Dear Master of Reality,
The Master of Reality wrote:
>
> my friend just sent away for literature on vapor carbs
> it will be here in a couple of weeks
>
> the thought behind them is that liquids don't burn.
do you all remember the hot-air engine that Smoky Yunick developed a
while back and was slated for possible production at OEM level... was on
similar focus... guess that is one reason that natural gas engines have
a popular following. SY supposedly got great perf. increases... &
economy
>
> only vapors do.
> fuel injection sprays a finer mist than carbs and look at the difference
> they make. only 1/3 of the fuel is burned
"...at detonation. "
us gear heads think of detonation as a counter-prodcuctive function of
ignition... do you mean ignition?
what function does rpm play in engine's ability to burn the mixture? as
in less time at higher rpms...
can you expound, please on what the world of chemistry has to say on the
pros & cons of multi-flame igniton sparks such as msd and what does the
multi sparks do to the flame front(s) quality of the burning mixture...
what about a magneto putting out more spark at higher rpms...?
where does compression come into play given detonation control?
what do you think is the ideal advance curve of a fuel injected engine
such as the magnum given the fixed parameters of the built in rom?
what chemical fucntion (theory) is suggested that would allow a high %
of the air/fuel mixture to more completely burn given the limits of
todays combustion chamber design and cooling systems?
what do you think of reverse rotation of the water relative to ignition
and thermo-efficient designs of a cast iron cylinder head?
no joke... these are real questions of interest to me and i hope dakota
list as there should be some good gouge to be had from a contemporary CE
in the final throws of academia!! :)
-- ###############Jules/MPI 99 Tech Central Dodgeville, RAM USA
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:07:30 EDT