Rotary diesel engines
RMartino
Pegasus/Marine Rotary Industries who produce a diesel rotary engine. Read
their technical info and am ready to call them. The technical specs on the
engines are incredible. Their model 2013R has a HP rating of 250 and weighs
350 lbs giving it a lbs/hp ratio of 1.4. The biggest disadvantage to the
engine is of course a dealer and parts distribution network. Anyone have
experiece with this company or rotary diesel power. Sounds too good to be
true.
Bob
Sensei
In a regular engine (gas or diesel, 2 stroke or 4 stroke) one gets linear
power - the piston(s) moving up and down. This linear power is converted
into radial power by way of the crankshaft. The rotary (a.k.a Wankel) engine
was invented in an attempt to eliminate this convertion and its associated
energy loss. The resulting engine had a small block (no connecting rods nor
crankshaft) and a lighter flywheel - all adding to a compact and relatively
light power package.
One European (German) car manufacturer (NSU) went bankrupt in the early 70's
trying to get the rotary engine to work properly. The Ro70 was a great car -
when the engine worked... (a friend's dad had one) The problem lay in the
seals of the rotary "cylinder". They kept needing replacing - a major job.
Subsequently the rights to the engine design were bought by Mazda.
Mazda also nearly went bankrupt by the time they got it to work. In fact,
the sedan car with that engine, called the "Duce" (I think it was marketed
in the U.S. as the RX9) was a great car. Build to American standards (big,
heavy and a notorious fuel guzzler) it had increadible engine responce. I
know because my dad had one. One drawback - it didn't sell... Quite a few
executives at Mazda were getting ready to commit Harakiri...
Then Mazda hit the jackpot with a sporty car in the U.S. market in the early
80's. This car also had a rotary engine but it hit a sweet spot in the
market. You might still see an occasional RX7. If I remember correctly, some
people were willing to pay more then double the sticker price just to avoid
the year long waiting list... The rest is history :-)
As for diesel rotary engines - I didn't even know they existed...
Personally I would stick with Detroits but if your mind is set on exploring
the option I would suggest that you invite a current user to a long lunch
and pick his/her brain. Preferably one who uses them in a commercial setting
for at least 2 or 3 years.
Good luck.
P.S. Although it may run on diesel fuel it is NOT a diesel engine - it is a
rotary engine!
The power cycle is very different, the compression ratio is much less the
what is common for a diesel engine and most importantly - it uses a spark
plug for fuel ignition.
"RMartino" <rmar...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020726130727...@mb-cf.aol.com...
Sylvain Sirois
Sylvain
"RMartino" <rmar...@aol.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
20020726130727...@mb-cf.aol.com...
Glenn Ashmore
ignition engine. Also check the fuel consumption curve. It does not
say which fuel it is charting with but the g/Kw curve is considerably
higher than a 125 HP Yanmar.
The other thing that bothers me is that they have only been in
production for a few months and they are projecting production runs of
about 440 a year. I would prefer, like fine wine, to leave it on the
shelf for a few years.
It is an itty bitty little engine though. How much does that little
bugger cost?
RMartino wrote:
--
Glenn Ashmore
I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com
Keith
--
__________________
Keith
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
Mark Eckerberg
necessary to burn diesel from a rotary engine. I would like to know
how they hold up.
Sensei
spark therefore I would not consider it a "real" diesel.
"Keith" <klem...@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:322B52FF45E34CE1.93107A7C...@lp.airnews.net...
Sensei
compression ratio...
Ergo - although it runs on diesel fuel (and biomass) it is not a diesel
engine!
"Mark Eckerberg" <bo...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:8ug4ku8osfjmuu9go...@4ax.com...
JAXAshby
diesel.
Is it a diesel because that's the fuel it runs? Or is it a diesel because it
uses compression ignition? How about an engine that uses spark plugs to help
fire the fuel when the engine is first started and then compression ignition
once running?
20 to 1 will fire diesel. At least one diesel I recall (never saw, nor
personally knew anyone who saw) had a c/r of 16 to 1.
[as an aside, not sure a rotary diesel will do even as well as a rotary gas
engine]
Sensei
news:20020727081307...@mb-mg.aol.com...
> military "multi-fuel" engines have (did have) spark plugs and did run on
> diesel.
