DIY_EFI Digest Sunday, 7 September 1997 Volume 02 : Number 309 In this issue: Re:EBC/AIC Re: why is rich better for power ?? Re: Propane on Fuel Injected Cars. Re: why is rich better for power ?? Re: OLE BUHL RACING APS test message Re: why is rich better for power ?? Re: why is rich better for power ?? Re: Fuel Pressure Re: why is rich better for power ?? Re: why is rich better for power ?? Re: why is rich better for power ?? See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the DIY_EFI or DIY_EFI-Digest mailing lists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "alex nicu" Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997 04:15:51 PDT Subject: Re:EBC/AIC I don't know to many things about your boost controller ( maybe it's to simple ) If you can't stabilize the boost , maybe you have to take care about how fast it's growing ( the boost ) and to advance or retard the moment of opening the gate , or maybe you are not fast enough . About the AIC , in my opinion , can't be just an extension of an EBC . When you have to spray additonal fuel you have to take care about more then 1 parameter . boost/throttle pos + rpm . Alex http://home.onestop.net/nalex ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ From: bwmsbldr@xxx.com (Bill Williams) Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 08:33:21 -0600 Subject: Re: why is rich better for power ?? Lucid and cogent. - --- Bill in Boulder "Engineering as an Art Form" --- ------------------------------ From: "Joe Chiasson" Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 09:39:40 -0500 Subject: Re: Propane on Fuel Injected Cars. > I would like to talk to any one who has experience in converting gasoline injected engine to run om propane. > > Thanks > > Robin > ---------- What kind of information would interest you? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Joe Chiasson chiasson@xxx.net ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ------------------------------ From: Johnny Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997 08:00:13 -0700 Subject: Re: why is rich better for power ?? Robert Harris wrote: > > Try this thought pattern. Gasoline is a blend of different chemicals - > ranging from methanol, butane to toluene etc. Generally speaking > the lighter chemicals have higher latent heats of evaporation, octane, > and quicker burning. The heavier chemicals generally contain more > total energy but take longer to burn. Sort of like kindling to logs. > > By richening the mixture past stoich, more lights absorb more heat, > thus cooler denser mixture. They are also higher octane - more > tolerance to detonation and they burn more uniformly faster. Kind of > like a fast bonfire - more heat, more power, big chunks (heavys) left > unburnt. Over stoich means less efficiency - but higher power because > of faster wasteful combustion with more heat. Also complete combustion > requires several stages which take time. Rich mixtures generate more > heat from early stages and less from the slower burning later stages and > run out of oxygen and just throw away the slower heavys. > > Now is every one confused???? No not at all. I got it... I just pull into the gas station and I say, "fill-er-up, and give me the stuff that has lots of logs in it, not that crap that's all kindling". ;) BTW, the slower burning elements have the higher octane rating. - -j- ------------------------------ From: Rene Hjort Pedersen Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 07:14:03 -0700 Subject: Re: OLE BUHL RACING APS Thomas Pedersen wrote: > > Simon Quested wrote: > > > > Hi All > > > > Here's a site that sell efi units that seem to do everything except > > get the paper and wash the car ;-) > > > > OLE BUHL RACING APS > > SPECIALIST IN RACING ENGINE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS > > > > http://www.obr.dk/default.htm > > > > Has anyone had anything to do with them? > > > > Cheers > > > > Simon > > Hi Simon > > I've talked to the guy (Ole Buhl) a few times, but it seems like he's > not very keen on selling something. It used to be an all-motorsport > company, but now he has switched to entirely Efi-stuff. > He's currently supporting Skoda's Kitcar-builders, in their World > Championship Programme. These Skoda's are running a twin-injector TPI > setup. > I'm living not very far away from his place, so if there's any "hands > on"-info you would like then i could try and visit him.Hej Thommas Fik du løst dit problem med 106éren ????? og hvordan ???? fordi jeg har hørt, at der