Lean burn mode rules 64.8mpg

[greasemonkee]

Originally Posted by naturalextraction

hi itsmedc, I do not use heat absorption by the fuel as Smoky did. There are physics laws regarding absorption and energy loss or gain. This includes the second law of thermal dynamics. Finding the proper balance in the system is crucial for a net loss or energy transfer gain. I did research two years ago and talked with some related to Smoky's system including Shelby. The only one I couldn't and didn't talk with was Lee Iacoca. There were some serious down sides to Smoky's system which I studied for a year to realize some important changes. I figured Smoky new all about the negatives and how to fix them, thus leaving something to come back with after the system was sold,which never did. Many companies do that to sell the proprietary updates for more money to an exsisting invention. I have a device that disassociates the molecules of the fuel prior as well as combine the air molecules to preferably produce a perfect mixture, which is not stochiometeric by typical standards. It can be used to emulsify liquids of different densities more completely and in metered proportion.
I would assume those who really keep good accurate recordings of their mileage will notice sometimes fairly extreme mpg changes from one station to the next. Those who do not record their usage will not typically really notice, bonus for the fuel companies. But don't get me started on what is proposed to the public as "good" and "optimum".

Ummmm......

Ultrasound is the first thing that pops in my mind.

I've had an itch for a few years to experiment with, but that would be something I could not do alone, the field is beyond my scope and budget.

What comes to mind when I say "Electrosonic X" ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by pgfpro

In a nut shell that's pretty much it.

Polyquad or some variant? Do you favor swirl over tumble in a pentroof chamber?

[pgfpro]

Polyquad or some variant? Do you favor swirl over tumble in a pentroof chamber?

Actually neither.lol

Its kinda my own design. Its something I will share at a later date.

[naturalextraction]

greasmonkey, I don't use ultra sound either. Bosh has some patents back from the late 80's and one in 90? that uses ultra sound in an injector, was not much more effective than high pressure injection for the cost. I do not know what "electrosonic X" is. I can guess, but I don't like to guess much! But what comes to mind is what was researched related to pulse wave, ultrasound wave forms or a nonlinear mechanism of penetration of a trans wave electro magnetic field with negative dielectric constants. Density change reduces clarity of output and consistency via heat + Volume = pressure >constant. This particularly in unstable hydrocarbon materials such as fuels we have today. It's all about disassociation of molecules in a constant precise measurable amount. Usually utilizing Avogadro's # 6.0221415 x10 23pwr considered in measuring "mole count" of an ideal gas on that level. This really does relate to what we try to run our cars on and extracting maximum usable or transference/conversion of btu, internal chemical energy. pgfpro and others have noted gains or losses via temperature usually environmental and ambient and throughout the transference of both air and fuel related to many inconsistencies related. Thus why so many sensors for the ecu to try and control on the fly. You could add many more sensors in different areas with a more advanced ECU and have better control thus optimizing efficiency, by today's standards not really worth it to the already struggling automotive companies. The gains arn't going to be worth it. They make their incremental improvements especially European companies hence why they've kicked the general American car companies down the toilet. But that would be my opinion. BMW, for one, has some amazing operating and control systems now.
BTW, think about ALL the energy going into the system vs net energy out, it can through a wrench into it all.

[pgfpro]

Update:

Well the car has been doing great with a new personal best of 74mpg.

But I have found that I can't get anymore out of it from leaning the engine down. Anything leaner then 25:1 there are no gains with this setup.
In-fact it loses its efficiency.

Another thing I need to figure out is why it lean surges at anything below
45*F ambient outside temperature. So I have to drop back down to a A/F ratio of 18:1. Its still on summer fuel so I'm hoping it has something to do with the fuels Reid Vapor Pressure and that it will be better when I switch to winter grade fuel?
naturalextraction do you have any ideas on this? You have been most helpful!!!

[basslover911]

Question, what would happen if you completely remove the turbo and remap for the same a/f ratio's...

Do you think you would get the same, or less mpg and why?

Also, what kind of numbers do you get in city driving?

[pgfpro]

Originally Posted by basslover911

Question, what would happen if you completely remove the turbo and remap for the same a/f ratio's...

Do you think you would get the same, or less mpg and why?

Also, what kind of numbers do you get in city driving?

I haven't tested the car with the turbo system totally removed. I did do some testing with the charge pipes removed so the engine was running N/A but with the turbo still attached. The results were the engine wouldn't run clean anything above 19:1 A/F. This is after remapping. So I gave up on it. So to answer your question it would lose a lot of FE.

Also keep in mind that this engine is not anywhere near stock anymore.

1)I'm running a very low compression around 7.5:1 to help with pumping loses.

2)Thermal-Coated bowl shape pistons. To keep heat from transferring into the piston and the bowl shape to help create swirl and centralize the flame front. To help with the boundary area of the piston.

3)Extremely loose piston to cylinder wall clearance. To help with pumping loses.

4)Large piston ring gaps. To help with pumping loses.

5)Modified combustion chambers for lean burn. To provide a fuel rich area to help ignite the fuel and air.To increase the size of the flame kernel. To accelerate flame speed durning lean burn.

All these modifications work together. If I take anyone of these out of the equation the engine won't perform where its at now. I'm doing a lot of things that are look down on and I feel most people haven't tested yet. So now I have another person testing his own car with the same type build that he did himself. This is the next challenge I have is to duplicate it and hope for the same results.

As for city driving. I haven't a clue. I'm still working on light load freeway driving. I want the car to give the same results no matter who's driving (very user friendly) without the need for Hypermiling.