100+mpg carburator ???
satman3
I have heard that the government baught up all patents to the so called 100+
mpg ..
If you have any info on plans or theories of the of the 100+ mpg carb ,
please reply.
thanks guys .
Dave
mandate an average MPG goal for manufacturers?
On Sat, 22 Jan 2000 14:30:04 -0500, "satman3" <sat...@aisnc.net>
wrote:
GRooster88
retired mechanic whose specialty was carburation and this one is older than me!
Rooster
Howard Smith
put a carburetor in anything?
"Dave" <da...@spam.bait.com> wrote in message
news:388d2109...@news2.newscene.com...
ktdog2
light in weight. I have witnessed such a feat. My 1979 Puch Moped 50cc
could average over 100mpg in town!! Not bad for a little two stroke.
Bob Blanchard
satman3 <sat...@aisnc.net> wrote in message
news:86d09n$92d$1...@news3.infoave.net...
> Does anyone have any info on the supposed 100+ mpg carburator ?
> I have heard that the government baught up all patents to the so called
100+
> mpg ..
> If you have any info on plans or theories of the of the 100+ mpg carb ,
> please reply.
> thanks guys .
>
>
PLEASE, NOT THIS AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
UEI
This details the so called 100 mpg carburetor. The reason that there is no
100 mpg car has to do with the fact that there is only so much energy in a
gallon of gasoline and most of the energy is wasted as heat when an engine
runs.
Charlie
Bob Nixon
wrote:
>Does anyone have any info on the supposed 100+ mpg carburator ?
>I have heard that the government baught up all patents to the so called 100+
>mpg ..
>If you have any info on plans or theories of the of the 100+ mpg carb ,
>please reply.
> thanks guys .
>
This was the infamous "Fish" one barrel carburetor.
Bob Nixon
http://members.home.net/bigrex/
Robert Hancock
--
Robert Hancock Saskatoon, SK, Canada
To email, remove "nospam" from hanc...@nospamhome.com
Home Page: http://members.home.net/hancockr
"satman3" <sat...@aisnc.net> wrote in message
news:86d09n$92d$1...@news3.infoave.net...
Don Stauffer
papers that cover where the energy goes in real engines. We
can start with the idea that only about 1/3 of the energy in
the fuel gives useful work. That does NOT mean, however,
that only 1/3 of the fuel is burned.
In fact, in spite of the myth, except under very special
conditions of idle or wide open throttle, nearly ALL of the
fuel is burned. The problem is, however, that much of the
HEAT resulting from the burning is wasted. Approximately
1/3 goes into the cooling system. Think of all that hot air
coming from the radiator. That is ENERGY.
About a third goes out the exhaust pipe. Now, think for a
moment. If the gas pressure between the cylinder when the
valve opened, and the end of the exhaust, the gas would not
rapidly leave the engine, it would just sort of trickle
out. In that case you could not run the engine very fast.
In a high speed internal combustion engine there is a limit
to how much energy you can extract in the cylinder without
restricting RPM.
So, that leaves 1/3 of the energy delivering mechanical
work. At best, the most perfect carburation or fuel
injection system can give us only a very few percent gain at
any condition other than idle.
The biggest waste to attack is the cooling loss, and there
are research projects and test engines for running the
engine with no cooling.
satman3 wrote:
>
> Does anyone have any info on the supposed 100+ mpg carburator ?
> I have heard that the government baught up all patents to the so called 100+
> mpg ..
> If you have any info on plans or theories of the of the 100+ mpg carb ,
> please reply.
> thanks guys .
--
Don Stauffer in Minneapolis
stau...@gte.net
http://home1.gte.net/stauffer/
Robert Erck
to Roswell for further analysis. ;-)
Dr. Bob
-----------------------------------
In article <yVuKOM6XjT3obf...@4ax.com>, Bob Nixon
<big...@nospam.home.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2000 14:30:04 -0500, "satman3" <sat...@aisnc.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Does anyone have any info on the supposed 100+ mpg carburator ?
> >I have heard that the government baught up all patents to the so called 100+
> >mpg ..
> >If you have any info on plans or theories of the of the 100+ mpg carb ,
> >please reply.
> > thanks guys .
> >
>
Philip
>HEAT resulting from the burning is wasted. Approximately
>1/3 goes into the cooling system.
Yes, AND, if you are using an old Ford flathead where the center two exhaust
ports where siamesed and routed about 12 inches thru the block, you transferred
even MORE heat to the cooling system ! Hhahhaa.
