 |

  |
 |
| |
|
|
| Subject |
I dont see why those presenting the argument to me are |
 |
| |
|
|
| Posted by |
AshsZ(In Florida) on December 30, 2003 at 2:47 AM |
 |
| |
This message has been viewed 271 times. |
 |
| |
|
|
| In Reply To |
so answer my question about the hypothetical test... posted by Spee on December 30, 2003 at 01:52 AM |
 |
| |
|
|
| Message |
completely overlooking the fact that any vehicle out there with a knock sensing circuit, RETARDS timing when knock is detected. It will suppress detonation! Taking that explanation further, the simplest way to explain it is to tell you that if the engine detonates, pull a degree or two of timing and it will likely stop. This is because when you begin the combustion process at a later point in the compression stroke, there is less chance of detonation occuring because the cylinder's volume is decreasing at a slower rate. What that gentleman's theory is proclaiming makes sense to a degree because he's saying that since you are waiting longer to ignite the combustion process and the piston is moving slower, the heat from the previous detonation event is passing from the hot parts to the air itself, thereby lending to more detonation. The only problem with this theory is that if the engine DOES pull timing when detonation is detected, it will stop detonating. This is because the theorist is seeing an effect and likely based either on poor observation, or he hasn't tested anything, he has placed greater emphasis on it, without any empirical and quantitative data to back it up. It sounds good, but its not a sound theory. I can disprove it in a moment. Cliff note: When detonation is observed, pull timing. It will save the engine.

[ ashleypowers.com ] [ agpowers@bellsouth.net ] [ Zemulator Information Sheet ] [ Z1 Motorsports Website ]
.JPG) Enthusiasts soon understand each other. --W. Irving. Are you an enthusiast?
|
 |
| |
|
|
| Follow Ups |
|
|
| |
|
|
Post a Followup |
You cannot reply to this message because you are not logged in.
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|