Perfectly tuned = little smoke under acceleration = good mixtureTurn fuel screw 1/4 turn = smoke under acceleration = rich mixture
Quote from: stewardc on October 27, 2011, 11:17:33 amPerfectly tuned = little smoke under acceleration = good mixtureTurn fuel screw 1/4 turn = smoke under acceleration = rich mixture Just because it smokes doesn't mean it's rich.
Quote from: stewardc on October 27, 2011, 11:17:33 amPerfectly tuned = little smoke under acceleration = good mixtureTurn fuel screw 1/4 turn = smoke under acceleration = rich mixture Sooo if you put fuel in the engine, but try to stop the wheel from turning, it will be rich?No big surprise it gets smokey when you put it under load,.. basically grab the wheels and add fuel. So is that running too rich, or rich enough to overcome the resistance? If you don't grab the wheel and add fuel, it will equallize,.. add more fuel and the RPMs will increase until it has enough air/fuel mix for the conditions.Just because it smokes doesn't mean it's rich. No smoke does not indicate it's the optimum condition for every load,.. or that it's running lean.
Quote from: fatmobile on October 27, 2011, 07:12:05 pmQuote from: stewardc on October 27, 2011, 11:17:33 amPerfectly tuned = little smoke under acceleration = good mixtureTurn fuel screw 1/4 turn = smoke under acceleration = rich mixture Just because it smokes doesn't mean it's rich. Methinks this sounds exactly like libbyness. Are you a clone, ot the real thing in disguise???
Quote from: stewardc on October 28, 2011, 04:37:03 amQuote from: fatmobile on October 27, 2011, 07:12:05 pmQuote from: stewardc on October 27, 2011, 11:17:33 amPerfectly tuned = little smoke under acceleration = good mixtureTurn fuel screw 1/4 turn = smoke under acceleration = rich mixture Just because it smokes doesn't mean it's rich. Methinks this sounds exactly like libbyness. Are you a clone, ot the real thing in disguise??? Easier to attack the person than address the issue discussed? Sounds like one of the vortex clones. When people would rather be right and insulting, instead of accurate all you can do is try to correct them, so others don't get misinformed.. then wait for the insults to spew from their fragile egos. I'm sure Andrew wasn't trying to help the fool, just trying to help those who aren't ignorant, from being misinformed.
Quote from: fatmobile on October 30, 2011, 11:04:57 amQuote from: stewardc on October 28, 2011, 04:37:03 amQuote from: fatmobile on October 27, 2011, 07:12:05 pmQuote from: stewardc on October 27, 2011, 11:17:33 amPerfectly tuned = little smoke under acceleration = good mixtureTurn fuel screw 1/4 turn = smoke under acceleration = rich mixture Just because it smokes doesn't mean it's rich. Methinks this sounds exactly like libbyness. Are you a clone, ot the real thing in disguise??? Easier to attack the person than address the issue discussed? Sounds like one of the vortex clones. When people would rather be right and insulting, instead of accurate all you can do is try to correct them, so others don't get misinformed.. then wait for the insults to spew from their fragile egos. I'm sure Andrew wasn't trying to help the fool, just trying to help those who aren't ignorant, from being misinformed.Hey, I am truly sorry if I bruised some fragile egos in this venue of diesel "experts", but you'll get the same argument that I have used on the dearly departed in the past. Extra unburned fuel in the exhaust means that the mixture, at that moment, is not ideal. Smoke is, after all, unburned fuel and unburned fuel is a rich mixture is it not If smoke does not mean a rich mixture then what exactly does it signify ?Sorry, but I shouldn't have attempted to inject reason in this lovefest.
correct.. black smoke is rich.. if your smoking black, then you are just wasting hp out the tail pipe..
Quotecorrect.. black smoke is rich.. if your smoking black, then you are just wasting hp out the tail pipe..Not true. Max HP is almost always found to be a rich mixture. Its money that you are wasting "out the tail pipe".
I think there is a very basic misunderstanding of the term 'rich'. Rich does not mean "inefficient" or "excessive emissions" or "incomplete combustion" or "black smoke". By correct definition, "rich" is a fuel to air ratio above stoichiometric. Stoichiometric is the exact fuel to air ratio present in the combustion chamber so that under ideal conditions the fuel will be completely oxidized without any oxygen being left over. Unfortunately the ideal conditions never exist. As I've been saying, or trying toSo have I!The fuel droplet size is too large and when the fuel is injected into the cylinder there is excessive fuel at the nozzle and excessive air at the extremes. You must be referring to DI diesels, because within reason, droplet size unimportant when talking about the IDI which is the only engine type I'm talking about. The areas of excessive fuel begin burning immediately and begin forming carbon-monoxide and carbon2. A diesel will smoke black badly even before the fuel to air ratio in the combustion chamber reaches a stoich mixture due to poor atomization and the poor mixing of the fuel and air in the combustion chamber. At those times of black smoke, there is still excess oxygen going out the tailpipe along with the incompletely burned carbon particulate. Yes, Even at maximum fueling at maximum load, road diesels are only at 70-80% of stoich (20-30% lean). I guess when people are misusing the term "rich" they really mean "incomplete combustion" but that is not what the word means. I don't entirely disagree [see below], but words have many meanings so don't try and patent the word 'rich' If we were on the GTI forum, there would indeed be a conflict, but on the GTD forum everyone is "Talkin' diesel". I guess the misconception is understandable with otto engines. In the case of gas engines, the fuel is atomized so completely and mixed with the air in the combustion chamber so uniformly that with a stoichiometric mixture, near complete combustion occurs.Agreed [sometimes] but see below, because I don't think I'm misconcepted at all in this case. Just to keep you on your toes, how do you factor in the different blends of petroleum, or for diesels; summer fuel, winter diesel, veggy etc which all have different calorific values and so require different amounts of oxygen, from air. Do they all have their own mini stokies? I put it to you that they do, So it's all a little bit theoretical and general, and as for gassers you would need your mechanic to set your car to a particular brand of petroleum to maintain perfection, or do modern cars self adjust? The current trend toward higher pop pressures in diesels is an attempt to increase atomization and the mixing in the combustion chamber in order to get diesels nearer to the increased power, economy and lack of soot of a more completely burned stoichiometric mixture at maximum fueling.The 200+ bar stuff is for issues with DI. Contrast with IDI's eg Mercedes actually go as low as 110bar, and I'm sure I've seen 90bar on something. IDI's actually 'naturally' burn fuel more completely than DI's due to more readily available shear. It's the heatloss through the head that lets them down. Cast iron head, lined with ceramic in the swirl/prechamber would improve that. Iron has about 4x insulative power, and ceramic many times, so a mere coating would help. Lower bars, likely as not, lead to slower burn, less max temp, less NOx, probably better economy, and the last thing CADman and I agreed upon. Please bear in mind I am not nearly EVER talking about 'Racers 'R' Us', or 'My BHP is bigger than your BHP'Most of the latest economy figures for the DI engines are not guaranteed by the manufacturers, because they are achieved with emissions as a priority, in laboratory conditions for road tax purposes and extrapolated for mpg equivalent using CO2/km as a converter. I know this because certain manufacturers had this as a defence in the UK media recently for customers whose cars appeared defective, as they could not achieve economy figures quoted in the brochures... bl***y rip off IMOMark, if maximum fueling at maximum load is still below stoichiometric, I do not see how small changes in load can ever approach it and obviously would never exceed it and result in a rich mixture. When you are using the term "rich" do you really mean "less efficient" or "less complete combustion"?. As I've pointed out in this thread and in the other one where you said almost the exact same things, those terms are not synonymous and you seem to misuse the term 'rich' repeatedly on this forum. It would be great if you used correct terms, said what you meant and meant what you said. For correct terms see elsewhere for my oppinion See elsewhere for my oppinion of correct terms also I don't see what stationary engines have to do with it. Engines tested under noload, lab conditions was my point. On a moment to moment basis, if the fuel and air is less than what is necessary for a given load, the engine will not meet the power output required to match the load and will slow down. If the fuel and air exceed what's required for the load, the engine will produce more power than the load and speed up. I assume that you are saying [without actually saying], that this statement only applies where the excess fuel can get to the oxygen, because forming carbon does not drive engine faster. Furthermore, there is always moment to moment 'Turbo lag' and we drive moment to moment.Neither case results in a fuel to air ratio in the combustion chamber that exceeds stoichiometric. That's true for stationary or automobile engines. But you are talking about the complete combustion chamber, overall residents in an apartment block, etc, but I'm talking about pockets of unhomogeny, or overcrowded apartments. To address your last comment, the C2 forms in the center of droplets, not just at the center of the fuel cone. Some particulate carbon will form even at idle. I never said 'just'