SAVAGEJIM
Posts: 4658
Joined: 7/6/2005 From: behind my 'puter, USA Status: offline
|
No need to apologize fo correcting me or anyone here, afterall, we are all here to learn and pass on as much correct information as possible. And credit indeed you deserve for posting of how the industry uses the phrases "dynamic compression ratio" & "static compression ratio." But bear in mind we are people who will want some verification of information since we are of the inquisitive minds. So, referrencing a source or two or even the simple mention of "I am an automotive mechanic" or whatever would definitely help prevent alot of second guessing by many of us. Regardless of how the industry uses these terms, they are of course confusing and by straight physics incorrect phrases. The way I see it, the industry should scrap these terms and do the following: >>What the industry calls "dynamic compression ratio" should be called "true compression ratio" or "trapped compression ratio," either of these two phrases are correct in their description in what is happening. >>What the industry calls "static compression ratio" should be called "geometric compression ratio" or "swept compression ratio," static implies the piston is not moving and it is at first intuition hard to imagine how it is possible for a reciprocating engine to compress anything when the pistion is not even moving. Just a bit of advice concerning your use of the phrase "Not even close" in your post, you could have left those three simple words and your post would have sounded much more neutral and freindlier. Such phrases can risk a flame war (at the very least, leaving out such phrases will not put the other into any sort of discomfort).
_____________________________
I hate stray Tomcats
|