Page 2 of 2
Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 12:37 am
by Piledriver
jonas_linder wrote:A engine doesn't suck the air in.. it's the atmospheric(spelling?
) pressure that push the air in!
only .... suck
Except on your car...
OK, OK, , don't you have work to do or something???
I wanna see da video...
Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 1:58 am
by jonas_linder
Piledriver wrote:jonas_linder wrote:A engine doesn't suck the air in.. it's the atmospheric(spelling?
) pressure that push the air in!
only .... suck
Except on your car...
OK, OK, , don't you have work to do or something???
I wanna see da video...
hu??? video ?
I am working
Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2005 8:50 am
by Stripped66
jonas_linder wrote:A engine doesn't suck the air in.. it's the atmospheric(spelling?
) pressure that push the air in!
So, in your infinite wisdom, Jonas, how does the atmosphere push the air in? Let's see...a PRESSURE GRADIENT HAS TO DEVELOP BETWEEN THE COMBUSTION CHAMBER AND THE ATMOSPHERE. Since the engine is the only part of this equation that is dynamically playing a part to develop this pressure gradient, it can be simply described as "SUCK."
Is it correct, as far as terminology? Probably not; but it eases the description of the situation, especially when trying to describe the effects of rod ratio (which apparently is a mystical topic...ranking right up there with mastering wizardry). Seriously, guys...keep arguing terminology. The more you do so, the more it appears you don't know WTF you are talking about.
Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2005 10:09 am
by MASSIVE TYPE IV
And I say that this topic has become "Off topic" and its time to shut the doors... None of the recent postings have had anything to do with a better 2.0 rod bearing....
I've got the key....