| Author | Message | ||
     Joey |
What hootowl said about the NOx--that's the reason you don't see them here. I wasn't aware that nitrogen was a noble gas... Where did I read this? Popular Science or Mechanics. Don't remember which. If you know how a diesel engine worked, you would understand. The throttle on a diesel engine does not control the air intake. It controls the fuel only. That's what direct injection gasoline engines do as well. As far as the reduced power, could you explain why that old motorhome climbs a particular hill and maintain 55 MPH, whereas with the stock carb, floored, it would be doing about 40 at the top? The fishy carb gave me more power. I loaded that old truck up with all my household goods, and towed a car, which was loaded as well. It went up hills and held speed where previously it couldn't do it with the normal carb. The mileage results were for two trips where I maintainted 45 MPH. No matter what is under the gas pedal, maintaining a set speed will show the difference. from 8 to 11.5? Splain that! Regular carburetors vs. Fish: Point 1. When a normal carburetor is at partial throttle, fuel that is vaporised above the throttle plate is susceptible to recondensating somewhat as it hits the throttle plate. It then drips off the throttle plate, and perhaps will be vaporised to some degree. The Fish carburetor has the fuel enter the air stream directly under the throttle plate, which prevents any recondensation from occurring. Only at full throttle does this particular advantage diminish. Point 2. Normal carburetors have several delivery methods to get a certain amount of fuel into the air stream. Metering has to be tuned at several different levels. Throughout rpm and throttle ranges, while the ideal is to be at 14.7:1, or richer if you desire more power and less economy, there is no accurate metering, therefore the carburetor does tend to waste fuel. The Fish carburetor has a metering groove, which keeps the air-to-fuel ration constant throughout the throttle sweep. If I had put a brick under the pedal of my motorhome, there is no way that 318 would have been able to take that motorhome, all my household goods, (estimated at 1.5 tons or so) and a car up the Rocky Mountains from Alaska to Washington, and then again East on through other mountains all the way to Delaware. It might have done it empty. With the fishy carb, it went up those mountains like nothing. The guy who gave me the address to the company put his in a pickup. It was fairly new, with a big engine. He hauls heavy loads, such as firewood, etc., and his Fish carb made a huge difference in power. In all trials with the Fish carb, there was an increase in power. I'll get the book when I can and give you the dyno numbers probably within a few weeks. There are none so blind as those that will not see. | ||
| Joey |
For Blake: http://www.mitsubishi-motors.co.jp/inter/technology/GDI/page5.html This is cool! I'm arguing with Blake! I hope I learn something! | ||
| Sarodude |
Part of the benefits from direct injecting a 4 stroke would have to be from the LACK of a throttle plate. It's just a reduction in pumping losses 'cause you don't have to try and suck stuff thrugh a restricted opening. Works well on diesels but I'm not sure what the extreme leanness would do for a gasoline spark ignition engine. Maybe the 4 stroke direct injection engines utilize a stratified charge like Honda did with the CVCC engines. Whatever. Maybe this is fodder for a quick board discussion... -Saro | ||
| Hootowl |
Sorry, Nitrogen is NOT a noble gas. I was confused. | ||
| Rick_A |
The Fischer "principal" sounds no different then that of the old fixed venturi carb...like the old Harley Bendix. CV carbs currently offer the best meetering of all current carburetors. That's the only reason why they're still in widespread use on motorcycles today. A 14.7:1 A/F ratio is not ideal in all situations. If it was there'd be no need for enricheners, multiple jets/circuits, accelerator pumps, etc. A general guideline is that 8:1 is needed for starting, 10:1 for idle, 16:1 is generally considered an efficient ratio for cruise and 12:1 for power. Blake, I still believe fuel will not get to the point of vaporization in a carb under normal conditions. Direct injection has mainly been used in 2-stroke marine and watercraft engines. The sole reason is an attempt to reduce the emissions. If it was ideal for all engines...I'm sure most motors would be direct injected. Joey's link is a dual mode system. They claim higher output...but compared to what? A normal engine running an "ultra" lean mixture? Most likely  . | ||
| Rick_A |
The throttle plate is a very minor obstruction. What's the difference between a similarly sized/tuned CV and flatslide on the same engine? A couple hp at best? | ||
| Blake |
Joey, Diesels don't have throttles, D'OH! You got me on that one.  I got myself all fixated on gasoline engines. As to the Mitsubishi report. Interesting... but wholly suspect from a rigorous technical viewpoint. They present no actual technical data about these MPI engines to which they compare their GDI engine and they fail to provide actual performance values, just percentage differences. It reads very much like a marketing brochure. There are a lot of variables affecting the efficiency of an IC engine. The MOST significant today is the allowable peak operating temperature. Much of the energy unleashed during combustion goes straight out the tailpipe and into the air via radiator. The Mitsubishi report is dated from 1996. Where is this "AutoMagic" technology that Mitsubishi has so thoroughly investigated and demonstrated? I'm thinking that the challenges and potential results with GDI today are not much different than in thoroughly optimizing the ignition and valve lift and valve timing in a current day MPI engine. Either way, the heat is what is limiting the efficiency. Aluminum tends to melt, steel melts too, and oil vaporizes. Therein lies the biggest challenge to increasing the efficiency of the IC engine, throwing away less heat and instead turning it into mechanical energy. I would agree that once the peak operating temperature problem can be economically solved, then yes, GDI will be probably be required since MPI will have no means to prevent pre-ignition. That is where we will realize the big efficiency and power gains. But it is the operational temperature that drives the gains, the GDI is simply a necessary means to get the fuel into the cylinder without suffering pre-ignition, just like in a diesel. | ||
| Blake |
Rick, "Blake, I still believe fuel will not get to the point of vaporization in a carb under normal conditions." At what temperature under normal atmospheric pressure does gasoline vaporise? At what temperature under significantly reduced pressure, say 1/10th normal atmosphere does gasoline vaporize? Hint... It ain't very hot. Can you imagine a scenario where your carburetor/intake might reach that temperature? Buell came out with a little fan to help cool the intake manifold of the Japanese DDFI Buells. Why? Hint... Gasoline vaporizing inside an injector causes big problems. | ||
| Sarodude |
The throttle plate comment was poorly stated by me... The throttle plate causes a large obstruction under part throttle. That's fine and dandy - cause you're trying to restrict power. Problem is that you're also making it harder for the engine to suck in it's charge - therefore increasing pumping losses. If you're building a reace vehicle, you probably don't care about part throttle efficiency. If you're driving your grandmother to the store in 35 mph traffic, you probably do. In a 2 stroke (or a wildly cammed 4 stroke) emissions / fuel efficiency improve 'cause if you time the injection so that it occurs after the exhaust port / valve is closed, you may still lose some fresh intake air, but you won't blow any raw unburned fuel out. Anyway, my pumping loss comments were strictly with regard to part throttle situations. -Saro | ||
| Rick_A |
Blake, that was due to their lower quality gas, was it not? Those injectors are screwed directly into the manifold...absorbing some of that heat. We're talking about a cool, fresh intake charge. I can't imagine it gets very hot in the very short time it takes to pass through the intake tract. Unless you can give me hard facts, I still don't believe you. Supposedly, even direct injection systems don't fully vaporize the charge. On the throttle plate issue...regardless of the marginal pumping loses...current direct injection technology seems to be aimed towards applications favoring high economy rather than high performance. If a direct injection system is tuned for maximum power, you loose a lot of the fuel efficiency benefit. Getting maximum fuel efficiency vs. max power is generally a compromise. It's volumetric efficiency versus combustion efficiency. They don't always go hand in hand. | ||
| Blake |
Rick, "Unless you can give me hard facts, I still don't believe you." Are you calling me a liar or just stupid? I just gave you the "hard facts" along with a few questions to help you investigate and learn about the effects of temperature on the fuel charge. Believe whatever you like. I have no more desire to be called a liar or stupid. | ||
| Rick_A |
Hard facts are irrefutable proof. Hard facts are the actual numbers and testing. I don't have that information available...and if you do, then by all means, please share it. I called you neither liar or stupid, you obviously came up with those on your own  . Your example was a fuel charge in regards to an injector pulse, not an air/fuel charge as pertains to carburetors. I don't see that as having any pertinent relation to the topic...that's all. Hell yeah I believe what I want, and you've gotta be pretty arrogant to find that insulting | ||
| Joey |
Here are some Fishy numbers: VW 1200 0 to 60 Std: 26 seconds; Fish: 18 seconds. 30 to 80 Std: 30 seconds; Fish: 18.1 seconds. MPG Std: 34; Fish: 38. Top speed Std: 70/72; Fish 80/85. See more at http://minnowfish.co.uk/carbs/carbs.htm | ||
| Reepicheep |
0 to 60 in 26 seconds sounds awful slow, even for a VW 1200. I don't recall them being THAT bad... Also, the top speed sounds low as well. Was this based on well tuned and optimally conventionally carb'd bugs? The data on the site seemed to imply that it was just anectdotal. I suspect it is simply showing that a big carb on a tuned engine works better then a little carb on an untuned engine... | ||
| Joey |
Good point. My motorhome was well-tuned, though. It would start cold or warm, no matter the weather, without me even having to hit the gas pedal. Once I got the Fish tuned to the same performance, it pulled noticeably stronger, and used much less gas. Uh-oh. I think I'm being redundant... | ||
| Blake |
Joey, Very trusting of you to proclaim the peddlers of the product as reliable and objective evaluators of it's performance. I am a bit more skeptical... I performed just one quick check on their claims as follows: It is a well accepted and scientifically proven fact that to increase the top speed of a vehicle traveling through air the engine power must be increased by the cubed ratio of the desired peak speed to the existing peak speed. For the VW they list that with the standard carburetor the car attains a top speed of 70-72 mph and with the fishy carb they attained a top speed of 80-85 mph. The percentage increase in power required to achieve a jump from the average peak speed of 71 mph to 82.5 mph would be (82.5/71)3=57% . You really believe that simply bolting on a special carb is going to get you that kind of power increase? The fishy people are liars, nothing less. Anyone who would make such a claim is a liar. They also claim that "All-in-all aproximately 100 hours of work goes into each carb." Funny how they only charge ~$700 for one. That amounts to less than $7/hr not to mention materials and overhead. | ||
| Blake |
Rick,
No, facts are just facts. They do not necessarily "prove" anything. Facts combined with logic can combine to prove a point. Here is a demonstration of that relationship... Fact... EFI throttle bodies are know to become hot enough to vaporize liquid fuel still contained within the high pressure environment of the injector. Fact... Carburetors and their jets are exposed to the same heat environment as EFI throttle bodies and injectors. Fact... The fuel residing within a carburetor's float bowl can become preheated due to its proximity to highly elevated engine and exhaust header temperatures. Fact... At/near idle the airflow passing through the intake is not sufficient to cool the carburetor and in fact becomes heated by the hot intake tract. Fact... Fuel at higher pressure like found inside the injectors requires significantly higher temperatures to achieve vaporization compared to fuel at atmospheric pressure. Fact... Fuel within a carburetor is at near atmospheric pressure. Logic... Fuel within a carburetor will therefore vaporize at a significantly lower temperature compared to that within a pressurized injector. Fact... As soon as fuel comes in contact with warm air, it starts to vaporize. Logic... Under operating conditions similar to those that cause vaporization of fuel within injectors, fuel already preheated and traveling through the intake tract of a carbureted bike could also vaporize and in fact have even more propensity to do so when subjected to hot low pressure/higher velocity air. Fact... Fortunately this is not significantly detrimental to the operation of a carbureted motorcycle though it may lead to a greater propensity for detonation at low engine speeds.
If you hadn't noticed, I'm not laughing. You said "I don't believe you." By saying that, your meaning is quite clear to those of us that comprehend the precise meaning of the English language. The meaning is that you perceive my statement as untrue. For me to state an untruth in a serious discussion, I would either be lying - deliberately stating a falsehood - or stupidly conveying erroneous information. Therefore, intended or not, you did call me either a liar or stupid.
