Mogas: what happens to EGTs?

On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 08:08:58 -0800, Jim Weir wrote:

Stu Gotts
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

Now to the point -- I thought you said that your source had DONE the experiment
and HAD data. People who have been there and done that don't say "SHOULD" and
"PROBABLY", they say "DID". I think you've dicked the problem without hard
data.


Jim

I agree, but that's not in character for him. But if I may be so bold
to correct the Great Weir, "Shall" must be used rather than "Should".
You're a big boy, call him up and ask him. My "source" is George
Braly of GAMI. You know, injectors, turbo normalizing, PRISM, APS,
etc. He wrote it, he sent it, he answered it. You may be surprised
to hear how he arrived at the answers.

I don't give a DAMN how he arrived at the answers other than doing the
experiment. Obviously he hasn't. I don't know what is in "character" for a
person of this magnitude other than to tell it right up front HOW he measured it
and under WHAT conditions. Then others can repeat the experiment and show it
valid or not.

Every scientist from the dawn of time through Newton and Einstein published
their theory, and then the proofs, and then the experiments to prove them right
or wrong. If Brother Braly isn't willing to give us hard numbers as to his
measurements, then we are just whistling in the wind.

Try again, and no, I'm not going to waste my time with phone calls. If the
"probably"s in this newsgroup were laid end to end, it would be a good idea.

Jim





Stu Gotts
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

-On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 08:08:58 -0800, Jim Weir wrote:
-
-Stu Gotts
-shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:
-
-Now to the point -- I thought you said that your source had DONE the
experiment
-and HAD data. People who have been there and done that don't say "SHOULD"
and
-"PROBABLY", they say "DID". I think you've dicked the problem without hard
-data.
-
-
-Jim
-
-I agree, but that's not in character for him. But if I may be so bold
-to correct the Great Weir, "Shall" must be used rather than "Should".
-You're a big boy, call him up and ask him. My "source" is George
-Braly of GAMI. You know, injectors, turbo normalizing, PRISM, APS,
-etc. He wrote it, he sent it, he answered it. You may be surprised
-to hear how he arrived at the answers.
-

Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

Too bad your scope doesn't include an open mind and open ears. What
seems to be your problem? Something you can't claim to know anything
about? Poor baby!

For those that realize Weir can hurt as much as he helps (old age
assaholism, I guess, or maybe he's still ****ed that a foreigner could
beat him in the election), and would like to pursue this, a simple
email to George will give you any answers yo o may need to justify his
quiz Q & A's. I know the guy and his company and his work, and I'll
take him at his word. I'll drop him an email to see if he claims to
know anything about manufacturing electronics (other than the PRISM
system), but I somehow bet he'll leave that to the real experts in
the field without questioning them about what they eat for breakfast.

On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 19:47:05 -0800, Jim Weir wrote:


I don't give a DAMN how he arrived at the answers other than doing the
experiment. Obviously he hasn't. I don't know what is in "character" for a
person of this magnitude other than to tell it right up front HOW he measured it
and under WHAT conditions. Then others can repeat the experiment and show it
valid or not.

Every scientist from the dawn of time through Newton and Einstein published
their theory, and then the proofs, and then the experiments to prove them right
or wrong. If Brother Braly isn't willing to give us hard numbers as to his
measurements, then we are just whistling in the wind.

Try again, and no, I'm not going to waste my time with phone calls. If the
"probably"s in this newsgroup were laid end to end, it would be a good idea.

Jim





Stu Gotts
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

-On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 08:08:58 -0800, Jim Weir wrote:
-
-Stu Gotts
-shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:
-
-Now to the point -- I thought you said that your source had DONE the
experiment
-and HAD data. People who have been there and done that don't say "SHOULD"
and
-"PROBABLY", they say "DID". I think you've dicked the problem without hard
-data.
-
-
-Jim
-
-I agree, but that's not in character for him. But if I may be so bold
-to correct the Great Weir, "Shall" must be used rather than "Should".
-You're a big boy, call him up and ask him. My "source" is George
-Braly of GAMI. You know, injectors, turbo normalizing, PRISM, APS,
-etc. He wrote it, he sent it, he answered it. You may be surprised
-to hear how he arrived at the answers.
-

Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com