Fuel/Oil mix

[Fish]

What kind of chickens? Are they cute?

 

[Fish]

Have you ever wore a turtleneck? Just curious.

 

[Crofter]

Fish, these be Austalorps. Blackie here is a bit stuck on himself and opinionated considering he's naught but a bird brain, but that is common.
No turtlnecks; I'm claustrophobic and hate being tied up to get them over me head.

 

[Justin Garrison]

Arent chickens a little off topic?

 

[glens]

Not if you're running them at a ratio of 32 to 1 rooster.

 

[max2cam]

A non igniting spark eh? sounds a bit like cold fusion! There have been some interesting combination engines that used gasoline to vaporise kerosene and make it burnable in a spark ignition system. Wonder if it was some version of this.

Very much like Cold Fusion.

Far as I can determine, Pennington's "long mingling" (non-igniting) spark was a total scam and proved to be his undoing.

Before he came up with that gem, he was riding high going from city to city bilking established businessmen and investors out of large sums money to establish factories to build his "wonderful" engines and inventions that also included airships and 150-mph monorails. But instead he blew the money on a lavish lifestyle, booze, jewelry, and women and only went thru the motions of actually producing anything. After he wrecked one company, he'd move on to the next town where he would be greeted with new enthusiasm and the money would pour in due to his mesmeringly personality and his trappings of a successful capitalist and inventor.

After Randol's article appeared in 1895, however, there followed a heated discussion in letters to the editor about the "long mingling" spark -- sort of like this thread. The give-away was his claim that the power-stroke in his engine was fired at 45 degrees past TDC and guys wrote in and said that was total BS and that the first spark actually fired the fuel charge and the change-of-state refrigeration effect was of no practical value and that Pennington's engines needed cooling fins or water-jackets just like any other heat-engine.

Pennington answered his critics with lots of bombast and I believe Randol actually returned and wrote a second more critical article.

But the handwriting was on the wall and Pennington left the USA in 1896 and went to England where he repeated his grandiose claims and scams all over again very successfully.

But as time went on and people understood the "explosive" engine better, Pennington's star began to fade. One of his last inventions was a gasoline-powered baby buggy!

In the end Pennington went to Springfield, Mass. and tried to sue the pants off Indian but fell down in the street dead drunk (or maybe was beaten up by toughs from the Indian factory) and died the next day or so. That was 1911.

The ironic part is that Pennington actually influenced guys like Henry Ford and maybe William S. Harley. Ford actually copied Pennington's engine for his very first attempt at making a gas engine and the Pennington Motor Cycle demonstration in Milwaukee was only a few blocks away from teenagers Bill Harley and Arty Davidson's family homes.

Like they say: Truth is stranger than fiction.

 

[DanMan1]

I've got an 110HP '83 Honda V65 in the garage.V-4 engine, 2 spark coils, not 4. Each coil drives 2 cylinders. So each spark plug ends up firing twice per cycle. Once when needed, the other time ,when the other cylinder needs it, and the first one is on the exhaust stroke where the spark doesn't matter. I don't know exactly why they did this. Maybe there was a copper shortage at the time.

 

[bwalker]

Thtas pretty common, Dan. Most twin cylinder snowmobile engines have ignitions that fire both plugs at the same time regardless of piston position.

 

[Al Smith]

Harley coils,fire both plugs together,as does B and s twins,Onan twins.John Deere Wico mags,fire every time the cylinder is on tdc,except the reduction models,on the model D.The list,could go on,and on.

 

[DanMan1]

I guess I've been in small block Chevy land too deep, for too many years

 

[woodshop]

Husqvarna recommends 33:1 for my new 395XP

I am looking at the Husky 395XP Operators manual, that came with the brand spanking new 395XP I just bought. This manual is almost identical to the online manual I downloaded in pdf format from the Husky site few weeks ago. One BIG MAJOR difference though, on page 26 of both manuals, under Title page FUEL HANDLING, after the paragragh telling you to always use Husky oil yada yada... there is a mixing ratio chart. On the 395XP online manual it gives standard 50:1 ratios, and thats all, same page as my Husky 365 manual ver batum. BUT, on the manual that just came with my new saw, its says

Mixing ratio
For engines up to 80cc: 01:50 (2%)
For engines over 80cc: 01:33 (3%)

