[Diy_efi] false myths

Adam Wade espresso_doppio
Sun Apr 10 22:15:29 UTC 2005


--- gary <gas- at charter.net> wrote:

> I consider research papers based on engineering data
> and ANYTHING based on actual test data two separate
> entities.

You appear to have a fundamental misconception about
how research papers are prepared.  In fact, the very
title of "research" means "direct investigation
experimentally".  In fact, SAE research papers all
show their backing experimental results, AFAIK.

> I also made reference to finding any conflicting
> viewpoints based on ACTUAL TEST RESULTS.

Well, I've already shown that your suppositions are
not backed by the lay references you claimed.  So are
you actually saying that your suppositions,
unsupported by any actual research or research data,
cannot be refuted except with research data?  That
doesn't scan.

> Conflicting engineering viewpoints not based on
> actual testing such as performed by GAMI are dime a
> dozen,

Really?  I've never seen any "engineering viewpoints"
in either direction.  Which still doesn't answer the
question of where you came up with your
suppositions...

> Who here can produce data that conflicts with their
> findings, with live testing as the cornerstone?

Again, I already stated that I have no qualms with
what GAMI stated, but nothing they stated backs your
claims.

> However, was the high tech test equipment used
> by GAMI, available when most of the available SAE
> papers were written?

Thousands and thousands of SAE papers are written with
test equipment that is almost certainly far more
revealing of the actual physics involved than anything
GAMI could afford.  Of course, that still does not
answer the question of where your ideas came from...

>>>> ..... except for your failed analogy between a
>>>> gas stove burner and a combustion chamber

>>> 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.

Er, no it's not.  You made an identical analogy after
stating that you got the basis of your ideas from
these sources.  You also included some other ideas
from the same paragraph in the same article, so I
think the reasoning is sound.

If I'm wrong, then please do explain what you were
getting at with your analogy to the gas burner in your
original posting in this thread.

> 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.

Then why did you reference him when asked where these
concepts came from?  That was clearly misleading.

Please produce the research and statements from GAMI
that support your suppositions, as they were not in
what you referenced (either Deakin's or GAMI's
writings).

> If you are making an assumption, or attempting to
> tie together different statements on which to base a
> conclusion, so be it.

No, I'm trying to show you that your claims are not
based in fact or research.  You've taken us on a long
trip around the world, filled with smoke and mirrors,
but you have yet to show any research or even general
lay claims that support your suppositions.  I'm still
waiting for that, and after all this back and forth,
you've given nothing but sources not containing the
data you claim.  Where are these data?

> Actually, at the time I posted the range reference,
> I had forgotten about a similar statement made by JD
> in one of his articles.

Well, what did you mean by using that particular
analogy?

>>>>> Start with the 'Back to the Future' series,

>>> 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.

I question the use of lay articles to talk about
technical details and facts, myself.  Are you
suggesting you speed-read the articles and therefore
were in error?

> 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.

I'm sorry that it's annoying you.  Perhaps you could
point out where GAMI states that there is no such
thing as "lean misfire" for me, since the only
references to it simply state that it is not the cause
of LOP-operation-based engine roughness, and goes no
further.  It makes no claims whatsoever about whether
"lean misfire" exists, or what "lean misfire" actually
is.  In fact, they directly state that lean misfire
exists, in the section where they state that leaning
out the engine enough will cause it to stop running
entirely.  Although the engine is still getting fuel
and air, it is not producing combustion events at all.
 Sounds like "lean misfire" to 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.

Yes, I know.  You were clearly implying that if Deakin
had made any mistakes, GAMI would have caught and
fixed them.  So I repeat, I hope you don't think that
an aerospace engineer (who likely has very little
scientific background in gasoline-fueled combustion
science) is incapable of being in error about some
vagary of combustion science.  Further, your
supposition that GAMI proofread all of Deakin's
articles is suspect.

>> 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?

