Timing Theory and Science

Ive got it Taken from your signature

"Comments Made On Our Website "

Its your web site and we must obey you on your web site.

But if some one askes a question surely they ought to be able to get the answer they want, not the answer you want to give ?

NO! Bad Peter! You will take what's offered and shut your mouth on THEIR site. Rational technical Q&A is not on the menu. Now go stand in the corner until you can behave.

Fair enough - its your thread and if you/he want to keep thinking it's "personal", so deaf to advice on how to achieve a more "focused on facts" result - then good-oh.

All that's really being said is; change from this thinking;

"if some one askes a question surely they ought to be able to get the answer they want, not the answer you want to give ?"

To this thinking;

If someone asks a question they ought to [eventually] get the right answer.

I.e. "they want", and "want to give" - are more Sales & Marketing concepts and domestic dispute causes - as above - and just get in the way of "right answer" - as also demonstrated repeatedly by you both above.

But as said; 'your thread' - your rules - your outcome.

Which is perhaps the highest rejection of 'right information' I've ever seen on CR4 - including the HHO and over unity Hobbits, who only "want" to hear answers that suit.

So to get the right answer, I should resign myself to wading through opinions, war stories, nasty suggestions about my stupidity or laziness, and posts that seem to have seeped thru from some other thread entirely? Only two people seem to have read the OP and responded appropriately. And that is a damn sad statistic.

I know I am stupid, that is why I need to ask:

what is ATDC?

This is in your OP, but I do not exclude the other fine ladies and gentlemen to share their opinion with us.

Google didn't make me a lot wiser too.

I don't even know how to make it a direct link

Please copy and paste:

http://www.google.com/search?client=gmail&rls=gm&q=ATDC

After Top Dead Center.

In this question context; where the combustion pressure is maximum & initially driving the piston down on the power stroke.

BTDC is Before Top Dead Center; in this context where spark or injection, initiate combustion.

There are a multitude of factors that determine how far, in degrees of crank rotation, each are in advance (BeforeTDC), or retard (AfterTDC) of TopDeadCenter.

There are also many who think the "A" in ATDC means "advance", not "after".

Thank you. It is confusing indeed. Advance, avant, A.M.,P.M.

Had an idea, but was not sure. I'll take one off topic off.

Did that also in #73. Are we talking about 2, 4 or 6 stroke, direct injection? (in what pressure range?),

And what type of cylinder, piston and head model type. (hollow, flat, ball, type, pre-combustion chamber: type)

When we go to a model by model model, there is some correlation, but depending on these details, sometimes the influence is reverse or opposite around the median.

Architecture of the space and heat distribution are still subject to research on this motor that serves us more than a century.

The only answer I got from a laboratory, is that they have models running, where they experiment with the program of the engine management computer with priority to emission control and fuel economy. The program and findings I've been told are classified.

Again with the obfuscation. I asked for sources on the theory, science and math of ICE timing. And I got them from two respondents. I'm satisfied with the results, but disappointed that some got frustrated and lashed out when they realized they, like me, didn't know how to find the info either.

In most of your responses you repeat yourself all the time.

In a further stage it will be only: i..a, i..a.

I tried to gather prime source information and provided the answer I've received. Getting old doesn't always come with being ugly, stubborn and frustrated. Maybe some theory about THESE topics will help you further.

Treated unfairly...hmm...well, I did expect a certain level of professionalism of the respondents, which in some cases I felt was lacking. Attacking the OP and other posters isn't very professional. If you have the answer, give it. If you have a link to the answer, give it. If you don't understand the question, ask for clarification. If you can't help, don't post.

I wasn't requesting a formula, but sources on the theory and science of ignition timing. And Dr Bob gave me an excellent reference work, Heywood's Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals, which is 600 pages of theory, science and math, and is used as a textbook in some schools. And of course Peter, who was excoriated for helping too much, go figure.

As for the thread on mileage, we never found out what had happened. There wasn't enough data to support any conclusion. But lots of good folks tried to help and I appreciated all of them.

And the threads on a theoretical cooling system didn't yield a proof. Lots of folks weighed in with opinions and real world experiences, but no one could prove which configuration was the best, and the proof was what I wanted. If you can do a "simple search" and provide the proof, I'd be most impressed and grateful. I tried before and after the threads and failed. And maybe CR4 isn't the best forum to ask such questions, although I certainly remember having to prove my work in engineering school.

Now that is witty! I have underestimated you; you like to argue and are often good at it.

i was asking my new BFF Garthh. But your comic interludes are appreciated...by someone, I'm sure.

Another lurker pipes up. But I agree, I'm fed up as well. Nothing left to do but argue about how many angels can dance on a pinhead...like you.

I think that's what's known as an own goal; also known as shooting oneself in the foot.

Bravo and tally ho, or something. But I agree with you, too, so we can all gather and sing kumbaya.

That's a very disappointing track record.

I've found, on the few occasions I have asked CR4 membership for help, that responses - though wide ranging - the vast majority (90%+), had very high usefulness.

So it's never crossed my mind to write such as "If you have the answer, give it. If you have a link to the answer, give it. If you don't understand the question, ask for clarification. If you can't help, don't post"

Nor would I pose a CR4 question with the likes of "proof is what I want" because it's akin to a question/exercise for undergraduates or as some like to treat interns.

