EFI & furthermore

[Robert Harris]

One last time - please read the FAQ's just posted.  Words have
meanings, - chemical, physical, electrical etc terms have fairly
exact meanings.  Use them as they are defined - when you don't
you confuse the shit out of everyone and embarrass yourself and
needlessly throw fire onto fuel. Thought trains, concepts etc. get
radically misunderstood when everyone is not speaking the same
language.  Remember, we are not politicians, seeking to deceive,
just people trying to do what we can for our own personal needs.


"When some one gets something for nothing -
             some one else gets nothing for something "

If the first ingredient ain't Habanero, then the rest don't matter.
Robert Harris <bob at bobthecomputerguy.com>


----------
> From: Terry Martin <terry_martin at mindlink.bc.ca>
> To: diy_efi at coulomb.eng.ohio-state.edu
> Subject: Re: EFI & furthermore
> Date: Sunday, August 24, 1997 6:21 PM
> 
> 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