Carb Problems

[Schrade]

Originally Posted by MrPbody

I always marveled at how efficiently the computer could control the mixture and spark. The fuel economy high performance cars are capable of today is nothing short of amazing. 400 horsepower, 27 MPG...

Jim

Yes it is.

That's because of one of the greatest misconceptions amongst [people] all people - that gas burns. It ain't the gas that burns, it's the oxygen, and the objective is to deliver as little fuel as possible. The computer delivers as little fuel as possible for any throttle 'disposition'.

It will go up even more, for the same power output, when the manufacturers start feeding fumes to the intake, instead of feeding liquid gasoline to pressure-fed injectors uh huh.

[MrPbody]

Well, actually, it IS the fuel that burns. Oxygen "supports combustion". That is, in order for the fuel to burn, it requires an "oxidzer". Oxygen itself, simly converts to an oxide.

Straddling the fine "line" betweeen a correct mixture and a "lean" mixture is where maximum efficiency and power come from. "Lean is mean, but fat's where it's at" is an old addage in racing. A leaner burn will generate more heat energy. Heat energy is power, to a point. Once the point has been passed, the heat becomes a liability. The computer's ability to maintain the correct air/fuel ratio at "optimum" for the conditions is the big difference over carbs. Carbs must be "set up" and once in operation, can only "self-adjust" so much. An electronic system can re-adjust 400 times a second... (:-

See? I really do understand... I'd BETTER! (it's my job...) (:-

Jim

[wafrederick]

There is one thing to with a Holley carb if on a street car,throw it in the garbage can and replace it with an Edelbrock or the TPI set up.My father is about to do that on a 1966 Chevy Nova II SS,too big CFMs or it is inside,last time it stalled with a stock 327.

[Schrade]

Originally Posted by MrPbody

Well, actually, it IS the fuel that burns. Oxygen "supports combustion". That is, in order for the fuel to burn, it requires an "oxidzer". Oxygen itself, simly converts to an oxide.

Straddling the fine "line" betweeen a correct mixture and a "lean" mixture is where maximum efficiency and power come from. "Lean is mean, but fat's where it's at" is an old addage in racing. A leaner burn will generate more heat energy. Heat energy is power, to a point. Once the point has been passed, the heat becomes a liability. The computer's ability to maintain the correct air/fuel ratio at "optimum" for the conditions is the big difference over carbs. Carbs must be "set up" and once in operation, can only "self-adjust" so much. An electronic system can re-adjust 400 times a second... (:-

See? I really do understand... I'd BETTER! (it's my job...) (:-

Jim

Gasoline doesn't burn, Jim. A burning match can be doused with gasoline. Oxygen burns. LIQUID oxygen burns even withOUT gasoline.

Look ma, no gasoline!





Oxygen burns.

Don't believe a picture? Read it in a Corvette tech article (3rd column, 2nd paragraph):



Oxygen burns. Is there a question?

[MagicRat]

Originally Posted by cbec1999

Gasoline doesn't burn, Jim. A burning match can be doused with gasoline. Oxygen burns.

Oh, Jim please let me take this one okay

cbec, you are completely wrong. Laughably wrong. Taking certain facts out of context and drawing a (flawed) conclusion is no substitute for your obviously having missed chemistry class.

Please do some research before writing technical posts. I am a nice guy and I hate to see someone embarrassing themselves with such an obviously flawed, incorrect argument. Your post was actually painful to read.

A burning match can be doused with gasoline is true, because liquid gasoline does not burn. The liquid actually separates the burning match from it's oxygen source (the air) so it goes out.

Gasoline, in a vapor form, burns. This is why carburetors and fuel injectors need to atomize (vaporize) gasoline before combustion.

The gasoline vapor does oxidize and it is the gas that burns, not the oxygen. The burning process breaks the bonds that bind the hydrogen and carbon atoms into complex hydrocarbon molecules. The resulting products of complete gasoline combustion are water and carbon dioxide.


Here is Wikipedia's definition of combustion (burning).
Combustion or burning is a complex sequence of exothermic chemical reactions between a fuel and an oxidant accompanied by the production of heat or both heat and light in the form of either a glow or flames.
Gasoline is the fuel and burns. Oxygen is the oxiant and does not burn.

Originally Posted by cbec1999

Oxygen burns. Is there a question?