er nogle her i KBH der har løst problemet. René ------------------------------ From: Jennifer Rose Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997 17:54:35 -0700 Subject: test message Hi all Haven't recieved any post in two days. Just checking Sorry :( Vance ------------------------------ From: "Robert Harris" Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 18:27:29 -0700 Subject: Re: why is rich better for power ?? Check the FAQs, http://www.landfield.com/faqs/autos/gasoline-faq/part2/ Check 4.13 for octane and autoignition temps. In general, as the weight of the molecule increase (i.e. heavier), the octane and Auto Ignition Temp (AIT) decreases, the exception being the aromatics - which are being phased out by law. It isn't the burning speed that matters in antiknock/octane (see 6.3) it is the autoignition temp so I presume you meant to say the slower igniting molecules have the higher octane. "When some one gets something for nothing - some one else gets nothing for something " If the first ingredient ain't Habanero, then the rest don't matter. Robert Harris - ---------- > From: Johnny > To: diy_efi@xxx.edu > Subject: Re: why is rich better for power ?? > Date: Saturday, September 06, 1997 8:00 AM > > Robert Harris wrote: > > > > Try this thought pattern. Gasoline is a blend of different chemicals - > > ranging from methanol, butane to toluene etc. Generally speaking > > the lighter chemicals have higher latent heats of evaporation, octane, > > and quicker burning. The heavier chemicals generally contain more > > total energy but take longer to burn. Sort of like kindling to logs. > > > > By richening the mixture past stoich, more lights absorb more heat, > > thus cooler denser mixture. They are also higher octane - more > > tolerance to detonation and they burn more uniformly faster. Kind of > > like a fast bonfire - more heat, more power, big chunks (heavys) left > > unburnt. Over stoich means less efficiency - but higher power because > > of faster wasteful combustion with more heat. Also complete combustion > > requires several stages which take time. Rich mixtures generate more > > heat from early stages and less from the slower burning later stages and > > run out of oxygen and just throw away the slower heavys. > > > > Now is every one confused???? > > No not at all. I got it... I just pull into the gas station and I say, > "fill-er-up, and give me the stuff that has lots of logs in it, not that > crap that's all kindling". ;) > > BTW, the slower burning elements have the higher octane rating. > > -j- ------------------------------ From: Seth Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 21:49:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: why is rich better for power ?? On Sat, 6 Sep 1997, Johnny wrote: > Robert Harris wrote: > > > > Try this thought pattern. Gasoline is a blend of different chemicals - > > ranging from methanol, butane to toluene etc. Generally speaking > > the lighter chemicals have higher latent heats of evaporation, octane, > > and quicker burning. The heavier chemicals generally contain more > > total energy but take longer to burn. Sort of like kindling to logs. > > > > By richening the mixture past stoich, more lights absorb more heat, > > thus cooler denser mixture. They are also higher octane - more > > tolerance to detonation and they burn more uniformly faster. Kind of > > like a fast bonfire - more heat, more power, big chunks (heavys) left > > unburnt. Over stoich means less efficiency - but higher power because > > of faster wasteful combustion with more heat. Also complete combustion > > requires several stages which take time. Rich mixtures generate more > > heat from early stages and less from the slower burning later stages and > > run out of oxygen and just throw away the slower heavys. > > > > Now is every one confused???? > > No not at all. I got it... I just pull into the gas station and I say, > "fill-er-up, and give me the stuff that has lots of logs in it, not that > crap that's all kindling". ;) > > BTW, the slower burning elements have the higher octane rating. > > -j- > I wonder about this as the reid vapor pressure, burn rate, and molecular weight of several constituents of gasoline that are considered "octane boosters" are quite different. Seth Allen ------------------------------ From: clsnyde@xxx.net (Clare Snyder) Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 05:06:09 GMT Subject: Re: Fuel Pressure > > >On Fri, 5 Sep 1997, Dick Protus wrote: > >> I've noticed that the fuel