[Diy_efi] Please unsbscribe my email address
legend88 at telusplanet.net
legend88 at telusplanet.net
Thu Dec 19 23:21:03 GMT 2002
Legend88 at telusplanet.net
Thanks
Quoting diy_efi-request at diy-efi.org:
> Send Diy_efi mailing list submissions to
> diy_efi at diy-efi.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://www.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/diy_efi
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> diy_efi-request at diy-efi.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> diy_efi-admin at diy-efi.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Diy_efi digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Timing Advance Curve? (Stephen Andersen)
> 2. Re: Timing Advance Curve? (Erik Jacobs)
> 3. Re: Timing Advance Curve? (Adam Wade)
> 4. Re: RE: Timing and dyno pulls (Shannen at grolen.com)
> 5. Re: Timing Advance Curve? (Brian Dessent)
> 6. Re: Timing Advance Curve? (Nick Starai)
> 7. Re: RE: Timing and dyno pulls (William Shurvinton)
> 8. Re: RE: Diy_efi digest, Vol 1 #413 - 12 msgs (William Shurvinton)
> 9. Re: RE: Timing and dyno pulls (Joshua Wingell)
> 10. Re: RE: Timing and dyno pulls (Shannen at grolen.com)
> 11. Re: RE: Timing and dyno pulls (Adam Wade)
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 1
> From: "Stephen Andersen" <steve.andersen at dol.net>
> To: <diy_efi at diy-efi.org>
> Subject: Re: [Diy_efi] Timing Advance Curve?
> Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 15:57:47 -0500
> Organization: EKM Engineering, Inc.
> Reply-To: diy_efi at diy-efi.org
>
> > Message: 9
> > From: "Erik Jacobs" <emj14 at columbia.edu>
> > To: <diy_efi at diy-efi.org>
> > Subject: Re: [Diy_efi] Timing Advance Curve?
> > Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 15:38:07 -0500
> > Reply-To: diy_efi at diy-efi.org
> >
> > > Not overall, but in pump gas, it has a very high
> > > correlation.
> >
> > Well you should tell that to Motor Trend... because in an
> > article they had written they replied to someone saying that
> > there is no relationship between octane and burn rate (and
> > this was in reference to people putting higher octane fuels
> > in their cars at the pump when unnecessary).
>
> I can't believe you actually just referred to MOTOR TREND on a list
> this technically oriented!!!
>
> I would not consider them to be the be-all end-all of automotive
> technical fact!!!
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 2
> From: "Erik Jacobs" <emj14 at columbia.edu>
> To: <diy_efi at diy-efi.org>
> Subject: Re: [Diy_efi] Timing Advance Curve?
> Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 16:06:57 -0500
> Reply-To: diy_efi at diy-efi.org
>
> > I can't believe you actually just referred to MOTOR TREND on a list
> > this technically oriented!!!
> >
> > I would not consider them to be the be-all end-all of automotive
> > technical fact!!!
>
> No, I don't, that's why I doubted them because something in my brain told
> me
> that octane HAS to have some relation to burn rate, because
> knock/ping/detonation is typically the result of UNCONTROLLABLE BURN
> RATE...
> or something..
>
> so I had convinced myself they were wrong, then convinced myself maybe they
> weren't, and now I'm convinced they were wrong again.
>
> =)
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 13:13:09 -0800 (PST)
> From: Adam Wade <espresso_doppio at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Diy_efi] Timing Advance Curve?
> To: diy_efi at diy-efi.org
> Reply-To: diy_efi at diy-efi.org
>
> --- Erik Jacobs <emj14 at columbia.edu> wrote:
>
> *snip good chemistry*
>
> Perhaps I have my molecular length thoughts backwards.
> I'll be the first to tell you my chemistry bites, and
> that I've always been more interested in other aspects
> of tuning than in exactly what makes a fuel behave the
> way it does. Somewhere in my brain I have a file card
> for a petroleum engineer or two in case I ever needed
> to know more on the subject, and so far they are
> gathering dust in my brain. *hack, cough*
>
> > I guess I've forgotten the chemistry behind CH
> > combustion... I should go look it up somewhere.
>
> Sounds like you know it better than me, but I don't
> know it very well, and should perhaps shut my yap and
> read what others of more experience have to say on the
> subject. ;)
>
> >> Not overall, but in pump gas, it has a very high
> >> correlation.
