Aaaahhh, er, no....The intercooler only cools the charge AIR, not fuel. Used
to be in the really olden days that "cool cans" were used at the drags to
cool the fuel. But, you know what? Bulk temperature modulus of gasoline
isn't much so with a temp change, it's density doesn't change much. On EFI
cars, it does not matter much because the pressure may offset the decrease
in density caused by temperature anyhoo. Always remember that the otto cycle
runs better at elevated temperatures and best efficiency is had there. In my
opinion, to obtain best efficiency then must have a really lean burn engine
with AFR around 17 or 18 to 1. Of course, better have some sort of
detonation control or the really lean mixyures will soon cook your pistons,
etc...
This is a good thread...
mayf, the really ignorant desert rat in pahrump and where the hell is Push
anyway...
----- Original Message -----
From: "New Mexico Books" <newmexicobooks@bacavalley.com>
To: <tigers@autox.team.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 3:19 PM
Subject: Re: Fuel vapour, non tiger
> FYI All: Heating fuel to improve vaporization reduces power available from
the
> fuel charge. This is reason that supercharged/turbocharged engines have an
> "intercooler" to cool the charge before it enters the combustion chamber.
Pull
> up "intercooler" on the net for more info. Cheers...Bill Carroll...
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Derek White
> To: tigers@autox.team.net
> Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 8:48 PM
> Subject: Fuel vapour, non tiger
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> I am doing some research for a local inventor who has some fuel
> vaporisation
> patents. Do any of you know about this technology? I especially want to
> know
> why it has not been adopted commercially (despite many patents being
owned
> by car companies.) My friend here, Dr. Kulasinghe, has retrofitted his
> flash
> vaporisers to many petrol cars and diesel generators here with great
> results
> (about 40% les fuel) but there must be a catch. I don't believe the big
> conspiracy theory that kept coming up on web searches. Any ideas? Please
> reply directly as this is not tiger related.
>
> Thanks for any help, Derek
>
> Derek White
> 37/2 Buller's Lane
> Colombo 7
> Sri Lanka
> Tel: 94 1 581175
> Cell: 94 777 475955
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-tigers@autox.team.net [mailto:owner-tigers@autox.team.net]On
> Behalf Of bmelusky@netscape.net
> Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 5:59 PM
> To: Steve Laifman
> Cc: tigers@autox.team.net
> Subject: Re: Surfire way to tell a 289 HP block
>
>
> Steve Laifman <SLaifman@SoCal.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >few small dimples on it from the tests. Much like a fine point, spring
> >loaded center punch. Of course it was a much more sophisticated piece
of
> >equipment, but the depth of penetration with a preset impact is what
the
> >criteria is for hardness, which equates to the crank tensile strength
> >from heat treat.
> >
> >Steve
> >
> A Brinell test uses a fixed load (in this case 3000 kg) and a 10 mm
ball.
> The surface is ground primarily to give a clean edge to the impression,
but
> it is also desireable to remove any decarb (metal that had the surface
> carbon depleted) that would skew the results. The impression is measured
by
> a small 10X scope with a reticle. The size of the impression determines
the
> hardness. This is the preferred method for high nodular cast iron (or
> ductile iron) such as used in the Hipo crank. Nodular iron is made by
> pouring the material over magnesium to create spherical graphite instead
of
> long flakes typical of gray iron. For those that are curious here are
some
> microstructures: http://www.metallography.com/technotes/iron/nodular.htm
>
> As you can see from the photomicrographs, the material is not
homogeneous,
> so a large ball is desireable to get a representative reading. Ductile
iron
> is superior in strength and can take higher loads over gray iron. It is
> rated by the number of nodules, and the precentage of ferrite (weak)
versus
> pearlite structure(desireable for strength).
>
> A Rockwell type test would be a small prick punch impression. Harder
> material would require a diamond indentor and softer material would
> generally use a 1/16 inch ball penetrator, although I have seen special
> penetrators up to 3/4 for some coatings. A small indent is generally not
> suitable for cast iron, given its varied structure. Rocwells measure
depth
> of penetration and neither test uses impact, as impact can cause work
> hardening and change the results. For both tests the rate of load
> application and duration are important parameters to assure
repeatability
>
> Probably more than most want to know, but there it is.
>
> Melusky
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> The NEW Netscape 7.0 browser is now available. Upgrade now!
> http://channels.netscape.com/ns/browsers/download.jsp
|