Quote:
Originally Posted by racprops
Now for those that question how much power is in the gasoline vapor:
When you burn gasoline under ideal conditions, with plenty of oxygen, you get carbon dioxide (from the carbon atoms in gasoline), water (from the hydrogen atoms) and lots of heat. A gallon of gasoline contains about 132x106 joules of energy, which is equivalent to 125,000 BTU or 36,650 watt-hours:
If you took a 1,500-watt space heater and left it on full blast for a full 24-hour day, that's about how much heat is in a gallon of gas.
If it were possible for human beings to digest gasoline, a gallon would contain about 31,000 food calories -- the energy in a gallon of gasoline is equivalent to the energy in about 110 McDonalds hamburgers!
NOTE they are talking about the total power from fully burning gasoline...it is said our ICEs are only 30% efferent..so it seems we waste 70% some where..some in internal friction, some in pumping loses, but I still think that is only about 20% so there is 50% still wasted in incomplete use of the fuel in
ONLY making power.
Rich
|
. . . cooling losses and irreversible combustion losses, etc.
If you think you can derive 100% of the energy in a gallon of gasoline and turn it into crankshaft work, you are in for a great disappointment.
If you think you can do better than the Transonic system which DOES result in completely vaporized gasoline or diesel and still is in the 50% range of thermal efficiency, then go for it.
If you still believe 70% of the fuel burns after the exhaust valve then understand, much smarter people than yourself have calculated and measured the burn rate of the fuel. You have not cared to reply to the fact thousands of students of engineering are required to study the very topic you are hoping to improve upon and using university level labs are able to both see and measure the heat produced by burning gasoline in a spark ignition engine. It is a given fact that 98% of a stoichiometric mix of air and fuel will burn before BDC of the power stroke. You have provided no evidence otherwise. Just some anecdotal quotes and videos.
How can one do a simple test of the efficiency of fuel combustion? You already mentioned it in your discussions - the catalytic converter (CC). If the emissions output of the CC is nigh near zero, it can be assumed all loose and unburned hydrocarbons had been turned to CO2. If that is the case, it means that 70% of the fuel had to be oxidized in the CC per your assumption of wasted gasoline combustion. This would melt the CC even at low loads! Or, you could look to see where the fuel is combusted. To be exact, you could simply put a pyrometer right into the exhaust port and measure this "continued combustion". Correct? How about extend that idea and measure the exhaust temperature at the exhaust manifold, the exhaust collector and the CC input and output? If your assumption is correct, the exhaust stream would see a rise in temperature as this excess fuel is burned in the "wasteful" way of modern engines. This of course assumes you are running at lambda=1 for your fuel mix and not the excessively rich mixtures found in racing engines allowing the raw fuel to hit the exhaust tip and ignite.
Why don't you grab a handful of K-thermocouples and tell us what your measurements are?