Date:         Sun, 5 Dec 2010 12:14:43 -0500
Reply-To:     David Beierl <dbeierl@ATTGLOBAL.NET>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         David Beierl <dbeierl@ATTGLOBAL.NET>
Subject:      Re: Vanagon engine fire or mishap in Roanoke, Va
Comments: To: Mike S <mikes@flatsurface.com>
In-Reply-To:  <20101205125453.08312A007E@locke.alientech.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

At 09:02 PM 12/4/2010, Mike S wrote:
>Do you have a source for that?

Only the quiz/puzzle -- it was either the Car Talk boys, or one of
the automotive-puzzle stories that ran in -- Popular Mechanics, I
think -- when I was a kid.  That's where I learned that if you drop a
spark plug, better check the gap before you stick it in.  And that
some tire leaks only leak at certain rotation angles of the loaded tire.

>Common sense says it's wrong,

Yes, the whole point of the thing was that it's counterintuitive.

>Gasoline is also much more volatile, making explosive combustion more likely.

That was the crux of the matter -- the gasoline was supposed not to
stick around long enough to catch fire.  But if this was based on
straight (i.e. single-fraction) gasoline the results might be very
different now; the heavier fractions might stay put longer.

If I didn't have a high regard for my eyebrows I might rig up a
heated plate and see what happens at different temperatures.  Since
I'm old and boring I guess I'll pass.

Yours,
d