[t vago]

Originally Posted by Heihetech

the 500 C temperature rise? much higher than 100 C coolant temp, high enough for heat to escape to coolant. When heat comes back during next expansion, heat source temp is only 100 C. So the loss always larger than the gain and such loss must have been doubled due to TCD'S action. The double loss will also be enlarged by all 50% of the cylinders! not only one or two. Saying negligible isn't correct.

What is the thermal conductivity of the metal that forms the combustion chamber? How long would it take to transfer the heat energy from the adiabatically compressed air to the metal combustion chamber walls? How long would that take to have that exact same heat energy transfer from the metal combustion chamber walls to the coolant? If we went by your laws of thermodynamics, instead of the real laws, car engines would heat up in less than a second after being turned on. Therefore, it's obvious that more things are in play than are dreamt of in your universe. Also, heat loss from adiabatic compression or expansion is indeed negligible with respect to running internal combustion engines.

You really should not speak about things of which you don't know. You come off looking like an ignorant snake-oil salesman.

Originally Posted by Heihetech

There seems a Mr. TCD who keeps saying that DCD is not as good as TCD. But his knowledge seems coming from thermodynamics only, not from control
electronics. Moderm engine is controlled by ECU, by oxygen sensor, by closed loop. DCD needs even more controls, by DCD controller, by WBO2 sensor, by high-lambda loop, by multiple lambda set points. If you don't know all of the basic knowledges, your comment on DCD could become unreasonable. I won't teach you everything related to DCD. You may wish go to read some textbooks before making qualified speach.

If you can get a WBO2 sensor that is capable of significantly greater than 1.5 lambda, then I could at least think about your claims. However, as production WBO2 sensors do not go that high, I have to view your claim with no small amount of skepticism.

Originally Posted by Heihetech

I'm talking about the benefits of DCD because I invented DCD, I did my contribution to this world. What about you, Mr. TCD? Did you join the actions
in 1970s and 1980s in TCD invention? Or you had made any TCD controller by which TCD aftermarket retrofitting can be implemented. How many TCD engines have you implemented or retrofitted? Show all of us your qualification.

Appeals to authority, such as this pathetic paragraph above, are typically used by people who have a weak argument to begin with. I could claim any number of things on the internet, but unless they're backed up by real-world results that others can repeat, the claims are worth nothing.

I'll put my own knowledge up against this gadget of yours any day, Heihetech. I don't need some fabricated award claim from a non-SAE sanctioned contest to do it, either. The internal combustion engine is inherently a thermodyamic beast, which is something you can't seem to fathom. In order to intelligently discuss any form of fuel savings from modifying the basic operation of a thermodynamic engine such as the internal combustion engine we're all familiar with, it's necessary to resort to thermodynamics. Otherwise, you will (and did) forget something crucial.

Here's a question for you, genius. Name all of the forms (not manufacturer trade names) of variable displacement that exist for the internal combustion engine.

Originally Posted by Heihetech

The fact is driver always needs more power than the engine can provide with half its cylinders shut off, so TCD could be ALWAYS OFF. ONLY ON AND OFF!

Thank you for proving my point for me.

At part-throttle cruise, the full engine output is not needed, so it's desirable to have the ability to shut off some of the cylinders.

Originally Posted by Heihetech

Why "Forget about O2 sensor feedback"? I told many times that DCD's fuel saving secrute is by WBO2 Sensor, which determines the target of high-
lambda control. You may know what is high lambda? It should be much higher
than the unity. Then you may figure out how much fuel would be injected vs
air intaken? You was wrong to expect more fuel injected.

So you propose to completely eliminate the stock engine computer, then. That's really easy to do - much easier than fitting variable displacement onto an existing internal combustion engine...

Or was there some other way you were going to fool the stock engine computer from seeing some cylinders misfiring?

Originally Posted by Heihetech

Misfiring? That's a trouble to most conventional engines that needs to be avoid. But to DCD controlled engines, "misfiring" is what we wanted, it's
the sign of DCD in progress, but don't have real physical misfiring. If you
are afried to see "check engine" light on, I can put it off by program.

