X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 22:59:56 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from secure5.liveoakhosting.com ([64.49.254.21] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1c.4) with ESMTPS id 1406905 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 17 Sep 2006 09:40:59 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.49.254.21; envelope-from=walter@advancedpilot.com Received: (qmail 20484 invoked from network); 17 Sep 2006 08:40:18 -0500 Received: from softdnserror (HELO ?209.177.139.56?) (209.177.139.56) by rs5.liveoakhosting.com with SMTP; 17 Sep 2006 08:40:18 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-3--266896389 X-Original-Message-Id: <63895491-6660-4F92-9F14-B229E07D9AD6@advancedpilot.com> From: Walter Atkinson Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Backfires LOP X-Original-Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 12:48:49 -0500 X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) --Apple-Mail-3--266896389 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Scott: I think you misunderstood my answer. I AGREE with your definition of lean misfire. It's the definitions used by others about the roughness felt when LOP that is from unbalanced F:A ratios and identified as lean misfire that I disagree with. I think you agree with that, too, from how I read your explanation. Walter On Sep 15, 2006, at 11:38 PM, Sky2high@aol.com wrote: Walter, OK, I'm not good at a treatise on Lean Misfire. I was slightly wrong or partially correct. Anyway, if you consider your belief that there is no such thing as lean misfire is (depending on the meaning of "is") secure, you may still want to read CAFE's Ignition Dynamics I at http://cafefoundation.org/v2/research_reports.php Scroll down to the report. Enjoy, Scott Krueger AKA Grayhawk Lancair N92EX IO320 SB 89/96 Aurora, IL (KARR) A man has got to know his limitations. --Apple-Mail-3--266896389 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Scott:

I think you misunderstood = my answer.=A0 I AGREE with your definition of lean misfire.=A0 It's the = definitions used by others about the roughness felt when LOP that is = from unbalanced F:A ratios and identified as lean misfire that I = disagree with.=A0 I think you agree with that, too, from how I read your = explanation.

Walter


On Sep 15, = 2006, at 11:38 PM, Sky2high@aol.com wrote:

Walter,
=
=A0
OK, I'm not good at a treatise on Lean Misfire.=A0 I = was slightly wrong or partially correct. Anyway, if you consider your = belief that there is no such thing as lean misfire is (depending on the = meaning of "is") secure, you may still want to read CAFE's Ignition = Dynamics I at
=A0
=A0
Scroll = down to the report.
=A0
Enjoy,
=A0
=
Scott Krueger AKA Grayhawk
Lancair N92EX IO320 SB = 89/96
Aurora, IL (KARR)

A man has got to know his = limitations.

= --Apple-Mail-3--266896389--