>
> Is it a diesel because that's the fuel it runs? Or is it a diesel because
it
> uses compression ignition? How about an engine that uses spark plugs to
help
> fire the fuel when the engine is first started and then compression
ignition
> once running?
>
> 20 to 1 will fire diesel. At least one diesel I recall (never saw, nor
> personally knew anyone who saw) had a c/r of 16 to 1.
>
> [as an aside, not sure a rotary diesel will do even as well as a rotary
gas
> engine]
>
A) It's a diesel if it's own compression ignites the fuel. If I remember
correctly, the first ever working diesel used fine coal dust as fuel...
B) Spark plug or glow plug (much more common) assisted starting does not
change the above.
C) 16 to 1 is about as low as you can get for a diesel engine.
D) If the "piston" (I think the correct term is annulus) seals issue has
been worked out completely. And if the overall long term efficency and
reliability is acceptable then a radial engine is very much an option for
boats. It's much smaller size and much lighter weight for a given HP rating
make it a no brainer. Especially if runs on a relatively safe fuel.
JAXAshby
>correctly, the first ever working diesel used fine coal dust as fuel...
I believe that was the theory and the promotion (rudy diesel being a *serious*
promoter of his day), but seem to recall "coal oil" ran the first engines.
>C) 16 to 1 is about as low as you can get for a diesel engine.
>
so the theory goes, but never saw such an engine. I understand that 20 to 1
diesels can have some cold weather starting/running issues. Certainly 24 to 1
diesels are more energy efficient than 20 to 1 diesels.
>D) If the "piston" (I think the correct term is annulus) seals issue has
>been worked out completely.
The seals were a serious problem on gas rotary engines which had compression
ratios less than half of this engine's 20 to 1 c/r.
>And if the overall long term efficency and
>reliability is acceptable then a radial engine is very much an option for
>boats. It's much smaller size and much lighter weight for a given HP rating
>make it a no brainer. Especially if runs on a relatively safe fuel.
"No brainer", eh? sounds like you're trying to sell something that has been on
the market for 40 years (I believe the NSU [now Audi] Prinz had a Wankel engine
back in the early '60's) without incredible customer acceptance. I believe
only Mazda made a serious long-term effort to sell a rotary engine, though many
others considered it (including Suzuki motorcycles, which gave up in 2? 3?
years.)
btw: safe fuel? you really ARE trying to sell something, aren't you. check
the USCG accident figures (if you're inclined to be trying to deal with the
realities) to see just how "safe" any fuel used on boats is. According to the
CG you have ONE HUNDRED TIMES (100x!) greater chance of dying from falling off
a boat than dying of any motor fuel related problem.
but, if you're afraid of the dark and/or trying to turn a profit on someone
else's uninformed fears ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
P.C.
"JAXAshby" <jaxa...@aol.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:20020727081307...@mb-mg.aol.com...
> military "multi-fuel" engines have (did have) spark plugs and did run on
> diesel.
>
> Is it a diesel because that's the fuel it runs? Or is it a diesel because it
> uses compression ignition? How about an engine that uses spark plugs to help
> fire the fuel when the engine is first started and then compression ignition
> once running?
Eh , ---- It's a diesel if there are a preasure pump making the fuel into spray
that ignite as soon as sprayed into a chamber with high preasure , then the fuel
name have nothing to do with the name of the engine type that also come in two
stroke Semi-diesel.
>
> 20 to 1 will fire diesel. At least one diesel I recall (never saw, nor
> personally knew anyone who saw) had a c/r of 16 to 1.
>
The Semi-diesel two stroke had a _very_ low compression rate ,but most often
they was used as slow running ( some 350 -- 500 rev ) _very_ reilable ships
engines ,that would run on almost any fuel. To start these you needed to heat
part of the top piece with a blow-lamp and the explotions would keep this warm
enough so the fuel pump and jet didn't even need to make a spray out of the
injectet fues ,as that would make fuel smoke when hitting the hot top ith "jet"
was pointet to hit rather a squitch than a spray , but this was an adjustable
thing with a few types.
These engines still run in a lot both small and big ships ,while the surface of
the piston are very big ,producing a very heavy duty ,slow running engine
, ------- acturly 30 years are nothing for this type of diesel engines ,but they
was low on economic while as two stroke they didn't have a sump but a special
lubrication pump and oil was most often only "used once" , whereafter it was
spoiled with the bildge pump.