I'm trying to get to the bottom of this cloudy water
you've kicked up.  You made some statements of fact,
people took issue with them, you claimed that you got
those ideas directly from certain writings, and
pointed out the writings in question, and I read them
and see no support of your claims at all.  It
increasingly sounds like you misinterpreted a number
of things, and are trying to make a lot of noise and
kick up a lot of dirt to protect your ego.

>> 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.

And yet none of the GAMI or JD articles you referenced
say anything at all about your suppositions.  So
again, this appears to be a lot of obfuscation.

> 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.

Which SAE papers are there, in particular?  And what
of your claim that the things in those articles are
guaranteed fact, and that no one could possibly know
any more about the subject than GAMI?

> I also, don't agree with all that JD states, and/or
> the wording he uses.

Then why point to his articles to support your claims?
 That seems pretty misleading on your part.

> JD AFAIC, is echoing what has been learned at GAMI. 

So you're saying GAMI is wrong, then, after claiming
they were SO right that no one knew any better?  How
confusing.

> AGAIN, my focus is on the three (3) points
previously
> noted.

Which are not spoken to by any of the papers you
mentioned.

> YOU consider them inaccurate.

What I consider them is not really an issue, more of
an aside.  Since they don't speak to your claims, they
are more obfuscation on your part, apparently.

I'll come right out:  State outright what research you
base your claims on and where it can be found.  Your
previous claims along these lines have been
(intentional?) dead ends.

>> 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.

HuhWHAT?  This doesn't make any sense at all.

>> 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.  :)

Well, please show me research indicating what you
claim.  You showed a lay article that doesn't.  What
is the real basis?  I want to see it.  Arguing about
obfuscation is a waste of everyone's time and energy.

>> 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. 

WHAT?  You claimed that these articles were the basis
for your beliefs.  Why did you claim that if it was
not true?  Where are the "actual" articles you use as
source material, and where is the research?

> Afterall, you did state you have read ALL of JD's
> articles.  But if you've passed over the 'lean
> misfire' wording....

Oh, I see it now.  He shows us that lean misfire
occurs when you lean sufficiently (the engine stops
running), after claiming in the same breath that it is
made up.  Sounds like JD should do more of his
homework.

>> 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.

Well, regardless, we're all still waiting to see it.

>> .... I'm not "killing the messenger", I'm calling
>> you out for claiming things that ain't so,

> I haven't claimed ANYTHING!!!!!

I once again refer you to the section of your original
post in the thread where you made claims that you've
failed to support, which was actually quoted in its
entirety in the post to which you just replied.

> If you want it in research form,  request it from
> GAMI.

I want to see what you are using as basis for your
claims.  I'm asking YOU.  GAMI didn't make those
claims; you did.

>>> 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.

> I'm not referring to JD, I'm referring to the
> SOURCE.

You quoted him as your source.  Are you now saying
that those articles you offered as the basis of your
beliefs are not the basis of your beliefs?

GAMI made none of the claims you are positing, so I
don't see that asking them anything will help me with
the problem of where you got these ideas from.

> Why give ME a hard time regarding some of his
> statements and/or his articles?

Because you were the one who put them up as "proof" of
your claims.  They're not.

> The three concerns I brought up, are using GAMI
> as a source.

Show me.  The sources you have offered thus far do not
support your claims.  So after going in circles with
you over all this, you are still no closer to proving
the supportability of your claims.  To me, the obvious
attempts at obfuscation are clear signs that you know
there's no proof to show, and you're hoping to confuse
enough people that they never notice.

If it's not that, then do us all the simple favor of
referring us directly to the SPECIFIC source of your
claims, rather than pointing to things that are not
and then claiming they have nothing to do with your
claims as an afterthought.

| 82 Honda CX500 Turbo (Cassandra)  90 Kwak Zephyr 550 (Daphne) |
| "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     |
| M/C Fuel Inj. Hndbk. @ Amazon.com -  http://tinyurl.com/6o3ze |


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail




More information about the Diy_efi mailing list