CRWLR

"-jc" <SpamFree@DieSpammers.com> wrote in message
news:btfhnd$fi8$1@heap.juniper.net...
> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote
> > -jc wrote:
> > >
> > > And I only pointed out your misstatement. Regardless of the earlier
> > > discussion, 50:1 is richer than 25:1.
> >
> > Is that the way you richen your two cycle?
>
> Yes. Forget about the oil when considering the richness of mixture and
> concentrate on the fuel/air ratio. Oil is for lubrication and cooling of
> the internals. More oil = less fuel + same air = leaner. Less oil = more
> fuel + same air = richer.
>
>
Actually, forget about the air. We are talking about the ratio of oil to
gas, not the mixture of fuel and air.

There is more oil in a 25:1 mixture than there is in a 50:1 mixture. We
don't care what will run in a motor, we only care that the relationship of
ratios is understood. The relationship of 3.73:1 gears vs. 4.56:1 gears is
the inverse of a 25:1 oil/gas mixture vs. a 50:1 oil/gas mixture.

The higher numbers in the gear ratio means lower speed and more power, but
the lower numbers in the oil/gas mixture means more oil. The analogy was
first expressed as though the lower number meant less oil, but it means more
oil.

CRWLR

"-jc" <SpamFree@DieSpammers.com> wrote in message
news:btfhnd$fi8$1@heap.juniper.net...
> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote
> > -jc wrote:
> > >
> > > And I only pointed out your misstatement. Regardless of the earlier
> > > discussion, 50:1 is richer than 25:1.
> >
> > Is that the way you richen your two cycle?
>
> Yes. Forget about the oil when considering the richness of mixture and
> concentrate on the fuel/air ratio. Oil is for lubrication and cooling of
> the internals. More oil = less fuel + same air = leaner. Less oil = more
> fuel + same air = richer.
>
>
Actually, forget about the air. We are talking about the ratio of oil to
gas, not the mixture of fuel and air.

There is more oil in a 25:1 mixture than there is in a 50:1 mixture. We
don't care what will run in a motor, we only care that the relationship of
ratios is understood. The relationship of 3.73:1 gears vs. 4.56:1 gears is
the inverse of a 25:1 oil/gas mixture vs. a 50:1 oil/gas mixture.

The higher numbers in the gear ratio means lower speed and more power, but
the lower numbers in the oil/gas mixture means more oil. The analogy was
first expressed as though the lower number meant less oil, but it means more
oil.

-jc

"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote
> -jc wrote:
> >
> > Yes. Forget about the oil when considering the richness of mixture and
> > concentrate on the fuel/air ratio. Oil is for lubrication and cooling
of
> > the internals. More oil = less fuel + same air = leaner. Less oil =
more
> > fuel + same air = richer.
>
> So rather than jetting it, you just remove the lubrication.

No. Remove lubrication to the point that the motor is still adequately
lubed but not spooging out the exhaust and then jet appropriately. In
practice it's a bit of back and forth until you find the perfect balance.
Using different oil will change the lube/spooge/jet equation. Some
lubricate better, some burn more, so on.

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

-jc

"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote
> -jc wrote:
> >
> > Yes. Forget about the oil when considering the richness of mixture and
> > concentrate on the fuel/air ratio. Oil is for lubrication and cooling
of
> > the internals. More oil = less fuel + same air = leaner. Less oil =
more
> > fuel + same air = richer.
>
> So rather than jetting it, you just remove the lubrication.

No. Remove lubrication to the point that the motor is still adequately
lubed but not spooging out the exhaust and then jet appropriately. In
practice it's a bit of back and forth until you find the perfect balance.
Using different oil will change the lube/spooge/jet equation. Some
lubricate better, some burn more, so on.

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

-jc

"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote
> -jc wrote:
> >
> > Yes. Forget about the oil when considering the richness of mixture and
> > concentrate on the fuel/air ratio. Oil is for lubrication and cooling
of
> > the internals. More oil = less fuel + same air = leaner. Less oil =
more
> > fuel + same air = richer.
>
> So rather than jetting it, you just remove the lubrication.

No. Remove lubrication to the point that the motor is still adequately
lubed but not spooging out the exhaust and then jet appropriately. In
practice it's a bit of back and forth until you find the perfect balance.
Using different oil will change the lube/spooge/jet equation. Some
lubricate better, some burn more, so on.

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

-jc

"CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote
> "-jc" wrote ...
> > "CRWLR" 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.
> >
> We weren't talking aobut the jets, only the mixture of gas and oil. This
> discussion was never about fuel going through the carburator. Perhaps
"rich"
> is the problem word here. You are using rich in terms of fuel/air mixture,
I
> am using rich solely to describe the gas/oil misture. Gas that has a 50:1
> mixture with oil is less "rich" than gas that has a 25:1 mixture with oil,
> where richness is a word to describe the oil content of the mixture.
>
> The point being that the fuel mixture analogy of gas and oil is an inverse
> analogy to what is needed to describe gear ratios.
>
> The topic was an analogy about gas/oil mixtures and how they might
> correspond to gear ratios. I assumed througout the discussion that
> appropriate changes in jetting would be done to make the ------- motor
run.
> The discussion started when somebody said that fuel/oil mixtures were
> similar to gear ratios, the reality is that the analogy is an inverse
> relationship. That is all.

No need to get testy. When you are talking richer/leaner you are always (or
should be) talking about the fuel/air mixture as that is what burns. 50:1
is richer than 25:1. How many times do I need to repeat it? Shall I
illustrate it another way?

If it's any consolation, a lot of people think about it the way you do and
all of them are wrong.


