How much for 71 Thermoquad?
- Thread starter gtgto
- Start date
-
Try reading your own literature. The 1930 patent carb that YOU introduced into this thread is substantially different to the 72 TQ:
- it has no air bleeds. The TQ has three.
- the nozzle at the exit end has one hole in it. The TQ has two.
Any fool could see this is going to have an impact on metering characteristics.
In post #42 you claimed that the 72 design is 'far superior' & that the air bled design is a compromise.
[1] Far superior in what way? If it is in power & throttle response, where is the EVIDENCE. Still waiting after 150 posts....
[2] There are 0000s of compromised carbs out there working very well because they use the air bled system.
- it has no air bleeds. The TQ has three.
- the nozzle at the exit end has one hole in it. The TQ has two.
Any fool could see this is going to have an impact on metering characteristics.
In post #42 you claimed that the 72 design is 'far superior' & that the air bled design is a compromise.
[1] Far superior in what way? If it is in power & throttle response, where is the EVIDENCE. Still waiting after 150 posts....
[2] There are 0000s of compromised carbs out there working very well because they use the air bled system.
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2005
- Messages
- 6,774
- Reaction score
- 4,301
You tell me you're the one in it.
Here's the original inventors claims:
The more I point out that the ORIGINAL INVENTOR of the solid fuel metering carb design states quite clearly that his invention improves the "INEFFICIENT OPERATION OF THE CARBURETOR of Emulsion designs. But you with your magazine pile know more than he does about his invention.........
Thanks champ you just proved AGAIN you have no idea how even emulsion design works...........Not only do you not understand how it works but why its was invent and what problem it solved in carburetor design.
Answer the question its very easy.......Its a Yes or its a NO.
Rat Bastid
Dunamis Metron
Where did these drawings come from??
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2005
- Messages
- 6,774
- Reaction score
- 4,301
Hysteric,
Just getting deeper...& deeper.
You know all the answers so you can answer your own irrelevant questions.
It is hard to know where to start with your bullshit:
- you introduced the 1930 patent design as 'proof' of your claim that the 72 TQ provides 'superior metering' over the 71 model.. Still waiting, 156 posts now, for evidence of better throttle response, hp.......waiting....waiting......
- you use the patent carb as the pin up carb when it has significant metering differences to the TQ design both the 71 or 72. Apples to oranges comparison.
- & finally the clanger: because a patent author makes a claim about the product, that does make it true. If the claim is that the earth is flat, does it mean the earth is flat.....
Just getting deeper...& deeper.
You know all the answers so you can answer your own irrelevant questions.
It is hard to know where to start with your bullshit:
- you introduced the 1930 patent design as 'proof' of your claim that the 72 TQ provides 'superior metering' over the 71 model.. Still waiting, 156 posts now, for evidence of better throttle response, hp.......waiting....waiting......
- you use the patent carb as the pin up carb when it has significant metering differences to the TQ design both the 71 or 72. Apples to oranges comparison.
- & finally the clanger: because a patent author makes a claim about the product, that does make it true. If the claim is that the earth is flat, does it mean the earth is flat.....
I think I need therapy.
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2005
- Messages
- 6,774
- Reaction score
- 4,301
Yep, deeper and deeper into design and how this **** actually works instead of the **** you pull out of your arse and magazines.......NOTICE I PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR MY CLAIMS WHILE YOU PROVIDE NOTHING.
So your argument now is that the 72 design is no longer a solid fuel metering carb and operates on completely different set of physics principles? Is that like saying a 2 circuit Dominator is an emulsion design carb but a 3 circuit Dominator isn't because of the 3rd circuit.......
It should be pretty obvious to anyone reading this thread you have no idea but how to make excuses.
DO I need to explain how emulsion works so you can have a better understand on how the 71 works too......
Rat Bastid
Dunamis Metron
No you don’t. This is one guy blowing his own ego, never answering anything, postulating BULLshit as gospel and NEVER putting forth any proof he’s ever done anything than read a book and claim others work as his.
You‘re fine.
Wow, Hysteric, a change of meds might be in order.
I NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVER said the 72 TQ is no longer a solid fuel metering carb. Prove it. Your good with quotes. Provide the quote &/or post #.
Meanwhile, we all wait, wait, wait for evidence of your claim that the 72 TQ provides something better other than emissions. More hp, better throttle response would be a good start. Chrysler documented the loss of performance of the 72 over the 71 design, but in your mind: don't let the truth get in the way of a lie.
I NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVER said the 72 TQ is no longer a solid fuel metering carb. Prove it. Your good with quotes. Provide the quote &/or post #.
Meanwhile, we all wait, wait, wait for evidence of your claim that the 72 TQ provides something better other than emissions. More hp, better throttle response would be a good start. Chrysler documented the loss of performance of the 72 over the 71 design, but in your mind: don't let the truth get in the way of a lie.
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2005
- Messages
- 6,774
- Reaction score
- 4,301
You cant even tell the difference between designs and you call yourself a carb guy.
Thanks for the laughs. Yep I was right you cant tell the difference between emulsion and solid fuel metering.
I'm still waiting for the source.......Make sure you provide the visual evidence and the page before it too
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2005
- Messages
- 6,774
- Reaction score
- 4,301
Of course I am......
Nope. You post it.......Shouldn't be a problem for you should it.......
I DO NOT want to get into this mess, I could care less if the 71 carb made a little more power or not, or if the 72 was better, or not, it matter not to me. I just want to let you know that you can claim almost anything on a patent. The patent office does NOT check your claims. You can claim anything and they will just look back to all their records to make sure no one has previously patented the exact same thing, that is does not currently exist, or something close to it, and with similar claims. Again you can claim anything, I once saw a guy in Florida that had a patented plastic rectangular box with a ton of baffles in it with one inlet and one outlet for vacuum hoses. He claimed that if you connected this box to one of the vacuum hoses on your engine, can't remember which one he used, it would increase the gas mileage by 20-30% of some crazy batshit like that. He had an actual patent, LOL. The most famous one is the Winnipeg Carburetor patents, guy claimed he had invented a 200 MPG, yes you read that right two hundred MPG carb. He was awarded multiple patents for this "carburetor"... As you can imagine this thing does not work, but he probably made a pretty penny selling plans and doing interviews and writing papers for different publications at the time...
Anyways, a claim on a patent may or may not have any reality in fact. You can claim almost anything... I have a little experience with this as I have quite a few patents to my name. Never take any claim on a patent as gospel, it may be the biggest BS ever.
Callaway Corvette in all their advertising of the C7 cars would always put that they had a "patented" supercharger/intercooler system, implying that it was better than what is out there. Well, they used a standard Eaton Superchager with regular intercoolers, nothing special. Now, they do have a patent, but it is a design patent on the top cover of the unit. The only thing that is patented is the looks of the new cover they came up with... Obviously this makes no difference, it just looks cooler, LOL
HS,
The claims made in the 1930 carb patent sound reasonable to me; but as you say, & as I stated in an earlier post, nothing has to be proved when you submit a patent.
The problem with the carb in the patent is that it has significant design differences to the 72 TQ & as such cannot be compared.
The claims made in the 1930 carb patent sound reasonable to me; but as you say, & as I stated in an earlier post, nothing has to be proved when you submit a patent.
The problem with the carb in the patent is that it has significant design differences to the 72 TQ & as such cannot be compared.
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2005
- Messages
- 6,774
- Reaction score
- 4,301
From the 1.30 mark on clearly tells a very different story........Its called context.
Nope. Only to the person who doesn't understand the design aspects. Thats you .........
Your comprehension skills, if you ever had any, continue to deteriorate.
'.....without seriously affecting engine performance' can only have one meaning & only you could read something into it that isn't there.....
'.....without seriously affecting engine performance' can only have one meaning & only you could read something into it that isn't there.....
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2005
- Messages
- 6,774
- Reaction score
- 4,301
This is what it states:
"Essentially there is no engine heat to transfer to the bowl and bowl cover."
"AS A RESULT" (1.40 mark)
"Thermoquad calibration metering is leaner BECAUSE mixture enrichment is not needed to COMPENSATE for FUEL EXPANSION POWER LOSSES."
"AS A RESULT" (1.51 mark)
"Exhaust emissions are reduced without seriously affecting power engine perfromance"
Context is everything in this case.........
