Old to fuel-saving New to here

[sarguy01]

Originally Posted by GeorgeWiseman

Again, this is a common misunderstanding. The fact is that the throttle plate has a lot less to do with VE that people intuitively think. See my previous post #129.

In the meantime, no one has to 'assume' any more. I've calculated the VE of this engine in these conditions.

Volumetric Efficiency calculator
Note that this calculator shows the Aveo's VE to be 79.999%
Givens: CFM=62.37, CID=97.64, RPM=2760

No. You are not using 62 cfm at cruise. Wrong. Measure your actual airflow.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by GeorgeWiseman

Again, this is a common misunderstanding. The fact is that the throttle plate has a lot less to do with VE that people intuitively think. See my previous post #129.

In the meantime, no one has to 'assume' any more. I've calculated the VE of this engine in these conditions.

Volumetric Efficiency calculator
Note that this calculator shows the Aveo's VE to be 79.999%
Givens: CFM=62.37, CID=97.64, RPM=2760

Your post #129 only made it clear to us that you are confused about the concepts of gas flow and compressibility. The links you give all do not support your position. And the calculator is a simplistic crutch that assumes much. Since you are a science guru, why don't you do the calculation long hand starting with the air mass before the throttle plate and the air mass after? The important point you seem to miss is your lack of complete data needed to calculate. You cannot just pull the 62.37 CFM out of the air. That HAS to be a measured quantity.

[pgfpro]

George a couple things to consider in your wife's car test. I think your air flow amounts and fuel flow amounts are not right.

Is your wife's car stock including the O2 sensor?

What is your elevation at?

Is the intake system stock?

Do you have a way to measure your MAP pressure?

Do you have a way to measure your injector pulse width or duty cycle?

I do understand your VE statement and somewhat agree. VE is higher then people think at light load especially at lower rpm.

[GeorgeWiseman]

Originally Posted by sarguy01

Why do I need it at all then? ...if the engine is still burning gasoline, then the O2 sensor will still function properly, with no need to "trick" it?

When the exhaust oxygen content goes up, the voltage from the O2 sensor goes down. The CPU assumes you have a lean mixture and increases fuel from the injectors to compensate. This is the normal closed loop process.

Yes, the oxygen sensor will function properly regardless... That's not the reason EFIEs are needed.

When you actually increase combustion efficiency, there will be more oxygen in the exhaust, because oxygen is not being tied up as CO and as NOx. With efficient combustion, you also don't need as much fuel to maintain the same power output, so if you reduce the actual fuel rate, you get 'more' oxygen in the exhaust from that too.

This is what we saw when we were applying Carburetor Enhancer, HyCO 2A and HyZor systems to carbureted vehicles. The CO2 would rise slightly, the HC would drop to near nothing, the CO2 and NOx would also drop dramatically. The exhaust oxygen would typically rise by 2%, sometimes getting as high as 16%.

The pollutants were so low that hamsters, which would go unconscious in 2 minutes breathing regular exhaust, would not go unconscious in a vehicle that was idling from HyCO 2A vapors, even after 15 minutes.

The CPU doesn't 'understand' more efficient combustion... It's programming assumes certain conditions that do not include the more efficient combustion, so when it 'sees' more oxygen in the exhaust, it adds fuel that results in a mileage LOSS when combustion enhancement technology is applied to EFI in closed loop.

The EFIE 'compensates' (adjusts the voltage signal) for the increased oxygen content in the exhaust so that the CPU doesn't 'see' the extra oxygen and doesn't increase injector fuel.

So the only time you need an EFIE is when you apply combustion enhancement technology.

[GeorgeWiseman]

Originally Posted by pgfpro

George a couple things to consider in your wife's car test. I think your air flow amounts and fuel flow amounts are not right.

Is your wife's car stock including the O2 sensor?

What is your elevation at?

Is the intake system stock?

Do you have a way to measure your MAP pressure?

Do you have a way to measure your injector pulse width or duty cycle?

I do understand your VE statement and somewhat agree. VE is higher then people think at light load especially at lower rpm.

I want to thank all you fellas very much. One of the great things about this site is that the people are knowledgeable. It's been too long since I've had a good chance to upgrade myself. You are asking the questions I need to hear and think how to answer...

It's been too long since I've really spoken with mechanically savvy people and I really appreciate you pointing out the areas where my explanations are inadequate.

So I'm going to take a break for awhile as I think and gather data to answer your questions. I also have some other things to take care of. It's just as well, because for REAL proof I need spring weather. I didn't bring a heated shop on my writing sabbatical.

I'm giving you all this heads up just so you know that it is my intention to address all the issues that you've raised. I'm not 'scared away' by your insistence on proof; I'm very much appreciating those of you who have made it clear what you need to see. I'm just trying to figure out how to provide that proof with my resources at hand.

