Offroad-Express

Posted: **Tue Mar 24, 2009 4:52 pm**

flyingbrick wrote:lol.

That is all.

-Nathan

X2

Posted: **Tue Mar 24, 2009 4:55 pm**

KiwiBacon wrote:
vvega wrote:you have to have a ignitable mixure to have a autoignition

This is not true. Flammable and capable of auto-ignition are not the same thing.

How the hell could something Auto-Ignite if it was not ignitable

-nathan

Posted: **Tue Mar 24, 2009 4:56 pm**

I think I could sypathise if they were tryin to figure out who would win in a fight between he man and gi joe, which by the way who has seen the gi joe movie trailer, long time comin :twisted:

Posted: **Tue Mar 24, 2009 4:56 pm**

wopass wrote:
flyingbrick wrote:lol.

That is all.

-Nathan

X2

Tell you one thing thou...................

has been a damn site more interesting than watching Days of Our Lives :lol:

Posted: **Tue Mar 24, 2009 4:59 pm**

curly12 wrote:
wopass wrote:
flyingbrick wrote:lol.

That is all.

-Nathan

X2

Tell you one thing thou...................

has been a damn site more interesting than watching Days of Our Lives

Is nobody here employed?

i cant watch tv at work :-(

Posted: **Tue Mar 24, 2009 5:01 pm**

[quote="wopass]

fume f&king works!!!

jeeeeezzzzeeeeeeuuuuuzzzzzz

:lol:

[/quote]

The main question I have. Does it make a 4 wheel drive more capable because most times more power does the opposite.
Tractors don't have much power but will out perform any 4 wheel drive truck.

Cheers Richard

Posted: **Tue Mar 24, 2009 5:02 pm**

flyingbrick wrote:
KiwiBacon wrote:
vvega wrote:you have to have a ignitable mixure to have a autoignition

This is not true. Flammable and capable of auto-ignition are not the same thing.

How the hell could something Auto-Ignite if it was not ignitable

-nathan

Ignitable means stick a spark through it and it'll go up.

If something is outside the flammability limits then it's still combustible, it just can't be lit by a flame because it's either spread too thin or there isn't enough air.
But heat the whole lot up and it can still go below the flammability limit.

Posted: **Tue Mar 24, 2009 5:04 pm**

Here an explanation that'll be right up vvegas alley.

Tuning a petrol.
Flood it with fuel (go past the upper flammable limit) and your spark can't ignite it.
Run it too lean (below the lower flammable limit) and your spark can't ignite it.

But take a can full of that lean petrol/air mix which is inflammable and throw it on a fire. Stand well back because yes, it's going to autoignite.

Posted: **Tue Mar 24, 2009 5:05 pm**

haynzy wrote:
smurf182 wrote:To think that when I posted up late last night the thread was only at a measly 7 pages.. !

Electronics is my area, thermodynamics is not, so I won't comment on the topic of discussion.

Someone here mentioned that a certain member had too much time on their hands..

It is because of these people with 'too much time on their hands' that we have such a technologically advanced world to enjoy.. People that dare to question 'why' not just live in a world of superstition and ignorance... After all, our engines run on science not black magic. That's why this debate is so interesting.

So can we continue this discussion in a non-personal manner, the two main posters have a lot of knowledge to bring to the table, it would be a shame for either of you to [further] throw your toys over this..
a tad dramatic when they arguing over something that has already been done not something that is mearly an idea.

Just because it 'has already been done' does not mean it is the best way or even a safe way of doing things (and no, thats not taking sides!).

There's nothing wrong with questioning a well established way of going about things.. without questioning the status quo, there would be no progress, and we'd all still be getting about in horse and cart.

Posted: **Tue Mar 24, 2009 5:11 pm**

KiwiBacon wrote:Here an explanation that'll be right up vvegas alley.

Tuning a petrol.
Flood it with fuel (go past the upper flammable limit) and your spark can't ignite it.
Run it too lean (below the lower flammable limit) and your spark can't ignite it.