> [as an aside, not sure a rotary diesel will do even as well as a rotary gas
> engine]
Guess the compression would be to high for an engine to last, ----- diesels most
often are heavyer build becaurse the greater forces compressing., ------- still
the Semi-diesels with a piston surface the size of a big bucket top , had toi
have a very low compression as it othervise would be impossible to get an engine
with that huge piston surface over top , anyway most of these Semi diesels
was one cylindred or two cylindred.
only very few tree cylindred but it say somthing about the power in these that a
3 cylindred was enough for a 120 ton ship.
>
> >It runs on diesel (and JP6) but the ignition is by way of an electrical
> >spark therefore I would not consider it a "real" diesel.
Diesel have from my knowleage nothing to do with spark plug or no spark
plug, ---- a Diesel don't have a caburator but a high preasure fuel pump, and
the preasure are build up before the fuel are sprayed in , but when it is, the
spray instantly explode .
Nice talking to you.
Sensei
>> used fine coal dust as fuel...
>
> I believe that was the theory and the promotion (rudy diesel being a
*serious*
> promoter of his day), but seem to recall "coal oil" ran the first engines.
As I said - if memory serves me. You want to look it up, fine by me. I
couldn't be bothered.
>> C) 16 to 1 is about as low as you can get for a diesel engine.
>
> so the theory goes, but never saw such an engine. I
> understand that 20 to 1 diesels can have some cold
> weather starting/running issues. Certainly 24 to 1
> diesels are more energy efficient than 20 to 1 diesels.
It's not theory. As for cold weather starting - That's why they have glow
plugs. Also, some engines (like the larger MTU's) prefer to have an
externaly powered pre heating system. You are certainly right that the
higher compression ratio engines are more efficient.
> >D) If the "piston" (I think the correct term is annulus) seals issue has
> >been worked out completely.
>
> The seals were a serious problem on gas rotary engines which had
compression
> ratios less than half of this engine's 20 to 1 c/r.
Nobody claims that these engines have a 20 to 1 compression ratio. The fact
that they have a spark plug ignition system would lead me to suggest that it
doesn't even come close. If it did they could do away with the plugs and go
for a "real" diesel.
> >And if the overall long term efficency and
> >reliability is acceptable then a radial engine is very much an option for
> >boats. It's much smaller size and much lighter weight for a given HP
rating
> >make it a no brainer. Especially if runs on a relatively safe fuel.
>
> "No brainer", eh? sounds like you're trying to sell something that has
been on
> the market for 40 years (I believe the NSU [now Audi] Prinz had a Wankel
engine
> back in the early '60's) without incredible customer acceptance. I
believe
> only Mazda made a serious long-term effort to sell a rotary engine, though
many
> others considered it (including Suzuki motorcycles, which gave up in 2? 3?
> years.)
So what else is new? FYI - you are repeating what I wrote in the first reply
in this thread...
> btw: safe fuel? you really ARE trying to sell something, aren't you.
check
> the USCG accident figures (if you're inclined to be trying to deal with
the
> realities) to see just how "safe" any fuel used on boats is. According to
the
> CG you have ONE HUNDRED TIMES (100x!) greater chance of dying
> from falling off a boat than dying of any motor fuel related problem.
>
> but, if you're afraid of the dark and/or trying to turn a profit on
someone
> else's uninformed fears ...
Safe fuel - if you insist upon quoting me please do so in full! I wrote
"relatively safe fuel". Do you deny that diesel fuel is inherently safer in
a boat then gasoline?
I suggest that you read the whole thread (and please make sure that you
actually understand what is written) before coming to any conclusions
regarding me (or any body else).
In the first reply of the thread I stated that personally I would stick with
Detroits (the OEM engines in most Bertram 31's). I also stated that if the
person really likes the idea of the rotary engine he should invite a current
(and reasonably veteran) owner/user of such an engine to a long (and "wet"
lunch) so as to pick his brains. Would I do any of those things if I were
trying to promote these engines?!...