>
> > Well you should tell that to Motor Trend... because
> > in an article they had written they replied to
> > someone saying that there is no relationship between
> > octane and burn rate (and this was in reference to
> > people putting higher octane fuels in their cars at
> > the pump when unnecessary).
>
> This was in answer to a letter? I've found the "Q&A"
> sections of hobbyist magazines to be rife with
> technical errors over the years... And would have a
> lot more faith in an article based on them
> intervieweing someone from a fuel manufacturer.
>
> Regardless, I was told some time ago by a chemist for
> a fuels and lubricants company (perhaps early to mid
> 90s) that, while it did not hold true outside of pump
> gas, that WITH PUMP GAS ONLY, there was a pretty
> direct correlation between octane number and burn
> speed. The reason for this has to do with the
> requirements for stability and transportability with
> pump gas, as well as keeping volatiles to a minimum.
> He did go on to say that with other non-pump-gas
> fuels, it went right out the window; there was no
> correlation at all (as someone noted with diesel,
> which actually NEEDS detonation to burn in the engine
> at all, AFAIK).
>
> >> How do you think people figured out all that nifty
> >> checmical science?
>
> > Good brains?
>
> Haha! ;) I'll tell you, it took me many years of
> using science before it occurred to me to think of how
> people came up with the science in the first place.
>
> Basic science is easy; you observe a phenomenon, model
> it, and see if your model is repeatable under other
> conditions, and if it predicts other conditions with a
> high level of accuracy.
>
> But when it comes to things like "how do hydrocarbons
> burn in a combustion chamber?", we're into some
> territory where basics of chemistry and physics DO
> work, but are near impossible to use alone to
> determine outcomes.
>
> In cases like that, people had to observe to build new
> models. They didn't just take basic chemistry, in
> most cases, and push forward brute-force until they
> got an answer. They started with their basic chem,
> and then took their observations on the other end, and
> tried to make them meet in the middle, in most cases.
>
> So, no, we didn't deduce what was going on in there
> based on our past knowledge and then observe, and lo
> and behold, we had the right answer! ;) At least not
> AFAIK! Observation was, and is, part of the equation,
> which is why we get things like those nifty fiber
> optic pressure sensors someone posted yesterday. To
> "look inside" a little more while the combustion event
> is happening.
>
> > I guess the pressure curve would tell you how fast
> > the reaction was going, this is true.
>
> Well, it'll tell you how much reaction is going on,
> and how much energy it is releasing. If you keep
> things like the composition of the fuel as consistent
> as possible, then you've eliminated a lot of
> variables...
>
> > But it would only be a relevant comparison if you
> > used the same everything (chamber, atomizer, etc
> > etc) to compare the two combinations of fuel...
>
> Like, running them in the same engine with the same
> fuel delivery mechanism? ;)
>
> > and since pump gas is such a bastardized mixture of
> > chains anyway, I guess I'm really analyzing the
> > wrong stuff when I think about octane, since it's a
> > measure of a mixture of lots of lengths of chains,
> of
> > all sorts.
>
> Well, yes and no... Oftentimes people will observe a
> correlation in effect when there is not an easy way to
> deduce that observed effect from known concepts. Then
> the question becomes, "Is there a new concept here, or
> just new understandings of old ones and how they fit
> together? And, for our use, does it matter, and is it
> worth spending the energy to find out?"
>
> > Oh well, I'm getting tired of chemistry, can we go
> > back to... wait four gas analyzers are chemistry
> > too... I'll just step out my window now =)
>
> Haha! ;) There's chemistry, and there's chemistry,
> old boy. :D
>
> =====
> | Adam Wade 1990 Kwak Zephyr 550 (Daphne) |
> | http://y42.photos.yahoo.com/bc/espresso_doppio/lst?.dir=/ |
> | "It was like an emergency ward after a great catastrophe; it |
> | didn't matter what race or class the victims belonged to. |
> | They were all given the same miracle drug, which was coffee. |
> | The catastrophe in this case, of course, was that the sun |
> | had come up again." -Kurt Vonnegut |
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 4
> From: Shannen at grolen.com
> To: diy_efi at diy-efi.org
> Date: 19 Dec 2002 17:16:32 EDT
> Subject: Re: [Diy_efi] RE: Timing and dyno pulls
> Reply-To: diy_efi at diy-efi.org
>
> I'm away from the house. The format of this message will look
> bad. You put that kind of heat to the cylinder heads for less than 12
> seconds. Do you think you would have the same good luck for a longer
> period of time?
> I>On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 14:01:39 -0500
> DI> "A6intruder" <A6intruder at adelphia.net> wrote:
> DI>> I never heard much
> DI>>after reading that
> DI>>article but the think supposedly ran great, like your
> DI>>melt-down Eclipse but
> DI>>longer.
>
> DI>I should mention that I didn't melt anything. :) The
> DI>block was fine, the pistons were fine, so was the head.
> DI> But I had 73psi compression in cylinder 4 due to the head
> DI>gasket. :)
>
> DI>Josh
>
> DI>_______________________________________________
> DI>Diy_efi mailing list
> DI>Diy_efi at diy-efi.org
> DI>http://www.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/diy_efi
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 13:29:55 -0800
> From: Brian Dessent <brian at dessent.net>
> Organization: My own little world...
> To: diy_efi at diy-efi.org
> Subject: Re: [Diy_efi] Timing Advance Curve?
> Reply-To: diy_efi at diy-efi.org
>
> Mike wrote:
>
> > At 08:35 AM 12/19/02 -0500, you wrote:
> > >Octane has everything to do with the speed of burn. Higher octane
> actually
> > >controls ping by slowing down the burn. This is why a very low HP/cubic
> > >inch engine doesn't necessarily gain power with higher octane.
> >
> > Daniel,
> >
> > You are wrong on all points, I take it you either havent been on this
> > list for long or havent read anything about octane, what it is or how
> > its measured...
>
>
> Correct. Octane ratings don't correspomd with flame speed or energy
> content. It has everything to do with what happens to the charge that
> has not yet been reached by the flame front.
>
> I suggest the Gasoline FAQ for anyone interested, it's a tad outdated
> (mid-90s) but it still has tons of info. I'll include the relevant
> excerpt from it below.
>
> http://www.faqs.org/faqs/autos/gasoline-faq/part1/
>
> 6.3 What fuel property does the Octane Rating measure?
>
> The fuel property the octane ratings measure is the ability of the
> unburnt
> end gases to spontaneously ignite under the specified test conditions.
> Within the chemical structure of the fuel is the ability to withstand
> pre-flame conditions without decomposing into species that will
> autoignite
> before the flame-front arrives. Different reaction mechanisms, occurring
> at
> various stages of the pre-flame compression stroke, are responsible for
> the
> undesirable, easily-autoignitable, end gases.
>
> During the oxidation of a hydrocarbon fuel, the hydrogen atoms are
> removed
> one at a time from the molecule by reactions with small radical species
> (such as OH and HO2), and O and H atoms. The strength of carbon-hydrogen
> bonds depends on what the carbon is connected to. Straight chain HCs
> such as
> normal heptane have secondary C-H bonds that are significantly weaker
> than
> the primary C-H bonds present in branched chain HCs like iso-octane
> [21,22].
>
>
> The octane rating of hydrocarbons is determined by the structure of the
> molecule, with long, straight hydrocarbon chains producing large amounts
> of
> easily-autoignitable pre-flame decomposition species, while branched and
> aromatic hydrocarbons are more resistant. This also explains why the
> octane
> ratings of paraffins consistently decrease with carbon number. In real
> life,
> the unburnt "end gases" ahead of the flame front encounter temperatures
> up
> to about 700C due to compression and radiant and conductive heating, and
> commence a series of pre-flame reactions. These reactions occur at
> different
> thermal stages, with the initial stage ( below 400C ) commencing with
> the
> addition of molecular oxygen to alkyl radicals, followed by the internal
> transfer of hydrogen atoms within the new radical to form an
> unsaturated,
> oxygen-containing species. These new species are susceptible to chain
> branching involving the HO2 radical during the intermediate temperature
> stage (400-600C), mainly through the production of OH radicals. Above
> 600C,
> the most important reaction that produces chain branching is the
> reaction of
> one hydrogen atom radical with molecular oxygen to form O and OH
> radicals.
