115 HP Evinrude vs. Johnson
RSARK
However, after reading this newsgroup I'm thinking about changing to Johnson.
The Johnson is basically the same as the Evinrude except it has carburators
rather than fuel injection.
Have the Ficht problems been resolved with the 1999 models? Does anybody have
anything nice to say about the Ficht syste?
Dave Brown
The 90/115 have suffered none of the problems associated with their larger
cousins. Speaking of their larger cousins, the problems they did have (none in all
the ones I sold) have been, or are being rectified by OMC at no cost to the owners
(just like Mercury).
In short, the new motors are rock solid and you can quote me on that (locked into
dejanews for eternity).
OMC has bet the farm on these motors so you can bet *they* believe in the
technology.
--
Regards,
Dave Brown
Brown's Marina
http://www.brownsmarina.on.ca/
K Smith
>I was planning on buying a 1999 115 HP Evinrude with Ficht fuel injection.
>However, after reading this newsgroup I'm thinking about changing to Johnson.
>The Johnson is basically the same as the Evinrude except it has carburators
>rather than fuel injection.
>
>Have the Ficht problems been resolved with the 1999 models? Does anybody have
>anything nice to say about the Ficht syste?
Rsark,
I don't think there have been that many first hand reports to this
group about "problems" with the Ficht DFI engines, particularly when you
consider that like Merc's Optimax, it's brand new technology.
There has been some first hand spark plug complaints etc. some
hearsay reports of power head failures, but it seems OMC have issued
"upgrades" to try & rectify (I don't really think that's the problem nor
the solution but hey). Merc have also performed some "upgrades" on their
Optimaxs.
The problem you have with the Johnson vs Ficht decision is, that
provided Ficht technology is ultimately successful which is by no means a
certainty, the re-sale value of your motor/boat won't be the same. Even
though you may never be restricted in your use of the boat becasue of the
new pollution regs. all potential purchasers, dealer or no, will use the
potential to beat your price down.
Karen.
JDavis1277
I have just ordered a 1999 115 hp FICHT.
Posters whose background, experience, and training I respect, like Carl Craven
and Dave Brown say they believe the new FICHT is be a great engine. Actually,
they say the older FICHTs are great, now that Evinrude has made the required
improvments.
On close examination, I think you will see some common threads in the posts
lamenting FICHT reliability.
1. Many of the posts are from the same person(s) which makes a widespread
appearing problem less alarming.
2. The main complaint has been about fouling spark plugs.
3. Most posters say that OMC has been very good about working with them to
resolve problems.
4. Many posters say they are very happy with the performance and economy of
the FICHT after the resolution of the aforementioned spark plug problems.
Your guess is as good as mine, but I've put my money on the FICHT.
Butch-
morten ringvold
If you want the latest technology, reduced cost, encreased operating range
of your boat with same fuelcapacity, go for the FICHT!
I do have first hand knowledgr of the engines, have been running them myself
since they got on the marked and will continue running them!
The best way to be sure it stays on running is to keep it clear of the hands
of Karen! Most of the negative imputs that have been has come from people
that does not know either the Ficht technology or not even to much of 2-
stroke combustion technology at all!
Happy boating with your FICHT!
**** Posted from RemarQ - http://www.remarq.com - Discussions Start Here (tm) ****
Dana Seero
it's a revelation - starts fast, no smoke, very quiet, much better fuel
consumption. He would never go back to a carb. engine.
hkrause
I have a Merc Optimax. While its technology is different than the Ficht,
the results are about the same.
The engine starts instantly.
It idles at slow trolling speed for hours without loading up.
There's hardly any smoke.
It burns far less gas and TC-W3 oil than the carbed model.
It maintains RPM's. Run it at 3300 rpm and it stays at 3300 rpm,
regardless of sea conditions.
It pollutes a lot less than traditional outboards.
I got the Merc 135 because it was all the pony power I needed for the
boat we have. I'm pleased that the same 2.5 liter block is used for
other, larger engines in the Merc line, up to 200 hp. This means my
engine is understressed.
About $7,000 will get you a Merc 135 Opti, and about $8,500-$8,800 will
get you a 150.
--
Harry Krause
- - - - - - - - - - - -
(c) Copywight Elmer Fudd. All wights wesewved.
K Smith
wrote:
>FICHT or carbs?
>
>If you want the latest technology, reduced cost, encreased operating range
>of your boat with same fuelcapacity, go for the FICHT!
>I do have first hand knowledgr of the engines, have been running them myself
>since they got on the marked and will continue running them!
& another undeclared OMC dealer shoots a toe off. (how will he
count now?)
I've been good all through my probabtion, I've been really tame
despite provocation, so what prompted that ?
I have made it clear on numerous occassions that I think BOTH
technologies are interesting & watch to see who wins, because in my opinion
there will be a "winner"
AS for your flame; I said nothing derogatory about your precious
Ficht engine.
What was it;
(a) the comment about the your upgrades going the wrong way, or
(b) couldn't you live with the thought that maybe the Ficht & your meal
ticket wouldn't ultimately be successful or
(c) is the truth that you're scared because you only know what you're
told at the OMC tech. spruiking sessions.
The reality is;
(i) BOTH Ficht & Optimax technologies are new & significantly different
from where the majority of the really big companies have gone, read Bosch,
GM, Ford indeed all the big engine manufacturers worldwide, even the
diesels like Cat. Cummins.
(ii) BOTH OMC & Brunswick are big in terms of outboard engines, but very
small in terms of being IC engine manufacturers.
(iii) OMC particularly, is in bad financial shape so to go off in a
totally new IC technology route, which is significantly different from the
way ALL other engine manufacturers have gone, is to say the least
couragious, but when it's a company that was nearly out of business during
one of the peak growth periods ever in the US economy, it's more like
heroic. (They can't even afford to develop compliant 4 strokes yet so
re-badge others)
(iv) The Ficht technology is not "new" but in some form has been around
since the 70s, this is fact despite the OMC tech. at a German trade show
story they spruik to you at your so called "tech training". If it was so
red hot why haven't ANY i.e. not one, of the big engine manufacturers
adopted it in several decades. (patents only last say 20 yrs)
(v) OMC have prior convictions when it comes to sticking with the
cheapest, yet unsatisfactory technology. They persisted & still do, with
the VRO oil injection, for no other reason than it was cheap when every
other OB manufacturer indeed engine manufacturer, was spending proper money
on mechanical oil pumps, pressurised oil containers etc. etc. Many people
have lost a lot of money (engines) because of a failed technology persisted
with by OMC, will they be doing this again if the Ficht doesn't work out?
(vi) I say the first signs that they might indeed do it again are
already visible, because they're trying to solve the spark plug problem by
concentrating on the symptom. (i.e. lack of fuel ignition, eng.cutout at
idle, had start etc. etc. even though the ECU is ensuring a 14:1 mixture)
(vii) When the real problem is that the Ficht system doesn't atomise the
fuel sufficiently when very small amounts of air & fuel need to be mixed.
So as I alluded, keeping the poor spark plug firing endlessly so it then
falls to bits, might temporarily solve the symptom, but not the problem
which is & always has been; how do you get the fuel properly atomised when
a big 2 stroke uses absolutely tiny amounts per stroke if it is "throttled"
down enough to achieve a consumer demanded, slow stable idle, through reed
valves ?
(viii) Not more of the same old give it more air & therefore fuel (read
the upgraded pump, etc) which of course increases the idle speed, so then
you'll keep retarding the spark timing until it slows down again, surely
not ? You won't pass the pollution regs. indeed that's exactly why they've
been introduced.
(ix) The OMC lubrication problem? again just chasing the symptom by
giving it more oil, but again no go, it'll get burnt & again you won't pass
the pollution regs.
(ix) As I've said the jury is still out on which technology will be
successful so consumers are being asked to pay big price increases & still
take a bet. Fortunately for you I'm not on the jury, because I have
knowledge of OMC's priors.
(x) You might need to order an extra pack of sesame seed buns., to eat
'cause you can't sell 'em.
Very best regards,
Karen.
morten ringvold
So much written with so litle content!
Yes, I`m an OMC dealer.
No, my opinion on the FICHT engines and systems are NOT build upon smart
advertisers or whatever but my own first hand experience with the engines,
aprox a couple of hundreds over the last years!I even try to get more
SERIOUS information and experience about the engines, my main reason for
joining this group. I find in this gruoup a lot of boaters with what is for
them srious problems, what might be for skilled mechanics rather easy and
straight forward. In some cases I find it my obligation to give some HELP,
not spread depression!
What you have got against OMC I do not know, but perhaps you should
concentrate on the questions itself when it comes to technical matters and
leave your personal feelings out.
Whatever kind of technical/mechanical product you buy it will sooner or
later need service and repair. In general I would say that the best product
will be the one that gets the best care! Bringing out new technilogy will
thereby men you have to upgrade and update your service network to be able
to properly handle the products. The FICHT technolology by itself may not be
new, but it is new to the market and mechanics and we may need some time to
get used to it.
There are two ways of entering this:
My suggestion: Learn and accept if convinced.
Your suggestion: Forget it, stay with the antiques, polute the environment!
Stop progress!
No bad feelings, wish you happy boating
Best regards
Morten Ringvold
MR Consult
Nesbryggen Marina
Norway
JDavis1277
kind of EEC non-member dispute.
Make love, not war. :=)
BTW, the FICHT consensus here in the US seems to be more positive than
negative.
Butch-
morten ringvold
Until then I stay with the FICHTS!
JDavis1277
Until then I stay with the FICHTS!<
Morten,
Great answer!
Butch-
K Smith
wrote:
>To Karen and her fans(?)
>So much written with so litle content!
>
>Yes, I`m an OMC dealer.
So when say you "use" them & recommend, it's best to also advise
you're also a dealer.
>
>No, my opinion on the FICHT engines and systems are NOT build upon smart
>advertisers or whatever but my own first hand experience with the engines,
>aprox a couple of hundreds over the last years!I even try to get more
>SERIOUS information and experience about the engines, my main reason for
>joining this group. I find in this gruoup a lot of boaters with what is for
>them srious problems, what might be for skilled mechanics rather easy and
>straight forward. In some cases I find it my obligation to give some HELP,
>not spread depression!
Depression? for who. I've refrained from giving my "opinion" about
Ficht but that doesn't mean I have less right than you to put it.
>
>What you have got against OMC I do not know, but perhaps you should
>concentrate on the questions itself when it comes to technical matters and
>leave your personal feelings out.
I personally don't like OMC, for the reasons given, but that's just
my "opinion" & of no consequence really.
So why flame me when I've said nothing, do you expect I'll not
stand up for myself, well hang around a bit longer & you'll know that's not
right.
>
>Whatever kind of technical/mechanical product you buy it will sooner or
>later need service and repair. In general I would say that the best product
>will be the one that gets the best care! Bringing out new technilogy will
>thereby men you have to upgrade and update your service network to be able
>to properly handle the products. The FICHT technolology by itself may not be
>new, but it is new to the market and mechanics and we may need some time to
>get used to it.
Agree, but why not warn customers they're actually part of the OMC
development loop & might be buying unproven technology.
>
>There are two ways of entering this:
>
>My suggestion: Learn and accept if convinced.
>
>Your suggestion: Forget it, stay with the antiques, polute the environment!
>Stop progress!
Not at all, I think the new tech engines will be better good for
boaters, not in spite of but because of the new pollution regs.
>
>No bad feelings, wish you happy boating
Absolutely, you to.
Karen.
>
>Best regards
>
>Morten Ringvold
>MR Consult
>Nesbryggen Marina
>Norway
>
>
>
hkrause
>
> On Wed, 03 Mar 1999 23:13:55 -0800, mrc...@online.no (morten ringvold)
> wrote:
>
> >To Karen and her fans(?)
> >So much written with so litle content!
> >
> >Yes, I`m an OMC dealer.
>
> So when say you "use" them & recommend, it's best to also advise
> you're also a dealer.
> >
> >No, my opinion on the FICHT engines and systems are NOT build upon smart
> >advertisers or whatever but my own first hand experience with the engines,
> >aprox a couple of hundreds over the last years!I even try to get more
> >SERIOUS information and experience about the engines, my main reason for
> >joining this group. I find in this gruoup a lot of boaters with what is for
> >them srious problems, what might be for skilled mechanics rather easy and
> >straight forward. In some cases I find it my obligation to give some HELP,
> >not spread depression!
>
> Depression? for who. I've refrained from giving my "opinion" about
> Ficht but that doesn't mean I have less right than you to put it.
I do believe, Ms. Karen, that you have expressed your opinion about OMC
Ficht engines many, many times here. I seem to recall you don't like the
system Merc uses, either.
Perhaps you'd care to describe your engineering and manufacturing
solution to the pollution deadline that faces sellers of two cycle
outboards in the United States. The Ficht and Orbital systems meet those
standards now. Perhaps some years in the future, four cycle outboards
will be developed that can actually replace the larger horsepower two
cycles, but that's blue sky talk for now.
Technology doesn't stand still, Ms. Karen, but, of course, you are
entitled to...
JDavis1277
Makes sense to me. I wouldn't mind having a 2006 compliant 4 stroke on my
boat, but those hummers are HEAVY. All that extra weight must burn, over the
life of the engine, lots & lots of extra fuel.
I prefer the direct injected 2 stroke for the weight advantage. Plus, I'll
admit to being a little bit of a techno freak. But, by the time I have to
replace a DI 2 stroke, I will have been able to run faster, if I choose, while
burning less fuel and only a little oil. Meanwhile, being as kind to the
enviornment as those folks choosing to run 4 stroke engines.
I believe the DI 2 stroke outboard is an elegant solution which will allow
manufacturers to avoid some very high developmental costs while improving the
environmental situation. This will allow development of large, lightweight, 4
strokes at a much lower cost by eliminating any need for a compressed
developmental schedule. Who knows, the DI 2 stroke may just be improved to the
point where 4 strokes become redundant.
Thanks, Butch-
Harry wrote: snip> Perhaps some years in the future, four cycle outboards will
be developed that can actually replace the larger horsepower two cycles, but
that's blue sky talk for now. <snip
hkrause
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised to see more use of DI two strokes in
more inboard or I/O situations. Merc has a 3 liter powerhead that weighs
about 400 pounds and develops 225 horsepower right now. I can see a 300
hp V-6 DI two cycle that displaces 3.5 liters and weighs 500 pounds.
That's about half the weight of a four cycle V-8 car engine. I see lots
of 20-25' boats where an engine like that would be very welcome for
inboard or I/O use.
--
Harry Krause
- - - - - - - - - - - -
I'm as confused as a baby in a topless bar!
JDavis1277
Absolutely. For many offshore anglers the ability to get out there a little
sooner and remain a little longer is worth a lot. For those folks, in
particular, the price premium for a lightweight power source would be a minor
factor.
Ironically, today many offshore sport fishermen type boats use a DI 2 stroke in
the engine room. DDA. Now, if we can just start thinking gasoline as fuel,
aluminum as block and head material, no huge crankcase filled with oil,
lightweight crankshaft, loop charging....???? :=)
Butch-
Harry wrote: >Actually, I wouldn't be surprised to see more use of DI two
hkrause
What? Diesel without the diesel smell? Heresy!
--
Harry Krause
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Morality is learned, not legislated.
hkrause
>
> On Thu, 04 Mar 1999 17:19:58 -0500, hkrause <hkr...@erols-nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
> >K Smith wrote:
>
> >I do believe, Ms. Karen, that you have expressed your opinion about OMC
> >Ficht engines many, many times here. I seem to recall you don't like the
> >system Merc uses, either.
>
> said is to correct some dealer posts about it's history & how it actually
> works. I've never expressed any comments pro or against Ficht till this
> thread.
>
> I repeat, I watch like everybody else, to see how they BOTH go &
> look out for the Yamaha fix.
> >
> >Perhaps you'd care to describe your engineering and manufacturing
> >solution to the pollution deadline that faces sellers of two cycle
> >outboards in the United States. The Ficht and Orbital systems meet those
>
> Well...... this a test isn't it?; but seeing you asked; don't
> then complain it's too long, we know about your attention span.
>
> My understanding is that the new regs aren't in effect yet. So the
> early release of the new tech motors is a marketing /development thing, a
> reasonable decision I guess so long as the purchasers are aware of it. (But
> putting steep price rises on, only to have people pay for the pleasure of
> being test beds is a bit cheeky)
Hmmmm. Can we then assume that Yamaha was engaged in a
"marketing/development thing" when its engines used in salt water
corroded out, including the steering shafts so that you had to take the
damned powerheads off to replace the shaft with another that would
corrode until the corporation finally figured out stainless steel was
necessary? Is Yamaha still engaged in a "marketing/developing thing"
over the availability and prices of spare parts? Hate to have those
purchasers paying extra for the pleasure of being test beds.
I've cut out your essay on how Ficht works. The point is, it works. As
does the Merc system.
>
> How about a pic. of Mrs. Krause's boat to Richard. The one your
> standing in with the fish/bayliner is a fishing charter you went on, no?
>
> Karen.
No, it is the boat of a friend. It is a 24' ProLine center console with,
if I recall, a 225 hp Merc on it. It was a dark and stormy day in
January (1997) when we went out, but the sky cleared once we got out to
the Gulf Stream. When we launch her boat next month (hopefully), I'll
get my bride to pose in her fishing regalia at the helm.
K Smith
wrote:
>K Smith wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 03 Mar 1999 23:13:55 -0800, mrc...@online.no (morten ringvold)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >To Karen and her fans(?)
>> >So much written with so litle content!
>> >
>> >Yes, I`m an OMC dealer.
>>
>> So when say you "use" them & recommend, it's best to also advise
>> you're also a dealer.
>> >
>> >No, my opinion on the FICHT engines and systems are NOT build upon smart
>> >advertisers or whatever but my own first hand experience with the engines,
>> >aprox a couple of hundreds over the last years!I even try to get more
>> >SERIOUS information and experience about the engines, my main reason for
>> >joining this group. I find in this gruoup a lot of boaters with what is for
>> >them srious problems, what might be for skilled mechanics rather easy and
>> >straight forward. In some cases I find it my obligation to give some HELP,
>> >not spread depression!
>>
>> Depression? for who. I've refrained from giving my "opinion" about
>> Ficht but that doesn't mean I have less right than you to put it.
>
>
>I do believe, Ms. Karen, that you have expressed your opinion about OMC
>Ficht engines many, many times here. I seem to recall you don't like the
>system Merc uses, either.
Well, about OMC yes, about the Ficht system, the most I've ever
said is to correct some dealer posts about it's history & how it actually
works. I've never expressed any comments pro or against Ficht till this
thread.
I repeat, I watch like everybody else, to see how they BOTH go &
look out for the Yamaha fix.
>
>Perhaps you'd care to describe your engineering and manufacturing
>solution to the pollution deadline that faces sellers of two cycle
>outboards in the United States. The Ficht and Orbital systems meet those
Well...... this a test isn't it?; but seeing you asked; don't
then complain it's too long, we know about your attention span.
My understanding is that the new regs aren't in effect yet. So the
early release of the new tech motors is a marketing /development thing, a
reasonable decision I guess so long as the purchasers are aware of it. (But
putting steep price rises on, only to have people pay for the pleasure of
being test beds is a bit cheeky)
The auto industry has been searching for light, high output,
emission compliant engines for decades. All possible technologies have been
investigated & no contest, two strokes meet the first two requirements but
not the third.
To think that OMC could buy a small German Co (to own the patents)
which has invented some admittedly clever improvements to the long existing
electronic injection technology & then with very little development start
supplying it to consumer users is as I said, given their financials of
late, heroic.
My Ficht "technical" reservations are only reservations as below, I
certainly don't say my "opinion" in this is right;
N.B. DAVE: OPINION ONLY
(i) I don't think OMC has the where withall to properly develop the
technology for consumer use, none of the big engine manufacturers have been
able to crack it, with R & D budgets that would exceed the total turnover
of OMC. This is not strickly "technical" but I guess all the big eng. mans.
know of & examined these technologies, some even took out development
licences, none have been seen in production.
(ii) If OMC are consumer successful, it's going to make engineering
history & don't worry about just Brunswick, they'll have every engine
manufacturer wanting a licence at any price.
(iii) The system itself, not including the Ficht refinements, is well
known & in a nutshell is;
(a) A solenoid or other driven piston, circulates fuel at
reasonable pressure & high velocity in a loop which also has the piston
itself, a fuel injector & a loop shutoff valve in it.
(b) When the loop shutoff valve is suddenly (electronically)
closed the fuel at high velocity has nowhere to go, & a shock wave is set
up, which oscillates back & forth within the now closed area (trapped under
the piston, behind the closed shutoff valve & behind the fuel injector, a
bit like jumping on one end of a waterbed, the "wave" oscillates back &
forth many times, hitting each end of the bed with force)
(c) The injector opens each time one of these oscillating
pressure peaks hits it (hence the talk of a multiple "hammer" effect)
(d) The injector is directly placed in the combustion chamber.
(hence Direct Fuel Injection DFI)
(iv) Reservations I hold are fairly obvious as follows;
(a) The pressure peak oscillations, so the injected fuel can be
"atomised" means the injector opens/closes numerous times each injection,
trying to imitate what happens in say a diesel injector which atomises the
fuel by vibrating at a very high frequency except the diesel needs very
high pressures (over 2000 psi against only some 100s in the Ficht)
(b) To make a big two stroke (ignition on every stroke) idle
slowly requires it to be severely throttle down. i.e. throttles block the
access of air & inside the engine crankcase becomes very high vacuum, the
reed valves become inconsistent. (previous non DFI engines even turn some
cylinders off at idle or allowed a little extra air & fuel to flow through
the engine at idle & then have the resultant revs reduced by retarding the
spark at idle to slow it down, alot of unburnt fuel & hence the new regs)
(c) Because of the very small amount (mass) of air entering,
at idle a big 2 stroke requires very small amounts of fuel per injection,
to maintain mixture at about 14:1 which is now a must under the new rules,
so the loop shutoff valve is only "closed" for a very short time. This
means the injector only sees a very few pressure peak oscillations &
therefore I question when idling if the fuel can be properly "atomised" at
the low pressures being used.
(d) The ECU absolutely controls the amount (mass) of fuel being
injected so that is no problem, the question is, is it properly atomised,
such that a spark will ignite it? On the evidence so far it seems the
answer is; when it's new yes, but after some use in a harsh dirty
combustion chamber, only maybe.
(e) OMC have now increased the number/amount of spark available
to ignite the charge at start & idle but as I said previously this is
chasing the symptom, when the problem is consistant fuel atomisation,
over/after a range of use. The new spark system has created it's own
problems, so away we go again. I truly hope this isn't shaping up to be a
VRO re-run.
(v) As for your question of "what were they supposed to do?
(a) Merc., Yamaha have the same challenges & the Optimax system
is of course totally different.
(b) Yamaha have chosen to greatly increase the injection
pressure & have a two stage injector. The injector has three outlets, one
directed into a recess in the head which contains the spark plug. The plug
recess directed injector hole, injects slightly ahead of the other main
two, so at idle (very low amounts of fuel) ignition/atomisation is assured
by; the higher general fuel pressures & the direction of the fuel at the
spark plug in a closed very small combustion chamber (at TDC). I have
commented before not unlike a diesel pre-combustion chamber.
How about a pic. of Mrs. Krause's boat to Richard. The one your
standing in with the fish/bayliner is a fishing charter you went on, no?
Karen.
>standards now. Perhaps some years in the future, four cycle outboards
>will be developed that can actually replace the larger horsepower two
>cycles, but that's blue sky talk for now.
>
bill...@orbiter.com
>Karen Smith wrote:
> (a) A solenoid or other driven piston, circulates fuel at
> reasonable pressure & high velocity in a loop which also has the piston
> itself, a fuel injector & a loop shutoff valve in it.
> (b) When the loop shutoff valve is suddenly (electronically)
> closed the fuel at high velocity has nowhere to go, & a shock wave is set
> up, which oscillates back & forth within the now closed area (trapped under
> the piston, behind the closed shutoff valve & behind the fuel injector, a
> bit like jumping on one end of a waterbed, the "wave" oscillates back &
> forth many times, hitting each end of the bed with force)
> (c) The injector opens each time one of these oscillating
> pressure peaks hits it (hence the talk of a multiple "hammer" effect)
Karen, If this is how you think the OMC FICHT injector system operates, you
are mis-informed. You must be reading or listening to obsolete or incorrect
information and not actually working on or testing these engines. Your
description is what the original German FICHT system did before OMC took
that theory and simplified it. OMC developed the solenoid injector which
activates only 1 time (not multiple times) per cylinder charge. It is simply
a plunger piston that varies the amount of fuel delivered by the time the
electromagnetic field (plunger duration) is activated by the ECU. I've
watched this with a 'scope and a timing lite and it indeed only fires once
per revolution.
> (b) To make a big two stroke (ignition on every stroke) idle
> slowly requires it to be severely throttle down. i.e. throttles block the
> access of air & inside the engine
That's how almost all gas engines are regulated, by the vacuum formed from
restricting the amount of air in can "inhale". With the FICHT, you can open
up the throttle plates at any speed and the engine will not increase rpm as
long as you don't disturb the TPI voltage.
> (c) Because of the very small amount (mass) of air entering,
> at idle a big 2 stroke requires very small amounts of fuel per injection,
> to maintain mixture at about 14:1 which is now a must under the new rules,
> so the loop shutoff valve is only "closed" for a very short time. This
> means the injector only sees a very few pressure peak oscillations &
> therefore I question when idling if the fuel can be properly "atomised" at
> the low pressures being used.
Again you are showing your lack of knowlege about the FICHT. There are no
oscillations, just one plunger "push" per power stroke. Actually it runs
leaner than 14:1 at below 15% throttle.
> (d) The ECU absolutely controls the amount (mass) of fuel being
> injected so that is no problem, the question is, is it properly atomised,
> such that a spark will ignite it? On the evidence so far it seems the
> answer is; when it's new yes, but after some use in a harsh dirty
> combustion chamber, only maybe.
Our customers 500+ hour engines are still running fine.
>...the higher general fuel pressures & the direction of the fuel at the
> spark plug in a closed very small combustion chamber (at TDC). I have
> commented before not unlike a diesel pre-combustion chamber.
So in other words, you have never seen a late model FICHT cylinder head.
Bill Grannis
service manager
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
K Smith
>
>>Karen Smith wrote:
>> (a) A solenoid or other driven piston, circulates fuel at
>> reasonable pressure & high velocity in a loop which also has the piston
>> itself, a fuel injector & a loop shutoff valve in it.
>> (b) When the loop shutoff valve is suddenly (electronically)
>> closed the fuel at high velocity has nowhere to go, & a shock wave is set
>> up, which oscillates back & forth within the now closed area (trapped under
>> the piston, behind the closed shutoff valve & behind the fuel injector, a
>> bit like jumping on one end of a waterbed, the "wave" oscillates back &
>> forth many times, hitting each end of the bed with force)
>> (c) The injector opens each time one of these oscillating
>> pressure peaks hits it (hence the talk of a multiple "hammer" effect)
>
>
>Karen, If this is how you think the OMC FICHT injector system operates, you
>are mis-informed. You must be reading or listening to obsolete or incorrect
>information and not actually working on or testing these engines. Your
>description is what the original German FICHT system did before OMC took
>that theory and simplified it. OMC developed the solenoid injector which
>activates only 1 time (not multiple times) per cylinder charge. It is simply
>a plunger piston that varies the amount of fuel delivered by the time the
>electromagnetic field (plunger duration) is activated by the ECU. I've
>watched this with a 'scope and a timing lite and it indeed only fires once
>per revolution.
>
Those who have been here a while will know you're an OMC spruiker
with little knowledge or understanding as evidenced by your behaviour over
the spark timing issue about a year ago. You are just another OMC apologist
that will say or do anything to help sales.
This is a NG for interesting discussion, not your brand spruiking,
so you'll understand if I dismiss you for what you are. You've got form.
Oh & thanks for the laugh in your first attempt at the "evinrude
spitting problem thread" spay a can of special OMC engine tuner in it
indeed, your second go wasn't much better, but not as funny.
(i) I deliberately pointed out that my description didn't include the
Ficht improvements. ( " (iii) The system itself, not including the Ficht
refinements, is well known & in a nutshell is;" )
(ii) The pulse you've seen on a scope is the loop stop valve closing &
the piston movement, yes for simplicity as I said I had left out the Ficht
improvements, one of which is they have electronically organised the piston
to coincide with the loop stop valve, but it's still the oscillation
pressure peaks that give multiple opening of the injector with a hammer
effect, to achieve atomisation.
(iii) This is because they've harnessed the equal shock wave that exists
on the downstream side of the loop stop valve, & through valves/drillings
they've routed it to the backside of the piston. (as I did say; " which has
invented some admittedly clever improvements to the long existing
electronic injection technology" ) This has given the piston considerable
"free" assistance, saved considerable power & size in the injector, but
still again it's the shock wave that provides the hammer effect.
(iv) Try to stay calm Bill because I know your whole being is dependent
upon your life achievement of becoming an OMC tech., but you just wouldn't
know, nor would OMC have any reason to tell you. It seems only a year ago
you didn't realise that carbed OMC engines were settled to idle by
retarding the spark way past the pickup point, because it wasn't in the
manual & OMC never mentioned it. Not only didn't you know, you had the
temerity to abuse me when it came up in conversation, I'm guessing you do
know now, but being what you are you've never said so. (Don't embarrass
yourself or Skipper might pull them out of Deju news.)
(v) You'll just need to accept Bill that electrically accelerating the
mass of the piston with a column of fuel from a standing start on each
stroke, in the time spans needed for a 6000rpm 2 stroke (100hz) is not how
it's done. The solenoid/injector would be really big & need bulk power,
diesels need a crank driven pump of some kind to achieve same. Indeed it
was in the search for electronic diesel injection that the oscillation
tube, loop stop valve system was invented in the 70s.
(vi) OMC have given you an explanation which explains it sufficiently to
a tech. to allow you to change the injectors, they certainly don't want you
touching them, but I'm more interested in the underlying problem of getting
sufficient atomisation at low idle & need to refer to what actually opens
the injector.
(vii) Were you correct, which I say you're not, then OMC are in really
big trouble, because trying to achieve injection & then control it's
quantity by electronically driving/varying a piston like a diesel injector
pump has been tried since the 50s & doesn't work. In OMC's case it would be
fatal because to solve the atomisation at idle problem, which you've got
whether you recognise it yet or not, you'll need to redesign the whole
thing, very bad news indeed.
(viii) The electronic diesel injector, uses an electronic release valve
(in place of the scroll or similar) to control injection quantities but the
power is still engine driven or an oscillation tube/stop valve.
>
>
>> (b) To make a big two stroke (ignition on every stroke) idle
>> slowly requires it to be severely throttle down. i.e. throttles block the
>> access of air & inside the engine
>
>
>That's how almost all gas engines are regulated, by the vacuum formed from
>restricting the amount of air in can "inhale". With the FICHT, you can open
>up the throttle plates at any speed and the engine will not increase rpm as
>long as you don't disturb the TPI voltage.
