Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyLugNut
The average mechanic doesn't know that much about combustion. He doesn't have to. Scientists on the other hand have to know much more and continually seek to know more. They speak in terms of internal energies, enthalpy, specific heats, etc. They apply basic laws such as the ideal gas law, Dalton's and Amagat's laws on additive pressures and volumes and extend them into the thermochemistry of combustion. You have done none of this and yet you say you "know a lot".
|
You are correct. I have not spoken using technical terms and I can see that gives you to another justification to doubt my credibility. I am SO tempted to show off my knowledge by actually writing a dissertation full of terms like molecular bond energies, latent heat of vaporization, flame propagation rates, etc... But I will not.
I have been given firm guidelines by members that I assume are administration to:
1. NOT defend my technologies or myself;
2. Keep my answers short;
3. Prove my technologies effective within guidelines recognized by and posted on EcoModder.com
If you need to have me prove my understanding of organic chemistry, combustion characteristics, thermodynamics, physics, etc., please contact me via my website contact page and we'll have that discussion offsite. I give you permission to post our offsite conversations in EcoModder.com if you wish, but I simply don't have the 'permission' to do so. I reserve the right to post the conversations on MY website.
I'm going to start focusing on the ball gentlemen; you are right, proof, not storytelling is needed... I ask for your patience until I can provide proof. I really am in a tight spot to do this... I can't spend much time on EM because I have several commitments already on the go before I 'met' you. But if you're patient (and it'll take months) I'll consistently input and you'll have all the proof you desire. I just can't do it faster than that, sorry guys, I wish I could.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyLugNut
Please tell us why you would not just build a Faraday device and get 100% efficiency?
|
I'm very sorry if I was unclear. I DID design, manufacture and sell hundreds of electrolyzers that tested at very near 100% efficiency. The Faraday efficiency of my electrolyzer design was scientifically tested by several independent organizations. Here is one such test that I received permission to make public. ER1200 WaterTorch Efficiency.
I'm talking about Faraday Laws as applied to electrolysis, maybe you were thinking of something else?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyLugNut
And back to the issue of the "Lie", please use common science terms and calculate for us how your vehicle that travels 60 mph and gets 20 mpg results in an AFR of 36:1 and change?
|
One of the advantages of this particular calculation is that it doesn't require knowledge greater than an understanding of how an engine works and the ability to multiply and divide. We take facts directly from raw data
easily obtainable by anyone with a scan gauge to prove that internal combustion engines do NOT operate at external combustion air:fuel mixtures.
The bottom line is that we (as mechanics) are taught that 14.7:1 is the ideal stoichiometric ratio for the highest combustion efficiency...
and that gasoline won't burn well at fuel ratios leaner than about 20:1... Yet anyone (mechanic or not) can prove that teaching false with publicly available information, a quiet afternoon drive and 5 minutes of high school math.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyLugNut
You made that calculation based on a "full throttle" setting
|
No, I didn't. I think you are confusing this air:fuel ratio calculation with the HyCO 2DT test.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyLugNut
then you go on to say air is "stretchy". Please use science to describe what you mean by "stretchy".
|
I didn't say 'stretchy', I said 'stretched' and I was quoting my mechanic's instructor. He didn't use scientific terminology to describe the relationship between the faster moving air in the intake manifold and the absolute pressure in the intake manifold.
He simply knew that in order for air to fill the cylinders, in spite of the restriction of the throttle plate, that the air had to move at a greater velocity as it passed by the restriction of the throttle plate. I'm assuming that his term 'stretched' referred to the lack of density or distance between molecules of the faster moving air... I can't tell you why he used that word, but he got the point across to his students.
If you hold a piece of paper horizontal in front of your mouth and blow across the top of it, it will rise because you've increased the speed of the molecules above the paper, thus reduced the absolute pressure pushing down on the paper, allowing the pressure of the molecules under the paper to push it up as they try to get into the lower pressure (stretched air) zone.
In the end you've (just like an engine does) performed work to move the air molecules from one place to another and lowered the immediate pressure in a localized area, but you have NOT significantly reduced the number of molecules involved (thus the volumetric efficiency of engines).
Again, if any of you want a scientific dissertation of how an engine creates a relative lack of pressure using a throttle plate as a restriction and the fluid dynamics of intake air as a result of engine design, please contact me directly and we'll discuss it to your satisfaction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyLugNut
(The) presentation of a "Lie" is the basis for your technology. So you MUST defend this point or the rest of your dissertation holds little value.
|
Respectfully, No, it's not. The 'air:fuel ratio LIE' calculation is intended to allow anyone to see for themselves that mechanics are NOT taught the whole truth; simply that and no more. I'm making this simple calculation very public so that anyone who drives a vehicle can prove it for themselves.
You've likely seen that I've been gone a couple of days. In line with my trying to provide proof, I did a video to show you how I gather the data and do the calculation.
The calculation has NO direct relationship to my technologies. It only serves to help us become aware that we can't trust what we were taught (
very unsettling I know).
It was taught to me by Allan Wallace back in the 1970s;
so I've had a few decades to get used to the idea and knowing what I then knew, I've been able to gradually peal back layer after layer of the deception(s).
Mechanics are taught to fix what exists, not to innovate. Taught what to think, and carefully steered away from doing calculations like the 14.7:1 LIE Proof.
Hmmmm, I just remembered that my teachers were often exasperated with me for asking questions they couldn't answer...
I'm using this calculation as a 'gateway proof' that will then allow a reasonably open minded person to re-examine everything else we were taught. here are many other things we mechanics are taught that are not the whole truth, but this one is easy to prove, particularly with tools (like the scan gauge) and information (like volumetric efficiency charts) readily available today.
Once this LIE is proven (for yourself with your own vehicle of choice) and you (generic 'you', I'm not pointing any fingers here) accept as fact that the air:fuel ratio charts in our mechanics texts are for
open air combustion ONLY, and have very little relevance to internal combustion, then the mind becomes free to question other firmly entrenched myths that were impressed on us.
Like the myth that we must put liquid fuel into our engines and that we require an intake manifold vacuum.
Engine manufacturers have known for at least a century that internal combustion engines were more efficient when fueled by fuel vapors. In my files (in storage) I even have a copy of a patent (from late 1800s or very early 1900s) made by Benz (which became Mercedes Benz) for an evaporative carburetor (like my HyCO 2A). This is how the Tom Ogle system worked too (evaporative technology).
Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyLugNut
Even if your test data shows a positive gain for your system, understanding of how and why it works is important if you attempt to extrapolate the device to other applications.
|
Very very true!
Sorry for the length of this post.
There were several issues that I felt needed addressing.