>
> The addition of additives such as alkyl lead and oxygenates can
> significantly affect the pre-flame reaction pathways. Antiknock
> additives
> work by interfering at different points in the pre-flame reactions, with
> the oxygenates retarding undesirable low temperature reactions, and the
> alkyl lead compounds react in the intermediate temperature region to
> deactivate the major undesirable chain branching sequence [21,22].
>
> The antiknock ability is related to the "autoignition temperature" of
> the
> hydrocarbons. Antiknock ability is _not_ substantially related to:-
> 1. The energy content of fuel, this should be obvious, as oxygenates
> have
> lower energy contents, but high octanes.
> 2. The flame speed of the conventionally ignited mixture, this should be
> evident from the similarities of the two reference hydrocarbons.
> Although flame speed does play a minor part, there are many other
> factors
> that are far more important. ( such as compression ratio,
> stoichiometry,
> combustion chamber shape, chemical structure of the fuel, presence of
> antiknock additives, number and position of spark plugs, turbulence
> etc.)
> Flame speed does not correlate with octane.
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 15:31:33 -0600 (CST)
> From: Nick Starai <true at ItsYourDomain.com>
> To: diy_efi at diy-efi.org
> Subject: Re: [Diy_efi] Timing Advance Curve?
> Reply-To: diy_efi at diy-efi.org
>
>
> I just got back from taking a tour of BP's fuel research facility
> recently.
>
> > > Not overall, but in pump gas, it has a very high > > correlation.
> >
> > Well you should tell that to Motor Trend... because in an article they
> had
> > written they replied to someone saying that there is no relationship
> between
> > octane and burn rate (and this was in reference to people putting higher
> > octane fuels in their cars at the pump when unnecessary).
>
> This is only relating to Pump gas - they didn't go over anything else.
> It has been pretty much covered by the majority opinion on the subject
> here, but basically what I got out of it was that a higher octane rating
> does not mean that particular type of gas has a better energy density. As
> mentioned a few times, octane is simply to help fight 'knock'. They said
> if you car isn't knocking at all at 87 you shoulnd't be able to tell a
> difference in performance between 87 and 93. They did mention the burn
> rate is quicker on 87, but mentioned nothing of burn rate being different
> depending on Octane.
>
> Nick Starai
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 7
> From: "William Shurvinton" <shurvinton at orange.net>
> To: <diy_efi at diy-efi.org>
> Subject: Re: [Diy_efi] RE: Timing and dyno pulls
> Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 21:40:26 -0000
> Reply-To: diy_efi at diy-efi.org
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave Dahlgren" <ddahlgren at snet.net>
> To: <diy_efi at diy-efi.org>
> Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 6:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [Diy_efi] RE: Timing and dyno pulls
>
>
> > Air temperature increases need less timing yes but it is
> >not air density related at all.
>
> Hotter air is less dense though.
>
> <snip>
> > Detonation is so far removed from tuning racing engines that if you get
> to
> that
> > point you have truly lost the rabbit so to speak. Peak power +- 0.5% is
> quite a
> > ways from detonation. There is also no rule I have ever heard about
> keeping heat
> > out of the cylinder heads. It is a heat engine. more heat more power.
>
> Re: timing vs detonation on race engines, how come so many people get it
> wrong? Can I also infer that OEM apps ( which run close to detonation) do
> this because they are running leaner than they should?
>
> On the temperature issue that has me confused. I had always thought that
> cooler was more powerful and race cars (F1 in particular) only ran so hot
> because the aero package demanded a limited rad area and air flow. Hotter
> was more efficient. Still I am guessing on your engine dyno you can set any
> coolant temp you want so can do real empirical measurements.
>
> Can you also confirm on the cylinder head temp issue that you accepting
> that
> way too hot will cause pre-ignition? I can understand why heating the heads
> takes heat out the reaction, but after a point aren't you starting from a
> hotter charge and so reducing the available heat increase from combustion?