Be that as it may, assuming these engines do in fact work (and by that I
mean that their efficiency and reliability is at least comparable to what
one would consider a modern diesel or gas engine) then they do have a lot
going for them. Most notably low weight to power ratio and a low volume to
power ratio. Both would be an asset to a boat. Less weight means more
stores, cargo, passengers or more speed (assuming a planing craft). Less
volume means a smaller engine room which means more usable space on the
boat. As a grease monkey I also like the fact that it hass less moving
parts.
If you can't see and acknowledge these things then I suggest that you are a
"no brainer".
FYI, although I have a marine engineering background I make my living as an
Internet programmer - so it is a real no brainer to realize that I have no
interest whatsoever except for the fact any thing good for boats is good for
my main hobby.
Mark Holden
stop like the hand of god grabbed the back bumper for you; a benefit of such
a light engine.
I'd have to say, however, that if they're not reliable enough for cars,
they're defiantly not reliable enough for boats.
As Glen has wisely said, better to let some time pass and see how they do.
When I was working as a garage mechanic in the 80's, another wankle Mazda
was the only vehicle we ever had in the shop that we just couldn't get to
pass emissions; the seals, of course.
I suspect that detonating diesel won't help the reliability at all.
I hope I'm wrong; it would be so refreshing to see something less archaic
than a reciprocating piston engine turning a shaft.
Mark Holden
"Glenn Ashmore" <gash...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3D41C35...@mindspring.com...
Mark Holden
process. Diesel fuel is what we call the stuff they sell for [common] use in
those engines.
Although they did drive 120 ton ships with the old types he mentions, they
didn't go as fast as shippers have to go today to break even.
Those motors though; they were just gorgeous. Took all day to get one
running, but they had great sound and lasted until someone got sick of the
hassle and took it out, or it burst from ice in winter or other gross
neglect.
There are still some running where I live.
Mark Holden
"P.C." <per.c...@privat.dk> wrote in message
news:3d42bfaa$0$26783$edfa...@dspool01.news.tele.dk...
P.C.
"Mark Holden" <m.ho...@chello.nl> skrev i en meddelelse
news:AbF09.46683$YD1.5...@amsnews03.chello.com...
> I drove around one of those RX7s; very impressive response, and it could
> stop like the hand of god grabbed the back bumper for you; a benefit of such
> a light engine.
> I'd have to say, however, that if they're not reliable enough for cars,
> they're defiantly not reliable enough for boats.
> As Glen has wisely said, better to let some time pass and see how they do.
> When I was working as a garage mechanic in the 80's, another wankle Mazda
> was the only vehicle we ever had in the shop that we just couldn't get to
> pass emissions; the seals, of course.
> I suspect that detonating diesel won't help the reliability at all.
> I hope I'm wrong; it would be so refreshing to see something less archaic
> than a reciprocating piston engine turning a shaft.
> Mark Holden
Eh, ------ if you wonder about the reson it work, it's acturly not an
"explosion" thet drive the piston, but the fact that a mass of air get very hot
with rise in preasure as result , then if you anyway are going to kose 90 pct
with a propellor , why even keep pistons if you can produce a hay powered turbo
jet ;))
Can't intake be made so water will be centrifuged away then forget about Wankel,
Diesel and all the other germans ;))
Anyway the last Semi diesel I had, was 6 ton two cylindred that was optimised to
160 Hp. even originatly just under 110 Hp. that was the limit for a one man
mashin crew. Above 110 Hp. it wasn't enough the skipper was maskinist.
Differense between low speed and full run was 250/450 rev. Alu pistons and glow
hats ,you startet the beast
untighing two huge stainless screws with handles and room for a "start cigar"
the size a shotgun ammonition lightet that and before you could tigh both into
each top ,the ingine room was filled with sulfor smoke. Then trimming the 400
Kg. flywheel with a steel rod untill the mark was at top. Then you hurried to
the main valve opening it as fast as possible , grabbed the compressed air
handle close the eyes forcing the handle, while counting "one and", Then back
and a push at the fuel pump would catch the piston almost at top, and the
flywheel would rush the other way around ; ------ at this point you remember
you forgot to take the bucket _off_ the chimney like exchoust pipe as now the
bucket are halve way over the harbour where it splashes down with it's broken
rope.. You hilding the air handle you find the gas rod goint to the wheelhouse
and turn down gas to minimum. --------- still holding the start handle back as
it's not yet secured . To reestablish air preasure to next start you need to
tighten the startvalve tigh nut and slightly losen it again that now it act as
pump valve , filling up the start tank, then when the meter are at 7 Atm. you
tigh the safety nut. As now you have to reverse the engiine as it allway's start
the wrong way around.
