Dodgeman wrote:
Quote:

old-tin wrote:
wow Dodgeman i actually feel dumber having read that misinformed load of monky[monkey] spunk.
are you shour[sure] that your[you're] not the mechanic raping his wolet[wallet].

Perhaps you could point out, in dot point form, each & every error in my post, along with the correct reply that I should have written & we can all be enriched by your giant intelect.
Learning to spell will lift our view of your educational standard & will help with your credibility.

Thomen

I have your e-mail & have replied.

old-tin wrote:
there is a discussion about your post on the morris forum feel free to check it out.
it's not so much your idea's on cooling thay are valid, but your interpretation of fuel and air behaviour is #OOPS#.

i could do a 1/2 page on your errors but i would hate to offended you with all my spelling mistakes. best you investegate how fuel vaporizes(-atomizes:)as it enters the engine and can infact do a 90deg turn without a heated manifold, as thay are for EMISSIONS

ddgonzal wrote:
Back in the 1920s and 1930s they were heating the intake charge for better atomization, and that certainly was not for emissions.

Dodgeman wrote:
Quote:

old-tin wrote:
there is a discussion about your post on the morris forum feel free to check it out.
it's not so much your idea's on cooling thay are valid, but your interpretation of fuel and air behaviour is #OOPS#.

i could do a 1/2 page on your errors but i would hate to offended you with all my spelling mistakes. best you investegate how fuel vaporizes(-atomizes:)as it enters the engine and can infact do a 90deg turn without a heated manifold, as thay are for EMISSIONS

Well don't be shy, send me your half page of corrections as an e-mail & feel free to leave a link to the Morris website as I would dearly love to see what is being written behind my back.

Even now this very subject is being discussed in the current edition of "Flight Safety Australia" [May-June 2011, issue 80] the aviation industry publication on air safety & aircraft maintainance.

Try page 24, the article is called "A Chill in the Air" & it deals principally with carburettor ice & its causes. It also describes the conditions that I described in my post. The aviation solution to this problem is "carburettor heat" where hot air is fed to the inlet of the carb while the automotive industry went for "hot spot" manifold heat, which was replaced by water heating of the inlet manifold, then hot air induction was added to make a near perfect package.
quote]

well as a seasoned mechanic you would now that there is a big difference between an aircrarft doing 200mph in -20deg c and a motor car at sealevel(never hered of iced up jets in australia not even full on race boats), and the fact that you try to use that as verification is hilarious. im by no means trying to offend you but compleatly disagree with your interpretation on fuel atomization(not vaporization) and when i get time i will send you an email

have a nice day

when i get time i will send you an email

old-tin wrote:
well as a seasoned mechanic you would now that there is a big difference between an aircrarft doing 200mph in -20deg c and a motor car at sealevel(never hered of iced up jets in australia not even full on race boats), and the fact that you try to use that as verification is hilarious. im by no means trying to offend you but compleatly disagree with your interpretation on fuel atomization(not vaporization) and when i get time i will send you an email

have a nice day

Dodgeman wrote:
Try page 24, the article is called "A Chill in the Air" & it deals principally with carburettor ice & its causes. It also describes the conditions that I described in my post. The aviation solution to this problem is "carburettor heat" where hot air is fed to the inlet of the carb while the automotive industry went for "hot spot" manifold heat, which was replaced by water heating of the inlet manifold, then hot air induction was added to make a near perfect package.