thanks pdbro

[dan filipi]

Well it's a shame that someone can say whatever they want behind a keyboard and not be held accountable.

Respect and integrity are very important to me as is truth and accuracy in information as I'm sure it is to most of the members here, it shows in our posts......
honesty as if there would come a time when we meet face to face type of honesty, because it would hold true everything we said and claimed.
This does not seem the case there, with CM anyway.

It is sad that a guy has to lie and double talk to gain some 'social' acceptance with the group.
The reality is, if he would just own up that his past claims were fabricated stories, they could get on to more important topics that really matter instead of him playing these games.

 

[joedrum]

do you know what your seeing....do you know what your hearing .....hmmmmm :good: yes a complete ******* and master of nothing :thank_you:

 

[dan filipi]

Ya know one thing we haven't considered is that all his drama actually hurts the single carb concept. Imagine a guy coming into a bike fresh and just wants to tinker and try it. Reading all this pointless controversy and twisted thinking he posts would make a guy think twice I am sure. When met with his defensive attitude toward it instead of trying to offer sincere help to build it, why would that new guy even want to go there.

Agenda driven to HIS own end, that is what the new guy is met with.
Shame. Single carb set up properly really does perform well and it doesn't take a masters degree to get there.

 

[mcgovern61]

ekvh » Sat Aug 22, 2015 9:24 am[/url]":rt3ny3rh]
After ten pages of denial, he now has posted " of course the tach is exponentially off. I told so in the thread." He is beginning to add words of divinity about himself as he talks in the third person about himself. I don't think he's in a good place right now. I'm pretty sure his only interest in all this is to create more hype so he can sell more of his product.

At least there was finally an admittance the tach is off, but the way he presented it is silly. No accountability with claims or statements. I am still trying to figure out what the "broken inner spring" has to do with the concept?

The point of my posting my video of my worn out '81 engine is that you can clearly hear when my engine reached 5000 RPMs. When you listen to his video (and watch) when his engine reached 5000 RPM, the tach was reading close to 7500 RPM. I can wind my gears out to redline on my '83 engine pretty quick and it sounds just like his?

So.....what is the point of his video? I am not responding to anything else in the induction series drama threads. Pointless if he is going to be allowed to say whatever he wants, belittle others (which happens often) denigrate other forums (which he does often even if AZ1800 doesn't think so).

 

[slabghost]

Ya know one thing we haven't considered is that all his drama actually hurts the single carb concept. Imagine a guy coming into a bike fresh and just wants to tinker and try it. Reading all this pointless controversy and twisted thinking he posts would make a guy think twice I am sure. When met with his defensive attitude toward it instead of trying to offer sincere help to build it, why would that new guy even want to go there.

Agenda driven to HIS own end, that is what the new guy is met with.
Shame. Single carb set up properly really does perform well and it doesn't take a masters degree to get there.

That is what I was trying to change. They deleted all of my posts. captain moron still thinks fuel charge is just a mix of dry gasses. Oh well hopefully anyone wanting to try scc will come here.

 

[Omega Man]

Isn't the gas charge an aerosol, tiny drops of liquid?

 

[slabghost]

Omega Man » Sat Aug 22, 2015 1:27 pm[/url]":6xufalia]
Isn't the gas charge an aerosol, tiny drops of liquid?

In basic terms yes. It's actually a mix of atomized and vaporized gasoline mixed with ambient air and humidity. I suppose propane and natural gas fueled vehicles could be termed "dry" but they too include the humidity of the day.
So you see aspects of both pneumatics and hydraulics principles apply. You cannot put the feed ( carb ) over two runners with the other two some distance away and expect all four to supply the same fuel mixture.

 

[joedrum]

seems the moron alter induction sub forum is going down.....seems the dead forum that be our name by az1800 and capt moron ....has sunk there forum bashing battleship.... :fiddle:

 

[mcgovern61]

You cannot put the feed ( carb ) over two runners with the other two some distance away and expect all four to supply the same fuel mixture.

I always wondered about that. How was it done for many of the old inline 6 engines? I know that my old '68 Dodge Dart had a slant six and that intake manifold was different lengths for each cylinder.

Example:

 

[Omega Man]

Well the charged doesn't fall into the cylinder, it's pulled in right, by the descending piston?

 

[slabghost]

There were slight internal differences in the manifold runners and trade off compensations made. Same argument was made on the other forum. Truth be told The slant six always had variance in plug color due to the different density of fuel charge. As did all the straight 6 motors with single carb. But the manufacturers were right to settle with the differences to provide decent power and dependability. You notice in your picture the carb is closest to the longest runners and furthest from the short runners?

 

[slabghost]

Omega Man » Sat Aug 22, 2015 2:02 pm[/url]":1aqaocbz]
Well the charged doesn't fall into the cylinder, it's pulled in right, by the descending piston?

Partly correct. It is also pushed in by the air pressure of the day and location along with the pressure it builds inside the manifold.

 

[brianinpa]

Gerry, why are you posting examples of theroies that just don't work???? I mean that which has now been seen cannot be unseen. :shock:

 

[slabghost]

brianinpa » Sat Aug 22, 2015 2:11 pm[/url]":3qlulpvn]
Gerry, why are you posting examples of theories that just don't work???? I mean that which has now been seen cannot be unseen. :shock:

There are many examples of this out there and it is a valid question. No reason not to include it in the discussion. I understand the Corvair 6 had 4 runners but two fed two cylinders at the heads. Seems this was an engineered attempt to equalize the fuel charge to all cylinders.

However this is getting a bit :0fftopic:
If you want to discuss theory I'll participate in your thread on the subject.

Now back to discussing what's his name.... :hihihi:

 

[Omega Man]

Oh, I thought we were just in intermission. :hihihi:

 

[dan filipi]

Many of CM's sentences aren't making sense real bad now, even more jumbled than in the past. I think he's totally lost it.

 

[brianinpa]

slabghost » Sat Aug 22, 2015 2:18 pm[/url]":2gldhr9k]

brianinpa » Sat Aug 22, 2015 2:11 pm[/url]":2gldhr9k]
Gerry, why are you posting examples of theories that just don't work???? I mean that which has now been seen cannot be unseen. :shock:

There are many examples of this out there and it is a valid question. No reason not to include it in the discussion. I understand the Corvair 6 had 4 runners but two fed two cylinders at the heads. Seems this was an engineered attempt to equalize the fuel charge to all cylinders.

However this is getting a bit :0fftopic:
If you want to discuss theory I'll participate in your thread on the subject.

Now back to discussing what's his name.... :hihihi:

That was the reason for that post V. He kept asking to see stuff even when he is shown something, he has a disertation as to why it is wrong.

 

[slabghost]

None are so blind as he who will not see Brian. Even God cannot help one who refuses to be helped.

 

[dan filipi]

[video]https://youtu.be/DNP3c-ZhOWw[/video]

[video]https://youtu.be/B8TdLWkt83s[/video]

 

[slabghost]

Second vid has a lot of wind noise but it sure runs great!