Easy - as you just hold the fuel pump, and just before it stop, you blow twice
the fuel pump, and is glad the bucket flew the first time ;))
P.C.
Nice talking to you
JAXAshby
second language to you? Oh, well. Nice hearing from you.
btw, given how long the Wankel engine has been around I seriously doubt that no
one prior has tried to make a Wankel that burned diesel. Because I never even
heard (before this) that anyone even tried, I can only assume all prior efforts
were abject, total failures.
JAXAshby
>Do you deny that diesel fuel is inherently safer in
>a boat then gasoline?
Of course, idgit. And you can check it out by reviewing the USCG accident
figures, to wit out of 12,000,000 registered boats in the country, if each boat
was used just 10 times in a year and 2.2 people were aboard (average) each
usage, then just 0.000009% of boaters died of "motor fuel" (which may or may
not be gasoline, it doesn't matter and isn't recorded by the USCG) related
accidents. That's according to the USCG, if you care to check it out.
On the other hand, if one chance of dying in 264,000,000 attempts worries you
.... please by all means stay at home in bed with an organic blanket pulled
over your head.
btw-2 sensie: what the hell does it mean when you say
>although I have a marine engineering background
Everyone on this board has a "marine engineering background". Or at least
everyone who has threaded a dock line does.
Further more,
>I make my living as an
>Internet programmer
there is no such thing as an "Internet programmer", for the Internet is not
programmed. If you really made your living as such you'd know that
applications (along with operating systems, software tools, and drivers) are
programmed, and while those applications may be run on machines connected to
the Internet, they don't hardly run the Internet.
by the way, what applications do you program? porno site? viagra promotions?
low-cost mortgages?
JAXAshby
Ever see one of those Lotus 7 replicas with a RX7 engine installed? Called a
"Rotus" and ungodly fast.
Sensei
you do not agree with other posters.
However, just for the record, I will answer your infantile attempts at
insults.
> sensie, you asked a dumb, stupid question, to wit:
>
>> Do you deny that diesel fuel is inherently safer in a boat
>> then gasoline?
>
> Of course, idgit. And you can check it out by reviewing
> the USCG accident figures, to wit out of 12,000,000
> registered boats in the country, if each boat was used
> just 10 times in a year and 2.2 people were aboard
> (average) each usage, then just 0.000009% of boaters
> died of "motor fuel" (which may or may not be gasoline,
> it doesn't matter and isn't recorded by the USCG) related
> accidents. That's according to the USCG, if you care to
> check it out.
>
> On the other hand, if one chance of dying in 264,000,000
> attempts worries you .... please by all means stay at home
> in bed with an organic blanket pulled over your head.
Talk about "idgits"... I was comparing fuels and you start comparing fuel to
other issues. I never said that fuel is the most important issue in boating
accidents. All I claimed is that when all other things are equal - it is
better to have diesel fuel then gasoline.
Why do you think (assuming that process is known to you and that you are
capable of it) that the USCG guidelines for gasoline engines installations
are much more strict and comprehensive then for diesel engine
installations?!... Perhaps the USCG holds the same view that I hold?!...
> btw-2 sensie: what the hell does it mean when you say
>
>> although I have a marine engineering background
>
> Everyone on this board has a "marine engineering
> background". Or at least everyone who has threaded
> a dock line does.
FYI, assby, I attended a 4 year technical college and hold a BSc in marine
engineering. In addition, I served for 5 years in a naval setting, worked 3
years in a maritime setting and another 2 years in the offshore oil
industry.
Only a simpleton would consider "threading a dock line" as marine
engineering.
> Further more,
>
>> I make my living as an Internet programmer
>
> there is no such thing as an "Internet programmer", for
> the Internet is not programmed. If you really made
> your living as such you'd know that applications (along
> with operating systems, software tools, and drivers) are
> programmed, and while those applications may be run
> on machines connected to the Internet, they don't hardly
> run the Internet.
FYI, there are 2 fields of internet programming. Client side programming
(HTML, CSS, JavaScript, Java Applets, Flash's ActionScript and XML to
mention a few tools/languages) and server side programming (ASP, PHP, Pearl,
COM, Java, JSP, SQL to mention a few others).