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

-jc

"CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote
> "-jc" wrote ...
> > "CRWLR" 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.
> >
> We weren't talking aobut the jets, only the mixture of gas and oil. This
> discussion was never about fuel going through the carburator. Perhaps
"rich"
> is the problem word here. You are using rich in terms of fuel/air mixture,
I
> am using rich solely to describe the gas/oil misture. Gas that has a 50:1
> mixture with oil is less "rich" than gas that has a 25:1 mixture with oil,
> where richness is a word to describe the oil content of the mixture.
>
> The point being that the fuel mixture analogy of gas and oil is an inverse
> analogy to what is needed to describe gear ratios.
>
> The topic was an analogy about gas/oil mixtures and how they might
> correspond to gear ratios. I assumed througout the discussion that
> appropriate changes in jetting would be done to make the ------- motor
run.
> The discussion started when somebody said that fuel/oil mixtures were
> similar to gear ratios, the reality is that the analogy is an inverse
> relationship. That is all.

No need to get testy. When you are talking richer/leaner you are always (or
should be) talking about the fuel/air mixture as that is what burns. 50:1
is richer than 25:1. How many times do I need to repeat it? Shall I
illustrate it another way?

If it's any consolation, a lot of people think about it the way you do and
all of them are wrong.


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

-jc

"CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote
> "-jc" wrote ...
> > "CRWLR" 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.
> >
> We weren't talking aobut the jets, only the mixture of gas and oil. This
> discussion was never about fuel going through the carburator. Perhaps
"rich"
> is the problem word here. You are using rich in terms of fuel/air mixture,
I
> am using rich solely to describe the gas/oil misture. Gas that has a 50:1
> mixture with oil is less "rich" than gas that has a 25:1 mixture with oil,
> where richness is a word to describe the oil content of the mixture.
>
> The point being that the fuel mixture analogy of gas and oil is an inverse
> analogy to what is needed to describe gear ratios.
>
> The topic was an analogy about gas/oil mixtures and how they might
> correspond to gear ratios. I assumed througout the discussion that
> appropriate changes in jetting would be done to make the ------- motor
run.
> The discussion started when somebody said that fuel/oil mixtures were
> similar to gear ratios, the reality is that the analogy is an inverse
> relationship. That is all.

No need to get testy. When you are talking richer/leaner you are always (or
should be) talking about the fuel/air mixture as that is what burns. 50:1
is richer than 25:1. How many times do I need to repeat it? Shall I
illustrate it another way?

If it's any consolation, a lot of people think about it the way you do and
all of them are wrong.


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

-jc

"CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote
> "-jc" wrote
> > "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" wrote
> > > -jc wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And I only pointed out your misstatement. Regardless of the earlier
> > > > discussion, 50:1 is richer than 25:1.
> > >
> > > Is that the way you richen your two cycle?
> >
> > Yes. Forget about the oil when considering the richness of mixture and
> > concentrate on the fuel/air ratio. Oil is for lubrication and cooling
of
> > the internals. More oil = less fuel + same air = leaner. Less oil =
more
> > fuel + same air = richer.
> >
> Actually, forget about the air. We are talking about the ratio of oil to
> gas, not the mixture of fuel and air.

Not when you are talking about the richness of the mixture, you're not.

> There is more oil in a 25:1 mixture than there is in a 50:1 mixture. We
> don't care what will run in a motor, we only care that the relationship of
> ratios is understood. The relationship of 3.73:1 gears vs. 4.56:1 gears is
> the inverse of a 25:1 oil/gas mixture vs. a 50:1 oil/gas mixture.

Gear ratio 3.73:1 is higher than 4.56:1
Fuel/oil Ratio 25:1 is leaner than 50:1

> The higher numbers in the gear ratio means lower speed and more power, but
> the lower numbers in the oil/gas mixture means more oil. The analogy was
> first expressed as though the lower number meant less oil, but it means
more
> oil.

Trying to build an analogy using these two is not a good idea because they
do not relate to each other. Try using pipes. Same pressure in big pipe
versus small pipe ... fluid will flow faster in small pipe. Smaller number
+ faster flow like the gearing.


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

-jc

"CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote
> "-jc" wrote
> > "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" wrote
> > > -jc wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And I only pointed out your misstatement. Regardless of the earlier
> > > > discussion, 50:1 is richer than 25:1.
> > >
> > > Is that the way you richen your two cycle?
> >
> > Yes. Forget about the oil when considering the richness of mixture and
> > concentrate on the fuel/air ratio. Oil is for lubrication and cooling
of
> > the internals. More oil = less fuel + same air = leaner. Less oil =
more
> > fuel + same air = richer.
> >
> Actually, forget about the air. We are talking about the ratio of oil to
> gas, not the mixture of fuel and air.

Not when you are talking about the richness of the mixture, you're not.

> There is more oil in a 25:1 mixture than there is in a 50:1 mixture. We
> don't care what will run in a motor, we only care that the relationship of
> ratios is understood. The relationship of 3.73:1 gears vs. 4.56:1 gears is
> the inverse of a 25:1 oil/gas mixture vs. a 50:1 oil/gas mixture.

Gear ratio 3.73:1 is higher than 4.56:1
Fuel/oil Ratio 25:1 is leaner than 50:1

> The higher numbers in the gear ratio means lower speed and more power, but
> the lower numbers in the oil/gas mixture means more oil. The analogy was
> first expressed as though the lower number meant less oil, but it means
more
> oil.

Trying to build an analogy using these two is not a good idea because they
do not relate to each other. Try using pipes. Same pressure in big pipe
versus small pipe ... fluid will flow faster in small pipe. Smaller number
+ faster flow like the gearing.


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