[SEL] RE: Fuel Savers

[Patrick M Livingstone]

If the fuel savers were such a good idea how come they were not universally
adopted in the USA? I also cannot think of any English engines which used a
fuel saver mechanism.
Tangyes would be a good example of an English engine that could have
benefited from such a mechanism. They govern by holding the exhaust valve
open but have an atmospheric intake valve. The fuel intake is through the
valve seat of the atmospheric valve. Any fluttering of this valve would
allow fuel in and the engine would not govern properly (if at all).
Admittedly the spring tension is critical but it all seems to work fine. 
Perhaps the fuel saver was a mechanical way to get around the need for
critical spring tensions on the mass produced American engines?

Patrick M Livingstone
Leichhardt NSW
http://www.oldengine.org/members/pml/Index.html
http://www.users.bigpond.com/pml/

-----Original Message-----
This was a much needed item on larger H&M engines.
The problem was that the inlet valve spring did not have the strength to
hold it shut on the 'miss' strokes and yet be weak enough to allow the fuel
mix free entry on the 'hit cycle'.
Under these conditions the fuel loss would have been quite high.
It must have been for the makers to go to this extra expense.
Some designs would have been worse than others but, makers of engines that
sold well took the trouble to add this feature. It was, then as now, easy to
lose customers due to a 'greedy' engine model.
After all, the ability to do a job using less fuel than the opposition was a
good selling point.
Users of engines were very aware of the cost of fuel. Same as now.
If I had a unit that gobbled fuel, I would not replace it with another like
it.
I wonder how many makers went under due to this excessive fuel drinking?
Reg & Marg Ingold.