Hello -
(yes, I'm back again - please
welcome *) back my friends
to the show that never ends
*me)
gee ..
Uhm, that said, my comment on that question should be:
If you already go so far as to totally Americanize that French
name of Mallet (spoken Maijét) into 'Malley'
(sounds much better for a whiskey, doesn't it?)
then you have sort of dispensed with your care about the mode
of expansion. Further, although the two items according to
Monsieur Mallet were supposed to go together
(some old European inventors could be quite stuborn heads
once they had come to look at certain matter from their own
branch in a tree - one of the last such patrons probably was
Wankel, who was so obsessed with getting rid of the reciprocating
action of pistons in engines that he remained blind towards the
impracticability of a stretched out sickle shaped combustion chamber
as concerns todays all-important fuel efficiency. Likewise, when the
Wankel engine had been brought to become sturdy and longer
lasting by the Japanese who had become equally devoted to the
principle, then again there could have been a discussion if those
Far East series engines should still be called Wankels - there had
been a couple of further inventions and improvements made by
the engineers of Mazda that were essential to make that type of
rotary piston engine run and last. As far as I know that sort of
discussion never broke out, instead Wankel lovers happily drove
their Mazda sports cars and listened to the turbine-like humming
of the engine at high rotational speeds.
In a similar fully practical sense US railroads when they found the one
principle not fully up to their demands, yet the other was a great
help to get further coupled axles round their curves, they simply
(yep!) got rid of that more questionable part and happily exploited
the other to sizes never thought of before - and still called these
engines Mallets - or, hey, Malleys - and never had a problem.
Likewise, although of much smaller scale, when biking to
the university I followed a small beaten track over a
meadow, on the other side I continued on the street
again - athough the path went on again much further.
Still, I never followed it fully and so couldn't even say
where it led to, neither did I have a problem by saying
I follow that part of that path and never cared to call it
differently just because I used only part of it.
See what I mean?
Last word: I you want to be precise you can always
call a simple expansion Mallet just that way - or
Simple Malley and the other a Compound Mallet.
That about clears the horizon, doesn't it?
All the best for 2021!
Juniatha