J. A. Spanogle
The tests reported in this paper were made to devise simple engine tests which would rate fuels as to their comparative value and their suitability for the operating conditions of the individual engine on which the tests are made. Three commercial fuels were used in two test engines having combustion chambers with and without effective air flow. Strictly comparative performance tests gave almost identical results for the three fuels. Analysis of indicator cards allowed a differentiation between fuels on a basis of rates of combustion. The same comparative ratings were obtained by determining the consistent operating range of injection advance angle for the three fuels. The difference in fuels is more pronounced in a quiescent combustion chamber than in one with high-velocity air flow. A fuel is considered suitable for the operating conditions of an engine with a quiescent combustion chamber if it permits the injection of the fuel to be advanced beyond the optimum without exceeding allowable knock or allowable maximum cylinder pressures.
An Adobe Acrobat (PDF) file of the entire report: