jim beam wrote:

> Michael Pardee wrote:
>
>> "jim beam" <retard-trap@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>> news:fbCdnebqJf4ZcDDUnZ2dnUVZ_tmWnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>>
>>> Michael Pardee wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Dillon Pyron" <invaliddmpyron@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:r0maq4d6iqnov3tnsqrg5rfmol5s5icff8@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>> 08 Fit. We left it sitting in the dirveway for a while, and I pulled
>>>>> it in in the evening. The engine probably ran for 45 seconds, max.
>>>>> When I got out, there was the strong smell of unburned gasoline. Was
>>>>> this just a startup artifact, or maybe a cold run (the funky little
>>>>> blue thermometer was still on)?
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>> Dillon,
>>>>
>>>> I asked the senior mechanic at work, Jim, if gas smells (not in my
>>>> work truck, which is diesel) are normal when the engine is cold. He
>>>> said, "Yeah, if you have a leak." Giving him more of the details he
>>>> said the most likely problem in a new car is a rolled seal between
>>>> one of the injectors and the fuel rail, in an older one the same
>>>> seals harden when cold. The seals get more pliable when warm and the
>>>> smell goes away. He said that gas smells, warm or cold, always mean
>>>> a leak of some sort.
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>
>>> and my friend's friend says you need to go to the doctor and get your
>>> nose checked out.
>>
>>
>>
>> Your friend's friend is a psychic doctor? Or is that your odd way of
>> claiming you are infinitely more qualified than a career auto
>> mechanic? Maybe you are just fond of wacky non sequiturs, since I
>> didn't mention anything about my sense of smell.
>>
>> Dillon asked an honest question and I provided an honest answer from a
>> source I trust. He is entitled to know what I was told by a qualified
>> mechanic, whether it fits your explanation, or mine, or neither. What
>> he does with the info is his business. I would have reported it all
>> the same, though I have the distinct impression you would not have
>> been so impartial. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me -
>> I have certainly been wrong from time to time, often quite publicly -
>> but the boorishness of your posts is inexcusable. As you may have
>> guessed, what you think no longer has any importance to me, and I am
>> sure the feeling is mutual... so why the snide comments?
>>
>> Mike
>>
>
> dude, you're being an ***. the explanation i gave you is a dumbed down
> version of the physics involved. it happens, whether you like it or not.
>
> as for your "friend", if someone came to me and said they could smell
> gas, i'd say you needed to check for leaks. BUT /i/ would also ask what
> the situation was, and given the facts from the OP, and knowing the
> science, the reality goes beyond that. and if your "friend" /doesn't/
> ask those kinds of questions, it's because they ant you out of their
> hair ASAP.
>
> oh, the temerity for calling a drama queen for what they are. left to
> your own devices, you'd have had the whole damned neighborhood burned
> down by now just to prove a point.


Wassamattah beam??? Them turd feedin' boids peckin' away at you again?

JT

 

"jim beam" <retard-trap@bad.example.net> wrote in message
news:aqqdnaLdErRNEzPUnZ2dnUVZ_jSWnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>
> dude, you're being an ***. the explanation i gave you is a dumbed down
> version of the physics involved. it happens, whether you like it or not.

Dumbed down doesn't begin to cover it - your explanation is about as dumb as
they come. Where in the world did you get that stupid idea about the
injectors wetting the inside of the intake? You can't be that grossly
ignorant of basic fuel system operation. You must know injectors produce a
fine mist, and that if the injectors don't do that they have to be cleaned
or replaced. How could you not know that the manifold is a wind tunnel at
that point, which makes it impossible for the manifold to collect gasoline?
Have you *ever* flow and pattern tested a fuel injector? No, you obviously
haven't - you wouldn't parade your ignorance if you had ever seen it with
your own eyes. That is to say nothing of the ludicrous concept that the
gasoline vapors would pour past the closed throttle plate and through the
air filter and intake plumbing to create the "strong smell" the OP reported.