>
>
>> (c) Because of the very small amount (mass) of air entering,
>> at idle a big 2 stroke requires very small amounts of fuel per injection,
>> to maintain mixture at about 14:1 which is now a must under the new rules,
>> so the loop shutoff valve is only "closed" for a very short time. This
>> means the injector only sees a very few pressure peak oscillations &
>> therefore I question when idling if the fuel can be properly "atomised" at
>> the low pressures being used.
>
>Again you are showing your lack of knowlege about the FICHT. There are no
>oscillations, just one plunger "push" per power stroke. Actually it runs
>leaner than 14:1 at below 15% throttle.
See above, but maybe that's the problem, OMC tries to buck physics
(again) & thats why once a bit old, at idle/start you can't ignite them
without the extreme spark treatment.
It's a fact of life that 14:1 or even near ignites easily, indeed
if you've developed a means by which it doesn't there're significant safety
implications. We can all through our fire extinguishers away. (it's
sarcasm)
>
>
>> (d) The ECU absolutely controls the amount (mass) of fuel being
>> injected so that is no problem, the question is, is it properly atomised,
>> such that a spark will ignite it? On the evidence so far it seems the
>> answer is; when it's new yes, but after some use in a harsh dirty
>> combustion chamber, only maybe.
>
>
>Our customers 500+ hour engines are still running fine.
Well a vague testimonial spruik from an OMC dealer, I guess that
settles it. Lets see $15000 by you say 500hrs = $30/hr cheap really, by OMC
standards.
>
>
>>...the higher general fuel pressures & the direction of the fuel at the
>> spark plug in a closed very small combustion chamber (at TDC). I have
>> commented before not unlike a diesel pre-combustion chamber.
>
>
>So in other words, you have never seen a late model FICHT cylinder head.
>
Your injector is not multi stage & nothing like descibed, maybe it
ought to be?
Regards,
Karen.
hkrause
>
>
> (i) I deliberately pointed out that my description didn't include the
> Ficht improvements. ( " (iii) The system itself, not including the Ficht
> refinements, is well known & in a nutshell is;" )
Ahh, but the original question was which to pick, a modern OMC Ficht or
a carbed version. The OMC's have the "Ficht improvements."
> (iv) Try to stay calm Bill because I know your whole being is dependent
> upon your life achievement of becoming an OMC tech., but you just wouldn't
> know, nor would OMC have any reason to tell you.
You know, I always thought your totally inaccurate figures on the
weights of modern diesel engines was revealing.
>
> (v) You'll just need to accept Bill that electrically accelerating the
> mass of the piston with a column of fuel from a standing start on each
> stroke, in the time spans needed for a 6000rpm 2 stroke (100hz) is not how
> it's done. The solenoid/injector would be really big & need bulk power,
> diesels need a crank driven pump of some kind to achieve same. Indeed it
> was in the search for electronic diesel injection that the oscillation
> tube, loop stop valve system was invented in the 70s.
>
> (vi) OMC have given you an explanation which explains it sufficiently to
> a tech. to allow you to change the injectors, they certainly don't want you
> touching them, but I'm more interested in the underlying problem of getting
> sufficient atomisation at low idle & need to refer to what actually opens
> the injector.
The underlying problem? Are you claiming the engines don't idle or are
you claiming there is something wrong when they idle? Not enough oil in
the mix? What *is* the problem, Ms. Karen?
>
> (vii) Were you correct, which I say you're not, then OMC are in really
> big trouble, because trying to achieve injection & then control it's
> quantity by electronically driving/varying a piston like a diesel injector
> pump has been tried since the 50s & doesn't work. In OMC's case it would be
> fatal because to solve the atomisation at idle problem, which you've got
> whether you recognise it yet or not, you'll need to redesign the whole
> thing, very bad news indeed.
Ahh, so the engines *don't* idle because they have a fatal flaw. So the
ones I see idling along have FICHT fiberglass covers but really are
carbed engines?
>
>
> See above, but maybe that's the problem, OMC tries to buck physics
> (again) & thats why once a bit old, at idle/start you can't ignite them
> without the extreme spark treatment.
Really? Gee, I have a friend with twin 150 hp Fichts. They're on their
third or fourth season, lots and lots of hours. They start immediately,
just like a fuel injected car. I'll have to tell my buddy to bring his
engines in for repair, so that they don't start instantly.
>
> It's a fact of life that 14:1 or even near ignites easily, indeed
> if you've developed a means by which it doesn't there're significant safety
> implications. We can all through our fire extinguishers away. (it's
> sarcasm)
> >
Gee, I'm really impressed you almost know the stoichiometric air/fuel
ratio. What you don't seem to know is that outboard manufacturers who
sell in the U.S. are under a mandate to reduce hydrocarbon emissions by
8-1/3rd per cent a year over nine model years, ending in 2008.
> >
> >Our customers 500+ hour engines are still running fine.
>
> Well a vague testimonial spruik from an OMC dealer, I guess that
> settles it. Lets see $15000 by you say 500hrs = $30/hr cheap really, by OMC
> standards.
Good lord. What he said was that at 500 hours, the engines are still
running fine. Absent engine failure, only an idiot would divide that
number of hours run into the purchase price to determine anything. Most
outboards with decent care run 2,000 hours or more without being
rebuilt.
> >>...the higher general fuel pressures & the direction of the fuel at the
> >> spark plug in a closed very small combustion chamber (at TDC). I have
> >> commented before not unlike a diesel pre-combustion chamber.
> >
> >
> >So in other words, you have never seen a late model FICHT cylinder head.
And here is the crux of Ms. Karen's dissertation. She never has seen a
late model FICHT cylinder head, yet is attemption to provide a
disseration on how she thinks it might work. Tell you the truth, if I
had an OMC that crapped out, and either Bill Grannis, Dave of the North
or Ms. Karen were my possibilities for repairs, Ms. Karen would be the
odd man out.
Al Kubeluis
Your posts have been very in-depth and informative. Thanks.
Your Fan,
Al Kubeluis
hkrause
>
> In article <36df3431...@news.webrider.net.au>,
> drif...@nospamwebrider.net.au (K Smith) wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 04 Mar 1999 17:19:58 -0500, hkrause <hkr...@erols-nospam.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >Perhaps you'd care to describe your engineering and manufacturing
> > >solution to the pollution deadline that faces sellers of two cycle
> > >outboards in the United States. The Ficht and Orbital systems meet those
>
> environmental goals...that they do in other industries...and is encouraged
> by law...we would only be seeing 4 stroke outboards in the future...and no
> DFI 2 strokes...as the 4 strokes are still approx. twice as clean...and
> have been around since at least the early 70s in both outboard and I/O
> form.
>
> Basically the EPA allowed easier standards to not put OMC and Merc out of
> business with their reliance on 2 strokes. The Japanese 4 stroke mfrs
> would have owned the market for outboards, had the laws not been
> ignored...and the regs relaxed.
>
> The solution to meeting the pollution deadline, would have been the use of
> existing 4 stroke outboards for the smaller sizes, and I/Os in the larger
> sizes
Yeah, just what everyone needs...a 1,000 pound 200 hp motor. Sorry, I
prefer a 475 pound 200 hp outboard.
Marcus G Bell
> It seems only a year ago you didn't realise that carbed OMC
> engines were settled to idle by retarding the spark way past the
> pickup point, because it wasn't in the manual & OMC never
> mentioned it.
What I remember is that there is enough travel in the linkage of
an engine on the stand that it is capable of being retarded well
past TDC, and that you broke a nail verifying that. The
nail-breaking is not an important detail, except that you were
particularly irked by it, since you felt that you were forced into
it by the "bullies" making you back up your words.
There remained the question about how much it is retarded in
practice, when actually hooked to a remote control and running.
Were you ever able to check that?
Then of course, there is the question of "so what?" Does it really
matter that spark timing is used to control idle speed? Outboards
have been using spark timing to control speed since as recently as
1909, before they even equipped their carbs with a butterfly. Some
manufacturers' failure to provide a "maximum retard" spec might be
troublesome, because if the service procedure is not followed
properly, timing might be inappropriately used to tame an
otherwise fast-idling motor. That's a service issue, not an
engineering theory issue.
Bill:
> > Actually it runs leaner than 14:1 at below 15% throttle.
Karen:
> It's a fact of life that 14:1 or even near ignites easily,
> indeed if you've developed a means by which it doesn't there're
> significant safety implications. We can all through our fire
> extinguishers away. (it's sarcasm)
This has been discussed several times. It's stratified charge at
idle. To get ignition, you only need 14:1 near the spark plug,
which is accomplished by spraying the gas plume at the plug in a
cylinder full of fresh air. There is much more fresh air in the
whole combustion chamber than there is near the spark plug, such
that the overall mixture can be effectively much leaner than
14:1.
At idle, the FICHT system of stratified charge might not be quite
as controllable as the Orbital system, because the Orbital system
injects air and fuel while the FICHT injects only fuel. And of
course, having a pre-chamber to contain the rich ignition-friendly
mix while the main chamber runs way lean would control the idle
mixture best, for the swirling air in the main chamber wouldn't be
so prone to sweep the plume of gas/air away from the spark
plug.
Now, the following trivia questions bear on the current
discussions of outboard emissions:
- which auto manufacturer was the most famous (in the US at least)
for a stratified charge engine which burned a lean mix in the main
combustion chamber?
- what killed that design in the US marketplace?
- whyizzit that outboards are now using stratified charge, and
would there be any barriers to this newer design being used on
automobiles?
-- -- Marcus. ( be...@mail.med.upenn.edu )
Del Cecchi
http://www.patents.ibm.com
5779454 Combined pressure surge fuel pump and nozzle assembly
5540206 Fuel Injection device for internal combustion engines
The latter (0206) describes something that sounds like what karen described.
The former (9454) from 1996 seems quite different.
I would think that these would be required reading for those interested in the
details of Ficht fuel injection. The site is free to the public as a service of
IBM corporation. It contains the entire text and figures of patents going back
quite a ways. They are viewable or can be downloaded or faxed.
Hardcore techies can amuse themselves for hours at this site. :-)
--
Del Cecchi
cecchi@rchland
Del Cecchi
be...@mail.med.upenn.edu (Marcus G Bell) writes:
snip
|>
|>
|> Now, the following trivia questions bear on the current
|> discussions of outboard emissions:
|>
|> - which auto manufacturer was the most famous (in the US at least)
|> for a stratified charge engine which burned a lean mix in the main
|> combustion chamber?
|>
|> - what killed that design in the US marketplace?
|>
|> - whyizzit that outboards are now using stratified charge, and
|> would there be any barriers to this newer design being used on
|> automobiles?
|>
|> -- -- Marcus. ( be...@mail.med.upenn.edu )
I say Honda, CVCC, met emission standards without catalytic converter
Did away with by standards on NOx (oxide of nitrogen) as well as unburned
hydrocarbons.
did I win? what is my prize?
--
Del Cecchi
cecchi@rchland
hkrause
Chrysler, Hemi.
Either that or Scot-Atwater.
--
Harry Krause
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Every new generation is a fresh invasion of barbarians.
K Smith
wrote:
>Those of you who want to know more can check out the following US Patents at
>http://www.patents.ibm.com
>
>5779454 Combined pressure surge fuel pump and nozzle assembly
>5540206 Fuel Injection device for internal combustion engines
>
>The latter (0206) describes something that sounds like what karen described.
>The former (9454) from 1996 seems quite different.
Thanks for looking these up Del & the even handed comment, I don't
have them but my understanding is the 1996 OMC improvements are exactly
that, just improvements. When "improvements" say better actuation, valving,
pistons, housings etc are made the descriptions tend to assume & sometimes
even specify that the reader is familiar with the prior art, so OMC might
not actually mention the oscillations, shock wave or pressure surge opening
the injector, because their new stuff has no impact on same.
Again my unchecked; yet, understanding is that the 96 stuff deals
with the "loop" & piston have been combined, the "Loop shutoff valve" is
now a poppet valve, so organised that it is much easier to control it's
closing point (by changing it's stroke), relative to the piston's position
& therefore the injection point/amount. The "downstream" shockwave is now
directly at the back of the piston etc.
There are more incremental improvements in the housings etc.
BUT the basic principle of it being a shock wave, kinetic energy, or
surge pressure (call it what you like), injector remains the same.
i.e. the piston moves regardless of the amount of fuel to be
injected, flowing fuel through an open valve, when this valve suddenly
closes the kinetic energy (momentum, piston ect & piston fuel) in the
system produces a sudden shock wave, pressure rise which oscillates in the
now enclosed space. This is what produces multiple openings of the
injector. (the more vibrations the better the atomisation)
Bill's assertion that the piston from a standing start just injects
fuel, & the amount etc. is ECU controlled by controlling the piston itself
is if correct, a brand new technology, totally removed from Ficht & as I
said cause for even more concern.
Were it correct, as I alluded earlier, OMC will be famous & every
engine mfgr. will want it.
>
>I would think that these would be required reading for those interested in the
>details of Ficht fuel injection. The site is free to the public as a service of
>IBM corporation. It contains the entire text and figures of patents going back
>quite a ways. They are viewable or can be downloaded or faxed.
>
>Hardcore techies can amuse themselves for hours at this site. :-)
>
Thanks I will indeed, but it's a long weekend here now so I need to
do so Boatiiiiiiiing!
I'll check & re-check & get back to you next week.
Karen.
>--
>
>Del Cecchi
>cecchi@rchland
Eisboch
>
>
> - which auto manufacturer was the most famous (in the US at least)
> for a stratified charge engine which burned a lean mix in the main
> combustion chamber?
>
> - what killed that design in the US marketplace?
>
> - whyizzit that outboards are now using stratified charge, and
> would there be any barriers to this newer design being used on
> automobiles?
>
> -- -- Marcus. ( be...@mail.med.upenn.edu )
"Lean" burn was Chrysler.
What killed it? The impending bankrupcy of Chrysler?
Use on outboards? not a clue. Quess? 2 stroke vs 4 stoke?
Eisboch
hkrause
>
> On 5 Mar 1999 20:14:16 GMT, cec...@signa.rchland.ibm.com (Del Cecchi)
> wrote:
>
> >Those of you who want to know more can check out the following US Patents at
> >http://www.patents.ibm.com
> >
> >5779454 Combined pressure surge fuel pump and nozzle assembly
> >5540206 Fuel Injection device for internal combustion engines
> >
> >The latter (0206) describes something that sounds like what karen described.
> >The former (9454) from 1996 seems quite different.
>
> Thanks for looking these up Del & the even handed comment, I don't
> have them but my understanding is the 1996 OMC improvements are exactly
> that, just improvements.
Hell, the automotive electric starter was just an "improvement" over the
hand crank, right?
What was the original engine in that boat of yours, before you
"improved" it with that incredible bracket and diesel outboard? Does the
boat still make hull speed? The boat, by the way, has nice lines. The
engine...does not.
K Smith
>K Smith (drif...@nospamwebrider.net.au) wrote:
>> It seems only a year ago you didn't realise that carbed OMC
>> engines were settled to idle by retarding the spark way past the
>> pickup point, because it wasn't in the manual & OMC never
>> mentioned it.
>
>What I remember is that there is enough travel in the linkage of
>an engine on the stand that it is capable of being retarded well
>past TDC, and that you broke a nail verifying that. The
>nail-breaking is not an important detail, except that you were
>particularly irked by it, since you felt that you were forced into
>it by the "bullies" making you back up your words.
>
>There remained the question about how much it is retarded in
>practice, when actually hooked to a remote control and running.
>Were you ever able to check that?
