you have to read this article [car technology]

Discussion in 'Green Room' started by Perris Calderon, Oct 27, 2007.

  1. Perris Calderon

    Perris Calderon Moderator Staff Member Political User

    Messages:
    12,332
    Location:
    new york
    ok, this is too good to be true

    do you remember when we were growing up there was an urban myth about a carburator that would get you 50 miles per gallon?

    well there was and there it is in the article

    anyone that knows anything about cars and fuel aspiration will get a real kick out of that article because we've been taught that the cooler the induction charge the more power.

    this SEEMS counter intuitive because you would think you would want the fuel temperature as close to ignition temperature as possible, however with a cooler charge you get a denser charge and thus more fuel per charge, more power....the problem with that principle is the obvious waste of fuel

    often opposite principles will work and neither is wrong, one might be better but neither is wrong

    that principle of cooling the charge is one of those "opposite principles both work", there is an oposite principle where heating the charge will get more efficiency and thus more power

    supposedly both principles work, what is amazing though is heating the charge not only gets you more horsepower but it also increases fuel efficicency and therefore fuel economy

    if te story in that link is true, and I have no reason to believe it's not true, then it is amazing that engine is not being produced today
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2007
  2. ming

    ming OSNN Advanced

    Messages:
    4,252
    Location:
    UK
    er... don't you normally get 50mpg on a normal car? or are you talking about those sports cars?
     
  3. Perris Calderon

    Perris Calderon Moderator Staff Member Political User

    Messages:
    12,332
    Location:
    new york
    no ming, we get between 20 and 35 mpg, the hybrids do better and the really small eco cars do better

    this particular engine got less horsepower and 40 mpg without the technology
     
  4. 50mpg! Both of mine do between 18-23 depending how I drive. I might get 33-35 on a run.

    Strangely, my dad who is no scientist, has been saying warm air = better for years. Thing is, he had direct experience from years of driving in the deserts in Africa. He said cars always ran better in Namibia than they did the south coast of South Africa.
     
  5. Steevo

    Steevo Spammer representing. Political User Folding Team

    Messages:
    2,566
    Depends on the application.



    Hotter air raises the pre-combustion pressures allowing the engine to achieve higher efficeincy at partial throttle, always the problem with forced induction low compression engines. When under minimal load with no boost being created the compression ratio drops causing a huge loss of efficency. This also applies to high compression engines, more so than engines designed to run at lower compressions.


    But with ALL engines more power is made during high demand if air charge is colder. More fuel air mixture can enter the same space in the cylinder.
     
  6. Perris Calderon

    Perris Calderon Moderator Staff Member Political User

    Messages:
    12,332
    Location:
    new york
    that's not a fair statement steevo, you are using conventional technology to make that claim

    as the article points out, that colder air creates less efficiency, you get more power becuase you are able to introduce more fuel but that is with lower percentage of that fuel burned

    with technology that creates greater efficiency you will get more power with less fuel because more of it is burned, in essence you are burning more fuel even though you are introducing less of it

    differant platforms to make more power, it looks like both platforms are valid

    consider;

    if the "higher temperature" platform was developed before the "colder charge" platform that we undertand and then I posted an article saying

    "lower temperature increases horsepower" there would be people that would say;

    But with ALL engines more power is made during high demand if air charge is high and effficently burned, higher efficiency enters the equation in the cylinder."

    new technological principles are always hard to accept when they go against proven technology that use the opposite principle
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2007
  7. I consulted an aeronautical engineer friend, and this was his reply.

    Heating fuel will reduce its calorific value, vapourising fuel will create an end result very similar to running on LPG. I can see no benefit from anything in the article. As far as the "adiabatic" statement is concerned, it implies that the mixture is burning in the cylinder without transfering heat to the walls of the engine, physically impossible.

    The closest engine to that he describes is an early carburettor semi-diesel (Bolinder) engine that uses a hot spot to ignite the mixture.

    Total Twaddle!!
     
  8. Steevo

    Steevo Spammer representing. Political User Folding Team

    Messages:
    2,566
    http://www.smokeyyunick.com/PressReleases/Smithsonian.pdf


    150Hp, it was not in a Fiearo.



    Sorry, but that one is a urban legend. And imagine what happens if you get hit in a car that has fuel air mixture ready to burn? Kaboom.



    It works no doubt, but there are other things that come into play.
     
  9. Perris Calderon

    Perris Calderon Moderator Staff Member Political User

    Messages:
    12,332
    Location:
    new york
    notice my bold from your pda;

    the pda also says one of the engines went into a gulf

    the one we are talking about in this thread and that article was a fiero, it was dpcumented in car and driver magazine (wiki)

    according to the pda you just posted it was not an urban legend, it's a fact

    not so, the only added kaboom over any engine would be that which is in the induction chamber, a nothing and far more easy to engineer protection then say the fuel tank

    there were things that came into play before they developed forced induction too

    this technology has not been developed and needs to be it certainly has more potential then forced induction
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2007
  10. Steevo

    Steevo Spammer representing. Political User Folding Team

    Messages:
    2,566
    an old Volkswagen Rabbit with a two-cylinder hot vapor engine in it, got over 50 miles per gallon
    and produced over 150 horsepower.
     
  11. Perris Calderon

    Perris Calderon Moderator Staff Member Political User

    Messages:
    12,332
    Location:
    new york
    after doing a little research steevo, I think smokey did indeed produce a higher output engine but the principles might not have been what he thought

    I think what he did actrually cooled the air, what he was heating was the fuel, I think that really translated into near vaporization before ignition, it wasn't the fact that the fuel was hotter it was the fact that it was vaporized

    not withstanding unleashed's expert, it doesn't matter if fuel looses some of it's punch when at a higher temperature if a greater amount of that fuel is excellerated to overcome the loss of output
    so the combination of cold air and vaporized fuel is probably what was going on, I think it wasn't the fact that the fuel was hotter it might have been the fact that the fuel was vaporized

    right now the state of the art in engine technology is direct injection which pretty much does the same thing only at normal operating temperature

    for instance, my turbo charged echtech I get 260 horsepwer from a 2 liter engine, I also get 40 miles to the gallon on an open road

    the direct injection vaporizes the fuel and distributes it more "homogeounous" which seems to be what smokey was trying to accomplish

    so even though he thought the purpose was heating the fuel I think the real purpose was vaporizing the fuel

    at any rate, some people claim to have driven the fiero and plenty of people say they saw it
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2007
  12. Steevo

    Steevo Spammer representing. Political User Folding Team

    Messages:
    2,566
    The homogenizer spoken of provides "at point" air charge pressure. AKA a turbo mounted atop the intake manifold.


    A EGR, Exhaust gas rebreather, is placed before the "turbo" and allows extra heat to be added, as well as extra compressible mass to the charge, further driving up combustion pressures.





    I see something that works, but that is highly dangerous. A high RPM spinning blade in the intake tract, directly above the intake ports on the head. Highly explosive fule mixture, being mixed with hot exhaust gasses that in all reality contain small embers of carbon that can cause detonation.






    This will work, yes, it is highly efficient in terms of generating power, as power is heat. But in safety terms it is dangerous.



    The last aspect is that of maintainiance, the hotter an engine runs, the sooner everything wears, the sooner oil must be changed from thermal breakdown, a engine where the coolant is used in such a manner means that a small leak can cause engine failure.
     
  13. Steevo

    Steevo Spammer representing. Political User Folding Team

    Messages:
    2,566
    Ahh direct injection with high compression. AKA, lean burn.



    Did you know that can make thermal barrier coatings for pistons that start the catylitic process and increase combustion efficiency? But $$$$$$ makes it a no go for mainstream production cars. A few years back Ford came up with a coating to go on radiators that would cause a small catylitic conversion to breakdown smog. The result? No one wants to pay for the extra.