From: "Marvin Kaye" <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: CHT's
To: lml
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 12:10:39 -0400
Message-ID: <web-1077644@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <000001c6669d$f8d40160$0202a8c0@CRAIN>
References: <000001c6669d$f8d40160$0202a8c0@CRAIN>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Posted for "Dominic V Crain" <domcrain@tpg.com.au>:

  Walter - I think your argument is accepted by most. Picked up on it about 50
  years ago.
  
  If you look at the question, it was a philosophical proposal, rather than
  just scientific.
  
  A statement proposing CHT's 385-400 F was mentioned.
  
  I know the Lycoming manual states keeping temps below 435 F is desirable for
  maximum engine life.
  
  The point is, however, what narrow temperature range is ideal.
  
  Obviously you disagree with the above statement.
  
  The drivers of the machinery we operate are heat engines. They are obviously
  inefficient if run too cold, equally as they are like to break down if run
  too hot.
  
  Therein lies an operational envelope where the heat engine is relatively
  efficient. According to Lycoming, quoting a temperature below which - etc.,
  there must lie this optimum envelope.
  
  Therefore, it becomes a philosophical debate - not scientific.
  
  Kind regards
  
  Dom