Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > EcoModding Central
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 07-06-2011, 09:00 PM   #61 (permalink)
EcoModding Apprentice
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Chile
Posts: 223

Mercedes 89 D - '89 Mercedes 300 E
90 day: 33.86 mpg (US)

Skodie - '09 Skoda Octavia TDI PD
90 day: 38.84 mpg (US)

1993 Mercedes 300D Turbo - '93 Mercedes Benz 300D Turbo W124
90 day: 26.19 mpg (US)

Crossie - '16 Subaru XV Crosstreak
90 day: 9.61 mpg (US)

Crossie - '16 Subaru XV Crosstreak
90 day: 33.34 mpg (US)
Thanks: 15
Thanked 9 Times in 7 Posts
Laws of thermodynamics

Quote:
Originally Posted by UFO View Post
oldbeaver, you are not interpreting the laws properly.

"You can't win" means you cannot extract more energy out of the system than you put in. Truly, you "cannot win".

"You can't break even" means all energy conversion systems have an intrinsic loss (called entropy), so truly, you "cannot break even".

Forget about "HOH". The conversion efficiencies are easy to calculate, and they add up so badly there is no chance of a mileage improvement. NONE.
You wrote: "You cannot get more energy out from the system than you put in".

Yes, you are completely right.

Now, in a Otto engine you put, say, 100 of gas energy and get 20% out of it as movement, the rest is lost. In the process, some energy is spent in preparing gas to burn (compression), inject gas, etc.. This energy is less than the one we get out of gasoline. Therefore, there is 20% of utility energy. We get some energy out of it all for us to use.

In the case of HOH, we get some energy out of water too. Water is a fuel, just like gasoline. Unfortunately, preparing water (electrolysis) takes a lot of energy, actually more than we get out of it by combustion of H in the engine.

At least, for me is so. In one case algebraic sum is negative, in the other is positive. Is a practical thing. Laws are there and practical things are here. And they BOTH work.

This is the way I see it.

__________________
Mercedes 300 D turbo 1993
  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 08-10-2011, 05:08 PM   #62 (permalink)
Cd
Ultimate Fail
 
Cd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Austin,Texas
Posts: 3,585
Thanks: 2,872
Thanked 1,121 Times in 679 Posts
What would be the proper way to test a car too old to use a ScanGuage and no cruise control ?
By the way, I use a SuperMID .
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2011, 05:57 PM   #63 (permalink)
Grrr :-)
 
Nerys's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Levittown PA
Posts: 800

Cherokee - '88 Jeep Cherokee
90 day: 19.44 mpg (US)

Ryo-Ohki - '94 Geo Metro Xfi
90 day: 50.15 mpg (US)

Vger 2 - '00 Plymouth Grand Voyager SE

Ninja - '89 Geo Tracker
90 day: 30.27 mpg (US)
Thanks: 12
Thanked 31 Times in 25 Posts
"In the case of HOH, we get some energy out of water too. Water is a fuel, just like gasoline. Unfortunately, preparing water (electrolysis) takes a lot of energy, actually more than we get out of it by combustion of H in the engine. "

your still not getting it.

100% of all fuel methods you can dream up will ALWAYS take "more energy in" than you will get OUT of combustion (or whatever process you use)

when you make the statement you made you IMPLY directly that gasoline gives you more energy out than was required to GET that gasoline and this is patently false.

ALL ENERGY TRANSFERS ARE SUM NEGATIVE. PERIOD. End of Line.

according to the laws of physics as we know them this is an absolutely inviolate truth of the UNIVERSE AS WE KNOW IT.

energy in versus energy out is NOT RELEVANT.

what IS relevant (in this discussion) is not even what most people think.

TO me at least ecomodder has NOTHING to do with MPG's

it has to do with CPM.

COST PER MILE. it just so happens that higher MPG when using the same fuel always equals LOWER CPM.

but its CPM we are after.

I don't drive a Geo Metro getting 60mpg (last 4 tanks baby) to get 60mpg. I do it because 60mpg COST ME LESS MONEY.

even if HOH is insanely inefficient thats ok if #1 it works (I have no idea if it does in theory it should) and #2 what does it COST what is its CPM.

