fuel injection to get 64 mpg

Post #322,614 by boxley 3/9/10 7:35:26 PM Reply	fuel injection to get 64 mpg http://www.technolog...energy/24701/?a=f nice If we torture the data long enough, it will confess. (Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences, 1991)
Post #322,616 by Another Scott 3/9/10 8:05:56 PM Reply	Updated Pogue technology... Pogue made the "200 mpg carburator" in the 1930s. There's no free lunch. http://www.mikebrown...ons.com/fish3.htm I'm all for improved efficiency, but talk of vaporizing fuel and adding catalysts is snake oil. Let's see the modified car run at 10 degrees and 110 degrees F. Let's see it run in stop-and-go traffic for hours. Let's see the real mileage over the EPA standard test. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. I'm not buying it. Oh, and MIT Technology Review is a popular science rag. Something appearing in there doesn't mean it's real. The writers can get caught up in the hype. E.g. http://www.techrevie...3/#comment-206080 FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #322,618 by boxley 3/9/10 8:33:20 PM Reply	Re: Updated Pogue technology... a gas engine is a controlled explosion of which one of the components is gasoline. At least the big 3 are looking at it. Heated gas some accelerants and lots of air using less gas than a conventional injector will produce savings. As you noted it needs to run under all sorts of conditions and last at least 200k miles If we torture the data long enough, it will confess. (Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences, 1991)
Post #322,619 by Another Scott 3/9/10 8:47:04 PM Reply	It's even more difficult than in Pogue's day. It's gotta pass the emissions regulations, too. For minimal emissions, the air/fuel ratio has to be 14.7/1. There are ways around it with cleverness and good catalytic converters, but there are tradeoffs. The big auto manufacturers tried "lean burn" combustion, but phased it out over time - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lean_burn The main drawback of lean burning is that a complex catalytic converter system is required to reduce NOx emissions. Lean burn engines do not work well with modern 3-way catalytic converters, which require a balance of pollutants at the exhaust port in order to carry out both oxidation and reduction reactions, so most modern engines run at or near the stoichiometric point. Alternatively, ultra-lean ratios can be used to reduce NOx emissions. Gasoline engines are over 100 years old. There aren't suddenly going to be 50% improvements in efficiency in practical engines that meet all the requirements that real cars have to meet. FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #322,620 by boxley 3/9/10 9:02:19 PM Reply	Re: It's even more difficult than in Pogue's day. http://green.autoblo...ngine-and-60-mpg/ shipping now If we torture the data long enough, it will confess. (Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences, 1991)
Post #322,622 by Another Scott 3/9/10 9:08:13 PM Reply	That's a diesel. Different beast. ;-)
Post #322,623 by boxley 3/9/10 9:08:59 PM Reply	internal combustion engine :-) If we torture the data long enough, it will confess. (Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences, 1991)
Post #322,625 by Another Scott 3/9/10 9:30:36 PM Reply	I very carefully said "gasoline engine". Diesel efficiency hasn't improved that much over the last 20-30 years, either. VW had a 46 mpg diesel in the US in 1985. http://www.mpgomatic...agen_mileage.html Computers and better injectors allow better emissions but haven't dramatically improved mileage. There aren't magic bullets that are going to suddenly increase mileage by 50%. The way to better mileage has been well known for a long, long time: 1) Reduce the car's weight. 2) Use the smallest practical engine. 3) Reduce wind resistance, frontal area, tire resistance, drive train resistance. 4) Use the highest compression ratio available that meets the other requirements. This is a big advantage of diesels (~20:1 versus ~10:1 for gasoline). VW has a car on the road that gets extremely high mileage. http://www.volkswage...1_Liter_Auto.html They (at one time) claimed it would be for sale this year. 0.89 liters/100 km = 264 mpg. This isn't done with magic fuel catalysts or vaporizing the fuel or using magnets. It's simply relentless optimization. Whether people will really be willing to buy it (assuming it meets the safety and emissions regulations) is another question. HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #322,666 by static 3/11/10 4:54:02 AM Reply	True dat. VW are doing things like putting turbo and super-chargers on tiny engines. The other trick that is starting to gain some visibility is to tune the engine for a very specific engine speed and driving a generator with that. Wade. Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers? A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.
Post #322,671 by drook 3/11/10 10:19:21 AM Reply	How is that last one a "trick" That's what locomotives have been doing for decades. I've seen people saying for at least ten years that it's the future of hybrids. I wish someone would just freaking do it already. -- Drew
Post #322,673 by SpiceWare 3/11/10 10:36:55 AM Reply	I'm pretty sure that's what the Volt is doing http://www.chevrolet...lt/future/volt.do ...you can drive up to 40 miles on the electricity stored in the battery Â totally gas and emissions free. After that, its gas-powered, range-extending generator automatically kicks in to provide electrical power.
Post #322,674 by drook 3/11/10 10:38:06 AM Reply	Nit: What the Volt would be doing if they ever shipped it -- Drew
Post #322,677 by SpiceWare 3/11/10 10:57:04 AM Reply	Have I missed something? Everything I've read about the Volt said a 2010 ship date, such as this article from just over 3 years ago. http://www.leftlanen...t-production.html Now if it were Microsoft making those claims I'd certainly question not only the when, but the if it would ship.
Post #322,681 by drook 3/11/10 11:14:02 AM Reply	Latest word is late 2010 http://media.gm.com/...10_chevy_overview I saw other articles mentioning November for the first units, which is when they start releasing 2011 models. So if they call it a 2010 model, that's marketing not reality. And don't forget the EV1. It was "available" for lease, but they took them all back and crushed them as soon as CARB killed the legislation that the EV1 was responding to. When a company had an existing, shipping product, that was already better in nearly every respect than what they're pushing now, that's a pretty clear sign they're not actually trying to make something people want. -- Drew
Post #322,684 by SpiceWare 3/11/10 11:34:27 AM Reply	the chevy link has "2011 Volt, November 2010 release" I don't think I've seen anything saying it would be a "2010 model", though I can see how one could think that's what they meant. As for the EV1, I'm not surprised they killed it as it was way ahead of its time and thus not cost effective. One industry official said that each EV1 cost the company about US$80,000, including research, development and other associated costs; other estimates placed the vehicle's actual cost as high as $100,000. http://en.wikipedia....ccess_vs._failure As for better, that is subjective. Sure it went 2-3 times farther than the Volt does on battery, but once you hit the limit you have to stop and recharge. With a Volt I'd be on battery for vast majority of my driving, but still be able to take a road trip to visit family in Corpus Christ or San Antonio w/out having to stop once(cc)/twice(sa) adding 2/4 hours to a 3/4 hour trip. Increasing the time of a short trip 50% -100% isn't better in my book.
Post #322,689 by drook 3/11/10 12:15:08 PM Reply	Bogus numbers about US$80,000, including research, development and other associated costs Well most of those costs go down (per car) if you keep making it, don't they? As for total range: The film [Who Killed the Electric Car] also showed that the company who had supplied batteries for EV1 had been suppressed from announcing the improved batteries that can double the range of EV1, and General Motors had sold the supplier's majority control share to an oil company. Towards the end of the film, an engineer explains that, as of the interview, lithium ion batteries, the same technology available in laptops, would have allowed the EV1 to be upgraded to a range of 300 miles per charge. http://en.wikipedia....e_Electric_Car%3F They had a fix. They sold the company with the patent to an oil company which immediately shut them down. Chevy never wanted to make an electric car. They wanted to point to an electric car program as evidence they were trying to comply with anticipated CARB regulations. They also wanted to show that despite their best efforts they couldn't comply. And furthermore that people didn't want to buy them anyway. But the engineers fucked up and made something useful, the salespeople fucked up by finding willing customers, and the customers fucked up by wanting them. Chevy literally took back the last cars under police escort, took them to a desert facility, and crushed them. -- Drew
Post #322,707 by SpiceWare 3/11/10 2:30:12 PM Reply	not that many willing customers While customer reaction to the EV1 was positive, GM believed that electric cars occupied an unprofitable niche of the automobile market as they were only able to lease 800 units in face of production costs of US$1 billion over four years. things do appear to be different than 10 years ago, for one they're not being forced to build a product they don't believe in.
Post #322,708 by drook 3/11/10 2:48:54 PM Reply	"GM believed"? I'd have to transcribe the whole movie to make the point. Go get Who Killed the Electric Car to see how hard GM had to work to keep those cars away from people. The only thing they "didn't believe in" was its profit margin compared to Yukons and Suburbans. -- Drew
Post #322,710 by SpiceWare 3/11/10 3:17:45 PM Reply	businesses make that decision all the time Sure I wish Apple hadn't killed off the Newton, and Honda the S2000, but I understand when a company kills off something that's not profitable.
Post #322,711 by drook 3/11/10 3:57:58 PM Reply	You're not hearing what I'm saying They didn't kill it because it was unprofitable. They actively worked to sabotage it. They were trying to prove to CARB that a zero-emission vehicle wasn't feasible, but they forgot to tell the engineers and the sales staff that. They hired all new salespeople with no experience. They made commercials that sounded more like a warning than a sales pitch. They made prospective owners -- excuse me, lessors since they flat refused to actually sell one at any price -- made them fill out a form acknowledging all the "shortcomings", then followed up with calls from corporate to ask, "Are you really, really sure you want one of these?" They bought the rights to technology that would double the range and refused to use it. They killed it because they were afraid it might actually be profitable, which would undercut their legal position with the state of California. And I'm seeing the same level of commitment to the Volt that they showed to the EV1. -- Drew
Post #322,713 by SpiceWare 3/11/10 4:27:34 PM Reply	guess we'll see in 7 months
Post #322,715 by Ashton 3/11/10 5:15:50 PM Reply	Well.. that's.. Beep'nBox's rilly-Freeish Market Inaction responding to a nasty gummint directive seeking something Good. The fuels.. Where what they want is the ... Baddest insolent chariot that keeps the profit-margin max -- next quarter. (When first Euro cars hit the US and started taking sales in late '50s early 60s, the quip on campus was: when Murica makes a 'small car' it will be the heaviest, lousiest handling gas-guzzling small car the world has ever seen. Ayup, some thought the Thunderbird a 'sports car'... and so it went. I'm still waiting for a Detroit reply to the NOVA special (with Click n'Clack for comic relief) wherein Amory Lovins showed his carbon fibre modules, each liftable by a human and glued into place to form the next generation car -- while beating crash-test dynamics etc. Exit, therefore: massive steel-sheet bending machines and much else that adds to expense but not performance. Carbon fibre is expensive. Now. And what similar products might be developed that cost less? Doesn't matter to Detroit CIEIOS. At least -- not yet, it seems. Murica runs on Redmond-logic: find a better solution out there? Buy/or cheaper yet: bankrupt that company and kill the idea. Long enough.. But hey! maybe we Could grow up.
