Quote:
Originally Posted by P-hack
I can't see what numbnuts is saying, though I imagine he his still trying to hide his numerous and egregious errors and salve his ego behind a bet about rusty, or maybe we are back to garbage cans, or proving the earth is flat, but basically what rusty is saying is best understood with a video. Though in this video, the area under the solid green line to the left of TDCC isn't very much but increases with more rpm and more vaccum (whenever ignition is advanced), certainly not enough to get you from 12 to 17 mpg. It describes the effects of rpm and MAP basically. Supposedly we get less area under the pre-tdcc pressure curve with HHO while maintaining pressure peak at ~10 degrees ATDC (via faster combustion of the whole charge making the curve narrower).
If the energy to make the hho is less than 2x the area under the curve left of tdc, you "win", so to speak, approximately of course.
edit: note that "energy" under the curve is the integral of pressure and swept displacement, not accounting for heat loss. |
Sunshine! You came back!
...damn
Nope. You still don't get it. It's about the group ganging up on people with specious remarks that you don't understand.
If you want to hold out thermodynamic principals as "proof" the other guy is wrong, then you should expect your remarks to stand up to examination.
I'm holding myself out to the same scrutiny. Find an appropriate Associate or Full Professor of your choosing and let them judge if your electrolysis argument is Shinola or the other stuff you've sprinkled about.
Let's see who a real pro will validate. Choose. I got the tab.
But hurry. It's starting to look like y'all are ch..... well, let's just say I'm thinking y'all are afraid an expert will come in and show everyone in ecomodder that y'all are just a bunch of "dumbnuts".