>
>Then of course, there is the question of "so what?" Does it really
>matter that spark timing is used to control idle speed? Outboards
>have been using spark timing to control speed since as recently as
>1909, before they even equipped their carbs with a butterfly. Some
>manufacturers' failure to provide a "maximum retard" spec might be
>troublesome, because if the service procedure is not followed
>properly, timing might be inappropriately used to tame an
>otherwise fast-idling motor. That's a service issue, not an
>engineering theory issue.
Gee Marcus, your memory is much better than mine, but as I recall
we were discussing the "possible" reasons why so many engines seem to
suffer catastrophic failure, not when up on power but when being powered up
after an extended period trolling.
One of my "suggestions" was that long periods of trolling might
make the piston very hot, whilst the engine cooling system remains cold, &
almost as an aside I mentioned this is caused by the retarded spark timing
needed to get big 2 Strokes to idle/troll slowly.
Whereupon I was attacked by a horde of OMC dealers saying that OMC
engines never fail (a bit like an Amway dealer) & that at idle their
engines didn't have retarded spark timing, they even quoted out of their
manuals, the pickup timing (4-8 deg. BTDC) as evidence, that I didn't know
what I was saying. A battle ensued, I was severely outnumbered & there was
no answer. I did physically check two seperate OMC engines & I forget the
actual results but they both had total timing plate movements (idle to full
throttle) well above 30deg I think one old engine even went up around 48
deg, so given that the engine can't stand more than 30 deg btdc at max. rpm
a simple subtraction got the actual timing at idle, say 48 minus 30 = 18
atdc. The dealers didn't point this out but I'm sure you'll check even some
(only some) of the manuals actually specific adtc timing at the pickup
point.
You know, like anyone who understands these things that most 2
strokes idle with timing well behind the "pickup point" & as we discussed
recently, the older the engine the more it's likely to be adjusted back to
give a slow idle.
The point being that Bill didn't know this, he didn't even go &
simply check, so why should I be shy in what I say to him.
>
>Bill:
>> > Actually it runs leaner than 14:1 at below 15% throttle.
>
>Karen:
>> It's a fact of life that 14:1 or even near ignites easily,
>> indeed if you've developed a means by which it doesn't there're
>> significant safety implications. We can all through our fire
>> extinguishers away. (it's sarcasm)
>
>This has been discussed several times. It's stratified charge at
>idle. To get ignition, you only need 14:1 near the spark plug,
>which is accomplished by spraying the gas plume at the plug in a
>cylinder full of fresh air. There is much more fresh air in the
>whole combustion chamber than there is near the spark plug, such
>that the overall mixture can be effectively much leaner than
>14:1.
>
>At idle, the FICHT system of stratified charge might not be quite
>as controllable as the Orbital system, because the Orbital system
>injects air and fuel while the FICHT injects only fuel. And of
>course, having a pre-chamber to contain the rich ignition-friendly
>mix while the main chamber runs way lean would control the idle
>mixture best, for the swirling air in the main chamber wouldn't be
>so prone to sweep the plume of gas/air away from the spark
>plug.
I totally agree, but why is it so vehemnetly fought by the OMC
dealers, it seems from Bill's last comment about the "new" head design (too
bad all you current owners) that a recognition of the problem has happened
& a fix of sorts introduced. The Yamaha chamber I think is going to be an
actual almost chamber hence my comment, like a diesel pre-combustion
chamber.
>
>Now, the following trivia questions bear on the current
>discussions of outboard emissions:
Me Sir me, pick me.
>
>- which auto manufacturer was the most famous (in the US at least)
>for a stratified charge engine which burned a lean mix in the main
>combustion chamber?
>
Chrysler ?
>- what killed that design in the US marketplace?
Hard starting when the engine got a little old ?
>
>- whyizzit that outboards are now using stratified charge, and
>would there be any barriers to this newer design being used on
>automobiles?
Because to get them to idle slowly they need tiny amounts of
air/fuel, but if you do that the reed valves go funny & therefore if you
can ignite a stratified charge, you can flow more air through it at idle,
but without complete atomisation of fuel throughout the chamber it will be
hit & miss (a pun?) whether it gets ignited or not.
No barrier that I can see.
>
>-- -- Marcus. ( be...@mail.med.upenn.edu )
You know thinking back on all the OMC wars in this NG, I wish to
formally claim I have a thicker skin than even Harry :-)
I'm off boating for a few days, so I'll get my homework marked next
week.
Regards,
Karen.
bill...@orbiter.com
>Karen Smith wrote:
> Those who have been here a while will know you're an OMC spruiker
> with little knowledge or understanding as evidenced by your behaviour over
> the spark timing issue about a year ago. You are just another OMC apologist
> that will say or do anything to help sales.
Sorry to disappoint you but I am service oriented, not a salesperson. Like
other professional techs in this newsgroup such as Dave and Carl, we have the
experience and the training to give correct information and servicing tips to
the people who ask. Those who have been here a while know that. I do have to
give you credit, though, for the entertainment level that you achieve here.
> Oh & thanks for the laugh in your first attempt at the "evinrude
> spitting problem thread" spay a can of special OMC engine tuner in it
> indeed, your second go wasn't much better, but not as funny.
Most people with outboard engine knowlege know that stuck rings from carbon
buildup can cause loss of compression and that the Engine Tuner
carbon cleaning spray may loosen the deposits and give a better idling engine.
That is no different than Yammy recommending "Ring Free" additive or Merc
suggestiing "Power Tune" to help their engines rid themselves from carbon.
> (iv) Try to stay calm Bill because I know your whole being is dependent
> upon your life achievement of becoming an OMC tech., but you just wouldn't
> know, nor would OMC have any reason to tell you. It seems only a year ago
> you didn't realise that carbed OMC engines were settled to idle by
> retarding the spark way past the pickup point, because it wasn't in the
> manual & OMC never mentioned it.
Let's see, if I remember correctly, you measured the geometry of the spark
linkage on some junkyard motors and jumped to the conclusion that they needed
something in the order of 30 degrees retarded timing to idle. When in fact
you never even checked one out with a timing lite. My response was that most
OMCs idled about -4 to -8 degrees as verified by a timing lite. Yammys idle
in the -7 to -9 degree range and Mercs are in that ballpark also, but some
need an electronic timing module to keep a good idle.
> (v) You'll just need to accept Bill that electrically accelerating the
> mass of the piston with a column of fuel from a standing start on each
> stroke, in the time spans needed for a 6000rpm 2 stroke (100hz) is not how
> it's done. The solenoid/injector would be really big & need bulk power,
> diesels need a crank driven pump of some kind to achieve same.
You keep comparing everything to diesels. If that is your specialty, stick to
diesels. The FICHT solenoid injector does move the fuel from a standing
start. Think of it as an electromagnetic choke plunger mated to a hypodermic
syringe with a garden hose sprayer at the tip. When voltage is applied, the
plunger pushes fuel from the syringe into the cylinder thru the sprayer to
atomize it. If you energize it for 1/1000 of a second, it delivers "x" amount
of fuel. If you engergize it for 2/1000 of a second, you get twice as much
fuel. The ECU determines how long to energize it depending on the load, the
rpm, and the temp of the engine. In an outboard it does that up to 110 times
per second, and in the PWC versions, up to 150 times per second. Again, you
must not have checked out how the 24 volt or the 40 volt FICHT injector
operates.
>
> (vii) Were you correct, which I say you're not, then OMC are in really
> big trouble, because trying to achieve injection & then control it's
> quantity by electronically driving/varying a piston like a diesel injector
> pump has been tried since the 50s & doesn't work. In OMC's case it would be
> fatal because to solve the atomisation at idle problem, which you've got
> whether you recognise it yet or not, you'll need to redesign the whole
> thing, very bad news indeed.
Re read my previous response.
>
> It's a fact of life that 14:1 or even near ignites easily, indeed
> if you've developed a means by which it doesn't there're significant safety
> implications. We can all through our fire extinguishers away. (it's
> sarcasm)
Are you not familiar with the Chysler lean burn engine from the '70s that
idled at around 18:1 fuel air mix?
> >Our customers 500+ hour engines are still running fine.
>
> Well a vague testimonial spruik from an OMC dealer, I guess that
> settles it. Lets see $15000 by you say 500hrs = $30/hr cheap really, by OMC
> standards.
Are you bonkers???? The engines are STILL running fine at over 500 hours use
contrary to all your "theory".
It is obvious that you have not run, worked on, looked at, or have any
training in the OMC FICHT outboards.
There is an old joke about the definition of a consultant that I believe
applies to you:
A consultant is someone who can describe in detail 101 ways of making love,
yet doesn't have a girlfriend.
Have a life!
bill...@orbiter.com
>
> - which auto manufacturer was the most famous (in the US at least)
> for a stratified charge engine which burned a lean mix in the main
> combustion chamber?
>
> -- -- Marcus. ( be...@mail.med.upenn.edu )
>
I remember something about a stratified charge engine with a pre-combustion
chamber by Honda and I believe that Ford was playing with one also.
Hydrocarbon emissions were low but NOx was high.
Chrysler had a 'lean burn' engine back then that ran about 18:1 that used a
long spark duration with a large spark advance to "light it off".
morten ringvold
Would be interesting to know which engine it will be after this?
K Smith
>
>You keep comparing everything to diesels. If that is your specialty, stick to
>diesels. The FICHT solenoid injector does move the fuel from a standing
>start. Think of it as an electromagnetic choke plunger mated to a hypodermic
>syringe with a garden hose sprayer at the tip. When voltage is applied, the
>plunger pushes fuel from the syringe into the cylinder thru the sprayer to
>atomize it. If you energize it for 1/1000 of a second, it delivers "x" amount
>of fuel. If you engergize it for 2/1000 of a second, you get twice as much
>fuel. The ECU determines how long to energize it depending on the load, the
>rpm, and the temp of the engine. In an outboard it does that up to 110 times
>per second, and in the PWC versions, up to 150 times per second. Again, you
>must not have checked out how the 24 volt or the 40 volt FICHT injector
>operates.
Sorry Bill it would take an enormous solenoid & a large amount of
power to as you say;
"The FICHT solenoid injector does move the fuel from a standing
>start."
Please have a look at my previous post, but please, please down
load or at least get figure one on the screen first.
If we could get gid of the personal abuse, you know, "the you don't
know anything", "you wouldn't know", "I've been an OMC tech since Noah
therefore I'm right" crap admittedly from both of us, I would be only too
happy to rationally discuss these things. If I'm wrong I'll apologise as
I've done many times in the NG.
You must expect me to respond when you don't deal with the problem
at hand, but attack me personally. I've had lots of this over many years
from mechanics & I'll be surprised, if you can even mildly
intimidate/bother me.
I'm genuinely interested in what is going on in the technology
race. (hey I'm a runner)
>
>
>>
>> (vii) Were you correct, which I say you're not, then OMC are in really
>> big trouble, because trying to achieve injection & then control it's
>> quantity by electronically driving/varying a piston like a diesel injector
>> pump has been tried since the 50s & doesn't work. In OMC's case it would be
>> fatal because to solve the atomisation at idle problem, which you've got
>> whether you recognise it yet or not, you'll need to redesign the whole
>> thing, very bad news indeed.
>
>
>Re read my previous response.
>
>>
>> It's a fact of life that 14:1 or even near ignites easily, indeed
>> if you've developed a means by which it doesn't there're significant safety
>> implications. We can all through our fire extinguishers away. (it's
>> sarcasm)
>
>
>Are you not familiar with the Chysler lean burn engine from the '70s that
>idled at around 18:1 fuel air mix?
Well I am & that's why I nominated it for Marcus's quizz.
In future years I'll probably be nominating the late 90s OMCs who
tried to do the same thing, probably with the same result.
It's simple Bill, you need to flow a fair amount of air through the
engine or you get unstable idle etc. because the reed valves get unstable &
there's transfer port backflow in a very high vacuum, so it appears that's
what you've done, but this of course speeds the idle up way too high. So
you tell the ECU to give it just enough fuel to maintain a certain rpm
idle, which it exactly does. The problem is though that it's now very lean
& hard to ignite.
I agree it shouldn't be, because other engines have been run this
lean & get consistent ignition so why aren't you ?
OMC have upgraded the spark but that is not the real problem & only
a stop gap fix. (nearly a pun?)
You can't richen it up a bit because it will speed up & you can't
control that with spark retard like in the carb engines because it will get
EPA dirty.
In my not so humble opinion, the real problem is reliable
atomisation of such a small amount of fuel. i.e. the injector probably only
opens once or twice at idle so you just get a drip instead of a vibration
caused spray.
>
>
>
>> >Our customers 500+ hour engines are still running fine.
>>
>> Well a vague testimonial spruik from an OMC dealer, I guess that
>> settles it. Lets see $15000 by you say 500hrs = $30/hr cheap really, by OMC
>> standards.
>
>
>Are you bonkers???? The engines are STILL running fine at over 500 hours use
>contrary to all your "theory".
Bill you miss the point, at $15,000 a pop it only takes a few
engines to be troublesome, not even a minority & nothing like it, to be a
real problem.
One bad $15,000 engine when other competing brands are not giving
trouble, will destroy your reputation outright & if you're the owner who
just lost $15,000 you'll be the loudest.
Around here you can't sell OMC to pro fisherman because of the bad
taste left by the early VRO. They know you've increased the oil back to
50:1 & put new alarms etc, they know that by disconnecting & putting oil in
the fuel tank all will be well, & there's no denying the carbed OMCs are
cheap. They only have to have lost one expensive motor or know a bloke or
even have heard of a bloke who has & they won't touch them.
Karen.
K Smith
If you disagree with what I say, absolutely please say so; but why
abuse me & say I have no understanding of the technology. It's my business
to understand the new technology, not just magazine read about it, but
truly understand it.
I'm not into the spruiking thing like you OMC techs are, but just
so you know, I own a Co. that employs engineers, that with mechanics &
others such that in our own workshop they design, machine & construct
outboards from the tooling that goes to the foundry up to the paint, not
just replace parts or tune them up. Now I personally don't get too dirty &
I must say I don't always agree with my people, but I do take a big
technical interest & can tell you I have as good an understanding of these
things as the inventor (not me but I do have a development licence from
her), the designers & the maker/assemblers, so if we're into boasting,
that's mine.
So next time you've built a 65-80 HP diesel outboard from the
ground up then have it tested & running for hundreds of actual "at sea"
hours get back to me, but you better hurry because the first petrol GM 4
stroke 200HP V6 is nearly ready & if it performs as expected you'll be
behind again. I just wish Del's Honda V6s weren't so expensive, because
he's exactly right they're light, powerful, burn clean & reliable.
You should have taken Dels's advice & looked up the US patent
numbers 5540206 & 5779454 he kindly gave, because I have some pleasure in
telling you you're plain wrong (again). It looks like OMC are telling
porkies to the techs about how it actually works, just like their "story"
about "discovering" the tech at a Germ. trade show. It's a measure of
OMC's opinion of your capabilities, (probably correct I say) that they
don't even try to explain it to "techs" like you.
The way I explained it was:
" (iii) The system itself, not including the Ficht refinements, is well
known & in a nutshell is;
(a) A solenoid or other driven piston, circulates fuel at
reasonable pressure & high velocity in a loop which also has the piston
itself, a fuel injector & a loop shutoff valve in it.
(b) When the loop shutoff valve is suddenly (electronically)
closed the fuel at high velocity has nowhere to go, & a shock wave is set
up, which oscillates back & forth within the now closed area (trapped under
the piston, behind the closed shutoff valve & behind the fuel injector, a
bit like jumping on one end of a waterbed, the "wave" oscillates back &
forth many times, hitting each end of the bed with force)
(c) The injector opens each time one of these oscillating
pressure peaks hits it (hence the talk of a multiple "hammer" effect)
(d) The injector is directly placed in the combustion chamber.