Post #322,722 by static 3/11/10 8:33:36 PM Reply	That's exactly the point. The 'trick' is that car-makers are just starting to do it in a car. Years after loco makers implemented it. What made me realize it was, of all things, a Challenge in a recent Top Gear. The boys were callenged to make an electric car. After a bit of faffing around with just batteries, James May eventually added a small diesel generator, with the comment that that's how trains do it. Some of the other non-Prius hybrids made a bit of a point that the internal combustion engine only powers a generator, but (typically) the motoring journalists haven't twigged as to why this is such a good idea. Yet. Clarkson was full of genuine praise for May's addition and this may be enough to wake some of them up. Wade. Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers? A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.
Post #322,750 by boxley 3/12/10 8:32:09 AM Reply	I remember posting on ezboard a special forces vehicle that looked like a go kart on steroids that ran exactly that way. The tech has been around a long time. If we torture the data long enough, it will confess. (Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences, 1991)
Post #322,755 by folkert 3/12/10 8:39:37 AM Reply	It is remarkable... Diesel generators for Data Centers as backups... are surprisingly efficient. So much so, that I know of a couple that use it as a part of their "green push", rather than the Turbine Jet Fuel powered ones. Of course, you only can get so far with Diesel as a Generator, once you get to certain point... (around 7000-10000 cu inches) the sheer weight of the engine becomes prohibitive.
Post #322,634 by Ashton 3/10/10 7:14:11 AM Reply	Thermodynamics is Hard But it's Easy compared with an infinite number of Disneyland fantasies which -inevitably- are seen to [÷ by 0] after a few steps of obfuscation/complexification Â or perhaps the [secret/patent-pending] Turbo-encabulator injection of phlogiston. If this stuff worked, why Next you'd have otherwise sane people imagining there can be such a thing as a Free MarketÂ® [oblig. cha.cha.cha.], pixies, (And even believing that such a thing could be imagined as a Â Compassionate Conservative® -- read -Reactionary.) Sorry, Charlie.. StarkistÂ doesn't want educated tuna with good taste; it wants tuna that tastes good (the Second Law of Consumer Massage.) (Yeah, as a tyke I did send off my dime for the magic tiny device you could put in your mouth et Viola! You Be a Ventriloquist! It was a cheap lesson about Marketers, since borne out by every-single-One of the sleazy bastards, in their Armanis or naked in their reptile skin. Still, at age 7ish, I Should have known better.) At least the Jack Armstrong Tru-Flite model airplanes of WW-II -- Two for a WheatiesÂ box top-and-a-nickel: once cut out of the heavy paper-stock and glued together with a penny in the nose -- actually flew! (very Well.) ~25 years later, General Mills cleaned out a stockroom of these truly Art-ful creations, most in original still-sealed brown envelopes as-shipped to millions of us tykes; I wrote GM a note extolling their perspicuity in the first place and benevolence in not simply trashing the suckers; asked if there were any odd-lots which I might also salvage(?) to preserve. Beneficently, some Worthy there sent me a packet of a dozen plus. I still have several unassembled ones. When eBay price hits $100 in inflated US Banana Republic scrip, maybe I'll flog a few. I have even the pukka == preferred 1943 zinc penny for that magic-ballast which makes Your Spitfire fly higher than the competition's pedestrian-copper version. :-0 TANSTAAFL (think, re. the 14.7 Ratio: that stoichiometry koan -- it's not just for breakfast any more..) Why are people Always imagining to GET: something for Nothing? Even after the first 100 tries.
Post #323,110 by Another Scott 3/18/10 8:45:59 PM Reply	More at TTAC. http://www.thetrutha...cient-combustion/ Be sure to check the comments if you're interested in this technology. Cheers, Scott.
Post #323,111 by boxley 3/18/10 9:09:54 PM Reply	best comment for me To the skeptics: having Venrock and Khosla invest in your high tech start-up is like getting your scientific article into Science, Nature, or Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. ItÂs been well-vetted. If we torture the data long enough, it will confess. (Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences, 1991)
Post #323,113 by Another Scott 3/18/10 11:18:55 PM Reply	I like these. http://www.thetrutha.../#comment-1606843 http://www.thetrutha.../#comment-1606845 and on the technical side: http://www.thetrutha.../#comment-1606858 http://www.thetrutha.../#comment-1606881 FWIW. ;-) Cheers, Scott.

Welcome to IWETHEY!