I'll also address the issues of the 1963 F150 when I come back. I'm not avoiding that either. I just didn't see the posts until late last night.

pgfpro,
Please don't think I'm avoiding answering you. I just used your post to make this 'I'm taking a break' announcement.
I will answer this post when I come back.
Thank you for being respectful. I appreciate it very much.

[XYZ]

This thread reminds me of a game of baseball.

George is at bat. As long as you keep pitching to him, (meaning giving him something to respond to) he will keep swinging at whatever you throw at him. But he doesn't swing at everything (meaning there are some things he would rather not discuss). However, his bat is "still alive". As long as the umpires haven't declared him out, he's still in the game.

Is this game now in extra innings?

But just as in baseball, "It ain't over until it's over".

[XYZ]

Originally Posted by GeorgeWiseman

I want to thank all you fellas very much. One of the great things about this site is that the people are knowledgeable. It's been too long since I've had a good chance to upgrade myself. You are asking the questions I need to hear and think how to answer...

It's been too long since I've really spoken with mechanically savvy people and I really appreciate you pointing out the areas where my explanations are inadequate.

So I'm going to take a break for awhile as I think and gather data to answer your questions. I also have some other things to take care of. It's just as well, because for REAL proof I need spring weather. I didn't bring a heated shop on my writing sabbatical.

I'm giving you all this heads up just so you know that it is my intention to address all the issues that you've raised. I'm not 'scared away' by your insistence on proof; I'm very much appreciating those of you who have made it clear what you need to see. I'm just trying to figure out how to provide that proof with my resources at hand.

I'll also address the issues of the 1963 F150 when I come back. I'm not avoiding that either. I just didn't see the posts until late last night.

pgfpro,
Please don't think I'm avoiding answering you. I just used your post to make this 'I'm taking a break' announcement.
I will answer this post when I come back.
Thank you for being respectful. I appreciate it very much.

Is this the seventh inning stretch? Or has George been sidelined in the dugout?

Take your time, George. We need a break from your daily infomercials. (Preferably a permanent one.)

Maybe we'll sing this little song to ourselves while you are regrouping...

Take me out to the ball game
Take me out with the crowd
Buy me some peanuts and crackerjacks
I don't care if I never get back
Let me root, root, root
For the home team
If they don't win it's a shame
Aahh.
For it's one,
Two,
Three strikes you're out
At the old ball game

All I need is just one chance
I could hit a home run
There isn't anyone else like me
Maybe I'll go down in history
And it's root, root, root
For the home team
Here comes fortune and fame
'Cause I know
That
I'll be the star
At the old
Ball
Game

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by pgfpro

I do understand your VE statement and somewhat agree. VE is higher then people think at light load especially at lower rpm.

To help the reader understand, I will simply say, the gasoline engine is designed to operate at or near lambda in most cases - lambda being the air/fuel mixture where all the oxygen in the air is consumed. Power output is directly proportional to the air mass flow. The higher VE at lower RPM is why the throttle is implemented to balance power output with power needs. It is easy to visualize the cylinder of an engine becoming filled 100% with air at zero RPM (at rest). At 120 RPM, it leaves you only 1/4 second to fill the cylinder, but the filling can still be high ( on the order of 95% of filled mass and above ). At 1200 RPM, you only have 1/40th of a second to fill the same cylinder. You can see that the short time period to fill results in a lower total air mass being passed into the cylinder. With all else being equal, as RPM increases, the time to fill is proportionally decreased resulting in decreasing air mass moved into the cylinder and as such, lower VE.

However, the use of a throttle plate changes all of the above by varying the restriction and the effective VE.

The problem George is having is realizing the mass of air at part throttle is very different than at full open throttle no matter what the RPM.

[sarguy01]

Originally Posted by GeorgeWiseman

When the exhaust oxygen content goes up, the voltage from the O2 sensor goes down. The CPU assumes you have a lean mixture and increases fuel from the injectors to compensate. This is the normal closed loop process.

Yes, the oxygen sensor will function properly regardless... That's not the reason EFIEs are needed.

When you actually increase combustion efficiency, there will be more oxygen in the exhaust, because oxygen is not being tied up as CO and as NOx. With efficient combustion, you also don't need as much fuel to maintain the same power output, so if you reduce the actual fuel rate, you get 'more' oxygen in the exhaust from that too.

This is what we saw when we were applying Carburetor Enhancer, HyCO 2A and HyZor systems to carbureted vehicles. The CO2 would rise slightly, the HC would drop to near nothing, the CO2 and NOx would also drop dramatically. The exhaust oxygen would typically rise by 2%, sometimes getting as high as 16%.

The pollutants were so low that hamsters, which would go unconscious in 2 minutes breathing regular exhaust, would not go unconscious in a vehicle that was idling from HyCO 2A vapors, even after 15 minutes.

