|
As this forum is rarely used anymore, we've locked it. Feel free to browse and read. Questions? Please reach out to us directly. Cheers! |
|
|
 |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
deronmoped
Joined: 03 Nov 2006
Posts: 1154
Location: San Diego
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 4:42 pm Post subject: People are so gullible. |
|
|
I went to the Auto Show yesterday and GM had a display that was showing how the Variable Displacement worked. Some scientific looking guy and girl in their white lab coats were explaining to a big audience of people how this worked. They were in front of a big glass box that had a V8, dyno and all the cool looking gadgets necessary to pull this off. The engine was spinning and it did sound like it was running. I knew right away something was not right. The engine was too clean, no leaks, I could not see how they could get rid of the exhaust... After the demonstration was over, I took a quick look around and could see that they had some large speakers hidden around back, they had used the incorrect fittings on the coolant system, there was no way to exhaust the gases out of the building. People loved it though, drew probably the biggest crowd of the show.
For me, it was a big demonstration on how people just eat things up. They just take what is given to them and gulp it down, taking pictures and awing in amazement.
Deron.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
draganm
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 8990
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
american companies are famous for this, I think it's called the Dog and Poney show. We had a GM display here with E85 ETHANOL plastered on the side of a gas guzzling full size Chevy truck. So instead of tackling the real problem and coming up wth a fuel efficient vehicle, it was easier to just feed the gas guzzler a different fuel. In this case Ethanol, which takes 400 pounds of Corn to make one tank-full of E85. Enough to feed a human being for 1 year.
It was a pretty disgusting display of irresponsible corporate stupidity which seems to be the root cause of many of our problems today.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Curt Palme
CRT Tech
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 24396
Location: Langley, BC
TV/Projector: All of them!
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'd only have one question:
WHAT KIND OF SPEAKERS ARE THEY, and WHAT ARE THEY DRIVING THEM WITH?
(pun on the word 'driving')
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AnalogRocks
Forum Moderator
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 26706
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
TV/Projector: Sony 1252Q, AMPRO 4000G
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 6:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
back in the '80's there use to be a product in the market that consisted of three parts.
A microphone to place up into the exhaust pipe
An amplifier with volume knob
and a pair or waterproof woofers that mounted behind the rear bumper of the car.
It was aimed at the V6/ slant 6 guys. You could amplify the sound of your engine and crank up the base to shake the car beside you and look inpressive. THen when you saw the fuzz you turned the system off.
_________________
Tech support for nothing
CRT.
HD done right!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deronmoped
Joined: 03 Nov 2006
Posts: 1154
Location: San Diego
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Curt
Looked like some regular PA speakers, I counted three, maybe like 15" drivers.
Analog
That's pretty funny, you would think most people would leave that stuff behind when they get done with the cards in the spokes.
What kills me is, they wouldn't need to be going though all this monkey motion if the oil companies would have not killed the 100 MPG Carburetor 
Deron.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JustGreg
Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 3098
Location: Kenosha, WI
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 7:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| deronmoped wrote: | Curt
Looked like some regular PA speakers, I counted three, maybe like 15" drivers.
Analog
That's pretty funny, you would think most people would leave that stuff behind when they get done with the cards in the spokes.
What kills me is, they wouldn't need to be going though all this monkey motion if the oil companies would have not killed the 100 MPG Carburetor
Deron. |
It's a myth and can be proven mathematically. The 100 MPG carb was a real endeavor, but the actual carb was a dismal failure due to the mathematical constraints listed below in an article (c. 1980-ish) derived from interviews with the inventor.
The 100 MPG Carburetor Myth
There have been numerous books and plans written purporting to "reveal the secrets" of the famous "200 mpg carburetor," a device supposedly built in 1935 by Charles Nelson Pogue of Winnipeg, Canada.
As of this writing Mr. Pogue is in a nursing home in Winnipeg, Canada. Several of our customers have visited with him. Each came away with a slightly different story.
Mr. Pogue actually did manufacture a carburetor he titled the "Winnipeg" in the late 1930s; 317 all told. One of our customers had one and claimed it delivered 35 mpg on a Ford Mustang with considerable loss of power; however, he agreed to let us have it for testing and we are still waiting.
There are two problems with the "Pogue principle," which is being touted in high mileage seminars and books all over the country.
The first is that the Pogue carburetor violates the first law of thermodynamics, a commonly accepted scientific postulate that has been with us since 1830.
The law is written as follows: U = q + w
Or, in simple English, if you have chemical energy in a system (U) in its expenditure, it must equal q (heat) plus work (w). That is, if you have 100,000 BTUs in a gallon of fuel in which you then burn the end products—in a system operating at 30% efficiency—you will have 30,000 BTUs of work and 70,000 BTUs of heat.
Anything you put inside the combustion chamber can do only one of two things during the ignition stroke.
Produce energy (mechanical movement) during the reaction.
Absorb energy (leave out the exhaust as heat) during the reaction.
There has been a lot written about the "unburned particulates" furnishing the extra fuel for the extra 50 mpg or so, but if you’ll check the Fish dynatune emissions levels you’ll see there aren’t enough of them to get you another 300 yards down the road.
The second problem encountered with Pogue-type devices is that—in some instances—they actually predate the carburetor.
Let’s elaborate in both cases.
Back before the carburetor as we know it came into being in the 1890s there were several novel methods of getting fuel into the engine.
One method was using a kerosene-soaked rag to drip fuel into the engine.
Another method—that became quite common—was allowing air to pass over the surface of gasoline and then to be sucked into the engine. Sometimes a valve—called a "mixing valve"—would be positioned between the fuel reservoir and the engine. The valve would pop open when the downward motion of the piston created enough suction.
This method—and variations of it—have been touted all over the United States in "100 MPG CARBURETOR" seminars sponsored by various individuals as being the "ultimate" in sophisticated fuel systems, usually with exhaust heat or radiator water added to "vaporize" the fuel much more effectively than a standard carburetor.
There are a number of things wrong with the concept of such a "100 MPG" system.
The first is that the gasolines in use during the days of the mixing valve were far more volatile than the ones in use today. Some of you may remember when you could stand ten feet away from an open pan of gasoline, light a match, and watch the gasoline immediately catch fire.
Gasolines were changed in the 1930s with the advent of the catalytic cracker now used in petroleum refining. Carburetors like the Pogue, which depend on easily vaporized gasoline, simply will not work with today’s gasolines.
The second seminar-taught error is the method of using exhaust heat or radiator water to heat the fuel to the "vapor" point to extend the mileage. Warming or preheating fuel does have some value, but it’s limited.
Consider using hot water from the radiator to vaporize the fuel first.
Today’s gasolines do not completely vaporize until they reach 450º Fahrenheit heat, while the maximum temperature of the water in today’s pressure radiators reaches only 250º Fahrenheit. You just can’t heat a substance to 450º Fahrenheit using a 250º Fahrenheit heat source.
At least, not on this planet.
Exhaust heat works a bit differently.
It is the function of an internal combustion engine to change chemical energy into heat, and then the heat into mechanical movement. If the heat is not changed into mechanical movement it simply leaves—as heat. Any time you feel heat coming off an engine you are feeling wasted energy. The exhaust ports of an engine that operated at 100% efficiency would be ice-cold to the touch since ALL the heat would have been changed into mechanical movement.
Which means that the more efficient your engine is the less exhaust heat you’re going to have.
For example, if you have 600º Fahrenheit exhaust heat produced by one gallon of gas over a 20-mile trip and you use "exhaust heat" to "vaporize" the fuel and go 60 miles, what produces the 600º Fahrenheit heat for the next 40 miles?
If you answered "two more gallons of fuel," go to the head of the class!
Seriously, there are ways to go several times the distance on a gallon of fuel (none of them involving carburetors); it’s just that the foregoing examples aren’t two of them.
In short, Charles Nelson Pogue was a machinist with no formal training in thermodynamics and may have actually believed that what he was attempting would work.
All a carburetor can do is meter and atomize fuel in correct proportion to air.
Any further increases have to come from increasing the thermal efficiency of the engine itself (such as raising compression) or reducing rolling friction. And this last is why a diesel locomotive with steel wheels will go ten times as far on a gallon of fuel as a diesel truck of the same weight with rubber tires.
For Pogue—or any similar carburetor—to go 100 mpg on a gallon of fuel on a vehicle normally going 20 mpg, the air/fuel ratio would have to be in the neighborhood of 75 to 1 or better.
Any second-year college chemistry student knows that.
_________________
Greg
"Is it ignorance or apathy? Hey, I don't know and I don't care!" --Jimmy Buffett
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garyfritz
Joined: 08 Apr 2006
Posts: 12088
Location: Fort Collins, CO
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JustGreg wrote: | | For Pogue—or any similar carburetor—to go 100 mpg on a gallon of fuel on a vehicle normally going 20 mpg, the air/fuel ratio would have to be in the neighborhood of 75 to 1 or better. |
There's the kicker. No, I doubt there's any way to get 5x more energy out of a gallon of gasoline than what is currently done, just by swapping out the carburetor. But that assumes you insist on using a car / engine that's only capable of doing 20 mpg.
Start with a more efficient engine and a lighter / more aerodynamic body, and it's not so impossible. Toyota claims they will have a new-generation Prius capable of 100mpg -- in 2009. See e.g. http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=109981.
(And if you haven't driven or ridden in a Prius -- no, it's not a Ford F500 with a 428 hemi, but that's the point. It IS however a very roomy and very drivable car. I'm 6'4" and I fit into the front seat with plenty of room to spare. The headroom was a bit tight in back, but it wouldn't be for a normal-sized human.)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck27
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 379
Location: Caledon Township, Ontario
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 10:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garyfritz wrote: | | a Ford F500 with a 428 hemi |
That'd be quite a vehicle! I'd sure love to get my hands on one of those...the old Avalanche with the 5.3 just isn't cutting it off the line any more.
Chuck
_________________
Chuck
using acreage for sound insulation since 1999
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deronmoped
Joined: 03 Nov 2006
Posts: 1154
Location: San Diego
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 11:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There was a attempt to build a ceramic engine by a guy named Smokey backed by some bucks from the auto industry. The idea was to be able to run at real high temperatures for maximum efficiency. Newer cars do run at higher temps. It used to be 180 F now it's like 220 F. A cold engine gets terrible mileage, one of the many reasons smaller engines are more efficient.
What they need to do is come up with a catalyst that converts gas so as it burns it produces pressure without the heat losses. Can they do that or was that killed by the oil companies?
Deron.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
papalek
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 1536
Location: Longs SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AnalogRocks
Forum Moderator
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 26706
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
TV/Projector: Sony 1252Q, AMPRO 4000G
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 1:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| garyfritz wrote: | | it's not a Ford F500 with a 428 hemi, but that's the point. |
That would be a hybrid vehicle, Ford F550 with Dodge POWER.
_________________
Tech support for nothing
CRT.
HD done right!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
papalek
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 1536
Location: Longs SC
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 5:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Actually Ford had a Hemi as well. It was called the Boss 429. 
_________________
My current list of PJ's AmPro 1 1/2-4600,4200, 1/2-3600,2600.
I do love my AmPro's
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dave Lister
Joined: 16 Jan 2007
Posts: 436
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 9:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Did you know that during World War 2 the British Air Force used a method of injecting steam into the engines of their planes so they had the power needed for takeoff without having to have the planes sit on the ground with the enigine running to warm them up?
This enabled them to respond more quickly to any german threats.
My grandfather told me about that and also about a local (in Adelaide) racing engineer who had a way of adding steam into the engine to get more power from it and win races without breaking any rules, it used heat from the exhaust to heat the water in a tank into steam.
It wouldn't work at the start of the race but once the engine had heated some pipes he turned on a valve and the car went faster.
Other drivers weren't happy.
Did you also know that some of the ads appearing at the bottom of these threads is for a way to use water as fuel?
#
Burn Water As Fuel
Increase Mileage And Save Lot of $ Convert Your Car To Run On Water!