That is all too clear as your ramblings in the lubrication topic so well demonstrated. No worries; I used to be much the same. I felt like if I didn't know everything I was a failure. You may progressively defeat that unfortunate tendency with age and maturity. I may be guilty of arrogance, but mainly I don't like being called a liar or stupid. So maybe you can try to keep such comments to yourself. Capice? | ||
| Roc |
Anyone know what series the Power Commander for the Firebolt is? Anyone know what if the fuel injector for the Xb type is the same as that for previous injected Buells? I think the part number for the Xb Buells is 29533-99Y. Thanks | ||
| Ptown |
roc. According to the parts catalog for the X1 2000 the injector part number is the same.29533-99y Eugene | ||
| Joey |
Good points, Blake. Now that I think about it, it seems they probably started with a car that had carburetor problems. I started with a truck that ran quite well, points ignition and all. I had results that were not as profound as theirs. The top speed of my beast was just over 60 MPH. 61? With the Fish, I managed to get awfully close to 70 MPH. Well, more like 67 MPH. Hey! That works out to better than 30%! That sure came in handy when going over the Rockies with all that extra stuff. Sounds like they're giving fishy numbers, but I know the carburetor works. When I get my books out, I'll send you more believable numbers. The company guaranteed, I think, 15% better gas mileage, but claimed an average of 30%, with an increase in power. They didn't say how much of an increase, but I personally know of two cases (I'm one) where it made a noticeable difference. Hey! If it's only a little better, it's still better. Mine cost $395, with the option of additional carburetors at $295. I'll say the 100 hours crap is crap. Maybe they calculated that if they ran up the entire production process and only made one carburetor, it would take 100 hours worth of everything involved. Probably if they built 100, it would take 150 hours... | ||
| Rick_A |
I may be guilty of arrogance, but mainly I don't like being called a liar or stupid. So maybe you can try to keep such comments to yourself. Capice? You are a truly thick headed individual. So, let me get this straight, you're saying I'm stupid for thinking you're wrong? Hey Blake, I don't like being called stupid. . Criticize my "ramblings" on the oil topic if you'd like, but you're no more an expert on the subject than most anyone else. Gimme a break here, man. Just 'cause you read about it doesn't make you more an expert than anyone else. Keep to mechanical engineering 'cause as much as you'd like to think to the contrary, you're not an expert in all things motorcycles. Call it facts all you want, there's still no PROOF in the statements! They seem more state more opinion and reckoning than anything else. Fact... EFI throttle bodies are know to become hot enough to vaporize liquid fuel still contained within the high pressure environment of the injector. Sure, and that's also an ABNORMAL condition when the engine is already hotter than it should be, ain't it? How does that apply to carbs? Fact... Carburetors and their jets are exposed to the same heat environment as EFI throttle bodies and injectors. With the difference of relatively cool outside moving air...mixing with the fuel in a carb first. The problem with injectors is that they don't don't efficiently pump filled with vapor...the fuel flows up the carb jets just the same. Gee...what's the air bleed thing for? Again...what's that gotta do with a carb? Fact... The fuel residing within a carburetor's float bowl can become preheated due to its proximity to highly elevated engine and exhaust header temperatures. It's proximity is not all that close...the heat has gotta go through a few insulating gaskets and a manifold first...and again...see the above. Just out of curiosity I put my hand on my carb body after commuting today. A hell of a lot cooler than anything else connected to the cylinder head! Fact... At/near idle the airflow passing through the intake is not sufficient to cool the carburetor and in fact becomes heated by the hot intake tract. The COOLER intake charge cools the warmer fuel when it comes into contact with it, don't it? It doesn't get significantly hotter and in fact further cools in the venturi. Ever heard of the Bernoulli effect? Fact... Fuel at higher pressure like found inside the injectors requires significantly higher temperatures to achieve vaporization compared to fuel at atmospheric pressure. Sure Fact... Fuel within a carburetor is at near atmospheric pressure. Of course Logic... Fuel within a carburetor will therefore vaporize at a significantly lower temperature compared to that within a pressurized injector. Flawed logic...yeah, but not that low. Fact... As soon as fuel comes in contact with warm air, it starts to vaporize. Uh...vaporization and