Do you want further proof?

Here is part of Wikipedia's explanation of oxygen:

For your conveniance I have highlighted the relevant parts:

Highly-concentrated sources of oxygen promote rapid combustion. Fire and explosion hazards exist when concentrated oxidants and fuels are brought into close proximity; however, an ignition event, such as heat or a spark, is needed to trigger combustion.[105] Oxygen itself is not the fuel, but the oxidant. Combustion hazards also apply to compounds of oxygen with a high oxidative potential, such as peroxides, chlorates, nitrates, perchlorates, and dichromates because they can donate oxygen to a fire.
Pure O2 at higher than normal pressure and a spark led to a fire and the loss of the Apollo 1 crew.

Originally Posted by cbec1999

LIQUID oxygen burns even withOUT gasoline.

Again, Oxygen is an oxiant, not a fuel and does not burn. I think your misconception can be explained by the following passage, again from Wikipedia:

Liquid oxygen spills, if allowed to soak into organic matter, such as wood, petrochemicals, and asphalt can cause these materials to detonate unpredictably on subsequent mechanical impact.Concentrated O2 will allow combustion to proceed rapidly and energetically.[105]

Steel pipes and storage vessels used to store and transmit both gaseous and liquid oxygen will act as a fuel; and therefore the design and manufacture of O2 systems requires special training to ensure that ignition sources are minimized.[105] The fire that killed the Apollo 1 crew on a test launch pad spread so rapidly because the capsule was pressurized with pure O2 but at slightly more than atmospheric pressure, instead of the ⅓ normal pressure that would be used in a mission.[106][107]

Originally Posted by cbec1999

Don't believe a picture? Read it in a Corvette tech article (3rd column, 2nd paragraph):

This Corvette manual was written by a technical writer or mechanic, not a chemist or physicist. That highlighted passage is written in a clumsy manner and is actually discussing the volumetric efficiency of the engine's intake system and is NOT discussing molecular physics.

[Schrade]

(3rd column, 2nd paragraph):



I can read. I'm sure you can too.

Set the author straight first. IDA Automotive, 600 Texas Rd, Morganville NJ, 07751. (732) 591 - 2630.

I'm taking the liberty of editing this statement ...

A burning match can be doused with gasoline is true, because liquid gasoline does not burn. The liquid actually separates the burning match from it's oxygen [FUEL] source (the air [OXYGEN] )so it goes out.

Wiki? Usually good, but internet authors aren't professionals. I saw a flyin' unicorn on the internet once.
















Hmmm... Maybe there ARE flyin' unicorns.

[Schrade]

... your obviously having missed chemistry class.

I did miss a couple of organic chem classes (my minor, BTW). And I just browsed 2 textbooks, to see how each component is 'termed'. No dice. But no matter either, because we both accept that gasoline doesn't burn.

Too little fuel (gas), and a leaner air/fuel mix - 'burns' hotter. Too much fuel (gas), and it goes out (doesn't 'burn').

You're welcome to apply semantics as you wish.

[MagicRat]

Cbec, of course we are having a friendly discussion here on the subject, but I am flabbergasted that you are sticking to your incorrect understanding of the issue.

A poorly written Corvette article is not proof of what you say. It is subject to interpretation and was describing the most efficient power production, not physics.


BTW if oxygen really does burn, why has the atmosphere of the planet (21% free oxygen) not caught fire by now?


I thought you might attack the accuracy of Internet articles.
The Wikipedia articles were referenced. I suggest you track down the authors of those references and explain to them why they, and the scientific community in general is wrong.

I am not arguing semantics. You have it wrong, as per my above post.
The English language is very clear on the scientific principles involved here. Gasoline provides the hydrocarbon molecules that are to be broken down during combustion to release energy. This is the fundamental definition of 'fuel'....... the source of energy. Fuels burn. Oxygen is not broken down...... it combines with hydrogen and carbon atoms in the fuel to form new molecules.......... it is not a fuel bey definition and thus cannot burn.

Again this is not semantics..... it is the commonly accepted definition of common physics principles the world over. Your description of definitions is like saying the sky is green........ it simply is not true....... unless you simply are making up your own new definitions for English words.

Frankly I do not really care what you believe, but I don't particularly like incorrect arguments left unchallenged on this site, so I have made my point here.