(hence Direct Fuel Injection DFI)"
& Bill's answer was;
Karen, If this is how you think the OMC FICHT injector system operates, you
are mis-informed. You must be reading or listening to obsolete or incorrect
information and not actually working on or testing these engines. Your
description is what the original German FICHT system did before OMC took
that theory and simplified it. OMC developed the solenoid injector which
activates only 1 time (not multiple times) per cylinder charge. It is
simply
a plunger piston that varies the amount of fuel delivered by the time the
electromagnetic field (plunger duration) is activated by the ECU. I've
watched this with a 'scope and a timing lite and it indeed only fires once
per revolution.
What follows is long & boring, probably well beyond your
capabilities, but Del agreed my "in a nutshell" discription was consistent
with 5540206 but he wasn't so sure about 5779454 & was obviously having
trouble deciphering what is a very long patent with many claims, so I'll
simplify.
(i) Download 57794545 as detailed by Del or at least get it on the
screen. Ficht calls it a "Combined pressure surge pump & nozzle assembly"
(NB it's a "pressure surge" pump)
(ii) Go to "fig 1" it is basically a side on drawing of the newest OMC
injector. It's full of numbers & looks confusing but it's not. What follows
will make easy sense (not to Bill I suspect) if the drg is in front of you.
(iii) Basically what happens is;
(a) a solenoid is energised (311 top left of drg.)
(b) In the middle there is an armature (221 middle below 311)(I
called this "the piston") which has a hollow rod fixed through the middle
of it (203 middle below 221) which moves to the right in response to the
solenoid.
(c) There is no resistance to the armature/hollow rod's
movement, because fuel just flows up the hollow centre (I called this "the
loop") & out the top & then out of the injector (195 bottom left) The
Armature/hollow rod gain momentum (kinetic energy) & accelerate away to the
right.
(d) After the armature/rod have travelled a specific distance,
the further the more momentum, (353 bottom right) the hollow rod impacts
with the ball valve (251 ball in middle of drg) & instantly blocks the
hollow centre of the rod (203) off so, the fuel can no longer just go up
"the loop", because the valve (251) has abruptly stopped it (I called this
the "loop shutoff valve")
(e) Because of the momentum of the armature/rod (221,203) the
pressure in the now sealed high pressure chamber (115 just up & right of
the ball valve #251) sky rockets, OMC call this a "pressure surge", because
you can't compress a liquid (well alright nearly can't, for Marcus;-)) (I
called this a "pressure shock wave")
(f) The peak of this "pressure surge" is enough to open
the fuel injector valve(s) (271 to the right of 115 & 15 middle far right).
(g) The solenoid driven armature doesn't have anywhere near
enough power to create enough pressure to open the injector valve(s) on
it's own as Bill described but can by using kinetic/surge energy.
(h) As soon as the injector valve(s) opens there is an instant
pressure drop (again you can't compress a liquid) so the valve(s) close,
until the next pressure surge from the armature/rod's momentum re-opens it
& so on until the solenoid is turned off. All the solenoid driven
armature/rod does, now along with stop valve (251) is follow the fuel down
as each pressure surge opens the injector valve(s). Again much the same as
a diesel injector doesn't just "open" but opens & closes at a high
frequency such that it seems to vibrate, this is what atomises the fuel.
(j) If you have any doubts go to the section of the description
headed "Description of the Preferred Embodiment" then in about 1/3 the way
(say 5 pages) you'll find a paragraph that starts with the words
"In this last regard, it is also noted that the low pressure
etc............." & ends with the words
"...........and pushing additional fuel out of the high pressure
fuel chamber 115 through the valve 271."
In this description OMC describe whats happens as "analogous to a "water
hammer" effect.
(iv) So in closing, I say all OMC have done in their very latest (1998)
embodiment of this old & well known technology is re-organise the valves,
eliminating one solenoid that drove the "loop shutoff valve", combine the
armature with the hollow rod thereby combining the seperate plumbing of
"the loop" with "the piston" & make the whole thing cheaper to
manufacture, all good stuff of course I agree, but hardly the breakthrough
Bill has been spruiked at the tech training. Sounds alot like the VRO
spruik doesn't it? Scary bananas !
(v) In passing, I would also note that they appear to have abandoned
trying to capture the downstream surge, that exists in the hollow rod when
the stop valve suddenly closes it, which is a shame because I saw that as
the major advance that Ficht had achieved before OMC arrived.
(vi) Whilst you're at it have a look at US5562428 which is in the name
of OMC themselves, why not Ficht ?. It seems OMC were/are? ginning around
with poppet valves instead of ball valves. Many patent applications, in
different names, trying to patent inconsequential layout/manufacturing
"improvements" on a long/well known technology, in my opinion that's
evidence of a technology in it's real infancy & certainly not something
that should be on the consumer market yet, unless OMC are using the market
as a test bed;.... again.
(vii) Previously I've said as yet I had no real "opinion" about the new
DFIs, well that's changed, if a 1998 patent is on the consumer market
already, in my "opinion" that's much too soon, so stay well away from it.
(viii) To the original poster, at 115 HP get neither, buy any of the 4
strokes, because the carbed OMC has VRO which literally sucks & that's it's
problem, & the ficht is nowhere near ready for consumers.
Best Regards,
Karen.
Del Cecchi
with 5540206 but he wasn't so sure about 5779454 & was obviously having
trouble deciphering what is a very long patent with many claims, so I'll
simplify."
You guys leave me out of this. I provided some patent numbers, one of which
seems to be like Karen described. Others not. Read them yourself everyone. IBM
provides a nice server so you all can curl up in front of the fire with a frosty
mug and some 20 page patents with about 75 claims describing every possible way
to do something.
Note that nothing in a patent tells how the hardware someone is selling actually
works. For example FICHT has a whole raft of patents. The trick is to figure
out which method they are actually using. There is the inertial oscillations,
the rod in the chamber, and a bunch more.
I have no knowledge of how a Ficht injector actually works so LEAVE ME OUT OF
THIS.
thanks
--
Del Cecchi
cecchi@rchland
hkrause
>
> Karen said:"Del agreed my "in a nutshell" discription was consistent
> with 5540206 but he wasn't so sure about 5779454 & was obviously having
> trouble deciphering what is a very long patent with many claims, so I'll
> simplify."
>
> seems to be like Karen described. Others not. Read them yourself everyone. IBM
> provides a nice server so you all can curl up in front of the fire with a frosty
> mug and some 20 page patents with about 75 claims describing every possible way
> to do something.
>
> Note that nothing in a patent tells how the hardware someone is selling actually
> works. For example FICHT has a whole raft of patents. The trick is to figure
> out which method they are actually using. There is the inertial oscillations,
> the rod in the chamber, and a bunch more.
>
> I have no knowledge of how a Ficht injector actually works so LEAVE ME OUT OF
> THIS.
>
> thanks
> --
>
> Del Cecchi
> cecchi@rchland
Gee. I know *precisely* how the Optimax system works. I don't think Ms.
Karen has ever seen the inside of a Ficht outboard.
--
Harry Krause
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Anytime the "Religious Right" loses, Americans win.
Marcus G Bell
> Gee. I know *precisely* how the Optimax system works.
Me too. It works pretty good, don't it?
hkrause
Yeah. Isn't it amazing? *Despite* what Ms. Testosterone says, the damned
thing starts right up all the time, idles smoothly, burns little gas and
just sips at the TC-W3, doesn't smoke and maintains your RPM settings.
Of course, I could trade it in and obtain a duplicate of that horrendous
looking "outboard diesel" on the back of Ms. Testosterone's boat, but...
1. It looks as if it weighs too much
2. It looks horrible
3. It probably is noisy
4. It probably smokes badly
5. No mechanic will want to work on it
6. It's not enough power for even our little boat
7. Hard to tell from the photo, but it looks as if it is rusting away
There's probably a great market for these diesel outboards. But not on
this planet.
--
Harry Krause
- - - - - - - - - - - -
[A]bort, [R]etry, [P]retend this never happened...
Dale P.......
Keep it up....... Everytime you folks get into a pissing contest I learn
more about my outboard........
Dale P...........
Yes there really is water in Nevada...........
morten ringvold
I would like to know what you mean bu saying that the
OMC techs on this board are up to :"spruiking things".
How many people are running around in this world happy
with their OMC`s?
How many are running around with your product?
You sometimes reminds me of a guy living in spain some
time ago.
I think his name was Don Qui.... someting?
hkrause
>
> K Smith:
>
> I would like to know what you mean bu saying that the
> OMC techs on this board are up to :"spruiking things".
>
> How many people are running around in this world happy
> with their OMC`s?
>
> How many are running around with your product?
>
> You sometimes reminds me of a guy living in spain some
> time ago.
> I think his name was Don Qui.... someting?
>
>
Karen has a product she is selling? What, pray tell, is it?
--
Harry Krause
- - - - - - - - - - - -
I'd like to help you out. Which way did you come in?
Paul Kamen
position on this issue, and the only rebuttals are personal insults. Even
to the point of trashing her product. Not a peep from anyone who can find
fault with her analysis, except to say that the patents are too
complicated for them to make head or tail out of.
Far as I'm concerned, anyone involved in the technical aspects of
designing marine engines is more than likely to be a notch or two above
the people who fix them when it comes to understanding the science and
engineering that makes them tick. So far, in this thread at lest, Karen
had demonstrated that to be the case.
Not that it isn't possible that she's wrong. But she at least has the
tools to argue the issues, and I don't see much of that coming from
anywhere else.
--
fish...@netcom.com
http://www.well.com/~pk/fishmeal.html
-"Call me Fishmeal"-
Del Cecchi
It would be really interesting if someone had actually taken apart an
actual hardware omc injector to see which of the patents had been
actually implemented in the hardware. Speculation can be fun. Hardware
tells the story. I guess there are no junk injectors laying around,
with all the motors still under warranty. OMC make you guys send them
back or have you not had to replace any?
del cecchi
Phoenix
I know nothing about any of this thread, it is totally over my head, but I
have noticed that Karen regularly disagrees with all of the mechanics who
service and work on these engines. She references problems that these
professionals have never seen, or makes recommendations to fix problems that
are contrary to the way the professionals would fix them. She might be very
intelligent, but if I needed something repaired, I would go to the pro's and
not Karen. I have seen this problem with engineers many times, where they
allow theory to get in the way of the real world.
--
--
Jim
I'll get to it on the 2nd Tuesday of next week.
Paul Kamen wrote in message ...
hkrause
>
> This is amazing. Karen provides the detailed technical basis for her
> position on this issue, and the only rebuttals are personal insults. Even
> to the point of trashing her product. Not a peep from anyone who can find
> fault with her analysis, except to say that the patents are too
> complicated for them to make head or tail out of.
Her "detailed technical basis," so far as I can tell, has nothing to do
with any training on the engines in question. In fact, I don't believe
she has even seen a Ficht outboard.
> Far as I'm concerned, anyone involved in the technical aspects of
> designing marine engines is more than likely to be a notch or two above
> the people who fix them when it comes to understanding the science and
> engineering that makes them tick. So far, in this thread at lest, Karen
> had demonstrated that to be the case.
I must have missed something. What engines has she designed? And if your
premise were true, why would professional stock car racers hire top
mechanics instead of engine designers as pit crews? You think the pro
engine mechanics don't know what they are modifying or fixing?
Paul Kamen
Phoenix <jga...@mindspring.comDeleteThis> writes:
>...if I needed something repaired, I would go to the pro's and
>not Karen. I have seen this problem with engineers many times,
>where they allow theory to get in the way of the real world.
Me too. But I don't think the issue being debated here is how to fix an
OMC outboard. The issue is the underlying engineering behind the injector
design.
morten ringvold
At least one in this group repairing theese engines
even has a past of designing engines!
What you put on paper is not allways what you may
experience in the real life and testing.
No matter how theoreticly educated and skilled you
are, the practical results usually wins!
If someone claims out of theory that things does not
work and others from practical experience says it
does, who would you belive?
My FICHT works, I have taken several injectors apart
during training-sessions, not out of necessity. What
patent they are using is to me of litle interest, it
works in practice!
Paul Kamen
>At least one in this group repairing these engines
>even has a past of designing engines!
Who? And in what capacity was the design work performed? Engineer,
mechanic, machinist?
>What you put on paper is not allways what you may
>experience in the real life and testing.
>
>No matter how theoreticly educated and skilled you
>are, the practical results usually wins!
>
>If someone claims out of theory that things does not
>work and others from practical experience says it
>does, who would you belive?
I would believe the person who says the device works, of course, but I
would not look to them for an explanation of the theory.
>My FICHT works, I have taken several injectors apart
>during training-sessions, not out of necessity. What
>patent they are using is to me of litle interest, it
>works in practice!
If you are familiar with the innards of a FICHT injector, it shouldn't be
too difficult for you and Karen to hash out what's going on inside, if you
can both keep your heads cool. As I've noted, Karen might well be wrong.
I only started lurking in this thread because her posts were extremely
informative, whether or not they apply directly to this particular motor.
hkrause
>
> mrc...@online.no (morten ringvold) writes:
>
>
> >My FICHT works, I have taken several injectors apart
> >during training-sessions, not out of necessity. What
> >patent they are using is to me of litle interest, it
> >works in practice!
>
> If you are familiar with the innards of a FICHT injector, it shouldn't be
> too difficult for you and Karen to hash out what's going on inside, if you
> can both keep your heads cool. As I've noted, Karen might well be wrong.
> I only started lurking in this thread because her posts were extremely
> informative, whether or not they apply directly to this particular motor.
>
> --
> fish...@netcom.com
> http://www.well.com/~pk/fishmeal.html
>
> -"Call me Fishmeal"-
Maybe I missed it, but I don't recall a single post in which Ms. Karen
stated she was familiar with the innards of a FICHT or Orbital outboard,
familiar meaning she has taken one apart, examined the pieces and parts
and put it back together. Ergo, while she might (and I emphasize might)
have some modest familiarity with the theories behind these outboard
motor direct injection systems, she has no specific knowledge of how the
theories were applied and adapted. I know how the booster rockets on the
space shuttle work because I've read some of the literature. But I've
never seen them up close, so I don't know how they *really* work.
In both Ficht and Orbital outboards, any number of "changes" and
engineering improvements were made to engine components outside of the
fuel/air delivery system. You'd have to have the factory manuals and
some hands-on to recognize these and understand what is happening.
--
Harry Krause
- - - - - - - - - - - -
MODEM: Modus Operandi Device for Evil Minds
Paul Kamen
>Maybe I missed it, but I don't recall a single post in which Ms.
>Karen stated she was familiar with the innards of a FICHT or
>Orbital outboard, familiar meaning she has taken one apart,
>examined the pieces and parts and put it back together...
I agree, there's no indication that she's done this. But she has a vailid
point about the atomization engergy, and a rational discussion with
someone who does have the hands-on experience ought to be able to sort it
out.
K Smith
wrote:
>K Smith:
>
>I would like to know what you mean bu saying that the
>OMC techs on this board are up to :"spruiking things".
Spruik = "to harangue prospective customers". (dictionary)
Here it was a description of the touters outside strip clubs,
trying to get a passer-by to enter. One step up from a pimp.
Now regularly used to descibe anyone who's claims are more fluff
than fact.
In the OMC case, the so called tech training, is more like to "rah
rah the team up" to totally, unquestioningly support & believe in the
product, because in outboards, the tech is usually the seller or at least
part of the sales team. There is clearly no real what I'd call technical
training, just how to turn a particular screw or replace a particular part,
or most likely accept so you can re-tell a fairytale, about how it's the
customers fault that an engine that cost as much as a small car has failed.
