Frank, t vago, and others; I'm not the right person to test this in the real world. Not now, not in the foreseeable future. While you guys just want to see proof of efficacy, and that seems like a simple enough test, I think that viability with the EPA is crucial and must also be demonstrated. (That is, to be within the bounds of the law.) To me that means it will need a tailpipe test before it's done.
I wish there was a way to feel out the likelihood of DCD making it to EPA approval before starting out. Sure, I could just make a more complicated prototype and buy myself some emissions test time, and the next question is whether the EPA would pass something that causes false CEL triggers by design... For me this is a question of priority. If we could think this through and get some kind of gauge of what the EPA would require and how DCD might fare, then it might be worth a higher ranking, but even then I still might not be right guy to do it. Obtaining regulatory approval is not my specialty. I think Heihetech is in a much better position to figure this out (except it sounds like he hasn't thought it through at all) and if he isn't going to do it that may be a good enough indicator not to go there. So until then I feel that there is lower hanging fruit, especially fruit that doesn't involve modifying emissions control components.
Quote:
Originally Posted by t vago
We will agree to disagree, then. You can formulate elegant proofs, or you can observe the real world.
...
|
We may have to agree to disagree, since I'm becoming perplexed that we're starting to go around in circles and I don't see which point of my argument you're refuting. I agree that there is a pumping loss for the deactivated cylinder, and the energy for that cylinder is 100% wasted, and the energy comes from fuel. The decrease in manifold vacuum works in the opposite direction so it seems the relative magnitude of the two effects must be considered. A priori it could go either way. I didn't do anything to evaluate these two effects, although I could work backward from my conclusion. I nonetheless configured my assumptions to be able to demonstrate that the engine is more efficient after DCD. Should I try presenting it all over again, slower perhaps, more explicit assumptions if I can? Do you want try applying your rebuttal more precisely to my argument? Maybe I could accept your counter-argument in a special case and demonstrate a contradiction? Or are you getting tired too?
Today
Other popular topics in this forum...
