EFI

[Terry Martin]

Robert Harris wrote:
> 
> Dah - dere is a more saturated fuel available - its
> called M85 or Methanol.  Now time for basic chemistry.
> 
> The more oxygen a fuel contains - the lower the power
> density of the fuel, and the more of the fuel you have to
> burn to make the same level of power.

You missed a word. It should have read "and the more of the combined
fuel you have to burn to make the same level of power." Unless you've
figured out how to
get around some basic thermo-dynamics, it's self evident that displacing
hydro-carbons with oxygen in a given volume will require more combined
mass in the same volume for the same energy than a larger mass of
hydro-carbons being fed even more mass of oxygen. (Sort of a gas pedal
type of
calculation) 

> Your flipping magnets
> electromagnetic spectrum analopticytous whacko fantasy's
> aside, thats reality.

They sure ain't my fantasy. Mine has hooters. 

> And since the oxygenation of fuel is NOT for POWER nor for
> MILEAGE nor to make CARBS work better, but is for a cheap ass
> way of reducing certain emissions in ALL engines and causes
> an INCREASE in other type emissions, more is not BETTER!

All shouting aside, why it's done does not have any particular
relationship to everything that
happens when it's done, which is exactly my point. It's stupid to
formulate fuel to run both carbed and fuel injected engines. You get
the worst of both.

> By the way, NOX is related to combustion TEMP,

Your point being? I was suggesting working at getting rid of the
nitrogen, (at least some of it), unless you're saying combustion temp is
the only thing NOX is related to? 

> And Terry and others - might I suggest reading the "Exhaustive Gasoline
> FAQ" parts 1 to 4 posted and made available numerous places on the net.
> This will explain many of your fuel questions with enough provable theory
> so that you don't get snake oiled or side tracked into fantasy land.

Methinks you're not keeping track of who said what. 

> Final note.  Diesel fuel contains ZERO oxygenates, ZERO alcohol's or ethers
> and is as close to liquid COAL (straight carbon)

Exactly why I mentioned it, although I doubt it's zero oxygenates, being
a refined petro-chemical liquid and
all.

> as can be made and meet
> other requirements.  The ENERGY in a fuel is very closely related to the
> amount of carbon available to combine with oxygen, and pre-combining
> oxygen  in effect pre-burns that portion of the fuel.  Sorry - no plasmaizing
> puke yellow page magic today boys.

You're repeating yourself, and I got it before the first time. And I
didn't say anything too serious about pre-combining oxygen with the rest
of the fuel charge,(you keep referring to oxygen as if it's not part of
the fuel), I mentioned compressing cold air into the injector stream. If
you think that "pre-combines it" you need a little chemistry refresher
yourself. I didn't necessarily even mean mixing it with the liquid fuel.
It could go in as compressed "bubbles" between packets of liquid fuel,
(like air bubbles in a water hose). Anyone that's ever run a water hose
knows what happens when you get air bubbles in the water stream. Since
the liquid is not particularly compressible, the air takes all of the
compression, and when it reaches the nozzle breaks out and atomizes the
water in the immediate vicinity because of the expansion front being
released in all directions.

>  Further, comparing gasoline to diesel
> requiring special fuels ain't in the realm of reality.  It took Fuel Injection
> about
> 70 plus years to equal a properly tuned high performance carb such as a
> Weber.

That's because Fuel Injection needs Electronic Computerized Control to
work half ass. When was THAT invented? (See I can shout too) :-0 For
that matter, any carb that works half ass is a direct result of computer
technology.

>  Further, after the fuel and air are mixed, there is NO Difference in
>  combustion

Huh? You must be a flat earth type. Cars move. They go up, (air's
thinner there you know, partial pressure of gasses and all that), and
they go down, (air's more dense there you know), and it also gets hotter
and colder and many other things at both altitudes, with corresponding
effects), so I have a
little difficulty with your "after the fuel and air are mixed"
generality. I assume you mean a specific fuel formulation at a specific
compression ratio, with a specific "air" characteristic, and by mixing
you mean a perfectly uniform distribution of the constituents in the
charge? (among other things, such as dew point, distance in manifold to
combustion chamber, etc.
etc...) You don't get evenly uniform combustion in the same cylinder
between strokes for chrisesake.

 - so mixing a special fuel for one or the other is right up there
> with SLICK 50 and the POGUE carburetor and the fuel line magnet.  Regional
> differences in temp, altitude, humidity etc swamp any difference blending
> special fuels would make

Assuming you were just pouring gas into the manifold with a gas can, and
you're contradicting yourself. I thought you said  

> Further, after the fuel and air are mixed, there is NO Difference in
> combustion


> with todays STREET state of the art and would be POLITICAL suicide.

I wasn't aware that POLITICIANS were elected on their position with
repect to the efficiencies of fuel injection. And if you don't think
that fuel injection can be more efficient with a designed fuel than
carb's are with any kind of fuel, perhaps you should read the FAQ.

AND QUIT INCLUDING ME IN THE INTRINSIC FREE ENERGY POQUE SLICK MAGNET
CROWD OF CRAPHEADS!!!

Terry