But take a can full of that lean petrol/air mix which is inflammable and throw it on a fire. Stand well back because yes, it's going to autoignite.

Hang on.. so if you put fuel in a fire.. and the fuel burns.. the process is called autoignition? even though there is a flame involved?

Posted: **Tue Mar 24, 2009 5:12 pm**

Bulletproof wrote:The main question I have. Does it make a 4 wheel drive more capable because most times more power does the opposite.
Tractors don't have much power but will out perform any 4 wheel drive truck

its a tow bus so doesnt matter :wink:

but it produces big fat gobs of grunt off idle and pulls hard thru the range so yes it would be very usable offroad as well... if he ever used it off road that is :lol:

smurf182 wrote:Just because it 'has already been done' does not mean it is the best way or even a safe way of doing things (and no, thats not taking sides!).

There's nothing wrong with questioning a well established way of going about things.. without questioning the status quo, there would be no progress, and we'd all still be getting about in horse and cart.

horses wont run too good being fumigated :lol:

Posted: **Tue Mar 24, 2009 5:15 pm**

flyingbrick wrote:Hang on.. so if you put fuel in a fire.. and the fuel burns.. the process is called autoignition? even though there is a flame involved?

No, you need to heat until it lights without letting it touch a flame or spark. That is auto-ignition.

If the flame gets it, then it's just normal flammable combustion.

Posted: **Tue Mar 24, 2009 5:24 pm**

isnt that what wayne said?

Posted: **Tue Mar 24, 2009 5:30 pm**

wopass wrote:
Bulletproof wrote:The main question I have. Does it make a 4 wheel drive more capable because most times more power does the opposite.
Tractors don't have much power but will out perform any 4 wheel drive truck

its a tow bus so doesnt matter but it produces big fat gobs of grunt off idle and pulls hard thru the range so yes it would be very usable offroad as well... if he ever used it off road that is

smurf182 wrote:Just because it 'has already been done' does not mean it is the best way or even a safe way of doing things (and no, thats not taking sides!).

There's nothing wrong with questioning a well established way of going about things.. without questioning the status quo, there would be no progress, and we'd all still be getting about in horse and cart.

horses wont run too good being fumigated

They have their own fumigation process but normally it exiting gas :lol:

Posted: **Tue Mar 24, 2009 5:33 pm**

flyingbrick wrote:isnt that what wayne said?

vvega is saying auto-ignition is impossible if you're below the lower flammability limit (i.e. too lean). The experiment I ran clearly shows it's possible and happening.

Posted: **Tue Mar 24, 2009 5:37 pm**

how the hell do they transport and pipe the stuff then

Posted: **Tue Mar 24, 2009 5:37 pm**

KiwiBacon wrote:
flyingbrick wrote:Hang on.. so if you put fuel in a fire.. and the fuel burns.. the process is called autoignition? even though there is a flame involved?

No, you need to heat until it lights without letting it touch a flame or spark. That is auto-ignition.

If the flame gets it, then it's just normal flammable combustion.

youve missed the point yet again
your igniting the petrol .. not the vapour
to put it in the same context
take a container of fuel vapour
let it go in you lounge ... do you think if you heat the room enough it will auto ignite ??
its so simple yet you just wont grasp it

ive tryed to help you ive proved you wrong a pile of times and yet .. im still wrong apprently
sweet ill admit it you have beaten fact with persistance
it is a very sad day for science
im not walking away becaue you have won
im walking away because your to ignorent to teach anything too ...

