Quote:
Originally Posted by mja1
A high pressure fuel charge being injected much before the throttle body will not allow it to be vaporized as soon, or have as much control over throttle input at extremely high AFR.
|
You've got the vaporization and pressure concept backwards.
You've got the control backwards as well... EFI gives more control.
You are claiming the equivalent of the lower pressure liquid flow somehow will mist ( vaporize ) out of the hose or the sprinkler more than it will under higher pressures ... anyone with a garden hose knows this is backwards ... at lower pressures it vaporizes / mists less.
- - - - -
Also no carburetor has as much precession control of the fuel flow as a EFI can have ... at any AFR... it is the very nature of how the two different systems work... and it is well known and well established... a EFI system can intentionally vary the AFR at different parts inside the the combustion chamber ... and it can do that dynamically with precision timing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mja1
The entire idea is to use engine heat to make combustion hotter, (all of the heat lost by the engine can be used to further increase combustion temps, closing in on a near perfect/max efficiency of a 4stroke based only on the materials of the engine used) it isn't possible with high pressure fuel.
|
Increasing the temperature difference ... not the absolute temperature of the engine ... from hot to cold ... is a basic principle of thermodynamics ... and it has nothing to do with higher or lower pressures itself... despite your claim here.
If anything operating at higher pressures has a general historic trend of higher operating efficiency... although it is not directly a one to one relationship... and is more complicated than a simple higher is better kind of statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mja1
Open up your mind I am not trying to argue with you I am trying to tell you how to run an engine without spark, it will not be accomplished with EFI.
|
I am not trying to argue with you ... I'm sorry you misunderstood.
My mind is open to discussion on the technical merits of your claims and proposals.
However I do not blindly agree with just anything someone claims ... no matter who they are.
If you or anyone makes claims that I see errors with or I have some reason to disagree with ... I think it is perfectly reasonable for the discussion for me to point out those errors , or issues I disagree with ... discussion is a back and forth ... it is not blind acceptance of any claim someone makes.
- - - - -
Running an engine without a spark is nothing new ... it has been done for a very long time ... a wide variety of different ways.
Without spark is not automatically more energy efficient ... it might be ... it might not be... depending on the specifics.
For example ... my current spark ignition engine has been tested to achieve higher peak efficiencies than some diesel engines running without a spark.
I'd rather have the higher energy efficiencies with a spark than lower efficiencies without one... but again it is not as simple as spark good or spark bad.
- - - - - -
Also , an engine can be run without a spark and with an EFI ... the two are not mutually exclusive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mja1
PM sent to link of write old up.
|
For others on this thread I'm taking the liberty of sharing the links you PMed me ... that way others can read them as well if they so choose.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mja1
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by mja1
It's no 'Unicorn' idea, its been done before and there are patents to prove it. 200mpg no, 40-60 mpg with twice stock power yes.
|
Patents are not proof ... that is not how the patent process works.
The idea of your links uses
#1> A Turbo Charger ( no magic there )
#2> Waste heat recovery ( no magic there )
#3> Fuel vaporization ( no magic there )
All the pieces are well known and well understood... this isn't revolutionary.
the 'Unicorn' idea is the 200 MPG Carburetor ... these other ideas are not the same thing ... but they are also not the automatic MPG benefit either.
reporting ___ MPG does not tell us enough to know if it is any good or not ... We would have to know under what conditions it was able to achieve that MPG net result ... than we would have a proper context to put the results in.
For example ... Smokey's Fiero is reported in your links to achieve 'as high as 51 MPG' ... any time you see the qualifier ... 'as high as' it should immediately set off a warning light ...
But it doesn't tell us the context in which it achieve that 51 MPG ... the MPG number by itself is not enough information ... at the bare minimum we would want the average speed ... and ideally we would want to know some details about the route / course , like elevation changes , was it a round trip or one way ... etc.
If I make some assumptions ... say he averaged about ~50MPH ... on flat level ground ... no wind ... no significant changes to the Stock Fiero's aerodynamics or weight ... if his ~50 MPG was achieved under those assumptions ... he accomplished roughly an average of ~24% energy efficiency ... which is fairly good , not bad ... but nothing earth shattering ... and there are many EFI spark ICEs that can do better than ~24%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mja1
(timing fuel isnt needed without ignition)
|
Needed ... maybe not ... can be beneficial ... why yes it can be.
There is a finite period of time during the power stroke for the fuel to do work ... timing matters with or without spark.
I didn't use 'ignition' because Smokey's example you gave still had fuel ignition ... it just wasn't from a spark anymore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mja1
I see why this subforum is called what it is  . I guess discussing is pointless, |
Discuss it ... sure this if the place.
Blind acceptance of any claims random people make... no.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mja1
and the only way to prove it is to build it. It's been a dream of mine for a while now recreating the concept, but don't have enough time or resources to go ahead with a long term project like this right now.
|
Best of luck.
If you do any MPG number posts ... be sure to include the context details.