Heated tip fuel injectors, Delphi makes em!

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by solarguy

It's not as big an energy investment as it sounds. The fuel is -going- to get heated. You are -going- to spend the energy to heat the fuel. The engine won't run otherwise.

But with this system, the fuel gets preheated electrically, and less energy in the combustion chamber gets wasted to heat the fuel.

That makes no sense at all.

People on this site tend to get too excited when they see "heat" and some drivetrain part in the same sentence. It's very clear that this is for startup only. When the engine is running, the fuel cooling down the valves and combustion chamber is necessary to prevent knock. At the very least, a lower starting temperature for the charge causes less pressure throughout the compression cycle and reduces frictional losses, and slightly increases thermodynamic efficiency.

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by adam728

I think you guys are only looking at hydrocarbons as the pollution/emissions. Hydrocarbons are easy, its NOx emissions that are tough to meet, do plenty of harm, and leaner is not better for them. There's no way you are eliminating catalysts and meeting modern vehicle emissions, I don't care what fuel prep is done.

NOx emissions on a 100mpg car that 1% or less of the population uses are IRRELEVENT.

Laws need to be adjusted to start necessary industries, as much as you think having NOx regulations as they are is terrific these laws are mainly used to isolate the US market and strangle innovation, exceptions MUST be made if we ever want anything viable to get a start in the market.

Since you bring up NOx I assume the roughly 70 million 1990 and earlier cars that are still on the road make much less NOx than an Insight like 3 cylinder in lean burn right?

Sometimes common sense is lost AND THIS IS NOT A MOTOR VEHICLE< IT IS A MOTORCYCLE WHICH DOES NOT HAVE TO MEET CAR STANDARDS, it can put out over 3x the most lienient car (light truck actuall) standard and be legal.

At the end of the day the pollution associated with producing 1 gallon of fuel and transporting it 5000 miles to your car makes more pollution including NOx than you car could ever make burning the fuel (heck more than a 1960's car can make), the most critical concern of our country must be to conserve fuel in any way possible first (while using common sense)

It is not that I disagree with pollution standards but in the case of anything revolutionary they must be disregarded IFF it creates a more viable energy efficient product.

Heck 50cc motorcycles still don't have active emissions, apparently someone in government does agree at least in part with what I said, just so long as it doesn't have 4 wheels.

Ah well.

[adam728]

Originally Posted by rmay635703

NOx emissions on a 100mpg car that 1% or less of the population uses are IRRELEVENT.

Laws need to be adjusted to start necessary industries, as much as you think having NOx regulations as they are is terrific these laws are mainly used to isolate the US market and strangle innovation, exceptions MUST be made if we ever want anything viable to get a start in the market.

Since you bring up NOx I assume the roughly 70 million 1990 and earlier cars that are still on the road make much less NOx than an Insight like 3 cylinder in lean burn right?

Sometimes common sense is lost AND THIS IS NOT A MOTOR VEHICLE< IT IS A MOTORCYCLE WHICH DOES NOT HAVE TO MEET CAR STANDARDS, it can put out over 3x the most lienient car (light truck actuall) standard and be legal.

At the end of the day the pollution associated with producing 1 gallon of fuel and transporting it 5000 miles to your car makes more pollution including NOx than you car could ever make burning the fuel (heck more than a 1960's car can make), the most critical concern of our country must be to conserve fuel in any way possible first (while using common sense)

It is not that I disagree with pollution standards but in the case of anything revolutionary they must be disregarded IFF it creates a more viable energy efficient product.

Heck 50cc motorcycles still don't have active emissions, apparently someone in government does agree at least in part with what I said, just so long as it doesn't have 4 wheels.

Ah well.

I don't disagree that emissions laws seem to do as much (or more) harm than good. Burning extra fuel to try and keep down seems downright stupid.

But you were stating that a car running lean wouldn't need a catalytic converter, which it most certainly does to met today's standards. Maybe it doesn't need one to meet the standards you've made up as important to you, but that doesn't change what the actual requirements are.

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by adam728

I don't disagree that emissions laws seem to do as much (or more) harm than good. Burning extra fuel to try and keep down seems downright stupid.

But you were stating that a car running lean wouldn't need a catalytic converter, which it most certainly does to met today's standards. Maybe it doesn't need one to meet the standards you've made up as important to you, but that doesn't change what the actual requirements are.

Laws need to be adjusted to start necessary industries,

Motorcycles do not follow the same emissions standards as cars. Period

I don't need to make anything up about that,

For example 12g of CO limit is much higher than a typical car (2014)
Motorcycle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Xist]

Originally Posted by rmay635703

At the end of the day the pollution associated with producing 1 gallon of fuel and transporting it 5000 miles to your car makes more pollution including NOx than you car could ever make burning the fuel (heck more than a 1960's car can make), the most critical concern of our country must be to conserve fuel in any way possible first (while using common sense)

Yes, it would make sense to address that aspect before being stricter with the rest. However, I cannot imagine explaining that to the average citizen, it is too complicated and they have "Jersey Shore" to watch.

[adam728]

Originally Posted by rmay635703

Laws need to be adjusted to start necessary industries,

Motorcycles do not follow the same emissions standards as cars. Period

I don't need to make anything up about that,

For example 12g of CO limit is much higher than a typical car (2014)
Motorcycle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When did we start talking about motorcycles? Yes, US standards for bikes are very easy. Euro, not so much. US is often the only place carbureted versions of a bike are sold, such as the late Ninja 250.

Here's a much better reference then Wikipedia
http://www.delphi.com/pdf/emissions/...-2014-2015.pdf

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by adam728

When did we start talking about motorcycles? Yes, US standards for bikes are very easy. Euro, not so much. US is often the only place carbureted versions of a bike are sold, such as the late Ninja 250.

Here's a much better reference then Wikipedia
http://www.delphi.com/pdf/emissions/...-2014-2015.pdf

I figured these would work well on the elio, oops wrong thread.

[RustyLugNut]

The thought crossed my mind that these injectors could be the key to a previous thread.

http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...car-12518.html

Couple this with Orbital's air assisted injectors and a heavy fuel and one could make a spark ignited, heavy fueled engine.

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

The thought crossed my mind that these injectors could be the key to a previous thread.

http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...car-12518.html

Couple this with Orbital's air assisted injectors and a heavy fuel and one could make a spark ignited, heavy fueled engine.

Except it would knock and the engine wouldn't be any more efficient than plain old gasoline?

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

Except it would knock and the engine wouldn't be any more efficient than plain old gasoline?

Orbital of Australia has an engine in development to replace the engines in military drones. This would remove the last need for aviation gasoline from the United States Military Logistics.

A balanced engine would have direct injection to provide an early injection event that introduces a sub critical amount of fuel (below combustible limits) followed by an injection closer to spark initiation. This would provide a mix of vaporized fuel and a rich cloud for ignition. No throttle would be necessary resulting in reduced throttle losses. The increased fuel density would be an advantage. The only detriment in comparison to a true diesel is the loss of efficiency due to decreased compression (13:1 compared to 15:1 and above for diesels). Increased thermal efficiency could be derived by use of the Atkinson Cycle but specific horsepower per weight is important to aircraft so a compromise in design is still an advantage over the original engine via improved logistics and longer flight times.

For Ecommoders, it could mean waste fuels could be used in a wider range of vehicle types.

Dustyfirewalker has a thread that may not succeed but his youthful energy is contagious to watch. But, his premise is sound. If you have a source of waste oil, why not burn it in your engine? The economy is largely immaterial as the fuel is essentially free.