Posted: **Tue Mar 24, 2009 5:40 pm**

KiwiBacon wrote:
flyingbrick wrote:isnt that what wayne said?

vvega is saying auto-ignition is impossible if you're below the lower flammability limit (i.e. too lean). The experiment I ran clearly shows it's possible and happening.

no it dosent
im sorry mate but after this i frankly dont think you have a ability to do such a experiment
i mean hell .. you cant even get fume to work ... how the hell are you spose to prove or disprove anythign when you cant even get over the first hurdle
were not talkin just lean .. were talking so lean there is not enough vapour to auto fucken anything

Posted: **Tue Mar 24, 2009 5:47 pm**

vvega wrote:youve missed the point yet again
your igniting the petrol .. not the vapour
to put it in the same context
take a container of fuel vapour
let it go in you lounge ... do you think if you heat the room enough it will auto ignite ??
its so simple yet you just wont grasp it

ive tryed to help you ive proved you wrong a pile of times and yet .. im still wrong apprently
sweet ill admit it you have beaten fact with persistance
it is a very sad day for science
im not walking away becaue you have won
im walking away because your to ignorent to teach anything too ...

Liquid Petrol doesn't ignite, only vapour does.

If I could get my lounge hot enough (almost 300C), then yes that would happen. Any vapour in the room would ignite where-ever it may be or however it may be.

Do you have any specific problems with the experiment. Or is it simply that you don't believe the results so it all has to be wrong?

Posted: **Tue Mar 24, 2009 5:58 pm**

I'm going to do this tomorrow after work. Will pull a homer to make the required brackets etc.

I want to mount it on the center console between the front seats so that i can reach the tap to turn it on and off/make fuel adjustments on the fly.

Hopefully it wont cost me anything! scrap steel from work for the brackets (i can weld/machine stuff pretty good) and will borrow dads gas bottle. Mum wont notice 3-4 metres of garden hose missing either i don't think :mrgreen:

Posted: **Tue Mar 24, 2009 6:01 pm**

KiwiBacon wrote:
vvega wrote:youve missed the point yet again
your igniting the petrol .. not the vapour
to put it in the same context
take a container of fuel vapour
let it go in you lounge ... do you think if you heat the room enough it will auto ignite ??
its so simple yet you just wont grasp it

ive tryed to help you ive proved you wrong a pile of times and yet .. im still wrong apprently
sweet ill admit it you have beaten fact with persistance
it is a very sad day for science
im not walking away becaue you have won
im walking away because your to ignorent to teach anything too ...

Liquid Petrol doesn't ignite, only vapour does.

If I could get my lounge hot enough (almost 300C), then yes that would happen. Any vapour in the room would ignite where-ever it may be or however it may be.

Do you have any specific problems with the experiment. Or is it simply that you don't believe the results so it all has to be wrong?

nope thats it you obviously havent read anything ive put up
its your loss not mine

Posted: **Tue Mar 24, 2009 6:06 pm**

your experiment has...

sing it with me.... (jingle bells tune)

too much gas
too much gas
too much gas
too much gas
too much gas
too much gas
too much gas
too much gas
too much gas
too much gas
too much gas
too much gas
too much gas
too much gas
too much gas
too much gas
too much gas
too much gas
too much gas

:lol:

Posted: **Tue Mar 24, 2009 6:17 pm**

Lets explore the potential of this idea.

carols with nathan wrote:
too much gas
too much gas
i cant tune for shit
oh what fun it is to plumb
in a bottle to my intake

This is all ive got so far..

Posted: **Tue Mar 24, 2009 6:33 pm**

wopass wrote:your experiment has...

sing it with me.... (jingle bells tune)

too much gas
too much gas
too much gas
too much gas
too much gas
too much gas
too much gas
too much gas
too much gas
too much gas
too much gas
too much gas
too much gas
too much gas
too much gas
too much gas
too much gas
too much gas
too much gas

Really? According to wayne I haven't got enough gas vapour to do anything.

vvega wrote:were talking so lean there is not enough vapour to auto fucken anything

Maybe I'm measuring gas at the wheels instead of the crank. :wink:

Posted: **Tue Mar 24, 2009 6:45 pm**

you were pumping in 4.5ltrs per min? at idle??? thats

too much gas!!!
too much gas!!!
too much gas!!!

read the posts from the people that actually run fume properly and read the usage...then work out how much you are over doing it by...remembering that it doesnt fume at idle...at all...ever... for a reason other than

IT WILL DIE??

:roll:

hey zilla, hows your fume set up going anyway? the one we did over here seems to work pretty good...maybe we should have a FUME OFF contest :lol:

see whos engine melts the pistons first...ohh wait, you been running yours for years allready...you have a head start...not fair

Posted: **Tue Mar 24, 2009 6:54 pm**

KiwiBacon wrote:
wopass wrote:your experiment has...

sing it with me.... (jingle bells tune)

too much gas
too much gas
too much gas
too much gas
too much gas
too much gas
too much gas
too much gas
too much gas
too much gas
too much gas
too much gas
too much gas
too much gas
too much gas
too much gas
too much gas
too much gas
too much gas

Really? According to wayne I haven't got enough gas vapour to do anything.
vvega wrote:were talking so lean there is not enough vapour to auto fucken anything

Maybe I'm measuring gas at the wheels instead of the crank.

well no i dont know if your calculations are correct and at the moment .. i doubt that they are
please dont try to bend my comments into somthing that serves your purpose when you planly dont even understand the context there writen in

Posted: **Tue Mar 24, 2009 6:58 pm**

yea the weathers been real good lately,
not a cloud in the sky,
birds have been singing
beautiful sunsets
clean crisp mornings
aaaarrrrrrgggggggghhhhhhhh
life is good

Posted: **Tue Mar 24, 2009 7:03 pm**

vvega wrote:well no i dont know if your calculations are correct and at the moment .. i doubt that they are
please dont try to bend my comments into somthing that serves your purpose when you planly dont even understand the context there writen in

It's not that hard to check the calcs. All of the working is shown.

You were all for the experiment until the results came through, funny how the outcome you didn't like changed everything.

Posted: **Tue Mar 24, 2009 7:05 pm**

wopass wrote:you were pumping in 4.5ltrs per min? at idle??? thats

too much gas!!!
too much gas!!!
too much gas!!!

read the posts from the people that actually run fume properly and read the usage...then work out how much you are over doing it by...remembering that it doesnt fume at idle...at all...ever... for a reason other than

IT WILL DIE??

hey zilla, hows your fume set up going anyway? the one we did over here seems to work pretty good...maybe we should have a FUME OFF contest see whos engine melts the pistons first...ohh wait, you been running yours for years allready...you have a head start...not fair

4.5 l/min is 0.5% of the intake air. That's pretty much exactly what others say they're running. At idle you can hear the detonation most clearly, hence the idle test.

Where's that dyno chart mr 970Nm?

Posted: **Tue Mar 24, 2009 7:08 pm**

flyingbrick wrote:I'm going to do this tomorrow after work. Will pull a homer to make the required brackets etc.

I want to mount it on the center console between the front seats so that i can reach the tap to turn it on and off/make fuel adjustments on the fly.

Hopefully it wont cost me anything! scrap steel from work for the brackets (i can weld/machine stuff pretty good) and will borrow dads gas bottle. Mum wont notice 3-4 metres of garden hose missing either i don't think

Sounds safe. :shock:

You don't have a spare gas flow-meter do you? I'm wondering how accurate a welding gas meter will be with lpg. Then you'll know how much gas you're using.

Where/how are you going to inject the gas in the intake? You're LD28 no-turbo right?

Offroad-Express

WAS fume'ing (now more of a flaming thread...)

Re: fume'ing

Re: fume'ing

Re: fume'ing

Re: fume'ing

Re: fume'ing

Re: fume'ing

Re: fume'ing

Re: fume'ing

Re: fume'ing

Re: fume'ing

Re: fume'ing

Re: fume'ing

Re: fume'ing

Re: fume'ing

Re: fume'ing

Re: fume'ing

Re: fume'ing

Re: fume'ing

Re: fume'ing

Re: fume'ing

Re: fume'ing

Re: fume'ing

Re: fume'ing

Re: fume'ing

Re: fume'ing

Re: fume'ing

Re: fume'ing

Re: fume'ing

Re: fume'ing

Re: fume'ing