| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
E-Tec problems series 1
The E-Tec range of OB engines are now getting sold in numbers into
various markets & their ads are a total pain. So some anti-ads are in order. In our opinion E-Tec have the potential to be an even bigger consumer disaster than the first time when they were called Ficht & marketed in the main by the same dealers/riggers who were then placarded OMC. The reasons for holding my opinions of what we say are E-Tecs design & other problems are many, too many for one short NG post, they fall into numerous categories any one of which, on it's own, is reason enough to stay well away from them. (i) The basic concept of running internal combustion engines with lean mixtures at power, as opposed to overrun (doesn't happen in boats:-)),idle or high speed very light throttle cruise (again doesn't happen in boats). (ii) The Direct Fuel Injection (DFI)into the combustion chamber (DFI) (iii) The fuel injector nozzle. (iv) The fuel injector (v) The oiling system (vi) The ignition system. (vii) The engine displacements. (viii) The latest version changes. (ix) The "potential" for union labour to be used to build them. (x) The "potential" way the manufacture is funded (xi) The dealers/suppliers involved & the way/amounts they get paid (xii) The marketing claims (xiii) The warranty. (xiv) Common sense. I'll make a series of posts dealing with each category & if needs be sub category. Needless to say, similarly I tried to warn you through this NG about our "opinions" that Ficht would fail, "before" it had become the disaster it did. I was viciously & personally attached in this NG by those mostly with a vested interest in selling/supporting known defective Ficht engines to consumers. The dealers of course, the union thugs who had the undeclared invested interest in the funding of OMC & a gaggle of sad simpletons who, despite ample warnings in this NG, had fallen into buying one & could only try to deny the obvious to save some value to their boats & pride to there ego. Alas all sunk along with OMC when it fetched up on Ficht reef. Save one true fool who went the next step & just kept claiming he had bought another one every time the subject came up, which would make him the most stupid person ever into rec.boats, a seriously sad thing given some of the simpletons we've had & still have here over the years:-) It's very possible he's just making it up about buying more of them because if he had, I doubt his brain stem would even support cardiac functions & remember a heart continues to beat even outside the body. So the first subject is running engines at power while lean & I say; It's a much researched & experimented with idea, almost since IC "petrol" engines were invented & thus far all attempts by big (Chrysler, Honda etc) & small (OMC) have failed outright. Most didn't claim to be able to run engines actually "lean" but all claimed they were clever enough to know that can't be done (after all the same rules apply to the shuttle), yet they claimed to have miraculously just "found" a way to stratify the mixture within the combustion chamber. The claims of having a "stratified" charge (i.e. the correct mixture at the spark plug but no fuel anywhere else in the chamber) proved to be just fanciful dreaming. Even the slightest fuel that doesn't get ignited in a continuous flame front from the initial spark will result in it auto igniting once the initial "stratified" charge has increased the chamber temp/pressure past 230C. All attempts cost the manufacturers & in OMCs case killed the Co outright. Only gases burn, no liquids no matter how flammable they are, actually "burn", all liquids that can burn only do so once they're fully vapourised. It's the vapour that allows oxygen to be available to support the combustion. Most flammable fuels have a mixture range in which it's possible to sustain combustion, ie if the mixture is too fuel lean then the vapour is so thinly disbursed with air that a flame front can't advance quickly enough to consume the charge, or if it's too fuel rich then the vapour does not allow enough air (oxygen) to be available to sustain the combustion process. Simple enough to prove when the older engines that had a mixture screw on the idle circuit of the carburetor, too lean & it stalled too rich & it stalled. Or if you "flood" an engine (too rich) there is raw fuel in the plugs so no ignition. Lean at power is a big problem, as said the flame front cannot be guaranteed to travel at a predictable & known speed because it isn't uniformly carried in the chamber. This means that the slow burn allows excessive heat to buildup in the combustion chamber so that the the remaining un-ignited pockets of fuel can auto ignite. Petrol vapour will auto ignite if it is in contact with anything having a temp above about 230C. This is the basic problem with trying to run any combustion process in a closed chamber with a fuel air mixture already captive in the chamber, the burn will proceed once originally ignited very quickly. With E-Tec they won't tell anyone just how lean the mixture is that they're trying to run at up to close to 2000 rpm, (when a large OB is making large amounts of power & therefore heat) but given that when OMC released Ficht we couldn't shut the lying dealers up about how they run the Ficht engines are mixtures of 40-1 & also looking at the "claimed" fuel savings in the E-Tec marketing being run by the dealers it's pretty clear they are at least as lean as 40-1 but given the new EPA regs since Ficht maybe even leaner. Regardless this is dangerously lean as proven with the reliability of the Fichts:-) Once the combustion chamber can buildup enough heat such that any part of it exceeds 230C then autoignition of the remaining air fuel charge will occur which is generally called detonation. Once detonation commences the extreme pressure peaks create even more chamber heat & the process becomes self sustaining, indeed such that even if the mixture is then richened the detonation will continue or commence or get worse because the hot chamber just auto ignites the charge. So the very idea of running very lean mixtures at power is proven to be a failure & as you'll see in the following of the series E-Tec well know it but as with past failed attempts claim they can run their charge "stratified" i.e. they place the minimal fuel around the spark plug so even though the burn is totally out of control, it will all be consumed not leaving enough residual (called end gases) to create detonation. K Of course the E-Tec series will need to also include a Krause lie or a loony Tom paste:-) & the Krause lie for today is his Vietnam lie, the one he concocted when in a fit of jealousy that John was a true patriot & served his country like a real man, while socialist scum like Krause cowed behind their lies back in the safety of their unions. Just to make your day, not only was I a civilian employee in SE Asia, it was in Vietnam, it was during the war against Vietnam, I did see some horrific sights and I was working at the time for a U.S. general. Is that straightforward enough for you, John, or is your amoeba still chasing your synapse |
E-Tec problems series 1
On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 17:24:00 +1000, "K. Smith" wrote:
