I already have but it went over your head. Not supprised there...
As for your milling saw. As load increases so does the fuel requirement. Those goes for any engine and is pretty basic..
661 Oil Test 32:1 vs 40:1 vs 50:1 ?
- Thread starter redbull660
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
As for your milling saw. As load increases so does the fuel requirement. Those goes for any engine and is pretty basic..
Moparmyway
Its just a saw
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2012
- Messages
- 2,481
- Reaction score
- 3,399
Anybody actually seen bwalker ?
Has anyone on the forum (other than bwalker himself) ever seen what bwalker looks like ?
Has bwalker purchased anything from anyone around these parts ?
Has bwalker ever sent anything to a member of this forum ?
Has anyone from this forum ever met bwalker ?
If so, please post here
I wonder .................... BA ?
Has anyone on the forum (other than bwalker himself) ever seen what bwalker looks like ?
Has bwalker purchased anything from anyone around these parts ?
Has bwalker ever sent anything to a member of this forum ?
Has anyone from this forum ever met bwalker ?
If so, please post here
I wonder .................... BA ?
Stihls findings, if true are contridicted by those of mercury marine.
I just sold a 372 here a few months back.. not that it matters.
Moparmyway
Its just a saw
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2012
- Messages
- 2,481
- Reaction score
- 3,399
Your words
I agree
I agree
Which one of the 3 of your quotes should I not believe ?
redbull660
Addicted to ArboristSite
bwalker - imo you seem to know just enough to be dangerous...
great info on some stuff. Completely wrong on other stuff. Contradict yourself on other stuff.
You are closed minded, quick to judge, nonconstructive, and instead of logical thoughts and/or supporting info, you resort to name calling, belittlement, and criticism to anyone who questions you, or differs in opinion. Your attitude just plain sucks.
For me, your just a unreliable source of info. If others want to rely on you, that is their choice.
The fact that you hate my testing so much and think it's meaningless...why do you even concern yourself ...bother to post on this thread then?
great info on some stuff. Completely wrong on other stuff. Contradict yourself on other stuff.
You are closed minded, quick to judge, nonconstructive, and instead of logical thoughts and/or supporting info, you resort to name calling, belittlement, and criticism to anyone who questions you, or differs in opinion. Your attitude just plain sucks.
For me, your just a unreliable source of info. If others want to rely on you, that is their choice.
The fact that you hate my testing so much and think it's meaningless...why do you even concern yourself ...bother to post on this thread then?
Your equating runn
The statements quoted don't contridict at all and are correct.. Your assuming that a lean air fuel ratio is the only way to introduce more heat into a motor, which is false. You also can't seem to grasp that fuel requirement go up with load and this pertains to all IC engines.
Moparmyway
Its just a saw
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2012
- Messages
- 2,481
- Reaction score
- 3,399
More circles from you ..................
I said extra load, like in milling
I give you an E for effort though .................
I am finished with your games
You seem to know very little and are completely happy to stay that way in order to fit your pre conceived notions. You get defensive and whiny when anyone questions the validity of your sloppy constructed tests. Notice I don't treat Brad and Andy like idiots? This is because they don't play the part like you do..
I don't hate your testing at all. I just think it is meaningless.
As for why I comment. People are impressionable and I get very sick of seeing the same myths passed off as fact year after year. Wallowing in ignorance and stupidity is no way to live.
That was direct and to the point. The fact it goes over your head isn't supprising based on history..
Hey bud, if you stop feeding the trolls they will die. I also try to abide by the quote in my Sig line lol
What year and what oils were used to conduct those tests?
Late 70's IIRC. The test have been replicated by others recently though. As a result the shifter kart guys run as low as 16:1 with out fretting about it.
Interesting read here, bike related article.
"While the oil is still suspended in the liquid gasoline, it can not lubricate anything. It has about as much lubricity at that point as straight gasoline. When the gasoline enters the engine, it evaporates, dropping the oil out of suspension. Now that the oil is free, it can lubricate the engine, but it must get to the parts to lubricate them. The way it gets to the bearings and onto the cylinder is by being thrown around as a mist by the spinning crankshaft, and the droplets are distributed by the air currents moving through the engine."
"Some of the oil eventually makes it into the combustion chamber, where it is either burned, or passes out the exhaust. If the combustion chamber temps are too low, such as in an engine that is jetted too rich, the oil doesn't burn completely. Instead, some of it hardens into deposits in the combustion chamber, on the piston, and on the power valve assembly. The rest becomes the dreaded "spooge". The key to all of this working in harmony is to jet the bike lean enough to achieve a high enough combustion chamber temperature to burn the oil, but also still be able to supply enough oil to protect the engine. If you use enough oil, you can jet the bike at it's optimum without starving the engine of oil, and have excellent power, with minimal deposits and spooge. At 50:1, you simply can't jet very lean without risking a seized engine due to oil starvation, unless you're just putt-putting around on trails without putting the engine under much load."
