:



Now, what irrelevancies are you going to introduce now, I wonder?

The joule in the crown?


droll :-)

stunningly enough, it seems he doesn't have anything further to say on the
subject. Well, nothing of any relevance that is.


--
Richard Sampson

email me at
richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk

Quality Of Tools
 

"RichardS" noaccess@invalid wrote in message
. ..
"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 08:57:50 UTC, "IMM" wrote:

So anyone writing a physics textbook
can't own the copyright on it
because they didn't 'invent physics'?

They own copyright on words, not the meaning of the words. Anyone
can
rearrange the words. Duh!

But you didn't...did you?

What are you on about?

Bob's "on about" your blatant passing off of significant copied-and-pasted
portions of Andy Wade's post as your own work, with no attribution.

I looked at Mr Wade's stuff and it is different. He thinks he invented
physics; sad but true.

Quality Of Tools
 

In article ,
IMM wrote:
I looked at Mr Wade's stuff and it is different. He thinks he invented
physics; sad but true.

Heh heh - as opposed to inventing new laws of physics?

--
*I'm out of my mind, but feel free to leave a message.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn