Lean Burn -vs- Cylinder Drop

[pete c]

An f'in nuke, huh?

My condolences.

Spent most of the last 10 years attached to the sub school reserve unit as their token skimmer. Actually there were a handful of us that weren't wearing dolphins. had a pretty good time for the most part. Got to go on a few boondoggles in pearl harbor. Hanging out with the seabees now. Should have stayed with the bubbleheads

When were you in?

I was on active duty from '84-90. Got out for near 12 years. Re-upped two weeks before 9-11. Nice timing, huh? I was a radar tech on the JFK.

[nbleak21]

I'd love to see what Lean burn maps you'll be able to pull with the mega squirt! I'd love to familiarize myself in that system. I'd also love to get into building beamers, but my budget leaves me to Hondas!

[slownugly]

BMW = Break My Wallet
Big Money Wasted

You are fine with Honda. My 2k Vx hatch will be as reliable if not more than any BMW ever made. Plus it wont cost 600 dollars for spark plug wires

[ChazInMT]

I guess if yer a "Nuke" that means you get thanked more???? How do you explain all my thankses??

(Oh wait...I got out as an MM1(SS) in 1987 after my six as a nuke on the SSN 660 and SSBN 643...Doh)

Here's a pic I took of the Bancroft as we were egressing Kings Bay back in 85. (I was ships photographer among other stuff, it was way more fun to hang out in control during battle stations that ERLL.)



Bigger Version

[pete c]

What is this "nuke" you speak of?

I always thought that word needed to be preceeded by the adjective f'n. At least that is the way I always heard it while I was around my subscol reserve unit buddies, many of whom were f'n nukes!

My current boss, boss' boss, actually, was a nuke MM. Are they all pompous a-holes?

[AlienBlood]

Hey I'd like to apologize for the other day. I just went back and re-read the thread, and would like to thank you all for your input early on. Unfortunately, the first response I read when I came back the first time was this one:

Originally Posted by ChazInMT

I'm now guessing that my pumping losses statement must have blown through your head at the speed of sound.

..... which I took as a bit of an insult, as I'm sure it was intended.... and it was all downhill from there, significantly clouding my judgement in response to the rest of you. Probably a failure on all of our parts, although I may have propagated the butthurtedness the most. Anyway, did further research, got the gist of what everyone's saying, found numbers to support those theories, and agree with the conclusion (although the technicalities of those theories are somewhat incorrect). Not incorrect enough to squabble about in this forum, though, so hey, it's all good.

Now that that's off my chest, I'm glad to know there are fellow squids here. I was in nuke school as an EM before a motorcycle accident gave me the option of early "retirement" in 1997. Didn't even make it to sub school. =\

[AlienBlood]

Originally Posted by pete c

My current boss, boss' boss, actually, was a nuke MM. Are they all pompous a-holes?

a resounding YES, as seen in this thread.

[pete c]

After tearing the ASVAB a new ass, my recruiter tried to get me into the nuke program. Unfortunately a small juvenile indiscretion involving mailbox pyrotechnics deemed me unsuitable for such an honor.

Best damn thing I ever did, blowin' up that mailbox!!!!!!

Do kind of wish I had hung around for the 20 and retired though. When you are looking back at almost 50, you realize that 20 years goes by in a blink.

[AlienBlood]

LOL I had the benefit of a dad and two grandfathers trying to talk me out of it after my ASVAB score. They were unsuccessful. It is nice going through boot camp and A-School as an E3, though.

[ChazInMT]

Originally Posted by AlienBlood

we cut cylinder activation by removing fuel pulse, so if we're removing 2 cylinders out of 6, we gain 33% economy (excluding the pumping loss of compressing the cut cylinders) right off the bat, plus the lower pumping loss of the "more open" throttle body.

Alien, if you've done the research I asked you to look into you are now aware that this statement is pretty inaccurate, and the logic though understandable in how you may get there, is seriously flawed by neglecting massive pumping losses in cylinder deactivation wthout closing the valves and the requirement of still needing to apply the same power to keep moving at a given speed.

In making this statement, you basically told me I had no idea what I was saying in my initial very cordial post. If you want to take insult to my statement of fact that you were ignorant regarding these matters that's on you. I only stated that you missed my point...in so many words. You however out and out called me a D!ck and an arrogant a$$. At no time did I personally insult you, only your line of thought. Whose the better man here so far?