Quote:
Originally Posted by ChazInMT
Geez O Pete's, this always gets me here. How is it some people feel that, "Yeah, Sure, It all burns up......but we can super improve the "Way" it burns man."
So like the already complete combustion process can be "Improved" to get more energy out.
To me, there is only so much energy stored in the fuel in the form of chemical potential energy, once you've burned 99.999% of it, there is no more.
Now don't get me wrong, there are still a Gazillion ways to improve getting more of the energy we release during combustion converted into mechanical energy to push our cars down the road, I'd be an idiot of galactic proportions to suggest that there isn't a ton of room for improvement here. I'm only speaking of the efficiency of combusting all the fuel itself in the cylinder.
Seems to me that a lot of the tweeks and lessons learned over 136 years of gasoline engine development have had the ultimate end being complete combustion of the fuel in the cylinder. But now there are scammers trying to gain an edge by saying that the complete combustion itself is not good enough, and they know how to make it better.
Yeah.
Sure.
OK.
|
Individuals consistently mix up the ideas of combustion efficiency and thermal efficiency. They are not the same thing.
Yes, modern gasoline engines do burn 98% of the fuel introduced into them (combustion efficiency), but only roughly 30% is turned into motive energy (thermal efficiency). Modifications to combustion profiles, such as the over expanding Atkinson engines, return 35-38% thermal efficiency. Re-using some of the lost thermal energy (turbocharging) can gain a few percent more.
This device cannot improve combustion efficiency to any great degree (2% left to improve upon). It can only improve thermal efficiency. However, that usually means a complete systems approach that a bolt on device doesn't offer.