evaporization are two different things Blake! Logic... Under operating conditions similar to those that cause vaporization of fuel within injectors, fuel already preheated and traveling through the intake tract of a carbureted bike could also vaporize and in fact have even more propensity to do so when subjected to hot low pressure/higher velocity air Uh, no...the air inside a venturi is typically significantly cooler than outside air. Fact... Fortunately this is not significantly detrimental to the operation of a carbureted motorcycle though it may lead to a greater propensity for detonation at low engine speeds. FACT...fuel mixing with inside a carb under any NORMAL conditions is called ATOMIZATION in a land-based vehicle. VAPORIZATION is not considered a normal function of a carb in our application! Fact...In an internal combustion engine, fuel vapor is the change of gasoline from a liquid droplet form to a gaseous state. This typically only occurs in the combustion chamber on the compression stroke. Very simple... gasoline=liquid atomized gasoline=liquid gas droplets suspended in air vaporized gasoline=liquid droplets of gasoline turned into gas by heat of compression (Boyle's law) Those are the plain and simple facts. Now, I've been taught a bit on tuning, carbs, fuel delivery, etc, and I've looked into every possible outlet of information on carbs and carb tuning...and I have never heard it stated anywhere that fuel vaporizes within a carb. Show me some sources other than yourself...like industry experts...and I'll admit I'm wrong!! The only sources I've found that've stated there is vaporization in a carburetor are those applying to aircraft and cold starting devices. I've read about some devices that have been experimented with to attempt vaporization in a carb under normal driving conditions using vaporization chambers heated by exhaust gas. One I came across stated that vaporization didn't occur at IDLE until their device was activated. A lot of cars have manifold heaters for the purposes of preventing icing on cold days...promoting better ATOMIZATION for better VAPORIZATION in the engine IN THE COLD. Basically these devices and principals (vaporized carburetor fuel delivery) are failures because while mileage is typically increased they also generally run poorly compared to a standard carbed motor (surging and backfiring) and make less power overall (a cooler, denser intake charge can make more power). Because a majority of power in a combustion engine is lost due to thermal losses and most engines nowadays have very good combustion efficiency as is, they have little benefit and is why they are not in widespread use...and why they are generally considered a scam. | ||
| Thunderbolt |
well, you two are certainly sluggin it out, aint ya! i don't know about anyone else but i find the ole back and forth thing kind of entertaining. i have to say that my 2 cents is that Blake, man, you are taking this thing way too personal. damn, he didn't call you stupid (at least not until that last 'thick headed' thing in the last post)...in my op, while you might state some facts, you certainly don't state any actual data--which is what you'd need to actually prove any of what you're saying.... example: you say that the fuel in the carb is preheated because of its proximity to the engine and therefore will vaporize at a SIGNIFICANTLY lower pressure. i guess that's a fact, mainly because SIGNIFICANTLY doesn't have any real scientific meaning. you could just as easily say 'at a SLIGHTLY lower pressure' and still have a fact there. in order to 'prove' your point, you'd have to have some actual DATA (either theoretical or experimental) that shows the heated fuel's new vaporization pressure is something your likely to see in a carb. you don't do that. anyway, my point is that you make some good points, but don't carried away and pretend your 'proving' anything--i think he's got you there... OK, excuse the interuption, and come out fighting! (not with me of course) | ||
| Sarodude |
I don't mean to sound like Richard Cranium, but what the !@&* are you guys arguing about? -Saro | ||
| Roc |
Thank you Ptown. You don't by any chance live in Oregon do you? Can anyone tell me the what the pulse duration of the 29533-99Y injector is at redline, for either a tube or fuel frame? Does anyone know if there is an automotive equivalent to this injector, and if so what is it? Thank you | ||
| Rick_A |
Well, I think Blake makes some valid points, but hasn't taken everything into consideration. If I had a pyrometer I would definitely go about settling this thing! | ||
| Blake |