Karen.
>
>How many people are running around in this world happy
>with their OMC`s?
>
>How many are running around with your product?
>
>You sometimes reminds me of a guy living in spain some
>time ago.
>I think his name was Don Qui.... someting?
>
>
>
K Smith
<jga...@mindspring.comDeleteThis> wrote:
>Paul,
>I know nothing about any of this thread, it is totally over my head, but I
>have noticed that Karen regularly disagrees with all of the mechanics who
>service and work on these engines. She references problems that these
>professionals have never seen, or makes recommendations to fix problems that
>are contrary to the way the professionals would fix them. She might be very
>intelligent, but if I needed something repaired, I would go to the pro's and
>not Karen. I have seen this problem with engineers many times, where they
>allow theory to get in the way of the real world.
>--
I agree Jim?, but the truth is you're probably not going to take
your engine to anyone from this group.
When someone posts a problem I think it's good if the dealer techs
post their views but why should that be to the exclusion of an explanation
of what is really happening. You mightn't want to know but others might,
further if I'm wrong I welcome a civil discussion on the subject indeed
that's what I'm looking for.
In the recent "evinrude spitting" thread I did so & suddenly people
who had obviously been dealing with this problem in old motors started
saying "hey, that's right" so it helped some.
The dealers answer was to through money at it or in Bill's case
"special" OMC engine tuner. (love it!).
I bet if you want to know the weight of your empty trailer now,
you'll be grabbing the bathroom scales, despite the Hey Hey Hey at the
time.
Karen.
>--
>Jim
>
>I'll get to it on the 2nd Tuesday of next week.
>
>Paul Kamen wrote in message ...
>|This is amazing. Karen provides the detailed technical basis for her
>|position on this issue, and the only rebuttals are personal insults. Even
>|to the point of trashing her product. Not a peep from anyone who can find
>|fault with her analysis, except to say that the patents are too
>|complicated for them to make head or tail out of.
>|
>|Far as I'm concerned, anyone involved in the technical aspects of
>|designing marine engines is more than likely to be a notch or two above
>|the people who fix them when it comes to understanding the science and
>|engineering that makes them tick. So far, in this thread at lest, Karen
>|had demonstrated that to be the case.
>|
>|Not that it isn't possible that she's wrong. But she at least has the
>|tools to argue the issues, and I don't see much of that coming from
>|anywhere else.
>|
K Smith
Paul,
Thanks I genuinely appreciate the help, you're brave !
This "it's a lack of atomisation thing" should have been an
interesting discussion particularly for the people about to spend 10s of
thousands on a new DFI motor, but the OMC team don't even know how their
own engines operate, so go to ground.
I would point out that you & I have had some robust discussions
over a long time & most have involved some "disagreement" I recall;
(i) The roll period GM discussion,
(ii) The lofting discussion,
(iii) The planing thing &
(iv) Recently the raked prop blades,
On each & every occassion we've had different points of view but
even so, it has never degenerated into a name calling thing, even when each
strongly thought the other was clearly wrong.
The OMC team seem incapable of reasoned discussion, I say because
thay lack the knowledge, so resort to abuse.
Best Regards,
Karen.
hkrause
>
> On Mon, 08 Mar 1999 19:42:50 -0500, hkrause <hkr...@erols-nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >I must have missed something. What engines has she designed? And if your
> >premise were true, why would professional stock car racers hire top
> >mechanics instead of engine designers as pit crews? You think the pro
> >engine mechanics don't know what they are modifying or fixing?
>
>
>
> Have you sent that pic yet ?
>
> Look at mine you'll see that literally everything is new & purpose
> designed/built. Are you clinging rather pathetically to the fact that we
> use a Totota diesel as the core, so what Brunswick use GM in their I/O.
> Honda use mostly auto engines in their OBs.
I've looked at the photos you supplied to Eisboch. What I see is a 30'
or so cabin cruiser that to me looks as if at one time it had
interesting lines, but was visually destroyed by add-ons astern of the
doghouse. Oh...and a really, truly ugly looking boxy outboard motor of
some sort on the stern, attached to a bracket that looks as if it is
rusting apart.
So, what you did was adopt an existing Toyota diesel to an
outboard-style lower unit and you're propelling that 30' boat with 70
hp? I'm sorry, but I'm not impressed.
> I only brought up my achievements, because it seemed the OMC crew
> Bill in particular, think if they say they've done the "XV357 spaaaace
> modulator" OMC tech. course then their "opinion" is more valid than mine. I
> wasn't boasting or spruiking, but if you see it like that then again ;
What achievements? I guess I missed your list.
And please advise how many Ficht or Optimax outboards you have worked on
personally, or how many OMC or Merc service schools you have attended.
Del Cecchi
[snip]
>
> The OMC team seem incapable of reasoned discussion, I say because
> thay lack the knowledge, so resort to abuse.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Karen.
>
Well I suppose this will get me on the s*** list as a stooge or worse,
but I think this was a gratuitous slam and was totally uncalled for. I
figure you were attacked by a VRO system and got bent out of shape by
OMC and what you see as their malfeasence in handling the problem. I
feel sort of the same way about GM after my Impala with the chevy 2
transmission cost me a big chunk of money.
But that was a pretty long time ago and the techs who post here didn't
have anything to do with it. And abusing them won't change a thing at
OMC. And I don't fault them for giving advice which in their experience
and training works.
I am really interested in understanding how the different DFI systems
work as I might well be interested in upgrading to one in a few years.
As for electromechanical tricks, ever see a 2000 line per minute train
printer work? The letters pass by the position on the line and are
struck by a hammer to make an impression on the page. at 30
lines/second or 3 Milliseconds/line and 50 characters/set (upper case
only) that is 60 microseconds to drive the hammer, and hit it hard
enough to make 5 copies. At 6000 RPM that is 10 ms/rev so a few degrees
of crankshaft rotation is also 60 microseconds.
I hope I did the arithmetic correctly, but that would say that just
pushing the fuel out would be feasable, from a electromechanical point
of view. I hope this was of interest to the participants in the
discussion.
del cecchi
morten ringvold
I`ve done lot of things concerning boats and engines
in my past, even as a designer by Volvo Penta
Outboards resposible for "engines for special use".
That included design (drawing!) testing, documentation
and whatever needed in thecnical manner concerning
modification of the 450-engine sold to quite a number
of the European armed forces and other officials back
in the late 70`s.As they closed down the factory in
Upsala, Sweden I mooved to Gothenburg and continued
with among other things testing of the duo-prop drives
years before you got them on the market!
The duo-prop system itself was no newbe, was used
allready in ww1 on torpedoes.
I can for certain tell you that what got out of the
computers in no way was what happened at sea quite a
number of times!
For me past history but a very good experience to
carry on.
My pasion so to say are to make engines run that other
dealers have given up! If at least one of a series
runs there should be no reason why the others run!
I`m not going to claim that there have been no
problems with the Fichs. Mine broke down last year
afte some 3 hours but that was due to a machining
fault in the seat of the vapour valve and had nothing
to do with the Ficht system itself or the special
Ficht components.
What has caused the main problem in general seems
actually to be human -read installation.
Due to the emision demands all tolerances have been
reduced close to nothing. Take any car with a shift-
stick- block it in 5th gear and see what happends with
the engine after one week in the LA traffic jam!
Dont blame just the injectors/carbadjustment or
whatever if your sparks fouls out!
If you are so eager to find out the inside of the
injectors, or for that sake anyone who wants to know
how it works: Buy one! Take it apart, have fun, test
it! Cheap cost for a lot of learning.
Dave Brown
> This is amazing. Karen provides the detailed technical basis for her
> position on this issue, and the only rebuttals are personal insults. Even
> to the point of trashing her product. Not a peep from anyone who can find
> fault with her analysis, except to say that the patents are too
> complicated for them to make head or tail out of.
Paul, I'm staying out of these threads for a good reason -- I can't stand the
hypocracy any more. I have seen just as many personal attacks by Karen, and
more recently I'm insulted by her comments about male tostesterone getting in
the way of some peoples judgement. Just imagine if someone had made a similar
comments about her gender. The reality is, there's one very big pot calling a
lot of kettles black in here and I'll stay on the sidelines until I can
switch out of my hip waders back into regular rubber boots where it involves
Karen thankyoumuch.
--
Regards,
Dave Brown
Brown's Marina
Ontario, Canada
http://www.brownsmarina.on.ca
Skipper
To be fair, Karen's comment in regard to tostesterone was in retaliation
to a rather insulting comment from one of our more popular contributors
directed squarely at her. Karen has made some rather impressive
contributions to the NG and does not deserve the *continued* abuse
hurled at her by the same individuals. Have you not been involved in
heated discussions of the issues? Few offer the documentation and
detailed justification that she has in support of her positions.
--
Skipper
hkrause
1. It's testosterone, guys. Tostesterone is the artificial hardening
agent Bayliner uses to turn cheesecloth into Fiberglass. Keep your
chemicals straight!
2. I'm still waiting to read an "impressive contribution" from Ms.
Testosterone (aka Karen of Oz) on any subject. What I have seen are some
nit-picking commentaries on Ficht fuel technology she apparently has
never seen, a lot of braggadocio about a homemade diesel outboard she
assembled from a Toyota motor and somebody's gear case, some incredibly
inaccurate and out of date information about the specifications of
diesel engines, a lot of whining about the advice of knowledgeable
engine mechanics who work on actual motors and several attempts at
defamation of character based entirely upon her inability to read for
content or check for details.
Hell, another couple of weeks, she can go work for Ken Starr.
--
Harry Krause
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Bagpipes (n): an octopus wearing a kilt.
Skipper
>> To be fair, Karen's comment in regard to tostesterone was in
>> retaliation to a rather insulting comment from one of our more
>> popular contributors directed squarely at her. Karen has made some
>> rather impressive contributions to the NG and does not deserve the
>> *continued* abuse hurled at her by the same individuals. Have you not
>> been involved in heated discussions of the issues? Few offer the
>> documentation and detailed justification that she has in support of
>> her positions.
> Ta Skip, but you'll just get more aggro from you know who.
> Again thanks,
> Karen.
I wouldn't worry about it. It's in his genes, sort of a tribal thing.
--
Skipper
Dave Brown
> To be fair, Karen's comment in regard to tostesterone was in retaliation
> to a rather insulting comment from one of our more popular contributors
> directed squarely at her.
In my last 'debate' with Karen, I was scolded by her for personal attacks
while she feigned innocence. Quite simply Skipper, the 'who me?' lament is
worthy of the two year hold who's hand is in the cookie jar. I don't accept
that rubbish from my kids and I won't accept it from anyone in this NG.
> Karen has made some rather impressive
> contributions to the NG and does not deserve the *continued* abuse
> hurled at her by the same individuals.
I think Karen has done an admirable job of defending herself, but the fact
that she has chosen to ignore my clear questions in response to a post of
hers again does not sit well with me. I find she takes the parts she feels
she can speak to, but leaves other questions unanswered giving the
appearance to the lurker that she has fully answered the rebuttal -- even
when i pointed this I I did not get the answers I was seeking.
> Have you not been involved in heated discussions of the issues?
Absolutely.
> Few offer the documentation and detailed justification that she has in
> support of her positions.
No question, she's well versed in the theoretical.........
Dave Brown
> Well I guess you're saying you won't enter the discussion because
> of my abuse, absolutely no problem Dave.
No, <sigh> I'm saying I won't enter the discussion because you're a hypocrite. I
thought I made that pretty clear.
> In this thread (only) if you have the bottle to enter it, I promise
> not to respond to abuse, no matter what you say about me personally. A one
> time offer worth taking for this alone.
Save it for the next guy -- I can handle any abuse you throw at me, I just won't
tolerate the feigned innocence.
> I'll restrict any response I make strickly to the technical matters you raise.
And answer each aspect I raise? Your track record is poor with me on that count
and I'm not debating someone who selectively answers only parts of the post.
> I've shown my bona fides as regards this type of undertaking so now
> we should be getting the benefit of your understanding of how ficht works,
> & your opinions on why I'm wrong to hold my "opinion" that it's lack of
> atomisation that is the real cause of ignition problems in the new fichts.
Personally, I freely admit to not understanding the physics of it and don't care
to. What you have to understand is that a mechanic at my level is not an engineer
nor should he/she be -- yet that is the standard you're holding me to and I won't
accept it. I don't care why you feel Ficht doesn't work from an engineering point
of view, I only need to look at every single one of my Fichts running flawlessly
to say you're wrong. Res ipsa loguitur. Reminds me of the wives tale about it
being impossible for a bee to fly -- and yet it does.
> Or are you saying, I'm wrong but it's a secret & you can't tell the
> group why; a bit like the OMC branded TCW 3 oil.
Like I want to debate the 'Larry thread' yet again. <sigh> Fill your boots on
Dejanews.........
K Smith
wrote:
>
>I must have missed something. What engines has she designed? And if your
>premise were true, why would professional stock car racers hire top
>mechanics instead of engine designers as pit crews? You think the pro
>engine mechanics don't know what they are modifying or fixing?
Poor Puppy,
Aren't you the centre of attention in this thread.
Have you sent that pic yet ?
Look at mine you'll see that literally everything is new & purpose
designed/built. Are you clinging rather pathetically to the fact that we
use a Totota diesel as the core, so what Brunswick use GM in their I/O.
Honda use mostly auto engines in their OBs.
OMC buy the complete engine when they need a 4 stroke.
I only brought up my achievements, because it seemed the OMC crew
Bill in particular, think if they say they've done the "XV357 spaaaace
modulator" OMC tech. course then their "opinion" is more valid than mine. I
wasn't boasting or spruiking, but if you see it like that then again ;
I apologise!
Harry is a bit like a yappy pup that runs around the NG barking at
any everything in fear, occassionally you tell it to shut up & smack it's
nose on other occassions you pat it, just to keep it guessing.
Karen
K Smith
wrote:
>Paul Kamen:
>At least one in this group repairing theese engines
>even has a past of designing engines!
>
>What you put on paper is not allways what you may
>experience in the real life and testing.
>
>No matter how theoreticly educated and skilled you
>are, the practical results usually wins!
>
>If someone claims out of theory that things does not
>work and others from practical experience says it
>does, who would you belive?
>
>My FICHT works, I have taken several injectors apart
>during training-sessions, not out of necessity. What
>patent they are using is to me of litle interest, it
>works in practice!
Well; here's your chance to do the OMC team proud Morten, you're
about to be a hero around here (you'll have lots of fans) & please please
absolutely no sexism, don't hold back in any manner, tear me to pieces I
deserve to be shown to be wrong in great detail.
You say you've pulled these things to bits & "know" how they work
so let's go;
(i) Is Bill right & it injects the fuel from a standing start, as he
describes, or am I right it is a surge pressure, or shock wave pump &
therefore I haven't got a clue when I say in my "opinion" the real ignition
problem has nothing to do with the spark, but it's an atomisation problem
that is going to be difficult to solve because, it's the very same problem
that's held the surge pump technology back since the 70s ?
(ii) Have you got the drg in front of you, have you ever really seen how
it works ?
(iii) This isn't meaningless theory you know, it's very important,
because if my "opinion" (& NB it's only my opinion but I say informed), is
right then there is a chance the real problem with the new fichts is a lack
of atomisation at very low injection levels ?
(iv) How do you think the clicking noise is generated in the ficht
injectors ?
(v) Do you agree that all the modifications so far, spark upgrade,
bigger fuel pump, recess in the head etc. etc., are all concentrating on
better ignition at low power/speed settings or are these changes because
OMC are bored ?
(vi) I'll help out here with a cut & paste of ficht's own description
from 5779454 below, I previously only gave the ref. So where is it wrong ?