I'm sure you will favor us with the equations for your "physics" for all
that - you are bragging you understand all that. You can even "dumb it down"
by leaving out the partial pressures of the more volatile components of the
winter blend being used and assume it is all octane. It isn't even all that
hard - by estimating the cross-section of the intake manifold branches and
using the known displacement and idle RPMs you can calculate the peak and
average air velocities past the injectors. With your superior knowledge of
physics I'm sure you can calculate the average particle size of the injector
output for the rated rail pressure and the fluid flow equations for the
dispersal in the intake, including the lateral displacement of the plume in
the previously calculated air stream. You can also calculate the diffusion
past the obstacles I mentioned (you can assume a 500 millibar drop across
the throttle plate at idle - it will be close enough for this purpose and
will allow you to estimate the effective throttle opening at idle) to arrive
at the vapor outflow rate at the mouth of the intake. Otherwise stop with
your bogus claim of "physics." If you nail the equations I won't even take
exception at your petty insults. Otherwise we will know you are a loudmouth
know-nothing... as if we really doubted it now.

Put up or shut up.

Mike

 

On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 19:31:26 -0800, jim beam wrote:

>> To repeat, in a *properly* working (modern, fuel injected) engine,
>> there should *never* be any smell of gasoline, regardless of the
>> temperature. That's it. There are no exceptions, and no amount of
>> twisting by you will change that.

> read the goddamned thread.

Nah. I've already wasted too much time on you. You're delusional, or
stupid. I can't tell which.


--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Ahhhhhhh!: http://brandybuck.site40.net/pics/relieve.jpg

 

Michael Pardee wrote:
> "jim beam" <retard-trap@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:aqqdnaLdErRNEzPUnZ2dnUVZ_jSWnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>> dude, you're being an ***. the explanation i gave you is a dumbed down
>> version of the physics involved. it happens, whether you like it or not.
>
> Dumbed down doesn't begin to cover it - your explanation is about as dumb as
> they come. Where in the world did you get that stupid idea about the
> injectors wetting the inside of the intake? You can't be that grossly
> ignorant of basic fuel system operation. You must know injectors produce a
> fine mist, and that if the injectors don't do that they have to be cleaned
> or replaced.

oh brother - where do we start with you michael? how about we start
with the fact that gasoline is liquid. it takes time and energy to
evaporate. add air to the mix, and the evaporation rate changes. and
if it's sprayed onto cold metal, which it is until the engine warms up,
a significant portion /remains/ liquid. that's why injection runs rich
on cold engines. if it didn't, there'd be no need to do that!


> How could you not know that the manifold is a wind tunnel at
> that point, which makes it impossible for the manifold to collect gasoline?

nope.


> Have you *ever* flow and pattern tested a fuel injector? No, you obviously
> haven't

oh dear, wrong again.



- you wouldn't parade your ignorance if you had ever seen it with
> your own eyes. That is to say nothing of the ludicrous concept that the
> gasoline vapors would pour past the closed throttle plate and through the
> air filter and intake plumbing to create the "strong smell" the OP reported.
>
> I'm sure you will favor us with the equations for your "physics" for all
> that - you are bragging you understand all that. You can even "dumb it down"
> by leaving out the partial pressures of the more volatile components of the
> winter blend being used and assume it is all octane. It isn't even all that
> hard - by estimating the cross-section of the intake manifold branches and
> using the known displacement and idle RPMs you can calculate the peak and
> average air velocities past the injectors.

red herring if you don't understand basics like evaporation.


> With your superior knowledge of
> physics I'm sure you can calculate the average particle size of the injector
> output for the rated rail pressure and the fluid flow equations for the
> dispersal in the intake, including the lateral displacement of the plume in
> the previously calculated air stream. You can also calculate the diffusion
> past the obstacles

er, intake mass flow is not "diffusion".



> I mentioned (you can assume a 500 millibar drop across
> the throttle plate at idle - it will be close enough for this purpose and
> will allow you to estimate the effective throttle opening at idle) to arrive
> at the vapor outflow rate at the mouth of the intake. Otherwise stop with
> your bogus claim of "physics."

translate pressure drop into evaporation at ambient. show the cooling
effect if you want to show off.


> If you nail the equations I won't even take
> exception at your petty insults. Otherwise we will know you are a loudmouth
> know-nothing... as if we really doubted it now.
>
> Put up or shut up.
>
> Mike
>
>

so why run rich on cold start mike?