Then has a chart that gives mixing ratios for both 50:1 AND 33:1 side by side!!!!! Is this something new? Is Husky jumping ship from the 50:1 for all of its saws? If so, what about all the stuff in this thread about 32:1 not cooling pistons and bearings enough, or lowering octane too much, or deposting tons of goo in my saw/muffler? Unless I got a goofball manual, Husky apparently wants us to use 33:1 in its high end big cc saws? The manual is dated 2004-04-19, and I think the number on back of manual is the part number, 1140256-95. Interesting. I am going with the manual that came with saw, and run 33:1 in it. I am seriuosly thinking now, of putting at least 40:1 in my MS460, MS361 and 365 like stumper and a lot of you guys.

Gosh... whats a mother to do...
_______________________________
this too shall pass

 

[mjw]

the reason stihl recomends 40:1 oil mix is the saw will run hot on a heavier mix like 30:1.oil holds heat so the more oil you have in the more heat you have.years ago they switched the oil mixtures leaner because of problems of 2 cycle engines seizing up.the new fuels have more additives in that make 2 cycle engines run hot.it is best if you use stihl oil and high test fuel not the low grade.and make sure your carb is not adjusted to lean.when the 2 cycle industries incurred this problem of new engines seizing up that was the solution they came up with.they had a test kit for dealers to test fuels to see how much alchol and other additives where in the fuels.they found the more oil in the fuel actually hurt the saw because it made the engine run so hot it seized them up.so check what your manufacture recomends and stick with it.

 

[Stumper]

mjw, Welcome to the site! Did you happen to read this whole thread? What is your source for the info you are sharing?

 

[bwalker]

what about all the stuff in this thread about 32:1 not cooling pistons and bearings enough, or lowering octane too much, or deposting tons of goo in my saw/muffler?

All of the above is BS! All of the Jap bike OEM's reccomend 32:1 for their bike engines and they are in a much higher state of tune. The saw oems at one time recomended 32, and 40 as well and still reccomned a mic much richer than 50:1 when not using their overpriced, mediocre quality oil..
My brand new Ski-Doo snowmobile is using oil equivalant to around 20:1(its injected).

 

[bwalker]

MJW, In no part of your first post did you state anything even close to factual....keep up the good work.

 

[begleytree]

MJW, good luck. I'm staying out of it from now on. Hardest part is keeping it on track, IE, already are they discussing dirt bike and snowmobile motors, like that has anything to do with chainsaws! (btw, my 250R manual says 50:1, and runs great on it) Soon you'll have to reason the effects of 50:1 in a 4 stroke engine, equipped with electronic spark control (that has nothing to do with anything about chainsaws either)
You're on the right track, IMO, better to leave it be, and run your saw. You don't fix there's, and yours don't need fixed!
(BTW, what size B&C are they running on that chevy anyhow?, what pitch chain on the snowmobile?)
Ralph

 

[Gypo Logger]

Could it be that a heavier mix like 32:1 creates more compression and therefore more power? I opologize if this has already been discussed by Fish and/or Walt but it does seem plausable, especiallty with a saw that may be a bit on the loose side.
John

 

[bwalker]

(btw, my 250R manual says 50:1,

Care to scan a copy of that...I have a cr250 manual here in front of me that says 32:1. I think the 250r may have been even 20:1.

 

[bwalker]

IE, already are they discussing dirt bike and snowmobile motors, like that has anything to do with chainsaws!

No, nothing in common...except they share the same basic engine design.

 

[klickitatsacket]

I am not starting anything here but I am curious on how you figure that a thicker mix would boost compression. Am I missing something here? I thought compression was determined by the volume of fuel/air mix "crammed" into the cylinder at BDC compared to TDC. I have concidered though the thought of more energy translating into torque from a higher oil content in the mix. If at operating temperatures the oil combusts and being a denser fuel does it release more energy per volume measurement? Also if it slows down the brun rate will it give a full burn down the entire stroke? Or maybe the stroke is too short to be effected by these questions. If it would be effective what would happen if diesel was used as the oil in the mix? would this give better torque? I am not being a smart ars here. Just questions to ponder and with the amount of people who seem to know something on the subject of fuel and oil (how little or how much is a whole other debate) I thought I would bring this up. hmmm???????????