Smity42

f*ck yeah, i just got a big package, it's my "shipment" from mexico sat/sun night touge anyone?

excel macros are sh!t coz they are still based on VB6 which came out about when i was in primary school :S programming languages have come so far since then but macros are still stuck in the stone ages to make the sheet active wsheet.activate() or something like that should do it.

Brandon, does it not work all the time, or only not work if the sheet doesnt exist?

brandon you only need to type it once then ppl will stop asking you about it @colin good luck with it then mate

BAHAHAHAHAHA P.S. Brandon tell us what went down you stooge

why are you in hospital?

maybe I just like a good debate too much? And it is a very interesting topic

wtf happened?

wtf happened?

yeah, so I got frustrated last night. Sorry for being a d!ck. Back in. First, I will give you 3.9L. No doubt about it, and no way around it, it is a 3.9L engine. So yes, mazda lied there. However, it is not a 3.9L 2-stroke (which would make it the equivalent of a 7.8L 4-stroke). It is a 3.9L Wankel, the equivalent of a 2.6L 4-stroke. I'm not saying it should be called a 2.6L, it should be called a 3.9L, but it should be considered the equivalent of a 2.6L for motorsport, rego, etc. Why is it not a 2-stroke? A 2-stroke engine is an engine that requires 2 strokes of the piston to complete the combustion cycle. Likewise a 4-stroke engine is an engine that requires 4 strokes of the piston to complete the combustion cycle. I challenge anyone to find definitions that say otherwise. sydneykid has been trying to replace the word 'piston' with 'combustion medium' and 'stroke' with 'cycle' and call it a 2-cycle. Well, this isn't right either, the rotor doesnt do 2 cycles to complete the combustion cycle; it does 1. So, what you can do, is create a new class of engine called '1-cycle'. If you define the cycle as one spin of a rotor or one up-down motion of a piston, you can fit both 2-strokes and wankels into this class, but you don't have 2-stroke any more, you have 1-cycle. By this definition, a 4-stroke would be a 2-cycle. Conversley however, I could create a new class of engine called 'full-cycle' defined by the fact that each face of the combustion medium completes the full combustion cycle. 4-strokes and wankels will fit into this class, but a 2-stroke wouldn't. By this system , a 2-stroke would fit into something like 'half-cycle', defined as an engine where each face of the combustion medium does only half the combustion cycle. A picture, using set theory, do demonstrate the point I am trying to get across: Obviously this picture isn't complete, there are many more types of internal combustion engines. This is just the ones we are interested in at the moment. So, you can't just redefine '2-stroke' to suit your own purposes. A 2-stroke is a 2-stroke, a 4-stroke is a 4-stroke, and a wankel is a wankel. You can make up other names to group engines together, but that is all you can do. I will give you however, that in many ways a wankel does work similarly to a 2-stroke. I have already said this. But thats as far as you can go. You can't call it a 2-stroke. It's also in some ways similar to a 4-stroke, but again you can't call it a 4-stroke. If mazda did indeed call it a 4 stroke (I can't be bothered reading back to see if that was one of their alleged 'lies'), then yes, that was a 'lie' too. And you can't apply 2-stroke rules when comparing it to a 4-stroke. This is why it should be compared to a 2.6L 4 stroke, not a 7.8L This is not a post aimed at sydneykid (who seems very knowledgable), but at anyone still on the 'rotarys are 2-stroke' bandwagon. As far as the RPM issue goes, I think people will just have to agree to disagree. In my view, they are a 9000rpm motor, even if the rotors are only 3000rpm. 'High-Revving', well thats debatable, it depends on if you look at the engine or the rotors .

I like your work ... and I like her form

your main problem is I called it piston strokes? 2-stroke 4-stroke get a dictionary, or better yet, google the definition of 2 stroke and 4 stroke. You can't 'suggest your own equivalency' when that's not how the engine is defined. Flat out, its not a 2 stroke. You can't even rename it to 'cycle' and call it 2-cycle (Which you have been so intent on doing), as there is no '2' involved in the rotary's method of combustion anywhere. I did already agree with you it is MORE like a 2 stroke than a 4 stroke. I don't think there is any doubt about that, and in fact I've always held that opinion. P.S. It has point 1 in common with both of them, which is why i left it out in my comparison. You conveniently left it out of just 4 stroke to make your argument look better. I'm out, you can't save some people from themselves. It's been fun guys, a good discussion for the most part

sydneykid, that logic is flawed, as a rotory is not actually a 2 stroke. Allow me to introduce the following table of engine characteristics: this is just a quick table i did up of things off the top of my head. You could add more. You seem determined to call a rotory a 2 stroke because it shares points 8 and 9 with a 2 stroke, completely ignoring that it shares 10 with a 4 stroke, and the rest it has nothing at all in common. I will give you that it is MORE like a 2 stroke than a 4 stroke based on that table, sharing 2 characteristics rather than 1, but it has more not in common that it does in common. Now ask yourself, what is the DEFINING characteristic of a 2/4 stroke motor? Point 6 of course! Unsurprisingly, a rotory doesnt fit either of them. You can introduce point 7 and call it a 1-revolution motor, or you could just call it a wankel. Right, now, why do we double a 2 stroke displacement when comparing to 4 stroke? This is where point 5 comes into play. Because the two stroke only turns the crank half as far with one cycle, in order to compare it with a 4 stroke fairly we must turn it twice, hence, we double it. By the same logic, a rotor has turned 1/3rd as much again with one cycle, so to fairly compare it with a 4 stroke we must take 1/3 off it. So, once more: it is a 3.9L Wankel engine. It can be roughly compared to a 2.6L 4 stroke or a 1.3L 2 stroke. I will agree with you it is most definitely not the 1.3L 4 stroke mazda claim it is

Bring back Group B!

2 more pages

you love it

I might make 500 yet... if you want this thread to advance, post up pics of ya sister!

you got more hope of getting to 1000 than this thread has of getting to 250

a 4 stroke takes 2 revolutions so 720 degrees Hence why we have been saying the 3.9L rotory 13B is roughly equivalent to a 2.6L 4 stroke. 720/1080 = 2/3. What logic sydneykid is using to now double that 3.9L and get 7.8L (or 6.8L ) is totally beyond me...

Well what do you know, S13s do drift:

I'll give HER an epic kebab slap Nice S13 there dave

wtf is a boddington? whatever it is, i'm willing to give her one P.S. I know she can't WAIT to tow my R31 with her lolux. And yes that is a euphemism

BAHAHAHA Tas thats golden +1. I'll even shout her free ice cream and a hot dicking @dave, none of the above

QFT

damn thats fking early, might have to involve spending the night at your house which of course comes with additional benefits if your sister will be home *pitches tent*