Fuel Economy, Hypermiling, EcoModding News and Forum - EcoModder.com - View Single Post - Old to fuel-saving New to here

RustyLugNut · 01-29-2014, 04:02 PM

I have followed your work for literally decades. I started college back in the 70's and purchased information packages out of the back of Popular Mechanics magazine. I think I have some of your books from way back then.

Just like you, I felt that fuel savings were not what they should be, but instead of simply tinkering, I went out to get a mechanical engineering degree plus additional degrees in industrial and electronics engineering technology and extended coursework in physics and industrial chemistry. Additional coursework in combustion science rounds out my formal education. I don't watch much television.

Even while getting sidetracked to work on the Reagan Star Wars accelerators and later on, the medical applications of some of that science - I still tinkered with fuel savings technology. However, I now had a background that allowed me much more insight and a collection of tools that allows me to build and test pretty much anything I dream up.

And, I can attest with great conviction and authority, that modern fuel systems are about as efficient as they can be with only percentages to be gained in improvements - not integer factors or orders of magnitude. This is why members of this forum start with the low hanging fruits of driving techniques, mass and aerodynamics. A modder can double his fuel economy easily and consistently.

Engine and fuel systems are far more costly and complex. And combustion theory is beyond the average persons understanding. And it may put your emissions legality in jeopardy. And I'm just scratching the surface. We do have several members who have good understanding of modern fuel systems and are working on engine improvements. As Old Mech pointed out, lean burn is one of them.

Again, welcome to the forums. But understand, the "flaming" is a parallel to "peer review" as found in presenting papers to a science society. Of course, since this is an open forum, pretty much anyone can comment with impunity even if they utterly lack in training and experience. But, there are always gems of thought mixed in with the drivel. You just have to sort it out.

Now on to the flaming.

Much of what you talk about is based on your research and understanding without much in the way of peer review. You see a result and you postulate the reasons why it is so. If you do not have enough of an understanding, you can make errors - errors which you build upon and lead yourself astray at a later date. I have seen this repeatedly with many inventors.

I will start with your discussion of the "Lie". The need for the 14.7:1 fuel ratio you discuss in your blog. You show by your simple math that the vehicle in question is running an air to fuel ratio of about 36:1. However, you omitted one important aspect - what is the manifold vacuum at that speed and load? 20 mpg @ 60 mph at full throttle is what you have calculated if you do not have the manifold air pressure accounted for. This makes your math useless and your conclusions utterly false.

I do not make this discussion just to make argument. If you are here for honest review, I only ask that you make an honest effort to discuss in kind. Otherwise, I and others, will question your intentions of being here in the first place.

Again, welcome to the forum and for your willingness to put your ideas up for scrutiny.

01-29-2014, 04:02 PM	#32 (permalink)
RustyLugNut Master EcoModder Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: San Diego, California Posts: 982 Thanks: 271 Thanked 385 Times in 259 Posts	Welcome George. I have followed your work for literally decades. I started college back in the 70's and purchased information packages out of the back of Popular Mechanics magazine. I think I have some of your books from way back then. Just like you, I felt that fuel savings were not what they should be, but instead of simply tinkering, I went out to get a mechanical engineering degree plus additional degrees in industrial and electronics engineering technology and extended coursework in physics and industrial chemistry. Additional coursework in combustion science rounds out my formal education. I don't watch much television. Even while getting sidetracked to work on the Reagan Star Wars accelerators and later on, the medical applications of some of that science - I still tinkered with fuel savings technology. However, I now had a background that allowed me much more insight and a collection of tools that allows me to build and test pretty much anything I dream up. And, I can attest with great conviction and authority, that modern fuel systems are about as efficient as they can be with only percentages to be gained in improvements - not integer factors or orders of magnitude. This is why members of this forum start with the low hanging fruits of driving techniques, mass and aerodynamics. A modder can double his fuel economy easily and consistently. Engine and fuel systems are far more costly and complex. And combustion theory is beyond the average persons understanding. And it may put your emissions legality in jeopardy. And I'm just scratching the surface. We do have several members who have good understanding of modern fuel systems and are working on engine improvements. As Old Mech pointed out, lean burn is one of them. Again, welcome to the forums. But understand, the "flaming" is a parallel to "peer review" as found in presenting papers to a science society. Of course, since this is an open forum, pretty much anyone can comment with impunity even if they utterly lack in training and experience. But, there are always gems of thought mixed in with the drivel. You just have to sort it out. Now on to the flaming. Much of what you talk about is based on your research and understanding without much in the way of peer review. You see a result and you postulate the reasons why it is so. If you do not have enough of an understanding, you can make errors - errors which you build upon and lead yourself astray at a later date. I have seen this repeatedly with many inventors. I will start with your discussion of the "Lie". The need for the 14.7:1 fuel ratio you discuss in your blog. You show by your simple math that the vehicle in question is running an air to fuel ratio of about 36:1. However, you omitted one important aspect - what is the manifold vacuum at that speed and load? 20 mpg @ 60 mph at full throttle is what you have calculated if you do not have the manifold air pressure accounted for. This makes your math useless and your conclusions utterly false. I do not make this discussion just to make argument. If you are here for honest review, I only ask that you make an honest effort to discuss in kind. Otherwise, I and others, will question your intentions of being here in the first place. Again, welcome to the forum and for your willingness to put your ideas up for scrutiny.