In this last regard, it is also noted that the low pressure fuel circuit
permits continuous, low pressure
fuel flow through the fuel pump 13 at all times. More specifically, when
the solenoid 311 is not
energized the armature member 225 is held against the stop member 141 by
the spring 241. As a
consequence, inflow of low pressure fuel is initially through the fuel
inflow valve cartridge 261, into
the high pressure fuel chamber 115, through the fuel by-pass passages 137
in the bushing 125 to the
axial bore or fuel passage 205 in the tubular member 203, and then to the
counterbore 165 in the
stop member 141, and thence through the flow passages therein to the blind
bore 183 in the second
housing member 25, and finally, exiting through the return or fuel outflow
passage or conduit 195.
Such fuel flow serves to maintain the high pressure fuel chamber 115 full
of fuel and to provide a
steady stream of low pressure fuel to carry away any heat flowing from the
engine. When the
solenoid 311 is energized, the armature assembly moves rapidly, to the
right in FIG. 1, through the
initial stroke length 353, thereby striking the ball valve member 251 and
sealing off the axial bore or
fuel passage 205 in the tubular member 203 from the high pressure fuel
chamber 115. The impact of
the tubular member 203 on the valve member 251 simultaneously causes a
pressure surge in the high
pressure fuel chamber 115, which pressure surge opens the outflow valve 271
and closes the inflow
valve 261. The pressure surge is analogous to a "water hammer" effect.
Further movement of the
tubular member 203 to the right in FIG. 1, beyond the initial stroke length
353, displaces the valve
member 251 away from the valve stop 135 and into the high pressure fuel
chamber 115, thereby
decreasing the volume of the high pressure fuel chamber 115 and pushing
additional fuel out of the
high pressure fuel chamber 115 through the valve 271.
(vii) Are you well pissed OMC never told you any of this at your hallowed
tech training & worse you heard it publicly from someone you hate & think
is beneath you ?
(viii) Are you seriously thinking that since the 1998 pat. 5779454, OMC
have actually "discovered" a brand new technology, that is not patented, is
still "secret" & is now in production engines for techs to play with ?
(ix) Do you think the internet in general & this NG particularly is the
end of OMC spruiking to techs, because surely even you have enough wit to
go & ask questions now ? Despite the OMC dealer team's abusive efforts to
stifle debate, people can freely exchange their "opinions" now ?
(xi) By the way can I supply you a list of questions I desperately want
answered by OMC ?
(xii) Do you think OMC could have pulled off the VRO oiling scam if we'd
had this NG in the mid 80s ?
Many genuine thanks to Bill for abusing me, it got lazy me thinking
about this again. Again thanks Bill.
Regards,
Karen
K Smith
wrote:
>Paul Kamen wrote:
>
>> This is amazing. Karen provides the detailed technical basis for her
>> position on this issue, and the only rebuttals are personal insults. Even
>> to the point of trashing her product. Not a peep from anyone who can find
>> fault with her analysis, except to say that the patents are too
>> complicated for them to make head or tail out of.
>
>Paul, I'm staying out of these threads for a good reason -- I can't stand the
>hypocracy any more. I have seen just as many personal attacks by Karen, and
>more recently I'm insulted by her comments about male tostesterone getting in
>the way of some peoples judgement. Just imagine if someone had made a similar
>comments about her gender. The reality is, there's one very big pot calling a
>lot of kettles black in here and I'll stay on the sidelines until I can
>switch out of my hip waders back into regular rubber boots where it involves
>Karen thankyoumuch.
Well I guess you're saying you won't enter the discussion because
of my abuse, absolutely no problem Dave.
In this thread (only) if you have the bottle to enter it, I promise
not to respond to abuse, no matter what you say about me personally. A one
time offer worth taking for this alone.
I'll restrict any response I make strickly to the technical matters
you raise.
I've shown my bona fides as regards this type of undertaking so now
we should be getting the benefit of your understanding of how ficht works,
& your opinions on why I'm wrong to hold my "opinion" that it's lack of
atomisation that is the real cause of ignition problems in the new fichts.
Or are you saying, I'm wrong but it's a secret & you can't tell the
group why; a bit like the OMC branded TCW 3 oil.
Regards,
Karen.
K Smith
>K Smith wrote:
>[snip]
>>
>> The OMC team seem incapable of reasoned discussion, I say because
>> thay lack the knowledge, so resort to abuse.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Karen.
>>
>
>Well I suppose this will get me on the s*** list as a stooge or worse,
>but I think this was a gratuitous slam and was totally uncalled for. I
>figure you were attacked by a VRO system and got bent out of shape by
>OMC and what you see as their malfeasence in handling the problem. I
>feel sort of the same way about GM after my Impala with the chevy 2
>transmission cost me a big chunk of money.
>
>But that was a pretty long time ago and the techs who post here didn't
>have anything to do with it. And abusing them won't change a thing at
>OMC. And I don't fault them for giving advice which in their experience
>and training works.
Del,
I & everybody else knows you're on the dealers side, but barracking
on the side lines, won't help progress the technical argument either way.
You know I didn't start this, it was just an aside, that I thought
OMC chasing the problem as a spark thing was a mistake when the OMC dealers
went feral.
I'm under attack here & when the cannon balls a flying I need to
make it clear I'm still standing, (bloodied sure, but still standing) but
equally I have shown I can accept criticism & even ignore outright abuse. I
got through my parole OK.
Regardless I'll tone it down so long as I'm not abused, all I want
is a reasoned discussion, on the facts.
>
>I am really interested in understanding how the different DFI systems
>work as I might well be interested in upgrading to one in a few years.
So; read the patent, you're obviously not stupid & then give an
"opinion" on how it works, after all that was your own suggestion. I've
been through it & simplified it so you don't even need to wade all the way,
but to that too if you want, I have. All we're trying to establish is the
type of pump it is, because the OMC team say it's something totally
different.
I value your opinion if it's on the facts.
>
>As for electromechanical tricks, ever see a 2000 line per minute train
>printer work? The letters pass by the position on the line and are
>struck by a hammer to make an impression on the page. at 30
>lines/second or 3 Milliseconds/line and 50 characters/set (upper case
>only) that is 60 microseconds to drive the hammer, and hit it hard
>enough to make 5 copies. At 6000 RPM that is 10 ms/rev so a few degrees
>of crankshaft rotation is also 60 microseconds.
>
>I hope I did the arithmetic correctly, but that would say that just
>pushing the fuel out would be feasable, from a electromechanical point
>of view. I hope this was of interest to the participants in the
>discussion.
Well yes as you say it is possible, indeed it has been done but
it's one of those diminishing return things;
(i) To finely atomise fuel, you need alot of pressure, at least
hundreds of psi but more often thousands.
(ii) To pressurise fuel (or anything else) uses energy. (even with the
pressure surge pump, I'm not saying you get something for nothing)
(iii) Even a big say 200HP 2 stroke DFI at say 6000 rpm full throttle
injects less than 0.00025 grams of fuel per injection (now I hope mine is
right) & at idle in neutral it's a truly tiny amount that needs to be
reliably atomised per injection. (even more reliably than at high power
settings)
(iv) To solenoid control a piston from a standing start, to get the high
pressure needed & then as well control it's stroke accurately to vary the
delivery amount per injection between idle & WOT is a big ask. (Even engine
driven diesel injection pumps don't try to do that)
(v) It was tried long ago but when the momentum of the piston's
acceleration made it totally impractical, it was found that the very
problem of unwanted momentum could be turned into the solution. Hence the
shock wave/pressure surge pumps
(vi) So the piston is accelerated & then a valve is snapped shut etc.
etc.
(vii) Now if OMC are really trying to get the old solenoid driven piston
thing to work, they're going back about 20 yrs in technology, certainly
it's not published yet which is impossible if the techs say it's already in
production engines.
Where have the original abusers gone? I'm a sitting duck on this I
would have thought we absolutely couldn't stop them from showing me to be
totally wrong. I'd expect a feeding frenzy no less.
All we've had so far is;
(a) precious Dave, the biggest abuser of all when he gets going, he
even posts he won't enter a 30 day truce because he gets his jollies doing
it, saying he knows but won't tell, because big bad Karen doesn't treat
him with the respect he thinks he deserves, then says it's all about
hypocrisy, that's funner than his "check for cooling system leaks with 60
psi of compressed air & put your ear down on the engine to listen for the
leak" a giggle a minute this bloke.
(b) a really sad bleat from Morton that he can start engines no one
else can, but he still hasn't said a single word about how the technology
works, despite claiming to know, if it's a secret it's pretty wide spread &
(c) a deafening silence from the original abuser Bill.
Bill, Oh Billy ! Billy ! come out, come out wherever you are!
Pathetic; I'm used to real men who don't run away at the first sign
of returned fire, damn I didn't fire, only locked on really.
Karen.
>
>del cecchi
K Smith
>Dave Brown wrote:
>
>> Paul Kamen wrote:
>
>>> This is amazing. Karen provides the detailed technical basis for her
>>> position on this issue, and the only rebuttals are personal insults.
>>> Even to the point of trashing her product. Not a peep from anyone who
>>> can find fault with her analysis, except to say that the patents are
>>> too complicated for them to make head or tail out of.
>
>> Paul, I'm staying out of these threads for a good reason -- I can't
>> stand the hypocracy any more. I have seen just as many personal
>> attacks by Karen, and more recently I'm insulted by her comments about
>> male tostesterone getting in the way of some peoples judgement. Just
>> imagine if someone had made a similar comments about her gender. The
>> reality is, there's one very big pot calling a lot of kettles black in
>> here and I'll stay on the sidelines until I can switch out of my hip
>> waders back into regular rubber boots where it involves Karen
>> thankyoumuch.
>
>To be fair, Karen's comment in regard to tostesterone was in retaliation
>to a rather insulting comment from one of our more popular contributors
>directed squarely at her. Karen has made some rather impressive
>contributions to the NG and does not deserve the *continued* abuse
>hurled at her by the same individuals. Have you not been involved in
>heated discussions of the issues? Few offer the documentation and
>detailed justification that she has in support of her positions.
Ta Skip, but you'll just get more aggro from you know who.
Again thanks,
Karen.
>
>--
>Skipper
K Smith
Del I've made a mistake !
My arithmatic was out when I said;
>(iii) Even a big say 200HP 2 stroke DFI at say 6000 rpm full throttle
>injects less than 0.00025 grams of fuel per injection (now I hope mine is
>right) & at idle in neutral it's a truly tiny amount that needs to be
>reliably atomised per injection. (even more reliably than at high power
>settings)
I forgot to divide by the six cylinders so the correct number for
the amount of fuel per injection at WOT should have read, believe it or
not;
0.0000416 grams of fuel per injection at WOT.
At "in neutral" @ say 600 rpm idle I would hazard a guess by saying
the engine would probably need no more than say 2 HP to overcome friction,
water pump, alternator at idle revs, etc so I'd guess each injection
requires no more than say:
0.0000041 grams of fuel per injection at idle,
& don't forget, for truly reliable, long term consumer usage ignition, it
needs to be atomised even better than the WOT injection.
Scary bananas !
Sorry for the mistake, heat of battle & all that.
Karen.
morten ringvold
What gender you are, I do not care!
What opinions you have in technical matters, you are
free to have.
What belives or disbelieves you have in technical
solutions, believe what you want.
But if you want a technical discussion -stay technical!
If you want a personal abuseing discussion, go
somewhere else, at least I`m not interested being one
of the targets of your personal supressed agrivations
to anyone dealing with products producd by a company
you for some reason thinks is the worst ever happened
to the boating people!
Stop hiding your exhibishionism behind the cover of a
technical discussion and admit your interest in theese
discussion is not of technical matter but something
else, who knows!
hkrause
>
>
> I've shown my bona fides as regards this type of undertaking so now
> we should be getting the benefit of your understanding of how ficht works,
> & your opinions on why I'm wrong to hold my "opinion" that it's lack of
> atomisation that is the real cause of ignition problems in the new fichts.
>
*What* bona fides? Do you have university degrees in mechanical
engineering some aspect of modern engine design? Have you *ever* taken a
manufacturer's training course in Ficht or Optimax engines? Have you
ever taken one apart? Sticking someone's old diesel on an outboard-style
lower unit does not an engine engineer make. No qualified engineer would
have been pleased with your powering solution to that 30'+ boat you
have. What the hell do you do if you're trying to run into an inlet with
a fast outgoing tide? Wait for the tide to shift? That's NOT the
solution for a semi-planing hull.
JDavis1277
read......
Only a theorist could care about all the BS spewing from this person who says >
(& NB it's only my opinion but I say informed)<. Yeah, right, informed by??
Anyway, DFI works! If DFI works by bending the rules of physics or by magic,
who really cares?? It works!
FICHT & OPTIMAX are both great systems, proven on the water over time. It's
pretty clear to me that FICHT's most vocal critic (Karen) and her sidekick
(Paul) don't care if the systems work in the real world, they insist that the
systems must work on paper to be any good.
The only motivation I can see for these malicious posts is to discourage
technological advancement by attempting to trash the products that are the most
tecnologically advanced. If everyone emulated these folks, we would be reading
by candlelight.
Now, if I could just figure out this high technology filter thingy.
Butch
hkrause
>
> Karen wrote way too much junk and jargon for anyone except Paul to bother to
> read......
>
> Only a theorist could care about all the BS spewing from this person who says >
> (& NB it's only my opinion but I say informed)<. Yeah, right, informed by??
>
> Anyway, DFI works! If DFI works by bending the rules of physics or by magic,
> who really cares?? It works!
>
> FICHT & OPTIMAX are both great systems, proven on the water over time.
Isn't that the truth. Though the two systems work differently, they both
seem to work just fine. Further, I am unsure that Ms. Testosterone is
getting her "technical" information from OMC directly and
misinterpreting it or just interpolating what she claims is her
overwhelming understanding of fuel/air delivery systems on two stroke
engines. It would be interesting to find out just how many OMC Fichts or
Merc Optimaxes she has diagnosed and disassembled. The mechanics who
work on my Optimax have gone to a series of Merc-held training seminars
covering only the intracacies of Optimax. OMC has done the same thing.
I thought *I* was wordy, but the length of my posts pales in comparison
to those of Ms. Testosterone.
It's
> pretty clear to me that FICHT's most vocal critic (Karen) and her sidekick
> (Paul) don't care if the systems work in the real world, they insist that the
> systems must work on paper to be any good.
>
> The only motivation I can see for these malicious posts is to discourage
> technological advancement by attempting to trash the products that are the most
> tecnologically advanced. If everyone emulated these folks, we would be reading
> by candlelight.
Naw, she wants everyone to buy a production run of her enormous diesel
outboard so they can seriously underpower their boats with an engine
whose other attributes are noise, smoke and general unattractiveness.
>
> Now, if I could just figure out this high technology filter thingy.
>
> Butch
--
Harry Krause
- - - - - - - - - - - -
I just bought a cured ham. I wonder what it had?
JDavis1277
two allied we'll have a Toyota diesel married to a Force gearcase mounted on a
Bayliner Trophy. Sounds like fun.
Butch
hkrause
I can't think of a better way for Skipper to repower his Bayliner than
with a Testosterone Special 70 hp outboard diesel from Karen of Oz. Is
the rusty bracket optional?
--
Harry Krause
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Being a SysOp is nice but it interferes with my life.
Skipper
> Karen wrote way too much junk and jargon for anyone except Paul to
> bother to read......
Oh I don't know. It seems to me that both Karen and Paul Kamen stay on
topic most of the time. I know Paul is a marine architect and Karen
also seems to know her beans. You, on the other hand, have a proclivity
to issue personal flame towards regular NG contributors while offering
little content. Have you considered ordering a larger size of underware?
