Oh please, I gave you a non-tech thumbnail guide of basic
air and particulate flow. Something any engineer would
recognise from rudementary fluid flow courses and physics
courses they would have taken in college. Something
no engineer would need to have references provided
to. It was given in a simple format so that all could understand
it regardless of technical level.
But, since you seem to be unable to recognise fundamentals
of fluid and particulate travel, and are apparently deeply
worried that anything I say might be K&N propaganda,
go read something like the EPA APTI Course SI:412C
Wet Scrubber Plan Review EPA 450/2-82-020, or
EPA APTI Course SI:412D Control of Gaseous and
Particulate Emissions EPA 450/2-84/007. Unless
of course you wish to next claim the EPA is in
cohoots with K&N.
Please notice, I've never advocated or recommended
K&N filters. I've merely addressed filtration concepts, not
the execution of them.
Now, if you've got the evidence you alude to that proves the
entire body of science with regards to particulate travel in a
fluid is wrong, I'd be most fascinated to see that.
>>> Trevor Boicey <tboicey@brit.ca> 09/26 1:56 PM >>>
Nolan Penney wrote:
>
> Not sure what the point of the flame was, since I don't have a
> vested interest in K&N. What I told you was engineering
> scientific fact about air flow filtration. Well referenced and
> documented in various engineering handbooks and trade
> journals on the subject.
Please provide with references. All I saw was a
loose text piece, not unlike the information on K&Ns
own website.
I'm sorry, but any impartial scientific analysis and
evidence I have seen, including from people I know personally, has
been very much to the contrary.
/// spitfires@autox.team.net mailing list
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
|