E4ODnut wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2024 5:35 pm
I'm not sure that I understand why it is preferable to have all the fuel delivered before the intake valve starts to open…
Is there a flaw in my logic?
IMO, at this point, the technical response is less important than the premise of the question, or we could go in circles forever. Your logic appears
sound, but is based on assumptions. It is therefore a fallacy, if offered as a factual argument. This is addressed in science as a fallacy, in order to prevent presumptions and assumptions to be passed as fact because it "sounds logical".
If we do not know the facts or principles involved, we cannot argue the merit of one position or another. Conversely, we can offer a position based on empirical evidence such as engines using a certain mode, and some findings about it. Or better yet, evidence we have gathered under specific and repeatable conditions, e.g., test results of injecting fuel at various points in the engine cycle. We don't (currently) have that either, nor the conditions for the test. As we have the ability to try stuff; I suggest testing for results, regardless of the causes behind it, as the most direct path to best tuning and performances. Use what works best, whatever that is, not limited by what you think it should be.
- The sky is blue because ozone is blue.
- The sky is blue because it reflects the color of water.
- The sky is blue because cold is blue.
The internet is full of this kind of stuff. Assumptions. They all sound
logical, and are all incorrect.
From 42 Falacies by Dr. Michael C. LaBossiere, ontologist:
LaBossiere wrote:Fallacies and Arguments
In order to understand what a fallacy is, one must understand what an argument is. Very briefly an argument consists of one or more premises and one conclusion. A premise is a statement (a sentence that is either true or false) that is offered in support
of the claim being made, which is the conclusion (which is also a sentence that is either true or false).
There are two main types of arguments: deductive and inductive. A deductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) complete support for the conclusion. An inductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) some degree of support (but less than complete support) for the conclusion. If the premises actually provide the required degree of support for the conclusion, then the argument is a good one. A good deductive argument is known as a valid argument and is such that if all its premises are true, then its conclusion must be true. If all the argument is valid and actually has all true premises, then it is known as a sound argument. If it is invalid or has one or more false premises, it will be unsound. A good inductive argument is known as a strong (or “cogent”) inductive argument. It is such that if the premises are true, the conclusion is likely to be true.
A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts. To be more specific, a fallacy is an “argument” in which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support. A deductive fallacy is a deductive argument that is invalid (it is such that it could have all true premises and still have a false conclusion). An inductive fallacy is less formal than a deductive fallacy. They are simply “arguments” which appear to be inductive arguments, but the premises do not provided enough support for the conclusion. In such cases, even if the premises were true, the conclusion would not be more likely to be true.
I hope this momentary diversion helps towards reaching better results with EFI.