| Subject: | [Spridgets] Flame trap (was silicone fluid and MC) |
|---|---|
| From: | peter at nosimport.com (Peter Caldwell) |
| Date: | Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:31:32 -0500 |
| References: | <664967C0-5C33-4F08-9A3A-907DF9F9DFEE@comcast.net> <1438062406.55372.1303223025086.JavaMail.root@cl02-host03.dlls.pa.frontiernet.net> <201104190748652.SM01424@TOSHIBA-USER3.nosimport.com> <BANLkTikOLX1swsXVjhb-MO3aoxoNrKM4-g@mail.gmail.com> |
Ooo... I like that better, but why did BMC give it up, and Triumph
keep at it until the 70s?
Peter C
==
At 10:19 AM 4/19/2011, David Lieb wrote:
>The idea, as I understand it, was that the vacuum level fluctuates, so
>there is movement of the vapor in the pipe. Since it is connected to
>the carb, there is a possibility of fuel in the vapor. Over time, the
>fuel could condense and collect in the vacuum diaphragm, since that is
>usually the low point in the pipe. The bulb is positioned so that any
>condensing should happen there and run back to the carb rather than
>down to the dissy. Eventually they realized that they were protecting
>us from a theoretical tragedy that simply wasn't materializing...
>David L
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [Spridgets] Flame trap (was silicone fluid and MC), Peter Caldwell |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [Spridgets] FW: [Healeys] bugeye bonnet, Macy Larry |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [Spridgets] Flame trap (was silicone fluid and MC), Peter Caldwell |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [Spridgets] Flame trap (was silicone fluid and MC), Bob Van Kirk |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |