Message-ID: <3AEB892C.D2018054@regandesigns.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 20:23:24 -0700
From: "Hamid A. Wasti" <hamid@regandesigns.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lancair.list@olsusa.com
Subject: Re: Running lean of peak
References: <3AE9F8F9.60A4EAAA@progress.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: lancair.list@olsusa.com

          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
          <<  Lancair Builders' Mail List  >>
          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>
Back when I was 18, I used to be smart.  Really smart.  I knew everything.
Then as I got older, I started getting dumber because I kept finding things
that I did not know enough about.  Now I am a certified idiot since in the
grand scheme of things I know nothing about anything.  What this transition
from wisdom to dumbness has taught me is that what I may think is obvious may
have subtleties and not so obvious sides that make the obvious incorrect.

What I do know is that I do not know enough about the subtleties of engine
operation to be able to make a knowledgeable decision about the benefits and
risks of  LOP operation.  I have seen a lot of conjectures by lots of learned
people, but then I recall cold fusion, statements by learned scholars of a
century ago that heavier than air flight was not possible and the suggestion to
close the US patent office back in the 1890's because everything that could be
invented had already been invented.  What I am holding out for is hard data:
How many engines have run their lives operating LOP, how long did they last,
what problems happened along the way?  Until I see that data, running LOP would
be the same as beta testing someone's product.  You may live one step better
than everyone else, or you may live in a nightmare.  It is your choice and it
not my place to put you down whichever way you go.  Similarly it is not your
place to put me down for my choice.  Some people have gotten so impassioned
about the debate that they forget that little detail (they know who they are,
so no need to mention names).

On the point of data, Marco Pacheco refers to the test that GAMI did using a
specially designed test setup that measures the cylinder pressure and other
parameters during combustion.  Before I accept data from any test setup, I
would want to know one thing:  How do I know that the test setup is reporting
accurate data?  If the test setup is a standard equipment like a voltmeter, not
only can its calibration be verified, but there are lots of other voltmeters in
existence the can be used to reproduce the results.  But when the test setup is
something unique, how does one test the test setup?  Things get even more
complicated when the test setup claims to have a resolution significantly
better than anything in existence.  Is the data from the test setup real?  How
do you know?  Also keep in mind that GAMI's whole business is built on LOP.  I
am NOT accusing them of fudging the data, but do think of this:  If they build
a tester and it proves their theory, how motivated will they be to find fault
in the tester?

To me, the only real data is actual operational results from a large enough
sample.  I will hold out for that.  In the mean time you should do what feels
right to you and best of luck to you.

Hamid

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
LML website:   http://www.olsusa.com/Users/Mkaye/maillist.html
LML Builders' Bookstore:   http://www.buildersbooks.com/lancair

Please send your photos and drawings to marvkaye@olsusa.com.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>