In a message dated 97-11-05 17:18:17 EST, you write:
> I have asked several questions about egt's and have been told the same is
>irrelevant to you.
FOR THIS discussion, they are. So are your assumptions of EGT on turbo motors
.
> Sorry, I don't have any idea what you are talking about here. My reference
to >testosterone was in regards to the bigger picture of how when Eric says
something >your 12 posts will follow, and vice versa, only in a more limited
amount of BW. You >want credit for the 2.5PT? I give you all the credit.
Never asked for it, nor deserve it. You are here to learn, happy to help, so
are a few of the QLCC guys, your car is faster now. Why? Is YOUR car a
"chip" mod or a "box" mod? Do you know the difference? One liner posts with
outrageous claims don't fulfill that objective (learning yours as claimed).
Now it has testosterone? You, Eric, Corky Bell, Ned, Randall, McInnes, Smith,
Rahal, Haas, anyone here or in "engines" can post my ignorance to what I
presented in all those posts. My math is accepted theory and formulas, anyone
is free to correct it. Several other lists post what I did right on the Main
page. Here, only here, cuz I presented it, does it become "controversial".
Not agreeing on baseline engine theory is really silly to me. What isn't
right? I'd love to know why my ass calibration and my math are as close as
they are for so long. I WANT to learn as well. Scott -"Here's my
understanding of turbocharger theory and why" Others - "no that isn't right
cuz of ...x". I got that with VE. Fine, doesn't change the formula. And in
the exact example given doesn't change the turbo either.
>>>>> Discussing EGT, is really pretty advanced for this discussion,
irrelevent, and frankly Bruce, I don't
think you have a firm grasp on it's implications to a turbocharged
motor.<<<<<
> EGTs are relevant whenever a modification is made to any motor seeking an
>increase in power. That is elementary. If you ignore these numbers,
especially >when you do something that may increase the effective compression
ratio of an >intern. combus. engine, then it will be through luck, not
knowledge, that you spare >the motor. I will be happy to debate egt's until
the cows come home. I will not, >however, continue the discussion here.
>>
Happy to discuss EGT offline Bruce. I can easily show that you are off with
your conventional thinking applied to turbos, the "cows" aren't home yet.
Some questions: What is the byproduct of compressing a gas? The work that
doesn't go TO that compression (CE), what is THAT? Where are either on a N/A
motor? Given Compressor A and compressor B, can one generate a higher
measured EGT than another? Again your baseline presentation here is the claim
is correct (26psi et. al.) and EGT confirms it, with your butt calibrator.
The first I've addressed, the second we need to discuss further to get the
cows in the barn and the third needs calibration (RS2 n=1, maybe that needs to
be increased).
This thread can go forward or die a bludgeoned death. Forward is my vote.
Obviously, you and others have some preconcieved "notions" of engine theory
that lead you to believe that my and Dave's "numbers" aren't correct. That
baseline needs to occur before this can move to the next level. I'm game.
Are you?
Trying desparately to extricate my bat, "darn horse".
Scott