The E-Tec range of OB engines are now getting sold in numbers into various markets & their ads are a total pain. So some anti-ads are in order. In our opinion E-Tec have the potential to be an even bigger consumer disaster than the first time when they were called Ficht & marketed in the main by the same dealers/riggers who were then placarded OMC. The reasons for holding my opinions of what we say are E-Tecs design & other problems are many, too many for one short NG post, they fall into numerous categories any one of which, on it's own, is reason enough to stay well away from them. (i) The basic concept of running internal combustion engines with lean mixtures at power, as opposed to overrun (doesn't happen in boats:-)),idle or high speed very light throttle cruise (again doesn't happen in boats). (ii) The Direct Fuel Injection (DFI)into the combustion chamber (DFI) (iii) The fuel injector nozzle. (iv) The fuel injector (v) The oiling system (vi) The ignition system. (vii) The engine displacements. (viii) The latest version changes. (ix) The "potential" for union labour to be used to build them. (x) The "potential" way the manufacture is funded (xi) The dealers/suppliers involved & the way/amounts they get paid (xii) The marketing claims (xiii) The warranty. (xiv) Common sense. I'll make a series of posts dealing with each category & if needs be sub category. Needless to say, similarly I tried to warn you through this NG about our "opinions" that Ficht would fail, "before" it had become the disaster it did. I was viciously & personally attached in this NG by those mostly with a vested interest in selling/supporting known defective Ficht engines to consumers. The dealers of course, the union thugs who had the undeclared invested interest in the funding of OMC & a gaggle of sad simpletons who, despite ample warnings in this NG, had fallen into buying one & could only try to deny the obvious to save some value to their boats & pride to there ego. Alas all sunk along with OMC when it fetched up on Ficht reef. Save one true fool who went the next step & just kept claiming he had bought another one every time the subject came up, which would make him the most stupid person ever into rec.boats, a seriously sad thing given some of the simpletons we've had & still have here over the years:-) It's very possible he's just making it up about buying more of them because if he had, I doubt his brain stem would even support cardiac functions & remember a heart continues to beat even outside the body. So the first subject is running engines at power while lean & I say; It's a much researched & experimented with idea, almost since IC "petrol" engines were invented & thus far all attempts by big (Chrysler, Honda etc) & small (OMC) have failed outright. Most didn't claim to be able to run engines actually "lean" but all claimed they were clever enough to know that can't be done (after all the same rules apply to the shuttle), yet they claimed to have miraculously just "found" a way to stratify the mixture within the combustion chamber. The claims of having a "stratified" charge (i.e. the correct mixture at the spark plug but no fuel anywhere else in the chamber) proved to be just fanciful dreaming. Even the slightest fuel that doesn't get ignited in a continuous flame front from the initial spark will result in it auto igniting once the initial "stratified" charge has increased the chamber temp/pressure past 230C. All attempts cost the manufacturers & in OMCs case killed the Co outright. Only gases burn, no liquids no matter how flammable they are, actually "burn", all liquids that can burn only do so once they're fully vapourised. It's the vapour that allows oxygen to be available to support the combustion. Most flammable fuels have a mixture range in which it's possible to sustain combustion, ie if the mixture is too fuel lean then the vapour is so thinly disbursed with air that a flame front can't advance quickly enough to consume the charge, or if it's too fuel rich then the vapour does not allow enough air (oxygen) to be available to sustain the combustion process. Simple enough to prove when the older engines that had a mixture screw on the idle circuit of the carburetor, too lean & it stalled too rich & it stalled. Or if you "flood" an engine (too rich) there is raw fuel in the plugs so no ignition. Lean at power is a big problem, as said the flame front cannot be guaranteed to travel at a predictable & known speed because it isn't uniformly carried in the chamber. This means that the slow burn allows excessive heat to buildup in the combustion chamber so that the the remaining un-ignited pockets of fuel can auto ignite. Petrol vapour will auto ignite if it is in contact with anything having a temp above about 230C. This is the basic problem with trying to run any combustion process in a closed chamber with a fuel air mixture already captive in the chamber, the burn will proceed once originally ignited very quickly. With E-Tec they won't tell anyone just how lean the mixture is that they're trying to run at up to close to 2000 rpm, (when a large OB is making large amounts of power & therefore heat) but given that when OMC released Ficht we couldn't shut the lying dealers up about how they run the Ficht engines are mixtures of 40-1 & also looking at the "claimed" fuel savings in the E-Tec marketing being run by the dealers it's pretty clear they are at least as lean as 40-1 but given the new EPA regs since Ficht maybe even leaner. Regardless this is dangerously lean as proven with the reliability of the Fichts:-) Once the combustion chamber can buildup enough heat such that any part of it exceeds 230C then autoignition of the remaining air fuel charge will occur which is generally called detonation. Once detonation commences the extreme pressure peaks create even more chamber heat & the process becomes self sustaining, indeed such that even if the mixture is then richened the detonation will continue or commence or get worse because the hot chamber just auto ignites the charge. So the very idea of running very lean mixtures at power is proven to be a failure & as you'll see in the following of the series E-Tec well know it but as with past failed attempts claim they can run their charge "stratified" i.e. they place the minimal fuel around the spark plug so even though the burn is totally out of control, it will all be consumed not leaving enough residual (called end gases) to create detonation. K Of course the E-Tec series will need to also include a Krause lie or a loony Tom paste:-) & the Krause lie for today is his Vietnam lie, the one he concocted when in a fit of jealousy that John was a true patriot & served his country like a real man, while socialist scum like Krause cowed behind their lies back in the safety of their unions. Just to make your day, not only was I a civilian employee in SE Asia, it was in Vietnam, it was during the war against Vietnam, I did see some horrific sights and I was working at the time for a U.S. general. Is that straightforward enough for you, John, or is your amoeba still chasing your synapse The stuff at the end detracts from what was an interesting post. Show us your series, but the personal attack stuff will just ensure you get personal attacks in response instead of on-subject debate. Please? |
E-Tec problems series 1
JohnH wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 17:24:00 +1000, "K. Smith" wrote: The E-Tec range of OB engines are now getting sold in numbers into various markets & their ads are a total pain. So some anti-ads are in order. In our opinion E-Tec have the potential to be an even bigger consumer disaster than the first time when they were called Ficht & marketed in the main by the same dealers/riggers who were then placarded OMC. The reasons for holding my opinions of what we say are E-Tecs design & other problems are many, too many for one short NG post, they fall into numerous categories any one of which, on it's own, is reason enough to stay well away from them. (i) The basic concept of running internal combustion engines with lean mixtures at power, as opposed to overrun (doesn't happen in boats:-)),idle or high speed very light throttle cruise (again doesn't happen in boats). (ii) The Direct Fuel Injection (DFI)into the combustion chamber (DFI) (iii) The fuel injector nozzle. (iv) The fuel injector (v) The oiling system (vi) The ignition system. (vii) The engine displacements. (viii) The latest version changes. (ix) The "potential" for union labour to be used to build them. (x) The "potential" way the manufacture is funded (xi) The dealers/suppliers involved & the way/amounts they get paid (xii) The marketing claims (xiii) The warranty. (xiv) Common sense. I'll make a series of posts dealing with each