No, I am not "afried" of anything of the sort. What I am afraid of seeing people either giving you money for a scam, or destroying their engine as a result of installing your scam.

Engine misfiring is never good. You may claim otherwise, but it's never a good thing to have completely unburnt fuel-air mix exit the combustion chamber. At best, you're just wasting fuel, and at worst, you're burning up your catalytic converter AND prematurely wearing out your piston rings due to fuel dilution of the engine oil clinging to the sides of the cylinder walls.

How do you propose to prevent engine misfiring with your gadget? You do realize that an AFR of 17:1 (1.15 lamda) is about the limit at which a perfectly stock ignition system will reliably fire off, without any modifications. Beyond that, and you're starting into cat damaging territory.

And how again do you propose to eliminate excessive NOx and unburnt hydrocarbon emissions with this DCD gadget?

Originally Posted by Heihetech

"check engine" light on and OBD-II codes are enough to present
the trouble. Why make more trouble by limp-in mode? In fact, for many
times I demo my DCD controlled vehicle to passangers, they even don't
know DCD CONTROLL has been changed from off to on to max in multiple
stages, engine still runs smooth under DCD control.

Closest thing I can think of that matches your gadget's description is an hideously overcomplicated form of EFIE with wide band O2 feedback. If that's the case, I can do the same thing (which is to burn less fuel compared to stock) that your gadget does, with a few comparators and a WBO2 gauge controller.

Originally Posted by Heihetech

Dear Mr. TCD,

To fight bcak your chanllenge from TCD, I'd like to chanllenge your TCD by DCD with some real physical actions -----

Let's find 2 vehicles with identical make and mode, then you make your TCD retrofitting, I make my DCD retrofitting, then test driving under the same conditions, as to see who saves more fuel, thus who beat who.

Next, let's do cross retrofitting ----- I retrofit your TCD controlled vehicle
with DCD; and you retrofit my DCD controlled vehicle with TCD, as to see
who gets higher additional fuel savings beyond the previous retrofitting.

Although you are the winner of thermodynamics, you may not become the
winner of fuel saving technology.

Bring it, Heihetech. You've been peddling this snake oil device of yours for at least two years to anyone who might listen, with no measurable dent in the market. I can begin to see why.

Originally Posted by Heihetech

How do you know "limp-in mode by cutting fuel to 1/2 the available cylinders"? You designed something like this? or you have got used to turn 50% cylinders off by TCD that makes vehicle into limp-in mode ?

I know modern engine control theory, which is something you obviously have no clue of.

Look up OBDII codes P0300 through P0307, and tell me how they are generated.

Originally Posted by Heihetech

I NEVER SAY "a true variable displacement system somehow uses more energy to work than your DCD". That's your original statement. What I said
is TCD will save less fuel than what DCD could save, and part of TCD's fuel
savings will be lost due to certain reason. The smaller saving is still a positive
number, not a nagative number as you argued.

Your own chart stated that traditional cylinder deactivation incorrectly had a negative contribution to engine efficiency. Negative contribution means work put into the system. Don't put words in my mouth, and learn about how an engine works.

Originally Posted by Heihetech

true variable displacement system? Please don't forget DCD controlled engine is a better true variable displacement system than TCD controlled engine.

Where are you selling these things? eBay? Summit Racing? JEGS? JC Whitney? Amazon.com? Where?

Are those CRICKETS I'm hearing?

Originally Posted by Heihetech

passing emission testing problem? Just switch DCD off, everything will go back to the original. Then no more passing emission testing problem.

Unless you pass one of them mobile emissions checking trailers. Or until your cat burns out from excess unburnt fuel. Or until your engine starts burning oil from worn-out piston rings due to fuel-diluted oil.

Originally Posted by Heihetech

turning off fuel delivery to 1/2 the cylinders in an engine? VERY BAD IDEA ONCE DCD HAS INVENTED. DCD has integrated such function, but DCD
seems never have a need to go to that dead point. The smart guys will
try advenced DCD BEFORE going to try your entery-level skill.

Of course, this is why all of the major car manufacturers implemented "DCD" such a long time ago.

Oh, wait! They didn't, did they? There must be a reason (not involving nefarious conspiracies partnering with "Big Oil")...