 

jim beam wrote:
> Michael Pardee wrote:
>> "jim beam" <retard-trap@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>> news:aqqdnaLdErRNEzPUnZ2dnUVZ_jSWnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>>> dude, you're being an ***. the explanation i gave you is a dumbed
>>> down version of the physics involved. it happens, whether you like
>>> it or not.
>>
>> Dumbed down doesn't begin to cover it - your explanation is about as
>> dumb as they come. Where in the world did you get that stupid idea
>> about the injectors wetting the inside of the intake? You can't be
>> that grossly ignorant of basic fuel system operation. You must know
>> injectors produce a fine mist, and that if the injectors don't do that
>> they have to be cleaned or replaced.
>
> oh brother - where do we start with you michael? how about we start
> with the fact that gasoline is liquid. it takes time and energy to
> evaporate. add air to the mix, and the evaporation rate changes. and
> if it's sprayed onto cold metal, which it is until the engine warms up,
> a significant portion /remains/ liquid. that's why injection runs rich
> on cold engines. if it didn't, there'd be no need to do that!
>
>
>> How could you not know that the manifold is a wind tunnel at that
>> point, which makes it impossible for the manifold to collect gasoline?
>
> nope.
>
>
>> Have you *ever* flow and pattern tested a fuel injector? No, you
>> obviously haven't
>
> oh dear, wrong again.
>
>
>
> - you wouldn't parade your ignorance if you had ever seen it with
>> your own eyes. That is to say nothing of the ludicrous concept that
>> the gasoline vapors would pour past the closed throttle plate and
>> through the air filter and intake plumbing to create the "strong
>> smell" the OP reported.
>>
>> I'm sure you will favor us with the equations for your "physics" for
>> all that - you are bragging you understand all that. You can even
>> "dumb it down" by leaving out the partial pressures of the more
>> volatile components of the winter blend being used and assume it is
>> all octane. It isn't even all that hard - by estimating the
>> cross-section of the intake manifold branches and using the known
>> displacement and idle RPMs you can calculate the peak and average air
>> velocities past the injectors.
>
> red herring if you don't understand basics like evaporation.
>
>
>> With your superior knowledge of physics I'm sure you can calculate the
>> average particle size of the injector output for the rated rail
>> pressure and the fluid flow equations for the dispersal in the intake,
>> including the lateral displacement of the plume in the previously
>> calculated air stream. You can also calculate the diffusion past the
>> obstacles
>
> er, intake mass flow is not "diffusion".
>
>
>
>> I mentioned (you can assume a 500 millibar drop across the throttle
>> plate at idle - it will be close enough for this purpose and will
>> allow you to estimate the effective throttle opening at idle) to
>> arrive at the vapor outflow rate at the mouth of the intake. Otherwise
>> stop with your bogus claim of "physics."
>
> translate pressure drop into evaporation at ambient. show the cooling
> effect if you want to show off.
>
>
>> If you nail the equations I won't even take exception at your petty
>> insults. Otherwise we will know you are a loudmouth know-nothing... as
>> if we really doubted it now.
>>
>> Put up or shut up.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>
> so why run rich on cold start mike?


http://i40.tinypic.com/n4zfhw.jpg

 

"jim beam" <retard-trap@bad.example.net> wrote in message
news:26udnfaTYqNn1TLUnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
> Michael Pardee wrote:
>> "jim beam" <retard-trap@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>> news:aqqdnaLdErRNEzPUnZ2dnUVZ_jSWnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>>> dude, you're being an ***. the explanation i gave you is a dumbed down
>>> version of the physics involved. it happens, whether you like it or
>>> not.
>>
>> Dumbed down doesn't begin to cover it - your explanation is about as dumb
>> as they come. Where in the world did you get that stupid idea about the
>> injectors wetting the inside of the intake? You can't be that grossly
>> ignorant of basic fuel system operation. You must know injectors produce
>> a fine mist, and that if the injectors don't do that they have to be
>> cleaned or replaced.
>
> oh brother - where do we start with you michael? how about we start with
> the fact that gasoline is liquid. it takes time and energy to evaporate.
> add air to the mix, and the evaporation rate changes. and if it's sprayed
> onto cold metal, which it is until the engine warms up, a significant
> portion /remains/ liquid. that's why injection runs rich on cold engines.
> if it didn't, there'd be no need to do that!
>

Stop waffling and show us the math. You claim the atmosphere is condensing,
which is contrary to the entire point of electronic fuel injection (if it is
condensing, the indefinite lag makes control of the mixture impossible). In
your fantasy world a carburetor would work every bit as well; just shove
gasoline down its throat and the engine runs when cold. You call it
"physics", so I want to see it. It's your screwball theory - defend it or
stop spouting nonsense. So far, everything you have asserted has only
illuminated your ignorance of automotive basics. If your vision of "spraying
the gasoline onto cold metal" were accurate the engine would already be
flooded, as anybody who has dealt with a flooded engine knows.