WaterFuelForYourCar.com
Water For Fuel Works
Learn What water for fuel Is And How to Do It Simple and effective…
AffiliatesDen.com/sites/26339.h
Use Water As Fuel
Safely Run Your Car On Water
Easy Avoid Rising Gas Costs !
Water4Gas.com/2books.htm
_________________
I don't believe in pixels or flaries!
Owner of a VPH1000QM with over 80,000 hours on the tubes.
Beat that you digital technicolour flashlight owners.
Stuff for sale;
http://www.quicksales.com.au/buy/auctions.aspx?i=&d=0&min=&max=&sort=0&pg=1&cat=0&keyword=&view=List&f1=&f2=&type=c&type2=&type3=&type4=&type5=tardis-workshop&s=&pcode=&dis=0&freepost=
http://www.ebay.com.au/sch/tardis_workshop/m.html?_dmd=1&_ipg=50&_sop=10&_rdc=1
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deronmoped
Joined: 03 Nov 2006
Posts: 1154
Location: San Diego
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 4:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Crower is right in my neighborhood, been selling high performance parts for decades, so he's no quack, maybe he's on to something.
His engine makes sense thought. Burn some fuel to run the engine, inject water to cool it back down and use the expanding steam as another power stroke. Seems too simple to be true and why has this not been explored before, if it has not.
The only downside that jumps out at me is, there would be quite a bit of water vapor everywhere, but then again you could use a condenser to recover most of the water.
I used water injection for a short time on a turbo installation I had, it was for cooling so you would not get the detonation. The steam was supposed to make for a super clean combustion chamber and they did say you may see some extra power, mostly from being able to run at higher boost levels.
Deron.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AnalogRocks
Forum Moderator
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 26706
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
TV/Projector: Sony 1252Q, AMPRO 4000G
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| papalek wrote: | | Actually Ford had a Hemi as well. It was called the Boss 429. |
True, but Chrysler made the Hemi famous.
_________________
Tech support for nothing
CRT.
HD done right!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
txsmoke
Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Posts: 31
Location: Murphy, TX, 75094 (N of Dallas)
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 9:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And the best part of ethanol and the big 3 is they have been touting this 'new' technology that they worked so hard to develop. My timeline may be off, but IIRC, they have been selling the E85 vehicles around the world for several years/decades.
E85 makes sense if you have the sugar cane to do it with, but even that source has plenty of problems inherit with it. National Geographic had a really good article on the issue of alternative energy last year that compared/contrasted the various ideas vs. current technology. It seemed the best was conservation. However, that has downsides- for example, flourescent bulbs use mercury (albeit, a small amount).
And lets not forget the cost to the environment to make the batteries for the hybrid/electric cars. Mining the ore, extracting the metals, shipping to a manufacturing facility, the waste created in manufacture, shipping the batteries, the power needed to charge them has to come from somewhere, and then there is responsible disposal when they are used up. And who wants a 6 year old hybrid with questionable batteries to drive? There's no resale market.
Back to the shadows,
Mike
| draganm wrote: | american companies are famous for this, I think it's called the Dog and Poney show. We had a GM display here with E85 ETHANOL plastered on the side of a gas guzzling full size Chevy truck. So instead of tackling the real problem and coming up wth a fuel efficient vehicle, it was easier to just feed the gas guzzler a different fuel. In this case Ethanol, which takes 400 pounds of Corn to make one tank-full of E85. Enough to feed a human being for 1 year.
It was a pretty disgusting display of irresponsible corporate stupidity which seems to be the root cause of many of our problems today. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stefuel
Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 3353
Location: Green Harbor MA USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 11:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| deronmoped wrote: | Crower is right in my neighborhood, been selling high performance parts for decades, so he's no quack, maybe he's on to something.
His engine makes sense thought. Burn some fuel to run the engine, inject water to cool it back down and use the expanding steam as another power stroke. Seems too simple to be true and why has this not been explored before, if it has not.
The only downside that jumps out at me is, there would be quite a bit of water vapor everywhere, but then again you could use a condenser to recover most of the water.
