Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Mechanic
Pumping losses have been debated years ago on this site. In my opinion the term "pumping losses" is not very precise as far as what is actually a pumping loss and what is other losses. I guess the debate will continue, without resolution.
regards
mech
|
In 1982 when I was working for Mercedes Benz, they changed the naturally aspirated diesels, like the 240D, from a throttle plate to no throttle plate.
They had to add a vacuum pump in order for the heater and central locking systems to work (vacuum operated). The pump was driven off the timing chain.
MB's service bulletins on the then new model car claimed a 7% improvement in efficiency over the previous model year. The problems with the throttled model from the previous year was when you developed a vacuum leak in the central locking system or heater controls, the engine could only be shut down by opening the hood and pushing the shut off lever on the fuel injection pump.
I predicted this debate would go downhill earlier in this thread (see quote).
I am not an educated engineer, but I do like the idea of testing different losses in IC engines to determine their relative significance. Arguing hypotheticals and bashing other members credentials, intelligence, or telling them to go and study a specific field of education, is EXACTLY what my prior prediction was prefaced on, knowing that knowledge and the possibility of learning something would soon degrade into a pissing match.
Tried to start a thread a long time ago about defining individual losses in reciprocating engines, including the losses attributable to the changing in inertia in the reciprocating parts of an engine as well as the valve train losses.
A exercise in futility, when the same type of pissing match began.
Rational discussion destroyed by what?
Stupidity disguised as superiority.
Good Luck Gentlemen (using the term very lightly)
Mech