You seem to have no idea what "rich" means in this context. The problem is
one of producing a combustible mixture at the plug in spite of the lower
vapor pressures at lower temperatures. To do that the mixture is shifted
toward the rich end, but there is not a lot of margin for movement; if the
mixture goes above 13.1:1 (from the nominal 14.7:1
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoichiometry) it won't burn - the engine is flooded.
From "The Physics Factbook" at
hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/ShaniChristopher.shtml "The mixture cannot burn
when it contains more than 7.6% gasoline because it is too rich to burn."
Ideal 6.8%, maximum 7.6%, or no more than an extra 12% or the engine
floods - that is what "rich" means in a gasoline engine.

I'm still waiting for the physics you claim, professor, not hand waving
arguments. You are still off on that garbage about the injectors "spraying
onto cold metal" - which is strange, since you claim to have flow and
pattern tested injectors; you would not think such a stupid thing if you
even understood the significance of the pattern. You have not offered even
an explanation how the injector output, even if it were a stream, would end
up on the intake wall instead of being summarily sucked into the cylinders
as it must be for EFI to operate.

Mike

 

Michael Pardee wrote:
> "jim beam" <retard-trap@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:26udnfaTYqNn1TLUnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>> Michael Pardee wrote:
>>> "jim beam" <retard-trap@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>>> news:aqqdnaLdErRNEzPUnZ2dnUVZ_jSWnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>>>> dude, you're being an ***. the explanation i gave you is a dumbed down
>>>> version of the physics involved. it happens, whether you like it or
>>>> not.
>>> Dumbed down doesn't begin to cover it - your explanation is about as dumb
>>> as they come. Where in the world did you get that stupid idea about the
>>> injectors wetting the inside of the intake? You can't be that grossly
>>> ignorant of basic fuel system operation. You must know injectors produce
>>> a fine mist, and that if the injectors don't do that they have to be
>>> cleaned or replaced.
>> oh brother - where do we start with you michael? how about we start with
>> the fact that gasoline is liquid. it takes time and energy to evaporate.
>> add air to the mix, and the evaporation rate changes. and if it's sprayed
>> onto cold metal, which it is until the engine warms up, a significant
>> portion /remains/ liquid. that's why injection runs rich on cold engines.
>> if it didn't, there'd be no need to do that!
>>
>
> Stop waffling and show us the math. You claim the atmosphere is condensing,
> which is contrary to the entire point of electronic fuel injection (if it is
> condensing, the indefinite lag makes control of the mixture impossible). In
> your fantasy world a carburetor would work every bit as well; just shove
> gasoline down its throat and the engine runs when cold. You call it
> "physics", so I want to see it. It's your screwball theory - defend it or
> stop spouting nonsense. So far, everything you have asserted has only
> illuminated your ignorance of automotive basics. If your vision of "spraying
> the gasoline onto cold metal" were accurate the engine would already be
> flooded, as anybody who has dealt with a flooded engine knows.
>
> You seem to have no idea what "rich" means in this context. The problem is
> one of producing a combustible mixture at the plug in spite of the lower
> vapor pressures at lower temperatures. To do that the mixture is shifted
> toward the rich end, but there is not a lot of margin for movement; if the
> mixture goes above 13.1:1 (from the nominal 14.7:1
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoichiometry) it won't burn - the engine is flooded.
> From "The Physics Factbook" at
> hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/ShaniChristopher.shtml "The mixture cannot burn
> when it contains more than 7.6% gasoline because it is too rich to burn."
> Ideal 6.8%, maximum 7.6%, or no more than an extra 12% or the engine
> floods - that is what "rich" means in a gasoline engine.
>
> I'm still waiting for the physics you claim, professor, not hand waving
> arguments. You are still off on that garbage about the injectors "spraying
> onto cold metal" - which is strange, since you claim to have flow and
> pattern tested injectors; you would not think such a stupid thing if you
> even understood the significance of the pattern. You have not offered even
> an explanation how the injector output, even if it were a stream, would end
> up on the intake wall instead of being summarily sucked into the cylinders
> as it must be for EFI to operate.
>
> Mike
>
>


http://i40.tinypic.com/n4zfhw.jpg

 

"jim beam" <retard-trap@bad.example.net> wrote in message
news:vt-dnbDKIYf-RTLUnZ2dnUVZ_trinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>
> http://i40.tinypic.com/n4zfhw.jpg
>

From the last two paragraphs on that page, "Defining the geometric alignment
of fuel sprays... will allow the selection of fuel injectors which will
control or minimize manifold wall fuel condensation in the area of the
intake duct and the intake valves." "Compared with carburetor engines and
single-point injection systems, manifold-wall fuel condensation in
multipoint injection systems is reduced significantly." I heard that
somewhere before... oh, right! I pointed that out to you and you arrogantly
waved it off, preferring to insult me instead. It appears the best you can
do is discredit your own contentions. You have also failed to address the
problems of getting vapors past the throttle, the air filter and the intake
plumbing, and into the ambient air in sufficient concentration to produce
the "strong smell" that started this whole thread..

