motor / Engine

[Johnnie]

When I got back into rocketry in 1997, I picked up a book called the "Handbook of Model Rocketry" we all know the book right?...

Anyways, G Harry Stein says the correct word for the rocket propelled apperatus is MOTOR not ENGINE ...Why? because an engine has moving parts, i.e. pistons, crankshaft, cam, yadda yadda yadda, and a motor has few moving parts if any, therefore the correct term by definition...

So this has stuck with me thru the years, and when someone says that they put an ENGINE in their rocket, I get a visual image of a small block 350 with a "Quadra Bog" carburator on top...

I don't know, but I put MOTORS in my rockets, how about yourself???

simple poll really

 

[wwattles]

I didn't vote because my option isn't available:

"I use both Engine and Motor."

So THERE!



WW

 

[hokkyokusei]

I use both terms.

 

[cydermaster]

G Harry Stein does make the point it should be MOTORS, but I find I end up using both terms.

 

[Mike]

I don't think theres really an answer, both seem pretty interchangable and people know what you mean with both. Just down to personal preference I geuss.

 

[edwardw]

I use them both and differently.

For example - let me get that little Estes C Motor.

But when I think about hybrids and stuff I call them Engines - I think space shuttle and moving parts.


Edward

 

[BlueNinja]

Motor. It stuck, so I use it.

Hybrids now that you mention it would be kinda like an engine, more complexity and things to go wrong .

 

[KermieD]

Didn't this one come up once before, or was that on ROL? At any rate, the official answer is:

WOOSH Generators.

 

[Stones]

The term "motor mount" is fairly prevalent in rocketry discussion.
I tend to go with motor.

 

[Ryan S.]

definantly motor, sometimes I call the little motors engines but its pretty much always a motor for me

 

[Steward]

You know...after thinking about this for a few minutes...
I've found my head hurts...

I voted MOTOR anyway...

 

[Johnnie]

whooosh generators??? Hey! I remember you, I started that thread on ROL 2 years ago still a good topic for pet peeves though.

 

[slim_t]

Well I've always used motor to mean electric motor, and engine meaning combustion, just to keep myself from being confused, but when it came to rockets I wasn't sure what was more appropriate. I noticed both were used, but I use motor for basically the same reason you noted. When I think engine, I think mechanical power producing engine, 327, 350, etc.

Maybe it should be motor for solid fuel rocket motors, and engines for liquid fueled rocket engines. I don't know, rocket engine just doesn't sound right to me.

It looks like I just contradicted myself, since all rocket motors have combustion. My head hurts, or as the wife says - I have too much intercranial pressure.

Tim

 

[Johnnie]

I can hear it now...NASA: "we have main engine start..."

The fuel pumps, valves, coolants, widgets, and inlets one of the Saturn V motors had to have to be able to pump thousands of gallons of liquid propellant through the ENGINE in seconds is mind blowing, and here I can see a variation in the definition. These 5 main engines had more mechanical parts than any commercial airliner...

But for the hobby, I use motors. Even when flying hybrids, all the oxidized fuels are downfed by presure from the self presurizing liquid, there-by no moving parts.

This is a tough one, and is mere preference for the flier what he puts in the business end of his rocket...now for that space between the bodytube and the fin, do you put a fillet (FILL-IT) or a fillet (FILL-LAY)...I guess that depends on whether you fly a fish or a rocket.

The solid rockets are called "boosters" by NASA...I could have added that choice too I guess.

 

[rabidsheeep]

arent they called boosters... or just stages? when you listen in on those nasa launches they dont say motor or engine...

myself... well... i normally launch with my dad so i just call em "the short brown tubes"... try and keep it simple and not rocket related...

 

[powderburner]

And I would like to flog all those illiterate cretins who abuse the English language


unless it's me who slips up and calls it an 'engine'

 

[Elbmod]

Has to be motors - engines have moving parts!

You could have added the BATFE designation too perhaps - propellant actuated device....... now there's a mouthful!

 

[hokkyokusei]

Originally posted by powderburner
And I would like to flog all those illiterate cretins who abuse the English language

Like Estes?

 

[KermieD]

Johnnie,

I think it was Ray Dunakin (or maybe Dick Stafford) who coined the "WOOSH Generators" term on the ROL discussion. Sorry, I should have quoted my source.

 

[gothique_97]

From The American Heritage Dictionary...

Engine n.
- A machine that converts energy into mechanical force or motion.
Such a machine distinguished from an electric, spring-driven, or hydraulic motor by its use of a fuel.
- A mechanical appliance, instrument, or tool: engines of war.
- An agent, instrument, or means of accomplishment.

Motor n.
- Something, such as a machine or an engine, that produces or imparts motion.
- A device that converts any form of energy into mechanical energy, especially an internal-combustion engine or an arrangement of coils and magnets that converts electric current into mechanical power.

The difference seems to be not the application, but its use of a fuel. Take it for what its worth...

 

[Hospital_Rocket]

I tend to think of it as the motor when outside of the airframe, and as the engine when installed.

 

[Justy]

I tend buy packs of motors, then when it's time to fly I'll break an engine out of the pack, and butt it up against the motor ring, or fix it in place with an engine clip. Bwaa.

I say to my friend, can I borrow a motor? He says yes, they're in the range box.

I say to him, I found a place that still has some A10-0T engines, and he says great, I have a project that needs those.

As long as the person you're talking to understands that you're talking about the thing you ram into the rocket and light in order to make it fly, call them catomakers, or kwyjibos, or max-q-tips, or propellant actuated actuators for propellant actuated devices (paapad?).

 

[shreadvector]

No. NASA clearly uses the correct terms:

Engine for rocket propulsion devices with moving turbomachinery (i.e. the F! engines of the Saturn V, the SSME - Space Shuttle Main Engines).
Motor for solid or hybrid rocket propulsion devices with no turbomachinery or pistons (i.e. PAM - Payload Assist Motor, SS-SRM - Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Motor, and all those solid rocket motors they've strapped on the side of Delata rockets over the years).

Electric motors are really motors since they turn the energy into work without moving parts. The spinning of the motor is the output.

I started saying "engine" since that's what Estes printed on their packages. I have since converted to "motor" and Estes has in many areas as well (look carefully at the labelling).

At least they don't call them "COBRA" anymore....

-Fred Shecter NAR 20117

Originally posted by rabidsheeep
arent they called boosters... or just stages? when you listen in on those nasa launches they dont say motor or engine...

myself... well... i normally launch with my dad so i just call em "the short brown tubes"... try and keep it simple and not rocket related...

 

[tbzep]

pistons (i.e. PAM - Payload Assist Motor, SS-SRM - Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Motor, and all those solid rocket motors they've strapped on the side of Delata rockets over the years).

They called them SRB's more often, at least publicly....probably to keep the engineers and the rest of the NASA employees from getting into fights over the motor vs. engine debate. :lol:

 

[Bohica]

Didn't this one come up once before, or was that on ROL? At any rate, the official answer is:

WOOSH Generators.

I like it!

 

[adrian]

Didn't this one come up once before, or was that on ROL? At any rate, the official answer is:

WOOSH Generators.

Yes, it came up before here.

I tend to use the words interchangably, and don't get bothered if someone else uses the "wrong" one. The rocket doesn't care whether what is in its tail end is a "motor" or an "engine", so neither do I.

 

[Johnnie]

Yes, it came up before here.

I tend to use the words interchangably, and don't get bothered if someone else uses the "wrong" one. The rocket doesn't care whether what is in its tail end is a "motor" or an "engine", so neither do I.

"Oh Contraire"...Paparoof's thread only came up yesterday...this particular thread is 4 years old...and yes, I started the same topic at ROL several years ago before this thread. As I remember it, 'whoosh generators came from r.m.r. (yuck!)

Johnnie

 

[Bazookadale]

When I got back into rocketry in 1997, I picked up a book called the "Handbook of Model Rocketry" we all know the book right?...

Anyways, G Harry Stein says the correct word for the rocket propelled apperatus is MOTOR not ENGINE ...Why? because an engine has moving parts, i.e. pistons, crankshaft, cam, yadda yadda yadda, and a motor has few moving parts if any, therefore the correct term by definition...

In the first edition of the handbook Harry called them Engines - he changed his mind years later.
I first remember the argument starting in the early '70's and thought it was silly. Who cares what there called as long as the make the rocket fly

 

[Johnnie]

In the first edition of the handbook Harry called them Engines - he changed his mind years later.
I first remember the argument starting in the early '70's and thought it was silly. Who cares what there called as long as the make the rocket fly

Yeah, after starting this thread years ago, I have come to realise that it is a matter of preference, so to each his own...no skin off my nose...

But my Motor is better than your engine...HA!!

Johnnie

 

[lessgravity]

I always go by this definition from NASA:

"It has been customary throughout NASA to refer to liquid propellant rocket systems as an engine and a solid rocket system as a motor"

Vern Estes started using "engine" because he misunderstood the proper nomenclature in discussions with G. Harry Stine. This is explained in the Mabel article in the March-April 2007 edition of Sport Rocketry.