[SEL] RE: Fuel Savers

[Paul Maples]

Patrick, I just now realized that you are the one who is bidding on my 1911
Stover Reprint Book on E-bay. I wish I had know this and I would have sold
you the book for $15.00. Don't bid anymore on this book and hopefully
someone will bump your bid and if they do I will send you one for $15.00
plus the cost of postage. I don't do friends this way.

Thanks,

Paul

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Patrick M Livingstone" <pml1 at bigpond.net.au>
To: <stationary-engine at oldengine.org>; "Stationary Engine ATIS List"
<sel at lists.stationary-engine.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 6:52 AM
Subject: [SEL] RE: Fuel Savers


> 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SEL mailing list
> SEL at lists.stationary-engine.com
> http://www.stationary-engine.com/mailman/listinfo/sel
>