category & if needs be sub category. Needless to say, similarly I tried to warn you through this NG about our "opinions" that Ficht would fail, "before" it had become the disaster it did. I was viciously & personally attached in this NG by those mostly with a vested interest in selling/supporting known defective Ficht engines to consumers. The dealers of course, the union thugs who had the undeclared invested interest in the funding of OMC & a gaggle of sad simpletons who, despite ample warnings in this NG, had fallen into buying one & could only try to deny the obvious to save some value to their boats & pride to there ego. Alas all sunk along with OMC when it fetched up on Ficht reef. Save one true fool who went the next step & just kept claiming he had bought another one every time the subject came up, which would make him the most stupid person ever into rec.boats, a seriously sad thing given some of the simpletons we've had & still have here over the years:-) It's very possible he's just making it up about buying more of them because if he had, I doubt his brain stem would even support cardiac functions & remember a heart continues to beat even outside the body. So the first subject is running engines at power while lean & I say; It's a much researched & experimented with idea, almost since IC "petrol" engines were invented & thus far all attempts by big (Chrysler, Honda etc) & small (OMC) have failed outright. Most didn't claim to be able to run engines actually "lean" but all claimed they were clever enough to know that can't be done (after all the same rules apply to the shuttle), yet they claimed to have miraculously just "found" a way to stratify the mixture within the combustion chamber. The claims of having a "stratified" charge (i.e. the correct mixture at the spark plug but no fuel anywhere else in the chamber) proved to be just fanciful dreaming. Even the slightest fuel that doesn't get ignited in a continuous flame front from the initial spark will result in it auto igniting once the initial "stratified" charge has increased the chamber temp/pressure past 230C. All attempts cost the manufacturers & in OMCs case killed the Co outright. Only gases burn, no liquids no matter how flammable they are, actually "burn", all liquids that can burn only do so once they're fully vapourised. It's the vapour that allows oxygen to be available to support the combustion. Most flammable fuels have a mixture range in which it's possible to sustain combustion, ie if the mixture is too fuel lean then the vapour is so thinly disbursed with air that a flame front can't advance quickly enough to consume the charge, or if it's too fuel rich then the vapour does not allow enough air (oxygen) to be available to sustain the combustion process. Simple enough to prove when the older engines that had a mixture screw on the idle circuit of the carburetor, too lean & it stalled too rich & it stalled. Or if you "flood" an engine (too rich) there is raw fuel in the plugs so no ignition. Lean at power is a big problem, as said the flame front cannot be guaranteed to travel at a predictable & known speed because it isn't uniformly carried in the chamber. This means that the slow burn allows excessive heat to buildup in the combustion chamber so that the the remaining un-ignited pockets of fuel can auto ignite. Petrol vapour will auto ignite if it is in contact with anything having a temp above about 230C. This is the basic problem with trying to run any combustion process in a closed chamber with a fuel air mixture already captive in the chamber, the burn will proceed once originally ignited very quickly. With E-Tec they won't tell anyone just how lean the mixture is that they're trying to run at up to close to 2000 rpm, (when a large OB is making large amounts of power & therefore heat) but given that when OMC released Ficht we couldn't shut the lying dealers up about how they run the Ficht engines are mixtures of 40-1 & also looking at the "claimed" fuel savings in the E-Tec marketing being run by the dealers it's pretty clear they are at least as lean as 40-1 but given the new EPA regs since Ficht maybe even leaner. Regardless this is dangerously lean as proven with the reliability of the Fichts:-) Once the combustion chamber can buildup enough heat such that any part of it exceeds 230C then autoignition of the remaining air fuel charge will occur which is generally called detonation. Once detonation commences the extreme pressure peaks create even more chamber heat & the process becomes self sustaining, indeed such that even if the mixture is then richened the detonation will continue or commence or get worse because the hot chamber just auto ignites the charge. So the very idea of running very lean mixtures at power is proven to be a failure & as you'll see in the following of the series E-Tec well know it but as with past failed attempts claim they can run their charge "stratified" i.e. they place the minimal fuel around the spark plug so even though the burn is totally out of control, it will all be consumed not leaving enough residual (called end gases) to create detonation. K Of course the E-Tec series will need to also include a Krause lie or a loony Tom paste:-) & the Krause lie for today is his Vietnam lie, the one he concocted when in a fit of jealousy that John was a true patriot & served his country like a real man, while socialist scum like Krause cowed behind their lies back in the safety of their unions. Just to make your day, not only was I a civilian employee in SE Asia, it was in Vietnam, it was during the war against Vietnam, I did see some horrific sights and I was working at the time for a U.S. general. Is that straightforward enough for you, John, or is your amoeba still chasing your synapse The stuff at the end detracts from what was an interesting post. Show us your series, but the personal attack stuff will just ensure you get personal attacks in response instead of on-subject debate. Please? Sorry John. The liar Krause will fight the series all the way because the union fund he works for has a vested interest just as it did with Ficht, will he admit it?? no of course not he's a liar:-) Again apologies if I upset you but each of us handle this grub in their own way, mine is not to surrender. Peace is a noble aim of course, one the bullies rely upon to get their way, it works for them so they use it. K |
E-Tec problems series 1
On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 07:39:48 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote: JohnH wrote: On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 17:24:00 +1000, "K. Smith" wrote: The E-Tec range of OB engines are now getting sold in numbers into various markets & their ads are a total pain. So some anti-ads are in order. The stuff at the end detracts from what was an interesting post. Show us your series, but the personal attack stuff will just ensure you get personal attacks in response instead of on-subject debate. Please? Interesting? It's a troll. You got hooked. I assume since it is a lovely Sunday, we'll see you out on the Bay later? This early in the season it isn't too crowded. We'll probably head up to Deale from BP, since the winds are out of the NW and I'd rather face the chop heading out instead of at the end of the day. I'm waiting for the outside temp to get close to 60 before I wake up my wife. If she sees it is only 49.9999F right now, there's no hope! No, SWMBO has decreed that we must attend her niece's graduation party. The weather reports do look good for today, though. Wayne Morgan was out yesterday and landed five keepers, trolling, in 3-4 foot waves. You probably know him, as he used to keep his boat at BP. Now he docks it in Deale. The word is that there are still some keepers out there, but the blues are starting to have their way with plastic lures. My last day of subbing is Tuesday, so I may try to get out Wednesday if the weather holds. You've not mentioned the big boat lately. Are you getting out in it at all? Is it running OK? |