Electricity is CHEAP compared to gasoline. its darned near FREE compared to gasoline.

would I try HOH? NO. why? because by the time you have a large enough battery pack to make HOH usable you already have a large enough battery pack to go 5 times further with a simple electric motor.

ie with current tech it just can't work ie in a CPM consideration.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2011, 05:58 PM   #64 (permalink)
Grrr :-)
 
Nerys's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Levittown PA
Posts: 800

Cherokee - '88 Jeep Cherokee
90 day: 19.44 mpg (US)

Ryo-Ohki - '94 Geo Metro Xfi
90 day: 50.15 mpg (US)

Vger 2 - '00 Plymouth Grand Voyager SE

Ninja - '89 Geo Tracker
90 day: 30.27 mpg (US)
Thanks: 12
Thanked 31 Times in 25 Posts
Cd my guess would be LOTS of tests and "average" the results to remove slight errors in runs.

might start with a fuel cell say 1 gallon. get up to speed and when your ready switch over to your 1 gallon fuel cell run till its dry.

that is your MPG. now repeat for consistent results and then make a change repeat several times average the results. switch back ie remove mod and do it again. average the results.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2011, 06:14 PM   #65 (permalink)
EcoModding Apprentice
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Chile
Posts: 223

Mercedes 89 D - '89 Mercedes 300 E
90 day: 33.86 mpg (US)

Skodie - '09 Skoda Octavia TDI PD
90 day: 38.84 mpg (US)

1993 Mercedes 300D Turbo - '93 Mercedes Benz 300D Turbo W124
90 day: 26.19 mpg (US)

Crossie - '16 Subaru XV Crosstreak
90 day: 9.61 mpg (US)

Crossie - '16 Subaru XV Crosstreak
90 day: 33.34 mpg (US)
Thanks: 15
Thanked 9 Times in 7 Posts
"All energy transfer is sum negative"

Nery's

You wrote: "ALL ENERGY TRANSFERS ARE SUM NEGATIVE".

This is a nonsense sentence.

All energy transfer is sum zero.

PERIOD. End of Line.
__________________
Mercedes 300 D turbo 1993
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2011, 06:40 PM   #66 (permalink)
Grrr :-)
 
Nerys's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Levittown PA
Posts: 800

Cherokee - '88 Jeep Cherokee
90 day: 19.44 mpg (US)

Ryo-Ohki - '94 Geo Metro Xfi
90 day: 50.15 mpg (US)

Vger 2 - '00 Plymouth Grand Voyager SE

Ninja - '89 Geo Tracker
90 day: 30.27 mpg (US)
Thanks: 12
Thanked 31 Times in 25 Posts
oldbeaver. your statement ignores the very clear CONTEXT of the statement made. Please reread the post I was replying to and then rereard my post using appropriate context please.

"In the case of HOH, we get some energy out of water too. Water is a fuel, just like gasoline. Unfortunately, preparing water (electrolysis) takes a lot of energy, actually more than we get out of it by combustion of H in the engine.

At least, for me is so. In one case algebraic sum is negative, in the other is positive. Is a practical thing. Laws are there and practical things are here. And they BOTH work."
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2011, 12:22 PM   #67 (permalink)
Batman Junior
 
MetroMPG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: 1000 Islands, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 22,513

Blackfly - '98 Geo Metro
Team Metro
Last 3: 70.09 mpg (US)

MPGiata - '90 Mazda Miata
90 day: 52.71 mpg (US)

Even Fancier Metro - '14 Mitsubishi Mirage top spec
90 day: 70.75 mpg (US)

Appliance car - '14 Mitsubishi Mirage ES (base)
90 day: 60.16 mpg (US)
Thanks: 4,058
Thanked 6,957 Times in 3,602 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cd View Post
What would be the proper way to test a car too old to use a ScanGuage and no cruise control ?
By the way, I use a SuperMID .
The SuperMID has a "resettable average" fuel consumption function, I assume. You need that.

Without cruise control, you're likely to suffer from more variability in your runs (both speed & fuel consumption), especially if your test route isn't flat & devoid of other traffic (aero effects). You'll see just how much variability there is after you do your first set of "A" runs. If your fuel consumption figures are grouped very tightly / consistently in the set of runs, it may suggest you've got a steady foot.

Does the SuperMID also have a resettable average speed display? You could monitor how accurate your foot is, if it does.

