Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 20:55:57 -0700
Reply-To: neil N <musomuso@GMAIL.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: neil N <musomuso@GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: Dometic mystery ....more clues!
In-Reply-To: <46C9085E.2050402@colorado.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
I haven't looked super closely, but having looked at my 182a burner
box many times this month, and quickly comparing it to the spare 182b
in the basement, the big difference i see is that the 182b box has two
seperate pieces covering it. The smaller piece has the thermal, LP
connection, and sparker on it. Possibly this redesign allows easier
access to burner parts.
I think the burner box functions the same on both models.
I would imagine that if there's less oxygen up higher, then a smaller
orifice would give a more suitable fuel/air ratio. If there's too much
gas coming in, it would flood the burner and flame would go out.
I think Roger may have mentioned it in another thread, but the 182b
may have the smaller orifice. If so, maybe this would suffice for sea
level and higher up.
Neil.
--
Neil Nicholson. 1981 Air Cooled Westfalia -
"Jaco" (Bustorius)
http://web.mac.com/tubaneil
Please send me your Vanagon/Westfalia links!
http://vanagonlinks.googlepages.com/home
On 8/19/07, Richard A Jones <jones@colorado.edu> wrote:
> > It's possible that lowering the pressure might help high altitude performance.
>
>
> The mention of "high altitude" jets for the 182a is interesting,
> but I wonder at differences of 182a and 182b. Maybe the
> burner box is different(?)
>
> My '87 (of course) has the 182b. It has run fine many times
> camping (just last week, for example) up to 10,000+'.
> In fact. it has run fine more than once up to ~13,000'
> (Cinnamon Pass) My pressure is 11.5" from the regulator.
> Last week it ran for 7+ days, from 5,400' to 12,000'
> to 5,500' to 10,000+', etc, etc, and back to Boulder.
> We had Barbie ice cubes for our Margs at Lynx Pass.
>
> It would be interesting to know the difference 'twixt
> #24 and #22 orifices.
>
> I have thought of Paul's situation where the bench-testing
> fridge worked fine until he added the vent cover. The only
> idea that comes to mind is the angle of the vent. When
> installed, the vent is vertical. If I take my fridge out
> the flex tubes "flex" and I'm sure the angle would not
> be vertical, so if I put the vent cover on then, it would
> not be exactly the same as when installed. Maybe this
> could account for the difference in performance(?)
> I can't think of any other reason for the vent cover to
> be a problem when bench testing.
>
> Richard
> Boulder
>
| 
