05-27-2014, 12:26 AM
|
#471 (permalink)
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Silly-Con Valley
Posts: 1,479
Thanks: 201
Thanked 262 Times in 199 Posts
|
Then maybe we could cheer Darwin on?
(Or am I just a horrible, terrible person for saying that?)
-soD
|
|
|
Today
|
|
|
Other popular topics in this forum...
|
|
|
05-27-2014, 12:33 AM
|
#472 (permalink)
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,523
Thanks: 2,203
Thanked 663 Times in 478 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by some_other_dave
Then maybe we could cheer Darwin on?
(Or am I just a horrible, terrible person for saying that?)
-soD
|
Couple of thoughts....
Maybe your just a horrible person if you DONT say it??
And remind me why we are cheering Darwin on???
( I have lost track of all the subplots in thus thread )
|
|
|
06-09-2014, 01:30 AM
|
#474 (permalink)
|
(:
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,762
Thanks: 1,585
Thanked 3,555 Times in 2,218 Posts
|
I'd feel better about an SAE reviewed paper.
|
|
|
06-09-2014, 02:06 AM
|
#475 (permalink)
|
EcoModding Lurcher
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 333
Thanks: 151
Thanked 109 Times in 80 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by D.O.G.
|
There doesn't seem to be any discussion of their methods.
It looks like they ran one series of tests on each engine, diesel on a dyno, and a motorbike on a track. Seems like there are a vast number of uncontrolled and unmentioned variables that could be important. I'd like to see many more tests run in an arbitrary order. Maybe the diesel engine was stared cold, and as it came up to operating temperature it's efficiency improved? Each diesel test took between 77 seconds and 105 seconds. Which seems like a rather short run to get the reported precision.
This:
"The diesel consumption decreases till 4000 gauss and deteriorates beyond 4000 gauss... This could be due to other effects coming in picture post 4000 gauss field viz. viscous heating on the fuel on account of very high magentic filed strength." Is pure BS.
-mort
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to mort For This Useful Post:
|
|
06-09-2014, 03:52 AM
|
#476 (permalink)
|
(:
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,762
Thanks: 1,585
Thanked 3,555 Times in 2,218 Posts
|
The site also has HHO: Search Results
I suppose if I looked around in there some more I'd come across the Ram Implosion Wing.
|
|
|
06-09-2014, 09:44 AM
|
#477 (permalink)
|
Not Doug
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Show Low, AZ
Posts: 12,241
Thanks: 7,254
Thanked 2,234 Times in 1,724 Posts
|
Quote:
If a field is introduced perpendicular to that circuit, according to Faraday`s law, there will be an electro-motive-force acting on the electron. The EMF has the effect of changing the nature of the circulating motion of atomic orbits.
As a result of this field the electron will be accelerated according to Newton`s Law.
|
How do I magnetize my tin foil hat?!
|
|
|
06-09-2014, 10:48 AM
|
#478 (permalink)
|
Aero Deshi
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Vero Beach, FL
Posts: 1,065
Thanks: 430
Thanked 669 Times in 358 Posts
|
|
|
|
06-09-2014, 02:23 PM
|
#479 (permalink)
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Phillips, WI
Posts: 1,018
Thanks: 192
Thanked 467 Times in 287 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by D.O.G.
|
I got as far as Declustering of the Hydrocarbon fuel molecules in the second sentence of the abstract. UNICORN!
__________________
06 Canyon: The vacuum gauge plus wheel covers helped increase summer 2015 mileage to 38.5 MPG, while summer 2016 mileage was 38.6 MPG without the wheel covers. Drove 33,021 miles 2016-2018 at 35.00 MPG.
22 Maverick: Summer 2022 burned 62.74 gallons in 3145.1 miles for 50.1 MPG. Winter 2023-2024 - 2416.7 miles, 58.66 gallons for 41 MPG.
|
|
|
06-10-2014, 10:19 PM
|
#480 (permalink)
|
Wanting more for less
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New South Wales, Australia
Posts: 313
Thanks: 23
Thanked 73 Times in 45 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by mort
There doesn't seem to be any discussion of their methods.
It looks like they ran one series of tests on each engine, diesel on a dyno, and a motorbike on a track. Seems like there are a vast number of uncontrolled and unmentioned variables that could be important. I'd like to see many more tests run in an arbitrary order. Maybe the diesel engine was stared cold, and as it came up to operating temperature it's efficiency improved? Each diesel test took between 77 seconds and 105 seconds. Which seems like a rather short run to get the reported precision.
This:
"The diesel consumption decreases till 4000 gauss and deteriorates beyond 4000 gauss... This could be due to other effects coming in picture post 4000 gauss field viz. viscous heating on the fuel on account of very high magentic filed strength." Is pure BS.
-mort
|
I agree that their "real world" testing is so loose that you can't rely on it.
I was intrigued by the viscosity test though.
I don't know if that really relates to decreased fuel consumption, but it indicates that magnets can have some sort of affect on fuel.
__________________
|
|
|
|