You tell me you're the one in it.That hole is so deep now, it must be getting really dark down there.....
I consider this an important feature of the invention, for tests have shown that when liquid fuel is per mitted to strike the outer wall of the mixing conduit, it is likely to be carried along in liquid form by the air stream in such a way that vaporization and distribution are not efficiently accomplished.
By the above arrangement, I am enabled to avoid the necessity for mixing air with the fuel in the fuel passageways and nozzles (That's Emulsion or Air Bleeding he's talking about my emphasis) which would cause the delivery of the fuel in slugs and generally inefficient operation of the carburetor, particularly at low speeds.
Thanks champ you just proved AGAIN you have no idea how even emulsion design works...........Not only do you not understand how it works but why its was invent and what problem it solved in carburetor design.it has no air bleeds. The TQ has three.
Here are the 2 designs see if you can grasp the differences.......
View attachment 1716018021
View attachment 1716018000
Just getting deeper...& deeper.
So your argument now is that the 72 design is no longer a solid fuel metering carb and operates on completely different set of physics principles? Is that like saying a 2 circuit Dominator is an emulsion design carb but a 3 circuit Dominator isn't because of the 3rd circuit.......you use the patent carb as the pin up carb when it has significant metering differences to the TQ design both the 71 or 72. Apples to oranges comparison.
I think I need therapy.
Try reading your own literature. The 1930 patent carb that YOU introduced into this thread is substantially different to the 72 TQ:
- it has no air bleeds. The TQ has three.
- the nozzle at the exit end has one hole in it. The TQ has two.
Any fool could see this is going to have an impact on metering characteristics.
you use the patent carb as the pin up carb when it has significant metering differences to the TQ design both the 71 or 72
it has no air bleeds. The TQ has three.
- the nozzle at the exit end has one hole in it. The TQ has two.
Any fool could see this is going to have an impact on metering characteristics.
I'm still waiting for the source.......Make sure you provide the visual evidence and the page before it tooChrysler documented the loss of performance of the 72 over the 71 design, but in your mind: don't let the truth get in the way of a lie.
Of course I am......You really are losing it......May have to double the meds.....
Nope. You post it.......Shouldn't be a problem for you should it.......The 'source' was provided to you in post #103. You can find the visual evidence yourself.
I DO NOT want to get into this mess, I could care less if the 71 carb made a little more power or not, or if the 72 was better, or not, it matter not to me. I just want to let you know that you can claim almost anything on a patent. The patent office does NOT check your claims. You can claim anything and they will just look back to all their records to make sure no one has previously patented the exact same thing, that is does not currently exist, or something close to it, and with similar claims. Again you can claim anything, I once saw a guy in Florida that had a patented plastic rectangular box with a ton of baffles in it with one inlet and one outlet for vacuum hoses. He claimed that if you connected this box to one of the vacuum hoses on your engine, can't remember which one he used, it would increase the gas mileage by 20-30% of some crazy batshit like that. He had an actual patent, LOL. The most famous one is the Winnipeg Carburetor patents, guy claimed he had invented a 200 MPG, yes you read that right two hundred MPG carb. He was awarded multiple patents for this "carburetor"... As you can imagine this thing does not work, but he probably made a pretty penny selling plans and doing interviews and writing papers for different publications at the time...Again here is what the original inventor stated back in 1930 about what his design accomplishes:
US1858615A - Carburetor - Google Patents
Even back then they understood that emulsion design was inefficient and caused the fuel to exit the booster in slugs instead of a nice consistent mixture.
Slug flow
View attachment 1716017090
So the question then becomes which cylinder gets the slug of fuel and which cylinder gets the slug of air? What if you don't mix the fuel with air in a well before it leaves the nozzle so the air bubbles don't have a chance to coalesce (Join together) to form slugs or other inconsistencies in flow but keep it solid until its delivered to the air stream? Hence the superior metering of the 72 over the 71 is just a function of design. No secret squirrel **** no magazine experts just plain old science.........
The problem with the carb in the patent is that it has significant design differences to the 72 TQ & as such cannot be compared.
This is what it states:
"Essentially there is no engine heat to transfer to the bowl and bowl cover."
"AS A RESULT" (1.40 mark)
"Thermoquad calibration metering is leaner BECAUSE mixture enrichment is not needed to COMPENSATE for FUEL EXPANSION POWER LOSSES."
"AS A RESULT" (1.51 mark)
"Exhaust emissions are reduced without seriously affecting power engine perfromance"
Context is everything in this case.........
It was Shrinker who put me onto thermoquads when I asked him about improving the design of the Holley Carbs:
Carburetors that use emulsion are turbulent flow designs. carburetors that use a booster or a single point sensing position for the air flow are turbulent flow designs. It is necessary to design for turbulent flow because of the vacuum curves relationship to CFM produced by single point sensing (boosters, single dump tubes like a C&S, old vintage carbys). There is nothing wrong with turbulent flow designs. They are quite capable of controlling a fuel curve in many ways. The solid fuel carbys are turbulent flow designs. Turbulent flow enables correction for the natural enrichment due to increased air flow. If an engine requires a different AFR at maximum torque compared to max HP then a turbulent flow carby can do that. The internal passages of a turbulent flow carby are sized so that the onset of turbulent flow occurs at the desired place in the CFM. Once turbulent flow is established the AFR goes leaner. Then as the CFM continues to increase the AFR will enrich. This creates the desired characteristics of lean cruise and rich full load combustion. If emulsion is not used the passage sizings are the only controllers and that means that the carby is specifically designed for that engine as in OEM production line stuff. If emulsion air is used the carby can have a wider range of application although theoretically none of the applications are as good as zero emulsion designing. The difficulty with emulsion is the air interrupts the fuel flow. Solid fuel designs achieve more linear fuel distribution into the air stream.
If there was anyone that really understood this stuff it was Bruce. Thanks for the laughs but its time to put this one to bed..........
Hysteric,
There is no ambiguity, double meaning, or anything else your imaginative mind might want to inject into THIS simple statement: 'without seriously affecting power'. It is what it is a simple, unarguable statement, & nothing out of 'context'. And it comes from Chrys, the predominant user of these carbs.
You continue to generate distractions, red herrings, but never providing evidence of your claims.
We might have to pass a lead light to you in that hole you are digging for yourself because it is getting so deep...