pressures I've seen have seemed low. >> I know most of you are doing conversions and using stock components, but I'm >> used to seeing 5+bar, not the 1.7-2.0 bar most of you seem to be using. >> I've seen injectors rated to 30bar (probably would have to go an F1 >> team to find those in use though). I was just curious why/how everyone >> choose the pressure they did. Safety? Convience? Or another reason. >> >I'm sorry Dick did you say 5 bar ??? that's 75 psi???? wow, what kind of >applications are you dealing with? CIS ?? Diesel? > >jw > Sounds just about right for Bosch KJet CIS system ------------------------------ From: Johnny Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997 22:40:14 -0700 Subject: Re: why is rich better for power ?? Robert Harris wrote: > > Check the FAQs, http://www.landfield.com/faqs/autos/gasoline-faq/part2/ > > Check 4.13 for octane and autoignition temps. In general, as the > weight of the molecule increase (i.e. heavier), the octane and > Auto Ignition Temp (AIT) decreases, the exception being the > aromatics - which are being phased out by law. > > It isn't the burning speed that matters in antiknock/octane (see 6.3) > it is the autoignition temp so I presume you meant to say the slower > igniting molecules have the higher octane. Oh, you're going to let me off the hook that easy? OK, I'll bite. Yes, I thought that you were refering to same when you were talking about kindling and octane rating. I read the FAQ a long time ago... probably forgot it all by now. So let me rephrase; It's not the burning speed once it's lit, it's the rate and the temp at which you can get it to light. ;) - -j- (there just isn't any good logs or kindling at the pumps anymore) ------------------------------ From: Terry Martin Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997 23:11:48 -0700 Subject: Re: why is rich better for power ?? Seth wrote: > > On Sat, 6 Sep 1997, Johnny wrote: > > > Robert Harris wrote: > > > > > > Try this thought pattern. Gasoline is a blend of different chemicals - > > > ranging from methanol, butane to toluene etc... > > > > No not at all. I got it... > > BTW, the slower burning elements have the higher octane rating. > > > > -j- > > > I wonder about this as the reid vapor pressure, burn rate, and molecular > weight of several constituents of gasoline that are considered "octane > boosters" are quite different. > > Seth Allen Now we're back to fizzy stuff :-). Given that heat engine power is a complex process, no wonder there are individuals, (not necessarily stupid or uneducated), that propose extra-ordinary means to convert fuel to propulsion. Just provide extra-ordinary proof. The most efficient mechanical means of producing crankshaft energy from combustion must necessarily be by methods of injection. As time is a factor in combustion, as it is in crank rotational efficiency, it makes sense to bring the energy release curve from combustion as close as possible into the leverage efficiency curve of the crank. It would be particularly nice if one could ignore the fact that we co-exist with emissions from vehicles, however, we don't, and vehicles breath more in one day than many humans do in a lifetime, and operate outside the evolved processes of nature which keep us breathing, not to mention moving. However, to deliberately ignore such relationships is not ignorance, but stupidity, & EFI is our best guess at making the transition from fossil fuels to a synergistic system simply because a computer can deliver injected fuel to an engine more efficiently than a human can with a gas pedal. (Stomp) Rich is better for power simply because "better" is strictly defined as crank output. If it were a closed system, (and it is, just bigger than us), fuel/power ratio's would include time and total system requirements. I don't need to go anywhere if I'm dead, much less more quickly, and I don't need to go anywhere if it means I am going to be dead more quickly. Terry ------------------------------ From: dave.williams@xxx.us (Dave Williams) Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997 16:31:00 -0500 Subject: Re: why is rich better for power ?? - -> BTW, the slower burning elements have the higher octane rating. No. ------------------------------ End of DIY_EFI Digest V2 #309 ***************************** To subscribe to DIY_EFI-Digest, send the command: subscribe diy_efi-digest in the body of a message to "Majordomo@xxx. A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace "diy_efi-digest" in the command above with "diy_efi".