TBolt, I don't believe you.  Doesnt' sit to well does it?  Ya transposed some terms there bud. What I said was that the lower pressure environment of a carb would allow fuel to vaporize at a significantly lower temperature compared to the temperature required to boil fuel inside a pressurized injector. "Significant" in technical discussions is usually taken to indicate a meaningful, appreciable, or major amount. In percentage terms, something like 10% or more would be "significant." But you are right, it depends on the subject. Context makes a difference. Saro, We're talking about a very trivial thing. Whether or not fuel can vaporize within the carburetor and intake tract. Rick made an erroneous assertion involving the thermodynamics of gasoline carburetion; I've been trying to lead him to enlightenment. Then he pissed me off. It is of no matter. My aim was to try to stimulate Rick into learning something. I asked him if he knew the vaporization temperature of gasoline. Kind of a trick question, since as I pointed out later, gasoline begins to vaporize immediately upon contact with air. Rick, I'd apologize for toying with you, but buddy, you deserve it. The *fact* is that at atmospheric pressure, the more volatile constituents of pump gasoline begin to boil off at just 80oF. By the time the temperature approaches 200oF, over 50% of pump gasoline has boiled off. And also, as stated before, gasoline begins to vaporize immediately upon contacting the air, no matter the temperature. Study up on vapor pressures and sublimation if you are curious about that phenomenon. When I get time I'll wander back over to the Lubrication topic and better explain what little I know of the basic chemical/molecular mechanics of synthetic oil. Or you could do some research on your own and see if you can tell me why the hydrocarbon chains comprising synthetic oil base stock are indeed longer than those comprising the base stock of a quality conventional oil of the same viscosity. Careful, that may well be another trick question. Peace, love, and see you out there, Blake | ||
| Rick_A |
Gee Blake, I'd better be careful that my gas doesn't completely vaporize out of my tank vent on hot days, right? Gimme a break, the rate of vaporization is extremely slow...and slower still in a carb...because where it mixes it is universally known to be significantly cooler than outside temperatures...thereby effectively canceling much of the effect of reduced pressure. Using your logic water vaporizes immediately too, huh? It's more appropriate to use the term evaporization in these situations. True vaporization only occurs during the compression stroke when a motor is already at operating temperature. One difference between you and I is I'll readily admit to being wrong, while you'll continue trying to twist the facts of everything you can possibly muster to attempt to reinforce your position. Continuing to push you position won't make you appear anymore correct, buddy. A carb is designed to atomize not vaporize. Why do you try so hard to prove otherwise? I'm sure some vaporization occurs at all times, but not enough to have any real significance. what little I know of the basic chemical/molecular Now that I believe! | ||
| Thunderbolt |
Blake, you funny! I've scoured countless technical texts, read the entire dictionary five times, consulted with the Dali, and have to laugh out loud at your definition of "Significant"--'...a...major, amount...something like 10%...' where, in god's green earth did you come up with that? don't tell me, i know, RIGHT OUT OF YOUR ASS, which is precisely where the rest of your 'proof' has originated as well... if you had 'proof' that it was 'something like 10%', why didn't you state that rather than using such a non-scientific term as 'significantly'. not that 'something like 10%' is a scientific way of explaining something either. is 9% 'something like 10%'? how about 15%? 20%? 90%? well, it depends on who you ask i suppose. certainly not the language i would use to prove something. sounds more like a snake oil sales pitch to me. i hope the guys at the FDA aren't using your scientific proof methods to approve new drugs...i can guarntee that would cause significant health problems for a significant portion of the population. you're theorizing--which can be fun and sometimes fruitful, but, please don't flatter yourself by saying you're proving anything. you DO demonstrate that there are factors which show that what you're saying COULD THEORETICALLY happen. that's it. turn your arrogance/pride settings back a few turns, come back to earth, and deal with it. | ||
| Blake |