Back to the Major Bozo file for you.
--
Skipper
hkrause
Ms. Testosterone may know beans, but her knowledge of engines, it seems
to me, is based more upon the incredible length of her posts, her
willingness to claim expertise over innards she has never even seen and
her proclivity for attacking professional mechanics who deal with
aforementioned innards every day.
To put it briefly: if I had a misbehaving outboard and wanted it fixed,
I'd take it to Dave of the North or Bill Grannis or a few other guys
here. Never Ms. Testosterone.
--
Harry Krause
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Been there. Done that. Reincarnated.
Roger
> Paul, I'm staying out of these threads for a good reason -- I
> can't stand the hypocracy any more. I have seen just as many
> personal attacks by Karen, and more recently I'm insulted by
> her comments about male tostesterone getting in the way of some
> peoples judgement. Just imagine if someone had made a similar
> comments about her gender. The reality is, there's one very
> big pot calling a lot of kettles black in here and I'll stay
> on the sidelines until I can switch out of my hip waders back
> into regular rubber boots where it involves Karen thankyoumuch.
Then Harry Krause wrote of Karen:
> I thought *I* was wordy, but the length of my posts pales in comparison
> to those of Ms. Testosterone.
Dave Brown, where are you? Shouldn't you at least make a show of being
fair and critize Harry for personal abuses of others? Or is there some
reason you won't?
Roger.
-----------------------
Did Harry Krause really gaff a Bayliner Trophy?
Find out at http://members.bellatlantic.net/~rogerh/harry.html
Who is Ref (Ron M.), and what's he been doing for the past 40-45 years?
Find out at http://members.bellatlantic.net/~rogerh/ronmorgan.html
hkrause
Get a life, Roger. Or a boat. Or a boat and a life.
Is Roger Huebner really into humiliation?
Find out at
http://members.belltatlantic.net/~rogerh/whips-chains-goldenshowers.html
--
Harry Krause
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Things you never hear people say; "Hand me that piano."
Marcus G Bell
> Shouldn't you at least make a show of being fair and critize
> Harry for personal abuses of others? Or is there some reason you
> won't?
All right.
Shut the hell up, all of you.
-- -- Marcus. ( be...@mail.med.upenn.edu )
Richard Eriksson
But, he started it ....
hkrause
You know, other than to attack me and to wave the Bayliner flag, I'm not
sure why Rodger-Codger-Dodger comes in here.
He rarely has anything to add or ask about boats or boating. Hell, he
hardly ever even comments about boating. And he obviously is obsessed
with me. His web page devoted to me is evidence of that.
I'm not questioning his "right" to be in here and add nothing. I just
wonder why he doesn't share some of what he knows. Most people in here
do.
--
Harry Krause
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Morality is learned, not legislated.
S.Jeffrey
>
> >K Smith:
> Spruik = "to harangue prospective customers". (dictionary)
>
> Here it was a description of the touters outside strip clubs,
> trying to get a passer-by to enter. One step up from a pimp.
>
> Now regularly used to descibe anyone who's claims are more fluff
> than fact.
Not trying to start anything, but which dictionary? I've looked it up in
a couple (although not extensive) dictionaries and have never seen it.
Next question, how is "spruik" pronounced? Like the tree with a hard
"c" sound? or does it rhyme with the sounds made by a 4 year when eating
green beans ("ooohhh....ick")?
Interesting word though, can't say I'll use it in conversation.
Hey, I'll bet that the practice of baseball players "Shagging flies" has
a whole different meaning down under. No?
Roe
hkrause
spruik (spr€k) v.i. Australian Slang.to make or give a speech, esp.
extensively or elaborately; spiel; orate. [1915–20; orig. uncert]—
spruik‚er, n.
--
Harry Krause
- - - - - - - - - - - -
KARAOKE: Japanese word for "tone deaf".
Cameron Spears
>Not trying to start anything, but which dictionary? I've looked it up in
>a couple (although not extensive) dictionaries and have never seen it.
It's in my big red Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the
English Language, copyright (c) 1989.
spruik -- v.i. Australian slang. to make or give a speech, esp.
extensively or elaborately; spiel; orate. - spruiker n.
Pronounciation is with a hard k and the "oo" with a line over it, as
in "ooze", "fool", "too"
Happy spruiking,
Cameron
Paul Kamen
>...It's pretty clear to me that FICHT's most vocal critic (Karen)
>and her sidekick (Paul) don't care if the systems work in the real
>world...
Well, that part is true - I really *don't* care if these engines work or
not. But for a while it looked as though I might be able to learn
something about injectors and pressure transients by following the thread.
--
fish...@netcom.com
http://www.well.com/~pk/fishmeal.html
-"Call me Fishmeal"-
morten ringvold
This finally explains Karens argumentations:
She does not even know her own languge!
Skipper
> Thank you Cameron for the "spruik" info.
> This finally explains Karens argumentations:
> She does not even know her own languge!
You don't do yourself any favors by continuing to hurl personal insults
at the lady. I find your perspective very interesting. Many of us would
really like to see the issues you have raised be discussed without the
barbs. Why not give Karen a break and discuss the issues openly sans
insults. I bet you can do that very very well.
--
Skipper
morten ringvold
Thank you, finally someone got my point!
Let those of us who claims being "professionals"
discuss professionally.
Let those who have opinions, feelings, comments
whatsoever post them.
But those who throws mud must expect to get some back!
Please check through the history which "spruik"
started it!
I`m far from allways right, my theoretical knowledge
may be less than others, but my practical experience
in some matters may be rather good.
Do not forget that theoretical sience is actually
based on practical studies.
Example:
What came first?
The aple falling off the tree
or
Newtons theory of gravity?
Marcus G Bell
> 0.0000416 grams of fuel per injection at WOT....
> 0.0000041 grams of fuel per injection at idle,
Air is 1.293 grams per liter. At 14.7:1 air:gas ratio, by mass,
we'd have 1.293/14.7 = 0.088 gm of gas per liter of air entering
the engine. A 6-cylinder, 3 liter outboard thus injects about
0.044 gm of gas per cylinder per revolution, when actually sucking
a full 3 liters of air per revolution (theoretical WOT). Let's say
1% of that airflow is needed to idle, but it's at 1/10th the RPM,
so 1/10th the air per stroke. That's 0.0044 gm per injection at
idle. Adjust these down by a few percent, because practice never
matches theoretical maxima.
If we use typical GPH/HP relations, then we get that 2 HP at idle
uses 0.2 GPH, which is 12.6 ml/min. Divide this by 6 cylinders,
600 RPM, and you have 0.00351 ml per injection. 20 GPH at 6000 RPM
is 0.0351 ml per injection at WOT.
Gas density is about 3/4 of water's 1 gm/ml, but even so, the gram
and milliliter numbers are pretty close. Calculated 2 ways, I get
pretty consistent numbers, which are about 100 times yours, Karen.
Where do you think the discrepancy lies?
hkrause
Marcus, you dummy. Australian air is heavier. After all, it sank to the
bottom of the planet, right?
--
Harry Krause
- - - - - - - - - - - -
A man's life is dyed the color of his imagination.
Skipper
>
> SKIPPER:
> Thank you, finally someone got my point! ...
> Do not forget that theoretical science is actually based on practical
> studies.
> Example:
> What came first?
> The aple falling off the tree
> or
> Newtons theory of gravity?
The apple falling off the tree, naturally. However, what you remember
is the pain of the apple hitting you in the head.
--
Skipper
Dave Brown
> Dave Brown, where are you? Shouldn't you at least make a show of being
> fair and critize Harry for personal abuses of others? Or is there some
> reason you won't?
There's a very clear difference -- Harry *never* whines about being
personally attacked while he makes personal attacks. In other words, I'll
take an honest persoanl attack over a hypocritical one any day of the week.
--
Regards,
Dave Brown
Brown's Marina
Ontario, Canada
http://www.brownsmarina.on.ca
Dave Brown
> The most vociferous defenders of the technology, and attackers of Karen,
> are almost exclusively, either those who make their living from OMC or
> Merc, or those that have already purchased, or are planning to purchase a
> DFI 2 stroke. One group wants to preserve their livelihood, the other
> wants to justify their decisions.
Who else is capable of defending the product from a technical point of view than
the people who's job it is to fix them? Why must our input always be perceived as
self serving? If I sold my business tomorrow, could I then claim superiority on the
discussion of the topic because I no longer have a financial interest?
> The "handwriting is on the wall". Already OMC and Merc are moving rapidly
> towards 4 strokes, with their reselling of Japanese built or partnered
> outboards, in the 70 HP and less sizes.\
They are doing no such thing. If you look a little closer, you'll see the four
stroke models are present only where there is no DFI model. You can bet the minute
the 70 hp Ficht hits the market you won't see the four stroke offered because it
isn't *needed* anymore.
> We hear of few problems with those 4 stroke outboards. No reasonable
> person, that has been reading this group, would say the same of the DFI 2
> stroke outboards.
I have plenty of 'service tales' I could report about four strokes, but since I am
only ever asked about Fichts, that's all you hear. The same skewing occurs about
Ficht vs Opti -- there's pile of OMC folks responding to specific requests thus
generating volume which the casual observer might construe as Opti being less
trouble. As eloquently posted by Steve a short time ago, Merc's initial track
record was no better, there just wasn't anybody in here to answer the questions at
the time to discuss their shortcomings.
> Face it, 2 stroke DFI defenders, the future isn't bright for your favorite
> motors. Don't just personally attack the messengers, for holding a
> different opinion than yours. It only makes you look more desperate, and
> less competent, to discuss the actual merits of your opinion.
It doesn't matter *where* the technology goes, my job will always be there. Why do
you feel my livelihood is dependent on a singular technology? Two strokes, four
strokes, rotary, diesel, nuclear -- it doesn't matter to me they're all machines
that require maintenance and repair.....
morten ringvold
Stratified -homogenius
Good posting, but I do not quite agree with you about the reason of
stratified modus.
It has in general nothing to do with the speed of the fuel-ijection , but
caused by the need of emission reduction.
The normal air-fuel mix to make a proper combustion is aprox 14:1 as there
seems to be an egreement about. When the injection starts the air/fuel mix
in the combustionchamber in average is almost 70:1 which will make a very
poor combustion. In the combustion area around the spark plug however the
air/fuel mix is somewhat 14:1 and the mix is ignited as the fuel passes the
sparkplug by continuously fireing the plug as the fuel passes. When watching
your computer you may see that what comes first is the injection, then the
ign fireing. The timedelay of the ign fireing compared to injection-start is
the time needed for the fuel to reach the spark-plug, and the spark-duration
is almost the same as the fuel-duration.
Why this somewhat complicated "modus"?
The fuel-injection starts after the piston has closed the exhaust-port to
avoid fuel/air mix to escape, in contrast to the "old" 2-strokes where large
amount of the air/fuel mix goes out with the exhaus gases before the piston
reaches to close the port.
One of the problems with the "old" ficht engines was that due to production-
tolerances the amount of fuel injected per my-sec by each injector varied
giving different amount of fuel injected in each sylinder. On the old carbs
we could adjust that by the bleed-mix. On the Fichts there was no
possibility with the result that there was quite some variations between the
cylinders when it came to combustion. In the present production there is
"calibrated" injectors. Pretested at the factory and numbered according to
amount of fuel injected pro my-sec. As installed in the engine the injector
number is loaded in to the ECU with reference to which sylinder it is
installed. The ECU then corrects for the mechanical differences of the
injectors. This change together with the improoved sparks will make it
easier to adjust the programme to optimise the combustion and reduce the
risk of spar-plug fouling.
Do we agree?
Morten
**** Posted from RemarQ - http://www.remarq.com - Discussions Start Here (tm) ****
K Smith
>In article <36E676B9...@dtc.net>, Skipper <ski...@dtc.net> wrote:
>
>Seems to me...the thread isn't really about the "technical details" of
>Ficht. It's about *IF* DFI 2 strokes are a "Rube Goldberg" last ditch
>desperate effort, to somehow make OMC and Merc. 2 stroke outboards viable
>in the future. Karen's posts just illustrate that possibility in
>technical terms. It's probably understandable, but unseemly the way she's
>being attacked.
I agree the technical problems "might" see the demise of the 2
stroke OB, but I'm not as sure as you seem to be.
If & I say it's a big "if" at this stage, the problems can be
"consumer usage" fixed, clearly the light weight, & reasonable specific
output of 2 stokes will be the way to go & the 4 strokes will be the ones
with market place problems. (weight, size & cost)
The problems seem to have been solved at a test, manufacturing &
even maybe "when new" consumer usage level, so there isn't too far to go.
It's more a question of will OMC's & their rah rah dealer's
credibility with unhappy users last long enough.
Karen.
>
>The most vociferous defenders of the technology, and attackers of Karen,
>are almost exclusively, either those who make their living from OMC or
>Merc, or those that have already purchased, or are planning to purchase a
>DFI 2 stroke. One group wants to preserve their livelihood, the other
>wants to justify their decisions.
>
>Fact is, if the EPA had required the "best available practical"
>technology, like they normally do, 2 strokes would already be dead, and we
>would all be heading to a 4 stroke outboard or I/O or diesel future. We
>probably still are, with just 10 years or less delay, for a DFI 2 stroke
>"last stand". If 2 stroke DFI really worked, the auto companies would
>be using it, or, at least actively pursuing it. They are doing neither.
>
>The "handwriting is on the wall". Already OMC and Merc are moving rapidly
>towards 4 strokes, with their reselling of Japanese built or partnered
>outboards, in the 70 HP and less sizes. Honda and Yamaha already offer 4
>strokes to 100 HP+ in Honda's case...and larger sizes are already running
>in development, and on the way to the marketplace.
>
>We hear of few problems with those 4 stroke outboards. No reasonable
>person, that has been reading this group, would say the same of the DFI 2
>stroke outboards.
>
>Face it, 2 stroke DFI defenders, the future isn't bright for your favorite
>motors. Don't just personally attack the messengers, for holding a
>different opinion than yours. It only makes you look more desperate, and
>less competent, to discuss the actual merits of your opinion.
>
>Cars...trucks...planes...motorcycles...etc...boats likely go 4 stroke...next...
>
>--
>ja...@chickmail.com
>
K Smith
wrote:
>K Smith wrote:
>>
>> >K Smith:
>
>> Spruik = "to harangue prospective customers". (dictionary)
>>
>> Here it was a description of the touters outside strip clubs,
>> trying to get a passer-by to enter. One step up from a pimp.
>>
>> Now regularly used to descibe anyone who's claims are more fluff
>> than fact.
>
>Not trying to start anything, but which dictionary? I've looked it up in
>a couple (although not extensive) dictionaries and have never seen it.
>
>Next question, how is "spruik" pronounced? Like the tree with a hard
>"c" sound? or does it rhyme with the sounds made by a 4 year when eating
>green beans ("ooohhh....ick")?
>
>Interesting word though, can't say I'll use it in conversation.
>
>Hey, I'll bet that the practice of baseball players "Shagging flies" has
>a whole different meaning down under. No?
Well I mean; we have big flies here but even so; how do the
baseball blokes hold 'em ?
>
>Roe
Gee it's really common here, since pre war, isn't that funny ?
I use a Macquarie dictionary which I must confess is a local, but
the most used, I think it's in the Websters, (says a announcer, a barker ?)
Pronounced Sprook
A spruik, seems to be interchangable with a "speil"
(like glorification, immortalisation, lionisation) so the person who gives
a spiel is probably a speiler, but we just call them a spruiker & then the
speil has become a spruik.
I didn't make this up honest.
Karen.