>
> Sorry for all these questions, but I just don't have the toys to test this
> for myself :-)
>
> Bill
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 8
> From: "William Shurvinton" <shurvinton at orange.net>
> To: <diy_efi at diy-efi.org>
> Subject: Re: [Diy_efi] RE: Diy_efi digest, Vol 1 #413 - 12 msgs
> Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 21:17:08 -0000
> Reply-To: diy_efi at diy-efi.org
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Shannen Durphey" <shannen at grolen.com>
> To: <diy_efi at diy-efi.org>
> Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 7:52 PM
> Subject: Re: [Diy_efi] RE: Diy_efi digest, Vol 1 #413 - 12 msgs
>
>
> > Didn't you once say you specialize in asking questions? This is a great
> > one.
>
> Why thank you
>
> We generally don't take into account any
> > friction made at the contact patch between tires and rollers.
>
> At least here in the UK this part is taken into account by the top dyno
> guys
> who always do a coastdown to measure frictional losses. This also allows a
> fairly good estimation of flywheel HP to be calculated.
>
> The rest I need to consider it very carefully. Tying all the threads
> together I may finally be seeing some light at the end of the tunnel.
> Thanks
> for taking the time to help out a poor dumb guy on the other side of the
> pond.
>
> Bill
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 9
> From: "Joshua Wingell" <wingell at charter.net>
> Subject: Re: [Diy_efi] RE: Timing and dyno pulls
> To: diy_efi at diy-efi.org
> Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 17:04:49 -0500
> Reply-To: diy_efi at diy-efi.org
>
> On 19 Dec 2002 17:16:32 EDT
> Shannen at grolen.com wrote:
> >I'm away from the house. The format of this message will
> >look
> >bad. You put that kind of heat to the cylinder heads for
> >less than 12
> >seconds. Do you think you would have the same good luck
> >for a longer
> >period of time?
>
> Absolutely not. Which is precisely why I let off the gas.
> :)
>
> But I wouldn't mind getting some goodness out of it. ;)
>
> Josh
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 10
> From: Shannen at grolen.com
> To: diy_efi at diy-efi.org
> Date: 19 Dec 2002 18:13:38 EDT
> Subject: Re: [Diy_efi] RE: Timing and dyno pulls
> Reply-To: diy_efi at diy-efi.org
>
> DI wasn't trying to say that decreased air density required decreased
> timing. I was saying that a hotter head requires less timing.
> Since you haven't mentioned it, how does the gear based timing
> and/or fuel correction work? I'm curious as to whether it's a fixed.
> universal type of correction or something that can be varied with
> time.
> The point was you have to tune for the end of the straightaway, or for
> the top of the long hill instead of the bottom if you have no way to
> work out a correction for how long it takes to get up the hill.
> If all you work with are engines with well designed chambers and good
> flow characteristics, then there's no reason for you to have to deal
> with the effects caused by poorly designed systems. Not all the boys in
> this area have the cash to buy the types of engines you're describing.
> No rule about keeping heat out of heads? Well, take a well designed
> head, add some foolish sharp edge between the intake and exhaust valves,
> and watch for detonation. It'll happen if the head gets hot enough.
> And if you're on the dyno, and it does happen, what options do you have
> to fix the problem? Now step down to the level of the guys that are
> likely to show up at the local dyno shop. They're gonna run what
> they've brung. Some guys have good heads on the car, some do not. If
> you're hired to make the car run as good as you can, do you stop tuning
> if you see a set of bad heads? I make the car run as good as I can. And
> I tell the guy he's got a set of bad heads. Such is the level of the
> work around here.
> I tune for the top of the hill bu doing as much of the WOT runs as I can
> in high gear. Sometimes with a light turbo car I'll drop the trans
> gear. On an inertial dyno a light turbo car will sometimes make more
> boost than it would on the street, and you end up tuning in areas that
> you don't generally see on the street. It depends on whether the
> owner's likely to be using the car for long runs at high speed or short
> stoplight type blasts.
> Shannen
> I>I have no clue what the beginning of this was alluding to as I could not
> fol
> DI>it. The part about decreased air density requiring less timing lost me.
> Are
> DI>suggesting if the map sensor reads 20 kpa you would retard the timing from
> w
> DI>it is set at at 40kpa?? Air temperature increases need less timing yes but
> i
> DI>not air density related at all.