E-Tec problems series 1
K. Smith blathered usual verbal diarrhea....
My my! That 06/06/06 date thing has stirred up our resident Tasmanian Devil. |
E-Tec problems series 1
"Don White" wrote in message ... K. Smith blathered usual verbal diarrhea.... My my! That 06/06/06 date thing has stirred up our resident Tasmanian Devil. At least it has to do with boats and boating, unlike most of the posts in this group. As for Etec, the next five years will tell the tale. Optimax seems to be doing ok, although Merc's stated direction is 4 strokes. That would leave BRP as the only "major manufacturer" selling only 2 strokes. del |
E-Tec problems series 1
You're overlooking the possibility that additional research and development may have improved the technology. Simply because FICHT didn't work out as well as initially hoped may not be sufficient reason to write off E-Tec as automatically defective. Also, "while you were out," most of the participants in this NG have sworn off personal attacks and you will notice that the number of off topic troll posts is way down. If you're going to insist on including vicious personal remarks about other posters with every contribution, you will be the only person in the NG consistently engaging in the practice. One of the arguments that Evinrude advances is that they are an independent outboard motor company that is not owned by a corporation that also builds boats. According to Evinrude, when a builder chooses to recommend Evinrude as a preferred engine it is because they like the engine rather than because an incestuous corporate structure requires it. You can find new Evinrudes on: Alumacraft Angler Aqua Patio Avalon Bennington Blue Wave Campion Cape Horn Carolina Skiff Champion Crest DArgel Dusky Glastron Harris Kayot Hurricane Hydra-Sports Interpid Key West Larson Mako Manitou Maycraft McKee Craft Mirrocraft Misty Harbor Nautic Star Odyssey Palm Beach Polar Kraft Premier Ranger Sea Ark Sea Fox Sea Swirl Smoker Craft (OK, OK, that does leave an opening, doesn't it?) Stratos Sundance Triumph VIP Waco Aloha War Eagle Weeres Wellcraft Xpress Zodiac It would seem odd to me that this diverse group of builders would run the risk of customer dissatisfaction that would spread from the engine to the entire ownership experience by recommending a product known to be defective or inferior. |
E-Tec problems series 1
"Del Cecchi" wrote in message As for Etec, the next five years will tell the tale. Optimax seems to be doing ok, although Merc's stated direction is 4 strokes. That would leave BRP as the only "major manufacturer" selling only 2 strokes. Merc is now pushing Optimax as Verado sales are not as high as expected have performance and economy concerns, according to industry gurus. They are also going back to a few traditional 2-strokes as there is still a market for them. Yamaha recently added a few models of older 2-strokes with incentives for re-powering. Johnson is back in production for 2007 with a few traditional 2 strokes and some smaller 2-strokes. It's not a 4-stroke world at the moment as some have predicted. E-TEC sales are above projections and there is a backlog of some popular models, especially the 115-150-175and 60° 200 hp engines. Bill Grannis service manager |
E-Tec problems series 1
|
E-Tec problems series 1
K. Smith wrote: Only gases burn, no liquids no matter how flammable they are, actually "burn", all liquids that can burn only do so once they're fully vapourised. It's the vapour that allows oxygen to be available to support the combustion. Are you sure that's correct? I think diesel fuel is atomized, not vaporized, to support combustion. The fuel can burn because each microdrop is surrounded by an atmosphere that contains oxygen. |
E-Tec problems series 1
|
E-Tec problems series 1
There is a difference between a gas and a vapor? I thought there were
liguids, fluids, and gases. Fluids covering both bases? But with a refrigeration background my thoughts are probably too simplistic. Butch "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On 12 Jun 2006 18:52:06 -0700, " wrote: wrote: K. Smith wrote: Only gases burn, no liquids no matter how flammable they are, actually "burn", all liquids that can burn only do so once they're fully vapourised. It's the vapour that allows oxygen to be available to support the combustion. Are you sure that's correct? I think diesel fuel is atomized, not vaporized, to support combustion. The fuel can burn because each microdrop is surrounded by an atmosphere that contains oxygen. Never mind. Additional consideration arrives at a conclusion that supports your theory; the microdrops evaporate into the atmosphere of the cylinder immediately prior to combustion. "Evaporate" as in material ceases to behave as a liquid and begins behaving as a gas. Nope - sorry. Ever hear of dust explosions in grain elevators? The dust in the air is a form of vapor, not atomized and they never change state. There are essentially in the same form from start to finish. Same with gas and diesel. Diesel is a vapor as is gasoline - at no point in the combustion process does it become a gas until acted upon by heat and compression. Atomizing is only a function of breaking up the larger vapor particles into small parts - it never changes form into a "gas". |
E-Tec problems series 1
I thought that liquids can change state to solid or gas, depending on
temperature. Probably too simple an explanation for this discussion, and I'm sure there are exceptions. Mercury for example. Jim ps: Is Alberto heading your way? It missed central FL. Just a lot of rain here. "Butch Davis" wrote in message k.net... There is a difference between a gas and a vapor? I thought there were liguids, fluids, and gases. Fluids covering both bases? But with a refrigeration background my thoughts are probably too simplistic. Butch "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On 12 Jun 2006 18:52:06 -0700, " wrote: wrote: K. Smith wrote: Only gases burn, no liquids no matter how flammable they are, actually "burn", all liquids that can burn only do so once they're fully vapourised. It's the vapour that allows oxygen to be available to support the combustion. Are you sure that's correct? I think diesel fuel is atomized, not vaporized, to support combustion. The fuel can burn because each microdrop is surrounded by an atmosphere that contains oxygen. Never mind. Additional consideration arrives at a conclusion that supports your theory; the microdrops evaporate into the atmosphere of the cylinder immediately prior to combustion. "Evaporate" as in material ceases to behave as a liquid and begins behaving as a gas. Nope - sorry. Ever hear of dust explosions in grain elevators? The dust in the air is a form of vapor, not atomized and they never change state. There are essentially in the same form from start to finish. Same with gas and diesel. Diesel is a vapor as is gasoline - at no point in the combustion process does it become a gas until acted upon by heat and compression. Atomizing is only a function of breaking up the larger vapor particles into small parts - it never changes form into a "gas". |
E-Tec problems series 1
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: On 12 Jun 2006 18:52:06 -0700, " wrote: wrote: K. Smith wrote: Only gases burn, no liquids no matter how flammable they are, actually "burn", all liquids that can burn only do so once they're fully vapourised. It's the vapour that allows oxygen to be available to support the combustion. Are you sure that's correct? I think diesel fuel is atomized, not vaporized, to support combustion. The fuel can burn because each microdrop is surrounded by an atmosphere that contains oxygen. Never mind. Additional consideration arrives at a conclusion that supports your theory; the microdrops evaporate into the atmosphere of the cylinder immediately prior to combustion. "Evaporate" as in material ceases to behave as a liquid and begins behaving as a gas. Nope - sorry. Ever hear of dust explosions in grain elevators? The dust in the air is a form of vapor, not atomized and they never change state. There are essentially in the same form from start to finish. Same with gas and diesel. Diesel is a vapor as is gasoline - at no point in the combustion process does it become a gas until acted upon by heat and compression. Atomizing is only a function of breaking up the larger vapor particles into small parts - it never changes form into a "gas". You're likely right, my point was that a vapor behaves like a gas rather than like a liquid. But "diesel" isn't a vapor, nor is gasoline, prior to being introduced into combustion. You won't convince me that the diesel in my fuel tanks isn't a liquid, no matter how many charts, graphs, and scientific facts are presented. :-) Also, in order for diesel to be atomized into a cylinder by the injector pump it has to be liquid. Anybody who ever ran out of fuel with a diesel engine knows that the pump won't move anything less dense than a liquid. So, in the nano-second that the atomized diesel is sprayed into the cylinder and the droplets dispersed, why is it not a liquid? The little microdrops will then evaporate into the surrounding hot gas environment for another nano-second and behave like a gas, and following the conversion of hydrocarbon molecules during combustion the entire volume of the cylinder can then be truly and officially classified as an "exhaust gas". Right? |
E-Tec problems series 1
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 09:00:14 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: Butch Davis wrote: There is a difference between a gas and a vapor? I thought there were liguids, fluids, and gases. Fluids covering both bases? But with a refrigeration background my thoughts are probably too simplistic. Butch It's been a while since I took a chem course, but I thought gases are normally in that state, while vapors arise from liquids. Gasoline, for example, is normally a liquid, but it releases vapors. Technically, gases expand and contract under pressure and spread uniformly through a cylinder. Vapors don't do that. Water vapor is the same. The rest of the gases (particularly nitrogen, which makes up most of the atmosphere) suck up the water vapor and we call it humidity. (water vapor also won't compress) RCE www.eisboch.com |
E-Tec problems series 1
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:57:43 +0000, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
Without getting into partial pressure, molecular changes, etc., the simple truth of the internal combustion engine is that it burns a relatively solid medium in liquid form - not gaseous in nature. Unless you are using propane or natural gas. ;-) |
E-Tec problems series 1
"Butch Davis" wrote in message k.net... There is a difference between a gas and a vapor? I thought there were liguids, fluids, and gases. Fluids covering both bases? But with a refrigeration background my thoughts are probably too simplistic. Butch "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On 12 Jun 2006 18:52:06 -0700, " wrote: wrote: K. Smith wrote: Only gases burn, no liquids no matter how flammable they are, actually "burn", all liquids that can burn only do so once they're fully vapourised. It's the vapour that allows oxygen to be available to support the combustion. Are you sure that's correct? I think diesel fuel is atomized, not vaporized, to support combustion. The fuel can burn because each microdrop is surrounded by an atmosphere that contains oxygen. Never mind. Additional consideration arrives at a conclusion that supports your theory; the microdrops evaporate into the atmosphere of the cylinder immediately prior to combustion. "Evaporate" as in material ceases to behave as a liquid and begins behaving as a gas. Nope - sorry. Ever hear of dust explosions in grain elevators? The dust in the air is a form of vapor, not atomized and they never change state. There are essentially in the same form from start to finish. Same with gas and diesel. Diesel is a vapor as is gasoline - at no point in the combustion process does it become a gas until acted upon by heat and compression. Atomizing is only a function of breaking up the larger vapor particles into small parts - it never changes form into a "gas". |
E-Tec problems series 1
"Butch Davis" wrote in message k.net... There is a difference between a gas and a vapor? I thought there were liguids, fluids, and gases. Fluids covering both bases? But with a refrigeration background my thoughts are probably too simplistic. Butch Vapor is emitted from a liquid or solid (in it's normal state) at a specific temperature and pressure. Flammable or combustible liquids start to emit vapor at a specific flash point (temperature). It is the vapor that burns, not the liquid. Combustible liquids such as hydraulic oil are not generally considered dangerous unless reaching their flash point or atomizing (increasing their overall surface area exposed to air in a relatively small area) such as in the case of a pinhole leak in a hydraulic line under pressure. Gas has very low density and viscosity (compared to liquids) and may be compounds or elements. They can be liquefied by pressure. Flammable gasses (e.g. hydrogen, an element) have explosive limits (lower and upper) depending on their percent by volume in air. There are know the their LEL and UEL. Dust can be explosive (if from a non inert product) when suspended in air and falling within the LEL and UEL concentration. |
E-Tec problems series 1
"RCE" wrote in message ... "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 09:00:14 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: Butch Davis wrote: There is a difference between a gas and a vapor? I thought there were liguids, fluids, and gases. Fluids covering both bases? But with a refrigeration background my thoughts are probably too simplistic. Butch It's been a while since I took a chem course, but I thought gases are normally in that state, while vapors arise from liquids. Gasoline, for example, is normally a liquid, but it releases vapors. Technically, gases expand and contract under pressure and spread uniformly through a cylinder. Vapors don't do that. Water vapor is the same. The rest of the gases (particularly nitrogen, which makes up most of the atmosphere) suck up the water vapor and we call it humidity. (water vapor also won't compress) RCE www.eisboch.com Where did you guys study physics? I really want to know so my grandkids don't go there by accident. del |
E-Tec problems series 1
