RCU Forums - View Single Post - Substitute for Ether
View Single Post
Old 06-30-2007 | 09:04 AM
  #857  
gkamysz's Avatar
gkamysz
Senior Member
My Feedback: (19)
 
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,397
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
From: Crystal Lake, IL
Default RE: Substitute for Ether

Several pages back you wrote:


ORIGINAL: merugo

greg,
take a look at this....Chapter 10 - The Infamous "No Oil" Demo
At at least three major motorcycle rallies this past year, we have witnessed live demonstrations put on to demonstrate the effectiveness of certain oil additives. The demonstrators would have a bench-mounted engine which they would fill with oil and a prescribed dose of their "miracle additive." After running the engine for a while they would stop it, drain out the oil and start it up again. Instant magic! The engine would run perfectly well for hours on end, seemingly proving the effectiveness of the additive which had supposedly "coated" the inside of the engine so well it didn't even need the oil to run. In one case, we saw this done with an actual motorcycle, which would be rid den around the parking lot after having its oil drained. A pretty convincing demonstration - until you know the facts.
Since some of these demonstrations were conducted using Briggs and Stratton engines, the Briggs and Stratton Company itself decided to run a similar, but somewhat more scientific, experiment. Taking two brand-new, identical engines straight off their assembly line, they set them up for bench-testing. The only difference was that one had the special additive included with its oil and the other did not. Both were operated for 20 hours before being shut down and having the oil drained from them. Then both were started up again and allowed to run for another 20 straight hours. Neither engine seemed to have any problem performing this "minor miracle."
After the second 20-hour run, both engines were completely torn down and inspected by the company's engineers. What they found was that both engines suffered from scored crankpin bearings, but the engine treated with the additive also suffered from heavy cylinder bore damage that was not evident on the untreated engine.

SO AFTER ETHERLESS FUEL ONE CAN RUN ON OILLESS FUEL! WHEN ONE WILL RUN ON FUELESS FUEL?
Now to you. Someone says This lube ON GLOW mix is sufficient at 5%, well ,nothing strange since 5% lube on glow means 20%% lube ON DIESEL. WHY? because of DILUITION. Methanol is evaporating since from the drizzle, and its LOW boiling point minimizes its presence in liquid phase in the krankase . If 80%of fuel evaporates the oil is 75%diluted.
Now to the unfortunate kerosene drinking diesel. Ether evaporates totally since from a carburator. ( I remember one day of my first happy diesels I bought some ether far from home. It was an hot summer and the cork was not so good, so I looked my precious liquid disappear little by little leaving a thin layer of frost on the cork!!)This lowers the temperature of the unfortunate kerosene: What you suppose "vaporizing" in the carburator, goes indeed further deep in liquid phase. IT FOLLOWS that FOR OBTAINING THE SAME VISCOSITY THAN IN THE GLOW CASE YOU MUST USE A MIX 20% ether, 60% kerosene...AND 20% OIL!!!
This means oil thirsty for diesel...and..if you give away the ether in your mix, leaving straght kerosene, STRANGE AS IT CAN SEEM, you have to INCREASE the percentage of oil to 25% for obtaining the same operating viscosity.... this means that ether mixes have an HIGHER WORKING VISCOSITY!!
slope soarer,
thanks, this mistake is ever more convincing me of the need of some "template" or standard form for collecting mix formulas and data proposed here!
ugo
So nowe for some reason you are saying this isn't true? And that my engine preheated is somehow different?