Yeah, the 100mpg carb was adapted from a 50cc moped (12mm throat), to a
4cylinder Pinto and pushed full throttle down a LONG hill !
Philip
"Logic is a method used to arrive at
wrong conclusions with confidence!"
ralph
wouldn't overheat. As a bonus, double the redline.
--
Fast as lightning, slick as glass.
Out from Hell on a three day pass.
Gummo
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
John
on Chevy, 100 mpg carb.
z
fuel mileage cars driven by a little skinny Japanese guy with paper
slippers. but when i installed it on the V10 in my Dodge Ram, it
wouldn't give me 100 mpg any more. What a ripoff.
In article <86d09n$92d$1...@news3.infoave.net>, "satman3"
<sat...@aisnc.net> wrote:
> Does anyone have any info on the supposed 100+ mpg carburator ?
> I have heard that the government baught up all patents to the so
> called 100+
> mpg ..
> If you have any info on plans or theories of the of the 100+ mpg
> carb ,
> please reply.
> thanks guys .
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
Philip
>fuel mileage cars driven by a little skinny Japanese guy with paper
>slippers. but when i installed it on the V10 in my Dodge Ram, it
>wouldn't give me 100 mpg any more. What a ripoff.
>In article
In the first place, you saw the carb on a 'little bitty engine' which is the
FIRST reason he obtained 100mpg. I have a Honda Passport in my garage which
has a SEVENTY cc engine and the tinyest carb you've ever seen. I have gotten
110 mpg with it ! I can guantee you engine size and vehicle weight are
significantly less than your Dodge (is that obvious to you?). You seem to be
laboring under the misconception that a carburetor is the whole issue to
getting high fuel mileage. It takes a LOT of gas to move that 4,500pound
truck with those high rolling resistance tires along the highway at 70 mph.
Back to the Honda, top speed is 42mph and the cruise speed is 35. NO FREEBIES
in the fuel contest. What you call a ripoff is really the diappointment of a
reality check.
greg
used a turbo, (he called it a homogenizer, which kept a homogenous fuel
mixture and also compressed it), and a carburetor which preheated the fuel.
His tests showed that as long as the mixture was thoroughly mixed,
preheating did not cause detonation. As I recall, the car was a Fiero with
the Iron Duke in it. I do remember he said a Volkswagen engineer drove it
around town for an hour pulling 4th gear trying to get it to grenade. I
think the Smoke said he was getting 60 mpg and made 400 ponies. I believe
the article was in Popular Science or Popular Mechanics. Wish I had saved
it. Don't know where his idea went, I have alot of trust in that man and I
don't believe anyone could have bought him out. For those of you that don't
know who he is, I believe he is the only man to run Indy without a sponsor
Bob Nixon <big...@nospam.home.com> wrote in message
news:yVuKOM6XjT3obf...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2000 14:30:04 -0500, "satman3" <sat...@aisnc.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Does anyone have any info on the supposed 100+ mpg carburator ?
> >I have heard that the government baught up all patents to the so called
100+
> >mpg ..
> >If you have any info on plans or theories of the of the 100+ mpg carb ,
> >please reply.
> > thanks guys .
> >
>
Robert Hancock
Insight hybrid gas-electric car. There was a sidebar about how Honda put a
bunch of car magazines up to a challenge of how much gas mileage they could
get out of these cars on a certain road trip. Taking advantage of a loophole
in Honda's rules which allowed drafting behind any other vehicle, the Car &
Driver guys took a Ford Excursion, strapped the rear doors open, put some
big mudflaps on the back to block the air from getting past, and drove the
Insight down the road right behind the Excursion. Apparently when the
Insight moved near the Excursion's bumper the dashboard computer's mileage
reading exceeded 100 mpg, and when they moved up within inches it approached
150 mpg.
These kind of cars will probably get about 60 mpg without such extreme
drafting techniques :-)
--
Robert Hancock Saskatoon, SK, Canada
To email, remove "nospam" from hanc...@nospamhome.com
Home Page: http://members.home.net/hancockr
"satman3" <sat...@aisnc.net> wrote in message
news:86d09n$92d$1...@news3.infoave.net...
R. Anton Rave
>I have heard that the government baught up all patents to the so
>called 100+ mpg ..
I saw the book about them that's been advertised in the classifieds of
Popular Mechanics. Thin book, written on an old typewriter, lots of
hand-drawn diagrams. All the carbs were supposed to put out pure vapor
by using wicks or by spreading the gasoline over a large, heated metal
surface. The author claimed that regular carbs mostly poured in raw
gas that can't burn, and if you took the exhaust from a regular car, it
could pumped into another engine and make it run (I'm assuming this is
before smog controls). But anyone who's seen a regular carb in action
knows that the fuel comes out as a fine fog (except from the
accelerator pump). Some of the carbs in the book were a yard long, and
some or most of the designs weren't actually tested by the author.
So the only logical conclusion is the government and the big oil
companies have supressed this miracle technology.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Don Stauffer
of common sense, the efficiency of a gas spark ignition
engine is low at low power settings. If there were no power
enrichment settings, efficiency would be max at max
throttle. Engines built for some of these extreme milage
contests do not even have a throttle.
At low power settings in an IC engines the losses do not
fall nearly as rapidly as the power. So the amount of power
per amount of fuel actually decreases.
John wrote:
>
> yep if you want no horse power put carb off of Brigs & Stratton
> on Chevy, 100 mpg carb.
--
Bob Nixon
wrote:
>Actually you may even lose milage with this trick. In spite
>of common sense, the efficiency of a gas spark ignition
>engine is low at low power settings. If there were no power
>enrichment settings, efficiency would be max at max
>throttle. Engines built for some of these extreme milage
>contests do not even have a throttle.
-----------------------------------------^^^^^^
>
>At low power settings in an IC engines the losses do not
>fall nearly as rapidly as the power. So the amount of power
>per amount of fuel actually decreases.
>
>John wrote:
>>
>> yep if you want no horse power put carb off of Brigs & Stratton
>> on Chevy, 100 mpg carb.
Don, You've just made an excellent argument in favor of old 'Rudolf's
version of the IC engine. If you catch my drift -:)
Bob Nixon
http://members.home.net/bigrex/
Steve Bigelow
Robert Hancock wrote in message ...
>Even in an old no-emissions car from the 50s, there's no way you could run
>another engine on the exhaust.
I recall Saab doing something like this a long time (15 years) ago or
so....of course, they still had the fuel system hooked up...I think it was
to show how clean the _exhaust_ was, as in Ox content.
The intake car stumbled a bit, and then adapted, and idled and reved just
fine.
Bael Zar
Mileage is determined by how much load is demanded by the engine.
If you want 100mpg by a carburetor, you'd better develop an engine that is
fuel efficient.
BTW, at this time, 100mpg means slow going.
Bael Zar
John wrote in message <86kbta$3ft$1...@plonk.apk.net>...
>yep if you want no horse power put carb off of Brigs & Stratton
>on Chevy, 100 mpg carb.
Of course you're not planning on meeting or exceeding the school zone speed
limit....
Robert Hancock
another engine on the exhaust.
--
Robert Hancock Saskatoon, SK, Canada
To email, remove "nospam" from hanc...@nospamhome.com
Home Page: http://members.home.net/hancockr
"R. Anton Rave" <prodi...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:86mrrq$78k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Philip
>another engine on the exhaust.
I remember that urban rumor years ago. I think it was promulgated by the early
environmentalists to promote smog controls. At the time, cars had 'road draft'
tubes to provide crankcase ventilation.
Philip
(FROM A 440 V8 and in a deep voice) 'FEED ME...NOW!'
Mileage is determined by how much load is demanded by the engine.
(SURE, COASTING IS THE KEY TO WINNING AN MPG RACE)
If you want 100mpg by a carburetor, you'd better develop an engine that is
fuel efficient.
(MY HONDA PASSPORT HAS A 70cc OVERHEAD CAM ENGINE)
BTW, at this time, 100mpg means slow going.
(THE HONDA RETURNS 100-115MPG REGULARLY BUT THE CRUISE SPEED IS ONLY
35MPH....TOP SPEED 42. BEST TO LEAVE HOME EARLY!)
Don Stauffer
it, they can cure the idiosynchrocies of the present ones.
We had an old VW Diesel- had to take it 'cause it was
offered to us by inlaws. I really didn't like it, and was
glad to get rid of it, but I believe the problems could
indeed by solved.
I just cannot understand the way the Japanese are designing
hybrids. For one thing, I think parallel hybrids are
stupid. Then, to but an SI engine in a hybrid is to me
double-stupid.
Bob Nixon wrote:
>
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2000 16:09:50 GMT, Don Stauffer <stau...@gte.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Actually you may even lose milage with this trick. In spite
> >of common sense, the efficiency of a gas spark ignition
> >engine is low at low power settings. If there were no power
> >enrichment settings, efficiency would be max at max
> >throttle. Engines built for some of these extreme milage
> >contests do not even have a throttle.
> -----------------------------------------^^^^^^
>
> >
> >At low power settings in an IC engines the losses do not
> >fall nearly as rapidly as the power. So the amount of power
> >per amount of fuel actually decreases.
> >
> >John wrote:
> >>
> >> yep if you want no horse power put carb off of Brigs & Stratton
> >> on Chevy, 100 mpg carb.
>
> Don, You've just made an excellent argument in favor of old 'Rudolf's
> version of the IC engine. If you catch my drift -:)
>
> Bob Nixon
> http://members.home.net/bigrex/
--
Don Stauffer
100 mpg would not mean slow if the vehicle did not have a
high power requirement. Since vehicles in high milage
competitions have averaged nearly 500 mpg, one could
probably operate such a vehicle pretty fast and still get
pretty respectable milage :-)
Bael Zar wrote:
>
> A carburetor is simply a feeding device for the engine.
>
> Mileage is determined by how much load is demanded by the engine.
>
> If you want 100mpg by a carburetor, you'd better develop an engine that is
> fuel efficient.
>
> BTW, at this time, 100mpg means slow going.
--
Steve Bigelow
Don Stauffer wrote in message <3890626F...@gte.net>...
>My point is, max efficiency is near max load, not min.
>
>100 mpg would not mean slow if the vehicle did not have a
>high power requirement. Since vehicles in high milage
>competitions have averaged nearly 500 mpg,
Actually, I believe the winner has bested 1000 mpg.
Full throttle, and then shut off. Repeat when you've slowed enough.
Would make for an interesting drive to work.
Bob Nixon
wrote:
>> Don, You've just made an excellent argument in favor of old 'Rudolf's
>> version of the IC engine. If you catch my drift -:)
>You bet! And, I believe, with enough development put into
>it, they can cure the idiosynchrocies of the present ones.
>We had an old VW Diesel- had to take it 'cause it was
>offered to us by inlaws. I really didn't like it, and was
>glad to get rid of it, but I believe the problems could
>indeed by solved.
>
>I just cannot understand the way the Japanese are designing
>hybrids. For one thing, I think parallel hybrids are
>stupid. Then, to but an SI engine in a hybrid is to me
>double-stupid.
Well things are not all that dismal for the US consumer.
1) VW's NEW turbo diesel is a real winner. It's only rated at 90HP but
there's no turbo lag and 155Lbs of torque @1900RPM. I test drove a
Jetta 1.9TD last weekend and it felt more like a V6 off the line. No
smoke or stink, 42-49 MPG and the idle sounded like it needed a valve
adjustment instead of a characteristic diesel 'rattle'. This one was
an automatic and could easily break the tires loose from a stop. The
glow plugs automatically come on when the door is open, so no waiting
and there wasn't a hint of any cold blooded behavior.
2) I read in an engineering trade magazine of some diesel hybrids with
100MPG with similar performance to these SI hybrids from Honda.
3) Lots of well mannered automotive diesels from MB, BMW and other
european car makers like the VW I mentioned. It's too bad there's such
a stigma in the US market place -:(
4) GM is FINALLY jumping on the Diesel pickup bandwagon next year,
with a quiet 300HP V8 from Japanese part GM owned Isusu.
Things can only get better with the current state of electronic engine
controls. Too bad the US market can't open their eyes and try to
forget those awful GM 350 gas to diesel engine conversions from the
70's
BTW, my second car is a cherry 1984 MB 300TD. It's typical of that era
with fairly good manners but is rather gutless until the turbo spins
up, then all of a sudden it comes on like gang busters and I have to
back off the throttle. Fuel economy is not bad (21-25MPG) for a
3800Lbs car with barn door aerodynamics, automatic and fairly short
legged gearing.
[...]
Bob Nixon
http://members.home.net/bigrex/
Robert Hancock
example. Many other companies also have rather impressive new diesels for
cars, although many aren't available in North America.
Electronic controls have made a big difference, especially in smoke output.
This is especially apparent with heavy-duty diesels - compare the amount of
soot an old semi puts out compared to a new one.
--
Robert Hancock Saskatoon, SK, Canada
To email, remove "nospam" from hanc...@nospamhome.com
Home Page: http://members.home.net/hancockr
"Don Stauffer" <stau...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:389061B0...@gte.net...
> You bet! And, I believe, with enough development put into
> it, they can cure the idiosynchrocies of the present ones.
> We had an old VW Diesel- had to take it 'cause it was
> offered to us by inlaws. I really didn't like it, and was
> glad to get rid of it, but I believe the problems could
> indeed by solved.
