Itinerant Air-Cooled

While he generally strives for completeness in his answers to technical questions in order to avoid misunderstanding, occasionally our intrepid itinerant will drop a succinct, superficially inscrutable one-liner on an unsuspecting recipient.

One can only assume that, like the Zen masters of old, he is employing a koan to trigger a blast of insight on the part of the student, whom the master has judiciously estimated is ready for such an epiphany.

I was recently the recipient of one such pearl, in response to my lengthy musings on idle vacuum and its relation to ignition timing. Colin responded with the brief:

A retarded spark reduces intake vacuum exactly at valve overlap, the exhaust pulse is much stronger.

It is entirely my failing that I was unable to grok his message, but that's the risk you take when seeking enlightenment: sometimes the switch doesn't flip.

But I thought it would be a good start for a discussion thread on "wisdom by one-liners". Anyone have any other epiphany-inducing gems handed down to them by Colin? Or anyone else, for that matter?

OK..im curious...how and why is spark related to vacuum ??

Oh, sorry, Dingo. I didn't intend for this thread to re-open that discussion. Let's mosy on over to the Engine forum and resume that thread.

I'm still grappling with the Colin Koan you presented as an example SlowLane.

The switch hasn't quite flipped yet for me on that one.

I did have an epiphanic moment lately, but to describe a koan definition to it seemed a stretch in terms of a traditional definition of koan. It was a repetition of phrase that finally lit my dim bulb to blinding clarity.

"Early style floating release bearings must have contact ring on pressure plate, whatever style pressure plate.
Later guided tube release bearings contact fingers directly on what must be finger style pressure plate."

See? Two sentences, thus outside the tradition of the classic definition of Koan, which, if I understand correctly, would be along the lines of "What is the sound of one hand clapping". Well, at least we have a chance to grasp a Colin Koan into further enlightenment. Still grappling that "one hand clapping" lesson.


neal

ruckman101 wrote:I did have an epiphanic moment lately, but to describe a koan definition to it seemed a stretch in terms of a traditional definition of koan.

Thanks for playing, Neal, and for understanding that this is just play. I don't think we should get too wrapped around the axle about whether something we contribute matches the traditional definition of a koan.

If any Zen Bhuddists in the crowd are offended by any liberties we might take, perhaps they should enlighten up. (sorry)

I can't really say because I'm so darn distracted by his run-on sentence.

Cindy

Thanks Cindy, you got a laugh out of me.


neal

Cindy wrote:I can't really say because I'm so darn distracted by his run-on sentence.

Cindy

I know you are not referring to me as the person with the penchant for run-on sentences with subjunctive clauses piled on in a serial effort to cover all exingencies like some lawyerly treatise on the lack of liability accepted by your average modern large corporation selling crap from China that surely needs to hold said corporation's feet to the fire, because, as you know, I prefer to speak pithily and to the point, to wit: "do you loooooove me??????" is met with a florid Bellamy poetic "sure, what's up?"
Colin

Smitten. koan aside.


neal

Amskeptic wrote:

Cindy wrote:I can't really say because I'm so darn distracted by his run-on sentence.

Cindy

I know you are not referring to me as the person with the penchant for run-on sentences with subjunctive clauses piled on in a serial effort to cover all exingencies like some lawyerly treatise on the lack of liability accepted by your average modern large corporation selling crap from China that surely needs to hold said corporation's feet to the fire, because, as you know, I prefer to speak pithily and to the point, to wit: "do you loooooove me??????" is met with a florid Bellamy poetic "sure, what's up?"
Colin

You misunderstand the nature of a run-on sentence. It is not necessarily long.

Cindy

Cindy wrote:

Amskeptic wrote:

Cindy wrote:I can't really say because I'm so darn distracted by his run-on sentence.

Cindy

I know you are not referring to me as the person with the penchant for run-on sentences with subjunctive clauses piled on in a serial effort to cover all exingencies like some lawyerly treatise on the lack of liability accepted by your average modern large corporation selling crap from China that surely needs to hold said corporation's feet to the fire, because, as you know, I prefer to speak pithily and to the point, to wit: "do you loooooove me??????" is met with a florid Bellamy poetic "sure, what's up?"
Colin

You misunderstand the nature of a run-on sentence. It is not necessarily long.

Cindy

I need an example of a short run-on sentence versus a short not-run-on sentence as I am now hopelessly lost in picturing what you meant.

A run-on sentence is a sentence in which two elements which ought to be separated by some form of punctuation and/or conjunction is not. Run-ons are about grammar, and not about length.

The usual case is two independent clauses joined without punctuation. An independent clause is a sentence that can stand along grammatically; hereafter referred to as "IC"

For example:

IC ~ I am. I = subject; am = verb

Simple sentence:

I like fish. I = subject; like = verb; fish = object
I like beef. I = subject; like verb; beef = object

I like fish and beef. OK, because you have one subject, one verb and a compound object. joined by and.

I like fish and I like beef. OK, because each IC is complete; a subject, verb and object. The two ICs are joined by and.

I like fish; I like beef. OK, because each IC is complete; a subject verb and object. The two ICs are joined by the semicolon

I like fish I like beef. NOT OK, because there is no link between the two ICs. Each IC needs to be separated from the other in some way. There are four methods:

1. comma + conjunction
2. Semicolon
3. Colon (if followed by a list, or direct statement)
4. Period

The shortest run-on I can imagine is this:

I am he is.

Be sure to forward a deposit for this lesson to my paypal address.



Michael L

A run-on sentence is two or more complete sentences (of any length) improperly combined.

Cindy

Cindy wrote:...improperly combined.

Cindy

Who gets to decide what is proper?

chitwnvw wrote:

Cindy wrote:...improperly combined.

Cindy

Who gets to decide what is proper?

The rules of grammar are agreed upon, so I meant according to those.

Cindy