[Diy_efi] false myths

[gary]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Adam Wade" <espresso_doppio at yahoo.com>
To: <diy_efi at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 12:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Diy_efi] false myths


> --- gary <gas- at charter.net> wrote:
>
> > What was disliked by me, was the bits, like pieces of a puzzle,
> > that were scattered about in several articles.  Have no idea if
> > this was by design.
> >
> > Anyway, not sure of any other engineers with the combustion
> > chamber test/logging (in real time) equipment and experience,
> > that GAMI has, let alone willing to make available to the general
> > public, other info, if indeed a question did surface as to validity
> > of GAMI's work.
>
> Well, I don't see where there is any question about
> GAMI's work, but as Phil pointed out, you can get
> technical details and research info ad nauseum from
> the SAE, enough to keep you reading for the rest of
> your life if you'd like.  ;)
>
I consider research papers based on engineering data and ANYTHING
based on actual test data two separate entities.  I also made reference to
finding any conflicting viewpoints based on ACTUAL TEST RESULTS.
Conflicting engineering viewpoints not based on actual testing such as
performed by GAMI are dime a dozen, but no... not millions.  Who here
can produce data that conflicts with their findings, with live testing as
the
cornerstone?  I've asked this before.  I along with others, would welcome
it.  However, was the high tech test equipment used by GAMI, available
when most of the available SAE papers were written?
>
> >> ..... except for your failed analogy between a gas
> >> stove burner and a combustion chamber regarding the
> >> molecules being "too far apart" to produce
> >> combustion....
> >
> > Didn't EVER state that in that together, in that context, Adam,
> > so I won't have you waste your time looking for it in my posts.
>
> Well, you said that you used Deakin as the basis of
> your beliefs on the subject.  You said:
>
That is misleading at best.  Doubt I EVER stated that in those
words.  I do/did use JD for reference, but the (3) points I've
attempted to note as factual/accurate from the beginning, are
(also as previously noted) based on actual test result data, and/or
statements made, as a result of that testing, with GAMI as the
primary source, NOT JD.  I state primary, as some relative info
had been originally/previously qualified by Curtis-Wright engineers,
in the 50s.