>
> I just cannot understand the way the Japanese are designing
> hybrids. For one thing, I think parallel hybrids are
> stupid. Then, to but an SI engine in a hybrid is to me
> double-stupid.
>
>
> Bob Nixon wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 26 Jan 2000 16:09:50 GMT, Don Stauffer <stau...@gte.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Actually you may even lose milage with this trick. In spite
> > >of common sense, the efficiency of a gas spark ignition
> > >engine is low at low power settings. If there were no power
> > >enrichment settings, efficiency would be max at max
> > >throttle. Engines built for some of these extreme milage
> > >contests do not even have a throttle.
> > -----------------------------------------^^^^^^
> >
> > >
> > >At low power settings in an IC engines the losses do not
> > >fall nearly as rapidly as the power. So the amount of power
> > >per amount of fuel actually decreases.
> > >
> > >John wrote:
> > >>
> > >> yep if you want no horse power put carb off of Brigs & Stratton
> > >> on Chevy, 100 mpg carb.
> >
> > Don, You've just made an excellent argument in favor of old 'Rudolf's
> > version of the IC engine. If you catch my drift -:)
> >
> > Bob Nixon
> > http://members.home.net/bigrex/
malb...@my-deja.com
Don Stauffer <stau...@gte.net> wrote:
> My point is, max efficiency is near max load,
not min.
>
> 100 mpg would not mean slow if the vehicle did
not have a
> high power requirement. Since vehicles in high
milage
could
> probably operate such a vehicle pretty fast and
still get
> pretty respectable milage :-)
>
> Bael Zar wrote:
> >
> > A carburetor is simply a feeding device for
the engine.
> >
> > Mileage is determined by how much load is
demanded by the engine.
> >
> > If you want 100mpg by a carburetor, you'd
better develop an engine that is
> > fuel efficient.
> >
> > BTW, at this time, 100mpg means slow going.
>
check out http://www.sixstroke.com
Malb...@terra.net.au
Malcolm Beare
malb...@my-deja.com
stroke needs to be the largest change in volume stroke.
look at the sixstroke design at http://www.sixstroke.com
Malcolm Beare in Australia
malb...@terra.net.au
Robert Erck
technical advance with Honda's and Toyota's hybrids. But as long as Don
Stauffer says they are STUPID, then I guess US auto industry doesn't have
a thing to worry about.
If a former industrial scientist says that a design is stupid, well then
it *must* be stupid.
Dr. Bob
---------------------------------------------
In article <389061B0...@gte.net>, Don Stauffer <stau...@gte.net> wrote:
[...]
>
> I just cannot understand the way the Japanese are designing
> hybrids. For one thing, I think parallel hybrids are
> stupid. Then, to but an SI engine in a hybrid is to me
> double-stupid.
>
>[...]
Robert Erck
invisible. But it is not invisible to the the EPA. Much effort is being
made to get rid of the fine soot.
Dr. Bob
----------------------------------------------
In article <3V9k4.4712$_e7.1...@news1.sshe1.sk.home.com>, "Robert
Hancock" <hanc...@nospamhome.com> wrote:
[...]
> Electronic controls have made a big difference, especially in smoke output.
> This is especially apparent with heavy-duty diesels - compare the amount of
> soot an old semi puts out compared to a new one.
> [...]
Ray L.
>
> Actually, new diesel engines put out a lot of soot too, but it is
> invisible. But it is not invisible to the the EPA. Much effort is being
> made to get rid of the fine soot.
> Dr. Bob
Gasoline engines also always put out fine soot, but less than
diesels.
Bob Nixon
In article <389061B0...@gte.net>, Don Stauffer
<stau...@gte.net> wrote:
>>I just cannot understand the way the Japanese are designing
>>hybrids. For one thing, I think parallel hybrids are
>>stupid. Then, to but an SI engine in a hybrid is to me
>>double-stupid.
>Whew, for a while there I was getting worried that Japan had another
>technical advance with Honda's and Toyota's hybrids. But as long as Don
>Stauffer says they are STUPID, then I guess US auto industry doesn't have
>a thing to worry about.
>If a former industrial scientist says that a design is stupid, well then
>it *must* be stupid.
>Dr. Bob
Hmm... Maybe it's just you're limited comprehension of US EPA politics
and or ignorance of the inherent superior efficiency of diesel engines
over SI gas engines.
Bob Nixon
http://members.home.net/bigrex/
Bob Nixon
>Actually, new diesel engines put out a lot of soot too, but it is
>invisible. But it is not invisible to the the EPA. Much effort is being
>made to get rid of the fine soot.
>Dr. Bob>-----
Please elaborate Dr. Bob. And something more technical than just a
couple of lines please.
>
> In article <3V9k4.4712$_e7.1...@news1.sshe1.sk.home.com>, "Robert
>Hancock" <hanc...@nospamhome.com> wrote:
>[...]
>> Electronic controls have made a big difference, especially in smoke output.
>> This is especially apparent with heavy-duty diesels - compare the amount of
>> soot an old semi puts out compared to a new one.
>> [...]
Bob Nixon
http://members.home.net/bigrex/
Don Stauffer
hybrids. While I do think a Diesel works better on a hybrid
than an SI engine, my main objection is to parallel vs
serial hybrids.
I can only surmise that they see the electronic controls and
maybe the self starting of the IC engine as obstacles. I
don't see why they didn't wait till they overcame them. I
cannot believe either problem is that hard.
Further, the higher the ratio of electric motor power to IC
engine power, the better the resulting system. One, I think
it is the Honda, has this wimpy little electric that only
adds a little boost to the IC. That is, the electric motor
is a supplemental source of acceleration rather than the
main source.
--
Kirk
chip...@aol.com said...
Could you really not tell that he was being sarcastic?
--
Kirk
"Start with what is right, not what is acceptable."
<I really am at home if you want to reply by e-mail>
Robert Erck
also familiar with the kinds of emissions that come from each.
Taking into accound all the design requirements (emissions, cold start,
economy, weight, cost, drivability) an engineer might think one
configuration is less *optimal* than another configuration.
Clearly, your vast expertise allows you to simply judge a configuration as
*stupid*. That's pretty impressive.
As to EPA politics, I don't know how that works, but I know a little bit
about EPA emissions standards. Do *you* know the federal light-duty
vehicle emission standards for 2003 composite NMHC+NOx for LDT2-class
vehicles? How about the US06 CO standards for the MDV1 class in
California in the year 2005? Uh huh, I thought not.
Dr. Bob
--------------------------
In article <+KGTOG3nbNHD6arX2Mw=F5wU...@4ax.com>, Bob Nixon
Robert Erck
Automotive Engineering devotes 9 pages to the details of emissions in SI
engines. There is *no* mention of soot or particulates.
Dr. Bob
-------------------------------------
In article <389382B0.254E@-.->, bugraymon...@followmebug.com wrote:
> Robert Erck wrote:
> >
> > Actually, new diesel engines put out a lot of soot too, but it is
> > invisible. But it is not invisible to the the EPA. Much effort is being
> > made to get rid of the fine soot.
> > Dr. Bob
>
>
Robert Erck
(particulates) and NOx are the two big problem issues with diesel engines.
NOx is a pollutant. Soot is a pollutant and also impairs lubrication.
Most people have a wrong mental image of soot. Diesel smoke is not the
problem per-se. What is of concern is solid particles of carbon, 10-80
nanometers across, that are invisible. You can't even resolve them in a
high power optical microscope. A cubic inch of exhaust from a
"cleanly-burning" diesel can contain HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of soot
particles.
The EPA is very interested in these particles because they go into the
lungs unimpeded. Also, because diesel exhaust is so cool, the particles
collect soluble organic fractions. This makes the EPA even more
interested. The actual hazard from these particles is still being
debated.
Bob
----------------------------
In article <PKmTOEIvcxPiuP...@4ax.com>, Bob Nixon
<big...@nospam.home.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Jan 2000 13:43:40 -0600, er...@anl.gov (Robert Erck) wrote:
>
> >Actually, new diesel engines put out a lot of soot too, but it is
> >invisible. But it is not invisible to the the EPA. Much effort is being
> >made to get rid of the fine soot.
Robert Erck
As to diesels, I do not know which fuel is being referred to. Webpages
mention an ARCO product that is supposed to reduce particulates by 15%,
and also mention an ethanol mixture. The latter may be motivated by a
need to find a market for Midwest farmer's products. Then theire's
PuriNOx, which seems to be diesel with water. What kind of diesel fuel
was advocated for Arizona?
Bob
-----------------------------------------
In article <TtqUOOOZMObOt2...@4ax.com>, Bob Nixon
<big...@nospam.home.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2000 16:21:31 -0600, er...@anl.gov (Robert Erck) wrote:
>
> [...]
> >Clearly, your vast expertise allows you to simply judge a configuration as
> >*stupid*. That's pretty impressive.
> ^^^^^^^^
> Hey You' all were the ones throwing the term 'stupid' around, not me.
> I just didn't care for your condescending sarcasm. BTW, instead of
> trying to be so witty Dr. Bob, how about contributing something
> (besides sarcasm) to this NG as Don has done?
>
> >As to EPA politics, I don't know how that works, but I know a little bit
> >about EPA emissions standards. Do *you* know the federal light-duty
> >vehicle emission standards for 2003 composite NMHC+NOx for LDT2-class
> >vehicles? How about the US06 CO standards for the MDV1 class in
> >California in the year 2005? Uh huh, I thought not.
> -------------------------------------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> And this has nothing to do with politics. Diesels are stereotypically
> perceived as dirty oil burners. Look at the current MTBE fiasco, where
> the solution is FAR worse that the problem. BTW, Last week In AZ, our
> legislature tried to impose California's so-called low emission diesel
> fuel on us. It didn't pass -:)
Ray L.
>
> Are you sure about this? My copy of Internal Combustion Engines and
> Automotive Engineering devotes 9 pages to the details of emissions in SI
> engines. There is *no* mention of soot or particulates.
Have you ever changed a muffler?
Are they nice and clean inside?
I put on a new muffler, and after just
half an hour of driving, the tailpipe had a
thin layer of soot on the inside.
I drove for an hour on the highway with a bicycle
racked-up on the back of the car, making the mistake of
putting the bike's wheel in line with the hot exhaust.
Besides baking the tire, the formerly shiny aluminium
wheel rim was coated in a thin layer of soot right where the
exhaust hit it.
This car had passed emissions testing with an almost perfect score
for hydrocarbons and CO, so it couldn't possibly have been
running rich.
Bob Nixon
Bob Nixon
[...]
>need to find a market for Midwest farmer's products. Then theire's
>PuriNOx, which seems to be diesel with water. What kind of diesel fuel
>was advocated for Arizona?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The same as California's CARB diesel fuel. I found a link that
describes the additives. WATER and ALCOHOL in diesel fuel?
A typical fuel formulation includes 5 percent t-butyl alcohol, 4.5
percent water, 0.5 percent urea or triazine compound, 9 percent oleic
acid, and 1 percent ethanolamine.
Robert Erck
black stuff. But that's a different kind of soot. The soot that is of
concern to EPA consists of carbon particles in the nanometer-size range,
and I have not read anything that says it is generated in SI engines.
Bob
----------------------------------------
Don Stauffer
fuel efficiency. Now, as far as drivability, in a series
hybrid you are ALWAYS using electric motor, so there is no
low-temp drivability problem. Another point in favor of a
series configuration.
Now, let us look at emissions. Which has more emissions per
horsepower-hour- an IC engine operating over a wide range of
rpm and power setting, or one running at a fixed rpm and
power setting?
Robert Erck wrote:
>
> I am familiar with the benefits and drawbacks of SI and CI engines. I am
> also familiar with the kinds of emissions that come from each.
>
> Taking into accound all the design requirements (emissions, cold start,
> economy, weight, cost, drivability) an engineer might think one
> configuration is less *optimal* than another configuration.
>
> Clearly, your vast expertise allows you to simply judge a configuration as
> *stupid*. That's pretty impressive.
>
> As to EPA politics, I don't know how that works, but I know a little bit
> about EPA emissions standards. Do *you* know the federal light-duty
> vehicle emission standards for 2003 composite NMHC+NOx for LDT2-class
> vehicles? How about the US06 CO standards for the MDV1 class in
> California in the year 2005? Uh huh, I thought not.
>
> Dr. Bob
> --------------------------
>
>
> In article <+KGTOG3nbNHD6arX2Mw=F5wU...@4ax.com>, Bob Nixon
> <big...@nospam.home.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 29 Jan 2000 13:40:36 -0600, er...@anl.gov (Robert Erck) wrote:
> >
> >
> > In article <389061B0...@gte.net>, Don Stauffer
> > <stau...@gte.net> wrote:
> > >>I just cannot understand the way the Japanese are designing
> > >>hybrids. For one thing, I think parallel hybrids are
> > >>stupid. Then, to but an SI engine in a hybrid is to me
> > >>double-stupid.
> >
> > >Whew, for a while there I was getting worried that Japan had another
> > >technical advance with Honda's and Toyota's hybrids. But as long as Don
> > >Stauffer says they are STUPID, then I guess US auto industry doesn't have
> > >a thing to worry about.
> > >If a former industrial scientist says that a design is stupid, well then
> > >it *must* be stupid.
> > >Dr. Bob
> >
> > Hmm... Maybe it's just you're limited comprehension of US EPA politics
> > and or ignorance of the inherent superior efficiency of diesel engines
> > over SI gas engines.
> >
> >
> >
> > Bob Nixon
> > http://members.home.net/bigrex/
--
Robert Erck
about $50 a gallon. CARB diesel must cost a fortune.
Yes, it is claimed that water and/or alcohol put into diesel fuel (using
small amounts of blending agents) gives benefits. I don't know. I'm
assuming that the blending produces a stable emulsion.
Bob
-----------------------------------------------------
In article <8UWVOLkHC23fQY...@4ax.com>, Bob Nixon
Don Stauffer
'stupid.' That was uncalled for, and I apologize to the
group and to the designers of those vehicles. However, I
still consider the series hybrid to be a superior solution.
Ray L.
>
> Yes, I change my own mufflers and have gotten my hands dirty with the
> black stuff. But that's a different kind of soot. The soot that is of
> concern to EPA consists of carbon particles in the nanometer-size range,
> and I have not read anything that says it is generated in SI engines.
> Bob
I have looked at motor oil from a SI engine under a microscope, and
there are black particles of various sizes. They vary from
visible, about 5 micron, down to the smaller, nearly invisible sizes
that
are less than the wavelength of light (0.5 micron). Undoubtedly
there are particles smaller than that.
Propane-powered engines to not suffer from black-colored motor oil
the same way as gasoline engines. This soot must be coming from
the burning gasoline.
There is also a bit of motor oil burned in any SI engine which will
form a small amount of soot.
SI engines are not 100% soot-free. They produce much less than
diesel engines, but they are not perfect.
There are also sulphate aerosols produced by both types of engines.
Robert Erck
soot when used in diesels.
Bob
--------------------------
Bob Nixon
>Sounds reasonable to me. Natural gas and dimethyl-ether fuels produce low
>soot when used in diesels.
>Bob
But don't you mean that these are a DUAL FUEL option as in Detroit two
stroke city bus diesels (6V-92, 6-71, 8V-92)? The diesel fuel is used
at idle settings as a pilot for the natural gas, which is injected
from the side at high pressure just after the intake ports are closed.
This system has a limp home mode that allows normal (full) diesel
operation if the natural gas runs out or goes haywire.
There has also been some limited alcohol fuel tests for these two
strokes diesels, that yielded poor fuel economy/ reliability and
required full time glow plug operation.
Also FYI there is a reduced emission full diesel variation utilizing:
1) The normal roots external scavenge blower for idle and low
load/speed operation.
2) A turbo-charger that has a pressure bypass, so that the turbo blows
through (this is normal for virtually all detroit two strokes
now-a-days) for high speed/load operation.
3), A third ELECTRIC blower used a reduce smoke during the
acceleration phase. This third electric blower has the additional
benefit of improving the busses acceleration.
Finally. Here in PHX, I've seen 'diesel electric' detroit two stroke
busses that run at a constant speed, thus producing lower emissions.
fl...@alaska.net
> ... I have not read anything that says it is generated in SI engines.
This of course proves nothing and is an example of faulty logic. Had
the poster read that nonometer-sized soot is NOT produced in SI
engines, then that would have some validity....unless what was read
listed ALL 'combustion products' from the SI engine.
Jay T
Philip
>
>This of course proves nothing and is an example of faulty logic.
Jay: You have my vote of confidence! Just because some text exists does not
mean that it is comprehensive or correct. Remember back when we The Public
were told diesel produced fewer pollutants (certain pollutants that is) than
gasoline engines of the time? Hahhaha. What a joke that was! Gee Henry,
what's that black cloud following that Oldsmobile? Hmmmm?
Philip
"Logic is a method used to arrive at
wrong conclusions with confidence!"
Chris Lawson
> >high power requirement. Since vehicles in high milage
> >competitions have averaged nearly 500 mpg,
>
> Full throttle, and then shut off. Repeat when you've slowed enough.
> Would make for an interesting drive to work.
A very long one as well considering the average speed is around 5 mph.
Mohamed
does exist. The big oil companies have lobbied to keep it
down. I have the plans for one. If you send me ... $1000,
no $10000 yeah $10000, I'll send you the plans.
yeah... that's it
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
B.R. Bowden
$10000, I'll send you the plans. ...yeah... that's it <<<
Will you take a personal check?
:-)
BRB