Return-Path: Received: from relay04.roc.ny.frontiernet.net ([66.133.131.37] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.6) with ESMTP id 2711962 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 01:12:33 -0500 Received: (qmail 28416 invoked from network); 6 Nov 2003 06:12:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO frontiernet.net) ([170.215.97.8]) (envelope-sender ) by relay04.roc.ny.frontiernet.net (FrontierMTA 2.3.6) with SMTP for ; 6 Nov 2003 06:12:28 -0000 Message-ID: <3FA9E693.CDA80158@frontiernet.net> Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 00:13:39 -0600 From: Jim Sower X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: DIE Summary References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I think the temp change as well as reaction time you could achieve with a heater would not be good. Besides, why consume lots of electricity if you can achieve finer tuning and quick reaction by turning a knob on the panel to inject more or less fuel at the TB? I'm wide awake now. I really think this is doable ... Jim S. John Slade wrote: > > An interesting "Brain Fart" Jim. > Yes indeed. Sometimes they're so loud he wakes himself up. :) > > But, rather than trying to control temp with evaporation, why not simply > install a thermostatically controlled electric heater element in (or > against) the manifold. Hot day, low down, it's off. Cold day, high up it's > on full. Want the EDDIE at a lower rpm today? Turn the thermostat up (or > down). > John Slade > > >> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ > >> Archive: http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html