>
> DI>If you have never worked with an ecu that has gear compensation then you
> don
> DI>know how it works only how you would do it. Do yourself a favor. Next time
> y
> DI>are on the inertia dyno make a pull in first gear and one in high gear and
> d
> DI>log the O2 readings for both runs. Show me the part where they are the
> same
> DI>Detonation is so far removed from tuning racing engines that if you get to
> t
> DI>point you have truly lost the rabbit so to speak. Peak power +- 0.5% is
> quit
> DI>ways from detonation. There is also no rule I have ever heard about
> keeping
> DI>out of the cylinder heads. It is a heat engine. more heat more power. If
> you
> DI>keep the heads cool you lose power warming them up. Make a pull at 130
> degre
> DI>water temp and one at 190... see for yourself. same goes for oil temp..
> Keep
> DI>the engine cool only makes you more comfortable not the engine. If you
> are
> DI>keeping the heads cool to stay out of detonation then you are running too
> mu
>
>
>
> DI>Dave
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 14:24:56 -0800 (PST)
> From: Adam Wade <espresso_doppio at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Diy_efi] RE: Timing and dyno pulls
> To: diy_efi at diy-efi.org
> Reply-To: diy_efi at diy-efi.org
>
> --- William Shurvinton <shurvinton at orange.net> wrote:
>
> > Re: timing vs detonation on race engines, how come
> > so many people get it wrong?
>
> At higher rpms, you need more advance to get the
> pressure peak at the right place in the power stroke
> (I gather we're all pretty clear on that one). A lot
> of people see advance over a stock setup (which is
> going to be geared for emissions as well as power)
> getting them additional power, so a lot of people just
> pour on the advance, figuring "more = better".
>
> > Can I also infer that OEM apps ( which run close to
> > detonation) do this because they are running leaner
> > than they should?
>
> Do what? Retard timing? In some cases. That's
> usually how a detonation sensor setup works; after
> detecting knock, it retards the timing.
>
> > On the temperature issue that has me confused. I had
> > always thought that cooler was more powerful
>
> As someone mentioned a few days ago, you want the
> biggest CHANGE in temperatures. Cool intake, hot
> exhaust.
>
> > and race cars (F1 in particular) only ran so hot
> > because the aero package demanded a limited rad area
> > and air flow. Hotter was more efficient.
>
> With the engine components themselves, you are limited
> by how much heat the materials involved can withstand
> before weakening. With highly-stressed engine parts
> that are built to JUST withstand the stresses of a
> race and be as light as possible, managing temperature
> is CRITICAL. So there are conflicting needs; the need
> to keep the engine structurally sound, and the
> "desire" to have it as hot as possible in the
> combustion chamber.
>
> > Can you also confirm on the cylinder head temp issue
> > that you accepting that way too hot will cause pre-
> > ignition?
>
> That depends. Pre-ignition, as opposed to detonation,
> needs a "hot spot" to light it off. A hemi head
> combustion chamber, as an example, with no carbon
> buildup, would be hard to make "pre-ignite", since
> there would be good paths for heat to flow out of the
> combustion chamber and into coolant passages. Once
> with a lot of sharp corners would be more likely, and
> one with cabron build-up, especially in little chunks
> where heat could concentrate and cause it to "glow",
> would be the most likely.
>
> > I can understand why heating the heads takes heat
> > out the reaction, but after a point aren't you
> > starting from a hotter charge and so reducing the
> > available heat increase from combustion?
>
> It depends largely on how much charge volume is lost
> out the intake valve. Any heating that happens to the
> charge after it enters (and stays in) the combustion
> chamber is part of the engine's power development,
> although depending on where it happens in a
> four-stroke engine, this could work AGAINST power
> output from the vehicle.
>
>
> =====
> | Adam Wade 1990 Kwak Zephyr 550 (Daphne) |
> | http://y42.photos.yahoo.com/bc/espresso_doppio/lst?.dir=/ |
> | "It was like an emergency ward after a great catastrophe; it |
> | didn't matter what race or class the victims belonged to. |
> | They were all given the same miracle drug, which was coffee. |
> | The catastrophe in this case, of course, was that the sun |
> | had come up again." -Kurt Vonnegut |
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> _______________________________________________
> Diy_efi mailing list
> Diy_efi at diy-efi.org
> http://www.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/diy_efi
>
>
> End of Diy_efi Digest
>
_______________________________________________
Diy_efi mailing list
Diy_efi at diy-efi.org
http://www.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/diy_efi
More information about the Diy_efi
mailing list