"Del Cecchi" wrote in message ... "RCE" wrote in message ... "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 09:00:14 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: Butch Davis wrote: There is a difference between a gas and a vapor? I thought there were liguids, fluids, and gases. Fluids covering both bases? But with a refrigeration background my thoughts are probably too simplistic. Butch It's been a while since I took a chem course, but I thought gases are normally in that state, while vapors arise from liquids. Gasoline, for example, is normally a liquid, but it releases vapors. Technically, gases expand and contract under pressure and spread uniformly through a cylinder. Vapors don't do that. Water vapor is the same. The rest of the gases (particularly nitrogen, which makes up most of the atmosphere) suck up the water vapor and we call it humidity. (water vapor also won't compress) RCE www.eisboch.com Where did you guys study physics? I really want to know so my grandkids don't go there by accident. del Before I answer, please explain what bothers you about my statement. Is it that water vapor does not compress? Or that humidity is not a function of the amount of water vapor held by the various gases in the atmosphere? Inquiring minds want to know .... :-) RCE www.eisboch.com |
E-Tec problems series 1
"Gene Kearns" wrote in message ... On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 12:52:32 -0400, RCE penned the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: Water vapor is the same. The rest of the gases (particularly nitrogen, which makes up most of the atmosphere) suck up the water vapor and we call it humidity. (water vapor also won't compress) RCE Eisboch, "the gases suck up the water vapor" "water vapor also won't compress" That is the weirdest science I have ever read in my entire life! Heh. I suppose the "sucks up" is a stupid way to put it. However, a dry gas will "absorb" water vapor. In the vacuum industry we routinely backfill a vacuum chamber with dry nitrogen in order to absorb residual water vapor from internal components of the chamber. Residual water vapor clinging to components and the stainless steel chamber walls is the bane of vacuum chamber processes and can create variations in the results of thin film deposition. The water vapor adheres due to the "Vanderwalls effect" and often heat or another form of energy (UV radiation) is required to release water vapor molecules to be pumped by the chamber vacuum pump systems. Dry nitrogen is often used to at least partially vent a chamber to minimize the amount of water vapor to the chamber walls and internals. Ever try to buy a bottle of compressed "water vapor"? If you can find it, I'll buy it. But, I agree with you. After 30 years in the high vacuum systems business, it *is* a weird science, but one that routinely deals with vapor pressures of solids, liquids and .... water vapor. RCE (Eisboch) www.eisboch.com |
E-Tec problems series 1
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 23:42:29 -0400, RCE wrote:
Ever try to buy a bottle of compressed "water vapor"? If you can find it, I'll buy it. I think Poland Springs sells them. ;-) |
E-Tec problems series 1
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 23:42:29 -0400, "RCE" wrote: RCE (Eisboch) www.eisboch.com Kewl site man - good job. Although you might want to down size things a little - don't know what you are using for a web editor though so I can't offer advice. Thanks for the feedback. I had the pages set to 1400 wide that may be too wide for some monitors. I have reset them to 1200. The software is "PageBuilder" on Yahoo GeoCities. It's a java based program that is really simple to use and does not reside in your computer ... you use it on line. It has to be simple given the fact that even I figured it out in a half hour or so. I also removed the sound files from two of the pages as they were causing an "Active X" prompt on some computers. It didn't on mine, but did on Mrs. E's. Both laptops are the same, except she has the media enhanced version and I have the basic HP Pavilion zd8000. RCE www.eisboch.com |
E-Tec problems series 1
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 06:51:55 -0400, "RCE" wrote: "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message . .. On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 23:42:29 -0400, "RCE" wrote: RCE (Eisboch) www.eisboch.com Kewl site man - good job. Although you might want to down size things a little - don't know what you are using for a web editor though so I can't offer advice. Thanks for the feedback. I had the pages set to 1400 wide that may be too wide for some monitors. I have reset them to 1200. It just seemed a little wide. Then again, I set mine for my monitor here in the office and when I looked at it on another machine the other day - eeeeewwwwwwwwwww!!! I need to work on that this winter. The software is "PageBuilder" on Yahoo GeoCities. It's a java based program that is really simple to use and does not reside in your computer ... you use it on line. It has to be simple given the fact that even I figured it out in a half hour or so. I've tried that - works fairly good. I've been using Namo Web Editor 6 which seems to be a fairly decent editor - has WYSIWYG editor, html editor, combo editor and a fairly decent web graphics program. I also removed the sound files from two of the pages as they were causing an "Active X" prompt on some computers. It didn't on mine, but did on Mrs. E's. Both laptops are the same, except she has the media enhanced version and I have the basic HP Pavilion zd8000. I've found the problem with sound is, if you are like me that is, you have music playing on the computer, or in my case WEEI in Boston playing in the background and when you click on a page, up pops the "other" music and you spend time searching around for the off - can't find it, yada, yada, yada... And, as you discovered, there is the activex problem. However, I like the page - especially Sam's page. Gotta love dogs. I haven't played with website building since back in the days of the original "Boats of rec.boats". I remember doing that one using a word processing program and everything was in HTML code. It got to be a real pain and confusing as the site grew. I was amazed at the ease of doing it now, years later, using a program like PageBuilder. No html codes to deal with ... it does everything for you. GeoCities even registers the domain name for you. The "free" website hosting that they offer is very limited in terms of bandwidth usage, plus they put their advertisements on it. I elected to go for the "Pro" option that offers more space and bandwidth usage than I'll ever use and it's only $8.95 a month. RCE www.eisboch.com |
E-Tec problems series 1
RCE wrote:
