X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 15:12:31 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from web36604.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([209.191.85.21] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.9) with SMTP id 2078894 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 01 Jun 2007 14:14:36 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.191.85.21; envelope-from=wfhannahan@yahoo.com Received: (qmail 382 invoked by uid 60001); 1 Jun 2007 18:13:51 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=kAglUBJIT5YT2opSUsqfXQcuOeJZtrAUeZIsSt1N/UDpBYTOimn9UGceFoFFbmxzkmMAGkrS8xD9WuCTYalu7f8dZi4J1vaPOMmQo2A2pJwAGv8jG/zz6VbMUPSIgUMyG0vH4d3TorfJ9UhXiyMvoukAaBl00L+G+CM13UKABH4=; X-YMail-OSG: OqUtumcVM1mpb8uVEgGV5_r29DpuhdC1Dq9FrESYvuN6Uawu4k5ZPcGGz8tfWSH5SusyG8vyXzIVgrZ9Ref7t0omqnN5xa4NsEFlS8ZCaLJefFih0bKUwgi11OYsaQ-- Received: from [71.208.29.60] by web36604.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 01 Jun 2007 11:13:51 PDT X-Original-Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 11:13:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Bill Hannahan Subject: TSIO 550 LOP X-Original-To: MAIL LANCAIR MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-236817025-1180721631=:212" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Original-Message-ID: <371146.212.qm@web36604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --0-236817025-1180721631=:212 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Walter I see no contradiction between our two comments. I think we are describing the same process in different words. If not please highlight the words you think are false and explain why. Please define “latency period”. <> <> --------------------------------- The fish are biting. Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing. --0-236817025-1180721631=:212 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
 
Walter
 
I see no contradiction between our two comments. I think we are describing the same process in different words. If not please highlight the words you think are false and explain why.
 
Please define “latency period”.
 
<<I disagree, based on watching this many, many times on the fully instrumented test stand.  The key is where the thetaPP occurs.  As the thetaPP moves toward TDC, there is more expansion of the burned gases as the piston falls and the EGT gets lower, even with the same mixture.  That's why during pre-ignition, EGT falls rapidly.  We have multiple data files which prove this to be the case.
 
The latency period of the fuel is what delays the burning of the fuel prior to TDC in most normal cases.  It is possible to advance the timing beyond the useful limit and change all of this.
 
Walter>>
 
 
<<Imagine the timing advanced to 60 deg before top dead center. This allows more time for fuel and air to burn before tdc resulting in higher cylinder temperature and pressure and a higher rate of heat transfer into the cylinder and head.
 
If the engine is operating at high MP the fuel air mixture may detonate, spiking temperature, pressure and heat transfer rates even higher.
 
After TDC the combustion products expand over the full CR and cool by Boyle’s law. The fuel releases a fixed amount of energy, and since more of it flows into the cylinder head there is less energy in the exhaust gas.
 
Under normal operating conditions fuel continues to burn after TDC, so pressure and temp do not drop as fast as Boyle's law predicts. More advance means less fuel available to burn after TDC.>>


The fish are biting.
Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing. --0-236817025-1180721631=:212--