If you are making an assumption, or attempting to tie together
different statements on which to base a conclusion, so be it.
Maybe I should not make as many statements in one paragragh.
So therefore, I could take some of the credit for your incorrect
conclusion(s).
>
> "AFAIC, misfire from too lean..... to a lack of heat, just
> goes out.  Sorta like turning down the gas valve on a kitchen
> range.... lack of a precise equal AFR in all cylinders."
>
> Deakin made a single reference to a gas stove burner
> in the articles you referenced, and in the same breath
> said it was because the molecules of fuel were too far
> apart to conduct the flame front propagation.  It
> wasn't much of a stretch to think that your copying
> the analogy from him meant you took the principles
> from him, like you said you did.
>
Actually, at the time I posted the range reference, I had forgotten
about a similar statement made by JD in one of his articles.  It
wasn't till days later, when rereading some of the articles, I was
reminded JD had stated similar words.  So, don't know if it was
me stating that analogy, or just tapping into my subconscious.
>
> >>> Start with the 'Back to the Future' series,
> >>
> >> Read all three parts.  Nothing in there on
> >> combustion chamber events or how they occur.
>
> > What about the lean misfire?  Any reference to that?
>
> Nothing about whether lean misfire is real or not, or what
> it actually "is" if not what other believe it to be..... but it
> doesn't support your claim about lean misfire being a myth.
>
I question the use of speed reading to absorb technical info.  It is
not only in the 'back to the future' series, but reference is in two
of the three parts.  This is starting to annoy me.
>
> > If anything appeared grossly misleading or false, it
> > would have been addressed.  So.....
>
> I hope you're not implying that aerospace engineers
> never err when talking about combustion science.
>
I was referring to JD's articles exclusively, not GAMI.
>
> Further, there was nothing in the Back to the Future
> series that validated the point you made about there
> being no such thing as lean misfire, so the article's
> veracity is really not at issue here.
>
Your just giving me a hard time, right?
>
> > As far as violating any gas laws are concerned, not sure of any
> > of JD's wording or 'assumptions' as you imply, (that were not
> > part of my original posts BTW), that he printed, that would be
> > any less accurate than anything believed or trusted to be fact,
> > up to the time his articles were written.
>
> Um.  You're saying that no one on earth knew any
> better that these specific cases might not
> back-extrapolate to the general underlying principles
> than JD?  After just saying that he was inexpert on
> the subject at hand, and was probably coached?
>
What has been learned by GAMI engineers, which has resulted in their
attempt at dispelling myths, is also being used as a basis for the JD
articles.  Even though written in his lay language, to me, is just as
believable as
previous SAE papers based on something with less than actual 'real time'
testing.  That's all.  I also, don't agree with all that JD states, and/or
the
wording he uses.
>
> And you were the one who proffered these articles as
> being the factual basis for your claims.  Trying to
> back away from his inaccuracies while still claiming
> validity of your own points based on JD's supposed
> expert status doesn't really wash very well.
>
JD AFAIC, is echoing what has been learned at GAMI.  AGAIN,
my focus is on the three (3) points previously noted.  YOU consider
them inaccurate.  I stated that was fine with me.
>
> > You are using some previous interpretation as a basis on which
> > to 'grade' JD's work.
>
> No, I'm showing where there are holes in his
> explanation...... I don't know what "previous
> interpretation" you're talking about.
>
"Showing there are holes.......", needs to be based on something
that you consider to be valid.
>
> > However, my original post IIRC, was in regards to lean misfire,
> > stoich as being the high point of EGT, and acknowledging a
> > given AFR that causes the quickest flame travel.
>
Ah yes, the big three I've referred to a couple of times in this post.
>
> There's nothing in any of your referenced material
> about lean misfire not existing.  I only see....
>
I've lost my sense of humor here.  :)
>
> I only see references in the materials to the GPH reading that
> corresponds with peak EGT, not stoich....  however, he definitely
> does NOT say that best power AFR gives fastest flame front
> propagation.....
>
Hence the reason for my 'bits and pieces' comment.  Afterall, you
did state you have read ALL of JD's articles.  But if you've passed
over the 'lean misfire' wording....
>
> > Those are the findings of engineers with actual 'real time' test
> > data.  I'll respect their findings, as accurate.
>
> Well, produce some engineers who claim these things
> and show some research data, then.  You have yet to do
> so.
>
They work for an organization known as GAMI.  The info I've read
that originated from them, was not in research data form.  Most charts
reproduced in JD articles, also are the products of GAMI actual testing.
>
> > If you prefer to kill the messenger, so be it.
>
> .... I'm not "killing the messenger", I'm calling you out
> for claiming things that ain't so, and then trying to use
> other people's thoughts on the subject to justify those
> claims, even when they never say what you claim.
>
I haven't claimed ANYTHING!!!!!  Just brought to the attention of
this list, data collected that disrupts the long standing thinking of many
individuals.  This pertains to again.....three (3) issues.  If you want it
in research form,  request it from GAMI.
>
> > Anything in the way of questions you'd like addressed, straight
> > from the source?
>
> I email John directly, and can ask him if so inclined.
>  But I don't think he has all that many answers about
> combustion that I haven't seen/heard elsewhere.  The
> ones he has, I've probably already asked him.  :)
>
I'm not referring to JD, I'm referring to the SOURCE.  JD is not the
source.  Why give ME a hard time regarding some of his statements
and/or his articles?  The three concerns I brought up, are using GAMI
as a source.  Ironically, JD is also using GAMI research/testing as HIS
main source of info.  If you have an issue with the wording in any of his
articles, or want something to make his articles more convincing, take
it up with JD.

GAS