Internet programmers use both client side and server side programming to
create internet based distributed applications such as games, on-line
forums, on-line product catalogs, on-line shops (including shopping baskets)
and whole intranet sites that serve as ERP solutions.
Granted, quite a few "applications" are written as "scripts" which are not
compiled as they are executed by a suitable script interpreter (either on
the client, the server or on both). However, as all scripting languages are
Object Orientated and share a lot of other precepts with full fledged
programming languages I do not consider this technicality as an issue.
Anybody who can program in VBScript can program in VB! In addition, for
maximum efficiency, quite a few server side functions are compiled from
(amongst others) C and C++ source code. Although these applications do not
have a UI (as the whole thing is automated) they are applications according
to the strictest interpretation of the word.
While these applications do not run the internet as such they do run many
(most? all?) of the sites. Where would Amazon and eBay (to mention just two)
be without this sort of programming?!...
> by the way, what applications do you program? porno
> site? viagra promotions? low-cost mortgages?
Personally, I will program anything that is legal and not distasteful to my
sensibilities. Therefore (for example), I would not program kiddy porn sites
nor would I program racial hate sites.
Be that as it may, most of my work is intranet based enterprise solutions
such as ERP, billing solutions and GUI. I will do the occasional web site
client side interactions but as I can't draw anything worthwhile I do not do
graphics.
I won't ask what you do for a living because I assume that if you're not
sponging of somebody or something you are probably flipping burgers or doing
some other menial job.
Have a nice day - NOT!
JAXAshby
A. you're one of the most incredibly arrogant people to ever post on this ng.
you frickin' clowns with IQ's of 115 often believe that's the upper limit of
human intelligence.
B.) any frickin' fool who thinks one chance in 264,000,000 is a risk worth
mentioning is a chicksh*t fool. It also makes a lie of your claim to have
enough math to get an engineering degree.
C. *IF* you did have an engineering degree you would never have made the stupid
statements you did about a "diesel" Wankel engine.
D. your statement "All I claimed is that when all other things are equal - it
is
better to have diesel fuel then gasoline" is so idiot as to CLEARLY show an
underlying fear so abject to as preclude you *ever* dealing objectively with
the subject. things are NEVER all else equal, and the clear fact that you are
incapable of seeing the issues here means you are incapable of rational
discussion. Plain and simple, you're scared to death of the boogeyman.
E. What the hell is a "4 year technical college"? Where I live, that's a
"school" that teaches ghetto kids how to use a keyboard. (btw, the school I
went to was a land grant university and had 45,000 students then)
F. "5 years in a Naval setting" means you enlisted at age 17 and swabbed decks
for five years?
G. "...worked 3 years in a maritime setting" means you cleaned the heads in a
boatyard for three years?
H. " ... and another 2 years in the offshore oil industry" means you were a
clerk in the home office 200 miles inland?
I. your "explanation" of Internet programming is specious, to say the least.
are you such a frickin' idiot that you think no one knows the truth? FWIW, my
technical involvement with what is now known as the Internet goes back to the
days when it was called ARPANET, and my involvement with technology predates
TTL logic design. You known what TTL logic design is? How about Baudot? Ever
seen that?
J. Ever seen a hot tube ignition engine run? Know how it works?
sappy ir131, you're an arrogant fool who's afraid of the water. Stay in bed
with an organic blanket pulled over your head.
In a message dated 7/28/2002 4:41:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
HLAviation
Cal Poly, MIT, TA&M...
>Where I live, that's a
>"school" that teaches ghetto kids how to use a keyboard.
You need to live in a better place.
http://hometown.aol.com/hlaviation/
JAXAshby
>
>Cal Poly, MIT, TA&M...
bull, those are Cal Poly or MIT. TX A&M is way down the list, but still is not
sooooooooo far down to be called a "4 year technical college"
btw, Cal Poly, MIT and Tx A&M are each universities.
>
>>Where I live, that's a
>>"school" that teaches ghetto kids how to use a keyboard.
>
>You need to live in a better place.
what? west Texas?
>http://hometown.aol.com/hlaviation/
>
>
>
>
>
>
Sensei
English home page of my alma mater. You will notice that the school is 160
years old... Also, as you might not be that familiar with Europe's schools I
will only mention that it is a well known and well respected school.
