CRWLR

"JimG" <jimg@cj7_2muchspam.com> wrote in message
news:vvm9e236n5pf2f@corp.supernews.com...
> I think we all know how to mix fuel for our chain saw now. I probably
used
> a bad analogy. Back to the original point...
>
> The higher the ratio (between ring gear and pinion teeth), the lower the
> gear.
>
Exactly. Higher numeric value = lower gear ratio.



> Or:
> http://www.csgnetwork.com/rnggrpinioncalc.html
> "The higher the ratio, the greater the pulling power but lower speed for
the
> same number of engine revolutions."
>

That's what I said.

I think we agree, we just have a different way of expressing the concept.

CRWLR

"-jc" <SpamFree@DieSpammers.com> wrote in message
news:btf8bl$2lie$1@heap.juniper.net...
> "CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote
> > "-jc" wrote
> > > "CRWLR" wrote
> > > >
> > > > Your fuel analogy is flawed. 25:1 is a richer mixture than 50:1,
> >
> > > Bzzzzt ... wrong answer. 50:1 is a richer mixture. Think of what
burns
> > in
> > > the combustion chamber ... fuel and air. The oil is for lubrication
and
> > > cooling and doesn't burn. 50 parts fuel to 1 part oil results in more
> > fuel
> > > being delivered when compared to 25:1. You will have to lean out your
> > > jetting to accommodate running at 50:1.
> >
> > The discussion is about gear ratios, and the gas mixture was thrown in
to
> > illustrate gearing questions. I only pointed out that the fuel mixture
> > analogy is flawed when used to illustrate gearing issues.
>
> And I only pointed out your misstatement. Regardless of the earlier
> discussion, 50:1 is richer than 25:1.
>
>
That may be, but 50:1 has more gas than 25:1.

Richness is measured from the perspective of the oil not the gas. Gas is
gas, but gas with oil is richer than gas without oil, therefore gas with
more oil should be richer than gas with less oil, and gas where 50 parts are
gas for each part of oil has less oil than gas where there is 25 parts of
gas for each part of oil. 25:1 should be richer than 50:1 because there is
more oil in it. 25:1 is the same as 50:2, and 50:2 has more oil than 50:1 by
double the amount of oil.

CRWLR

"-jc" <SpamFree@DieSpammers.com> wrote in message
news:btf8bl$2lie$1@heap.juniper.net...
> "CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote
> > "-jc" wrote
> > > "CRWLR" wrote
> > > >
> > > > Your fuel analogy is flawed. 25:1 is a richer mixture than 50:1,
> >
> > > Bzzzzt ... wrong answer. 50:1 is a richer mixture. Think of what
burns
> > in
> > > the combustion chamber ... fuel and air. The oil is for lubrication
and
> > > cooling and doesn't burn. 50 parts fuel to 1 part oil results in more
> > fuel
> > > being delivered when compared to 25:1. You will have to lean out your
> > > jetting to accommodate running at 50:1.
> >
> > The discussion is about gear ratios, and the gas mixture was thrown in
to
> > illustrate gearing questions. I only pointed out that the fuel mixture
> > analogy is flawed when used to illustrate gearing issues.
>
> And I only pointed out your misstatement. Regardless of the earlier
> discussion, 50:1 is richer than 25:1.
>
>
That may be, but 50:1 has more gas than 25:1.

Richness is measured from the perspective of the oil not the gas. Gas is
gas, but gas with oil is richer than gas without oil, therefore gas with
more oil should be richer than gas with less oil, and gas where 50 parts are
gas for each part of oil has less oil than gas where there is 25 parts of
gas for each part of oil. 25:1 should be richer than 50:1 because there is
more oil in it. 25:1 is the same as 50:2, and 50:2 has more oil than 50:1 by
double the amount of oil.

CRWLR

"-jc" <SpamFree@DieSpammers.com> wrote in message
news:btf8bl$2lie$1@heap.juniper.net...
> "CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote
> > "-jc" wrote
> > > "CRWLR" wrote
> > > >
> > > > Your fuel analogy is flawed. 25:1 is a richer mixture than 50:1,
> >
> > > Bzzzzt ... wrong answer. 50:1 is a richer mixture. Think of what
burns
> > in
> > > the combustion chamber ... fuel and air. The oil is for lubrication
and
> > > cooling and doesn't burn. 50 parts fuel to 1 part oil results in more
> > fuel
> > > being delivered when compared to 25:1. You will have to lean out your
> > > jetting to accommodate running at 50:1.
> >
> > The discussion is about gear ratios, and the gas mixture was thrown in
to
> > illustrate gearing questions. I only pointed out that the fuel mixture
> > analogy is flawed when used to illustrate gearing issues.
>
> And I only pointed out your misstatement. Regardless of the earlier
> discussion, 50:1 is richer than 25:1.
>
>
That may be, but 50:1 has more gas than 25:1.