You insisted you had "physics" and you are still waving your hands around.
Can you or can you not present the physics you insist is the basis of your
argument?

Mike

 

On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 13:27:46 -0700, Michael Pardee wrote:

> "jim beam" <retard-trap@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:vt-dnbDKIYf-RTLUnZ2dnUVZ_trinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>
>> http://i40.tinypic.com/n4zfhw.jpg
>>
>>
> From the last two paragraphs on that page, "Defining the geometric
> alignment of fuel sprays... will allow the selection of fuel injectors
> which will control or minimize manifold wall fuel condensation in the
> area of the intake duct and the intake valves." "Compared with
> carburetor engines and single-point injection systems, manifold-wall
> fuel condensation in multipoint injection systems is reduced
> significantly." I heard that somewhere before... oh, right! I pointed
> that out to you and you arrogantly waved it off, preferring to insult me
> instead. It appears the best you can do is discredit your own
> contentions. You have also failed to address the problems of getting
> vapors past the throttle, the air filter and the intake plumbing, and
> into the ambient air in sufficient concentration to produce the "strong
> smell" that started this whole thread..
>
> You insisted you had "physics" and you are still waving your hands
> around. Can you or can you not present the physics you insist is the
> basis of your argument?

No, he cannot. He's just talking out of his ***, and doesn't know what
he's saying.


--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Ahhhhhhh!: http://brandybuck.site40.net/pics/relieve.jpg

 

jim beam foamed:

> dude, you're being an ***.

Mr. Pot, meet Mrs. Kettle!

Jim, why is it that damn near every thread you wade into becomes a
shitstorm? You are the only person who routinely gets involved in
mudslinging of this sort. Everyone else shares their opinion without
judgment, and we usually get along just fine. What's your problem?

-Moo

 

Dan C wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 13:27:46 -0700, Michael Pardee wrote:
>
>
>>"jim beam" <retard-trap@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>>news:vt-dnbDKIYf-RTLUnZ2dnUVZ_trinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>
>>>http://i40.tinypic.com/n4zfhw.jpg
>>>
>>>
>>
>>From the last two paragraphs on that page, "Defining the geometric
>>alignment of fuel sprays... will allow the selection of fuel injectors
>>which will control or minimize manifold wall fuel condensation in the
>>area of the intake duct and the intake valves." "Compared with
>>carburetor engines and single-point injection systems, manifold-wall
>>fuel condensation in multipoint injection systems is reduced
>>significantly." I heard that somewhere before... oh, right! I pointed
>>that out to you and you arrogantly waved it off, preferring to insult me
>>instead. It appears the best you can do is discredit your own
>>contentions. You have also failed to address the problems of getting
>>vapors past the throttle, the air filter and the intake plumbing, and
>>into the ambient air in sufficient concentration to produce the "strong
>>smell" that started this whole thread..
>>
>>You insisted you had "physics" and you are still waving your hands
>>around. Can you or can you not present the physics you insist is the
>>basis of your argument?
>
>
> No, he cannot. He's just talking out of his ***, and doesn't know what
> he's saying.
>


But, but, but... His *** supplies all the feces he tosses around here!

<G>

JT

 

Michael Pardee wrote:
> "jim beam" <retard-trap@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:vt-dnbDKIYf-RTLUnZ2dnUVZ_trinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> http://i40.tinypic.com/n4zfhw.jpg
>>
>
> From the last two paragraphs on that page, "Defining the geometric alignment
> of fuel sprays... will allow the selection of fuel injectors which will
> control or minimize manifold wall fuel condensation in the area of the
> intake duct and the intake valves." "Compared with carburetor engines and
> single-point injection systems, manifold-wall fuel condensation in
> multipoint injection systems is reduced significantly." I heard that
> somewhere before... oh, right! I pointed that out to you and you arrogantly
> waved it off, preferring to insult me instead. It appears the best you can
> do is discredit your own contentions. You have also failed to address the
> problems of getting vapors past the throttle, the air filter and the intake
> plumbing, and into the ambient air in sufficient concentration to produce
> the "strong smell" that started this whole thread..
>
> You insisted you had "physics" and you are still waving your hands around.
> Can you or can you not present the physics you insist is the basis of your
> argument?
>
> Mike
>
>

now let's see:

1. i explain the wetting situation, but the drama queen goes nuclear
with "if tomorrow the OP reports a fire that destroys his Fit and
possibly his home".

2. i cite a text book corroborating precisely what i explained, but
based on the above, it's apparently too hard to understand.

and yet i am the one with the problem! ridiculous.

 

On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 07:52:17 -0800, jim beam wrote:

> and yet i am the one with the problem!

Yes.

> ridiculous.

You are.


--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Ahhhhhhh!: http://brandybuck.site40.net/pics/relieve.jpg

 

"jim beam" <retard-trap@bad.example.net> wrote in message
news:SpKdnd5Qe4uuBS_UnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
> Michael Pardee wrote:
>> "jim beam" <retard-trap@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>> news:vt-dnbDKIYf-RTLUnZ2dnUVZ_trinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>> http://i40.tinypic.com/n4zfhw.jpg
>>>
>>
>> From the last two paragraphs on that page, "Defining the geometric
>> alignment of fuel sprays... will allow the selection of fuel injectors
>> which will control or minimize manifold wall fuel condensation in the
>> area of the intake duct and the intake valves." "Compared with carburetor
>> engines and single-point injection systems, manifold-wall fuel
>> condensation in multipoint injection systems is reduced significantly." I
>> heard that somewhere before... oh, right! I pointed that out to you and
>> you arrogantly waved it off, preferring to insult me instead. It appears
>> the best you can do is discredit your own contentions. You have also
>> failed to address the problems of getting vapors past the throttle, the
>> air filter and the intake plumbing, and into the ambient air in
>> sufficient concentration to produce the "strong smell" that started this
>> whole thread..
>>
>> You insisted you had "physics" and you are still waving your hands
>> around. Can you or can you not present the physics you insist is the
>> basis of your argument?
>>
>> Mike
>
> now let's see:
>
> 1. i explain the wetting situation, but the drama queen goes nuclear
> with "if tomorrow the OP reports a fire that destroys his Fit and
> possibly his home".
>
> 2. i cite a text book corroborating precisely what i explained, but
> based on the above, it's apparently too hard to understand.
>
> and yet i am the one with the problem! ridiculous.
>
>

So in answer to my question, after four opportunities you can *not* present
the "physics" you have been babbling about. You are a fraud.

You aren't keeping up with the subject at all. Your points were disproven by
the source you cited as detailed in the last post (did you even read the
page you posted?) You haven't tried to explain how the remnant of vapor in
the manifold is supposed to get out, or quantify the amount in the manifold,
or answer *any* relevant question posed. You ridiculed the evaluation of a
professional, just because you didn't like what he had to say. Your myth is
busted but you still think you must save face rather than admit an error
like normal people do.

You are indeed the one with the problems - you are unable to keep up with
even this simple subject, instead rambling and blustering with every post,
just as you did this time. You use bullying taunts (as you just did again)
to try to deflect examination of your errors - an even uglier problem that
does not speak well of your present mental capacity. Those are really huge
problems you have. I hope you are just drunk when you post, because it is
really sad to think of you having those deficiencies when sober. Take care
of yourself.

Mike

 

On Feb 25, 10:41 am, Dillon Pyron <invaliddmpy...@austin.rr.com>
wrote:
> 08 Fit. We left it sitting in the dirveway for a while, and I pulled
> it in in the evening. The engine probably ran for 45 seconds, max.
> When I got out, there was the strongsmellof unburned gasoline. Was
> this just a startup artifact, or maybe a coldrun(the funky little
> blue thermometer was still on)?
> --
>
> - dillon I am not invalid
>
> Hi, I'm Michael Phelps and Olympic Gold isn't the only
> Gold I'm thinking of.
>
> Hi, I'm Michael Phelps and when I'm on Maui, Wowwie.

There is a difference between the smell of RAW gasoline and partly
burned exhaust fumes that go through a cold converter that doesn't
clean them up. I think the OP was smelling the latter.

I think some of you have been on a wild goose chase for quite awhile.