The CPU doesn't 'understand' more efficient combustion... It's programming assumes certain conditions that do not include the more efficient combustion, so when it 'sees' more oxygen in the exhaust, it adds fuel that results in a mileage LOSS when combustion enhancement technology is applied to EFI in closed loop.

The EFIE 'compensates' (adjusts the voltage signal) for the increased oxygen content in the exhaust so that the CPU doesn't 'see' the extra oxygen and doesn't increase injector fuel.

So the only time you need an EFIE is when you apply combustion enhancement technology.

I know your data is 2,500 miles away, but can you share that pollutant info with us rather than just telling us? I am sure you kept records of the pollutant test.

You used hamsters to test O2 levels in the cars????

[sarguy01]

Originally Posted by GeorgeWiseman

I want to thank all you fellas very much. One of the great things about this site is that the people are knowledgeable. It's been too long since I've had a good chance to upgrade myself. You are asking the questions I need to hear and think how to answer...

It's been too long since I've really spoken with mechanically savvy people and I really appreciate you pointing out the areas where my explanations are inadequate.

So I'm going to take a break for awhile as I think and gather data to answer your questions. I also have some other things to take care of. It's just as well, because for REAL proof I need spring weather. I didn't bring a heated shop on my writing sabbatical.

I'm giving you all this heads up just so you know that it is my intention to address all the issues that you've raised. I'm not 'scared away' by your insistence on proof; I'm very much appreciating those of you who have made it clear what you need to see. I'm just trying to figure out how to provide that proof with my resources at hand.

I'll also address the issues of the 1963 F150 when I come back. I'm not avoiding that either. I just didn't see the posts until late last night.

pgfpro,
Please don't think I'm avoiding answering you. I just used your post to make this 'I'm taking a break' announcement.
I will answer this post when I come back.
Thank you for being respectful. I appreciate it very much.

George, if you claim to know what you know, I find it hard to believe you can't show us why VE and A/F ratios are what you claim them to be. You don't need your data to do it. I posted up some data logs of my Civic and would be happy to log whatever you need me to log. I'll email you the spreadsheet and you can show us why VE is 80% (or whatever you think it is) at cruising rpms. You can then show us why the A/F ratio is as high as you say it is.

I KNOW all this, you are not talking to a novice. I'm a mechanic with decades of experience working with fuel systems. These 'facts' are so easily proven that very few mechanics even question that they are being duped! And some of them will fight to the death to defend the above facts, because their training and experience prove, to them, that the facts are right.

I'm multi-skilled and have accomplishments that NASA can't duplicate

My thinking started out just like yours. I AM a certified automobile technician.

I KNOW all this, you are not talking to a novice. I'm a mechanic with decades of experience working with fuel systems.

I think you'll find, as we proceed, that I know a lot more about combustion than the average mechanic.

I am SO tempted to show off my knowledge by actually writing a dissertation full of terms like molecular bond energies, latent heat of vaporization, flame propagation rates, etc.

My point is George, you claim to be a pretty smart guy as a trained automotive technician. You used ONE simple formula to show us the VE is 80% (at wide open throttle...) and then failed to mathematically prove it to us. With your claimed knowledge and skills, you don't need your garage, just show me with some math. I don't need another syringe analogy.

Do the math yourself on YOUR vehicle. Ignore your tuning equipment for this exercise (I know that'll be hard for you). Go straight for the RAW DATA! Actually travel down the road, looking at your scan gauge. Lock in at 60 mph and find the engine rpm and gph (or mpg). You already know your engine cubic displacement. Check with your OEM to find your volumetric efficiency, and then do the math.

My experience is that most 'knowledgeable' people will not do this experiment, because I might be right and then they'll KNOW that they've been taught lies. It's a really hard thing to find out that the education system you've trusted has let us down for generations. I've had years to be OK with it. I don't expect any of you to change overnight... But the truth always wins in the end, even against the billions of dollars that've been spent suppressing it.

I did use my own vehicle. Posts 136 and 138. My data, my math. I found my cruising VE to be a lot lower than yours and also did a rough, basic calculation to find my theoretical VE. Could my math be wrong? Sure, but the point is you asked us to test our cars and I did. I found my VE to be completely different than what you assumed it to be. Can you comment?

If the 1963 Ford doesn't exist anymore, I would just drop it. There is no point in trying to prove that since it is going to be your word versus what information we can find. Example, the 2:1 ratio rear end. Frank Lee found nothing about a 2:1 rear end but you claimed it to be true. Well, unless you have a picture of it, it's not worth it.

You are failing to prove that you fully understand the concepts. I don't fully understand them, but the difference it I am not here to sell anything, I am here to learn. I can also admit when I am wrong.

We are still waiting for your eBooks. You said you were going to give them to us. Is this still true?