If you're only testing aero mods, you could get around this problem by just doing coastdown testing. It's perhaps not as satisfying as seeing actual MPG figures, but you'd still get a relative indication of whether a mod has any impact vs. coastdown runs in the "control" state.
__________________
Project MPGiata! Mods for getting 50+ MPG from a 1990 Miata
Honda mods: Ecomodding my $800 Honda Fit 5-speed beater
Mitsu mods: 70 MPG in my ecomodded, dirt cheap, 3-cylinder Mirage.
Ecodriving test: Manual vs. automatic transmission MPG showdown



EcoModder
has launched a forum for the efficient new Mitsubishi Mirage
www.MetroMPG.com - fuel efficiency info for Geo Metro owners
www.ForkenSwift.com - electric car conversion on a beer budget
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2011, 02:58 PM   #68 (permalink)
UFO
Master EcoModder
 
UFO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 1,300

Colorado - '17 Chevrolet Colorado 4x4 LT
90 day: 23.07 mpg (US)
Thanks: 315
Thanked 179 Times in 138 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldbeaver View Post
Now, in a Otto engine you put, say, 100 of gas energy and get 20% out of it as movement, the rest is lost. In the process, some energy is spent in preparing gas to burn (compression), inject gas, etc.. This energy is less than the one we get out of gasoline. Therefore, there is 20% of utility energy. We get some energy out of it all for us to use.

In the case of HOH, we get some energy out of water too. Water is a fuel, just like gasoline. Unfortunately, preparing water (electrolysis) takes a lot of energy, actually more than we get out of it by combustion of H in the engine.

At least, for me is so. In one case algebraic sum is negative, in the other is positive. Is a practical thing. Laws are there and practical things are here. And they BOTH work.

This is the way I see it.
So for the 20% utility case, you add the "HOH" system and then get 18% or less utility. And you would consider this an option?
__________________
I'm not coasting, I'm shifting slowly.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2012, 09:28 AM   #69 (permalink)
EcoModding Apprentice
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Chile
Posts: 223

Mercedes 89 D - '89 Mercedes 300 E
90 day: 33.86 mpg (US)

Skodie - '09 Skoda Octavia TDI PD
90 day: 38.84 mpg (US)

1993 Mercedes 300D Turbo - '93 Mercedes Benz 300D Turbo W124
90 day: 26.19 mpg (US)

Crossie - '16 Subaru XV Crosstreak
90 day: 9.61 mpg (US)

Crossie - '16 Subaru XV Crosstreak
90 day: 33.34 mpg (US)
Thanks: 15
Thanked 9 Times in 7 Posts
HOH, Is it an option?

Quote:
Originally Posted by UFO View Post
So for the 20% utility case, you add the "HOH" system and then get 18% or less utility. And you would consider this an option?
Unfortunately, it comes out that it is not.

What if we have to produce gasoline from oil onboard? Do you think it would be an option? Probably not also.

That is my point.

I donīt discard it "a priori" because of The Law. I discard it because it is not efficient. And if gasoline had to be refined on board, I would probably have to discard it too.

That is my point. I try to be rigorous.

My limited English makes me difficult to express myself.
__________________
Mercedes 300 D turbo 1993

Last edited by oldbeaver; 01-13-2012 at 09:30 AM.. Reason: Precising concepts
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2012, 10:03 AM   #70 (permalink)
Eco-ventor
 
jakobnev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: sweden
Posts: 1,630

Princess - '92 Mazda MX-3 GS
House of Tudor
Team Mazda
90 day: 53.54 mpg (US)

Shirubāarō (*īω`*) - '05 Toyota Prius Executive
Team Toyota
90 day: 54.88 mpg (US)

Blue Thunder - '20 Hyundai IONIQ Trend PHEV
Team Hyundai
Plug-in Hybrids
90 day: 587.16 mpg (US)
Thanks: 74
Thanked 701 Times in 444 Posts
Send a message via MSN to jakobnev
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMichler View Post
After suffering through undergrad thermodynamics, the professor was kind enough to translate the laws of thermodynamics into English.
Your professor was

(Dammit, that was supposed to be linked but not embedded!)

__________________




2016: 128.75L for 1875.00km => 6.87L/100km (34.3MPG US)
2017: 209.14L for 4244.00km => 4.93L/100km (47.7MPG US)
  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Test: Alternator vs. no alternator = 10% MPG gain @ 70 km/h MetroMPG EcoModding Central 450 10-27-2023 09:40 AM
Project: Rebuilding an '01 Honda Insight as a nonhybrid Fabio Hybrids 158 01-12-2013 11:59 AM
Test: 200w electric bicycle efficiency = 1512 MPG equivalent MetroMPG Fossil Fuel Free 30 07-03-2008 12:25 PM



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com