EFI & furthermore

[Terry Martin]

Terry Martin wrote:
> 
> Robert Harris wrote:
> >
> > Dah - dere is a more saturated fuel available 

Who said the saturation was the operative concept? Water is a hell of a
lot more "saturated" with oxygen than methanol. You wouldn't be
suggesting that we should mix water with the fuel to get at the oxygen?
It's the displacement of nitrogen, being a primary obstacle to a heat
engine, that is the concept. If you can lower the overall "air"
requirement, nitrogen making up 80% of it, you get rid of nitrogen in
the fuel charge at a rate of 8:1.

Nitrogen also gobbles up oxygen with no appreciable energy return, just
NOX, & excluding it from the process has a big return in volumetric
efficiency. It leaves more free oxygen to combine with the liquid fuel
in one stroke.

> > 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.

Really? I guess Nasau missed that part when they decided to bolt solid
fuel boosters to the shuttle. 

> > 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!

Let me get this straight. If I supply pure oxygen to the intake, (that
being the mostest), I don't get to decrease the liquid fuel, and get no
more volumetric efficiency and more emissions for the same output? 

I think I better put my feet up and think on this one a while. Hmmmm.
Nope, you're full of crap.  

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

I think maybe that's because the air charge is 80% nitrogen? So, to get
the oxygen and the liquid fuel together to release energy, you have to
have all those oxygen molecules crashing into nitrogen molecules, and
the hotter it is the harder they slam. Hmmm, sounds to me like it's more
related to the presence of nitrogen. 

> > Final note.

I really, really doubt that.

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

I believe here would be a good place to interject the much much afore
mentioned nut place, the HIMAC site, where-in some basic petroleum
refinement principles, such as thermal catalytic cracking are mentioned.
AND DON'T ASSOCIATE ME WITH THAT PLACE, (I thought shouting was in order
because of previous dim-wittery).

Above dis-claimer articulated, how do you think they get diesel fuel in
the first place? It doesn't lie around in puddles in most places. Before
going off about everyone that mentions thermal catalytic cracking is a
nut-case, read up on petroleum refinement processes. I realize that
everybody is only as intelligent as their particular level of stupidity,
however, with stupid being the benchmark, somebody recognized that
thermal catalytic cracking is a valid method for breaking larger
molecules down into smaller, more consistently sized, and useful
products, like diesel fuel.
 
> >  The ENERGY in a fuel is very closely related to the
> > amount of carbon available to combine with oxygen,

Really? I guess the guys flying the shuttle, (my favorite bird), had
better start shoveling coal into the big hydrogen tank.

> > and pre-combining
> > oxygen  in effect pre-burns that portion of the fuel.  

Pre-burns? Pre-burns? What idiot would put pre-burned fuel into a system
as a primary energy source? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and
guess you made a typing mistake, which should have been pre-dissolved,
not pre-burned. 
 
AND QUIT INCLUDING ME IN THE INTRINSIC FREE ENERGY POQUE SLICK MAGNET
THERMODYNAMICS DEFIES QUANTUM MECHANICS
CROWD OF CRAPHEADS!!!

I thought I better include that again, just to be sure I don't get sent
to the back of the bus, serial that is. Baah, probably nobody remembers
the Beverly Hillbillies anyhow.  :-{}
 
Terry