"While the oil is still suspended in the liquid gasoline, it can not lubricate anything. It has about as much lubricity at that point as straight gasoline. When the gasoline enters the engine, it evaporates, dropping the oil out of suspension. Now that the oil is free, it can lubricate the engine, but it must get to the parts to lubricate them. The way it gets to the bearings and onto the cylinder is by being thrown around as a mist by the spinning crankshaft, and the droplets are distributed by the air currents moving through the engine."
"Some of the oil eventually makes it into the combustion chamber, where it is either burned, or passes out the exhaust. If the combustion chamber temps are too low, such as in an engine that is jetted too rich, the oil doesn't burn completely. Instead, some of it hardens into deposits in the combustion chamber, on the piston, and on the power valve assembly. The rest becomes the dreaded "spooge". The key to all of this working in harmony is to jet the bike lean enough to achieve a high enough combustion chamber temperature to burn the oil, but also still be able to supply enough oil to protect the engine. If you use enough oil, you can jet the bike at it's optimum without starving the engine of oil, and have excellent power, with minimal deposits and spooge. At 50:1, you simply can't jet very lean without risking a seized engine due to oil starvation, unless you're just putt-putting around on trails without putting the engine under much load."
Any of them using synthetic ester oils, which have much higher viscosity and film strength?
I wouldn't as ISO and JASO have already done so. Use a certified oil and don't worry about it.
That sure sounds like some things I have said in this thread...
I can't recall, Brad. But synthetic ester oils were around in the 70's. Provided they are decent oils that dont have negative effects on combustion esters shouldn't influence the testing.
I would also point out that high viscosity esters have fallen out of favor and many of the newer oils that don't use them and for good reason.
Here's an interesting post. I realize that he's not proving any science with his opinion. Interesting none the less.
"If someone says they got higher HP numbers on a dyno by increasing the amount of oil in the gas, it is only because they in essence leaned out the carb jetting by doing so. That means that either the bike was jetted too rich to begin with, or it would have shortly blown up if run for any length of time using that richer premix/leaner jetting. Either one makes any of their subsequent dyno results or conclusions highly suspect and potentially damaging. Anyone who states that more oil in the gas equals more horsepower is smoking as much as their bike will smoke."
"If someone says they got higher HP numbers on a dyno by increasing the amount of oil in the gas, it is only because they in essence leaned out the carb jetting by doing so. That means that either the bike was jetted too rich to begin with, or it would have shortly blown up if run for any length of time using that richer premix/leaner jetting. Either one makes any of their subsequent dyno results or conclusions highly suspect and potentially damaging. Anyone who states that more oil in the gas equals more horsepower is smoking as much as their bike will smoke."
" Yes running richer oil mixture will lean the jetting and give more power. However also with heavier mixes of oil the added oil gives a tighter ring seal for more compression, also the added oil content will give higher btu's to contribute to the combustion process. But you have to run you bike hard enough to burn the heavier mix to see the added benefits. Also this mainly holds true with castor or syn blend oils, certain full synthetics will not burn off at high oil-ratios."
"Yes, burned oil produces a higher Brittish Thermal Unit rating than gasoline. Unburned oil blown out the exhaust produces nothing and reduces the amount of gasoline being burned by slowing its burn rate so that more of it blows out the exhaust with the excess oil. You will only get a higher BTU output from running more oil if you actually burn it, and to do that you must increase the amount of air to accelerate the burn rate enough to offset the burn retardation fom the oil.
Synthetic oils tend to burn much slower than conventional oils, which is why they usually recommend mixing less of it in your gas. The gas burns faster than the oil in it, so most of the unburned residue is oil. "
"Yes, burned oil produces a higher Brittish Thermal Unit rating than gasoline. Unburned oil blown out the exhaust produces nothing and reduces the amount of gasoline being burned by slowing its burn rate so that more of it blows out the exhaust with the excess oil. You will only get a higher BTU output from running more oil if you actually burn it, and to do that you must increase the amount of air to accelerate the burn rate enough to offset the burn retardation fom the oil.
Synthetic oils tend to burn much slower than conventional oils, which is why they usually recommend mixing less of it in your gas. The gas burns faster than the oil in it, so most of the unburned residue is oil. "