"Del Cecchi" wrote in message ... "RCE" wrote in message om... "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 09:00:14 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: Butch Davis wrote: There is a difference between a gas and a vapor? I thought there were liguids, fluids, and gases. Fluids covering both bases? But with a refrigeration background my thoughts are probably too simplistic. Butch It's been a while since I took a chem course, but I thought gases are normally in that state, while vapors arise from liquids. Gasoline, for example, is normally a liquid, but it releases vapors. Technically, gases expand and contract under pressure and spread uniformly through a cylinder. Vapors don't do that. Water vapor is the same. The rest of the gases (particularly nitrogen, which makes up most of the atmosphere) suck up the water vapor and we call it humidity. (water vapor also won't compress) RCE www.eisboch.com Where did you guys study physics? I really want to know so my grandkids don't go there by accident. del Before I answer, please explain what bothers you about my statement. Is it that water vapor does not compress? Or that humidity is not a function of the amount of water vapor held by the various gases in the atmosphere? Inquiring minds want to know .... :-) RCE www.eisboch.com The "water vapor does not compress" and the idea that there is some other state other than solid liquid or gas called "vapor" which sounds sort of like an aerosol or something. What exactly is this "vapor" that doesn't spread and is incompressable? -- Del Cecchi "This post is my own and doesn’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions, strategies or opinions.” |
E-Tec problems series 1
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 20:18:20 -0500, "Del Cecchi" wrote: "RCE" wrote in message om... "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 09:00:14 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: Butch Davis wrote: There is a difference between a gas and a vapor? I thought there were liguids, fluids, and gases. Fluids covering both bases? But with a refrigeration background my thoughts are probably too simplistic. Butch It's been a while since I took a chem course, but I thought gases are normally in that state, while vapors arise from liquids. Gasoline, for example, is normally a liquid, but it releases vapors. Technically, gases expand and contract under pressure and spread uniformly through a cylinder. Vapors don't do that. Water vapor is the same. The rest of the gases (particularly nitrogen, which makes up most of the atmosphere) suck up the water vapor and we call it humidity. (water vapor also won't compress) RCE www.eisboch.com Where did you guys study physics? I really want to know so my grandkids don't go there by accident. Probably the same place you did - we just didn't sleep through it. Your physics class covered "vapor" where "Technically, gases expand and contract under pressure and spread uniformly through a cylinder. Vapors don't do that."? -- Del Cecchi "This post is my own and doesn’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions, strategies or opinions.” |
E-Tec problems series 1
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 14:05:33 GMT, Gene Kearns
wrote: No, but I've seen water vapor that was compressed perform work..... http://tinyurl.com/jtwls Steam is in a gaseous state, only when it condenses does it form visible water vapor. |
E-Tec problems series 1
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 09:20:22 -0500, Del Cecchi
wrote: Your physics class covered "vapor" where "Technically, gases expand and contract under pressure and spread uniformly through a cylinder. Vapors don't do that."? I think the concept that is being struggled with is something called "particulate matter (PM), aerosols or fine particles". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particulate As a mixed phase substance, the gaseous portion is compressible but the particles themselves are not. |
E-Tec problems series 1
"Gene Kearns" wrote in message ... On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 23:42:29 -0400, "RCE" wrote: Heh. I suppose the "sucks up" is a stupid way to put it. However, a dry gas will "absorb" water vapor. That does make more sense... :-) Ever try to buy a bottle of compressed "water vapor"? No, but I've seen water vapor that was compressed perform work..... http://tinyurl.com/jtwls Steam is a gas and behaves as such. Water vapor is not a gas. RCE www.eisboch.com |
E-Tec problems series 1
"Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 14:05:33 GMT, Gene Kearns wrote: No, but I've seen water vapor that was compressed perform work..... http://tinyurl.com/jtwls Steam is in a gaseous state, only when it condenses does it form visible water vapor. I agree. Steam is a gas and follows gas laws. Water vapor is not a gas. RCE www.eisboch.com |
E-Tec problems series 1
"Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 09:20:22 -0500, Del Cecchi wrote: Your physics class covered "vapor" where "Technically, gases expand and contract under pressure and spread uniformly through a cylinder. Vapors don't do that."? I think the concept that is being struggled with is something called "particulate matter (PM), aerosols or fine particles". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particulate As a mixed phase substance, the gaseous portion is compressible but the particles themselves are not. Agree again, and true no matter how small those particles are. RCE www.eisboch.com |
E-Tec problems series 1
"Gene Kearns" wrote in message ... On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 11:55:20 -0400, "RCE" wrote: Steam is a gas and behaves as such. Water vapor is not a gas. You guys may be entirely correct, but if so, I can't confirm it by any source available to me..... Steam is certainly not a gas. Gasses exist as such at normal temperature and pressure. Steam is a vapor emitted from water at it's boiling point. |
E-Tec problems series 1
" JimH" jimhUNDERSCOREosudad@yahooDOTcom wrote in message . .. "Gene Kearns" wrote in message ... On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 11:55:20 -0400, "RCE" wrote: Steam is a gas and behaves as such. Water vapor is not a gas. You guys may be entirely correct, but if so, I can't confirm it by any source available to me..... Steam is certainly not a gas. Gasses exist as such at normal temperature and pressure. Steam is a vapor emitted from water at it's boiling point. Disagree. Steam is certainly considered a gas *because* it generally follows gas rules. Steam is invisible. You can't see it. The clouds of bellowing white stuff that is commonly but incorrectly referred to as "steam" is really condensing water vapor. Steam is *not* a vapor emitted from water at it's boiling point. That's condensing water vapor. Simple explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam RCE www.eisboch.com |
E-Tec problems series 1
"Gene Kearns" wrote in message ... On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 11:24:06 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 14:05:33 GMT, Gene Kearns wrote: No, but I've seen water vapor that was compressed perform work..... http://tinyurl.com/jtwls Steam is in a gaseous state, only when it condenses does it form visible water vapor. Have you guys got a link or source to support this definition? Gene, I've looked, but can't find one on-line that clearly defines the definition that I can understand. My basic understanding is from a discussion I had years ago with a scientist who corrected my misunderstanding of this subject and it has stuck in my head. Many people, including myself before that discussion, think of steam as being the visible fog seen over a pot of boiling water or the exhaust from the pistons of a steam powered locomotive. It's not steam. It's condensing water vapor. Steam is regarded as a gas because it obeys general gas laws whereas water vapor does not. RCE www.eisboch.com |
E-Tec problems series 1
"RCE" wrote in message ... "Gene Kearns" wrote in message ... On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 11:24:06 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 14:05:33 GMT, Gene Kearns wrote: No, but I've seen water vapor that was compressed perform work..... http://tinyurl.com/jtwls Steam is in a gaseous state, only when it condenses does it form visible water vapor. Have you guys got a link or source to support this definition? Gene, I've looked, but can't find one on-line that clearly defines the definition that I can understand. My basic understanding is from a discussion I had years ago with a scientist who corrected my misunderstanding of this subject and it has stuck in my head. Many people, including myself before that discussion, think of steam as being the visible fog seen over a pot of boiling water or the exhaust from the pistons of a steam powered locomotive. It's not steam. It's condensing water vapor. Steam is regarded as a gas because it obeys general gas laws whereas water vapor does not. RCE www.eisboch.com The elements that make water can change state between gas and liquid. Can they also change state to solid? Just curious, Jim |
E-Tec problems series 1
"Jim" wrote in message link.net... "RCE" wrote in message ... "Gene Kearns" wrote in message ... On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 11:24:06 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 14:05:33 GMT, Gene Kearns wrote: No, but I've seen water vapor that was compressed perform work..... http://tinyurl.com/jtwls Steam is in a gaseous state, only when it condenses does it form visible water vapor. Have you guys got a link or source to support this definition? Gene, I've looked, but can't find one on-line that clearly defines the definition that I can understand. My basic understanding is from a discussion I had years ago with a scientist who corrected my misunderstanding of this subject and it has stuck in my head. Many people, including myself before that discussion, think of steam as being the visible fog seen over a pot of boiling water or the exhaust from the pistons of a steam powered locomotive. It's not steam. It's condensing water vapor. Steam is regarded as a gas because it obeys general gas laws whereas water vapor does not. RCE www.eisboch.com The elements that make water can change state between gas and liquid. Can they also change state to solid? Just curious, Jim I'll have a CC Manhattan on the rocks. RCE www.eisboch.com |
E-Tec problems series 1
"Guy Aerts" wrote in message ... On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 13:36:47 -0400, " JimH" jimhUNDERSCOREosudad@yahooDOTcom wrote: "Gene Kearns" wrote in message . .. On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 11:55:20 -0400, "RCE" wrote: Steam is a gas and behaves as such. Water vapor is not a gas. You guys may be entirely correct, but if so, I can't confirm it by any source available to me..... Steam is certainly not a gas. Gasses exist as such at normal temperature and pressure. What is your idea of Normal Temperature and pressure? Standard atmospheric temperatures and pressures found on Earth, with temperatures never coming close to the boiling temperature of water. |
E-Tec problems series 1
"Jim" wrote in message link.net... "RCE" wrote in message ... "Gene Kearns" wrote in message ... On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 11:24:06 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 14:05:33 GMT, Gene Kearns wrote: No, but I've seen water vapor that was compressed perform work..... http://tinyurl.com/jtwls Steam is in a gaseous state, only when it condenses does it form visible water vapor. Have you guys got a link or source to support this definition? Gene, I've looked, but can't find one on-line that clearly defines the definition that I can understand. My basic understanding is from a discussion I had years ago with a scientist who corrected my misunderstanding of this subject and it has stuck in my head. Many people, including myself before that discussion, think of steam as being the visible fog seen over a pot of boiling water or the exhaust from the pistons of a steam powered locomotive. It's not steam. It's condensing water vapor. Steam is regarded as a gas because it obeys general gas laws whereas water vapor does not. RCE www.eisboch.com The elements that make water can change state between gas and liquid. Can they also change state to solid? Just curious, Jim Ignore my smart-ass Manhattan on the rocks. (ice). I assume you mean can hydrogen and/or oxygen freeze solid? I don't know but have never heard of it. There's liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen but I don't know if they can get cold enough to become a solid. I suppose if you could achieve absolute zero (zero, Kelvin) then they would be a solid since at absolute zero there is theoretically no movement of molecules. RCE www.eisboch.com |
E-Tec problems series 1
"Gene Kearns" wrote in message ... On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 14:17:09 -0400, "RCE" wrote: Simple explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam Interesting that you example mentions wet steam....since that should be visible.... it is, by your definition, water vapor. In my younger years, I used to donate quite a bit of time running historical steam engines. I can *assure* you that, without a superheater, these engines were running on wet steam. If vapor was incompressible, that couldn't have happened..... Well, interesting discussion, anyway. I've come across a few contradictions in the world of science and physics over the years - at least to the level that my simple head can understand. It seems that a particular theory or mathematical model that works for one technical discipline may be at odds with those subscribed to in another discipline. A good example is wavelength issues in electronics versus optics. Although the rules are similar and both use Smith charts, etc., an electronics engineer and an optical dude will debate how it works forever. RCE www.eisboch.com |
E-Tec problems series 1
RCE wrote:
"Gene Kearns" wrote in message ... On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 14:17:09 -0400, "RCE" wrote: Simple explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam Interesting that you example mentions wet steam....since that should be visible.... it is, by your definition, water vapor. In my younger years, I used to donate quite a bit of time running historical steam engines. I can *assure* you that, without a superheater, these engines were running on wet steam. If vapor was incompressible, that couldn't have happened..... Well, interesting discussion, anyway. I've come across a few contradictions in the world of science and physics over the years - at least to the level that my simple head can understand. It seems that a particular theory or mathematical model that works for one technical discipline may be at odds with those subscribed to in another discipline. A good example is wavelength issues in electronics versus optics. Although the rules are similar and both use Smith charts, etc., an electronics engineer and an optical dude will debate how it works forever. RCE www.eisboch.com Smith charts in Optics? Never heard of such. Tell me more. I have used smith charts in electronics. -- Del Cecchi "This post is my own and doesn’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions, strategies or opinions.” |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:11 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com