I used water injection for a short time on a turbo installation I had, it was for cooling so you would not get the detonation. The steam was supposed to make for a super clean combustion chamber and they did say you may see some extra power, mostly from being able to run at higher boost levels.
Deron. |
That's a interesting concept injecting steam into the combustion chamber. After all water is two parts o and one part H. I'd bet only some of the water vapor is actually cleaning the chamber whilst the other is breaking down and providing additional o for combustion support leaving what?... H for additional fuel. I'm curious though what effect it had on the lubricating oil in the engine. Did the oil absorb some of the steam and turn milky in consistancy?
_________________
Chip
A Barco is only a AmPro with training wheels
Card carrying member of the AVS chain gang.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deronmoped
Joined: 03 Nov 2006
Posts: 1154
Location: San Diego
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Chip
Water in the crankcase should not be a issue. A tiny bit may get by the rings, but the engine at operating temperatures will just keep the water in a vapor that would be drawn back into the intake.
Engines burning gas have to deal with water vapor already. Water is a byproduct of combustion, if you were to run a engine at a too low of a temperature you would end up with water in the oil. One reason you should never run a engine without a thermostat.
Deron.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ronholm
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 12111
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 5:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| garyfritz wrote: | | JustGreg wrote: | | For Pogue—or any similar carburetor—to go 100 mpg on a gallon of fuel on a vehicle normally going 20 mpg, the air/fuel ratio would have to be in the neighborhood of 75 to 1 or better. |
There's the kicker. No, I doubt there's any way to get 5x more energy out of a gallon of gasoline than what is currently done, just by swapping out the carburetor. But that assumes you insist on using a car / engine that's only capable of doing 20 mpg.
|
pV=nRT
Chit... Ever read about Smokey Yunick..
My favorite car of his was the 350 chevy based 207 inch V8 he took on the Indy series LMAO.. I saw it in person at the Saratoga Auto Museam once.. It was very cool.. They had it sitting right next to an honest to God Original OPERATIONAL Stanley Steamer.
"Smokey" had a couple Patents on the Hot Vapor cycle thing thing.. He also had a several very fast high MPG cars. The most famous was a adiabatic fiero.
_________________
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ronholm
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 12111
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 5:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stefuel wrote: | | deronmoped wrote: | Crower is right in my neighborhood, been selling high performance parts for decades, so he's no quack, maybe he's on to something.
His engine makes sense thought. Burn some fuel to run the engine, inject water to cool it back down and use the expanding steam as another power stroke. Seems too simple to be true and why has this not been explored before, if it has not.
The only downside that jumps out at me is, there would be quite a bit of water vapor everywhere, but then again you could use a condenser to recover most of the water.
I used water injection for a short time on a turbo installation I had, it was for cooling so you would not get the detonation. The steam was supposed to make for a super clean combustion chamber and they did say you may see some extra power, mostly from being able to run at higher boost levels.
Deron. |
That's a interesting concept injecting steam into the combustion chamber. After all water is two parts o and one part H. I'd bet only some of the water vapor is actually cleaning the chamber whilst the other is breaking down and providing additional o for combustion support leaving what?... H for additional fuel. I'm curious though what effect it had on the lubricating oil in the engine. Did the oil absorb some of the steam and turn milky in consistancy? |
I'll second that opinion on water injection. I have used it on a couple different Turbo cars. I personally prefer extra regular good ole high octane myself after my experiments ( I kept forgetting to refill my water/alky tank and melted down some pistons CHIT)
But one of my good friends is running a 1985 Plymouth laser, with the original "log" style intake (it restricts air to cly 1 and 2) at almost 17 psi (compared to 7 stock) with no other changes to the fuel delivery system than squirting in some 50/50 water/alky. The car really only has enough fuel to support around 13 psi without the water.. The ole laser has been running great like this for a couple years now. It isn't how I would do it.. But it works for him and is pretty fast for a heavy Turbo One car.
It weighs around 2800lbs. I would guess it runs low 14's to mid/high 13's He runs the crapp out of the car and always gets better than 25 mpg. This all with a POS designed in the late 70's.
_________________
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Forum powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
|
|