Rick, I looked up obdurate in the dictionary; saw a picture of you. "Gimme a break, the rate of vaporization is extremely slow...and slower still in a carb..." Maybe you'd like to share what you believe are the primary factors that affect the rate of vaporization. Then explain how none of those factors are ever present in adequate magnitude or sense within a carburetor to support vaporization of gasoline. "...because where it mixes it is universally known to be significantly cooler than outside temperatures." How can the carburetor (where it mixes) become "cooler than outside temperatures." Careful, you are about to step in it bigtime. "Using your logic water vaporizes immediately too, huh?" Depending on environmental conditions water does indeed vaporize quite vigorously even at room temperature. A gallon of water at normal room temperature can vaporize within seconds. You probably don't believe me. "A carb is designed to atomize not vaporize." I NEVER contended that carburetors are "designed to vaporize", though I believe there are some that indeed are. The CV40 Buell carburetor is not. What I said in refutation of your statement was that fuel could indeed vaporize within the carburetor. It can and does to varying degrees depending upon the various pertinent conditions, you know, the ones you are going to tell me. "It's more appropriate to use the term evaporization in these situations. True vaporization only occurs during the compression stroke when a motor is already at operating temperature." "Evaporization"? Inventing new words will not help your argument. Vaporization is vaporization is the same as evaporation. I don't know of a "true" or "false" "vaporization" that differs from plain old "vaporization" or "evaporation." If you mean to say that the majority of fuel is vaporized within the combustion chamber, that would be generally accurate but not necessarily in all cases/conditions. "One difference between you and I is I'll readily admit to being wrong" I've seen much evidence to the contrary. "while you'll continue trying to twist the facts of everything you can possibly muster to attempt to reinforce your position." Sorry you feel that way. Which facts did I twist exactly? "Continuing to push you position won't make you appear anymore correct, buddy." Why would I need to "appear anymore (sic) correct"? I AM correct, buddy. "I'm sure some vaporization occurs at all times, but not enough to have any real significance." Silly California, requiring all those evaporative emissions canisters. You should write them a letter explaining to them how silly it is to think that gasoline in ambient conditions could vaporize at any significant rate. Oh wait, I almost missed it... Are you saying you were wrong about fuel vaporizing in the carburetor? Some more things for you to ponder... What fuel consumption rate does the typical Buell have sitting at idle? What size are the atomized particles that are injected into the intake tract's air stream? How severe do you suppose the heat environment that is acting to heat the carburetor can get? I bet it can get pretty severe. Here in Texas on a hot summer day, the ambient air temperature over an asphalt road can easily reach 110oF, plus there's conduction via the aluminum (excellent conductor) intake manifold, radiation from the engine and headers, and convection from engine and headers via ambient air. Left parked on the newly paved asphalt parking lot at the local HD/Buell shop, what temperature will the gasoline in my black Cyclone reach on a hot sunny Texas summer afternoon? Will/can the gasoline in my tank boil? And finally... What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?  | ||
| Blake |
Matt (Thunderbolt), I've scoured countless technical texts, read the entire dictionary five times, consulted with the Dali, and have to laugh out loud at your definition of "Significant"--'...a...major, amount...something like 10%...'" What I said was What about "you are right" do you not understand? where, in god's green earth did you come up with that? The dictionary and well, you may not believe this... right out of my ass. don't tell me, i know, RIGHT OUT OF YOUR ASS, which is precisely where the rest of your 'proof' has originated as well... Your momma. if you had 'proof' that it was 'something like 10%', why didn't you state that rather than using such a non-scientific term as 'significantly'. Never said is was "something like 10%." I didn't work the actual number because I was feeling lazy; didn't feel like doing the math. not that 'something like 10%' is a scientific way of explaining something either. is 9% 'something like 10%'? how about 15%? 20%? 90%? well, it depends on who you ask i suppose. certainly not the language i would use to prove something. sounds more like a snake oil sales pitch to me. i hope the guys at the FDA aren't using your scientific proof methods to approve new drugs...i can guarntee that would cause significant health problems for a significant portion of the population. You are a significant twit. you're theorizing--which can be fun and sometimes fruitful, You are twitting which can be annoying and often bothersome. but, please don't flatter yourself by saying you're proving anything. you DO demonstrate that there are factors which show that what you're saying COULD THEORETICALLY happen. that's it. turn your arrogance/pride settings back a few turns, come back to earth, and deal with it. Do you have a crush on Rick? I don't think marines go for twits. |
