How (and why) to Ramble on your goat sideways
@ TV show content being taken out of text
10-06-2010, 09:42 AM
#3804
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: VA, Germany, Afghanistan
Posts: 2,945
Total Cats: 3
Just got home from the hospital...The Army likes to cut people open:
Sorry for the crappy pic, had a "tympanoplasty" done, other ears gonna get done in a few months, surgery sucks, that is all.
Sorry for the crappy pic, had a "tympanoplasty" done, other ears gonna get done in a few months, surgery sucks, that is all.
Reply
0
0
10-06-2010, 05:36 PM
#3814
Probably something to do with Japanese translation.
I have a noob question that I didn't want to make a new thread about for fear of looking stupid. Since our cars are wired to activate a pair of injectors every 2 cycles, does that mean we are injecting fuel during the intake and combustion strokes? So essentially during the combustion stroke, fuel is pooling against the intake valve, reducing atomization of the fuel and efficiency? I can't imagine how ANY car manufacturer would think this is a good idea when they were designing their ECU.
Conversely I would assume cars with sequential fuel injection get a crap-ton better mileage, and they are easier to tune pulsewidths and VE because you don't have to compensate for the pooling fuel.
I am just guessing on this though because I cannot find anything on this. Am I right in my assumption?
I have a noob question that I didn't want to make a new thread about for fear of looking stupid. Since our cars are wired to activate a pair of injectors every 2 cycles, does that mean we are injecting fuel during the intake and combustion strokes? So essentially during the combustion stroke, fuel is pooling against the intake valve, reducing atomization of the fuel and efficiency? I can't imagine how ANY car manufacturer would think this is a good idea when they were designing their ECU.
Conversely I would assume cars with sequential fuel injection get a crap-ton better mileage, and they are easier to tune pulsewidths and VE because you don't have to compensate for the pooling fuel.
I am just guessing on this though because I cannot find anything on this. Am I right in my assumption?
Reply
0
0
Oh yeah we really did not land on the moon either.
10-06-2010, 08:24 PM
#3816
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,017
Total Cats: 6,587
The difference is pretty trivial. Idle emissions are slightly reduced (particularly during warmup, when the head is cold), but there's not a huge difference. The fuel sprayed against the closed valve doesn't disappear, it just has to wait around a little while longer, so it's not quite as perfectly atomized when it goes it.
Think about this: The intake cycle comprises only 25% of a full engine cycle. (Yes, I know that there's overlap, but let's just use the 25% number because it's nice.)
At high load and high RPM conditions, injector duty cycle is often 60-80%. That means that even with all for injectors on separate channels and ideally timed, you're still shooting the majority of your fuel when the inlet valve is closed.
Reply
0
0
10-06-2010, 08:37 PM
#3817
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,017
Total Cats: 6,587
Nice to see that someone else around here understands the truth.
My uncle was an OR3 stationed at Norton AFB who actually did some of the rigging work in the soundstage where they built the moon sets that were used for filming the Apollo 14 and 15 missions. Pretty neat stuff- apparently Arthur C. Clarke was a consultant on the project, and apparently, DoD actually funded a lot of the visual effects budget for the production of "2001." They used the movie as a test mule to develop and refine a lot of the VFX techniques which were then used to do the moon landing footage.
My uncle was an OR3 stationed at Norton AFB who actually did some of the rigging work in the soundstage where they built the moon sets that were used for filming the Apollo 14 and 15 missions. Pretty neat stuff- apparently Arthur C. Clarke was a consultant on the project, and apparently, DoD actually funded a lot of the visual effects budget for the production of "2001." They used the movie as a test mule to develop and refine a lot of the VFX techniques which were then used to do the moon landing footage.
Reply
0
0
10-06-2010, 09:01 PM
#3819
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 5,155
Total Cats: 406
I should name the mustang.
What would you call a girl who started off as white trash and later grew up to run with M3s (whatever the human equivalent of that would be)?
What would you call a girl who started off as white trash and later grew up to run with M3s (whatever the human equivalent of that would be)?
Reply
0
0