Richness is measured from the perspective of the oil not the gas. Gas is
gas, but gas with oil is richer than gas without oil, therefore gas with
more oil should be richer than gas with less oil, and gas where 50 parts are
gas for each part of oil has less oil than gas where there is 25 parts of
gas for each part of oil. 25:1 should be richer than 50:1 because there is
more oil in it. 25:1 is the same as 50:2, and 50:2 has more oil than 50:1 by
double the amount of oil.

JimG

"CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vvmb6nesoqmpd0@corp.supernews.com...
>
> I think we agree, we just have a different way of expressing the concept.
>

Agreed... thanks for your input. ;-)

JimG

JimG

"CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vvmb6nesoqmpd0@corp.supernews.com...
>
> I think we agree, we just have a different way of expressing the concept.
>

Agreed... thanks for your input. ;-)

JimG

JimG

"CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vvmb6nesoqmpd0@corp.supernews.com...
>
> I think we agree, we just have a different way of expressing the concept.
>

Agreed... thanks for your input. ;-)

JimG

-jc

"CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote
> "-jc" wrote
>
> > And I only pointed out your misstatement. Regardless of the earlier
> > discussion, 50:1 is richer than 25:1.
> >
> That may be, but 50:1 has more gas than 25:1.
>
> Richness is measured from the perspective of the oil not the gas. Gas is
> gas, but gas with oil is richer than gas without oil, therefore gas with
> more oil should be richer than gas with less oil, and gas where 50 parts
are
> gas for each part of oil has less oil than gas where there is 25 parts of
> gas for each part of oil. 25:1 should be richer than 50:1 because there is
> more oil in it. 25:1 is the same as 50:2, and 50:2 has more oil than 50:1
by
> double the amount of oil.

50:1 has more gas, yes. The rest of your statement is incorrect.

Less oil means more fuel will enter through the same sized jet. More fuel
in the fuel/air ratio means a richer mixture will enter the combustion
chamber. One will have to jet smaller to achieve the same performance when
going from 25:1 to 50:1. It may seem backwards but it's not.

Oil does not figure into the combustion, only the fuel and air. More fuel
for the same amount of air equals a richer mixture. The oil is for
lubrication and cooling.


--
- Jeff
- ........................ then again, what do I know.

-jc

"CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote
> "-jc" wrote
>
> > And I only pointed out your misstatement. Regardless of the earlier
> > discussion, 50:1 is richer than 25:1.
> >
> That may be, but 50:1 has more gas than 25:1.
>
> Richness is measured from the perspective of the oil not the gas. Gas is
> gas, but gas with oil is richer than gas without oil, therefore gas with
> more oil should be richer than gas with less oil, and gas where 50 parts
are
> gas for each part of oil has less oil than gas where there is 25 parts of
> gas for each part of oil. 25:1 should be richer than 50:1 because there is
> more oil in it. 25:1 is the same as 50:2, and 50:2 has more oil than 50:1
by
> double the amount of oil.

50:1 has more gas, yes. The rest of your statement is incorrect.

Less oil means more fuel will enter through the same sized jet. More fuel
in the fuel/air ratio means a richer mixture will enter the combustion
chamber. One will have to jet smaller to achieve the same performance when
going from 25:1 to 50:1. It may seem backwards but it's not.

Oil does not figure into the combustion, only the fuel and air. More fuel
for the same amount of air equals a richer mixture. The oil is for
lubrication and cooling.


--
- Jeff
- ........................ then again, what do I know.

-jc

"CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote
> "-jc" wrote
>
> > And I only pointed out your misstatement. Regardless of the earlier
> > discussion, 50:1 is richer than 25:1.
> >
> That may be, but 50:1 has more gas than 25:1.
>
> Richness is measured from the perspective of the oil not the gas. Gas is
> gas, but gas with oil is richer than gas without oil, therefore gas with
> more oil should be richer than gas with less oil, and gas where 50 parts
are
> gas for each part of oil has less oil than gas where there is 25 parts of
> gas for each part of oil. 25:1 should be richer than 50:1 because there is
> more oil in it. 25:1 is the same as 50:2, and 50:2 has more oil than 50:1
by
> double the amount of oil.

50:1 has more gas, yes. The rest of your statement is incorrect.

Less oil means more fuel will enter through the same sized jet. More fuel
in the fuel/air ratio means a richer mixture will enter the combustion
chamber. One will have to jet smaller to achieve the same performance when
going from 25:1 to 50:1. It may seem backwards but it's not.

Oil does not figure into the combustion, only the fuel and air. More fuel
for the same amount of air equals a richer mixture. The oil is for
lubrication and cooling.


--
- Jeff
- ........................ then again, what do I know.