As for my navy experience: ensign, assistant chief engineer and chief
engineer.
As for my mercantile experience: 2nd engineer.
As for off shore experience: I was in charge of maintanance and on site
inspections.
I got fed up with being a "grease monkey" so I took a hobby and turned it
into a profession. That's why today I work in nice trendy office as a
programmer.
As for your credits... You have claimed so many things that have remained
unproven that I won't even speculate...
Pat Ford
>sappy ir131,
>
>A. you're one of the most incredibly arrogant people to ever post on this ng.
>you frickin' clowns with IQ's of 115 often believe that's the upper limit of
>human intelligence.
Please don't feed the troll.
JAX is a notorious and obnoxious 'net parasite. He is a sad and
lonely person. If not given sustenance he will go away.
HLAviation
>not
>sooooooooo far down to be called a "4 year technical college"
>
But you're arguing English semantics with a person who has English as a second
language, therefore you were twisting the meaning of his words. The *can* all
be called technical colleges.
>>>Where I live, that's a
>>>"school" that teaches ghetto kids how to use a keyboard.
>>
>>You need to live in a better place.
>
>what? west Texas?
I don't see ghettos anywhere near me. Besides, I'm not in west Texas, I'm only
an hour away from Dallas. It may get a bit boring around here, but it has it's
upside as well, like last night after the kids were done with their rodeo, a
bunch of us "big kids" got out there running the barrels and pole bending. If
I get real bored, I can leave for somewhere busy, or I can open the gate to my
neighbors ranch and go ride and camp for days. Actually I could put on a
saddle pack and skip across ranch to ranch across this state, and as long as I
leave the gates the way I found them, I'll be welcome. If I want to go sailing
for a day, I can borrow a boat an hour away (it's 70 miles away, but I bet it
takes you longer to cross Manhattan) If I want to spend more time, I have
boats I can use up and down both coasts. I've lived is quite a few major
metopolises, and anymore, I prefer living in the country. If I want a cup of
cappacino, I can make it myself, and if I wanna drink, I'd rather do it around
a fire with friends under the stars than in smoky bars. I've been to New York,
It's fun for awhile, but I wouldn't want to live there nor any other city
again, besides it's tough to raise llamas in an apartment. I've got 70 acres
and a place for less money than a 1 bedroom condo in NYC costs (anywhere I'd
want to live anyway) and the place produces a low 5 figure income annually
(once I get the wind farm set up, hopefully more). It's just a lot more
peacefull out here. The only drawback is I have to travel to have work that
pays what I need to make, but then I always liked to travel so it works out.
Maybe you should try a change, might help your disposition, Maybe sell tractors
and farm implements, there's some pretty healthy commissions in stuff that
costs over $100,000. Maybe you'll get a hay patch and see how peacefull working
hay is, or raise some livestock (avoid cattle, ignorant no fun animals, NE USA
climate would be great for Alpacas though, and their hair is worth some serious
money). A horse can do wonders at attitude adjustment too.
http://hometown.aol.com/hlaviation/
JAXAshby
>be called technical colleges.
no, they can't. not as the word is normally used.
of course, *IF* you wish to change the meaning of the word, you can call them
all chicken ranches.
Keith
people take the bait and reply to him.
Fred Williams
mind I fear) people on the planet, but your extremely smart assed attitude
will resign your information to the delete key forever.
Every once and a while I read one of your posts hoping you will not remain
obnoxious forever, but seems you are definitely incorrigible.
You posts are a true pleasure to mark "as read." Rates right up there with
the occasional Spam.
We had a name for guys like you in the Navy. I seem to remember it is
something like, ASSHOLE. Do have a nice day!
Flame away! My delete key works just fine.
"JAXAshby" <jaxa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020727210202...@mb-bk.aol.com...
NF
See:
http://www.boatingnews.com/eng_s.htm
Also Boat Owner's World was considering buying one and putting it into one
of our boats. If we do, we will post an article on these engines at the end
of the summer.
Norm
Boat Owner's World www.boatowners.com
BoatingNews.Com www.boatingnews.com
Boat Owner's Classified, Forum and Auction www.boatowner.com
"RMartino" <rmar...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020726130727...@mb-cf.aol.com...