Or would I utter such as "although I certainly remember having to prove my work in engineering school." A.k.a. A mindset expectation that the membership jump through Professorially arrogant hoops.

Perhaps these thoughts don't occur to me [so permeate my Q&A approach] because when I ask CR4 (or anybody) for information - it's to enable ME to do the dot joining work.

After all - it's not a 'do my homework for me!' site.

But on the bright side you now have an "impressively thick" References Addendum - they hopefully will not read and go WTF is this irrelevant rubbish?

I've started 15 threads and, like you, have had many good responses. It's been this thread and one other (about a theoretical cooling system) that have provoked some to respond with anger and general ugliness. And my quote you note is the first time it's occurred to me to have to state the obvious. At least it's obvious to me; I've read lots of threads and unless I have something worth adding I don't post. CR4 is not a knitting circle, and gossip and bitching are not what I expect (your opinion may differ). And I don't have a "mindset" that members must jump thru hoops (and are professors all arrogant? I've met some that were quite humble). But if I ask for a proof (and I would hope that any member can ask any question), the only logical responses are "here's the proof", or "here's where you might find the proof", or "here's why a proof is impossible". In the case of this thread, for example, two people gave me ideas where I might find what I seek. And that is all I ask. No one is compelled to "do the homework", unless they are interested. I fully realize this is not a paid Q&A, and don't demand any answers at all. But I think it is reasonable to expect those who don't have a clue to refrain from adding to the "big glorious mess".

And irrelevance is in the mind of the beholder; a friend (I have some) says WTF about studying the universe and sending probes to the planets. To him it is irrelevant. To many others it is the most important work mankind has attempted. Different strokes...

Ok, but again in this thread you have replied to a poster with "Again with the obfuscation"

So lets try a parallel scenario

Say you ask for the "theory, science and math of lift"

The members ask what aircraft type?

You say that has nothing to do with it

Members say it has - you say "Again with the obfuscation"

Members say yes it does because you need to box the variables somehow to know what math to use.

You say no I don't

And then say "some got frustrated and lashed out when they realized they, like me, didn't know how to find the info either."

Thing is, members do know the information and how to find it - [as you have just discovered again with Garthh].

What members don't know is; what information would apply - because some is right for one situation and useless for another.

So to summarize your outcome;

The fall back is to give you "101" i.e. Bernoulli's equation and the root profile of a DC-3.

Thrilled with this - you are now say all other input was "obfuscation" and "lashing out" due to "members lack of knowledge".

So is it that you don't understand what you said to Dvmdc is insulting? - and a needless negative interjection (like P7) into a conversation between two other members?

Or;

Is it you don't understand a combat jet flies on different math to a 707 and different again to an Airbus, different again to helicopter, which is different again to a HAWT?

This is the conundrum - for me anyway.

More your perception of 'appropriately' than a statistic. You did a good job of shutting out all but 1 who have read the book and worked in the field - which is the catch 22 inviting "opinions, war stories, nasty suggestions about stupidity or laziness" - in your perception.

As for 'wading through' ...... as one who has both books and extensive practice, I didn't have that problem. It's just a matter of skimming the pages of shotgun link titles and more use of scroll.

I could list the other members who you might have engaged to greater gain of understanding of book, practice, even the '1 useful link', but I think you have already blown them off with this rather uneven "dismissal" approach to input.

Then again it could be our fault for assuming such a question would come from one reading the books and pondering the mathematical ranking of the thousand odd variables.

To which we would say 'well what engine do you have, or have in mind?' - as this changes the ranking.

Oh .......

"Semantics"

Is that your new place? Honestly, you have done wonders with it.

Ricky don't lose that number......

Ky, it looks like we are the last of the Mohicans. Take care and I'll see you on the web.

GA

Love that song, though I's have gone for summat like Rudy (on a train to nowhere)

It is "our" web site

as in our online community

were I claiming sole ownership I would use the word "I" not "our"

you tried to change the context by leaving off the word Anonymous

you continue to defend your method of posting, instead of actually paying attention & possibly learning something...

How kind of you to say so, dear Yuval. The briefest description I can think of is 'cranking'. Something like that .

I see. So it's a bit like a proper, polite, argumentative discussion, about something like, say, "The Mechanics Of Soul"

I love this site.

CR4 rules. Thanks everyone.

Another method is to provide a short synopsis & a link or other attribution of the source material which is the proper protocol to avoid concerns regarding plagiarism

from Garthh link

Definition of said complaint

Plagiarism is defined in dictionaries as "the wrongful appropriation, close imitation, or purloining and publication, of another author's language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions, and the representation of them as one's own original work."

By typing or pasting the links re information here is not claiming it to be mine.

Unless i directly claim it as being mine or infer that it is mine.

Which i have never undertaken

Any interpretation or implication that the typed or pasted information on here is yours

I would search around and discover a common fairly recent car that uses one and get an example from the junk yard, connector, wire and all. If this one does not produce a nice spike when you hit the part it's screwed into with a hammer, you will have chosen one not any $150 at Auto Zone.