It was Shrinker who put me onto thermoquads when I asked him about improving the design of the Holley Carbs:
Carburetors that use emulsion are turbulent flow designs. carburetors that use a booster or a single point sensing position for the air flow are turbulent flow designs. It is necessary to design for turbulent flow because of the vacuum curves relationship to CFM produced by single point sensing (boosters, single dump tubes like a C&S, old vintage carbys). There is nothing wrong with turbulent flow designs. They are quite capable of controlling a fuel curve in many ways. The solid fuel carbys are turbulent flow designs. Turbulent flow enables correction for the natural enrichment due to increased air flow. If an engine requires a different AFR at maximum torque compared to max HP then a turbulent flow carby can do that. The internal passages of a turbulent flow carby are sized so that the onset of turbulent flow occurs at the desired place in the CFM. Once turbulent flow is established the AFR goes leaner. Then as the CFM continues to increase the AFR will enrich. This creates the desired characteristics of lean cruise and rich full load combustion. If emulsion is not used the passage sizings are the only controllers and that means that the carby is specifically designed for that engine as in OEM production line stuff. If emulsion air is used the carby can have a wider range of application although theoretically none of the applications are as good as zero emulsion designing. The difficulty with emulsion is the air interrupts the fuel flow. Solid fuel designs achieve more linear fuel distribution into the air stream.
If there was anyone that really understood this stuff it was Bruce. Thanks for the laughs but its time to put this one to bed..........
"Essentially there is no engine heat to transfer to the bowl and bowl cover."
"AS A RESULT" (1.40 mark)
"Thermoquad calibration metering is leaner BECAUSE mixture enrichment is not needed to COMPENSATE for FUEL EXPANSION POWER LOSSES."
"AS A RESULT" (1.51 mark)
"Exhaust emissions are reduced without seriously affecting power engine perfromance"
Context is everything in this case.........
It was Shrinker who put me onto thermoquads when I asked him about improving the design of the Holley Carbs:
Carburetors that use emulsion are turbulent flow designs. carburetors that use a booster or a single point sensing position for the air flow are turbulent flow designs. It is necessary to design for turbulent flow because of the vacuum curves relationship to CFM produced by single point sensing (boosters, single dump tubes like a C&S, old vintage carbys). There is nothing wrong with turbulent flow designs. They are quite capable of controlling a fuel curve in many ways. The solid fuel carbys are turbulent flow designs. Turbulent flow enables correction for the natural enrichment due to increased air flow. If an engine requires a different AFR at maximum torque compared to max HP then a turbulent flow carby can do that. The internal passages of a turbulent flow carby are sized so that the onset of turbulent flow occurs at the desired place in the CFM. Once turbulent flow is established the AFR goes leaner. Then as the CFM continues to increase the AFR will enrich. This creates the desired characteristics of lean cruise and rich full load combustion. If emulsion is not used the passage sizings are the only controllers and that means that the carby is specifically designed for that engine as in OEM production line stuff. If emulsion air is used the carby can have a wider range of application although theoretically none of the applications are as good as zero emulsion designing. The difficulty with emulsion is the air interrupts the fuel flow. Solid fuel designs achieve more linear fuel distribution into the air stream.
If there was anyone that really understood this stuff it was Bruce. Thanks for the laughs but its time to put this one to bed..........
Rat Bastid
Dunamis Metron
LOL, whole lot of buckshot in this claim.
I’m not going to take it apart but by bit, but it goes without saying that your idea of the “perfect” carb is one that doesn’t base itself in reality.
Hysteric,
There is no ambiguity, double meaning, or anything else your imaginative mind might want to inject into THIS simple statement: 'without seriously affecting power'. It is what it is a simple, unarguable statement, & nothing out of 'context'. And it comes from Chrys, the predominant user of these carbs.
You continue to generate distractions, red herrings, but never providing evidence of your claims.
We might have to pass a lead light to you in that hole you are digging for yourself because it is getting so deep...
There is no ambiguity, double meaning, or anything else your imaginative mind might want to inject into THIS simple statement: 'without seriously affecting power'. It is what it is a simple, unarguable statement, & nothing out of 'context'. And it comes from Chrys, the predominant user of these carbs.
You continue to generate distractions, red herrings, but never providing evidence of your claims.
We might have to pass a lead light to you in that hole you are digging for yourself because it is getting so deep...
Rat Bastid
Dunamis Metron
Since I’m sicker than a half dozen hung over dogs, I decided to do a quick bit of research. And, as I suspected, Hysteric is once again making **** up out of whole cloth, claiming things that are not factual.
The guy has an inferiority complex a mile wide and 10 miles deep.
The difference between a 1971 and 1972 TQ is so minuscule that there isn’t really a difference when it comes to performance.
I know there are some who claim there is, but I’ve heard otherwise. My source is pretty much unimpeachable.
-
