"Michael" wrote in message
oups.com...
I'm seeing something here besides naiveté on your part.

NOTE: Seeing that the issue here has morphed from "scientific methods in the
lab" to "LOP being hype", I'll address the latter.

Michael implies that LOP is untested outside a laboratory. Much has been
informal field work. OTOH, much has been done in the "lab" -
http://www.engineteststand.com/ (You can watch in real time).

Ah, of course - anyone who disagrees with you must have ulterior
motives. Wrong again. I am NOT in the aviation industry (we provide
instrumentation to petroleum, refining, municipal water and wastewater,
chemical, metals, mining and dredging, and other industries

And that relates...how?

- but not
aviation)

So your qualifications do NOT correspond.

and the aircraft I own, I routinely operate LOP.
I'm simply
not blinded by the hype

CHRIST-ON-A-BIKE, _why_? It's all HYPE, remember?
as you are.

Oh, anyone who disagrees with you is blinded by hype. No, but your full of
it (or of yourself).

I'm claiming "Bull****" on your part.
You're welcome to your opinion. You response pretty much demonstrates
that it's not an informed opinion.

Yours say nothing either. You make spurious claims of engineering expertise
that has virtually nothing to do with the issue.

Cut the attempts at intimidation, I've been intimadted by some real pros and
you're just a whelp compared to them.

I've been technical and specific.

Bull****. You made numerous unsubstantiated assertions, not to mention
claims of expertise that are worthless.

Let's see what you've snipped:

:Where is your long-term field study comparing LOP and ROP operations?

Deakin's "Engine Series" provides:
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182146-1.html

See any of them about the combustion event and TDC.

:How many engines have been monitored in service from start to overhaul,
:under what conditions, and for how long? Have you shown a
:statistically significant difference in MTBF, service life, or cost of
:maintenance? That's really the only way to cover all bases. Sometimes
:this is not practical, but lacking a long term field study, you at
:least need a reasonable model.

See above, plus the history of TOH's...

: A compelling model would address the
: following issues, as a minimum:
: What are your parameters to asess engine roughness in normal LOP and
: ROP operations?

As mentioned earlier:
"These subjective reports were confirmed recently when Chadwick-Helmuth
spent several days running tests on a 1993 Beech F33A instrumented with one
of C-H's latest state-of-the-art vibration analyzers hooked to multiple
accelerometers and vibration transducers. Tests were flown at a wide range
of power settings and mixtures using a set of standard TCM nozzles, then
repeated after GAMIjectors were installed. The results indicated that the
GAMIjectors reduced vibration levels at the 2nd order frequency and at the
low 1/3rd order frequency by 60% to 80%.

I guess you conveniently missed that one, huh?

:How do you model the imperfections caused by pilot
:technique? Do you have amplitude and frequency data on engine
:vibration at various mixture settings? What kind of sensors did you
:use?

http://www.engineteststand.com/


o you have long term operational data or at least a model showing the
:long term behaviour of the engine mounts, bearings, cases, crankshaft,
:etc. under the vibration conditions? Without long-term operational
:data, I would expect at least an FEA.

http://www.engineteststand.com/ (Been running for several years).

o you have any information at all on the differences in combustion
:end-products in excess-air vs. excess-fuel combustion reactions? I can
:assure you they are differrent.

??? Nice tangent there!!!

: Are any of the combustion products
:harmful to the engine components long-term?

Like Lead Oxybromide? :~)

o any pose corrosion
:issues when the aircraft is not flown for several days or weeks, as
:commonly happens with private planes?

Not that what you ask has a damn thing to do with it, but, since you aren't
being specific, neither will I, so you can dig out the specifics:

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182132-1.html

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182149-1.html

:How about that big mixture pull - it takes the mixture through peak.
:What is the effect of this transition on the crankshaft?

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182084-1.html (Half way down...you can
correlate this to a crankshft, can't you?)

: Some analysis
f this issue was done in the 1940's, using the limited available tools
:- but only for radial engines, which have significantly different
:crankshaft designs. For that matter, about the only large base of
perational data in the LOP regime comes from radial engines - which
:are different - using 1940's and 1950's fuels which were significantly
:different than what you're burning now.



Wow!! That's real specific. Methodological, but NOT ONE PIECE OF DATA.

You haven't. If you expect to be
taken seriously, go back through your response and provide links where
you say it's been done, and an explanation where you call bull****. Be
technical and specific.

I fully expect, based on your response to questions of your assertions,
that's you'll provide a classic example of evasion.

http://www.avweb.com/news/reviews/182558-1.html (Data graphs
specifically...or are those faked?)

http://www.avweb.com/cgi-bin/udt/im....ry.id=1825 31
(data set one-fourth of the way down..or is that just fake hype?)


Charts, graphs, explanations all over the place in these.

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182155-1.html (Data through out)

----------
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182084-1.html


--------

Michael

I'd really like to flesh this all out, and have the benefit of some real
expertise, for my benefit as well as the community. I suspect that, as
mentioned, Michael's not making much more than farts in the wind.

I also find a disconnect between the terms "science" and "engineering". Yes,
doing full blown lab test would be nice. Some of the data has been done in
the lab, a lab far more advanced than anything TCM Lycoming has ever done.
One tenant about science or engineering is that data must not contradict
other data. It doesn't.

Is all this as formal as a pristine laboratory? Hell no. Does it need to be?
Not hardly. I guess Lavoisier's and Priestly's work was worthless since they
didn't work in a formal lab. :~)

One of the defining characteristics of humans is the ability to
conceptualize and abstract. Try it.

(This is twice, now, that you've challenged without providing an ounce of
data. I expect some more SPIN...)


Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow, SCCE
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO