Return-Path: Sender: "Marvin Kaye" To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 10:26:46 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imo-m20.mx.aol.com ([64.12.137.1] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c3) with ESMTP id 820963 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 26 Mar 2005 00:50:31 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.137.1; envelope-from=REHBINC@aol.com Received: from REHBINC@aol.com by imo-m20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v37_r5.33.) id q.196.3b98ac62 (3972) for ; Sat, 26 Mar 2005 00:49:39 -0500 (EST) From: REHBINC@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: <196.3b98ac62.2f7651f3@aol.com> X-Original-Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 00:49:39 EST Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Superchargers X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1111816179" X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5116 -------------------------------1111816179 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/25/2005 10:49:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, Walter@advancedpilot.com writes: Thank you for the thorough explanation of the event s as you understand them. **Both problems are commonly lumped together and low octane and high cylinder temps can result in either one. When preignition gets bad, it will destroy the engine faster than detonation. It also is harder to detect preignition before serious damage is done.** Both are commonly but incorrectly lumped together. They are two very different events. Walter I guess my atrocious english is rearing its ugly head again. You are quite correct and that is how I should have worded my statement. Further, the data indicates that it is actually quite likely that damage from detonation as you have listed and is commonly sited is really a result of preignition. We have observed extended periods of detonation in which there is no damage whatsoever to the cylinder, rings, valves, etc. I realize that this is counter to the conventional wisdom, but it is in harmony with the observed data. Do you have a source for the data you refer to? I would like to read up on it. I was fortunate enough not to generate very much data of my own. Just two broken pistons and one broken ring. I scattered two engines, but that was due to alternate forms of stupidity. Rob -------------------------------1111816179 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In a message dated 3/25/2005 10:49:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, Walter@= advancedpilot.com writes:
Thank you for the thorough explanation of the=20= event s as you understand
them.

**Both problems are commonly lump= ed together and low octane and high
cylinder temps can result in either=20= one. When preignition gets bad, it
will destroy the engine faster than d= etonation. It also is harder to
detect preignition before serious damage= is done.**

Both are commonly but incorrectly lumped together. =20= They are two very
different events. 
Walter
 
I guess my atrocious english is rearing its ugly head again. You are qu= ite correct and that is how I should have worded my statement.


Further, the data indicates that it is= actually quite likely that
damage from detonation as you have listed an= d is commonly sited is
really a result of preignition.  We have obs= erved extended periods of
detonation in which there is no damage whatsoe= ver to the cylinder,
rings, valves, etc.  I realize that this is co= unter to the conventional
wisdom, but it is in harmony with the observed= data.
Do you have a source for the data you refer to? I would like to read up= on it.
 
I was fortunate enough not to generate very much data of my own. Just t= wo broken pistons and one broken ring. I scattered two engines, but tha= t was due to alternate forms of stupidity.
 
Rob
-------------------------------1111816179--