Talk:Carburetor

I removed this:

"Claims are made to super-carburetor technology (should start new entry) that gives much higher performance given the same engine. Purported methods include vaporization, plasma, fuel cracking. Supposedly the 'powers that be,' especially the fossil fuel interests, snuff this technology in order to keep their preeminence. A collection of such stories would make for interesting reading. For sample coverage see: http://FreeEnergy.GreaterThings.com/Directory/Transportation/ (http://www.greaterthings.com/News/FreeEnergy/Directory/Transportation/)"

This may well be of interest, but in its current form is not encyclopedic, and to be honest sounds like a conspiracy theory. However, some mention might be worth putting in if it is researched properly and written up appropriately. GRAHAMUK 07:17, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Sounds like nonsense to me, at least. --Morven 08:54, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Me too, frankly. The article starts off sort of interesting, but gets increasingly wild, with accusations of foul play trying to suppress the scientist's "work". It's also a giveaway that he had to self-publish to get the information out there because of pressure by "vested interests". More likely rejected by peer review because it was B/S. The paranoia and other personal stuff creeping in makes it seem like a conspiracy theory to me. My feeling is that if such a thing were true, the manufacturers would be falling over themselves to refine it and get it to market - the first one to make a 140 mpg car would clean up and drive the rest out of business. There is no benefit to the car producers to keep making gas guzzlers if there was an alternative - i'm not even sure that this benefits the oil companies that much, especially as the reserves start to run out. GRAHAMUK 10:39, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Especially since it would be such an easy way out under pollution laws. I don't think they'd go to the huge effort and expense of developing, say, hybrid cars if such an 'easy' technology could be achieved. Yes, powers-that-be and vested interests CAN keep things suppressed, but not forever, and not when there are other vested interests working against them. --Morven 15:49, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Reason for revert

was that text was removed without assessing consequence for the way the article read; it left statements that seemed odd without the deleted text. If repeated mentioning of fuel injection is needed, the second mention, not the first, needs to go. —Morven 07:20, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

Exception

I have to take exception with this portion-

"Constant depression - the jet is varied to alter the mixture. "

-Constant depression refers to maintaining a depression automatically by using a sprung and weighted piston in the carb while the throttle only indirectly controls the opening.

"The commonest carburetor is the Variable Choke (Constant depression) type as exemplified by the SU."

-Commonest? Youd be hard pressed to even FIND one in North America. Also a variable choke does not mean constant depression.

-The throttle slide controlled directly by cable or link is variable choke but NOT constant depression.

-Constant depression always has 2 throttle mechanisms, one directly controlled by the operator and one automatically controlled by engine vacuum and gas flow. --=Motorhead 19:44, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't like it change it, but don't forget the global nature of things and get hung up on North America alone. I shoudl have qualfied the statement, I will do now. GraemeLeggett 12:47, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)